BIBLIOTHECA BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

CCXLIV

EDITED BY THE BOARD OF

EPHEMERIDES THEOLOGICAE LOVANIENSES

J.-M. Auwers, L. Boeve, L. De Fleurquin, J. Famerée,

É. Gaziaux, A. Join-Lambert, L. Kenis, M. Lamberigts, O. Riaudel,
G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden

ORIGENIANA DECIMA
EXECUTIVE EDITORS ORIGEN AS WRITER
J.-M. Auwers, J. Famerée, L. Kenis, Papers of the lOth International Origen Congress,
O. Riaudel, G. Van Belle, J. Verheyden
University School of Philosophy and Education "Ignatianum",
Krak6w, Pol and
EDITORIAL STAFF 31 August - 4 September 2009

R. Corstjens - M. Lenoble
EDITEDBY

SYLWIA KACZMAREK - HENRYK PIETRAS

IN COLLABORATION WITH

ANDRZEJ DZIADOWIEC

UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN UITGEVERIJPEETERS

LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE LEUVEN LEUVEN - PARIS - WALPOLE, MA
2011
 PREFACE

) ( (
),
The papers published in the present volume were originally presented

/ j
during the Colloquium Origenianum Decimum on the subject "Origen
as writer". The Colloquium was held in Krakow, Poland, between
31 August and 4 Septembel' 2009, at the Jesuit University of Philosophy
~)
( and Education "Ignatianum", and was organized jointly with WAM
Jesuit Publishing House in Krakow and Benedictine Abbey Tyniec. We
/

would like to take this oppOliunity to express our gratitude to aIl Collo-
quium participants, especially those who have kindly sent us their papers
for publication.

Sylwia KACZMAREK
Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow
Hemyk PIETRAS
University of Philosophy and Education "Ignatianum" in Krakow
Andrzej DZIADOWIEC
WAM Jesuit Publishing House in Kr"kow

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-90-429-2529-8
Dj2011j0602jl11

Ali rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law,

no part ofthis publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated data file
or made public in any way whatsoever
without the express prior written consent of the publishers.

© 2011 - Peeters, BondgenotenIaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE .............................................. VII

INTRODUCTION xv

INTRODUCTORY PAPERS

Lorenzo PERRONE (Università di Bologna)

Origenes pro domo sua: Self-Quotations and the (Re)construc-
tion of a Literary Œuvre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Antonio CACCIARI (Università di Bologna)
From Grammar to Theology: History of a Word. On OtaO''toÀiJ
and Related Terms in Origen and in the Origenian Tradition. . 39

I. THE LITERARY MILIEU OF ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA

PALESTINA IN ORIGEN'S TIME

Anna TZVETKoVA-GLASER (Wissenschaftlich-Theologisches Semi-

nar Heidelberg)
L'interprétation origénienne de Gen 2,8 et ses arrière-plans
rabbiniques ......................................... 63
Christian HENGSTERMANN (Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat, Münster)
The Neoplatonism of Origen in the First Two Books of His
Commentmy on John ................................. 75

II. COMPLEXITY AND SCOPE OF ORIGEN'S WORK

Éric JUNOD (Université de Lausanne)

Du danger d'écrire, selon Origène 91
Gerald BOSTOCK (perth)
Satan - Origen's Forgotten Doctrine 109

III. HERMENEUTICS

Sébastien MORLET (Sorbonne, Paris)

Signaler l'accord des textes: Un trait caractéristique de l'exégèse
d'Origène et du commentarisme grec de l'époque impériale .. 127
x TABLE OF CONTENTS
Christoph MARKS CHIES (Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin)
Scholien bei Origenes und in der zeitgenossischen wissen-
schaftlichen Kommentierung ...........................
Karin METZLER (Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin)
Namensetymologien zur hebraischen Bibel bei Origenes
Michael Vlad NICULESCU (Bradley University)
Changing Moods: Origen's Understanding of Exegesis as a
Spiritual Attunement to the Grief and the Joy of a Messianic
Teacher ............................................
Sebastian GULY (Cambridge)
The Salvation of the Devil and the Kingdom of God in Origen's
Letter to Certain Close Friends in Alexandria .............
Matthew PEREIRA (Columbia University, New York)
From the Spoils of Egypt: An Analysis of Origen's Letter to
Gregory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
IV. APOLOGIES
Leszek MISIARCZYK (Cardinal Wyszynski University, Warsaw)
The Influence of Justin Martyr on Origen's Argumentation in
Contra Celsunz ..................................... . 251
Johannes ARNOLD (Phil.-Theol. Hochschule, Sankt Georgen)
Unordnung, bedingt durch Hass? Origenes und die Struktur von
Celsus' Alethes Logos . ............................... . 267
Antonio CASTELLANO (Università Pontificia Salesiana, Roma)
"Che significa il nome 'Logos' dato al Figlio di Dio?": Il titolo
"Logos" e la polemica antimonarchiana nel Commento a
Giovanni di Origene ................................. . 281
V. COMMENTARIES, HOMILIES AND APOCRYPHA
Reinhart CEULEMANS (University of Leuven)
Origène dans la catena Hauniensis sur le Cantique des canti-
ques .............................................. .
Agnès BASTIT-KALINOWSKA (Université de Metz)
De Paul à Origène: Étude de quelques phénomènes stylisti-
ques
TABLE OF CONTENTS XI
Agnès ALIAU-MILHAUD (Sorbonne, Paris)
La réécriture au passif et ses enjeux dans le Commentaire sur
147 Jean d'Origène. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 345
Chiara BARILLI (Università di Bologna)
169 L'infanzia in Origene: Passi scritturistici ed interpretazione.
Alcune osservazioni .................................. 357
Guido BENDINELLI (Facoltà Teologica dell'Emilia Romagna, Bologna)
Il matrimonio nel Commentario a Matteo di Origene . . . . . . .. 385
179 Charlotte KbCKERT (Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg)
Didymus the Blind and Origen as Commentators on Genesis:
A Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 407
197 Patricia Andrea CINER (Universidad Catolica de Cuyo, Universidad
Nacional de San Juan, Al'gentina)
Union mistica y osadia: 1mplicancias deI término ''WÂ,l!rr~Éov
221 en el Comentario al Evangelio de Juan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 419
Enrico CATTANEO (Napoli)
L'alleanza dei due re contro Gerusalemme (1s 7,1-9): Una
pagina ol'igeniana .................................... 437
Sylwia KACZMAREK (Pontifical Academy of Theology, Kl'akow)
. L'Exemplum di Paolo nel Commento alla Lettera ai Romani . 445
Samuel FERNÂNDEZ (pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile)
Verso la teologia trinitaria di Origene: Metafora e linguaggio
teologico .......................................... . 457
Franz Xaver RISCH (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der
Wissenschaften)
Die Prologe des Origenes zum Psalter ................... . 475
Barbara VILLANI (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften)
Zur Psalmenauslegung des Origenes: Einige Beobachtungen am
Beispiel von Psalm 2 ................................ . 491
Olivier MUNNICH (Paris-Sorbonne)
Le rôle de la citation dans l'écriture d'Origène: Étude des
307 Homélies sur Jérémie . ............................... . 507
Manabu AKlYAMA (Tsukuba University, Japan)
La "figura" tipologica vera nelle Omelie di Origene su
331 Ezechiele .......................................... . 539
XII TABLE OF CONTENTS
Henryk PIETRAS ("Ignatianum", Krak6w)
L'apocrifo giudaico "Preghiera di Giuseppe" nell'interpretazione
origeniana - CIo II.31.188-190 .........................
VI. THE LANGUAGE OF ORIGEN
Giulio MASPERO (Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome)
Remarks on Origen's Analogies for the Holy Spirit ........ .
Domenico PAZZINI (Vemcchio)
Figura simbolo legge linguistica nella prosa di Origene ..... .
Mariusz SZRAM (KUL Lublin)
La symbolique des nombres et le diable dans l'exégèse allégo-
rique alexandrine ................................... .
Gilles DORIVAL (Aix-Marseille Université)
La forme littéraire des Hexaples d'Origène ............... .
Andrea VILLANI (Georg-August-Universitat Gôttingen)
Uno sguardo d'insieme sulle prosopopee divine in Origene:
Il Padre e il figlio a colloquio con l'uomo ............... .
VIT. PHILOSOPHICAL SOURCES
Ilaria L.E. RAMELLI (Università deI Sacro Cuore, Milano)
Origen's Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Reassessment ...... .
Joseph S. O'LEARY (Sophia University, Tokio)
Biblical and Metaphysical in the Texture of Origen's Writing
(CIo II.175-192) .................................... .
VIII. DISCIPLES AND FOLLOWERS OF ORIGEN
Alfons FÜRST (Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat, Münster)
Origen Losing His Text: The Fate of Origen as a WrÏter in
Jerome's Latin Translation of the Homilies on Isaiah ....... 689
Jean-Marie AUWERs (Université catholique de Louvain)
Le Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques dans la traduction
latine de Rufin et dans l'Épitomé de Procope. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 703
TABLE OF CONTENTS XIII
Joseph VElŒEYDEN (University of Leuven)
Origen in the Making: Reading between (and behind) the Lines
545 of Eusebius' 'Live of Origen' (HE 6) .................... 713
Emico DAL COVOLO (Pontificia Università Lateranense)
Theia anagnosis / Lectio divina: Origene, Ambrogio, Agostino 727
Bernard POUDERON (Université François Rabelais Tours)
563 Les Lamentations de Jérémie et l'Exégèse sur l'âme (NEC II, 6)
chez Origène et Olympiodore d'Alexandrie .............. . 733
579 Roland M. PANCERZ (WSD OFM, Kalwaria)
Didimo il Cieco e gli antropomorfismi biblici 751
Monica TOBON (University College London)
593 Evagrius as Writer: The Example of Eu/ogios 2's Discussion
of Xeniteia ......................................... . 765
601 Emanuela PRINZIVALLI ("La Sapienza", Roma)
A Rediscovered Author and Origen's Heritage: Didymus the
Blind ............................................. . 779
615 Vladimir CVETKOVIC (University of St Andrews)
From Adamantius to Centaur: St Methodius of Olympus'
Critique of Origen ................................... . 791
Marie-Odile BOULNOIS (École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)
La diversité des nations et l'élection d'Israël: Y a-t-il une influ-
649
ence du Contre Celse d'Origène sur le Contre les Galiléens de
Julien? ............................................ . 803
671 Emiliano FIORI (Leiden)
The Impossibility of the Apokatastasis in Dionysius the Areo-
pagite ............................................. . 831
Dimitrios ZAGANAS (Sorbonne, Paris)
L'Exégèse vétérotestamentaire d'Origène et de Cyrille
d'Alexandrie: Continuité ou divergence? À propos de la typo-
logie des personnages bibliques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 845
John T. SLOTEMAKER (Boston College)
The Primity of the Father in Origen of Alexandria and Augustine
of Hippo: Beyond East and West ....................... 855
XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS
Uh'ich VOLP (Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz)
" ... for the fashion of this world passeth away": The Apo-
kritikos by Makarios Magnes - An Origenist's Defense of
Christian Eschatology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 873
Cordula BANDT (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften)
Reverberations of Origen's Exegesis of the Psalms in the Work
of Eusebius and Didymus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 891
Miroslaw MEJZNER (UKSW, Warszawa)
L'dooe; e l'oX,TJI.W.: La critica al concetto origeniano di risune-
zione nel contesto dell'escatologia intermedia nel De resurrec-
tione di Metodio di Olimpo ............................
Vladimir BARANOV (Novosibirsk, Russia)
"Condensing and Shaping the Flesh ... ": The Incarnation
and the Instrumental Function of the Soul of Christ in the
Iconoclastic Christology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 919
Piotr O. SCHOLZ (UMCS Lublin)
Griechisch oder Altiigyptisch?: Zur Frage nach den Wurzeln
der theologischen Spekulationen des Origenes ............. 933
Jon F. DECHOW (pmiola Valley, CA)
Pseudo-Jerome's Anti-Origenist Anathemas (ACO 1.5:4-5)
INDICES
SACRA SCRIPTURA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
ORIGENIS OPERA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES ......................... 1001
AUCTORESMODERNI ...................................... 1025
INTRODUCTION
This volume con tains the proceedings of the tenth meeting of the inter-
national "Origeniana" conference which convenes every four years. As
usual, it was an occasion also to recall the beginnings and the names of
sorne of the "founding fathers", chief among them being Henri Crouzel.
The first conference was held in Bari back in 1973. At that time, the
organizers did not yet anticipate any further development from their
meeting and merely called the volume from the conference proceedings
Origeniana, without an ordinal number.
The overall theme of the "Origeniana Decima" was "Origen as
907 writer", which dealt with the whole body of Origen's works from many
perspectives. This focus is well reflected in the present volume.
The present volume is divided into eight parts which are preceded by
two introductory papers by Lorenzo Penone and Antonio Cacciari, that
introduce the reader into sorne of the secrets of Origen's writing tech-
niques.
The first part consists of two essays that deal with two intellectual
traditions that had a major influence on Origen. Anna Tzvetkova-Glaser
studies the influence of rabbinic exegetical tradition on Origen's inter-
pretation of Gen 2,8. Christian Hengstelmann focuses on Origen's Neo-
platonism as this is found in his CommentaJy on John.
955
Pmi Two deals with the scope and complexity of Origen's oeuvre; it
also consists of two essays. Éric Junod shows how Origen himself per-
ceived the problem of writing. Gerald Bostock points out sorne of the
complexities of Origen's work on the basis of his doctrine on Satan.
969
Part Three deals with aspects of hermeneutics. Sébastien Morlet com-
983 pares Origen's exegesis with the broader exegetical work during his time.
Christoph Markschies studies the scholia to Origen's work within the
same intellectual tradition. Karin Metzler focuses on the etymology of
Hebrew names. Michael Nicolescu explores the links between exegesis
and spiritual readings. Sebastian Guly returns to the doctrine on Satan as
exposed in one particular letter. Finally, Matthew Pereira analyses the
allegorical reading on the spoils of Egypt in the Letter to Greg01y.
Pmi Four is given to the Apologies. Leszek Misiarczyk examines
Justin Martyr's influence on Origen's argumentation in the Contra
Ce/sumo Johannes Arnold deals with the structure of the same wode and
how to reconstruct Celsus' True Logos from Origen's replies. Antonio
Castellano studies the antimonarchian polemics in the CommentaJy on
John.
XVI INTRODUCTION
As many as fifteen papers are included in the fifth paIt which deals
with Origen's commentaries and homilies. Reinhart Ceulemans deals
with the fragments of the commentary on Song of Songs retained in the
catena Rauniensis. Agnès Bastit-Kalinowska pays attention to issues of
style in Origen's commentaries and the influence of Paul's language.
Agnès Aliau-Milhaud focuses on the use of the passive mood in the Com-
mentmy on John and the theological meaning it entails. Chiara Barilli
studies several passages on children and infancy and the relationship
between the literaI and the spiritual sense. Guido Bendinelli deals with
the passages on man'iage in the Commentmy on Matthew. Charlotte
Kockert surveys the similarities and differences between the methods of
commenting upon the Book of Genesis by Origen and Didymus the
Blind. Patricia Andrea Ciner focuses her attention on the use of the word
'wÀllrrt"Éov in the first two books of the Commentmy on John. Enrico
Cattaneo studies Origen's reading of Isa 7,1-9. Sylwia Kaczmarek deals
with the motif of Paul's exemplum in Origen's Commentmy on Romans.
Of a more theoretical character is the article by Samuel Fernândez about
the theologicallanguage in which Origen expressed himself on the topic
of the Trinity. Franz Xaver Risch analyses Origen's prologues to the
Psalter and Barbara Villani deals with his exegetical method in interpret-
ing the Psalms. Olivier Munnich examines the use and function of bibli-
cal citations in the Romilies on Jeremiah. Manabu Akiyama devotes his
study to use of typology in the Ramifies on Ezekiel. Henryk Pietras stud-
ies the place and significance of the quotations of the Jewish apocryphon
Joseph's prayer in the Commentmy on John.
The sixth part includes articles which study various aspects of Origen' s
language. Giulio Maspero concentrates on the use of analogy. Domenico
Pazzini writes about figures, symbols and language mIes. Mariusz Szram
demonstrates how Origen's allegoric exegesis makes use of numerical
symbolism to refer to the devil. Gilles Dorival studies the difficult issue
of the literary fOlID of the Rexapla. Andrea Villani deals with Origen's
remarks on the language the Father and the Son use to communicate with
a human being.
Part Seven deals with the philosophical sources. Daria Ramelli looks
into possible sources of Origen's doctrine on the apokatastasis. Joseph
O'Leary focuses on the co-existence of biblical and metaphysical motifs
as illustrated in the Commentmy on John.
PaIt Eight, on the disciples and followers of Origen, is again a much
longer one with nineteen essays. Alfons Fürst looks for traces of Origen's
writing skills in Jerome's translations of the Ramifies on Isaiah. Jean-
Marie Auwers analyses Procopius' Epitome and Rufinus' translation of
INTRODUCTION XVII
the Commentmy on the Song of Sangs. Joseph Verheyden pays attention
to the way Origen is presented by Eusebius in the sixth book of his
Church Risto/y. Enrico dal Covolo studies the concept of lectio divina
in the exegesis of Origen, Ambrose and Augustine. BernaI'd Pouderon
studies the legacy of Origen in the work of Olympiodoms of Alexandria.
Roland Pancerz studies the use of anthropomorphisms in the work of
Didymus the Blind. Monica Tobon studies the influence of Origen
on Evagrius. Emanuela Prinzivalli looks for the heritage of Origen in
Didymus. Vladimir Cvetkovic studies Methodius of Olympus' criticism
of Origen. Marie-Odile Boulnois looks for the possible influence
of Origen's Contra Celsum on Julian the Apostate's Contra Galileos.
Emiliano Fiori studies the fate of the apokatastasis theOl'Y in Dionysius
the Areopagite. Dimitrios Zaganas looks for indications of continuity and
divergence with Origen in Cyril of Alexandria's exegesis of the Old
Testament. John Slotemaker compaI'es Origen and Augustine's teaching
on the primity of the Father. Ulrich Volp deals with the reception of
Origen's teaching on eschatology in Makarios Magnes. Cordula Bandt
looks for reverberations of Origen's exegesis on Psalms in the work of
Eusebius and Didymus. Miroslaw Mejzner compares Origen and Metho-
dius on eschatology and resurrection. Vladimir BaI'anov traces the influ-
ence of Origen into the iconoclastic controversy. Piotr Scholz looks for
traces of Egyptian influences on Origen himself. Finally Jon Dechow
studies Pseudo-Jerome's anti-Origenist anathemas.
As can be seen above, the spectmm of the topics dealt with in this
volume is a very broad one; and so is that of the provenance of the
delegates. We hope that the publication of this volume will contribute
significantly to our knowledge of Origen's achievements and influence.
THEEDITORS
INTRODUCTORY PAPERS
 OR/GENES PRO DOMO SUA
SELF-QUOTATIONS AND THE (RE)CONSTRUCTION OF
A LITERARY ŒUVRE

I. ORIGEN AS A WRITER: SOME PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

When dealing with Origen's literary output, it should not come as a

surprise if images connected to building happen to surge almost unavoid-
ably in our mind. 1 experienced this myself on several occasions and thus
1 came, for instance, to compare the double series of treatises in the Peri
archôn to an imposing Doppelbasilika and the huge enterprise of the
Commentary on John to the lighthouse of Alexandria, evoked at the
moment when Origen had just left his city for Caesarea and started anew
his exegesis 1• It is precisely the preface to Book 6 of this commentary
that cOlToborates, more than anything else, our impressions since the
Alexandrian here, after recalling the example of Solomon and the Temple
building, goes on to view his opus as a 'house' that needs careful plan-
ning and assiduous work to assure its foundations and growth and reach
its successful completion2 • As we know, the conflict with his fmmer

1. See respectively La parrhêsia di Mosè: L'argomentazione di Origene nel Trattato

sullibero arbitrio e il metodo delle quaestiones et responsiones, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Il
cuore indurito dei Faraone: Origene e il problema dei libero arbitrio, Genova, 1992,
31-64, p. 31; Les commentaires d'Origène sur Jean et Matthieu: Tradition, innovation
et système, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 51 (2001) 35-69, pp. 44-45. My penchant for asso-
ciating building metaphors to Origen's writings of course also extended to the Contra
Celsum and its polemic dialogue with Celsus' Alethès Logos. Here again 1 stressed "10
spazio imponente della sua costruzione letteraria: la voce di Celso continua a risuonare
attraverso le stanze, ora più ora mena ampie, che si susseguono via via nel grandioso
edificio eretto con il sua discorso dall'Alessandrino" (Fra silenzio e parola: Dall'apologia
alla testimonianza dei cristianesimo nel Contro Celso di Origene, in L'apologétique chré-
tienne gréco-latine à ['époque prénicénienne. Sept exposés suivis de discussions par
A WLOSOK, J.-Cl. FREDOUILLE, A VAN DEN HOEK, L. PERRONE, Ch. RIEDWEG, E. HECK,
AR. BIRLEY. Entretiens préparés par A WLOSOK et F. PASCHOUD et présidés par A WLOSOK,
avec la participation de M. ALEXANDRE et J.J. HERRMANN, Vandœuvres - Genève, 2005,
103-141, pp. 103-104).
2. CIo VI. 1.1-2: nàcru f.lÈv OiKiu, ms Evt f.l<lÀtcr'"CU cr'"CêppO'ta'"Cu KU'"CucrKêUUcr-
SllcrOf.lllVll, sv êùoiçt Kut vllvêf.liçt OiKOOOf.lêl'"CUt, ïvu f.ll] sf.l1tooiSll'"Cut '"Cl]V OIloucruv
1tfi1;tv àvuÀu~elV, 01tros OUVll'"Cat Kut '"Cotaû'"Cll yêvllcrSut rocr'"Cê U1tof.lelvut 1tÀllf.lf.lÛpUS
opf.ll]V Kut1tpocrpll1;tv 1tO'"Cuf.lou KUt ocru <j>IÀel Xêtf.lOOVOS cruf.I~uivov'"COS sÀIlYXêtv f.lÈv
'"Cà cruSpà '"Coov OiKOOOf.lllf.l(l'"Crov, OêtKVÛvut oÈ '"Cà '"Cl]V olKêiuv àpê'"Cl]V à1têtÀll<j>o'"CU
'"Coov KU'"CucrKêUUcrf.l(l'"Crov, 'E1;utpll'"CroS oÈ 1'] '"Coov '"Cfis àÀllSBiuS SêroPllf.l(l'"Crov OêK'"CtK~,
ÀoytKl] ms sv à1tUyyêÀiÇt Kut ypuf.lf.lucrtv OiKOOOf.li], '"CO'"Cê f.luÀtcr'"Cu OiKOOOf.lel'"Cut,
 4 L.PERRONE
bishop Demetrius hindered the prosecution of the commentary on the
fourth gospel in a propitious atmosphere and inspired the embittered tone
of these pages. Yet the ideal picture of the commentary as a 'rational
building' called to ho st 'the contemplations of the truth' (ft TroV Tflç;
; ùÎvllSëÎaç; SECOPll)lâTcov 8EKTtKij, ÎvoytKij ... otK0(0)lij) describes quite
'aptly the challenges and the goals that Origen pursued throughout his
work both as a teacher and as a writer.
Origen' s apology for the forced interruption of bis commentary empha-
sizes the importance of the written word with regard to his sponsor
Ambrosius, who expected him "to build up in writing the tower of the
Gospel"3. His vocation as writer, however, does not seem to have been
so immediate as we might be led to think considering the extraordinary
amount of his works. If we can rely on Nautin's chronological recon-
struction of Origen's literary activity, we ought to admit that the Alex-
andrian took up writing relatively late in his life, that is towards the end
of his thlities, and not without overcoming an inner resistance of which
we can still find sorne traces 4 . As attested by the preface to the Com-
mentmy on Psalms 1-25, dated by Nautin to 222 and considered by hlin
Origen's earliest work, the Alexandrian do es not conceal his reluctance
towards committing himself to writing. Until then, as the biograpbical
testimony of Eusebius in the sixth book of the Ecclesiastical Histo/y also
implies, he had been first and foremost a master of the spoken word in
the catechetical school of Alexandria and a biblical philologist, engaged
in establisbing a reliable edition of the Greek Old Testament. Now, in
reply to the 'charming' insistence of Ambrosius and in spite of the dan-
ger, which according to Origen's own words is inherent not only in
speaking about 'holy things' but much more in writing about them, and
KaÀooç crUVotKoOOj.IOUV1:OÇ 't<{} 1tpOSEJ.lÉVep Ûl aptO"'tov 'tOU1:O fipyov È7tt'tEÀatV 'tOU
SEOU, È1tàv yaÀT)vtasn 'tfi Û1tEpExoucrn 1taV'ta VOUV Eipi]vn XPCOJ.lÉVll Tj 'l'Uxi], 1tacrT)ç
'tapaxijç àÀÀo'tpWUJ.lÉVll Kat ouoaJ.looç KUJ.lawuJ.lBVll. 1 am not aware of any specifie
investigation of the building imagery in Origen apart from its ecclesiologieal application:
cf. F. LEDEGANG, Mysterium Ecclesiae: Images of the Church and Its Members in Origen,
Leuven, 2001 (Ch. 4: "House and sanctuary", pp. 259-310); G. LOMlENTO, 01,,0<;,
oÎTwoof/~, oÎTwvof/fa: La Zingua della comlmione nel Commento a Giovanni di Origene,
in M. GIRARDI -M. MARIN (eds.), Origene e l'alessandrinismo cappadoce (III-IV secolo).
Atti deI V Convegno deI Gruppo Italiano di Rieerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessan-
drina, Bari, 2002, 29-44.
3. CIo VI.2.6: Tau'ta 0' TjJ.llv à1toÀoyoUJ.lÉvotç 1tpOç crB, tEpS 'AJ.l~pOcrtE, EïpT)'tat,
È1tEt 'tOV EùayyEÀtKOV 1tUpyov Ka'tà 'ttlV ayiav crou 1tpO'tp01t11V Èv ypaJ.lJ.lacrlV
oiKoooJ.lijcrat SEÀi]craV'tEç È'I'T)<j>icraJ.lEV J.lSv KaSEcrSBvTEÇ 'ttlV oa1taVT)V, Et ëX0J.lEV
'tà 1tpOç à1tapncrJ.lov, ïva J.ltl ÈJ.l1tatsroJ.lESa Û1tO 'tOOV SECOpOUVTCOV Ka'taylVcocrKOJ.lEVOt
roç SEJ.lÉÀWV J.lSV Ka'ta~aÀÀ6J.lEVot, ÈK'tEÀBcrat OS 'to ëpyov J.ltl OEOUVT)J.lBVOL
4. For the sake of commodity 1 refer to the chronologie al synopsis by P. NAUTIN,
Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre, Paris, 1977, pp. 409-412.
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 5
leaving such texts for future readers, he has finally decided to take one
step further and enter the arena of literacy5. The occurrence of the term
'struggle' (ÙYIDV), so typical of Origen's view of spiritual existence, sig-
naIs a fundamental tum in bis life, wbich could be compared to another
crucial transition from the oral to the written word, i.e., the later decision
reported by Eusebius to authorize the transcription of bis homilies 6 •
About ten years later (231-232), and with an already remarkable set of
writings behind him, Origen betrays again his embarrassment towards the
written word in the fragmentary preface to Book 5 of the Commentmy
on John preserved in the Philokalia. Certainly, one has to reckon once
more with the dialectical relationsbip between the Alexandrian and his
patronus, which was not devoid of tensions for the writer, as is shown
by the epithet of 'supervisor of works' (spy08tIDKTllÇ;) attributed to
Ambrosius on this unique occasion, indirectly a less laudatory allusion
ta the Egyptian supervisors of the Israelites in the Exodus story. Never-
theless, the question raised by the growing literary output of Origen,
5. Cf. CPs 1-25 Prol. (Epiph., Pan. 64.5-7), where Origen quotes a passage from
Sextus' Sentences: Tauta os TjJ.llv Èv 1tpootJ.liep ÀÉÀEK'tat, Eiç J.lÉytcr'tov àyoova Kat
oJ.loÀoyoUJ.lÉVcoç Û1tSP TjJ.làç Kat 'ttlV fiÇlV TjJ.lOOV àvayKaSoJ.lÉvotç ûrro 'tijç rroÀÀijç crou
<j>tÀ0J.laSEiaç Kat oucrcorroUJ.lÉvotç ûrro 'tijç XPT)cr'toTll'toÇ crou Kat 'tijç J.lE'tptO'tT)'toç,
tEpS 'AJ.l~pOcrtE, Ka'tEÀSatv. Kat on yE Èrrt rroÀù àVaOUOJ.lEVOv J.lE, otà ".,0 EiOévat 'tOV
Kivouvov où J.lOVOV WU ÀÉyElV rrEpt 'tOOV ayicov, à""à rroÀÀ<{} rrMov wu ypa<j>ElV Kat
'tOlç J.lES' TjJ.làç Ka'taÀt1tatv, rrav1:Ooa1tooç Ka'tE1tÇLOCOV <j>tÀtKOOÇ Kat Ka'tà rrpo;porrT]V
SEO'tT)'tOÇ Eiç 'tOU1:O f]yayÉç J.lE, J.lap'tuç ficrT) J.lot rrpoç SEOV j.l~S' oÀO? 'tou ~WU,Kc:t
rrEpt 'tOOV ûrrT)yopEUJ.lÉVCOV ÈçE'taSoJ.lBvep, rroia 'tE rrpoSÉcrEt WU1:O yE}EVT)'taL ~at 1tT)
J.lSv È1tt'turxaVOJ.lEV, 1tij OS f]'tot ~t~SOJ.lESa ~ta:O'tEPOV ~~}OKO~J.lEV n ~EYEt~.
ÈÇtXVEucraJ.lEV OS 't0 yEypaJ.lJ.lBVOV, ou Ka'ta<j>poVOUVTEÇ 'tOU O'tE ÀEyEtÇ 1tEpt SEOU,
Kpivn Û1tO SEOU' KaÀooç EipT)J.lÉVOU, Kat wu 'rrEpt SEOU Kat 'tàÀT)Sîi MYEt~ Kivouvo~
où J.ltKpOÇ'. àÇWUJ.lEV 'toivuv, ÈrrEt J.lT)OSV XCOptç SEOU KaÀov Bivat ouva'tat Kat
J.laÀtO"'ta VOT)crtç ypa<j>oov SEOrrvEucr'tCOV, orrcoç 't<{} SEp Kat ~1ta'tpt 'too~ oÀCOV ~tà 'tOU
crco'tTjpoç TjJ.lOOv Kat àPXtEpBCOÇ yEVll'tOU ooSijvat TjJ.llV 1tpCO'tOV KaÀcoç ST)'tElV,~ È1tEt
Kat'tat W1Ç ST)WUcrlV È1tayyEÀia 'tOU EûpicrKElV' 'taxa OUOS 'tT]V àpXT]V Eiç ST)wu~'taç
ÀoytS0J.lÉVCOV 1tapà SE<{} 't<{} OÙX 6O<{} È1tt 'tOU'tO ~poïov't~v .(~rige~ refers agal~ to
Sextus' passage in HEz 1.11: Confiteor libenter a sap/ente et ftdelz v/r~ d/ctam sentent/~m,
quam saepe suscipio: de Deo et vere dicere periculum est. Neque el/lm ea tantl/m pe/'lcu-
losa Slll/t quae falsa de eo dicl/ntur, sed etiam quae vera sunt et non opportune proferun-
tur dicenti periculum generant). For a discussion of this text, see A. MONACI CASTA,aNO,
Origene e Ambrogio: l'il/dipel/del/za dell'il/tellettuale e le pretese dei patrol/ato, 111 L.
PERRoNE (ed.), Origel/ial/a Octava: Origen al/d tlze Alexandrial/ Traditi~n \B.E~, 164),
Leuven, 2003, 165-193, pp. 168-170. According to her, "un'assenza slgmfJcativa è l~
mancanza di ogni accenno - in questo come negli altri proemi - agli elementi formah
dell'opera; l'incapacità cui qui si allude riguarda la comprensione, non l'abilità espres-
siva" (p. 168). 1 share this conclusion, even though Origen's hint to his still inad~quate
Ëçtç, as we shall see later, could also imply a sense of inadequacy as far as the hterary
aspects are concerned. . . . .
6. Eusebius, HE VI.36.1. Consider here also the oplmon mamfested 111 FriCor 73
(pieri, 194) concerning the caution requested from the interpreter: Kivouvoç Bcrn 'tolç
àvaywrocrKoucrw U1tÀooç à1to<j>aivEO"Sat, oJ.loicoç os Kat W1ç àKouoUcrlV.
6 L.PERRONE
which especially came to the fore in the extremely long comments he
composed on the fOUlth gospel, is far from being a merely rhetorical one.
In fact, he contrasts his 'many books' with the few to which the inspired
authors devoted themselves, thus incidentally echoing an early Christian
debate on the legitimacy of literacy outside the scriptural canon? This is
at first look a paradoxical perspective since it points to the different way
of doing among biblical authors, from Moses to Paul and John, who have
all refrained from writing many books8. On the other hand, the empha-
sized contrast finally helps to reinstate the legitimacy of Origen's many-
sided literary activity, inasmuch as for him writing entirely revolves
around the 'one book', the inspired Scriptures of the Old and the New
Testament. Therefore, in the last resOlt, the 'multiloquy' determined by
the 'many books' is reabsorbed into the unicity of the message of the
revelation with its one tme LogoS9.
We can freely say that here we have the essential justification of writ-
ing from Origen's perspective. At the same time, we can infer the idea
of its inherently organic character, even if in the beginnings and partially
also later on it is not always easy to reconstmct a precise literary project.
In any case, l believe we cannot speak of an organicity of a primarily
litenuy nature, despite the evident predominance of sorne literary genres
among the many books written by Origen. Actually, while the interpreta-
tion of the Bible provides the main content as well as the goal of literacy
for the Alexandrian, not all his writings, extant or lost, can be classified
as exegetical works stricto sensu. Thus, if in the Caesarean period there
7. See particularly the programmatic statement of the Anonymous antimontanist
(Eusebius, HE V.16.2): "Having for a very long and sufficient time, 0 beIoved Avircius
Marcellus, been urged by you to write a treatise against the heresy of those who are called
after Miltiades, 1 have hesitated till the present time, not through lack of ability to refute
the falsehood or bear testimony for the truth, but from fear and apprehension that 1 might
seem to sorne to be making additions to the doctrines or precepts of the Gospel of the New
Testament (E1t\aoyypu<pELV ~ E1t\Ota'tuaaEaSUl 't<1> 't~S 'tou EùayyEÀ.ioo KatV~s
otaSijKllS À.oycp), which it is impossible for one who has chosen to live according to the
Gospel, either to increase or to diminish".
8. CIo V.2-3: oùOEvàS 'trov ayicov EKOEOCOKOWS aUV'tu~EtS 1tÀ.dovaS Kal EV
1toÀ.À.aiS PiPÀ.ots 'tàv vouv aù'tOu EK'tlSEJlÉVOU, 1tEpt wU'tou À.EK'tÉOV. '008 EYKaÀ.rov
Jlot EtS auv'ta~tV 1tÀ.E10VCOV EPXO~IÉVCP, 'tàv 'tllÀ.tKOU'tOv McoaÉa <p~aEt JlovaS 1tÉV'tE
pipÀ.ouS Ka'taÀ.EÀ.ol1tÉvat. .. '0 08 lKavcoSds OtUKoVOS YEvÉaSat 't~S Katv~s
OtaS~KllS, où ypuJlJla'tos, à,nà 1tVEUJlawS, IIauÀ.os, 0 1tE1tÀ.llPCOKO:JS 'tà EùayyÉÀ.tov
tl1tà 'IEpouaaÀ.llJl Kat KUKÀ.cp JlÉXpt 'tOU 'IÀ.À.optKoU, OM8 1tUaUlS Ëypa'l'EV aIs EOtOa-
~EV EKKÀ.TjaiUlS· à,À.M Kat aIs Ëypa'l'EV, àÀ.tyouS a'tixous E1tÉa'tEtÀ.E. IIÉ'tpos OÉ, E<p'
4> otKoOoJlEttat ~ Xpta'toÎÏ EKKÀ.llata, ~s 1tUÀ.Ul {ioou où Ka't\axuaouatV, Jltav
E1t\a'toÀ.llv oJloÀ.oyouJlÉVllV Ka'taÀ.ÉÀ.OI1tEV, Ëa'tco 08 Kat OEu'tÉpav.
9. CIo V.S: Et WtVUV 11 1toÀ.uÀ.oyta EK 'trov oOYJlu'tcov KptVE'tUl Kat OÙK EK 'tf\s 'trov
1toÀ.À.rov À.É~ECOV tl1tayyEÀ.taS, opa El OÜ'tCO OUVUJlESa ëv PtPÀ.toV 'tà 1tuv'ta ayta
El1tEtV, 1toÀ.À.à 08 'tà Ë~co 'tou'tcov.
ORlGENES PRO DOMO SUA 7
is a notable and more exclusive concentration on writings devoted to
biblical interpretation in the form of commentaries, homilies or scholia
- with a few exceptions, the most important of these is the Contra
Celsum -, during his Alexandrian period Origen seemed still interested
in exploring different literary paths. This early 'versatility' is attested,
among other examples, not only by the composition of a work entitled
Stroma ta like the homonymous book of Clement of Alexandria but also
by his dogmatic treatise Peri archôn lO • UnfOltunately, Eusebius himself,
our main biographical source, helps us in retracing the genealogy and the
development of Origen's literary output only to sorne extent, not to speak
of the Discourse of Thanksgiving which is surprisingly silent on the
teacher's writing activity. For its author Origen is essentially a master of
the spoken word and if there are books in his 'school', apparently these
do not include his own works, but are those of the philosophical authors
he commented upon for his disciples before introducing them to the
explanation of the Scriptures ll . Yet the period of Caesarea - as Gilles
Dorival observed in respect first of all to Eusebius' narrative and his
penchant for applying to Origen's new milieu the model of the Alexan-
drian school - is taken up even more than before by a whole series of
literary tasks, only in part connected to Origen's activity as a preacher,
teacher, or theological advisor 12 • Without embarking again on the much
disputed question of the relationship between Origen's commentaries and
his school, let me mention here only the case of the Commenta/y ail the
Song of Sangs, whose first five books, according to Eusebius, were writ-
ten in Athens, that is outside the immediate context of Origen' s 'school' 13.
10. See NAUTIN, Origène (n. 4), pp. 301-302, for whom "cette imitation de Clément
s'explique bien à la date que nous adoptons et peut servir à la confirmer. C'est au début
de sa carrière qu'un écrivain est le plus porté à couler sa pensée dans les formes d'un
autre".
11. For a recent assessment of the 'school of Caesarea' see A. LE BOULLUEC, D'Origène
à Eusèbe: Bibliothèque et enseignement à Césarée de Palestine, in H. HUGONNARD-RoCHE
(ed.), L'enseignement supérieur dans les mondes antiques et médiévaux, Paris, 2009, 239-
261.
12. Cf. G. DORIVAL, Est-il légitime d'éclairer le Discours de remerciement par la
Lettre à Grégoire et réciproquement? Ou la tentation de Pasolini, in A. MONACI
CASTAGNO (ed.), La biografia di Origenefra storia e agiografia. Atti deI VI Convegno di
Studi deI Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina, Villa Veruc-
chio (Rimini), 2004, 9-26, p. 23: "C'est cette réalité alexandrine qu'Eusèbe a transférée
à Césarée, alors que, dans cette période de sa vie, Origène était occupé par ses activités
de commentateur de l'Écriture, de prédicateur et d'expert théologique dans les synodes. II
n'est plus à la tête d'une école de catéchèse. Les élèves qu'il accueille reçoivent une
formation philosophique à finalité clu·étienne. Ils n'ont probablement pas été nombreux".
13. Eusebius, HE VI.32.2. 1 have dealt with the commentaries as 'literary texts', not
simply or primarily 'school texts', in several contributions. See, for instance, Il profilo
letterario deI Commento a Giovanni: Operazione esegetica e costruzione deI testo, in E.
8 L.PERRONE
Mter aIl, what we know about the writer, the process of composition
of his works and then' chronological setting goes back, for the most pmt,
to personal statements of our author. Once Origen fully embraced his
activity as a writer, he seems to have given it sorne thought, especially
in view of the ceaseless growth of his literary corpus and the impending
tasks that still awaited him. Although the Alexandrian did not expressly
comment upon his books in a specific work that could serve both as an
autobiographical assessment and as an authoritative orientation for the
readers, as Galen and Augustine did, he has nevertheless left sorne useful
remarks and indications, among which his self-quotations m'e especially
valuable 14 • Accordingly, Eusebius exploited them in his report on
Origen's writings in the Ecclesiastical HistOly, even if he did not proceed
in a very systematic way. He contented himself with scattered hints, the
more precise ones being reserved for the Alexandrian period, while the
extemal cÙ'cumstances and the dating of sorne of the Caesarean produc-
tions received a more summary treatment 15 • Eusebius could excuse him-
self for this lack of further details by pointing to the fact that he had given
a detailed list of Origen's works at the end of his Life of Pamphilus, his
venerated teacher who had assemb1ed Origen's literary heritage in the
library of Caesarea. As is well known, Jerome took over this list for his
PRINZIVALLI (ed.), Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene: Il testo e i suoi contesti. Atti
dell'VllI Convegno di Studi deI Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione
Alessandlina, Verucchio - Rimini, 2005, 43-81; and "The Bride at the Crossroads" :
Origen's Dramatic Irltelpretation of the Song of Songs, in Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 82 (2006) 69-102, esp. pp. 75-81. My point of view on the commentaries as
'literary texts' does not imply a break with the experience of the school and agrees as such
with the opinion expressed by LE BOULLUEC, D'Origène à Eusèbe (n. 11), p. 250: "Sans
doute de tels livres, dictés 'en privé, par devers lui, sans la présence d'aucun témoin',
comme l'écrit Pamphile [Apologie pour Origène, §36], illustrent-ils néanmoins la méthode
qu'Origène devait suivre dans ses discussions à propos des Écritures avec ses familiers les
plus érudits, en adaptant à ce travail les règles en usage chez les grammairiens pour
étudier Homère et dans les écoles philosophiques pour lire et expliquer Aristote et Platon".
14. Augustine's Retractationes have an important antecedent sui generis in the two
writings Galen devoted to his literary productions, De ordine librorum suorum and De
libris propriis, written around 195-205. According to their latest editor, Galen's design
was underpinned by an apologetic intention: "De même que l'entreprise de catalogage de
ses propres œuvres menée dans le Sur ses propres livres a pour but principal de pr?t~ger
l'intégrité de ses écrits et de garantir leur authenticité, de même l'exposé des ses opllllons
philosophiques les plus personnelles, dans le Sur ses propres opinions, a également pour
but de dénoncer comme l'œuvre de faussaire tout traité qui serait en contradiction avec
ses convictions les plus intimes" (Galien. T. 1: Introduction générale; Sur l'ordre de ses
propres livres, Sur ses propres livres, Que l'excellent médecin est aussi philosophe, texte
étudié, traduit et annoté par V. BOUDON-MlLLOT, Paris, 2007, p. 6).
15. For instance, HE VI.24 situates CIo VI within the sequence of the writings ascribed
to the Alexandrian period and Origen's transfer to Caesarea. In this case il is possible to
retrace a chain of works largely through the mentions made by their author.
OR/GENES PRO DOMO SUA 9
catalogue of Origen's writings in Ep. 33 and rearranged it, not without
mistakes and important omissions, as Nautin has so accurately noted in
his still fundamental study. For the purpose of my paper, 1 would simply
recall the fact that the lists of this enorrnous corpus both in Eusebius and
in Jerome were substantially disposed in relation to the books of the
Bible, these representing its essential core aIready in the eyes of ancient
readers 16 •
My aim is not to reopen the dossier of the self-quotations in order to
reexamine theÙ' exploitation for a chronology of Origen's works, as
established by Nautin and others, although it is not possible to ignore this
problem altogether. 1 am indeed interested in exploring self-quotations as
useful dues for a better understanding of what we may caU Origen's
'literary pragmatics' as far as the author himself is concemed17 • As we
all know, self-quotations both in the past and in the present function
primarily as means for reasselting the validity of a previous contribution
on the part of the author, either by simply referring to it or by supple-
menting its contents in sorne way. In the fÙ'st case, not only does the
author spare himself further work, but, in addition, as a result of such
self-quoting, he emerges justified and enhanced as a scholarly authority
in the eyes of his readers. In the second case, a new development cornes
to enrich and complete a previous approach, not only attesting to its
initial usefulness but also displaying simultaneously the author's capacity
of self-improvernent. AIso, when facing an autocritical retractatio, we
can observe that the self-criticisrn is ultimately meant to recreate the
conditions for recognizing anew the authorial identity, even in the case
of a previous blatant mistake. In this instance, the reader will not lose his
confidence in the author, inasmuch as the former is involved in the lat-
ter's process of gaining a new access to a positive result. Self-references
then, as shown by these various examples, always imply not only a rela-
16. Cf. NAUTIN, Origène (n. 4), pp. 227-242, especially pp. 230-231: "Eusèbe avait
sans doute adopté le même ordre dans la liste de la Vie de Pamphile: NT - AT - Divers,
et Jérôme a voulu mettre l'Ancien Testament avant le Nouveau; il a commencé par copier
le groupe AT et, distrait par la monotonie de ce travail, il ne s'est pas arrêté à temps; il a
continué machinalement par le groupe Divers qui venait à la suite. C'est ainsi ce qui
explique l'omission des trois traités: De oratione, Contra Ce/sum et De naturis: ils étaient
inscrits à la fin des Divers, mais, quand Jérôme s'est aperçu qu'il copiait ce groupe à tort,
il s'est arrêté au point où il en était et s'est mis à copier NT, en se proposant sans doute
d'inscrire les derniers Divers plus loin; puis, le moment venu, il les a oubliés".
17. M. VESSEY, Latin Christian Writers in Late Antiquity and Theil' Texts, Aldershot,
2005, defines the notion of 'literary pragmatics' as follows: "a science of the relations
between texts, the users of those texts, and the conditions (material and ideological) of
such use" (pp. 176-177). My own perspective focuses rather on the author and his relation-
ship to his own writings and only subsequently on his readership.
10 L.PERRONE
tion of the author with himself, but by the same token also one with the
readet.. For the moment it will suffice to bear this implication in mind,
without directly touching the problem of Origen's readership, intended
and/or real, which would demand some fUlther investigation. Notwith-
standing that, l shall at least venture to sketch some preliminary observa-
tions concerning this point, insofar as it contributes to explain the author's
move in quoting himself. In addition to this, a larger setting is perhaps
needed when analyzing self-quotations in order to gain a more precise
perspective on the profile of an author and his literary project. For
instance, his citations of other authors can provide us with a useful term
of comparison. Finally, one could argue that announcements of new
undertakings are to be viewed as a form of self-quotation, this time by
anticipating a future contribution in line with his authorial design. Taking
thus into account aIl these different aspects l shall first examine the way
Origen refers to other authors, then move to his self-quotations and their
different forms, and conclude with the passages in which he anticipates
his intentions for future work.
II. lN THE FOOTSTEPS OF HIS PREDECESSORS:
ORIGEN'S QUOTATIONS OF OTHER WRITERS
It go es without saying that Origen's literary activity, especially on
account of its exegetical characterization, realizes itself under the struc-
tural imprint of quotations. Biblical references or allusions fill the pages
of his writings in a proportion which can scarcely be matched by any
other early Christian author. If this is to a very large extent a well-known
aspect of Origen's scholarly endeavour, making room for one of the most
fertile phenomens of intertextuality in late antique culture, less attention
has been paid to his use of other authors, with two obvious and important
exceptions. On the one hand, the Valentinian Gnostic Heracleon quoted
by the Commentmy on John; on the other hand and in a more systematic
fmm, the pagan philosopher Celsus, whose True Discourse determined
Origen's verbose confutation in Contra Ce/sumo In both cases scholars
have analyzed the way the Alexandrian faces the challenge of an altema-
tive discourse - of exegetical, theological, or philosophical kind - by
reporting it in the form of excerpts and making these the object of his
own criticism. In the two instances the fact of quoting essentially sup-
ports the apologetic and polemic aims of the author, who incidentally
invites the reader to participate in the dispute and to verity himself the
intellectual inadequacy of both adversaries. As a consequence, the con-
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 11
frontation with Heracleon and Celsus reinforces Origen's self-identity as
an author. Indeed, by showing that Heracleon's explanation is not ade-
quate, the Alexandrian really recommends himself as the proper exegete
of the fourth gospeF8. Aiso the diluvial reply to Celsus leads him to stress
the fact that the pagan author cannot claim for himself the qualification
of true philosopher, while Origen, on the contrary, vindicates his cmTect
approach to the quest of philosophical truth 19 •
The recourse to quotations is less perceptible in the absence of a
specific apologetic or polemical concem. We dispose altogether of
some interesting instances which help us to understand the way Origen
refers to other authors, as conculTing with his own interpretation, even
if, when put together, these constitute a rather small group of passages
in the large corpus of Origen's œuvre. The authors refelTed to in this
manner are, quite expectedly, first and foremost, representatives of the
Judaeo-Hellenistic or Alexandrian tradition such as Flavius Josephus or
Philo of Alexandria20 • The recourse to Josephus mainly cOlTesponds to
the apologetic exploitation of this Jewish author in the early Christian
literature, which thanks especially to the famous Testimonium Flavi-
anum in Book 18 of the Jewish Antiquities tends to see Josephus -
according to Origen's ad hoc qualification - as a witness "not far from
18. For an appreciation of the relative impact of Heracleon's 'Y1toJlvfIJlU'w on CIo,
see my contribution Il profila letterario dei Commento a Giovanni (n. 13), pp. 57-59.
19. hl addition, one might also point to the fact that Origen disputes Celsus' ability at
the literary level, for instance, with regard to the rhetorical practice of prosopopoiia. See
A. VILLANI, Origenes ais Schriftsteller: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Venvendung von Proso-
popoiie, mit einigen BeobachtzlIIgen über die prosopologische Exegese, in Adamantius 14
(2008) 130-150.
20. Occasional mentions of Josephus can be found in CCt Il.1.15 (lnvenimus autem
huius ipsius reginae etiam Iosepu1II ill historia suafacere mentionem addenlem etiam hoc,
quod, posteaquam regressa est, inquil, a Solomone, Cambyses l'ex miratus eius sapien-
tiam, quam sine dubio ex Solomonis doctrina susceperat, cognominavit, inquit, nomen eius
Meroen. Refert aulem quod non solum-Aethiopiae, sed et Aegypti regnum tenuerit); CC
1.47 ('Ev yàp t0 OKt<OKIUOEKUt«l tijs iouoaïKijs àpxalOÀoyias (, 'IO:J(l"l11tOS 1.l«p-wpEi
t0 'Iroavvn <IlS ~U1tttO'ti\ ySyEvl]Jlév«l KUt KuSapO'tov tots ~U1tttO'uJlÉvote; È1tUyyEÂ-
ÀOJlÉV«l. '00' UÙtOe;, KUitot yE èmtO'trov t0 'I11O'ou <Ile; XptO't0, Sl1trov ti]v uhiuv tfie;
trov 'IEpoO'oÀUJlrov 1tt<llO'Eroe; Kut tfie; taU vuou KuSutpÉO'sroe;, oÉov UÙtOV Et1tEtV ott
ft Kutà toU 'Il]O'ou È1tl~ouÀi] tOUtrov uhiu yéYOVE t0 Âu0, È1tSt à1tÉKtELVuV tOV
1tpo<j>l1tEuoJlEvov XptO'tov' 0 of: Kut roO'1tEp aKrov où JluKpàv tfie; àÀ11SEiue; yEVO-
JlEVOe; <j>l1O't_ tuum O'UJl~E~l]Kévut tote; 'Iououiote; KUt' ÈKoiK11O'LV 'luKm~ou tOU
otKuiou, oe; ~v àOEÂ<j>Oe; '''I11O'ou tOU ÂsyoJlévou XptO'taU", È1tEtofI1tEP otKUtOtUtOV
UÙtOV ovm à1tÉKtSLVUV); CMt X.17 CE1tt toO'ou,ov of: otÉÀUJl'l'EV o(),oe; 0 'I(lKro~oe;
Èv ,0 Àu0 È1tt otKutoO'UVU <Ile; q,ÀUPlOV 'IooIJl11tOV àvaypu'I'avta Èv slKOIJl PlpÀiotS
tT]V 'IouoaïKT]V àpXalOÀoyiav, ,i]v uhiuv 1tupuO',fiO'ut ~OUÀOJlEVOV 'tou 'tà 'toO'UUtU
1tE1tovSévUl 'tov Âuov <Ile; KUt 'tov vuov KU'tUO'KU<j>fivUl, stpl]KÉVUt Ku,à JlfiVLV Ssou
,uU'tu uÙ'tote; à1tl]V'tl]Kévut otà 'tà ste; 'IaKro~ov ,ov àOEÀ<j>OV 'I11O'ou taU ÀEyOJlÉvou
XptO''tou U1t' UÙtrov 'ts'toÂJll]Jlévu).
12 L.PERRONE
the truth"21. His recognition as a supporting source may, however,
require, in Origen's view, sorne caution if it is to benefit the Christian
readers. The case of Philo is especiaIly interesting not the least because
it has made the object of attentive investigations by David Runia and
Annewies van den Hoek22 . Origen refers to him in several of his writ-
ings and adopts different techniques in order to signal to the readers
that he is quoting from this Alexandrian predecessor or referring in
sorne way to him. Thus, at times he will introduce Philo either by an
anonymous mention or a rather generic reference while in other
instances he will provide a detailed quotation, naming the author, the
book from which he quotes and accompanying the quotation by a per-
sonal note. Moreover, anonymous mentions and exact quotes of Philo's
writings can occur within the same work. As we shaIl see later on, these
elements are not devoid of interest for an appropriate evaluation of
Origen's self-quotations.
It is not surprising if the references to Philo occur in great number
especially in the Contra Ce/sum, a work engaging a vast stock of philo-
sophical and historicalleaming in response to the pagan's attack, which
emphasized the lack of tradition and culture among the Christians. It is
of course part of Origen's argumentative strategy to invoke authorities
such as Philo, who may attest to the continuity between Christianity and
Judaism within an apologetic perspective of history. Because of this, we
can suspect, it bec ornes also more convenient to mention expressly the
name of a Jewish witness, who does not seem to have been unknown to
Origen's adversary as weIl. Not incidentally the first mention of Philo in
Book 4 (CC IV.51) takes its point of departure from the supposition that
Celsus may have heard about the Allegories of the Law of Philo or alter-
natively about his predecessor Aristoboulos. Yet, Origen argues, Celsus
in fact proves to have not read the books of neither of them, when he
rejects the aIlegorical explanations of the Bible23 . By doing so, Celsus
21. This apologetic use of Josephus will beeome extensive in Eusebius, as shown by
S. lNOWLocKI, Eusebius and the Jewish Aut/lOrs: His Citation Teclmique in an Apologetic
Context, Leiden - Boston, MA, 2006.
22. D.T. RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey, Assen - Minneapolis,
MN, 1993, pp. 157-183; A. VAN DEN HOEK, Assessing Philo's Influence in Christian
Alexandria: The Case ofOrigen, in J.L. KUGEL (ed.), Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays
on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism, Leiden - Boston, MA, 2003, 223-239.
23. CC N.51: ~oKEî' liÉ I-I0t Kut ÙKl1KOévut D'n ÈO''tt O'uyypul-ll-lu'tu ltEptéxov'tu
'tIlS 'tou vOJlou lûJ,:rl'yopiuS, altEp El ÙVEyVroKEt, OÙK av ËÂ,eyEV' At youv oOKoUO'Ut
ltEpt UÙ'trov ùÂ,Â,rlYop{ut yEypU<jJSUt ltoÂ,ù 'trov JluSrov utO'X{ouç Etat KUt ù'tonro'tEput,
'tà l-11]oul-lfl l-11]oul-lroç aP!-loO'Sflvut OUVUI-IEVU SUUl-luO''tTI 'ttvt Kut ltuv'tUltuO'tv
ùvutO'Sil'tcp l-lropiq, O'uvun'touO'uL "E01KE oÈ ltEpl 'trov lIIiÂrovoS O'uyypuJlJltl'trov tUUtU
UyElV 11 KUt trov En àpXUlotÉprov, (l1toitl ÈO'n tll 'AP10'tOJJOUÂou. L'tOXUÇ0l-lut oÈ tOV
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 13
acts contrary to other exponents of Greek philosophy (such as, for
instance, Numenius of Apamea), who were able to appreciate their con-
tributions both from a literaly viewpoint and for their own philosophical
merit. This passage clearly identifies in Origen' s perspective a cultural
precedent and establishes a genealogy for his own way of interpreting the
Bible while asselting at the same time its philosophical dignity. Not inci-
dentaIly he lavishes praise on Numenius' approach to the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, clearly because he found in him a precious ally and thus could
refrain for the moment from dealing with his specifie interpretation of
the figure of Jesus 24 . An open recognition of Philo's authority character-
izes also his second explicit mention in Book 6 (CC VI.21); once more
Origen alludes to a Philonic treatise - De somniis - and appreciates its
value for a readership 'eager to leam the truth'25. In this instance he is
refel'ring to Philo's commentmy on Jacob's dream and the laddel', deliv-
ering this reference aImost en passant, as if recommending a further
reading, even if he does not give the title. Furthermore, in his third
explicit reference to Philo, which occurs in Book 15 of the Commentmy
on Matthew (CMt XV.3), we can observe Origen once more tracing the
line of a doctrinal tradition, from which in this case he himself partially
departs. This concems the justification that one could extract in favour
of self-castration from respected authors such as Sextus in his Sentences
or Philo in Quod deterius 26 •
Most of Origen' s references to Philo are made in an anonymous
form, though sometimes accompanied by sorne details such as the title
of a writing or sorne allusion to its content. This kind of anonymous
Ké?"O'ov I-li] ùw:yvroKévat 'tà PtPÂ{u, ÈnEt ltoÂÂuxou OÜ'troç È1tttEtEUXSU{ I-I0t
<jJUtvE'tUt, m~tE utpssflvut av KUt tOÙç Èv "EÂ,Âl]crt <jJtÂoO'o<jJouv'tUç ùno 'trov Â,syo-
I-Iévrov' Èv oiç où I-IOVOV <jJpuO'tç ÈSilO'Kl]'tat ùÂÂà KUt voill-lu'tu Kut 06Yl-lu'tu KUt 1']
xpflO'tç 'trov, mç OïE'tUt, ùno 'trov ypu<jJrov I-IUSrov 6 KéÂO'oç,
24. CC IV.51: livopu noÂÂ,i!> KpSt't'tOV ot1]yl]O'ul-isvov llÎcu'trovu KUt <nspi> trov
IIuSuyopdrov oOYl-iutrov npscrpsuO'uv'tu, .ltoÂÂuxou 'trov O'uyypul-ll-lu'trov UÙ'tou
ÈKnSél-lsvov 'tà MroiiO'éroç KUt trov npo<jJl]'trov KUt OÙK Ù1ttSuvroç UÙ'tà tpo-
nOÂoyouv'tU, mO'ltEp Èv 'ti!> KUÂoul-lévcp "Enom Kut Èv torç II8pl àplf)fJliJv KUt Èv 'torç
II8~1 ,~n,~v. 'Ev ~È t!} ~ph,cp II8pl ,àya.9ov ÈK't{~S:Ut KUt ltEpt 'tou '11]O'ou tO''top{uv
::t~u, 'CO ovol-I<l; uu'to~ ou Â,syrov, K,ut, 'tPOltOÂO'(Et uu'tilv' .no'tspov 0' È1tt'tS't Eu W éVroÇ
l] uno't,s'tE?YI-ISvroç, uÂÂou KatpoU sO''ttv stnstv. Aeeordmg to R SOMOS, Origen and
NUl1leflll/s, m Adamantius 6 (2000) 51-69, p. 56, "these quotations shed light on Origen's
pr~found knowledge of Numenius, and indeed there is no other philosopher whose works
Ongen was more familiar with than Numenius".
25. CC VI.21: ltEpl ~ç [seil. the ladder] Kul nI> lIIiÂroVl O'UVtÉtllKtlU JJ1JJ},10V, astov
<jJpov{l-I0u Kut O'uvs'tflç nupà 'totç <jJtÂ,uÂilssO'tV ÈSE'tUO'SroÇ.
, 26~c,Mt xv:?: Kut <!>{Â,rov oé, Èv noÂÂorç 'trov siç 'tov MroO'éroç VOl-lov O'uv'tussrov
UlJ't~U EUooKtl-l~rov KUt ltupà O'uvs'torç ùvopétcrt, <jJ1]O'iv Èv JJ1JJÂiCP <!> oiStros ÈltÉypU'l'EV'
IIEpl tou tO XE1pOV 't0 KpEi't'toVl 1jJ1ÂEiv Èm'ti3EO'l}Ul Ott 'ÈSSUVOUxtO'S~vut I-IÈV lil-lst-
VOY flltpoç O'uvouO'{uç ÈKVOl-louç Âu't'tuv'.
14 L.PERRONE
mention occurs aIl throughout Origen's writings (of course, not only
for Philo), without any distinction between treatises, commentaries, and
homilies. The most common formulation for introducing an anonymous
quotation is given by the expression "one(s) before us" ('téOv npo TJf!éOv
ne; / nvée;) where the plural can nonnaIly also coyer one single author
or interpreter27 • Generic as it sounds at first, this nevertheless implies
a context of traditional interpretation which Origen can cIaim for him-
self. It is precisely in this way that while preaching on Judges he recaIls
an exegesis "of the ancient", which is taken "from the books" of he-
naeus, one of the most famous theologians before him28 • Therefore,
27. Regarding Philo, see e.g. CC VII.20: <!>aJ.li;v 'totvuv on 0 VÔJ.loç Ot't'tôç Ècrnv,
o J.lÉv nç 1tpàç plj'tàv 0 oi; 1tpàç otâvotav, chç Kai tô'>v 1tpO Ttflô'>V tlVEÇ Èotoaç,av. Both
Philo and Josephus are seemingly meant in HEx IX.4: Potest autem et zlIlusquisque 110S-
trum etiam in semet ipso construere tabernaculum Dea. Si el1illl ut quidam ante 1/0S
dixerll1lt, tabemacululll hoc totius mzmdi tel1et jiguram.
28. Hlud Vill.4: videnda est lIlysterii 'zzdus ratio de qua memil1i etiam que1/dam ex
praecessoribus 1/ostris i1/ libellis suis veUus lanae populum dixisse Istrahe! etc. Haec
quidem 110bis, sicut fateri decet, ex mai arum labore col/ata SUl1t; verllln quol1ialll etialll
110S audito verbo a sapiel1tibus, sicut scriptum est, col/audare debemus et adicere, ad il/ud
videamus quid etiam 110S superaedificare possimus il1 talibus. See the exegesis of Jdg 6,37-
40 in Irenaeus, Adversus haereses ill.17.3. Unfortunately, the recent editor of FrEph did
not venture in guessing who may have been the target of a similar reference in FrEph 1.15:
ËÂ-EyE oij nç tô'>v 1tpO Ttflô'>V, à1tà t~ç 1toÂ-Â-~ç 1tEpi 'tàv 'Iljcroùv àyâ1tljç 'tàv IIaùÂ-ov
cruvEXÉO"'ta'ta aù'toù )!E)!V~crSat Kat chcr1t~pd 1tapEÂ-KÔV'tCOÇ, rocr1tEp Kat È1tt toÙ Ill' cP
/Çal nune60"aV'reç Ëcrnv tOdv Ka'tà 'tà Ill' 0 (Origel1e. Esegesi paolil1a: 1 testi frammel1-
tari, Introduzione, traduzione e note di F. PIER!, Roma, 2009, p. 252). Is there any chance
to identify him with Pantaenus or Clement? See also the interesting passage in PriI11.3.4:
Quidam sane ex praecessoribus nostris il1 I/OVO testamento observarzmt quod, sicubi
spiritus 110minatur sine adiectiol1e ea, quae desigl1et qualis sit spiritus, de sal1cto spiritu
deberet il1tel/egi. A different formulation conceming previous interpreters appears in
FrI Cor 38: tcr'tÉov oi; chç oi Â-ol1toi ÉpflljVElltai 1tEpt àKpo~uO"'tiaç Kat 1tEpttoJ.l~Ç
Ka'tà 'tà plj'tàv ÈKoEoIDKacrt 't~v Ëvvotav. The mention in HIReg I.1 (Obsel1 1atum talllell
est etiam a priol'ibus 1/oslris, quod il1 psalmis tal1tummodo il/is, qui attitulal1tur "filiis
Chore Il , il1 ipsis solis l1ihil amaritudil1is vel austeritatis videtur inferri) seems to imply
a reference to Hippolytus. OccasionaUy Origen mentions in a similar way his Judeo-
Christian teacher, as shown by Hlos XVl.5: Ego sic arbitror quod oml1es il/i, qui dor-
mierunt al1te I/OS patres, pugl1el1t 110biscum et adiuvel1t 110S orationibus suis. Ita l1amque
etiam que1/dam de se1/ioribus magistris audivi dicel1tem il1 eo loco in quo scriptum est il1
Numeris quia: ablinget synagoga illa hanc synagogam, sicut ablinget vitulus herbam viri-
dem de campo (Nm 22,4). Dicebat: quare IUlÎusmodi similitudo assumpta est, l1isi quia
hoc est, quod il1tel/igel1dllln est il1 loco, quod synagoga Domil1i, quae nos praecessit il1
sal1ctÎs, ore et lil1gua cOl1sumet adversariam synagogam, id est oratiol1ibus et precibus
adversarios 110stros absumet? Cf. also CMt XIV.2: (ilolj oi; Kai uÂ-Â-ljç OtljyijcrECOÇ
étlI'ID)!ESa, 1)V EÂ-EyÉ nç 'tô'>l' 1tpO Ttflô'>l', 1tpo'tpÉ1tCOV È1ti uyvEiav Kai KaSapô'tll'ta toÙç
yEya)!ljKô'taç. Mo yâp, oüç ~ouÂ-lj'tat (<pljcriv) 0 Myoç crU)!<pcovdv È1tt 't~ç y~ç,
uvopa Kai yuvatKa vOlj'tÉov, ÈK crUJ.l<pcoviaç à1tocr'tEpoùv'taç àÂ-Â-ijÂ-ouç crCO)!anK~ç
o)!tÂ-laç, ïva crxoÂ-âcrcocrt 'tfi npoO"elJxfi, O'tE 1tpocrEUXÔ)!EVOt nepl nal'ràç npaYfJaroç oÔ
èàv alr~o"(J)l'rw Â-ij'l'0Vtat, ytyVO)!Évou aùto'iç toÙ à1tà 'totaU'tllÇ cru)!<pcoviaç ahijJ.la-
toç napà rov èv oùpavo'iç narpàç 'bwov XplŒroV.
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 15
occasional references to an anonymous interpreter should not at aIl be
regarded as incidental, inasmuch as Origen in these cases apparently
requires the support of sorne one else, whose anteriority may confer a
supplementary wa11'ant to his own explanation. This happens, for exam-
pIe, when he cornes to deal with Gn 6,2, a passage of major impor-
tance for Origen's doctrine of the soul descending into the body, as
shown by the two anonymous references to Philo in Book 6 of the
Commentary on John (CIo VI.42.217) and Book 5 of Contra Celsum
(CC V.55f9. Only two mentions in the CommentaJy on Matthew supply
sorne further elements: while in Book 17 Origen cites again the title of
the Allegories of the Law (CMt XVII. 17)30, in Book 10 he stresses the
fact that his own exegesis has taken inspiration from "one of his pre-
decessors" who w~s able to explain the anthropomorphisms of the
Bible (CMt X.22)31. Even if these two references offer sorne more cIues
to identify the interpreter meant by Origen, in the end what mainly
matters is the fact that he regards Philo, both explicitly and implicitly,
as an authoritative commentator of the Scripture, supporting his own
effort of interpretation. In light of this, as suggested by Runia, it was
not indispensable to quote him expressly by name, since Philo was part
of the same tradition32 . The same pattern helps us to explain the similar
behaviour of Clement of Alexandria with regard to Philo and, we could
add, also that of Origen in relation to Clement and of Clement himself
2~. CIo VI.42.217: ilvnva Ka'tâ~acrlV alvicrcrEO"Sai tll'ES U1tEIÂ-f(<<f!aO'lV 't~v 'trov
'l'uxcov KâSooov È1ti 'tà crID)!a'ta, «Suya'tÉpaç àVSPID1tCOV» 'tpontKID'tEpOV 'tà y~ïvov
crK~voÇ Â,ÉYEcrSat U1tEIÂ-11<PÔ,EÇ; CC V.55: oMi;l' ~'t'tov Kat 1tEpt toÛ,COl' 'to'iç ouva-
)!Évotç ÙKoUEtV 1tpO<plj'ttKoù ~ouÂ-ij)!a'toç 1tEicroJ.lEV on Kai 'tô'>l' 1tpO Ttflô'>V 'ns ,aù,a
àvijyaYEv dç 'tov 1tEpi 'l'Uxrov Myol', Èv ÈntSu)!iÇt yEVO)!ÉVCOv 'toù Èv crID)!a'tt
àVSpID1tCOV ~tou, Ii1tEp 'tponoÂ-oyrov Ë<pacrKE Â-EÂ-ÉXSat «Suya'tÉpaç àVSpID1tCOV». In
both cases Origen refers to the interpretation of Gn 6,2 in Philo, De gig.
, 30. CMtXVII.17: tô'>v flÈl' 1tpO Ttflô'>V 1tOlf(lfas tlS JllPÂ-ia l'O)!O>l' lEPô'>l' ùÂ-Â-tlYopiaç,
'taç chcrnEpd àvSpcono1taS~ 1tapt"cr'tâcraç Â-ÉÇ,EtÇ 'tàv SEàv Otl]YOU)!El'OÇ.
31. CMt x'22: È'tijpljcrE )!i;v OÙV tlÇ 'tô'>l' 1tpO Èflô'>V 't~v àvayEypa)!)!Évllv Èv rEVÉ-
crEt 'toù <!>aparo YEVÉSÂ-WV Kat Olljyijcraw on 0 <paùÂ-oç ... 'H)!Eïç oi; à1t' ÈKElVOU
'tau'ljv EUpÔV,EÇ à<pop)!i]v È1t' OÙOE)!tUÇ ypa<p~ç EÜpOWV u1tà otKaiou YEVÉSÂ-WV
àyO)!évllV.
32. "From these passages it emerges that Origen regards Philo above aU as an exegete
of scIipture. He is described as an interpreter, teacher and expositor. He is praised for his
sharp perception. He supplies the exegete with ideas that can be further pursued. His views
~re held in re~pect by intelligent men ... , among whom Origen himself is clearly to be
mcluded. He IS weU-known for having practised aUegorical exegesis ... In fact, aU the
texts we have assembled deal directly with scriptural exegesis in one way or another, with
the majority involving aUegorical interpretation. Most striking of aU is Origen's emphasis
on the ~act, mentioned in aU but three of the passages that the cited exegete is a predeces-
sor: ThiS suggests that he saw his own activity very much as part of an exegetical tradition,
whlch clearly goes back at least as far as Philo" (RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Litera-
ture ln. 22], p. 163).
16 L.PERRONE
in relation to Pantaenus33 . While Origen does not evoke even once in
his extant writings the name of his alleged 'teacher' Clement, he does
mention at least once Pantaenus, when writing his Letter ta Alexander
of Jerusalem to defend himself from the accusations raised against him.
As he says in this self-apology, when he took the decision to deal
in his teaching both with the works of the hereties and those of the
philosophers, he only imitated his 'predecessor' Pantaenus who had
done the same before and had thus been helpful to many ('tôv npô
YJ)!&v nof..)"oùç; CÛcp8ÀiJcrama IIav'tatvov)34.
m. AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF A LITERARY CORPUS OF HIS OWN:
THE SELF-QUOTATIONS OF ORIGEN
If we leave aside the cases of Heracleon and Celsus, it seems that, in
general, Origen quotes much more himself than other authors. He does
it in a variety of forms, which by and large resemble the patterns dis-
cussed above when dealing with the way he quoted his predecessors. In
the same way then we meet rather generie references to his previous
33. Cf. A. VAN DEN HOEK, Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria: A View
of Ancient Literaly Working Met/lOds, in Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996) 223-243. Clement
as weil appears to be extremely reticent to mention Philo and he does it only four times.
Otherwise his mentions of Pantaenus are also quite rare. For this reason the author of this
study emphasizes the importance of the tradition more than that of the individual: "Not
the individual identities of the teachers, but their roles as mediators between the apostles
and Clement's own time would have been important. To put the names of his teachers in
the foreground would have overemphasized their importance as individuals, a charge that
Clement makes against the followers of Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus (see Strom.
VII.108.1). Logically then, omitting Philo's name can be seen as placing him in the ranks
of Clement's direct mentors" (p. 233). See also RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literatllre
(n. 22), p. 182.
34. The Letter ta Alexander of Jerusalem is quoted by Eusebius, HE VI.19.12-14:
'E1tst oÈ ÙVUKS1/1évcp /101 't0 Mycp, 't~C; <j>i)/11lC; Ota'tpsxoucr11C; 1tspi 't~C; ËSSffiC; l'Wrov,
1tpOO'1Jscruv 6,1; /1Èv utps'tlKoi, 6,È 01; ot Ù1tO 'trov 'EÂ-Â-llV1KroV /1uSll/1a'tffiV KUt
/1uÂ-tO''tu 'trov BV <j>lÂ-ocro<j>içt, BOOSSV BSS'tUcrat 'ta 'ts ,rov utpS'tlKrov 06Y/1u'tu Kut 'tà
(mo 'trov <j>lÂ-ocrO<j>ffiV 1tSpl ùÂ-llSduC; Â-éystv B1tUYYSÂ-Â-o/1svu. Toura 01; 1tS1tOli)KU/1SV
/1t/111cra/1svoi 'ts 'tov 1tpO TJ/1rov 1toÂ-Â-OÙC; ro<j>sÂ-i)cruv,u IIavmtvov, OÙK ôÂ-iYllv BV
BKdvotc; BcrXllKo,u 1tUpUcrKS\)i)V, KU! 'tOV vuv BV 't<1> 1tpscrp\),spicp KUSSÇO/1SVoV
'AÂ-ssuvopéffiV 'HpUKÂ-UV, /SV'tlVU SupOV 1tupà 't<1> otoucrKaÂ-cp 'trov <j>tÂ-ocrO<j>ffiV
/1uSll/1a'tffiV. See NAUTIN, Origène (n. 4), pp. 22-23. On Origen's relations to Clement cf.
A. VAN DEN HOEK, Origen and the Intellectllal Heritage of Alexandria: Continllity or
Disjllnction?, in R.J. DALY (ed.), Origeniana Quinta, Leuven, 1992,40-50. Observe also
the mention of Melito of Sardis in PrPs 3 (PG 12, 1120) regarding the typological inter-
pretation of Abessalom: MëÂ-i'tffiV youv 6 BV 'tU 'Acriçt <j>llcrlv uù,ov Bivut 'tU1tOV 'tou
OtapoÂ-O\) B1tUvucr'tavwc; 'tU Xptcrrou puO'tÂ-Eiçt, Kut 'tourau /10VO\) /1VllcrSdC; OÙK
B1tëSllPYucruro 'tov ,01tov. He seems to be quoting the bishop of Sardis to underline the
lack of deeper-going exegesis.
ORiGENES PRO DOMO SUA 17
interpretation of certain passages, which simply point to what he has
already explained 'elsewhere' or 'in its proper place'. A further step
situates the past treatment in relation to the theologieal topies dealt with
or, more frequently, the biblical book commented upon at the time of
writing, occasionally by adding the genre of writing in which it is to be
found: treatise, commentary, or homily. The most circumstantial record
appears only seldom and consists of a propedy, so to say, 'bibliographic'
quote with precise mention of the work and the relative book.
Despite such a variety of appearances, aIl his self-quotations aim to
SUppOlt, though in a varying measure - that is, conforming to the degree
of their precision -, the argument of the author, which mainly consists of
an exegetieal elaboration of the Scriptures. With the help of such refer-
ences, Origen actually presents himself as an interpreter of the Bible who
can rely on his own expositions, also when he dispenses with repeating
them to his readers, and by the same token is able to establish an inter-
pretative tradition of his own. In addition to this, the configuration of an
authorial identity by means of self-quotations is enhanced by statements
concerning future interpretations, as we shall see in the last section. Our
evidence should also be analyzed in light of a feature characterizing the
literary physiognomy of an author, namely, his effort to achieve the struc-
tural unity of a work by avoiding repetitions and/or digressions, or even-
tually by purposefully 'planning' them35 . As 1 tried to show, especially
with regard to the Commentary of John, instances of this palticular con-
cern are not lacking in Origen36 . We detect them in the Contra Celsum
too, where the author feels it necessary to apologize for the amount of
repetition caused, in his view, by the poody structured writing of Celsus.
Now, if warning against disorder of discourse and repetition is held in
esteem by the Alexandrian, self-quotations in their turn have tobe
regarded within the framework of a literary design aiming at being
organic, both as a whole corpus and in its single components; the well-
known practiee of his constantly dictating his writings (at least, first and
35. On Origen's use of the rhetorical technique of 1tUpéKPUcrtC;, cf. A. CACCIARI,
Linglla e stile nel Commento a Matteo: Sondaggi e ossen'azioni, in T. PISCITELLI (ed.), Il
Commenta di Origene al Vangelo di Matteo. Atti deI X Convegno deI Gruppo Italiano di
Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina (forthcoming).
36. See Il profila letterario dei Commento a Giovanni (n. 13), especially pp. 43-59.
This aspect is still insufficiently taken into account by the studies on Origen as a writer.
1 tried to prove its relevance also for the CC: "Tutti sanno che Origene dettava le sue
opere ... , ma cib non significa che egli le perdesse più 0 mena di vista ne! corso della det-
tatura. Se c'è un'impressione che si possa ricavare al riguardo dalla lettura di CC, essa è
semmai di segno contrario, proprio perché l'autore mostra sistematicamente di non voler
mai smarrire il controllo deI sua testo" (Pra silenzio e parola [no 1], pp. 121-122).
18 L.PERRONE
foremost the treatises and the commentaries) do es not essentially hinder
this goal.
To start with our analysis, let us first consider the more generic refer-
ences introduced by expressions such as 'elsewhere' or 'in its proper
place'. These are rather limited in number: for instance, EV 8'tÉpOtÇ in
Book 1 of the C0l11l11entm)1 on John (CIo 1.35.255)37 or EV uÀÀotç
in Chapter 15 of De oratione (Orat XV.l)38 and in Book 7 of Contra
Celsul11 (CC VI1.55)39. If the first two passages discuss major issues of
Origen's thought on the relation between the Father and the Son, the
addressee of both writings, Ambrosius, could be expected to easily find
out the related passages. As for the third self-quotation, it already shows
the tendency to introduce sorne sort of qualification and thus become less
generic. By rejecting Celsus' criticism of the Gethsemani prayer of Jesus
in face of his impending death, Origen reminds his readers that he has
dealt 'more fully' (E1tl1tÀEtov) with this episode in other writings. These
are generally identified with the Exhortation ta l11artyrdol11 (EM 29) and
the COl11l11entary on Matthew (CMtS 92), though we could add to them
the longer section devoted to this same pericope in Book 2 (CC II.24-25).
Here the explanation provided by Origen do es not merely resume the
motives present in the two other works, but elaborates its own perspec-
tive, no 1ess rich and interesting. Therefore, the 'fuller treatment' located
'elsewhere' in the passage under examination may simply emphasize
the existence of a manifold exegesis by our author, both in the Contra
Celsul11 and in other writings, and so justify the synthetic treatment at
present40 . To conclude the exemplification of generic references, we may
37. CIo 1.35.255: To 0' OJ.lOlOV Èv É'tÉpOlS EOEîSuJ.lEV KU! En! 'tou J.lEÎSova nvu
dvat 'tou Ol]J.llOUpyoU, Ol]J.llOUpyoV J.lf:V EKÀU~OVtES 'tov Xpt<HOV, J.lEÎSovu of: 'to\nou
tOV nu'tÉpu. It is not clear whether Origen here refers to Prin or, more probably, to Strom.
38. Orat XV.1: Et yàp ËtEpOÇ, ms Èv IDJ,.o\S OElKVUtat, Kut' oùcrîuv KU! unoKEÎ-
J.lEVOV Ècr'ttV 6 uioç 'tou nutpoç. Koetschau ad loc. points to CIo X.21, thus offering
another chronological clue for the redaction of Orat next to CGn. Yet Origen has sometimes
recourse to this expression also within the same work, as it happens in FrEph m.53: t~V
nÀeoveçiav of: il'tO! anÀoucrtEpOV EKOEK'tÉOV il, ms ÈV /iÂÂOlS napEO"tftO'aJ.lEV, 't~V
J.lo!XEîuv, OtE KU! ÈXPl]craJ.lESu t<PIU) fmepjJaivelv Kal nÀeoveKreî'v if1W(J7;oV rbv àOeÀifJàv
atnou, thus refeIl'ing to a previous fragment of the same commentary (FrEph mAl).
39. CC VII.55: "EXE! J.lÈv 06v Myov f) oOKoUcru unonupahl]crtç dvut toU KUÀOU-
J.lÉvou notl]pîou, OV Èv /iÂÂOlS Èni nÂEiov ÈSTttUO'UJ.lEV Kat ùnOOEOWKUfIEV. We also
find generic mentions refen'ing to the 'frequent treatment' of particular topics: see, e.g.,
FrEph m.50: tà of: noHuKIS TtJ.liv dp'lJ.lÉva nEpt ÔPYllç KU! SUJ.lOU ünvou t'E Kut t'rov
àVSpID1t01tUSrov <pIDVroV, xpftcrtJ.lu Kut etç tOV ÂOyov t'OV nEp! toU Ill) Àvnâre rb
nVBulla rà ay/Ov rou Beou (Eph 4,30).
40. For further instances of generic self-quotations, see CMtS 134, on the darkness
covering the em1h at the moment of the cIUcifixion (perhaps a reference to CGII): Diximus
autem etiam ill aUis locis quoniam, cum duae creaturae generales in sexta die factae fuis-
sent, primum quidem animalia, deinde autem I/Omo secundum Dei imaginemfactus, con-
ORiGENES PRO DOMO SUA 19
refer to a passage in the COl11mentmy on Romans, in whieh the emphasis
is not placed immediately on the 'fuller' interpretation previously pro-
posed, but on the kind of arguments used by the author in that instance
(CRm IV. 11). Origen, presumably referring to his COl11mentmy on John,
says that there he approached the narrative of Jesus' death by comparing
it with apparently similar stories in the pagan world in order to stress
Christ' s uniqueness as savioUl.41. Instead of looking for a functional
explanation, as suggested by the last instance, we may infer that the
Alexandrian has recourse to generic self-references either when the sub-
ject has been discussed on several occasions (thus implying more than
one writing) or altematively when there still is no specifie treatment con-
nected to a biblical passage and its comment (in form of commentary or
homily), as will soon appear in what follows. Finally, there is a subspe-
cies of the first type, in the case when a generic self-quotation is intro-
duced by expressions such as 'in its proper place', in proprio loco or in
suis lacis, as shown by the Commentmy on Matthew (CMtS 8)42 and the
Homilies on Judges (Hlud II1.3)43. Its immediate application seems to
announce the second type by establishing a connection with the scriptural
loci that have made the object of a specific exegesis.
sequens est, ut et dies ille sextus tUIIC divisus fuisse intellegatur. Cf. also HNm XXVII.9:
De ql/o ordine memilli ql/od iam et ill aUis, cl/m aedificatiollis cal/sa aliqua loquerelllur,
quae Dominus dare dignatus est, prosecuti SUIllUS, sed et nUllc pauCÎs ite/'llm commollebi-
IIlUS (allusion to HEx V.2).
41. CRm IV. 11 : Quomodo autan Christus pro I/obis mortuus sit et quomodo cum sit
agI/lis Dei tulerit peccatllmmundi et il/firmitates nos/ras portauerit et pro nobis doluerit,
saepe a 1Iobis i1l aUis dicta SU1/t locis; ubi adlzibl/imus et ea quae il/ saecularibus historiis
referul/tur quod etiam apl/d ipsos I/onl/ulli pestilel/tias uel tl/rbil/es aliaque hÎs similia
perlzibelltur morti se uouel/do reppulisse, et patriam uel gel/tem sI/am immil/el/tis cladis
exCÎdio liberasse. Quae qI/idem quam uera scripta sint uel quid rationis habeal/t si I/era
Sl/llt Dei est 1I0sse solil/s. Nulll/s tamel/ ipsorl/ll/ de quibl/s ista I/arrantl/r I/e ficto qI/idem
sermolle totius Imll/di peccata absoll/isse perhibetur. Origen presumably means CIo
VI.53.273-285 and CIo XXVrn.19.162-163, while CC 1.31 should have been wI'Ïtten later
(Origene: Commento alla Lettera ai Romani. Libri I-VII, a cura di F. COCCHINI, Casale
MonfeIl'ato, 1985, p. 227 n. 44).
42. CMtS 8, on 1 Cor 15,20-28: Homm quidem olllllium mal/ifestatiollem fecimus
i1l proprio [oco. As this deals with the salvific restoration of ail, it could contain an allu-
sion to CIo VI.57.295-296 (see the comment ad hoc in Origel/e: Commento a Matteo,
Seriesll, a cura di G. BENDINELLI, traduzione di R. SCOGNAMIGLIO, Note di commento di
M.I. DANIELI, Roma, 2004, p. 132 n. 23). An altemative, more probable identification
should relate the passage to FrCor, an excerpt either from a commentary or a series of
homilies. For the partial interpretation of the Pauline text, see Origel/e. Esegesi paolil/a
(n. 28), pp. 204ff.
43. HII/d m.3: Filius il/ql/it, Cenez frater Chaleb, illil/s laudabilis et admirandi viri
Chaleb, qui fuit comes et soCÎus Iesu Nave, de quo, prout pOtUilllI/S, i1l suis locis, quae
visa sunt, dissemimus. According to A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Origel/e predicatore e il SIlO
pubblico, Milano, 1987, p. 59 n. 51, the reference meaIIS here Hlos XX.3-6. Cf. also HLv
Xill.2 (infra, n. 89).
20 L. PERRONE
In fact, a second, much larger group of self-quotations is related to the
interpretation of scriptural loci for which Origen has provided a specifie
contribution while commenting upon theu' respective books. To exem-
plify this series in a chronological order, we may initially point to a pas-
sage in Book 1 of Peri archôn (Prin 1.3.3), which recalls the interpreta-
tion of the 'Spirit' at the beginnings of creation (Gn 1,2), most probably
delivered by Origen in the lost Commentmy on Genesis44 • A further self-
quotation in Book 2 (Prin II.3.6)45, presumably from the same commen-
tary, subordinates the actual treatment of the question to a 'fuller expla-
nation' (plenius) to be found in the specialized commentary. Already
from this passage it is possible to infer the ide a that for Origen the exe-
getieal treatment of the scriptural loci, as a general role, is to be sought
for in the work (he this a commentary, a homily or eventually an excerp-
fum) specifieally devoted to a single biblical book. A typical example of
this kind of self-quotation occurs in Chapter 23 of De oratione, refemng
once more to the Commentmy on Genesis, with regard to God's indweIl-
ing in the saints:
We have discussed these points at greater length in our exarnination of the
contents of the Book of Genesis. But here, that we may not pass over so
important a question altogether in silence, it will be sufficient to recall the
words spoken by God in Deuteronomy, '1 will dwell in them and walk in
them' (Orat XXllIA)46.
Oddly enough, Origen is here mistaken about the alleged quotation
from Deuteronomy47, while calling the attention of his reader to a more
44. Prin 1.3.3: 'Spiritus' igitur 'dei', qui 'super aquas ferebatur', sicut scriptum est,
in principio facturae mundi, puto quod non sit alius qI/am spiritus sanctus, secl/ndum quod
ego intellegere possum, sicut et cum ipsa loca expOllereltlllS, ostendimus, non tamen
seclllzdulll historialll, sed secundum intellegentialll spiritalelll. R.E. HEINE, Origen 's
Alexandrian Commentary on Genesis, in l'ERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava (n. 5), 63-73,
does not consider this locus.
45. Prin II.3.6: VerUlIl de huiuscelllodi opinionibus plellills ill illo loco trac/avi1ll1ls,
cum requÎreremus, quid esset quod 'In principio fecit deus caelum et tenam'. Cf. HEINE,
Origen's Alexandrian Commentary on Genesis (n. 44), p. 71.
46. Orat XXIII.4: 1tEpt 'to()'tCOV ÙÈ È1tl1tAEiov ÙIEIAt'lqJIX~EV, ÈSE'ttiÇOV'tES 'tà EiS tilv
nlVE<TlV' 1tAT]V Kat VUV fva flT] 'tÉAWV 1tapacrtconTtO'COflEV 'to 'tllÀtKOUtOV npô~Àllfla,
aù'tâpKCOC; àvaflvllO'SllO'oflESa 'tOU 'evotK1lO'CO ev aùtotc; Kat eflnEptna'tTtO'co ev
aùwtc;', AsyoflÉvou ev ~EU'tEpovOfli<P ()1t0 'tOU Swu (the translation is taken from:
Origen's Treatise on Prayer, trans. E.G. Iay, London, 1954, p. 151). A self-quotation of
similar nature appears also in FrEph 1.1 ad Eph 1,1 (pieri): Et ft o/à npoSEcrtc; 'to ()1tEPE-
'ttKOV efl<jJaivEt, roO'1tEp ÈnlnAElov ÈSEt6(Ja~Ev ()111'Yo6~EVOl 'to navra 0/' alnov èyévew
(In 1,3), 'ttSÉV'tEC; Kat 'tàC; <jJatv0flÉvaC; ftJ.lî:v EtC; 'tOUto àvSuno<jJopâc;. It is presumably
a reference to CIo II.1O.70-72.
47. As observed by IAY, p. 151 n. 4, "these words are not found in Deuteronomy. They
are found in 2 Corinthians 6, 16, where St Paul may be refening to Exodus 29, 45, and
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 21
satisfactory treatment of the problem raised by the anthropomorphic rep-
resentation of God walking in the garden of Eden.
If the Commentmy on Genesis occupies a more or less definite place
in Origen's production, citations to be ranged into this second type occa-
sionally turn out enigmatic, when we have no information about the
existence of a work dedicated to that particular book. Thus, the Latin
translation of the Commentmy on Matthew (CMtS 40) appears to allude
to a specialized writing on the book of Daniel (a commentary or a hom-
ily?), of which there is however no record in our lists of Origen's works 48 •
This could be, on the contrary, a reference to a lost book of the Stromata,
in which the Alexandrian is repOlted by Jerome to have made an exposi-
tion of Dn 9 and 13 49 • In this case too, the self-quotation, which pravides
rather generie directions to the reader, would first of aIl confirm the intent
of recommending Origen's more qualified exegesis on the text under
exarnination.
A more or less standard form of these 'technical' references is attested
in the Commentmy on the Song of Songs, which alone includes seven
self-quotations and can be placed, together with the Commentmy on
Matthew and the Contra Celsum, among the writings with the highest
density of such refyrences 50 • If we can trust Rufinus' rendering, here the
Alexandrian simply refers to the biblical book and his exegesis of it, as
we can see fram the frequent recun'ing of expressions such as in libm
Levitici, in Numerorum !ibm. For instance, we read in the Prologue a
sentence like the following: Sed de his plenius in Numerorum !ibm, "we
have dealt more fully with these things in the book of the Numbers", that
is, while explaining this biblical book5l • Such formulations still leave
Leviticus 26, 12. Deuteronomy 23, 14 bears the closest resemblance in that book to these
words".
48. CMtS 40: Quae al/tem sequulltur ill teX/II Dallielis, sicllt potllil1lllS, exposlli1lllls.
Haec autem Olllnia visa sunt nobis ex Daniele il/xta intelpretationem evangelici textus
adponere.
.. 49. See A. HARNACK, Geschichte der altchristlichell Literatur bis Eusebius. Teil 1: Die
Uberlieferung und der Bestand, bearbeitet unter Mitwirkung von E. PREUSCHEN, Leipzig,
1893, 21958, p. 365. He thinks of Book 10 of the Stromata, while for NAUTIN, Origène
(n. 4), p. 295, ît was Book 9.
50. CCt is a special case, since the self-quotations, according to Marcel Borret, should
be all refened to the homilies: "on se doit de mettre en relief cette caractéristique singu-
lière de l'œuvre: elle est la seule à fournir autant de références, sept, à un même ordre
d'activité, celui de la prédication, et dans celle-ci, à une même série, la troisième, la série
historique" (SC 376, 757; cf. also his remarks in SC 352, 445-448).
51. CCt Prol. 4.7: Sed de hÎs plenius ill Numerorllltl libro, secundum quod dedit nobis
DomÎnus, dictum est. Cf. HNm XII.2. We can add to this group also a passage in H37Ps
1.2: Memini me aliql/ando de il/o capitulo evangelii disputantem in quo scriptum est:
spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma (Mt 26,41), tale aliquÎd sensÎsse quod
22 L.PERRONE
aside the indication of the geme of the writings to which the author is
referring, inasmuch as Origen not only has preached on these histOlical
book of the Bible (HLv, HNm and Hlud) , but has also left pattial excelpta
on them. At least explicit mention is made in one case of the Homilies
0/1 Exodlls and Numbers , and in another of the Homilies on Judges 3,
52 5
so that it is perhaps reasonable to suppose that in aIl the occunences
homilies are meant. The self-quotations would then go back without
exception to the last series of sermons according to Nautin's reconstruc-
tion: it was that which dealt with the historical books, concluding for the
French scholar a lat'ger set of sermons within the span of only three
years 54 • This chronology, however, contradicts Eusebius' dating of the
Commenta/yon the Song of Songs (HE VI.32.2) and his asse1tion of a
later transcliption of the homilies.
Since a discussion of the chronological issues involved is beyond the
scope of this paper, it is more important ta note that the self-quotations
of the Commenta/y 011 the Song of Sangs quite often accompany the
acknowledgment of a 'fuller explanation' given elsewhere with a declara-
tian of modesty. The exegete recognises his limits and the help of God's
grace for the interpretation so far provided: secundum qllod dedit nobis
Dominus (CCt Prol. 4.7)55. Only in one case the statement of modesty is
antequalll Salvator noster veniret ad C/1/celll et crucifigeret carnelll atque elllori eam
faceret, antequalll pe/fecte 1Il0rtificaretur, prius dixit infirmari carnelll suam; et donec
infirmabatur quidem caro, spiritulll prolllptulll esse dicebat: CUIll vero cruci ealll tradit ~t
pe/fecta 1Il0rte conSUllllllat, tunc non ialll prolllptum spiritulll, sed in lIlanibus patris pos/-
tum esse testatur.
52. CCt Prol. 4.2: Sed quo differant a sanctis sancta sanctorum ill Exodo, et quo
differant opera ab operibus operum ill NumerorulII libl'o, h'actatibus, prout potUilllUS,
dictum a nabis est.
53. CCt ProI4.9: Veno11 et de Ms plellills ill illis oratill1/ClIlis quas de libello Illdicu/ll
edidillll/s disserta repaies.
54. On this much disputed issue, see among others BORRET (SC 352, 446): "S'il est
vrai que la série historique des homélies fut la dernière, et que le Commentaire sur le
Cantique ne renferme pas moins de sept références à cette série, comment ne point
admettre que la rédaction du Commentaire fut postérieure à l'activité origénienne de prédi-
cation?". He rejects the ide a that Origen could refer to exce/pta (a. the terminology:
tractatus, oratiunculae; b. the correspondence between CCt II.8.31 and HNm XVII.5 but
not with FrNm 24.7; c. "Enfin, Exode, Lévitique, Nombres n'ayant pas de commentaires,
des Exce/pta y suppléaient ... Mais les notations présentées par ce genre d'opuscules
étaient en général concises. Les cinq renvois à des exposés obstinément qualifiés de plus
complets (plenius) ne viseraient-ils pas plutôt des déve/loppements homilétiques?"
[pp. 446-447]). In HIer XII.3 Origen promises to comment soon upon Numbers after ,!le
will finish to explain the prophet: roe; 1tUA-tv EUA-oyîat 'uvée; Eiow lEpu-ClKaî, 1tEpi rov
Swù ot06v'toe; ou J1aKpuv, ù'A-A-Ù J1E'tÙ 'ti]v sç,éruatv wù Myou 'toù 1tpO<j>ll'ttKOÙ
EiaoJ1ESa ù'vaytvroaKoJ1évrov 'trov 'AptSJ1rov.
55, See CCt 1.2.5: De quo plellil/s illlibro Levitici, prout Domilllls dare digllatus est,
exposuilllus (cf. HLv VII.3).
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 23
directed at the reader, who may judge it worthy to consult Origen's
exegesis in its fuller application56 . The modesty clause is not a specificity
of this commentary, as is proved, for instance, by a passage in Book 9
of the Commenta/y 0/1 Romans related to the Homilies 011 Leviticus
(CRm IX.l)57 or even earlier, in Book 2 of Perl archôn (Prin II.4.4) ,
where the Alexandrian recalls a previous explanation of Ps 2, secundum
parvitatem sens us nostri58 • The generic mention of a 'fuIler' comment on
Ps 2, which reappears subsequently in Book 4 of the Commentmy 011
Romans (CRm IV.ll)59, is somehow disappointing for us, in view of the
enormous amount of the exegesis on Psalms pelformed by the Alexan-
drian in several writings throughout his life. In the same book of this
commentary (CRm IV.l) Origen states that he has ah'eady given an inter-
pretation of Psahn 31, cum de psa1nus . pel' ord'mem d'lctaremus60 . Even
if the modern reader is puzzled at first about the identity of the work that
could be meant here, the author stresses the effort of a systematic exege-
sis by dictation, this being presumably a commentary and once more the
proper place for coping with the fullest intelpretation of the passage in
question.
Advancing a little more towards something like a 'bibliographic' refer-
ence, we move on to a range of self-quotations which include an indica-
tion of the geme and/or the title of a work. A self-quotation in Book 28
56. CCt II. 1.25: Verl/l11 de his plellills ill libro NlImel'Orum prosecuti SUIIll/S, quae si
quis dignum iudicat noscere, il/a perquirat (cf. HNIIl VII.2).
57. CRm IX. 1: De quibus singulis Cl/Ill ill libruIII Levitici aliql/a dicerellll/s pro
j'iriblls explallare telltavillll/S, quoll1odo IIIll1squisque rationabili obsequio cultus Dei si
superbiam co/paris sui vincat immolet vitululll, si iracundiam superet arietelll il/gulet, si
libidinell1 vincat holocaustulll offérat hircum, si vagos et lubricos cogitatiolllllll resecet
uolatus columbas et turtures ill1l1lolaverit. Sed haec ut dixi si ql/i scire diglll/l11 pl/tat ibi
latills disserta reperiet.
58. Prin II.4.4: De quibus secll1/duIII parvitatem sellSlIS 1Iostri CUIll seculldi psalmÎ
expOllerellll/S illuIII versicululII, in quo ait: Tune loquetur ad eos in ira sua, et in ~rore
suo conturbabit eos (ps 2,5), prout potuimus, qualita hoc intel/egi deberet, ostendl/nus.
59. CRIIl IV.U: Ira vero Dei quolllodo intel/egi debeat ill seculldi 1Iobis psalmi expo-
sitiolle plellil/s dictl/Ill est et quomodo passif illlpleri quod scriptulll est: ut salvi efficiamur
fugientes ab ira ventura; et irall1 quidelll fugiel/tes ita ut non n~s comprehendat,. se~ta~~es
vero iustitiam pietatem fidem caritatem patientiam mansuetudmem, et cetera llls sI/mita.
60. CRm IV.l: Unde propterea puto et David tricensimo primo psalmo quem sl/per-
scribit: 'intel/ectlls David', dedisse istud initium amlllonens pel' ipsam superscriptionem
a/tiorem debere reql/iri intellectl/11l il/ his quae dicturus erat, quia beati sunt quorum
remittuntl/r iniqllitates; de qlliblls prout potllil1luS dixillll/s Cl/III de psallllis pel' ordillem
dictaremus. Presumably, this refers to the Comlllentmy on the Psalms written at Caesarea
(NAUTIN, Origène [no 4], pp. 273-279). Let us provisionally add to this group also FrEz
7.14 (pO 13,792): 'E1ti J"CA-ElOV 1tEpi aUA-7ttyyoe; otEùi!<j>aJ1Ev SÇ,E'tUÇOV'tEe; 't6 .Ea.À1tf-
ae/ yà.p, /(0.1 01 ve/(pol èyep91aoJl'[a.I lùjJ9a.pw/, /(a.l/lfle/Ç ô'ÀÀaY/WOfle9a. (1 C~r 15,52)'
Kai tva J1i] 1taA-tA-A-oyi!aroJ1Ev, ou 1tpoaota'tpî~OJ1EV 'ti!> 'tomp. Does here Ongen refer
to a commentary on ]SI Corinthians?
 24 L.PERRONE
of the Commentmy on John introduced by the lemma Èv 'rots BtS 'ràv
'rorcov ÈSTJYTJ'rtKOtS points at once both to the genre and the title of a
book (CIo XXVIII. 22. 190) : it is precisely one of the lost books of the Tà
eiç Tà lcaTà '/wavv'lV BvayyéÀlOV 'Eç'lY'lTl7ca, i.e. the Commentmy on
John itself according to the title attested also by Eusebiué 1• The second
genre and likewise a precise title occur in Book 32 of this same commen-
tary, where Origen quotes the Homilies on Luke (CIo XXXII.2.5) regard-
ing the distinction between 'dinner' (aptO"'rov) and 'supper' (odrcvOV)62.
The Alexandrian, confirming his attitude manifested in the Commentmy
on the Song of Sangs, has apparently no problem in suggesting as further
reading a homiletic text, which in principle should imply a less thorough
treatment than what is normally delivered in a commentary63. A new ref-
erence to the Homilies on Luke in Book 13 of the Commentmy on Mat-
thew, with regard to the parable of the hundred sheep (CMt XIII.29),
conforms to the same pattern. Consequently, we can presume that the
homilies take the place of the commentaries when these are lacking or not
yet written64 • This point, however, would appear more self-evident and
r 61. CIo XXVIII.22.190: nE pt J.lÈV oÔv TOÙ' Eiç /Cplpa è)'w elç ,àv /Coupov wuwv
Il).,')ov (Jn. 9,39), oO'a OEO\)vi)J.lEBa Èv toiS dS ,ov tonov ÈSTJYTJtllŒiS etpi)KaJ.lEv.
Cf. Eusebms, HE VI.24.1. A similar way of quoting, with regard to CITh, figures in
CC ~.65: T~v 013 <j>av~tO'c:v T]J.ltV BiS ,OÙS ,ono\)s OtllYl1O'tY ÈSEBéJ.lsBa Èv ois unTJ-
yopEtlO'aJ.lEV ESTJYTJ"ClKOlS 'TJS npos 0EO'O'aÂovlKEis npotÉpas È1t1O'toM1S. On this almost
completely lost commentary see Origene. Esegesi paolina (n. 28), pp. 27-29.
, 62. CIo XXXII.2.?: 'Ey tais EIS tO Katà AOtlKiiv OJ.lIÂlfllS O'tlVEKpivaJ.lEV àÂÂtlÂms
t~S ~apap,oÂus, Kat ,Sç'llt~O'~J.l~V ti ~Èv O'l1J.laiVEt to Katà tàS BEiaS ypa<j>às aptO'TOv,
'Ct OE naptO't'llO'tY tO Kat au'tUs oEtnvov. While this allusion implies a written text of
HLc, what about the chronological relation between the last book of CIo and HLc?
6? It is the point of view expressed, for example, in HNm XIV. 1.1 : Piura sunt quae
1I0biS res.edemnt exponentibus lectionem de Balaam atque asina eius, et quoniam est
temporahs tractatus qui in ecclesia aedificandi gratia habetur, lion habuit tantum spatii
ut possemus singula quaeque Scripturae verba proponere, ita ut nihil indiscussum rel/la-
neret, et explanationem singulis adhibere, quoniamquidem huiusmodi stilus commentari-
omm magis est. Idcirco quid inquisitione videntur digna repetimus, eaque discutientes qua
possumus explanatione disserere et in medium proferre temptabimus. Rufinus, who is
kn~wn to .have reworked the materials of HNm, restates the same point of view in his
EPI.'ogus ./Il exp~an .. Origeni~ super epist. Pauli ad Rom.: Supplere cupimlls ea quae ab
?nge~le /Il audltono eccles/ae ex tempore, non tam explanationis quam aedificationis
/IltentlOne, perorata sunt, sicut in homiliis sive in oratiunculis in Genesim et in Exodum
fecimus, et prae~ipue in his quae in libmm Levitici ab illo quidem perorandi stilo, a nobis
vero ex,P'anand, specie translata Slllit. Quem laborem adimplendi qllae den'ant, idcirco
sus~eplllllls, n~ pulsatae quaestiones et relictae, quod in '/Omiletico genere ab illo saepe
fien solet, L~t/llo lectori fastidium generari. For a recent treatment of this passage and the
related questIOns, cf. A. GRAPPONE, Annotazioni sulla cronologia delle omelie di Origene,
Aug .. 41 ~001). 27-58; ID., Omelie origeniane nella traduzione di Rufino: Un confronto
con 1 testl grecI, Roma, 2007.
• 64., CMt XIII.29:. t~ 013 nE~i trov éKatOV npo~Utrov 6xstS siS tàS Katà AOtlKiiv
OlllÂlas· In a sense 1t lS a margmal note for further reading within a long section devoted
to the 'little ones'. ' tO\)<t1> t~S npos 'ProJ.laio\)s È1ttO'toÂllS Èv toiS Bis aÎltTjv ÈSTJYTJtIKoiS.
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 25
certain, if a subsequent self-quotation in Book 16 of the Commentmy on
Matthew did not actually refer to a proper commentary on Luke instead
of the homilies. In fact, the Alexandrian recalls his exegesis of the parable
of the Good Samaritan "when he dictated the explanation of the Gospel
of Luke" (CMt XVI.9)65. As hinted at also by the mention of dictation66 ,
he probably has his lost commentary in mind, instead of a homily such as
the thirty-foUlth in Jerome's translation, where the Alexandrian recalls the
exegesis of a 'presbyter' before developing it on his own account67 . Yet
his allusion to 'remembering', more perhaps than solicit his audience to
an act of recollection, seems to point to an exegetical tradition of which
he celtainly is part, though expanding it in his own way. In a word, he is
the new tradition either by a commentary or by a homily68.
Before asking whether, in theh' turn, the homilies contain references
to the commentaries, it is better to complete the picture of the cross-
references among the latter and to add to them the mention of the
treatises, to be found both in these and in the commentaries. Thus, the
CommentaJy on Matthew cites the CommentaJy on John (CMt XVI.19;
CMtS 77 and 133)69 and also the CommentaJy on Romans (CMt XVII.32)70,
65. CMt XVI.9: apa toivuv st ouvaO'at, J.lEJ.lvl1J.lévoS tOOV T]lliv U1tIlYOPEIll)ÉVroV siS
tTjv Èv té!> Katà AOtlKiiv EÎlaYYEÂlIp napapoÂtlv. See also CC II.65 (supra, n. 61). On
CLc see NAUTIN, Origène (n. 4), p. 243, giving with the Jerome the number of five tomoi.
Note here Origen's expectation of a reader endowed with a good memory.
66. As far as the lemma is concerned, see also CMt XVI.19 (infra, n. 69).
67. HLc XXXIV.3-4: Aiebat quidam de presbyteris, volens parabolam intelpretari,
hominem, qui descenderit, esse Adam ... Haec Cl/m rationabiliter pulchreque dicantl/r,
non est tamen intelpretandum ql/od ad omnem hominem pertineant.
68. As stated by Maria Ignazia Danieli, "l'accenno a esegesi anteriori e tradizionali,
evidentemente cosl note da poter essere riprese quasi per allusione, almeno per le parabole,
rappresenta per la trattazione origeniana 'una preparazione pedagogica, un punto di
partenza', che l'esegeta rimette ben presto in questione per attingere l' oltre deI testo evan-
gelico" (Origene. Commento al Vangelo di Matteo/3 [Libri XVI-XVII), Note a cura di
M.I. DANIEL!, Roma, 2001, p. 54 n. 4).
69. CMt XVI. 19 refers to CIo for a deeper exposition on the Temple's purification:
àpKéO'st yàp tO Èv té!> ÈSEtaÇoJ.lÉvcp EôayyEÂicp Katà tO o\)vatov ~J.!'i:v O'a<j>l1viO'at.
trov tsO'O'uprov <ob sôayyEÂtO'trov &vaypmjluvtrov tà Katà tOV tonov, nÂEiova Katà
tO ouvatov 11J.ltV Èsi]tacrtat u1tayopSUOtlO'IV ElS tO Katà lrouvv'lv. Note the repetition
of the modesty clause (Katà tO o\)vatov T]J.ltv). As for CMtS 77, this is a passage on the
unction in Bethany: De Ms autem, quae apud quattuor exponuntur evangelistas cal/sa
ml/lierum l'el urdus mulieris (sicut aestimant multi), diligentius tractavÎmlls exponentes
evangelillm secllndll11l Iohannem, ql/ae videbantur nobis, Cl/m essent similia et cognata,
quasi contraria et distantia. Nunc autem ea breviter perstringamus. See finally CMtS 133:
Et aplld Iohm/1lem SÎCllt potllÎmlls exposllÎmus de duobus latronibus, quifuerllnt crucifixi
Cl/m Christo. There seems to be another citation of CIo, though implicit and generic, in
CMt XVI. 8 , on the figure of Judas: noÂÂà 013 nEpt aôtoù Èv tots npo tou't(J)v EtnOVtSS,
vùv OÔK ÈnavaÂaJ.l~uvoJ.lsv nspt tOU KataO'KwuO'at Ott 'louoaS npoatpém;ros rov
onoias Kat ot Âotnot néntroKs Kat ÈvénsO's sts ti)v nayioa tOÙ novl1Poù.
70. CMt XVII.32: etPTJtal 01; nÂElova ftJ.liV BtS tOV tonov otl1Y0\)J.lévots to Xropiov
26 L.PERRONE
as being the proper place for a fuller explanation of the relevant passages,
especially in case of a synoptic analysis of the Gospel texts. As for the
Commentary on Romans, which precedes the Commentmy on Matthew,
not only do es it refer to the Commentmy on John (CRm V.8?l, but sup-
posedly also to a lost Commentmy on Isaiah (CRm X, 8)72. Once again
the impression we get is, so to say, of a set of interrelated pieces, being
capable as such of supplementing each other within a larger corpus. The
few mentions of sorne treatises concur themselves to SUppOlt the same
idea. Both in his earlier period of literary activity and later on, Origen
refers to a lost treatise On the resurrection: he quotes it in Book 2 of
Perl archôn, as his most adequate treatment of the topics (Prin II. 10. 1)73,
and reiterates his appreciation after two decades in Contra Celsum
(CC V.20)74. On the contrruy and to our disappointment, Origen nowhere
so explicitly refers to Perl Archôn, with only one exception: the mention
of the 'Treatise on Free Will' (Prin m.1) in Book 7 of the Commentmy
on Romans (CRm VIL 16)75. If this is not an addition of Rufinus, as
argued by sorne scholars, the self-quotation on the one hand restates the
merit of the previous treatment of the issue, while establishing again a
line of continuity in Origen's production and thought, and on the other
hand it reiterates this by refining it with new nuances 76 •
71. CRm V.8: Venon de ratione baptismatis CU11l exponere1llus evallgeliu11I seculldum
Ioha1l11em ubi ventum est ad eum 10Cl/m in quo diGit de Iesu: ipse vos baptizabit in
Spiritu Sancto; et item ubi ipse salvator dicit: nisi quis natus fuerit denuo ex aqua et
spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei; pro viribus nostris quae occurrere potllerunt
illl11l0 quae donavit DOlllilllls dixilllus, ubi et sermonis ipsius vim quo dicitur: nisi quis
renatus fuerit denuo; altius aperire tellltavilllus. We have here an allusion to a lost section
of CIo and F710 XXXV respectively.
72. CRm X.8: Hunc autem sermonem de radice Iesse melius quidem in explanatione
ipsius profetae Esaiae visulll est disseri. Et in praesenti tamen loco dicetur quoniam Iesse
interpretatur in nostra lingua: est mihi. On the Commentar)' on Isaiah and the few extant
fragments see NAUTlN, Origène (n. 4), pp. 247-248.
73. Prin II. 10. 1: de quo et in aliis quidelll libris, quos de resurrectione scripsilllus,
pienius disputavi11lus et quid nobis de hoc videretur ostelldimus. Sed et nUllc propter
consequentiam tractatus pauca inde repetere nOIl videtur absurdum, maxime propter hoc
quod offendulltur quidam in ecc/esiastica fide. See NAUTlN, Origène (n. 4), p. 301: "Le
De prinGipiis ... est postérieur précisément au De resurrectione ... II renvoie au De resur-
rectiolle et se borne à rappeler brièvement sa thèse sans reproduire les arguments qui la
fondent". He bases the thesis of the anteriority of Strom on Res on the same argument.
74. CC V.20: 'A')..),: snEl tà J.lf:V llJ.lÉtEpa nEpi ÙVU<HUcrEroC;, roc; SVEXcOpEt, ùnà
tOU J.lÉpouC; sni tOU napovwc; ÀÉÀEKtat- O"UVtÉtUKtUl yàp ÎlJliv nE pi <lvuO"tcJ.m:roe; Èv
iHJ..Ole;, Èni nÀElov ÈSEtcJ.O"UO"l tà Kutà tOV tonov.
75. CRm vn.16: De quibus ple/lÏus quidem a nobis ill eo libello ubi de arbihii liber-
tate dissel'llillllls, pro viribus singula quaeque discussa sunt. Quae ad instl'llctionem satis
superque suffiGiant. PauGis tamen etiam IIlllle de his quae ibi dicta sI/nt, admonebimus.
76. Cf. F. COCCHINI, La "quaestio" sullibero arbitrio e l'inte/pretazione origeniana
di Rm 9 nel Commentario alla Lettera ai Romani, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Il cuore indurito
dei Faraone: Orige/le e il problema dellibero arbitrio, Genova, 1992, 105-118.
ORlGENES PRO DOMO SUA 27
We can now briefly approach the question of the cross-references
among the homilies which have often been exploited in order to assess
the chronology of Origen's preaching77 • It is reasonable, in principle, to
expect that we should find sorne, also considering the fact that the com-
mentaries themselves allude to the homilies. Yet our evidence l'aises
sorne suspicions of manipulatiC!n on the prut of Rufinus, since he declares
himself to have arranged the text of the famous Homilies on Numbers
also by means of Origen's exceJpta on this biblical book78 • It will there-
fore be more convenient to begin with the Greek texts. In the Homilies
on Jeremiah we have no explicit citation of previous commentaries,
but, except for a generic reference to motives already discussed before
(HIer 1.13)79, mention is made twice of the explanation delivered in a
presumably recent past on two psalms: first, Ps 134 (HIer VIII.3)80 and
subsequently Ps 140 (HIer XVIII.1O)8l. Nevertheless, both cases are too
77. Nautin's classical reconstruction rests on them: "Grâce aux références qu'Origène
fait assez souvent à des homélies antérieures, nous pouvons reconstituer la chronologie
relative des homélies: La série sur les prophètes: Is., Jér., Éz., est postérieure à la série
sur les sapientiaux: Ps., Job, Prov., Ecc/., Cant., car: la les homélies VIII et XVIII sur
Jérémie renvoient à celles sur les Ps 134 et 140; 20 l'homélie VI sur Ézéchiel renvoie à
l'une de celles sur Job" (NAUTlN, Origène [no 4], p. 403).
78. Rufinus, Praef.: quaecumque in Numerol'lllll libro, sive h011liletico stilo sive etialll
ex his quae excerpta appellalltur, scripta repperimus,. haec perurgente te romana, ut
potuimus voce, ex diversis in II/Il/m ordinem collecta digessimus.
79. HIer 1.13 contains a generic mention on the destiny of persecution reserved to the
prophets, as if it would be a 'commonplace' «oÔ> Kat npcOllV SJ.lVllJ.lOVEUOJ.lEv). But
where? According to NAUTlN, ad loc. Origen refers to CIo XIII.55; HLc XXXIII.3-4;
CMt X.18. But in the 'Stellemegister' for the 'Selbstzitate' (GCS.OW 3, 316) there is
appropriately a point of interrogation.
80. HIer VIII.3 on Ps 134,7: KaT dV/lyayev veifJO.aç eç eaxamv r~ç y~ç. Touw tà
Plltàv npcOT\v Kai sv tcp 'PaÎ.J.lcp sVÉnEO"EV, Kai ÈÀÉyOJlEV, nroc; 0 SEàC; dV/lyayev
veifJ!;Â.aç eç eaxamv t~ç y/7ç' ünEp xpEia scrtiv snavaÀapElv, wiC; J.lÈv Bi06crtV BiC;
snttpuvrocrtV Kai un0J.lvllcrtv trov EtPllJ.lÉvrov, tOIC; oÈ sntÀaS0J.lÉvotc; Tl JlY! napa-
tEtUXllKocrtv EiC; cra<pi]vElav tOUtOU, EYtE ùnoKaÎ.untoJ.!Évou Kai <paVE pOU yEVOJ.lÉVOU
EYtE oncOcrnotE VOOUJ.lÉVOU. NAUTlN ad loc. points to FrPs 134, 7 (PG 12, 1653.30), but
here we find a different interpretation, or at least the explanation does not mean the words
of a prophet as in the present passage, since not only Moses and Joshua, but also Isaiah
and Jeremiah act as VE<pÉÀll: 'Avuyrov vE<pÉÎ.ac; SS scrxutoU t~C; y~ç' ùcrtpanàc; EtC;
UEtàv snoillcrEv, K.t.É. NE<pÉÎ.ll scrti <pucrtc; Î.OytKi), tOÙC; nE pi IIpovoiac; MyouC;
nEntcrtEUJ.lÉVll· àcrtpani) ÙÉ scr'tl ùtÙacrKaÀta nVEUJ.la'tlKi), Î.oytKàc; \fIuXàC; ànà KaKiac;
sn' ÙpEti)V snavuyoucra. The mention does not seem to refer to a written commentary,
but rather to a recent oral explanation. On the contrary, for NAUTlN, Origène (n. 4), p. 403,
it alludes to a precedent series of Homilies on the Psalms. In our passage we can note the
occurrence of a hapax legomenon: snttpuvrocrtC;.
81. HIer XVIII. JO on Ps 140,2: "Ou breÂ.a[)ero pov 0 Â.aoç Ilov, elç /œvav e9vlliaaav.
nuc; J.lÈv 0 uJ.laptuvrov sntÀÉÎ.llcrtat tOU Swu, 0 ùÈ ÙtKaWC; Î.ÉyEt· 'tau ta nuv'tU
~Î.SEV s<p' ~J.luC;, Kat OllK snEÎ.aSOJ.!ESu crou, OÙÙÈ TjÙtKi]craJ.lEV sv tÙ ùwSi]Kn crou'.
KàKElVOC; ùè 0 Àaàc; OVtroc; snEÎ.uSEw tOU SWU Kai BiC; KEVàv ÈSUJ.liacrE. ti ÙÈ tà elç
/œvav M)vpiaaav KataVOlltÉoV. tà nproT\v E1PtU1Évu de; tOV ÉKUWO"tOV tEO"O"UplXKOO"tOV
'PuÀJlOV Èàv <lVUÀcJ.ProJlEV, VOi]crOJ.lEV t\ scr'tl tà elç /œvav e9vlliaaav. NAUTlN ad loc.
28 L.PERRONE
elusive to argue that we certainly have to reckon with written texts, for
instance of homilies, if not of a commentmy, and the preacher's remarks
on the utility of repeating a previous teaching seem to relate to an oral
discourse, which may have been held just a few days before82 • Aiso the
Homily on the pythonissa of Endor betrays a didactic concern of the same
kind, since it contains a similar reference to a preceding explanation of
Ps 21 (H1Sam28 6) coupled with an invitation to the audience to recollect
the scriptural passage recently commented upon83 • Since this selIDon is
generally held to have been pronounced in Jerusalem, it is less plausible
to suppose that we may have to do either with a homily pertaining to a
series or even less with a commentaly. In the first hypothesis, we should
presume a longer stay in the Roly City and not occasional preaching; in
the second, Origen would recommend to an audience in Jerusalem the
Commentary on Psalms 1-25, his first work, written much earlier in
Alexandria84 • Aiso in view of the particular formulations adopted for
these three reminiscences on comments regarding the Psalms, 1 am
indicates a parallel in FrPs (pG 12, 1665.7-11), but the reminiscence does not necessarily
imply a reference to a wdtten commentary.
82. Stressing the occurrence in both cases of the adverb npmllv, otherwise not so
frequent in Origen, GRAPPONE, AI/llotaziol/i sulla crol/ologia delle omelie di Origene
(n. 63), observes: "Se ... consideriamo con attenzione il testo, dobbiamo riconoscere che
non viene affermata solo l'anteriorità della spiegazione dei Salmo, ma viene anche data
una determinazione temporale non dei tutto vaga tramite l'avverbio npmllv. Tale deter-
minazione temporale ha un significato preciso: 'l'altro ieri', oppure uno più generico 'di
recente'" (p. 50).
83. Cf. HJSam28, 6 on Ps 21 (22),13-15: Kat Ka'tEÀilÀuSEV Eh; '"Cà xropta sKEÎva
oôx ms oouÀos '"Crov sKEt, ùÀÀ' ms OEO"no'"CllS naÀatcrrov, IDS npm1]v ÈÀÉyollEV ÈS1]y06-
IlEVOl '"COV Kil.' 'l'aÎ,llov. nepl8/cI'J/(ÂOJaav ~e ~ôaxo/ 7CoÂÂoi, mvpOl nioveç nep/éaxov Wi'
ifvOlçav lm' è~è ,à a,ô~a aôrwv, wç ÂéOJv apna'OJv /Cal ÔJpVÔ/lBVOÇ. (jl8a/CopniaSlfŒav ,à
oarii ~OV. IlEllvilIlESa, ElyE IlEllvilllESa '"Crov tEproV ypallllu'"CroV' IlÉllvllllat yàp aô'"Crov
EtpllllÉvrov EiS '"COV Ka' 'l'aÀllov. OÔKOUV 0 crM1'jp Ka'"CEÀilÀuSEV crmcrrov.
84. On the issues raised by Origen's preaching in Jerusalem see now H. BUCHINGER,
Origenes ulld die Quadragesima in !erusalem: Ein Discussiollsbeitrag, in Adamal/tius 13
(2007) 174-217. COl/tra NAUTIN, ad loc., who implies a reference to CPs 1-25, GRAPPONE,
AlIllotaziol/i sulla cron%gia delle ome/ie di Origelle (n. 63), stresses that "Ep. 33 ...
attesta numerose omelie su Sahni deI gruppo 1-25" (p. 48 n. 87). For Buchinger, "bezieht
sich dieser Verweis auf eine Homilie, kann der Text nicht yom ersten PaHistina-Aufenthalt
des Origenes stammen. ( ... ) Es ist allerdings nicht auszuschlieBen, daB sich der Verweis
des Odgenes nicht auf eine frühere Homilie, sondem auf den verlorenen Kommentar zu
Ps 1-25 (26) bezieht, der nach dem Bericht des Eusebius noch in Alexandrien abgefasst
wurde. Es ist zwar seltsam, sich in einer Predigt auf einen schriftlich ausgearbeiteten Text
zu beziehen; wenn man HSam 5 in Jerusalem ansetzt, muB aber auf jeden Fall davon
ausgegangen werden, daB Origenes auf ein der aktuellen Gemeinde unbekanntes Werk
verweist ... Wenn aber mit einem Rückbezug auf ein der Gemeinde nicht bekanntes Werk
zu rechnen ist, muB die Gattungsfrage dieses unbekannten Textes offenbleiben, und es
spricht nichts grundsatzlich gegen eine Identifikation mit dem verlorenen Kommentar der
alexandrinischen Periode" (p. 177).
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 29
inclined to think that they cannot be properly classified as self-quotations
of previous writings.
As for the Latin homilies, we do not lack a certain number of allu-
sions to foregoing sermons, but generally we miss once more explicit
references to the commentaries. Though caution is always needed, when
handling Rufinus' translations, we may balance his picture by recalling
the fact that Jerome too supplies material for such cross-references. At
aIl events, it is easily predictable that a preacher may occasionally go
back to a previous sermon, when he feels it useful in sorne way for the
present lecture. In his third Homily on Joshua Origen himself provides
evidence for this rather common experience by remembering that he
once preached 'in another church' (perhaps Jerusalem) 'more accu-
rately' about the story of the two women prostitutes and Solomon's
judgment in the third book of Kingdoms (H10s III.4)85. Thus, among the
Old Testament homilies, the Homilies on Joshua refer to the Homilies
on Jeremiah (H10s XIII.3)86 and so do also the Homilies on Ezechiel
(HEz XI.5)87, which in addition seem to recall the Homilies on Job (HEz
VI.4), if not also the Homilies on Luke (HEz IX.4)88. Due to the exten-
85. HJos mA: Scio me aliqllalldo ill qlladam ecclesia displltalltem de duabus mere-
tricibus, de quibus scriptulll est in tertio /ibm Regl/orum, quae ad iudicium vel/eral/t
Sa/omol/is, quarum ul/a vivum, a/ia mortuum !zabebat infantem, discussisse diligel/tius.
For Buchinger, " ... der auBerst wertvolle Hinweis auf die Abhaltung dieser Hornilie zu
1 Kon 3,16-28 il/ quadam ecclesia, also wohl nicht in seiner Heimatgemeinde in Caesarea,
macht es durchaus moglich, diese verlorene Predigt in Jerusalem anzusetzen" (BUCHINGER,
Origenes und die Quadragesima in !erusalem [n. 84], p. 180). Aiso in HEz IX.4, the
Alexanddan goes back to a scriptural text which had been read a few days before. See
likewise HLv IX.2 with two allusions to previous sermons: Quodam tempore expOllelltes
Iohmmem baptistam et alias Hieremiam, quod Hieremias quidem 'zonam', Johanlles vero
pelliciam zOllam circa /umbos habuisse diceretur, sufficiellter ostelldimus, quomodo pel'
haec declaretur illdicia pars il/a corporis apud huiusmodi viros ita emortua, ut lIeque
'Levis' lIeque alius quisquam 'il/lumbis' eorumfuisse crederetur, sed sola castitas et pura
pudicitia.
86. Hlos XIII.3 to HJer I: Ete/lÏm IIUIIC ulliuscuiusque lIost/'lllll ail imam Jesus destruit
et aedificat; et sicut dicebamus tUIIC, cmll Hieremiam dissereremus, quia acceperat verba
in os SUUIII, quibus subverteret et aedificaret, evelleret et p1antaret, ita etiam II/IIlC in his,
quae habemus in mallibus, illtelligel/dum puto, 11011 seculldum haereticos l'el seclllldum
ludaeos. According to Baehrens ad loc., HLv IV.6 as well contains an allusion to HIer
XI.5: De /ineis saepe iam dictulII est, et tunc maxime, cum de illdumelltis sacerdotalibus
dicebamus quod species ista formam teneat castitatis, quia origo lilli ita de terra editur,
ut ex lIulla admixtiol/e cOllcepta sit.
87. HEz XI.5: eo tempore quo Hieremiam exposuimus.
88. HEz VIA, on Jb 40,11: scio ex his, ql/ae mihi gratia divilla largita est, cum prae-
selltem {ocum expollerem, me dixisse, quod draco sit fortitudo cOlltraria - according to
HARNACK, Geschichte der altchristlichell Literatur bis Eusebius (n. 49), p. 355, a possible
reference to HIob (on which see NAUTIN, Origène [n. 4], p. 259). In HEz IX.4 we find a
reference to a previous preaching on Lk 16,19, which could perhaps point to the cycle
devoted to the third gospel: Proponamusprilllum id quod alite multos dies lectum est,
30 L.PERRONE
sive explanations delivered by Origen on the book of Psalms, we find
again two instances regarding them: an interpretation of Ps 118 in the
Homilies on Leviticus (HLv XIII.2)89 and of Ps 100 in the Homilies on
Joshua (HIos XV.6)90. Theu' case resembles to some extent that of the
evidence colIected from the Greek homilies, but here it is perhaps
allowed to argue more openly in favour of two homilies and their writ-
ten tradition within presumably a cycle devoted to Psalms. FinaIly, with
regard to the homilies on the New Testament, the Homilies on Luke
alIude to a previous exposition on Deuteronomy (HLc VIII.3)91 and on
the First Letter to the Corinthians (HLc XVII.ll)92; while uncertainty
remains as to the geme to wmch one should ascribe the extant Greek
fragments of Origen's exegesis on the Pauline letter, also in view of the
evidence colIected so far, it is once more preferable to assume that
Origen is refelTing to one of ms sermons. As for the previous comment
on Deuteronomy, the invitation to 'read' it, in Jerome's translation, do es
not necessarily imply the existence of excerpta, but can be applied to a
vestitum bysso et purpura divitem cotidie deliciis luxuriaque laetantem et Lazarum vul-
nel1/1n tabe et vermill/II paedore confectulll quaerentem solacium famis suae micas quae
de mensa eius decidebant. Yet Origen seems first to deliver here the explanation of the
passage that had been read before sorne time.
89. HLv XIII.2: Memini tamen dudll/llnos, cum cel/tesimi oeta vi decimi psalmi expo-
l/eremllS ilium versiclllllm, in quo scriptum est: lucerna pedibus meis lex tua, Domine, et
lumen semitis meis, diversitatem 'lucemae' et 'lucis' pro viribus ostendisse. Dicebamus
enim quod 'lucemam' quidem 'pedibus', id est inferioribus corporis partibus deputarit,
'lucem' vero 'semitis' dederit, quae 'semitae' in alio loco 'semitae aeternae' nominantur.
Quia ergo secundum quandam mysticam rationem inferiores partes creaturae mill/dus hic
intelligitur, ideo 'lucema' legis his qui in lzoc mundo tamquam totius creaturae pedes sunt,
accensa memoratur. 'Lux' autem aetema erit il/is 'semitis', pel' quas in futuro saeculo
III/usquisque pro meritis incedet. Sed de his ill suo loco sllfficiel/ter pro 1I0stris viriblls
dictlll1l est.
90. HIos XV.6: Memini autelll similia me dixisse etiam il/ his locis, ill qlliblls expol/e-
bamlls versiclllll11l psalmi, il/ quo scriptum est: in matutinis interficiebam omnes pecca-
tores terrae, ut disperdam de civitate Domini omnes, qui operabantur iniquitatem (Ps 100
[101],8).
91. HLc Vill.3: Memil/i qllol/dam DellterOllOl1Iilll1l disserelltem in eo loco, ubi scrip-
tum est: Ne faciatis omnem similitudinem maris auf feminae, similitudinem omnis anima-
lis (Dt 4,16-17) dixisse me quoniamlex spiritalis est (Rm 7,14), alios facere imagil/em
masculi, alios feminae, il/wn similitudil/em habere volucrum, istum reptilium atque ser-
pel/tium et alium facere similitudil/em Dei. Haec quomodo illfelligal/tur, sciet qui et il/a
legerit. Ifwe recall the way the commentaries quote the homilies, Nautin's comment here
does not stand: "on doit remarquer qu'Origène renvoie ici à un texte écrit (legerit), ce
qu'i! ne fait jamais quand il renvoie à des homélies; on est donc fondé à penser que cette
référence vise plutôt des scolies sur le Deuteronome qui ont été omises dans la liste de
Jérôme en même temps que les scolies sur les Nombres attestées par Rufin" (NAUTIN,
Origène ln. 4], p. 247).
92. HLe XVII. 11 : memini, eum illterpretal'el' illud, quod ad Corillthios scribitur:
ecclesiae dei etc. (1 Cor 1,2) dixisse me diversitatem ecclesiarum et eOl1l1n, qui il/voeant
nomen Domini. See supra, n. 42.
OR/GENES PRO DOMO SUA 31
better attested series of homilies. AlI in aIl, if we exclude this unique
OCCUlTence, the witness of the homilies can be best taken to support our
pm'pose here, when we approach it from the perspective of the com-
mentaries expressly attesting to their written transmission as ad hoc
series on the relative biblical book. Within this distinctive corpus itself,
one is led to think that the expected readership is not necessarily calIed
to exp and their knowledge by recourse to a fuller exegesis elsewhere,
that is apart from the homilies themselves, inasmuch as these tenden-
tialIy address a distinct, more general audience. There is indeed a
'reversibility' of the homilies, when they necessarily take the place of
the commentaries, but these apparently do not share such quality.
To conclude our analysis of Origen's self-quotations, we should finally
examine those l hinted at before as coming near to a sort of 'biblio-
graphie entries'. They provide us with the most detailed indications of
previous writings and, secondarily, with the author's appreciation of
ms own œuvre. This is exactly the case with the citation of an earlier
work such as the Stromata in Book 13 of the Commenta/yon John
(CIo XIII.45.298)93. In view of Origen's subsequent production, we must
suppose that on some topies dealt with in this miscellaneous work his
thought evolved, as is proved for instance by the composition of the
Commenta/yon Genesis and the Treatise on Resurrection94 • Notwith-
standing that, some years later, when writing the commentary on the
fourth gospel, Origen resorted to a cU'cumstantial quote from the third
book of the Stromata (Èv 't0 'tphcp 'twv L'tPCOllu'tÉCOV) by resuming the
content of the relevant section. This concerned the 'joyful state of the
mind' that experiences the contemplation of divine mysteries, in connec-
tion with Mt 6,4.6 ("thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee
openly"). Though this line of argument comes quite close to the reflec-
tions the Alexandrian had meanwhile developed in De oratione (whieh
moreover comprises a minute exegesis of Mt 6), he expects his readers
to refer to a partieular, still valid treatment in the previous work.
It is the same concern for an expected readership that leads Origen to
introduce several items of this kind in the Contra Celsum, which poten-
93. CIo XIII.45.298, on Jn 4,36: Kut vOI.tiÇro otà J.lI;V 1:àC; J.lE1:à 1:uihu È1tuyyEÂ,tuc;
a
ÈcroJ.lÉVUC; KU1:à 1:à yEYPUJ.lJ.lÉvu· ']000 T<l5pzoç Kal /.aafJàç avrov Ill' rtl X81pl avrov, à1tooov-
l'QI é!,âarcp Karà rà epyov avrov (Rev 22,12; 1s 40,10; Ps 61,13) EipficrBut 1:0 MlafJàl'
J..apfJâl'81 (Jn 4,36) otà 01; 1:~V Ù1t' UÙ1:fiC; 1:fiC; BEroptUC; clJ<j>ÉÂ.EtaV, UÙ1:6BEV KU1:à <j>ucrtv
oÔcruv 1:<p v<p KUt 1:n Â.oytKn È~UtpE1:0V 1:11yxuvollcrUV Kut Xroptc; É1:Éprov 1tupà 1:uunlV
B1tUyyEÂ.troV YEypu<j>Bat 1:0 L'VVâYBI lwp1tàv Blç (WIll' aldJv/Ov (Jn 4,36), 01tEp Eù1tuBEtUV
nvu 1:0Ù TtyEJ.lOVtKoÙ 0llÂ.ot, roc; Kut Èv 1:I{I 'tph:C(l 1:rov ~'tprofla'tÉrov 1tUpEcr1:ltcrUJ.lEV
a
Ot1lYOUJ.lEVOt 1:0 '0 1tanlP aov fJJ..énwv Ill' rij) Kpvnrij) à1tOOWa81 aOI (Mt 6,4.6).
94. See the argument of NAUTIN supporting the anteriority of Strom on Res (supra, n. 73).
32 L.PERRONE
tially addressed a public not necessarily familiar with his contributions
to biblical exegesis, if we cannot exclu de from it also interested pagans.
For this reason Origen, instead of adopting as elsewhere the more com-
mon and less specialized forms of self-quotations, is especially careful in
introducing them with more precision. Besides that, the Contra Celsum,
being situated towards the end of his literary career, provides us with a
significant retrospective view on several of the Alexandrian's writings.
He mentions twice the Commenta/yon Genesis (CC VI.49.51) and the
Commenta/yon Romans (CC VA7; VIll.65), once the treatise On Resur-
rection (CC V.20), the Commentaly on the Psalms (CC VII.31), and the
Commenta/yon First Thessalonians (CC II.63). Among his major works,
apart from the Commenta/yon John and the Commenta/yon Matthew,
which he composed during the same period, Origen is surprisingly silent
about the Peri Archôn. This treatise, which nevertheless included so
many essential topics emerging in the reply to the Platonic philosopher,
is at best the object of a generic allusion (CC lV.3)95. It looks as if the
Alexandrian would be, so to say, once and for all especially concerned
with recommending his profile as exegete.
It is with regard to this point that he, on the one hand, exclusively refers
to his biblical commentaries, and on the other evaluates their specifie con-
tribution to the actual debate with Celsus. Thus, for a thorough-going expo-
sition on the circumcision and the different teachings related to it, the reader
is referred back to Origen's comprehensive treatment in the Commenta/y
on Romans (CC VA7)96. Of course, within an apology he cannot provide
the extensive interpretation of a scriptural passage, as the Alexandrian
expressly states when mentioning a second time the same commentary (CC
VIll.65)97. It is not incidental that this new occurrence seems to emphasize
more than usually the multifaceted interpretation proposed by the author on
Rm 13,1-2 and contrasts it with a 'simpler' one at present98 • Such a preoc-
95. CC N.3: "OÀl1ço' EtÇ 'tau'ta 1tpaYJ.la'tstaç xpEia' 1tEpt ~ç OÙK ôÀiya Èv 'tOî'ç
1tEpt 1tpovoiaç Kat "EÀÀI1VEÇ dp~Kaow, oi J.li] El1tOV'tEç av a1tEp 6 KéÀeroç ÈÇ,éSE'tO
ÀByroV' oloE J.lév, OÙK È1tavopSoî' oé, oùo' olov 'tE aù,<!> OUVUJ.lEt SstÇL È1tavopSouv.
Kat ltJlElS ôÈ 1toÂÂo.xou Ko.'tlx 'to ÔIlVo.'tOV ltJliv dpftKo.JlEV 1tEPl 'tOU'trov, Kat Ol Ssî'ot
Àoyot 'tOî'ç àKoUEtv ûUVaJ.lBVoV; aù,cDV 1tapBer'tl1erav. For MARCOVICH ad loe., mentions
Prin 1II.1 among other texts.
96. CC V.47: Oü,roç Û' E'(11 av Ka'tà 'tà ûtu<j>opa 'tcDV 1tEPt'tEJlVOJ.lBVroV 06YJ.la'ta
ûtu<j>opoç l11tEpt'tOJ.li], 1tEpt ~ç Èv 'totoU,Cj) eruyypuJ.lJ.lan OÙK àvaYKaî'ov vuv ÀByEtv·
o,Cj) yàp <j>iÀov tÛEî'V 'tà Ktv~eraVta T]J.làç EtÇ 'tov 't01tOV, âvo.yvol1:ro 1tEpi o.ll'tOU Èv 'toiS
ds 'tT]V 1tpOS 'ProJlo.iollS È1tlO''toÂT]V 1100uÂoll npaYJlo.'CEIl3EiO'lV ltJliv. For MARCOVICH
ad loe. cf. CRIIl Il.12-13.
97. 1 insisted on the mark left on Origen's apology by his activity as exegete in Pra
silenzio e parola (n. 1), pp. 119-129.
98. CC VIII.65: 'AvéyvroflEV yàp Kat 'to JIMa lfIuXI) SÇOUCTÎalÇ un8p8xovCTalç
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 33
cupation, which structurally conditions the apologist in Contra Celsum,
appears to be even more impressive when Origen comes to quote his Com-
menta/y on Genesis, one of his most impOltant works. In Book 6 he is at
first fond of remarking that he had delivered there a detailed intetpretation
of the narrative of creation and the origins of humankind up to chapter 5 of
Genesis (CC VI.49), conforming to the scholarly method of quaestio et
responsio ('tù KWTtcruV'tu 1Î!-laç) and finalized towards a scientific demon-
stration (!-lc'tù 'tflç <j>UVclcrTJÇ Ù1tOOclScffiÇ) for every item of the text99 . But
at the same time, shortly afterwards, Origen goes back to his previous com-
mentary situating it in the long span of time that elapsed since its redaction
(CC Vl.51)100:
On the present occasion, however, it is not our object to enter into an expla-
nation of the subject of intelligent and sensible beings, nor of the manner
in which the different kinds of days were allotted ta both sorts, nor to
investigate the details which belong to the subject, for we should need
whole treatises for the exposition of the Mosaic cosmogony; and that work
we had already perfOlmed, ta the best of our ability, a considerable time
before the commencement of this answer ta Celsus, when we discussed with
such measure of capacity as we then possessed the question of the Mosaic
cosmogony of the six days.
This passage is indeed revealing in many respects. Undoubtedly it
recalls once more the previous exposition and its own merits. It does not
UnOT:aCTCTéCT.9W. Où )'o.p SCT'[/V sçouCTia 81 Ill) unD .98oD, al oè Ol)CTal unD .geoD 7:8T:a)'fléval
elCTiV' WCT7:8 01 àV.9W7:IJIC07:8Ç 7:fi sçouCTiÇ! 7:fi WD .9eoD o/a7:a)'fi àv.9iCT7:aVrm (Rm 13,1-2).
'Ev JlÉVtOl 'lE 'toiS ds tT]V npos 'Pro/lIXioIlS ÈÇ,l]Yl]'tlKois, ms ÔUvo.tOv ~V lt/liv, Ènt
nÂEiov KIXt 'tIXUto. tà PTIJlIX'to. n01KiÂroS ÈSl]'tUO'o.JlEV· VUV 0' aù,à EtÇ 'to 1tpoKdJ.lEVOV
cmÀouer'tEpov Ka'tà ÛIV KotVotépav ÈKûoXi]V 1tapEtÀi]<j>aJ.lEv. This is a precise refer-
ence to CRm IX.26.
99. CC VI.49: Et oé nç ~ouÀE'tat 'Cà Ktv~eravm T]J.làç Kat J.lE'tà 'tfjç <j>avderl1ç
ùnoÛEtç,EroÇ Ka'taerKEuaerSév,a nEpt 'Cfjç Ka'tà Mroiieréa KoerJ.l0notîaç SEropfjerat,
Àa~B'tro 'tà npo.YJlo.'tEll3ÉVto.lJJliv dS 'tT]V rl':VEO'W àno 'Cfjç ùpxfjç 'tOU ~t~Àtou J.lBxpt
'tOU Avnl ~ fJifJÀoç )'8véCT8WÇ àv.9pwnwv (On 5,1), SV otç nE1tEtpuJ.lESa Ù1t' aù,cDV 'tcDV
SEirov ypaJ.lJ.lu'trov Ka,aerKEUuerat, tiç 6 sv àpxiJ yEVOJ.lEVOÇ oùpavoç Kat yfj Kat ,0
'tfjç yfjç àopa'tov Kat àKa'taerKEuaer'tOV, Kat 'tiç 111i~uereroç Kat 'to Èn' aù,fjç erKo'toç,
'ti 't6 'to üùrop Kat 'to È1tt<j>EpOJ.l6VOV aÎn<!> nV8Dpa WD .980D, Kat 'tt 'to YEVI1'OV cjJwç, 'tt
'tE 7:0 CTupéwfla 1tapà 'tOV sv àpxiJ yEVOJ.lEVOV oùpavov, Kat oü,ro 'Cà ÉÇ,fjç). On the
application of the method of Çi]'CI1J.la Kat ÂIlertç in CGn, see my article "QlIaestiones et
responsiones" in Origene: Prospettive di IIn'analisiformale dell'argomentazione esege-
tieo-teologiea, in Cristianesimo nella Storia 15 (1994) 1-50, pp. 15-19.
100. CC VI.51: Nuv oi; ûtll'Y~eraerSat 'tov nEpt VOI1'tcDV Kat aterSI1'CcDV Myov, Kat
'ttva 'tponov ÛtaVEVBJ.ll]Vtat ai <j>6erEtç 'tcDV l1J.lEPcDV stç à~l<j>o'tEpa 'tà sïÛI1, où
npoKEt'tat oùùi; 'tà Katà 'tOùç 'tonouç sç,E'tuerat· oÀrov yàp ~J.lî'v eruv'tuç,Erov xpsta stç
,i]v oti]Yl1ertv 'tfjç Katà Mroiieréa KoerJ.l0notîaç· onEp KIX'tà 'Co ÔIlVIX'tOV lJJliv npo
nÂEiovoS XPOVOIl tilS ÈVEO''tljKllio.S npos tOV KÉÂO'ov O'IlVtUSEroS nEnotftKIX/lEV, âno 'tils
npo nÂElovrov Ènov ËSEroS, l1Ç ÈXropOUJ.lEV ,O,E, ûtaÀa~ov,Eç nEpt 'tcDV Ka'tà Mroiieréa
Ilç, 'tfjç KoerJ.l0notîaç l1J.lEPcDV. Translations of CC are taken from: The Writings of Ori-
gen, trans. F. Crombie, Edinburgh, 1870-1872.
34 L.PERRONE
altogether avoid the impression that the topics would deserve a new treat-
ment - and this on a double account: first, the imp01tance and width of
the subject itself, a capital metaphysical problem; second, despite the
treatment av ail able in the Commentary on Genesis, not only 'a consider-
able time' has elapsed, but the 'measure of capacity' (s1;tc;) of the author
has changed and - as it is, of course, implied - progressed since then.
Thus, towards the end of his literary activity we find again a 'key-word'
of the beginnings: the same we met in the Preface to the Commentary on
Psalms 1-25, when Origen started his career as a wdter overcoming the
feeling to be still inadequate 101 . Now, he can look back to his works as
an organic corpus of writings and on occasion recommend some among
them in pruticular. In the course of time a literary heritage has come to
existence, first of all in the eyes of the author himself. Yet we should not
forget the living dynamics in which the Alexandrian gave shape to its
œuvre, which definitely locates his literary project in its proper value.
N. FOR THE SAKE OF AN OVERALL EXEGESIS:
ORIGEN'S SELF-ANNOUNCEMENTS
Self-quotations have proved to be an important key in order to better
know the awru'eness of the author hirnself concerning his own literary per-
sonality and work. As such, they have helped us to confinn the exegetical
core of Origen's writing activity, which substantiates it throughout its dif-
ferent manifestations. In addition to this, self-references emphasize the
stock of writings, which gradually has come to grow, and lead us, at least
to sorne extent, to discover its inner ruticulations, insofru' as the author
focuses on different genres - with a clear preference first of all for the
commentaries, and secondly for the homilies, over the treatises - and on
some particulru' works. Though we cannot exclude a celtain degree of
arbitrariness and occasionality in this selection, self-quotations tend to indi-
cate the main pillars in the irnposing building of Origen's œuvre. Actually,
they should not be taken as an isolated and absolute criterion. To rightly
evaluate the l'ole of Fremdzitate and Selbstzitate as a way to establish the
authorial identity, as l stated in my initial premises, it is still necessary to
analyze also the author's ability for future projects, based on which he is
planning or hoping to enlru'ge the construction of his œuvre. Origen pro-
vides abundant evidence on this aspect, which contributes in supporting the
conclusions reached through our examination of self-quotations.
101. Cf. supra n. 5. See also n. 34.
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 35
Resuming this rich material, we might classify the self-announcements
of future works according to a pattern which includes, without operating
too rigid a distinction, the following categories: 1) generic treatments
'elsewhere'102; 2) specific expositions on scripturalloei; 3) discussions
of particular problems 103 ; 4) specialized works with a definite literary
profile. The sirnilarity with the classification of quotations is immediately
evident and does not need any further comment. Despite the seemingly
vaded typology, the focus always remains essentially on the interpreta-
tion of Scripture. For the sake of brevity, we can rapidly mention the
passages in Peri Archôn in which the Alexandrian, although still rather
genedcally, actually seems to anticipate what he is going to do with his
Commentary on Genesis (Prin 1.2.6)104 and the Commentary on John
(Prin 1.2.13)105, respectively by commenting upon Gn. 1,26, i.e., the
theme of God's image in man, and by systematically reviewing the
'epithets' (appellation es, or bd,votut) of the Son of God. Likewise, the
Commentmy on John aheady in Book 6 preannounces - 'with the help
of God' - the future exegesis of a passage of the Gospel of Matthew
(Mt 11,4-5) 'in its proper place' (CIo V1.9.55)I06 and in Book 10 a sim-
ilar intention now betrays the more definite project of a proper commen-
truy on the first gospel (CIo X.30.191)107. As if this were not enough, in
102. See, for example, Orat III.3, on Moses and the plagues of Egypt: Dtà 'd Di> OÙK
stpl']Tat Ka) 'lf5çaw Ole; È1tt TroV 1tpOTBpCOV à'}.':;,: sçsnéraas 7:àç Xâpo.ç npàç /(/)PIOV (Ex
9,33), E\JKUlpOTEpOV Èv anOle; ÈSETUO'TÉOV. Cf. also CIo 1.23.143: 'AÀÀà Kat
ùvS\mocpopà SÙÀoycoe; È1tsvsxSîlVat Duvaf.lÉVl'] OfJ1C è!CÀeiIjlSI apxOJv sç 'Iowa, Ka}
Ilyovflsvoç è!( nov flllPWV o.vrov (Gn 49,10) Èv anOle; E\JKUlpOtEpOV ),u1lilO'EtUl.
103. This is the case with the plan of the questions to be dealt with in a future treatise
on the soul (not entirely realized in Prin), as proposed by CIo VI.14.8S: ITpol']YOUf.lÉvcoe;
Di> Èv anOle; È1tlflEÀÉO'tEpov ÈSEtUO'tÉOV Kat È1tt1tÀSlOV TOV Myov ÈpSUVl']TÉOV TOV
1tSpt Tîle; oùcr(ae; Tîle; 1jIuxîle; Kat Tîle; ùpxîle; Tîle; crucrTucrscoe; aÙTîle; Kat Tîle; ste; TO
yi)ïvov crrof.la stcrKplcrscoe; aÙTîle;, TroV TS È7ttf.lsptcrf.lrov TOÙ ÉKUcrTl']e; ~(ou Kat Tîle;
ÈVTSÙSSV ù1taÀÀayîle;, Kat SI ÈVDÉXSTat aÙT~V slcrKptSîlvat DsiiTSpOV Èv crwf.lan il
f.li), Kai Tn aÙTn 1tspt68q> Kat Tn aÙTn DWKocrf.li)crst il oü, Kai T0 aÙT0 crWf.laTt il
ÉTÉpq>, Kat st T0 aÙT0, 1tOTSpOV KaS' U1tOKs\f.lSVOV f.lÉvovn T0 aÙT0 KaTà Di>
1totoTl']Ta f.lsTa~aÀof.lÉvq>, il Kat KaS' U1tOKslf.lSVOV Kai 1totoTl']Ta Ècrof.lÉVq> T0 aÙT0,
Kat st ùd T0 aùt0 crcOf.lan Xpi)crSTat il Ùf.lsl1jlst aùTô,
104. Prin 1.2.6: de quo diligentil/s deo tavente, CIl/Il/0CU11I ;pSU11I ;11 Gelles; expollere
coeperi11llls, videbimus. .\
105. Prin 1.2.13: Multll/Il al/tem e~f et alterius operis vel temporis congregare Ollllles
filii dei appellation es, verbi causa, quolllodo l'el lumen venl/Il est vel ostiulll vel iustitia
l'el sanctificatio l'el redemptio et alia innumera, et quibus ex causis vel virtutibus vel
affectibus 1II1l111lquodque horum nominetur, exponere. This program was to be realized in
CIo 1.
106. CIo V1.9.SS: ITspt cbv sÙKatpôTSpOV, S60G Ot8ôVTOe;, ÈV toie; oi.KEiole;
DWÀT)1jIôf.lsSa tÔ1tOle;.
107. CID X.30.191: Kat TaGm f.li>v KaTà Diivaf.l1V EÎe; tÙ 1tUpÙ ti[> Mut3uiq> ÀEK-
tÉov, TOÙ OÀOKÀi)poU Kat1tapà TaÙta àKpt~scrTÉpOU ÀOyou SÔKatpoTSpOV, (S'Cav ste;
36 L.PERRONE
Book 32 Origen postpones an exposition on the 'incident at Antioch'
reserving it more appropriately for a future Commenta/yon Galatians,
to which he subsequently devoted five books (CIo XXXII.5.63)108. In
other cases, the Alexandrian lists additional tasks with whose possibility
in a near future he seems to reckon more or less directly. It happens so,
when in the Commenta/yon John he evokes the idea of a Commenta/y
on Deuteronomy (CIo XXXII. 18.22)109 - on which in fact he must have
been able only to preach, unless he means the excelpta - or when he on
several occasions anticipates an explanation of several psalms llO • Para-
doxically, such announcements become more and more frequent towards
the end of his literary career, as witnessed both by the Commenta/yon
Matthew and the Contra Celsum. The fmIDer, among other possible
future projects1ll , while postponing the exegesis of Rev 12,3-4, announces
a Commenta/yon Revelation (CMtS 49), a goal never to be reached by
the Alexandrian in his lifetime ll2 . As for the Contra Ce/sum, in Book 7
'to Ka'tà Ma't~}(nov ~l-ltV ÂéyEtV oosfi, ÂEXSTjcrol-lévou. Whereas no explanation is
given of Matthew's paraUel passage, Origen devotes his synoptie treatrnent to Mark and
Luke. Is this a sign that at the moment he did not plan a specifie commentary on both
gospels?
108. CIo XXXII.5.63: 'tou oÈ I-lE'tà cr'tt~oUe; O"lC01tfJcravwe; Kat 'to Ka'tà 'tov 't01tOV
EÜÂOyOV àVEstKaKona'ta I-li] napacr'tfJcrav'toe;, nEpl oiS Èv 'Cflnpoc; raÎ..u'Cuc; OlKEIO'CEpOV
'CIC; OlUÎ..lt\jlE'CUI. Instead of supposing a necessary integration of the text (e.g., with a word
like npaYl-la'tEta), do we find here a way of referring similar to that we have seen above
for the self-quotations: that is, of the type 'in the book', and therefore here 'in the letter'
(cf. supra, nn. 55-56)? For Origen's exegesis of Galatians, see Origene. Esegesi paolina
(n. 28), pp. 19-23.
109. CIo XXXII. 18.222: àÂÂà 'tà nEpi I-lÈv 'tou'Cou OlKEtO'tEpOV ÊV 'CoiC; dC; 'Co
AElltEpOVO/lIOV 6SE'CacrSEÎTj av. Cf. supra, n. 91.
110. For instance, in Phil 25.4 = CRm 1: vuv 08 ànoOtùOvat Eie; 'to àno 'tGu 'l'aÂl-lou
PTj'tov OÙK ~v EüKatpoV, napEK~a'ttKov yàp ~v' Oto Ete; 'ti]v olKEÎav 'tustV Swu
OtùOVWe; ànoooSfJcrE'tat, (J'Cuv 'Cov \jIuÂ/lOV OltlyOO/lESu. JUNOD 233 ad loc.: "il est assez
surprenant qu'Origène repense au Ps 57,4. Aurait-il conscience de s'en être tiré à bon
compte en se bornant à souligner l'absurdité de l'interprétation littérale du psaume? il
serait ainsi décidé à en donner la véritable signification lorsqu'il aurait le loisir de com-
menter le psaume dans son entier. On peut en conclure qu'Origène avait, peu avant 244,
l'intention de commenter des psaumes, palmi lesquels le Ps 57".
111. One of them concems a future commentary on 3 Killgdoms and 2 Paralipomena.
Cf. CMtS 138, on the curtain of the temple: Quae autem fuerint il/a, non est temporis
huius exponere, quoniam ml/ltam et difficilem Înterpretatiollem Sll/lt habelltia. Opportu-
nills autem convenit ea exponere in tertio libro Reg1/orum et in secundo Paralipomenoll,
ill qui bus scriptum est de templo et de his quae posita SUllt illtra velum.
112. CMtS 49: Omnia //Gec expollere sillgillatim de capitibus septem draconis, quae
forsitall pOSSl/llt referri l'el ad aliquos prillcipes remm lIequitiae, sive ad tallta ducentium
ad mortem peccata, Ilon est temporis /Illius; exponentur alltem tempore suo in Revela-
tione Iohal/1lis ... Homm autem prillcipales expositiones atque probatiolles oportet fieri,
Cllm ipse liber propositus fuerit nobis ad expone1/dum. For the state of discussion on
Origen's exegesis of revelation, see C. MAZZUCCO, Apocalisse, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO
(ed.), Origelle. Diziollario: La cultura, il pensiero, le opere, Roma, 2000, 22-24.
ORIGENES PRO DOMO SUA 37
Origen, not content to recall two previous commentaries on Psalms 45
and 47 treating the motive of the 'city of God', announces a 'commentary
on the prophets' (CC VII.31)1l3:
Refen'ing to the passage in the P haedo of Plato, Celsus says: "It is not easy
for everyone to understand the meaning ofPlato's words, when he says that
on account of our weakness and slowness we are unable to reach the high-
est region of the air; but that if our nature were capable of so sublime a
contemplation, we would then be able to understand that that is the tme
heaven, and that the tme light". As Celsus has deferred to another oppor-
tunity the explanation of Plato's idea, we also think that it does not faH
within our purpose at present to enter into any full description of that holy
and good land, and of the city of God which is in it; but reserve the con-
sideration of it for our Commentary on the Prophets, having aIready in part,
according to our power, treated of the city of God in our remarks on the
forty-fifth and fOlty-seventh Psalms.
Here Origen, in spite of the fact that he refrains from a specialized
exegesis, defel1'ing it to a future commentary, while intervening once
more pro domo sua recalls sorne previous contributions and restates theu'
validity at the time of writing. By so doing he asserts once more what he
wished to be from the start: a writer in the service of Scripture. Driven
by such a vocation and such a task, he worked hard to explain as much
as possible of the Bible. Also from his se1f-announcements it is c1ear that
Origen's tendential design was - as both Harnack and Nautin have rightly
recognised in recent times - to comment upon the entire Scripture 1l4 •
Even if he could not realize his intention of a complete exegesis, he did
not cease to propose it as his own constant goal through allusions and
~ suggestions for further deve1opments. Of course, in the eyes of Origen
scriptural interpretation, due to its particular object - the knowledge
of the divine mysteries - could never be considered as definitive. His
dec1arations of modesty recurring now and then, in connection with self-
quotations and se1f-announcements as well, were meant to stress this
inescapable limitation. And yet it was the work ofiAterpreter of the Bible
113. CC VII.31: où Ka'tà 'ti]v 6vEcr'trocrav v0I-l[ÇOV'tEe; dVal npaYl-la'tEtav
cra<j>Tjv[crat unEpnSél-lESa dc; 'Cà ÈSTjYTj'CIKà 'Coov 1tpo<j>Tj'Coov, àno I-lÉpoue; Ka'tà 'to
ouva'tov ~I-ltv OtT]YTjcrUI-lEVotnEpi nOÂECOe; Swu Èv 'CoiS 1tpuY/lu'CEIlSEimv ~/liv dC; 'Cov
'CEO'O'UpUKOO''COV KUlnÉ/l1t'tOv \jIuÎ../lov KUl tOV 'CEO'O'UpUKOO''COV Kui ifpoo/lov \jIuÎ../lov.
114. HARNACK, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius (n. 49), p. 338
quotes Epiphanius: 6S aùwù yàp 'tou crK01tOU ~ouÂ6I-lEVOe; I-lTj08V 'Coov SE[COV ypa<j>oov
6ucrat àVEWTJVEUWV (haeres. 64.3). According to NAUTIN, Origène ln. 4], p. 374, "un
auteur qui a formé le projet - et c'est visible dans le cas d'Origène - de commenter la
Bible entière ne s'amuse pas à cueillir un livre par-ci et un autre par-là. il procède par
grands ensembles: livres historiques, prophétiques, sapientiaux, quel que soit l'ordre dans
lequel il prend ces ensembles".
38 L.PERRONE

that gave fuIllegitimity to Origen's writing activity, nurtured his literary

design in its far-reaching dynamics and thus opened the way, to an
unprecedented extent so far and also later on, for the magnificent con- FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY: HISTORY OF A WORD
struction of his œuvre. ON MALTOAH AND RELATED TERMS IN ORIGEN AND
IN THE ORIGENIAN TRADITION
"Alma Mater Studiorum" Lorenzo PERRONE
Università di Bologna
Dipartimento di Filologia Classica e Medioevale In a passage of his Commentai) on Genesis conserved by the Philo-
Via Zamboni 32, 1-40126 Bologna calia, Origen states the following:
lorenzo.pe~Tone@unibo.it
What absurdity is there in listening to those who determine the exact mean-
ing of words in different languages, and in carefuHy attending to the things
signified? And we sometimes through ignorance of logic faH into great
enOfS, because we do not clear up the equivocal senses, ambiguities, misap-
plications, literaI meanings, and distinctions 1 .

In this context, among other grammatical telTIlS, he discusses ota-

CycoÀi], attributing to it a very special place; it is, moreover, a term that
rather often occurs in Origen's writings, with an almost complete seman-
tic range2 • The cited text comes from a section of Philocalia that con-
cems the importance of applying logic to biblical exegesis 3 • The Ota-
Ci'WÀi] represents here in aIl respects a necessary semantic 'distinction'
to be applied to misleading homonymies, which in this case Origen
illustrates with an example consisting with a wrong interpretation of the
term 'world', especially within exegesis of gnostic character.
i) With the same meaning of 'semantic distinction', the term is encoun-
tered in a passage of Contra Celsum:
Celsus proceeds to say of God that "of Him are aH things", abandoning (in
so speaking), l know not how, aH his principles; while our Paul declares
[Rom 11,36], that "of Him, and through Him, and to Him are aH things",
showing that He is the beginning of the substance of aH things by the words
"of Him", and the bond of then' subsistence by the expression "through

1. Phil 14,2,5-14 [= CGI/ 12,89], ed. J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON, Cambridge, 1893, p. 69;
see Origène, Philocalie, 1-20: Sur les Écritures, Intr., texte, trad. et notes par M. HARL
[SC, 302], Paris, 1983, pp. 408ff.: -rI yàp èholtov àKOUBIV -rrov Kl>plOÀBKWl>llÉVIDV Èv
-ruIç OIUÀÉK-rOlÇ, Kut È<pw-ravBlv È1tlIlBÀroÇ 'tOIç 0'1l1luwo1lÉV01Ç; BO'n oi; OltOI> ltupà
-rl1V ayvoluv -rrov ÀOylKrov IlByaÀIDç ltBplltllt'tOIlBV, 1111 KUSulpovm; -ràç ÔIlIDVI>llluÇ
KUt àll<Pl~OÀIUÇ KUt KU'tUXpi]O'BIÇ Kut Kl>plOÀBSlac; Kut oWO''tOÀétç [... ].
2. See H.G. LIDDELL - R. SCOTT - H.S. JONES [= LSJ], A Greek-EI/glish Lexicon,
Oxford, 91996, S.v.; H. STEPHANUS, Thesau11/s Graecae Linguae, repr. Graz, 1954, III,
1327s., s.v.
3. "They who wish to rightly understand the Divine Scriptures must of necessity be
acquainted with the 10gica1 principles adapted to their use; without these they cannot
conceive the exact meaning of the thoughts expressed, as they should do".
40 A. CACCIARI
Him", and their final end by the terms "to Him". Of a tlUth, God is of
nothing. But when Celsus adds, that "He is not to be reached by word", 1
make a distinction (otaa1ÉÀÀollat), and say that if he means the word that
is in us - whether the word conceived in the mind, or the word that is
uttered - I, too, admit that God is not to be reached by word. If, however,
we attend to the passage, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God" [Joh 1,1], we are of opinion that
God is to be reached by this Word, and is comprehended not by Him only,
but by anyone whatever to whom "He may reveal the Father" [Mat 11,27];
and thus we shaIl praye the falsity of the assertion of Celsus, when he says,
"Neither is God to be reached by word". The statement, moreover, that "He
cannot be expressed by name", requires to be taken with a distinction
(otaa10Àflç;). If he means, indeed, that there is no word or sign that can
represent the attributes of God, the statement is tlUe, since there are many
qualities which cannot be indicated by words. Who, for example, could
describe in words the difference betwixt the quality of sweetness in a palm
and that in a fig? And who could distinguish (otaa1BtÀaaBat) and set forth
in words the peculiar qualities of each individual thing? It is no wonder,
then, if in this way God cannot be described by name. But if you take the
phrase to mean that it is possible to represent by words something of God's
attributes, in order to lead the heat'er by the hand, as it were, and so enable
him to comprehend something of God, so far as attainable by human nature,
then there is no absurdity in saying that "He can be described by name".
And we make a similar distinction (otaa10Àflç;) with regard to the expres-
sion, "for He has undergone no suffering that can be conveyed by words".
It is tlUe that the Deity is beyond aIl suffering. And so much on this point".
ii) It is found with a similar meaning, as a generic synonym of ota-
<popa, but especially in relation to commentaries on biblical texts5 •
4. CC VI,65 (ed. P. KOETSCHAU, GCS 3 [Origenes Werke, 2], Leipzig, 1899, p. 135):
'0 I-lÈv oÔv KÉÂcros 1tEpt ~EOD <j>llcrtv on ÈS aùwD 'tù 1t!lVta, à1toÂ\JcraS OÙK oIo'
01tCOs 'tù 1tuv'ta aùwu· 6 0' fWÉ'tEpOS IIauÂos '''ES aùwu" ÂÉyBl "Kat 01' aù'tou Kat
EtS aù'tôv 'tÙ 1tuv'ta", 1taplcr'tÙS 'tl)V àpXl)v 1~S 'trov 1tUVTOOV lJ1tocr'tucrEros Èv 'ti!> "ÈS
aÙWD" Kat 'tl)V crUVOXl)V Èv 'ti!> "01' aù'tou" Kat 'tÔ 'tÉÂOS ÈV'ti!> "Bts aù'tov". 'AÂll~roS
oÈ ÈS oN)EVÔS 6 ~EOS. 'E1tEl oÉ <j>llcrtv on oùoÈ Mycp È<j>IK'tOS, owcr'tÉÂÂol-lal 'tÔ
crlll-latvoW>Vov Kal <j>lll-ll' et I-lÈv Mycp 'ti!> Èv fl!Uv, EhE Èvow~É'tcp EhE Kat
1tPO<j>OP1Ki!>, Kat fll-lEIS <j>TIcr0I-lBV on OÙK Ecrnv È<j>IK'tÔS 'ti!> Mycp 6 ~EOS' d oÈ
VOTIcraV'tES 'tô "'Ev àpxn ~v 6 ÂOyoS, Kat 6 ÂOyoS ~v 1tpÔS 1ÔV ~EOV, Kat ~EÔS ~v 6
MyoS" à1to<j>atvoI-lE~a on 't06'tcp 'ti!> Mycp È<j>IK'tOS Ècrnv 6 ~EOS, où I-lovcp aÙ'ti!>
KataÂal-l~aVol-lEVoS àÂÂù Kat ~ uv aù'tÔS à1tOKaÂ\J\jIn 'tÔV 1ta'tÉpa, \jIEUOO1t01TIcrOI-lEV
'tijV KÉÂcrou ÂÉstv <j>UcrKOVWÇ' oùOÈ Mycp È<j>IK'tOS Ècrnv 6 ~EOS. Kat 'tô OÙK ovo-
I-lacr'tôs oÈ o\acrwÂfjs OEl'tal. Et I-lÈv yup, on oN)Èv 'trov Èv ÂÉSEcrl Kat crlll-latv0I-lÉ-
VOIS 06va'tat 1tapacr't~crat 'tÙS tOlo'tll'tas 'tOD ~EOU, àÂll~ÉS Ècrn 'tÔ ÂEyOI-lEVOV, EY yE
Kat 1toÂÂat 1t010'tll'tES OÙK EtcrtV Ovol-lacr'tai. TlS yùp 06va'tal OV0l-lacrt Ola<j>opùv
OODval 1t010'tll'tOS yÂuK6'tl]'tOS <j>OlV1KOS Kat yÂuK6'tll'tOS icrxuooS; TlS oÈ ovol-lan
06va'tal o\acr'tg{Âacr~at Kat 1tapacr't~crat 'tl)V ÉKUcr'tOU iOlav 1tolo'tll'ta;
5. On o\acrwÂTI in the Bible, and especially in the New Testament, see K.R. RENG-
STORF, v. olacr'tÉÂÂro / o\acr'toÂTI, in Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament XII,
1028-1028 (= TWNT VII, 59ss.). In particular on the LXX: J. LusT - E. EYNIKEL -
FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY: HISTORY OF A WORD 41
- CIo X,14,79, and especiaIly XX,24,216 (both explaining Ex 8,19: Kat
oromo Otaa10Ài]v àvà IlÉaov 'tOu ÈlloU Àaou Kat àvà IlÉaoV 10U aou
Àaou K'tÂ.): où yàp yBvvl;, <j>llat [sc il. Herac1eon], 1aU1U 1tva 1fi Éall1<DV
<j>uaBt' <j>BoponOlà yàp Kat àvaÀtaKoV1a 10ÙÇ; ÈIl~ÀllBÉv1aç; eiç; aù1U'
àÀÀ' ÈnBt snpasav 1à ÈKelVCOV spya, 1ÉKva aÙ1rov BtP1l1at. 10lau11lV
08 otaa10Ài]v oBocoKmç; OÙ08 Kav Ènt noaov àno 1roV ypa<j>rov
napBI-lllBitaa1o 1i]V totav OtitYllatV ("For these things, he says, do not
give birth to anyone because of their own nature, for they at'e deadly and
destroy those cast into them, but because sorne have done their works, they
are said to be theit' children. But after he made such a distinction, he did not
support his interpretation from the Scriptures in any way")6.
- CRm 16,22-25 7 ; 3,23,1 8 , both on Rom 3,22-23 (où yup Èa1tv ota-
a'tOÀit· nuv1Bç; yàp tlllap10v Kat ùa1Bpouv1at 1flç; 06SllÇ; 10U ~eou):
the ethnical and religious 'distinction' is here treated, which does not exist
any longer, as aIl people are 'joined together' by sin, which is common to
everyone.
- CRm 10,12,1 9 , on Rom 1O,12a (où yup Èa1tv Otaa10Ài] 'IollOatoll1B
Kat "EÀÀllvoç;, 0 yàp a\)1oç; KOpWÇ; nuv1cov K1À.). In this case, the weIl-
known religious 'distinction' between Jews and Greeks is canceIled, as the
Lord is the same for everyone.
iii) The word assumes the meaning 'grammatical pause', 'punctua-
tion', 'comma,lQ, necessarily inserted by the annotator of texts (usually
K. HAUSPIE, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septllagint, Stuttgart, 22003, s.v.; A. LE BOULLUEC,
L'Exode [Bible d'Alexandrie, 2], Paris, 1989, pp. 127-128 (on Ex 8,19]: "La présence de
o\acr'toÂTI, 'séparation', est liée à une aporie textuelle: le mot conviendrait pour traduir
pelut (racine palah, 'distinguer'); or le TM a ici une forme pedllt, avec lJ~u bref, qui e~t
particulière (au lieu du mot pedüt, 'rachat', d'où 'libération', qui se trouve en to~t 3 fOlS
dans le TM). Certains le traduit 'libération' (ainsi les Targums, déjà), d'autres corngent en
pelllt, d'après la LXX ('distinction')".
6. Tr. R.E. HEINE, Commenta/yon the Gospel According ta John: Books 13-32,
Washington, DC, 1993, II, p. 251.
7. Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos (LI-XII.21) [in catenis], ed. A. RAMSBO-
TRAM, The Commenta/y of Origen on the Epistle ta the Romans, in Journal ofTheo~ogical
Studies (JTS) 13 (1911-1912) 209-224; 357-368; JTS 14 (1912-1913) 10-22; see m par-
ticular JTS 13 (1911-1912), pp. 221-222.
8. Commentarii in Romanos (cod. Athon. Laura 184 B64), ed. O. BAUERNFEIND, Der
Romerbrieftext des Origenes nach dem Codex von der Goltz (Texte und Untersuchungen,
44/3], Leipzig, 1923, pp. 91-119.
9. Ed. BAUERNFEIND, Der Romerbrieftext des Origenes (n. 8).
10. See LSJ, S.v.: 'comma'. See Dionysius Thrax, Ars gramm. 2 (1tEpt àvayvwcrEroS),
ed. J. LALLOT, Paris, 1998: 'Avuyvrocrts Ècr'tl1tOlllI-lU'trov il cruyypal-ll-lu'trov à01U1t'tro'tOS
1tpo<j>opu. 'Avayvrocr'tÉov oÈ Ka~' Ô1tOKptcrW, Ka'tù 1tpocrcpolav, Ka'tù olacr'toÂTIv. ÈK
I-lÈv yùp 'tfjs Ô1tOKplcrEroS 1l)V àpE'tTIV, ÈK oÈ 't~S 1tpocrcpOlUS 'ti]v 'tÉXVllV, ÈK oÈ 't5S
olacr'tOÂfjs 1ÔV 1tEplEXOI-lEVOV VODV 6pro1-lEV' ïva 'ti]v I-lÈv 'tpaycpoluv flproïKOOS
àVUyVroI-lEV, 'tl)V oÈ Krol-lcpolav ~lro'tlKroS, 'tù oÈ ÈÂEyBî'a Âtyupros, 'tô oÈ E1tO~ EÙ't?V~S,
'ti]v oÈ ÂUplKl)V 1tOlllcrw ÈI-lI-lEÂroS, 10ÙS ÛÈ oYK'tOUS Ô<j>E1I-lÉVroS Kat yOEproS· 'tU yup
I-li] 1tapù 'tl)V 'to6'trov yWOI-lBVU 1tapa'tTIPllcrty KUt 'tù 'trov 1tOlll'trov àpE1Ù KU't~PPI1t1E5
KUt 'tÙS ËSBIS 'trov àvaywrocrKOV'trov KU'tUyEÂUcr'tOUS 1tUPlcr'tllcrtv. On readmg KU1a
01acr10ÂTIV, see especially W.G. RUTHERFORD, A Chapter in the Histo/y of Annotation, in
 42 A. CACCIARI
by means of diacritic and/or orthographie marks) in order to provide the
reader with a correct syntactical- viz. logical - mticulation of sequences
of words and sentences often difficult to understand, or entirely obscure,
in a form in which they passed down by textual tradition ll . We find the
term at issue with this meaning in Philacalia 14,2,32 (= CGn 12,89),
quoted above. On this subject, a fragment on Ephesians seems especially
noteworthy:
Consider now if to this issue a different pause in reading fits better, as fol-
lows: to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in
the Beloved, in w/lOm we have redemption through his blood, the forgive-
ness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he
lavished upon us, in al! wisdom and insight. If you put here a pause in this
passage, it will be possible to read from a new starting-point what follows:
making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his pli/pose, so
that the words in al! wisdom and insight will not be connected with making
known to us the mystely of his will, but to the preceding context l2 .
As regards Eph 1,8 13 , Origen wonders whether a correct syntactic and
logical articulation of the Pauline passage should connect the phrase "in
al! wisdam and insight" (Èv nucrn croq,iC! Kut q,poVftcrEt) not to the
words "making knawn ta us the mystely af his will" (yvmpicruç T)fllV "Co
llumftptov "Cou Sû,ftllu"CoÇ utnou), but rather to the previous context.
Scholia Aristophal/ica m, London, 1905, 168-179. About ancient systems ofpunctuation,
see also D.L. BLANK, Remarks 01/ Nical/or, the Stoics al/d the Ancient Theoly of Punc-
tuation, in Glotta 61 (1983) 48-67.
11. So e.g. Supplementa artis Dionysia/we vetllsta 1.1.114.4, ed. G. UHLIG, Gram-
matici Graeci, 1.1, Leipzig, 1883 (repr. Hildesheim, 1965): 'H oi; t otacrwÀl] ,iSE,at,
eSt' av otacr,EIÀat Kat Otaxroptcrat ô<j>etÀrollÉv nva ÂÉçtv, olov "scr,tv açtoc;". ~IE'tUÇÙ
,ou v Kat wu a eicr~Àl}EV T] otacrWÀi], ïva Ill] 0 àvaytvcÎlcrKrov àv,t wu einElv "scr,tV
açtoc;" Elnn "Ëcrnv Nâçtoc;", ,0ll'tÉcr,tV ànà ,~C; Naçtac; ,~C; vi]crou. oü,ro Kat ,à
°ll°ta.
12. FrEph V,16 (ed. J.A.F. GREGG, The COlllmel/ta/y ofOrigen lIpOI/ the Epistle to the
Ephesial/s, in JTS 3 [1902] 234-244, 398-420, 554-576, in particu1ar p. 240; see the new
edition by F. PIERI, Origel/e: Esegesi paolil/a e testi frammel/tari [Opere di Origene,
XIVj4], Roma, 2009, pp. 248-249): "Opa oÔv et Ill] npàc; ,i]v çi],'lcrtv ,au,'lv aÂÀYj
Otacr,oÀi] ,~C; àvayvmcrEroc; aplloÇEt ,oov Ka,à ,àv ,onov oü,roc; Ëxoucra' Etc; Ënatvov
06çYjC; ,~C; Xâptwc; aùwu ~C; ÈXaphrocrEV T]llac; Èv ,ip 1lyanYjIlÉVC(l, Èv cP ËXOIlEV ,i]v
ànoÀu,procrtv otà ,ou a1Ila,0c; aù,ou, ,i]v Ü<j>EcrtV ,oov napan,rollu,rov, Ka,à ,àv
nÀouwv ,~C; Xâptwc; aùwu ~C; ÈnEptcrcrEllcrEv etc; T]llac; Èv nâcrn cro<j>iÇt Kal <j>POVi]crEt·
ÈVl}âOE Ka'tUnaucrac; ,i]v wu,ou ,OU ,onou Otacr,oÀi]v, àn' aÀÀYjC; àpX~C; oü'troC; àvay-
vmcrE,at ,à yvropicrac; T]IlIV ,à llucr,i]Ptov ,ou l}EÀi]llawc; aùwu Ka,à ,i]v EùOoKiav
aù,ou, mcr,E ,à Èv nâcrn cro<j>iÇt Kat <j>POVi]crEt Ill] È<j>aplloÇEtv ,ip yvropicrac; T]IlIV ,à
Illlcr,i]ptoV ,ou l}EÀi]llawc; aùwu àU. à ,01C; àvrorÉpro.
13. See Eph 1,7ss.: Ka,à ,à nÂ,ouwc; ,~C; Xâp\'toC; aùwu, 8 ~c; ÈnEpicrcrEucrEv etc;
T]llac;, Èv nâcrn cro<j>iÇt Kat <j>POVi]crEt 9 yvroptcrac; itlliv ,à Ilucr,i]ptov ,ou l}EÀi]lla,oc;
aùwu K'À. ("according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in aIl wis-
dom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will ... " [tr. ESV]).
FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY: HIS TORY OF A WORD 43
iv) It occurs with the meaning 'differentiation of notes', in passages
explaining lCor 14,7 (Mw 8tacr"CoÀ,i)v "Coî'ç q,36yyotç lli) 80 K"CÀ,.)14:
- He [seil. Paul] wants to persuade them, who speak in tongues in the
church, to be silent, unless someone interprets, and says that if lifeless
instmments, the flute and the harp, do not give distinct music and sounds,
it is impossible to distinguish what rhythm is played; in the same way, the
soldier will not arm himself to the battle, unless the tmmpet calls to the war;
and also they who speak in tongues without interpreting would not speak,
as they do not articulate their words so that they can be understood. He has
defined fiute and hmp the theoretical doctrines, devoid of ethical contents,
and has defined trumpet the words that incite to virtue; therefore, we can
say that the obscurities of Scripture - such as what is said about sacrifices
in the book of Leviticus, or about the tent in the book of Exodus, ought not
to be read, unless someone clarifies theu' meaning with an explanation 15 •
- So, inanimate things too do utter voices, sorne of them with a distinct-
ness of sounds, others without it; in fact, each body, hittirig another body,
utters a particular voice l6 •
- Also to pronounce sensible words "according to" the five senses means
to find the common advantage; the word of instruction, which through the
five senses reaches those who are listening, is indicated by in the church,
as the words are diffused hy the five senses. As a matter of fact, they who
do not recognize the clearness of what is said, and listen only to the bare
resounding of the Scriptures, these are called catechumens; while they who
grasp the differences of voices from the Scripture, these are not catechu-
mens, but believers l7 •
14. lCor 14,7s.: 7 ollro C; ,à a1jmxa <j>rovi]v ot06v'tU, 10h10 aÙÂ,àc; d,E Ktl}âpa, Èàv
otacr,oÀl]V ,01C; <j>Myyotc; Ili] oip, nooc; yvrocrl}i]crE,at ,à aùÀoullEVOV ~ ,à
Ktl}aptÇoIlEVOV; 8 Kat yàp Èàv aOYjÀov crâÀmyç <j>rovi]v oip, tiC; napacrKEuucrE,at dC;
noÀEllov; ("If even lifeless instmments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct
notes, how will any one know what is played? And if the tmmpet gives an indistinct
sound, who will get ready for batt1e?" [tr. New Revised Standard]).
15. FrlCor 56,1.4.7 (eds.: Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam 1 ad Corinthios
[in catenis], ed. C. JENKINS, Documents: Origen on 1 Corinthians, in JTS 9-10 [1908]
232-247, 353-372, 500-514; 29-51; [56.12], pp. 243-244; ed. F. PIERI [see n. 12],
pp. 156ss.): llucrron~crat ~ouÂ,E,at ,OÙC; yÀmcrcrn ÀaÀouv'tUC; crtyav Èv ÈKKÀYjcriÇt, Èàv
Ill] TI otEPIlYjVEU,~C;, Kat <j>Yjcrl Tà a'l'uxa, aÙÀàc; Kat Ktl}âpa, 'tOtC; IlOUcrtKOIC; Kat
<j>Myyotc; otacr,oÀl]v Ill] ot06v'tU où ytyvmcrKE,at noiC(l pul}llip YjÜÀYjcrE' Kat 0
cr,panm,YjC; OÙX onÀiÇE,at dc; noÂ,Ellov, Èàv I!l] ,i]v OteyEp'tlKi]V dC; noÀEllov
npo~,at <j>rovi]v T] crâÀmyç' Kat oi Â,aÂ,ouv,EC; yÂ,mcrcrn Kal Ill] otEPIlYjvEuovrEC; OÙK
opetÀoucrt Â,aÀEtV, mc; ~Iil OtooV'EC; otacr,oÂ,l]V ,?tC; Myotc; Etc; ,à vOYjl}~vat· ,à Ili;v
oùv ,~C; l}Eropiac; 06Ylla,a aùÀàv Kat Ktl}âpav EinEv roc; IlYjoi;v ÈIl<j>aivov'tU ~l}tKoV,
,OÙC; oÈ Èn' àPE,i]V npo,pEnoI!ÉvouC; crâÀmyy<a>' otà ,OUOE <Ëcrnv> Einelv ott ,à
àcra<j>~ ,~C; ypa<j>flc;, olov ,à nEp! l}ucrtOOV Èv AEUÏ'ttKip Kat ,~C; crK'lV~C; av 'EçooC(l,
où 0101 àvaytyvmcrKEtV, d Ili] ,tc; aù,oov cra<j>'lViÇEt ,àv vouv ,il Ot'ly~crEt.
16. Ibid. 58,4: Kat ,à ü'l'UXa oÔv <j>rovilv oiOrocrtv, 'tlvà IlÈV aù,oov IlE,à <'tau>,YjC;
,oov <j>Myyrov otacr'tOÀ~C;, 'tlvà oÈ aÔ ,au,ll<;' nav yàp croolla loto''l,a ËXEl <j>rov~c;,
crUYKPOUOV É,ÉpC(l crmlla,t.
17. Ibid. 63,8: Kal ,à nVEUlla'tlKOOC; Â,aÀelv 'tOÙC; atcrl}Yj,oÙC; ÀoyouC; ,àC; nÉv,E
atcrl}i]crEtC; ,à KotVro<j>EÀÉC; Ècr'tlV çYj,e1v' 6 oi; ,~c; Ka'Yjxi]crEroC; Myoc; 0 otà ,oov
44 A. CACCIARI
The word ôto.O"'told1 as a technical term of musical theory (in the sense
of 'modulation of notes') finds many definitions in musicological texts:
'H ow.cr,oÎvyt Èni ,s ,rov f/lorov Kat ,~s KpOUl-tawypa<pias napaÎval-lpu-
,a
vs,at àvana60ucra Kat XmpiÇoucra npouyov,a àno ,rov Ènt<pspol-lévmv
éç~S ("The diastole is applied in the singing and in the notation of music,
marking a pause and a distinction of what precedes from what follows in
sequence")18.
v) In addition to the primary term ÔWO"'tOlvij, sorne prefixed com-
pounds of it occur rather often; in particular: orcoôto.O"'tolvij (only once),
with a semantic value also rooted in the grammatical tradition - see
supra, ôto.O"'tolvij (iii) - of 'short pause', 'colon'19:
Kat etnsv 0 0soS' BÎvacr'1]cru,m 11 yij po,UV1]V xop,ou, crnstpov
crnépl-la Ka,a yévos Kat Ka,<}' 01-l0to'1],a. Où napansl-ln,éov on croÎvot-
Ktcrl-loS av 06çstsv etvat Ka,à ,ytv <ppucrtv ,0, Einsv 0 0soS' BÎvacr'1]-
cru,m 11 yij po,UV1]V xopwu, crnstpov crnépl-la Ka,à yévos Kat KaS'
01-l0to'1],a' _où yàp av sùxsproç È<papl-l0crat ,0 crne'tpov té[> PO,UV1]V
xOp,ou. IImS of; Kat Xmpts crOÎvotKtcrl-lOU vostcrSat ouva,at, ,OlV
nÎvdcr,mv unoÎv1],!,ol-lévmv 'Co crnstpov npos ,0 po,UV1]V xop,ou
ÎvéyecrSat; "Ecr'Ct of;, unootacr'CoÎvn XP1]crul-lsvov l-lécr1]S crnYl-lijs, olhmS
àvayvrovat· BÎvaO"'t1]cru,m 11 yij po,UV1]V xop,ou. Kat otacr,ilcrav,a
ÈnsveyKstV ,0, crnstpov crnépl-la Ka,à yévos' ïv' n,
BÎvacr'1]cru,m 11 yij
po,UVllV xopwu, Ka,à yévoS crne'tpov crnépl-la· Ènt<pspol-lévou Ènt ,0
yévoS wu crne'tpov crnépl-la20 .
Origen is developing here a typical grammatical argument: in fact, in
explaining Gen 1,11, he highlights the incorrectness of its traditional
mticulation, which connects O"rcdpov to ~o'tavYJv xop'tou, and therefore
nÉv,B ULcrSi]crBroV Èni nDV àKOUOV,rov Èv ÈKKÎvllcriÇt ,É,UK,ut, roe:; Kui ui'nrov uno ,rov
nÉV,B Îvoyrov KU'llXOUI1Évrov. oi yàp Ill'] Bt06'Be:; ,l']v ,rov ÎvBYOI1ÉVrov ,puvo'll'u,
àÎvÂ,à l10vn ,ij IjItÎvij ,rov ypu<j>rov nBptllxi]crBt npocrÉxovn;e:;, KU'llXOUI1Bvot XPll-
l1u,iÇoucrw' oi ÙÈ ,fie:; ,rov <j>Soyyrov otacr,oÎvfie:; àKOUOV,Be:; àno ,fie:; ypu<j>fie:; oÔ<ot oÔ
KU'llxoUI1BVot àÎvÎvà mcr,oL
18. Anonyma de ml/sica scripta Bellermanniana 11, ed. D. NAJOCK, Leipzig, 1975; see
also Porphyr. Ete:; ,à apl10vtKà IhoÎvBl1uiou unol1Vlll1u, ed. I. DÜRING, Giiteborg - New
York, 1980,68,20; 168,17.
19. See LSJ, s.v. cr,tYI1i]: 'colon' (I1Écrll crnYI1i] - while ,BÎvdu crnYI1i] is 'full stop').
See also Commentaria in Dionysii Thracis artem grammaticam, (Varia) Sc/lOlia Marciana,
ed. A. Hn..GARD, Grammatici Graeci 1.3, Leipzig, 1901 (repr. Hildesheim, 1965): Ti Ècrnv
u::ootacr<oÎvi]; Llll1BtOV Otacr,ÛcrBroe:; ypÛI1~IUWe:; àl1<j>t~uÎvÎvoI1Évou nBpt ,i]v cruvmçw,
oiov E~TIN, OYL, ilyouv unûPXBt oniov' Bte:; yàp ,0 Ëcrnv unootacr<oÎvl'] ,iSB,Ut, ïvu
Ill'] crUV,BSij I1B,à <Où 06e:; ,0 V Kut vOllSij on voùe:; Ècr,w' o(hroe:; KUt ,0 E~TI, NA3IO~,
àno ,fie:; vTjcrou Nûçou. Kut IiÎvÎvro<;, ,i Ècrnv unootacr,oÎvi]; Lltûcr,ucrte:; ÎvÉÇBroV nBpt
,l']v cruv,uçw àl1<j>t~uÎvÎvoI1Évrov. IIoù ,iSB,Ut 1'] unootucrroÎvi]; 'Ev ote:; 6<j>dÎvBt
ÎvÉyBcrSUt V?i]l1u,u <I1B,à> otucr,oÎvfie:;, mcr,B otucrrB1Îvut KUt Xropicrut ÎvÉÇBte:; àn'
àÎvÎvi]Îvrov, oiov E~TIN, A3IOE, OÔK àno ,fie:; Nûçou vTjcrou, àÎvÎvà Iiçwe:;.
20. Selecta in Genesim, PG 12,96-97.
FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY: mSTORY OF A WORD 45
acquires meaning at the cost of introducing a 'solecism' (0"0lvOtKtO"floC;)21,
that is, an improper use of a word22 .
vi) On the other hand, most of the texts show the prefixed noun &'vn-
Ôto.O"'tolvij, with the meaning (common to the primary noun ÔWO"'tOlvij)23
of 'distinguishing opposition', 'semantic contrast', 'contraposition'. It is
used especially in the phrase - once characteristic of the technical lan-
guage of grammar and scholiography - rcpoc; &'v'ttôto.O"'tolvijv (with the
genitive), meaning 'in opposition to'. In particular, it is remarkable that
&'vnôto.O"'t"olvij as such is not properly a terminus technicus, given its
relative semantic fluctuation within the contexts where it occurs 24 . Pro-
vided below is a short survey of the occurrences of the tenil in Origen's
writings 2S .
,1'_-
21. For a definition of 'solecism', see e.g. Commentaria in Dionysii Thracis artem
grammaticam (Sc/lOlia Vaticana), ed. A. Hn..GARD, Grammatici Graeci 1.3, Leipzig, 1901
(repr. Hildesheim, 1965), 170.23ss.: crOÎvotKtcrl10e:; oÉ Ècrnv ô <Où crroou Myou ULKtcrI10e:;,
ilyouv 1'] ü~pte:; ôÎvoKÎvi]pou Îvoyou; Le,-dcoll Vindobonense (ed. A. NAUCK, St. Petersburg,
1~67, repr. Hildesheim, 1965), IIBpt crOÎvotKtcrl10Ù KUt ~up~uptcrI10Ù 295.8ss.: yiVB,Ut
Oùv crOÎvotKtcrl10e:; Èv crUl1nÎvoKij ÎvÉÇBroV àÎvÎvi]Îvute:; àvuPl1ocr,rov BÜKOÎvOe:;, o,uv 1']
otuipwte:; npoe:; ,l']v crUl1nÎvoKi]v ,rov Myrov Ill'] Iiyuv TI Bôâpl1ocr<oe:;. See also Quint.
IlISt. 1,5,52ff.
22. On solecism (in particular, on crOÎvotKtcrl10e:; nBpt yÉvl]) in Origen's exegesis,
see B. NEusCHÀFER, Origenes ais Philologe, Basel, 1987, esp. pp. 214ss., who analyses
Gen 1,11 in the origenian passage quoted above.
23. See e.g. Aristoph. Gramm. fI'. 18,9 ed. A. NAUCK, Halle, 31848, repr. Hildesheim,
1963 (npoe:; otacr<oÎvl']v [+ gen.]; Ammon. Gramm. De adfin. vocab. diff. 405,19 ed.
K. NrcKAu, Leipzig, 1966 (de:; otacr,oÎvl']v [+ gen.]); Apollon. Soph. Lex. Hom. ed.
1. BEKKER, Berlin, 1833, rist. anast. Hildesheim, 1967, 140,8 (npoe:; otucr,oÎvl']v [+ gen.]);
154,7 (Ku,à otucr<oÎvi]v [+ gen.]).
24. See Apoll. Dysc. ed. R. SCHNEIDER - G. UHLIG, Grammatici Graeci l,ii,l, Leipzig,
1878 (IIBpi àv,rovuI11ue:;, p. 8: "En f) uù,oe:; I1B,à IiÎvÎvlle:; àvmvul1iue:; nupu,BSdcru
110VOV Èm,BiVBt ,à ,fie:; àvnotucr,oÎvfie:;, ÈI10Ù uôwù, croù Uù,Où, croi uô«p· <Ole:; oà
IipSpote:; nuptzKBtl1ÉVll snl<ucrtv l1àV où crlll1UiVBt, ote:; oà àvu<j>opûv, ô Ull't"Oe:;, ,où
uù<où. nroe:; oùv Ëv I1Époe:; Îvoyou;). See also the commentary ad loc. by R. SCHNEIDER
(ibid., l,ii,2, p. 46, ad 23,21): "otacr,oÎvi]v] In otacr,ÉÎvÎvBtv otucr,oÎvi] vocum usu non
satis sibi constitit technicus. Modo enim otacr,ÉÎvÎvBW est indicare, ut ,à npocrronu ota-
cr,ÉÎvÎvBtv etiam verborum sit, cum àvnotacr<ÉÎvÎvBtv àvnotacr<oÎvi] unius sit proprium
pronominis, ut synt. 118,27 d I1ÉV,ot yB ,l']v npoe:; nvu crUYKptcrtv ÈSÉÎvotl1BV
otucru<j>fivut, Èntcrnrol1BSu ,l']v àv,rovul1iuv, '(8wv Ëxoucruv ,i]v Èv <Ole:; npocrronote:;
àv,totucr,oÎvi]v (discemere Prise.). Lu<j>àe:; yàp on OÔX ïvu ,0 npocrro1tOV otacr,BiÎvrol1BV
(indicemus Prise.) ,où,o yàp KOIVOV dXB KUt ,0 pfil1u (cf. synt. 14,23; 15,17; 97,17;
119,11.15; 146,26; 152,9; pron. 8,24; 40,5; 46,26; 65,5; 49,14; 12,13 aIl.): modo ota-
cr,ÉÎvÎvBtv otucr<oÎvl'] olucr,uÎvnKoe:; voeabulis subicitur notio discemendi vel opponendi,
quam aliis locis àvttotacr<oÎvi] sibi vindicare solet, ut pron. 32,12 npocrronrov rop1crl1É-
vrov, ànoÎvu,rov ,B Kut otacr,uÎvnKrov. Ibid. 24,11 ,à oà Pi]l1u,u où otucr,uÎvnKû,
àn6Îvu,u oà npocrronu crlll1uivBt. Ibid. 39,1 TI ,0 l1àv otacr,ÉÎvÎvBt (38,30 dicebatur àvn-
otacr,UÎv,tKOV) ... ,0 oà ànoÎvuwv, ibid. 42,30".
25. The term (according to TLG) occurs a total of 15 times at ail in Origen's writings.
46 A. CACCIARI
Use of the procedure of àvnotu<Y1"oÂ,i] allows the exegete to grasp
the exact meaning of terms, sentences ar phrases arising in the Bible that
are such as not to be immediately understood by the reader, being some-
times equivocal and ambiguous. This explanation is given by introduc-
ing (somehow artificially) antonimies and semantic contrasts, which are
more or less explicit according to the phrase to be explained. In this
way, for example, within the polemic against Celsus, in arder to explain
the Pauline locution "vain deceit", Origen quotes a passage from
Jeremiah:
Now those words, which contained sorne element of deceitfulness, the
apostle named "vain deceit" (CoI2,S), probably by way of distinction (1tpèC;
àvnow'(j'"COÀi)v) from a deceit that was not "vain"; and the prophet
Jeremiah observing this, ventured to say to God, "0 Lord, Thou hast
deceived me, and l was deceived; Thou art stronger than I, and hast pre-
vailed" (Jer 20,7)26.
Here, as can be seen, the Pauline adjective seems neither redundant
nor pleonastic. In the same literary context, commenting a passage by
Celsus, Origen tries to explain the locution \j!UXlJ Ç&<Yu in problematical
tmms, following the zetetic method:
The "living soul", again, is perhaps mysteriously referred by sorne of the
followers of Valentinus to the heing whom they tenn the psychic creator of
the world; or perhaps, in contradistinction to (1tpèC; àvnlhacr1"oÀi)v) a
"dead" soul, the "living" soul is telmed by sorne, not inelegantly, the soul
of "him who is saved". l know nothing, however, of a "heaven which is
said to be slain", or of an "earth slaughtered by the sword," or of many
persons slain in order that they might live; for it is not unlikely that these
were coined hy Celsus out of his own brain27 .
Again, when considering sorne locutions where the Scripture seems to
assign rather materialistic definitions to spiritual things, Origen observes:
For it is the custom of Scripture to give to "intelligent beings" the names
of "spirits" and "spiritual things", by way of distinction (1tpèC; àvnlha-
O"1:oÀi)v) from those which are the objects of "sense"; as when Paul says,
"But our sufficiency is of God; who hath also made us able ministers of
the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth,
but the spirit giveth life", where by the "letter" he means that "exposition'
of Scripture which is apparent to the senses", while by the "spirit" that
which is the object of the "understanding." It is the same, too, with the
expression, "God is a Spirit"28.
26. CC Prolo 5 (ed. P. KOETSCHAU, GCS 2 [Origenes Werke, 1], Leipzig, 1899), p. 54.
27. CC VI,35 (ed. P. KOETSCHAU, GCS 3 [Origenes Werke, 2], Leipzig, 1899), p. 105.
28. Ibid. V1,70 (p. 140).
FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY: HISTORY OF A WORD 47
Similarly, as regards apparent homonymies between 'sensible' and
'spiritual' things:
The writings of Moses and the prophets - the most ancient of aIl books -
teach us that aIl things here on earth which are in common use among men,
have other things corresponding to them in name which are alone real.
Thus, for instance, there is the hue light, and another heaven beyond the
flimament, and a Sun of righteousness other than the sun we see. In a word,
to distinguish those things from the objects of sense, which have no tlUe
reality, they say of God that "His works are tlUth"; thus making a distinc-
tion (1tpèC; àvnow'cHoÀi)V) between the works of God and the works of
God's hands, which latter are of an inferior sort. Accordingly, God in Isaiah
complains of men, that "they regard not the works of the Lord, nor consider
the operation of His hands"29.
In Commenta/yon John, in the expression "true light" (Joh 1,9) the
adjective 'true' is additionally explained as being opposed to 'sensible':
Christ, again, the light of the world, is the tlUe light as distinguished (1tpèC;
àvnlha,cnoÀi)v) from the light of sense; nothing that is sensible is tlUe. Yet
though the sensible is other than the hue, it does not follow that the sensible
is false, for the sensible may have an analogy with the intellectual, and not
everything that is not hue can correctly he called false 3o •
In the same sense:
He is tlUe also in respect of His relation to shadow, type, and ÎInage; for
such is the Word who is in the opened heaven, for He is not on earth as He
is in heaven; on em1h He is made flesh and speaks through shadow, type,
and image3 !.
On the same issue:
As a matter of fact, even if John was 'light', he was not the light concerning
which the saints say to God: "In thy light do we see light" [Ps 35[36],10].
Therefore, even if John was 'light' in the same sense of those words said
to the disciples: "You are the light of the world" [Mat 5,14], nevertheless
29. Ibid. VII,31 (p. 182).
30. CIo 1,26,167 (ed. E. PREUSCHEN, GCS 10 [Origenes Werke, 4], Leipzig, 1903,
p.31): "Ecrn oÈ 0 XplIT1:0Ç, <l>roç 'tUyxuvmv Kocrf.lOU, <l>roç àÂ.ll~hvov npoç
àvnotacr'tOÂ.i)v alcrSll'wG, OùOEVOÇ alcrSrl1;oG OVtoç àÂ.llSlVoG. 'AÂ.Â.' OÙXt ÈnEt OÙK
àÂ.llSlVOV 'to alcrSll'toV, 'l'EGoOÇ 'to alcrSll'tOV' ouva'tat yàp àvaÂ.oyiav 6XElV 'to
aicrSll10v npoc; "0 VOlll0V, où f.\i)v "0 'l'EGOOC; OylroC; navloc; Ka111yoPElcrSat lOG OùK
àÂ.llS1voG.
31. CIo II,6,49 (ibid., p. 60): KaÂ.Ehat oÈ "1tlcrl0C;" 0 Ènt 'tOG Â.EUKoG tnnou où olà
"0 1tlcrlEUElV ocrov olà "0 1tlcrlEU10C; etvat, 10ulÉcrn, 'tOG 1tlIT1;EUEcrSat IiSw<;, KUpWC;
yàp Kalà 10V MmcrÉa 1tlcrl0C; Kat àÂ.llS1VO<;' Kat àÂ.llSlVOc; yàp npoc; àVnOlaITToÂ.i)v
crKliic; Kat lunou Kat dKOVOC;, Ènd 'towGtoC; 0 Èv lep àVECJlyon oùpavep Â.6yoç' 0 yàp
Ènt y~C; où 'tOWGloC; onoloc; 0 Èv oùpavep, thE YEVOf.\EVOC; cràps Kat Olà crKliiç Kat
llmmv Kat dKovmv Â.aÂ.oUf.\EVOC;.
48 A. CACCIARI
he was the "hue light" [Joh 1,9]. This 'light' however is not called "hue"
in contradistinction to (npàç; àVtlOlaO''tOÀi)v) the false one, but to dis tin-
guish it from the light 'of image' (elXOV1XOV). Truth and what participates
in truth sometimes are opposite (àvtlotaO'tÉÀÀetat) to lie and deceit, but
sometimes also to image and imitation. As light 'of image' we can mean
the sensible one, chiefly the sun; on the contralY, as "true light" we can
mean the intellectual one, and better that one, which enlightens the intel-
lectual beings, that is the holy powers 32 .
Once again concerning the meaning of 'true light', when illustrating
John's prologue - which the typical iteration of polysemous terms makes
rather difficult to understand - Origen develops an exegetical frame by
means of a network of distinctions (&vnotaO"'coÀui). To do so he tries to
find - in the context of John's gospel as in other biblical texts - the
antonyms and the phrases opposite to the words to be eXplained Ctrue
light') to determine e contrario its appropriate semantic value 33 •
The search for antonyms for the purpose of identifying the exact mean-
ing of words is also observed in a passage concerning David's request to
Ahimelech for 'five pieces of bread': the adjective 'profane' (~É~TJÀot)
32. FrIa 6.4-13 (ibid., p. 488): Kliv yà.p <proç 'IcouVVI1Ç <n>, à'}.),: oi'>K ÈKstVo 1:0 <proç
1tSpt 06 ol Ciywt 1tpOç 1:0V SSOV <pucrtV· "'Ev 1:4) <pcoTi crO\l oljloJlsSu '<proç'''' WcrTS si
KUt <proç ~v 'IcoUVVIlÇ, KU1:à 1:0 EÎpllJlBVOV 1:otç JlUSIl1:utÇ' "'YJlsî'ç Ècr1:È 1:0 <proç 1:OU
KocrJlO\l'" à').,},: oi'>K ÈKstVo 1:0 <proç 1:0 àÀIlStVoV. <proç oÈ àÀIlStVov oi'> 1tpOç
àvnolucr1:oÀJ'jv IjISUOO\lç àÀÀà 1tpOç otu<popàv StKoVtKoU EÏPIl1:Ut. T] yàp àÀi)SslU KUt
1:0 àÀllSÈÇ 01:È JlÈv 1:4) IjIsuost KUt 1:n à1tu1:TI, 01:È oÈ StKoVt KUt JltJli)JlU1:t àvnolUcr-
1:BÀÀS1:Ut. 0\lVU1:0V oÈ ÀU~sî'v stKoVtKoV <proç 1:0 utcrSIl1:0V, KUt JluÀt<J1:U 1:0V f)Àwv,
àÀ llStVoV oÈ <proç 1:0 VOIl1:0V' JlàÀÀov oÈ 1:0 1:rov VOIl1:rov <pconcrn KOV, 1:rov étyicov
O\lvuJlscov.
33. See on this issue the observations - concerning another passage of Origen - by
M. GmARDI, Basilio di Cesarea il/te/prete della Scrittllra, Bari, 1998, p. 58 n. 72: "In un
frammento, attribuitogli con buone ragioni, Origene non cita espressamente 1Cor 1,30 a
sostegno dell'affermazione che 'Cristo è egli stesso giustizia (Ui'>1:001KUWcruVIl)', pero
spiega che l'agiografo, facendo uso deil' 'antidiastole', ha voluto contrapporre vera e falsa
giustizia (quella di tutti gli altri popoli, in primo luogo quello ebraico) ma anche dis-
tinguere la realtà (Cristo-verità) dal simbolo (contenuto nella legge antica). li tutto fa
séguito alla precisazione che il testo biblico puo essere letto e interpretato in chiave di
'antidiastole iconica' perché se 'Cristo è giustizia per essenza, parteciperà di essa solo
quel1'inImagine di lui che è nei giusti e che a Cristo guarda quale modello (1tUpuostYJlu)': .
Il/ Pral'. 1: PG 17,153AB (~UVU1:Ul oÈ àÀIlSi)Ç otKuwcruvll 1tpOç ÙVnOlU<J1:oÀi)v
ÀBy6<JSUl1:1]Ç EÎKoV1K1]Ç. Ai'>1:ü01KUWcruvll JlÈv yàp 0 Xplcr1:0Ç' JlSSBSSl oÈ 1:UunlÇ f)
Èv IlKucr1:cp 1:rov olKulcov stKroV oÔcru, Kut à<popoucru 1tpOç 1tUpuostYJlu 1:0V Xpt<J1;OV,
1tpOç ôv ysypu<pSa! vOJliÇco 1:0, ~iKUWÇ Kupwç KUt otKuwcruvuç l'jyU1tllcrsv.
'AvnolBcr1:uÀ1:ut oÈ Kut 1:n cr\lJl~OÀtKn otKuwcruVn' 1toÀÀà yàp Èv 1:4) vOJlCP 1:1]ç
ùÀllSsluç 1:à cruJl~oÀu' àÀÀà KUt 1:n IjIS\lOSt otKuwcruVn. KU1:à Oè 1:0 'E~puïKov KUt
1:0Ùç ÀOl1tOÙÇ où 1tpocrKst1:Ul 1:0 àÀ11S1], roç 1:1]ç olKuwcruvllÇ où osxoJlBVllÇ àvn-
olUcr1:0Ài)V). Sull'attribuzione a Origene, cf. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, Die Hiera des
Evagrills, in Zeitschrift fiïr katholische Theologie 69 (1939) 86-106, 181-206, p. 193 n. 12;
CPG 1,1430 (3b)".
FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY: mSTORY OF A WORD 49
should not be understood in absolute terms, but in relation to the context
in which it is found:
As "profane" he means not the impure bread, but that which is not holy, in
contradistinction to (npàç; àvnotaO'toÀi)v) the "holy bread", which is pre-
sented on the table. He had six pieces of bread offered for the twelve tribes
of Israel, which were called shewbread, as each piece of bread was offered
for two tribes of Israel, and the six pieces for the twelve tribes. What good
was there from it? To reestablish harrnony within the tribes of Israel. What
better was it announced? The fact that the blessed apostles were sent, two
by two, by the Saviour to proclaim the first things within the ~~'Î.bes of Israel,
so that the number of the twelve apostles was altogether six .
The presence in a biblical text of elements that are characteristic of
Hebrew literary style is analysed by the procedure of &vnota(j"TOÀll:
You will find in the SCl'Î.pture many things as such, from which you should
not answer the question, what does 'body' mean in the saying: "The eye is
the lamp of the body" [Mat 6,22], and in passages like this. You will find
that in Pl'ovel'bs is promised the "divine perception" [Prov 2,3], in contra-
distinction to (npàç; àvtlolaO'toÀi)v) that one which is not divine. In fact,
perception cannot be divine, as also inational animaIs - seeing, headng,
tasting and touching - take part of it; 'divine', then, to which not anyone
pat1icipates, but only they who have acted according to the words: "You
will find a divine perception"35.
Here, the apparent oxymoron 'divine perception' is explained thl'ough
a network of semantic oppositions: the two tenns, noun and adjective,
are separated and each one of them is given its proper semantic value by
the attribution of other antonyms.
34. FrlReg 9.1ss. (GCS 6 [Origenes Werke, 3], ed. E. KLOSTERMANN, Leipzig, 1901,
p. 298): "Bs~i)Ào\lç" ÀBysl VUV où 1:0Ùç àKUSUp1:0\lç, àÀÀà 1:0Ùç OÙX étyio\l~: 1tP?Ç
àvnolUcr1:oÀJ'jV 1:rov "étytCOV ap1:COv" 1:&v È1tt 1:~ç 1:PU1tBÇ~Ç 1t~PU1:~SSJlBVCOV. ~S yu~
stxsv ap1:ü\lç T] 1:pémsÇu 01U1tUV1:0ç àÀÀUcrcrOJlBVO\lÇ U1tSp 1:COV OCOOSKU <p\lÀcov 1:0\l
'Icrpui)À, oüç ÈVC01ttO\lç ÈKUÀO\lV, roç sivut ilKucr1:0V 1:rov ap1:cov U1tÈp ouo <P\lÀ~V
1tp ocr<p s poJlSVOV, 1:oilç of; ilS U1tÈp 1:rov OcOOSKU <p\lÀrov. 1:t oÔv ÈK ~OU1:O\l K~ÀOV
Èyivs1:o; 1:àS <p\lÀàç 1:OU 'IcrpuJ'jÀ 1tpOç OJlOVOlUV cr\lVU1t1:scrSut. n oÈ Kps,t1:1:0~
1tp oscr IlJlutVS1:0; 1:0ÙC; JlUKUptO\lÇ à1tocr1:oÀO\lç àvà OUO QUO 1t6Jl!'ScrSUt U1tO 1:~\l
crC01:1]poç 1:à 1tpro1:U KIlPUHS1V Èv 1:Utç <p\lÀutç 1:OU 'lcrpui)À, cOç siVa! ilS iiJlu 1:COV
OcOOSKU JlUSll1:rov 1:0V àptSJlov.
35. FI'Lc 186.37-186.46 (ed. M. RAUER, GCS 49 [Origenes Werke, 9], Berlin, 1959,
p. 306): 1toÀÀà 0' liv KUt UÙ1:0ç SUpi)crslÇ 1:0~uu:u È~lcr:i]cru~ 1:n YP~<pn ~s~,~Sv~, à<p'
6)V O\lV~crn Jli) 1tpocrKOljlut 1:n ù1to06crst 1:0\l 1tCOç 1:0 crcoJlu stpll1:Ul sv 1:cp' 0 À\lXV?Ç
1:0U crcOJlU1:0ç Ècr1:tV 0 o<pSuÀJloç" KUt 1:otç Èv 1:4) 1:01tcp oJlototç. EUpi)crEtÇ oÈ Èv 1:U:ç
IIupolJlimç 1:0 "u'(crSllcrtv SEiuv" Èv È1tuyysÀt~ ÀSyOJlEVOV, 1tpOC; àV'tl01Ucr:,OÀJ'jv 1:IlÇ
Jli) "SEtUÇ UlcrSijcrECOÇ". où "SEtU" JlÈv yàp "u'(crSIl<JtÇ", ~ç Kut 1:à aÀoyu çcpu KEKot-
vrovllKEv, oproV1:U KUt àKOUOV1:U, yS\loJlSVU 1:E Kut ocr<pputv0JlSVU KUt ét1t1:0JlEV~'
"SEtU" oÈ ~ç oMÈ 1tuv'tsç avSpco1tot JlE1:BXO\l<JlV, àÀÀ' Ol 1:0lUU1:U 1toti)crUV1:EÇ, otç
È1tl<pBpE1:Ut 1:0' "utcrSllcrtv SEluv EUpi)crEtÇ".
 50 A. CACCIARI
Within other contexts, Origen uses the àvnotacr-roÀTJ to change what
in the biblical text is merely a synonymic parallelism, a literary figure
that is rather frequent in the Semitic style. To do so, he introduces a
semantic opposition which allows him to differentiate the two tenns
according to a climax:
What "to hear" and "to give ear" reaIly mean, we will understand from the
Scripture itself. "Give ear" means "lend an ear", and "hear" - if it is said
in contradistinction to (npoç àvnot!w'toÀi]v) "give ear" - means
"understand"36.
Elsewhere Origen does the exact opposite. He is induced to an ana-
lytical interpretation by a redundant adjective found in a passage of Jer-
emiah37 , which originally stressed the semantic value of the noun to
which it was connected, and was perhaps once again due to the synthetic
style of Hebrew:
For there are no "hue idols", in contradistinction (npoç àvnOlctCY'toÀi]v)
to which are defined the 'vain' ones, but idols, which are vain by nature:
"and there is no help in them"38.
36. HIer XII,7 (ed. E. KLOSTERMANN, OCS 6 [Origenes Werke, 3], Leipzig, 1901,
Berlin, 21983, p. 93): "àKoucra'ts Kat ÈvOO'ttcracrSs, Kat !!i) È1tatpscrSs, on KUplOC;
ÈÀ{û,llcrs. oo'ts nI> KUptoo Ss<!> f]!!rov ooçav 1tpO 'tou crucrKo'tucrat, Kat 1tpO wu
1tpocrKO'Vat WÙC; 1tooac; U!!rov È1t' apll crKO'tstVU' Kat àva!!svsl'ts sIC; <jJroc;, Kat ÈKsi
crKtà Savu'tou, Kat 'tsSijcrov'tctt stc; crKO'tOC;. Èàv oÈ !!i) àKoUcrll'tE KEKPU!!!!ÉVOOC;, KÀau-
crs'tat f] 'Vuxi) U!!rov à1tO 1tpocrcl:l1tOU \)~psooc;, Kat Ka'tuçoucrtV ot ô<jJSaÀ~lOt U!!rov
oUKpua, oton cruvs'tpt~ll 't0 1tot!!VlOV KUptou". ['tou]WÙC; aù'tOùc; ~ouÀs'tctt àKoucrat
Kat ÈvOO'tlcracrSat, OÙK àpKOU!!SVOC; oihs 't<!> àKoUstV aù'toùc; !!OVOV OU'ts 't<!>
ÈvOO'ttçscrSat. oto <jJllcrtV' "àKoucra'ts Kai ÈvOO'ttcracrSs". sI'ta !!s'tà 'tou'tO 1tpocr'tucrcrst
aÙ'toic; !!i) È1taipscrSat, Kai otoacrKst 0 1totll'tÉov. 'ti oÔv 'to àKoucrat Kai 'ti 'to
ÈvOO'ticracrSat, à1t' aù't~c; 't~C; ÀÉÇEOOC; Ka'tavoijcroo!!Sv. 'to "ÈvOO'ttcracrSs" siC; 'tà di'ta
oÉçacrSs, Kai 'to "àKoucra'ts", st 1tpOC; àvnotacr'toÀi)v ÀÉys'tat wu "ÈvOO'ttcracrSs",
!!ij1to'tÉ Ècrnv siC; 'tT]V otuvowv oÉçacrSs. Kai È1tt 'trov ÀSyO!!Évoov Èv 'taic; ypa<jJatc; Il
!!Év Ècrnv à1toPPll'to'tspa Kat !!ucrnKoHspa, Il oÈ aù'toSsv xpijcrt!!a 'toic; vooucrt. 1tspl
!!Èv 'trov à1toPPI1'to'tÉpoov ol!!at ÀÉys'tat 'to "àKoucra'ts", 1tspi OÈ 'trov aù'toSsv XPll-
cri!!oov Kal xooplc; Ép!!llvstaC; ouva!!Évoov cO<jJsÀ~crat 'tov àKouovm 'to "ÈvOO'ttcracrSs".
oÀllV oôv 'ti)v ypa<jJT]v Èàv Èçs'tucroo!!SV, ÈpOU!!SV "ooKt!!ot ysVO!!svot 'tpa1tEÇl'tat'"
'tou'tO !!Èv àKoucra'ts, wu'tO oÈ ÈvOO'ttcracrSs.
37. Jer 16,9 (LXX): roc; 'Vsuo~ ÈK'tijcrav'tO oi 1ta'tÉpsc; f]!!rov sloOOÀa Kal OÙK scr'ttV
Èv aùwic; cO<jJÉÀll!!a ("How vain [were the] idols whlch our fathers procured ta them-.
selves, and there is no help in them" [tr. Brenton]).
38. HIer XVI,8 (OCS 6, p. 140): "KUpW, IcrxuC; !!OU Kat ~oijSstU !!OU Kat Ka'ta<jJuyij
!!OU Èv f]!!ÉpQ. KaKrov' 1tpOC; crÈ sSVll ~çoucrtV à1t' Ècrxu'tou 't~C; y~C; Kat ÈpoucrtV' roc;
'Vsuo~ ÈK'tijcrav'tO ot1ta'tÉpEC; f]!!rov sloOOÀa, <Ka!> OÙK Ëcrnv Èv aù'tOtC; cO<jJÉÀll!!a".
à1t' Ècrxu'tou 't~C; y~C; ~ÀSs 'tà SSVll 1tpOC; 'tov Ssov, Kal SlPIlKS 'tà ËSVll' "'Vsuo~
ÈK'tijcrav'tO ot 1ta'tÉpsc; 1]~lroV sloooÀa, Kat OÙK scrnv Èv aù'tOic; cO<jJÉÀll!!a"; 1troc; "à1t'
Ècrxuwu 't~C; y~C;"; slcrt nVEC; 't~C; y~C; 1tpro'tOt Kat slcrt nvsc; 't~C; y~C; scrXa'tot. 'ttvsc;
1tpro'tOt; "ot cro<jJoi wu KOcr!!OU" 't~C; y~C; 1tpro'tOt, OÙX a.1tÀroc; 1tprowt· "oi cro<jJot wu
KOcr!!OU, ot sùysvsiC;", oi 1tÀoucrtot, oi àçtoo!!anKo[. 'ttvsc; ot scrXa'tot; "'tà !!oopà 'tou
KOcr!!OU ÈçsÀÉça'to 0 SsoC;, 'tà àysv~, 'tà ÈçouSsvl1!!Éva, 'tà !!T] av'tct". "iîçoucrtV"
FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY: HISTORY OF A WORD 51
In another passage, within the famous distinction between 'parable'
and 'simile', Origen affi1'llls the semantic opposition between the two
nouns - the primary and the prefixed one - by means of the term àvn-
OtaO"'LoÀTJ :
From this it is plain that there is a difference between a similitude and a
parable. The similitude seems to be generic, and the parable specifie. And
perhaps also as the similitude, which is the highest genus of the parable,
contains the parable as one of its species, so it contains that particular fOlm
of similitude which has the same name as the genus. This is the case with
other words as those skiIled in the giving of many names have observed;
who say that "impulse" is the highest genus of many species, as, for exam-
pIe, of "disinclination" and "inclination", and say that, in the case of the
species which has the same name as the genus, "inclination" is taken in
opposition to (npoç àvnowCY'toÀi]v) and in distinction from "disincli-
nation"39.
Pinally, two passages from the Fragments on Psalms40 seem quite
interesting:
"To him who alone does great wonders, for his steadfast love endures for-
ever". It is weIl said: "To him who does", but not: "To him who has
done": in fact, he operates great wonders without ceasing. "To him alone"
is said in opposition (npoç àvnowCY'toÀi]v) to the demons, but not in rejec-
tion (npoç àaS'tllcrtV) of the Son41 •
oÔv "sSVIl à1t' Ècrxu'tou 't~C; y~C;", rocrs! ËÀEyEV' à1to 'tEÀêU'tcttooV 'trov È1tt y~C;
àvSpol1tOOv. à1to !!ooprov, à1to àysvrov, à1to ÈÇOUSEVI1!!ÉVOOv, "Kat Èpoucrtv' roc; 'VêUOn
ÈK'tijcrav-ro oi 1ta'tÉpsc; f]!!rov s'ioOOÀa, Kal OÙK Ëcrnv Èv aù'toic; cO<jJÉÀll!!a". oùx on
scrn 'ttvà stoooÀa àÀllS~, div 1tpOC; àvnowcrwÀT]V ÀÉys'tat 'tà 'VêUO~, àÀÀà EtoOOÀa,
<u>'ttVa 'tfi <jJucrst Ècr'tt 'VEUO~' "Kai OÙK Ëcrnv Èv aùwic; cO<jJÉÀll!!a".
39. CMt X,4,24ss. (ed. E. BENZ - E. KLOSTERMANN, OCS 40 [Origenes Werke, 10],
Leipzig, 1935, pp. 4-5): 'EK wU'tou yàp 1taptcr'ta'tat ota<jJopàv dvat O!!otrocrsooc; Kat
1tapa~oÀ~C;. "EotKsV oÔv f] !!Èv O!!otoocrtC; dvat ysVtKij, 1] oÈ 1tapa~oÀi) slotKij. TuXa
oÈ Kat 1] o!!oioocrtc; ysVtKOO'tU'tll oÔcra 't~C; 1tapa~oÀ~C; sxst Èv stost, rocr1tSp 'tT]V
1tapa~oÀijv, O\)'tOO Kai O!!roVU!!OV 't<!> ysVtK<!> 'ti)v o!!oioocrtV. u0 1tSp Kat È1tt 'trov aÀÀoov
crU!!~É~llKSV, roc; 'ts'tllpijKacrtV ot OEtVOt 1tspi 'tT]V 'trov 1toÀÀrov ÔVO!!u'tOOv SÉcrtV·
oïnvsc; ÀÉyoucrt Kat ysVtKOO'tU'tllV sIvat 'ti)v OP!!i)v noÀÀrov slOroV <nEptEK'ttKijV>,
rocrnsp Kat à<jJop!!nC; Kat Op!!~C;, Èv slost ÀÉyov'tSC; O!!ooVU!!ooc; 't<!> YEVtK<!>
1tapaÀa!!~uvscrSat npoc; àvnowcr'toÀi)v 't~C; à<jJop!!~C; 'tT]V Op!!ijv. See on this passage
the observations by M.I. DANIELI, in Origene. Commento a Matteo, 1 [Books X-XI, Opere
di Origene, 11/1], Roma, 2008,112-113. See also CIo II,6,49 (ed. PREUSCHEN [see n. 30],
p. 60): KUplOC; yàp Kct'tà 'tov MoocrÉa mcr'toc; Kat àÀllStVoC;' Kat àÀllStVoc; yàp npoc;
àvnowcrwÀi)v crKtac; Kat 'tunou Kal stKOVOC;, È1ts! 'totou'tOC; 0 Èv 't<!> àVEepyon
oùpav<!> À6yoC; K'tÀ.
40. Critically discussed.
41. FrPs [1-150], 135.4 (ed. J.B. PITRA, Analecta sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata,
m, Vernee, 1883): "T<!> notouvn (alias: notijcravn) Sau!!ucrw !!syuÀa !!ovep". KaÀroc;
oÈ 't<!> 1tOlOUV'tt <jJllcrt, àÀÀ' où notijcravn' otllVsKroC; yàp ÈvspyBÏ 'tà Sau!!ucrta. T<!>
oÈ !!ovep, npoc; àvnowcr'toÀi)v 'trov oat!!ovoov, àÀÀ' où npoc; àSÉ'tllcrtv 'tou Yiou. Nella
stessa direzione anche SelPs (PG XII,1656): "T<!> notijcravn Sau!!ucrw !!syuÀa !!ovep",
52 A. CACCIARI
Here, Origen uses in sequence two technical telIDs from grammatical
and philological criticism. Together with àvnOtacr't"oÎvi]42, one meets
à,sÉn\crtç (deverbative noun from à,ss't"É())), which in ancient philology
consists of the elimination - technically 'expunction' - of letters, words
or entire sections of a text, considered spurious by the criticism. The term
is used in many cases by Origen with the non-technical meaning of 'to
abolish', 'to reject', which occurs rather often in the Septuagint and New
Testament, and consequently exerted a strong influence on the language
of our author. Nevertheless, the technical use (à,ss't"É()) = 'to expunge';
à,sÉT1lcrtÇ = 'expunction'), consecrated by Alexandrian philology, is also
found in Origen's writings 43 . The fact that two terms rooted in the gram-
matical and philological tradition are used together within a distinctly
theological context (concerning the 'abolition', or 'rejection' of the Son)
induces one to think that Origen intended to give a new theological
meaning to a typically literary tenninology.
Two observations seem to confirm this conclusion. On pondering tb.e
origin of this lexical and stylistic device, it is not sufficient to refer in
general to the grammatical and philological milieu in which Origen
received his intellectual training, and which throughout his life was an
integral part of his analytical approach to the texts. The intersection of
grammatical and theological terminology possibly comes from the
familiarity with the writings of another author, with common roots
in grammar and philology and a common interest to biblical exegesis 44
- even if obviously not with the same theological ideas, that is
K. 't. É. ll.etKVUOW UÙtOV OtllVEKroC; EÙEPYE'tOUVta KUt SUUJ-lUWItotoUVta. Kut 060
'tUUta uù'tOU 'tWllcrt Kut 'tptu KUt 'tÉcrcrupu' on 'tE ItotEt, Kut on SUÛJ-lu'tu, KUt Otl
J-lEyUÂU SUÛJ-la'ta, Kat on J-lOVoC; ItotEt. Tau'ta OÈ où ItpOC; àSÉ'tllcrtv wu ItalOOC;, àÂÂù
ItpOC; àvnowcr'toÂi]v EtPll'tat 'trov OalJ-lovcov. Kat 'tiva 'tautu ècrn 'tù SaûJ-la'ta li
J-lovoC; ItOIEt; KahotYE àPXOJ-lEVOC; 'tou 'l'aÂJ-lou où ItEpt OUVUJ-lECOC; BÂEyEV, àÂÂù ItEpt
àyaMtll'toC;. ITroc; o()v vuv dC; 'tov ItEpt OUVUJ-lECOC; SJ-lIttIt'tEt ÂOyov èvtauSa ÂotItOV;
"On OÙXI OUVUJ-lECOC; J-lOVOV, àÂÂÙ Kat àyaMtll'toc; Kat <j>IÂavSpCOIttac; 'tauta scrn 'tù
SaûJ-la'ta.
42. On the frequent use of this word (especially in the above quoted expression ItpOC;
àvnotucr'toÂilv + genitive) in Greek scholiography, see Scholia Graeca in Homeri Ilia-
dem (SchoUa vetera), ed. H. ERBSE, VI, Berlin, 1983, ind., S.vv. àvtlowcr'toÂ1'j / àvtl-
oWcr'tÉÂÂEtv / àVtlowcr'tuÂnKoc; (p. 262).
43. See FrLc 223 (ed. M. RAUER, GCS 49 [Origenes Werke, 9], Berlin, 1959, p. 324);
Phil 5,6; 21,3; 26,4, and especially EpAfr [PG XI,57.64.65]. Upon this subject, see
NEUSCHÂFER, Origenes aIs Philologe [quoted above], n. 172 pp. 387s. (with this meaning,
Origen seems to prefer ÔPEÂtÇEtv to àSE'tEtV / àSÉ'tllcrtC;).
44. On Heracleon and the grammatical roots of his thought, see A. WUCHERPFENNIG,
Heracleon Philologlls: Gnostische Johannesexegese im zweiten Jahrhllndert, Tübingen,
2002; as regards his relations with Origen, see M. SIMONETTI, Eracleone e Origene, in
Vetera Christianorum 3 (1966) 111-141.
FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY, HISTORY OF A WORD 53
Heracleon4s . To judge from some existing fragments, this exegete of
Valentinian school introduces many 'distinctions' to explain the Scrip-
ture, at times also forcing them:
Again, Heracleon, dealing with our passage, declares, without any proof or
any citation of witnesses to that effect, that the words, "Lamb of God", are
spoken by John as a prophet, but the words, "who taketh away the sin of
the world", by John as more than a prophet. The former expression he
considers to be used of His body, but the latter of Him who was in that
body, because the lamb is an impelfect member of the genus sheep; the
same being true of the body as compared with the dweller in it46 •
Let these remarks be made on Heracleon's statement that the words,
"of your father the devil" mean, "of the essence of this father". Again
Heracleon makes a distinction (Otacr't"ÉÀÀB't"Œl) in reference to the state-
ment, "You wish to do the desires of your father", and says that the devil
does not have a will, but has desires. (212) The inconceivability of his
argument is self-evident, for anyone would admit that he wills wicked
things. And, although we do not have [texts] in hand at present to cite as
evidence, you yourself will collect [such texts] to see if "willing" has been
applied to the devil anywhere in Scripture47 •
45. This has been understood very well by A. BASTIT, Forme et Méthode dll Com-
mentaire sllr Jean d'Héracléoll, in Adamantills 15 (2009) 150-176, esp. pp. 156-157:
"Selon le même esprit de comparaison, Héracléon pratique aussi la distinction sémantique
ou 'owcr'toÂ1'jv' de deux ou plusieurs termes voisins. Dans l'exemple de l'énoncé méta-
phorique de Jean, l"agneau' se trouve distingué du 'bélier', comme l'imparfait du parfait.
Plus loin, Héracléon opposera le 'narthex" ('Itpovaoc;'), réservé aux Lévites, et le 'temple'
(''to iEpOV'), compris comme le sanctuaire ou le 'saint des saints', symbole du Plérôme.
De même, Héracléon distingue ('oWcr'tÉÂÂE'tal') entre 'désir' et 'vouloir' et, de façon
ternaire, entre 'écho', 'voix' et 'verbe'. L'exemple le plus élaboré est celui de la distinction
entre trois manières d'être 'fils de' quelqu'un, par nature, par option ou par dignité. il est
aisé de constater que toutes ces distinctions sémantiques correspondent à des espèces
à l'intérieur d'un genre, ouà des gradations et à la caractérisation de degrés d'intensité
différents. J'ai tenté de montrer ailleurs que les Valentiniens, particulièrement Ptolémée
(d'après Irénée), pratiquaient une exégèse qu'il serait possible d'appeler 'différentielle',
en confrontant des énoncés proches, mais distincts, ou en divisant par diérèse une notion
unique, telle celle de la 'croix'. Ces fOlmes diverses de 'otacr'toÂat' témoignent toutes
d'une attention portée aux nuances du texte commenté, selon une méthode que reprendra
et perfectionnera encore Origène".
°
46. See CIo VI,60,306 (GCS 10, p. 168): ITaÂtv Èv 't0 'tOItCfl 'HpaKÂÉcov yEVO-
J-lEVOC; XCOptc; ItucrllC; Ka'tucrKEufjC; Kat ItapuSÉcrECOC; J-lap'tuptrov àIto <pUtVEtUt Ott 'to
J-lÈv "'AJ-lVoC; 'tou Swu" roc; Itpo<j>i]'tllC; <Pllcriv 6 'IcouvvllC;, 'to oÈ " '0 UtpCOV 'ti]v
uJ-lup'ttav 'tou KocrJ-l0U" roc; ItEpWcrOtEpOV Itpo<j>1'jtou. Kui OtE'tUt 'to J-lÈv ItpO'tEpOV
ItEpt 'tou crcOJ-lu:oc; aù'tou ÂÉyEcrSUI, 'to OÈ OEÛtEpOV ItEpt 'tou èv 't0 crcOJ-latt, 't0 'tOV
àJ-lvov à'tEÂfj Eivut èv 't0 'trov ItpOPu'tCOV yÉVEt, OÜtCO oÈ KUt tO crroJ-lu ItapaSÉcrEI 'tou
èvotKoUVtoC; uùt0.
47. CIo XX,24,211-212 (GCS 10, p. 359): Tocruuta Kat ItpOC; 'tov 'HpaKÂÉcovoC;
Myov BiItovtoC;' tO "'EK 'tou Itu'tpoC; 'tou owpoÂou" àV'ti 'tou "èK tfjc; oùcrtac; 'tou
Itatpoc;" Bipi]crSco. ItaÂlV Bic; 'to "Tàc; S1tlSUJ-ltUc; 'tou Itatpoc; uJ-lrov SÉÂE'tE ItOletv"
Olucr'tÉÂÂE'tUt ÂÉycov 'tov OtupoÂov J-li] ËXEtv SÉÂllJ-la àÂÂ' È1tlSuJ-ltac;. Kat èJ-l<paivE'tat
UÙtOSEV 'to àowvoll'tov toU Myou' SÉÂEtv yùp 'tù ItOVllPÙ Itac; av ttc; OJ-loÂoyi]crat
 54 A. CACCIARI
If Herac1eon can be considered a special source conceming this
peculiarity of Origen's exegetical method, another author who greatly
influenced him must not be neglected, Clement of Alexandria. He uses
the above telms, in pmticular the phrase npoç àvnowcr'w/d]v, which is
typical of grammatical and scoliographic tradition48 • In one passage, he
discusses about owcr'wÀf] as a 'pause' to be inselted in the speech to
allow its logical articulation, not unlike Origen's later approach:
Does not this, as explaining a pat'able, mean something like this, and is not
the expression to be read somewhat to the following effect: "1 have fed you
with milk in Christ"; and after a slight stop, let us add, "as children", that
by separating the words in reading we may make out sorne such sense as
this: l have instructed you in Christ with simple, true, and natural nOUlish-
ment, - namely, that which is spiritual: for such is the nourishing substance
of milk swelling out from breasts of love. So that the whole matter may be
conceived thus: As nurses nOUlish new-bom children on milk, so do l also
by the Word, the milk of Christ, instilling into you spiritual nutriment49.
Of particular note is the following discussion, conceming not only
grammatical issues, but the real core of the hermeneutical question: '
It is, then, not by availing himself of these as vu·tues that our Gnostic will
be deeply learned. But by using them as helps in distinguishing what is
common and what is peculiar, he will admit the truth. For the cause of aIl
enor and false opinion, is inability to distinguish in what respect things are
common, and in what respects they differ. For unless, in things that are
distinct, one c10sely watch speech, he will inadvertently confound what is
common and what is peculiar. And where this takes place, he must of neces-
sity ~all into p~thless tracts and error. The distinction of names and things
also ID the Scnptures themselves pro duces great light in men's souls. For it
èKStVOV. cruvasw; OÈ KU! UÙtoe;, st KU! èn! taU nupOVtae; èv npoxstpCfl OÙK BXOf.lSV
nupuSscrSut, s'( nou èv tfi ypu<j>fi tO SsÂ,stv èn! tou otapoÂ,ou tStUKtUt.
48. Almost in ail cases with genitive; see Paed.l,5,20; 6,34 (ed. O. SrÀHLIN, OCS 12
[Clem, Alex., 1], Berlin, 1936, pp. 102.110); Stroll1. 1,4,27,2; 18,88,1; m,1l,78,2;
12,87,3; V,4,26,1 (ed. O. STÀHLIN L. FRÜCHTEL, OCS 52 [Clem. Alex" 2], Berlin, 1960,
pp. 17.56.231.236.242; VII,6,32,3; 15,92,7 (ed. O. STÀHLIN - L. FRÜCHTEL - U. TmlU,
OCS 15 [Clem. Alex., 3], Berlin, 1970, pp. 24.65. Sometimes the term used is otacrtaÂ,i]
m_eaning the 'syntactical viz. logical articulation', see above (Paed. 1,6,35 [pp. 132. 11Of.];
uMt,? ~T]1d~ t'Ett,f.i11t'ut ~aÂ"u~t't; Mi] t't 06,Y t'o "me;", nupuPoMje; ov 0l1Â,COttKo\"
t'OIOUtaV t't sf.l<j>at VEI, Kut 011 uvuyvcocrtsoV mos ncoe; t'o P11tOV' "yaÂ,u uf.lae; snot'tcru
èv Xptcr~ép" _KU~ otacr;i]cruVtSe; ô~{yOV, ènuyaycof.lsv "~e; v11nioue;", tvu Kut'à tfjV
otacrt'O_Â,l1V t'11e; uvuyvcocrscoe; tataUt11v unooESCOf.lESU otaVOtuv' Kut'i]X11cru uf.lae; sv
XptcrtCfl cmÂ,fi Kut àÂ,l1Ssî' KU! UÙto<j>usî' t'po<j>fi tfi nVSI>f.lut'tKfi· tataUtTj yàp ~ tOU
yaÂ,uKtae; ÇCOOtpo<j>oe; oùcrtu, <j>tÂ,ocrt'opyote; nTjyaçoucru f.lucrtate;· me; vosî'crSat t'o nav
t~OE~ éôcrn~p t'ép ya~UK;t ul tirS,at toÙe; nutOue; tOÙe; vEOyvoùe; èKt'PS<j>OUcrtv, Kàycl>
OS oum t'Cfl XptcrtaU YUÂ,UKt't Â,oyCfl nVsuf.lut'tK~V uf.ltV èvcrt'aÇcov t'po<j> i] v). Once at
least, otacrtoÂ,i] regards the exegesis of the above quoted pauline texts (see Paed. 1,8,73
[p. 132f.]).
49. Paed. 1,6,35 (OCS 12, p. Ill).
FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY: HISTORY OF A WORD 55
is necessary to understand expressions which signify several things, and
several expressions when they signify one thing. The result of which is
accurate answering. But it is necessary to avoid the great futility which
occupies itself in irrelevant matters; since the Gnostic av ails himself of
branches of learning as auxiliary preparatory exercises, in order to the accu-
rate communication of the truth, as far as attainable and with as little dis-
traction as possible, and for defence against reasonings that plot for the
extinction of the truth. He will not then be deficient in what contributes to
proficiency in the cuniculum of studies and the Hellenic philosophy; but
not principally, but necessatily, secondarily, and on account of circum-
stances. For what those labouring in heresies use wickedly, the Gnostic will
use tightly50.
If Heracleon and Clement possibly represent sources of Origen's use
of such exegetical tools, not less interesting are sorne passages of later
authors, who seem to be indebted to him for them. Likewise, in Evagrius
there are evident traces of a theological development of the term àvn-
otucr't'oÀf]. When he says (Epistula fidei, 2,31)51 that God is "naturally
one" (Ëvu Tf1 cpumn), he adds that dç ('one'), as weIl as its synonym
flovoÇ, refer in this case to the 'essence' or 'nature' of God. In fact, the
Scripture uses the two terms "not in opposition (où npoç àvnota-
cr't'oÀf]v) to the Son and to the Holy Ghost" (ibid. 2, 14ff.)52.
However, the most significant example is undoubtedly given by
Gregory of Nyssa. In particular, his dogmatic works show a frequent and
rather peculiar use of terminology including otucr't'OÀf] / àvnowcr't'oÀf].
50. Strolll. VI,1O,82,lss. (OCS 52, pp. 472-473): OUKOUV me; àpst'ute; t'uurate;
cruyxpWf.lSVoe; ~f.ltv ô yvcocrt'tKOe; noÂ,uf.luSi]e; Bcrt'at, à')"Â,à cruvspyote; t't0"!, Kàv t'ép
Otacrt'sÂ,Â,stv t'a t's Kotvà KU! t'à '(Ota npocri]crEtat t'~v àÂ,i]Sstav' Bcrt't yàp nacr11e;
nÂ,av11e; Kut 'l'SUoooostue; uÏt'tov t'o f.li] ouvacrSat otaKptVstV, nfi t's àni]Â,ote; t'à ovt'u
KOtVCOVst KU! nfi otsvi]VOXsv. st oÈ f.li] Kat'à t'à otCOptcrf.lÉvu t'te; t'ov Myov è<j>oosuot,
Â,i]crst'at cruyxsue; ta t'E Kotvà KU! t'à '(ota, t'OUtaU oÈ ytVof.lsvou de; àvootuv KU!
nÂ,avTjv èf.lnint'stV àVUYKutoV. ~ otacrt'oÂ,~ OÈ t'rov t's ôvof.lat'cov t'rov tS npuYf.latcov
Kàv t'ute; ypu<j>ute; uùt'ute; ~lsya <j>roe; èvrtKtst t'ate; 'l'Uxute;' àVUYKutoV yàp ÈnuKoûstV
t'rov t's nÂ,stovu crTjf.lutvoucrrov Â,ssscov KU! trov nÂ,stovcov, ot'uv Ëv t't cr11f.lutvcocrtv·
oSsv Kut t'o ôpSroe; ànoKptVscrSat nsptyivst'ut.
51. See Evagrius, Epistula fidei, ed. and It. transI. by J. ORIBOMONT, in M. FORLIN-
PATRUCCO, Basilio di Cesarea, Le lettere, vol. 1, Torino, 1983,84-113. A Oerman transla-
tion in: O. BUNGE, Evagrios POlltikos: Briefe aus der Wiiste, Trier, 1986, pp. 284-302.
52. See O. BUNGE, Ellcore ullefois: Héllade ou MOllade? Au sujet de deux lIotiolls-
clés de la termillologie techllique d'Évagre le POlitique, in Adamalltius 15 (2009) 9-42,
p. 25: "Évagre avait, en effet, écrit que Dieu est 'un par nature' (Ëvu tfi <j>ucrst) [Ep. fidei
2,31]. Le mot ste;, comme son synonyme f.lovoe;, se réfère ici à l'essence [Ibid. 3,11 s.] ou
nature [Ibid. 3,33.] de Dieu. Or ['Écriture utilise ces deux notions '11011 pas par cOlltrapo-
sitioll (où npoe; àvt'totacrtaÂ,i]v) au Fils ou à l'Esprit Saillt', mais contre les faux dieux
des païens [Ibid. 3,24 s.]. Car 'il faut confesser que le Père est Dieu, que le Fils est Dieu
et que l'Esprit Saint est Dieu' [Ibid. 2,14 s.], et le nom 'Dieu' désigne précisément cette
'unité naturelle' [Ibid. 2,31.] et non pas 'numérique' des trois hypostases divines" [Ibid.
2,38-39.].
 56 A.CACCIARI
In fact, apart from a semantically generic use53 , there is a special applica-
tion of it to theologicallanguage; this is especially hue of his polemic
against Eunomius who, as is well-known, used aIl the weapons of l'heto-
rics and Aristotelean logic to attack 01'thodoxy54. There now follow some
examples:
1. If however they are saying that there is nothing to prevent both the con-
trast (ùvnèhu<J'tOÂilv) with "begotten" being expressed by "unbegotten-
ness", and the same telID denoting the being, they must distinguish (Otu-
<J1BtÂa10)<Juv) for us the additional connotations of the word so that we
can effectively connect with each other the distinct senses of 'u~begotten'55.
The focus here is on the tenu 'opposition' (àvnùtaO''t'oÀi]), marking
the relation between 'generated' and 'ungenerate'; GregOly exhorts his
adversaries (Eunomius and his followers) not to speak generically, but to
deepen their operation of verbal - and consequently also conceptual _
'distinction' .
? The un~eg~tten we ~iscover from its contradiction of the begotten, the
~destruct1ble IS recogrnzed by cornparison with the destructible, and being .
IS understood by contrast (ùvnotu<J10Âfj) with the non-existent56.
.' 53. See Or. cat. 23,15: 56,4; In Eccl. 371,4; 426,17. See also Dictionariulll Grego-
lIanum, ed. F. MANN, Lelden - Boston, MA - Kain, 1999ss., I, S.vv. àvnotacr.. ÉÀÀco
(pp. 395-396); àvnotacrwÀ1Î (p. 396); Il, S.v. otacr.. ÉÀÀco (pp. 366-367); OtamoÀ1Î
(pp. 370-371).
. 54. See A. MEREDITH, The Language ofGod and Human Language (CE II 195-293),
m Grego~y of Nyssa: Contra EunomiulII II. An English Version with Supporting Studies
(Proceedmgs of the lQth International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa [Olomouc,
Sept. 15-18,2004]), ed. L. ICARFtKovA - S. DOUGLASS - J. ZACHHUBER, Leiden _ Boston,
~, 2007, 247-256, and especially L. KARFfKovA, Der Ursprung der Sprache nach Euno-
IIIIUS l~n~ a,regor l'or dem Hinterg/'lll/d der antiken Sprachtheorien (CE II 387-444; 543-
553), m IbId., 27~-305 .. On Eunomius' use of Aristotelean logic, see E. VANDENBUSSCHE,
L~ ~ar~ de la ~l.ale~tlque dans la théologie d'Eunomius 'le technologue', in Revue
~ HIstOIre .Ec~les/astlque 40 (1944/1945) 47-72. With the exception of CE Il (the transla-
tIon of whlch IS that made by S.G. HALL, in GregOly of Nyssa: Contra EllllOmiull/ II [see
above], the versions of Gregory's works given here are taken from: GregOly of Nyssa,
Selected Works, tr. by W. MOORE - H.A. WILSON, London, 1892 (repr.).
55. Greg. Nyss. C~ntra Eunomium [=CE] Il,40-41 (ed. W. JAEGER, Gregorii Nysseni
opera [= ~NO], I, Lelden, 1960, pp. 237-238; tr. S.G. HALL, in GregOly ofNyssa: Con-
tra E1II/Ollllllll/ II [see above, n. 54], p. 68): et OB ÀÉyolJcrt KcoÀualV /lT]oèv Kat .. ~v npàe;
..? ya~vll,..àv àvnotacr"oÀ~v ÈK .. ~e; àyavvT]crtae; crT]/laivacrSat Kat aù .. ~v naptcr..àv
"ryv oIJcrtav, o~acr.. ~tÀ~..cocrav 1l/llV .. ùe;, npocr<plJate; ..ou ôvo/lawe; crT]/lacriae;, roe;
?,IJvacrSat KIJptCOe; ap/losalV npàe; ÉKa.. apav OtacrxtcrSatcrav .. ou àyaVVlÎ .. olJ .. ~v
avvotav .
. 56. CE Il, 386 (GNO I, 338-339; tr. S.G. HALL, in GregOly of Nyssa: Contra Euno-
':llll/Il II [see _a~ove, ~. 54], p. 1~6):, ",? .. a yùp à'l;:ÉvvT]"ov"u npàe; ..à yaVVT] ..àv
avno,tacr"oÀn a~a~pt?,Ko!;'av ,"=at ,"~ a<p~apwv "n npàe; .. à <pSap .. àv napaSÉcrat
yvcoptSa ..at Kat T] oIJcrta "n npoe; ..0 aVllnocr..awv napaÀÀayfj Sacopat..at.
FROM GRAMMAR TO THEOLOGY: HISTORY OF A WORD 57
Thus, it is assel1ed that the 'opposition' (àv't'tùta<J't'oÀi]) - in particu-
laI', of negative against positive - is in fact the main logical-dialectical
tool allowing the real differentiation of the entia in their attributes.
3. But if they say that there is nothing to hinder the distinction (ùvnotu-
<J10Âilv) between generated and ungenerate from being rendered by the telID
ungenerate, and that term represents the essence too, let them distinguish
(Otll<J1BtÂa10)<Juv) for us the kindred meanings of the ward, sa that the
notion of ungenerate may properly apply ta either of them taken by itself57.
4. As the speculation is two-fold, conceming that life which is Divine,
simple, and immaterial, and concerning that existence which is material and
subject ta passion, and as the word "generation" is used of bath, we must
needs make our distinction (otu<J10Âilv) shalp and clear, lest the ambiguity
of the term "generation" should in any way pervelt the truth58 .
In both passages, addressing bis adversaries' statement of the real
agreement of significance and signifier in the opposition between 'gener-
ated' and 'ungenerate', Gregory asks them to 'make fU11her distinctions'
(ÙtUO''t'ÉÀÀEtv) as regards the semantics of this tenu, in order to avoid an
ambiguous and misleading use of it.
5 .... Yet it may seem to be sa, for their aim is ta maintain at aH points the
difference of the essence of the Son from that of the Father, and they strive
ta show the dissinrilarity of essence not only by the contrast (OlU<J10Âfj) of
the Generated with the Ungenerate, but also by the opposition of the pas-
sible ta the impassible. And while this is more openly maintained in the last
palt of theu- argument, it is also clearly shawn in their present discourse 59 .
.Eunomius and his followers take the 'otherness' of the Son from the
Pather too far from the 'distinction' (ùta<noÀfj) between 'generated' and
'ungenerate', and they extend it to the 'antithesis' (àvnSÉmn) between
'passible' and 'impassible'.
57. CE Il, 1,40-41 (GNO I, 237-238): et OB ÀÉyoIJcrt KcoÀ6alV /lT]oèv Kat .. ~v npàe; .. à
yavvT] ..àv àV'rlotacr"oÀ~v ÈK Tile; àyavvT]criae; crJlI1aivacrSat Kat aù .. ~v naptcr..àv .. ~v
oùcriav, otacr.. atÀu..cocrav 1l/ltV .. ùe; npocr<plJete; ..ou ôvo/la..oe; crT]/lacrîae;, roe; ouvacrSat
. KIJpîcoe; up/losatv 1tpàe; ÉKa .. Épav OtacrxtcrSdcrav .. ou àyavvlÎ'rOlJ .. ~v Ëvvotav.
58. CE IlI,2,4 (GNO I, 53): otnÀTîe; yùp oîlcrT]e; "Tîe; Sacopîae;, snî .. a "Tîe; SEÎae; Kat
unÀTîe; Kat àûÀOIJ scoTîe; Kat Ènt "Tîe; UÀtKTîe; .. a Kat È~l1taSoue; unocr.. ucracoe;, Kat o/loicoe;
Àayo/lÉVT]e; Èn' à/l<Potv "Tîe; yaVVlÎcracoe; àvayKatOV llv a'(T] .. pav~v Kat àcruYXIJwv .. ~v
OtacrwÀ~v ..&v cr'l/lalVo/lÉvcoV notilcracrSat, /llÎ nT] .. ~v àÀ1ÎSatav 1l "ile; yavvlÎcracoe;
o/lcoVll/lia napaÀoyîcrT] ..at.
59. CE IlI,4,3ff. (GNO II, 134-135): .. ote; /lEV yùp crK01tOe; Ècrn Otù nuv .. cov
Ka..acrKElJucrat .. ~v "ile; oùcriae; .. ou IJiou npàe; .. ~v .. ou 1ta.. pàe; àÀÀmptcocrlV, Kat où
/lovov "u wu yaVVT]"ou npàe; .. à àyÉvvT]"ov Otacr..oÀU, àÀÀÙ Kat "U .. ou naST]"ou
1tpàe; 1à ànaSEe; àvnSÉcrat .. à Ka .. ' oùcriav àVO/lOlOV àno oalKvualV crnolJouSolJcrt.
Kat wu ..o YIJ/lvo .. apov /lEV Èv ..ote; .. aÀEIJ .. aîote; wu ÀoyolJ Ka..acrKaIJUÇa ..at, <pavapàv
OE Kat otà ..&v vuv ÀayoJ.lÉvcov oùx ~nov Ècrnv.
 58 A. CACCIARI
6 .... But [seil. Eunomius] makes his opposition (Otucr'toÀ.i]v) of "all things
that have come into being" ta "Gad" without discrimination, not excepting
the Son from "all things"60.
7. And yet, though there are sa many that proclaim the glory of the Only-
begotten Gad, against them all Eunomius lifts up his single voice, calling
the Christ" an angel of the Gad over all", defining Him, by thus contrasting
(àvnotamoÀ.fi) Him with the "Gad over all", ta be one of the "all things",
and, by giving Him the same name as the angels, trying ta establish that He
no wise differs from them in nature: for he has often previously said that
all those things which share the same name cannat be different in nature 61 .
Within the 'opposition' (8tacr'toÀi]v) between God and 'aIl created
things', Eunomius first extends the latter category to the Son, thus defin-
ing him, as such, "an angel of the God who is 'over aIl things'''.
8. What bec ornes of that invincible compulsion of then' syllogisms, which
sounded sa fine ta the ears of old women, with its opposition (Otacr'toÀ.fjS)
of "Generated" and "Ungenerate"?62.
9. For the difference between contradictories is not one of greater or less
intensity, but rests its opposition (àvnotucr'toÀ.i]v) upon their beinK
mutually exclusive in their signification: as, for example, we say that a man
is asleep or not asleep, sitting or not sitting, that he was or was not, and all
the l'est after the same model, where the denial of one is the assertion of its
contradictory63.
10. As, then, ta live is not a diminution of not living, but its complete oppo-
site, even sa we conceived having been generated not as a diminution of
not having been generated, but as an opposite (àvnotucr'toÀ.i]v) and con-
tradictory not admitting of any middle term, sa that which is expressed by
the one has nothing whatever ta do with that which is expressed by the other
in the way of less or more 64 •
60. CE III,5,35 (GNO II, 172): à')·,),: ôl!o,iwoç n01f:hat ,~v npoç SEOV OtaO'wÀ~v
mxv't"COv «bv yEyOVO't"COV, OÔK S1;EÀàJV ,av \liov ,â\v mxv't"COv [ ... ].
61. CE III,9,30-31 (GNO II, 275): Kat wO'olmov OVTCOV ,â\v ,~v 061;av ,0G
l!OVOYEVO~Ç SEOG OtayyEÀÀ6V't"COV l!ovoç ,olç niiO'IV àvnBo;.i Ô Eôvol!toç "ayyEÀov"
~ô,OV_"W\l snt nuv~rov" ÀÉyrov "SEOG", ,il l!SV npoç ,av snt nuvtrovàvnotaO"t"oÀil
Eva ,rov nuv't"COv dvat OtopIÇOl!EVOÇ, ,il os npoç wùç àYYÉÀo\lç wG ovol!a'wç
Kowrovig. ,0 l!110SV SKEivrov naP11ÀÀuxSat 31 ,il <j>ÎlO'Et Ka,aO'KE\lUÇroV.
62. CE III,6,54 (GNO II, 205): noG ai nOIKiÀal Kat EÜO',PO<j>OI ,â\v ovol!u,rov
àv,lO',po<j>ai; noG f) àl!TtXavoç ,â\v O'\lÀÀoytO'l!â\v àvuyK11 olà ,~ç ,0G àyEVV~,O\l
npoç ,0 yEvv11'ov olaO',oÀ~ç ,àç ypaWoEtç àKOàç nEptKol!noGO'a;
63. CE III,1O,51 (GNO II, 310): niiv yàp ,0 àVnKEtl!EvoV OÔK sv U<j>ÉO'EI ,~v
ow<j>opuv, àÀÀ' sv !,av,EÀEI 'U Ka,à ,0 O'l1l!aWol!EVov àÀÀO,ptWO'EI ,~v
àvnotaO',oÀi!v EXEt, olov KaSEMEw ,Ivà ÀÉY0l!EV 11 l!i! KaSEÎloEW, KaS~O'Sat 11 l!i!
KaS~O'Sat, yEyEvv~O'Sat 11 l!i! yEyEVV~O'Sat, «}ÀÀa nuvm Ka,à ,av aô,ov ,Îlnov' d)v
f) wG 6VOÇ apO'tç SÉO'IÇ ,0G àvnKEIl!ÉvO\l yivE,al.
64. CE III,1O,52 (GNO II, 310): roO'nEp o()v ,0 çl1V Oôxt ü<j>EO'iç SO',I wG l!~ ç~v,
àÀÀà navtEÀi!ç svav,iroO'lç, olhro ,0 yEyEVV~O'Sat OÔX Ü<j>EO'W ,0G l!i! YEVV11SÉvwÇ
sv0TtO'al!EV, àÀÀ' àvtiSEO'iv ,wa Kat àvnotaO',oÀi!v Ùl!EO'hE\l,OV, wç ,0 sv ÉKa,ÉpCfJ
FROM GRAMMAR TO TIlEOLOGY: HISTORY OF A WORD 59
GregOly underlines that the syllogistic 'opposition' made by Eunomius
(8tU<J'toÀi] / àvn8tumoÀi]) - which he laughs at as "appreciated by old
women" - in fact does not provide intermediate degrees, and thus tums
out as an absolute one.
11. For the differentiation of the subsistences makes the distinction (Ota-
cr'toÀ.i]v) of Persans clear and free from confusion, while the one Name
standing in the forefront of the declaration of the Faith clearly expounds ta
us the unity of essence of the Persans Whom the Faith declares, - l mean,
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spn·it65 .
GregOly finally brings the conect domain of 'distinction' (8tucr'toÀi])
back to the difference between the 'Persons' (rcpoO'corcu). As can be seen,
the whole argumentation of Eunomius, and of GregOly against him, con-
centrates on the application of dialectic categories - mainly gathered
from grammatical tradition - to the language of theology. As regards this
procedure, GregOly severely criticises the immoderate unscmpulousness
of the anomaean thinker in the treatment of the complex and delicate
relationship between significance and signifier.
And finally, a passage of Ambrose 66 seems indebted to the same use
of the tenn àvn8tamoÀi]:
For heaven, which in Greek is called oùpUVOS, in Latin, caelunI, is con-
nected with the ward 'stamped' [caelatum], because the heavens have the
lights of the stars impressed on them like embossed works, just as silver
plate is said to be 'stamped' when it glitter with figures in relief. The word
oùpUVOS seems ta be derived from the Greek verb 'ta be seen' [6piicr~ut].
O'l1l!awol!Evov l!l1OEvt ,ponCfJ KOlvrovElv npoç ,0 Ë'EPOV l!Tt'E sv oÀiyCfJ l!Tt'E sv
nÀEtovl.
65. Re! con! EU//. 12.4s. (GNO II, 317): f) l!SV yàp ,â\v unoO',uO'Erov \OIO'l1Ç
,pav~v ,E Kat àO'ÎlYX\lWV nOIEhat ,i!v ,â\v npoO'wnrov owO',oÀTtV, Ëv os ovol!a
npoKEil!EVOV ,~ç Ka,à ,~v niO'nv SKSÉO'EroÇ O'a<j>â\ç f)l!IV ,~v Évo'l1,a ,~ç oôO'iaç
,â\v sv ,il nîO',EI npoO'wnrov oIEPl!l1vEÎlEI, na,poç ,E ÀÉyro Kat \llOG Kat nVEÎll!a,oç
ayio\l.
66. Ambrose, Exameron, dies II,4,15 (ed. C. SCHENKL [CSEL 32,1], Wien, 1897,
p. 54,14): Et uidetllr mihi nomen caelortlm commune esse, quia plurimos caelos scriptura
testificatur, nOlIIen autem esse speciale jirmamentum, siquidem et hic ita habet: Et uocauit
jirmamentum caelum, ut lIideatlir supra generaliter dixisse in principio caelum factum, ut
olllnem caelestis creaturae fabricam conprehenderet, hic auteln specialem jirmamenti
llldus exterioris soliditatem, quod dicitur caeli jirmamentulll, siC/if legimus in hymno pro-
phetico: "Benedictus es in firmamento caeli". Nam caelum, quod oôpavoç graece dici-
tur, latine, quia inpressa stellartlm lumina uelut signa habeat, tamquam caelatum appel-
latur, sicut argentum, quod signis eminentibus refulget, caelatum dicimlls, oôpavoç autem
àno ,0G ôpuO'Sat dicitur, quod uidetur. TIpoç àvnotaO'wÀi!v igitur terrae, quae obscu-
rior est, oôpavoç lll/nCupatur, quia lucidus est, tamquam uisibilis. Vnde puto et illud
dictum zlOlatilia caeli semper uident faciem patris mei, qui in caelis est et uolatilia circa
firmamentum caeli, eo quod potestates, quae Sl/lzt in illo uisibili loco, spectent lzaec oll/nia
et subiecta suis lzabeant conspectibus.
60 A. CACCIARI

In distinction [npàç ùvnotaatoÀftv], therefore, to the earth, which is

dru'ker, the sky is called oùpav6ç, because it is bright, that is to say, visible.
Hence, 1 believe, is the origin of that expression: "The winged ones of
he aven always behold the face of my Father, who is in heaven" (see Mat
18,10)67.

Concluding this bird's-eye view of OWCHOÀi] and àvnow,a"COÀi], it

can be affirmed that the transition of these terms from the semantic
domain of grammar and philology to that of theological debate - as
shown by the later texts quoted above -~ can be considered very probably
as another step of Origen's Wirkungsgeschichte.
1
Dipartimento di Antonio CACCIARI
Filologia Classica e Medioevale THELITERARY MILIEU OF ALEXANDRIA AND
Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna CAESAREA P ALESTINA IN ORIGEN' S TlME
Via Zamboni, 32
1-40126 Bologna (ltaly)
antonio.cacciari@unibo.it

67. Tr. J.J. SAVAGE, St, Ambrose. Hexameron, Paradise and Cain alld Abel, Washing-
ton, De, 1961 (repr. 2003), pp. 60-61.
 L'INTERPRÉTATION ORIGÉNIENNE DE GEN 2,8 ET SES
ARRIÈRE-PLANS RABBINIQUES

L'Eden, le lieu de séjour du premier homme, est sans aucun doute un

thème significatif pour les exégètes, qu'ils soient chrétiens ou juifs,
puisqu'il implique la question de la condition cOlporelle du premier
homme avant le péché et puisqu'il est logiquement lié au problème de
l'état final des êtres humains après la rédemption.
L'intelprétation origénienne de l'Eden a provoqué des réactions très
contradictoires au cours des siècles. À côté des textes bien connus, qui
témoignent des interprétations allégoriques du Paradis, je vais traiter ici
un fragment grec sur Gen 2,8, qui transmet une interprétation étymolo-
gique très spécifique, qui ne se trouve dans aucun texte grec avant
Origène. Le fragment ne témoigne pas seulement de l'acceptation d'une
intelprétation juive par Origène et de ses contacts avec des savants juifs,
mais il pourrait aussi apporter un éclairage neuf sur la question, SI
Origène a vraiment nié la matérialité du paradis.

1. L'HÉRITAGE EXÉGÉTIQUE

Une interprétation allégorique de l'Eden avait déjà été développée et

utilisée par Philon. En se différenciant des tendances de l'exégèse juive des
siècles précédents, selon lesquelles le Paradis était conçu comme un endroit
terrestre, créé le troisième jour comme toutes les plantes, Philon a déve-
loppé une intelprétation de l'Eden purement allégorique. Puisqu'il com-
prenait la création de l 'homme racontée en Gen 1,27 comme une création
idéale et spirituelle, selon le modèle platonicien. Il niait aussi la lecture
littérale du paradis: il soutenait qu'il ne s'agissait ni d'un lieu matériel ni
d'arbres visibles et perceptibles, mais d'allégories des vertus de l'homme
avant son péché. Philon utilisait une interprétation étymologique de l'Eden
comme "Cpu<\>11 (délice) qui nous est transmise également par Symmaque 1•
Selon Philon, il s'agissait d'un délice spiritueF, qu'il qualifiait comme

1. Cf. Septuaginta, Genesis, 2,8, éd. J.W. WEVERS, Gottingen, 1974. L'interprétation
de Symmaque était probablement KocrlloU 'tpu<Pi].
2. Cf. Leg. Ali. 1.45-46 (Les œuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie 2, 62): 1tupulhncroc; IltV
aT] 'tp01ttKroC; EtPl1'tut Tj àPE'ti], 't01tOC; at otKElOC; 't<!) 1tUpUaElcrCfl 'EaÉIl, 'to\5'to 8é Ècr'tt
'tpu<pi]' àpE'tn at aPllonov Etpi]Vl1 Kui E\l1tulktu Kut xupu, Èv olc; 'to 'tpu<pav roc;
 64 A. TZVETKOVA-GLASER
étant la possession de la vraie sagesse. D'autres textes philoniens inter-
prètent le paradis comme l'allégorie de la raison «droite et divine»3 ou
comme l'âme humaine, dans laquelle Dieu plante les vertus4 •
L'intetprétation de l'Eden donnée par Philon a influencé les exégètes
chrétiens avant Origène. Clément d'Alexandrie et Irénée sont des repré-
sentants importants du développement de l'exégèse chrétienne du paradis
dans le contexte des controverses avec les tendances dualistes, d'em-
preinte gnostique ou marcionite.
Clément distinguait un Kocrll0Ç; vorJ1:oç; d'un Kocrll0Ç; aicrBrrcoç;5, mais
il soulignait qu'ils ont tous les deux été créés par Dieu. Pareillement. à
Philon, Clément interprétait souvent le paradis de manière allégorique
comme l'état spirituel caractéristique non seulement du premier homme
avant le péché, mais aussi de tous les hommes après la rédemption défini-
tivé. Il suivait aussi Philon en ce qui concemait l'étymologie de l'Eden
comme «délice» 7 , mais ce délice caractérisait, selon Clément, chaque
homme croyant8 • En parlant plus concrètement du lieu, décrit en Gen 2,8,
il suivait Paul (2 Cor 12,2.4) et «localisait» le paradis «au delà du troisième
ciel (Ô1tÈp 'Cov oùpavov 'Cov 'CphOV)>>9. Comme Bietz l'a déjà remarqué,
il est difficile de savoir si Clément a accepté un paradis terrestre lO , mais
àÂ:r,Sooç Ecr'tt. Sur l'étymologie Edern - 'tpu<j>T] voire aussi De sOlllniis II.242 (Les œuvres
de Phil0!,1 d'Alexandrie 19,220): KaÂ-sloÈ 't~v !!Èv cro<j>iav 'EIlé!!, ~ç ÉPI!l1VBia 'tpu<j>T],
OlO'tt, oi!!at, EV'tpu<j>l1!!a Kat Swu cro<j>ia Kat cro<j>iaç Swu, E1td Kat EV Ü~lvotÇ {tOB-
'tat· «Ka't:a'tpu<j>l1crov 'tou Kupiou» (ps 36,4). Cf. aussi L.L. GRABBE, Etymology in Early
Jewish Interpretation: The Hebl'ew Names in Philo (Brown Iudaic Studies 115) Atlanta
GA, Scholars, 1988, N. 49, pp. 151-152. " ,
3. Cf. De post. 32 (Les œuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie 6, 62-64): ~U!!~0Â-1KOOÇ oÉ
Ecr'ttV 'EoÈ!! opSoç Kat SslOÇ Myoç, 1tapo Kat Ép!!l1vdav EXBt «'tpu<j>T]V», o'tt
ÈVBU<j>pai VB'tat Kat ÈV'tpu<j>~ 1tpO 'tOOV aÂ-Â-rov à!!l yÉcrt Kat àKpÛ't01Ç, E'tt oÈ àp'ttotc;
Kat 1tÂ-T]pBcrt KBXPll!!ÉvoÇ àyaSoî'c; üovwç 'tou 1tÂ-ouwll6wu Swu 'tàç 1tapSÉvouç Kat
àSavûwuç xûpt'taç m'nou.
4. Cf. Plant. 36 (Les œuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie 10, 38-40), une interprétation
semblable se retrouve aussi dans Plant. 38: Atà wuw Kat 't01tOV OlKBtO'ta'tov 1tpocrÉ-
VBt!!B 'ti(l1tapaOBtcrC(l KaÂ-oU!!BVOV 'EoÉ!! - Ép!!l1VBUB'tat oÈ 'tpu<j>T] - crU!!~oÂ-OV 'VUX~ç
't~ç ap'tta ~Â-B1toucrllÇ, àpB'taiç ÈyxoPBuoucrllC; Kat U1tO ltÂ-T]Souç Kat !!ByÉSOUÇ xapaÇ
àvacrKlp't rocr llÇ, àltoÂ-aucr!!a Ëv àV'tt !!Uptrov 'toov 1tap'àvSpro1t01Ç ~Otcr'trov
ltpo'tBSBt!!ÉVllÇ 't~v 'tou !!OVOU SBpa1tdav cro<j>ou.
5. Cf. par exemple Stl'om. V.93.4-94.1 (SC 278, 178-180).
6. Stl'om. V.79.1 (SC 278, 154).
7. Cf. Stl'om. II.51.4 / 5 (SC 38, 75): Ép!!l1VBuB'tat oÈ ~ !!Èv Nato crûÂ-oç, ~ oÈ 'EoÈ!!
'tpu<j>T]' lttcr'ttç OÈ Kat yvoocrtç Kat BipT]Vll ~ 'tpu<j>T], ~ç 1tapaKoucrac; EK~ûÂ-Â-B'tat ...
8. Cf. ibid.
9. Stl'Oll/. V.12.79 (SC 278, 154). Cf. Clem. Exc. Théodote, 51 (SC 23, 164): MBV [
avSpro1toç] EV 'ti(l1tapaOBtcrC(l, 'ti(l n:'tûp'CC(l oùpavi(l, 0l1!!WuPysl'tat· ÈKBt yàp XOïK~
cràpc, OÙK àva~atvst.
10. Cf. W.K. BIETZ, Pal'adiesesvol'stel/ungen bei Ambrosius und seinen VOl'gangel1l,
GieBen, Univ.-Diss., 1973, p. 20.
L'INTERPRÉTATION ORlGÉNIENNE DE GEN 2,8 65
il est très probable qu'il ait compris le paradis de Gen 2,8 comme un lieu
doté d'une certaine matérialité, puisque l 'homme possédait aussi un
corps!!.
Une interprétation plutôt littérale du paradis nous est transmise par
Irénée: en acceptant que le premier homme se trouvait à un «stade d'en-
fance spirituelle», il comprenait l'Eden comme le lieu conçu par Dieu
pour protéger les hommes jusqu'à ce qu'ils atteignent le stade de la matu-
rité spirituelle. Irénée faisait lui aussi mention de l'étymologie de l'Eden
comme «délice», transmise par Philon et Symmaque. Il caractérisait cet
endroit comme supérieur à notre monde non seulement à cause de sa
beauté, mais aussi à cause de la proximité que le premier homme y avait
avec le Verbe!2. De même que Clément dans son interprétation eschato-
logique, Irénée comprenait également l'Eden comme la récompense des
justes après le Jugement dernier, le lieu où ils restaient «jusqu'à la
consommation finale, préludant ainsi à l'incorruptibilité»!3. Irénée com-
prenait l'Eden comme un lieu matériel et probablement conuptible, vu
comme une étape sur le chemin vers l'incorruptibilité.
À cause de leur polémique c·ontre les gnostiques et marcionites, Irénée
et Clément prenaient leurs distances par rapport à l'intetprétation pure-
ment allégorique de Philon, qu'ils connaissaient sans doute bien, et
accentuaient le fait que la création matérielle de l'homme et du premier
lieu de son séjour avait aussi été opérée par Dieu.
11. D'après sa conception du premier péché, il apparaît que Clément acceptait une
certaine corporalité de l'homme avant le premier péché. Clément comprenait le serpent
comme une allégorie de la concupiscence et concevait la transgression d'Adam et Ève
comme un acte de désobéissance concernant explicitement la procréation. L'homme se
trouvait, selon Clément, à un stade d'enfance spirituelle, auquel n'était pas encore venu le
temps pour la procréation. En suivant le conseil du serpent, l'homme et la femme suivirent
leur désir de procréation avant le temps prévu par Dieu, cf. Stl'om. IIl.7.64-69 (GCS
Clemens 2, 225-227) et Pl'otl'ept. 11.1 (SC 2a, 178). Donc, si Clément acceptait une telle
conception du premier péché, il semble logique, qu'il ait aussi accepté la corporalité du
premier homme.
12. Cf. Dem. 12, (SC 406, 100) et Hael'. V.5.1 (SC 153, 64), où Irénée soutient la
matérialité du paradis et la conception selon laquelle c'était un monde différent et meilleur
du nôtre. Hael'. II.30.9 (SC 294, 320) est très significatif en ce qui concerne les arrière-
plans polémiques de l'interprétation d'un paradis matériel chez Irénée: Irénée y polémique
contre Marcion et énumère les œuvres glorieuses de Dieu, parmi lesquelles le paradis.
13. Iren., Hael'. V.5.1, (SC 153,64-66): ITou 06v ÈtÉSll 6 ltpOOWç avSproltoç; Èv
ti(lltapaoBtcrC(l 011Â-OVO'tt, KaSooc; yÉypalt'tat. Kat EKslSBV ÈC,B~Â-llS11 BiC; tOVOB 'tOV
KOcr!!OV 1tapaKoucraç. ,1.10 Kat Â-ÉyoUlV oi 1tpBcr~UtBpOt, 'tOOV à1tocr'toÂ-rov !!aSll'tat
'toùç !!B'tatBSÉVTaç EKslcrB !!BtatSS~val - otKaiotç yàp àvSpro1totç Kat ltVBU-
!!a'to<j>opo\Ç ~wt!!ûcrSll 6 1tapâOBtcroÇ, Èv 4> Kat ITauÂ-oç 6 à1tocr,oÂ-oç BicrKocr!!lcrSdç
l1KoucrB pT]!!ata apPllta roç 1tpOç ~!!aÇ EV 'ti(l 1tapov'tt - KàKsl !!ÉvstV toÙç
!!BtatSSÉvmc; Ëroç cruVtBÂ-Btaç, 1tpoot!!taSO!!Évouç 't~v à<j>Sapcrtav.
66 A. TZVETKOVA-GLASER
II. LES INTERPRÉTATIONS CONTRADICTOIRES D'ORIGÈNE
Bien que le modèle de l'interprétation allégorique du paradis ait été
développé par Philon et partiellement utilisé par Clément, c'est avec
Origène que le thème devint un vrai problème pour les exégètes chré-
tiens. Le Commentaire origénien sur la Genèse ayant été perdu, nous ne
disposons pas d'une exégèse systématique de Gen 2,8-14. Aucune des
homélies sur la Genèse ne traite la question du paradis et nous pouvons
seulement spéculer pour évaluer si Origène a lui-même exclu Gen 2,8 de
son cycle d'homélies ou s'il s'agit du choix de Rufin dont la traduction
nous est parvenue. Celtains passages du De principiis traitent le thème
du paradis, mais dans des contextes différents, qui concement souvent
l'état des hommes après la rédemption finale. Plusieurs témoignages de
l'exégèse origénienne de Gen 2,8 nous ont été transmis par d'autres
auteurs chrétiens antiques (Eustâche, Épiphane, Jérôme), qui ont reproché
à Origène une interprétation purement spirituelle de l'Eden, qui mettait
en question la valeur de la création matérielle. Ce problème est logique-
ment lié à la question de la corporalité du premier homme avant le péché.
Les témoignages sur l'interprétation origénienne de la condition de
l'homme avant sa chute de l'Eden sont aussi contradictoires que ceux qui
concement son exégèse du paradis:
En effet, Prin IV.3 nous transmet une liste d'exemples scripturaires
qui doivent être interprétés de manière allégorique, y compris la création
du Paradis visible et perceptible selon Gen 2,8. Origène dit <<je pense que
personne ne douterait que tout cela annonce certains mystères, mais de
manière figurative à travers une histoire apparente, qui n'a pas eu lieu
de manière cOlporelle»14. Dans Prin III. 6, Origène qualifie le paradis
comme l'état spirituel des natures intellectuelles avant leur chute 1S • Un
fragment de son exégèse sur les Nombres témoigne de sa connaissance
de Philon, puisque le paradis y est interprété de manière allégorique
comme la Vettu agissant dans 1'homme, tandis que les arbres plantés dans
14. Cf. Prin IV.3.1 (GCS Origenes 5, 322-324): 'riS O'O\)TWÇ 1'jÀiStoS cOs otrlS~Vat
Tponov àvSpO:J1toU yswpyoo TOV Ssov «ns<puTsuKÉval napaoslaov Èv 'EoÈf.l KaTà
àvaToÀas», Kat «~UÀov Çw~ç» Èv aÙT0 nsnolllKÉVat opaTOv Kat a1aSllTov, maTS
Olà TroV aWf.la'tlKrov ô06v'tOOv ysuaaf.lsvov TOO Kapnoo TO ç~v àvaÀaf.lpavslV' (" ,)
Èàv Kat «SSoç ostÀlVOV Èv T0 napaos!m"(l nspt1taTstV» ÀÉYllTat Kat «0 'Aoàf.l \lno
TO ~UÀov KpunTsaSat», OÙK oif.lat OtaTa~slV 'tlvà nspl TOO aÙTà Tp01t1KroÇ otà
oOKouallS iO"'toplas Kat où aWf.la'tlKroç ysysVllf.lÉVllÇ f.lllVUSlV 'tlvà f.lUaTT]pta.
15. Cf. Prin ID.6.3 (GCS Origenes 5, 359): Verum istam perfectionem ac beatitudinem
rationabilium naturarum ita demum quidam pelmanere in eo statu quo supra diximus
putant, id est ut deum omnia habeant, et deus eis sit omnia, si nullatenus eas societas
natura corporalis amoveat.
L 'INTERPRÉTATION ORlGÉNlENNE DE GEN 2,8 67
l'Eden sont conçus comme une allégorie de la contemplation de la
Trinité 16 • Dans la HNm XII, Origène décrit la forêt du paradis de Dieu et
les délices de ce lieu comme la perfection et le bonheur, qui COlTes-
pondent à notre état après la rédemption 17 , et, dans la HGn II, on lit que
les arbres dans le paradis de Dieu sont à comprendre «selon l'intelligence
spirituelle»18. Eustâche d'Antioche attribue à Origène une interprétation
très semblable, selon laquelle «dans le paradis il n'y a pas d'arbres que
l'on peut percevoir avec les sens»19. Dans le Contre Celse, Origène
revendique la valeur littérale du récit biblique, mais semble préférer
l'interprétation allégorique du paradis20 • Selon certains témoignages,
Origène, comme Clément, situait le paradis au cie121 • Tous ces textes ont
donné raison à plusieurs écrivains chrétiens antiques 22 et à certains
savants (par exemple, Bietz23 et Bürke24 ) qui supposent qu'Origène n'au-
rait interprété le paradis que de manière allégorique. Mais, si l'on suit
son affirmation que seule la Trinité est irnmatérielle25 et si l'on suppose
16. SelNm (pG 12, 58IB-C): 'nasl vanat aKtaÇoUaat: Nanal vOllTat siat aKtaÇou-
aat TG SV {fi ÀoytKà EyKapna Kat KaTaKof.la T~S npaYf.laTIK~S àpST~Ç. IIapaostcrol
ÈnlnoTaf.l6v dat VOllToi, Tonos Èv 4> ÀoytKà ns<pUTsuTat àp06f.lsva 11Tot TU Sswpiçt
TroV ysyovoTWV, ~ 'tU Sswpiçt 't~S ayias TplaooÇ ... 'nad KÉopolnap' \)Oa'ta. KÉOpOI
dat vOll'tat1tap' \)OaTa <pustaal 'l'uXat ÀoytKat àpoof.lsvat 'tU yvroasl 't~s àÀllSdas·
17. HNm XII.3,4 (SC 442, 100): Per haec ergo pervenitur vel ad illud famosissimi
divini paradisi nemus et amoenas delicias habitationis antiquae, vel certe ad verticem
pelfectionis et beatitudinis summitatem". Cf. aussi De orat. XXV.3 (GCS Origenes 2,
359): ïva cOs Èv napaoda<jlnvsuf.la'tlK0 KUPtoS l]f.ltV nspt1ta'tU·
18. HGn II,4 (SC 7bis, 96): Evidenter ostendens (Ezechiel) secundum spiritalem intel-
ligentiam rationabilia dici ligna quae in paradiso Dei sunt, quippe in quibus aemulationem
quandam describit esse adversum ea ligna quae sunt in Libano.
19. Eustathius Antiochenus, De Engastrimytho, 21 (GCS 51,42, 992 - 43, 1005):
uOt'liv àvaytyvroaKovTss àvapalvwf.lsv àno 'trov f.luSwv È<Pll cnptyÉVllÇ), Kat 't~S
Ka'tà 'toypaf.lf.la ÈKOOX~S, Çl]'trof.lSV <ob 'tiva 'tà ~uÀa <Pllaiv ÈKstVa, ii 0 SsoS
yswpyd, ÀÉYof.lsv O'tl OÙK EVt a1aSll'tà ~uÀa Èv 't0 'tomp.
20. CC IV.39 (SC 136,286-288): Pour donner un exemple de son interprétation allé-
gorique, Origène interprète le mythe de la génération d'Éros par Poros et Penia, raconté
par Platon dans le Banquet 203b-c, comme une allusion à Gen 3,16. Il interprète Poros
comme une allégorie de l'homme, persécuté par Penia, elle-même allégorie du serpent et
du désir. Selon Origène, Platon a appris le mythe auprès de Juifs pendant son voyage en
Égypte (voyage mentionné par Diog. Laer. ID, 6).
21. Cf. Épiphane, Lettre à Jean de Jérusalem selon Jérôme, Epist. 51.5.2-6 (CSEL
LIV,403-404).
22. Cf. H.J. VOGT, Warlllll wurde Origenes ZUIll Hiiretiker erkliirt? Kirehliehe Vergan-
genheits-Bewiiltigzmgel/ in der Vergangel/heit, in L. LIES (ed.), Origel/ial/a Quarta (Inns-
brucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck, Tyrolia, 1987,78-103.
23. Cf. BIETZ, Paradiesl'orstellzmgel/ (n. 10), pp. 31-34.
24. Cf. G. BÜRKE, Des Origel/es Lelll'e l'DIIl Urs/al/d des Mel/selzen, in Zeitsc1zrift fiïr
katlwlisehe Theologie 72 (1950) 1-39.
25. Cf. Pril/ 1.6,4; II.2.2; IV.3.l5, cf. aussi M. SIMONETTI, AlcII/ze Dsservaziol/i
sull'il/terpretaziol/e origel/ial/a di Gel/esi 2, 7 e 3, 21, in Aevlllll 36 (1962) 371-381,
pp. 379-380.
68 A. TZVETKOVA-GLASER
qu'Origène acceptait une certaine corporalité très légère de l'homme
avant le péché26 , est-il pensable qu'il ait nié chaque fOlme de matérialité
du lieu de séjour de cet homme?
Un fragment grec sur Gen 2,8 montre l'intérêt d'Origène pour l'inter-
prétation littérale de l'Eden. En commentant le nom «Eden», il n'accepte
pas la signification «délice», transmise par Philon et Symmaque, mais il
propose l'étymologie «déjà», du grec 11011.
Dans la traduction se retrouvent les mots «un jardin en Eden», tandis
que l'écriture utilise l'expression hébrai'que elle- même. La signification
principale du mot «Eden» est «déjà». Les Juifs n'ont pas transmis que
le lieu oû Dieu planta son jardin s'appelait «Eden» ... Ce que les Juifs
transmettent est ceci: «Eden», dont la signification est «déjà», existait
avant la formation du jardin, puisque le jardin a été planté en Eden 27 •
Le texte pose deux problèmes: le premier est le fait qu'Origène
s'efforce d'éliminer l'expression «à l'orient». Le texte de la LXX dit ~v
'EoÈ)! Ku'tà àvu'toÀaç (en Eden à l'orient). À cause de l'assonance des
deux expressions 1,l/::1 et !:l'v~ en hébreux, Origène pense évidemment
qu'il s'agit du même mot, répété deux fois et inconectement traduit par la
LXX comme le nom propre du lieu et comme le point cardinal
«à l'orient». Selon Origène, «Eden» n'est pas un nom propre, mais une
expression hébraïque qui signifie «déjà» (11011). C'est ainsi qu'il faut com-
prendre les mots «l'écriture utilise l'expression hébraïque elle-même».
.Le deuxième problème que pose le fragment, c'est l'étymologie
d'Eden au moyen de 11011 «déjà», qui a causé des difficultés à plusieurs
éditeurs comme Combefis et F. Petit. Même Max Rauer, qui a reconnu
une certaine dépendance de ce texte envers certaines interprétations
juives - n'a pas reconnu l'origine juive de cette étymologie et a accepté
la conjecture 1ÎM pour obtenir la signification «délicieux», qui rappro-
cherait le fragment de l'interprétation de Philon, d'Irénée et de Clément28 •
26. Cf. SIMONEITI, Alcune osservaziol/i (n. 25), pp. 380-381.
27. FrGn 236 (TEG 1 Petit, 166) et K. METZLER, Die griechischen und lateinischel/
Fragmente der Gel/esis-Kommentierlil/g, PrGn D 15, Origenes. Werke VI.2 (GCS, NF, à
paraître 2011): nSEt'WI sv 'tn ÉPJl11Vci~ «Kij1tOV sv SOBIl», a\'J'tn XP11crâ,IlEvoÇ 'tn
'EppaïKn ÂBÇEt. "Ecr'tl IlÈv oùv ÉPIl11vcia 'wu 'EoÈIl KDpiroç «i1011»' oùOÈv oÈ 1tapE-
oroKacrtv 'Eppatot on 6 'tÔ1tOç, EV cf> S<jJ6'tEDcrE 'tov 1tapâ,oEtcrov ~ 'tov «Kij1tOV»
K6ptoç 6 SEÔÇ, 'EoÈIl KaÂEl'tat. Kai <jJacri yE aù'tov IlBcrOV dvat 'tou KôcrlloD, roç
KroP11v ô<jJ9aÂllou, Oto Kat 'tov 1to'talloV 'tov cI>tcrrov Épll11vEuccrSat «cr'tôlla KÔP11Ç»,
roç SK 'tou 'EoÈIl SK1tOPEDOIlBVOD 'tou 1to'tallou 'tou 1tpro'tOD. "0 oÈ napaotOôacrtv,
'tOtou'tôv scr'tw' 'EoÈIl, ôç Épll11vE6E'tat «tj011», ~v nptv 'tov Kij1tOV YEvBcrSat· sv
aù'ti!> yàp Ka! 6 Kij1tOÇ s<jJD't:EUS11.
28. M. RAUER, Origenes iiber das Paradies, in Studien zum Nellel/ Testamel/t und zur
Patristik, Erich Klostermal/I/ Zll/ll 90. Geburtstag dargebracht, hg. von der Kommission
für spatantike Religionsgeschichte, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1961, p. 258.
L'INTERPRÉTATION ORIGÉNIENNE DE GEN 2,8 69
En effet, l'étymologie Eden - 11011 ne se rencontre dans aucun autre texte
grec. La seule interprétation analogique se trouve dans des textes rabbi-
niques.
m. LES INTERPRÉTATIONS RABBINIQUES, TRANSMISES PAR
GENESIS RABBAH
Dans une interprétation transmise par Genesis Rabbah sous le nom de
R. Samuel b.Nachman, l'expression !:l'v~ n'est pas utilisée dans le sens
local «à l'orient», mais comme une expression temporelle signifiant
«avant, auparavant, déjà»:
-
!:l'j?~ auparavant. R. Samuel b. Nahman dit: l'on pourrait penser
que cela signifie «avant la création du monde», mais ce n'est pas ainsi.
Par contre, il faut comprendre «avant la création d'Adam». Adam a
été créé le sixième jour, tandis que le jardin a été créé le troisième
jour29 •
L'objectif de ce texte n'est pas d'expliquer l'expression !:l'v~ comme
une allusion au concept divin précédant la création, qui se rapprocherait
de la conception d'une création spirituelle et idéale (à la manière plato-
nicienne), mais de montrer le paradis comme faisant pattie de la création
matérielle. L'affnmation selon laquelle l'Eden, où Dieu planta le jardin
pour le premier homme, a été créé le troisième jour comme toutes les
plantes, est une intelprétation juive largement répandue, connue du
Livre des Jubilés et plusieurs fois mentionnée pat· Genesis Rabbah 30 •
Cette conception est étroitement liée à l'idée que toute la nature a été
créée pour que l'homme puisse réaliser la Loi de Dieu31 • La Torah et sa
réalisation sont les thèmes centraux dans les Midrashim sur la Genèse,
un fait qui a certainement des raisons historiques, comme le soutient
J. Neusner32 • Les intelprétations rabbiniques du Paradis suivent ainsi
29. GenRab XV.3 (J. THEODOR - Ch. ALBECK, Midrash Bereshit Rabba. Critical
Edition with Notes and Commenta/y, Jelusalem, Wahrmann Books, 137): '1 1~N C1p~
J1~ Jl 'WW::I N1::1l C1N l'WN1i1 C1N C1'P N';>N 'l'N' C';>l)i1 n"1::1';> 1'::10 nN 'l~i1l 1::1 ';>'~W
.'W'W';>W::I
30. Über die Erschaffung des Paradieses am dritten Tag siehe auch H. REULING, After
Eden, Clll/relz Fathers and Rabbis on Gen. 3: 16-21 (Jewish and Christian Perspectives
Series, 10), Leiden, Brill Academic Publishers, 2006, p. 270.
31. Cf. GenRab 1.4 (THEODOR - ALBECK, 6).
32. Cf. ibid. J. NEUSNER, Confronting Creation: How JlIdaism Reads Genesis, Colum-
bia, SC, University of South Caroline Press, 1991, pp. 25-27, voit dans ces inteIpréta~i~ns
un développement logique après la destlUction du Temple, quand la communauté JUIve
était privée de la plupart des pratiques religieuses liées au Temple. Le ~ôle ce~tral de la
Torah dans les interprétations de GenRab était, selon Neusner, la réaction logIque de la
70 A. TZVETKOVA-GLASER
cette idée que c'est la Torah le but et le principe de toute création. La
nature de l'Eden est interprétée dans les Midrashim comme une nature
raisonnable, capable d'obéir elle-même à la Loi de Dieu et de coopérer
avec l'homme pour la réalisation de la Torah. On lit, par exemple, qu'au
paradis les arbres donnaient des fruits chaque jour et qu'au jour du Sab-
bat le soleil ne se couchait pas 33 . C'est après le péché de l'homme que
lui-même et l'ambiance dans laquelle il vivait subirent des changements
radicaux 34 . L'Eden était, selon ces interprétations rabbiniques, un lieu
réel et matériel, dont la condition différait qualitativement de celle
de notre monde et permettait à sa manière particulière la réalisation. de
la Loi.
IV. L'INTERPRÉTATION D'ORIGÈNE DE GEN 2,8 ET LE PROBLÈME
DE LA MATÉRIALITÉ DU PARADIS
Origène connaissait évidemment l'eXplication «temporelle» de l'ex-
pression I:l'v~ et il était sans doute attiré par l'assonance Eden - flOll.
Mais serait-ce la seule raison pour laquelle il aurait refusé l'interpré-
tation traditionnelle de l'Eden comme «délice», qu'il connaissait d'ail-
leurs 35 et qui se prêtait tellement bien aux interprétations allégoriques?
Sans aucun doute Origène utilisait plusieurs allégories du paradis mais,
comme on a pu le voir, les interprétations allégoriques proviennent
d'œuvres qui ne traitent pas explicitement Gen 2,8. Le fragment 236
(Petit), par contre, provient probablement du !Xe livre du Commentaire
sur la Genèse d'Origène 36 , qui avait comme objet principall'interpré-
tation de Gen 2. Dans ce cas, Origène se montre beaucoup plus atten-
tif au sens littéral du récit biblique et il n'exclut pas l'existence d'un
Eden «matériel». En effet, on dispose d'autres textes origéniens qui
parlent aussi de l'existence d'un paradis terrestre, mais dans la pers-
pective eschatologique: selon Prin II, par exemple, les saints, avant
d'achever la rédemption finale, restent pour un certain temps «in loco
part des rabbins à ce processus qui menaçait l'identité religieuse des Juifs.
33. Cf. GenRab XII.6 (THEODOR - ALBECK, 102-103).
34. Cf. GenRab XII.6 (THEODOR - ALBECK, 102): Adam fut privé de six choses après
son péché: de sa splendeur, de son immortalité, de sa pudeur, des fruits de la terre, des
fIuits des arbres et de la lumière des lumières.
35. Cf. CCt 1 (GCS Origenes 8, 104); CIo Xm.34.223 (GCS Origenes 4, 259).
36. Cf. R. HEINE, The Testilllonia and Fragments Re/ated ta Origen's Commentai)' on
Genesis, in Zeitscllrift fiir Antikes ChristentulIl 9 (2005) 122-142, pp. 122, 137-139,
cf. aussi K. METZLER, Weitere Testimonien und Fraglllente ZlIIIl Genesis-Kollllllentar des
Origenes, in Zeitschrift für Antikes ChristentulIl 9 (2005) 143-148, pp. 145-146.
L'INTERPRÉTATION ORIGÉNIENNE DE GEN 2,8 71
aliquo in terra posito, quem paradisum dicit scriptura divina»37. Aussi
plusieurs textes qui concernent la condition des êtres humains après la
résurrection confirment-ils qu'Origène admettait l'existence d'une
matière non soumise à la corruptibilité. En commentant 1 Cor 15,44,
par exemple, il rejette la conception d'une résurrection purement
spirituelle et souligne que les corps spirituels, dont le texte parle,
doivent posséder une certaine matérialité, libre de chaque sorte de cor-
ruption et de mortalité 38 . Les corps ressuscités sont ainsi qualitative-
ment différents des corps terrestres, mais ils sont eux aussi matériels 39 .
Prin 1.6.4 parle explicitement de la transformation de la matière qui,
après la résurrection, passe de la corruptibilité à l'incorruptibilité. Mal-
heureusement, on ne dispose pas d'un tel texte concernant les caracté-
ristiques de la matière avant le péché d'Adam et son éventuel passage
de l'incorruptibilité à la corruptibilité. Mais, si l'on applique les consi-
dérations faites sur la condition eschatologique de l'homme dans son
état originaire après la création (et avant le péché), on arrive à la
conclusion que non seulement les corps humains, mais aussi le lieu de
séjour des premiers hommes étaient dotés d'une certaine matérialité,
qualitativement différente de celle du monde terrestre. Dans ce cadre
de pensées, le fragment grec (Petit 236) sur Gen 2,8 est un texte par-
ticulièrement important, puisqu'il transmet une interprétation «non-
allégorique» de Gen 2,8 et témoigne qu'Origène pouvait en tout cas
accepter l'existence «corporelle» de l'Eden. Les interprétations rabbi-
niques, qui ont évidemment influencé cette exégèse origénienne,
acceptent elles aussi un paradis matériel, essentiellement différent du
monde terrestre.
Une question se pose encore dans cette analyse: elle concerne la pro-
venance de ce fragment grec. Puisque ce fragment transmet une tradition
exégétique connue seulement du milieu rabbinique palestinien, il est très
37. Cf. Prin II.l1.6 (GCS Origenes 5, 190): puto enim quod sancti quique discenden-
tes ex hac vita permanebunt in loco aliquo in terra posito, quem «paradisum» dicit scrip-
tura divina, velut in quo dam eruditionis loco, et ut ita dixerim, auditorio vel schola ani-
marum, in qua de omnibus lùs, quae in terris viderant, doceantur.
38. Cf. Prin II. 10. 1 (GCS Origenes 5, 173-174): Si confitentur etiam ipsi quia resur-
rectio fit mortuOlum, respondeant nobis: quid est, quod mortuum est, nonne corpus? Cor-
poris ergo resurrectio fiet [ ... ] Arbitrar apostolo Paulo dicente quod «Seminatur corp~s
animale, resurget corpus spiritale» istos negare non possent quod corpus resurgat vel qUla
in resurrectione corporibus utamur [ ... ] Quae si verum est quod resurgunt et «sphitalia»
resurgunt, dubium non est quin abiecta corruptione et deposita mortalitate resu~gere ?ican-
tur a mortuis; alioquin vanum videbitur et superfluum resurgere quem a mortms, ut Iterum
moriatur.
39. Cf. Prill II. 10.3 (GCS Origenes 5, 175-176).
72 A. TZVETKOVA-GLASER L'INTERPRÉTATION ORlGÉNlENNE DE GEN 2,8 73

probable qu'il provienne de Césarée4o • K. Metzler a établi dans son tence de plusieurs témoignages d'une interprétation allégorique ne signi-
édition que le fragment appartenait au IXe livre du Commentaire sur la fie pas qu'Origène a nié chaque sorte de matérialité du paradis. Dans son
Genèse, qui a été composé à Césarée et non à Alexandrie. Les contacts Commentaire sur la Genèse, il était probablement très intéressé par l'in-
d'Origène avec des savants juifs de Césarée sont en effet bien connus et terprétation littérale de Gen 2,8 et il a accepté non seulement une étymo-
les traces d'interprétations juives dans les œuvres de la période césa- logie rabbinique, mais aussi très probablement l'arrière-plan théologique
rienne d'Origène sont nombreuses 41 • Il est très difficile d'établir com- de cette interprétation.
ment Origène en serait venu à connaître des interprétations rabbiniques.
Il est cependant hors de doute que Genesis Rabbah, dont la rédaction Wissenschaftlich-Theologisches Anna TZVETKovA-GLASER
finale date du début du ye siècle, inclut beaucoup d'interprétations Seminar
rabbiniques anciennes 42 • Qu'un prototype de GenRab ait été disponible à Kisselgasse 1
Césarée au temps d'Origène sous forme écrite reste une hypothèse. Il est D-69117 Heidelberg
par contre très probable que la communication orale ait joué un rôle Deutschland
impOItant dans le contact d'Origène avec les savants juifs. L'interpréta- anna. tzvetkov a-glaser@wts.uni-heidelberg.de
tion de GenRab XY.3, que nous avons citée, est attribuée à R. Samuel
b. Nachman, qui a vécu quelques décennies après Origène43 • En considé-
rant le caractère très traditionnel de l'enseignement rabbinique, il est
probable que cette interprétation était populaire à Césarée du temps
d'Origène.

CONCLUSION

Notre analyse montre que la question de la nature du Paradis selon

Origène est assez difficile à résoudre. Les interprétations de l'Eden
qu'Origène propose varient beaucoup selon le contexte et selon le style
des différentes œuvres dont proviennent les textes en question. L'exis-

40. Cf. MElZLER, Weitere Testimonien (n. 36), pp. 143-148 etÉ. JUNOD, Que savons-nous
des Scholies (2:XOAIA -2:EMEIil2:EŒ) d'Origène, in G. DORlvAL - A. LE BOULLUEc
(eds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven,
University Press - Peeters, 1995, 133-149.
41. G. BARDY, The traditions juives dans l'œuvre d'Origène, in Revue Biblique 34
(1925) 217-252; N. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews, Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations
in Third-century Palestine, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1976, pp. 23-28,
75-132; H. BIETENHARD, Caesarea, Origenes und die Juden, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1974,
pp. 19-38; R. BROOKS, Straw Dogs and Scholarly Ecumenism: The Appropriate JeWish
Background for the Study of Origen, in Ch. KANNENGlESSER - W.L. PETERSEN (éds.),
Origen of Alexandria, His World and His Legacy, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre
Dame Press, 1988, 63-95; P.M. BLoWERs, Origen, the Rabbis and the Bible, in ibid.,
97-116.
42. Cf. p. e. J. NEUSNER, Comparative Midrash, the Plan and Program of Genesis
Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah (Brown Judaic Studies, 111), Atlanta, GA, Seholars, 1986,
pp. 15-16,47, 82-87, 202.
43. Cf. H. STRACK - G. STEMBERGER, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, Mtinehen,
Beek, 1982, p. 95.
 THE NEOPLATONISM OF ORIGEN IN THE FIRST TWO BOOKS
OF HIS COMMENTARY ON JOHN

I. ORIGEN'S YOUTH - THE PROLOGUE OF JOHN AND

THE BIRTH OF NEOPLATONISM

The Gospel of John is the most demanding and profound of the four
gospels. lndeed, if the gospels are the "firstfruit" of the Bible!, John's
gospel, Origen enthuses in the preface of his great commentmy, is the
"firstfruit" of the "firstfruits"2. Its author, having Iain on Jesus' breast
and become a son of Mary (and thus, by inference, a second Jesus)3,
propounds the by far most sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ!.
Like his On First Principles and his commentaries on the first 25 psalms
and the Book of Lamentations5 , Origen wrote the first two books of his
Commentmy on John in Alexandria early in his career as an author.
Besides his philosophical masterpiece, On First Principles, whose gen-
eral topie, the divine àpXaî of man and the cosmos, it shm'es, his densely
metaphysical exegesis of the prologue of the f0U11h gospel may weIl be
seen as the firstfruit of what Cadiou, famously, called the "youth of
Origen"6, i.e. the highly productive first phase of his literary career. In
fact, the first two books vie only with the On First Princip les for being
the most thorough depiction of his philosophy proper. More significantly,
in terms of the histOly of ideas, the Christian metaphysics which Origen

1. Cf. CIo I.3.14 (GCS IV, 7).

2. CIo 1.4.21 (GCS IV, 7).
3. Cf. CIo 1.4.23 (GCS IV, 8). Origen argues that according to orthodox teaching Mary
had only one son, Jesus. Thus, if Jesus on the cross addresses John as Mary's son, we must
assume him to be another Christ. The notion that man, created in the divine image, is to
achieve complete likeness with Christ in a practical and theoretical 0I.lO((l)(JtS is a key
element of Origen's doctrine of Christian pelfection. Cf. the succinct depiction of Origen's
Christological ethics in E. SCHOCKENHOFF, ZlIIn Fest der Freiheit: Theologie des christli-
chen Handelns bei Origenes (Tübinger Theologische Studien, 33), Tübingen, Matthias-
Glünewald, 1990, pp. 197-224.
4. Cf. CIo 1.4.22f. (GCS IV, 8).
5. On these other works of Origen's early writing career see the helpful selections
compiled and annotated by P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son Œuvre (Christianisme
Antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 262-275 and J.W. TRIGG, Origen (The Early
Church Fathers), London - New York, Routledge, 1998, pp. 69-85.
6. R. CADIOU, La leunesse d'Origène: Histoire de l'école d'Alexandrie au début du
Ille siècle, Paris, Beauchesne, 1935. My paper, in fact, seeks to restate several daims of
Cadiou's searching analysis of the first two books ibid., pp. 332-369.
76 C. HENGSTERMANN
expounds in his early commentary testifies to the advent of a new Plato-
nism commonly attributed to his philosophical teacher, Ammonius Sac-
cas, or the latter's second great student, Plotinus.
The final synthesis of aIl ancient philosophy preceding it, Neoplato-
nism rests upon two pillars, namely the continuous procession of the
whole of being from a transcendent One that is both beyond intellect and
being and the theory of creative contemplation7 • Both are inextricably
intertwined with one another, the act of contemplation being decisive for
the triadic ontology of mature Neoplatonism throughout. Thus, it is from
the simple self-intuition and self-will8 of the One and Good that its power
ad extra, the second hypostasis, is derived. Only by turning back and
glancing at the One, however, does it become Intellect, the unity of
thought and being. With the Soul that originates in the Intellect's inner
oûcrtCÜOSS vOllO'lS9, the timeless process of the triadic ,sstov lO eventually
reaches the temporal and spatial realm of man and nature who, too, strive
for the contemplative unity that perfects their deficient essence. It is here
that the triadic ontology, viewed from a more existential second perspec-
tive, serves as the stage for the drama of the prodigal soul's freedom,
revealing itself as what might be termed a "soteriontology" 11: Having
fallen and largely forgotten about her divine origin, it, too, is to turn back
and eventually unite with the Intellect and One, contemplating and
7. Cf. e.g. M.L. GATTI, Plotinus: The Platonic Tradition and the Foundation of Neo·
platonism, in L.P. GERSON (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plotin us, Cambridge,
University Press, 1996, 10·37, pp. 27-34. Cf. also G. REALE, A History of Ancient
Philosophy. N: The Sc/wols of the Imperial Age, New York, State University of New
York Press, 1990, pp. 393-398.
8. This aspect of Plotinus' henology is forgotten ail too frequently. Significantly, it is
not because of a deficiency of being or thought that the One is beyond both, but, on the
contrary, because it transcends either via eminentiae. Thus, the One in itself is absolute
self-awareness and self-will that is beyond the virtual duality of subject and object in the
futellect. Cf. Plotinus' most comprehensive treatment of the inner life of the One in his
astonishing treatise enn. VI.8.
9. V.3.5. Cf. the exhausting interpretation of this concept in W. BEIERWALTES, Selbst·
erke/lntnis und E/fah/'llng der Einheit: Plotins Enneade V 3. Text, Übersetzl/ng, bite/pre·
tation, Erliiute/'llngen, Frankfurt/M, Klostermann, 1991, pp. 197-199.
10. It should not be forgotten that Neoplatonism is a strictly monistic system so that,
notwithstanding the subordinationism characteristic of Plotinus' thought, the overall unity
of the whole of reality, originating in the One and extending tbrough the chain of being,
must not be lost sight of. On Neoplatonic monism and its significance in the western
history of ideas cf. W. BEIERWALTES, Denken des Eine/I.· Studien zur neuplatonischen
Philosophie und ihrer Wirkllngsgeschichte, Frankfurt/M, Klostermann, 1985, pp. 38-72.
11. J. BUSSANICH, Plotinlls's Melaphysics of Ihe One, in GERSON (ed.), Cambridge
Companion 10 Plotinus (n. 7), 38-65, p. 42. The term is perhaps the most apposite one to
designate the distinctly Neoplatonic synthesis of freedom metaphysics and ontology
proper.
THE NEOPLATONISM OF ORIGEN IN CIO I·IJ 77
participating in the bliss of her "true self" 12. The philosophical herme-
neutics of these two iITeducible and c1osely-connected perspectives 13 , the
metaphysical and the ethical ones, is the distinguishing feature of Neo-
platonic thought: It is the salvific journey of the soul that illuminates
being which, in turn, emerges as a hierarchical structure of freedom and
self-realization. Arguably, the enduring significance of Neoplatonism as
the crowning achievement of ancient thought lies less with its probing
analysis of being as being but rather with its complex blend of ontology
and ethics, its "metaphysics of freedom"14, which is rightly recognized
as the very apex of aIl ancient philosophical thought on human self-
determination l5 . The argument 1 want to put fOlward is that Origen, early
in his career as a writer and several decades before Plotinus, deliueated
a soteriontology based upon the twin pillars of divine procession and
creative contemplation l6 .
12. This is the basic argument propounded in W. BEIERWALTES, Das wahre Selbst:
Studien Zli Plotins Begriff des Einen und des Geistes, Frankfurt/M, Klostermann, 2001.
13. This crucial aspect of Neoplatonic philosophy has been established, among others,
by H.-R. SCHWYZER, Die zwiefache Sicht in der Philosophie Plotins, in Ml/seulII Helveti-
cum 1 (1944) 87-99.
14. The term is borrowed from TH. KOBUSCH, Die Entdeckllllg der Person: Metaphysik
der Freiheit und modemes Menschenbild, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
21997.
15. This has long been a matter of consensus and should, in fact, inform any analysis
of Plotinian or Proclian thought. Cf. H.J. KRÀMER, Die Grundlegung des Freiheitsbegriffs
in der Antike, in J. SIMON (ed.), Freiheit: Theoretische und praktische Aspekte des Prob·
lems, Freiburg - München, Kad Alber, 1977,239-270, pp. 265f.
16. Back in 1964, H.J. KRÂMER, Der Ursp/1/11g der Geislmetaphysik, Amsterdam, Verlag
P. Schippers, pp. 284-292, emphasizing the novelty of Origen's Platonic system vis·à·vis
those of Middle Platonism, aIready pointed to the significance of Origen's thought for
our knowledge of later Platonic teaching on the first principles. By contrast, H. KOCH,
Prol/oia und Paideusis: Studien über Origenes ul/d sein Verhiiltnis zlim
Platonismus (Al'beiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 22), Berlin - Leipzig, de Gruyter, 1932 and
R.M. BERCHMAN, From Philo to Origen: Middle Platonism in Transition (Brown Judaic
Studies, 69), Chico, CA, Scholars, 1984, pp. 113-164 view Origen as a Middle Platonic
philosopher. Lastly, there have recently been approaches to the topic that attempt to
impugn the time·honoured notion of Origen the Platonist altogether, most notably
M.J. EDWARDS, Origen Against Plato (Ashgate Studies in Philosphy and Theology in Late
Antiquity), Ashgate, Ashgate Publishing Company, 2002 and P. TZAMALIKOS, Origen:
Cosmology and Ontology of Time (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 77), Leiden -
Boston, MA, Brill, 2006. However, these trends strike me as rather ill-founded. For one
thing, Origen, undoubtedly, insists upon the notion of intelligible being with dogmatic
resolution rime and again. For another, as CADIOU, Jeullesse (n. 6), p. 404 and others have
established, the whole of Origen's religious philosophy rests on the Platonic concept of
participation. Thus, notwithstanding his originality as a biblical scholar and Christian
theologian, the basic Platonic outlook of his philosophical thought cannot be questioned
with any plausibility.
 78 C. HENGSTERMANN
II. NEOPLATONIC SOTERIONTOLOGY IN ORIGEN'S
COMMENTARY ON JOHN
l. The One - The Father
In his thorough investigation of the meaning of the prologue's àpxi]17,
Origen, breaking with the Middle Platonic triad of principles, mIes out
matter as a first cause. Instead, he enunciates a strict monism, declaring
God, the Father, to be the beginning or origin of the whole of reality,
including the Son, whom he, in a way, caUs into being: "But someone
will say with good reason that the God of aU things is clearly a beginning
too, proposing that the Father is the beginning of the son, and the
demiurge is the beginning of the things created and, in general, God is
the beginning of the things which exist"18. As such, the Father is "com-
pletely One and something absolutely simple" 19. Significantly, Origen
chooses not to use the traditional formula sis 086S with God being
referred to in the masculine gender, but rather two adjectives in the
neuter, which certainly go back to the first hypothesis of Plato's Parme-
nides: The Father is sv and ânÀoov. By vütue of being whoUy one, the
Father dwells in complete transcendence vis-à-vis both the inteUectual
and sensible worlds. Thus, according to the gospel, both the Father and
the Son are light. Yet, while the filial light engages in battle with the
world's darkness, the Father is exempt from any contact whatsoever with
the empü'ical realm so that he even defies the description as light trium-
phant, with which honorary title the Son, by contrast, is rightly credited:
"But another who has observed more accurately and speaks more soundly
will say that the light which shines in the dat'kness and is not overcome
by it, and the light in which there is no darkness at aU are not the same.
For the light which shines in the dat'kness cornes upon the dat'kness, as
it were, and, although pursued and, if 1 may so speak, plotted against by
it, is not overcome. But the light in which there is no darkness neither
shines in the darkness nor is pursued by it at aU. Consequently it cannot
17. The most comprehensive and insightful analysis of Origen 's reflections on the first
pdnciple of being is to be found in E. FRücHTEL, 'ApXI! und das erste Buch des Johan-
neskomlllentars des Origenes, in Studia Patristica 14 (Texte und Untersuchungen 117)
Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1976, 122-144. ' ,
18. CIo I.l7.102 (GCS IV, 22). Tr.: The Fathers of the Church (FC) 80, 54 (slightly
adapted).
19. CI~ I.~0.119 (GCS IV, 24). Tr.: Ch.H. A fine analysis of Odgenian and Plotinian
henol~gy lS g~ven by Th. BOHM, Unbegreiflichkeit Gaffes bei Origenes und Unsagbarkeit
de~ Ewen bel Plotin - Ein Stl'llktul1 Jergleich, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava:
Ongen and the Alexandrian Tradition (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 451-463.
THE NEOPLATONISM OF ORIGEN IN CIO I-Il 79
be recorded to conquer by not being overcome by the dat'kness which
pursues it"20. Hence, the Father, pat'adoxicaUy, while being resplendent
light in himself, i.e. while fuUy grasping himself, dweUs in impenetrable
darkness as far as man's capability of fathoming his depths is concemed.
The origin of the whole of reality, whether inteUectual or sensual, the
primordial unity is also the "Beginning" or the '" according to which',
i.e. the form"21 of the second One, the Son.
2. The One-Many - God's Wisdom
While the "beginning" in the prologue tums out to be the Son, it is
not as the W ord, but as Wisdom that the second divine hypostasis must
be regarded as the ultimate origin created by the first One. Setting out to
explain "why 'the Son of God' has been recorded to be the Word, God,
who was in the beginning with the Father, through whom aU things came
into being"22, Origen presents his reader with an introductory précis of
his exegesis of Jn 1,1-3:
But it is as the beginning that Christ is creator, according to which he is
wisdom. For wisdom says in Solomon, 'God created me the beginning of
his ways for his works', that 'the Word might be in the beginning', in wis-
dom. It is wisdom which is understood, on the one hand, taken in relation
to the structure of the contemplation and thoughts of an things, but it is the
Word which is received, taken in relation to the communication of the
things which have been contemplated to spiritual beings 23 •
The Son or Wisdom's etemal procession from the Father24, which is
the first aspect of Origen's distinctly Neoplatonic exegesis of the biblical
text, is a process completely beyond time. Thus, there never was a time
when the W ord or Wisdom did not exist. It is by his careful choice of
words that the Evangelist points to the timelessness of Wisdom's "crea-
tion" and the Word's communion with the Father. Thus, whereas the
Bible generaUy says that the Word came to, say, Isaiah or Jeremiah, John
deliberately uses the verb slvat to bring home the basic truth that "before
aU time and etemity 'the Word was in the beginning', and 'the Word was
20. CIo II. 24. 149f. (GCS IV, 80). Tr.: FC 80, 134.
21. CIo 1.17.104 (GCS IV, 22). Tr.: Ch.H.
22. CIo 1.36.266 (GCS IV, 47). Tr.: FC 80, 88.
23. CIo I.l9.111 (GCS IV, 23). Tl'.: FC 80, 56f.
24. Cf. the in-depth analyses of this important Christological tenet in H. CROUZEL,
Origène et Plotin: Comparaisons doctrinales (Croire et Savoir), Paris, Téqui, 1991,
pp. 123-133 and, especially, M. FÉDou, La sagesse et le //lande: Essai sur la Christologie
d'Origène (Jésus et Jésus Christ, 64), Paris, Desclée, 1994, pp. 279-290.
80 C. HENGSTERMANN
with GOd'''25. Hence, the "creation" of Wisdom or the "generation" of
the Son are metaphors meant to elucidate the Son's eternal communion
with the Father from whom his entire being is derived. It is precisely by
being in the beginning, i.e. in Wisdom, as John puts it with remarkable
succinctness, that the Word is with God and it is by dint of bis never-
ceasing communion with the Fathel' that he is GOd 26 . The Father's time-
less act of creation or generation consists in bis communicating the whole
of his being, the Godhead propel', to the second hypostasis. The Son, in
tum, becomes the intelligible One-Many of Wisdom, Word and Truth.
Thus, like the Plotinian or Proclian Intellect, Origen's second hypostasis
owes its entire being to the primordial simplicity, as Origen elaborates in
a brief exegesis of a verse from Ps 44: "My heart hath belched forth a
good word": "But as in belching, sorne bidden wind makes its way out
to the world, so it may be that the Father does not withhold the truths he
contemplates, but belches them f01th, producing their form in the Word;
and for this reason the Word is called the image of the invisible God"27.
The colourful word "belching" refers to the Father's generative act by
which the Son cornes into existence as the etemal and self-subsistent
second hypostasis. To the Father's timeless self-communication cone-
sponds the Son's incessant contemplation of the patemal essence by
which, Origen points out, he "was the first to draw the Godhead into
himself"28. What the image implies is made explicit in another careful
examination of the Evangelist's well-chosen wording: Whereas the pro-
logue designates the Father as 6 ,9oso<;, the Son is refened to as ,9oso<;
only, ,9oso<; evidencing their common essence, the article and the lack
thereof pointing to their relationsbip of participated paradigm and par-
ticipating image 29 . Thus, it is ontogenic contemplation that govems the
relationship between the first and second divine hypostases: The Father,
contemplating the truth and being he is, imparts the Godhead to the Son
who becomes what he is by virtue of bis own incessant contemplation of
the Father's simplicity. In fact, Origen go es on to explain, the Son would
cease to be God if it were not for this ,9osropia of the patemal Godhead:
"But he would not have tbis if he were not with God, and he would not
remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the
25. CIo II.1.9 (OCS IV, 53). Tr.: FC 80,97.
26. Cf. CIo 1.39.289 (OCS IV, 51): "Being in wisdom, however, which is called
'beginning', does not prevent the Word from being 'with Ood', and himself being Ood,
and not merely being 'with Ood', but since he is 'in the beginning', that is in wisdom, the
Word is 'with Ood'''. Tr.: FC 80, 94.
27. CIo 1.38.283 (OCS IV, 50). Tr.: Ch.H.
28. CIo II.2.16 (OCS IV, 54). Tr.: FC 80, 99 (modified).
29. Cf. the extensive discussion CIo II.2f.13-33 (OCS IV, 54-57).
THE NEOPLATONISM OF ORIGEN IN CIO I-II 81
depth of the Father"30. Evidently, Origen's tenet of the Son's etemal
generation closely follows a Neoplatonic scheme of initial procession and
subsequent contemplation. Hence, we find the patemal One's own inner
ÈvspySla, the contemplation of truths, wbich he, then, communicates to
bis Son. Likewise, it is by virtue of his creative contemplation of the
Father that the Son is and continues to be what he is. However, Origen
appears deliberately to blUI' the lines between the two stages of the sec-
ond One's generation so as to avoid a somewhat embarrassing facet of
Neoplatonic the01)' wbich cornes to haunt bis doctrine with logical neces-
sity nevertheless: What exactly, one may ask, is the Son who contem-
plates the Father and who draws the Godhead into himself? The resurfac-
ing of "the sight that has not seen yet" (0'Vt<; OO1tro iûoocm)31 that the
Intellect is "before" it tums back towards the One brings about a first
major aporia in Origen's Wisdom Christology32.
Origen's discussion of the Son's being likewise bears the impress of
nascent Neoplatonism. As in a prism that refracts the light into its differ-
ent colours 33 , the simple fatherly Godhead becomes a diversified one-
many witbin Wisdom: Origen, again forestalling a key tenet of the Neo-
platonic doctrine of the Intellect, identifies the subject and object of
divine thought. Thus, in a series of attempts at definition, he views
Wisdom's inner essence as "the structure of the contemplation and
thoughts of all things"34, as "an incorporeal existence comprised of the
various ideas wbich embrace the principles of the universe, an existence
wbich is living and animate, as it were"35 or, simply, as "a system of
ideas"36. As such, she creates the world at the behest of the Fathel': "And
we should add that having created, so to speak, ensouled wisdom, He left
her to hand over, from the types wbich were in her, to things existing and
to matter, the actual emergence of them, theÎ1' moulding and their
forms"37. Thus, Origen, like the Neoplatonists succeeding him, identifies
the demiurge in Plato's Timaeus, the world's efficient cause, with the
30. CIo II.2.18 (OCS IV, 55). Tr.: FC 80, 99.
31. Plotinus, enn. V.3.11.5. Tr.: Ch.H.
32. This criticism of Origen's Chl'istology is advanced by R. ARNou, Le thème néo-
platonicien de la contemplation créatrice chez Origène et chez S. Augustin, in Gregoria-
nililn 13 (1932) 124-135, pp. 129f. .
33. The metaphor is used by R. WILLlAMS, The Son's Knowledge of Ihe Falher /Il
Origen, in L. LIES (ed.), Origeniana Quarla (lnnsblucker theologische Studien, 19), Inns-
bruck, Tyrolia, 1987, 146-153, p. 147.
34. CIo 1.19.111 (OCS IV, 23). Tr.: FC 80, 56f.
35. CIo 1.34.244 (OCS IV, 43). Tr.: FC 80, 43.
36. CIo II.18.126 (OCS IV, 75). Tr.: FC 80, 128.
37. CIo 1.19.115 (OCS IV, 24). Tr.: ANF 10,308.
 82 C. HENGSTERMANN
divine paradigm according to which the latter imposes order upon an
originally chaotic reality38.
In fact, it is the Son's other original ÈnLVotat, notably that of Logos,
that disclose the Wisdom's essence and self-contemplation - both are, in
fact, one, as the Son is the substantial ~E(j)pLa of the Father's essence - to
be creative in itself. It is by a bond of logical necessity involving mutual
implication that the Son's primordial attributes are interconnected. Hence,
the inner haJ.IDony of Wisdom' s multifarious contents is identical both with
Truth which she may be said to pronounce and elucidate39 and Beauty that
spellbinds God the Father and the rational mind40 . Likewise, it is inconceiv-
able that the beginning, being Wisdom, should ever have been without
reason: "The Word was not made 'in the beginning,' however, fol' there
was no time when the beginning was without the W ord, wherefore it is
said, 'In the beginning was the Word"'41. And like Plato in the Sophisr4 2
and the Republic43, Origen also identifies consummate being with "life"44
and "justice"45. Like Plotinus' inteIlect46 , moreover, Origen's divine Wis-
dom always speaks itself out, as it were: Being Logos, Wisdom as the
beginning of aIl there is cannot but communicate herself to others. Thanks
to her inner communicative power that encompasses in itself the whole of
God's powers, she is also called "the very power of God itself"47. Thus,
the theological tluism that the Creator cannot be without a creation is given
what might be termed a sophiological proof: Creation is revealed by the
fourth gospel to be a defining chaJ.·acteristic of the Godhead itself.
However, briefly recapitulating his sophiological truth concept, Origen
l'uns into what may be the most perplexing quandary of his Neoplatonic
38. Cf. the concise résumé given by WILLIAMS, SOI/'S KI/owledge (n. 33), p. 149: "In
two respects, Origen clearly ranges himself with Neoplatonism over against sorne of its
precursors: he accepts that the logic of placing the First beyond intellect and insisting on
its sirnplicity involves the identification of intellect with the Second, and the assimilation
of intellect and demiurge; and he holds (as far as we can see) that the intelligibilia are
within the being of the Second qua Wisdom. The Son contemplates the bathos of the
Father, and in that (paradoxical) light perceives in himself the plurality of the noetic
world; Origen never implies in the ComJn that the Son perceives the I/oëta in the Father".
39. Cf. CIo 1.39.289 (GCS IV, 51).
40. CIo I.9.55 (GCS IV, 14).
41. CIo II.19.130 (GCS IV, 76). Tr.: FC 80, 129.
42. 248e6-249c2.
43. Cf. e.g. 500b8-c7.
44. Cf. e.g. CIo II.6.53 (GCS IV, 61).
45. Cf. e.g. CIo I.28.192 (GCS IV, 35).
46. Cf. el/I/. V.3.5.25f. On the ide a of noetic speech in Origen cf. A. FÜRST _
CH. HENG~.TERMANN, Origel/es, Die Homiliel/ zum Bueh Jesaja (Origenes Werke mit
deutscher Ubersetzung, 10), Berlin - New York, de Gmyter; Freiburg - Basel - Vienua,
Herder, 2009, pp. 140f.
47. CIo 1.33.241 (GCS IV, 43). Tr.: FC 80, 82.
THE NEOPLATONISM OF ORIGEN IN CIO I-II 83
Wisdom Christology. Again, it bears upon the Son's relationship with the
Father whose secrets he as creative Truth and Word is supposed to com-
prehend and communicate: "Further, the Only-begotten is the truth
because He embraces in Himself according to the Father's will the whole
reason of aIl things, and that with perfect cleamess, and being the truth
communicates to each creature in proportion to its worthiness. And
should any one enquire whether aIl that the Father knows, according to
the depth of His riches and His wisdom and His knowledge, is known to
our Saviour also, and should he, imagining that he will thereby glorify
the Father, show that sorne things known to the Father aJ.·e unknown to
the Son, although He might have had an equal share of the apprehensions
of the unbegotten God, we must remind him that if is from His being the
truth that He is Saviour, and add that if He is the truth complete, then
there is nothing true which He does not know; truth must not limp fol'
the want of the things which, according to those persons, are known to
the Father only. 01' else let it be shown that sorne things are known to
which the name of truth do es not apply, but which are above the truth"48.
On the basis of his ontological concept of truth, Origen at first appears
to opt unequivocally for the totality of the Son's contemplation, which,
by inference, includes the Father as weIl. Evidently, truth, being the
whole of intelligible reality, must comprehend aU there is. At the same
time, however, Origen seems prepared to accept that the Father, the Neo-
platonic EV Kat unÀoov, is indeed beyond truth: "Now to the extent that
God, the Father of the truth, is more than, and greater than, the truth and,
being the Father of wisdom, is greater than and surpasses wisdom, to this
extent he transcends being 'true light' "49. In fact, the notion of the Father
knowing himself in ways that even the Son cannot fathom is a vexed
question in Origen scholarship. The manifest contradiction between the
two theological options outHned testifies to Origen's struggle to reconcile
the Neoplatonic notion of the utter transcendence of the patemal One
vis-à-vis truth and the intelligible realm and the idea that the truth, which
the Son encompasses as Sophia and communicates as Logos, must not
be incomplete50 . The question is of no little relevance, as the overriding
48. CIo I.27.187 (GCS IV, 34). Tr.: ANF 10,313.
49. CIo II.23.151 (GCS IV, 80). Tr.: FC 80, 134.
50. FÊDOU, Sagesse (n. 24), p. 297 offers an intriguing solution to the problem at hand:
While both the Father and Son, he argues, share the same Godhead, the Father contem-
plates it as the Father and the Son as the Son. Therefore, though receiving the whole
Godhead from the Father, the Son, logically, will never be able to contemplate it as the
Father and vice versa. Significantly, then, by virtue of being the Father's and the Son's in
wholly singular ways, the strict oneness and unity of the divine nature does not endanger
the two divine persons' distinct hypostases in any way. While this solution is borne out
 84 C. HENGSTERMANN
concern of Origen's sophiology is an etbico-soteriological one: Although
the contents of the One-Many of Wisdom are mostly theoretical in nature,
her very essence as the Father's Truth and Word is the salvific commu-
nication of their shared Godhead: Wisdom is indeed "a good thing"51, if
not the prime good of aH.
3. The One and Many: The Cosmos and Its Salvation
In bis exegesis of John the Baptist's testimony concerning Jesus in Jn
1,26, one of bis favourite biblical texts, Origen outlines the basic aspects
of his soteriology and pbilosophy of salvation bistory:
After this there is another testimony of the same Baptist about Christ, which
further teaches that his preeminent substance extends to ail the world by
virtue of the rational souls, when he says, 'He who cornes after me has
stood in your midst, whom you did not know, the strap of whose sandal l
am not worthy to loose'. And consider if the statement, 'He whom you did
not know has stood in your midst', can be understood in relation to the
reason in each person because the he art is in the midst of every body, and
the ruling principle is in the heart52•
Hence, the Baptist' s teacbing, according to Origen, brings home two
significant aspects pertaining to Christ's work of redemption: Christ
dwells or cornes to dwell in the very centre of man's own soul and, by
residing in the deiform soul, eventually fills not only the rational creation,
but the world as a whole.
Origen's doctrine of the soul's salvation, as he puts it fOlth in the first
books of the Commentmy on John and elsewhere, rests squarely on the
Neoplatonic notion of creative contemplation: It is by participating in the
Son and the divine essence wbich he communicates that the fallen soul is
restored to its pristine state, eventually becoming a "child of Wisdom"53
again. It is through bis own decision for the consummate divine nature that
man is saved by the Logos who dwells in bis midst as "a teacher insepa-
rable from bis pupil"54, a magister interiOl' constantly illuminating bis
soul's hegemonikon. Christ's role as the intermediruy of the salvific knowl-
edge about the Godhead is rooted in a two-prut analogy that connects the
soul with its divine origin: As the Son owes bis own divine nature to the
by Origen's later writings, it is doubtful whether it is applicable here. The aporia here is
that, logically, the paternal One, conceived along Neoplatonic lines, is beyond intelligibil-
ity per se.
51. CIo I.9.55 (OCS N, 14).
52. CIo II.35.215 (OCS N, 94). Tr.: FC 80, 152f. (modified).
53. CIo II. 1.5 (OCS IV, 53). Tl'.: FC 80, 96.
54. CIo II.15.109 (OCS N,7lf.). Tr.: Ch.H.
THE NEOPLATONISM OF ORIGEN IN CIO I-II 85
Father, God prbper, so the rational beings, the logika, owe theu's to him,
to reason personified: "In addition to these definitions, that 'according to
wbich' something is made, as according to its form, is also a beginning in
the following manner. Since the firstborn of all creation is the image of the
invisible God, the Father is his beginning. And likewise also Christ is the
beguming of those made according to the image of God"55. It is thr'ough
him alone that they, too, are created gods, shru'ing in the Father and Son's
divine life. Closely following the Neoplatonic doctrine of freedom56 ,
Origen's anthr'opology, likewise, stipulates that man do away with every-
thing material57 so as to become an irnmaculate mirror of the Logos who
is bis bue self and life. EventuaHy, man, like the Apostle John, will not be
human any longer, but a second Jesus contemplating the divine essence. In
one of the most audacious expressions in bis early commentary, Oligen
views man as gradually becoming "a son in the strict sense of the word"58
contemplating the Father with the filial eyes59 .
Still, despite its obvious debt to Platonism, Origen's soteriology in the
two fU'st books of his Commentmy on John diverges from orthodox Neo-
platonic doctrine in two bighly significant ways: FU'st, as is testified by
John the Baptist, the soteriological drama itself involves the inner Logos
descending and appearing in visual shape so as to aid the soul by what-
ever means necessary. Famously, God's pronoia, according to Origen, is
inseparable from, if not identical with, divine paideusis. More impor-
tantly, however, both are based upon the concept of kenosis: In order to
help his brethren, the Logos or the soul he has adopted from eternity
descends of his own accord to assume whatever lowly form is graspable
for the soul's petty and cbildlike intellect: "Our Savior, however, because
of the many things, since God 'set' him 'forth as a propitiation' and
firstfruits of all creation, becomes many things, or perhaps even all these
things, as the entire creation, wbich can be made free, needs him"60.
Thus, it is otà 'Cà TCoÀÀa, i.e. for the sake of his creation, that the God-
head, in downright defiance to common Neoplatonic theology, becomes
actively involved in the fate of the distracted multitude. Secondly,
whereas Neoplatonic salvation, famously, is cOl1ceived of primruily as a
55. CIo I.27.104 (OCS N, 22). TI.: FC 80, 55.
56. The Neoplatonic ide a of freedom is teleological, revolving around the image, the
soul, gradually realising its essential similarity with its transcendent model, the Intellect
and the One. On "image" as the key term in Neoplatonic ethics see BEIERWALTES, Denken
des Einen (n. 10), pp. 73-113.
57. Cf. e.g. CIo II.18.129 (OCS IV, 76).
5~. CIo 1.16.92. Tr.: Ch.H.
59. Cf. CIo II.7.57 (OCS N, 61).
60. CIo I.20.119 (OCS N, 24). Tr.: FC 80, 58 (modified).
86 C. HENGSTERMANN
qmy1) !lOVOUnpàc; !lOVOV61 with the political aspect being marginal at
best, Origen, the Christian Neoplatonist, envisages salvation as a histori-
cal process of univers al, even cosmic scope. Thus, following Paul, he
regards the church, the community of those participating in Christ, as the
latter's visible manifestation in history. Using the hylemorphistic lan-
guage of his philosophical ethics and psychology, he deems the church
the world's historical dooc;, calling it "the light of the word,,62 or, later,
even the KOO'!lOC; KOO'!lOU 63 , i.e. the beauty of a world gradually trans-
fOlmed by Christ's presence, pedagogy and persuasion. In the terms of
one and many that are so dear to Origen, salvation, hence, is seen as a
henological reduction with the no').)"a being united in Christ in the course
of history and eventually brought back to the loving Father. As John the
Baptist intimates, it is by transfOlming the individu al soul after his like-
ness that the Son and the Godhead which he communicates will finally
become "aIl in aIl": "And because the Christ is the 'chief cornerstone,'
we must indeed adapt the illustration to the whole united body of the
saved, for Christ the only begotten is also 'aIl in aIl'; for example, he is
the beginning in the man which he assumed, but the end in the last of the
saints - being, of course, also in those in between -, or, he is the begin-
ning in Adam, but the end in his sojourn among us, according to the
saying, 'The last Adam became a life-giving sphit"64.
III. ORIGEN - NEOPLATONIC CHRISTIANITY AND
CHRISTIAN NEOPLATONISM
In view of the evidence of the first two books of Origen's Commentmy
on John, there is no denying the basic Neoplatonic outlook of his soterion-
tological system. Helmeneutically, we are on firm ground wherever Origen,
apparently stmggles to reconcHe Neoplatonic doctrine with the biblical text
analysed - cases in point being the intricate doctrines of the generation of
the Son and his knowledge of the transcendent Father. Far from being
peripheral to our appreciation of his thought, the question of Origen's phil-
osophical affiliation bears upon his overriding existential concern, namely
man's intimate relationship with the triune Godhead in the redemptive pro-
cess. Both the notion of an unbroken chain of being extending from the
Father towards his creation and the corresponding idea of creative contem-
61. Plotinus, el/I/. VI 9,11.
62. CIo 1.25.163 (GCS IV, 31). Tr.: FC 80, 67.
63. CIo V1.59.301 (GCS N, 167).
64. CIo 1.31.225 (GCS N, 39f.). Tr.: FC 80, 78.
THE NEOPLATONISM OF ORIGEN lN CIO I-II 87
plation, as hasbeen shown, are indispensable to Origen's metaphysics of
salvation. Thus, it appears safe to advance two complementary final theses:
Fhstly, Origen 's Christianity is Neoplatonic: Taking into account the
two defining features of Neoplatonic thought, the procession of reality
from a transcendent One and the idea of creative contemplation, Origen
must be deemed a Neoplatonist, his theological framework being the
historic first attempt at a distinctly Neoplatonic system. His soteriontol-
ogy views reality as a chain of being that originates in, and eventually
returns to, a primordial unity that is absolutely one and simple. The same
holds tme for the major Neoplatonic tenet of contemplative participation
that informs both his doctrine of the relationship between the Father and
the Son, i.e. the full self-communication of the fatherly Godhead to the
Son fully participating in it, and his ethical soteriology, the fallen soul's
contemplation of the Son that reinstates it into its original state of bliss.
Secondly, Origen's Neoplatonism is Christian: While the ontological
grammar of Origen's theological system certainly follows Neoplatonic
mIes, its whole contents are distinctly Christian. Throughout his commen-
tary, his focus lies not on salvation tout court, but on the redemptive pro-
cess, as it is evidenced in the history of univers al salvation recorded in the
Holy Writ. In fact, salvation history informs his whole doctrine, linking
God and the historical world in ways unimaginable for a pagan Neoplaton-
ist. The Son's soteriological Ènlvotat, his kenosis in Jesus Christ and the
daring universalism are derived from the Bible only. The antithesis, thus,
is not between a cosmological focus on the pmi of Neoplatonism and an
anthropological one on the part of Christianity. Rather, Origen, contraly to
Plotinus and Proclus, sees salvation as involving the whole community of
rational beings, the cosmos as a whole included. Thus, in the end, while
Origen is sincere enough to concede its aporias, his theological synthesis
reveals its author to be Christianus simulque vere Platonicus65 •
Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitiit Christian HENGSTERMANN
Katholisch-Theologische FakuWit
Seminal' für Alte Kirchengeschichte
Johannisstr. 8-10
D-48143 Münster
c.Hengstelmann@gmx.de
65. l here adopt Beierwaltes' concluding assessment of Dionysius' Platonic theology
in his PlatonislIll/s il/1 Christel/tl/Ill, Frankful't/M, Klostermann, 22001, p. 84.
 II

COMPLEXITY AND SCOPE OF

ORIGEN'S WORK
 DU DANGER D'ÉCRIRE, SELON ORIGÈNE

Le simple fait d'écrire, de recourir à une transmission écrite,

implique une revendication du magistral, du canonique
(George Steiner!)

I. LE DÉBUT DE LA PRÉFACE DU PREMIER COMMENTAIRE D'ORIGÈNE

Grâce pour une palt à la Philocalie et pour une autre à Épiphane, nous
pouvons lire en grec le début de la préface de la première œuvre publiée
par Origène, un Commentaire des Psaumes 1-25. Ces toutes premières
lignes du maître alexandrin ne sont pas sans impOltance dans l'histoire
de la littérature et de la théologie chrétienne. En effet, la préface du
premier ouvrage d'Origène peut être considérée comme l'acte fondateur
d'un geme littéraire qui jouera un rôle déterminant dans la tradition
chrétienne: le commentaire scripturaire. L'histoire de ce geme au sein du
christianisme commence bel et bien avec Origène; non qu'il n'ait existé
aucun commentaire avant lui, c'est-à-dire avant les années 220, mais les
témoignages rares et épars qu'on en a2 sont bien peu de choses par
rapport aux quelque 260 livres de tomai composés par l'Alexandrin. Et
ce n'est pas seulement la quantité qui tranche, mais aussi et SUltout la
qualité ainsi que l'influence exercée: il se trouve que le premier auteur
à avoir laissé une véritable œuvre exégétique orientera et marquera
profondément la tradition chrétienne durant des siècles.
Que ce Commentaire sur le psautier est le premier ouvrage publié par
Origène, le texte même de la préface l'indique clairement3. il commence
par ces mots:

Cette contribution va prochainement paraître en anglais sous le titre On the Danger of

Writing According to Origen, dans T. ROMER - P.R. DAVIES (éds.), Writing the Bible:
Scribes, Scribalism and Script (Bible World), London, Equinox Publishing.
1. Le Silence des livres, Paris, Arléa, 2007, p. 11.
2. Cf. L. PERRONE, Continuité et innovation dans les cOlllmentaires d'Origène, dans
M.-O. GOULET-CAZÉ (éd.), Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation, Paris, Vrin,
2000,183-197, pp. 183-184; A. GRAFTON - M. Wn..LIAMS, Christianity and the TI'ansfor-
mation of the Book, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2006, pp. 59-60.
3. Sur les premières pages de ce CPs 1-25, voir le travail remarquable (reconstitution,
traduction et commentaire) de Pierre NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son Œuvre (Christianisme
antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 262-275. Dans la suite, nous reprendrons sa
traduction (avec de menues retouches).
92 É.JUNOD
Les divines paroles disent que les divines Écdtures sont felmées à clef et
scellées4 •
et se poursuit par un petit développement sur le caractère impénétrable
de l'Écriture et la nécessité de disposer de clé, c'est-à-dire de méthode.
Après quoi Origène déclare:
Tel est notre prologue (n:poolllicp) avant de descendre (dans l'arène) pour
un grand combat (IlBytO'toV ày&vu) qui est bien au-dessus de nos forces et
de notre capacités.
Puis s'adressant à Ambroise, il ajoute:
Nous y sommes contraint par ton immense désir de savoir, saint Ambroise,
en même temps que nous sommes rempli de confusion devant ton excel-
lence et ta modestie. Du moins m'y suis-je refusé pendant longtemps,
sachant le danger qu'il y a, dans les choses saintes, non seulement à parler,
mais bien plus encore à écrire et à laisser ces écdts à la postédté (ott ye
èn:t rcoÀù àVuouo~levov Ile, Otù tD dOBVŒt tDV KtVOuvov, où lloVOV tOU
ÀByetv rcept t&v uytmv, àÀÀù n:oÀÀcp rcÀetov tOU ypu<!>etv, KUt tots
lle~'i]llas KutaÀtrcetv). Mais avec toute la magie de ton amitié et ton invi-
tation tu m'y as amenë.
L'image est limpide. Origène doit livrer publiquement un combat
auquel il s'est toujours refusé jusqu'alors. S'il franchit ce pas, c'est à
cause d'Ambroise qui le pousse dans l'arène. Et la suite immédiate du
texte prouve qu'il est bien conscient que ce premier combat public ne
sera pas le dernier, c'est-à-dire que d'autres commentaires et d'autres
ouvrages seront publiés après celui-ci:
Tu m'en seras témoin devant Dieu, quand il examinera, avec ma vie entière,
les œuvres que j'aurai dictées et qu'il regardera l'intention dans laquelle je
l'ai fait, les passages où je tombe juste et ceux où, tantôt j'exagère, tantôt
je ne dis quelque chose qu'en apparence; mais j'ai scmté les textes, en
gardant à l'espdt cette sentence: «Quand tu parles de Dieu, tu es jugé par
Dieu7 » - belle parole -, et cette autre: «Sur Dieu, même dire la vérité n'est
pas un petit danger 8 »9.
Ainsi le texte de cette préface nous apprend-il entre autres choses que
«pendant longtemps», Origène a repoussé tout projet ou offre de publier
son enseignement et il nous dévoile la raison de ce refus:
4. CPs 1-25, prol., dans Philocalie 2.1 et Épiphane, Pan. 64.6.
5. CPs 1-25, prol., dans Épiphane, Pan. 64.7.
6. Ibid.
7. Sentences de Sextus 22.
8. Sentences de Sextus 352.
9. CPs 1-25, prol., dans Épiphane, Pan. 64.7.
DU DANGER D'ÉCRIRE, SELON ORIGÈNE 93
sachant le danger qu'il y a, dans les choses saintes, non seulement à parler,
mais bien plus encore à écdre et à laisser ces écrits à la postédté.
Quand il entreprend son Commentaire sur les Psaumes 1-25, autour
des années 220, Origène est âgé d'environ 35 ans et il enseigne à
Alexandrie depuis au moins dix bonnes années, d'abord dans un cadre
catéchétique, puis à un groupe de chrétiens avancés au sein duquel se
trouve sans doute Ambroise lO • Un maître, âgé de 35 ans, qui n'a encore
rien écrit, voilà qui n'a rien pour surprendre dans le monde philoso-
phique de l'époque. Plotin, son contemporain, enseignera durant dix ans
sans rien publier, et il ne se mettra à écrire qu'à l'âge de 54 ans l l . Et
le célèbre maître de Plotin, qui fut peut-être aussi celui d'Origène,
Ammonius Saccas, n'a lui jamais écrit. Dans l'antiquité classique et
post-classique, longue est la liste des maîtres estimés qui s'en sont
strictement tenus à la pratique de l'enseignement oral. Origène vit à une
époque où l'enseignement de la philosophie recourt principalement à
l'oralité, alors même que l'attention portée à l'écrit et aux explications
des textes anciens va croissant 12 • Formel' consiste d'abord à exposer,
puis à discuter, dialoguer. Ce qui vaut alors pour les milieux philoso-
phiques s'applique probablement aussi au cercle auquel Origène appar-
tient.
Et c'est manifestement sous pression et à son corps défendant
qu'Origène fera le saut de l'oralité à l'écriture dans sa pratique de
l'enseignement. Le début de la préface de sa première œuvre écrite
indique sa réticence et le danger couru. C'est sur ce danger que je me
concentrerai.
Qu'il est dangereux de traiter des choses saintes, de Dieu, des réalités
supérieures, toute l'œuvre d'Origène en témoignera13 • Dans cette préface
du Commentaire sur les Psaumes 1-25, ce danger sera illustré par deux
Maximes de Sextus qui circulent dans les divers cercles contemporains,
païens et chrétiens, qui se préoccupent de théologie:
Quand tu parles de Dieu, tu es jugé par Dieu (ote ÀByetS rcept ~eou, Kpt vn
UrcD ~eou).
et
10. Pour la datation vraisemblable de ce Commentaire SUI' les Psaumes 1-25, voir
NAUTIN, Origène (n. 3), pp. 56-60 et 419-420.
11. Cf. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin 3-4.
12. Cf. P. HADoT, Théologie, exégèse, révélation, écriture dans la philosophie grecque,
dans M. TARDIEU (éd.), Les règles de l'interprétation, Paris, Celf, 1987, 13-34.
13. Sur ce danger et l'inquiétude d'Origène, voir H. CROUZEL, Origène et la «connais-
sance mystique», Bruges, Desclée de Brouwer, 1961, pp. 155ss.
 94 É.JUNOD
Sur Dieu, même dire la vérité n'est pas un petit danger (nept Beau Kat
TùÂ:rtBli Àéyetv KivouvoC; où IUKp6C;)14.
La seconde de ces sentences sera citée encore à plusieurs reprises par
Origène qui considère qu'elle est énoncée par un chrétien, un homme
«sage et croyant» 15.
Parler de Dieu et des choses saintes impose non seulement une
recherche intellectuelle ardue, incessante, en choisissant la bonne
méthode, mais aussi une pratique de la sainteté et de la pureté, sans quoi
on se vena jugé et consumé par celui-là même que l'on cherche à
connaître 16 • En outre, il est périlleux de divulguer la vérité à qui n'est pas
en mesure de la recevoir:
Il arrive souvent qu'une parole vraie, donnée à une âme malade qui n'a pas
besoin d'une telle nourriture, l'écrase et devienne pour elle l'occasion d'une
aggravation: ainsi est-il dangereux même de dire la vérité17 •
Il Y aurait beaucoup à dire sur ce danger et aussi sur l'impérieuse
nécessité de mener une recherche sur Dieu et les choses saintes, puis de
communiquer les fruits de cette recherche en dépit du risque couru. Tou-
tefois ce n'est pas ce thème majeur qui nous intéressera, mais cette ques-
tion spécifique: pourquoi sur les choses saintes écrire est-il encore bien
plus dangereux que parler? Quel est ce supplément de péril qui se niche
dans la pratique de l'écriture?
J'esquisserai trois éléments de réponse et conclurai, en forme d'hypo-
thèse, sur une quatrième piste.
n. ÉCRIRE ET PUBLIER
Mais auparavant il convient de préciser ce que «ecnre» implique et
signifie autour des années 200 de notre ère; écrire non de simples petites
lettres, mais de savants traités qui vont se déployer sur plusieurs rou-
14. Sentences de Sextus 22 et 352; cf. l'édition de H. CHADWICK, The Sentences of
Sextus: A Contribution ta the HistOlJ' of Early Christian Ethics (Texts and Studies, NS 5),
Cambridge, University Press, 1959, p. 14 et 52 ou celle plus récente de R.A. EDWARDS
- R.A. WILD, The Sentences of Sextus (Texts and Translations, 22; Early Cluistian
Literature Series, 5), Chico, CA, Scholars, 1981, p. 18 et 58. Sur l'utilisation par Origène
de ces Maximes et l'identité chrétienne de l'auteur, voir CHADWICK, pp. 107-116.
15. HEz 1.11. La sentence est citée ou paraphrasée dans CMt XV.3 et CC VIII.30;
CIo XXXII.24.311; et on en trouve ailleurs des échos: par ex. dans PrPs 118.11 (SC 189,
p. 206); CIo XXXII.24.311; CRm V.l.
16. Panni de nombreux textes, voir HNm IV.3.1.
17. CIo XXXII.24.311.
DU DANGER D'ÉCRIRE, SELON ORIGÈNE 95
leaux. Écrire ... et publier, mettre en circulation. Cal' il est possible
d'écrire sans publier; et lorsqu'on publie, on peut limiter la diffusion de
ce que l'on écrit à un usage personnel ou à un petit cercle défini (les
familiers, les disciples préférés), ou bien le destiner à une plus large
circulation 18 •
Dans le cadre d'une école (philosophique ou médicale), on trouve en
gros trois cas de figure en lien avec l'écriture. Le premier est celui du
maître qui n'écrit pas du tout: Socrate dont la méthode et la pensée nous
l'esteraient inconnues sans Platon et Xénophon; Épictète - ses Entretiens
sont le produit du travail d'un disciple, Arrien; Ammonius Saccas qui,
semble-t-il, interdisait même qu'on écrivît dans son cercle19 •
Le deuxième cas est celui du maître qui écrit, mais sans diffuser, sinon
à des tout proches. Ainsi Plotin, qui écrivait de sa propre main20 (d'une
écriture difficile à déchiffrer et sans grand souci de l'orthographe, d'après
Porphyre); c'est seulement une trentaine d'années après sa mort que son
disciple Porphyre classera ses traités et les mettra en circulation. li n'est
pas exclu qu'Origène lui-même, avant le Commentaire sur les Psaumes
1-25, ait composé des explications sur l'Écriture à l'intention exclusive
d'un cercle bien circonscrit; le petit Commentaire sur le Cantique des
cantiques que, selon la formule de la Philocalie, «il écrivit dans sa
jeunesse»21 pounait être un ouvrage de ce type. Et l'on pounait encore
citer le médecin Galien qui avait commencé pal' limiter strictement la
diffusion de ses écrits à ses amis et aussi à de jeunes gens débutants. Il
avait en outre rédigé des notes personnelles de travail, mais sans les
publier. Il n'avait aucune intention de voir tous ces textes circuler dans
le public et subsister après sa mOlto Mais, comme il l'explique dans deux
traités composés dans sa vieillesse et intitulés pour l'un Sur l'ordre de
18. Sur ce vaste et difficile sujet, voir les cinq premiers chapitres de l'ouvrage récent
de T. DORANDI, Le stylet et la tablette: Dans le secret des auteurs antiques (L'âne d'or,
12), Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2000. Au tenue de son enquête, Dorandi distingue 3 grandes
étapes (cf. pp. 126-128: l'élaboration d'un brouillon par l'auteur qui peut notamment
prendre la forme d'un aide-mémoire (\J1tof!Vllllu), la rédaction d'une œuvre (cr6yypullllu)
à un cercle restreint mais sans véritable diffusion (ËKOOO'lS), la diffusion après un soigneux
travail de cOlTection.
19. Cf. J.-L. CIIERLONNEIX, L'intellfioll religieuse de l' «ésotérisme platollicien»: À
propos d'un certain pacte du secret évoqué par POIphyre dans la «Vie de Plotin», dans
L. BRISSON, et al., POIphyre: La Vie de Plotin, t. II, Paris, Vrin, 1992,385-418, p. 398.
20. Cf. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin 8. La pratique de l'autographie semble plutôt rare dans
l'Antiquité pour les œuvres en prose (à l'exception des lettres); Quintilien s'en fit le
défenseur. Des écrivains féconds comme Pline l'Ancien, Pline le Jeune et Galien recourent
à la dictée. Cf. DORANDI, Le stylet et la tablette (n. 18), pp. 65-75 et M.-O. GOULET-CAZÉ,
L'arrière-plan scolaire de la «Vie de Plotin», dans L. BRISSON, et al., POIphyre. La Vie
de Plotin, t. I, Paris, Vrin, 1982,231-327, p. 282 n. 1.
21. Kephalaion de Philocalie 7.
 96 É.JUNOD
ses propres livres et pour l'autre Sur ses propres livres, il a constaté que
plusieurs de ses écrits s'étaient répandus, à la faveur de toutes sOltes de
circonstances, et avaient été l'objet de plagiats ou de diverses falsifica-
tions 22 .
Le dernier cas est celui du maître qui édite tels de ses écrits dans
l'intention de les diffuser. Galien en sera une parfaite illustration quand,
dans un second temps, il décidera de mettre certains de ses commentaires
et traités en circulation. Il en va de même pour Origène à partir de notre
Commentaire sur les Psaumes. Sa formule - «écrire et laisser ces écrits
à la postérité» - laisse entendre que le commentaire connaîtra d'autres
lecteurs que les disciples présents.
L'écriture et la publication réclament d'importants moyens matériels
et financiers. Cet Ambroise, qu'Origène interpelle dans sa préface et que
l'on retrouvera tout au long de la carrière littéraire d'Origène 23 , est un
homme fOltuné qui mettra à la disposition de celui-ci une équipe compo-
sée de 15 à 20 personnes dans les périodes de composition. Selon Eusèbe
de Césarée:
Plus de sept tachygraphes étaient près de lui (Origène) quand il dictait, se
relayant les uns les autres aux temps fixés; il n'avait pas moins de copistes
(<<bibliographes»), ainsi que des jeunes filles exercées à la calligraphie.
Ambroise fournissait abondamment ce qui était nécessaire à la subsistance
de tous ... 24
On trouve dans ces lignes la description d'un véritable atelier un
25
scriptorium • À ma connaissance, il n'existe, durant l'Antiquité 'tar-
dive, aucun autre exemple d'atelier privé de cette importance consacré
à l'écriture et l'édition d'un seul et même auteur. Trois métiers sont
désignés:
22. Cf. Galien, SUI' l'ordre de ses propres livres 1 et SUI' ses propres livres, prol.; on
se reportera, pour l'édition, la traduction et le commentaire de ces deux écrits au travail
de :'éronique BOUDON-MILLOT, dans Galien, tome 1 (Collection des Universités de France),
Pans, Les Belles Lettres, 2007. Sur l'activité de Galien comme écrivain et comme éditeur
et sur ses objectifs, voir - outre l'introduction de V. BOUDON-MILLOT, pp. 23-28 _
DORANDI, Le stylet et la tablette (n. 18), pp. 77-81 et 107-108.
23. Sommaire présentation de ce personnage dans H. CROUZEL, Origène, Paris, Lethi-
ell~ux, 1985, pp. 32-33; Ambroise est directement impliqué dans la composition d'œuvres
majeures: le Commentaire SUl' Jean, l'Exhortation aUlIlartyre, le traité SUI' la prière et le
Contre Celse.
24. Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique VL23.2.
25. Sur ce scriptorium, voir NAUTIN, Origène (n. 3), pp. 59-60; G. CAVALLO, Scuola,
scriptoriulll, biblioteca a Caesarea, dans ID. (éd.), Le Biblioteche nel mondo antico e
medievale, Roma - Bari, Laterza, 1989,65-78, pp. 67-68; Ii.Y. GAMBLE, Books and Read-
ers in the Early Church: A Histo/y of Early Christian Texts, New Haven CT _ London
Yale University Press, 1995, pp. 120-122. " p.69.
DU DANGER D'ÉCRIRE, SELON ORIGÈNE 97
o d'abord les tachygraphes, au nombre de 7 au moins, capables
d'écrire très rapidement sous dictée au moyen de signes spéciaux (ce
sont les ancêtres de nos sténographes)26;
• ensuite, les «bibliographes» qui sans doute mettent au net le texte
saisi et le soumettent à Origène qui y apportera les conections et
modifications nécessaires;
• enfin les calligraphes, généralement des jeunes filles, chargées de
copier l'exemplaire mis au point par les copistes et par l'auteur.
Origène l'aurait-il souhaité qu'il n'aurait pu se mettre de lui-même à
écrire et publier; il ne possédait aucune fOltune personnelle. La mise par
écrit de son enseignement exigeait soit le soutien de disciples ou de pro-
tecteurs - Ambroise jouera ce rôle de mécène - soit l'aide matérielle et
financière de sa communauté, c'est-à-dire de son évêque. Mais on ne voit
pas que Démétrius l'ait encouragé à écrire. Il est vrai que la composition
et la diffusion d'ouvrages conféreraient inévitablement à leur auteur une
audience, une influence, un pouvoit.27 et qu'il n'entrait pas nécessaire-
ment dans les vue de l'évêque d'Alexandrie de favoriser le prestige d'un
maître qui n'appartenait même pas à son clergé28 .
Ainsi sans Ambroise Origène n'aurait probablement pas publié ou que
très peu. Et s'il a publié, c'est moins grâce à lui qu'à cause de lui:
Nous y sommes contraint par ton immense désir de savoir, saint Ambroise
... Du moins m'y suis-je refusé pendant longtemps, sachant le danger qu'il
y a, dans les choses saintes, non seulement à parler, mais bien plus encore
à écrire et à laisser ces écrits à la postérité.
De quoi ce danger peut-il être fait?
III. PREMIER DANGER: LE TEMPS VOLÉ
Une première réponse est suggérée par Clément d'Alexandrie dans un
texte qui livre toutes sortes d'observations intéressantes - et qui demeurent
26. Origène mentionne ses tachygraphes dans CIo VL2.9. Sur la tachygraphie et les
techniques anciennes d'écriture rapide, voir E. PREUSCHEN, Die Stenographie im Leben
des Origenes, dans Archiv fiir Stenographie 56 (1905) 6-14.49-55; H. HAGENDAHL, Die
Bedeutung der Stenographie fiïr die spiitlateinische christliche Literatur, dans Jahrbuch
fiir Antike und Christentum 14 (1971) 24-38; H. BOGE, Griechische Tachygraphie und
Tironische Note/l.· Ein Handbuch der antiken und mittelalterischell Scllllellschrift, Berlin,
Akademie-Verlag, 1973.
27. Sur l' «autorité» que revendiquent naturellement l'écrit et l'acte d'écrire, voir
STEINER, Le Silence des livres (n. 1), pp. 11-13.
28. Cf. GRANON - WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book (n. 2),

98 É.JUNOD
d'actualité - sur les différences entre l'enseignement oral et celui dis-
pensé par écrit. Clément note en particulier que:
Les Anciens n'écrivaient pas, car ils ne voulaient pas être distraits du soin
d'enseigner la tradition par celui d'écrire, qui est différent; ils ne voulaient
pas non plus prendre pour écrire sur le temps consacré à la préparation de
leur cours 29 •
Nous avons mentionné le coût financier de l'écriture. On voit qu'il en
existe un autre, bien plus onéreux pour le maître qui se fait écrivain: le
temps. Car, comme le relève encore Clément d'Alexandrie, si l'enseigne-
ment oral permet un débit rapide:
l'écrit au contraire, exposé à la critique incessante des lecteurs, soumis à
leur examen attentif, réclame un soin extrême 3o •
En présence de ses élèves perplexes ou sceptiques, le maître peut à
loisir expliquer, développer, ar'gumenter, reprendre, infléchir. Mais quand
il écrit, il sent peser sur lui le souci de la postérité31 , c'est-à-dire de tous
ceux qui en lisant s'intelTogeront ou objecteront, mais sans avoir l'auteur
pour les éclairer. En écrivant, le maître doit donc prévoir, concevoir et
prévenir toutes les réactions des lecteurs.
À cette lourde tâche de la conception s'ajoutent les heures passées
d'abord à dicter, puis à relire et coniger. Nous avons à ce sujet un témoi-
gnage d'Origène lui-même qui, dans une Lettre, évoque le rythme de
travail auquel il est soumis durant les journées qu'il passe avec son exi-
geant mécène32 :
29. Clém~nt d'Alexandrie, Eclogae Propheticae 27,1; traduction empruntée à
A. MÉHAT, Etude sllr les «Stromates» de Clément d'Alexandrie, Paris, Seuil, 1966,
pp. 287-288.
30. Eclogae Propheticae 27,3.
31. Cf. MÉHAT, Étude (n. 29), p. 288.
32. «(Ambroise) qui m'estime laborieux et assoiffé de la Parole de Dieu m'a confondu
par son propre zèle au travail et son amour des sciences sacrées; il m'a tellement surpassé
que je risque de ne pas répondre à ses questions. Il ne m'est permis de manger qu'en col-
lationnant des textes, et, après le repas, il ne m'est pas davantage permis de me promener
et de laisser ce pauvre corps se reposer: même dans ces moments-là nous sommes astreint
au travail philologique et à la correction des copies; il ne nous est pas permis non plus de
dormir la nuit entière pour la santé du corps, le travail philosophique se poursuivant très
tard le soir; et je passe sous silence ce que nous faisons depuis l'aurore jusqu'à la neuvième
heure et quelquefois la dixième, car tous ceux qui veulent travailler consacrent ce temps à
l'explication des divins oracles et aux lectures». Fragment d'une Lettre d'Origène, cité par
le Suidas et Gorges Cedrenus; texte grec, traduction et commentaire dans P. NAUTIN,
Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des Ile et IIle siècles, Paris, Cerf, 1961, pp. 250-253; sur ce
fragment, voir aussi H. CROUZEL, dans Grégoire le Thaumaturge, Remerciement à Origène
(SC, 148), Paris, Cerf, 1969, pp. 18-20 et NAUTIN, Origène (n. 3), pp. 58-60. P. Nautin fait
l'hypothèse que le destinataire de la Lettre d'Origène est Fabien et qu'i! s'agit de la Lettre
dans laquelle, d'après Jérôme (Ep. 84.10), «Origène se repent d'avoir écrit de telles pages;
99
DU DANGER D'ÉCR1RE, SELON ORIGÈNE
du lever du jour au début de l'après-midi: explication des Écritures
(impliquant la dictée) et lectures . . ,
puis jusqu'à la nuit tombée, COlTectlOn des text~s ~lc~es; une corr~c­
tion qui se poursuit durant le dîner quand celUi-cl n est pas saute
au début de la nuit, travail philosophique.
Le temps considérable passé à la dictée et à la correction vient en
soustraction de celui consacré à la lecture, la méditation, la recherche,
l'enseignement et les entretiens avec les étudiants. Ce temps est volé s~r
les activités qu'Origène considère certainement comme les plus pre-
cieuses.
N. DEUXIÈME DANGER: LA MANIPULATION
Un deuxième danger réside dans la vulnérabilité. qui fra~pe to~t do~u­
ment écrit, du simple billet au traité le plus volummeux, des qu 11 qUitte
son auteur et son éditeur. Une autre main que celle de l'auteur ou des
premiers copistes peut délibérément intervem:-, su.r un ex~mplaire pour
changer tels mots, effacer ceci, ajouter cela, reeCl1re ce developpement,
ou pourquoi pas changer le nom de l'.aut~ur. . ",. . ,
Les larges moyens mis par AmbrOlse a la copIe et a 1 e.dl:lOn de 1. en-
seignement d'Origène indiquent que le mécène en souhaitait une dlf~u­
sion qui dépassait le cercle des auditeurs. La notoriété de l' Alexa~dl1~,
qui lui vaudra notalllment d'être peu après invité à ~tioche ~a~' ~'I~,P~­
ratrice Julia Mammaea, doit celtainement beaucoup a cette actlVite ~ edl-
tion. Mais' comment s'assurer que les textes ne deviennent pas l'objet de
manipulations? . .
Galien, constatant que tels de ses lecteurs se faiSaIent passer ~our
l'auteur de ses ouvrages, que d'autres procédaient à «des suppresSIOns,
des additions ou des modifications»33, s'est vu contraint de dresser une
liste authentique de ses écrits afin de mettre à jour et déjouer les
manœuvres des faussaires.
Et dans la littérature chrétienne ancienne, les exemples de textes déli-
béré~ent retouchés sont nombreux, à commencer par celui de l'évangile
de Luc établi par Marcion au milieu du ne siècle. Denys de Corinthe
a vu certaines de ses lettres falsifiées par' «les apôtres du diable»34.
il reporte la responsabilité de cette témérité (causas tell~eritatis) sur ~broise, qui aurait
livré au public des papiers secrets (secreto edita in publlcUlll protlilent)>>.
33. Galien, Sur ses propres livres, prol. 5. .
34. Cité par Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique N.23.12.
 100 É.JUNOD
Tertullien rapporte que, à la suite du procédé frauduleux d'un frère, il a
«perdu» la première édition de son Contre Marcion, «avant d'avoir pu
en faire établir des exemplaires»; le frère en a copié celtains passages
avec force fautes et les a mis en circulation35 •
Origène, pour sa part, sera lui-même victime à au moins deux reprises
de manipulations frauduleuses. li les évoque dans un passage de sa Lettre
à des amis d'Alexandrie reproduit par Rufin dans son petit traité Sur la
falsification des ouvrages d'Origène où figurent encore plusieurs
exemples de manipulations touchant d'autres écrivains chrétiens 36 • Dans
la Lettre en question, Origène relève, désabusé, un illustre précédent:
Il n'y a rien de surprenant, à mes yeux, à ce que mon enseignement soit fal-
sifié par mes ennemis, et conompu par une falsification semblable à celle qui
a affecté une lettre de l'apôtre Paul. En effet, sous le nom de Paul, d'aucuns
ont rédigé une fausse lettre, afin de jeter le trouble chez les Thessaloniciens
et de les égarer, en prétendant que le jour du Seigneur arrivait37.
Après avoir cité 2 Th 2,1-3, il relate un premier incident qui s'est sans
doute déroulé à Athènes à la suite d'un débat public dont le texte, saisi par
des tachygraphes, a ensuite été couché par écrit. Son interlocuteur falsifie
le texte mis au point par les scribes et le fait circuler. Je cite Origène:
Il ajouta ce qu'il voulut, ôta ce qu'il voulut, changea ce qu'il lui plut, et fit
circuler le texte comme s'il se réclamait de mon nom, en donnant libre
cours à son insolence et en exhibant ce qu'il avait lui-même écrit38.
Le dialogue parvient dans cet état à des chrétiens de Palestine qui sont
scandalisés par son contenu. L'affaire leur paraît si grave qu'ils décident
d'envoyer un émissaire à Athènes auprès d'Origène pour obtenir son
exemplaire personnel de l'entretien. Celui-ci finit par le retrouver dans
ses affaires et le remet au messager.
Plus tard, rencontrant son interlocuteur, il lui demandera pourquoi il
avait falsifié le texte de l'entretien et il obtiendra cette benoîte réponse:
C'est que j'ai voulu améliorer le style de cette discussion et la corriger.
On se trouve là devant un cas de fraude et d'édition pirate; fraude
parce que le texte a été trafiqué; édition pirate puisqu'il est diffusé sans
l'accord de l'un de ses auteurs.
35. Cf. Tertullien, Contre Marcion I.1.1.
36. À savoir Clément de Rome, Clément d'Alexandrie, Denys d'Alexandrie, Hilaire
de Poitiers, Cyprien et Jérôme; cf. É. JUNOD, Un traité méconnu sur les faux littéraires
dans l'Antiquité chrétienne: «Sur la falsification des ouvrages d'Origène» de Rufin
d'Aquilée, dans Études théologiques et religieuses 72 (1997) 235-241.
37. Origène, Lettre à des amis d'Alexandrie, dans RUFIN, De adulteratione 7.
38. Ibid.
DU DANGER D'ÉCRIRE, SELON ORIGÈNE 101
Le second cas est plus grave encore. Un hérétique rencontré à Éphèse
refuse d'engager une controverse avec Origène, ce qui ne l'empêche pas
de rédiger le texte d'une discussion qui n'a donc pas eu lieu et de l'en-
voyer à ses disciples, notamment à Rome. À Antioche, Origène retrouve
ce personnage, le confond, mais l'hérétique tient bon. Origène exige alors
qu'on montre l'ouvrage:
... Je réclamai qu'on présentât publiquement l'ouvra~e, pou~ que les frè.res
reconnussent ma façon d'écrire, puisque, naturellement, ils saVaient qu,els sUjets
j'ai l'habitude d'aborder dans la discussion et ~e quell~ fOlID.e d'enseIgnement
je me sers ordinairement. Et lui, n'ayant pas ose prodUIre le livre, fut confondu
par tout le monde et convaincu de falsification. C'est ainsi que les frères furent
persuadés de ne pas prêter l'oreille aux accusations calomnieuses39 .
On pourrait ajouter, si l'on en croit Jérôme, qu'Origène, dans ~ne
Lettre à l'évêque Fabien de Rome, se serait plaint de ce qu'AmbrOIse
lui-même, son fidèle ami et mécène, aurait livré au public des papiers
secrets (secreto edita in publicum protulerit)4o.
L'écrit échappe au contrôle de son auteur.
V. TROISIÈME DANGER: LES PERLES AUX POURCEAUX
Passons à un troisième danger, plus inquiétant encore.
Platon dans une Lettre adressée à Denys, le tyran de Syracuse, livre
un ensei~nement sur les réalités suprêmes, en l'occurrence les trois prin-
cipaux fondamentaux. Cette Lettre, qui porte le numéro I~ d~n~ sa ~or­
respondance, a connu un grand retentissement durant .1 '.AntIqUIt~ .tardIve:
sur
tant dans les cercles néoplatoniciens que dans des mllieux chretIens qUI
ont cru y trouver une anticipation de la trini~é. Son a~teur, dont, ~n
pose aujourd'hui qu'il n'est pas Platon, a pleme conSCIence. du.penl qu 11
cOUIt à transmettre par lettre un tel enseignement. Le sUjet impose en
effet que la doctrine demeure secrète, plus exactement qu'elle ne soit pas
divulguée à des hommes incapables de la comprendre. Or. l'auteur n~
peut être assuré que sa lettre parvienne sans encombre et drrectement a
son destinataire; c'est pourquoi il précise à son correspondant:
Je dois donc t'en parler, mais par énigmes, afin que s'il anive à ~ette lettre
quelque accident sur tene ou sur mer, en la lisant, on ne pUisse com-
prendre41 •
39. Ibid.
40. Jérôme (Ep. 84,10); voir supra note 32.
41. Ps-Platon, Lettre II.312d. Texte qui sera souvent cité, notamment par des auteurs
clrrétiens; cf. Clément d'Alexandrie, Str. V.1O.65.1; Eusèbe de Césarée, Prep. ev. XI.20.2.
 102 É.flJNOD
Et il conclut son épître par de pressants appels à la prudence:
Veille que cela n'anive pas à la connaissance des profanes ... Prends garde
d'avoir à te repentir un jour de ce que tu laisserais aujourd 'hui se divulguer.
La plus grande sauvegarde sera de ne pas écdre, mais d'apprendre par cœur
car il est impossible que les écrits ne finissent pas par tomber dans le
domaine public 42 • Aussi, au grand jamais, je n'ai écdt sur ces questions 43 •
Ainsi donc, selon Platon ou un Pseudo-Platon, il est fort imprudent
d'écrire un traité sur les sujets les plus élevés; à l'extrême rigueur, une
lettre comme celle-ci, mais codée de sorte que seuls les initiés puissent
la décrypter. Car si l'on sait plus ou moins à qui l'on parle, on ignore
tout à fait qui seront les lecteurs de ce que l'on a écrit dans une lettre
privée et plus encore dans un traité. Tout message inscrit sur un papyrus
ou un parchemin risque de tomber sous les yeux de gens auxquels il n'est
pas adressé, qui seront incapables de le comprendre et qui ne pourront en
faire pour eux-mêmes ou pour d'autres qu'un mauvais usage. Or, dans
l'Antiquité, un enseignement, oral ou écrit, est toujours destiné à un
public spécifique; il doit en conséquence être adapté aux capacités de ses
destinataires, capacités intellectuelles et spirituelles en l'occurrence.
Il n'est pas téméraire d'établir un lien entre les précautions de la Lettre
de Platon ou du Ps-Platon et l'évocation par Origène du
danger qu'il y a, dans les choses saintes, non seulement à parler, mais bien
plus encore à écrire et à laisser ces écrits à la postérité44 •
Comment ne pas penser aussi à Plotin qui enseigna durant dix années,
sans rien confier à l'écrit? Porphyré5 nous apprend qu'il était lié par un
pacte conclu avec deux autres philosophes 46 qui, comme lui et avec lui,
avaient suivi l'enseignement d'Ammonius Saccas: tous trois s'étaient
engagés à tenir secrets les enseignements (ooY!la.a) d'Ammonius. Les
raisons, la nature et la pOltée de cet engagement soulèvent de nombreuses
questions 47 • En lien avec le problème qui nous occupe, on observera que
le pacte impose l'interdiction de toute divulgation orale ou écrite de
l'enseignement secret du maître. Et ce n'est que des années après la rup-
42. Cité aussi par Clément d'Alexandrie, Str. V.lü.65.3.
43. Ps-Platon, Lettre II.314a-c.
44. CPs 1-25, pro1., dans Épiphane, Pan. 64.7.
45. Cf. POIphyre, Vie de Plotin 3.24-35.
46. Érennius et Origène (un homonyme du théologien alexandrin).
47. Pour une présentation et une discussion des hypothèses forgées sur ce pacte, voir
GOULET-CAZÉ (éd.), L'arrière-plan scolaire de la «Vie de Plotin» (n. 20), pp. 257-260;
CHERLONNEIX, L'intention religieuse de 1'« ésotérisme platonicien» (n. 19), pp. 385-418;
D. O'BRIEN, Plotin et le vœu de silence, dans BRISSON, et al., Porphyre: La Vie de Plotin,
t. II (n. 19),419-459.
DU DANGER D'ÉCRIRE, SELON ORIGÈNE 103
ture de cet engagement par l'un, puis l'autre de ses condisciples qui
publia des traités, que Plotin se mit lui-même à écrire à l'intention de
quelques élèves48 •
Un paIfum d'ésotérisme flotte dans cette histoire rapportée par Porphyre.
Il semble que celtains des enseignements d'Ammonius à celtains de ses
disciples devaient demeurer secrets, qu'ils le demeurèrent un celtain temps
et qu'ils finirent par être paItiellement levés quand tels de ses disciples
composèrent des traités. Si le passage à l'écriture marquera chez Plotin une
prise de distance par rappOlt à des pratiques ésotériques, sa pratique de
l'écriture restera relativement confidentielle; il sait à qui il confie ses écrits.
Et ce n'est qu'après sa mOlt que ses traités seront édités49 •
Origène n'est pas Plotin. Il n'est tenu par aucun pacte similaire à celui
conclu entre les disciples d' Ammonius. Mais on sait ses réticences à
débattre ouvertement d'un certain nombre de sujets. Le passage le plus
saisissant à ce propos se situe sans conteste dans le Dialogue avec Héra-
clide. Devant une assemblée qui regroupe notamment plusieurs évêques
d'Arabie, Origène dialogue de façon serrée avec l'un d'entre eux, Héra-
clide, pour éclairer et redresser sa foi trinitaire. Puis on assiste à une libre
séance de questions-réponses. Profitant de la présence de ce maître, les
évêques et d'autres l'interrogent sur diverses questions, et notamment sur
celle-ci: l'âme est-elle le sang (st" \jfuXll l'à af!la)50? Origène se lance
dans une réponse, puis soudain s'interrompt et, sur un ton dont le frémis-
sement ne lui est pas habituel, s'interroge: Dois-je livrer des perles, si
c'est à des pourceaux que je les lance51 ? Il exhorte ses interlocuteurs,
parmi lesquels des évêques, à se transformer, à se dépouiller de la fOlIDe
animale pour devenir des hommes. Rappelant que Jésus ne tenait pas le
même langage selon qu'il s'adressait à ses disciples ou à la foule, il dit
sa propre hésitation à poursuivre son explication:
J'éprouve une angoisse (àycovtéû) à parler, une angoisse à ne pas parler. À
cause de ceux qui en sont dignes, je veux parler pour qu'on ne me reproche
pas d'avoir refusé la parole de védté à ceux qui étaient capables de l'en-
tendre. À cause de ceux qui ne sont pas dignes, j 'hésite à parler, pour les
raisons que j'ai dites, craignant de lancer aux chiens les choses sacrées, de
jeter les perles aux pourceaux (cf. Mt 7,6)52.
48. Cf. POIphyre, Vie de Plotin 3.32-4.18.
49. Sur les éditions des textes de Plotin, voir GOULET-CAZÉ, L'arrière-plan scolaire de
la «Vie de Plotin» (n. 20), pp. 280-325.
50. Diallü.16.
51. Sur l'utilisation fréquente par Origène de Mt 7,6 (Ne donnez pas aux chiens ce qui
est sacré, ne jetez pas vos perles aux pourceaux) dans ses homélies et aussi dans ses com-
mentaires, voir CROUZEL, Origène et la connaissance mystique (n. 13), pp. 159-160.
52. DiaI15.7-11.
 104 É.JUNOD
Ce long et intense développement sur le risque à parler, Origène lui-
même le définit comme un «préambule» (npoolJ,!tov) qui doit préparer
ses auditeurs à l'explication qui suivra. Certes, fera-t-on remarquer, il
s'agit là du danger à parler, et non de ce danger spécifique, plus grand
encore, qui consiste à écrire. Je dirais qu'il s'agit ici de l'un et de
l'autre, car Origène n'ignore pas qu'un sténogramme de l'Entretien est
établi.
Il existe des sujets sur lesquels Origène indique qu'il est périlleux
d'écrire. Par exemple, dans son Commentaire sur Matthieu il n'ose
confier à l'écrit ses idées sur le début de la parabole des tal~nts où le
Royaume est comparé à un roi voulant régler ses comptes avec ses ser-
.
vlteurs (c.
f M t 18,23)53 . A' propos d'une autre parabole, celle des ouvriers
de la onzième heure (cf. Mt 20,1-16), il fait observer que Matthieu, dont
il est convaincu qu'il connaît le sens de chacune des paraboles, n'a pas
jugé bon de coucher par écrit la signification de celle-ci; l'interprète doit
faire de même: ne pas donner d'explication, SUltout par écrit, pour ne pas
s'exposer au risque de la divulgation des mystères 54• Dans son Commen-
taire sur Jean, il relève pareillement que Jean, qui entendit et comprit les
paroles des sept tonnenes (cf. Ap 10,4), ne fut pas autorisé à les écrire,
et pour épargner le monde ne les écrivit pas55 • Dans le Contre Celse, il
dit le danger de confier à l'écriture ce qui se rapporte au lieu du châti-
ment56 ou encore à Satan5?
Cette crainte de transmettre un enseignement sur des réalités spiri-
tuelles à des gens indignes et inaptes à le recevoir est commune à toutes
sortes de milieux: en particulier à l'époque aux cercles néoplatoniciens,
néopythagoriciens, hermétiques, gnostiques ... et ecclésiastiques 58 , en
tout cas à Alexandrie59 au sein du groupe de chrétiens avancés qui suivent
l'enseignement d'Origène. Il y a là autour du maître une élite, pas seule-
ment intellectuelle mais aussi morale et spirituelle. Et l'enseignement
supérieur qui s'élabore dans ce cadre n'est compréhensible et recevable
que par ceux qui l'ont assimilé à force d'exercices. Confier cet enseigne-
ment à l'écrit, c'est l'exposer à un risque considérable.
53. Cf. CMt XIV. 12.
54. Cf. CMt XV.30.
55. Cf. CIo XII.6.33.
56. Cf. CC VI.26.
57. Cf. CC VI.44.
58. Sur la règle du secret présente chez quasiment tous les Grecs et dans l'Écriture
voir Clément d'Alexandrie, Str. V.51-66.
59. Cf. déjà Clément d'Alexandrie, Str. 1.19.2: «Les indicibles, comme Dieu, se
confient à la parole, non à l'écriture».
DU DANGER D'ÉCR1RE, SELON ORIGÈNE 105
VI. L'OMBRE DE PLATON ... ET DU ROULEAU
QUI ROULE DE-CI DE-LÀ
À l'anière-plan de ces réticences ou de ces craintes à écrire que l'on
perçoit chez des maîtres comme Origène ou Plotin, pour ne pas parler
d'Ammonius qui, lui, se refuse absolument à faire œuvre d'écrivain, on
devine l'ombre de Platon, plus exactement de sa Septième lettre 60 et sur-
tout de son Phèdre avec sa sévère critique de l'écriture dans la recherche
de la véritë 1 ?
Selon Socrate dialoguant avec Phèdre, ceux qui s'en remettront à
l'écriture pour acquérir la science ne seront pas des savants, mais des
semblants de savants. Ils n'accèderont pas par l'écriture à la réalité, mais
à un semblant de réalité. À l'instar de la peinture qui engendre des per-
sonnages apparemment vivants mais inanimés et silencieux, l'écriture
donne l'apparence de parler et de réfléchir, mais si l'on intenoge le texte
écrit, il ne sait dire qu'une seule chose et ne peut que la répéter.
Socrate use de l'image forte du discours qui, une fois écrit, roule de-ci
de-là (allusion au rouleau):
Quand, une fois pour toutes, il a été écrit, chaque discours va rouler de
droite et de gauche et passe indifféremment auprès de ceux qui s'y
connaissent, comme auprès de ceux dont ce n'est point l'affaire; de plus, il
ne sait pas quels sont ceux à qui il doit ou non s'adresser. Que par ailleurs
s'élèvent à son sujet des voix discordantes et qu'il soit injustement injurié,
il a toujours besoin du secours de son père; car il n'est capable ni de se
défendre ni de se tirer d'affaire tout seul62 •
Bref, dans l'exercice de la recherche de la vérité, l'écrit est un orphe-
lin, incapable de choisir ses lecteurs et de répondre par lui-même aux
questions ou aux objections. Au discours écrit, figé, tout juste bon à fixer
le souvenir, Socrate oppose l'exercice de dialectique, l'exercice de la
60. Cf. Platon, Lettre VII.341b-345c (en particulier 341c-d); si l'authenticité de la
Lettre est aujourd 'hui discutée, elle était absolument admise dans l'Antiquité tardive.
61. Cf. Platon, Phèdre 274b-279c. Le Phèdre est de tous les traités de Platon celui dont
Origène fourmt le plus grand nombre (l1) d'échos ou de citations; ils se trouvent tous
dans son Contre Celse; cf. G. DORNAL, L'apport d'Origène pour la connaissance de la
philosophie grecque, dans R.I. DALY (éd.), Origenialla Quinta: Historica, Text and
Melhod, Biblica, Philosophica, Theolagica, Origenism and Laler Developments (BETL,
105), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1992, 189~216, p. 194 et n. 65, p. 211. S'il est
vrai qu'aucun des échos dn Phèdre que l'on repère dans son œuvre ne concerne la partie
du traité qui porte sur l'invention et la critique de l'écriture, il est difficile d'imaginer que
'
ce développement de Socrate ne soit pas présent à son esprit.
62. Platon, Phèdre 275d-e. Clément d'Alexandrie fera écho à ce passage du Phèdre
dans Sir. I.14.4.
 106 É.JUNOD
parole vivante, qui éveille d'autres paroles, qui dialogue. L'écrit peut
certes infOlmer, mais il demeure incapable d'assurer la connaissance63 •
Il est remarquable, paradoxal même, que Platon, qui est la première
grande figure de la littérature philosophique, restitue longuement cette
critique socratique de l'écriture dans la recherche du vrai et qui, plus est,
lui donne pour écrin ce bijou littéraire qu'est le Phèdre. Mais sans doute
le recours systématique de Platon au genre du dialogue marque-t-il sa
conviction que l'écrit doit s'approcher autant que possible du mouvement
de la parole et de la confrontation.
De même est-il étonnant qu'Origène, six cents ans plus tard, signale le
danger qu'il y a à livrer par écrit sa recherche sur Dieu et les choses saintes,
avant de s'engager dans la composition d'une œuvre immense qui inaugu-
rera au sein du christianisme la tradition littéraire du commentaire et aussi
de l'homélie. Mais quiconque a lu un peu d'Origène observe que cet auteur,
qui n'est certes pas un grand styliste, captive immédiatement par la tension
de son discours, par un jeu de questions et de réponses 64 dans lequel s'intro-
duisent toutes les objections et hypothèses concevables. La pensée pro-
gresse dans une forme qui fait immanquablement penser au dialogue. C'est
comme si la conscience aiguë des déficiences particulières de l'écriture dans
la quête du vrai et la conscience du danger d'y recourir imprimaient un style
dans lequel transparaissent la mobilité et même l'excitation de la pensée.
On peut conjecturer sans grand risque d'en'eur que dans son enseigne-
ment Origène, tout comme Plotin, donnait sa préférence à la pratique de
la parole vivante, la viva vox65 , adressée à des disciples ou à un auditoire
précis; la dictée à des tachygraphes en vue de la composition et de l'édi-
tion d'un ouvrage lui était moins naturelle.
VII. HYPOTHÈSE FINALE: EXISTE-T-IL UNE PLACE POUR
DES ÉCRlTS À CÔTÉ DE L'ÉCRlTURE?
Une autre préface d'Origène - celle qui ouvre le tome V de son Com-
mentaire SUI' Jean et dont la Philocalie (ch. 5) et l'Histoire ecclésiastique
(VI. 25 .7-10) d'Eusèbe nous transmettent quatre extraits - suggère une
quatrième piste. Toujours à la demande d'Ambroise, Origène a entrepris
63. Cf. L. BRISSON, dans Platon, Phèdre. Trad. Luc Brisson, Paris, Flammarion, 1997, p. 60.
64. Sur ce jeu de questions et réponses chez Origène, voir notamment L. PERRONE,
Perspectives sur Origène et la littérature patristique des «Quaestiones et Responsiones»,
dans G. DORIVAL -A. LE BOULLUEC (éds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen
and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1995, 151-164.
65. Pour des témoignages païens et chrétiens sur la pratique et la valeur de la viva vox,
voir H. KARPP, Viva vox, dans Mill/us. Festschrift Theodor Klauser (Jahrbuch für Antike
und Christentum. Ergiinzungsband 1), Münster, Aschendorff, 1964, 190-198.
DU DANGER D'ÉCRIRE, SELON ORIGÈNE 107
la composition d'un commentaire sur l'évangile de Jean. Il a déjà écrit
quatre tomes, mais n'a commenté qu'une douzaine de versets du chapitre 1.
Inquiet par l'ampleur du travail dans lequel il se trouve engagé, il
s'adresse à Ambroise qui le presse de consacrer la plus grande paltie de
son temps à cet ouvragé6 :
Je pourrais, moi, pour éviter la fatigue et esquiver le danger indiqué par
Dieu que courent ceux qui se consacrent à écrire sur le divin (rcsptïatu!lsvoç;
tOV rcupèl. SeoD t&v Èrct tO 'Ypu<pstV siS tèl. Sstu €UDtoÙÇ; ÈmùsÙ(J)1(OtffiV
KivÙDVOV), plaider ma cause à partir de l'Écriture en refusant de «faire
beaucoup de livres». Salomon dit en effet dans l'Ecclésiaste: «Mon fils,
garde-toi de faire beaucoup de livres (y té !l0D, <pUÂ.U~Ul tOD rcotfjaUl
ptpÂ.iu rcoÂ.Â.u); il n'y a pas de limite et une longue étude est une fatigue
de la chair (Qo 12,12)>>67.
De manière frappante, on retrouve le «danger» couru par «ceux qui
se consacrent à écrire SUI' le divin», avec la précision nouvelle que ce
«danger est indiqué pal' Dieu», précision aussitôt explicitée par cet aver-
tissement du Qohélet: «Mon/ils, garde-toi de/aire beaucoup de livres»
(01.8 !l0o, <puÂaçat 'tou rtotllO'at ptpÂia rtoÂÂa).
Dans la suite de la préface, Origène méditera longuement le propos du
Qohélet, plus précisément la signification de ces «livres multiples» (ptpÂia
rtoÂÂa) qu'il faut éviter d'écrire. Faute de pouvoir résumer tout son pro-
pos, j'en retiens deux éléments: tout d'abord le constat que les différents
auteurs bibliques, de Moïse à Paul, ont peu écrit; ensuite l'observation que
les différents livres de l'Écriture ne font en vérité qu'un seul et même livre
puisqu'ils convergent tous vers un unique Logos, vers une unique Parole.
Il n'y a pluralité, multiplicité, que si l'on s'écarte de l'unité, de l'unicité du
Logos. La différence fondamentale entre «un seul livre» et «beaucoup de
livres» ou des «livres multiples» réside dans le témoignage rendu ou non
à la vérité qui est une; le moindre écart précipite dans le multiple. Ainsi la
menace qui plane sur le commentaire et sur tout écrit consacré au divin
est-elle d'introduire du multiple en expliquant les livres de l'Écriture qui,
eux, ne constituent ensemble qu'un seul et même livre.
Existe-t-il une place pour des écrits à côté de l'Écriture? Cette question
est présente dans le judaïsme contemporain. Le targumiste, à la synagogue,
n'avait pas le droit d'exhiber un texte écrit à côté du rouleau ouvert de la
Torah. Le mode de transmission de la Loi est l'écrit, celui du Targum est
l'oraI68 • Il me semble que cette question se pose aussi pour Origène.
66. Sur les circonstances possibles de la rédaction du tome V du CIo, voir NAUTIN,
Origène (n. 3), pp. 366-367.
67. CIo V, prol. 1 dans Philocalie 5.1.
68. Cf. R. LE DÉAUT, Introduction à la littérature targumique, Rome, Institut Biblique
Pontifical, 1966, pp. 38-42.
 108 Ê.JUNOD
Est-il possible d'écrire sur l'Écriture sans produire du multiple? Est-il
permis d'introduire des écrits à côté de l'Écriture? Sans doute puisqu'Ori-
gène, poussé, obligé par Ambroise, écrit et ne cessera d'écrire. Mais la
conscience du danger d'écrire ne le quittera jamais. On en retrouvera des
marques dans la préface du Contre Celse, l'un de ses tout derniers
ouvrages69 • On en distinguera aussi une trace dans cette tradition (cpaow)
rapportée par Eusèbe à propos des homélies: ce n'est qu'après avoir acquis
une solide expérience, à plus de soixante ans, qu'Origène autorisa des
tachygraphes à prendre note de ses prédications7o • il n'est pas sûr que cette
information soit rigoureusement exacte7!, mais la simple existence de cette
tradition atteste que la réticence de l'Alexandrin à écrire était notoire.
Que l'hypothèse, tout juste esquissée, de la contestation de l'existence
de tout commentaire écrit de l'Écriture à côté d'elle-même soit plausible
ou non, il reste le constat indiscutable que l'histoire du commentaire
scripturaire dans le christianisme est marquée à ses débuts par une per-
ception aiguë du danger d'écrire sur l'Écriture. Et il se pourrait bien que
cette perception soit pour quelque chose dans la qualité exceptionnelle
de l'œuvre qu'Origène a composée et laissée à la postérité.
Belles-Roches 3 ÉricJUNOD
CH-1004 Lausanne
eric.junod@unil.ch
69. D'entrée Origène met en évidence le silence du Christ devant ses accusateurs et
poursuit en marquant son étonnement, pour ne pas dire son incompréhension, devant la
demande d'Ambroise à ce qu'il oppose un écrit aux fausses accusations de Celse: «Notre
Seigneur et Sauveur Jésus-Christ, victime d'un faux témoignage, 'se taisait' (cf. Mt 26,59-
63), accusé, 'il ne répondait rien' (cf. Mt 27,12-14), bien persuadé que toute sa vie et ses
actions panni les Juifs surpassaient toute voix réfutant le faux témoignage et toutes paroles
répondant aux accusations. Mais toi, pieux Ambroise, tu as voulu, je ne sais pourquoi,
qu'aux faux témoignages de Celse contre les chrétiens dans son traité et aux accusations
contre la foi des églises dans son livre, j'oppose une défense: comrde s'il n'y avait pas'
dans les faits une réfutation manifeste et un discours plus fort que tous les écrits, qui
confond les faux témoignages et laisse les accusations sans vraisemblance et sans effet!
Or Jésus, victime d'un faux témoignage, se taisait. [ ... ] Et lui, aujourd'hui encore, se tait
devant ces attaques et ne répond point de sa propre voix; mais il a sa défense dans la vie
de ses véritables disciples, témoignage éclatant des faits réels, victorieux de toute calom-
nie, et il réfute et renverse les faux témoignages et les accusations. J'ose même dire que
la défense que tu me demandes de composer peut affaiblir celle qui est dans les faits et la
puissance de Jésus, manifeste à quiconque n'est pas stupide. Cependant, pour ne point
paraître hésiter devant la tâche que tu m'as prescrite, j'ai fait de mon mieux pour répliquer
à chacun des griefs écrits par Celse ce qui m'a paru propre à retourner ses discours, bien
qu'ils soient incapables d'ébranler aucun fidèle» (Origène, CC, préf. 1-3).
70. Cf. Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique VI.36.1.
71. Elle semble démentie par des indications fournies par les textes mêmes d'Origène;
cf. NAUTIN, Origène (n. 3), pp. 210 et 403-405.
SATAN - ORIGEN'S FORGOTTEN DOCTRINE
Baudelaire once observed that "the devil's neatest trick is to persuade
us that he does not exist". The trick, it must be said, has been vely suc-
cessful. Within the theological cosmos a black hole has been formed, into
which the doctrine of the devil has disappeared together with what Aulén
called the 'classic' the ory of the atonement, which interpreted the Cross
as a victory over the powers of darkness'. Origen, we may believe, would
be dismayed. He was a staunch defender of the classic theory. This has
been recognised by sorne scholars, such as Daniélou2 and Trigg 3 • But
with others the whole subject of the evil powers has been met with a
deafening silencé. The reason is not far to seek: the austere rationalism
ofpost-Enlightenment theology has relegated the ide a of a prince of dark-
ness to the realm of mythology. It is significant that the massive volumes
of Origeniana contain two or three papers about the demons faced by
St Anthony, but otherwise little reference to the devil. In the modern
world Satan is off the radar. But for Origen he was an essential element
of the Christian faith, without which it would be impossible to resolve
the greatest of all theological problems, namely the origin of evil.
"No-one", he wrote, "can know the origin of evils who has not grasped
the truth about the so-called devil and his angels"5.
For Origen the doctrine of Satan was a defining characteristic of
Christianity. As the explanation of evil in the world, it distinguished the
Christian faith from its three main ideological rivaIs, namely Platonism,
Gnosticism, and Rabbinic Judaism. In Platonism evil can only be located
in the human soul6 and the Platonist Celsus bitterly attacked the "utter
ignorance" of the Christians for believing in the devH7. Gnosticism for
its pmt located evil in the material world, and was forcefully repudiated
by Origen for its claim that evillay in a fixed nature. The issue is high-
lighted in the case of Candidus, who said that the nature of the devil was
evil and so could never be saved, while Origen said that the devil had
1. Cf. G. AULÉN, Christus Victor, London, SPCK, 1931, pp. 20-23.
2. J. DANIÉLOU, Origen, London, Sheed & Ward, 1955, pp. 269-272.
3. J. 'fRIGG, Origen, London, SCM, 1985, p. 16.
4. One may note such scholars as Bigg, De Faye, and Crouzel.
5. CCIV.65.
6. at'da sÂ.of.lÉvou, l}E!'>C; àvainoc; (plato, Republic 617e).
7. CC VIA2. Cf. CC VIII.Il. Plato attacks the notion of a cosmic dualism (cf. Politi-
CliS 270a).
110 G.BOSTOCK
fallen of bis own will and could be saved8 • As far as Judaism is con-
cerned, it is clear that by the second century it was firmly against any
form of cosmic dualism9; it located evil in the yezer hara, or evil inclina-
tion, within human nature, and the concept of the devil was "little more
than an allegory of the evil inclination among humans" 10.
In opposition to these alternatives to Christianity, Origen saw belief
in the devil as an essential aspect of the apostolic faith: "Christian
teaching lays it down that the devil and his angels and the opposing
spiritual powers exist, but what they are or how they exist is not
explained very clearly"ll. This statement reveals the uncertain nature of
belief in Satan at this time. The most that Origen can say is that "a
majority of Christians" believed that Satan had become an apostate and
persuaded other angels to fall with him. We have to deal with the fact
that the background to the belief in Satan is complex and confused. For
a start, there is really no evidence for a fall of angels in the Old Testa-
ment!2 or even in the Pauline corpUS!3. At the same time the alternative
locus for the origin of evil, namely the 'sin of Adam', has no real sup-
port in the Old Testament. Traditional Judaism took the view that
"Adam is not the cause (of evil), save only of his own soul, but each of
us has been the Adam of his ,own soUI"14. Indeed Cain was seen as a"
worse sinner than Adam l5 . Only in Paul do we find an emphasis on
8. Cf. Jerome, Apology against Rlifinlis II.19.
9. In Justin the Jew Trypho objected strongly to the idea of evil angels. Cf. Justin, Dial
79.
10. J. TRACHTENBERG, quoted in J.B. RUSSELL, Satan: The Early Christian Tradition,
New York, Cornell, 1981, p. 28. As far as Origen was concerned, the Jews were simple
literalists who excluded the spiritual and cosmic realms from consideration both in their
exegesis and their overall theology. In this way they became subject to the "letter that
kills" (2 Cor 3,6; cf. CIo XIII.23), and so accepted the philosophy of the devil to whose
existence they were blind.
11. Prin, praef. 6.
12. We may note the comment ofN.P. Williams: "The reference to 'Lucifer' (Isa 14,12)
is merely a metaphysical description of the collapse of Babylonian power, and even our
Lord's saying (Lk 10,18) clearly refers not to any pre-cosmic expulsion of the revolting
spirits from heaven, but the triumph just gained over the demons through a successful
series of exorcisms. There is therefore as little a posteriori evidence for the fall of angels
as there is for the Fall, or rather the failure, of Man". N.P. WILLIAMS, The ldeas of the
Fal! and of Original Sin, London, Longmans & Green, 1927, p. 495.
13. I.e. the genuine Pauline corpus. Cf. N. FORSYTH, The Old Ene1l1y: Satan and the
Combat My th, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, p. 259.
14. Apocalypse of Ba11lch 54.19.
15. So Wis 10,1-4. Oligen is quite explicit that the sin of Cain was worse than that of
Adam. Cf. HIer XVI.4. Generally speaking, the "Watchers" of Genesis 6 were seen as
the greatest single cause of the universality of sin. Cf. ER. TENNANT, The Sources of the
Doctrines of the Fal! and of Original Sin, Cambridge, University Press, 1903, pp. 95-96.
SATAN - ORIGEN'S FORGOTTEN DOCTRINE III
Adam, and even then no link is established between Adam and Satan l6 •
It is not really Satan who is presented as the cause of sin but the Law!?,
while the demons are only mentioned in relation to the idols to whom
the pagans sacrifice (cf. 1 Cor 10,20-22).
In contrast to traditional Judaism and its Christocentric modification
by Paul in terms of law and grace, it is the Gospels which offer the
natural background to Origen's doctrine of Satan. Influenced by apoca-
lyptic Judaism, they highlight the conflict with Satan and the demons
both in the life and in the death of Jesus l8 • They prepare the way for
Origen's development of what was a highly innovative diabology. J.B.
Russell, in his history of Christian thought about the devil, said that
Origen was "the most inventive diabologist of the entire Christian
tradition"19. What he did, essentially, was to bypass Genesis 3 and envis-
age a transcendental Fall with Satan at its epicentre. As N.P. Williams
put it,
Origen grasped, as no othel' before Wm and very few since, the all-imp0l1ant
principle that the FaU doctrine really rests upon an inference from the phe-
nomena of evil considered in the light of an ethical monotheism, and not
upon the Paradise-nanative of Gen 320.
The pioneering nature of Origen's diabology is clear when we look at
the earlier approach to the problem of evil, which presented Adam as its
primary source. Although the early Apologists, following a traditional
Jewish view, had regarded Adam's sin as simply a type of our sin21 ,
Irenaeus saw Adam's sin as the source of a general enslavement to the
devil22 , wbile Teltullian believed that it had iofected the whole human
race 23 . This sbift towards the concept of 'original sin' was accompanied
by an ethical dualism, stemming from Jewish apocalyptic, wbich envis-
aged a world divided between the children of light and the children of
16. It is of course Eve who gets the blame! Cf. 2 Cor 11,3; 1 Tirn 2,14.
17. Cf. FORSYTH, The Old Enemy (n. 13), pp. 272-274.
18. We may note that in Mark's gospel there are more than 20 references to unclean
spirits and evil demons. At the same time the concept of 'original sin' does not appear in
the gospels, as opposed to a belief in Satan and in personal devils. Cf. WILLIAMS, The ldeas
of the Fal! (n. 12), pp. 96-97, 108-109.
19. RUSSELL, Satan (n. 10), p. 123.
20. WILLIAMS, The ldeas of the Fal! (n. 12), p. 215. He adds that Origen realised that
the story of Adam and Eve is not and cannot be more than a pictorial façade. The Adam-
story is declared to be a "seerning history" (cf. Prin N.3.1).
21. Cf. J.N.D. KELLY, Early Christian Doctrines, London, A&C Black, 1960, pp. 166-
167. Clement took the same view.
22. Cf. Irenaeus, Ad\'. Haer., III. 18.7.
23. Cf. Tertullian, De Anima XVI.40.
112 G.BOSTOCK
darkness 24. It appeared in the Johannine tradition25 , as weil as in writings
such as the Epistle of Bamabas 26 , and would lead to heretics being seen
as the offspring of Satan. Indeed Irenaeus saw them as the agents of
Satan27 , and Tertullian went a stage further by saying that even good
deeds done by heretics were the work of the deviJ28. This demonising of
opponents prepared the way for the later killing by the Church of heretics
and pagans. The doctrine of Satan itself was to have diabolical conse-
quences.
The origin of the demonic powers, to which humanity seemed to be
enslaved, was linked in the mind of the early Church with the legend of
the Nephilim in Genesis 6. This legend, which served to explain Noah's
flood, was prominent in the Enoch literature and also appeared in the New
Testamenf9. It was later found in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies30, Jus-
tin31 , Athenagoras 32 , Tertullian33 and Clement34 . Origen, however, dis-
tanced himself from this tradition35 . He also rejected its motif of lust as
the source of sin in favour of pride as the archetypal sin. It was a signifi-
cant shift from seeing the flesh as the locus of evil, as weIl as from seeing
envy as the greatest sin of the deviI. Influenced by Wis 2,24, many of the
early fathers saw envy as the chief sin of the devil 36 • But after Origen it
was the sin of pride which characterised him in Christian thinking.
Origen brought about a radical break from earlier thinking about the
devil in various ways but above aIl by transferring the issue of sin from
the earthly to the heavenly plane37 . This Ied him to project onto the Old
24. Cf. RUSSELL, Satan (n. 10), pp. 36-39; FORSYTH, The Old Enemy (n. 13), pp. 200-
204. The conflict between the children of light and the children of darkness was a leitmo-
tif of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cf. T.H. GASTER, The Dead Sea Scriptures, New York, Dou-
bleday, 31976, pp. 21-22, 507-508.
25. Cf. 1 Jn 3,10.
26. Cf. Epistle of Barnabas ch. 8-10.
27. Cf. RUSSELL, Satan (n. 10), p. 86.
28. Cf. ibid., p. 99; E. PAGELS, The Origin of Satan, London, Penguin, 1996, pp. 163-
165.
29. Cf. 2 Pet 2,4; Jude 6. See further FORSYTH, The Old Enemy (n. 13), pp. 249-256.
For the Enoch literature see 1 Enoch 6-10.
30. Cf. Homilies 8.11-19.
31. Justin, 2 Ap. 5 cf. Enoch 9,9; 19,1.
32. Athenagoras, Plea, 25.
33. Cf. FORSYTH, The Old Enemy (n. 13), p. 355.
34. Clement, Paedagogus m.2.
35. Cf. Origen, CC V.54-55.
36. The text in the Book of Wisdom claiming that death had entered the world through
the envy of the devil (Wis 2,24) had a considerable influence cf. TENNANT, The Sources
(n. 15), pp. 246-247; RUSSELL, Satan (n. 10), pp. 79, 93, 105.
37. As J.N.D. Kelly said, "he transformed the story recorded in Genesis, which Ire-
naeus, Tertullian and Clement had accepted as historie al fact, into a cosmic myth and lifts
SATAN - ORIGEN'S FORGOTTEN DOCfR1NE 113
Testament a fOlm of cosmic dualism with its polar opposition of Christ
and Satan. As a result, the Lucifer legend of Isaiah 14 and the story of
the downfall of the King of Tyre (Ez 28) were made to represent the fall
of Satan. The background to this dualistic interpretation of the Old Testa-
ment is not to be found in the Iranian dualism which had sorne general
influence on apocalyptic Judaism in the intertestamental period38 . The
background to Origen' s doctrine lies much doser to home. It can be
found in the basic motifs of Egyptian religion which had a pervasive
influence in the Hellenistic milieu, as evidenced in the books of the
Pseudepigrapha that can be ascribed to an Egyptian milieu 39 and in the
writings of Origen himself.
In Egyptian religion the devil, in the form of the god Seth, appears
initially as a god of light. He stands in the prow of the solar barque,
where he has the task of attacking the chaos monster and where he rep-
resents the violent aspect of Re, the supreme sun-go d40 . This assoclatlOn
..
of the devil with the sun is found in Origen, when he refers to Satan as
"the sun who bums the just man - not the glorious sun, but the one who
'transfonns himselfinto an angel of light " , (2 Cor 11,14)41. We may note
further that the god Seth is not only linked with the sun42 but is also
described as "chosen of Re" or as "fair child of Re,,43. It is only a short
step to seeing Satan as a great archangel, which is certainly how Origen
sees him. Quoting the description of the king of Tyre as one who was
"adomed with a crown of honour and beauty" (Ez 28,12), and set "in
the paradise of God" (Ez 28,13), Origen says this must refer to an
"adverse power" who was formerly "holy and bIessed"44. He also quotes
the origination of human sinfulness from the terres trial to the transcendental plane"
(KELLY, Doctrines ln. 21], p. 180).
38. Its concepts, however, of the fall and of the devil are significantly different. Cf.
L.C. CASTARTELLI, Dualism (lI'anian), in J. HASTINGS (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1908, vol. 5, p. 111 and J.A. MACCULLOCH, FaU (Ethic),
in ibid., pp. 709-710.
39. These are: The Apocalypse of Elijah (cf. J.H. CHARLESWORTH [ed.], The Old Testa-
ment Pseudepigrapha, New York, Doubleday, 1983, vol. l, p. 730), The Testament of Job
(cf. CHARLESWORTH, Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, p. 833), The Testament of Salomon (cf.
CHARLESWORTH, Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, pp. 943-944), The Life of Adam and Eve (cf.
CHARLESWORTH, Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, p. 252).
40. Cf. H. TE VELDE, Seth, Gad of Confusion, Leiden, Brill, 1977, p. 106.
41. Cf. CCt m.
42. Cf. G. BOSTOCK, Egyptian Influence on Origen, in H. CROUZEL (ed.), Origeniana
(Quademi di Vetera Christianorum, 12), Bari, Università di Bari, 1975, 243-256, p. 254.
Magical Amulets of Seth often have solar symbols; cf. J.G. GRIFFITHS, The Conflict of
Homs and Seth, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 1960, p. 115.
43. Cf. TE VELDE, Seth (n. 40), p. 107.
44. Prin 1.5.4. Tertullian also associates the prince of Tyre with Satan, but does not
distinguish the devil from the leader of the Nephilim of Gen 6. Cf. Adv. Marc 2.10.
 114 G.BOSTOCK
Is 14 to show that Satan was originally a being of light45 and able for this
reason to "transform himself into an angel of light" (2 Cor 11,14)46.
After his faU from heaven, however, his brightness was only an apparent
quality and in reality he was a darkened and deceptive light. Origen refers
to the "transient and extinguishable light" offered by the one who mas-
querades as an angel of light47 , and in similar vein the pseudepigrapha
refer to the" quenched lamp" of the evil one which has "lost its lustre "48.
Meanwhile the faU of Satan was attributed by Origen to pridé9, and this
again reflects an Egyptian tradition. We are toId that Seth "who repulses
the attack of the monster of dat'kness from the prow of the solar barque ...
disgraced himself by overweening pride and was driven away"50. This
theme of Satanic pride is also found in the pseudepigrapha which, taking
their cue from Is 14, describe Satan as one who "sets his throne above
the stars of heaven"51.
As a darkened being after his faIl, Satan's role and function was clearly
changed. Again there is a paraIle1 with Seth, the Egyptian devil. After
leaving the solar barque, Seth became identified with the forces of chaos
against which he had originaUy fought 52 . He was now seen as one with
Apopis, the cosmic serpent who was the enemy of the sun-god53 and who
was also depicted as a dragon dwelling in the waters of the primeval
Abyss 54. Origen similarly sees the devil as the dragon who is the first
being to be bound in a body and who dweIls, with his angels, in the
waters of the abyss55. He describes Satan both as a serpent and as a
dragon, and from his use of Job 40-41 and of the Leviathan there
45. For Origen's use of Isaiah 14 cf. Prin I.5.5, EM xvrn.
46. This concept appears in the pseudepigrapha. Cf. Vita Adae et Evae 9.1.
47. So HIud I.1 cf. HNm XV. 1. The Devil and his angels are identified with the "twilit
hillsides" of Jer 13,16. Cf. HIer XII. 12.
48. Testament of Job 43.5. Cf. "the guards of heU are like serpents with extinguished
lamps and eyes like darkened flames". 2 Enoch 42,1.
49. Cf. HNm XII,4; HEz IX.2. This was a pioneering belief. Cf. RUSSELL, Satan
(n. 10), p. 130.
50. Cf. R.T. RUNDLE CLARK, My th and Symbol in Ancient Egypt, London, Thames &
Hudson, 1959, p. 212.
51. Vita Adae et Evae 15.3. It is also said that Satan "desires to place his throne higher
than the clouds". 2 Enoch 29,4.
52. Cf. TE VELDE, Seth (n. 40), p. 104.
53. In this way the devil acts as the enemy of the sun. As a result, the pseudepigrapha
observes that. "the devil desires not to let the sun rise above the earth" Apocalypse of
Elijah 1.4. The allusion to Apopis is clear cf. CHARLESWORTH, Pseudepigrapha (n. 39),
vol. 1, p. 736, note m. ' cept of evi!, theodicy seeks to explain its existence; the one asserts the power of God ever
54. Cf. RUNDLE CLARK, My th and Symbol (n. 50), p. 209; S. MORENZ, Egyptian Reli-
gion, New York, Cornell, 1973, p. 77.
55. Cf. HGn 1.1; CIo I.17.
SATAN - ORIGEN'S FORGOTTEN DOCTRINE 115
described Origen is clearly close to the Egyptian view of the devil as
having the form of a crocodile56 .
For Judaism the serpent of Gen 3 was simply a talking snake57 . For
Origen however the serpent was the cosmic enemy depicted in Egyptian
religion58 . The serpent was, above aIl, the enemy of Christ. In the same
way that Egyptian religion envisaged a supernatural conflict between
Horus and Seth, so Origen depicted an enduring conflict between Christ
and Satan. The paraUels are indeed striking 59 . In each case we have a
cosmic conflict between the forces of light and the forces of darkness or,
as Origen usually put it, a conflict between the life, which is Christ, and
the death, which is Satan:
I offer you the choice of life and death' (Deut 30,15) ... The life is,
undoubtedly, the God who says, 'I am the life' (In 14,6). What is the death,
the contrary of life (mors vitae contraria), which God has put before US?
'" 'The last enemy to be abolished is death' (1 Cor 15,26), that is, the
Devil60 •
What we are seeing here in Origen is what Frankfort, commenting on
the antagonism of Horus and Seth, described as the deeply rooted Egyp-
tian tendency to understand the world in dualistic terms as a series of
pairs of contrasts 61 .
The significance of the role of Satan as the cosmic source of evil needs
to be considered from the viewpoint both of theodicy and also of the
Atonement. These are issues which are often handled in an inconsistent
manner, with little awareness of the inconsistency involved62 . Clement's
56. For the dragon/serpent of Job see Prin 1.5.5; Prin II.8.3; CC V1.43. The dragon
(OpUKCOV) the "first of the works of God" (Job 40,19), which Origen equates with the
f.lsyà K~'tOÇ of Job 3,8 (cf. CIo I.17), is undoubtedly to be identified with the crocodile,
whlch was the usual animal form of Seth. Cf. TE VELDE, Seth (n. 40), p. 150.
57. Cf. TENNANT, The Sources (n. 15), p. 80. Philo interpreted the serpent as a symbol
of sexual desire. Cf. Philo, MIll/di Dpif 56; LegAl/eg., 2.18.
58. This concept of the serpent as a cosmic enemy is found in the pseudepigrapha. In
the Vita Adae et Evae 16 the serpent becomes the vessel of Satan. The dragon/serpent of
Rev 12,9 probably has an Egyptian source. Cf. R.H. CHARLES, Revelation (The Interna-
tional Critical Commentary), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1920, vol. 1, p. 313.
59. In Egypt itself the figure of Christ could be fused with that of Horus (cf. BOSTOCK,
Egyptian Influence ln. 42], p. 255).
60. HLv IX.ll. Cf. CIo XX,39; CRm 1.18 (866C-D).
61. H. FRANKFORT, Kingship and the Gods, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press,
1948, p. 19 & 22.
62. The inconsistency arises from their radically different approaches to the existence
of evil. The point has been weil made by Frances Young: "atonement proclaims the con-
evi!, the other regards evil as a threat to his goodness or his sovereignty". F. YOUNG,
Insight or Incoherence? The Greek Fathers on Gad and Evil, in Joumal of Ecclesiastical
HistOly (vol. 24, no. 2, April 1973), p. 118.
 116 G.BOSTOCK
theodicy, for example, "emphasised the non-being of evil, while his
atonement theory said the reality of evil had alienated humanity from
God"63. His belief in the non-being of evil was c1early influenced by the
Platonic tradition, which also determined the theodicy of Augustine in
his recoil from Manichaeanism. Inspired by Neoplatonism, Augustine led
the way in the exorcism of evil by treating it as a privatio boni: evil was
defined by him as a mere absence or lack of the good64 • It is a belief
which has sorne obvious weaknesses: if evil is a mere absence of the
good, it is unc1ear why it is ever chosen, and it is unc1ear how - as the
'non-existent' - it can tmly be judged. A serious discrepancy must arise
here between the ontological and the moral, given that morality requires
a c1ear judgement between what is good and what is bad, while states of
being must reflect varying degrees of reality65. At the same time there is
often a failure to recognise that a state of non-being is not the same as a
state of non-existence. This is a trap into which Augustine fe1l 66 , while
also failing to see that the concept of the privatio boni is empirically
absurdo Evil is a tenible reality and - arguably - a psychological fact 67 .
Origen's understanding of evil is in marked contrast to that of Augus-
tine with his fateful defence of the privatio boni theory. For Origen evil,
in aIl its forms, is not an absence of the good68 but its opposite: "death
63. RUSSELL, Satan (n. 10), p. 111.
64. Cf. ""'0at is anything we calI evil except the privation of good? In animal bodies,
for example, slckness and wounds are nothing but the privation of health ... such evil is
not a substance" (Ench. 3,11); "if an angel faUs, it becomes ... a darkness in itself,
~eriv.ed of ail participation in the eternallight: evil has no nature, the loss of good, fhal
IS evt1" (City of Gad 11.9).
65. Cf. "In the scale of existence there are no minus signs .... But in the scale of
values, as in our thermometers, we have to register temperatures far below freezing
po~nt ... tlris makes it difficult to bring judgments of value into line with judgments of
eXistence. The moral standard is essentially dualistie, and the dualism cannot be tran-
scended without transcending the standpoint of morality. The existential standard is mollis-
tie" (W.R. INGE, The Philosophy of P/otinus, London, Longmans, 31929, vol. 1, p. 133).
?6. Since everything that was created is good, it followed for Augustine that anything
whlch lacks goodness will cease to exist: "If things shaU be deprived of aU good, they
shaU no longer be. So long therefore as they are, they are good; therefore whatsoever is,
is good" (Confessions 7.12). Augustine appears to be guilty here of a fatal confusion
between existence and being. Cf. J. HrCK, Evi/ and the Gad of Love, London, Fontana,
1968, pp. 56-57.
67. One might add that the privalio boni formula can lead to absurdity. Cf. "The
opposite of a seetning evil can oruy be a seeming good, and an evil that lacks substance
can oruy be contrasted with a good that is equally non-substantial ... good must remain
s~adowy, for there is no substantial opponent for it to defend itself against, a mere priva-
tion of good. Such a view can hardly be squared with observed reality. It is diffieult to
avoid the impression that apotropaic tendencies have had a hand in creating tlris notion".
C.G. JUNG, The Collected Works, London, Routledge, 1958, vol. 11, p. 168.
68. It is claimed by HICK, Evi/ (n. 66), p. 53, n. 2, that Origen has a privative view of
SATAN - ORIGEN'S FORGOTTEN DOCTRINE 117
is the opposite (Èvav-riov) of life, and dm'kness the opposite of light"69.
The source of death, namely Satan, is not the absence of Christ but his
polar opposite (i:ltu/-t8'tpov Èvav'tiov)70, while darkness is not an absence
of light, but a reality which an evil spirit "pours over the mind"71. It
should be carefully distinguished from the non-existent - a distinction
which appears in the Pseudepigrapha72 . For Origen evil exists even
though, as the opposite of the good which is identical with bue being, it
participates in non-being73 • Origen has a c1ear recognition and under-
standing of non-being (/-t" av), which do es not simply apply to 'evil'
considered as an abstraction. The common understanding of evil as an
abstraction is a deceptive notion and its impersonality niay obscure the
fact that evil lies in a created will74 . It would be far too simplistic to
attribute non-being to an abstraction and to nothing else. Origen attributes
non-being not only to the concept of evil but also to those who tum away
from GOd75 . He also applies the concept of non-being to the physical
realm in its distance from God. With his acute awareness of the two
worlds, the etemal spiritual world and the transient physical realm,
Origen states that physical reality, which cornes from nothing and will
end in nothing76 , must share in non-being77 • In the same way sinners also
evil, and he cites De Principiis Il.9.2. It is true that Origen states there that "to be evil is
to lack good". He makes it clear in that passage however that evil is not a negative state
but the opposite (contrarium) of the good.
69. CIo Il.20.
70. CC VI.45.
71. CC VIl.4.
72. Cf. "There is nothing lower than the darkness, except nothing itself". 2 Elloch 26,3.
73. Cf. "6 àyaS6ç 1:0 ovn 6 alJ'taç sanv. Svav1:tov oÈ 1:0 àyaB0 1:0 KaKOV il 1:0
1tOVllpOV, Kat Èvav,tov 1:0 "Ovn 1:0 OÙK oV'oiç àKOÂouBd on 1:0 1tOVllPOV Kat KaKOV
OÙK ov" (CIo Il.13).
74. The conflict with the Gnosties compelled the Church to emphasise that evil was
not inevitable, because it could be attributed to a created will. Cf. WILLIAMS, The Ideas of
the Fail (n. 12), p. 184. When evil is treated simply as an impersonal abstraction, it soon
becomes an ambiguous concept: "The privation the ory of evil owes its plausibility to the
ease with wlrich abstractions can be verbally manipulated. It abstracts moral evil from
moral agents and, because the resulting concept no longer includes subjective activity,
asserts that it denotes nothing actual or active, substantial or causative. Of course if good
were similarly regarded in abstraction from its agents, it would soon be reduced to the
unsubstantial". F.R. TENNANT, Phi/osophica/ The%gy, Cambridge, University Press,
1928-1930, vol. 2, pp. 181-182.
75. Cf. "Èvav,tov 1:0 àyaB0 1:a KaKOV il 1:0 1tOV11pav, Kat svav1:tov 1:0 "Ov_:n 1:0
OÙK OV, otç àKOÂouBd on 1:a 1tOVllPOV Kat KaKOV OÙK Ov .... 1tUV,EÇ I-lÈV OÙV oi
I-lE1:ÉxoVtEÇ toU "Ovwç, I-lEtÉXOUcrt oÈ oi aytot, EÙÂ6yroÇ av "OVtEÇ XPlll-la1:tÇotEV;
oi oÈ à1tocrtpa<!>ÉV1:Eç 't1'lv 'tOu "OV1:0ç I-lE'tOXÎ1V, 1:0 sa1:EpîjaBat wu "Ovwç yEyava-
aw OÙK OV1:oç" (CIo Il.13). Sinners do not participate in the one who says "1 am who 1
am"(Exod 3,14). Cf. H36Ps V.5; CRm IV.5.
76. Cf. Prin Il.2.1.
77. It lacks being because it is not part of the future eternal realm. Cf. "Haec omnia
 118 G.BOSTOCK
must lack bue being, even though they exist by vutue of theu' participa-
tion in GOd78 , On this basis Origen seeks to sustain a meaningful relation-
ship between the ontological and the moral, and to maintain what Tillich
describes as a necessary dialectic between being and non-being 79 •
Through his moral distance from God the devil represents non-being
and the nature of death, but this does not mean that he ceases to exist.
By virtue of his creation he is able to exist and to oppose God, even while
his power can only be the power of chaos and disorder because of his
role as the contrary of the Logos. The devil has a fundamental role to
play, and this is an indisputable aspect of Origen's theodicy, despite the
widespread tendency to ignore his dualistic patterns of thought 80 • The
existence of contraries is, for Origen, an iI'reducible cosmic fact, one
which cannot be divorced from the issue of theodicy. He cannot dismiss
evil as a privatio boni as a way of defending the sovereignty and the
goodness of God. Consequently, his theodicy has to be founded on the
radical conviction that God in his wisdom deliberately uses evil to fmther
his purposes 81 •
Origen believes that God has arranged the world in such a way that
even evil can have its uses 82 , and that God can give permission to the
Devil to bring about calamities 83 • Quite simply, evil has a pUl}Jose to
fulfi!. It is necessaly in the first place to illuminate and to test the good84 •
quae videntur jam non sunt, quia nec futura sunt" (H36Ps V.5). The same applies to our
own substance. Cf. "Solus est ille qui est et qui semper est (Exod 3,14). Nostra autem
substantia tanquam nihi! est ante eum ... " (H38Ps 1.10).
78. AlI beings, whether sinners or saints, derive theu' existence from their participation
in the Creator i.e. God the Father. Cf. Pril/ I.3.6. OIigen makes use of the text "KUÀOUV-
'toç 'tà f!i] Gvm roç ovm" (Rm 4,17) to show the state of those who exist but do not have
hue being unti! they are united with God by faith: "<PUtVE'tat 01; 6 ànocr'toÀoç 'tà OÙK
ovm OÙXi sni 'trov f!llouf!f\ f!lloUf!roÇ OVTCOV ovof!USrov àÀÀ' sni 'trov f!OX~llProv,
Mi] OV1:U VOf!iSrov 'tà 1toVllpéc Tà f!i] oV'ta yàp, <Pllcriv, 6 ~Eàç roç ovm SKUÀEcrEV"
(CIo n.13; cf. CRIIl IV.5).
79. Cf. P. lliUCH, Systelllatic Theology, vol. 1, London, Nisbet, 1953, p. 208. OIigen
reflects the Egyptian belief that reality consists not only of being (ntt) but also of non-
being (iwtt). Cf. TE VELDE, Seth (n. 40), p. 104.
80. Cf. YOUNG, Il/sight or Il/coherel/ce? (n. 62), pp. 114-115.
81. The radical nature of OIigen' s theodicy may be recognised from a statement such
as the following: "magis expedit animam vel carnis malitiam sequi quam, in suis positam
voluntatibus, animalis inationabilis statum tenere" (Pril/ m.4.3). Origen's theodicy offers
a striking contrast to that of Clement who took the Platonic view (cf. ReplIblic 379c) that
"We must not imagine that God actively causes afflictions. That is quite unthinkable ... "
Str0111.IV.12.86.
82. Cf. "Ita omnia in hoc mundo esse disposita, ut nihi! otiosurri sit apud Deum,
etiamsi malum illud sil" (HNm XIV.2).
83. Cf. Pril/ m.2.7.
84. Cf. "Quae bona sunt, bona esse ex deteriorum magis comparatione noscuntur. Quis
sciret bonam esse lucem, nisi noctis tenebras sentiremus? ... Ipsum denique diabolum ...
SATAN - ORIGEN'S FORGOTTEN DOCTRINE 119
In the second place the evi! Wtiated by Satan is necessary for the punish-
ment of sinners 85 and for the crowning of the saints 86 - as in the case of
JOb 87 • Indeed the Devi! is used by God as a hammer to test the saints, a
process which gives them a tlUe self-knowledge88 • Jesus of course is the
supreme ex ample of a soul subjected to testing by the demonic powers 89
and subsequently crowned with heavenly honour.
lnIplicit in Origen's theodicy is the belief that salvation requu'es an
awareness of sin and of the need for God which is revealed by a conflict
with the opposing powers 90 • What is at stake here is a basic epistemo-
logical principle and also the dynamics of redemption. In simple terms,
goodness is not meaningful without evil and it is not truly achieved or
made refil without a conflict with ev il. We are entitled to conclude that
the principles of Origen's theodicy are consonant with his theory of the
Atonement because of the common factor, namely the conflict with Satan
as the power of darkness and death.
The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is in no sense a sacrifice to God,
stilliess is it a propitiation of his wrath91 • It is rather a sacrifice made by
God and - above aIl - by Christ. "In accordance with the will of God",
Origen says, "Christ handed over his blood to the prince of this world,,92.
Earlier fathers, such as h"enaeus 93 and Clement94, spoke of Christ redeem-
ing humanity by his blood but failed to relate this to his conflict with
Satan. Origen however said that the blood of Christ was a ransom paid
Si auferas, vututes animi sine obluctante non poterunt enitescere" (HNm IX.I). Cf.
"Virtus non habens aliquid contrarium, non claresceret nec splendidior ... fieret. Non
probata vero nec examinata viItus, nec virtus est" (HNm XIV.2).
85. HEz XII.3.
86. HNm Xm.7.
87. Job is said to have gained a double glory after his testing by Satan (cf. HGnI.10).
88. Origen regards testing as inevitable despite the prayer "fli] stcrEVÉyKnç l1f!aç EtÇ
nElpacrf!ov" (Mt 6,13). He quotes Job 7,1 ("oùXi nElpa'ti]plov scr'tlV 6 ~ioç 'trov
àv~po)1trov sni yfjç; ") in order to prove his case. Cf. Grat XXIX.9. The Devi! does this
testing in the manner of a hammer: "/fan Jè acjJvpa no.afJç ûlç y/7ç 0 J/o.poÂoç ... 'CelXOÇ
o aylOç dJatlo.vnvov ... ldiv péaoç Â/lcjJ9fl n7ç 'Ce acjJvpaç /Çà/ '(Of) Jpo./Çov,-oç .... 0 yàp
J/o.poÂoç 010. nç Âf9wv àyvowv cjJv(J/v J/à noÂÂwv JOJopo.(s/ nÂI1Ywv 'Càv 0101' dJo.pavm
. .. " (Fr/el' 107). The purpose of the Devi!'s testing is to bring about a true self-knowledge.
Cf. Grat XXIX. 17 ; HLc XXV1.4.
89. Cf. CMt XIII. 8. Jesus was not shielded by the angels in any way at his lime of trial.
Cf.HNmV.3.
90. Cf. CMt XI.5; CIo V1.58.
91. Origen is at pains to emphasise that the 'so-called' wrath of God can only be
understood as part of his corrective purposes. Cf. CC IV.n.
92. CRIIl IV.II. The emphasis is on the self-sacrifice of Christ. Cf. CMt Xm.8;
CRm m.7. A similar sacrifice is made by the martyrs, and their death also has the effect
of lessening the power of the demons and of purifying souls. Cf. EM XXX, CIo V1.36.
93. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., V.2.1.
94. Cf. Clement, Paedagoglls, 1.6.
 120 G.BOSTOCK
to the Devil95 . This idea has caused sorne confusion. The metaphorical
payment of a 'ransom' has sometimes been interpreted as a literaI trans-
action. It should however be interpreted in the context of a conflict96 , a
conflict that is with the devil understood not, essentially, as an individu al
but as the power of spiritual death97 •
The Cross is not seen by Origen as the metaphorical enrichment of
Satan. The stated purpose of the Cross is the destmction of the mler of
the demons 98 . Such a destmction of Satan has to be understood in a spir-
itual, or invisible, sense, as Origen makes clear:
The Cross of Christ has two aspects, because on the Cross the Son of God
was visibly crucified in the flesh, while invisibly the devil was crucified99 •
The spiritual cmcifixion of Satan is a reminder that Origen interprets
the conflict with the devil as a conflict with a godless ideology: Satan is
the "prince of this world" (Jn 12,31) in the sense of being the source of
a worldly philosophy, while the Cross is not simply the defeat of evil but
is rather the defeat of its rationale lOO • It acts as the cosmic focus of a
conflict between the wisdom of God, with its vision of an etemal king-
dom, and the false wisdom of Satan with its worldly philosophylOl. It was
indeed because Christ came to destroy the "so-caUed knowledge" (1 Tim
6,20) of a godless ideology that the rulers of this world cmcified him in
theu' ignorance of God's wisdom102. As a result however evil as a revela-
tory power was absorbed and annihilated: "The Cross of Christ became
95. ,Çf. "TiVt Oè ËOCOK!' 'ti]v 'l'\)xi]v aù'tOu Â(npov avtt ltoÂÂillv; où yàp oi] 'ti!> Ssi!>,
J-lTtn oùv 'ti!> 1toVIlPi!>; oinos yàp BKpénst tlJ-lillv ... " (CMt XVI.8). Cf. "Tenebat nos
diabolus, cui distracti fueramus peccatis nostris. Poposcit ergo pretium nostrum sanguinem
Christi" (CRIIl II.13).
96. Cf. KELLY, Doctrines, p. 186.
97. Cf. "Kpa'tos of; 'Bava'tO\)' (Heb 2,14) V0J-llcrtÉOV ËXStV 'tav otapoÂov, où 'tOu
J-lÉcro\) Kat ùOlaq,ôpO\), KaB' OV altOBvncrKO\)crtV Ol crûVSS'tOI BK 'l'\)XilS Kat crroJ-la'tOs
... aÂÂa 'tOU Èvavtio\) Kat ÈXSpOU 'tOU Èt1tÔVWS 'Byro ÈtJ-lt tl ÇCOTt' (Jn 11,25), KaS' OV
''l'\)xi] tl uJ-lap'tavo\)cra, aÜ't1l altoBavshat' (Ez 18,4)" (CMt XIII.9). Daniélou com-.
ments that the identification of the devil with death clarifies the idea of the outwitting of
the devil. Cf. DANIÉLOU, Origen (n. 2), p. 272.
98. Cf. CC I.31; II.47.
99. HIos VIII.3.
100. Cf. PrCor 6.6: "Ti Ba\)J-lacr'tav st, oÂO\) 'tou KôcrJ-l0\) ÂotJ-lroHoVWS 'tfI ltÂavn
... Èxpilv 'sva altoBavstv' unsp 'tou Ka'taÂÛcral 'tav 'tils ayvôtas Kat 'tOU crKÔW\)S
Kàt 'tils ancoÂsias ÂotJ-lôv; ... ïva 01' BKslVO\) 'tOU Sava'to\) 'tpônatov yÉvll'tat Ka'tà
'tOU OlapôÂO\)" (Jol/rnal ofTheological Stl/dies 9, p. 235). An example of this destruction
of the plague of error is the way that Epicureanism is said to be destroyed by the Cross of
Christ. Cf. RII/d V.5.
101. Cf. "Christ gave his blood to the prince of this world in accordance with
the wisdom of God which was not known to the rulers of this world (cf. 1 Cor 2,8)"
(CRm IV.11; Cf. CMtS 125).
102. Prin III.3.2. Origen uses Ps 2,2 and 1 Cor 2,8 as his key texts.
SATAN - ORIGEN'S FORGOTTEN DOCTRINE 121
wisdom that swallowed up all the wisdom of the Egyptians, the wisdom
that is of this world"103.
Satan for his pmt had precipitated the crucifixion through his role as
"the father of lies" (Jn 8,44) - the great Lucifer offering a deceptive light
that lures people to their doom 104 . Earlier writers had commented on the
role of Satan as the great deceiver 105 and there was a long-standing tradi-
tion that the Devil was ignorant, and indeed blind 106 . This tradition was
accepted and reinforced by Origen 107 • On first principles he recognised
that evil does not participate in the Logos108. It is therefore uTational, and
can be properly described as a blind force 109. Above aU it represents
spu'itual death - a power which can deprive people of tme being llO • This
power, in its ideological aspect, has spiritual, moral, and philosophical
dimensions. Spu'ituaUy speaking, Satan acts as the exemplar of pride in
contrast to Christ as the exemplar of humilitylll. MoraUy speaking, he
offers substitute virtues which follow the principle that evil is at its
strongest when it imitates the good 1l2 , and in this role he acts as the
103. REx IV.6.
104. Cf. "Sicut pyratae soIent ... per obscurum noctis lumen accendere, quo navi-
gantes sub spe confugiendi ad portum salutis, ad naufragia perditionis invitent, ita et istud
lumen falsae sapientiae vel falsae fidei a principibus mundi ... accenditur ... Quia et 'ipse
Satanas transfigurat se in angelum lucis' (2 Cor 11,14)" (CRm X.5).
105. For example, Satan acting as the "father of lies" is said to have deceived Adam
in the garden (Irenaeus, Adv. Raer., V.23.1) and to have inspired the false prophets (Clem-
ent, Strom. I.85.1-2).
106. Seth was described in one Egyptian text as "Robber! Lord of lies; king of deceit"
(cf. TE VELDE, Seth [no 40], p. 151), and Plutarch refers to Seth as ignorant, "01' ayvolav
Kat ana'tllv 'ts't\)q,COJ-lÉVOS" De Iside 2. At Qunu'an the adversary was known as Sammael,
meaning the "blind god" or "god of the blind". Cf. FORSYTH, The Old Enemy (n. 13),
p. 209. In similar vein Paul refers to the god of this world who has "blinded the minds of
unbelievers" (2 Cor 4,4).
107. Origen states (as did Ignatius, Eph XIX.1) that Satan remained ignorant of the
divinity of Christ (cf. RLc VI.4-5; CMt XVI.8), and was deceived by the pOOl' appearance
of the Bible (cf. PrIer 61). He also describes the Devil as "the fool who says in his heart,
'there is no God'" (ps 14,1). Cf. REx I.5. The demon who recognised Jesus as the Son of
God was able to do so because it was 1ess evil than Satan. Cf. RLc VI.6.
108. Cf. "nacra tl KaKia OùoÉv Bcrnv EnsI ... XCOptS ysyÉvll'tat 'tou Myo\)" (CIo II. 13).
109. Cf. "'t\)q,Âav yap n Ècr'ttV tlnovllpia" (CC 1.61).
110. The devil, who is responsible for spiritual death (Cf. CIo XX.25), is said to
begrudge creatures their being: "Èq,Sôvllcrs 'tOts KncrSstcrlv siS 'ta siva\. "O\)'tco q,Sôvq>
Bava'tos stcrllÂSsv sts 'tav KôcrJ-l0V" (CIo XX.26) .
111. Cf. "Ait Salvator 'Discite a me, quia mansuetus sum et humilis corde' (Mt 11,29)
... humilitatem quam respiciat Deus, quae ab illis a't\)q,ia sive J-lS'tPIÔ'tIlS dicitur ... cum
aliquis non est inflatus, sed ipse se dejecit. Qui enim inflatur, cadit secundum Apostolum
injudicium Diaboli (cf. 1 Tim 3,6): siquidem et ille ab inflatione coepit, atque superbia"
(RLc VIII.5). It is noteworthy that Typhon, the Egyptian name for the Devil, means the
one who is puffed up ('ts't\)q,COJ-lÉVOS), cf. Plato, Phaedl'lls 230A; Plutarch, De Iside 2.
112. Cf. CC VI.45. Pagan magicians are said to offer a spurious imitation of the spir-
itual power manifested by Jesus and his followers. Cf. CC II.51; CMt XII.2.
122 G.BOSTOCK
advocate of apparent goodness: "Christ represents aIl the virtues and the
Antichrist aIl the seeming viItues. AlI the fonns of good which Christ
truly (in veritate) has in himself ... the Devil also has in appearance (in
specie)"ll3. These iInitation virtues are empty fonns 114 and they therefore
share in non-being. Philosophically speaking, the same applies to the
worldly ideology proclaiIned by Satan. The things of this world partici-
pate in non-being, although they are made to look good and wonderful 115
so that they can act as a substitute for the kingdom of heaven: "they (sc.
the followers of the devil) build a pseudo city of the sun ... thus the Devil
occupies minds which were made to look upon God"116.
Because he viewed the Atonement in ideological terms, Origen saw
it not as a once for aIl sacrifice but as a spiritual victory, which left
Satan crushed without being finally conquered. It was said of Seth that
he was "beaten but not annihilated"ll7, and Origen took a similar view
when he said that the crucifixion was essentially a beginning in the
defeat of the Devil l18 • The full defeat of the Devil can only lie in the
future:
The Devil was only beaten and clUcified in those who are clUcified with
Christ, but he will be clUcified in everyone when 'all are made alive in
Christ' (1 Cor 15,22). And this signifies the mystery of a future resunec-
tion1l9 •
The defeat and destruction of the devil does not mean that he ceases
to exist, but that his evil will come to an end and he is no longer an
enemy120. This ide a was prefigured in Egyptian religion which envisaged
the reconciliation of Seth with his opponent Horus 121 . The reconciliation
of conflicting forces within the cosmos was a leitmotif of Egyptian reli-
113. CMtS 33.
114. Cf. CMtS 24.
115. They share in non-being precisely because they are transient. Satan always directs
attention towards the temporal. Cf. "Si non habet in se istud lumen quod aeternum est,
temporali sine dubio et extinguibili lu mine illuminatur ab illo qui transfigurat se in Angeluin
lucis ... , ut videantur ei illa esse bona et praeclara, quae sunt praesentia et caduca ... Isto
lumine illuminantur illi, qui divitias et honores saeculi et tenenam gloriam, quasi aeterni-
tatis memoriam quaerunt" (HIud 1.1).
116. Cf. "Omnes qui eum (sc diabolum) sequuntur, ibi congregant thesauros suos, ubi
tinea exterminat ... Sed et civitatem solis aedifieant falso nomine, pro eo quod convertit
se sieut Angelum lucis. In ms ... occupat mentes, quae ad hoc factae sunt, ut videant
Deum" (HEx 1.5).
117. "ÈKpu"i)Sl1 J.lÉv, OÙK àvnpÉSll oÉ" (plutarch, De Iside 40).
118. "àpXi]v Kul1tpoKo1tl]V "~S Ku"uMerBcos -.où 1WVllPOÙ Kut o\U~6Àou, 1taerUV
"l]V Yl]V VBVBJ.lllJ.1ÉVou" (CC VII. 17).
119. HIos VillA. cf. CRlIl V.3.
120. Cf. "Destruetur non ut non sit, sed ut inimicus non sit et mors" (Prin ill.6.S).
121. TE VELDE, Seth (n. 40), pp. 69-70.
SATAN - ORIGEN' S FORGOTTEN DOCTRINE 123
gion, as Frankfort has made clear 122 , and it offers a significant back-
ground to Origen's thinking on the future of the devil and a final apoca-
tastasis.
The controversy caused by Origen's beHef in a possible redemption of
the devil is well-known 123 . The belief has not commended itself, despite
its acceptance by St Mmtin of Tours 124. In the end, however, the only
alternative to this belief and to a final apocatastasis would appear to be
Augustine' s advocacy of the eternal damnation of the lost - a belief
which implies a final victory for Satan. It has to be said that it is a sin-
gularly depressing doctrine. It may appear to be orthodox, but we may
doubt whether it is Christian.
33 Queen Street, Gerald BOSTOCK
Perth PH2 OEH
Scotland, UK
bostock. pelth@talktalk.net
122. Cf. "HOlUS and Seth were the the antagonists per se - the mythological symbols
for all conflict. Strife is an element in the cosmos which cannot be ignored; Seth is peren-
nially subdued by Horus but never destroyed. Both Horus and Seth are wounded in the
struggle, but in the end there is a reconciliation: the statie equilibrium of the cosmos is
established. Reconciliation, an unchanging order in whieh conflieting forces play their
allotted pmt- that is the Egyptian's view of the world and also ms conception of the state.
If the King is called (and that in early texts) Horus-and-Seth, tms formula expresses ...
not merely that the king rules the dual monarchy but that he has crushed opposition, rec-
onciled conflieting forces - that he represents an unchanging order". FRANKFORT, Kingship
(n. 61), p. 22.
123. Hemi Crouzel claimed, on the basis of Origen's Letter ta Friends in Alexandria,
that Origen had denied the possibility of salvation for the Devil. Cf. CROUZEL, Origen,
Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1989, pp. 262-264. As Sebastian Guly however has shown, in a
detailed examination of the evidence, Crouzel has misrepresented Origen on this point.
Cf. S. GULY, The Salvation of the Devi! and the Kingdolll of Gad in Origen's Letter to
Certain Close Friends in Alexandria, in this volume, pp. 197-220.
124. G. BOSTOCK, The Inf/uence of Origen on Pelagius and Western Monasticislll, in
W.A. BIENERT - U. KUHNE\VEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den Auseinander-
setzungen des 4. Jahrllllllderts (BETL, 137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999,381-396, p. 394.
 III
HERMENEUTICS
 SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES
UN TRAIT CARACTÉRISTIQUE DE L'EXÉGÈSE D'ORIGÈNE ET DU
COMMENTARISME GREC DE L'ÉPOQUE IMPÉRIALE

Le titre de cet article est un discret hommage à une publication dans

laquelle H.D. Saffrey a souligné, il y a une quinzaine d'années, l'impor-
tance du concept de crol!q,covia dans le néoplatonisme athénien1• Les
tendances à l'harmonisation des doctrines étaient déjà à la mode dans les
milieux philosophiques dès le 1er s. ap. J.-C. On s'interrogeait notamment
sur l'accord des philosophies de Platon et d'Aristote, ou encore sur l'ac-
cord de la philosophie grecque et des sagesses barbares2 • Dans la tradi-
tion philologique, noter la concordance ou la discordance des textes était
une pratique courante depuis les travaux des éditeurs alexandrins d'Ho-
mère ou des Tragiques. Dans la tradition philosophique, c'est à l'époque
impériale, c'est-à-dire à l'époque où la réflexion philosophique s'identi-
fia pratiquement à une activité exégétique (philosopher, c'était avant tout,
comme l'a souvent montré P. Hadot, commenter les textes fondateurs 3 ),
que la question de la concordance ou de la discordance des textes prit
une importance particulière dans le discours philosophique.
Au même moment, le concept de concordance devint rapidement opé-
ratoire dans la pensée chrétienne et ce à plusieurs niveaux. Le fondement
même de la croyance en la messianité de Jésus amena les chrétiens, polé-
mistes et catéchètes, à souligner la concordance des anciennes et des
nouvelles Écritures, entreprise encouragée par l'émergence du marcio-
nisme, qui défendait au contraire la thèse d'une 8taq,covia fondamentalé.
Parallèlement, les apologistes développèrent la thèse d'un accord possible
entre révélation et sagesse profaneS. Contre les hétérodoxes, accusés de

1. Accorder entre elles les traditions théologiques: une caractéristique du néopla-

tonisme athénien, dans E.P. Bos - P.A. MEIJER (éds.), On Proc/us and His Influence in
Medieval Philosophy, Leiden - New York, 1992, 35-50.
2. SUI' le premier point, voir la synthèse récente de G.E. KARAMANoLIs, Plato and
Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle frolll Antiochlls to PorphYI}', Oxford, 2006.
3. Voir par exemple P. HADOT, Qu'est-ce que la philosophie antique?, Paris, 1995,
pp. 232-237.
4. II faut rappeler l'importance de l'Aduerslls Haereses d'Irénée dans la genèse du
thème de la concorde des deux Testaments (11.25.1-2; m.11.24; m.12.2).
5. Ce thème patristique bien connu devait donner naissance, à la fin de l'Antiquité, à
des florilèges de textes païens parfois intitulés LWl<jlOWiat (cf. H. ERBSE, TheosopllOrulll
Graecorlllll Fragmenta, Stuttgart - Leipzig, 1995).
 128 S.MORLET
démembrer l'Écriture, la tradition patristique affirma avec force, dès le
ne s., l'unité organique de la Révélation6 • Enfin, le problème posé par la
pluralité, voire la contradiction des évangiles canoniques, devait susciter
dès le ne siècle une intense réflexion pour tenter de démontrer la concor-
dance palfaite des textes évangéliques7.
Ces tendances à la comparaison voire à l 'harmonisation des textes
s'épanouirent dans l'œuvre d'Origène. L'Alexandrin est probablement le
premier chrétien à avoir accordé au concept de O'uJ.,l<pffivia une place
aussi impOltante dans sa réflexion théologique. Aux dires de Jérôme, ses
Sfromates perdus visaient à démontrer l'accord de la Révélation et de
quelques philosophies grecques 8 • Il est très difficile de savoir précisément
quelle forme prenait cette comparaison. Les livres XI et xn de la Pré-
paration évangélique d'Eusèbe, qui renferment une compal'aison systé-
matique des textes païens et des textes bibliques, peuvent en avoir
conservé la trace, car il semble qu'ils dépendent en partie des Stromafes,
comme l'avait suggéré H.D. Saffrey 9, et comme nous avons essayé nous-
même de le démontrer plus récemment lO •
Dans le cadre de ses activités philologiques, l'importance accordée pal'
Origène à la comparaison des textes devait donner naissance avec les
Hexaples à une forme littéraire particulière, la forme tabulaire Il. Cette
forme nouvelle, qui suppose de nouvelles façons d'envisager le travail
savant, comme l'ont bien montré A. Grafton et M. Williams dans un
ouvrage récent 1Z , devait être reprise ensuite pal' Eusèbe sous la fOlme de
.6. Sur ce point encore, il faut ~ouligner l'importance d'Irénée, qui affirme plusieurs
fOlS la concordance parfaite de l'Ecriture avec elle-même (Haer. II.28 fr. 5' III 12 9'
III.!3.3). ' , , . .,
7 . .voir les études de H. MERKEL, Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien: Ihre
pOlelll1SC~le und ap'~!ogetische Beh~ndlzl1lg in der Alten Kirche bis Zl/ Augustin, Tübingen,
1971; Die Plurahtat der Evangehen ais theologisches und exegetisches Problem in der
Alten Kirche (version française sous le titre La Pluralité des Évangiles comme problème
théolog~q:/e et exégétique dans l'Église ancienne), Bern - Frankfurt/M - Las Vegas, 1978.
8. Jero~e, Lettre 70.4: Origenes decem scripsit Stromateas, Christianorum et philo-
soph~rum II1ter se se~'tentlOs comparans, et omnia nostrae religionis dogmata de Platone
et Anstotele, N~Il~lef1l0, Cornl!t~que confirmans (<<Origène composa dix Stromates, où il
compare les Opl111ons des chretiens et des philosophes, et confirme toutes nos doctrines à
patirr de Platon, d'Aristote, de Numénius et de Cornutus»).
9. H.D. SAFFREY, Les extraits du IIepr -ràya.9ov de NUl11énius dans le livre Xl de la
Préparation évangélique d'Eusèbe de Césarée, dans Studia Patristica 13 (1975) 46-51.
,10. S,. M~RLET ~ l!usèbe de Césarée a-t-il utilisé les Stromates d'Origène dans la
Preparation evangehque?, dans Revue de philologie 78 (2004) 127-140.
11. O~ con~ultera dans ces actes la contribution de G. DORNAL, Origène, témoin des
textes de 1 Ancien Testament, dans J.-M. AuwERs - A. WÉNIN (Ms.), Lectures et relectures
de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, Leuven, 1999,351-366.
.12. A. G~ON - M. WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book:
Ongen, Eusebius and the Library of Caesarea, Cambridge, MA - London, 2006.
SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES 129
ce que l'évêque de Césarée appelle des «canons», Canons chronolo-
giques d'une part, et Canons des évangiles. Dans la pratique éditoriale
d'Origène, le concept de O'UJ.,l<pffivia intervient notamment, comme l'in-
dique l'exposé célèbre du Commentaire sur Matthieu, lorsqu'il s'agit de
résoudre la ota<pffivia des manuscrits de la Septante et de le faire en
s'appuyant notamment sur l'accord que peuvent présenter certaines
leçons de la Septante d'une part, et celles des révisions juives d'autre
part13 • Des études comme celles de J. Wevers ont montré qu'Origène ne
se contentait pas d'harmoniser Septante et texte hébreu en cas de
O'UJ.,l<pffivia avec les révisions (et si et seulement si il y a ota<pffivia entre
les manuscrits de la Septante), mais qu'il eut aussi tendance, dans sa
propre édition de la Septante, à hébraïser les noms propres et palfois
l'ordre des mots14.
Mais c'est SUltout dans les commentaires exégétiques qu'est attesté le
plus souvent ce souci de noter la O'UJ.,l<pffivia des textes. On sait depuis
longtemps qu'Origène applique à l'Écriture le principe philologique
"OJ.,lTJPOV Èç 'OJ.,lf]pou O'a<PTJViÇêtv, principe formulé pour la première
fois par Porphyre 15 , mais qui peut remonter à Aristarque et qui reflète en
tout cas une tradition plus ancienne que Porphyre16 . Les études aujourd'hui
canoniques de B. Neuschiifer17 et de G. Bendinelli18 ont illustré sur ce
point la dette d'Origène à l'égard d'un principe fondamental du commen-
tarisme grec de son époque, mais au-delà du principe lui-même, il reste
à analyser la technique concrète de l'exégète, voire les mots et les for-
13. CMt XV.14: «Par la grâce de Dieu, nous avons trouvé le moyen de remédier au
désaccord des exemplaires de l'Ancien Testament en prenant pour critères les autres édi-
tions: quand il y a une incertitude chez les Septante du fait du désaccord des exemplaires,
nous avons pris notre décision en nous fondant sur les autres éditions, en suivant ce qui
concordait avec elles, et celiains passages, nous les avons munis d'un obèle, car ils ne se
trouvent pas dans l'hébreu, sans oser les enlever tout à fait; d'autres, nous les avons ajou-
tés avec des astérisques, pour qu'il soit bien clair que nous les avons ajoutés parce qu'ils
ne se trouvent pas chez les Septante, en nous fondant sur les autres éditions, en accord
avec l'hébreu [ ... ]».
14. Voir les études de J. WEVERS, Text Histol)' of the Greek Genesis, Giittingen, 1974;
Text Histo/y of the Greek Numbers, Giittingen, 1982.
15. Quaest. Hom., 1.56 SODANO. ,
16. Voir L.D. REYNOLDS - N.G. WILSON, D'Homère à Erasme: La transmission des
classiques grecs et latins, tr. fr. de Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of
Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford, 1968), Paris, 1988, p. 10.
17. B. NEuscHÂFER, Origenes ais Philolage, Basel, 1987, pp. 276-285.
18. G. BENDINELLI, Il commentario a Matteo di Origene: L'ambito della metodologia
scolastica dell'Antichità, Roma, 1997, pp. 216sqq.; G. BENDINELLI. Il Commento a
Gioval1ni e la tradizione scolastica dell'Antichità, dans E. PRINzIVALLI (éd.), Il Commento
a Giovanni di Origene: Il testa e i suoi contesti, Atti dell'VIII Convegno di Studi dei
Gruppo ltaliano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina, Roma, 2005, 133-156,
passim.
130 S.MORLET
mules qu'il utilise pour exprimer cette cruflcprovia de l'Écriture avec elle-
même. En examinant avant tout la technique et le style d'Origène com-
mentateur, on peut mettre en évidence une dimension méconnue de son
exégèse et un nouvel aspect de sa dette à l'égard des traditions lettrées
de son temps.
Dans les textes exégétiques, le souci de signaler l'accord des textes
apparaît comme un lieu essentiel du commentaire. Origène a plusieurs
fois expliqué sa conception de l'Écriture comme livre unique et orga-
nique, dont toutes les parties s'accordent entre elles. Cette théorie est
exposée dans des textes si célèbres que nous nous contenterons de les
rappeler pour mémoire, car c'est moins la théorie bien connue d'Origène
qui nous occupera que sa pratique de commentateur. Trois textes retenus
dans la Philocalie exposent notamment cette cruflcprovia de l'Écriture: le
chapitre 2, extrait d'un commentaire sur le Ps 1, rapporte la tradition
transmise par 1'Hébreu selon laquelle l'Écriture serait comparable à une
maison formée d'un grand nombre de pièces dont chacune recèle la clef
des autres, l'Écriture s'expliquant par elle-même 19 ; le chapitre 5 transmet
un fragment tiré du Commentaire sur Jean dans lequel Origène définit
l'Écriture comme un livre unique en raison de l'harmonie qu'elle pré-
sente avec elle-même20 ; le chapitre 6, enfin, tiré d'un commentaire sur
le Ps 2, définit l'exégète comme un pacificateur qui saura déceler l'ac-
cord «des Anciennes avec les Nouvelles [Écritures], de la Loi avec les
Prophètes, des Écritures évangéliques entre elles, ou de celles des apôtres
entre elles»21. Un peu plus loin, Origène développe le dernier point: il
existe une cruflcprovia de l'Apôtre avec l'Évangile, une autre de l'Apôtre
avec lui-même, et une autre enfin de l'Apôtre avec les autres apôtres.
Exploitant le sens musical du mot cruflcprovia, Origène en vient à com-
parer l'Écriture à une cithare dont chaque corde émet un son qui peut
paraître à l'ignorant sans rappOlt avec les autres, mais qui entre en réso-
nance, à qui sait l'écouter, avec ceux des autres cordes 22 .
19. Philocalie 2.3: «Selon cet homme, l'ensemble de l'Écriture divinement inspirée,
à cause de l'obscurité qui est en elle, ressemble à un grand nombre de pièces fermées à
clé, dans une maison unique; auprès de chaque pièce est posée une clé, mais non celle qui
lui correspond; et ainsi les clés sont dispersées auprès des pièces, aucune ne correspondant
à la pièce auprès de laquelle elle est posée; selon lui, c'est un très grand travail que de
trouver les clés et de les faire correspondre aux pièces qu'elles peuvent ouvrir, et par
conséquent, nous comprenons même les Écritures qui sont obscures dès lors que nous
prenons précisément les points de départ de la compréhension des unes auprès des autres,
puisqu'elles ont leur principe interprétatif dispersées parmi elles» (nos traductions de la
Philocalie sont empIUntées à M. HARL).
20. Philocalie 5.4: «Tous les livres saints sont un livre unique».
21. Philocalie 6.1.
22. Philocalie 6.2: «Il en est comme des différentes cordes du psaltérion ou de la
SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES 131
La pratique exégétique d'Origène correspond assez bien à ces décla-
rations théoriques. Les différents aspects de la crUflcprovia biblique évo-
qués dans le dernier texte trouvent un écho dans la pluralité des cas qui
se présentent concrètement à l'exégète.
1) Lorsqu'il commente l'Ancien Testament, Origène peut souligner
l'accord d'un texte vétérotestamentaire avec un autre texte vétérotesta-
mentaire. Dans le texte de Pl' 4,26 (Fraye un sentier pour tes pieds,
et que tes routes soient fermes), il repère un écho au Ps 126,1 (Si le
Seigneur ne bâtit pas la maison, et ne garde pas la ville):
Cela concorde (O'ull<pcoveÎ) avec Si le Seignellr ne bâtit pas la maison, et
/le garde pas la ville: c'est-à-dire, Si le Seigneur ne nous donne. pas la force
de diriger notre marche vers lui, c'est en vain que nous nous fa~lguo~s, sans
l'implorer pour le pardon de nos fautes, mais dans une entrepnse presomp-
tueuse 23 •
De même, il relève l'accord de Lm 3,31 (Car le Seigneur ne rejettera
pas pour toujours) avec le Ps 73,1 (Pourquoi, Dieu, ce rejet sans fin,
cette colère qui fume contre le troupeau de ton pâturage) ou le Ps 102,9
(Le Seigneur ne rejettera pas pour toujours et sa rancune ne sera pas
éternelle )24.
2) Le commentaire d'un texte vétérotestamentaire peut également
amener l'exégète à souligner un écho dans le N.T., évangiles ou épîtres
pauliniennes. Ainsi, il relève que le texte de JI' 20,8 (De ma parole amère
je rirai) est en accord avec la promesse formulée en Lc 6,21 (Bienheu-
reux ceux qui pleurent maintenant, car ils riront), mais s'oppose à
Lc 6,25 (Malheur à ceux qui rient maintenant parce qu'ils se lamente-
ront et pleureront):
Tu chercheras si, selon des points de vue différents, ce bon ri~e (Jr 20,8)
n'est pas en accord (O'uv«oet) avec les pleurs déclarés bienheureux
(Lc 6,21), et, d'autre part, en opposition (èvavnoumt) avec ces autres
cithare: chacune d'elles produit un son qui lui est propre, en apparence sans resse~blanc.e
avec le son des autres; l'ignorant, celui qui ne connaît pas les règles de l'harmollle m~sl­
cale, croit qu'elles sont en dyshmmonie, à cause de la dissemblanse ~es sons; d,e la m~me
façon ceux qui ne savent pas écouter l'accord de Dieu dans les Ecntures sacrees crOlent
que l'Ancienne Écriture est sans accord avec la Nouvelle, les Prophète~ }ans ~ccord avec
la Loi, les évangiles sans accord entre eux, l'Apôtre sans accor~ ave~ 1 Eva~gJ~e, ou avec
lui-même ou avec les autres apôtres». Ce chapitre de la PllIlocahe parait directement
inspiré d,Irénée, Haer. II.25.1-2 (référence à ajouter au co~n;entaire d~ M. HARI;' SC 30~,
Paris, 1983). L'image de la cithare produisant des so.ns dlfferents ~~IS h~rmollleux av~1t
déjà été reprise entre temps par Clément d'Alexandne pour caractenser 1 accord des dif-
férentes branches de la philosophie (Str., 1.13.5).
23. FrPr PG 17, 173A.
24. FrLm78.
 132 S.MORLET
pleurs déclarés malheureux qui sont tenus en réserve pour ceux qui ont une
conduite opposée (Lc 6,25)25.
Dans un fragment sur Jérémie, l'Alexandrin relève cette fois l'accord
de l'Ancien Testament (Jr 10,14: Tout homme s'est trouvé hébété, sans
comprendre) et (le l'Âpôtre (1 Cor 1,20: Dieu n'a-t-il pas frappé de folie
la sagesse de ce/monae ?):
C'est en accord (J\)J.t<ProvmS) avec Tout homme's'est trouvé hébété, sans
comprendre (Jr 10,14), que Paul dit: Dieu n'a-Ml pas frappé de folie la
sagesse de ce monde ? (1 Cor 1,20)26.
En Dt 27,26 (mauditsoit tout homme qui ne respectera pas toutes les
paroles de la Loi), Origène reconnaît un accord avec Ga 3,10 (Tous ceux
qui se réclament de la pratique de la Loi encourent une malédiction?7.
3) Inversement, un texte du N.T. peut appeler la mention d'un texte
vétérotestamentaire s'il semble présenter avec lui une concordance.
Ainsi, Origène explique le texte de Jn 13,21 (L'un d'entre vous me
livrera) en faisant appel au texte parallèle, seh)Ui lui, de Gn 3,22 (Voici
qu'Adam est devenu comme l'un d'entre nous):
C'est de cette manière, en effet, que j'ai compris ce verset: Voici qu'Adam
est devenu comme l'un d'entre nous; car il n'est dit ni 'comme nous' ni
'comme moi'; mais, parce que lui seul est tombé de la béatitude, comme
l'un d'entre nous 28 •
C'est évidemment la récurrence, dans les deux ,textes, de l'expression
«l'un d'entre nous/vous» qui appelle ce rapprochement. Dans les deux
cas, ce tour signifierait que le personnage en question, Judas ou Adam;
est déchu de sa dignité, dignité d'apôtre pour le premier, dignité d'homme
bienheureux pour Adam.
Dans certains cas, le montage textuel peut être plus complexe. Dans le
dernier commentaire évoqué, Origène ne se contente pas de rapprocher
Jn 13,21 et Gn 3,22. Le texte même de Gn 3,22 appelle un rapprochement
avec un autre texte vétérotestamentaire, Ps 81,7 (Vous, vous mourez
comme des hommes et vous tombez aussi comme l'un des princes):
L'expression 'comme l'un' me paraît concorder ((J\)v(Li5etv), avec celle-là:
Vous, VOliS mourez comme des hommes, avec vous tombez aussi comme l'un
des princes29 •
25. HIer XX.6.
26. FrIer 39.
27. SchDt PG 17, 36A-B.
28. CIo XXXlI.18.233.
29. CIo XXXII. 18.233.
SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES 133
Commentant Ap 5,6, Origène signale le parallèle entre la vision de
°.
l'agneau aux sept yeux et Zc 4,103 De façon plus vague, il note que
lorsque Jésus apprenait à aimer le Créateur (allusion probable à Mt 23,37-
40), il était en accord «(JOVI1-06vn0C;) avec la Loi et les Prophètes31 • Cette
question de la O'OIl<pcoviu des deux Testaments fait l'objet d'un dévelop-
pement herméneutique dans un commentaire sur Mt 18,19 (Oui je vous le
dis encore, si deux d'entre vous sur la terre s'entendent [O'OIl<pcovi)O'coO'w]
sur tout ce qu'ils demanderont, ils seront exaucés par mon père qui est
aux cieux).
Dans son Commentaire sur Matthieu, et après avoir fait l'éloge de la
O'OIl<Pcoviu entre les membres de l'Église ou entre les parties de l'indi-
vidu (corps, âme et esprit), Origène en vient à évoquer la O'0ll<pcoviu des
deux Testaments:
li est agréable de méditer, de concevoir et d'établir la concorde des deux
Testaments, celui qui a précédé la venue corporelle du Sauveur, et le Nou-
veau; car là où concordent les deux Testaments, au point qu'il n'y a rien de
discordant entre l'un et l'autre, c'est là qu'on trouverait que les prières au
sujet de tout ce qu'ils demanderont sont exaucées par le Père qui est aux
cieux32 •
4) Le commentaire d'un texte néotestamentaire peut donner à l'exégète
l'occasion de mentionner un écho dans un autre texte du Nouveau
Testament. Il faut envisager principalement deux cas de figure:
a) Origène peut signaler l'accord d'un texte évangélique et d'un texte
paulinien. D'après le commentaire sur Jean, le texte de Jn 13,3 (Le Père
a tout remis entre les mains de son fils) est ainsi censé concorder avec le
chapitre 15 de la première Épître aux Corinthiens et notamment les §25-
26 (Il faut qu'il règne jusqu'à ce qu'il ait mis tous ses ennemis sous ses
pieds (... ). Le dernier ennemi à anéantir, c'est la mort):
Il faut qu'il règne jusqu'à ce qu'il ait mis tOIlS ses ennemis sous ses pieds,
puis: Le dernier ennemi à anéantir, c'est la mort (1 Cor 15,25). Cela
concorde ((J\)v(Û;et) assurément avec le texte: Le Père lui a tout remis
entre les mains, que l'Apôtre explique plus clairement en disant: Lorsqu'il
dit que tout lui a été soumis, c'est évidemment à l'exception de celui qui lui
a tout soumis (1 Cor 15,26)33.
b) Beaucoup plus souvent, l'exégète peut souligner la concorde des
évangiles avec eux-mêmes. Pour ne citer que deux exemples pris dans
30. FrAp 28 TuRNER.
31. CMt XI!. 1.
32. CMt XIV.4.
33. CIo XXXlI.3.31-32.
 134 S.MORLET
les commentaires sur Jean et sur Matthieu, Origène relève par exemple
l'accord des synoptiques à propos de l'épisode de la guérison de la belle-
mère de Piene (Mt 8,14-15):
La guérison de la belle-mère de PieITe, il l'a également racontée en accord
(auf!<Pcova) avec les deux autres 34.
Commentant Mt 20,17-19, où il est question de la montée de Jésus à
Jérusalem, Origène relève l'accord du récit de Matthieu avec celui de
Marc et celui de Luc 35 .
5) Il reste à envisager un dernier type d'accord: celui que peut présen-
ter le texte de la Septante avec les révisions juives. Ainsi, dans un com-
mentaire sur le Ps 9 qui ne paraît pas douteux, l'exégète relève l'accord
entre le verset 14 du Psaume (6 u\jfilly 1!8 ÈK "Cilly 1wÀilly "CoG 3aya"Cou:
toi qui me tires des portes de la mort) et le titre du Psaume chez Sym-
maque (U1tÈp 't'oG 3aya"Cou "CoG utoG) et chez Aquila (U1tÈp 1"11Ç Y801"11-
"Coç). Un tel accord confirme, d'après Origène, que le texte est bien une
prophétie de la résunection du Christ, malgré le titre obscur de la Septante
(U1tÈp "Cilly KPU<p{ffiY "CoG utoG)36. Comme on le sait, Origène compare
fréquemment le texte des réviseurs à celui de la Septante, pour exploiter
tantôt l'accord, tantôt le désaccord qu'ils peuvent présenter. Mais ce type
de comparaison intertextuelle n'est pas du même ordre que les autres et
pour cette raison, nous ne nous y attarderons pas 3? En effet, la cyul!<pffiy{a
accidentelle que peuvent présenter Septante et révisions n'est pas compa-
rable à la cyul!<pffiy{a essentielle et constitutive de la Septante avec elle-
même. Pour cette raison, il n'est pas étonnant que la question de l'accord
de la Septante et des révisions ne soit pas évoquée dans la liste du chapitre
6 de la Philocalie, déjà mentionné, où Origène évoquait les différents
aspects de la aUI!<pffiy{a de l'Écriture avec elle-même.
Sur un plan plus fonctionnel, il semble que le souci exégétique de sou-
ligner l'accord des textes réponde selon les cas à trois visées différentes.
34. CIo X.12.6I.
35. CMt XVI.I.
36. PrPs PG 12, 1064D.
37. Nous renvoyons le lecteur aux travaux de D. BARTHÉLEMY, Origène et le texte de
l'Ancien Testament, dans J. FONTAINE - C. KANNENGIESSER (éds.), Epektasis. Mélanges
patristiques offerts au cardinal Jean Daniélou, Paris, 1972,247-261 (= Études d'histoire
du texte de l'Ancien Testament, Gottingen, 1978,203-217); M. HARL, La Septante et la
pluralité textuelle des Écritures: Le témoignage des Pères grecs, dans Naissance de la
méthode critique: Colloque du centenaire de l'École biblique et archéologique française
de Jérusalem (Lyon, novembre 1990), Paris, 1992,231-243; DORIVAL, Origène, témoin
des textes de l'Anciel~ Testament (n. 11); S. MORLET, La Démonstration évangélique
d'Eusèbe de Césarée. Etude sur l'apologétique chrétienne à l'époque de Constantin, Paris,
2009, pp. 522-537.
SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES 135
1) Assez souvent, l'accord est mentionné pour lui-même. Il est évoqué
rapidement et ne donne lieu à aucun commentaire particulier. Lorsque ce
type de remarque se retrouve dans une chaîne exégétique, comme c'est
souvent le cas, on peut être tenté d'imputer cette sécheresse stylistique
au caténiste38 . Mais en réalité, on retrouve le même type de remarques
dans les grands commentaires exégétiques 39 . Il n'y a donc pas lieu de
douter qu'elles soient caractéristiques de la manière d'Origène. Il semble
bien plutôt que si des remarques de ce type se retrouvent fréquemment
dans les chaînes, c'est parce qu'elles sont déjà dans les grands commen-
taires d'Origène fOlmulées sur le mode de cyxoÀta (ou de CYllI!8HDCY8tÇ),
c'est-à-dire des brèves remarques, sans rapport nécessaire avec les consi-
dérations précédentes ou suivantes 4o • Dans ce cas, l'exégète donne sim-
plement une infOlmation à son lecteur. Mais il faut aussi interpréter ce
type de remarque comme étant déjà un commentaire. Mentionner un texte
concordant, c'est simplement commenter la Bible par la Bible, en appeler
aux harmoniques que présentent les Écritures, selon les textes théoriques
déjà rappelés.
2) Dans le cas particulier de la concorde des textes évangéliques,
l'objectif d'Origène est plus précis. Il ne s'agit pas seulement pour lui de
donner une information au lecteur ou de commenter la Bible par la Bible.
Il s'agit aussi de démontrer l 'harmonie des textes évangéliques pour dis-
siper la croyance en une possible Ola<pffiy{a. Une telle visée est claire-
ment explicitée dans un passage célèbre du livre VI du Commentaire sur
Jean:
il nous paraît nécessaire de citer, à côté de ceux auxquels nous avons affaire,
les passages évangéliques ressemblants, et de le faire dans chaque cas
jusqu'à la fin, afin de démontrer que les passages qui semblent se heurte~
sont en accord et afin d'éclairer le sens particulier de chacun de ceux qUI
sont ressemblants41.
Ce texte évoque deux aspects de la technique exégétique d'Origène
lorsqu'il commente les évangiles: sa dimension réfutative, et sa dimen-
sion topique, évoquée à travers l'intention avouée de citer les parallèles
textuels jusqu'à la fin du commentaire. Cette dimension topique n'est pas
38. Voir PrLm 78; PrAp 28. Voir aussi PrPs, PG 12, 1461,42, où la remarque sur
l'accord des textes ne semble liée ni à ce qui précède ni à ce qui suit.
39. Voir, parmi des textes déjà évoqués, CIo X.6I.
40. il n'est pas question d'envisager ici le problème de la nature exacte des «scholies»
d'Origène. On renverra le lecteur à la contribution de C. Markschies, dans ce volume, et
à l'article d'É. JUNOD, Que savons-nolis des "Sc/lOties» (axoÂlu - aJ/lIBIÔJaBlç) d'Origène?,
dans G. DORIVAL - A. LE BOULLUEC (éds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible /
Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, 1995, 133-149.
41. CIo VI.127 (t1'. É. JUNOD).
136 S.MORLET
une vue de l'esprit: les commentaires sur Jean et Matthieu sont émaillés
de remarques visant à souligner l'accord des textes évangéliques42 • La
question du désaccord des évangiles (désaccord apparent, selon l'exé-
gète) donne lieu à un développement particulier dans le livre X du Com-
mentaire sur Jean. Comme on le sait, la solution préconisée par Origène
pour justifier les désaccords apparents réside dans le recours à l'exégèse
spirituelle. É. Junod, qui a particulièrement étudié ce développement du
livre X, considère qu'Origène ne cherche pas à répondre à des accusa-
tions païennes, mais plutôt à des chrétiens qui douteraient de l'accord des
évangiles 43 • li relève que Celse ne semble pas avoir exploité l'argument
du désaccord des évangiles 44 . En tout cas, Origène ne paraît pas animé,
dans le Contre Celse, de la volonté de démontrer leur harmonie. Dans cet
ouvrage, il souligne bien l'accord des textes évangéliques, mais plutôt
pour étayer sa propre démonstration et non pour répondre à l'accusation
de ùta<p(J)vla45.
3) Palfois, l'accord entre deux textes n'intéresse pas Origène pour lui-
même, mais parce qu'il lui permet d'approfondir le commentaire. Dans
ce cas, le texte concordant n'est donné que comme un détour exégétique.
Dans l'intelprétation déjà citée de Jn 13,3 (Le Père a tout remis dans les
mains de son fils), l'évocation du parallèle dans l'Épître aux Corinthiens
n'est qu'une façon de laisser l'Apôtre lui-même commenter le passage
évangélique, car celui-ci, écrit Origène, en donne une version plus claire
(O'a<pÉO''tBpOV ÈK'tlSÉI.tBVOç)46. Dans le commentaire déjà évoqué sur
Jean 13,21, le montage textuel auquel se livre l'exégète n'est pas une fin
en soi. Il est indissociable du commentaire d'Origène, commentaire qui
tend à montrer que l'expression «l'un d'entre» suppose la chute d'un
seul personnage. Judas est déchu de sa dignité d'apôtre de même
qu'Adam est déchu de sa dignité d'homme bienheureux47 • Dans un autre
commentaire précédemment cité, sur le Ps 9, le recours aux révisions
n'est qu'un détour permettant à l'exégète de proposer un commentaire en
lien avec la résurrection du Christ8 •
42. Parfois, Origène soulève lui-même les désaccords que l'on pourrait être tenté de
relever (voir CMt XIII.29).
43. É. JUNOD, Origène face au problème du désaccord (r5w<jJwvia) entre les évangiles
(CIo X, 3-36), dans PRlNzIvALLI (éd.), Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene: Il testo e i
suoi contesti (n. 18), 423-439, p. 425.
44. Ibid.
45. Voir CC II.69 (il faut ajouter ce texte au passage de CC V.56 cité par JUNOD,
Origène face au problème du désaccord ln. 43], p. 425, n. 11).
46. CIo XXXII.3.32.
47. CIo XXXII.18.233.
48. FrPs, PO 12, 1064D.
SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES 137
La O'0I.t<p(J)vla permet parfois de décider entre plusieurs lectures
possibles d'un texte, notamment dans le cas particulier de l'accord que
présente nécessairement tout énoncé cohérent avec lui-même. Dans un
commentaire sur Eph 3,13-14, Origène écrit:
On peut lire le passage c'est pourquoi je demande de ne pas perdre courage
à la vue des épreuves que j'endure pour vous (3,13) de cette façon: c'est
pourquoi je vous demande, pour vous, de ne pas perdre courage à la vue
des épreuves que j'endure, elles qui sont votre gloire. Et ce qui suit sem-
blera davantage s'accorder avec cette interprétation: c'est pour cette raÎson
que je plie les genoux devant le Père, pour qu'ÎI vous donne, selon la
richesse de sa gloire, d'être puissamment fortifiés (3,14). En effet, s'il y a
nécessité d'être puissamment fortifié, c'est bien pour celui qui ne se décou-
rage pas à la vue des épreuves49 •
Ici l'accord du texte avec lui-même est présupposé et autorise une
lecture particulière du passage.
On aura donc tendance à caractériser trois fonctions des remarques sur
l'accord des textes chez Origène: une fonction tantôt informative, tantôt
polémique, tantôt heuristique. La conclusion qui s'impose déjà de ce bref
panorama est que l'acte de souligner l'accord des textes présente une
variété d'emplois et une récurrence particulière qui illustrent assez bien
les déclarations du chapitre 6 de la Philocalie.
La dimension topique de ce type de remarques est encore plus visible
si l'on s'arrête un instant sur les mots et les formules utilisées par
Origène. Là encore, la récurrence est remarquable. Les textes déjà cités
auront permis de constater que le lexique d'Origène, lorsqu'il évoque la
concorde des Écritures, est avant tout fondé sur deux familles de mots
formées autour des verbes O'OVÇtÙBtV et 0'01.t<p(J)vdv50 (on aurait pu ouvrir
le corpus aux expressions construites autour de âpl.taÇBtV). Voici un
échantillon raisonné des formules utilisées par l'exégète à partir de ces
deux verbes:
FrPs, PG 12, 1165D: O'UV~OEl 'tou O''tLXOU 0 vouS ois ets 'tov rcpo 'to(nou
etpilKul!EV.
HIer 1.6: KUt iO"téov on 'tà flèv rcoÀÀà UlJ'tql O'UV~OEl Kut 06vu'tut
àvu<j>épecrl1ut èrct 'tov O'm'tfjpu, â rcupul1ilO'ol!ut.
SchAp 28: O'UV~OE\ 'tOU't01~ 'to 'Enrà àifJ9aÀflOi Kvpiov elaiv emfJÀénovreç
eni nfi.aav n)v y~v.
SchAp 24: O'uJlIpmvEi 'tOUt01~ 0 IIuuÀoS ypu<j>mv ...
49. FrEph 14.22-27.
50. TI ne semble pas qu'il y ait de différence sémantique entre les deux familles de
mots. Les Pères les utilisent indifféremment l'une pour l'autre (voir Clément d'Alexan-
drie, Str., V.1.2.2 et VI.15.123.3, qui utilise O'uvq>ùi.a et O'uJ.!<provi.a comme deux syno-
nymes).
138 S.MORLET
FrPr, PG 17, 173A: O"ulujJrow:i tOiitOl<; tO, 'Eàv /1it KVplOÇ oÎl(060/1~0't7
01,(01', Kal rjJuÀaça naÀzv ...
FrPs, PG 12, 1461D: toiitq>O"UVVOEl tO IIol/10'arB aôulv, 01' rpanov ènol/l-
O'arB ràv nÀovO'lOv.
FrGIl, PG 12, 133: Kat toiitq> O"UVVOEl to 1tEpt tfjc; ÀUO'sroc; TOU àvstpa-
toc; 1tpoa1toosoo/-lÉvov.
CIo XXXII.3.32: Kat O"UVVOEl "fE tep IIavra li6Wl(BV aôrrp 0 nau)p BÎÇ ràç
xe'ipaç aôrov, 01tSp O'a<pÉO'tSpOV èntSÉ/-lsvoC; <pT]O'tv 6 'AnoO'toÀoC;.
CIo X.12.61: Kat tà 1tSpt tfjc; IIÉtpou 1tsvSspac; O"ul·ujJrovro<; tOtc; liUotc;
OUO'tV Kat aùtoc; napÉO"tT]O'sv.
CIo XXXII. 18.233 : to oÈ 'Qç B1ç O"UVO;OElV /-lot OOKsl Kat /-lstà TOU 'Y/1e'iç
6È; 61) wç avf)pwnOi à.nof)v110'lœ!8, ~0 Ka) wç B1ç rmv à.pXavrwv ninrBrB.
FrLc 34 (= PG 17, 321 A): O"ii~ujJrova oÈ <pSÉY"{stat teP uteP 11 'EÀ10'Upst.
FrLm 78: O"ii~ljJrovov oÈ to ...
FrDt (PG 17, 36A-B): oI<; O"UVVOEl Kat 6 'AnoO'toÀoC; ÀÉyrov . oO'oz yàp
èç lipywv Va/LOU eÎO'iv, vn~ Karapav eÎO'iv.
CMt XVII.26: taUta /-lÈV OÙV èK taU npOKsl/-lÉVOU sùaY"{sÀiou ÀsÀÉXSro
stc; toV tonov cOC; npoc; t~V ÀÉc,tv, oI<; O"UVVOEl Kat tà TOU MupKOU
Kat TOU AOUKii pT]tà nSpt nov 6/-loirov ...
FrPs, PG 12, lO64D: oI<; O"u~ljJrovEi Kat tà nspt tliC; èK Savutou àvaPlro-
O'sroc; aùtou, otà toU 'l'aÀ/-lou O'll/-latvo/-lsva Katà to 0 vlf/mv /1B bc rmv
nuÂmv rov f)avarou.
CMt xm.1: ÈOOKIll ~i] O"UVIlOElV tOtC; stpT]/-lÉV01C; ...
CMt Xm.29: OOC,El ~i] O"UVVOElV teP .. ·
CIo XXXII.24.305: <pÉps o6v, Ei Kat ~i] O"UVIlOE1V nvà ooc,st trov
ÀSXST]O'o/-lÉvrov tOtC; npostpT]/-lÉvotc;, YU/-lvuO'ro/-lSV tà Katà toV
tonov.
CMt XVI.1: Kat 6 AOUKiiC; oÈ OOC,El tOiitOl<; O"UVVOIllV ypu'l'ac; ...
FrEph 14: Kat OOC,El ys tà ac,lic; tautn /-liiUov tfl èKOOxfI O"UVVOElV.
FrEph 12: tà oÈ àno tOU ... OOC,El O"UVVOSlV tfl ap/-lT]vstÇL tfl 1tSpt tOU
èyyùC; /-lÈv stvat to 'IO'paitÀ, 1tOppro oÈ tà iWVll.
FrEph 24: OOC,El oÈ O"UVVOElV teP ànÀouO'tspov èKoÉc,aO'Sat ti]v /-lropo-
Àoyiav 11 èm<pspo/-lÉVT] aùtfl sùtpa1tsÀia ...
FrIa 12: 1tUVU O"UV\looVtro<; tO ... s'iPlltat.
FrIer 39: O"u~ljJrovro<; oÈ teP è/1wpavf)1j niiç avf)pwnoç à.nà yVWO'BWÇ 6
IIauÀ6c; <pT]O'tv ...
CIo X.18.1l0: O"u~ljJrovro<; tfl à1tOO'taÀtKfI èKOOxfl Kat teP èv teP sùay-
ySÀicp à/-lveP ...
CIo VI.43.224: toiitq> tE O"u~ljJrovro<; èv tfl èmO"toÀfI 6 /-laST]t~C; 'IrouvvllC;
to 1tvsu/-la to üorop ...
CMt XII.2: Kat 11 otoaO'KaÀia ènt t~V àyunT]v TOU KtiO'avtac; npoO'Ka-
ÀOU/-lÉVll O"UV\lOOVtro<; vO/-lCp Kat npo<pittatC; ...
HIer XIX.15: Kat Àa/-lpuvro ÀÉc,tv ànOO'tOÀtK~v O"UvvoouO"av toUtotC; ...
Cette liste ne permet pas seulement d'envisager la récurrence de
certains traits stylistiques. Elle permet également de supposer que ces
formules, comme d'autres formules techniques utilisées avec une fré-
quence particulière par Origène qui ont déjà attiré l'attention de la
SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES 139
critiqueS!, proviennent de la tradition scolastique païenne et qu'Ori-
gène, loin d'en être l'inventeur, n'en est qu'un utilisateur.
Cette intuition est vérifiée. Aussi loin qu'on puisse remonter, il semble
que la question de l'accord des textes, dans la tradition savante grecque,
soit devenue une préoccupation essentielle des lettrés à l'époque hellé-
nistique, dans le cadre des activités éditoriales des savants alexandrins s2 .
Il semble même que ce souci de la aUflcprovia n'ait été lié, à l'origine,
qu'à des préoccupations éditoriales.
Dans les scholies sur Homère, on voit les philologues attentifs à
contrôler régulièrement la aUflcprovia d'un texte ou au contraire à déceler
dans une leçon une àauflcprovia, un désaccord, avec ce qui suit, ce qui
précède, ou les manières de l'auteurs3 • La aUflcprovia signifie que le texte
est correctement établis4 . S'il y a àauflcprovia, le texte doit être conigés5 .
Or les fonnules utilisées par les scholiastes sont celles-là même que l'on
retrouve chez Origène. C'est dans les anciennes scholies sur l'Iliade
qu'on trouve le plus grand nombre de parallèles. Voici quelques exemples
de formules déjà repérées chez Origène:
I.117b1: O'UVÇLost Kat to vuv /-lot O'roc; ai1tùc; OÀsSpOC;.
I.585a1: O'UVÇLost oÈ Kat to èm<pspo/-lsvov ...
I.585a2: Kat O'UVÇLost teP èOÉc,ato Xstpt KU1tSUOV.
II.135c: Kat tOUta à/-l<potÉpotc; O'UVÇLOS1 ...
II.220b: Kat to napot/-llroosC; O'UVÇLOSl to(nolC;.
VII.330b1: ott O'U/-l<Provroc; teP Katà ti]v àpxi]v tfjc; 'IÀtuooC;.
IX. 247 ; 472b1: O'UVÇLost Kat to éc,fjC;.
51. Voir par exemple les remarques de B. NEUSCHÂFER à propos du terme àxatpibc;
(Origenes [no 17], p. 128).
52. Sur ces activités, Voir REYNOLDS - WILSON, D'Homère à Érasme (n. 16), pp. lO-12.
53. Les scholies les plus anciennes sont éditées par H. ERBSE (Sc1lOlia Graeca in
Homeri Wade/Il (Sc1lOlia vetera), Berlin, 1969 [21988]). Ces scholies sont datables de
l'époque hellénistique ou du début de l'époque impériale. Plus précisément, elles regrou-
pent certaines des scholies bT, dont Erbse n'a sélectionné que le fond d'époque hellénis-
tique, et les scholies A, qui proviennent du traité Sur les signes d'Aristonicos, contemporain
d'Auguste, du traité de Didyme Sur l'édition d'Aristarque, datant également de la même
époque, mais fondé sur les commentaires d'Aristarque, le traité d'Hérodien Sur
l'accentuation d'Homère, datant du Ile s. et fondé également sur Aristarque, et le traité de
Nicanor Sur la ponctuation, datant également du Ile s., mais contenant du matériel plus
ancien (voir E. DrcKEY, Allcien Greek Sc//Olarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and
Understanding Sc/IO/ia, Commellfaries, Lexica and Grammatical Treatises, From Theil'
Beginni/lgs to the Byzantine Period, Oxford, 2007, pp. 18-21).
54. Plusieurs scholies attribuées à Didyme expliquent que le texte a été établi «de
façon à concorder» (ïva crllVÇt0n) avec tel ou tel autre passage (scholies sur Iliade
III.352c2; XI.466a2).
55. Voir par exemple une scholie sur Odyssée, VII.174: «ce mot est athétisé comme
étant en désaccord (àcruW!>covov) avec l'habitude d'Homère»; XI.38: «Les six, à
l'exception de Zénodote et Aristophane, ont athétisé [ces mots] comme étant en désaccord
(àcruf1<j>covot) avec ce qui suit».
140 S.MORLET
X.350a: napéùpall8V crullQ>ffiVOV .é!> Pfj p' àv' Màv 1l8Ilame;.
XI.222a: .fi ùÈ èptpmÀaKt crUV«Ù8t Kat .à nOÀu9pélllla.ov.
XI.826a: crullQ>ffiva .au.a.oî'e; unà Nécr.opoe; dprlllévote;. _ fonnule El paraît s'opposer (à-V'ctK6t(j'3ut) et en même temps concorder
XII.49b: Kat scrn crUIlQ>ffiVOV .é!> .apQ>éa .8 cr.péQ>8.at cr.ixae; àVÙpffiV
n8tpll.iÇffiV.
XVI.43: Kat scr.at crUIlQ>ffiVOV Kat .à èntQ>8POIl8VOV... _ le/eu ou l'eau qui est le plus utile, il note qu'Hésiode, dans la Théogonie
XXII.32b: crUIlQ>ffiV8î' wuw .é!> n8pt Ti]V èntQ>UV8laV .fje; àcrniùoe; 8ivat
n'Iv xaÀKfjv 1l:'r Uxi]v. , " " " " leurs, il note que le proverbe «je hais un convive doté d'une bonne
XXIII.591-592: 'OU.cp crUV«Ù8t Kat .0 8t Kat vu K8V otK098V aÀÀo.
D'abord lié aux préoccupations éditoriales des Alexandrins, le souci
de relever la (j'Wlq)(OV1U a parfois présenté aux yeux des commentateurs
un intérêt exégétique, l'accord des textes étant signalé pour lui-même,
sans an'ière-pensée éditoriale. C'est peut-être déjà le cas dans certaines
scholies homériques. C'est clairement le cas lorsque, dans d'autres types
de scholies, on signale l'accord ou le désaccord que présente un texte,
non plus avec lui-même, mais avec d'autres textes. Une scholie à
Sophocle signale ainsi un désaccord avec Hésiode56 • Une scholie à
Théocrite signale un accord avec Apollonios de Rhodes 57 •
À côté du champ philologique, le commentarisme philosophique, et
notamment aristotélicien, semble avoir accordé une impOltance particu-
lière au problème de l'accord des textes. Chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise,
qui est le contemporain d'Origène, on retrouve un souci analo~~e:
quoique moins récurrent, d'établir la concorde des textes, aSSOCIe a
l'usage des mêmes fonnules techniques fonnées autour de (j'UV~OëtV ~t
(j'UJ.l<pCOVëtV. Alexandre paraît surtout attentif à souligner l.'hann~me
inteme des propos d'Aristote et s'interroge sur la façon dont 11 conVIent
de lire les propos du Stagirite de façon à en préserver la cohérence58 •
Mais il peut également souligner l'accord que présente la pensée d':u-is-
tote et celle de Platon. Par exemple, il fait remarquer que lorsque Aristote
affirme que l'étude des syllogismes est utile à la philosophie (Topiques,
101a 26-36), il est en accord avec un passage du Parménide (135d 3-5:
«Entraîne-toi et exerce-toi davantage, pendant que tu es jeune, ,à ce que
la foule juge inutile et qu'elle appelle des bavardages; sinon, la vérité
t'échappera» )59. Ailleurs, il signale l'accord de Platon et d'Anaxagore 60 •
56. Scholie à Électre 539: ol-\roç où crUI-\<proVE'i aù,0 'Hcrioùoç.
?
57. Sur le poème 13, v. 48: crUI-\<proVE'i ùÈ ,f\ &pnayf\ Kat 'Anonrovtoç 'PÔ,?toç~
58. Voir par exemple III Aristotelis Metaphysica, p. 677.19 HAYDUCK: crUV«;xÙOl av 'Cf>
ocra yàp &<Pf\ Kat I-\i] crUI-\<pUcrEl, ÜÂ.ll Kat UnOKEtI-\EVOV; ibid., ~. 680.28: -:0 ~È e,~pov
yàp &VâYKIl ÈKEtvroV EtVat ,0 YEVÔI-\EVOV oùùal-\OOç crUVÇtÙEl ,~lÇ npocr,ExroÇ p~S~l;rl~.
59. III Aristotelis Topico11lm libros, p. 29.2 WALLIES: crUV«;XÙEl 't'Ou,Cf> Kat 't'O uno
I1M,rovoç ELPlll-\ÉVOV Èv ,0 l1apl-\Eviùn·
60. III Aristotelis Metaphysica, p. 28.10 HAYDUCK.
SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES 141
On trouve des traces d'un souci exégétique analogue chez Plutarque.
Dans le traité Sur l'E de Delphes, cet auteur affirme par exemple que la
(cruV~OëtV) avec la fOlmule yv&3t (j'WU't6V 61 • Au début du traité Si c'est
(v. 116), s'accorde (cruJ.l<pcovd) avec Pindare (Olympiques 1.1)62. Ail-
mémoire» s'accorde «j'UV~Oët) avec la croyance qui associe l'oubli à
Dionysos, dieu de la boisson63 •
Les commentaires de Galien témoignent enfin d'une attention compa-
rable à l'accord ou au désaccord des textes dans la tradition médicale,
lorsqu'il s'agit par exemple d'établir la parfaite cohérence des propos
d'Hippocraté4 ou au contraire de démontrer l'incohérence de certains
énoncés philosophiques65 .
Ce bref survol peImet de constater que la technique et les formules
utilisées par Origène trouvent leur origine dans le commentarisme grec de
son époque. La convergence ne peut pas relever de la coïncidence: Ori-
gène applique délibérément à l'Écriture une topique exégétique qui vient
du monde grec et il est le premier à le faire avec autant de constance. li
resterait à savoir comment s'explique la présence de cette topique dans
l'œuvre de l'Alexandrin. Une première explication consisterait à supposer
qu'Origène est influencé par ses lectures et il s'agirait dans ce cas d'isoler
des «sources». Ces sources devraient être recherchées du côté de la tra-
dition philologique et/ou philosophique. Comme Origène connaît les
signes aristarchéens 66 , qu'il utilise lui-même dans les Hexaples, il est clair
qu'il avait une connaissance de la littérature philologique de son temps
(rappelons qu'il commença lui-même par enseigner la grammaire67). Du
61. Sur l'E de Delphes, 394C.
62. Si c'est le feu ou l'eau qui est le plus utile, 955d-e.
63. Fr. 128 SANDBACH.
64. In Hippocratis lib11lm vi epidemiarum II.981.12 KÜHN (Galeni opera, XVIIA).
65. Sur l'incohérence de Chrysippe, voir De placitis Hippocraijs et Platonis VA.8.
66. Sur ces signes, voir REYNOLDS - WILSON, D'Homère à Erasme (n. 16), p. 10;
J. IRIGOIN, Le livre grec des origines à la Renaissance, Paris, 2001, pp. 32-33. Certains,
comme l'obèle (ou «obel»), peuvent remonter à Zénodote. G. DORlvAL fait remarquer à
juste titre qu'Origène utilise ces signes dans un sens très différent de celui des édit~urs
alexandrins (voir, dans ces actes, «La forme littéraire des Hexaples»). Pour ces dermers,
l'obèle servait à désigner un vers d'Homère jugé inauthentique; l'astérisque, un vers
authentique, mais répété abusivement ailleurs (IruGolN, Le livre grec). Dans la pratique
d'Origène, l'obel désigne un passage présent dans la Septante, mais absent du texte
hébreu, et l'astérisque, un passage présent dans l'hébreu mais absent du texte de la
Septante. .
67. Voir Eusèbe, HE VI.2.15; IIl.8 et P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre, ParIS,
1977, pp. 35-36 et 40.
 142 S.MORLET
côté des sources philosophiques, c'est SUltout Alexandre d' Aphrodise qui
nous est apparu comme l'utilisateur le plus régulier des formules reprises
par Origène. Ce dernier connaissait-il au moins une partie de l'œuvre
d'Alexandre? C'est tout à fait possible, quoique difficile à établir. Le
nom d'Alexandre n'apparaît pas dans l'œuvre conservée d'Origène, mais
la critique a déjà mis en évidence d'autres types de parallèles entre le
chrétien et le commentateur d'Aristote, notamment à propos de la réfuta-
tion du fatalisme astral68 • Par ailleurs, Eusèbe a conservé dans la Prépara-
tion évangélique une section assez longue du traité d'Alexandre Sur le
destin dont on peut penser, même si on ne peut pas le démontrer, qu'il était
déjà en possession d'Origèné9 • La critique hésite cependant à attribuer
à des théologiens comme Origène ou Eusèbe un réel intérêt pour la litté-
rature aristotélicienne70 . Un parallèle intéressant pourrait pourtant suggé-
rer que l'attention d'Origène à la concorde des textes n'est pas étrangère
à la littérature philosophique de son temps. Dans son Commentaire sur
les Topiques, Alexandre, commentant la fOlIDule «la tempérance est une
concorde de l'âme», propose une définition de la cyull<P())via: «cyull<P())via
se dit à proprement parler des cordes 71». Or on trouve une définition fOlt
proche dans le Commentaire sur Matthieu. Au début du commentaire
déjà évoqué sur Mt 18,19, Origène écrit: «Le mot cyull<P())via s'applique
à proprement parler aux halIDonies des sons musicaux» 72. On ne peut
bien sûr pas démontrer qu'Origène tient sa définition du traité d'Alexandre.
68. Voir G. LEKKAS, Liberté et progrès chez Origène, Turnhout, 2001, p. 121;
L. l'ERRONE, Libero arbitrio, dans A. MONACI CASTAGNO (éd.), Dizionario Origene, Roma,
2000,237-243, p. 240; Provvidenza, dans ibid., 392-396, p. 395; R. DiAz SANCHEZ-CID,
Justicia, Pecado y Filiaci6n: Sobre el Comentario de Orfgene a los Romanos, Toledo,
1991. Pour d'autres types de parallèles, voir LEKKAS, Liberté et progrès, p. 109 et
M. HARL, Recherches sur l'origénisme d'Origène: la «satiété» (KOpOÇ) de la contempla-
tion comme motif de la chute des âmes, dans Le déchiffrement du sens. Études sur
l'herméneutique chrétienne d'Origène à Grégoire de Nysse, Paris, 1993, 191-223 (publié
originellement dans les Studia Patristica 3 [1961] 57-67), p. 221 n. 3.
69. PE VI.9. A.J. CARRIKER admet que le traité d'Alexandre devait se trouver dans la
bibliothèque d'Eusèbe, mais ne s'interroge pas sur sa provenance (A.J. CARRIKER, The
Librmy of Eusebius of Caesarea, Leiden - Boston, MA, 2003, p. 77).
70. li y a peu d'études sur le sujet. G. BARDY considérait qu'Origène ne connaissait
pas, ou très peu, les œuvres d'Aristote (Origène et l'aristotélisme, dans Mélange Glotz,
Paris, 1932, t. 1, 75-83, p. 75). J. DANIÉLOU n'excluait pas qu'Origène, malgré son dédain
pour l'aristotélisme, ait repris «certains éléments techniques de leur dialectique ou de leur
psychologie» (Origène, Paris, 1948, p. 92). A.J. CARRIKER pense qu'Eusèbe ne possédait
que le traité Sur le destin et ignorait les grands commentaires sur Aristote (The Libmr)' of
Eusebius [no 69], p. 77).
71. In Aristotelis Topicorl/m libros octo commentaria, p. 511. 13 WALLIES: 1:0 yùp
auf.l<Prov(u KUp{roS È1tt 1:rov xoporov ÀÉyE1:Ul.
72. CMt XIV. 1 : KUp{roS 1:0 1:îlS auf.l<Prov(US ovof.lu 1:UaaE1:Ul È1tt 1:rov KU1:Ù f.loualK~v
Èv <provuts apf.lovlroV.
SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES 143
Il reste possible qu'il utilise la même source que lui, peut-être un recueil
de définitions 73.
L'explication par les sources n'étant ni facile à mener ni totalement
convaincante en elle-même, il convient également d'ouvrir la perspective
en faisant la part de la formation d'Origène et plus largement encore
du milieu intellectuel qui a pu l'influencer. Origène a peut-être fait des
lectures déterminantes, mais il est aussi clair que sa pensée s'est formée
dans un milieu, le milieu alexandrin, dans lequel la question de la
cyull<P())via était déjà depuis quelque temps une question essentielle qui
occupait philosophes, théologiens et exégètes.
Philon d'Alexandrie souligne parfois l'accord des textes scripturaires
en recourant à certaines des formules types reprises ensuite par Origène,
mais avec une fréquence beaucoup moins notable que l'exégète chré-
tien74 • Dans la tradition chrétienne, hénée, avant Origène, avait plusieurs
fois affirmé l'accord des Écritures avec elles-mêmes75 • Mais il n'utilise
pas encore les formules techniques construites autour de CYUVÇtOEtv et
CYUIl<P())VctV employées par Origène. Le premier auteur chrétien à attester
une connaissance de ces formules est Clément d'Alexandrie. Celui-ci les
utilise pour souligner tantôt l'accord des auteurs grecs entre eux 76 , tantôt
l'accord de la Bible avec elle-même77 , tantôt l'accord des auteurs grecs
et de la Bible78 •
Aucun de ces deux auteurs, Philon et Clément, n'a pu constituer à lui
seul la «source» d'Origène. Même s'ils manifestent un intérêt pour la
question de l'accord des textes, et même s'ils utilisent déjà certaines des
73. Sur les définitions philosophiques dans l'œuvre d'Origène, voir E. KLOSTERMANN,
Origeniana, dans Nelltestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici Zll seinem 70. Geburtstag
dargebracht von Fachgenossen, Frezlllden und Sc1ziilern (Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament, 6), Leipzig, 1914, 245-251; Überkommene Definitionen im Werke des
Origenes, dans Zeitschrift flÏr die neutestamentlic1ze Wissensc1zaft 37 (1938) 54-61;
R. CADIOU, Dictionnaires antiques dans l'œuvre d'Origène, dans Revue des études
grecques 45 (1932) 271-285. E. KLOSTERMANN évoque notre définition dans sa publication
de 1938, mais ne signale pas le parallèle avec Alexandre d'Aphrodise (p. 57). Le savant
laissait ouverte la question de savoir si les définitions d'Origène dépendaient d'un seul
recueil ou de plusieurs sources. Dans son article de 1914, il signalait que dans un passage
dont l'attribution n'est pas contestée (pG 12, 1053A), Origène indiquait lui-même deux
de ses sources: Aristote et Hérophile.
74. Philon signale par exemple l'accord de deux passages de la Genèse (Sobr., 27),
l'accord d'un passage d'Osée et d'un passage du Lévitique (Plant., 138) ou encore l'accord
d'un texte de l'Exode et d'un texte du Lévitique (Congr., 103).
75. Voir les notes 4 et 6.
76. Str., 1.14.65.1; IV.22.144.3 (Héraclite et Socrate); V.14.97.6 (Platon et les
stoïciens) .
77. Str., 11.15.71.2; 11.23.147.2 (la Loi concor?e, auvqoEl, avec l'Évangile);
VI.15.123.3 (accord de la Loi et des Prophètes avec l'Evangile); VI.11.88.5 (ibid.).
78. Str., III.3.8.2; V.1l.75.1; V.14.99.2; V.14.129.5.
144 S.MORLET
fOlmules qui seront reprises ensuite par Origène, ils le font de façon
beaucoup trop marginale pour qu'on puisse imaginer que c'est par leur
intermédiaiI'e exclusif que ces formules se sont frayées un chemin jusque
dans l'œuvre d'Origène. En revanche, l'exemple de Philon et Clément
tendrait à suggérer que la question de l'accord des textes, héritée de la
tradition philologique, était devenue, dans l'Alexandrie de l'époque
impériale, un élément important de l'exégèse juive puis chrétienne.
Eusèbe évoque dans l'Histoire ecclésiastique une Symphonia de Moïse
et Jésus composée par un Ammonius dont le nom est égyptien et qu'Eu-
sèbe présente comme le maître d'Origène79 • Cet Ammonius est probable-
ment l'auteur de l'Harmonie des évangiles évoquée par le même Eusèbe
dans la Lettre à Cmpien. Une attention analogue à la O'UIl<proVta est
attestée à la même époque dans les milieux païens. Au ve s., Hiéroclès
d'Alexandrie, philosophe néoplatonicien auteur d'un traité Sur le destin
dont Photius transmet un résumé, affÎlmait qu'Ammonius Saccas, que
l'on veut parfois identifier au précédent, et que celtains critiques consi-
dèrent toujours comme le maître d'Origène (mais cette question est
débattue 80), avait tenté de démontrer la O'ull<Provta de Platon et d'Aris-
toteS l . Qu'Ammonius Saccas ait été ou non le maître d'Origène, il est
claiI' que ce demier a été formé dans un milieu intellectuel dans lequel la
question de l'accord des textes avait pris une importance particulière.
Il reste à diI'e quelques mots de la postérité de cet aspect de l'exégèse
d'Origène. Sans rentrer dans les détails, on constate qu'après l'Alexan-
79. HE VI.19.1O. J.E. BRUNS pense qu'Eusèbe a mis à profit cet ouvrage dans le livre
III de la Démonstration évangélique (The Agreement of Moses and Jesus in the Demon-
stratio Evangelica of Eusebius, dans Vigiliae Christianae 31 [1977] 117-125). Pour une
discussion critique de l'hypothèse, voir MORLET, La Démonstration évangélique d'Eusèbe
de Césarée (n. 37), pp. 242-250.
80. Voir l'examen critique de R. GOULET, Porphyre, Ammonius, les delLY Origène et
les autres, dans Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 57 (1977) 471-496.
81. Voir Photius, Bib., cod. 214: «Le but déclaré de la présente enquête, c'est de traiter
de la providence en essayant d'accorder la doctrine de Platon et celle d'Aristote; l'auteur
veut, en effet, concilier les opinions de ces penseurs non seulement dans leurs propos sur
la providence, mais dans tous ceux où ils conçoivent l'âme comme immortelle et où ils
ont philosophé sur le ciel et sur le monde. Quant à tous ceux qui ont mis ces auteurs en
désaccord, il tend à démontrer qu'ils se sont égarés aussi loin qu'il se peut du dessein des
deux penseurs et qu'ils ont dévié de la vérité, les uns de leur plein gré parce qu'ils se sont
offerts eux-mêmes en victimes à leur esprit de querelle et à leur sottise, les autres parce
qu'ils étaient les esclaves d'une opinion préconçue et de leur ignorance. TI ajoute que les
auteurs antérieurs, eux, ont fOlmé un chœur imposant jusqu'au moment où a brillé la
sagesse d'Ammonius, dont il proclame qu'il fut surnommé l'élève de Dieu. C'est lui, dit-
il, qui a ramené à leur pureté les doctrines des anciens philosophes, émondé les pousses
superflues qui grandissaient chez l'un et chez l'autre, et montré l'accord entre la pensée
de Platon et celle d'Aristote sur les questions de doctrine importantes et les plus néces-
saires» (tr. R. Henry). Voir également Photius, Bib., cod. 251. Les deux passages ont été
récemment commentés par KARAMANoLIS, Plato and Aristotle (n. 2), pp. 192-194.
SIGNALER L'ACCORD DES TEXTES 145
drin, signaler l'accord des textes devient dans l'exégèse chrétienne un
lieu incontoumable du commentaire. Pratiquement tous les exégètes
grecs reprennent à leur compte la technique et les fOlmules utilisées par
Origène82 • La question se pose dès lors de savoiI' si ce demier est entiè-
rement responsable de cette h'ruption rapide et massive d'un discours sur
la O'ull<provta dans l'exégèse chrétienne et si, par ailleurs, ses émules
doivent leur technique et leurs formules uniquement aux commentaÎl'es
de l'Alexandrin ou s'ils ont aussi une connaissance de première main des
ouvrages grecs qui les utilisent. Il serait très présomptueux de vouloiI'
apporter une réponse définitive à ces deux questions, mais on ne peut pas
ne pas penser que l'influence d'Origène a été décisive et que, sur ce point
comme sur d'autres, les commentaiI'es de l'Alexandrin ont déterminé en
grande partie les préoccupations exégétiques, mais aussi le style, des
commentateurs postérieurs.
CONCLUSION
L'importance reconnue par Origène à la O'UIl<provta de l'Écriture était
bien 'connue. Il restait néanmoins, dans le cadre d'un colloque sur
Origène écrivain, à montrer d'une part la multiplicité de la mise en œuvre
de ce concept dans le commentaiI'e, la récurrence d'une pratique exégé-
tique et d'un certain nombre de formules techniques fondées sur un voca-
bulaiI'e métaphorique exprimant l'accord musical, troisièmement la dette
d'Origène à l'égard des pratiques philologiques et philosophiques de son
temps sur ce point très précis (Origène ne se contente pas de reprendre à
son compte le principe "OIlYJpoV ÈS 'Ollilpou O'a<PYJvtçstv), et finale-
ment l'Îlnportance de l'Alexandrin dans la transmission de ces pratiques
au sein de l'exégèse chrétienne.
Université de Paris IV -Sorbonne Sébastien MORLET
UMR 8167 «Orient et Méditerranée»
Paris
Sebastien.Morlet@pads-sorbonne.fr
82. Eusèbe apparaît ici comme l'héritier le plus important d'Origène. Le TLG recense
dans son œuvre 268 occurrences des mots de la famille de Q'0J.l<prove'iv et 82 occurrences
des mots de la famille de Q'ovUùew. Viennent ensuite Théodoret (254 emplois des mots
de la famille de Q'OJ.l<proVEtV e't 39 de la famille de Q'OV(.tOEW), Didyme l'Aveugle (143
emplois des mots de la famille de Q'OJ.l<proVEtV et 92 de la famille de Q'OV(.tOEW), Basile de
Césarée (129 occurrences des mots de la famille de Q'0J.l<proVE'iv et 13 de la famille de
Q'OV(.tOEW) et Cyrille d'Alexandrie (41 emplois des mots de la famille de Q'0J.l<proVE'iv et
25 de la famille de Q'OV(.tOEW).
 SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES UND IN DER
ZEITGENOSSISCHEN WISSENSCHAFTLICHEN
KOMMENTIERUNG

Um ganz schlicht zu beginnen: Origenes hat nach Ansicht des Hiero-

nymus biblische Texte in FOlm von ŒX6Âta kommentiert, excerpta, quae
graece ŒX6Âta nuncupantur, wie der streitbare Exeget und Theologe in
seinem vielleicht in Antiochia 378/379 n.Chr. abgefaBten Vorwort zur
Übersetzung der Ezechielhomilien des Origenes formuliert 1 (auf die
Frage, wie sich die von Hieronymus in seinem rund dreiBig J ahre spater
abgefaBten Jesaja-Kommentar erwahnten ŒllJl8tCÛŒW;, quas nos excelpta
possumus appellare, zu diesen ŒX6Âta verhalten, müssen wir natürlich
gleich noch ausführlicher eingehen)2. Wie gesagt: DaB Origenes nach
Ansicht des Hieronymus Œx6Âta (bzw. ŒllJl8tCÛŒw;) geschrieben hat, ist
einigermaBen sicher. Unsicher ist dagegen, welche biblischen Bücher er
wirklich in Form von ŒX6Âta (bzw. ŒllJl8tCÛŒ8t<;) kommentiert hat, wie
sich jene ŒX6Âta (bzw. ŒllJl8tcûŒ8t<;) prazise nach FOlm und Inhalt von
anderen bibelerklarenden Schriften unterschieden haben und welchen
Platz diese Texte im Alltag der christlichen Bildungsinstitutionen Alex-
andrias bzw. Caesareas einnahmen. Fundamental unklar ist vor allem
aber auch, was solche Œx6Âta bzw. ŒllJl8tCÛŒ8t<;, was excelpta eigent-
lich sind - entsprechend sorgfaltig bemühe ich mich irn ganzen Beitrag,
den deutschen Ausdruck "Scholien", der Eindeutigkeit suggeriert,
zugunsten der griechischen und lateinischen Telmini zu veImeiden.
Angesichts so vieler Unklarheiten lohnt sechzehn Jahre nach der
ebenso gründlichen wie ausführlichen, aber eben doch nicht vollkommen
ersch6pfenden Behandlung unseres Themas durch Éric Junod und
Lorenzo Penone auf den Origeniana Sexta in Chantilly3 seine Neuver-
handlung. Emeut das Thema aufzugreifen lohnt insbesondere deswegen,
weil wir inzwischen deutlich besser über die unterschiedliche Bedeutung
des Begriffs Œx6Âta in der antiken Literatur Bescheid wissen k6nnen
und damit über die Differenzen zwischen Œx6Âta und "Scholien" und

1. Hier.,praef. in homo Ez. (SC 352, 30/32,17f. BORRET).

2. Hier., comm. in Is. l prolo 1 (AGLB 23, 138,88f. GRYSON).
3. É. JUNOD, Que savons-nous des "Scholies" (axôÀ1a - O"Ilf1B/1hae/ç) d'Origène, in
G. DORNAL - A. LE BOULLUEC (Hgg.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen
and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, 1995, 133-149 sowie L. PERRoNE, Perspectives SUI'
Origène et la littérature patristique des" Quaestiones et responsiones", in ibid., 151-164.
 148 C.MARKSCIDES
so auch ein neues Licht auf die vie1en ungekliirten oder jedenfalls nicht
eindeutig gekliirten Fragen bei Origenes ttHlt4 • Die drei eben genannten
Leitfragen unseres Beitrags werden wir in drei Hauptabschnitten zu
beantworten versuchen und auf diese Weise zugleich auch besser verste-
hen, was wir genau meinen, wenn wir sagen: Origenes schrieb crxoÀ.ta,
cr'I'J/.unromnç, excelpta.
1. WELCHE BIBLISCHEN BÜCHER HAT ORIGENES IN FORM VON
I:XOAIA KOMMENTIERT? UND WARUM DIESE?
Wir beginnen bei der ersten Leitfrage, welche biblischen Bücher
Origenes in Form von crxoÀ.ta kommentiert hat, und behandeln sie nul"
kurz, denn hier ist wenig über die ausführlichen Analysen von Nautin
und Junod hinaus zu bemerken. Leider fehlt namlich angesichts der frag-
mentarischen Überlieferung der Werke des Origenes ml" eine Antwort die
entscheidende Quelle. Hatten wir den beruhmten, aber lei der verlorenen
und wenn überhaupt, dann nur in Gestalt von Exzerpten bei Eusebius und
Hieronymus überlieferten Werkkatalog des Pamphilus noch in unseren
Handen, wüBten wir auch exakt, welche biblischen Texte mit crxoÀ.ta
kommentiert wurden. So bleiben zunachst einmal nur die bei Hieronymus
aus dem Katalog des Pamphilus mehr oder weniger konekt übernomme-
nen Infonnationen, denn im erhaltenen Werk des Eusebius (beispiels-
weise im einschlagigen sechsten Buch seiner Kirchengeschichte) sind
leider keinerlei crxoÀ.ta des Origenes erwahnt.
Man kann sich daher durchaus die Frage stellen, ob sich im niimlichen
Katalog des Pamphilus überhaupt die uns aus Hieronymus so vertraute
Dreiteilling des exegetischen Œuvres des Origenes in Gestalt von excerpta/
crxoÂtu, genus homileticlim sowie "CoJJ..ot/uolumina fand. Eusebius, der mit
dem Werk des Pamphilus bekanntlich bestens vertraut war, kannte (wie
Junod schon gezeigt hat) im Unterschied zu jener bekannten Dreiteilung der
exegetischen Werke des Origenes offensichtlich nur zwei Werktypen (oder
4. E. DrCKEY, Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Under-
s~allding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises from Theil' Begin-
n11lgs to the Byzantine Period (American Philological Association. Classical Resources
Series), Oxford, 2007, S. 11 Anm. 25. Dickey schreibt: "In recent works on Greek litera-
ture it means ,commentary or notes written in the margins of a text', as opposed to
,hypomnema', which refers to an ancient self-standing commentary, and to ,gloss', which
generally refers to a short definition found between the lines of a literary text. ... Scholars
working o~ philosophical and scientific texts, however, have tendency to use ,scholia'
(and sometimes even ,glosses') for a commentary consisting of short notes on specific
passages rather than a continuous exegesis, regardless of whether that commentary is
found in the margins of a manuscript or as its only text".
SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES 149
empfand sie, vorsichtiger formuliert, für bedeutsam und mitteilenswert).
Und dabei steht er offenkundig in der Tradition des Pamphilus, denn der
unterscheidet zum einen "die Predigten, die el' (sc. Origenes) fast tiiglich
aus dem Stegreif in der Kirche hielt und die Stenographen durch ihre Mit-
schrift ... überIiefert haben", und zum anderen diejenigen Bücher, "die er
mit MuBe und Ruhe ganz für sich geschrieben hat"5. Interessanterweise
fehlen in allen diesen Aufziihlungen die exegetischen Vorlesungen, die
Origenes unbezweifelbar mindestens in Caesarea vor einem studentischen
Publikum mit groBerem piidagogischen Erfolg gehalten hat, wenn man der
Dankrede seines Schülers Gregor Thaumaturgus glauben darf - wir werden
auf dieses Thema zurückkommen6 •
hl der Version des Werkkataloges, die in einem Brief des Hieronymus
an Paula aus dem Jahre 384 n.Chr. überliefert ist und nach allem, was
wir wissen, auf Pamphilus und Eusebius zuruckging, sind eindeutig Titel
von sieben Kommentienmgen in Fonn von excelpta/crxoÀ.ta genannt1:
In Exodum excelpta, In Leuiticum excelpta, In Isaiam excelpta, Excelpta
in Psalmos a primo usque ad quintum decimum (lies: vicesimum
quintum)8, In Ecclesiasten excelpta, In partes quasdam Iohannis
excelptorum librum 1 sowie (erkennbar im Duktus der Aufzahlung nach-
getragen) Excelpta in totum Psalterium. Aus dem übrigen Œuvre des
Hieronymus wird allerdings SOfOlt deutlich, daB diese Aufzahlung nicht
vollstandig sein kann - schlieBlich findet sich bei Hieronymus noch der
erwahnte Hinweis auf cr'I'J~Etromnç des Origenes zu Jesaja, "die wir
excelpta nennen konnen" (aber offenbar nicht müssen), und ein weiterer
5. Pamph./Ruf., apol. 9 (SC 464, 44,6f. AMACKER - JUNOD bzw. FChr 80, 232,29-
234,2 ROWEKAMP) sowie 20 (58,4f. bzw. 242,23f.); zur Übersetzung vgl. den Kommentar
zu in secreto conscripsit bei AMACKER - JUNOD, SC 465, 100 mit Anm. 1 (ais Übersetzung
von HHÇt interpretiert; vgl. auch in secreto apol. 36 [92,7 bzw. 268,7]).
6. Dazu Ch. MARKSCHIES, Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen:
Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der antiken christlichen Theologie, Tübingen, 2007,
S. 93-109, besonders 103f.
7. Hier., ep. 33,4,2-5. 8 (CSEL 54, 255,16f. 23-256,1. 15. 23 und 258,12 HrLBERG =
CUF II, 40,14f. 23f. 41,lOf. 20f. LABOURT) - zum KataIog F.W. RrrscHL, Die Schrift-
stellerei des M. Terentius Varro und die des Origenes: Nach dem ungedl'llckten Katalog
des Hieronymus, Bonn, 1847; = ID., Kleine philologische Schriften, Bd. 3, 419-505;
E. KLOSTERMANN, Die Schriften des Origenes in Hieronymus' Brie! an Paula (Sitzungsbe-
richte der Kéiniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Histo-
rische Klasse, 2), Berlin, 1897, S. 853-870; A. VON HARNACK, Die Chronologie der
altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. 2. Bd.: Die Chronologie der Litteratur von
Irenaeus bis Eusebius, Leipzig, 1904, S. 37-52 sowie P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son
Œuvre (Christianisme Antique, 1), Paris, 1979, S. 227-241. - Bei HARNACK, Chronologie
II (Anm. 7), S. 44 Anm. 1 auch ein Argument dafür, daS der Überlieferung bei Hierony-
mus der Katalog des Pamphilus (und nicht das Exzerpt des Eusebius aus des sen Vita
Pamphi/ii [vgl. Eus., h.e. VI 32,3]) zugrunde lag.
8. Konjektur Ritschl nach Eus., /z.e. Vl24,2 (-r0l-Wt zu Ps 1-25): KLOSTERMANN, Die
Schriften des Origenes (Anm. 7), S. 863.
 150 C. MARKS CHIES
auf excerpta des Origenes zum Galaterbrief (lakonisch knapp: et excerpta,
quae uel sola possent sufficere)9. Obwohl sich, wie wir sahen, bei Pam-
philus und Eusebius keine Spuren der dreifachen Werkteilung in exce1pta,
uolumina und das genus homileticum finden, kann Hieronymus das Geme
der excelpta, von O'xoÀtu und O'YJJlEtcOmnç, trotz der schlechten Bezeu-
gungslage kaum erfunden haben oder ganz selbstandig an das Material
herangetragen haben, denn wir haben von dieser Tradition unabhangige
Quellen für diese Bezeichnungen: Da ist ein Fingerzeig auf O'xoÀtu zur
Genesis in einem berühmten Athos-Manuskript des zehnten Jahrhundelts,
dem sogenannten Codex von der GoItz (cod. 184 [B 64] Athous Lauren-
sis Èv rotç dç r(i]v) rÉVEO'(tv) O'xoÀiotç)1O sowie ein weiterer auf
excelpta zu Numeri in Rufins Prolog zu seiner Übersetzung der Nume-
rihomilien ll . In einem (mutmaBlich ursprünglichen) Kephalaion der
Philokalie wird schlie13lich eine ganze Serie von fünf Zitaten des Orige-
nes zum biblischen Buch Exodus durch die Formulierung "Und wiede-
rum in einer anderen Passage derselben O'YJJlEtcOO'EtÇ über das Buch
Exodus"12 seinen O'xoÀtu zu diesem biblischen Buch zugewiesen - vor-
ausgesetzt, man dmf wirklich O'YJJlEtcOO'EtÇ und O'xoÀta einfach identifi-
zieren, waren also aIle fünf Zitate in der Philokalie aIs ÜbelTeste ein
und desselben Werks zu begreifen (dazu allerdings kritisch Junod)13
und diese, haIt man sich an die Tatsache, da13 ein "Kommentar zum
Exodus ... nirgends bezeugt" ist (Harnack)l4, aIs ÜbelTeste jener
9. Hier., prae! in Pauli ep. ad Gal. (PL 26, 308 B = CCSL 77A, 6,38f. RASPANTI),
zitiert auch in ep. 112,4,3 (CSEL 55, 371,6 HILBERG = CUF VI, 21,27f. LABOURT). Nach
NAUTIN, Origène (Anm. 7), S. 238 eine bloBe Konjektur. Dazu JUNOD, Que savons-nous
des" Scholies" (Anm. 3), S. 137 lakonisch: "Peut-être".
10. GREGORY - MAND 1739 = VON SODEN a 78: E. Freiherr VON DER GOLTZ, Eine
textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bzw. sechsten Jahrhunderts hg. nach einem Kodex des
Athosklosters Lawra (Texte und Untersuchungen, 17/4), Leipzig, 1899, S. 87f.; K. LAKE-
S. NEW, Six Collations of New Testament Manuscripts (Harvard Theological Studies, 17),
Cambridge, MA, 1932, S. 218, NAUTlN, Origène (Anm. 7), S. 235f. und B. NEuscHAFilR,
Origenes aIs Philologe. Tl. 1: Text; Tl. 2: AnmerkzlI/gen (Schweizerische Beitrage zur
Altertumswissenschaft, 18/1-2), Basel, 1987, S. 39 mit Anm. 193, S. 338.
11. Ruf.,prol. in Or. homo in Num. (GCS Origenes VII, 1,16-18 BAEHRENS = CCSL
20, 285,19f. BAEHRENS).
12. Vgl. Or., phil. 27,10 Keph. (SC 226, 302,lf. JUNOD): Kat 1tuÀlV Èv aÀÀcp "01tcp
(eine Hs.: "Of.lCP) Èv "alç aù"aiç stç "i]v "Eç,ooov <Jrlf.lE1mO'EOW. - Das Kephalaion ist
in allen Handschriften belegt, also mutmaBlich authentisch (zu den Handschriften zuletzt:
Ch. FARAGGIANA DI SARZANA - F. PIERI, Il manoscritto greco di Origene deI Diparti-
mento di Filologia Classica e Medioevale di Bologna, in Eikasmos 19 [2008] 363-386).
Wenn die Philokalie dazu eher aus dem paIastinischen Milieu und damit der ersten Halfte
des vierten Jahrhunderts stammen sollte, ware das Kephalaion von besonders hohem
Wert.
13. JUNOD, Que savons-nous des "Sc1lOlies" (Anm. 3), S. 145-148.
14. HARNACK, Chronologie II (Anm. 7), S. 28 Anm. 1.
SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES 151
excelpta/O'xoÀtu ZU kategorisieren. Damit erschopfen sich unsere Infor-
mati onen fast schon, wenn man einstweilen einmal von den sogenannten
"Scholien zur Apokalypse" (CPG l, 1468) absehen will, deren Authen-
tizitat (um es vorsichtig zu sagen) umstritten ist l5 .
Wir fragten ja, welche biblischen Bücher Origenes durch O'xoÀta
kommentiert hat - bevor man aber beginnt, unseren Befund zu bilanzie-
ren, mu13 man sich zunachst noch einmal die Frage stellen, ob der Brief
an Paula mit der Aufzahlung von excelpta (O'xoÀtu bzw. O'YJJlEtcOO'EtÇ)
den verlorenen Katalog des Pamphilus und Eusebius überhaupt einiger-
ma13en vollstiindig wiedergibt. Mir scheint, wie gesagt, unwahrscheinlich,
da13 Hieronymus das ganze Genre selbst eingeführt hat, obwohl sein
Umgang mit dem Katalog durchaus nicht über jeden Verdacht erhaben
ist. Abel' eine einigerma13en vollstiindige Wiedergabe dies es Katalogs ist
ja keineswegs sicher, bei der geringen Zahl von dort erwahnten Werken
eher sogar unwahrscheinlich. Irgendein Interesse an der Vollstandigkeit
der Angaben wh'd auch durch den Kontext des Kataloges im Brief selbst
nicht nahegelegt und schon gar nicht explizit ausgedl'Ückt. Von den Wer-
ken des lateinischen Universalgelehrten Varro, dessen Schriftenzahl irn
Brief an Paula aus dem Jahre 384 n.Chr. der Produktivitat des Origenes
gegenübergestellt ist, wird nul' rund etwa die Halfte erwahnt, wie Hiero-
nymus auch freimütig zugibt: "Mein Verzeichnis (sc. der Werke Varros)
enthiilt kaum die Halfte seiner Werke, und doch dÜlfte es den Leser
bereits langweilen"16. Dal'Über hinaus fehlen wichtige Werke des OrÎge-
nes wie seine Schriften gegen Celsus und über das Gebet ebenfalls im
Katalog des Hieronymus. Au13erdem ist die handschriftliche Überliefe-
rung des Briefs an Paula so schwierig, da13 man allein schon deswegen
mit Ausfallen in der Textgeschichte rechnen mu13 (bekanntlich sind weite
Teile des Briefs sowohl aIs Einleitung in Handschriften von Werken des
15. Cod. Meteoron 573 [olim 108], 10. Jh., fol. 245b-290a, erstmals veriiffentlicht bei
C. DIOBOUNIOTIS A. HARNACK, Der Sc1lOlien-Kommentar des Origenes zur Apokalypse
Johalllzis: Nebst einem Stiick aus Irenaeus, lib. V, graece (Texte und Untersuchungen,
38/3), Leipzig, 1912 mit wichtigen Korrekturen von C.H. TURNER, The Text of the Newly
Discovered Scholia of Origen on the Apocalypse, in Joumal of Theological Studies 13
(1912) 386-397 sowie von G. WOHLENBERG, Ein neuaufgefzlI/dener Kodex der Offen-
ba/'llng Johannis nebst alten Erliiutel1/1lgell Tl. J, in Tlzeologisclzes Literaturblatt 33
(1912) 25-30; Tl. II, in ibid., 49-57; Noclz eilliges Zll dem Scholiellkommelltar (des
Origelles) Zlll' OffellbarulIg Jolzallllis, in ibid., 217-220. - Zur Frage der Authentizitat
jetzt É. JUNOD, A propos des soi-disallt scolies sur l'Apocalypse d'Origèlle, in Rivista di
Stol'ia e Letteratura Religiosa 30 (1984) 112-121 und J.F.T. KELLY, Early Medieval
Evidellce for Twelve Homilies by Origell 011 the Apocalypse, in Vigiliae Christiallae 39
(1985) 273-279.
16. Hier., ep. 33,2 Uix mediulll descripsi illdicelll et legelltibus fastidiulll est (255,lf.
= 39,28).
152 C. MARKS CHIES
Origenes aIs auch im Rahmen der Briefüberlieferung des Hieronymus
erhalten)17. Für die Ansicht, das auf Pamphilus zurückgehende Verzeich-
nis des Hieronymus sei aus welchen Gründen auch immer nicht vollsHin-
dig, spricht schlieJ31ich die Tatsache, daB wir nicht nur die erwahnten
unabhangigen Nachrichten über O"xoÀta und O"l1l.uncOO"Et<; besitzen, son-
dern in den Katenen auch ohne Zweifel authentisches exegetisches Mate-
rial (beispielsweise zum Pentateuch) überliefert bekommen haben, das
offenkundig nicht aus den groBen Kommentaren exzerpiert wurde, son-
dern aus O"xoÀta stammen muB - es gab, wie wir sahen, mindestens noch
O"xoÀta zum Buch Genesis (wie auch das Athosmanuskript belegt), viel-
leicht auch zum Deuteronomium, wie Nautin mit guten Gründen vermu-
tet und Junod prazise referiert hat 18 . Es besteht also kaum Grund zur
Annahme, daB der Brief des Hieronymus an Paula mit seiner Aufzahlung
von excelpta (O"xoÀta bzw. O"l1f!€tcOmnç) den verlorenen Katalog des
Pamphilus und Eusebius überhaupt einigermaBen vollstandig wiedergibt.
Wenn aufgrund der schlechten Überlieferungslage aber nicht mehr ein-
deutig zu klaren ist, zu welchen biblischen Büchern excelpta (O"xoÀta
bzw. O"l1f!€tcOO"€tç) existierten, verbietet sich eigentlich die AnschluB-
frage, warum es die genannten zehn oder elf (Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Dtn,
zweimal zum Ps, Koh, Joh und Gal, vielleicht auch Jes, eher nicht Apoc)
waren. Foigt man Pierre Nautin (Àhnliches liest man aber schon bei Paul
Koetschau)19, so dienten excelpta (O"xoÀta bzw. O"l1f!€tcOO"€tç) dazu,
eine "Lücke in der Produktion des Origenes" zu füllen (so auch Le
Boulluec)2o: Für die biblischen Bücher, für die er keine eigenstandigen
Kommentare ('tOf!Ol bzw. uolumina) verfaBte, schrieb Origenes nach
Nautin O"xoÀta. Man konnte sich für diese Argumentation zwar darauf
berufen, daB Origenes bekanntlich - wie es bei Epiphanius heiBt - "nichts
von den gottlichen Schriften unausgelegt (àv€pf!ijv€U'tov)" lieB21, diese
17. KLOSTERMANN, Die Schriftell des Origelles (Anm. 7), S. 858 (Klostennann verwen-
dete vier Handschriften; Hilberg folgt ihm: CSEL 54, 253 App.).
18. Das macht Redepennings Ansicht wenig wahrscheinlich, daB es - beispielsweise
bei den in ep. 33,4 erwiihnten III partes quasdam lohallllis excerptorulll Iibrulll 1 - um
schlichte Reste von Kommentarbiinden handelt, die zu Lebzeiten des Hieronymus nicht
mehr vollstandig überliefert werden konnten (sa auch KLOSTERMANN, Die Schriftell des
Origenes [Anm. 7], S. 865 z.St.).
19. NAUTIN, Origèlle (Anm. 7), S. 372-375; iihnlich JUNOD, Que savolls-nous des
"Scholies" (Anm. 3), S. 138 und schon P. KOETSCHAU, Allgellleine Einleitung über Leben
ul/d Schriftel/ des Origel/es, in Origel/es, Schriften l'om Gebet und Erlllahflllllg zum Mar-
tyriulll, aus dem Oriechischen übersetzt von P. KOETSCHAU (Bibliothek der Kirchenvater,
1/48), München, 1926, S. LXXI.
20. A. LE BOULLUEc, Art. Generi Letterari, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (Hg.), Origene.
Dizionario. La cultura, il pensiero, le opere, Rom, 2000, 183-187, S. 186.
21. Epiph., haer. 64,3,9 (OCS Epiphanius II, 409,4f. HOLL/DUMMER).
SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES 153
weit verbreitete These über die Lückenfüllung durch O"xoÀta bzw.
O"l1f!€tcOO"€tç ist aber schon deswegen nicht unproblematisch, weil - wie
wir ja sahen - offenkundig auch O"xoÀta zu den bereits kommentielten
Büchern Genesis, Psalmen, Jesaja, Johannes oder Galater verfaBt wurden.
AuBerdem wissen wir doch gar nicht, wie viele Bücher Origenes mit
O"xoÀta versehen hat. Man kann aiso die Besonderheiten der O"xoÀta
bzw. O"l1f!€tcOO"€tç des Origenes nicht mit seinem Interesse an der Ver-
vollstandigung seines exegetischen Œuvres erkliiren oder jedenfalls nicht
allein erklaren.
Dm etwas groBere Sicherheit zu gewinnen, müssen wir zu unserer
zweiten Leitfrage übergehen.
II. WIE UNTERSCHIEDEN SICH DIE I:XOAIA DES ORIGENES VON
ANDEREN SEINER BIBELERKLÂRENDEN SCHRIFfEN?
Kann man wenigstens, wenn schon nicht mehr exakt zu klaren ist,
welche biblischen Bücher er in der Form von O"xoÀta kommentielt hat,
praziser unsere zweite Leitfrage beantworten, wie sich jene excelpta
(O"xoÀta bzw. O"l1f!€tcOO"€tç) prazise von anderen seiner bibelerklarenden
Schriften unterschieden haben? In den bereits erwahnten, vergieichs-
weise wenigen Satzen des Hieronymus über O"xoÀta bzw. O"l1f!€tcOO"€tç
des Origenes findet sich bekanntlich eine inhaltliche Qualifikation der
excmpta, die auf eine Beantwortung unserer Frage zu führen scheint und
in der Sekundiirliteratur auch gern aIs Antwort in Anspruch genommen
wU·d. lm erwahnten Prolog zur Übersetzung der Ezechielhomilien des
Origenes teilt Hieronymus mit, daB in den excelpta/O"xoÀta summarisch
und knapp (sc. kommentierend) durchgegangen sei, was dunkel zu sein
scheine oder irgendeine Schwierigkeit beinhalte (in quibus ea quae sibi
videbantur obscura aut habere aliquid difficultatis)22. Allerdings auBert
sich Hieronymus nicht einmal zehn Jahre spater lin Prolog seines Kom-
mentars zum Galaterbrief ganz anders über die differentia specifica: DOIt
unterscheidet Hieronymus einen in kurzen Abschnitten (sermo commati-
cus) angelegten Kommentar des Origenes zum namlichen paulinischen
Brief in fünfzehn Banden von separaten O"xoÀta dazu (excelpta) , die
auch gut für sich allein stehen konnten (aber offenbar nicht allein über-
liefert wurden)Z3. Man muB also vorsichtig sein (wie dies allzu oft
geschieht), die erste Definition des Hieronymus lin VorwOIt seiner Über-
22. Hier., praef. in hOIll. Ez. (SC 352, 32,18f. BORRET).
23. Hier., prolo in Gal. (CCSL 77A, 6,35-39 RASPANTI).
 154 C. MARKS CHIES
setzung der Ezechielhomilien ohne viel Federlesens zu dem Charakteris-
tikum von excelpta, crxoÀtu und crrll.tlnwcrstç des Origenes zu erkHiren.
Ende der siebziger Jahre des vie1ten Jahrhunderts verstand Hieronymus
darunter dann plotzlich selbstandige, knappe Kommentierungen schwie-
riger Stellen, Ende der achtziger Jahre dann unselbstandige, hinsichtlich
der Lange nicht eigens bestimmte Erklarungen. Mit diesen beiden recht
widersprüchlichen Charakterisierungen enden aber leider auch die inhalt-
lichen Infonnationen bei Hieronymus.
Einer AntWOlt auf unsere zweite Leitfrage, wie sich die TO/lot bzw.
lIolumina und crxoÀta bzw. excelpta und crll/lstwcrstç prazise unter-
scheiden, sind wir durch den Blick auf Hieronymus also nicht wirklich
naher gekommen. Bevor wir aber damit beginnen konnen, die aus den
excelpta (crxoÀta bzw. crll/lstwcrstç) des Origenes erhaltenen Original-
texte auf unsere Frage hin zu analysieren (Éric Junod hat das bei den
Origeniana Sexta umsichtig getan), sollten wir uns freilich noch einmal
die Vorfrage stellen, an welchen paganen Vorbildern sich Origenes bei
der Abfassung von crxoÀta bzw. crll/lstwcrstç orientieren konnte, denn
auch hier henscht viel Verwirrung. Nach Paul Koetschau verwendete der
christliche Theologe aIs V Ol'bild "Randscholien griechischer
Grammatiker"24. Wirklich? SchlieBlich gab es, wie schon Alfred Gude-
man gezeigt hat, VOl' der Umstellung auf die Papyruscodices überhaupt
keine selbstiindigen Kommentmtexte, die aus durchgangigen Randscho-
lien bestanden, sondern "lediglich textlose orco/lVll/lU Rollen"25. Rand-
scholien waren hochstens in kritischen Textausgaben angebracht, wie
beispielsweise der berühmte, heute in der Bodleiana aufbewahrte Ilias-
Papyrus Hawara inv. 59 (Pack-Mertens 642) zeigt, der aus der Unter-
richtspraxis stammt26 • Helmut van Thiel hat VOl' einiger Zeit auch noch
einmal betont, daB diese Rand- oder Textscholien (so seit Arthur Lud-
wich; Thiel spricht von Kurznoten) keineswegs nul' Varianten zum Text,
24. KOETSCHAU, Allgemeine Einleitung iiber Leben und Schriften des Origenes (Anm.
19), S. LVII. - Origenes schloB freilich, wie Neuschafer richtig betont, nicht unmittelbar
au die groBe Zeit der Homerphilologie an, sondem knüpft "an deren Nachwirkung im
kaiserzeitlichen Grammatikunterricht" an (NEuSCHÂFER, Origenes ais Philologe [Anm.
10], S. 35; zum Lehrbuch des Dionysius Thrax vgl. R. PFEIFFER, Geschichte der klas-
sischen Philologie, München, 21978, S. 321-329).
25. A. GUDEMAN, Art. Scho/ien, in Real-Enzyklopiidie n A 1 (1921) 625-705, S. 627f.
26. P. Hawara inv. 59 = Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Gr. class. a. 1 (P): Homer, Il.
n 219-223; vgl. W.M.F. PETRIE, Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoe, London, 1889, S. 24-28;
J.G. MILNE, The Hawara Papyri, in Archiv fiir Papyrusforsclu/Ilg 5 (1913) 378-397,
S. 379; H. ERBSE, Scho/ia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem Papyrus J, Berlin, 1969, S. XXXIVf.;
eine gute Abbildung im Internet unter http://www.ucl.ac.uk/GrandLatMisc/hawara/
papydata/phaw_059.htm. Weitere frühe Papyri bei H. VAN THIEL, Der Homertext in Alex-
andria, in Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik 115 (1997) 13-36, S. 18.
SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES 155
sondern gelegentlich durchaus auch sem knappe Kommentare boten;
aber eben niemals selbstiindig olme Bezug zu einem kritisch gebesselten
Text27 . Chronologisch ist also kaum moglich, daB Origenes in Alexandria
schon Initerlebte, wie zusatzlich zu den "orco/lVll/lU Rollen" selbstandige
Kommentare ausschlieBlich mit Randscholien (aus den kritischen Text-
ausgaben mit Scholien der Grammatiker von Aristarch bis Zeno dot)
zusammengestellt wurden, und daher eher unwahrscheinlich, daB el' sich
selbst an einer nicht existierenden Form exegetischer Literatur orientieren
konnte. AuBerdem wissen wir, daB auf solche in Textausgaben notielten
Randscholien der griechische Tenninus crxoÀta niemals angewendet
wurde, allenfalls der Begriff crll/lstoV.
Was konnen also crxoÀtu bzw. crll/lstwcrstç meinen, wenn sich diese
Termini offenkundig nicht auf "Randscholien griechischer Grammati-
ker" beziehen konnten? Beginnen wir mit dem ersten Begriff, mit crxo-
Àtu. Leider ist der von Hieronymus offenkundig bereits vorgefundene
griechische Begriff crxoÀta nicht wirklich eindeutig. Er besitzt durchaus
sehr unterschiedliche Bedeutungen, und im Laufe seiner Begriffsge-
schichte hat sich sein ursprünglicher Sinn ("Notate") erheblich ausge-
weitet, wie der Kolner Papyrologe John W.R. Lundon VOl' einiger Zeit
ebenso ausführlich wie trefflich untel' dem schonen Titel ,,~xoÀtu- keine
Randfrage (~xoÀta - una questione non marginale)" dokumentielt hat28 .
Am Ende der Entwicklung des Begriffs steht seine vollstiindige Unschfufe.
Die im zehnten Jahl'hundelt kompilielte Suda beispielsweise gibt entspl'e-
chend drei hochst verschiedene Àquivalente für den einen Ausdruck
crxoÀta ohne jede weitere Prazision: crs/lvoÀOYTJ/lUTU' il orcO/lVTJ/lUTU,
KUt Ép/lllVstut, "feierliche Proklamationen, Kommentare und
Auslegungen"29. Daraus ist zu erkennen, daB in byzantinischer Zeit eine
prazise Unterscheidung zwischen crxoÀtu im Sinne von Notizen oder
Notaten und orcO/lVTJ/lUTU im Sinne von selbstiindigen kommentierenden
Schriften nicht mehr vollzogen wurde. Zu Lebzeiten des Origenes und
des Hieronymus bestand diese Unterscheidung, die vielleicht im Helle-
nismus aufkam, aber durchaus noch. AIs tenninus technicus ist crxoÀtov
erstmals aIs griechisches FremdwOlt bei Cicero greifbar und wird von
27 . VAN THIEL, Der Homertext in Alexandria (Anm. 26), S. 15. V gl. auch K. McNAMEE,
Missing Links in the Development of Scholia, in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 36
(1995) 399-414 sowie EAD., Another Chapter in the History of Scholia, in Classical Quar-
terly 48 (1998) 269-288.
28. J.W.R. LUNDON, I:xoÀ/o.: Una questione non marginale, in Discentibus obvius.
Omaggio degli allievi a Domenico Magnino, Como, 1997,73-86.
29. Suda L 1804 (Lexicographi Graeci 1/4, 492,15 ADLER); ahnlich bei Hesychius 120
crX6Àw' crEJ.lVOÀOy~J.lU'w (120,3050 ScmvIlDT); weitere Belege aus Lexika bei LUNDON,
I:xoÀzo.: Una questione non marginale (Anm. 28), S. 76f.
156 C. MARKS CHIES
ibm mit der Bedeutung ,kurze Abhandlung' verwendet (der oft zitierte
Beleg bei Galen muB aIs Fehllesung für O'KoÂ.ta ausscheiden)30. Interes-
sant und bislang zu wenig beachtet scheint mir die Verbindung dies es
Begriffs zum akademischen Lehrbetrieb und insbesondere zu Vorlesun-
gen, dafür nur ein einziges Beispiel: Der Philosoph Porphyrius berichtet
in der Vita Plotini, daB der Platoniker Amelius O'xoÂ.ta ÈK "Crov
O'uvouO'trov 1tOtoOI!8VOÇ;, hundert Bücher "Notate aus den Vorlesungen"
Plotins anfertigte und seinem Adoptivsohn widmete 31 ; leider ist von die-
sem Werk nichts geblieben. Nach dem Zeugnis dieser Passage sind die
O'x oÂ. ta des Amelius also Vorlesungsschriften der V orlesungen Plotins
für den Privatgebrauch, nicht zur Veroffentlichung bestimmt.
Bei zeitgenossischen exegetischen und kommentierenden Werken, in deren
heute überliefertem Titel der Begriff crxoÎvta enthalten ist, muB man aller-
dings sehr vorsichtig mit Schlüssen auf den Bedeutungsinhalt des griechi-
schen Begriffs sein, wie ein beIÜhmtes Beispiellehrt: Mindestens hundert
Jahre vor den Notaten des Amelius, niimlich in der ersten Hiilfte des zwei-
ten Jahrhunderts, schrieb der Philosoph Aspasius den fIÜhesten durchgehen-
den Kommentar ZUT Nikomachischen Ethik des Aristoteles, der in einer
einzigen, recht spiiten Handschrift 'Anucrtou crxoÎvta BtS 'H~t1(à tOU
'AptcrtotéÎvouS übertitelt ist. Ob dieser Titel aber authentisch ist, kann
bezweifelt werden, zumal in derselben Handschrift das gleiche Werk auch
aIs ùnoJlVlll.W bezeichnet wird. Das konnte auf eine Entstehung des Titels
crxoÎvtu in spiiterer, byzantinischer Zeit deuten, in der (wie wir sahen) beide
Begriffe nicht mehr unterschieden wurden. Zuniichst einmal erweist sich der
Kommentar des Aspasius aIs eine Relie von Vorlesungen, in denen anhand
eines Kommentars allgemein in die Ethik eingeführt werden sollte32 (Ver-
gleichbares gilt für den Metaphysikkommentar des Alexander von
Aphrodisias )33.
30. Oalen, III Hippocratis librum de officina medici commentar;; iii (XVIII B/3, 847,2f.
KÜHN): Oè Ei';ro 'tfis 'tÉXVllS 7tEpî 'ti]v Mi';tv E'tt 7t~E{OVU crKOÀtu (anstelle von: crxoÀta).
Vgl. aueh Luc., vit. auct. 23 (SCBO II, 43,15f. MACLEOD); Cie., Att. XVI 7,3; 'vgl. aueh
Arr., Epict. diss. ID 21,6 (Bibliotheea Teubneriana 291,10): sÀSüvn;s a.Koucru'tÉ JlOIl
crxoÀta MyOV'tES; sowie OUDEMAN, Art. Scholien (Alun. 25); ID., Kritische Zeichen, in
Real-Enzyklopiidie Xl/2 (1922) Sp. 1916-1927 und LUNDON, EX6Àw: Una questione non
marginale (Anm. 28), S. 78-80.
31. Porph., vit. Plot. 3,46f. und 4,4f. (phb 215e, 8 HENRY - SCHWYZER); vgl. dazu
L. BRISSON, Amélius: Sa vie, son Œuvre, sa doctrine, son style, in ANRW II.36.2 (1987)
793-860, S. 820f.
32. Asp., comm. in eth. Nicom. 1 und IV (CAO XIX/l, 1,1 und 95,If. HEYLBUT, naeh
Parisinus 1903, s. XVI): 'A7tucrloll crxoÀta ElS 'HStKà 'tOu 'Aptcr'tO'tÉÀollç; sowie Ù7t0Jl-
V1WU Eiç; 'to 'tÉ'tup'tov 'trov ~StKroV 'Aptcr'tO'tÉ~oIlS; vgl. aueh J. BARNES, An Introduc-
tion to Aspasius, in A. ALBERTI - R.W. SHARPLES (Hgg.), Aspasius: The Earliest Ertant
Commentai) on Aristotle's Ethles (Peripatoi, 17), Berlin - New York, 1999, 1-50, S. 22
Anm.23.
33. Titel des Kommentars: 'AÀEi';UVI)POIl 'Acppol)tcrÉroç; Ù7t0JlVllJlu Elç; 'tà JlE'tà 'tà
cpllcrtKà 'Aptcr'to'tÉÀollç; (CAO 1, l,If.); Ende der Sehrift; ... Kuî f] cruJl7tucru 'trov ME'tà
'tà cpllcrtKà cruvmi';tç; Kut ui Eiç; m'no crxoÀul' (CAO 1, 837,lOf.).
SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES 157
Man kann also zur Bedeutung des Begriffs O'xoÂ.ta deutlich mehr
sagen, aIs gewohnlich zu lesen ist: Ein O'xoÂ.toV ist zu Zeiten des Orige-
nes und des Hieronymus weniger eine "kurz gefaBte, auf sprachliche und
sachliche Probleme bezogene Einzelerklarung zu einer bestirnmten Text-
stelle" (so beispielsweise Neuschafer)34 aIs vielmehr eine Notiz, ein
Exzelpt (so ja auch der lateinische Begriff, den Hieronymus verwendet),
insbesondere aus einer Vorlesung. Es unterscheidet sich von der verof-
fentlichten Vorlesung oder anderen separat veroffentlichten 61tol!vlll!a"Ca
weniger durch besondere Kürze (obwohl ein Exzerpt natürlich knapper
ausfallen sollte aIs der exzerpierte Text), aIs vielmehr durch seinen
sekundiiren, nachgeordneten, vOl'laufigen Charakter35 • Warnend Porphy-
rius Plotins Schriften edierte, exzerpierte Amelius sie. Solche Notate oder
Exzerpte muBten natürlich nicht O'x0Â.ta heiBen: Porphyrius edierte auch
einige reichlich unfertige Notizen seines Lehrers Plotin (en. m 9), die
È1ttO'KI3\V8tÇ; Otacpopot überschrieben sind, "vermischte Untersuchun-
gen".
Noch etwas komplizierter ist der Befund fUr den Begt'iff 0'1l1!8tco0'8tç.
In der Suda und anderen byzantinischen Lexika findet sich kein Lemma;
die neuzeitlichen Lexika dokumentieren, daB O'lll!81coO'tÇ; zunachst ein-
mal "Bezeichnung", "RückschluB aus einem Zeichen", "Beobachtung
von Symptomen", dann aber auch "Notiz" heiBen kann36 . In philologi-
schen Zusammenhangen wurde der Begriff O'lll!81coO'tÇ in der Kaiserzeit,
wie Neuschafer dokumentiert hat, eigentlich nur gelegentlich verwendet,
um anzuzeigen, daB ein Kommentator ein textkritisches Zeichen gesetzt
hatte; 0'1l1!8touv bedeutet in diesem Zusammenhang "ein kritisches Zei-
chen setzen", weil es an dieser Stelle etwas zu notieren gab, und insofem
auch "Notat" oder "Notiz,"37. Zur Bezeichnung eines Gemes der Kom-
mentierung, gar einer literarischen Fonn wurde der Begriff zu Lebzeiten
des Origenes nicht verwendet38 . Ob man aus diesem negativen Befund
und den beiden einzigen Belegen für 0'1l1!8tc00'8tÇ des Origenes bei Hie-
ronymus und in der Philokalie also folgem druf, daB es eine ganze Anzahl
34. NEuscHÂFER, Origenes ais Philologe (Anm. 10), S. 40 (mit Anm. 194 und 195,
S. 338). Wenn Neusehiifer allerdings fortsetzt: "die nieht unbedingt am Rande einer Text-
ausgabe, sondern durehaus in einer als Sonderbueh überlieferten Seholiensammlung auf-
gezeiehnet war" (aaO.), dann werden der antike und der moderne Begriff in eine nieht
ganz unproblematisehe Verbindung gebraeht.
35. So aueh JUNOD, Que savons-nous des "Scholies" (Anm. 3), S. 142.
36. LSJ S.v. 1594; LAMPE, POL, S.v. 1232; F. MONTANARI, Vocabolario della Iingua
greca, Turin, 22004, Sp. 1913.
37. NEUSCHÂFER, Origenes ais Philologe (Anm. 10), S. 40 mit Anm. 196-199.
38. Das ergibt sieh aus der Darstellung von NEUSCHÂFER, OrÎgenes ais Philologe
(Anm. 10), Anm. 198 zu S. 40 auf S. 339.
158 C. MARKS CHIES
von Schriften dieses Gelehrten untel' dem niimlichen Titel 0"1l1l8tcOOïHC;
gab 39 , scheint mir doch sehr fraglich - denn wir würden damit einem
ebenso gebildeten wie klugen Philologen ja implizit unterstellen, sich im
Blick auf Titel und Gattungen recht sOl'glos, ja im Blick auf seine eigene
Ausbildung unprofessionell verhalten zu haben. AuBerdem gibt es deut-
lich mehr Belege für O"xoÀtu aIs für 0"1l1l8tc00"8tc;4o. Umgekehrt kann
man sich gut vorstellen, daB nicht nul' Hieronymus, sondern auch ftühere
Zeitgenossen wie Schüler des Origenes Notizen und Exzerpte des Lehrers
nicht nUl' aIs O"xoÀta, sondern eben aIs 0"1l1lêtc00"8tC; bezeichnen konnten:
Das eine wie das andere Wort meint eben excelpta.
Ein solcher Durchgang durch die Begriffe O"xoÀta und 0"1l1l8tc00"8lC;
und ihre Geschichte führt mich auf die Vermutung, daB sich hinter den
excelpta (bzw. den O"xoÀtu und 0"1l1l8tc00"8tC;), die Origenes verfaBt
haben solI, N otate aus seinen V orlesungen in Caesarea verbergen konnen,
Notizen und Exzerpte, die seine Horer zusammenstellten (also Horer-
nachschriften und vielleicht auch solche Texte, die el' selbst zur Vorbe-
reitung verfaBte). Mit der uns wohl vertrauten Unterscheidung in -r0llot/
uolumina und O"xoÀta/excelpta wird, so mochte ich weiter vermuten,
also nicht auf formale und inhaltliche Differenzen, sondern zuallererst
auf eine unterschiedliche Publikationsform Bezug genommen: -r0llol/
uo/umina sind im Buchhandel bestellbare, untel' antiken Bedingungen
veroffentlichte, yom Autor redigiette und ZUl' VerOffentlichung freigege-
bene Werke, O"xoÀta/exce/pta Sammlungen von Notizen und Exzerpten,
die eher für den kleinen Kreis und privaten Gebrauch bestimmt sind, aber
- wie wir an Hieronymus und unseren anderen Quellen sehen - dann
ebenfalls den Weg an die Offentlichkeit fanden.
Für meine beiden Vermutungen sprechen auch die wenigen Belege,
die die beiden Begriffe O"xoÀta und 0"1l1l8tc00"8tc; im erhaltenen Œuvre
des Origenes belegen. Auf zwei mochte ich eingehen: Euseb zitiert von
Origenes einen Passus über den Verfasser des Hebriierbriefs, in dem das
Verb O"xoÀtoypuq,dv das Verhiiltnis des Auctor ad Hebraeum zu Paulus
charakterisiert: Den Hebriierbrief schrieb ein Mann, "der die Lehren des
Meisters annotierte"41. Mit diesen Annotationen ist meines Erachtens
nicht der Hebriierbrief gemeint, denn weder handelt es sich bei ihm um
39. So JUNOD, Que savonS-I1OUS des "Sclwlies" (Anm. 3), S. 141 und NEUSCHÂFER,
Origenes ais Philologe (Anm. 10), S. 40.
40. JUNOD, Que savonS-I1OUS des "Scholies" (Anm. 3), S. 141 postuliert daher auch,
daB im Athous Laurensis 184 ein ursprüngliches crl'l)lWocrsle; in crxo"'lu geandert wurde.
Das ist ein wenig kühn.
41. Eus., h.e. VI 25,13 (GCS Eusebius Il/2, 580,lf. SCHWAR'IZ): ... KUt wcrrrsp crxo",lO-
ypa<pijcruvToe; nvoe; 'tà stPl'lJlÉvu IJrro TOU oloucrK{Û"OU.
SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES 159
durchlaufende 61t0llvi]llu-ru im Sinne der klassischen alexandrinischen
Kommentarphilologie noch um thematisch fokussierte selbstiindige
Abhandlungen. Vielmehr wurde der Brief von einer Person verfaBt, die in
einem Schulzusammenhang zu Paulus steht und aIs Schüler Nachschrif-
ten zu den Lehrvortriigen des Paulus anfertigte. Diese Nachschriften, so
will Origenes sagen, konnten bei der Abfassung des Hebriierbriefes gut
gebraucht werden. Àhnlich der zweite Beleg: lm Johanneskommentar
spielt Origenes mit dem johanneischen Begriff 0"1l1l8iov und seiner
Bedeutung in der Philologie: Keiner der drei Synoptiker hat die Wunder
Jesu bei der Hochzeit von Kana mit jenem Zeichen versehen, das Johan-
nes ausspricht (Joh 2, Il): "Diesen Anfang der Zeichen tat Jesus in Kana
in Galiliia". Wiihrend Johannes also ein kommentierendes Zeichen setzt
(O"llIlElCOO"tv 1t81toill-rut ÀÉyov-roC;), setzt Jesus den Anfang der Zeichen
(-ru6-rllV àpxiJv -r&v O"llllElCOV È1toill0"8V 0 '!llO"OUC;). Rechtes philolo-
gisches Zeichensetzen ist also Markieren der gottlichen Zeichen in diesel'
Welt; mit O"xoÀtu und auch mit "Scholien" hat dies nul' mittelbar zu tun.
Wir finden an diesel' Stelle übrigens ja auch keinerlei Bezug auf ein
Geme 0"1l1l8lc00"8tc; oder entsprechend betitelte Schriften des Origenes.
Eine letzte Frage bleibt in diesem zweiten Abschnitt wenigstens noch
knapp und summarisch zu beantworten: LiiBt sich unsere Interpretation
der Begriffe O"xoÀtu und 0"1l1l8tc00"8tc; (bzw. excelpta) aIs Notate und
Exzerpte, die im Kontext der V orlesungen des Origenes entstanden sind,
anhand derjenigen seiner erhaltenen Texte, die den excelpta (bzw. den
O"xoÀtu und 0"1l1l8tc00"8tC;) zugewiesen werden, bestiitigen und erhiirten?
Bevor wir nun einen solchen Blick auf Texte und Fragmente des Origenes
werfen, ist zu fragen, ob man mit Ernst Rudolf Redepenning im überliefer-
ten Œuvre des Origenes oder in Texten, die ihm zugeschrieben werden,
neben "ausführlicheren Anmerkungen" (O'XOÎvtŒ im Sinne des eben darge-
stellten zeitgenossischen griechischen Begriffs) auch ursprünglich nicht zur
VerOffentlichung bestimmte "ganz kurze Randbemerkungen, welche el'
seinen Handschriften beifügte" (Scholien im Sinne des heutigen Begriffs)
antrifft, also tatsachlich jene an den "Randscholien der Grammatiker"
orientierten kurzen Erlauterungen zu Texten in Texteditionen, wie sie die
alexandrinischen Philologen pflegten42 . Zunachst einmal: Es gibt zwei
Textpassagen bei Hieronymus, die man aIs Hinweise darauf lesen kann, daB
so, wie beispielsweise das Arbeitsexemplar der Werke Homers erhalten
war, das der alexandrinische Bibliothekar Zeno dot verwendet und annotiert
hatte (eKooO'tç)43, mindestens im vierten Iahrhundert in Caesarea noch ein
Handexemplar der Psalmen aus dem Besitz des Origenes erhalten war.
Wenn man Nautins These akzeptiert, daB Origenes seine Predigten grund-
42. E.R. REDEPENNING, Origenes: Eine DarstellulIg seilles Lebells und seiner Lehre,
1. Abtlg., Bonn, 1841, S. 376.
43. VAN THIEL, Del' Homertext in Alexalldria (Anm. 26), S. 20 (mit Nachweisen).
 160 C. MARKS CHIES
satzlich mit einer annotierten Bibel in der Hand hielt ("la bible en ll1ain")44,
werden Existenz und Ptlege solcher annotierten Handexell1plare in Caesarea
zusatzlich wahrscheinlich. Es gibt Hinweise darauf, daB solche personlichen
Notizen aus Handexell1plaren des Origenes den Weg in die exegetische
Literatur der früh- und hochbyzantinischen Zeit gefunden haben45 •
Wir beginnen unseren kurzen Durchgang mit den erhaltenen Texten
zur Genesis, die nicht zum groBen Genesis-Kommentar geharen und also
aus excerpta (bzw. crxoÀta) stammen müssen46 . Hier hat es, wenn man
die meist in Katenen überlieferten Texte durchsieht, nicht den Anschein,
aIs seien in den crxoÀta geschlossene, komplementiire Exegesen zu Ein-
zelproblemen dargestellt worden. Vielmehr wurde - wie Karin Metzler
schreibt, die die Texte für die "Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller"
herausgibt - der im alexandrinischen Kommentar fehlende Teil der
Genesis (also die Kapitel sechs bis fünfzig) kontinuierlich, ohne behen-
schendes Interesse für eine einzelne Thematik ausgelegt47 • Auch die den
crxoÀta zuzuweisenden Fragmente der Auslegungen von Gen 5,3-49,9
(in der Edition von Frau Metzler unter dem Buchstaben E rubriziert)48
entsprechen nicht der Definition der differentia specifica von crxoÀta
bzw. crl1J!EtcOmns, die Hieronymus in der Antike gegeben hat und die
moderne Forscher seit Redepenning bis hin zu Neuschafer und Junod
modifiziert wiederholt haben. Auch die explizit den crxoÀta zugewiese-
nen Fragmente ahneln in der formalen Anlage und inhaltlichen Struktur
durchaus denen des Genesiskommentars. Dies laBt sich schon daran
erkennen, daB die Verteilung der Verse, die ausgelegt werden (soweit sie
überliefelt ist), nicht ein Herausgreifen groBer und kontrovers diskutierter
44. V gl. dazu die Nachweise bei Ch. MARKSCHIES, " ... für die Gemeinde im Grossen
und Ganzen nicht geeignet ... "? Erwagungen zu Absicht und Wirklllzg der Predigten
des Origenes, in ID., Origenes und sein Erbe: Gesammelte Studien (Texte und Untersuc-
hungen, 160), Berlin - New York, 2007, 35-62, S. 50 mit Anm. 69.
45. So Olivier MUNNICH mündlich bei der Diskussion des Vortrags.
46. Dazu K. METZLER, Genesiskommentierlllzg bei Origenes und Prokop von Gaza, in
Adamantius 11 (2005) 114-123; EAD., Weitere Testimonienund Fragmente zum Genesis-
Kommentar des Origenes, in Zeitschrift fiïr Antike und C1zristentum 9 (2005) 143-148;
EAD., Azif Spurensuclze: Rekonstruktion von Origenes-Fragmenten aus der so genalllzten
Oktateuchkatene des Prokop von Gaza, in A JORDENS - H.A GÂRTNER - H. GORGEMANNS
- AM. RfITER (Hgg.), Quaerite faciem eius semper: Studien zu den geistesgeschichtlichen
Beziehungen zwischen Antike und Christentl/m. Dankesgabe fiïr Albrecht Dihle Zl/m 85.
Geburtstag aus dem Heidelberger "Kirchenvaterkolloquium" (Studien zur Kirchenge-
schichte, 8), Hamburg, 2008, 214-228 sowie R.E. HEINE, The Testimonia and Fragments
Related to Origen 's CommentaJ)' on Genesis, in Zeitschrift fiir Antike und Christentum 9
(2005) 122-142.
47. Brief Metzler yom 19. August 2009.
48. JUNOD, Que savons-nous des" ScllOlies" (Anm. 3), S. 144f. behandelt nur das
explizit den crX6ÀlU zugewiesene Stück aus Athous Laurensis 184. Dazu auch METZLER,
Azif Spurensuche (Anm. 46), S. 216-218. . 231-234.
SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES 161
Stellen dokumentiert, sondern eine gleichmaBige Behandlung der Verse
(zwischen Gen 5,3 und 49,9). Dazu kommt, daB die gleichen Themen und
besonders auch die gleichen helmeneutischen Methoden wie im groBen
Kommentar zu den ersten fünf Kapiteln eine Hauptrolle spielen. SchlieB-
lich finden sich im Material ganz unterschiedliche Langen. Beim erwahn-
ten Stück aus dem Athous Laurensis ist am Text nicht eindeutig ent-
scheidbar, ob es ein Fragment einer urspl'Ünglich deutlich langer geratenen
Auslegung war49• Der erste Herausgeber von der Goltz pladierte trotzdem
nachdl'Ücklich für einen aus den Arbeiten des Origenes im vielten Jahr-
hundelt angefertigten Auszug von textkritischen Scholien aIs Quelle, und
eine so1che Hypothese entspricht auch unseren Kenntnissen über den
Zeitpunkt, zu dem so1che Scholiierung von kommentierendem Material
in Mode kam50 . Es zeigt sich also auch an den verschiedenen Formen der
exegetischen Kommentierung des Origenes zur Genesis, daB kein inhalt-
licher, fOlmaler oder gal' rein quantitativer Unterschied zwischen einer
Auslegung in Form von 'CoJ!ot/uolumina und in Form von crxoÀta
besteht. Vielmehr bestatigt sich, daB es sich offenkundig lediglich um
einen Unterschied in der Publikationsform handelte: Vermutlich handelte
es sich auch bei den excelpta bzw. crxoÀta zur Genesis um Notate aus
Vorlesungen (wahrscheinlich sogar aus den Handen von Harem), die
noch nicht in Form groBer Kommentare redigielt und daher auch noch
nicht veraffentlichungsreif waren.
Die erwahnten Passagen zum Buch Exodus aus der Philokalie unter-
stützen diese Interpretation gerade wegen weI' deutlichen Unterschiede,
die schon Zweifel daran geweckt haben, ob diese Fragmente überhaupt
zu einem einzigen Werk des Origenes gehalten; VOl' allem das erste Frag-
ment fallt schon durch seine Lange heraus (so auch Christian-Friedrich
Collatz, der die Stücke für die "Griechisch-christlichen Schriftsteller"
ediett). Junod hat darauf hingewiesen, daB es in keinem FaU einer Homi-
lie zugewiesen werden kann und für sich selbst stehen konnte 51 ; Neu-
schafer hielt es für ein Beispiel der (bei Origenes nicht aIs selbstandige
Gattung belegten) npopÀT]J!a'Ca Kat À6crElS 52 . Da freilich unklar ist, ob
nun dieses erste Stück zu crxoÀla bzw. <J1l1!EtcOcrElS (so Nautin) zurech-
nen ist oder umgekehrt nul' das dritte, vierte und fünfte Stück (so Turner)53,
49. Dagegen votiert JUNOD, Que savons-nous des "Scholies" (Anm. 3), S. 144f.
50. VON DER GOLTZ, Eine textkritische Arbeit (Anm. 10), S. 9-16.
51. JUNOD, Que savons-nous des "Scholies" (Anm. 3), S. 145.
52. Origenes ais Phi/ologe (Anm. 10), S. 340 (Anm. 203 zu S. 4lf.); dazu ausführlich:
PERRONE, Perspectives Sl/r Origène (Anm. 3).
53. JUNOD, Que savons-nous des "Scholies" (Anm. 3), S. 147; vgl. C.H. TuRNER, Two
Notes on the Phi/ocalia, in Zeitschrift fzïr die Neutestamentliclze Wissensclzaft 12 (1911)
162 C. MARKS CHIES
droht bei diesem Material die Gefahr eines Zirkelsehlusses: Was von den
Stüeken aus der Philokalie den crxoÀtu bzw. crYJllw:omn<; zugewiesen
wird (wir haben bekanntlieh keine Naehrichten über weitere exegetisehe
Al'beiten zum Bueh Exodus, von Homilien einmal abgesehen), wird dann
zur Basis von Rüeksehlüssen auf die Gestalt dieses Teil der exegetisehen
Al'beiten des Origenes; das Kriterium aber, welches diesel' Stüeke den
crxoÀta bzw. crYJIlEtcOcrEt<; zugewiesen werden dari, wird anhand der
zugewiesenen Fragmente prazisiert. Klar ist jedenfalls, daB das erste
Stüek der Exodusfragmente über die theologisehen Probleme der Rede
von der gottlieh veranlaBten Verbartung des Pharaos nieht aIs Beleg einer
kurz gefaBten, auf spraehliche und saehliehe Probleme bezogenen Ein-
zelerklarung zu einer bestirnmten Textstelle gedeutet werden kann. Und
das dritte Stüek ist zwar deutlieh kürzer, aber ebenso deutlieh aueh
gekürzt (man erkennt nieht sofOlt das kommentielte Lemma), so daB sich
Aussagen über die ursprungliche Textlange verbieten54 . Aber die Kon-
zentration der exegetischen Kommentierung auf ein zentrales theologi-
sehes Problem im ersten Stück entsprieht vorzüglieh dem, was wir über
die Stellung der Bibelerklarung im akademisehen Unterricht von Caesa-
rea wissen.
AIIgesichts der bisherigen Editionslage sind Aussagen über Texte des
Origenes, die die Psalmen auslegen, besonders sehwierig. Zunachst ein-
mal muB man ja die Vorfrage stellen, wie viele Schriften des Origenes zur
Psalmenkommentierung es überhaupt gab. Wenn wir uns an Hieronymus
und seine oben zitielte Klassifizierung halten, dann (von den Homilien
abgesehen) mindestens zwei, eher drei Werke55 : Hieronymus erwahnt-
wir erinnem uns - zwei Sammlungen von excerpta, zunachst eine solche
für die ersten fünfundzwanzig Psalmen (die in Alexandria velfaBte Psal-
menkommentierung), dann eine weitere Serie für den ganzen Psalter (die
in Caesarea veIfaBte Psalmenkommentiemng). AuBerdem bezieht el' sich
an zwei Stellen auf ein "Enehiridion" des Origenes zu den Psalmen. Gele-
gentlich wird noeh mit Bezug auf die sogenannten "Prologe" in den Kate-
nen eine weitere, vielte Kommentierung rekonstruiert (so beispielsweise
Gilles Dorival)56; wir konnen dieses Problem ausblenden, da es jüngst von
Franz Xaver Risch ausführlich behandelt wurde. Für unsere Zusammen-
bange ist noeh wichtig, daB die byzantinisehen Katenen durchaus auch
54. Frgm. 3: phil. 27,10 (SC 226, 302-304 JUNOD).
55. M.-J. RONDEAU, Les commentaires patristiques du Psautier (IIle_ve siècles)
(Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 219), Rom, 1982,44-63; vgl. z.B. Lom. XI 351-371.
56. DORIVAL im Manuskript fur den fünften Band seiner Chaînes (Manuskript S. 2416,
NT. 60 Origène), das ich dank der Freundlichkeit von Frau Dr. Cordula Bandt einsehen
durfte.
SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES 163
den Begriff urcollVYJllu bzw. 'tolloÇ (letzteren die Philokalie) für die exe-
getisehe Al'beit des Origenes am Psalter verwenden und nicht nur crxoÀta
bzw. crYJIlEtcOcrEt<;: YrcollVllllU 'OptyÉvouç siç 'tOùç \jIuÀlloUÇ oder ÈK
'too 'tolloU 'too Et<; 'tov 8' \jIUÀIlOV 57 .
Knapp müssen wir aber das Problem des "Enchiridions" behandeln. Hiero-
nymus elwiihnt eine Schrift des Origenes, die diesel' (jedenfails nach Ansicht
des Hieronymus) "Enchiridion" genannt haben soil und die "mit knappen
und notwendigen Erkliimngen versehen" war (strictis et necessariis inter-
pretationiblls adnotatllm)58. Jene Charakteristik des "Enchiridion" belührt
sich aber auf auffiillige Weise mit der bereits zitielten Beschreibung des
Hieronymus, daB Origenes in den crx6Àta surnrnarisch und knapp durchge-
gangen sei, was dunkel zu sein scheine oder irgendeine Schwierigkeit bein-
halte 59 • Welche von den drei (bzw. vier) Schriften des Origenes zu den Psal-
men ist hier von Hieronymus gemeint6°? Leider verwendet Hieronymus den
Begliff in seinem Œuvre nur an diesel' Stelle. Wenn man auf die allgemeine
Bedeutung des Begriffs "Enchiridion" bei einigen Zeitgenossen des Hiero-
nymus schaut, kann man sich an dessen spiiterem Erz- und Intimfeind Rufm
und an seinem KOlTespondenzpaltner Augustinus von Hippo orientieren.
Rufin identifizielt in seiner VolTede zu seiner Übersetzung der Sentenzen
des Sextus den griechischen Begriff mit dem lateinischen Opllsclllllm 61, und
Augustinus charakterisiert sein eigenes Enchiridion in seinen Retractationes
ebenfails mit dem niimlichen lateinischen Ausdmck62 • Man müBte also vom
Begriff her ein kleineres und knapperes Büchlein zum Psalter erwarten.
Gelegentlich ist angenornrnen worden, daB Hieronymus mit dem TelTllinus
57. Ottob. gr. 378, fol. 20' (KARO -LlETZMANN Typ N; vgl. G. DORIVAL,Les chaînes
exégétiques grecques sur les psaumes. Vol. IV [Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 46],
Leuven, Peeters, S. 263-269) bzw. phil. 26 (FChr 226, 234,4 JUNOD); vgl. auch A. VON
HARNACK, Die Überlieferung und der Bestand der altchristlichen Litteratuf, Leipzig,
1893, S. 356.
58. Hier., prolo in exc. de Psalterio (FChr 79, 68,4f. RISSE).
59. Hier., prae! in homo Ez. (SC 352, 32,18f. BORRET).
60. P. BATIFFOL, Notes d'ancienne littérature chrétienne: L'Enclliridion d'Origène, in
Revue Biblique 7 (1898) 265-269 setzte die Excelpta in totum Psalterium mit dem opus
latissimllln gleich, das im Prolog der C01llmentarioli dem Enchiridion entgegengesetzt
wird (FChr 79, 68,8 RISSE). R. CADIOU, Commentaires inédits des psaumes: Études
SUl' les textes d'Origène contenus dans le manuscrit Vindobonensis (Collection d'études
anciennes), Paris, 1936 hielt das Enclliridion dagegen fur das von Origenes benutzte Hand-
exemplar, das Hieronymus in der Bibliothek von Caesarea gesehen habe (p. 32 n. 1 "Le
mot Enchiridion n'est pas le titre d'une œuvre exégétique, mais désigne simplement le
'bréviaire' qu'Origène emportait avec lui"); R. DEVREESSE, Les anciens cOlI/mentateurs
grecs des Psaumes (Studi e Testi, 264), Città deI Vaticano, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana,
1970, S. 1 Anm. 2 identifizierte es mit Excerpta in totum PsalteriulI/, ahnlich NAUTIN,
Origène (Anm. 7), S. 282-283, vgl. dazu die ausführlichen Bemerkungen von RONDEAU,
Les cOlI/mentaires patristiques du Psautier (IIle_ve siècles) (Anm. 55), S. 46-51.
61. Ruf., prolo in sent. Sex. (CCSL 20, 259,23f. SIMONETTI).
62. Aug., retract. II 63,1 (CCSL 57, 140,4-6 MUTZENBECHER) opusculum ... quod
genlls Graeci enchiridion lIocant; vgl. aber auch Aug., encll. 1,6 tu (sc. Laurentius, fur
den das Büchlein bestimmt ist) autem enchiridion a nobis postulas, id est quod manll
possit astringi, non quod armaria possit onaare (CCSL 46, 50,68f. EVANS).
164 C. MARKS CHIES
Enchil'idion das in Caesarea bewahrte Handexemplar des Psalters bezeich-
nete (Ol'igenis psalterium, quod ,Enchiridion' ille vocabat)63, an dessen
Existenz, wie wir sahen, kaum gezweifelt werden kann. Aber man kann sich
schlecht vorstellen, daB eine Textausgabe in der ersten Halfte des dritten
Jahrhundelts strictis et necessal'iis intelpretationibus adnotatum, also "mit
knappen und notwendigen Erklarungen" annotiert war - dann hatte Origenes
schon lange vor der Elfindung entsprechender Kommentargenres das mix-
tum compositum von (wie Gudeman sagt) "un0ItVllltct Rolle" und Exzerpt
der O'X6)"tct aus der unselbstandigen Randscholüerung der Editionen gleich-
sam erfunden und praktiziert: ltiJ yÉvot'to, "das ist absurd". Wenn diese
Moglichkeit aber nicht besteht und das "Enchiridion" nicht das Handexem-
plar der Bibel des Origenes war, dann ist zu fragen, ob es mit einer der
übrigen Auslegungen zu den Psalmen identifiziert werden darf. Dafür kame
nur die zweite Sammlung in Frage, die im Werkkatalog des mehrfach
erwahnten Briefes an Paula64 so seltsam nachklappt: auf die Excelpta in
totum Psalterium. Diese umfaBten allerdings mindestens fünfundvierzig
Bücher65 , so daB nul' die These bleibt, es habe mit dem "Enchiridion" eine
dritte Arbeit des Origenes zu den Psalmen gegeben (falls Hieronymus nicht,
wie an anderer Stelle - beispielsweise für den aramaischen Matthaus -,
behauptet, ein Buch gesehen zu haben, das er nie wirklich sah). Unsere
vorhin geauBelten Vermutungen, daB es wahrscheinlich bei den Termini
O'xoÀta und O'llltBHDO'Bts weder um eine bestimmte Quantitat, eine
bestimmte Form noch um einen bestimmten Inhalt geht, bestatigt sich hier
nun auf das Schonste - um das Schmalsein eines Buches anzuzeigen, wird
neben O'xoÀtct und O'llltBtwO'Bts noch der solenn klare Begriff "Enchiridion"
zu Zwecken der deutlichen Beschreibung verwendet.
Zu der reichen und, wie gesagt, noch nicht vollstandig kategorisierten
und damit interpretierten Psalmenüberlieferung gehi:ht aber bekanntlich
auch noch ein Codex mit Scholien (im neuzeitlichen Sinne des Begriffs),
der Vindobonensis th. gr. 8 aus dem zehnten oder elften Jahrhundert
(Karo-LietzmaIlli Typ V). Einige dieser Scholien sind Origenes zugewie-
sen66 • Allerdings laBt sich aus Doppelüberlieferungen anderer Autoren in
dieser Katene und an weiteren Stellen der Überlieferung zeigen, daB die
Texte rur die Aufnahme in den Vindobonensis (bzw. seine Vorlage) bear-
beitet und verkürzt wurden. AuBerdem stammen sie, wie Gilles Dorival
gezeigt hat, schon im Blick auf die Origenes zugeschriebenen Stücke aus
63. Hier., prol. in exc. de Psalterio (FChr 79, 68,4f. RIsSE).
64. Datierung mit weiteren Literaturangaben referiert von G. RO\VEKAMP in seiner
Ausgabe FChr 80, Turnhout, 2005, S. 15.
65. NAUTIN, Origène (Anm. 7), S. 275-279.
66. R. CADIOU, Commentaires inédits des Psaumes: Étude sur les textes d'Origène
contenlls dans le manuscrit Vindobonensis 8, Paris, 1936; zur Kritik an Cadiou vgl.
E. MÜHLENBERG, Psalmenkommentare ails der Kateneniiberlieferung. Bd. 3: Untersll-
cJ/l/llgen Zli den Psalmenkatenen (patristische Texte und Studien, 19), Berlin -New York,
1978, S. 44 und jetzt G. DORIVAL, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les psaumes:
Contribution à l'étude d'une forme littéraire. Vol. 2 (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense,
44), Leuven, Peeters, 1989, S. 9-18.
SCHOLIEN BEI ORIGENES 165
unterschiedlichen Quellen67 • Rückschlüsse auf den Charakter von
excerpta (O'X6Àw' bzw. O'llI-lEtcOO'In<;) bei Origenes auf der Basis dieses
Materials sind also nul' in sehr begrenztem Umfang moglich.
Die seit Harnack von manchen für Origenes in Anspruch genommenen
Scholien zur Apokalypse stehen aIs sechsundzwanzigstes und letztes Stück
in einem Codex des Meteoron-Klosters, in dem sich auch einige Passagen
von Hippolyt finden. In Berlin wurden sie durch Vermittlung des griechi-
schen Byzantinisten Nikos Bees bekannt, nachdem schon Alexander
Behrendts auf die Schatze der Meteora-KlOster aufmerksam gemacht
hatte68 • VOl' den namlichen Scholien steht zunachst ein vollstandiger Text
der kanonischen 'AnoKuÀu'I't<; 'IrouYVou 1:00 eWÀ6you (fol. 21Oa-245a),
gefolgt von einem weiteren, aber scholiierten Text dies es biblischen
Buches. Die neununddreiBig (bzw. vierzig) Scholien unterbrechen den
vollstandigen Text der Johannesoffenbarung des kanonischen Neuen
Testaments, der bis 14,5 abgeschrieben ist. Schon Harnack selbst sind
Bedenken gekommen, ob man von einem einheitlichen "Scholien-Kom-
mental''' sprechen kaIlli; der griechische Terminus crx6Àta selbst kommt
nul' einmal VOl' (sonst: 'Ep für sPl-lllvEia), und erkennbar sind homile-
tische Stücke rur die Sammlung exzerpiert worden (und übrigens auch ein
langeres Stück aus dem antiharetischen Werk des Irenaeus von Lyon).
Gegen die Zuweisung an Origenes hat schon Gustav Wohlenberg im JahI·e
1912 schwere chronologische wie inhaltliche Bedenken erhoben, obwohl el'
durchaus zugab, daB sich jeder Leser, "der einigermassen mit Origenes
vertraut ist, ... beim Lesen der Glossen von dessen Geist umflossen, von
Lieblingsausdlücken und Lieblingsgedanken des Origenes Ulffi'auscht"
fühlt69 • Sein abschlieBendes Urteil lautete: "Auf Grund verschiedener
Beobachtungen glaube ich feststellen zu konnen, dass der uns beschafti-
gende Scholienkommentar zur Offenbarung ... kein einheitliches Werk
darstelle, dass wohl durchweg Origenesworte zugrundeliegen mochten, dass
diese aber' aus irgendwelchen Origenesschriften hergeholt und mehI· oder
minder starker Umarbeitung unterworfen seien"70. Ahnlich vorsichtig
optiert jetzt Neuschiifer, der Differenzen und Analogien nüchtem bilan-
zielt71 .
67. DORIVAL, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques SUI' les psaumes, Vol. 2 (Anm. 66),
S. 14f.
68. N.A. BEI-Œ, "EK~BcrtS 1tat..atoypa<j>tKIDv Kat 'tBXVtKIDV apBIJVIDV av 'tais f!6vatS
'tIDV MB'tBroprov, àVByvrocr~lJ av 8lJf!ocri~ cruvB8pi~ 't~S Buçavnot..oytK~s 'E'tatpeias
av 'A~ijvats 'tn 1. '<l>B~p. 1910, Athen, 1910; vgl. DERS., Die Kollation der Apokalypse
Johannis mit dem Kodex 573 des Meteorol1klosters, in Zeitschrift fiir die Neutestamentli-
che Wissenschaft 13 (1912) 260-265.
69. WOHLENBERG, Eillneuaufgefimdener Kodex (Anm. 15), Sp. 26 (Zitat). 51f. (chro-
nologische Bedenken wegen comm. ser. in Mt. 49 [zu Mt 24,29f.]: A. BEHRENDTS, Über
die Bibliotheken der Meteorischen und .Ossa-Olympischen Kloster [Texte und Untersu-
chungen, 26/3], Leipzig, 1904, S. 67-84).
70. WOHLENBERG, Noch einiges ZII dem ScllOlienkommentar (Anm. 15), Sp. 218.
71. NEUSCHÂFER, Origenes ais Philologe (Anm. 10), S. 55 und 353f. Anm. 321-324.
166 C.MARKSCHIES
Es hat eine gewisse Tradition, die exeerpta, bzw. crX6Àta und crlll.un-
mmn<; des Origenes in deutlicher Anlehnung an die Bemerkungen zu
definieren, die sich bei Hieronymus finden und die wu: oben zitiert haben.
So entspricht die Beschreibung, die beispielsweise Redepenillng für die
crllIHnmcrêt<; gegeben hat, ziemlich weitgehend der, die Hieronymus für
die crX6Àta überliefert: "Semeiosen sind nun allerdings nicht etwa allein
kurze Glossen, Randbemerkungen ( ... ), auch nicht weitlaufigere, jedoch
ausschlieBlich grammatische Anmerkungen ( ... ), sondern überhaupt
aphoristische Aus1egungen jeder Art von miiBigem Umfange. Die Kürze
und das Aphoristische unterscheidet sie von den Exegesen"72. Wir sahen,
daB insbesondere eine quantitative Definition des Unterschieds offen-
sichtlich nicht die erhaltenen Texte trifft, die man den exeerpta zuweisen
kann. Kann man unsere dagegen aufgesteIlte These, es handele sich um
Nachschriften und Vorbereitungen aus dem Kontext des Lehrbetriebs in
Alexandria und Caesarea, durch einen Ausblick auf diesen Lehrbetrieb
stützen?
m. WELCHEN PLATZ NAHMEN DIE l;XOAIA DES ORIGENES lM
GEFÜGE DER BILDUNGSINSTITUTIONEN ALEXANDRIAS WIE
CAESAREAS EIN?
Wir beantworten unsere dritte und letzte Leitfrage, we1chen Platz die
Scholien im Gefüge der Bildungs- und Kultinstitutionen Alexandrias
wie Caesareas einnahmen, abschlieBend kurz in FOlm eines Ausblicks.
Ilsetraut Hadot hat VOl' einiger Zeit in wünschenswerter Klarheit sowohl
die Abfassung von ureoJ.1.vijJ.1.a-ra aIs auch die von crX6Àta mit dem
akademischen Unterricht verbunden: "Der Lelu'er machte sich für seine
Textinterpretation mehr oder minder ausführliche Notizen, ureoJ.1.vijJ.1.a-ra
oder eommentarii genannt, und die Schüler ihrerseits fertigten sich wah-
rend des Unterrichts Mitschriften an, die sie ge1egentlich mit oder ohne
Zustimmung des Lehrers ver6ffentlichten" 73. Meine These ist nun, daB
auch die crx6Àla und crllJ.1.Blmcrn<; des Origenes, die im christlichen
Latein mit dem Stichwort exeeJpta übersetzt werden, in den Lehrbetrieb
72. E.R. REDEPENNING, Origenes: Eine Darstelhmg seines Lebens und seiner Lelll'e,
2. Abtlg., Bonn, 1846, S. 67 Anm. 5.
73. I. HADOT, Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar, in W. GEERLINGS -
Ch. SCHULZE (Hgg.), Der Kommentar in Antike und Millelalter: Beitriige zu seiner
Elforschung (Clavis Commentariorum, 2), Leiden, 2002, 183-199, S. 184; vgl. auch
E. LAMBERZ, Proklos und die Form des philosophischen K0111mentars, in J. PÉPIN (Hg.),
Proe/us, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris,
2-4 oct. 1985, Paris, 1987, 1-20.
SCHOLIEN BEI ORlGENES 167
geh6ren. Natürlich wissen wir über den - wenn ich so formulieren datf
- akademischen AIltag in Alexandria recht wenig 74 und über den in
Caesarea nicht selu' viel melu·75 : Aber daB Origenes var aIlem in Caesa-
rea, aber (wie Clemens Scholten zuletzt ausfülu'lich dokumentierte76 )
wohl auch in Alexandria nach Ausweis der bekannten Berichte bei Gre-
gor Thaumaturgus und Eusebius exegetische V orlesungen gehalten hat,
in denen es - wie im ersten der Fragmente zu Exodus - um grundlegende
theologische Probleme ging, wird man schlecht bestreiten k6nnen Gre-
gor liiBt beispielsweise keinen Zweifel daran, daB am Ende der Ausbil-
dung in Caesarea die allegorische Auslegung dessen stand, "was dunkel
und riitselhaft ist (0 -ri remB crKO-retvov Kat atvtYJ.1.a-rmOB<; ~v), wie es
bei den heiligen Worten hiiufig vorkommt" (15,174)77, mithin die aIle-
garische Interpretation der biblischen Sclu'iften durch Origenes und ilu'e
Interpretation var dem Hintergrund der Theologie des Schulhauptes.
Warum, so kann man ja einmal fragen, solI es eigentlich aus diesem für
das Leben des Origenes pragenden institutionellen Kontext keinerlei
Nachschriften geben und warum sollen spater Origenes aIs Autar zuge-
wiesene exeelpta, die crX6Àta und crllJ.1.BtmcrBt<; nicht aus eben diesem
Kontext stammen? Mit diesel' Hypothese (und melu' wird es angesichts
der QueIlenlage wohl nie mehr werden k6nnen) hab en wir gewiB nicht
aIle Fragen im Umfeld unseres Themas beantwOltet, aber mindestens die
drei groBen Leitfragen, die wir zu Beginn aufgewOlfen haben, und k6n-
nen daher hier schlieBen78 •
Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin Clu'istoph MARKS CHIES
Lehrstuhl für antikes Clu'istentum
Untel' den Linden 6
D-lO099 Berlin
clu·istoph.markschies@rz.hu-berlin.de
74. Eusebius spricht von der "Pflege der gottlichen Wissenschaften" (f) 7tpOC; "Cà Sstu
7tatosu~w"Cu UO'KT]crtC;: Eus., h.e. VI 3,8 [GCS Eusebius III1, 526,15-17 SCHWARTZ]). Für
die verwendete Begrifflichkeit vgl. Plat., Tim. 24 D 7tatosuJ.ju"Cu Ssrov.
75. V gl. dazu MARKSCHIES, Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen
(Anm. 6), S. 72-75. 93-109.
76. C. SCHOLTEN, Die alexandrinische Katechetenschule, in Jahrbuch fiir Antike und
Christentum 38 (1995) 16-37; dazu MARKSCHIES, Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und
ihre Institutiollell (Anm. 6), S. 97-101.
77. Greg. Thaum., or. pail. 115,174 (FChr 24, 196,4f. GUYOT - KLEIN).
78. Auf den lehrreichen Vergleich mit den deutlich spateren Scholien des Evagrius
Ponticus mochte ich an anderer Stene zUIÜckkommen; vgl. einstweilen zu deren literari-
schen Genre P. GÉHIN, Évagre de Pontique, Scholies aux Proverbes, IlltroductiO/I, texte
critique, traductioll et illdex (SC, 340), Paris, 1987, S. 13-22
 NAMENSETYMOLOGIEN ZUR HEBRÂISCHEN BIBEL
BEI ORIGENES 1

Origenes widmete sich in zwei verschiedenen Werken der Kommen-

tierung des Buches Genesis, im Genesiskommentar (CGn), der bis Gen
5,1 reichte, und den ,Scholia' (FrGn), die den restlichen Text der Gene-
sis kommentierten2 • Unter den Fragmenten beider Werke finden sich
mehrere, die offenbar auf Informationen zurückgehen, die Origenes aus
seinem personlichen Kontakt mit der jüdischen Gemeinde (oder anderen
Tdigem der jüdischen Überlieferung) erhielt, darunter auch Angaben zur
Etymologie hebraischer Namen.
Origenes hait die Etymologie, gerade der Namen, für ein wesentliches
exegetisches Mitte1 3 und wendet es auch bei der Genesisexegese an: In
einem Fragment deutet er etwa die hebriiische Angabe "Edem"4, in ande-
ren die Etymologien der Namen Metuschelach5 und Simeon6 ; oder Ori-
genes bestimmt die richtige Übersetzung für Josefs Titel Abrech7 •

1. Ich danke an dieser Stelle für die Hilfestellung von Fr. Dr. Anna Tzvetkova-Glaser,
Heidelberg, im Blick auf die Beziehungen zwischen rabbinischer und christlicher Exegese
und Fr. Dr. Cordula Bandt, Berlin, im Blick aufhebriiische Wortformen. Beim Vortrag in
Krakau machte Herr Piotr O. Scholz, Lublin, dankenswerter Weise auf die Nachwirkung
rabbinischer Exegese in der Wiener Genesis aufmerksam, ein Hinweis, dem im Aufsatz
nachgegangen wird.
2. Die genannten exegetischen :Fragmente erscheinen denmiichst in der Edition der Ver-
fasserin: Origenes, Werke. Band VI,2: Die griechischen und lateinischen Fragmente der
Genesis-Kommentiemng, hg. von K. MErzLER (GCS N.F.), Berlin - New York, de Gruyter,
2010. Thre Übersetzung wird in Kürze erscheinen unter dem Titel: Origenes, Werke mit
deutscher Übersetzullg, hg. A. FüRST. Band 111. Die Kommentierung des BI/ches Gellesis.
Eingeleitet, übersetzt und erliiutert von K. ME'I'zLER, Berlin - New York, de Gruyter, 2009. -
Für eine Neubeurteilnng der Gattungsbezeichnung ,Scholia' s. den Aufsatz in diesem Band,
S. 147-167: C. MARKscHIES, Scholien bei Origenes I/nd in der zeitgenossischen wissenschaft-
lichen Kommentierung. - Die Genesis-Homilien werden hier nicht zur Exegese gerechnet.
3. In der Edition der Genesiskatene (La Chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition intégrale. Bd. 1:
Chapitres 1 à 3. Bd. II: Chapitres 4 à 11. Bd. III: Chapitres 12 à 28. Bd. IV: Chapitres
29 à 50. Texte établi par F. PETIT [Traditio exegetica graeca, 1-4], Lovanii, Peeters, 1991-
96) Frg. 1023, in der Edition der GCS (vgl. Anm. 2) künftig E 40: TàS ÉPJ.!llvEiuS 'trov
ôvoJ.!u'trov Çij'tEt· 8UVUJ.!Et yàp rovoJ.!ucrSllcruv ImG 'tou ayiou 1tVEUJ.!U'tOS. dÂÀà J.!T]V
Kut wu'to XPT] d8svut, on 'tà ôvoJ.!u'tu ËSEcOV Ècrn KUt KU'tucr'tUcrEroV KUt 1toto'tij'trov
81lÂronKu, BS mv Ëcr'ttv t8EtV 'tT]V B1tt't1l8EtO't1l'tu 'tou ôvoJ.!uçoJ.!svou.
4. Ibid., Frg. 236 PETIT, in der Edition der GCS (vgl. Anm. 2) künftig Frg. D 15. Zu
diesem Thema vgl. den Aufsatz in diesem Band, S. 63-73: A. TZVETKoVA-GLAsER,
L'interprétation origénie/llle de Gen 2,8 et ses arrière-plans rabbiniques.
5. Catena in Gellesim (wie Anm. 3), Frg. 592 PETIT, in der Edition der GCS (vgl. Anm.
2) künftig Frg. E 2.
6. Ibid., Frg. 2079 PETIT, in der Edition der GCS (vgl. Anm. 2) künftig Frg. E 170.
7. Ibid., Frg. 1934 PETIT, in der Edition der GCS (vgl. Anm. 2) künftig Frg. E 116.
 170 K.METZLER
!ch mochte hier zwei Fragmente aus den ,Scholia' des Origenes zur
Genesis 8 vorstellen, die sich mit den Namen in der Familie befassen, die
Josef in Âgypten gewinnt. Nach seiner Erhohung durch Pharao heiratet
Josef Asenat, die Tochter des Priesters aus Heliupolis (hebraisch On).
Dieser heiBt in der Septuaginta I1E'tE<ppij<;9; genauso heiBt der Herr
Josefs, der ibn seinerzeit den midianitischen Handiem abgekauft hat (Gen
37,36; 39,1); irn hebraischen Text sind das aber eindeutig verschiedene
Namensformen, aiso unterschiedliche Personen. Origenes nahme von
sich aus auch keine Identitat des Herren und des Schwiegervaters Josefs
an, aber er kennt eine jüdische Ausiegung, die eben davon ausgeht. Zum
besseren Yerstandnis sei sein Text mit den notigsten Erlauterungen lO und
einer besonderen Zitatkennzeichnung ll übersetzt 12:
8. Zu dieser Gattung innerhalb der exegetischen Werken des Origenes vgl. É. JUNOD,
Que savon-nous des "Scholies" (EXOAIA - EHMEJQEEIE) d'Origène, in G. DORIVAL-
A. LE BouLLUEc (Hgg.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible 1 Origen and the Bible
(BETL, 118), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1995, 133-149 und den Beitrag von
MARKSCHIES, Scholien bei Origenes (Amn. 2).
9. So der Nominativ des in Gen 41,45.50; 46,20 im texlus receptus der Gottinger
Septuaginta-Ausgabe genannten Namens: Sepluaginla. Velus Teslal11enlwn GraeClll11.
Auclorilale Acadel11iae Sciental'llm Gotlingensis edilwn. 1. Genesis, ed. J.W. WEVERS,
Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.
10. Die Erlliuterungen werden kursiv und in eckige Klammem gesetzt. - Nach Moglich-
keit folgen die Namen der hier gegebenen Übersetzung den Formen der Einheitsübersetzung.
11. Neben der in Petits Band üblichen Kennzeichnung fur Zitate müssen in diesem Aufsatz
in griechischen Zitaten und fu'er Übersetzung differenzierte Anführungszeichen venvendet
werden, um das Gefuge von Vorlage und Interpretation sichtbar zu machen, das in Origenes'
Exegese zu beobachten ist; auch gegenüber den den im vorliegenden Band sonst angewandten
orthograhischen Regeln weicht dies ab. Der hier gebrauchte Usus sei an Beispielen erlliutert:
,,'ACl'EVéS" - es handelt sich um ein Zitat, das dem Lemma der Auslegung entnommen ist.
C/>ovpr:/(po.p - die Kursivsclu'eibung kennzeichnet Zitate aus anderen Quellen ais dem
Lemma.
'à1t01tE'fUCl'W;' - einfache Anfüluungszeichen kennzeichnen hebrliische Wortel' sowie
Übersetzungen der angenommenen Etymologie oder Anspielungen auf diese Etymologie.
12. Calena in Genesim (wie Amn. 3), Frg. 1940 [Traditio exegetica graeca 4, 255f.
PETIT] zu Gen 41,45, in der Edition der GCS (vgl. Amn. 2) künftig Frg. E 118, es hat dort
folgende Textgestalt:
'Qp\yévoue;
To Ill;v C/>ovpr:upàp (Gen 39,1) ~v ôvollun 'fOU 1tU'fpOe; ÈCl'n 'f~e; YUIlt]S~tCl'lle; 'fi!>
'IcoCl'i]<j>. Oti]Cl'E'fUt oé ne; IhEpov sivut 'fOUWV 'fOV avopu 1tupà 'fOV rovllCl'UIlEVOV 'fOV
'IcoCl'i]<j>~ où Ilijv olhcoe; U1tEtÂi]<j>UCl'tV 'E~pulot, à),:;'.: ÈS à1tOKpU<j>OU yVOV'fEe; 'fOV
UÙTOV sivat /"éyouCl'tV, 'fOV OêCl'1tO'fllV UÙ'fOU yEvollEVOV KUt 'fOV 1tEVSEpOV. Kut <j>UCl'tV
'fUU'fllV 'fijv ,,'AO'EVI;S" OtU~ê~/"t]Kévut 'fijv Ilt]'fépu 1tupà 'fi!> 1tU'fpt, me; È1t\~OU/"êUCl'U­
Cl'UV IlI;V 'fi!> 'ICOCl'ij<j> KU! OÙK È1t\~OU/"EUSêlCl'UV, Ilt]OI;V 01; 1tuSouO'uv o\à 'fijv
Cl'co<j>POCl'UVllV 'fOU àvopoe;' 01tEp 'à1t01tê'fUCl'Ue;' 'fp01tOV nvà 0 1tU'fijp UÙ'f~e;,
È/"êYXSévwe; 'foil 1tpuYIlU'fOe; me; Cl'lJVêtOlJIUV ulHijv 'ffj KuSupto'flln 'foil àvopoe;,
ÈKOéoCOKEV UÙ'fi!>, oëlsat Cl'1tOlJouO'ue; KUt 'fOIe; /"ot1tOle; Atyu1t'fiote;, me; av 1tUP' uÙTole;
Û1tO 'fOU yEvollévou 1tpuYIlU'fOe; on IlllOI;V 'fOtoilwv 1lIlUP'fll'fU\ KU'fà 'fOV otxov UÙToil.
où 0101 01; SUUIlUSEtV Et 'Cl'UIl1t'fCOCl'te;' ÈKEivll KéK/"ll'fat, 'f0 È1t! 'ffj Illl'fPt Cl'UIl1t'f CO IlU
IlllVUCl'UCl'U, KUt Et 1tpOCl'yéyOVêV 'fi!> 1tpo'fépCfl ôvollun 'foil 1tU'fpOe; UÙ'f~e; 'f0 'à1t01tE-
NAMENSETYMOLOGIEN ZUR HEBRÂISCHEN BIBEL 171
lm Namen des Vaters von Josefs Braut [dieser Name ist, wie sich spiiter aIs
wahrscheinlich zeigen wird, f/JoV7:/(jJapl] ist <DOlYtt<pup enthalten. Man wird
glauben, dieser sei ein anderer aIs deljenige, der Josef gekauft hatte. Nicht
in dieser Weise haben es freilich die Hebraer aufgefasst, sondem schéipfen
ihr Wissen aus apokrypher Quelle und sagen, es sei derseIbe, der sein Herr
wie sein Schwiegervater wurde. Und sie behaupten, diese »Asenat« habe
ihre Mutter beim Vatel' verklagt, dass diese Josef nachgestellt und nicht von
ihm Nachstellung etfam'en habe, dass ihr [der Ml/tter] aber nichts geschehen
sei wegen der Keuschheit des Mannes [Josefs]; dies habe ihr Vatel' in gewis-
ser Weise ,ausgebreitet', aIs die Sache erwiesen war, und habe sie [Asenat]
ihm [Josej] , da sie von der Unschuid des Mannes gewusst hatte, zur Frau
gegeben: in seinem Bestreben, auch den übtigen Âgyptem zu zeigen - damit
bei ihnen ,kein Gerücht' von dem geschehenen Ereignis ,entstehe <J3 -, dass
seinem Haus nichts dergieichen widetfahren sei. Man datf sich aber nicht
wundem, wennjene [Asenat] ,Unfall' heillt, weil sie den Unfall anzeigte, der
sich bei ihrer Mutter ereignet hatte, und wenn zu dem früheren Namen ihres
Vaters die Bedeutung ,Er wird ausbreiten' hinzukam, weil das von ihm nach-
her Getane den Namenszusatz ergibt. Der Ausdruck ,Er wird ausbreiten'
aIso, der im Text der Geschichte vorliegt, macht klar, dass gegen die Frau
der V Olwmf des Ehebruchs erhoben wurde, und zwar von ihrem Mann ...
Den abschlieBenden Satz müsste man nach dem griechischen Wortlaut
folgendermaBen übersetzen:
. .. durch diesen Vorwutf ,wird er', heiBt es, den Kopf der Frau ,ausbreiten'.
Origenes führt eine jüdische Deutung der Josefsgeschichte an, die er
selbst aIs apokryph bezeichnet. Tatsachlich ist sie literarisch nicht belegt;
diese Frage muss noch naher beleuchtet werden; zunachst sol1 versucht
werden, die Mitteilungen des Origenes zu verstehen.
Was erzahlt wU'd, ist schnell deutlich: Die Tochter des Potifar, Asenat,
wurde Zeuge, dass die Frau des Potifar (ihre Mutter) versuchte, Josef zu
verrühren, dass dieser aber der Yerrührung widerstand, irn Gegensatz zu
der Beschuidigung, die die Frau des Potifar dann erhob; Asenat bezeugte
ihr ganzes Wissen dem Yater, der daraufhin zum einen seine Frau des
Ehebruchs beschuidigte, zum anderen nach Josefs Erhohung seine
Tochter diesem zur Frau gab, um zu demonstrieren, dass seinem Haus
von Josef kein Umecht widelfamen sei.
Diese befremdliche Version der Erzahlung wird mit etymologischen
Deutungen begründet, die nul' zum Teil anderweitig bekannt sind 14 • Der
'fUCl'Et' (Num [Aqu., Symm. oder Thdt.] 39,1), 'fOU Ilê'fà 'fuil'fu 1tpUXSéVTOe; U1t' UÙ'foil
'f~V 1tPOCl'Si]Kllv OOV'fOe; 'fOU ÔVOIlU'fOe;. 'f0 youv 'à1t01tê'fUCl'êt', Èv 'fi!> 1tupuodYllun
KEiIlEVOV, 0ll/"COTtKOV ÈCl''ftV ÈyK/"i]IlU'fOe; llotxEiue; È1tuyollévou yuvutKi, KU! ûno
àvopoe; È<j>' 4> ÈYK/"i]llun dnoner:éJ.o"B1 <j>1lCl'1 n)v KupaÀI)V nÎç yvvaucoç (Num 5,18).
13. Der Nebensatz, in dem so viel zu el'ganzen ist, dürfte unvollstlindig überliefert sein.
14. Zur Bel'echtigung der Namensdeutungen s. bei Amn. 21.
172 K.METZLER
Name von Josefs Herm bedeutet danach ,Er wird ausbreiten' (à1t07t81:U-
crEt, von Origenes auch mit ,à1t01tE1:UcrUÇ' angespielt), der Name Asenat
wird aIs ,Unfall' irn Sinne von ,Unglück, Katastrophe' aufgefasst!5. Die
Deutung des Namens Potifar wird damit verknüpft, dass dieser seine Frau
des Ehebruchs anklagt - diese Verknüpfung kann, wie Cordula Bandt ent-
deckte, nur auf einer Anspielung aufNum 5,18-19 beruhen, auf das rituelle
Verfahren gegenüber einer Frau, die des Ehebruchs verdachtigt wird;
bevor sie das Überfülnungswasser, trinken muss, "entblOBt" der Priester
vor dem Altar "den Kopf der Frau"16; der hebraische Text wird meist
übersetzt mit "und er 16st das Haupthaar der Frau"!7; mit Berufung auf
das "Übelführungswasser, das den Fluch hervorruft", erklart der Priester:
"Wenn niemand mit dir geschlafen hat "', so seiest du schuldlos"18.
Wenn also Origenes verkürzt sagt: "Er wird den Kopf der Frau aus-
breiten", meint er: ,er wird das Haupthaar der Frau aufl6sen', und sagt
damit: Er klagt sie des Ehebruchs an. Der letzte Satz unseres Fragments
muss mithin so übersetzt werden:
Der Ausdruck ,Er wird ausbreiten' also, der im Text der Geschichte vor-
liegt, macht klar, dass gegen die Frau der Vorwurf des Ehebruchs erhoben
wurde, und zwar von ihrem Mann; durch diesen V01WUrf ,wu'd er', heiBt
es, <das Haar auf dem> Kopf der Frau ,ausbreiten'.
Es ist wichtig anzumerken, dass sich die rituellen Handlungen des Pries-
ters nach Num 5,18f. deshalb ohne weiteres auf Josefs Herren beziehen
lassen, weil diesel' mit seinem spateren Schwiegervater identifiziert wU'd,
der, wie nach dem Bibeltext feststeht, Priester ist!9. Die vorausgesetzte
Etymologisierung lasst sich hingegen nicht aus den identischen Namens-
formen in der Septuaginta ableiten, sondem aus den verschiedenen Namen,
den sie nach hexaplarischen Varianten tragen: Dort heiBt der Herr
<l>oU1:t<j>up, der Schwiegervater offenbar <l>oU1:t<j>upt 20 . Die Bedeutung ,El'
15. Griechisch crU).l1t'tOlI.ta und crU).l1t'tOlcrIÇ. lm Hebriiischen handelt es sich um den
Wortstamm J1bN, vgl. F. WUTZ, Onomastica sacra: Untersuchungen zum liber interpreta-
tionis nominum Hebraicorum des hl. Hieronymus (Texte und Untersuchungen, 41),
Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1915, S. 637.
16. nWNn WN., l'\N l)'1D1.
17. Num 5,18f19 las man in der Septuaginta so (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum.
Auctoritate Academiae Scientiamlll Gottingensis editulll. III, 1. Numai, ed. J.W. WEVERS -
U. QUAST, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982): K(Ü cr'tijm:t 0 iEpEÙÇ 't~v yuVUtKu
Ëvuv'tt KUptoU, KUt à1tOKuÂ.6\j1Et 't~v KEcpUÎ-.1)V 't~ç yUVatKOÇ ... , Èv oÈ 'tÎ\ XEtpt 'tou
iEpÉOlÇ Ëcr'tut 'to IlOOlp 'tou ÈÎ-.Ey).lOU wu ÈlttKU'tUpOl).lÉVOU 'tou'tou' KUt opKtEl a\J't1)v 0
iEpEÙÇ KUt ÈpEt 'tÎ\ yuVatKt Et ).l1) lŒKot).ll]'tUt 'ttç ).lE'tà. crou ... àSé!>u '(crSt ...
18. Übersetzung nach W. KRAus - M. KARRER (Hgg.), Septuaginta Deutsch. Das
griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesell-
schaft,2009.
19. Nach Gen 41,45.
20. Zu Gen 41,45.50 und 46,20 ist aus den jüngeren Übersetzungen keine Namens-
NAMENSETYMOLOGIEN ZUR HEBRÂISCHEN BIBEL 173
wU'd ausbreiten' hat noch nicht der Name des Herren <l>oU1:t<j>up, sondem
erst der des Schwiegervaters <l>oU1:t<j>upt; tatsachlich lasst sich der langere
Name in der hexaplarischen Form so etymologisieren 2! . In der Darstel-
lung des Origenes scheint der Zusatz eine kt Anerkennung zu enthalten,
fast wie ein EhrentiteF2. An der Identitat der Personen wird festgehalten.
Wenn das Fragment 1940 Petit der Genesiskatene auf diese Weise
richtig verstanden ist, lasst sich ein weiteres Katenenfragment (1812
Petit) einordnen, mit dem auf den Zusammenhang unseres ersten Frag-
mentes vorausgewiesen wird; es ist der Episode zugeordnet, aIs Josef
yom Âgypter Potifar gekauft wird (Gen 37,36). Hier bereitet Origenes
die Mitteilung vor, dieser sei identisch mit dem Potifar, der in der Erzah-
lung spater aIs sein Schwiegervater begegnen wird (Gen 41,45), und es
habe eine besondere Bewandtnis mit den zwei verschiedenen Namens-
fOlmen 23 . Hier wieder die Übersetzung mit verdeutlichenden Zusatzen:
"Potifar" wird von Aquila und Symmachus an diesel' SteHe "Futifar"
genannt, an anderer SteHe "Futifari". Die Bedeutung des hier gebrauchten
Namens [also "Futifar a , nicht "Potifar a ] ist dem Wort [do h. der Form
"Futifari a] benachbart; die (sc. von der Septuagmta abweichende) Über-
variante rur Josefs Schwiegervater belegt (s. F. FIELD, Origenis Hexaplorllln quae super-
sunt; sive veterum illterpretum GraecorulIl in totum Vetus testamelltwn fragmenta, ...
concinnavit, emendavit, et muItis partibus auxit, Oxonii, ex Typographeo Claredoniano,
1875 und WEVERS, Genesis [Anm. 9]), aber <l>oU'tlcpa.pt ist nach der Beschreibung aIs
Variante zu <l>oU'tlcpa.p wahrscheinlich; sonst hie6e es dort nicht, im Namen des Vaters
von Josefs Braut sei <l>oU'tlcpa.p enthaIten (To ).lÈv I[>ovpr/(pàp sv ôvo).lU'tl 'tou 1tu'tpoç
~.cr'tl, S. Anm. 12). - Wenn in der Übersetzung "Futifar" und "Futifari" rur die jüngeren
Ubersetzungen gebraucht wird, so ist die Schreibung an die Namensformen der Ein-
heitsübersetzung angeglichen.
21. Nach Auskunft von Fr. Dr. Cordula Bandt unterscheiden sich die beiden Namens-
formen in der hebriiischen Schreibweise allein dadurch, dass an den Namen des Schwie-
gervaters ein Buchstabe, das Ayin, angehiingt ist. Das entspricht dem Unterschied der
beiden Namen Foutifar und Foutifari in Catel/a in Gellesim (vgl. Anm. 3), Frg. 1812 PETIT,
und tatsiichlich ist es nicht ganz abwegig, das Ayin mit Iota zu transkribieren, immerhin
fungiert diesel' Buchstabe aIs Vokaltriiger (wenn auch hiiufiger rur a- und e-Laute). Durch
die Erweiterung der zweiten Silbe des Namens Potiphar um das Ayin wird diese Silbe zu
dem Verb para (pe-resch-ayin), welches nach M. JASTROW (A Dictiol/a/Y of the Targumim,
the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, alld the Midrashic Literature, New York, The Judaica
Press ~c., 1992 = London 1903, s. v.) bedeutet: 1. to tear, to loosen, dis arrange, to neglect
the hall'; 2. to uncover. In diesel' Bedeutung wird das Verb in Num 5,18 von der Prüfung
der verdiichtigen Ehefrau verwendet. Die Etymologie ist also nach dem damaligen Ver-
stiindnis von Etymologien voll und ganz berechtigt. - Ignoriert wird freilich, dass es sich
um iigyptische, nicht hebriiische Namen handeln müsste.
22. Beachte 'tou ).lE'tà. 'tuu'tu 1tPUXSÉVtOç ()1t' uùwu 't1)v 1tpocrSijK'lV 06v'tOç wu
ôvo).luwç.
23. Catena in Gellesim (vgl. Anm. 3), Frg. 1812 PETIT, zu Gen 37,36; in der Edition
der GCS (vgl. Anm. 2) künftig E 99: "IIE'tEcpp1)ç" 1tUpà. 'AKUÀQ. KUt ~U).l).la.Xep
I[>ovruprip (Gen [Aqu., Symm.] 37,36) s'(Pl]'tut Èv 'tou'tep 'té!> 't01tep, Èv oÈ É'tÉpep
I[>OVrupriPI (Gen [Aqu., Symm.] 41,45). ~ ).lÈv 'tou 1tUpOVWç ôvo).lu'toç êp).ll]vdu
1tUpa.KEt'tUt 'tÎ\ Î-.ÉSEt, ~ oÈ ËKOOcrtÇ 'tou É'tÉpou Èv 'toiç ÉS~ç CPUVEl'tUt.
174 K.METZLER
tragung der anderen Namensfonn24 [" Futifari H] wird im Folgenden auftau-
chen.
Der Blick soll sich abschlieBend auf die exegetische Methode dieses
Fragments richten. Dazu ist die jüdische Tradition niiher zu betrachten
auf die sich Origenes für diese Fassung der Geschichte von Josef und de:
Frau des Potifar beruft. In der literarischen Tradition liisst sie sich nicht
fassen, nur vereinzelt die Identifizierung beider Miinner; dies hat Anna
Tzvetkova in einem noch ungedruckten Aufsatz analysiert25 . Danach
wird im Jubiliienbuch, bei Philo, Josephus und im Roman "Joseph und
Aseneth" kein Zweifellaut, dass der Hen und der Schwiegervater Josefs
zwei verschiedene Personen sind. Ihre Identitiit wird einzig in der "Gene-
sis .Rabbah" postulieIt, ist dort aber mit einer giinzlich anderen Etymo-
logIe verbunden: Der Name des Schwiegervaters Potiphera bedeutet nach
diesel' Quelle ,el' enthüllte, entblOBte sich zur Sternenverehrung'26.
Für die Rekonstruktion der erziihlerischen Varianten spielt auch dieje-
nige Tradition eine Rolle, nach der Asenat Tochter der Dina ist, die von
Potifar adoptiert wurde, also Josefs Nichte 27 ; diese Konstruktion der
rabbinischen Exegese soll offenbar ausschlieBen, dass Josef eine nicht-
jüdische Frau heiratet28 . In Origenes' Fassung wird eine solche Verbin-
dung nicht geleugnet, aber ihr AnstoB dadurch gemildert, dass sowohl
Asenat aIs auch Potifar moralisch aufgewertet werden.
Mithilfe diesel' Variante gibt es eine (wenn auch unsichere) Môglich-
keit, die Reminiszenz der von Origenes bezeugten Fassung in einer bild-
licher Darstellung zu entdecken, die auf jüdischer Überlieferung beruht,
niimlich in der Darstellung der Potifar-Episoden in der Wiener Genesis 29 .
24.. !vIit dem Wort ihd5oO'lC; werden insbesondere die gegenüber der Septuaginta jün-
geren Ubersetzungen des hebriiischen Bibeltextes bezeichnet; gemeint ist also die Über- '
tragung "Futifari" fur den Schwiegervater Josefs in den genannten Bibelausgaben von
Aquila und Symmachus.
~5. A. TZVETKOVA-GLA.SER, Joseph and His Egyptian Family in the Interpretation of
?/'lgen and ~he Early Rabbis, Vortrag, gehalten 2008 beim Kolloquium "Rewritten Bible"
m Karku (Fmnland), erscheint in Stl/dies on Rewritten Bible 3.
26. Vgl. J. THEODOR - Ch. ALBEcK (Hgg.), Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition
with Notes and Commentmy, Jemsalem, Wahrmann Books, 21965, s. 1054.
27. H. FREEDMAN - M. SIMON (Hgg.), Midrash Rabbah. Translated into English with
Notes, Glossmy and Indices (10 Bde.). With a foreword by 1. Epstein, London - Jemsalem -
~ew York, Son?ino-Press, 21977, S. 829. Eine weitere Andeutung der Blutsverwandtschaft,
d.Je behauptete Ahnlichkeit Asenats mit Josephs Mutter Rachel, wird E. REVEL, CO/ltribl/-
tlOn des te::tes rabbiniques à l'étude de la Genèse de Vienne, in Byzantion 42 (1972)
115-130, hIer S. 128 Anm. 1 angefuhrt.
28. So TZVETKO~:<\-GLAsER, Joseph (Anm. 25).
29. Cod. Wien, ONB, theol. gr. 31,6. Th., aus dem syrisch-antiochenischen Raum
fol. 16r und 16v. Faksimile und Kommentar: O. MAzAL, Kommentar zur Wiener Genesis'
Faksimile-Ausgabe des Codex theol. gr. 31 der Osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek il;
Wien, FrankfurtjM., Insel Verlag, 1980 (zur syrisch-anliochenischen Herkunft ibid. s. 100).
NAMENSETYMOLOGIEN ZUR HEBRÂISCHEN BIBEL 175
Wiihrend andere auf frühe Ikonographie zuruckgehende Illustrationen,
die Cotton Genesis 30 und mehrere byzantinische Handschriften31 , das
Personal auf Josef, Potifar und seine Frau beschriinken, sind die Gescheh-
nisse niimlich in der Wiener Genesis in mehreren, vielfigurigen Illustra-
tionen dargestellt; zentral sind in unserem Zusammenhang diejenigen auf
fol. 161' und 16v. Auf der in zwei Bildstreifen angeordneten Darstellung
auffol. 161' ist eine Szene eindeutig (links oben: die Frau des Potifar liegt
in einem Innenraum im Bett und hiilt den Mantel Josefs fest, Josef aber
flieht; rechts daneben steht el' in einer weiteren Darstellung, auf die
Szene zuruckblickend), die übrigen sind kontrovers diskutiert worden32 .
Plausibel erscheint die auf Elisabeth ReveP3 zurückgehende, von Otto
MazaP4 und Barbara Zimmermann35 unterstützte Deutung, dass neben
und untel' der Velführungsszene in Rückblick und Vorschau das Schick-
saI der Asenat dargestellt wird: Oben sitzt das Kleinkind Asenat in einem
Bottich, eine Dienerin halt die Tafel, auf der Asenats Herkunft enthüllt
wU'd, eine Wahrsagerin prophezeit ihre spiitere Heirat mit Josef. Auf dem
unteren Bildstreifen ist (nach der genannten Deutung) Asenat mit einem,
ihren jüngeren Kind auf dem Ann zu sehen, eine Dienerin36 beschaftigt
sich mit dem iilteren Kind, eine weitere Dienerin und zwei Biiume ver-
vollstiindigen den Bildstreifen. Auf fol. 16v wU'd die Anklage, die die
Frau des Potifar erhebt, in zwei Bildstreifen erziihlt: Auf dem oberen eilt
Potifar seinem Haus zu, wiihrend die Frau das Geschehen Hausgenossen
erziihlt; eine Dienerin steht halb hinter ihr; auf dem unteren Bildstreifen
erhebt sie die Anklage vol' Potifar; die Dienerin priisentiert hier den Man-
tel aIs Beweisstück. Auf dem unteren Bildstreifen ist links (untel' ver-
schiedenen Pers onen des Haushalts Potifars) eine vornehme Dame im
lebhaften Gespriich mit einem Mann gezeigt (der Mann ist dargestellt wie
Potifar in den beiden anderen Szenen); beide Figuren weisen mit ihren
Hiinden auf die sich rechts anschlieBende Gerichtsszene. In der Dame
30. London, BL, cod. Cotton Ott. B VI, fol. 81r und 81v. Faksimile: K. WEITZMANN-
E.T. DEWALD, The Cotton Genesis. British Librmy Codex Cotton OtllO B. VI, The illustra-
tions in the manuscripts of the Septuagint 1, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1986.
31. K. WEITZMANN - M. BERNABO (Hgg.), The Byzantine Octateuchs, ... , with the
collaboration of Rita FARASCONI. Plates, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1999.
32. Referiert bei B. ZIMMERMANN, Die Wiener Genesis im Rahmen der antiken Buch-
'~1Glerei: !kO/lOgral!hie, Darstellung, Illustrationsvelfahren und AI/ssageintention (Spiitan-
IIke - Fmhes Chnstentum - Byzanz. Kunst im ersten Jahrtausend, B/13), Wiesbaden,
Reichert, 2003, S. 155-162.
33. REVEL, Contribution (Anm. 27), S. 123-130.
34. MAzAL, Kommentar (Anm. 29), S. 153.
35. ZIMMERMANN, Wiener Genesis (Anm. 32), S. 155-160.
36. Die Figur kann nicht mit der Frau des Polifar identifiziert werden, s. zuletzt
ZIMMERMANN, Wiener Genesis (Anm. 32), S. 158.
176 K.METZLER
links erkennt Revel Asenat37 , wie auch in anderen Illustrationen: Asenat
vor dem Gefiingnis Josefs 38 und bei der Segnung Efraims und Manasses
durch Jakob 39 • Allerdings wird Asenat auf allen Bildern anders darge-
stellt: Weder ihre Kleidung noch ihre Gesichtsfarbe stimmt überein; nur
die Ansicht ihre Gesichts im Halbprofil auf fol. 16-17 wiedel'holt sich40 •
Man konnte also in der Illustration auf fol. 16v einen Reflex auf unsere
Fassung entdecken: Links unten konnte dal'gestellt sein, wie Asenat ihren
Adoptivvater Potifar über den wahren Vorgang zwischen Josef und ihrer
Adoptivmutter aufkliirt, noch ehe er die Anklage seiner Frau anhort.
(Dass Potifar Josef nicht tOten, sondern ins Gefiingnis werfen liisst, wird
übrigens in rabbinischer Auslegung dadurch erkliirt, dass el' von der
Unschuld Josefs überzeugt ist4 1.) Freilich bleibt diese Deutung der Dar-
stellung in der Wiener Genesis Spekulation, da es keine Illustration gibt,
auf der der Frau des Potifar "das Haupthaar gelOst" wird.
AbschlieBend sollen das an diesem Fragment gewonnene Bild auf die
exegetische Methode des Origenes hin betrachtet werden.
Auf der einen Seite steht die erziihlerische Fassung der Josefs-
Geschichte, die in der Bibel nicht zu finden ist - wie liisst sich ihre
Entstehung vorstellen? Sie verfolgt erkennbar eine Intention (wie oben
angemerkt, die Erklmung, warum Josef eine nichtjüdische Frau heiratet),
aber es ist nicht plausibel, dass sie aus dieser Intention (sozusagen aus
der narrativ-literarischen Binnenlogik) heraus konstruiert wurde. Man
kann sich auch nicht vorstellen, dass die Geschichte aus erziihlerischen
Motiven entwickelt wurde; dagegen sprechen die hier rekonstruierten
etymologischen Namensdeutungen, die am Anfang der erziihlerischen
Ausgestaltung gestanden haben müssen, da es nicht vorstellbar ist, dass
sich die Etymologien problemlos einer narrativ entwickelten Geschichte
einfügten. Vielmehr ist die narrative Deutung der jüdischen Tradition aus
den etymologischen (oder besser "etymologisierenden") Namensdeutun-
gen herausgesponnen, sie ist also eine Spekulation aufgrund der ange-
nommenen Etymologie.
Auf der anderen Seite steht Origenes, der diese Spekulation in der jüdi-
schen Tradition vorfand, wenn sich ihre Spur auch nicht mehr nachweisen
37. Zur Identifizierung REVEL, Contribution (Anm. 27), S. 129; Abbildungen S. 132-
133, dort Abb. 6: Asenat auf fol. 16v.
38. Ibid., S. 133, Abb. 5 (fol. 17r).
39. Ibid., S. 133, Abb. 7 (fol. 18v).
40. Nach MAZAL, Kommentar (Anm. 29), S. 166 stammen die lllustrationen auffol. 16
und 17 vom Miniator VII, dem Meister der Jugendgeschichte Jakobs, fol. 18 hingegen
vom Miniator XI, dem Meister des Jakobstodes. Zumindest Miniator VII batte also die
Miiglichk:eit gehabt, Asenat so einheitlich darzustellen wie Josef.
41. TZVETKoVA-GLAsER, Joseph (Anm. 25) mit Verweis auf THEODOR - ALBECK,
Midrash (Anm. 26), S. 1074.
NAMENSETYMOLOGIEN ZUR HEBRAISCHEN BIBEL 177
liisst, da sie literarisch ganz fehlt4 2 und ikonographisch nur postuliert wer-
den kann. Origenes hat sie jedenfalls, so muss man aus seinen Angaben
folgern, von seinen jüdischen Gewiihrsleuten erfahren (und zwar in allen
ihren wesentlichen Zügen43 ). Er nimmt sie bereitwillig auf; el' ist an sol-
chen jüdischen Ausdeutungen des biblischen W Oltlauts in einer erziihle-
rischen Ausformung interessiert. lm Genesiskommentar kommt eine wei-
tere Adaption diesel' Art vor, niimlich die Erziihlvariante zur Geschichte
yom trunkenen und entbloBten Noach und seinen Sohnen44 •
Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin Karin METZLER
Theologische Fakultiit
Lehrstuhl für Âltere Kirchengeschichte
Unter den Linden 6
D 10099 Berlin
karin.metzler@rz.hu-berlin.de
42. S. o. bei Anm. 25.
43. Eine plausible Scheidung, nach der Origenes die Fassung zu einem entscheid~nd~n
Teil erst entwickelt batte, ist nicht erreichbar, weil die zugrunde gelegte Etymologie die
ganze Episode begrundet. . .,. .
44. F. PETIT (Hg.), Catenae Graecae in Genesim et Exodum. Il. CollectlO COlsIl/uana III
Genesim (CCSG, 15), Turnhout, Brepols; Leuven, University Press, 1986, ~ragment. ~60
(Sekundii.rüberlieferung: Catena in Gel/esim [wie~. 3~], Fr~. 779 PETIT),. m der Edition
der GCS (vgl. Anm. 2) k:ünftig E 20; hier gibt allerdmgs rucht eme etymologlsche amens - .N
deutung den AnIass zum Ausspinnen, sondem _ein scheinbru;er ~id~rspruc~ des BI?e~w0:t­
lauts: Tt 8ipto'te einoi3O'a lj ypa<!>~' "Kat ftO'av ot utot NIDE ESEPX0J.levot ano 't~S
Kt~ID1:OU L~J.l, XUJ.l, 'Iu<!>Eli", npoO'ÉST)Kev' "Kat XàJ.l a1nàs na't~p Xavauv"; ~i ya~
ÈXpijv J.lvllJ.lovei3O'at 'trov utrov, ~OEt nuv'tID_v Kat ~Tt J.lovou TXa~auv. _0 Xav_aav K~n
a1nàs ÙO'E~TtS ÈyÉVEW, mS lj tO''topta OT)Àot. ~ouÀoJ.levov ouv 'to_n':,EuJ.l<,: OElsat 't:9 v
OJ.loto'tT)'ta 'toi3 na'tpàs npàs 'tàv utov, 'tponov 'twà ùnaÀÀo'tplOt 'tIlS 'tIDV ÙO:À<!>C;?v
EùO'E~eias, npoO'S~KD 1:OU "XàJ.l aù'tàs na't~p Xavauv". utot J.lÈv yàp nuv'tES 'tou NIDE
'tep yÉVEt, J.lovoS OÈ OI'noS OÙX utàS 'tep 'tpomjl, ùÀÀà 1:013 oJ.loiou ~atùàs n_a't~p' O,tonE~
ÈJ.l<!>a'ttKros KEt"tat 'tà "aù'tàs na'tl']p Xavauv". ~<!>EpE oè 0 'E~palOS 0 'tau'ta EinIDV Kat
napuooO'w 'totaU'tIlV, ÈnevEyKrov ùnoOEtSW 'tfj napaù6O'Et, mS apa 0 Xavaàv npo'tEP?S
doe 'tl']v ùO'XT)J.loO'uvllv 1:013 nunnou, Kai ÙV~yyEtÀEV aù:oi3 'tep na:,pi J.lOVC(l, Ka'taJ.l~KID:
J.lEVOS roO'nEp 'toi3 yÉpov'tOS' 0 oÈ XUJ.l, oÉoy oJ.lOiIDS 'tot,s ùoeÀ<!>ots J.ll'] npoO'eÀ~E~v 'tep
na'tpi ùO'e~ros, ùÀÀà Kai È1ttnÀijsat ,:ep npID't,C(l SE,aO'aJ.lEVC(l ~at ~tapétÀÀov_'tt, au;os o~
Kai nÉnEtO''tat Kai EiO'ijÀSEV, Kat EiOEV, Kat_ ÙVIlVEyKE Kat 'totS aoeÀ<!>OIS. 'tau'ta ~E
OOKEl J.li3SoS dVat, Et J.lTt 'tà 'tijs ùnoOEiSEIDS ilv iO'xupov. Kal èçvnv{aS'1 yup <!>Ilcrt Nwe
èK 'taU unvov au'tau, Kal 8YVW oaa ènoftWev aurép 0 vlàç aurou 0 flllcporepoç (Gen ?,2~).
J.ltKpOS J.lÈv yàp utàS aÙ1:Oi3 0 XàJ.l OÙK ~V, ùÀÀà oeU'tEpos' "Ll']J.l" yup <!>T)O't "Kat XaJ.l
Kai 'Iu<!>eo". Kai et 'tàv J.ltKpàv ilSEÀE OElSat, tàv 'Iét<!>EO ~ÀEyEV. ÈnEtOTt oÈ Ka~ êyyo-
VOUS utoùs ÙEt ÀÉyouO'w ot nunnot Kai 'tOÙS J.l,a~po~Ev ùnoyo~ouS,_'tàv}p~xu't~'t~V
'trov ÈyyOVIDV 'tàv Xavaàv ~ÀeyEv liv lj ypa<!>T) EyvIDO'Sat nap~ wu NIDE on, a~1:OS
ênotT)O'E 'tai3m. Kai on 1:Oi3'to olhIDS ~XEt, eùSùs Ènuyet 'tà SElOV Àoytov' Km emev'
ènllca'tlJ.pa'taç Xavativ, oouÀoç OOI5ÀWV 8arm 'taî'ç àOeÀifJoî'ç aurou (Gen 9,25). Et OÉ 'tt5
SauJ.létSot 'ti o~no'tE 0 XàJ.l Kai aù'tàs ÙO'E~TtS rov, 'tl']v aù'tl']v Ka'tupav OÙK ~O'XE :'C(l
utep, Èmyvcll'tID mS Et ~v ÀEÀEYJ.lÉVOV 't<V XàJ.l o~uÀoç o~t5À;Ov 8arm (~en 9,2~), 'tT)S
oouÀetas J.lE'tEixov liv ot ùoeÀ<!>ot aù'toi3, ms ot 'tou Xavaav aOEÀ<!>ol oouÀot ÈyEVOV'tO
Ka'tà 'tTtV Ka'tétpav, &v ooi3Àos ùnE<!>uVST) Xavaétv.
 CHANGING MOODS
ORIGEN'S UNDERSTANDING OF EXEGESIS AS
A SPIRITUAL ATTUNEMENT TO THE GRIEF AND THE JOY OF
A MESSIANIC TEACHER

What l am about to present is an elaboration on a previous study on

Origen's notion of "gospel" (EÙUyyÉ,,-tov)l, which l would like to sum-
marize first very briefly. As it is weil known, Origen attributes the denom-
ination of "gospel" both to the self-communication of the Word (,,-oyoS)
to a community of religiously congregated exegetes in the form of the
words (,,-oyot) of the Bible and to the plural henneneutical reception of
this scripturally communicated Word2 • Origen calls the self-communica-
tion of the Word in the scriptural words a biblical-exegetical coming (8m-
orUliu), which comports two main aspects 3 • As annunciation or 81tuyyE,,-iu,
this coming is a condescending communication of the Logos to the fallen,
less than pelfect, receptors, while, as à1tUyyE,,-iu or report, the coming
Logos discloses to the spiritually advanced the Îlllmemoriai origin (àpxiJ)
of His revelatOly mission or God the Father's philanthropic mandaté. The
textual medium of the condescending coming of the Logos or the annun-
ciation is the Law and the Prophets, for the Old Testament, and the gospels
of Matthew, Luke and Mark, for the New Testament5 • By contrast, the
medium of the exalted coming of the Logos or the report consists in the
so-cailed deuterotic passages of the OT, among which the Song of Songs
is the most prominent, and in the Gospel of John, for the NT. Origen goes
as far as maintaining that the entire Bible is a condescending-exalted gos-
pel, that is, a textual replica of the historical manifestation of the Logos as
epitomized in Logos' incarnation. l have called this textual replica of the
incarnation an in-textuation. At the same time, Origen renders the disci-
ple's reception of the textually coming Logos as a transfonnative respon-
siveness to the Logos or as a sort of exegetic "welcoming" of the Logos 6 •

1. M.V. NrcuLEScu, Spiritual Leavening: The Communication and Reception of the

Good News in Origen' s Biblical Exegesis and Transformative Pedagogy, in JECS Volume
15, Number 4 (2007) 447-481.
2. Ibid., pp. 454-467.
3. See graph A.
4. NrcULEscu, Spiritual Leal'ening (n. 1), pp. 448-453.
5. See graph B.
6. For the contrast between a welcoming and a hostile reception of the Logos, see
 180 M.V. NICULESCU
In brief, in the above mentioned study, l defined Origen's notion of "gos-
pel" as the exegetical welcoming of the twofold, announcing and reporting,
textual coming of the Logos.
In yet another study7, l submitted that the above definition of the gos-
pel offers an insight into the common gl'Ound of Origenian exegesis and
didactics. l have argued that the Bible, which is a textual incamation (an
in-textuation) of the Word in the exegetically received biblical words 8 ,
and the school-cuniculum, which is a doctrinal incamation (one may
call it an "in-doctrination") of the Logos in a Bible-based teaching or
doctrine, are kindred advents 01' comings of the same news-bearing
Logos. Consequently, they require the exegete's or the disciple's hospi-
table welcoming of the intextuated and indoctrinated Logos, i.e. a caring
meditative observance (JlEÂ-É'tll) of Logos's plural advent9. This obser-
vance follows the graduaI dispensation of Logos' biblical teaching in
three steps; first, as a condescending ethical pedagogy, through the
exegesis of the Law and the gospels of Matthew and Luke, epitomized
in the book of Proverbs; secondly, as a higher but still condescending
physical pedagogy, through the exegesis of the Prophets and the Gospel
of Mark, epitomized in the book of the Ecc1esiastes, and, finally, as an
exalted pedagogy, through the exegesis of the Song of Songs and the
Gospel of John, epitomized in the epoptic treatise of the Song of Songs lO •
In this presentation l shall not insist on the doctrinal content of the
Origenian curriculum or on the scenario ofhis transfonnative pedagogyll.
l shall concentrate, instead, on a specific aspect of Origen's exegetic
Origen's interpretation of Mt 26,3-5 and Mt 26,1-3 in Origen, CMtS 74-76 (GCS 11, 174-
178) and Origen, FrMt 520 (GCS 12,213). The exegesis of Mt 26,1-3 focuses on the
spiritual and moral Interpretation of the delivery (napaoomç) of the Son into the hands of
men, while the comments on Mt 26,3-5 focus on the idea of the arrest of the Son. Accord-
ing to Origen, CMtS 76 (GCS 11,176-178) the alTest should be related to two forms of
exegesis, the negative or the literaI, and the positive or the spiritual. The good (paternal)
and the bad (demonic) delivery of the coming Logos to humanity are related to the good
(spiritual and welcoming) and the bad (literaI or abusive) exegesis of the Bible. The Son
could be delivered positively by the Father and received positively by the spiritual exegete
(the good or welcoming "alTest" of the Logos in the halls of one's spiritual Interpretation),
or He can be detained (delivered by ruse and retained by constraint) in the halls of the
new Caiaphas (Mt 26,3) who is the heterodox exegete.
7. See M.V. NICULESCU, The Spell of the Logos: Origen's Exegetic Pedagogy in the
COlltemporary Debate regarding Logocentrism, Piscataway, NI, Gorgias, 2009,
pp. 94-113.
8. Origen, CMtS 27 (GCS 11, 45); HLv 1.1 (SC 286,66); Prin 4.2.8 (SC 268, 332-
334).
9. This parallelism is discussed in K.I. TORJESEN, Hermeneutical Procedure and Theo-
logical Method in Origen's Exegesis, New York, de Gruyter, 1986, pp. 113-118.
10. See graph B.
11. See NICULESCU, Spell of the Logos (n. 9), pp. 93-101.
CHANGING MOODS 181
pedagogy, namely, the shift in the moods of the teacher and the disciple
during the welcoming of the double, condescending and exalted, advent
of the Logos. l intend to show that, for Origen, moods are indicative of
the work by which the filial Logos brings humanity into a spiritual accord
with God the Father, which may be more conveniently called an attune-
ment 12 • As we are about to see, the possibility of this attunement can be
12. Origen's qualification of humanity and the Logos as beings that exist in the mode
"according to a model" (see Origen, CIo 1.104-105 [GCS 4, 22]) should not prevent one
from noticing the more complex way in which the iconic relation between the image and
its model appears descrlbed in Origen's work. There is a whole range of biblical and/or
Platonist images that is attached to this relation. According to Origen, CC 8.12 (SC 150,
200) this relation has the features of a co-incidence of wills (ravrar1Jç roD povÀflf/aroç),
sarne-mindedness (of/avola) and, last but not least, attunement (avf/ifJwvia). The same
passage establishes a cOlTelation between the unity of the Father and the Son according to
In 10,30 ("The Father and 1 are one") and the unity of the believers according to Acts
4,32 (" ... the whole group of those who believed were of one he art and soul. .. "). Thus,
the iconic relation implies a certain inter-noetic (heart to heart) attunement with ecclesi-
astic, liturgical and psychological overtones, but, more essentiaIly, it designates attun-
ement as an existential condition. As Crouzel puts it in a very perceptive remark towards
the end of his Théologie de l'image " .. .la créature humaine est un être excentré, elle a en
quelque sorte son centre hors d'elle même, en Dieu. Le selon-l'image reçu à la création
n'est pas seulement une puissance et un début de divinisation, il est aussi une tendance,
un appel, qui pousse l'homme en avant à la rechereche d'un équilibre qu'il obtiendra
seulement dans la ressemblance et l'union divine, dans la gloire de la fin des temps".
H. CROUZEL, Théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène, Paris, Aubier - Éditions Mon-
taigne, 1956, p. 262. My choice for "attunement" to designate Origen's and Crouzel's less
translatable formula "the 'according to the image'" is based on the comprehensiveness of
this telm as well as its flexibility in capturing the dynamic of the inter-personal acts of
relating to God, which are also existential acts of the humans. Through its musical and
therefore affective resonances, the term will also serve weIl my "mood" focused analysis
of the mouming and joyful relatedness of the teacher to the disciple. 1 considered also that
the rendering of being-according-to by a Platonist equivalent such as "participation" and
"kindredness", would have nalTowed the discussion too much to a speculative meta-
physical dimension. For a detailed discussion of these Platonist speculative equivalents of
the iconic relation, which are obviously part of Origen's theological discourse, see CROU-
ZEL, Théologie de l'image, pp. 160-175. As will be shown, attunement involves a more
than speculative stance on the part of both the disciple and the teacher; it involves the
working out of a receptive disposition for the pedagogy of the Logos, one that is liturgical
as weIl as psychological. For example of this liturgical-psychological dimension of attun-
ement see Origen, CC 5.5 (SC 147,22-24).
My qualification of Origen's view of humanity as a being "according-to" has, Heideg-
gerian overtones. In my use of the term "attunement" 1 shall retain, two aspects of
Heidegger's existential analytic of the Daseill as a being-in-the-world and a being-towards-
death. In the first place, 1 shall retain Heidegger's manner of referring to the being that
humans are (the Dasein) not simply as a being that may or may not enter into various
relations with other beings (either objects or persons); instead, the kind of being that
humans are is essentially a form of comportment towards environing beings and, more
profoundly, towards Being as such. In this sense, for Heidegger, we exist constitutively in
the modes being-in, being-towards, or being-with. If one leaves aside the specific onto-
logical and existential dimensions of Heidegger's analysis of Dasein, it is possible to see
here an analogy with Origen's Bible-induced insistence on calling humanity a being-
182 M.V. NICULESCU
traced baek to Origen' s understanding of Logos' divinity both as eompas-
sionate or mouming and as exalted or joyous love. 1 shall eonclude my
investigation with a suggestion on the role that this filial love plays in
the shaping of a pedagogie exegesis sueh as Origen's.
* tlUth when considered in relation to the Father himself, and the image, when
Allow me to dwell for a moment on Origen's understanding of the
notion of aecordanee or being-in-aecord (KU 'tu). In preparation of this
discussion, it is important to note the conelation that Origen draws
between the Son's condescension from an exalted to a humble condi-
tion 13, on the one hand, and the typological reading of sacred histOly as
the progressive revelation of a messianic future that unfolds from a pre-
figuration or shadow (<YKtU) to an inereasingly accurate image (dKcOV)
according-to (God) and a being-in (the Image). Not unlike Heidegger's being-in, Origen's
expression being-according-to clarifies the fact that humanity has not been made as a
particular entity subsequently to be brought in iconic accord with a mode!. Being-in-accord
is the constitutional feature of humanity. The second aspect that 1 would like to retain from
Heidegger's existential analysis of Dasein is the qualification of Dasein's "connected-
ness" to that towards whichJwhom it comports itself and, ultimately, to Being, as an
essential (not just episodie or accidentaI) attunement (Stimmz/Ilg). Like the German notion
of Stimmung, the English notion of "attunement" conveys at once the idea of accord and
the affective overtone of this accord. Heidegger's point is that our being in essential accord
with that toward which we corn port our selves necessarily implies a profound mood of
accordance with the world and with Being as such. The subsequent development of tbis
essay will indicate how the joyous mood of the spiritually advancing disciple can be traced
to the disciple's recovery of his constitutional accordance with the Logos, i.e. his Logos-
attunement. For a synthetic presentation of Heidegger's analytic of Dasein see the intro-
duction of bis Being and Time (M. HEIDEGGER, Being and Time, trans. J. MacqualTie -
E. Robinson, San Francisco, CA, HarperCollins, 1962, pp. 21-67). A clear and synthetie
discussion of the notion of comportment-towards in relation to the notion of intentionality
can be found in M. HEIDEGGER, Basic Problems of Phenomenology, Translation, futroduc-
tion and Lexicon by Alfred HOFSTADTER, Bloomington, IN, fudiana University Press,
1988, pp. 55-76. My use of the notion of attunement has been suggested by David Farrell
Krell's translation of M. Heidegger's essay "What is Metaphysies?". See, in this sense,
M. HEIDEGGER, Basic Writings. Edited by David FalTell KRELL, San Francisco, CA,
Harper, 1992, pp. 92-111, especially the following passage on page 100: "Such being-
attuned [Gestimmtsein], in wbich we "are" one way or another and which detelTllÏnes us
through and through, lets us find ourselves arnong beings as a whole. The founding mode
of attunement [die Befindlic1zkeit der Stim/llung] not only reveals beings as a whole in
various ways, but this revealing - far from being merely incidental - is also the basic
OCCUlTence of our Da-sein. What we call a "feeling" is neither a transitory epiphenomenon
of our thinking and willing behavior ["comportment", "Verhaltwzg". Our note V.N.] nor
sirnply an impulse that provokes such behavior [comportment] nor merely a present con-
dition we have to put up with somehow or another".
13. See Phil 2,5-8. Among Origen's many references to this passage see HLc 18.1
(SC 87,264); HIer 10.7 (SC 232, 410-12); CIo 20.152-159 (GCS 4, 350-351). fu HGn
1.13 (SC 7bis,60-62) Origen connects explicitly the Pauline doctrine of condescension
with the Son's condition of image.
CHANGING MOODS 183
of the eschatological reality (npa:Yllu)14 or truth (à,ÎviJBsta), on the
other l5 . The following passage in On First Principles illustrates Origen's
use of the typological terminology in relation to the Son's switch from
being "in the form of God" to being "in the form of the slave"16.
Our Saviol' is therefore the image of the invisible God, the Father, being the
considered in relation to us, to whom he reveals the Father17 •
The outcome of this conelation is a scenario of salvation by conde-
seension l8 , which matches, although in reverse, the ascendant course of
revelation's historical passage from image to truth. As Origen suggests,
Logos' exchange of the truth condition for that of image makes possible
humanity's advance from a somatic and psychic intemalization of the
Bible instantiated Logos as image to a noetic-pneumatic intemalization
of the Bible instantiated Logos as truth l9 •
14. Origen draws a distinction between the "shadow" (m(/a.) of the heavenly realities
mentioned in Heb 8,5 and the "image" (eùccôv) of realities in Heb 10,1. With the ~rival
of the messianic reality, the shadow will be removed, while everything becomes an Image
of an eschatological truth. For Origen the shadow is like the cl.ay figure ~hat precede~ the
making of a statue, wbich is an image of a real person. For tbis compans on, see ?ngen,
HIos 17.1 (SC 71,370) and Origen, HLev 10.1 (SC 287, 128-132). The condrtIOn of
humanity after the messianic first corning of Christ is one of an !mage pr01!!essing ~O\~ards
the eschatological truth of the second coming. However, occasIOnally, Ongen assinrilates
the shadow to the image as types, and opposes them to the notion of truth. See, for
example, Origen, CIo 2.49 (GCS 4, 60). A synthetic presentation ~f Origen's views on
this topie can be found in Origen, Prin 1.2.6 (GCS 5, 36) and Ongen, HPs 38.2.2 (SC
411,376-378). For more details see H. CROUZEL, Origène et la "connaissance /Ilystique" ,
Paris Desclée de Brouwer, 1961, pp. 31-36; pp. 216-225.
15. As Crouzel notes, what is usually believed to be a Platonist association between
reality and truth may also be a Biblical idea. fu John 4,23 "truth" is used as a .sy.non~m
for spiritual reality. Also John 1,9; 6,32 and 15,1 as weIl as Heb 8,2 and 9,24 dls.tmgmsh
between a true, i.e. real, something and its typological replica. See Crouzel's m-depth
discussion of tbis issue, in CROUZEL, Origène et la "connaissance mystique" (n. 14), pp.
31-35 and CROUZEL, Théologie de l'image (n. 12), p. 78, note 19.
16. See graph C. An explicit correlation of the linguistie family of the term flopifJ1l or
"forrn" in Phil 2,5-8 with the term el"CÔV or "image" and the expression lcar' eùcova or
"being according to the image" in Gen 1,26 can be found in Origen, CIo 6.252 (GCS
4, 157) and Origen, HGn 1.13 (SC 7bis, 60-62). See also Origen, CIo ,6:42 (C!"CS 4, 115).
The correlation is made possible by the treatment of the term flopifJ11 m Phil 2,5-8 as a
synonym of the terrn eùccôv in Col 1,15. For a discussion of Col 1,15 see Origen, Prin
1.2.6 (SC 252, 120).
17. Origen, On First Principles, Translation and Notes by G.W. BUTTERWORTH, New
York, Harper & Row, 1966, pp. 19-20. "Imago" ergo est" invisibilis dei" patri~ salvator
noster, quantu/Il ad ipsu/Il quidem patrem "veritas", quantu/ll autem ad nos, qmbus reve-
lat patre/ll, "imago" est". Origen, Prin 1.2.6 (SC 252,124). .
18. fu Origen, CCt Prol. 4.18 (SC 375,158) Origen relates Phl~ 2,6-7 ~o the ped~gogy
of the Logos. fu the same context, Origen quo tes 1 Cor 1,30, WhlCh he mterprets m the
sarne vein, as a testirnony for the pedagogic condescension of the Logos. .
19. The typological sequence is usually shadow-image-truth, taken as a progressIOn.
 184 M.V. NICULESCU
Origen explains the possibility, not just the actuality, of the trans-
historieal event which is Logos' condescension from an exalted to a hum-
ble condition20 , in strict correlation with the possibility of the fall of a
humanity made in God's image, or, to be more precise, in reference to
the virtual versatility of any being that exists in an iconic mode. An
enlightening passage in this respect is the following excerpt from the fU'st
book of The Commentmy on the Gospel of John:
Since the firstborn of aU creation is the image of the invisible God
(Col 1,15), the Father is his beginning. And likewise also Christ is the
beginning of those made according to the image of God (Gen 1,27).
For if men are "according to the image", and the image according to the
Father, the "according to which" of Christ, on the one hand, is the Father
his beginning, but, on the other hand, Christ is the "according to which" of
men, ,,:ho are made, not according to that of which Christ is the image, but
accordmg to the image21 •
Although, strictly speaking, the notion of image (etKcOv) characterizes
only the Logos, while the humans, who are not, per se, an image, are said
to exist "according to the image" of the Logos as a model or prototype22 ,
the Logos, too, as divine "image of the invisible God" exists in the mode
"according to" in regard to His model, who is the Father. By postulating
an according-to (Ku"Ca) manner of being, Origen does not de scribe only
humanity's actual emulation of the divine image or archetype, whieh is
the Logos, but also the condition of any being whose existence is struc-
turally a relatedness to a model23 . Thus, being created in the image of the
See for ex ample Origen, CIo 2.49 (OCS 4, 60). In Prin 1.2.56 (OCS 5, 36) Origen reverses
the progressive typological sequence when he describes the Son's condescension as a
passage from the higher title of truth to the lower one of image.
2.0' For a. referenc~ to the idea of condescendence in relation to the Logos as image,
notjust to His humaruty, see CMtS 135 (OCS 11,279). Otherwise, a synthe tic statement
on the condescendent character of Christ's humanity can be found in Origen CIo 1.103
~~~~ , 24. Origen, HGn 13.4 (SC 7bis, 328-330).
21: Origen, Commenta!'y ail the Gospel according ta JOhll, trans. Ronald E. HEINE,
W~shmgton, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 1989-1993, volume 1, p. 55.
Ongen, CIo 1.104-105 (OCS 4, 22). efnep e!Jewv w15 .geo15 w15 dopawv 0 npwrorO/coç
naafJç Kriaewç, dpx~ a{no15 0 narllP èar/V. o/wiwç oè Kal Xpraraç dpxI) '[())v Kar' e!Jeova
yevof./évwv .geo15. el yàp ollf.v.9pwnor »lCar' e!Jeova«, ~ ellCWl' oè Karà rav narépa, ra
flèv ICa.9' a wl! xpraw15 0 nar~p aPX1l, ra oè Ka.9' a rml' dv.9pwnwv 0 Xpraraç, yevof./él'wv
av ICarà ra av èar/l' e!Jewv, d,l.,tà Iwrà rI)v e!Jeova.
~2. Origen~ C!Io 1.104 (COS 4, 22). This interpretation can be found already in Philo,
Ql/IS re/'ll1n drvlllarlim heres 230-232 (LCL 261, 396-398) and Philo, QlIaestiones in
Genesim 2.62 (LCL 380, 150-151).
~3: T~e creation of humanity "according to the image" is correlated with the iconic
ass~~at~on ?f the creature to its divine model in Origen, CIo 13.280 (OCS 4, 268). The
assllllilatlOn lS based on a Platonizing reading of the tenn "image" in 2 Cor 3,18 ("trans-
CHANGING MOODS 185
Logos means being fundamentally "according-to" (Ku"Ca) the Logos, that
is, being in an essential ieonic accord with the Logos. This is the mode
of being that l previously called an attunement. It must be added that,
although constitutive and therefore indestructible24 , the initial attunement
of the human creature to the Logos can be misused by an emulation of
lower, ungodly, models 2s , which is usually the case when the soul suc-
cumbs to the influence of the passions 26 . This is also a reminder that,
although invariably accordant, the original humanity of Gen 1,27 can still
vary in its choiee of the object that it gets attuned to.
On the other hand, in addition to His sharing a privileged relation to
the Father27 , whieh, as one has learned from the above quotations, is
aletheie, the Logos is also said to be an image that exists in an accordant
manner2 8 • This condition of being-according-to, with its inherent possi-
bility of substituting the object of one's attunement for another object,
allows the Logos to respond to humanity's fall by exchanging His exalted
"for-the-Father" condition of truth for a condescending "for-us" condi-
tion of image. Nevertheless, unlike the hum ans that he aims to save, the
Logos proceeds to the switch from an exalted to a humble condition in a
condescending, rather than in a lapsarian way29.
In brief, the possibility of attunement (being-according-to) explains
both the coming of the Logos as a messianic teacher to the fallen
humanity as a potential disciple, and the shaping by this very coming
of a soteriological curriculum as Logos' pedagogie incarnation (His
in-doctrination)30. At the same time, humanity's condition of being-
fonned into the same image from glory to glory"). See also Origen, CIo 32.357 (OCS 4,
474). The ideas of accordance between an image and its prototype explained as a fonn of
participation is facilitated, to a large extent, by the LXX translation of Oen 1,26-27 with its
specific use of the preposition Icara. As Crouzel remarked, " ... ce Kara introduit dans la
Oen. 1, 26-27 les spéculations sur l'image intennédiaire: ce sera fait avec Philon, puis
avec les Pères" (CROUZEL, Théologie de l'image [n. 12], p. 50).
25. Origen, HLc 8.2-4 (SC 87, 166).
26. See Origen, FrLam 14 (OCS 3, 241). It is interesting to note that in the present
condition of humanity only the possibility of the accord is unchangeable, while the object
that is the aim of this accord is variable.
27. Origen, CIo 2.18 (OCS 4, 55); CIo 32.359 (OCS 4,474-475); CIo 1.283 (OCS 4,
50); CIo 1.104-105 (OCS 4, 22).
28. See graph C.
29. Origen, HLev 3.1 (SC 286, 120-122); HLev 13.2 (SC 352,412-413).
30. As Jesus is the Logos incarnate so the Oospel as the entire Bible is the Logos
intextuate. Origen, CMtS 27 (OCS 11,45); Origen, CMt 10.5 (SC 162, 156-158); Origen,
HLev 1 (SC 286, 66); Origen, HNm 23.6 (SC 29, 448). My contention is that the CUlTicu-
lum is a sort of pedagogical incarnation of the Logos, which l have called, in lack of a
better word, an in-doctrination.
 186 M.V. NICULESCU
in-accordance-with makes possible the reception (the "welcoming")
of the pedagogically coming Logos in the manner of a meditative
application (f.tëÀÉ'tll) to the practice of Logos' messianic curriculum3l .
Thus, l shall claim that the Origenian curriculum emerges as the dis-
ciple's ascendant attunement to the condescending, humanity-attuned
teacher through the disciple' s working out of a receptive, welcoming,
disposition for this teacher's messianic coming in the Bible as the
Bible.
The previous considerations on Origen's understanding of the notion
of attunement allow also for an overall approach to the Origenian school-
curriculum as an expression of the charitable (yjiofolding of the messianic
teacher as attested by the disciple's internalization (welcoming) of this
teacher's double (ethical-physical or iconic and epoptic or aletheic)
scriptural coming. It is, l think, quite evident that such an exegeticaUy
enacted pedagogy (the Bible as a school curriculum) that re-attunes
humanity to the Father was made possible by the sacrificial condescen-
sion32 of the filial Logos, i.e. that it is an expression of Logos' trans-
historic switch from a higher, "for the Father", attunement (the Saviol'
as truth) to a lower, "for us", attunement (the Saviol' as image)33. More-
over, humanity's faU can be said to have generated not only a split within
humanity; it has also occasioned a twofolding of the messianicaUy com-
ing Logos, or, as Origen puts it, it became the cause of Logos' spiritual,
meta-psychological, grief 34. This compassionate tum of the Logos from
joy to grief may be caUed the theological origin of Origen's scriptural
31. The application to the Scriptnre is double. One should approach it with an inquis-
itive disposition, in accordance with John 10,3, but one should also ask God to grant a
good outcome to one's research in accordance with Matthew 7,7 and Luke 11,9. See
Origen, EpGr 4 (SC 148,192-4).
32. For the sacrificial dimension of this condescension see Origen, HLev 7.2 (SC 286,
309).
33. Origen, Prin 1.2.6 (GCS 5, 36). The hierarchy of the epinoiai of Christ stands as
proof for this condescending conversion. The higher titles are those that the Son possesses,
so to speak, "naturally", while the lower ones are those that He has adopted only for the
sake of others. See Origen, CIo 2.125 (GCS 4, 75). Nevertheless, the titles that the Son
possesses "natnrally" are also shared with the Father. Origen, CIo 19.34-39 (GCS 4, 304-
305).
34. Graph C captures the various kinds of attunement in humanity and in the Logos.
The condescending switch in the condition of the Logos will be reversed only at a
mystieal-eschatological stage in the ascent of the disciples, whieh is the equivalent of
the Son's delivery of the Kingdom to the Father (Origen, HLv 7.2 [SC 286,309]), a con-
sumption, so to speak, of Logos' condition of image-for-us into that of truth-for-the-
Father. A detailed discussion of Origen's use of the terms "image" and "likeness" in his
description of the eschatologieal transformation of humanity can be found in the last
section of CROUZEL, Théologie de l'image (n. 12), pp. 247-257.
CHANGING MOODS 187
exegesis and school-pedagogy35, Let us look now in greater detail at this
inaugural change in Logos' mood.
*
Two fragments of the now lost Commentmy on Lamentations can give
us a sense of Origen's early attempts at mticulating a Bible-based school
curriculum in tenns of an immemorial saclificial mood, namely that of
grief or mouming 36 . The main focus of these texts is the first pmt of Lam
1,4 ("The roads to Zion moum, for no one cornes to the feasts ")37. Origen' s
translation of the name Zion is O'KOTCElYri]ptoV (watchtower)38, hence the
spiritual intelpretation of the desolation of Zion as a depreciation of the
watchful and contemplative power (O'KOTCEU'tlKfjÇ Kat gEffiPll'ttKfjÇ
ouvullEffiÇ) of the soul overcome by passions 39 . The many roads that lead
to Zion stand for the various curricular docbines leading to "the intellec-
tion and contemplation of the things to come" ('tTJV Ka'tavollO'ty Kat gÉav
'twv TCpoKEtllÉvffiv)4o. These doctrines faU within three main categories,
i.e., mystics or epoptics, physics and ethics, with a possible addition of a
fOUlth one, namely, logics41, a classification that matches closely the one
offered in the Prologue of The Commentmy on the Song of Songs 42 .
35. The "other" origin of the curriculum can be called the "historical" one, whieh is
of Greek Late-Platonist extraction (Origen, CCt Prol. 3 [SC 375, 128-143]) but may be
traced also to Jewish-Tanaitic Sources (Origen, CCt Prol. 1.7 [SC 375, 84]).
36. The Commentary on Lamentations is an early work of Origen, written in Alexan-
dria, sometime before 232. Given that all other works which discuss the curriculum belong
to Origen's later activity in Caesarea, this is an impOliant testimony for Origen's early
preoccupation with the elaboration of a Christian school program. Another piece of infor-
mation regarding this preoccupation is Eusebius' account of Origen's attempt to split the
program of the catechetieal school of Alexandria into a preliminary and an advanced cycle
of study (Eusebius, HE 6,15 [GCS 9,48]). This attempt was made, in alllikelihood, some-
time between 215 and 229.
37. Lxx Lam 1,4: '0001 E1wv nBv.9oVO'IV napà lU) efva/ èpxoflévovç èv soprfl.
38. Origen, CIo 13.81 (GCS 4,237); Origen, HIer 5.3 (GCS 3,46).
39. Origen, FrLam 10 (GCS 3, 239).
40. Origen, FlLam 14 (GCS 3,241).
41. Origen, FlLam 14 (GCS 3, 241).
42. See Graph B. The oruy difference between the two formulation of the curriculum
is a terminological one. In the Prologue of The Commentai}' on the Song of Songs the
highest stage is designated as epoptics rather than mysties. It is worthwhile noting also the
slight hesitance (ràxa OB /Cal ÀOyllcov) that precedes Origen's mention of logic as one of
the stages of the curriculum. Most likely, logie does not designate here the Platonic dia-
1ectie, which was rendered by the middle Platonists as epopties, but a Stoic reworking of
the Aristotelian doctrine of argumentation. For more details see P. HADoT, Les divisions
des parties de la philosophie dans l'Antiquité, in Muselllll HelveticlIm 36 (1979) 201-223,
p. 205. Origen hesitates to make logie into a specific instruction stage, preferring, perhaps
on a Stoie model, to consider it an integral part of all three pedagogie disciplines (ethics,
physies and epoptics). See, for example, CCt Prol. 3.2 (SC 375, 128-130).
188 M.V. NICULESCU
The mouming of the roads, Le., of the disciplines of the cursus prepar-
ing the eschatologie al contemplation or Zion43 , appears allegorized as the
dereliction of the spiritual practice (IlEÀÉ'tll) by the traveler, who is the
soul of the progressing disciple44 . The cunicular disciplines are "in
mouming" whenever the soul that succumbed to the passions fails to
apply itself to the purifying, restorative, and assimilative pedagogy of
ethics, physics, and mystical contemplation. Conversely, the roads rejoiee
when the disciple treads them in the hope of attaining the spiritual escha-
tologieal perfection or Zion45 .
Looking back at Origen's analysis of Lam 1,4, it seems that the hier-
archy of the disciplines of the cunieulum, which is also the sequence of
the stages in the spiritual ascent and the description of the transformation
of the disciple during this ascent, is based on an ieonic attunement46 • The
iconic soul (Gen 1,26) progresses on its way toward God as long as it
persists in the unabated attunement to her road-guide (Mlly6<;), who is
the Logos, or the archetypal, divine image in its "for us", condescending
manifestation as "way"47. Conversely, by failing to do so, the fallen,
negligent (àIlEÀi}<;), and dissolute soul scoms the sacrificial intention that
determined Logos' exchange of His exalted condition for a condescend-
ing oné8 , causing Christ's affliction49 and, ultimately, His mouming.
Responsiveness to the pedagogy of the Logos results in minimizing the
effects of the fall and therefore in reducing the suffering of the conde-
scending Teacher empathetieally attuned to humanity's fallen condi-
tion 50 • Thus, the lack of meditative application (IlEÀÉ'tll) to the cunieu-
lum is explained as a pedagogie and liturgie al flaw in one's iconic
attunement to the divine teacher and spùitual guide51 •
As one can easily guess, Origen offers also an optitnistic interpretation
of scriptural pedagogy as the joy that an increasingly Father re-attuned
Logos takes in the conversion and spiritual progress of His disciples. For
reasons of brevity, l shall not offer here a detailed exposition of this joy-
43. Origen, FrLam 14 (GCS 3,241).
44. Origen, FrLam 14 (GCS 3, 241).
45. Origen, FILam 14 (GCS 3, 241). A close parallel of this interpretation can be fonnd
in Origen, HNm 23.2 (SC 29, 436-437).
46. Origen, FrIa 6 (GCS 4, 488); Origen, CC 8.18 (SC 150, 212-214).
47. Origen, HGn 13.4 (SC 7bis, 328).
48. Oligen, CIo 1.68-72 (GCS 4, 16-17).
49. Origen, HLev 7.2 (SC 286, 308-312); Origen, HNm 23.2 (SC 29, 437-439); Ori-
gen, HJud 2.1 (SC 389, 74-75).
50. Origen, CIo 1.68-72 (GCS 4, 16-17); Origen, HNm 23.2 (SC 29, 437-439); Origen,
HEz 6.6 (SC 352, 228-231). See also M. FÉDOU, S.J., La Sagesse et le monde: Le Christ
d'Origène, Paris, Desclée de Bronwer, 1995, pp. 323-328.
51. Origen, HNm 23 (SC 29, 434-455).
CHANGING MOODS 189
fuI counterpmi of mouming pedagogy, whieh l have discussed in greater
detail elsewhere52 • Instead l shall refer to Origen's treatment of the tran-
sition from a mournful to a joyous attunement of the biblical exegete to
the scriptural Logos53.
*
By identifying the aletheic attunement of the Logos as the report and
the ieonic attunement of the Logos as the annunciation, one can con-
veniently reconstruct the exegetieal ditnension of Origen's pedagogy54. l
intend to show that, as an intextuation of the Logos, the Origenian Bible
should be interpreted iconcially-alteheieally as a complex textual event,
namely as the event of Logos' reporting from the Father the announce-
ment of a salvation plan to a neighborly, lapsed, receptor. This announced
report l shall calI a doxology or a glOlification of the Father performed
by the Bible-intextuated Logos through the transformation of the reader
into his (Logos') itnage, i.e. into a Father worshiping son. The center-
piece in Origen's plea for an evangelic pedagogy (reporting from the
Father / announcing to the reader) with a doxologie al aitn (being pre-
sented before the Father as a God-attuned son like the Son) is the event
of Jesus' self interpretation as the messiah of the Bible on the road to
Emmaus 55 .
As intextuated Logos, the self-interpreting Jesus reveals more than the
fact that he is the prophesized messiah. In an Origenian reading of the
Emnlaus scene, Jesus reveals also that He is the Bible in which he iden-
tifies the announcement of his own coming, or, in other words, he
announces himself as the Logos who has claimed the Bible as His textual
body and, thus, he proclaims himself as the one who cornes in the Bible
as the Bible. Moreover, the reception of this Emmausian self-interpreting
Bible transforms the receiver into the image of the intextuated Logos or,
in other words, it inscribes the reader into the Bible. The core principle
of this assimilative reception of the Bible is laid out most eloquently in
Origen's association of Luke 24,32 ("They said to one another, 'Did we
not feel our he arts on fire as he talked with us on the road and explained
52. See NrcuLEScu, Spiritual Leavelling (n. 1), pp. 447-481.
53. The other passages that document Origen's understanding of the school curriculum
are: FrLam 14 (GCS 3,241); EpGr (SC 148, 185-197); HGn 3.8.13.14 and 15 (SC 7bis),
FIMt 421 (GCS 12,175-176) cOlTobarated with CMt 17.6-7 (GCS 10,595-603). These
passages match for the mast part the infOImation on Origen's CUlTiculum that Gregory
Thaumaturgus provides in his Address ta Origell (SC 148,93-185).
54. See graph A.
55. Origen, HLev 9.6 (SC 287, 118-120).
190 M.V. NICULESCU
the scriptures to us?''') with a fragment of Cant 2,5 ("refresh me with
raisins, revive me with apples, for l was wounded by love") and the LXX
version of Isa 49,2 ("He has made me as a chosen arrow, and in his
quiver He has kept me"). Let us follow in greater detail the train of this
association.
When wounded by love (Cant 2,5) the bride, allegol'ized as the
Emmausian disciple or as the advanced exegete, is pierced by the elected
arrow (Isa 49,2) or the condescending Logos56, who, as god, is also said
to be Love (1 John 4,8)57. The internalization of this condescending self-
exegesis of the teacher as a scriptural pedagogy of love is expressed both
as the wound of Cant 2,5 and as the fire in Luke 24,3258 . Moreover,
feeling one's he art burning and being wounded by love means becoming
one with the arrow, i.e. with the condescending Logos as announcement,
Image or compassionate, mourning, Love 59 . Eventually, this identifica-
tion with the condescendingly intextuated Logos as elected arrow will
allow the wounded disciple a further identification with the aletheic,
exalted or reporting, posture of the same Logos as an arrow that rests "in
the quiver" of the archer or the Father (Isa 49,2)60. Thus, Origen con-
ceives the transition of the disciple from the condition of a recipient of a
pedagogy of fear and awe (ethics and physics) to a pedagogy of love
(epoptics) as the passage from internalizing Logos' iconic, condescend-
ing coming (the wound of the arrow) to being "internalized", i.e. adopted,
56. Origen, HCt 2.8 (SC 37, 95); Origen, cc 6.9 (SC 147,200).
57. 1 John 4,7-8. By "Gad" Origen could refer bath ta the Ward or the Son and ta the
Father. See Origen, CCt Prol. 2.26 (SC 375, 110); Origen, CCt 3.8.14 (SC 376, 574).
58. Origen, HCt 2.8 (SC 37, 95). "How beautiful, how fitting it is ta receive a wound
from Love! One persan receives the dalt of fleshly love, another is wounded by eatthly
desire; but do you lay bat'e your members and offer yom'self ta the c1wsen dart, the lovely
dart; for Gad is the archer indeed. Hear what the Scripture says of this same dart; or
rather, that you may marvel even more, hear what the dart Himself says: He hath made
me as a ehosen arrow [fJéÂoç bdBKrov; sagittam eleetam}, and in his quivd He hath kept
me. And He said to me: 'it is a great thing for Thee to be ealled my servant'. Understand
what the arrow says and in what manner He is chosen by the Lord. How blessed is it ta
be wounded by this dart! Those men who talked together, saying to each other: Was not
our heart bU/'l1ing within us in the way, whi/st He opened to us the Seriptures? had been
wounded by this dart. If anyone is wounded by our discourse, if atly is wounded by the
teaching of the Divine Scripture, and can say, '1 have been wounded by love', perhaps he
follows both the fOImer and the latter. But why do 1 say 'perhaps'? 1 offer a clear expla-
nation". Tr. R.P. Lawson.
59. Origen, HCt 2.8 (SC 37, 95); Origen, HCt 3.8.13 (SC 376, 574-578). For a com-
plete list of the references to Catlt 2,5 in Origen's work see the supplementary note in
Origen, CCt (SC 376, 778-780) and H. CROUZEL, Origines patristiques d'un theme mys-
tique: Le trait et la blessure d'amour ehez Origène, in P. GRANFIELD - A. JUNGMANN
(eds.), Kyriakon. Festsehrift Johannes Quasten, Münster, AschendOiff, 1970, I, 309-319.
See also Origen, CC 6.9 (SC 147,200-201).
60. Origen, CIo 1.229-240 (GCS 4, 40-42).
CHANGING MOODS 191
by the Father as a son in the likeness of Logos' aletheic, exalted posture
(becoming an arrow in the Father's quiver)61.
As Origen has noticed, the Emmaus scene acknowledges the above
mentioned transformation as an exegetically induced event, namely as
Jesus' eye-opening (Luke 24,31) exposition of the prophetic plan of the
Hebrew Bible (Luke 24,27; Luke 24,32)62. According to Origen, Jesus'
transformative exegesis on the way to Emmaus could have consisted in
a recapitulation of Logos' condescending coming in the Law, the Proph-
ets and in the ethical and physical pedagogy of the first two Solomonic
books of the Proverbs and the Ecclesiast. This exegesis would have been
also mystical or epoptic in the sense in which the disciples on the road
to Emmaus were exposed to the full presence of the Logos not only in
his flesh but also in His scriptural body or the Bible as a unified gospel
of all gospels and song of aIl songs. Thus, the disciples' reception or
internalization of this epoptic Bible as a self-exegesing Biblical Logos
amounts to theu' being received by this Bible, i.e. to their participation in
an eschatological drama or to witnessing Logos' arrivaI as an eschato-
logical event (the eternal gospel)63.
If the above interpretation is correct, how could one qualify the mis-
sion of the advanced, Emmausian exegete, who has been assimilated with
the Logos as self-exegete and self-interpreting Bible-event? As men-
tioned previously, the Logos reports from the Father and announces to
humanity the good news of paternal philanthropy. However, this annun-
ciation is not only infOlmative, but also transfOlmative. It is an act that
attunes and assirnilates. Likewise, Logos' report is not simply an
61. For more detai\s see NICULESCU, Spell of the Logos (n. 7), pp. 159-160.
62. Origen, Prin 1.1.9.10-15 (GCS 5, 27); Origen, Prin 4.4.10 (GCS 5,364); Origen,
CC 7.34 (GCS 2, 13-16); Origen, CC 1.48 (GCS 1,98); Origen,FILc 186 (GCS 9, 306);
Origen, HGn 15.7 (SC 7bis, 370). As it was mentioned above, Luke 24,32 records the
disciples' realization of the opening of the Scripture as a retrospect and a recollection. The
actual experience of Jesus' interpretation of the scriptures appears in Luke 24,27, that is,
in the part of the account that precedes Jesus' vanishing from the disciples' sight (Luke
24,31). A discussion of the theme of the vanishing of Christ in the postresulTectional
apparition can be found in Origen, CC 2.68-69 (SC 132, 446-448). The satne theme has
been developed in relation to the appearing and the disappearing of the bridegroom in
Origen, CCt 2.4 (SC 375, 330-351); Origen, HCt 1.7-10 (SC 37bis, 95-99) and Origen,
SehCt 1.8 (GCS 8, 141-146) in relation to Cant 1,7, and in Origen, SehCt (PG 17,273);
Origen, SelCt (pG 13, 204-205) in relation to Cant 5,6.
63. NlCULESCU, Spell of the Logos (n. 7), pp. 121-201. Concretely, this type of recep-
tion must have invo1ved the successive habituation of the reader with choosing several
biblical roles of discipleship (from the fealful observer of the Law to the awe-strnck lis-
tener of the prophets, for the OT; from a follower of a human Jesus to a follower of Jesus
the prophesized messiah, for the NT), followed by an inexpressible election to act out the
Bible event as an advatlced beloved disciple (the bride of the Song of Songs or John the
Evangelist).
 CHANGING MOODS 193
192 M.V. NICULESCU

acknowledgment of a salvation mandate, but also a filial attestation of
the assumption of this mandate as a mission. Consequently, repol'ting
!rom the Father is also a l'eporting ta the Father in the sense that the
transformation of the receiver of the news, for whom the Son moums,
into an adoptive son, forwhom the Father can rejoice, becomes the Son's
testimonial reporting to the Father of having carried out His evangelizing
mission. Thus, one may say that the advanced exegete's mission consists
in bringing before the Father the less advanced, neighborly, l'eadel' of
the Bible as an adoptive, wOl'shiping, son. But, if this mission has found
an accomplished expression in the experience of the disciples on the road
the graduaI enactment of a pedagogie ministry that is meant ta end into
an eschatological glorification of the Father in the Son by a congregation
of neighborly related filial exegetes. If, by any chance, one would retort
that such a definition eould describe also an eschatologicalliturgy or the
cherubic existence in a divine kingdom, the writer of these Hnes would
have nothing to object. After aIl, what could be more Origenian than
looking fOl'Ward to the moment when the roads to Zion will rejoice
because everyone cornes to Zion's feast?
1501 West Bradley Avenue Mihai Vlad NICULESCU

to Emmaus, which was further explained as a mystical wound of love, Bradley Hall, Room 281
shouldn't we conclude that this mission has been scripted or plotted by Bradley University
the divine Love in which it originates (the patemal philanthropy mani- Peoria, Illinois 61625
fested as Logos' filial obedience and neighborly compassion)? As it tums U.S.A.
out, the brief phenomenology of love that Origen sketches in the Pro- mniculescu@bradley.edu
logue of the Commentmy on the Song of Sangs confirms this hypothesis:
One must also know that love is always directed towards God (ad Deum
tendere), from whom (a quo) also it takes its origin (originem ducit), and
looks back towards the neighbor (ad proximum respicere), with whom it is
in kinship [literally, "with whom it bears participation", cum quo parti-
cipium gerit, my transI. V.N.] as being similarly created in incorruption64 •

As one may notice, this love-based self-exegesis of the Emmausian

messianic teacher in the Bible as the Bible is double: on the one hand, it
plays out as a modality of bringing the exegete into a filial relation to
biblical Logos' Father, while, on the other hand, it brings the epoptic,
accomplished exegete into a neighborly relation to the less advanced,
ethical and physical, readers. Let us caU the filial or reporting tendeney
a doxological gesture, and let us name the neighbody or announeing
tendency a ministerial gesture. The course of Origen's exegetic pedagogy
seems to be determined by the love-event that is Logos' textual and doe-
binaI coming, which re-attunes humanity to God through a twofold,
doxologie and ministerial gesture. Paternal love mandates the Son to
moum for, i.e. to minister to, a neighborly, unobservant, disciple so that,
as a Logos re-attuned and Father worshipping son, she ean become the
joy of her teacher's Father. Thus, Origenian exegesis could be defined as

64. Origen, The Song of Songs Comlllentmy and Homilies, translated and annotated
by R.P. LAWSON, Westminster, MD, The Newman Press, 1957, p. 34. Origen, CCt
Pro!. 2.32 (SC 375, 114). 19itllr scÎendllfll est Dei caritatem semper ad Deum tendere, a
quo et originem ducit, et ad proximwll respicere, CUIIl quo participillfll gerit, utpote simil-
iter creatulll in incorruptione. See also the alternative version of Delarue, quoted in n. 2
of SC 375,114-115.
 >
>-'
\0
g (;' .j::>.
el
(1)

S ~ Qw

a
(1)
~ S
N~
....,
0 .;:::,

r0 'ti'
~ ::r "1
"'"
S !JO '<
'" :g
~. Q
~
i:!. ~ ~~~ n
;:;
. ~
8.
~ ~ ~
l<? r e:..
3.
g.~
:;; :;; \;"' ~~~ ~ . ~
~ s:: St;:: ~.
S'- ir ~
~ ~
g s
~
'" ôl
:g
-,:~

5 5- g.
>-< ~
S'- S'- S'- 1); <...;
::r '"
.;:::,
(1)
1);
3·
(1) (1)

o
g.~
s::

;
"d
â
(1)

'".,
....,::\.!JOoo
ê.g: '"

to
ge:.. . . . :<
(1)

(1)
S'-
g "'" ~::r' t----
~
(1)
S'- • o
,§
•f
'< ~
? ~ .;:::,
ê"
t:d
(1)
? S ::r'

l · ?>
0.. (1)

r0
(1)

§ 005
(1)
'"
0..

§(') '0=::r
'0
(1)

~ 8
!JO
0 "''0 ?r g. ~"
_.,< Q.
'0 "1
g.
(1) "'"
~ ~
'0 __ 03. ~~ 'o0 "'",
'" '"n
s i
§(1)~'''
'" '< t:)" 0
el '"

%
OQ

,.,.
t;:j g.~
t;; t;; ::;3
;::
8,
~ § ~
o lZl ~
'"
--..
3· '"
el~ ~
q '"
"o
'":s --
R" !JO S'-
, " 0
;::
S'-
(1)

'" ...., Cl'

c 0" .;::e
'" el
CT'
'" el
(1)
~
!JO 0
";' '"
...::::...
~. ~
~
(1)
tti
S'-
(1)
S'-
(1) ~ g r;. ~~. ?-
"ri ",e
"d (;'
g.o r;. ~
['" S'-
'" -B §': ~.
" c " ~

1
Cl' '"' ~~ ~

1
'"'
",'"ti ~
~ ~~ ~ ~
.g
l
'"~
g .,'"
'l:::
0.. ] " e:..
0
el
><
(1)
'"
N

'"el r;-
~El
0..
(1)

"0..
(1) '""g 0..

'< 0..
S·
, !JO

GraphD

TRIDUUM BIBLE CURRICULUM

Event Anthropologicalleavening Genesis equivalent Synchronie Diachronie
Death (Friday) Body, soul and individual Gen 3, 21 Parting with the flesh; Pre-Bible Liberal arts and Greek philosophy;
spirit are split "letter that kills" catechumenal training
Aim: preparing to become one
body with Christ
Joumey to Hades Body goes in the tomb, the Gen 2,7 Flesh becomes body; Law/Proverbs/Gospels Ethics; Baptismal training of the
(Saturday) soul goes to Hades and the the litteral sense is of Matthew and Luke novices
spirit is deposited with the retained as somatic one body with Christ
Father sense

Resurrection (Sunday) The resurrected body
rejoins the soul.
Ascension The resurrected body and
Gen 1,27 Body integrated with
the soul; the somatic
sense is integrated
with the psychic sense
Gen 1,26 Body and Soul
1
Law/Proverbs/Gospels Physics; advanced Baptismal
of Matthew and Luke training of the novices
read in light of Aim: Preparing to become one
ProphetslEcclesiastl spirit with Christ
Gospel of Mark Ô
§
Law/Proverbs/Gospels Epoptics (in this life) <Il

soul rejoin the deposited
spirit, the Logos, the Holy
Spirit and the Father with
whom the individual spirit
was deposited.
"Ali in all" Due to the action of the
Holy Spirit, the Logos -
integrated humanity of
Christ becomes one with
God, the Father of the
Logos.
integrated with the of Matthew and Luke One spirit with Christ
Spirit; the somatic and Prophetsl
and psychic senses Ecclesiast/Gospel of
are integrated with the Mark read in light of
pneumatic sense (in Deuteroseis/Gospel of
this life) John
Gen 1,1 Body and Soul The whole Bible as Epoptics (eschatological)
integrated with the Eternal Gospel one god with God
Spirit; the somatic
and psychic senses
>-'
are integrated with the \0
VI
pneumatic sense
(eschatologie)
THE SALVATION OF THE DEVIL AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD
IN ORIGEN'S LETTER TO CERTAIN CLOSE FRIENDS IN
ALEXANDRIA

There is little surviving of Origen's correspondence. This makes it aIl

the more important that careful attention is given to what do es survive
from this geme of his writing. This paper argues that such attention has
not always been paid to the fragments preserved by Rufinus and Jerome
of what the former caUs Origen's letter "to certain close friends in Alex-
andria"l. Inattention to these fragments has led to an ill-advised confi-
dence in what they appear to teach conceming the salvation of the Devil.
To sorne commentators these fragments constitute incontestable evi-
dence that Origen denied in the strongest possible terms that the Devi!
wou Id be saved2 • Crouzel, for example, states that these fragments
amount to a "categorical denial" of such salvation3 • Such a reading, how-
ever, rests on shakier foundations than its advocates suppose: it is based
on ill-considered attention to the kind of salvation under discussion,
namely, salvation in the Kingdom of God. Crouzel's article on these let-
ter fragments, for example, does not once consider to what this scriptural
locution might refetl.
This paper argues that Origen understands the Kingdom of God as a
particular kind of salvation, not the only kind of salvation. It follows that
its denial to the Devi! does not exclude this rational being from ail salva-
tion. The paper is divided into two patis: (I) a consideration of the rel-
evant parts of the fragments of Origen's letter, and ta what, therein, "the
Kingdom of Gad" might refer; and (II) a survey of evidence that Origen
believed in sorne measure of beatitude for rational beings excluded from
the Kingdom of Gad.

1. " .. .ad quosdam caros suos Alexandriam" , in De adulteratione librorum Origenis

6 (SC 464, 296.13).
2. H. CROUZEL, A Letterfrom Origen "to Friends in Alexandria", tr. J.D. GAUTHIER,
in D. NEIMEN - M.A. SCHATKIN (eds.), The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in
Honour of George Vasilievich Florovsky on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, Roma,
Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1973, 135-150; F.W. NORRIs, Universal
Salvation in Origen and Maximus, iu N.M. DE SEGUR CAMERON (ed.), Universalism and
the Doctrine of HeU: Papers Presented at the 4'h Edinburgh Conference in Christian
Dogmatics, Grand Rapids, Ml, Baker, 1991,35-72, pp. 47-49.
3. CROUZEL, A Letter from Origen (n. 2), p. 146.
4. The meaning of the locution is also not remarked upon by the editors of Rufinus,
De adulteratione librorum Origenis (SC 464 & 465), R. AMACKER and É. JUNon (see their
Étude, SC 465, pp. 32-35).
198 S.GULY
I. ORlGEN'S LETTER AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD
1. The Fragments
The fragments preserved by Rufinus and Jerome are from different,
but overlapping, sections of Origen's letter: Rufinus' continues after the
portion that both he and Jerome translate, while Jerome's begins before
this jointly translated portion. The Latin translations of the common por-
tion are reproduced, below, as passages [1] and [2]. The second begins a
little before the point at which the first corresponds. This earlier text from
Jerome helps to set the context of Origen's discussion5 •
[1] Rufinus, from De adu/teratione librorum Origenis 7 (SC 464,
p.298.6-13):
Quidam eorum qui libenter habent criminari Sorne of those who with pleasure accuse theu'
proximos suos adscribunt nobis et doctrinae neighbours 7 of a crime apply the accusation of
nostrae crimen blasphemiae quod a nobis num- slander to us and to our teaching, which [slan-
quam audierunt. De quo ipsi uiderint, nolentes der] they never heard from us. Concerning
obseruare mandatum illud quod dicit quia: which let them pay heed to themselves, they
Maledici regl/um Dei 1/01/ possideblil/t, dicentes who do not wish to observe the commandment,
<adserere>6 me patrem malitiae ac perditionis "slanderers will not possess 8 the Kingdom of
[et] eorum qui de regno Dei eiciuntur, id est God" [1 Co 6,10], when they say that l
diabolum, [me dicere] esse saluandum, quod ne <assert>, that the father of malice and perdition
aliquis quidem mente motus et manifeste insan- and of those who are cast out from the King-
iens dicere potes!. dom of God, that is, the Devil, is to be saved,
which not even someone who is disturbed in
mind and manifestly insane can say.
[2] Jerome, from Apologia aduersus libros Rutini II.18 (SC 303,
p. 152.51-70):
Nos hoc sentimus quod eicientur de regno As for us, we think that among those cast out
caelorum non solum qui grandia peccauerunt, from the Kingdom of the heavens are not oruy
verbi gratia fornicators et adulteri et masculo- those who have committed great sins - for
rum concubitores et fures, sed et qui minora ex ample fornicators, and adulterers, and the
delinquerint, ex eo quod scriptum est: Neqlle bed-feIlows of men, and thieves [cf. 1 Co 6,9-
ebriosi I/eql/e maledici regnum Dei posside- 10] - but also those who might have failed in
bUl/t, et tam in bOl/itate quam in sel/eritate Dei lesser sins, since it is written that "Neither
esse mensuram. Vnde cl/l/cta nitimur agere drunkards nor slanderers will possess the King-
cOl/silio, il/ I/il/i ql/oque potl/9 et in moderatione dom of God" [1 Co 6,10], and that there is
5. The English translations that foIlow are my own.
6. Added by the SC editors.
7. Neighbouring bishops?
8. The Greek is KÀllPoVoJ.lTJcrollcrLv, "inherit".
9. Prov 31,4 LXX says J.ls'tà POllÀ~C; nuv'tU no(sl, J.ls'tà POllÀ~C; olvono'tSl ("Do aIl
things with [i.e., after] deliberation; drink wine with deliberation").
ORIGEN' S LETIER TO CERTAIN CLOSE FRlENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 199
sermonis 10, ut nulli audeamus maledicere. Ergo measure ll in the severity of God as much as in
cum propter timorem Dei caueamus in quem- the goodness [cf. Rom 11,22]. Thus we strive
piam maledicta conferre, recordantes i!lius "to do aIl things with deliberation, in [what con-
dicti, Non fidt al/SI/S il/dicimll il/ferre blasphe- cems] the drinking ofwine" [prov 31,4] and the
miae, quod dicitur de Michael contra diabolum, moderation of conversations [cf. Prov 17,27], so
et in alio loco: Domil/atiol/es qI/idem rep- that we dare to speak ill of no one. Therefore,
robaI/t, glorias al/tem blasphemant, quidam since, on account of the fear of God we are cau-
eorum qui libenter causationes repperiunt tious about applying slander to anyone, recalling
ascribunt nobis et doctrinae nostrae blasphe- what is said, "He did not dare to bring forward
miam. Super qua ipsi uiderint quomodo illud a judgement of slander", which is said of
audiant: Neque ebriosi neql/e maledici regl/I/I/l Michael against the Devi! [Jude 9], and, in
Dei possidebl/I/t, licet patrem malitiae et perdi- another place, "They reproved the dominations,
tionis eorum qui de regno Dei eiciuntur dicant they slandered the glories" [Jude 8]12, sorne of
posse saluari, quod ne mente quidem quis cap- those who take pIe as ure in having invented
tus dicere potes!. causes of conflict attribute to us and to our
teaching a slander, conceming which let them
pay heed to themselves, even as they hear it
said, "Neither drunkards nor slanders will pos-
sess the Kingdom of God" [1 Co 6,10], although
they say [that l say]13, that the father of the mal-
ice and perdition of those who will be cast out
from the Kingdom of God can be saved, which
not even one who is possessed in uùnd can say.
Rufinus and Jerome, here, both repOli Origen as complaining that he
has been slandered for teaching that the Devi! will be saved. The later
part of Origen's letter, preserved by Rufinus alone, puts this slander
down to the falsification and interpolation of Origen's teachings and writ-
ings by heretics 14 • The earlier section, preserved by Jerome alone, sug-
gests that this slander arose because Origen, following the injunction of
Paul [1 Co 6,10], gave certain heretics cause to revile him by his refusaI
to speak ill of others in general, and of the Devil in particular 15 • The
10. Prov 17,27 LXX says OC; <pS(OE'tUl P~J.lU npoÉcri}ul crKÀllPov BnlyvcOJ.lCOV,
J.lUKpoi}llJ.lOC; ai; &v~p <ppOV1J.lOC; ("The man who refrains from letting drop a hard word
is disceming, and a forbearing man is prudent").
11. Or "lirnit".
12. The Greek is Kllpl0'tll'tU ai; &i}swùcrLV 06l;uc; ai; pÀucri}llJ.l0Ùcr\V ("they reject
authority, and revi!e the glorious ones". This is said of certain loose-mouthed sinners and
would appear to refer to their blaspheming the cherubim [cf. Heb 9,5; The Testamellf of
Levi 18,5]).
13. My addition foIlowing the SC editors' action in the passage from Rufinus, above.
14. Rufinus reports Origen as speaking, on the one hand, about a public encounter with
"a certain heresiarch", who subsequently made amendments to a written record of their
encounter and circulated the doctored tex!. Rufinus reports him speaking, on the other
hand, of an encounter with "a certain heretic" at Antioch following this man's misrepre-
sentation of Origen's teaching at Ephesus. Rufinus reports him speaking, lastly, about an
earlier interpolated letter of his in which the salvation of the Devi! had been the subject.
15. Jerome, in this earlier section, reports Origen as citing Jude 8-9 and Zacharias 3,2
LXX to justify his refusaI to revi!e the Devi!.
200 S. GULY
overlapping fragments, however, are agreed in the essentials with which
we are here concerned: Origen does deny the Devil salvation, and does
regard the idea that the Devil might be saved as preposterous.
The salvation under discussion, however, is manifestly that constituted
by enjoyment of the promises of the Kingdorn of God, not every kind of
salvation. Although neither the fragment of Rufinus nor that of Jerome
explicitly identifies the salvation denied as that enjoyed in the Kingdom
of God, the context shows that it can be none other. Origen's letter, as
the earlier part of Jerome's fragment confums, concerns Christians who
lose their inheritance in the Kingdom of God (or in "the Kingdom of the
heavens", as Origen, here, also describes this realm 16) on account, not
only of any more grievous sins that were unrepented at death - such as
mm'der and adultery - but also of any less grievous sins that were unre-
pented - such as drunkenness and slander 17. Origen's point with respect
to the Devil, then, is this: if human souls fOlfeit the Kingdom of God
because of aIl such sins, it is clearly absurd to suggest that the "father"
of their sins - that is, the Devil [Jn 8,44; 1 Jn 3,10; Ac 13,10] - vouch-
safes it.
It foIlows that when Crouzel, both remarks on the force with which
Origen refutes the slander that he taught that the Devil will be saved, and
expresses surprise that sorne commentators still attribute this teaching to
Origen 18 , he omits to observe the kind of salvation under consideration,
namely beatitude in the Kingdom of God. Notwithstanding his espousal
of the àrcoKU"CUO'UO't<;, Origen's exclusion of the Devil from this King-
dom is not, as Crouzel aIleges, the cause of "une grande confusion"19,
but an entirely unremarkable facet of Origen's thought: the idea, for
Origen, that the father of wickedness will enjoy the maximal beatitude
indicated by the Kingdom of God is, indeed, outrageous. It by no means
foIlows, however, that Origen also thinks it outrageous to suggest that
the Devil might yet be accorded sorne ultimate beatitude.
Another interesting feature of these fragments that is not always high-
lighted is the fact that Rufinus reports Origen as denying that the Devil
will be saved, whereas Jerome reports Origen as denying that the Devil
can be saved. This difference is the more interesting because Jerome later
16. On the identity of the referent of these two locutions, see below.
17. For two other passages excluding the imperfect from the company of saints in the
Kingdom of God, see HIer 20.3 (GCS, ID, 180.26-181.21), and Dia/9.20-1O.13 (SC 67,
76).
18. CROUZEL, A Lefferfrom Origen (n. 2), pp. 144-146.
19. H. CROUZEL, Origène (Le Sycomore), Paris, Éditions Lethielleux; Namur, Culture
et Vérité, 1985 [tr. A.S. WORRALL, Origen, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1989], p. 337.
ORIGEN'S LETTER TO CERTAIN CLOSE FRIENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 201
changes what he has to say: in his remarks about a dialogue he has read
between Origen and a Valentinian, Candidus, he says that Origen taught
that the Devil "can be saved"20.
... Adserit Candidus diabolum pessimae esse ... Candidus daims that the Devil is of the
naturae et quae saluari numquam possit. Contra worst nature21 , which can also never be saved.
hoc recte Origenes respondit non eum periturae To this Origen answers rightly, that he [the
esse substantiae, sed uoluntate propria corruisse Devil] is not of a substance that will perish, but
et posse saluari. Hoc Candidus uertit in calum- [that he] fell by his own will, and can be saved.
niam, quasi Origenes dixerit diaboli naturam It [was] this that Candidus tumed into calumny,
esse saluandam. Quod ille falso obiecerat, hic as if Origen had said that the nature of the
refutat. Devil has to be saved22 • This [contention] the
former [Candidus] had falsely objected [and]
the latter [Origen] refutes.
It is not clear what, if anything, we should make of these differences
between the two men's translations, and between Jerome's translation
and subsequent comment. We can, at least, say that Jerome's later
remarks suggest that Origen was of the view that salvation in the King-
dom of God would have been possible for the rational being who became
the Devil had this rational being not opted to become evil and remain
impenitent. This, no doubt, is why Jerome agrees with Origen in what
the latter says to Candidus: it is not a matter of the Devil's nature that
denies hÎ1n salvation in the Kingdom of God, but his will.
Before proceeding to consider Origen' s understanding of the Kingdom
of God (and how his interpretation of this scriptural locution compared
to the interpretations he gave other locutions concerning the Kingdom),
it is necessary to comment a little upon his understanding of salvation
itself. He understands it, l would suggest, in two senses: on the one hand,
as the maxÎ1nal ultimate beatitude that is only enjoyed by souls who are
presently both virtuous and growing in wisdom, and, on the other hand,
as the earlier healing whereby each and every soul becomes ready to
receive her particular measure of ultÎ1nate beatitude. It should be clear
that the sense under discussion in our fragments is that constituted by the
certain ultimate beatitude enjoyed by exemplary Christians. In other
works, however, where Origen is dealing with an earlier eschatological
context, the salvation under discussion is the process of healing achieved
through different souls' varied experiences of fire. Such healing purifies
souls both of their sins, and of what Origen caIls the "filth" of their
20. For what follows, see Ap%gia aduersus libros Rufilli II.19 (SC 303, 154.16-
156.3). The English translation is my own.
21. That is, as the Valentinians would say, a "hylic"?
22. That is, as the Valentinians would say, that the Devi!' is a "pneumatic"?
202 S.GULY
earthly generation [Job 14,4-5]. Origen, 1 would contend, extends this
double healing to aIl human souls, albeit in different ways23.
These two senses of salvation enable Origen to do two things. They allow
him, first, to be liberal in affirming a univers al salvation from the active
sickness of sin: no one, he thinks, will fail, either to exercise retrospective
judgement for their sin, or, through pul'ifying self-exarnination and repent-
ance, to be healed of their hostility to the Word. They allow him, second, to
be restrictive with respect to the quality of ultimate beatitude subsequently
on offer: for example, as shaU be al'gued, below, he extends membership of
the Kingdom of God only to those Christians who have died after having
repented aU manner of grievous sins; othel' souls must make do with lessel'
degrees of beatitude. This restriction is not to deny that Origen is as much a
"universalist" with respect to ultimate beatitude as he is with respect to
healing from sin: it merely entails that he is not a universalist with respect
to the particular ultimate beatitude that is to be had in the Kingdom of God.
2. The Kingdom of Gad
Origen's use of different scriptural locutions conceming the kingdom
shows that he intel'prets them as descriptions of communities of souls
23. Although this is not the proper place to justify this assertion, it is made on the basis
ofmy discernment of three categories of souls in Origen's writings (each ofwhich requires
purification, not just for the filth of earthly generation, but also for sin). [il The virtuous
and wise, who require purification for theu' non-grievous sins: see H36Ps 3.1, where Peter
and Paul are purified without being consumed [cf. Is 43,2] (SC 411, 130.46-49); see, too,
CIo XXXII.l15-116, regarding the administration of the baptism of fire [Lk 3,16] by
Jesus, the Teacher, to his closest disciples (GCS, N, 442.16-23, in the light of XXXII.79
and 87); see, too, HIer 2.2, regarding the "sins comparable to filth" that are not "con-
sumed" by fire [1 Co 3,12-15], but cleansed by a spu'it of judgement (GCS, III, 18.26-
19.8). [ii] Cln'istians who have died without repenting of the less grievous sins, such as
drunkenness and slander [cf. 1 Co 6,10]: seeHIer 16.5-6 regarding souls who must receive
"consuming" fU'e [1 Co 3,15; Dt 4,24; Heb 12,29], first, before receiving their due reward
(GCS, III, 135.7-139.19); see, too, FILc 92, on Lk 3,16, regarding the administration of
the baptism of fire [Lk 3,16] - that is, here, Gehenna - by Jesus, the Judge (GCS, 1X/2,
263); see, too, HIer 19.15, where "cleansing" Gehenna is identified as a grievous fire for
sins of speech (GCS, III, 175.13-14); see, too, HIer 2.3, where "consuming fire" [1 Co
3,12-15; Dt 4,24; Heb 12,29] and Jesus' baptism of fire [Lk 3,16] are identified (GCS,
III, 19.22-20.3). [iii] The wicked, that is, souls who have died without repenting their
more serious grievous sins, such as murder and adultery: see HIer 19.15, where such souls
are purified by an "unquenchable" "fury of fire" [Heb 10,26-27] both "worse than
Gehenna" and "aeon-Iong" [cf. Mt 25,46.41] (GCS, III, 175.10-22, 28-32); HIer 16.7,
where the same "fury of fire" is irnplicitly distinguished from Paul's "consuming fire"
(discussed in sections 5-6), and constitutes "a double punislnnent" (GCS, III, 139.20-32);
see, too, Prin II.10.5 where the "aeon-Iong fire" of the wicked [Mt 25,46] is said to
"strengthen" and "renew" (GCS, V.179.8-1O); Orat XXVII. 15 where the wicked are said
to achieve salvation when they finally leave the dominion of sin at the end of the coming
aeon, that is, seerningly, when the "aeon-long fire" of their grief has finally bumt away
what remains of their sins (GCS, II, 374.15-18).
ORIGEN'S LETIER Ta CERTAIN CLOSE FRIENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 203
who are equally reconciled and restored to the rule of God, but who
nevmtheless possess different capacities for the inteUectual life that is
enjoyment of the knowledge of God. The Kingdom of God, for example,
encompasses only the most fOltunate of rational souls, that is, those who
have died repented of aU manner of grievous sins.
The failure of sorne commentators on the fragments of Origen's letter
to address themselves to Origen's understanding of the Kingdom of God
may, perhaps, be explained by attributing to them the assumption that he
comprehended it as co-extensive with the community of rational beings in
whom God becomes "aU in aU" [1 Co 15,28]: such an assumption would
indeed preclude the exclusion of any rational creature from the ultimate
role of God. In my view, however, such an assumption would be a mis-
take: the restoration of aU rational beings to the Father, in Origen, says
nothing about the equality or inequality in inteUectual beatitude that these
beings might have with God thereafter, but only of their no longer being
hostile to his W ord and Image and theu' aU being replete with knowledge.
Although Origen certainly believes in an ultimate end to the diversity of
wills, he also thinks that there will be an ultimate and enduring diversity
of inteUectual beatitude. While aIl souls become replete with knowledge,
the intellectuai capacities that become replete vary from soul to soul.
While scriptural references to the Kingdom, the Kingdom of God and
the Kingdom of the heavens have received considerable attention from
biblical scholars24, and a little from patristic ones 25 , Origen's place in the
tradition has frequently been misjudged: he is largely deemed to have
"spu'itualised" the kingdom as a predominantly present, as opposed to a
future reality26. While Origen do es believe that the rule of God is, in part,
24. See D.C. DULING, Kingdolll of God, Kingdolll of Heaven, in The Ane/lOr Bible
DictiollalY 4 (1992) 49-69 (and the three pages of accompanying bibliography); B. CIIILTON,
The Kingdolll of God, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1984.
25. H.M. HERRICK, The Kingdolll of God in the Writings of the Fathers, Chicago, IL,
University of Chicago Press, 1903; G. WALTHER, Untersue/I//Ilgen zur Geschichte der
griechischen Vate/'l/llser-exegese, in Texte und Unlersuchz/IIgen zlir Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur 40.3 (1914) 1-123; R. FRICK, Die Gese/zichte des Reich-Gottes-
Gedankens in der alten Kirche bis zu Origenes und Augustin, Giessen, Alfred Topelmann,
1928; G.W.H. LAMPE, SOllle Note,s on the Significance of BAl:IAEIA TOyeEOY, BAl:IAEIA
XPIrTOY in the Greek Fathers, in Joumal of Theological Studies 49 (1948) 58-73;
W. NIGG, Das Ewige Reich: Geschichte einer Se/lIlsue/zt und einer Enttauschz/IIg, Zurich,
Arternis, 1954; and E. FERGUSON, The Kingdolll of God in Early Patristic Literature, in
W.L. W~LIS (ed.), The Kingdolll of God in Twentieth Centllly Interpretation, Peabody,
MA, Hendrickson, 1987, 191-208 [a re-writing of The Terminology of the Kingdolll in the
Second Centzlly, in E.A. LNINGSTONE (ed.), SIl/dia Patristica 18, Oxford, Pergamon Press,
1982]. See, too, J.E. GROH, The Kingdolll ofGod in the Histo/y ofChristianity: A Biblio-
graphical SUI1'ey, in Chl/rch Histo/y 43 (1974) 257-267, p. 258, for bibliography.
26. HERRICK, The Kingdolll ofGod (n. 25), p. 26; WALTHER, Untersl/chzlIlgen (n. 25),
p. 9; FRICK, Die Geschichte (n. 25), pp. 95-103; LAMPE, SOllle Notes (n. 25), p. 62; DULING,
Kingdol/1 of God (n. 24), p. 67 (on the basis, lm'gely, of Orat XXV).
204 S.GULY
a present reality27, it is inconect to infer from this that he do es not also
have a realistic conception of a future, eschatological kingdom 28 . Onlya
few writers have focused directly upon the teaching on the kingdom of
Origen, in particular29 . Crouzel, one of the few recent commentators to
do so, limits himself, in the two articles he has written on the question30 ,
to showing that Origen teaches that the Kingdom of Christ continues after
the Son has handed it over to the Father. While Crouzel does offer mod-
est appreciations of the Kingdom of Christ31 , the Kingdom of the Father32,
the Kingdom of the heavens 33 , and the Kingdom of God34, he tends to
mix up the characteristics that Origen attributes to each35 : he omits to
observe, for example, that only some souls who come to enjoy the "aeon-
long life" of Christ and his Father will feed as "saints" on divine myster-
ies in the Kingdom of God36 .
l suggest, in what follows, that Origen talks about the Kingdom of
Christ and the Kingdom of the Father as each ultimately embracing ail
rational souls, and about the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the
heavens as each and always embracing only the most advanced souls.
a) The Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of the Father
The Kingdom of Christ is univers al in extent, for Origen, inasmuch as
it comprises aIl souls subjected to the divine reason embodied in and
exemplified by Christ. It is vouchsafed, for example, to the penitent thief
of Luke's Gospel [Lk 23,42-43]: although a grievous sinuer, says Origen
in the Commentm) on John XXXII.395-396, this individual's last-minute
recognition of Christ results in the promise of immediate - that is, l sug-
gest, non-punitive - entry into the Paradise of God after death37 . Mem-
27. See NIGG, Das Ewige Reich (n. 25), pp. 61-77, for whom Origen's spiritualising
substitutes for apocalyptic in the early Church.
28. FERGUS ON, The Kingdom ofGod (n. 25), pp. 198-199.
29. WALTHER, Untersuchungen (n. 25), pp. 4-22; FIucK, Die Geschichte (n. 25),
pp. 95-104; H. CROUZEL, Quand le Fils transmet le Royaume à Dieu son Père, in Studia
Missionalia 33 (1984) 359-384; ID., Origène a-t-il tenll que le règne du Christ prendrait
fin?, in Augustinianllm 26 (1986) 51-61.
30. CROUZEL, Quand le Fils (n. 29), pp. 361-368; ID., Origène a-t-il tenll (n. 29), p. 54.
31. CROUZEL, Quand le Fils (n. 29), pp. 361-364.
32. Ibid., pp. 368-376.
33. Ibid., pp. 364-365, 377.
34. Ibid., pp. 364-365, 376-382.
35. B.E. DALEY, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology,
Cambridge, University Press, 1991, pp. 49-51, does sirnilarly.
36. CROUZEL, Quand le Fils (n. 29), pp. 376-384.
37. A location possibly identical with the "paradise" mentioned in Prin II.l1.6 as
being "in sorne place situated on earth" (GCS, V, 190.1-9). The penitent thief's "death-
bed" repentance, however, entails no possibility of his subsequent intellectual ascent
ORIGEN'S LETTER TO CERTAIN CLOSE FRlENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 205
bership of the Kingdom of Christ, clearly, varies depending on the time
at which it is considered. As Origen says in Homily on Numbers 17.5,
while it comprises only sorne souls in the present grossly material realm,
it will grow increasingly to comprise aIl rational creatures after the final
subjection of "Death" [1 Co 15,25-27]38.
Notwithstanding univers al subjection, the ultimate bounds of the King-
dom of Christ will embrace souls of abidingly different intellectual
capacities. In that part of "the new he aven and earth" constituted by "the
new Israel", for example, Christ' s l'ule, according to De principiis IL3.7,
will embrace both "the poor in spirit", in "heaven" - that is, l would
contend, in "the heavenly Jerusalem"39 - and "the meek" [Mt 5,5], on
"the land" - that is, in those l'egions of the new Israel that lie outside the
new Jerusalem40 . Such intellectual diversity is also apparent within each
of the two palis of the new Israel. God employs the services of sorne
souls, there, with respect to the intellectuallives of others. In Exhortation
to Martyrdom xxvrn and De principiis n.ll.3 the administration of the
life of souls in the new Jerusalem is given to the martyrs 41 . Their task is
to facilitate the beatitude of those souls who enjoy intimate knowledge
of GOd42 . In De principiis IV.3.8, by comparison, governorship of souls
through "the heavens". hl HEz 13.2 we hear that, not having cultivated virtue or wisdom,
he is excluded from attainment of "the Paradise of Delights" [Ez 28,12.13], that is, as
Origen interprets this locution, from the ultimate intellectual reward of the perfect (GCS,
vm.447.23-448.1O). On different kinds of paradise in Origen, see C.P. HAMMOND BAM-
MEL, Adam in Origen, in R. WILLIAMS (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour
of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge, University Press, 1989, 62-93, p. 73 (and footnotes).
38. GCS, VII, 164.27-165.3.
39. In Prin N.3.8 the new Jerusalem is described both as "a city in heaven" and "a
city ... in the heavens" (GCS, V, 334.10-12).
40. There is also a class of souls located within the Promised Land whom Origen calls
"spiritual Gibeonites". The latter, according to HIos 10.1, are converts to the Church who
have not desisted from sinful Gentile ways, but have nevertheless been of benefit to those
who have. They take up a position immediately north of the new Judah, where they will
live "in a certain infamy" as what Joshua 9 calls "hewers of wood" and "carriers of
water" [Josh 9,27] (GCS, VII, 357.18-359.12).
41. hl EM xxvm the martyrs, there, will "sit, reign and judge beside the King of
kings" (GCS, l, 25.24-27); cf. EMXXXVII, regarding 2 Tim 2,12 (GCS, l, 34.19-24). hl
Prin II.1l.3 the sphere of authority of Christ's closest disciples extends over what is
variously described as "the Jerusalem which is above" [Gal 4,26], "the heavenly Jerusa-
lem" [Heb 12,22-23], and "the city of the saints" (GCS, V, 186.15).
42. Mutual help is envisaged, too, before intellectual ascents have been made. hl Com-
mentOl)' on Matthew XIV.15, for example, in the post-incarnate context that irnmediately
precedes the time of human purification, the martyrs are said to share in "the judging" of
souls undertaken by the Son of Man on the Day of Judgement [Mt 19,28] (GCS, X,
318.12-17). According to Homily on Exodlls 11.6, the martyrs' efforts on this occasion
elicit aggrieved consciences in their charges (GCS, VI, 259.8-20). Mutual help, of course,
also occurs in an incarnate context. In On Prayer XXV.l Origen speaks of individuals
206 S.GULY
in other cities of the Promised Land is given to other administrators
[cf. Lk 19,17-19]43. These would seem to be the "princes" and "rulers"
that De principiis II.l1.3 says rule over souls "of a lower condition"
(inferiores). The beatitude of the latter is more restricted in view of their
less developed understanding. The inferior condition of these souls,
apparently, has been determined by the impelfect manner in which they
have led their incarnate lives 44 •
The Kingdom of the Father is one and the same with the Kingdom of
ChI'ist at its maximal extent. In De principiis I.6.2 it embraces the entire
rational creation handed over to the Father by Christ after the submission
of aH created wills [1 Co 15,24]45. In II.6.3 this handing over occurs after
the destruction of the hostile will of "Death", when aH rational beings
have become both subjected to divine reason through purification, and
inteHectually replete through the acquisition of knowledge 46 • "God"
- that is, for Origen, the Father - becomes "all in aH" [1 Co 15,28] when
there is no soul who contemplates anything else but GOd47 •
Notwithstanding universal membership of the Father's kingdom,
Origen, once again, talks about an abiding inteHectual diversity within it.
When in Commentmy on Matthew X.3, for example, he comments on
Jesus' specification that the righteous will shine in the kingdom of "my
Father" like the Sun [Mt 13,43], he understands Jesus to indicate a glory
particular to one kind of soul within the commuruty of aH rational souls 48 •
When, too, in De principiis 1I.ll.2 he comments on Jesus saying that he
within Christ's kingdom who speak "saving words" and perform "Iighteous deeds", and
so assist others in the ongoing stmggle against sin (GCS, II, 357.10-12).
43. Although the individuals given authority, here, are unnamed [cf. too, Lk 19,17-19],
HNIIl 11.4 asserts that angels occupy the new Israel alongside human souls (see, espe-
cially, GCS VII, 84.28-30). It is possible that OIigen has these rational beings in mind
with regard to administration of these other Israelite cities.
44. Origen's thoughts on the administration of souls in those parts of the new earth,
which lie outside the new Israel aIld yet submit to the rule of Christ, will be addressed,
~~ \ vessels; we are not remade, nar does our constitution admit of irnprave-
45. GCS, V, 79.19-80.8; cf. Prin 1.6.4 (GCS, V, 85.10-14).
46. GCS, V, 284.3-10.
47. GCS, V, 283.14-284.3. Restoration to the Father, incidentally, involves rational
creatures, oruy. Origen notes, in Prin 1.3.6, that, although rational and irrational creatures
alike partake of the necessarily existent Father [cf. Ex 3,14] - by virtue both of their
similarly accidentaI participation in existence (GCS, V, 57.1-5) and of their common
reception of God's breath [Gn 2,7] (GCS, V, 57.25-58.4) - only rational creatures live for
ever: it is oruy they who have the same incorpore al and rational nature as God. In Prin
IIL1.3 Origen adds that oruy rational creatures are made "according to the image" [Gn
1,26] such that they may be "mled" by reason in the different judgements they make
(GCS, V, 197.9-198.2). Oruy they, too, are made "according to our likeness" [Gn 1,26]
such that they might proceed, after re-conformation to the Image, to enjoyment of the
knowledge of God.
48. GCS, X, 4.4-13.
ORIGEN'S LETTER Ta CERTAIN CLOSE FRIENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 207
will not again drink the cup of the New Covenant with his disciples until
he is in "the Kingdom of my Father" [Mt 26,29], Origen understands this
to indicate a draught drunk, not by the entire reconciled rational creation,
but only by Jesus' closest most mature disciples 49 • Origen, as we shaH
show, identifies this nanower community of souls within the Kingdom
of the Father with the souls who occupy the Kingdom of God50•
b) The Kingdom of the H eavens and the Kingdom of God
The Kingdom of the heavens and the Kingdom of God - both of which
are mentioned in the fragments of Origen's letter - are always understood
by him as non-uruversal in membership: there are some souls who will
be for ever excluded from attaining the maximal ultimate beatitude of
those who die bath vutuous and wise having ah'eady repented of aH man-
ner of grievous sins.
A good text illustrating Origen's grounds for teaching this ultimate
inteHectual diversity is Homily on leremiah 18.1. Origen shows, here,
that the way a soul conducts herself before death has an enduring hnpact
on the degree of beatitude she might enjoy thereafter. He interprets an
account of a clay pot hardened by a kiln [Jer 18] as depicting a soul
whose moral character has been set one way or another as a result of the
way she has responded to occasions of grievous sin during her incarnate
life. Origen's meaning, l would suggest, is that moral character affects
the intellectual as cent that will be possible for each soul after death.
But when, after the present aeon, we come ta being at the end of life,
then, having been fired, either by the fire of the hurling "burning things
of the evil one" [Eph 6,16], or under the divine fire - since "our Gad",
tao, is "a devouring fire" [Dt 4,24; 9,3; Heb 12,29] - we become what-
ever we become. If we become, 1 say, "whatever we become" fram 5 !
such or such fire, if we are crushed, we are crushed and perish, either
from having become beautiful vessels, or fram having become wretched
ment. Because of this, inasmuch as we are, here, as if in the hand of the
patter, even if the vessel faUs from ms hands, it admits of a remedy and
being remade 52 •
This passage is talking about the everlasting effects on the quality of
post-incarnate life of different ways of reacting ta grievous, post-baptis-
mal sin: some incarnate souls repent in a fiery grief of repentance, while
49. GCS, V, 185.12-16.
50. Indeed, in HIer 12.2 (GCS, III, 88.1-3) "the Kingdom of God" is substituted for
"the Kingdom of my Father" [Mt 26,29].
51. àn6, with P. NAUTIN (SC 238, p. 92).
52. GCS, III, 151.13-23.
208 S.GULY
others continue to live amidst passionate fU·e53 . It follows that the "crush-
ing" and "perishing" to which Origen refers designate the death of the
fleshly body: subsequent to this event "no improvement" in the soul's
constitution - that is, in the degree to which she is confonned to the
divine reason that is the W ord - is possible.
This interpretation is suppOlted by Origen's other citations of the bib-
lical texts invoked. That from Deuteronomy, while often cited to describe
grievous, cleansing fire after death54, is equally applied to the punitive,
though cleansing fire suffered by a penitent, incarnate sinner55. fucarnate
consuming fire, perhaps, is what 11ses up in the heart of Jeremiah in Hom-
Uy 20.8-9 56 . The Ephesians text, however, is decisive: apart from this
instance it is only ever used by Origen to indicate assaults from "the Evil
One" suffered by incarnate souls, whether amidst temptation from vice,
or, as in our present passage, in being overcome by it57 .
Origen means to say, therefore, that the time for pot-fOlmation that is
incarnate life is a once and for aIl opportunity: the death of the fleshly
body marks the end of the soul's ability to exercise moraljudgement and,
so, to develop the moral character necessary for optimum intellectuai
development58 . fudeed, since virtue, for Origen, is the necessary bedrock
for growth in wisdom, the moral state of a soul at death detennines the
intellectuai ascent she will make thereafter: at death, and inespective
both of her need for post-incarnate purification and of the inevitability of
her becoming subjected to the Word, there is a sense in which she will
for ever remain whatever she has become by the end of her incarnate lite.
To return to the Kingdom of the heavens, this signifies, for Origen,
that state of maximal, ultimate beatitude enjoyed by souls who have bath
died in a vlltuous state, and been progressing in wisdom when they died:
53. H. CROUZEL, L'Hadès et la Géhenne selon Origène, in Gregorianum 59 (1978)
29l-331, pp. 319-320; ID., Différences entre les Ressuscités selon Origène, in Jenseits-
vorstellung in Antike und Christel/tum: Gedenkschrift fiir Alfred Stuiber (Jahrbuch für
Antike und C1u'istentum, Erganzungsband 9), Münster - Westfallen, Aschendorff, 1982,
107 -116, p. 115, and Origène (n. 19), p. 314, believes that the fires under discussion, here,
are those to which souls are subject after death. Crouze1, however, has substituted a post-
incarnate context for Origen's incarnate one.
54. HIer 2.3 (GCS, li, 19.19); 16.6 (GCS, li, 138.15-24); cf. HLc 26 (GCS, TX/2
[1959], 153.2-154.1).
55. Prin I.1.2 (GCS, V, 17.18-18.2); CC IV.13 (GCS, l, 283.19-24).
56. GCS, ID, 190.7-192.15.
57. Filer 2 (GCS, li, 199.18-20); Orat XXX.3 (GCS, TI, 395.3); FrEph 6,16 (J.A.p.
GREGG, Fragmentsfrom the Commenta/}' on Ephesians, in Journal ofTheological Studies
3 [1901-1902],233-244,398-420,554-576, p. 574.1-29); Prin llI.2,4 (GCS, V, 252.14);
IV.3.12 (GCS, V, 342.12-14); CCt 3 (GCS, Vli, 195.7f).
58. See, too, HIer 12.9-10, where no one can "work" [Jn 9,4] or .ogive glory" [Jer 13,16]
to God after death (GCS, li, 95.26-96.12).
ORIGEN'S LETIER Ta CERTAIN CLOSE FRIENDS IN AIEXAIVDRIA 209
these souls are inteIlectually advanced enough at death to complete what
De principiis 11.3.7 and II. 11.6 describe as a post-incarnate ascension of
"the heavens". These "heavens" represent, for Origen, progression in
mystical knowledge of the vlltues embodied in Christ - both those that
concern his divine work in the economy, and those that he displays as a
human soul. Imperfect souls, we shall argue, are exc1uded from the King-
dom of the heavens for being unable to comprehend Christ in this way59.
Ollgen's most sustained consideration of the Kingdom of the he avens
appears in CommentaJy on Matthew X.4-15, regarding Mt 13,44-52.
Origen's exegesis, here, highlights this kingdom's simultaneously chris-
tological and intellectuai character. fu sections 4-6, concerning Jesus'
words about the treasure hidden in a field, this kingdom is again identi-
fied with the mysteries that Jesus teaches only his close disciples, not
Christians in general60 : the "treasure" that the disciples find in the field
61
is the wisdom hidden within the mysteries that Jesus teaches them .
This, as Paul says, is "the wisdom and knowledge hidden in Christ"
[Col 2,3]. Indeed, as Origen interprets Paul in this commentary, Christ
is himself the Kingdom of the heavens 62 . Later, in sections 14-15, the
occupants of this kingdom are described as "spiritual scribes". Whereas
the scribes of historical Israel failed to make or understand figurative
and mystical interpretations of scripture, the scribes of this heavenly
kingdom have progressed from "elementary" to "spiritual things"63:
they learn and demonstrate the latter one by one until they understand
them in their unitary nature, that is, in Christ64 . When Origen, therefore,
considers Jesus' asking souls to "repent, for the kingdom of the heavens
is at hand" [Mt 3,2; cf. 4,7], he understands him to be asking simple
souls to abandon literaI exegesis about individu al aspects of virtue or
wisdom, and to recognise him - that is, Christ - as the kingdom of aU
the heavens 65 .
Restricted membership of the Kingdom of the heavens is apparent in
both post-incarnate and incarnate contexts. Origen's exegesis of the book
of Jeremiah provides several examples of the latter. In Homily on Jere-
miah 16.1-2 it is identified with a "mountain" on which the mature
59. It follows that modem language translations of scripture that give a singular trans-
lation of 1:rov oùpavrov are incapable of representing Origen's thought.
60. GCS, X, 4.14-27.
61. GCS, X, 5.18-20.
62. GCS, X, 5.20-6.2.
63. GCS, X, 16.22-17.20.
64. GCS, X, 17.21-24.
65. GCS, X, 17.24-31.
 210 S.GULY
receive the mysteries taught by the Prophets 66 . In Fragment on leremiah
63 it is associated with enjoyment of the mysteries that are received only
by those who have progressed beyond the moral struggle67 . In Fragment
on leremiah 22 it embraces the "basket" of "very good, early figs" that
signify those capable of understanding "the mysteries of religion and
God's Temple"68. It is in a post-incarnate context, however, that the
enduring patticularity of this kingdom becomes evident. In Commentmy
on 10hn X.83 this kingdom is said to comprise only mature disciples:
these come to enjoy Passover with Christ69 . In De princÎpiis II.3.7 it is
the ultimate inheritance enjoyed by "the pOOl' in spirit" [Mt 5,3]: having
been receptive to wisdom whilst incarnate, they - but not "the meek"
- complete theu' education, in this kingdom, after death70 . In On Praye/'
XXVI.l it is vouchsafed to incarnate souls who are becoming like those
"in heaven" [Mt 6,10] and who bear the image of "the heavenly man"
[1 Co 15,49]11. Such language designates virtuous souls growing in wis-
dom, not aIl Christians.
The Kingdom of God designates the same community of souls and the
same quality of inteIlectuallife as the Kingdom of the heavens. In Com-
mentmy on Matthew X.14-15, indeed, the Kingdom of God is identified
as the same ll1l: 6 O"t'aO'v; , or "thing", as the Kingdom of the heavens,
differing only in its È1ti VOlU, or "aspect": whereas the Kingdom of the
heavens stresses the unity in multiplicity of the mysteries to be found in
Christ, the Kingdom of God stresses only the unity. Jesus' statement that
"the Kingdom of God is within you" [Lk 17,21], says Origen, would be
equaIly well enunciated had he said "the Kingdom of the heavens is
within you"n.
As with the Kingdom of the heavens, Origen sometimes talks about
the Kingdom of God in an incarnate context. In Homily on leremiah
10.4-5 it is taken off the Jews and given to the Gentiles: the latter, unlike
the former, will bear the fruit of wisdom and understanding in contem-
plating scripture73. Here, however, the present re-apportioning of the
king dom is clearly made in view of what will be realised in the future.
This present, but as yet unrealised, sense of the Kingdom of God is
66. GCS, III, 133.7-134.5 on Jer 16,16, Mt 17,1 and 5,1; cf. HIer18.2 (GCS, III, 152.20-
26), on Ex 24,12.
67. GCS, III, 229.11-14, on Jer 45,4-5 (cf. Mt 13,11).
68. GCS, III, 208.22-209.8, on Jer 24,1-3.
69. GCS, IV, 185.12-16.
70. GCS, V, 126.2-17, on Mt 5,3.10.
71. GCS, II, 359.25-360.2, on Mt 7,21 and 25,34 [=Pl1er 36, GCS, III, 217.12-15];
cf. HIer 8.2 (GCS, III, 57.27-58.10); HIerL II.9 (GCS, VIII, 298.4-9).
72. GCS, X, 17.32-18.1.
ORIGEN'S LETIER Ta CERTAIN CLOSE FRlENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 211
apparent, too, in On Prayer XXV. 1. Origen says there that the Kingdom
of God is partiaIly constituted by the "ordered thoughts" and "wise
counsels" of those who are active in extending the Kingdom of Christ
over others 74 . He adds in XXV.2, however, that this incarnate constitu-
tion of God's kingdom is but a foretaste of a deeper eschatological real-
ity: only after death will the knowledge that has fOlmerly been known
"dimly" and "in part" be enjoyed "fuIly" [1 Co 13,9-12]15.
It is in this ultimate post-incarnate context that Origen emphasises the
enduring nature of the Kingdom of God's restricted membership. Its ulti-
mate enjoyment, he says in Dialogue with Heraclides 10 and Homily on
leremiah 20.3, will only be accorded souls who have died after having
repented aIl manner of grievous sins [Gal 6,7; 1 Co 6,9-10]: even mild
sinners like slanderers and drunkards, as our letter fragments also attest,
are excluded76 . In still other texts, membership of the Kingdom of God
is also barred to souls on grounds other than the deathbed presence within
them of unrepented grievous sins. In H omily on Luke 17 continued mat'-
ried [sexual] relations after baptism prevent incarnate initiation into the
higher mysteries of this kingdom 77 • Such continued relations, in turn,
according to Homily on leremiah 20.4, makes post-incarnate ascent into
the Kingdom of God impossible: sexuaIly active spouses are accorded
only "a certain salvation"78. It is not only unrepented grievous sins that
bar entry into God's kingdom, therefore, but any kind of passionate
indulgence with which one is habitually engaged before death.
Only very occasionaIly does Origen speak of the Kingdom of God in
relation to souls other than the "wise" and "holy". InDe principiis I.3.6
he cites Lk 17,21 ("the Kingdom of God is within you") as demonstra-
tion of the fact that "no human beings are without communion" with
God: the basis of this communion is God having given each person exist-
ence and breath79 . Origen, however, regards Jesus' statement as an invi-
tation to incarnate souls to realise theu- univers al orientation, not only to
73. GCS, III, 73.29-75.12; HIer 14.12 (GCS, III, 116.5-117.15); PrLc 185, onLk 11,24
(GCS, lX/2, 304.22-25).
74. GCS, II, 357.8-12; cf. WALTHER, Untersucllllllgell (n. 25), pp. 4-22, for Origen's
exegesis of "the Lord's Prayer".
75. GCS, II, 358.4-24.
76. In HIer 16.5, although less grievous sinners in the Church are gual'anteed sOllle
intellectual l'eward following purification, membership of the Kingdom of God is uot
accol'ded them (GCS, III, 138.10-15). This seems to be why, in HIer 12.1, the Kingdom
of God is described as the place where only Jesus and his closest followers will eat the
Passover and drink the cup of undiluted wisdom (GCS, III, 87.7-10, 24-88.3).
77. GCS, lX/2, 109.17-110.3,7-9.
78. GCS, III, 182.29-31; cf. HEz 1.13 (GCS, III, 324.1-2).
79. GCS, V, 57.25-28.
212 S.GULY
the Good (in being re-confOlmed to "the Image" of God), but also to the
acquisition of wisdom (in acquiring, for the fh'st time, "the likeness" of
God). He does not intend to accord the possibility of enjoyment of the
Kingdom of God to souls who remain unrepented of grievous sin at
death. Indeed, in Homily on leremiah 18.2, this same Lucan verse is cited
with specifie reference to the kingdom that is present in "the holy man"
alone 80 .
Notwithstanding its partieular intellectual quality, the Kingdom of God
contains distinct memberships within it. In Contra Celsum VI.23, regard-
ing Numbers 2, Origen identifies four groups of souls corresponding to
the principal compass points 81 . In Homily on Numbers 3.3 these same
compass points and groups of souls are identified with the four ranks of
he aven [Heb 12,18-23]. In what Origen thinks is their ascending order of
intellectual quality, these are: "Mount Sion", "the heavenly Jerusalem",
"the multitude of angels", and, "the church of the first-born"82. And, as
we have aiso seen, Origen gives the martyrs a role with respect to other,
apparently less worthy souls in the heavenly Jerusalem. All members of
the Kingdom of God, however, are similarly blessed with the contempla-
tive vision of God: relative to other souls, says Commentary on Matthew
X.3, they shine "as one Sun" [Mt 13,43]83.
Origen's interpretation of these four scriptural locutions, therefore,
shows that, although an intellectual as cent of sorne kind is made by ail
souls among God's people, different souls complete their intellectual
ascents with different results. The degree of each soul's ultirnate enjoy-
ment will depend on the intellectual capacity that has been determined
by the manner in which she has lived her life. Only sorne souls will come
to enjoy the Kingdom of God.
II: BEATITUDE OUTSIDE THE KINODOM OF GOD
Notwithstanding the exclusion from the Kingdom of God of different
human souls - and, according to the fragments of our letter, of the Devi!,
too - Origen also believes that excluded souls nevertheless enjoy attenu-
80. OCS, ID, 153.23-25, although Origen substitutes "Kingdom of the heavens" for
Luke's "Kingdom of God" [Lk 17,21]).
81. GCS, II, 93.26-94.8; cf. however, HNm 1.3 (GCS, VII.6.8-7.27), where the
arrangement of the Israelite camp involves God's people as a whole.
82. GCS, VII, 17.2-18.2; Hlas 23.4 (GCS, VII, 444.16-445.10); HNm 1.3 (GCS, VII,
6.9-7.20); cf. CROUZEL Différences entre les Ressuscités (n. 53), p. 108.
83. GCS, X, 4.7-13.
ORIGEN'S LETTER TO CERTAIN CLOSE FRiENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 213
ated kinds of beatitude following their subjection to Christ. We distin-
guish, in what follows, between human and demonic beings.
1. Human Soufs
Human souls excluded from the Kingdom of God are explicitly con-
sidered in Homily on leremiah 12.2-3. Origen, first, describes virtuous
and wise souls as "wholly beautiful and good": they will not only escape
aIl punishment after death, he says, but will also raise "a cup of salva-
tion" [Ps 115,4] thereafter. After giving different descriptions of these
same souls' beatitude in "the new heaven" [Heb 12,22-23] - that is, l
contend, in the Kingdom of God - Origen excludes from this very locale
aIl manner of grievously sinning souls: these, he says, are "punished by
not being in this place with the others"84. The "punishment" in view,
here, l would suggest, is not envisaged as these souls' purification, but
rather an enduring impairment in their intellectuai potential.
It is necessary, hàwever, to distinguish human souls excluded from the
Kingdom of God into two groups: (a) Christians who die without having
repented their less grievous sins (the majority of Christians); and (b)
nominal Christi ans and other people who die without having repented
their more grievous sins (the wieked). The second group as much as the
first becomes subordinate to the rule of Christ, even if, unlike the first, it
does not also take up an inheritance in the Promised Land.
a) Soufs Unrepented of Less Grievous Sins at Death
Origen understands irnperfect Christians as indicated by "the meek"
of Matthew's Gospel. These will occupy those regions of the Promised
Land that lie outside the new Jerusalem but which are still under Christ's
personal rule. Origen moves from stressing the attenuated quality of such
souls' intellectuailife, to underlining that they do, nonetheless, experi-
ence sorne beatitude.
Attenuation is apparent in De principiis II.3.7. Whereas "the meek"
are said to enjoy a final reward on "on the land" [Mt 5,5; cf. Ps 37,11],
the "poor in spirit" [Mt 5,3], by contrast, enjoy their reward in "the
heavenly Jerusalem"85. Later, in II.1O.3, the glory of "the meek" is said
to be such that it can shine only on the new earth, and not in the new
heaven86 . Later still, in III.6.8, although the meek are said to participate
84. GCS, ID, 90.14-18.
85. GCS, V, 126.6-9 and 10-17.
86. GCS, V, 176.11-16.
 214 S.GULY
in Christ's aeon-Iong life and to accept regulation by his newly promul-
gated Law 87 , they are also contradistinguished from "the saints" - that
is, presumably, from souls in Jerusalem. In Homily on Numbers 22.1
those who live on "the land" of the new Israel are said to live in "a
plebeian order" relative to the other more pelfect souls in Jerusalem 88 .
In Homily on Jeremiah 16.5-6, impelfect Christians, once purified, are
said to enjoy only an ultimate reward of "good things", not the "prom-
ises" of "the Kingdom of God"89.
The beatitude of "the meek", however, is stressed in other texts. In De
principiis N.3.8 impeIfect Christians constitute part of "the new Israel"
along with "the saints". "Israel", as Origen interprets it, means "the
mind seeing God"90. The ealth, or "land", on which the meek live, there-
fore, does represent, for him, a degree of enjoyment of the knowledge of
God. In Homily on Jeremiah 9.3 Origen identifies this beatitude with
scripture's promise of a "land flowing with milk and honey"91. Souls
dwelling "on the land", it seems, are as replete with the knowledge of
God as theu' more pelfect brethren. They differ oruy inasmuch as their
more limited intellectual capacity means that they receive less divine
wisdom in becoming replete.
b) Souls Unrepented of More Grievous Sins at Death
In De principiis IV.3.9-10 Origen describes a new Hades constituted
by the lower-Iying regions of the new emth that lie outside the Promised
Land. These will be under the governance of certain kings and princes
and inhabited by souls who were fOlmerly wicked. Origen, at least,
describes the inhabitants as having "gone down" to exist in these regions
"in a kind of captivity" and as a consequence of the way they have led
their incarnate lives 92 • Once again Origen's emphases move between
stressing the severely attenuated quality of these souls' intellectuallife,
and asselting whatever might be said about their beatitude.
Sorne texts stressing attenuation have just been mentioned. In De prin-
cipiis IV.3.8 formerly wicked souls are excluded from the people of
Israel for not having "the mind seeing God", that is, the capacity for the
pmticular knowledge of God that enables "aeon-Iong life" with Christ
87. GCS, V, 290.9-10.
88. GCS, VII, 205.6-18, regarding the daughters of Salpaad [Num 27].
89. GCS, III, 138.27-139.8.
90. GCS, V, 333.32-334.18, and in the Greek.
91. GCS, III, 67.16--68.15; cf. H36Ps 2.4 (SC 411, pp. 106-108).
92. In HIer 7.3 wicked Christians are wamed that they will serve "foreign gods" in a
land not their own [cf. Jer 5,19] (see especially what Origen suggests is the higher (because
eschatological) interpretation of this verse, in GCS, III, 54.3-11).
ORIGEN'S LETTER TO CERTAIN CLOSE FRIENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 215
and his Father93 ; In N.3.9 their ultimate intellectual existence is described
as "a kind of captivity". This picture is supported by other works. In
Homily on Jeremiah 12.9-12 the selfsame existence is identified with
"the outer dm'kness" mentioned in scripture [Mt 8,12; 22,13; 25,30; cf.
Lk 13,28]94. In Homily on Leviticus 9.5 it is described as a wilderness 95 .
In different places in the Commentaly on John, finally, it is subject to an
intellectual constraint from which there can never be any release96 .
Still other texts, however, suggest these same souls' beatitude. In Com-
mentaly on Romans II.7 those who at death were unconveIted from lives
of more grievous sin are said to receive an eschatological reward of
"glory", "honour" and "peace" [Rom 2,10] cOlTesponding to whatever
degree of virtue they might have had at the point of death. Origen says,
that since Christ is "the fullness of things" [Col 1,19], both "Jew" and
"Greek" [Rom 2,9] - that is, as Origen interprets these groups, both the
wicked Christian soul and the wicked Gentile soul - will come to share
in sorne kind of "life" in the realm to come97 . In Commentaly on John
1.83, tao, the souls of the wicked are in receipt of at least sorne good
news in the invisible realm: an eschatological angel "flying in mid-air"
with the Gospel will proclaim good news to every nation: the good
Father, Origen explains, "has not completely forsaken those who have
fallen away from him"98.
The question duly arises: if ail such human souls can enjoy different
degrees of beatitude outside the Kingdom of God, is it not at least pos-
sible that Origen thinks that other rational beings - that is, demons in
general, and the Devil in pmticular - might also do so?
2. The Devil and Demons
In addressing this question, it is necessmy, first, to consider whether
or not Origen accorded the Devil the em-lier salvation to be had through
healing fire: without the end of the Devil's hostility, there could be no
question, for Origen, of this rational being experiencing any beatitude99 .
93. GCS, V, 335.24-338.18.
94. See, especially, GCS, III, 99.4-14.
95. GCS, VI, 425.15-29.
96. CIo XIX.88 (GCS, N, 314.8-13); XXVIII.124-126 (GCS, N, 408.17-25).
97. C.P. IlAMMOND BAMMEL, Der Romerbriefkommelltar des Origelles - Kritische
Ausgabe der ÜbersetzzlIlg Rzifills. Three volumes (1: books 1-3; Il: books IV-VI; Ill:
books VII-X), Freiburg, Herder, 1990, 1997 and 1998, vol. 1, pp. 125-128.253-321.
98. GCS, N, 18.28-32.
99. On the Devil's salvation, see C.C. RICHARDSON, The Condemnation of Origen, in
Church History 6 (1937) 53-64, pp. 53-54; S. LAEUCHLI, Origen 's Interpretation of Judas
 216 S. GULY
a) The Healing of the Devi!
Origen frequently talks about the Devil and his fellow demons suffer-
ing fire. In Homily on Exodus 6.3 theu' eschatological drowning in a
turbulent "lake of fire" is pre-figured by the drowning of Pharaoh and
his horsemen in the Red Sea. In Homily on Joshua 8.4-6 their suffering
fU'e follows a military defeat at the hands of God's now purified people.
The Devil' s suffering on this occasion is identified with the" swallowing
up" of "Death" mentioned by Paul [1 Co 15,54-55].
Origen seems to identify this purifying experience by the Devil and
his fellow demons, both with Matthew's "aeon-Iong fire prepared for the
Devil and his angels" [Mt 25,46], and with Revelation's "lake offire and
sulphur" [Rev 20,7.9]. Since Origen also cites these named fires with
regard to the fiery grief experienced by wicked human souls, one won-
ders whether he thinks the demons' experience of such fire is compara-
ble: is their experience, in other words, elicited by a soul-searching exer-
cise of retrospective judgement?
There is sorne evidence that Origen believed, not only that demons
would judge themselves, but that they would also feel due grief for their
sins. In De principiis 1.6.3 he talks about different groups of demons con-
verting in the "f'us t"", second" and "1ast trrnes.
. "In Fragment on J ere-
miah 25 demons are pictured as snakes shut up together in a box, each one
being killed by another until one, "the basilisk" - that is, as Origen iden-
tifies him, "Death" - is leftlOo • Origen understands this progression of
"deaths", 1 would contend, as the breaking of each demon's hostility to
the Son through the ill effects on each individu al demon of another
demon's hostilitylOl. He offers just such an interpretation of "death" and
"destruction" in the case of the Devil in particular. In several places in De
principiis and elsewhere he notes that, according to Paul, the destruction
of the hostility of the Devil [1 Co 15,24; cf. Phil 2,20] takes place through
his subjugation to Christ after the Second Coming [1 Co 15,26-27]102. In
!scariot, in ChZ/rch History 22 (1953) 253-268; C.A. PATRIDES, The Salvation of Satan,
m JoZ/mal of the Histo/y of Ideas 28 (1967) 467-469; R.E. HEINE (ed.), Origen, Com-
mentmy on the Gospel according to John. Two volumes (1: books 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 10; II:
books 13, 19, 20, 28 & 32), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America 1989 and
1993, vol. II, pp. 59-65. ' 439.18-22); HNm 12.3 (GCS, VII, 103.1-3); H/os 8.4 (GCS, VII, 340.14-16).
100. GCS, Ill, 211.12-21.
101. On such agency, cf. Fl1er 63 (GCS, Ill, 229.19-20).
1O~. l!rin 1.6.2-3 \GCS, ,":,.79.19-84 . 21);, IIl.6.3 (.GCS, V, 283.14--284.10). Although
the pnn~lpal.manuscnpt t:adltIon of Rufmus translatIon of De principiis IIl.6.5 does not
clearly IdentIf~ Death wlth the Devil, that used by John Eriugena does (De divisione
natume V.27, m J.-P. MI~NE, Patrologia Latina 122, 929Aff, especially 931A6). Ancient
commentators w7re aIso m no do~bt that Origen so identified these two figures (see the
texts of Theophilus of Alexandna and Jerome reproduced in the GCS footnotes by
ORIGEN'S LETIER TO CERTAIN CLOSE FRIENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 217
De principiis III.6.5 this occasion is said to "destroy" the Devil's hostil-
ity, not his substance 103 •
That Origen could teach the repentance of the Devil has struck sorne
as problematic. Crouzel, for example, cites two conflicting pieces of tex-
tuaI evidence that demonic intransigence might be incorrigible 104 • In De
principiis 1.6.3 Origen asks his reader to decide whether the Devil and
evil demons might voluntarily become wicked "from a habit into a kind
of nature" (velut in naturam quondam ex consuetudine) 105. Crouzel's
concern here, however, seems misplaced: Origen's intention is to erect
an "Aunt Sally" for the perceptive hearer to knock down. Having left it
up to his reader to judge the question for himself, he gives his own clear
opinion that "every rational creature" will, indeed, be "renewed and
restored" .
A second problematic text is Commentary on John XX.174. Origen
suggests that the Antichrist - an individu al distinct from the Devil - has
been so wicked that he has "become natured" (1tE<pUO'lCûI!ÉVOV) in evil
[cf. Jn 8,44]106. Nothing, here, admittedly, is put to the reader to decide.
The text, nevertheless, do es not imply permanent incorrigibility: the
Antichrist's obstinate hostility explains only why he has remained an
enemy of human souls throughout their incarnate lives. His eventual
repentance, indeed, is suggested by Origen's citation of Ezek 28,19:
"You have become destruction, and you shall not exist for ever" - that
is, as Origen understands this prediction, "you shaH not exist for ever as
a hostile being".
Any possibility of demonic incorrigibility, in any event, has to deal
with explicit evidence to the contrary. In Commentmy on Romans IX.41
Origen says that aIl God's enemies both can, and will be restored to
him107 • In Homily on Joshua 16.3 he interprets the "land that remains"
of Josh 13,1-2 as signifying the demonic powers who remain unconvelted
by Jesus' first coming, but who will be taken into his power and author-
ity in the Second Coming 108 • This event, presumably, incorporates the
KOETSCHAU). In any event, Origen explicitly identifies Death and the Devil in numerous
other texts: see, for example, HIer 17.3 (GCS Ill, 146, this being the end of the passage
preserved only in Jerome's Latin); Fl1er 25 (GCS, Ill, 211.18); HLv 9.11 (GCS, VI,
103. GCS, V, 286.10--287.3.
104. CROUZEL, Origène (n. 19), pp. 338-339; ID., L'apocatastasis chez Origène, in L.
LIES (ed.), Origeniana Quarta (Innsbrucker theologische Srudien, 19), Innsbruck, Tyrolia,
1987,286-287.
105. GCS, V, 83.9-84.6.
106. GCS, IV, 353.24-25.
107. HAMMOND BAMMFL, Der Romerbrie.fkommentar (n. 97), vol. ru, pp. 776-777.90-116.
108. GCS, VII, 397.4-20.
218 S.GULY
subjugation of Death - that is, the Devil - mentioned by 1 Corinthians
15. And, in De principiis 1.6.1, in a discussion explicitly about the subjec-
tion of evil beings in 1 Co 15, subjection to Christ is said to "indicate"
(indicat) salvation109.
Origen, moreover, dispels any possibility of inconigibility in the case
of the Devil in particular. In Commentary on John Il.93-97 the Devil's
hostility is said to be a matter of his having chosen to become "the
Devil", not because of his nature 11O . Later, in XXXIl.33, the Devil's
acceptance of responsibility for his ruin is said to render him able to yield
to the Word, and so to subject himself to his image 111 . Origen goes even
further and asselts the Devil's actual repentance. In XXXII.29-31 the
subjugation of the Devil is said to mark "the end" [1 Co 15,23-24] of
the Word's work for the salvation - that is, the healing - of rational
beings112. Such healing, surely, implies the Devil's repentance.
b) The Devil's Ultimate Intellectual State
The earlier healing through purification, however, says anything con-
ceming the quality of the intellectuallife to be had by the Devil follow-
ing his repentance. Unfortunately, there is little extant concerning
Origen's views on this subject. Sorne texts, however, deserve mention.
In De principiis 1.6.3, as we have seen, Origen talks about demons who
convelt in the "first" "second" and "last times". Whatever these tem-
poral expressions might designate, Origen says of these demons that they
subsequently make an intellectual ascent of "heavenly offices": they
perceive, there, what 2 Co 4,18 calls both things "seen and temporal",
and things "not seen and aeon-Iong". These converted demons are even-
tually able even to perceive what Romans calls the "invisible" and
"everlasting" things of God [Rom 1,20]. This striking text might explain
what Origen says later inDe principiis IV.3.9-1O, where celtain "kings"
and "princes" of the mystically conceived regions of Egypt, Babylon and
Tyre wield an ultimate authority over fonnerly wicked human souls 113 •
The spiritual significance of such place names, in Origen, is invariably
associated with opposing powers in general l14 , and with the Devil in
109. GCS, V, 79.7-18.
110. GCS, N, 68.26--69.23.
111. GCS, N, 430.9-14.
112. GCS, N, 429.27--430.6.
113. On the spiritual significance of Ancient Near East place names in general, see the
whole of HIelL lU (GCS, VID, 290-292); Filer 25 (GCS, ID, 210.15-19).
114. In HIer 5.6 Nebuchadnezzar and the king of Egypt are said to be "alien intelli-
gences" who guide the wicked soul (GCS, ID, 36.25-27). In Filer 25 Pharaoh and Nebu-
chadnezzar are "opposing powers", of whom "Death" [1 Co 15,26] is the last to be
ORIGEN' S LEITER TO CERTAIN CLOSE FRiENDS IN ALEXANDRIA 219
particular: in this very passage, indeed, Origen identifies the king of
Babylon with Lucifer [Is 14,12]115. Origen's understanding would seem
to be, then, that, having repented of their sins and leamt what was pos-
sible for them to leam, formerly evil angels, not only experience a degree
of ultimate beatitude themselves, but also help fonnerly wicked human
souls to enjoy theirs, too.
It cannot be denied, however, that Origen often emphasises the ulti-
mate attenuation of the intellectual state of formerly wicked beings. In
Homily on Joshua 16.3, where he considers the final subjection of
Christ's enemies that takes place after this present world has ended,
Origen describes this subjection as, in sorne sense, a matter of "compul-
sion". He adds that there will "no longer be any grace" for those sub-
jected, that is, 1 suggest, no possibility of acquisition of the intellectual
beauty confened by divine wisdom 116 • In Homily on Jeremiah 12.9-12,
on Jer 13,16-17, he contrasts the final state qfthe fOlmerly wicked with
the life of the virtuous who come to enjoy the "light" of divine knowl-
edge. Those who presently "give glory to God", he says, wait patiently
during the time after death during which others experience punishment117 :
God' s "people" "hides in its moms", "waits for light", and is eventually
oveltaken by light 118 . The fate of the wicked is not so fOltunate. Not on1y
do they "stumble on dark mountains" in experiencing punishment, but
they also subsequently experience, not "light", but a "shadow of death"
"arising" from "the dark mountains" [Jer 13,16]119. Such language,
c1early, is difficult to square with any measure of intellectuallife.
Nonethe1ess, Origen also states elsewhere that all rational beings will
experience some kind of intellectual repletion in a new economy gov-
emed by God: in Contra Celsum VIIl.n, "it is not only possible" that
every rational being will exist under the same law, "but true"120. Origen
offers what we might calI a balanced statement of his position in Com-
mentary on Romans V1.6: the ultimate state of formerly wicked beings,
he says, will be a fonn of aeon-Iong life and intellectual repletion com-
subdued (GCS, ID, 211.11-21). See, too, Prin 1.5.4 with respect to the identification of
"the prince of Tyre" [Ezek 28,11-19] with "an adverse power" (GCS, V, 73.16-75.27).
115. See, too, the identification of Nebuchadnezzar and the Devil in HIer 1.3 (GCS,
ID, 3.3-8); 19.14 (GCS, ID, 171.1-10); Filer 48 (GCS, ID, 222.7-12).
116. GCS, VII, 398.3-5.
117. This is an experience of punishment that scripture refers to as involving a time
when it "darkens" [Jer 13,16], and as constituting the "darkness" of "Day of Judgement"
[Am 5,18] (GCS, ID, 95.26-96.15).
118. GCS, ID, 96.15-97.12, 99.4-8.
119. GCS, ID, 99.8-15.
120. GCS, II, 288.18-20.
220 S.GULY
parable to, but very different from the aeon-Iong life and divine knowl-
edge provided by Christ in the new Israel 121 •
The surviving fragments of Origen's LeUer "to certain close friends in
Alexandria", in conclusion, have long been interpreted in a way that has
closed down discussion of a proposition that has considerable support in
Origen's other writings, namely, that the Devil would both repent and
experience sorne degree of beatitude thereafter. If we attend to what these
fragments say, we can see that, rather than justifying the closing down
of discussion on this subject, they open it up. First, they show that Origen
denied but one kind of intellectual salvation to the Devil, not every kind.
Second, they compel us to ask what Origen understood by "the Kingdom
of God" relative to other scriptural locutions about the kingdom. And,
third, they oblige us to take seriously Origen's occasional comments con-
ceming the ultimate intellectuallife of formerly wicked beings.
259 Arbury Road Sebastian GULY
Cambridge CB4 2JL
United Kingdom
sebastianguly@yahoo.com
121. HAMMoND BAMMEL, Der ROlllerbriefkollllllentar (n. 97), vol. II, pp. 479-480.15-
22.
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT
AN ANALYSIS OF ORIGEN'S LETTER Ta GREGORY
Dans la chaîne parasitaire,
le dernier venu tente de supplanter celui qui le précède.
Michel Serres, Le Parasite!
Therefore, il is in accordance with the en tire likeness of the bees,
that we participate in pagan literature.
Basil of Caesarea, Address to Young Men 2
I. PARASITES, lDENTITY & CULTURAL TRANSMISSION
1. Serres's Metaphar afthe Parasite
In DrudgelY Divine, Jonathan Z. Smith contends that in order for pro-
gress within the study of early Christianity to continue we must look
again with "new perspectives on old materials"3. This present study takes
Smith's assertion as an invitation to analyze Origen's well-known Letter
ta Greg01y, also referred to as the Letter ta Theadare, with sorne seldom
used methods of inquiry that promise to yield fresh perspectives for
assessing Origen's appropriation of Hellenistic philosophy4. In particular,
this exploration will be guided by Michel Serres's metaphor of the "par-
1. M. SERRES, Le Parasite, Paris, Bernard Grasset, 1980, p. 10. In this study, frorn here
onward, we shall primarily refer to the English version, M. SERRES, The Parasite, trans.
L.R. SCHEHR, Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 2007.
2. Km:ù rcàcrav Bi] oÔv 'Ûûv J.lgÀtHroV 'ti]v gtKova, 'trov Myrov uJ.ltV ,.lBj}gK'tÉOV. The
full tide of Basil's address is Address to Young Men, on How They Might Derive Benefit
from Greek Literature (pG 31, 563C-590A, 569C); Basil of Caesarea, The Letters, trans.
R.J. DEFERRARI- M.R.P. McGUIRE, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1970, pp.
365-435.
3. Regarding the study of early Christianity, Smith contends, "This is an area of schol-
arly inquiry, not unlike others within the human sciences, where progress is made not so
much by the uncovering of new facts or documents as by looking again with new perspec-
tives on familiar materials. For this reason, matters of methods and models ought to be
central". J.Z. SMITH, DrudgelY Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and
the Religions of Late Antiquity, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1990, p. viii.
4. There are numerous studies on Origen and his appropriation of philosophy. For
example, see M.J. EDWARDS, Origen Against Plato, Burlington, VT, Ashgate publishing,
2002; H. CROUZEL, Origène et la philosophie, Paris, Aubier, 1962; J.J. DENIS, De la
Philosophie d'Origène, Paris, hnpremerie Nationale, 1884.
 222 M.J. PEREIRA
asite" as articulated in his seminal work fittingly titled, The Parasites.
This study situates itself within recent scholarly discourse that progresses
beyond the dichotomized portrait of "Origen the churchman against
Origen the Platonist" by reconsidering Origen's strategic engagement
with HeIlenistic philosophy.
In The Parasite, Serres examines the systems of human relations through
the metaphor of the "parasite", which in his native French, has three dis-
tinct but intenelated connotations: (1) the parasite acts as an infection that
takes food from another without giving anything in retum, (2) the parasite
acts as a guest, who exchanges talk and flattely for sustenance, (3) and the
parasite acts as noise, that is an inteIference within the system6 • Senes's
analysis is rather complex and not easily summarized7 • In brief and for the
purposes of this present study, we shaIl emphasize that Senes advances a
theOlY of relations, where the parasite stands as the primordial foundation
for aIl human activity, including the disciplines of histOly and religion8 •
Parasites, according to Serres, feast off of the life of another and provide
nothing in retum; this "irreversible arrow" is characteristic of aIl parasitic
activity, where the parasite leaves the parasited for dead9 • Senes concedes
human beings, rats and other mammals are not literaI parasites; however,
5. SERRES, The Parasite (n. 1), p. 10.
6. Schehr explains, "The parasite is a microbe, an insidious infection that takes without
giving and weakens without killing. The parasite is also a gues t, who exchanges his talk,
praise, and flattery for food. The parasite is noise as weIl as the static in a system or the
interference in a channel. These seemingly dissimilar activities are, according to Michel
SelTes not merely coincidentally expressed by the same word (in French). Rather, they are
intrinsically related and, in fact, they have the same basic function in a system ... Through
a careful and cogent analysis of these various threads, Michel Serres produces an elegant
theOl'y of human relations and institutions, aIl of which have the same common factor: the
parasite". See Schehr's introduction in SERRES, The Parasite (n. 1), p. x. AIso, see Cary
Wolfe's introduction to SERRES, The Parasite, p. xiii.
7. At one point, early in his analysis, SelTes suggests that rather than employing the
term parasite, it may be more accurate to classify those "mammals" (e.g. human beings),
which feast on hosts, as "predators". SelTes, however, quickly sets aside the predator
analogy in favor of the metaphor of the parasite. Early in his work, Serres pauses and
considers the limitations of the parasite imagery, "Let us stop for a moment. 1 am using
words in an unusual way. For the science called parasitology, a rat, a carrion-eater like the
hyena, a man, be he peasant or high official, are not parasites at aIl. They are, quite simply,
predators. The relation with a ho st presupposes a permanent or semipelmanent contact
with him; such is the case for the louse, the tapeworm, the pasturella pestis. Not only
living on but also living in - by him, with him, and in him. And this parasite cannot be
large. Parasitism peltains only to invertebrates, coming to an end with moIlusks, insects,
and arthropods. There are no parasitic mammals. Not the rat, not the hyena, not even the
administrator" (SERRES, The Parasite En. 1], p. 6).
8. SERRES, The Parasite (n. 1), p. x.
9. Serres instructs, "Of course, we may speak of rats, snakes, or hares and none of
them can be assinùlated to the lose or the tapewOlm, and yet, what is in question will be
nothing but the parasitic. The triangle is closed. At each of its points, through story or
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 223
they truly behave parasitic inasmuch as they engage in one directional
relationships with the entities they use and weaken lO•
Within the study of religions in late antiquity, the metaphor of the
parasite has primarily been employed to characterize the so-caIled Gnos-
tic movements within their broader religious milieu ll . In this context, the
label parasite predominantly conveys a pejorative connotation, where the
parasitic entity stands in the subordinate position to their established host
religion. Like most metaphors, the image of the parasite has irtherent
limitations, which are built into the task of describing historical phenom-
ena. While shortcomings persist12 , the analogy of the parasite remains a
provocative model for analyzing the development of religious move-
ments that seemingly always begin as parasites until eventuaIly gamering
enough clout - through increased numbers and longevity - to shed the
parasitic label 13 . In the case of Gnosticism, Williams contends that the
depiction of Gnosticism as a parasitic entity is "unnecessmy, misleading,
and unhelpful"14. Williams's argument succinctly recognizes some of the
science, social science or biological science, just one relation appears, the simple, ilTevers-
ible arrow" (ibid., p. 8).
10. Returning to the model of the parasite, SelTes explains, "To parasite means to eat
next to. Let us begin with the literai meaning. The country rat is invited by his colleague
from town, who offers him supper ... There is no exchange nor will there be one. Abuse
appears before use. Gifted in sorne fashion, the one eating next to, soon eating at the
expense of, always eats the same thing, the host, and this eternal host gives over and over,
constantly, till he breaks, even till death, drugged, enchanted, fascinated. The host is not
the prey, for he offers and continues to give. Not a prey, but a host. The other one is not
a predator but a parasite. Would you say that the mother's breast is the child's prey? It is
more or less the child's home. But this relation is of the simplest sort; there is none sim-
pler or easier: it always goes in the same direction. The same one is the host; the same
one takes and eats; there is no change of direction. This is true of aIl beings. Of lice and
men" (ibid., p. 7).
Il. For example, Stroumsa suggests we might best compare Gnosticism to a parasitical
virus. "Neither a religion in the full sense of the word, nor simply a Christian heresy,
Gnosis seems to act - if 1 may be pelmitted this metaphor - like a vÎlus or parasite, pro-
ducing mutations in the body that is attacks". G.G. STROUMSA, Savoir et salut: Traditions
juives et tentations dualistes dans le Christianisme Ancien, Paris, Celf, 1992, p. Il.
12. Williams warns, "The 'parasite' metaphor is also misleading because it conveys
the impression of an autonomous set of religious themes, or myths, or practices, or atti-
tudes that somehow hopped around from one religious community to the next. This dis-
tracts attention from the fact that it is humans who do the innovating" (MA. WILLIAMS,
Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious CategO/y, Princeton,
NJ, Plinceton Univ. Press, 1996, p. 84).
13. After contending that every new religion, in sorne manner, begins as a parasite, Wil-
liams continues to explain, "it becomes clear that what is meant by a 'nonparasitical' religion
is most probably simply one that has grown to be sufficiently successful in telms of numer-
ical strength and historicallongevity to be viewed as its 'own' tradition" (ibid., p. 83).
14. Williams concludes the static image of the parasite is "Unnecessary, because they
create an artificial special class of phenomena out of instances of Îllnovation that in fact
follow ordinary patterns observable everywhere. Misleading, because, especially in the
 224 M.J. PEREIRA
analytical issues inherent within descriptive nomenclature that is broadly
applied to classify diverse movements. Gnosticism, according to Wil-
liams, is unjustly served by the metaphor of the parasite, because it
denotes an "exploitative outsider" whereas the vast majority of Gnostie
innovators understood themselves as working from within the traditions
that they were accused of invading 15 •
Unlike the so-called Gnostics, Origen did not understand himself to be
an insider within the schools of Greek philosophy; consequ~ntly, the
parasite metaphor remains a viable model for assessing his strategie
appropriation of Hellenistic philosophy or paideia in his Letter to Greg-
07y. Furthennore, if aIl religious movements develop as they transition
from parasitic entities into established religions, then it remains profitable
to consider how burgeoning religious movements, beyond the so-called
Gnostics, advanced from their parasitieal status into host religions 16. If
we grant that Gnosticism should be freed from the parasite label because
they understood themselves to be working within the tradition, then how
might we assess Origen, who primarily understood himself as a church-
man working from the regula fidei rather than as an insider within the
schools of Hellenistie philosophy? Was Origen an "exploitative out-
sider" in relation to Hellenistie philosophy? One possible explanation is
that Origen did not understand himself as either an outsider or an insider
because he would not have recognized our anachronistie split between
Hellenistic philosophy and Christian theology. The intellectual CUll'ents
of Christianity and philosophy, so this argument contends, indistinguish-
ably merged together within Alexandrian culture to such an extent that
Origen could not have seen the distinction as sharply as we suppose.
However, if we are not willing to completely dismiss Origen's discourse
on Hellenistic philosophy as mere rheiorieal fabrication, then we should
concede that, at least for the Alexandrian theologian, there was some-
thing like a genuine difference (ev en if exaggerated in his rhetorie)
between Christian theology and Hellenistic philosophy. In his writings,
cas.e of th~ 'parasite' or 'viru~' metaphors, they distract our attention from the true agents
of mnovatlOn and the dynamlc nature of the innovation process. Unhelpful because they
explain nothing" (ibid., p. 95).
15. Ibid., p. 85.
16. ~he dubious nature of ?nosticis.m as a category to classify religious phenomena
has recelved fresh and energetIc analysIs, but the recognition of this ambiguous nomen-
~latu~e. is eviden~ ~n e~'lier historia~s of late antiquity. For example, Grant instructs,
Defmmg Gnosticlsm IS an extraordll1arily difficult task, sinee modem writers use the
tenn to coyer a wide variety of speculative religious phenomena. These phenomena are
encountered .from Gaul in the West to Iran in the East, from the first century of our era to
at least the runth" (RM. GRANT, Gnosticism and Early Christianity New York Columbia
University Press, 1966, p. 6). "
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 225
Origen c1early presupposes a difference between Christian theology and
Hellenistie philosophy, whether we modems see this as a genuine distinc-
tion or as fanciful distancing of the parasite from the parasited is another
question aIl together. One profitable way to analyze the Letter to Greg07y
is through assessing these categories of difference and sameness, whereby
Origen contrasts the Christian appropriation of paideia to that of other
intellectual circles.
2. Alexandrian Cultural Transmission
Our analysis of the Letter to Greg07y begins with an assessment of
Origen's intellectual background, which was dramatically shaped during
his fOlmative years at Alexandria17 • Different models have supported var-
ied interpretations of what the city of Alexandria may have been like
during Origen's lifetime lS • Some recent and notable studies have contin-
17. If there is one historical fact we know with a degree of certainty concerning
Origen's infancy and childhood, it is that he was bom and educated in Alexandria.
EDWARDS, Origen Against Plata (n. 4), p. 11. For further discussion on intellectual currents
that influenced Origen, see N.RM. DE LANGE, Jewish Influence on Origen in H. CROUZEL
(ed.), Origeniana (Quademi di Vetera Christianorum, 12), Bari, Università di Bari, 1975,
225-242; D.G. BOSTOCK, Egyptian Influence on Origen, in ibid., 243-256.
18. Various depictions of Alexandria, from laudatory to the more reserved, have cross-
sectioned within scholarly discourse. For example, Edwards conciudes, "Alexandria was
not an ancient city, for it owes its name to the conqueror of Greece and Egypt, Alexander
the Great. Under the successors of Alexander's general Ptolemy, it throve until it exceeded
even Athens in population and threatened to outshine it as the centre of Greek culture. !ts
comucopian library, constructed at the behest of the second Ptolemy, fuelled the industry
of scholars and refined the taste of the poets". Stroumsa provides a more reserved assess-
ment of Alexandria, "lts geographicallocation meant that Alexandria, even as a metropo-
lis, remained in a sense marginal: relatively far from both Athens and Rome, and rather
close to Jerusalem, or, if you wish, the Orient" (EDWARDS, Origen Against Plata [n. 4],
p. 53). Cf. G.G. STROUMSA, Alexandria and the Mytll of Multiclilturalislll, in L. PERRONE
(ed.), Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition (BETL, 164), Leuven,
Peeters, 2003, 23-29, p. 24. There have been several viable models advanced for portray-
ing Alexandria in late antiquity. The "integrative model" argues that the dominant Greek
culture provided a interpretive framework, which facilitated the integration of sub-groups,
such as Judaism and Christianity. Regarding this paradigm, Niehoff observes, "actual
contact between different cultures diminishes the boundaries between them, and the dom-
inant culture tends to provide an integrating framework for a variety of other cultures"
(M.N. NIEHOFF, Philo's Views on Paganislll, in G.N. STANTON - G.G. STROUMSA [eds.],
Tolerance and Intolerance in Eady JlIdaism and Cllristianity, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1998, l35-158, p. l35). For further discussion on this "integrative
view", see M. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols., trans. J. BOWDEN, Philadelphia,
PA, Fortress, 1974; S. LEIBERMAN, Greek in Jewish Palestine; Hellenislll in Jewish Pal-
estine, New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1994. Another possible
explanatory model, which we will cali the "multicultural view", deemphasizes Hellenistic
hegemony in favor of multiple cultures co-existing in a way that allowed for the reimagin-
ing of distinct religious identities. In an attempt to correct what he calls the "myth of
226 M.J. PEREIRA
ued the process of cogently reexamining and c1arifying aspects of Alex-
andrian culture 19. Within the limits and pUlposes of this present study,
we only wish to consider the notions of Alexandrian "multiculturalism"
and paideia in late antiquity as two factors that illuminate the Letter to
GregOly20. On the popular level, Alexandrian multiculturalism denotes
the possibility for a synthetic unity of aIl humanity into single society21.
Rather than high-minded tolerance providing the foundationfor social
unity, economic and labor-orientated factors were the cohesive forces
that united different religious groups within Alexandria22 . Origen's Letter
was written at a time when education (i.e. paideia) provided a bridge,
whereby religious intellectuais interacted and exchanged philosophical
multiculturalism" in Alexandria, Stroumsa surveys a range of works to support his claim,
"Throughout the second and third century, as the Christian cornrnunity sought to define
itself, tom as it was between Jewish-Christians and Gnostics, the tensions between Jews,
Christians, and Greeks remained very high". For further discussion, see STROUMSA, Alex-
andria and the My th of Multiculturalism, p. 27.
19. For further discussion concerning Alexandria, see C.W. GRIGGS, Early Egyptian
Christianity: From its Origins to 451 C.E., New York, Brill, 1990; A.K. BmVMAN, Egypt
after the Pharaohs: 332 BC - AD 642, frolll Alexander to the Arab Conquest, Berkeley,
CA, University of Califomia Press, 1996; C. RASS, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topog-
raphy and Social Conflict, Baltimore, MD, The Johns Ropkins University Press, 1997;
B.J. WATTS, City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria, Berkeley, CA,
University of Califomia Press, 2006; B.A. PEARSON, Earliest Christianity in Egypt: Fur-
ther Observations, in J.E. GOEHRING - J.A. TIMBIE (eds.), The World of Early Egyptian
Christianity: Language, Literature, and Social Context, Washington, DC, The Catholic
University of America Press, 2007, 97-112.
20. Regarding the nature and value of paideia, Watts explains that, "Paideia was the
unique possession of those who separated themselves from the average man by their
knowledge of and appreciation for the words, ideas, and texts of classical antiquity.
Paideia was acquired through an expensive and time-consuming process of education that
not only taught literature but also aUowed men of culture to master a code of sociaUy
acceptable behavior" (WATTS, City and ScllOol [no 19], p. 2).
21. In regards to the ReUenistic synthesis, Radas instructs, "For non-Greek peoples to
be admitted to equal participation in Greek civilization, for them to be raised, as it were,
from colonial to commonwealth status in the spiritual sense, it was necessary that Greek
exclusiveness be relaxed, so that non-Greeks could not only imitate Greek ways but iden-
tifY themselves with the Greek experience ... The recognition of at least the potential
equality of aU men and the consequent conception of ail humanity as forrning a single
society are perhaps the greatest achievement of the ReUenistic age ... " (M. RADAS,
Hellenistic Culture, Fusion and Diffusion, New York, Norton, 1972, p. 11).
22. Watts provides the following balanced and perceptive assessment of Alexandria,
"While communal differences could provoke outbreaks of violence lie the attacks on Jew-
ish cornrnunity in 38 A.D. and those on Alexandrian Christians in 248, it is incorrect to
assume that Alexandria' s various ethnic and religious groups were constantly at odds. A
series of social and economic relationships inextricably tangled the lives of Alexandrian
pagans, Christians, and Jews of ail backgrounds. Indeed, the social and economic status
of individu aIs was as much of a unifying factor as their religious allegiance" (WATTS, City
and School [no 19], p. 152).
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 227
ide as on equal footing 23 . Educated Alexandrians, from aIl religious back-
grounds, shared a common assumption regarding the foundational value
of paideia that, in turn, facilitated the transmission of cultural ideas and
practices among them24 .
Origen belonged to the educated c1ass of Alexandrian society. Conse-
quently, Origen shared much in common with intellectuais from other
faiths and backgrounds 25 . After departing from Alexandria, Origen set-
tled and taught in Palestine Caesarea, where he attracted students to
Christianity through his sophisticated use of philosophy26. Origen, like
other intellectuals who valued paideia, appreciated the unity that educa-
tion afforded while simultaneously, he strived to create a level of differ-
ence between his own faith and other religions27 . In the Letter to Greg-
Oly, Origen's rhetoric against those who falsely intelpreted the scriptures
suggests an intellectuai environment where philosophical and religious
systems strived to demonstrate theu' mastery of paideia in contrast to one
23. Ibid., p. 121.
24. Watts keenly observes, "Cultural bonds were equally strong among members of
Alexandria's upper classes. In the same way that similar interests cemented ties between
members of the city's collegia, the culture of paideia provided educated Alexandrians of
ail faiths with a common set of interests and a universally accepted pattem of behavior.
As leaders of their individu al communities, upper-class men knew their peers of other
faiths and, in many cases, became friendly with them" (ibid., pp. 152-153). .
25. Watts rightly concludes, "One must imagine that a great deal of originalliterary
and philosophical material passed through the social networks that bound upper-class
Alexandrians. This flow would not have been impeded by religious differences. Men of
ail faiths attended sorne of the same schools for rhetoric and philosophy. Theil' mutual
interest and sirnilar educations meant that certain intellectual approaches were shared
between them. This is especially apparent in the points of intersection between Alexan-
drian Christianity and contemporary Greek culture" (ibid., p. 154).
26. J.W. TRlGG, God's Man'elous Oikonolllia: Reflections ofOrigen's Understalldillg
of Divine alld Humall Pedagogy ill the Address Ascribed to Gregory Thaul/laturgos, in
JOl/mal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001) 27-52.
27. Another possible explanatory model, which we will cali the "multicultural view",
deemphasizes Rellenistic hegemony in favor of multiple cultures co-existing in a way that
allowed for the reimagining of distinct religious identities. Contrarily to Radas, Stroumsa
contends, "The fact that these different ethnic and religious cornrnunities lived together,
or rather side by side, in the city's five quarters, and even the fact that they soon leamed
to speak the same language ... does not mean that they live~ weil together and devel~ped
multiple forms of cultural contact. One cannot detect t?e .bJrth and growth o~ o~e smgle
Alexandrian identity ... A better understanding of the Inmts of cultural symblosls should
shed sorne light upon the milieu in which Origen grew up and fashioned his thought. In
an attempt to correct what he calls the "myth of multiculturalism" in Alexandri~, Stroumsa
surveys a range of works to support his claim, "Throughout. the second and thir~ centu~y,
as the Christian cornrnunity sought to define itself, tom as 1t was between Jewlsh-Chrls-
tians and Gnostics, the tensions between Jews, Christians, and Greeks remained very
high". For fmiher discussion, see STROUMSA, Alexandria and the My th of Ml/lticultl/ralislll
(n. 18), pp. 24, 27.
228 M.J. PEREIRA
another2 8 • Origen's Letter reveals insight into how one of the most suc-
cessful and influential Christian teachers, who was raised in Alexandria
and teaching in Palestine Caesarea, instructs his students how to properly
employ paideia. In late antiquity, Gnostics, Jews and Christians alike,
appropriated paideia in order to advance theh' religious and social identi-
ties 29 . Inasmuch as religious leaders were able to demarcate between
Hellenistic philosophy and their religious commitments, they· demon-
strated a keen awareness of a "difference" between themselves and their
influential sUlToundings30 . As se1f-aware intellectuals committed to reli-
gious identities, these leaders were not simply passive agents spellbound
by Hellenistic philosophy31. Unlike parasites, these intellectuals strategi-
cally extracted vitality from their common ho st (i.e. Hellenistic philoso-
phy) for their own religious pUlposes. Both, Jewish and Christian intel-
lectuals alike, sought to appear as mastetful technicians of Hellenistic
philosophy by appropriating useful aspects of the Greek tradition in a
manner that eschewed anything resembling parasitic dependence. These
religious masters of paideia engaged philosophy in a nuanced movement
28. For a broader discussion of various apologetic strategies, see M. EDWARDS -
M. GOODMAN - S. PRICE (eds.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews alld
Christians, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999.
29. Edwards reminds us, "From Jewish, ecclesiastical and Gnostic circles in his native
city, therefore, Origen could glean much that would assist him in the construction of a
systematic Christian theology. As aIl the inhabitants of the Roman Empire lived under one
sky, felt the same wants and reasoned on lik:e principles, there was sometimes no clear
line to be drawn between the precepts of religion and the theorems of philosophy; never-
theless there was at least one lesson to be derived from each of these associations that
Origen could not have learned elsewhere. As a preparation for studying his writings, it is
helpful to note the things that he deemed it profitable to borrow and the things that he felt
it incumbent on a Christian theologian to gainsay" (EDWARDS, Origell Against Plato En. 4],
p. 36). For further discussion on Origen's relationship to Jewish thought, see N.RM. DE
LANGE, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in the Third Century:
Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (University of
Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1976;
RM. BERCHMAN, From Philo To Origen: Middle Platonism in Tradition, Chico, CA,
Scholars, 1984; P. BLOWERS, Origen, the Rabbis, and the Bible: Toward a Picture
of Judaism and Christianity in Third-Century Caesarea, in C. KANNENGlESSER -
W.L. PETERSEN (eds.), Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy, Notre Dame,
lN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1988,96-116; R BROOKS, Straw Dogs and Scholarly
Ecumenislll: The Appropriate Jewish Background for the Study of Origen, in KANNEN-
GlESSER - PETERsEN (eds.), Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy, 63-95.
30. For further discussion of HeIlenistic religions, see L.H. MARTIN, Hellenistic Reli-
gions: An Introduction, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987; A. MOMIGLlANO, On
Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Middletown, CT, Wesleyan University Press, 1987.
31. Edwards contends, "Too often we are given to understand that it was a local acci-
dent, rather than reasoned choice, that determined Origen's philosophy: how, it is said,
could anyone who was nurtured in the Plato-ridden atmosphere of Alexandria fail to
become a Platonist himself'? (EDWARDS, Origen Against Plato En. 4], p. 7).
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 229
of attachmentand detachment that underscored their "assimilation and
resistance" into Hellenistic culture of Alexandria and beyond32 .
Prior Origen's lifetinte, Alexandrian Jews, most notably Artapanus and
Philo, had aIready began the process of taking from Greek philosophy
whatever was useful for their religious purposes 33 . Foreshadowing
Origen's approach, Philo copiously discerned what aspects of Greek
thought were appropriate for assisting in the interpretation of the Jewish
scriptures. Jewish intellectuals, such as Philo of Alexandria, sought to
improve theh' status through engaging Hellenism34 . Consequently, the
Christian appropriation of Jewish thought entailed the digestion of Greek
philosophy that was aIready embedded within Alexandrian Judaism35 .
32. Unlike parasites, Christian and Jewish theologians of late antiquity, such as Origen,
operated within a network of cultural, religious and social currents that shaped their intel-
lectual commitments. Williams warns, "The 'parasite' metaphor is also misleading
because it conveys the impression of an autonomous set of religious themes, or myths, or
practices, or attitudes that somehow hopped around from one religious community to
the next. This distracts attention from the fact that it is humans who do the innovating"
(WILLIAMS, Rethinking "Gnosticism" En. 12], p. 84). AIso, see D. FRANKFURTER, Religion
in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press,
1998.
33. The earliest known Jewish intellectual from this period, Artapanus, advanced a
strategy for the Jewish engagement of Alexandrian Hellenism. Of note, Artapanus's
approach was more accommodating than his successor Philo of Alexandria. Niehoff notes,
"Artapanus proposed an approach which remained unparalleled in its radicalness and thus
set the parameters for subsequent discussions ... Rather than denying the existence of
other gods besides Elohim, Artapanus suggests their pantheonic coexistence. He obviously
thinks that paganism is culturally valuable and even congenial to Judaism. In his eyes
idolatry aImost seems to have become just another form of worship". More so than his
predecessor, Philo aligns himself with a tradition that maintained a religious boundary
between Jewish monotheism and pagan idolatry. Of note, for the sake of advancing bibli-
cal interpretation, Philo makes significant use of Greek philosophy, with significant appro-
priation of "Plato's notions of truth and mimetic literature". For further discussion on
Artapanus, see HENGEL, Judaislll and Hellenislll (n. 18), pp. 90-94; RADAS, Hellenistic
Culture (n. 21), p. 96. For further discussion on Philo's engagement with paganism, see
NlEHOFF, Phi/o's Views on Paganism (n. 18), p. 136. For further discussion of Jews
and Hellenism, see J.R BARTLETT, Jews in the Hellellistic World: Josephus, Aristeas,
The Sibyllille Oracles, Eupolemus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985;
A.J. DROGE, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Illterpretatiolls of the History of Culture
(Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie, 26), Tübingen, Mohr, 1989, pp. 12-48;
D.1. SLY, Phi/o's Alexandria, New York, Routledge, 1996.
34. In regards to the nature of the Hellenization of Judaism in the pre-Christian era,
Hengel asserts, "We must begin from the fact that the initiative towards 'Hellenization'
was a one-sided one. It came from the indigenous Semitic and Egyptian population, who
sought in this way to improve their social and cultural status and to share in the prosperity
and the success of the Greeks" (M. HENGEL, Jews, Greeks alld Barbarialls: Aspects of the
Hellenization of Judaism in the Pre-Christian Period, trans. J. BOWDEN, Philadelphia, PA,
Fortress, 1980, p. 74).
35. Hadas concludes, "Indeed, it was not from the ... pagan environment that Chris-
tianity borrowed, but as the Qumran evidence combined with the findings of archaeology
230 M.J. PEREIRA
Among Christians, Origen's predecessor Clement of Alexandria had
begun developing an approach for utilizing Hellenistic philosophy.
Whereas Philo advanced beyond his predecessor Artapanus, so too,
Origen refashioned Clement' s engagement of philosophy in a way that
surpassed his antecedent36 •
Retuming to Serres's metaphor of the parasite, we may ask in what
sense was Alexandria and other Hellenistic cities of late antiquity locales
for parasites, where the Greek philosophical tradition served as the pri-
maty "host" for a chain of parasitic activity? On this pat'asitic chain,
Judaism, Christianity, and the Gnostics were links attached to one
another; where, if we retum to the Serres's one direction al atTOW, Greek
philosophy stood as the first link by which these religious groups
depended37 . Jews, and following them, Christians, attempted to deny the
Greek position of privilege on this one-way arrow by clairning they had
historical precedence. The Christian apologists were quite creative at this
point: on the one hand, they argued against the priority of the Greeks by
borrowing from Jewish history, which maintained that Moses lived
before Homer, and thus demonstrated Jewish priority38. On the other
hand, Christian apologists claimed to be the proper fulfillment and con-
sequently, the logical and eschatological succession of the Jewish reli-
gion39 •
In claiming both ends of this double arrow, Christian theologians
simultaneously placed themselves as the first and the final link on the
parasitic chain. Christian ap010gists argued that Christianity was the old-
est religion because of theu' association with Moses; and yet, Christianity
and philology show, from a Judaism already hellenized" (RADAS, Hellenistic Culture
ln. 21], p. 197).
36. For further discussion, see R.P.C. HANSON, ONgen's Doctrine of Tradition,
London, SPCK, 1954, p. 157. Also, see SC 148, p. 89.
37. Regarding the order within the chain of parasites, Senes explains, "In the parasitic
chain, the last to come tries to supplant his predecessor" (SERRES, The Parasite [no 1],
p.4).
38. Regarding the contest over precedence between Moses and Homer, see DROGE,
Homer or Moses? (n. 33), pp. 1-11; also, see R.P.C. HANS ON, The Christian Attitude to
Pagan Religions Up to the Time of Constantine the Great, in Studies in Christian Antiq-
uity, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1985, 144-229.
39. In Alexandria, Clement followed by Origen, developed the most sophisticated
argument for defending the priority of Moses over the Greek poets, sages and philoso-
phers. Droge contends, "The affrontement between Homer and Moses finds its most
sophisticated exposition in the Christian school at Alexandria. Clement and Origen, rely-
ing in part on the contributions of their predecessors, devote considerable energy to estab-
lishing the chronological and theological superiority of Moses in relation to the poet,
sages, and philosophers of the Greeks, who in one way or another are shown to have
'imitated' the Jewish lawgiver". For further discussion on Clement and Origen's argu-
ments for Moses' priority, see DROGE, Homer or Moses? (n. 33), p. 124.
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 231
also claimed to be the eschatological religion, which brings fulfillment
and completion to Greek and Jewish thought alike. Whereas Serres
argues for a one-way directional arrow, with the parasitic always abusing
the host, early Christian apologists imagined two arrows shot from two
opposite directions. The first arrow was launched from the beginning of
intellectual and religious histOly, where Christi ans stand with Moses. The
second arrow was released from the eschaton, where Christians stand
with Jesus Christ at the consummation of aIl. On account of these two
atTOWS, Christian apologists placed theu' religion at the very beginning
and the very culmination of the parasitic chain. This audacious theologi-
cal claim of the Christian apologists provides the sorne of the intellectual
background for Origen's Letter40 . FUlthermore, Origen presupposes that
aIl religious and philosophical tmth is dependent on something outside
of itself because aIl tmth is God's tmth. In brief, the living God alone is
the source of revelation for Greek philosophers and Christians aliké 1 •
Consequently, to sorne extent, Origen may have easily conceded the
parasitical nature of aIl conceptions of human tmth, including his own,
for God and the Logos, the Incarnate Son, provide the ultimate source of
aIl tmth and beauty.
From the time span between Philo and Origen, sectat'Îan violence may
have increased in Alexandria42 . Conflict, however, often reveals a close-
40. Regarding to the bold cIaims of Christian apologists, Young observes, "With
astonishing audacity, a small persecuted community of oddly assorted persons with no
natural kinship, no historical identity, cIaims a universality which challenges the most
powerful tradition in ancient society, the Hellenic paideia which had taken over the world
and colonised other traditions, Latin and Hebrew, Eastern and Western" (p. YOUNG, Bib-
lical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2002,
p.49).
For Origen and other early Christians, the truths of Hellenistic philosophy and Judaism
pointed towards the goal [skopos], which is Jesus Christ. Augustine of Hippo, for example,
shared Origen's sentiment, "The very thing which is now called the Christian religion
existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race
until the corning of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already
in existence began to be called Christian" (Augustine, Retractationes 1.12.3; quote bor-
rowed from HADAS, Hellenistic Culture [no 21], p. 196).
41. Hanson notes, "The whole question of how far the philosophers attained to truth
by the providence of God is discussed in sorne detail in the Sixth Book of Against Celsus,
and one passage in particular has been very judiciously picked out by the compilers of the
Phi/ocalia as characteristic (Le. Phi/ 15) ". In the first place, Origen does not deny that
God revealed truth to the philosophers" (HANS ON, Origen 's Doctrine of Tradition [no 36],
p. 166).
42. Runia explains, "It is true that Origen is somewhat more guarded than Philo in his
attitude toward Hellenism. Since Philo's death much had happened in Alexandria, incIud-
ing the disastrous Jewish revoit, bloody persecutions and sectarian strife". It is worth
noting that the Letter to GregO/)' is placed in the Phi/ocalia, which predominantly contains
works of Origen that are polemical in tone and aim. D.T. RUNIA, Origen and Hellenislll,
232 M.J. PEREIRA
ness and nearness among these cultures inasmuch as denoting genuine
differences. Comparison, according to J.Z. Smith, is never a matter of
identity; rather, comparison involves judgment with respect to differ-
ence43 • One question that emerges in the practice of comparison is what
similarities can be maintained and what differences ought to be empha-
sized for the sake of ongoing intellectual inquiry. One significant way
that Origen attempted to differentiate Christianity from other religious
and philosophical movements was through demonstrating exemplary bib-
lical exegesis. Origen strived to demonstrate Christian superiority through
cogently appropriating paideia in his interpretation of scripture44 • In the
Letter, Origen' s discussion of those who mishandle the scriptures is most
likely a reference to the so-called Gnostics 45 • Gnosticism remains a broad
in L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition (BEn,
164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 43-47, p. 46; for a discussion of the polemical nature of the
Philocalia, see HARL's introduction in SC 302, 46-59.
43. Smith asserts, "It is axiomatic the comparison is never a matter of identity. Com-
parison requires the acceptance of difference as the grounds of ils being interesting, and
a methodological manipulation of that difference to achieve sorne stated cognitive end.
The questions of comparison are questions of judgment with respect to difference: What
differences are to be maintained in the interests of comparative inquiry? What differences
can be defensively relaxed and relativized in light of the intellectual tasks at hand?"
(J.Z. SMITH, To Take Place: Toward Theoly in Ritual, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago
Press, 1987, p. 14).
44. Regarding the manner in which religious cultures performed biblical exegesis,
Young rightly contends, "The traditional categories of 'literai', 'typological' and 'alle-
gorical' are quite simply inadequate as descriptive tools, let alone analytical tools. Nor is
the.Antiochene reaction against Alexandrian allegory correctly described as an appeal to
the 'literaI' or 'historical' meaning. A more adequate approach needs to be created"
(YOUNG, Biblical Exegesis ln. 40], p. 2). Young argues, "To deplore the influence of
Greek philosophy or contrast the Hellenic and Hebraic approaches, as scholars have done
in this century, is to do less than justice to the fascinating cultural interpenetration of a
new 'totalising discourse'" (YoUNG, Biblical Exegesis, p. 4); also, for further discussion
of the 'totalising discourse', see A. CAMERON, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire:
The Develapment of Christian Discaurse, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press,
1991.
45. Regarding Origen's prÎmary opponents, Metcalfe argues, 'The true contrast is not
between Clement and Origen, whose differences, after aIl, are more of degree than of
principle, but between Origen, and on the one hand the Gnostics and on the other the
Orthodox or Narrow-Church party, the reputed Christians, the mere believers, or however
they may be named (see CC III). From these Origen was more widely separated than
philosophers" (Gregory Thaumaturgos, Address ta Origen, trs. W. METCALFE, New York,
The Macmillan Company, 1920, p. 25). Furthelmore, Simonetti conc1udes, "The initiative
was thus parallel to that undertaken much earlier by Philo and other Hellenised Jews, but
now the immediate goal was to oppose the cultural predominance of the Gnostics and their
interpretation of Scripture ... It was precisely this long-lasting polemic with the Gnostics,
over and above the contact with the superior culturallevel of Hellenised Judaism, which
stimulated a refinement in the exegetical technique of the catholic scholars at Alexandria"
(M. SIMONETTI, Biblical Intelpretation in the Early Church: An Histarical Introduction ta
Patristic Exegesis, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1994, p. 34).
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 233
and imprecise term; however, for our purposes, this designation signifies
alternative spiritual movements that served as tacit opponents in Origen's
Letter46 • Jewish and Gnostic exegetes indelibly shaped Origen's mind;
however, he ultimately understood himself as a Christian bound to the
scriptures and the mIe of faith47 • In the Letter to Gregory, Origen attempts
46. More than several decades ago, Grant recognized that while these Gnostic groups
were divergent in sorne ways, "Yet there was something about aIl these systems which
has made it possible for writers ancient and modem to treat them together, to calI them
Gnostic" (GRANT, Gnasticism and Early Christianity [n. 16], p. 7). More recently, Edwards
advises, "The tumult of conjectures that is now called Gnosticism may be seen as an evil
leaven in Egyptian Christianity, but a scholar who omits them from a study of Origen's
Alexandrian background will be making bread without yeast. The first great name is that
of Basilides, who is also perhaps the earliest theologian to make use of the Gospel of
John" (EDWARDs, Origen Against Plata [n. 4], p. 26).
47. From the Church, Edwards argues, Origen learned the value of tradition and the
New Testament. Origen was committed to the notion that every doctrine must be demon-
strated by the inner sense of scripture if it was not contained already in the common rule
of faith (cf. EDWARDS, Origen Against Plato [n. 4], p. 36). Origen's comprehensive
approach was part of his strategy to recast philosophy and religion as an intellectual and
faith commitment to interpret the Bible within a burgeoning Christian rule of faith. Young
explains, "In the course of this process the very concept of religion was redefined and
philosophy reminted. Not only did Christians prove themselves in the intellectual power
struggle ... they introduced the concept of religion as a particular faith-commitment, truth-
c1aim, or '-ism' as we understand if'. Further, Metcalfe contends, "Against the Gnostics
he maintained the authority of the ecc1esiastical tradition; and against the philosophers he
upheld the c1aim of Christianity and Revelation" (YOUNG, Biblical Exegesis [n. 40], p. 49;
METCALFE, GregO/y Thaumaturgos ln. 45], p. 27). The rule of faith provided an apologetic
for Christianity, which strived to argue that rather than being parasitic and thus, derivative,
they held the original deposit of truth, which the so-called Gnostics polluted. Pearson notes
the parasitical relationship is seen in "the relationship between Gnostic myth and Juda-
ism". "That relationship is parasitical in that the essential building blocks of the basic
Gnostic myth constitute a (revolutionary) borrowing and reinterpretation of Jewish scrip-
tures and traditions. But the resulting religious system is anything but Jewish!" As a
second ex ample, Pearson cites Christian "Gnosticism", in which the "entire Gnostic
myth" is attributed to Christ as revealer. "What seems to be reflected here, historically,
is an attempt on the part of Gnostics to gain entry into Christian communities, or to gain
Christian adherents to their communities, by means of equating their own gnosis with
alleged secret teachings of Jesus" (B.A. PEARSON, Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian
Christianity, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1990, p. 9).
From the Jews, Origen learned to read Scriptures with faith in every word and thus,
with great care. From the Gnostics, Origen learned from Valentinians unifying of cosmol-
ogy and Christology; with caution, we may consider, Edwards asserts, how Origen's
knowledge of Gnostics enabled him to improve on Clement's understanding of the Incar-
nation that affirms that God not only unlocks his wisdom, but also has come into the world
in search of man. EDWARDS, Origen Against Plata (n. 4), p. 36. Regarding Philo's influ-
ence on Origen, Van de Hoek catalogues 326 passages, where she analyzes links between
Origen and Philo. For further discussion, see A. VAN DEN HOEK, Philo and Origen: A
Descriptive Catalogue of Theil' Relationship, in The Studia Philanica Annual 12 (2000)
44-121. AIso, for more discussion on the relationship between Philo and early Christianity,
see D.T. RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress,
1993.
234 M.J. PEREIRA
to differentiate Christianity from these formative intellectual cunents
through promoting difference hy comparing and contrasting the Christian
exegetical approach to all others.
II. ORIGEN'S LETI'ER TO GREGORY
1. Greek Paideia as Preparation for Biblical Exegesis
The precise date of the Letter to Gregory remains a point of ongo-
ing conjecture48 . The Letter may represent, as the title suggests, a
correspondence hetween Origen to his former student Gregory Thau-
maturgos 49 • If the letter was not intended for Gregory, then the cor-
respondence was likely addressed to a Palestinian student living in
48. The date of Origen's Letter ta Theadare has remained a point of conjecture. Crou-
zel notes three prominent hypotheses concerning the date and occasion of Origen's Letter
ta GregO/y: (1) The letter was written at the point where Origen was trying to overcome
Gregory's resistance to enter the school; this hypothesis corresponds with chapter six
of Gregory's Thanksgiving ta Origen (p. CAVALLERA, Origène éducateur, in Bulletin de
Littérature Ecclésiastique 44 [1943] 61-75, p. 65); (2) The letter serves as a waming against
the dangers of Alexandrian pagan intellectualism on the occasion of Gregory planning to
travel to Alexandria. The des cent of Ader does not only pertain to the danger in studying
philosophy, but also is directly equated with Gregory's leaving Origen to pagan Egypt. See
J. DRÂsKE, Der Briel, in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 44 (1901) 87-100; (3)
and the most common hypothesis, Origen's Letter ta GregO/y was written to Gregory after
238, who has retumed home only to be hesitating about his future (P. KOETSCHAU, Einlei-
tung of the edition, pp. XV-XVII). See CROUZEL (SC 148, 86-87). Metcalfe recognizes Ori-
gen's letter and its purpose are bound up in ambiguity; yet, he provides the following
overview: (1) General view: Koetschau sees Letter as acknowledgement of the Address,
written from Nicomedia on the way to Greece in 240. (2) Other view places Letter earlier,
whereby it served as a waming for Gregory as he sought asylum in Egypt during the per-
secution of Maximin, 235-237. Draske provides the following assessment: (a) The Letter
contemplates two courses open to Gregory - Law or Philosophy. li the Address, Gregory's
mind is made up, and he seems to be headed to law. (b) Origen's advice to cultivate phi-
losophy seems superfluous if subsequent the Address [see esp. chs. 12-15]. (c) So far as
we know, Gregory had practically completed his studies when he retumed to Neocaesarea;
while the letter finds him undecided, and in a spirit very different from that evinced at the
end of the Address. On the whole, Metcalfe agrees with Draske in regarding the Letter as
anterior to the Address, and as dating from Maximinian persecution, pp. 235-237 (cf. MET-
CALFE, Gregory Tlwumaturgos [n. 45], pp. 36, 40).
49. The most widely accepted hypothesis suggests that Origen wrote this correspond-
ence to his fOlmer pupil Gregory, who had retumed home after his studies with Origen,
only to find himself wondering what to do as a next step in a career. Hanson represents
the traditional position well enough, when he reminds us, "li the year 243 we may place
Origen's Letter ta GregO/y. li it Origen urges Gregory to devote himself to Christianity
rather than to making himself a Roman lawyer, and his closing remarks have a valedictory
ring, as if he were saying goodbye to a favourite pupil whom he has known for sorne time,
so that the letter probably was written at the end of Gregory's stay with Origen" (HANSON,
Origen's Doctrine of Tradition [no 36], p. 14).
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 235
Alexandria so . In the ensuing analysis, we will assume the Letter was
addressed to Gregory Thaumaturgos, who was weighing his options after
completing his studies with Origen. This analysis is primarily interested
in reading the Letter as representative of Origen's overall strategy to
advance Christianity heyond the constraints of intellectual antecedents
while simultaneously differentiating himself from contemporaries. Two
interrelated questions shape the following analysis: (1) In what sense can
Origen's Christianity, which in part, evolved through deriving intellectual
sustenance through an engagement with Hellenistic philosophy, he
equated to parasitic activity? (2) FurthelIDore, heyond the metaphor of
the parasite, what other useful metaphors might fruitfully depict the rela-
tionship hetween Origen's Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy?
Origen opens his Letter to Gregory hy acknowledging that his disciple
Gregory (later named Thaumaturgos, i.e. "The Wonderworker") had
career options; he could, for examp1e, hecome a Roman lawyer or a
Greek philosopherS l . This conespondence reflects a common practice in
late antiquity, where students typically relied on the guidance and advo-
cacy of their teachers following their completion of their studies S2 • Many
of Origen's students, who converted to Christianity under his tutelage in
Caesarea Palestine, remained interested in traditional philosophy and
thus, were at times, in danger of losing theu' Christian identity hy return-
ing to their former way of lifeS3 • Consequently, Origen needed to dem-
50. Origen's Letter ta Theodore is located in Philocalia chapter 13, where it is labeled
a correspondence from Origen to Gregory Thaumaturgos. This assessment has been widely
accepted; for example, Crouzel believes the Letter was from Origen to Gregory Thauma-
tUl·goS. See Grégoire le Thaumaturge, Remerciement à Origène: Lettre d'Origène à
Grégoire (SC 148, 79-92). From here onward, this text will be referred to as EpGr
(SC 148). However, scholars have recently questioned the veracity of this attestation.
Junod, for instance, observes that Gregory Nazianzen and Basil of Caesarea only omitted
a full textual reference to chapters 13 and 27 within theu' Philocalia. Slusser appears
convinced by Junod's observation, whereby he notes, "This silence makes us doubt that
the addressee of the letter was the Wonderworker. For if he had been the addressee, how
could Gregory and especially Basil not have known? The latter was in contact with the
community of Neocaesarea, and he had a special veneration for the memory of its bishop".
li concord with Junod, Slusser concludes that he is skeptical that the Letter was addressed
to Gregory Thaumaturgos. Slusser notes that Junod shares Pien'e Nautin's opinion that the
Letter was addressed to a Palestinian studying at Alexandria. Cf. É. JUNOD, Particularités
de la Philocalie, in CROUZEL (ed.), Origeniana (n. 17), 181-197, pp. 186-187.
51. EpGr (SC 148, 186): MJVa'tat oÔv ~ sùcpula crou 'PcoJ.lat6v crs VOJ.llKOV 1totficrat
'tÉÂstov Kai 'EÂÂllV1KOV nva cplÂ6crOcpOV 'trov VOJ.llSOJ.lÉVcov BÂÂoyiJ.lcov aipÉcrscov.
52. Watts explains, "When a student finished his schooling, the ties to the professor
did not dissolve. licleed, it was often just at the completion of his studies that a student
most depended upon his professor's friendship" (WATTS, City and ScllOol [n. 19], p. 11).
53. The danger is illustrated in the life of Ammonius Saccas, who was bom and raised
as a Christian. However, after receiving a classical education and reading philosophy,
Ammonius converted to paganism (ibid., p. 164).
236 M.J. PEREIRA
onstrate how the teachings of the Church related to ancient philosophy54.
In the case of Gregory, Origen deems both the career paths of a lawyer
and a philosopher as unsuitable for his pupil's well-natured disposition
(sùqmîu); Origen advises his student to use his education for the inter-
pretation of the Christian scriptures 55 . In Caesarea Palestine, Origen
taught Gregory and other students how to apply Christianity towards their
interpretation of the disciplines that made up paideia, such as physics,
astronomy, ethics and geometry56. In the Letter, Origen instructs his stu-
dent to "take" (nupuÎvUI!PUVffi) what he has learned from Hellenistic
philosophy as a course of study (I!USlll!u) and as preparation (nponui-
osol!u) for Christianity57.
Origen repeats the verb nupuÎvUI!PUVffi three times; in this context, the
verb denotes the seizing of Greek philosophy. The verb nupuÎvul!PUVffi
provides a stronger expression than the verb "to ask" (UÎ'tÉffi), which is
used in the Exodus story when the Jews "ask" the Egyptians for materi-
aIs. There should not be too much made of this difference as Origen's
choice of nupuÎvul!PUVffi reflects the traditional Christian interpretation
of this passage58 . Origen continues his cOlTespondence by asserting that
a wide range of Greek paideia, such as geometry (ysffil!s'tpiu) and
astronomy (u<J'tpovol!iu), may be employed inasmuch as these disci-
plines prove useful (XPT]<nl!oç) for the interpretation of scripture59 .
Throughout the Letter, Origen argues for a pragmatic approach that con-
tends the survival of any portion of Hellenistic philosophy depends on
its usefulness or serviceable nature (X PT] crtl!oç). Christians do not take
from the Greeks in an indiscriminate manner; rather, Origen admonishes
Gregory to be highly selective in his taking from the "other".
54. Ibid., p. 164.
55. EpGr (SC 148, 186): 'A)''),: Èyro 'tfl nâcrn 't~ç Eùcpuîaç ouvât.tEt crou È~ouÂ6t.tllV
K(Hax,PllcracrSai crE 'tEÂtKroÇ t.tèv ElÇ x,ptcr'ttavtcrt.t6v.
56. Gregory Thaumaturgos Address to Origen 8-11 (FC 98, 109-115).
57. EpGr (SC 148, 186-188): ... napaÂa~EÏv crE Kat cptÂocrocptaç 'EÂÂllvCOV 'tà
otoVEl ElÇ x,ptcrnavtcrt.tov ouvât.tEva YEvÉcrSat ÈyKUKÂta t.taSllt.ta'ta il nponatOEU-
t.ta'ta ... For Origen, philosophy may be selectively employed in order to aid theology.
Metcalfe surmises, "Origen's intellectual attitude may be summed up in the saying of the
Schools that theology is scientia sciential'llm. In one passage, Origen refers to the knowl-
edge of God as 'tl 'tÉx'Vll 'trov 'tEX,VroV Kat È1ttcr'tllt.tll 'trov È1ttcr'tllt.trov (METCALFE, Greg-
OIy Thaumaturgos [no 45], p. 27).
58. HarI notes, "Ce verbe est plus fort que l'expression biblique (Exode 11,2: 'que
chacun demallde àsonvoisin .. .',aÏ'tEÏv, de même en Exode 12,35),mais correspond à la
tradition de lecture de ce passage (cf. HARL: SC 302, 401).
59. EpGr (SC 148, 188): ... Kat 'tà ù'no yEcot.tE'tptaç Kat ù'cr'tpovot.ttaç X,pllcrtt.ta
Ècr6t.tEva Elç 'tT1V 'trov tEproV ypacprov OtllYllcrtv ... Here, HARL (SC 302, 400) notes, the
question is enlarged to aIl the teachings of the general culture [geometry, music, grarnmar,
rhetoric, astronomy], numbered because they constitute the general manner of Greekpai-
deia, even as "the Greek philosophy".
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 237
In a similar manner to how the Greeks place geometry, music, gram-
mar, rhetoric and astronomy under philosophy, which is the pinnacle
of thought60 , Origen concludes Christians should subsume Hellenistic
philosophy into the service of the Christian religion, which is the goal of
the human intellect (v06ç). Hellenistic philosophy, according to Origen,
serves a "fellow-worker" or a "helpmate" (O"ovÉptSoç) to Christian
thought61 . We have already noted that SelTes argues the exchange
between the ho st and the parasite moves in a single direction, where the
parasite ultimately brings death to the host62 . The parasitical relationship,
according to SelTes, is never a reciprocal event. Contrarily, Origen con-
tends that Hellenistic philosophy continues to exist as a "viable host"
inasmuch as Christianity, which has rightly succeeded it, appropriates
and keeps this declining philosophy alive. Hellenistic philosophy now
stands as a beneficiary of Christianity; Greek philosophy remains alive
and relevant inasmuch as it serves the Christian interpretation of scrip-
ture. The parasite, according to SelTes, builds a new logic through
exchanging superstructure for the infrastructure of the host63 . Origen's
strategic use of Hellenistic philosophy resembles something like this
exchange of superstructure for infrastructure, where Christianity provides
the superficial structure reminiscent of an emerging religion for the inter-
naI structure of an ancient philosophy. Does Origen's appropriation bring
about the death characteristic of SelTes's parasite, where the host is left
for de ad as the parasite reaps the benefit? If not death, then does the
Alexandrian theologian resuscitate an ah'eady dying Hellenistic philoso-
phy, which was on its own, becoming increasingly in'elevant, by supply-
ing a superstructure? Does Origen's appropriation of Hellenistic philoso-
phy reveal the abusive parasitical relationship demonstrated in SelTes'
analysis of networks, or is there something more symbiotic occulTing
underneath the surface?
60. EpGr (SC 148,188): ... 01tEp cpacrt cptÂocr6cpcov mûoEç 1tEpt yEcot.tE'tpiaç Kat
t.toucrlK~Ç ypat.tt.ta'ttK~ç 'tE Kat Pll'tOptK~Ç Kat ù'cr'tpovot.tiaç ...
61. EpGr (SC 148, 188): ... roç cruvEpiBcov cptÂocrocpiq., 'toilS' 'tlt.tEÏç EÏncot.tEV Kat
nE pt aù't~ç cplÂocrocpiaç 1tpOç x'P1O"'ttavtcrt.t6v. HarI notes the adjective cruvÉptSoç (help-
mate) corresponds to Plato, who employs the term when asserting certain arts are "auxil-
iary" for the dialectical method. See Plato, Rep. 7.533d (HARL: SC 302, 402, fn. 1).
62. Serres explains, "The exchange is neither principal nor original nor fundamental;
l do not know how to put it: the relation denoted by a single arrow is irreversible, just
takes its place in the world. Man is a louse for other men. Thns man is a host for other
men. The flow go es one way, never the other. l call tbis semiconduction, tbis valve, this
single arrow, tbis relation withont a reversai of direction, 'parasitic'. If the 'guest' is a
farmer, l consider him to be a parasite in the economic sense. La Fontaine explains this
to me further on. What does man give to the cow, to the tree, to the steer, who gives him
milk, warmth, shelter, work and food? What does he give? Death" (SERRES, The Parasite
[n. 1], p. 5).
63. SERRES, The Parasite (n. 1), p. 35.
 238 M.J.PEREIRA
2. From the Spoils of Egypt
Following his introductory greeting to his disciple Gregory, Origen
illustrates his strategy of appropriation and differentiation by refelTing to
the well-known story in Exodus 64 , where the Israelites spoiled (O'KuÀ,suco)
the Egyptians for the service or worship (À,œrpsia) of GOd 65 . In the Exo-
dus story, God directs the children of Israel to ask (ahÉco) theh' neigh-
bors (yst-rcov) for silver, gold and clothing66 . From these received mate-
rials, the Israelites were commanded to make things for the worship
(À,œrpsia) of GOd 67 . The spoiling of the Egyptians, according to Origen,
obscurely signifies (atviO'O'ollat) the Christian appropriation of Greek
philosophy68. For both, the Israelites' and Christians, the spoiling of the
Egyptians or the Greeks was primarily to aid in the worship of God69 .
The Israelites stripping away (O'KUÀ,SUCO) valuables from the Egyptians
allowed for the building of the holy of holies 70 . Throughout the corre-
spondence, Origen employs the verb O'KUÀ,SUCO to describe the action
whereby the Israelites took from the Egyptians for the service of God. In
earlier Greek sources, such as in Plato's Republic, O'KUÀ,SUCO denotes the
"stripping away of arms" from a slain enemy71. In wartime, one would
64. Exodus 31,3. 6; 36, 1. 2. 8.
65. Origen's use of the verb "to spoil" [O'KDÀEUro] reflects the traditional reading of
this passage from Exodus. Had notes, "Origène est également confOlme à cette traditon
en disant que les Hébreux ont 'dépouillé,' BO'KuÀEDO'av, les Égyptiens" (HARL: SC 302,
401).
66. EpGr (SC 148, 188): ... ïva ÀEXl}fj l'OlS DiolS 'IO'pa~À ahdv 1tapà yEtl'OVroV
Kat O'DO'K~VroV O'KEUll <lpyDpà Kat XpDO'à Kat if.lanO'f.lov.
67. EpGr (SC 148, 188): ... ïva O'KDÀEuO'aVl'ES WÙS AiYD1tl'ioDS EÜproO'tV ÜÀllV
1tpOS l'~V Kal'aO'KED~V l'OW 1tapaÀaf.l~avof.lévrov ElS l'~V 1tpOS l}EOV Àal'pEiav.
68. EpGr (SC 148, 188): Kat l'axa l'otoÎho l't atviO'O'El'at 1'0 BV 'Eç,Oùq:> YEypaf.l-
f.lévov BK 1tpoO'amoD l'OÙ l}wù, ïva ÀEXl}fj l'OlS DiolS 'IO'pa~À alTEiv 1tapà yEnovrov
Kat O'DO'K~VroV O'KEUll <lpyDpà Kat XPDO'à Kat if.lal'tO'f.lov.
69. Origen sets up his final test for ail philosophy: "But do not imagine that in my
attack on Celsus 1 interpret those philosophers who expound the immortality or survival
of the soul without relating them to the Christian system. For, though we have sorne things
in common with them, we shall establish at a more opportune moment that the blessed
existence which is to come will be for those only who accept the religion of Jesus (l'~V
Kal'à 'IllO'OÙV l}wO'é~Etav) and the correct and pure worship of the Creator of ail things,
undefiled by any relation to a created thing" (CC 111.81). Hanson asserts, "His main test
is, as before, religious, l}EOO'É~Eta or EÙO'É~Eta. Intellectual tests are not ignored, but they
are only secondary. In his Commentmy on Romans, Origen explains, "the wrath of God
is revealed from heaven (Romans 1,18) applies particularly to "sapientes huius mundi, et
eos qui philosophi nominantur" (HANS ON, Origen's Doctrine of Tradition [no 36], pp.
168-169).
70. EpGr (SC 148, 188): 'EK yàp d)v BO'KuÀEDO'av WÙS AtyD1tl'ioDÇ oi Diot 'IO'pa~À
l'à BV 'tois ay(otç 'trov ay(rov Ka'tEO'KEuaO"tat ...
71. In P1ato's Republic (469 C), the point is made that one may strip the mms off of
the slain enemy but may not take off their clothing.
FROM THE spon.s OF EGYPT 239
take what was of use for battle and leave the l'est of the material behind
with their dead enemy. The useful weapons were given new life in the
hands of the victors; if the items were left with the dead, then they would
cease being of any value. Origen employs the verb O'KUÀ,SUCO to denote
the manner in which the "children of Israel" selected items from the
Egyptians and imbued them with new meaning. Furthermore, Origen
assigns different values to the taken items. The most beautiful (KUÀ,À,tO'-
10<;) gold was used for the most imp011ant parts of the holy of holies72.
The second quality gold was used for les sel' items 73. If there was a thiI'd
and fourth quality of gold, they would be used for the making minor
sacred vessels. The silver from Egypt was used in order to make other
artifacts; whereas theiI' linens were used for embroidered work, such as
hangings for the inner and outer courts74 . Not aIl material is suitable for
aIl aspects of worship and service. Only the finest gold may be used for
the most important items within the holies of holy. Lesser quality may
be used for ancillary at1ifacts that are manufactured for worship. Origen
charges his disciple to imitate the Israelites by practicing the same level
of discemment and selectivity when engaging Hellenistic philosophy.
Not aIl philosophy is useful for Christianity, and fU11hermore, among the
useful materials, sorne is of lesser value and only appropriate in cel1ain
situations75 .
Origen concludes his allegoricai interpretation of the spoiling of the
Egyptians by declaring the Israelites brought things out from Egypt that
were being used improperly. Thereafter, by the wisdom of God, the chil-
dren of Israel used these items for God's service76 . Following Philo's
interpretation77 , Origen insists the Egyptians misused these materials
72. EpGr (SC 148, 188): ... f) Kt~rol'OÇ f.lEl'à 'toù B1ttl}Éf.la'toS Kat 'tà XEpOD~if.l Kat
't0 lÀaO''t~ptov Kat f) XPDO'~ O''taf.lvoç, BV Ti <l1tÉKEtW 't0 ~lavva 'trov <lyyÉÀrov 0 apws·
Taù'ta f.lÈv oÔv <l1t0 'toù KaÀÀ(O'WD 'trov AiYD1tl'(roV ElKOÇ YEyovÉvat XPDO'OÙ.
73. EpGr (SC 148, 188): ... <l1t0 ùÈ ÙEDtÉpOD 'ttvoç 1tap' BKElVOV f) O'tEpEà Ùt' OÀOD
XPDO'~ ÀDxvia.
74. EpGr (SC 148, 188-190): 'A1to ùÈ AiYD1t't(roV lf.lal'tO'f.loù EIKoç YEYOVÉVat oO'a
BùEi]l}l1 ëpyrov, ooç rovof.laO'Ev f) ypwpi], PWptÙEDtroV, O'Dppa1ttOvtrov trov pa<ptÙEDtrov
f.lEtà O'o<pias l}wù tà 'totaÙE tf.lana 'toiç 'tototcrù(, ïva yÉVlltat tà Kata1tEtaO'f.la'ta
Kat ai aùÀaî'at Bç,rotépro Kat BO'O)'Çépro.
75. Hanson comments, "He [Origen] is often a friend, because he finds so many affin-
ities between Christianity and philosophy; and often an enemy because each single system
has several features in it which are in flagrant contradiction to the Christian tradition"
(HANsoN, Origen's Doctrine of Tradition [no 36], p. 163).
76. EpGr (SC 148, 190): ... EtS oO'a xpi]O'tf.la BO'n wî'S Dioî'ç 'IO'pa~À tà <l1t' Atyu1t-
tOD 1tapaÀaf.l~avof.lEva, olç Atyu1tttot f.lÈv OÙK dç ùÉov BXProVW, 'E~paî'ot ÙÈ ùtà
trlV 'toù l}wù O'o<piav EtÇ l}WO'É~EtaV Bxp~O'avw.
77. Prior Origen, Philo had already advanced an allegorical reading of the "spoiling
of the Egyptians" to argue for the appropriation of Greek philosophy for the service of
240 M.J. PEREIRA
while contrarily the Hebrews properly used the spoils for the worship of
God. The parasite, according to Serres, pelfOlIDs the work of renewal
through eating at the host table in a different manner than everyone
else78 • When Christians came to the table of their host, in this case, Greek
thought and culture, they chewed on and digested the philosophy in a
different manuel'. Christians, according to Origen, consumedHellenistic
philosophy through the digestive tracts of the scriptures and the role of
faith. In brief, Origen argues that his and other Christians' "eating hab-
its" are shaped by their presuppositions, which are ultimately grounded
in the kerygma.
3. The Children of Ader
In the second portion of the Letter, Origen interprets the story of Ader
the Edomite as an instructive warning against our meddling with the
"knowledge (j.uiSl1l.ta) of the world (KOO"J.tOS)", where some have fallen
away after having committed themselves to the divine law (voJ.toS) and
godly worship (SêpU'TCdu)19. Ader stands as the archetypal example of
an Israelite that once worshipped God rightly, only to becoine an idola-
ter after dwelling among the Egyptians. Origen interprets Ader's sojourn
to Egypt as a fleeing from the "wisdom of God" followed by becoming
a kinsman (O"UyyÉVêtU) of the Pharaoh through marrying his sister-in-
law. Thereafter, Ader's son became a child of Pharaoh (rcuiorov 'tou
<I>upu<b)80. Previously, in this correspondence, Origen called the chosen
Hebrews the "children of Israel" several times. At this moment in the
Letter, Ader's son stands in stark contrast with the children of Israel.
biblical interpretation. Cf. Phil (SC 302, 402). AIso, for further discussion, see M. ALE-
XANDRE: Philon d'Alexandrie, De congressli erllditionis gratia (Les œuvres de Philon
d'Alexandrie, 6), Paris, Cerf, 1967.
78. Serres explains, "The parasite invents something new. Since he does not eat like
everyone else, he builds a new logic. He crosses the exchange, makes it into a diagonal.
He does not barter; he exchanges money. He wants to give his voice for matter, [hot] air
for solid, superstructure for infrastructure. People laugh, the parasite is expelled, he is
made fun of, he is beaten, he cheats us; but he invents anew. This novelty must be ana-
lyzed. This sound, this aroma, passing for money or roast" (SERRES, The Parasite [no 1],
p.35).
79. EpGr (SC 148, 190): ... atvtcrcro/-H3Vll , on 'tlO"t 1tpaç KaKou ytVB'tat 'ta 1tapot-
K~crat 'tOtç Aiyu1t'ttOlÇ, 'tou'tBcrn 't01ç 'tou Kocr/-lOU /-la~i]/-lacrl, /-lB'tÙ 'ta ÈV'tpa<p~val
'tf? VO/-lf? 'tOU ~WU Kat 'tn 'lcrpallÎvt'tlKn EtÇ aù'tav ~Bpa1tEt~.
_ 80. EpGr (SC 148, 190): "AIlBp youv ô 'lllou/-latoç, ocrov /-lÈv EV 'tn yn 'tOu 'IcrpaÎ]Îv
i)v, /-lÎ] YBUO/-lEVOÇ 'toov Atyu1t'ttrov lip'trov, B,{llroÎva où Ka'tEcrKEuasEv' O'tE IlÈ à1tollpùç
'tav croqJOV LOÎvO/-lOOVTa Ka'tB~l1 Eiç AïyU1t'tov, roç à1tollpùç d1ta ûjç 'toU ~WU croqJtaç
crUyyBVÎ]Ç yByOVB 't<$ <l>aparo, yi]/-laç 'tÎ]V àIlBÎvqJÎ]V 't~ç yUVatKaç aù'tOu Kat 'tEKV01t01OOV
'tOV 'tpEqJO/-lBVOV /-lE'tasù 'tOOV 1tail)rov 'toU <l>aparo.
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 241
The loss of familial identity was the greatest inherent risk one faced
when engaging another culture, especially the Alexandrian cu.lture. For
Origen, there is a way to engage the "other" without belongmg to the
"other", but this was not easy, and if we are not careful, we could
quickly become drawn into a familial relationship with foreigners. Fur-
thermore, if we are not careful, we may lead our faithful companions
astray. Origen illustrates this point through reflecting upon the dow~all
of Ader, who divided (otaO"Xiçro) the people of God through leadmg
them to say to the golden calf, "You are our god, who brought us out
of the land of Egypt,,81.
There are few children of God, Origen warns, who have returned from
Egypt with only the useful (XpijO"tJ.tu) spoils, which were employed for
the worship (Âu'tpdu) of GOd82 . On the other hand, Ader has many
8
brothers83. Ader's brethren, which include the so-called Gnostics 4, have
read into and set up their own imaginations (ùv{mÂuO"J.tu) as they inter-
pret the scriptures 85 . Ader's brethren are those who currently have appro-
priated Hellenistic industry (ÈV'tpÉXêta) in order to advance heresy
(UtPê'tlKOS)86. This term for industry (ÈV'tpÉXêtU) ~enote~ the.subtlety
of Greek intellectualism. For Origen, ÈV'tpÉXêtU 1S a pejOrative term
indicating the Gnostic reliance on Hellenistic industry for the fabrication
of their myths 87 . The Gnostics offered a false religion that invented sto-
81. EpGr (SC 148, 190): A101tBp, Et Kat È1tavEÂ,i]Îvul}EV_ Eiç 't~V y~V 'Icr~aft~, È1t_t
'tOO otacrXtcral 'tav Îvaàv 'tou l}wu E1tanÎvi]Îvul}BV, Kat 1totllcr~t au'touç ,Ei1t~W E1tt .'tU
xpucrU oa/-lâÂEt' ottol EtcrW 01 l}wl crou, 'lcrpaftÎv, 01 àvayayoV'tBç crE EK 'Y11ç At yU1t-
'touS2. EpGr (SC 148, 190-192): Kàyoo oÈ 'tU 1tEip~ /-lal}oov E'{1tOl/-l' liv crot, on crm'tvto2
/-lÈv ô 'tù xpi]crt/-la 't~ç Atyu1t'tou Îva~oov Kat ÈSBÎvl}OOV 'tau'tllç Kat Ka'tacrKEuâcraç 'ta
1tpaç 't~V Âa'tpEtaV 'tOU l}wU. , •
83. EpGr (SC 148, 192): ... 1toÎvùç oÈ 6 'tou 'IOou/-la~ou"~OEp a.oEÎvqJoÇ.
84. At this point in the Letter, according to HarI, Onge~ 1~. thinking ~f the s~-~all~d
Gnostics as those who are in kinship with Ader. HarI notes, L lllterprétati~n ~e ~ ~stOlre
d'Ader vise non seulement les Chrétiens qui risquent de forger leurs theon~~ a 1 rude des
sciences grecques mais, plus particulièrment, les Gnostiq~es, ~ccusés traditIOnnellement
d'avoir emprunté aux Grecs les éléments de leurs speculations (HARL: S~ 302, 403)~
85 . Ep G · (SC'148 , 192): AOKet OB /-lot Kat otù 'tou'trov
- 6 -,.Âoyoç atVtcrcrBcrl}at, o_n
l}-
'tù '(Ota àva1tÎvâcr /-la'ta àVBl}l1Kav 'tatç ypaqJatç, EV atç olKEI ",oyoç wu, 'tp01ttKOOÇ
Batl}Î]Â KaÂoU/-lBvatç. _ , _ .
86. EpGr (SC 148, 192): OU't01 OB BtcrW oi à1to 'twoç ~ÎvÎv'llvtKllÇ ÈV'tPBXBt~Ç
aipB'tlKà yBvvf]crav'tEç v0!'l/-la'ta, K~t oioVBt oa/-lâÎvEtç Xpucraç Ka'taO"KEuâcraV'tBç EV
Batl}i]Â, 0 ÉP/-l'llVEUB'tal otKOÇ l}wU. . .
87. HarI argues the word EV'tpBXBta denotes a subtle intelhgenc.e .a~tnbuted, to th~
Greeks. On occasion, Origen attributed this subtlety as the c~use of dlvlsl~ns.' 0: sects.'
within diverse domains such as medicine, philosophy, Judatsm, and Chrlstlamty (PhIl
16.1; CC m.12). Origen, however, also employs EV'tpBXBta in a laudatory m.anner to
describe how Christians properly seek knowledge (Phil 1.16; 15.15; CC 1.42; Pr/ll IV.16)
(HARL: SC 302, 54-55).
 242 M.J. PEREIRA
ries whereas in comparison, according to Origen, the Christians advance
the true religion of Jesus 88 .
Within his broader literary cmpus, Origen predominantly employs the
term àvunÂacr/-la when refening to the "inventions" of the heretics 89 .
This heretical imagination is described as a foreign by-product. For
example, the area near the tenitory of Dan, which is at the otiter limits
and contiguous to the foreign (ÈSVlKOC;) ten'Îtories 90 , is the place where
this toxic imagination has been established91 . Ol'Îgen contends some of
these contrived models (àvunÂacr/-la), wbich the brothers of Ader have
advanced, are in close approximation to these "foreign" (ÈSVlKOC;) bor-
92
ders • At this moment, Origen employs the language of difference, that
is of ethnic or foreign comparison, in order to demonstrate the superior-
ity of the Christian appropriation of paideia for the intelpretation of
scriptures.
Origen' s understanding of the foreign imagination that fabl'Îcates myth
recal1s the position of Philo of Alexandria. The second commandment of
the Decalogue states, "you shal1 have no other gods except me". Philo
intelprets this prohibition is not only against the manufacturing of images
but also a waming against the use of "invented myths" (/-lûScov nÂucr-
/-lU'm) concerning the deities 93 . Philo took a nuanced position that al10wed
him to be open to some aspects of Hel1enistic philosophy; however, he
typically considered paganism a "mistaken esteem for human fabl'Îca-
tions and fancies"94. Paganism, especially the paganism of the poets, was
responsible for the fabrication of myth, whereas Judaism and philosophy
88. Christianity and Gnosticism may be viewed as two religious altematives. Pearson
argues there are ten essential features to Gnosticism that together justify our treating it as
a "historically discrete phenomenon", and more specificaily, "a religion". Nevertheless,
he adds, "what makes Gnosticism so hard to define is, finally, its parasitical character"
~B.A. PEARS~N, Is Gnosticism a Religion?, in U. BlANCHI [ed.], The Notion of "Religion"
III Comparative Research: Selected Proceedings of the XVIth Congress of the Interna-
tional Association for the Histo/y of Religions in Raille, Sept. 3-8, 1990, Rome, L'Erma
di Bretschneider, 1994, 105-114, pp. 113-114).
89. Had asserts, "Le mot qu'Origène utilise toujours pour designer les 'inventions'
des hérétiques, ùvunÀucr).la1:u, convient particulièrement bien ici pour identifier ces
mythes aux idoles construites et placées dans la maison de Dieu (III Rois 12,28)" (HARL:
SC 302,54).
90. EpGr (SC 148, 192): Toù oi; Aàv 'tà opta 'tEÀêIYtUtU Ècr'tlV Kut ÈyyùC; 'trov wù
È&V1KroV op{rov' roc; o~Àov ÈK 'trov ÙVUyêypU).l).lÉvrov Èv 'ti[> 'toù Nuu~ ' I ll croù .
91. EpGr (SC 148, 192): Ta 0' üÀÀo ùvunÀucr).lu Èv Auv CPl1cr!V 0 À6yoC;
ÙVU'tê&êlcr&Ut.
92. EpGr (SC 148, 192): 'EyyùC; oi'iv êtcrlV È&V1KroV oplrov nvà 'trov ùvunÀucr).lu'trov,
unêp ùVÉnÀucruv ol 'toù "AoEp, roc; ùnooEOcOKU).lEV, ÙOEÀ'POt.
93. Se~ Philo, Dec., 156; NlEHOFF, Phi/o's Views on Paganism (n. 18), pp. 136-137.
94. Philo, for example, advanced Plato's critique of myth by using his pivotaI discus-
sions as starting points to distinguish between Jewish scriptures and pagan myth. On the
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 243
engage in the genuine se arch for truth95 . While Origen employs the story
of Ader as the narrative of the once faithful being contaminated by the
foreign, Philo appropriates Esau as the arche typaI representative of the
non-Jewish community in the post-biblical age. Philo contrasted Esau
with Jacob, who embodies truth, unchanging nature and a concrete home
whereas the opposite, such as homelessness and disillusion are attributed
to Esau 96 • On the one hand, in the multicultural milieu of Alexandria,
Jews and Christians alike, mutually rejected the foreign as a toxic entity97.
On the other hand, both Philo and Origen legitimatized Greek philosophy
inasmuch as tbis tradition served their religious commitments, but it was
always as the "other" and the foreign. Whereas Aristobulus subsumed
Greek thought under the force of Judaism, and in effect, as Niehoff notes,
"denies the otherness of the Other,,98, Philo and Origen's careful engage-
ment denotes a utilitarianism that recognizes the "other" as an exp end-
able and useful resource.
Relationships, according to resemblance the ory , always involves more
than a dyad because the third variable provides further explanation99 •
This contention is evident inasmuch as scholars of late antiquity have
often assessed early Christianity by comparing it with two or three vari-
ables, such as Greek philosophy, Judaism and Gnosticism lOO • In his Letter
other hand, Philo valued sorne of Plato's myths, even incorporating sorne myths in his
biblical interpretation (cf. NlEHOFF, Philo's Views on Paganislll [no 18], pp. 137-138).
95. Philo was not opposed to poetry in ail situations; rather, he holds a more discem-
ing position where poetry is deemed profitable inasmuch as it provides valuable philo-
sophical and religious thought. For Philo's positive assessment of poetry, see Philo, COI/g.,
15; also, Philo argues that poetry originally was intended for education. See Plant., 158;
He. 15; Prob., 98.141-143; NlEHOFF, Phi/o's Views 01/ Paganislll (n. 18), p. 154, fn. 25.
See Philo, Abr., 243; and Fuga 121, where Philo argues the biblical stories do not
invent myth, but are indicating a real fact. Cf. NlEHOFF, Philo's Views 01/ Paganism
(n. 18), pp. 138-139.
96. Philo, Cong., 24-25.61; NlEHOFF, Phi/o's Views on Paganislll (n. 18), pp. 139-140.
97. NIEHOFF, Phi/o's Views on Paganism (n. 18), p. 135.
98. Ibid., p. 151.
99. In regards to the comparison of "x and y", Butchvarov asserts, "The reason why
statements of the form 'x resembles y' - where x and y are simple qualities - are incom-
pIete is that the resemblance of two qualities admits of extremely wide variation of degree,
and such statements do not specify the degree of resemblance. But to speak of the degree
of an instance of resemblance is necessarily to speak of its relations to the degrees of other
instances of resemblance". For further discussion on resemblance theory, see P. BUTCH-
VAROV, Resemblance al/d /dentity: An Examination of the Problelll ofUniversals, Bloom-
ington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1966.
100. Scholars of late antiquity continue to work out of the categories of resemblance
and comparison. In terms of the Fourth Gospel, for example, Meeks notes that scholarly
opinion has recently swung from assessing the Gospel according to John as "the most
hellenistic of the gospels to assessing it as the most Jewish". For further discussion, see
W.A. MEEKS, 'Am 1 a lew?' lohal/nine Christianity and ludaism, in Christianity, ludaism
 244 M.J. PEREIRA
to Gregory, Origen seems to suggest that Christians share a familial
resemblance with the children of Israel. Origen implies that like the Jews'
spoiling of the Egyptians, Christians strive to take from Hellenistic phi-
losophy whatever is useful for the service of God and the interpretation
of the scriptures. However, unlike their Jewish antecedents, Origen and
his fellow Christians are bound by theh' Christological preconceptions,
which distinctly shape their interpretation of the scriptures.
III. METAPHORS OF RECEPTION & APPROPRIATION
1. Exegesis and Faithful Preconceptions
Origen concludes his conespondence by exhorting his disciple Greg-
ory to principally study the scriptures 101 . The scriptures should be care-
fully read or one will recklessly articulate and think upon them 102. One
pleases God, Origen contends, when they read the scriptures with faithful
pre-conceptions (npoÀ:rl'l'tç) 103. Origen rightly recognized that "preju-
dices" or "fore-conceptions" dramatically shape our interpretation of
104
texts . Origen concludes the Lette!' with one of his favorite sayings of
Jesus, where the Lord teaches us to ask and it will be given, search and
you will find, knock and the door will be opened 105 • The faithful disciple
knocks at those places in the scriptures that appear closed; for the prom-
ise of Jesus states, "To him the door opens"106. Origen exhorts Gregory
and Other Greco-Roman CuIts: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, Leiden Brill 1975
163-186. ' , ,
101. EpG!' (SC 148, 192): LÙ oÔv, KUptE uiÉ, 1tpol']YOUJlÉvroç 1tpOO'EX E -rU -rrov
3EtroV ypa<prov àvayvmO'Et à'J..,'Afl. 1tpOO'EX E.
102. EpGr (SC 148, 192): IIoÂÂ~ç yfl.p 1tpoO'oX~ç àvaytVmO'Kov-rEÇ -rfl. 3Bla
oEoJlE3a ïva Jli] 1tp01tE-rÉO'-rEp OV El1troJlÉV nva li VOijO'roJlEV 1tEpt al'nrov. Origen also
uses the Greek tenn 1tp01tE-rije; in Phil 1.28, 29.
,103._ EpGr (SC 148, 192): Kat 1tpoO'ÉXrov -rU -rrov 3EtroV àvayvmO'Et JlE-rfl. mO'-r~e;
Kat 3Ef(l àPEO'KOUO'Ile; 1tpOÂil'I'Eroe; KpOUE -rfl. KEKÂEtO'JlÉva U\'n~e; '" The Greek phrase
JlE-rfl. mO'-r~e; ... 1tpOÂij\jlEroe; has received various translations. Harl's translation "il con-
vient d'avoir une attitude préalable de foi indéfectible" separates himself from Nautin,
who translates the phrase as " ... avec une présomption inspirée par la foi" and from Crou-
zel's translation, "lire avec intention de croire" (HARL: SC 302, 403, fn. 4).
1O~. For further discussion of the role of prejudices and fore-conceptions in the inter-
pretatlOn of texts, see H.G. GADAMER, Truth and Method, New York, Continuum, 2004,
pp. 268-306.
105. HarI notes that Origen "loves" citing the words of Jesus, "Ask and it will be
given to you; search and you will find; knock and the door will be open" (lIARL: SC 302
147).
,106. !pGr ,(SC 148, 192): ... Kat àVotyijO'E-rat O'ot U1tO wu 3upropou, 1tEpt oÔ d1tEV
6 IllO'OUÇ -rou-rf(l 6 3upropoç àVOtyEt (John 10,3).
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 245
to seek rightly (ôp3roç) with steadfast faith (niO"nç) in order to discover
the hidden (Kp61T'tffi) things in scripture 107 • Furthermore, Origen instructs
Gregory that to practice prayer (sùxi]) in order to understand (VOÉffi)
divine things 108 . Prayer and faith provide the bedrock foundation for our
pre-conceptions. Origen concludes his Lette/' of fatherly love by urging
his student Gregory to increase in his share of the divine things, not only
as a "partaker (I!É'toxoç) of Christ" 109, but also as a "partaker of God"110.
2. Cappadocian Metaphors of Appropriation
Other Christians before Origen appropriated the well-known allegory
of the "spoils of the Egyptians", but the Alexandrian theologian most
clearly and forcefully uses the story to illustrate a Christian approach to
Hellenistic philosophyll1. After Origen, the allegory of "the spoils of
Egypt" continued as a trope for theologians who sought to explicate the
Christian use of Hellenistic philosophy112. On account of the missionary
work of Gregory Thaumaturgos, Origen's theology reached and signifi-
cantly impacted Christianity in Cappadocia. Certainly, Origen's approach
to philosophy indelibly shaped the methodology of Basil of Caesarea and
Gregory Nazianzen, the two compilers and editors of the Philocalia of
Origen, which contains the Letter to GregOly. In this present study, we
have employed the metaphor of the parasite as an analytical heuristic for
intenogating Origen's Letter. In conclusion, let us consider the question
of reception by concluding with the imagery of appropriation located in
the Cappadocian fathers, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen 113 •
107. EpGr (SC 148, 192): Kat 1tpoO'ÉXrov -rU 3BiÇt àvayvmO'Et ôp3roç Sij-rEt Kat
JlE-rfl. 1ttO'-rEroÇ -r~e; Eie; 3EOV àd,tVoue; -rov KEKpUJlJlÉvov -rote; 1to'J...'J...otç vouv -rrov 3Birov
ypaJlJlâ-rrov.
108. EpGr (SC 148, 192-194): Mi] àpKOU of> -ré!> KpOUEtv Kat Sll'tEtV' àvaYKato-râ'tll
yfl.p Kat" 1tEpt -rOU vOBlv 'tfJ. 3Eta Eùxij ...
109. Heb 3,14.
110. EpGr (SC 148, 194): ME-rÉxote; of> O'U, Kat àEi auç,ote; 't~v JlEwxijv, ïva ÂÉyne;
où Jlovov -ro' JlÉ-roxot 'tOU xPtO'WU yeyoVaJlEV, àÂÂfJ. Kat' JlÉ'tOXOt'tOU 3wu yEyova-
JlEV.
111. Crouzel notes that Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. N.46) had aIready commented on this
passage, although he did not give the precise signification that established a pattern for
the Christian appropriation of Greek philosophy. Further, the notion of Egypt as the world,
which is frequent in Origen's thought, is also located in Clement of Alexandria's work.
EpGr (SC 148, 90, fn. 2).
112. For example, Jerome, Augustine, Cassiodorus, Rabanus Maurus, Guillaume of
Hirsau referred to the allegory of the spoils of the Egyptians. This allegory, further,
became commonplace throughout the Middle Ages. EpGr (SC 148, 90, fn. 2).
' 113. Origen's Letter ta Gregory is located in the Philocalia chapter 13, and in the
collection, entitled: nO'tE Kat 'tiO't 'tfJ. à1tO <ptÂoO'o<ptae; lla3ijJla'ta xpijO'tlla Eiç -ri]v 'trov
iEproV ypa<prov otijYllO'tv, IlE-rfl. ypa<ptK~ç Ilap'tuptae;. EpGr (SC 148, 186). Harl notes
 246 M.J. PERBffiA
Basil and Gregory studied together in the famous university town Ath-
ens for nearly a decade; consequently, they intimately knew the chal-
lenge of taking what is useful from the secular schools and using it for
the service of the Church. In short, these two Cappadocian theologians
developed Christian answers to theu' questions, which were shaped within
an alien intellectual culture 114 • Both of these Cappadocian father~ passed
insights on to theu' students. In his Address to Young Men, on How They
Might Derive Bene/it /rom Greek Literature, Basil warns his readers
against becoming too familiar with the Greek poets because we may take
in poison along with the honey 115. Basil advises his disciplesto carefully
imitate the bees, who skillfully took what was useful, namely the sweet
honey from the flowers and left the rest behind1l6. As the bees extract the
sweet honey from the flowers, so too, Christians should take the sweet-
ness from the books of the Greeks 117.
Gregory Nazianzen's approach to philosophy has been rightly char-
acterized by scholarly assessment and reflected in his own words as that
of a gardener who "plucks the roses while avoiding the thorns,,118. In
the title of thls letter underscores the main idea of the Philocalia, such as expressed in
Nazianzen's letter. What is useful (XPlÎcrtl.lU) for the explication (ÔtlÎYIlOW) of the scrip-
tures. They address the Christian "philologues" from exegesis. The science of grammar
has proven useful. (HARL: SC 302,400).
114. Regarding Basil and Gregory's intellectual approach, Rousseau notes, "Athens
pres.e~ted a challenge ... to whlch (according to Gregory) they were aIready developing a
Chnstlan response. Yet the path they followed as a result, whlle Christian in form, was
nevertheless govemed also by their having recognized the issues and the challenge within
the framework of traditional education. The answers were their own, the questions were
not; and therefore the very style of their reply bore the mark of an alien inquiry"
(p. ROUSSEAU, Basil of Caesarea, Berkeley, CA, University of Califol1Ùa Press, 1998).
Fol' further discussion regarding the Cappadocian appropriation of phllosophy, see
J. PELIKAN, Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology
in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1993.
,Il? BNasil'1ddre~s (PC? 31, 569A):.''llo Ô~ nét~n <puÀaKD 't'l']v \jfUXl']V 't'IlPIl't'BOV, fll']
Ôta 't'ilS 't'oov ÀOYOOv llôoVIlS napaôsçaflsvot 't'l ÀaSOOflsv 't'oov xstpovoov, cD(J1tSP ol 't'à
ÔIlÀ'Il't'lÎPta fls't'à 't'ou flBÀt't'OS npoertÉflsvol.
, 11~. ~,asi~, Add~'ess ~P~ 31: 56~C): 'ilS yàr: 't'ow ~vSÉOOv 't'OIS flf:V ÀotnolS axpt 't'lis
suOOÔtas Il 't'ilS xpoas scrnv Il ànoÀauerts, 't'ats flsÀt't''t'ats ô' apa Kat flBÀt ÀaflPaVstV
àn' ~Imnv ~napxst, 01h00 ôl'] Kàv't'UuSa 't'OIS fll'] 't'à Tjôù Kat Ènixapt floVOV 't'rov
~otou:oov ÀOyOOv ôHOKoUertV, Ber't't nvà Kat m<pÉÀstaV ùn' alnrov sts 't'ilv \jIuxl']v
anoSserSal.
117. Basil, Address (PG 31, 569C).
118. For an excellent discussion of Gregory Nazianzen's relationship to Greek phi-
losophy, see F.W. NORRIs, OfTllOrns and Roses: The Logic of Beliefin Gregory Nazian-
zen, in Clll/rch Histo/y 53 (1985) 455-464. For the two places were Gregory employs thls
imagery of appropriating phllosophy, see ad Seleculll 1.61 (pG 37, 1581), and de vita sua
(pG.37, 1062). For further di.scussion on Gregory, see J.A. McGuCKlN, Saint GregO/y of
Naz/anzus: An Intellectual BlOgraphy, Crestwood, NY, Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press
2001.
FROM THE SPOILS OF EGYPT 247
his learned studyon Gregory Nazianzen, McGuckin characterizes Greg-
ory as a "pragmatic eclectic" within the tradition of Origen; like his
Alexandrian predecessor, Gregory privileged biblical revelation and
tradition while combining varied philosophical elements into his over-
aIl theology1l9. In his panegyric on Basil, Gregory reveals their Cap-
padocian approach to philosophy when he declares, "We select from
them what is useful for life and enjoyment and we avoid what is dan-
gerous, not opposing creation to Creator ... So also from the pagans we
have received principles of inquiry and speculation, while we have
rejected whatever leads to demons"120. This Cappadocian employment
of philosophy exemplifies the heart of Origen's prescription to his dis-
ciple Gregory Thaumaturgos. In his praise of his old university friend
Basil, Gregory declared, "We must not dishonor education because
certain men are pleased to do so" 121. Once again, Gregory reflects a
concern expressed throughout Origen's Letter, which is nothing less
than the urgent need for Christians to honor God through affirming the
proper use of paideia l22 . In their university days at Athens, the Cap-
padocian fathers inherited and began to continue the work of Origen
who strived to demonstrate that the Christian appropriation and inter-
pretation of the "New Platonism" was the most authentic 123. Basil and
Gregory's approval of Origen's method is revealed not only in their
editing of the Letter to Gregory as part of the Philocalia, but also
within their own appropriations of Hellenistic philosophy throughout
119. Regarding Gregory's synthetic approach, McGuckin asserts, "In terms of philo-
sophical influence he was, much in the tradition of Origen, a pragmatic eclectic; giving
pride of place to biblical revelation and the sense of an inherited Christian tradition (both
seen through the perspective of a Platonically influenced metaphysic), but combining in a
particularly visible manner, that Aristotelian categories (used to such effect, for example,
in the Five Theological Orations), Neo-Platonic resonances, and definite traces of Cynic
and Stoic elements in his thlnking: such as can be discemed also in the great Origen"
(McGUCKlN, Saint GregO/y of Nazianzus [no 118), pp. 57-58).
120. Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 43.11 (pG 36, 508-509; FC 22, 35-36).
121. Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 43.11 (pG 36, 508-509; FC 22, 35-36).
122. Origen, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen reflect and support Watts claim, that is,
"The evolution of classical education in late antiquity was not propelled by a steady
empire-wide intellectual and political movement against pagan teaching. Instead, it
occurred within a cultural environment typified not by Christian opposition to pagan teach-
ing but by almost constant mainstream Christian support for traditional education"
(WATTS, City and School [no 19], p. 21).
123. McGuckin contends, "At Athens in the period Gregory and Basil lived there,
many of the leading minds, Cluis tian or Hellenist, shared common principles laid down
for them by Origen and Plotinus, who had fought one another ... for the right to be seen
as the authentic interpreters of the 'New Platonism' of Ammonios: whether this was to be
a Christian or a put'ely Hellenistic phenomenon" (McGUCKlN, Saillf GregO/y ofNaziallzlls
' [no 118], p. 58).
248 M.J. PEREIRA

their influential theological writings, whereby the Cappadocian fathers

and their students strived to act like bees and gardeners, if not all-
together, as parasites.

Columbia University Matthew J. PEREIRA

43-35 42nd Street, Apt lB
Sunnyside, NY 11104
USA
matt.j .pereira@gmail.com

IV

APOLOGIES
 THE INFLUENCE OF mSTIN MARTYR ON ORIGEN'S
ARGUMENTATION IN CONTRA CELSUM

As we know, C. Andresen has quite convincingly demonstrated, that

not only a main source of Celsus' knowledge of Christianity were from
works of Justin, the Martyr; but also, even if Celsus did not mention
Justin name, in realty, he was responding to his arguments 1• Origen
defends Christian faith against Celsus' accusation in his work Contra
Celsum which uses many traditional arguments known before him. So
in this essay l propose to answer the following question: Did Origen
use ideas, or arguments of Justin to refute Celsus' accusations of
Christians in his workAgainst Celsus? The problem is not easy to deal
with as l present my position.
Firstly, because Origen never mentions Justin by name, nor does
he ever quotes his works explicitly in Contra Celsum and so, even
if he used his arguments, as l suggest, he did it in a hidden way.
Secondly, Eusebius of Caesarea in his famous History of the Church
1V.18 mentions dozen of Justin's works, but today we have only
three of his texts: 1 and 2 Apology and Dialogue with Trypho, the
Jew. So, if we ascertain that Origen did not quote Justin's works
openly, this conclusion concerns only the texts which have been
transmitted to our time, and obviously do not refer to the works
whieh might have existed in Origen times. Consequently, if there
will be any evidence of Justin's influence on Contra Celsum, this
will be based on a comparative analysis between Justin's preserved
works like 1 and 2 Apology and Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew and
the work of Origen. Because it would be impossible to analyze aIl
possible connections between these two authors l have chosen only
two points: "Jesus the Messiah born from the Virgin - the exegesis
of 1s 7,14" and" Jesus Messiah born in Bethlehem - interpretation
of Mie 5,1-2".

1. See C. ANDRESEN, Nomos und Logos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wieder das Chrisfel/-
fum (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte), Berlin, 1955.
252 L. MISIARCZYK
I. JESUS THE MESSIAH BORN FROM THE VIRGIN
1. The Messianic Interpretation of Is 7,14
The first element we want to focus on is a messianic interpretation of
Is 7,14 refelTed by Justin and Origen to the fact that the Messiah would
be bom of a virgin. Origen's analysis of this question is in Against Celsus
1.34-37 and occasionally he evokes the theme in II.69; m.2; VI.73. Let
us see now the first text. In Contra Celsum I.34 we find this fragment:
But it was, as the prophets also predicted, from a virgin t~atth~re was ta
be bom, according ta the prornised sign, one who w~s ta glVe HIS ~ame ta
the fact, showing that at His bilth, Gad was ta be wlth man. Now It seems
ta me appropriate ta the character of a Jew ta have qu?te? the ?rophecy of
Isaiah, which says that Immanuel was ta be bom of a vlrgm: This, how.ever,
Celsus, who professes ta know everything, has not done, elthe~ from 19n~­
rance or from an unwillingness (if he had read it and voluntaIily passed lt
by in silence) ta fumish an argument which mig~t defeat his purp~se. And
the prediction mns thus: 'And the Lord spake agam unto Ahaz,. saymg, ~sk
thee a sign of the Lord thy Gad; ask it either in the depth or m the helght
above. But Ahaz said, l will not ask, neither will l tempt the Lord. And he
said, Hear ye now, 0 house of David; is it a smaH thillg f?r you ta we~ry
men, but will ye weary my Gad also? Therefore the Lord Hinlself shaH glve
you a sign. Behold, a virgin shaH conceive, and bear a ~on, and shaH ca~
His name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, Gad wlth us'. And that It
was from intentional malice that Celsus did not quote this prophecy, is c1ear
ta me from this that although he makes numerous quotations from the
Gospel accordin~ ta Matthew, as of the star that appeared at ~he birth of
Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he has made no mentlOn at a11 of
this2.
Justin instead quotes Is 7,14 or evokes the theme in 1 Apology 33.1
and Dialogue with T!ypho 66.2; 68.6; 71.3 and 84.1-3. In 1 Apology our
author tries to convince his readers that a prophet foretold the future
Messiah would be bom of a virgin: "And hear again how Isaiah in
express words foretold that He should be bom of a virgin; for he spoke
thus: 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they
shaH say for His name, God with US,"3. In Dialogue 66.2 Justin quotes
the larger text ofIs 7,10-16 which at least in pmt, is closer to the Origen's
quotation: "And l, resuming the discourse where 1 had left off at a previ-
ous stage, when proving that He was bom of a vU'gin, and that His biIth
2. Ollgen, CC 1.34, in: A. ROBERTS - J. DONALDSON (eds.), Ante-Nicene Greek Fathers,
vol. N, Edinburgh, 1'&1' Clark, reprinted, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1983, ~p. 410-411.
3. Justin Martyr, 1 Ap%gy 33,1, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON (eds.), Allte-Nlcelle Greek
Fathers, vol. J, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1981, p. 174.
THE INFLUENCE OF mSTIN MARTYR ON ORIGEN'S CC 253
of a virgin had been predicted by Isaiah, quoted again the same prophecy.
It is as foHows 'And the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, Ask for thy-
self a sign from the Lord thy God, in the depth or in the height. And Ahaz
said 1 will not ask, neither will 1 tempt the Lord. And Isaiah said, Hear
then, 0 house of David; Is it no small thing for you to contend with
men? And how do you contend with the Lord? Therefore the Lord Him-
self will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shaH conceive, and shaH bear
a son, and they shaH caU his name Immanuel'''4. In Dial. 68.6 and 71.3
Justin quotes only the fU'st part of the prophecy: "Behold, the virgin shaH
conceive" and finaHy in Dial. 84.1-3 we can read: "Behold, the Lord
Himself shall give us a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear
a son,,5. As we know both Justin and Origen have usually quoted a Greek
version of the Old Testament, the so caHed Septuagint, so let us see now
more closely their quotations putting them all together in the Greek ver-
sions.
As it can be seen Origen quotes the whole text of Is 7,14 usuaHy
according to the Septuagint except KuÀsmnç, which cornes form Matt
2,23 and replace KUÀSO'OOcn of Septuagint as well as the explanation of
the term'EI.t/.tctVooijÀ, even if slightly modified: in Matt 2,23 we have 0
ÈO''ttv ).tESEp).tYJVEOO).tEVOV ).tES' l1).tO:JV 6 SEOÇ, but in Against Celsus
On:Ep Ép).tYJVêUWCctt ).tES' l1).tO:JV 6 SEOÇ. Justin in Dial. 68.6 and 71.3
quotes a first part of the fragment 'I80ù 11 n:upSl;voç Èv yUO''tpi Àij\flE'tctl
from the Septuagint as weH as a larger fragment in Dial. 84.1 and in Dial.
66.2 the quotation is according to the Septuagint. Instead, the quotation
in 1 Apology 33.1 seems to be very strange. In the beginning of the text
ËÇEt is taken from Matt 2,23 and replaces Àij\flE'tctl of the LXX, but Èp06-
O'tV Èn:i 'tCP ovo).tu'tt does not come from LXX nor from the Gospel of
Matthew. Justin omits also the name 'E).t).tuvooijÀ giving immediately
his explanation MES' l1).t&v 6 SEOÇ, probably because of the pagan read-
ers of the 1 Apology. The term Emmanuel in effect, could say something
to the Jewish or Christian readers of the Dialogue but was completely
unknown to the Roman Caesars or the Roman Senate. So the conclusion
should be as foHows: Justin in Dialogue and Origen in Contra Celsu111,
excluding a few insignificant elements, quote the text of Is 7,14 accord-
ing to the LXX, while the 1 Apology uses rather Matt 2,23.
4. Justin Martyr, Dia/ogue \Vith Tlypho, the Jew 66.2, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON
(eds.), Allte-Nicelle Greek Fathers, vol. J, 1981, p. 231.
5. Justin Martyr, Dia/ogue with Trypho, the Jew 68.6; 71.3, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON
(eds.), Allte-Nicelle Greek Fathers, vol. J, 1981, pp. 232-233.234.241.
254 L. MISIARCZYK THE INFLUENCE OF JUSTIN MARTYR ON ORIGEN'S CC 255

2. "Virgin" or "Young Woman"

The second point, which already proves dependence by Origen on

Justin is the discussion regarding the terms "young woman" and "vir-
gin". Origen notes:
Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the words are not, 'a virgin'
('I000 ft rcupSÉvoç), but, 'a young woman' ('1000 ft veiivtç), we reply that
the word 'almah' (ft àUÀ)lu) - which the Septuagint have rendered by 'a
virgin', and others by 'a young woman' (tlv oi )lèv é~OO)li]KOV1:U ~le1:et­
Ài]cpuO'tv dç 1:llv rcupSÉvov üÀÀot 0' dç 1:llv veiivtv) - occurs, as they
say, in Deuteronomy, as applied to a 'virgin' (èrcl rcupSÉvou), in the fol-
lowing connection: 'If a damsel that is a vU'gin (rcupSÉvoç) be betrothed
unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye
shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them
with stones that they die; the damsel (1:llV veiivtv) because she cried not,
being in the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbour's wife'
(cf. Deut 22,23-24). And again: 'But if a man find a betrothed damsel in a
field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay
with her shaH die: but unto the damsel (1:11 veuvtot) ye shaH do nothing;
there is in her no sin worthy of death>12.

The author of Contra Celsum discusses the sense of Is 7,14 where in

Hebrew we have word "ha-almah" translated by the Septuagint by "a
virgin" (i} napSÉvoç) but by others by "a young woman" (i} vEaVt<;).
Origen repeats the same conviction that Jesus, the Messiah, was con-
ceived and born from the vU'gin, also noted in Contra Celsum Il.69: "His
birth was purer than any other in consequence of His being born, not in
the way of ordinary generation, but of a virgin (i} yÉVE<J'tÇ aù'too
KaSapro'tÉpa nacr~ç YEVÉcrEroÇ ~v 't~ ~~ àna ~tÇEroÇ à~~'àna
napSÉvou yEVV~SfjVat), in CC 111.2: "Jewish prophets have predicted
[ ... ] that Emmanuel should be conceived by a virgin" ('ta npoEtp~KÉvat
'toùç 'Iouoatrov npo<j>,,'taç [ ... ] napSÉvov cru~~~o/0~Év~v 'tav
'E~~avou,,~) and in CC VL73, talking about the purity of the body born
from a virgin he affums: Celsus "knows not the pure and vU'gin birth,
unaccompanied by any cOlTuption, of that body which was to minister to
the salvation of men" (ÈnEÎ ~~ stOE 't~v napSEVtK~V Kat KaSapàv
yÉvv~crtç Kat àna ~~OE~taç <j>Sopaç 'too ~É~~ov'tOç un~pE't"cracrSat
'tU àvSpwnrov crro't~ptÇi crw~a'tOç).
Now, we can find in Dialogue 67.lff. And 71.3 the same discussion
between Justin and Trypho. Trypho sees in our text not "the virgin" but

12. Origen, CC I.34, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON (eds.), Allle-Nicelle Greek Falhers,
vol. IV, 1983, p. 411.
 256 L. MISIARCZYK
"the young woman" and refers the whole prophecy not ta the future
Messiah but ta the king Hezekiah:
And Trypho answered, 'The Scripture has no t, 'Behold, the virginshaH
conceive, and bear a son', but, 'Behold, the young woman shaH conceive,
and bear a son', and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers
to Hezekiah, and it is proved that if was fulfilled in him, according to the
terms of this prophecy 13.
As we can see, Trypho refutes version of the Old Testament called
the Septuagint where Is 7,14 has been translated 'Iooù lÎ nup9évoç Èv
yucr't"pt ÂTl'jlE't"at KUt 't"é~E't"at lliôv and prefers 'lOoù lÎ vEàvlÇ Èv yucr't"pt
Âil'jlE't"at Kut 't"é~E't"Ul lltÔV. The same idea is present in Dial. 71.3 but
this time Justin quotes the opinion of Trypho. As we have ah'eady seen
before, Origen reminds that the Septuagint have rendered Is 7,14 by lÎ
nup9évoç and others by lÎ vEàvlÇ. Those "others" in Contra Celsum
1.34 are also mentioned in Dial. 84.3 where Justin accuses the Jews of
refusing a translation of the Septuagint done by the eIders of Israel, but
previously accepted: "But you in these matters venture ta pervert the
expositions which your eiders that were with Ptolemy king of Egypt gave
f01th, since you assert that the Scripture is not sa as they have expounded
it, but says, 'Behold, the young woman (lÎ vEàvlÇ) shall conceive'''14.
Justin refers the prophecy of Is 7,14 ta Jesus Christ and also confirms
that the eIders of Israel reject the Septuagint: "1 shall show that this
prophecy of Isaiah refers ta our Christ, and not ta Hezekiah, as you say,
shall 1 not in this matter, tao, campel you not ta believe your teachers,
who venture ta assert that the explanation which your seventy eiders that
were with Ptolemy the king of the Egyptians gave, is untrue in certain
respects? For some statements in the Scriptures, which appear explicitly
ta convict them of a foolish and vain opinion, these they venture ta assert
have not been sa written"15. In Dial. 71.1 he adds: "1 am far from putting
reliance in your teachers, who refuse ta admit that the interpretation made
by the seventy eIders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is
a correct one; and they attempt ta frame another"16. While Origen men-
tions only generally "others", Justin underlines that the eIders of Israel
13. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew 67.1, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON
(eds.), Allte-Nicelle Greek Fathers, vol. J, p. 231.
14. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Tlypho, the Jew 67.1, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON
(eds.), Allte-Nicelle Greek Fathers, vol. J, p. 231.
15. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Tlypho, the Jew 43.8; 68.7, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON
(eds.), Allte-Nicene Greek Fathers, vol. J, pp. 216.232.
16. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Tlypho, the Jew 71.1, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON
(eds.), Ante-Nicene Greek Fathers, vol. J, p. 234.
THE INFLUENCE OF mSTIN MARTYR ON ORIGEN'S CC 257
try ta prepare another Greek translation of the Old Testament m~re faith-
fuI ta the Hebrew text than the Septuagint. We know these verSlOns as a
translation of Aquila, Symmach and Theodotion which have been done
in II century after Christian lm'gely used the LXX ta prove th~ir faith, in
Jesus as the promised Messiah17, The translations of Is 7,14 lU AqU1~a,
Symmachus and Theodotion version is diffe~en~ from t~at of S~p~uagmt
and have 'looG lÎ vEàvlÇ crllÂÂul-tPaVEl KUl .lK't"El lllOV, SA lt lS very
probable that Origen talking about "others" ha~ in m~nd the v~rsion~ of
Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion and his dlscusslOn of thls st~bJ~ct
was inspired by Justin Dialogue because he is the only early ChrIstIan
work where such a discussion had taken place.
3. The Sense of the Sign in Is 7,14
The third point on which Origen based his argumentation is a sense of
the sign described in Is 7,14: "But that we may not seem, because of a
Hebrew ward, ta endeavour ta persuade those who are unable ta deter-
mine whether they ought ta believe it or not, that the prophet spoke of
this man being barn of a vu'gin, because at his birth these wards, 'Gad
with us', were uttered, let us make good our point from the word.s them-
selves"18. The author of Contra Celsum doesn't want ta base his argu-
ments only on a Hebrew ward in arder ta persuad~ his re~ders t~~t the
prophet have spoken about Jesus the Messiah, but t~es ta fmd addlt10~al
arguments in explaining the sense of the prophecy ltself. Now, the slgn
given ta Ahaz that the prophecy is really true is this one: "Behol~, a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son". Let us see then the text of Agaznst
Celsus 1.35:
The Lord is related to have spoken to Ahaz thus: 'Ask a sign for thyself
from the Lord thy God, either in the depth or height above' and ~ft:rwa;d~
the sign is given, 'Behold, a virgin shaH conceive, and be~r a son. ( Joou 11
napSévoç Èv yacrtpt ËÇ,Et Kat téÇ,Etat ui6v). What ki~d. of ~1~n, t~en,
would that have been - a young woman who was not a vrrgm gr~mg bn1h
to a child? (llolov oi')v cr11fldov tà vEavtOa flTj IIapSévov tEKEtV;). ~d
which of the two is the more appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (I.e.,
'God with us'), - whether a woman who has had intercourse wit~ a ~an,
and who has conceived after the manner of women, or one who IS still a
17. Cff. D. BARTHÉLEMY, Les d~vallciers d'Aquila, Leiden, 1967; ~., L'Ancien Tes~~­
mellt a mlÎri d'Alexandrie, in ID., Etudes d'histoire du texte de l'Allc/en Testament, Got-
tingen, 1978, 127-113; G. VELTRI, Eine Tora fiïr den Konig Talmai,. Tübingen, 1994.
18. Origen, CC 1.34, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON (eds.), Ante-NlGene Greek Fathers,
vol. IV, p. 411.
 258 L. MISIARCZYK
pure and holy vit'gin? Sm'ely it is appropriate only to the latter to produce
a being at whose bitth it is said, 'God with US>19.
According to Origen, if a young woman would have had inter~ourse
with a man, and then, would have borne a child, there never would have
been a sign; and the prophecy given to Ahaz makes no sense. The sign
which speaks of prophecy consists of the fact that a virgin, without hav-
ing any sexual relations with a man, has borne a child called "God with
us". The same idea we can find in Justin's Dialogue 84.1:
Moreover, the prophecy, 'Behold, the vhgin shall conceive, and bear a son',
('Iooù Tj napSÉvoç èv ya(Ycpt ÂT]/l'l'E'tal Kat 'tÉÇE'tat ul6v) was uttered
respecting Him. For if He to whom Isaiah refened was not to be begotten of
a vhgin, of whom Or, 'why was it' did the Holy Spmt declare, 'Behold, the
Lord Himself shall give us a sign: behold, the vhgin shall conceive, and bear
a son?' ('Iooù K6pwç at'noç û/ltv OcOaEl al1/lEtov. 'Iooù Tj napSÉvoç èv
yaa'tpt ÂT]/l'l'E'tal Kat 'tÉçE'tal ui6v). For if He also were to be begotten of
sexual intercourse, like aIl other fhst-bom sons, why did God say that He
would give a sign which is not common to aIl the fhst-born sons? But that
which is truly a sign, and which was to be made tmstwOIthy to mankind, _
namely, that the fhst-begotten of aIl creation should become incarnate by the
Vhgin's womb (olà napSEvlKf)Ç /lT]'tpaç), and be a child2o •
The difference between Justin and Origen is that the latter one quotes
the text of Matt 2,23 and the former the text according to the version of
Septuagint; but there can be no doubt that Origen uses Justin argument
to show that the sign in Is 7,14 consist in the fact that a vu'gin, without
any sexual relations with a man, shall conceive and bear a son. We know
that the same argument is repeated later by Tertullian in his Adversus
Iudaeos 9 and Adversus Mm'cionem 3,13 but his influence on Origen is
less probable than that of Justin.
II. JESUS THE MESSIAH BORN IN BETHLEHEM
1. The Interpretation of Mie 5,1-2
The other element of Origen's argumentation on fulfillment of the Old
Testament prophecies, regarding the place where the future Messiah will
be born, is structured according to the prophecy of Mie 5,2. Origen
quotes Mie 5,2 in Contra Celsum 1.51:
19. Ibid.
20. Justin Martyr, Dialogue lI'ith Trypho, the Jew 84.1-2, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON
(eds.), AlIte-Nicene Greek Fathers, vol. J, p. 241.
THE INFLUENCE OF JUSTIN MARTYR ON ORIGEN'S CC 259
Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of the Saviour's bitth - that
the Ruler was to come forth from Bethlehem - in the foHowing manner:
'And thou Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the least among the thou-
sands of Judah: for out of thee shaH He come forth unto Me who is to be
Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been of old, from everlasting'
(Mic 5,1). Now this prophecy could not suit any one of those who, as
Celsus' Jew says, were fanatics and mob-leaders, and who gave out that
they had come from heaven, unless it were clearly shown that He had been
born in Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come forth from Bethle-
hem to be the leader of the people. With respect to the bhth of Jesus in
Bethlehem, if any one deshes, after the prophecy of Micah and after the
history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional
evidence from other sources, let him know that, in confonnity with the nar-
rative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the
cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped
in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in sunounding
places, even among the e~emies ~f the faith, it being said that in t.hi~ ca~;
was born that Jesus who lS WOrsh1pped and reverenced by the Chnstlans .
Origen uses two elements in his argumentation. Firstly, he argues that
"this prophecy could not suit any one of those who, as Celsus' Jew says,
were fanatics and mob-Ieaders, and who gave out that they had come
from heaven, unless it were clearly shown that He had been born in
Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come forth from Bethlehem to
be the leader of the people". We know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem,
argues Origen, so the prophecy only talks about him. Secondly, he adds,
that if anyone desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history
recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have any additional
evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the
nalTative in the Gospel regarding His buth, there is shown at Bethlehem
the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was
laid wrapped in swaddling-clothes. This cave is still known even among
the enemies of Christian faith, because in this cave was born that Jesus
who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians.
Justin deals with that question of Jesus' the Messiah buth place in 1
Apology 34.1 and in Dialogue 78.1-6. Let us see now the fu'st text:
And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet,
Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: 'And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah,
aIt not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shaH come forth
a Governor, who shaH feed My people' (Mic 5,1). Now there is a village in
the land of the Jews, thuty-five stadia from Jemsalem, in which Jesus Christ
21. Origen, CC 1.51, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON (eds.), AlIte-Nicelle Greek Fathers,
vol. N, p. 418.
 260 L. MISIARCZYK
THE INFLUENCE OF mSTIN MARTYR ON ORIGEN'S CC 261
was bom, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made
under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judrea22 •

Justin in 1 Apology 34.1 quotes prophecy from Mic 5,2 but also pre-
cise, that Bethlehem is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia
from JelUsalem. He adds too, that Emperor could ascertain this from the
tax registers made by first procurator of Judaea, Cyrenius. In the text of
Dialogue 78,1 Justin mentions Herod, who have been asking the eIders
of Israel where there should be born the Messiah when the magi from
Arabia came to Jerusalem looking for a new-born king in order to give
Him glory. The eIders of Israel answered that the Messiah will be born
in Bethlehem:
Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia,
and said they knew from a star which appeared in the he avens that a King
had been bom in your country, and that they had come to worship Hirn,
leamed from the eIders of your people that it was thus written regarding
Bethlehem in the prophet: 'And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art
by no means least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall go forth
the leader who shaH feed my people' (Mic 5,2). Accordingly the Magi from
Arabia came to Bethlehem and worshipped the Child, and presented Him
with gifts, gold and frankincense, and myrrh; but retumed not to Herod,
being wamed in a revelation after worshipping the Child in Bethlehem23 •

In the last part of this Dialogue's text Justin like in 1 Apology follows
the indication described in the Gospels that Joseph, even if he lived in
Nazareth, went to Bethlehem because of the census decided by Quirinius.
And so Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but because there were no place
for them in the town, Joseph took up his quarters in a certain cave near
Bethlehem. In this cave Mary brought forth Jesus and placed him in a
manger and there the magi found hirn:
But when the Child was bom in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a
lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the
village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed
Hirn in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Hirn24.

Now, the tradition that the cave in which Jesus was born is near Beth-
lehem is not present in the Gospels and Justin mentions it as a first
Christian writer. It would be, of course, very difficult to sayon which

22. Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 34.1, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON (eds.), Al/te-Nicelle
Greek Fathers, vol. l, p. 174.
23. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, the lew 78.1, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON
(eds.), Al/te-Nicel/e Greek Fathers, vol. 1, p. 237.
24. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, the lew 78.5, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON
(eds.), Al/te-Nicelle Greek Fathers, vol. l, p. 238.
262 L. MISIARCZYK
bases this tradition is founded: the cave effectively was near of Bethle-
hem and Justin, as one bom in Palestine, could have easily verified it; or
it is based on the prophecy of Is 33,16. Let us compare now Justin's and
Origen's testimonies beginning with the Greek text of Mic 5,2.
As it can be seen, Origen quotes Mic 5,1 following exactly the Sep-
tuagint, but Justin clearly fOllOWS Matt 2,6. It is known that quotation of
the Old Testament in Matt 2,6 do not conespond to the Septuagint and
probably Matthew has known and used a different version of the Old
Testament. Justin in his quotation fOlm Mic 5,1, omits the last words
where it is said that a promised Messiah "will pasture my people Israel
[ ... ]" insisting on his more universal character. So in this case Origen's
quotation of the Mic 5,1 does not fOllOW Justin texts and he was not
inspired by the author from Flavia Neapolis. This inspiration however is
clearly seen in two points: Origen like Justin has refened the prophecy
of Mie 5,1 to the birth pla~e of Jesus Christ and has indicated the cave
as a material pro of of the fulfillment of the prophecy. Origen notieed that
"about the birth of Christ was said that 'a ruler cornes form Bethlehem'"
(Eïprl'tat 01'] nEpt 't'ou 't'onou 't'fjç YEVÉcrEruÇ alrwu, on àno «BESÀEÈI-t
ÈÇEÂ,EucrE't'at ô ljyoUI-tEVOç»). Justin expresses the same ide a in 1 Apol-
ogy 34.1 "And hear what part of earth He was to be bom in, as another
prophet, Mieah, foretold" COnou OÈ Kat 't'fjç yfjç yEvvacrSm EI-tEÀÀEV,
mç npoEtnEv S't'EpOÇ npo<piJ't'llÇ ô Mtxaiaç àKoucra't'E). Even if Origen
uses the term 't'onoç and Justin onou OÈ 't'fjç yfjç, the matter of birth
place is the same. The telminology present in Origen's Against Ce/sus is
lacking in Matt 2,6, so it is probable it should have been taken from sorne
later Father of the Church. And we know that Mic 5,1 was quoted before
Origen only by Justin, h'enaeus (Adv. Haer. rv.33; Demonstratio 63) and
Tertullian (Adversus /udaeos 13). We can exclude the influence of Ter-
tullian because of Latin language and Irenaeus depends clearly on Justin.
So it is very probable that Origen depends on Justin in his referring Mie
5,1 to the birth place of Messiah. Other similarities we can find in the
description of Herod, who has asked the elders of Israel where the Mes-
siah will be bom when the magi came to Jerusalem. Justin has written in
Dial. 78.1 "Now this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him
from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heav-
ens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come
to worship Him, leamed from the elders of your people (l-taScûv napà
't'rov npEcrf3U't'Épruv wu Àaou 0l-trov) that it was thus written regarding
Bethlehem". Origen confirms that the elders of Israel have refened the
prophecy of Mic 5,1 to the buth place of Messiah which is confumed by
their answer given to Herod "in Bethlehem of Judea". But after coming
TIffi INFLUENCE OF JUSTIN MARTYR ON ORIGEN'S CC 263
of Christ, they have hidden this teaching to the people of Israel: "More-
over, l am of opinion that, before the advent of Christ, the chief pliests
and scribes of the people (01 àpXtEpEt:ç Kat ypal-tl-ta't'Et:ç 't'ou Àaou), on
account of the distinctness and cleamess of this prophecy, taught that in
Bethlehem the Christ was to be bom. And this opinion had prevailed also
extensively among the Jews; for whieh reason it is related that Herod, on
inquu'ing at the chief priests and sClibes of the people, heard from them
that the Christ was to be bom in 'Bethlehem of Judea', whence David
was [ ... ]. But after our Lord's coming, those who busied themselves with
ovelthrowing the belief that the place of His buth had been the subject
of prophecy from the beginning, withheld such teaching from the peo-
ple"30. Information about Herod's asking the elders of Israel is present,
of course, also in the Gospels; but, and this is really interesting, Justin
and Oligen call them in a different way. The last one, who as we have
already seen, quoted Mic 5,2 dU'ectly from the Septuagint and not as
Justin from Matt 2,6, here follows Matt 2,4. We read in Contra Celsum
1.51: npo I-tÈv 't'fjç Xptmou È7ttolll-tiaç 01 àpXtEpEt:ç Kat ypal-tl-ta't'EtÇ
't'ou Àaou Otà 't'o cra<pÈç Kat ÈvapyÈç 't'fjç npo<pll't'Eiaç ÈèiiOacrKov on
ô Xptmoç Èv BllSÀEÈI-t yEVVllSiJcrE't'at but in Matt 2,4 we find the fol-
lowing text: Kat cruvayaycûv nuv't'aç 't'oùç àPXtEpEtÇ Kat ypal-tl-ta't'Et:ç
't'ou Àaou ÈnuvSUVEW nap' alHrov nou ô Xptcr't'oç yEvva't'at. So, as
we can see, Justin calls them npEcrf3u't'Epot 't'ou Àaou, Origen instead,
following Matt 2,4 01 àPXtEpEtÇ Kat ypal-tl-ta't'EtÇ 't'ou Àaou. Contra
Ce/sum follows in this point Gospel of Matthew which is confumed also
by the answer of the chief priests and scribes of the people to Herod
regarding the place of buth of Christ, the same as in Matt 2,4: Èv
BESÀÉEI-t 't'fjç 'Iouoaiaç. In this point Origen follows rather Gospel tra-
dition than that of Justin, the Mmtyr.
2. The Cave in Which Jesus Was Born as a Proo!
Origen uses still other argument to show that Jesus was bom in Beth-
lehem and this is a fact of cave's existence famous in whole region:
"With respect to the biIth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desu'es, after
the prophecy of Mieah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by
the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let
him know that, in conformity with the nanative in the Gospelregarding
His biIth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was bom, and
30. Origen, CC 1.51, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON (eds.), Ante-Nicene Greek Fathers,
vol. IV, pp. 418-419.
264 L. MISIARCZYK
THE INFLUENCE OF JUSTIN MARTYR ON ORlGEN' S CC 265
the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And
KU"CUÀUO'ut 8V O'nllÀuiq> nvt O'uvsyyoe; "Clle; KCÔl1lle; KU"CÉÀOO's' Kut
this sight is greatly talked of in sUlTounding places, even among the
"Co"Cs, UÙ"Crov ov"Crov 8KSt, 8"CS'COKst 1Î Mupiu "Càv XptO'''Càv Kut 8V
enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus
<j)UWTI uù"Càv 8"CsSsiKst, anoo 8ÀSOV"CSe; oi ànà 'Appu~iue; l1 u yot
who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians"31. If someone still
s6pov UÙ"Cov. The phrase 8V <j)àwTI uù"Càv near literally quotes Lk 2,7
remains unconvinced reading the prophecy of Mie 5,2 and the Gospels,
and other like nou KU"CUÀUO'ut, S"CS"COKst or S"CSSdKst paraphrases
Origen uses additional argument: a material existence of a cave in whieh
Lk 2,7. Since the term is the same in Justin's Dialogue 78.5 and Origen's
Jesus was born and inside of it a manger where He was laid and wrapped
Against Celsus l,51 there can be little doubt that the latter used the former
in swaddling clothes. This cave is recognized even by the enemies of
tradition to reinforce his arguments regarding fulfillment of the prophecy
Christians as a birth place of Jesus Christ who is worshipped by Chris-
Mie 5,1-2 in Jesus Christ. The little difference between Justin, who places
tians: ildKVlYt'ut 'Cà 8V BllSÀs811 O'nijÀutov BVSU 8ySVVijSll KUt 1Î 8V
the cave "near village" (O'uvsyyoe; "Clle; KCÔl1lle;) and Origen who set it sv
'Ccp O'nllÀuiq> <j)UWll, BVSU 80'nupyuvcôSll. Kut 'Cà ostKVUl18vov 'COu'Co
Bll SÀ6É I1, does not undelmine the conclusion about influence of Justin
otu~Oll'Cov 80''Ctv 8V 'Cote; 'Conote; Kut nupà 'COte; 'Clle; niO''Cs?;>e;
on Origen's argumentation at this point. Justin himself has known this
àÀÀo'Cpiote; <he; apu 8V 'Ccp O'nllÀuiq> 'Cou'Cq> 6 6nà XptO'nuvrov
tradition probably from former Christian (or even Jewish-Christian) tradi-
npoO'KovOUI1Svoe; Kut Suol1uÇOI1SVoe; ysyÉvvll'Cut 'lllO'oue;. The Greek
tion or, as one born and grown up in Palestine, he could personally have
term O'nijÀutov used by Origen to indicate the cave does not appear in
known that Jesus was born in a cave near Bethlehem.
the Gospels. As it is known, a visit of the magi who came to Bethlehem
has been described in Matt 2,1-12 "going into the house (8ÀSOV"CSe; ste; University of Cardinal Wyszynski Leszek MrSIARCZYK
Ti]V olKiuv) they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell dow~ Ul. Dewajtis 5
and worshipped him". So the Gospel of Matthew tells us that the magl 01-815 Wm'szawa
have found Jesus and his Mother already in a house (otKOe;). Instead in Pol and
Lk 2,7 we find this description: "she gave bhth to her fi1'st-born son and lmisiarczyk@02.pl
wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because
there was no place for them in the inn" (KUt 80'nupyuvroO'sv utnàv Kut
àVÉKÀtVsV utnàv 8V <j)UWTI, oton OÙK ~v uù"Cote; "Conoe; 8V 'Ccp KU'CuÀ6-
l1un). Matthew and Luke do not mention at all any cave and say nothing
about place where it could be. Only in Lk 2,7 do we find the term <j)UWll
used also in Against Celsus but nothing is said about the cave. So it could
be no doubt, that Origen transmitting the tradition about Jesus being born
in a cave and that this cave can be still seen near in Bethlehem was
influenced by Justin Maltyr because he is the first and unique ancient
Christian author who mentioned it in his Dial. 78.5: "But when the Child
was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that
village, he took up his qumters in a certain cave near the village; and
while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in
a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Hll'n". In the
Greek version of this fragment we can find the same term O'nijÀutov,
used by Origen in Contra Celsum 1.51, completely absent, as we know,
in the Gospels: 8nstoij 'IroO'ij<j) OÙK dxsv 8V "Cll KCÔI1TI 8KsivTI nou

31. Origen, CC 1.51, in: ROBERTS - DONALDSON (eds.), Ante-Nicelle Greek Fathers,
vol. IV, p. 418.
 UNORDNUNG, BEDINGT DURCR HASS?
ORIGENES UND DIE STRUKTUR VON CELSUS' ALETHES LOGOS

1. ZUR FRAGESTELLUNG

Der Alethes Logos des Celsus ist das alteste in graBerem Umfang
erhaltene Werk eines paganen Philosophen, das eine Auseinandersetzung
speziell mit dem Christentum bietet. Da dies es Werk nul' in Fragmenten
innerhalb der acht Bücher von Origenes' Contra Celsum überliefert istl,
stellt sich die Frage nach seiner ursplünglichen Struktur,
AIs gesichert gelten kann folgendes: Der Alethes Logos hatte ein Pl'O-
oemium2, Dru'auf folgten zwei Reden eines fiktiven ,Juden', der sich
zunachst direkt an den irdischen Jesus wendet3 , dann aber - nun wird
Jesu Tod vorausgesetzt - an die Judenchristen4 , Diese beiden Reden
bildeten einen in sich geschlossenen Teil des Alethes Logos, In allen
folgenden Ausführungen nimmt Celsus in eigener Pers on Stellung zu den
jüdischen und christlichen Positionen5 , Einerseits versucht el', Judentum
und Christentum ad absu/'dum zu füm'en; andererseits bemüht el' sich,
den Christen, die ihm so weit folgen kannen, einen Weg zu wam'er
Gotteserkenntnis zu zeigen und sie zut' Loyalitat gegenüber dem rêimi-
schen Kaiser zu motivieren,
Was die Frage nach der urspl'Ünglichen Struktur des Alethes Logos im
einzelnen betrifft, haben seit dem 19, Jahrhundert zahlreiche Editoren und
Interpreten recht unterschiedliche Antworten gegeben6 , In den letzten

1. Nach Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica VI.36,2, entstand Contra Celsl/m wiihrend der
Regierungszeit des Kaisers Philippus Arabs (244-249),
2. arigenes erwiihnt das Prooemillm in CC nI.1 (SC 136, 14.4).
3. Celsus, fIl'. I.28-7I.
4. FIl'. n.I-79.
5. FIl'. rn.l-Vrn.76.
6. Griechische Textausgaben: K.R.B. JACHMANN, De Celso philosopho displltatllr et
fragmenta libri qllem contra Christian os edidit col/igllntur, Regiomonti (Kiinigsberg),
Hartung, 1836; a. GLOCKNER, Celsi AÂf/!h)ç Âbyoç excllssit et restituere conatlls est ...
(Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen, 151), Bonn, Marcus u. Webers, 1924;
H.a. SCHRODER, Der Alethes Logos des Celsus: Untersucllllllgen ZlIlIl Werk und seinem
Velfasser mit einer Wiederherstellung des griechischen Textes und KOlllmentar (unge-
druckte Habilitations-Schrift), GieBen, 1939; R. BADER, Der AAHeHE AOrOE des
Kelsos (Tübinger Beitriige ZUI' Altertumswissenschaft, 33), Stuttgart - Berlin, Kohlham-
mer, 1940. Übersetzungen und Paraphrasen: TH. KEIM, Celsus' Wahres Wort: Aelteste
Streitschrijt antiker Weltanschauung gegen das Christentum l'om Jahr 178 n. ChI'. Wie-
268 J.ARNOLD
Jahrzehnten allerdings ist eine gewisse Resignation festzustellen. Schon
1953 bemerkte Herny Chadwick in der Einleitung seiner Contra Celsum-
Übersetzung, für den Versuch, den Celsus-Text zu rekonstruieren, sei
"viel Energie, vielleicht zu viel" investiert worden7 • lm Jahr 1980 zieht
Karl Pic hIer aus seinem forschungsgeschichtlichen Überblick neuerer
Einteilungsversuche den Schluss,
daB von einem Konsens hinsichtlich der Disposition des Alethes Logos
nicht die Rede sein kann, ganz zu schweigen davon, daB es gelungen wiire,
Einvemehmen über den Plan des Kelsos selbst zu erzielen. Die Fragen nach
der Disposition des Alethes Logos und nach dem Plan seines Autors müssen
aIs offen gelten8 •
Dass diese Schlussfolgerung ihre Gültigkeit behalten hat, konstatiert
Horacio Lona in seinem 2005 erschienenen Kommentar zum Alethes
Logos9. Und sie gilt offensichtlich bis heute. In den letzten Jahren sind
nicht einmal mehr explizite Untersuchungen zur ursprünglichen Struktur
des Alethes Logos veroffentlicht worden lO •
derhergestellt, aus dem Griechischen übersetzt, untersucht und erliiutert, mit Lukian und
Minucius Felix verglichen, Zürich, Orell, Füssli u. Co., 1873 (repr. Aalen, Scientia, 1969;
repr. München, Matthes u. Seitz, 1991); B. AUBÉ, Histoire des persécutions de l'Église.
II: La polémique païenne à lafin dul/' siècle, Paris, Didier, 1878; L. ROUGIER, Celse ou
le conflit de la civilisation antique et du christianisme primitif, Paris, Éd. du Siècle, 1925
(repr. Discours vrai contre les chrétiens, Paris, Copernic, 1965; repr. Paris, Le Labyrinthe,
1977); R.J. HOFFMANN, Celsus. On the True Doctrine. A Discourse agaillst the Christialls,
New York - Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987; G. LANATA, Celso, Il discorso vero
(picco1a Biblioteca, 206), Milano, Adelphi, 1987; G. BAGET Bozzo - S. RIzzo, Celso,
Il discorso della verità. Contro i cristiani, Milano, Rizzoli, 1989 ("2002). Kommentar:
H. LONA, Die, Wahre Lelll'e' des Kelsos. Übersetzt und erkliiIt (Kommentar zu frühchrist-
lichen Apologeten, Erg.B. 1), Freiburg - Basel - Wien, Herder, 2005. Untersuchungen
speziell zur Struktur des Alethes Logos: P. KOETSCHAU, Die Gliede/'lmg des dÂ1191)Ç
ÂGyoç des Celsus, in lahrbiicher fiir Protestalltische Theologie 18 (1892) 604-632;
W. ULLMANN, Die Bedeutung der Gotteserkenntnis fiïr die Gesamtkonzeption von Celsus'
Logos alet/les, in Studia Patristica 14 (Texte und Untersuchungen, 117), Berlin, Akade-
mie-Verlag, 1976, 180-188; vgl. auch die Forschungsberichte in KEIM, Celsus' Wahres
Wort, S. 196-203; J.F.S. MUTH, Der Kampf des heidnischen Philosophen Celsus gegel/
das Christentum: Eine apologetisch-patristische Abhandlzmg, Mainz, Kirchheim, 1899,
S. 10-22 und 210-215; K. PICHLER, Streit um das Christel/tum: Der Angriff des Kelsos
und die AnMort des Origenes (Regensbmger Studien zur Theologie, 23), Frankfurt - Bern,
Lang, 1980, S. 16-26; J. ARNOLD, Der Wahre Logos des Kelsos: Struktur und Mysterien-
metaphorik (ungedruckte Habilitations-Schrift), Bochum, 2008 (dernniichst in JAC.E),
S. 16-24.
7. "Much - perhaps too much - energy has been expended upon the attempt to recon-
struct Celsus' text" (Origen, Contra Celsum, xxii).
8. PIcHLER, Streit (Anm. 6), S. 26.
9. LONA, Die ,Wahre Lehre' des Kelsos (Anm. 6), S. 23.
10. Vgl. die Übersicht von A. LE BouLLuEc, Vingt ans de recherche sllr le Contre
Celse: État des lieux, in L. PERRONE (Hg.), Discorsi di Verità (Studia Ephemeridis
Augustinianum, 61), Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1998,9-28 = A. LE
UNORDNUNG, BEDINGT DUReR RASS? 269
lm folgenden solI ein neuer Vorschlag zur Disposition des Werkes
skizzielt werdenll . Zu fragen ist, ob die erhaltenen Celsus-Fragmente und
die Kommentare des Origenes Spuren einer weitergehenden strukturelIen
Konzeption des Alethes Logos erkennen lassen.
II. Zu ORIGENES' KRmK AM AUFBAU DES ALETHEs LOGOS
Setzen wir ein bei Origenes' Reaktionen. Er bemüht sich in Contra
Celsum nicht nur, entsprechend dem Auftrag seines Patrons Ambrosius
jeden einzelnen Einwand des Celsus gegen das Christentum zu widerle~
12
gen , sondern er kritisielt auch immer wieder den Text-Aufbau des Ale-
thes Logos. Besonders haufig ist sein VorwUlf, Celsus wiederhole sich 13 •
Wie berechtigt dieser V orwUlf ist, bleibt zu prüfen.
Der scharfste Angriff des Origenes gegen Celsus' Anordnung des Stof-
fes findet sich gleich im ersten der acht Bücher seiner Widerlegung. Hier
kritisiert Origenes, Celsus habe in der ersten Rede des ,Juden' Ereignisse
aus dem Leben Jesu falsch angeordnet,
w~il Wut und Fei~seligk~it nichts Geordnetes haben (l!T]oÈv BXBt 't'B't'cty-
sondem die Zormgen und die Feindseligen diejenigen, die sie has-
I!BVOV),
sen, schlechtreden, wie es ihnen gerade in den Sinn kommt (Kct't'à 't'o
ÈnBÂ.S6v), .~a sie aufgrund ihrer Wut nicht die Neigung haben, ihre Vor-
würle mit Uberlegung und in richtiger Ordnung (Kct't'à 't'uçtv) auszuspre-
chen14•
.. Inwiefem verstoBt Celsus gegen die "richtige Ordnung"? Nach einer
Ubersicht des Origenes behandelt Celsus in der ersten Rede des ,Juden'
nacheinander (a) die GebUlt Jesu aus der Jungfrau, (b) die Erscheinung
des Heiligen Geistes aIs Taube bei der Taufe Jesu, (c) die Prophezeiung
der Ankunft des Erlosers. Danach komme er auf das zuruck (dvct'tpé-
XBt), was (in der Schrift) im Anschluss an Jesu Geburt aufgezeichnet ist,
BOULLUEC, Alexandrie m~tique et, chrétienne. Clément et Origène. Éd. établie par
C.~. CO~1JCELLO (Colle.ct~on des Etudes Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 178), Paris,
Institut d Etudes Augustlmennes, 2006, 303-321; femer die bibliographischen Angaben
in Adamantius (bis 2010).
11. Für eine detallliertere Darstellung und Argumentation s. ARNOLD, Struktur (Anm. 6).
12. Dazu s. CC Pr.3 (SC 132, 68.4-8); II.20 (SC 132, 336.1lf); m.1 (SC 136, 14.3-5)
u.o.
13. CC II.46 (SC 132,388.10-12); II.48. (SC 1.~2, 390.1-4); II.70 (SC 132,452.6-8) u.o.
14. CC 1.40 (SC 132, 182.4-184.10); elgene Us. (auch im folgenden). Zur besonderen
Aufmerksamkeit des O.rigenes fur die 't'US1<; biblischer Texte und speziell der Evangelien
s. B. NEUSCHAFER, Ol'lgenes ais Philologe (Schweizerische Beitriige zur Altertumswis-
senschaft, 18/1-2), Basel, Reinhardt, 1987, Bd. l, 239, und Bd. 2, 460 Anm. 707 (Text-
beispiele ).
270 J.ARNOLD
namlich (d) "auf den Bericht von dem Stem und den Weisen, die aus
dem Morgenland kamen, ,das Kind anzubeten'''15. Celsus folgt also nicht
der Chronologie der Ereignisse.
Dass Origenes seinem Gegner vorwirft, bei der Behandlung der Evan-
gelientexte "keine Rücksicht auf den in der Natur der Dinge beglündeten
Zusammenhang und ihre Folgerichtigkeit" zu nehmen (<ppov"Cicrav"Css
où "COu Èv "Cft <pucrst "CIDV 1tpœnux"Ccov st PiloU Kat à,KoÀoo~Has)16, ist
nicht zuletzt von den V oraussetzungen seiner allegorischen Exegese her
verstandlich: Auch die Reihenfolge biblischer Pet'ikopen verweist nach
Origenes auf einen tieferen Sinn l7 • Auch wenn aber Celsus der im Neuen
Testament vorgegebenen Ordnung der Ereignisse aus Jesu Leben nicht
folgt, ist zu fragen, ob el' seine VOl'wütfe tatsachlich auBelt, wie sie ihm
"gerade in den Sinn kommen".
ilI. SPUREN EINER BEWUSSTEN TEXTGESTALTUNG IM ALETHEs LOGOS
Da Origenes die Fragmente der ersten Rede des ,Juden ' ausdrücklich
in der Reihenfolge wiedergibt, wie sie bei Celsus erscheinen 18 , las st sich
zeigen, dass Celsus den Text bis ins Detail gestaltet. So kehrt el' am
Schluss der Rede ganz bewusst zUl'Ück zu Inhalten und sprachlichen
Wendungen iill'es Anfangs:
• Am Anfang und am Ende der Rede - nicht aber in den Fragmenten
dazwischen - kommt Celsus' ,Jude' auf das "Konigtum" Jesu bzw.
Gottes zu sprechen. Am Ende der Rede (fl'. I.61) fragt el' Jesus:
Wenn Herodes den Kindermord veranlasste, "damit du nicht aIs
Erwachsener an seiner Stelle Konig seist (01tCOS 1l1l ~acrtÀsucrns),
warum bist du (nun), da du doch erwachsen bist, nicht Konig (où
~acrtÀsustS)?" Am Anfang der Rede (fl'. 1.39) hatte der ,Jude' fest-
gestellt, dass Jesu Mutter "nicht koniglich (oths ~acrtÀtKi])" sei
und dass das über Jesus Gesagte nichts mit der ~acrtÀsia S60U zu
tun habe.
15. CC 1040 (SC 132, 184.13-21).
16. CC lAI (SC 132, 184.3f).
17. So sind die aufeinander folgenden Etappen des Weges yom Auszug aus Agypten
bis zur Ankunft in Kanaan nach Origenes' Interpretation Vorbild der einzelnen Stationen
des Weges der Seele zu Gott (HIos lA und N.1; CID VI.43-45). Dass der Messias sich
den Heiden zuwendet, noch bevor Israel endgültig gerettet wird, ist durch die Reihenfolge
zweier Wunder angedeutet: Die Heilung der umeinen blutflüssigen Frau erfolgt VOl' der
Auferweckung der Tochter des Synagogen-Vorstehers Jairus, zu der Jesus bereits unter-
wegs war (FrLc 125 [RAUER]).
18. CC lAI (SC 132, 184.3-6): cppov'dcruv,as ... .rtS ,aç,aros ,rov Èv ,fi ~{~Â,Cfl
UlJWÙ ùvuyaypuJ,lJ,lÉvrov.
UNORDNUNG, BEDINGT DUReR HASS? 271
• Am Schlus~. der Rede (fr. I.66) heiBt es, dass Jesus "aIs unmündiges
Kind nach Agypten (siS Aïyo1t"Cov) in Sicherheit gebracht werden"
musste. Am Anfang (fr. I.28) behauptete der fiktive ,Jude', dass
Jesus spater "aus Armut ais Lohnarbeiter nach Âgypten ging" (wie-
der: 6ÎS Aïyo1t"Cov).
• Am Anfang wie am Ende der Rede werden Personen aus griechi-
schen Mythen aufgezahlt. Am Anfang (fr. I.37) Frauen, die von
einem Gott ein Kind (oder Zwillinge) empfingen: Danae, Mela-
nippe, Auge und Antiope. Am Schluss (fr. I.67) Heroen, die eine
menschliche Mutter und einen gottlichen Vatel' haben: Perseus,
Amphion, Aiakos und Minos. Bezüge zwischen beiden Aufzahlun-
gen sind deutlich: Perseus ist Soho der Danae, Amphion hat Antiope
aIs Mutter.
• Laut fI'. I.28 hat Jesus in Âgypten gewisse "Krafte" erprobt, "derent-
wegen die Âgypter erhaben tun (È<p' ais Aîyu1t"Ctot crsllvuvov"Cat)" .
Laut fr. I.68 stehen Jesu Wunder auf derselben Stufe wie das was
Leute vollfüill'en, die "die erhabenen Kenntnisse (Ût cr~llvà
llaSi] ll a "Ca) " , die sie "von Âgyptem (à.1tà Aiyo1t"Cicov)" übemom-
men haben, auf dem Markt verkaufen.
• In fr. I.39 stelIt Celsus fest: Gott ist von Natur aus nicht so, dass el'
einen verganglichen Kôrper (crIDlla) lieben würde; und es war "nicht
wahrscheinlich (060' 6ÎKOS)", dass el' Verlangen nach der Mutter
Jesu batte. In fr. I.69a heÏBt es dann: Gott datf keinen Kôrper (crIDlla)
haben wie Jesus. Und in fr. I.66: Es war "nicht waill'scheinlich (OÙK
6ÎKOS)", dass Gott sich VOl' dem Tod fürchtete.
Anfang und Schluss der Rede kOlTespondieren also. Die dazwischen
liegenden Aussagen des ,Juden' referiert Origenes zwar nicht so ausführ-
lich, dass man auch hier Entsprechungen in der Tenninologie feststellen
kônnte. Durchaus môglich ist aber, dass Celsus die Erscheinung der
Taube bei Jesu Taufe (fl'. 1.41) mit der Erscheinung des Stems bei seiner
Geburt (fI'. I.34) parallelisierte (und deshalb nicht in chronologischer
Reihenfolge erwahnte). In diesem Fall dütfte die erste Rede des ,Juden'
eine konzentrische Struktur gehabt haben. In ihrem Mittelpunkt standen
dann Aussagen über die Prophezeiung der Ankunft eines Erlosers.
In jedem Falliegen die Korrespondenzen zwischen Beginn und Ende
der Rede nahe, dass Celsus seine Kritikpunkte nicht planlos auBelte, son-
dem nach rhetorischen Gesichtspunkten geordnet.
Wenn nun die von Origenes kritisierten "Wiederholungen" grundsatz-
lich bewusste Wiederaufnahmen von Inhalten und sprachlichen Wendun-
gen darstelIen, ist hier ein Schlüssel zum Verstandnis der Struktur des
ganzen Alethes Logos zu vermuten.
272 J.ARNOLD
Diese Wiederaufnahmen konnen allerdings unterschiedliche Gründe
haben. Wurde ein Thema im Prooemium oder in den Reden des ,Juden'
(die m.E. die Funktion einer Narratio hab en) erstmals angesprochen,
kann es in den folgenden Ausführungen des Celsus aufgegriffen und
diskutiert werden (in diesen Ausfülllungen, d.h. in den Fragmenten der
Bücher III bis VIII, wird man eine Argumentatio sehen dürfen). Wieder-
holungen innerhalb der Ausführungen des Celsus beruhen zum Teil dar-
auf, dass hier behandelte Themen nochmals angekündigt 19 oder in epi-
logartigen Abschnitten zusammengefasst werden2o • Druüber hinaus aber
ist eine Zweiteilung der ,Argumentatio' festzustellen - mit einer bisher
nicht erkannten durchgehenden Parallelisierung zwischen der ersten und
der zweiten Halfte. Betrachten wir exemplarisch die jeweils ersten Frag-
mente beider Halften.
In der Mitte der Ausführungen des Celsus in eigener Person, in
fr. V.65b, findet sich ein markanter Neueinsatz mit einer doppelten The-
men-Ankündigung: Celsus will den christlichen Logos aIs so1chen unter-
suchen; auBerdem aber - und zwar noch vorher (npon;pov) - will er
sagen, "was die Christen falsch verstanden und aufgrund ihrer Unkennt-
nis verdorben hab en ". Gemeint ist eine Depravierung und Vulgarisierung
philosophischer Aussagen.
Es folgen unmittelbar einige Beispiele. In den Fragmenten VI.l bis
VI.1l zitiert Celsus aus dem platonischen VII. Brief: Das Erste Gute sei
unsagbar, konne aber aufgrund eines intensiven Umgangs mit ibm plotz-
lich in der Seele entstehen wie ein Licht aus überspringendem Feuer21 •
Dieser platonischen Lelu'e stellt Celsus die naive Forderung der Clui.sten
nach unmittelbarem Glauben gegenüber. So sagten sie "zu jedem, der
hinzutritt": "Zuerst glaube (npéO'tov n1.<H8uO'OV), dass der, den ich dir
vorstelle, Sohn Gottes ist ... " (fr. VI.10). Origenes weist hier auf eine
Wiederholung hin. Celsus habe schon oft dahergeredet, dass von den
Christen "gefordert werde, sofort zu glauben (8Ù~ÉO)Ç 1tt0''t808tv) "22.
Tatsachlich kritisiert Celsus bereits am Anfang seiner Argumentatio, in
frr. III.38 und III. 39 : Die Zustinunung der Christen für Jesus beruhe auf
einem Glauben, der die Seele von vornherein ergriffen habe (n1.O'nç npo-
KU'tUÂUpouO'u bzw. npoKu'tuO'XOuO'u).
In den jeweils folgenden Abschnitten der ersten und der zweiten Halfte
der Argumentatio lassen sich weitere Parallelen feststellen. In fr. VI.l2
19. Reste zweief Partitiones sind m.B. in den Ffagmenten m.1-8 und 16ab sowie in ff.
V.65b zu sehen; s. ARNOLD, St/1/ktul' (Amu. 6), S. 437-444.
20. Z.B. in ff. VAl und fIT. vrn.68-76.
21. Vgl. Ep. VII.341 cd.
22. CC VI.7 (SC 147, 194.13-16).
UNORDNUNG, BEDINGT DUReR HASS? 273
bringt Celsus eine zweite Gegenüberstellung: Die griechischen Weisen
haben zwischen menschlicher und gottlicher Weisheit unterschieden. In
Abhangigkeit von ihnen behaupten die Clui.sten: Was bei den Menschen
Weisheit ist, das sei Torheit bei Gott. Der Grund dieser Behauptung liegt
nach Celsus darin, dass die Christen nur die Ungebildeten (ànat08o'toUÇ)
und Einfaltigen (T]Ât~iouç) an sich ziehen wollen. Diesen Grund aber
habe er schon langst (mlÂut) genannt. Celsus selbst verweist also zurück
auf frühere Aussagen, und zwar auf Aussagen im zweiten Abschnitt der
ersten Halfte der Argumentatio. Dieser Abschnitt beginnt mit fr. III.44.
Dort behauptet Celsus, die Christen ordneten an, dass kein Gebildeter
(n8nut08uIlÉVoÇ) zu ihnen hintreten solle. Herbeikommen solle aber,
wer "ungebildet (ànuio8U'toÇ)" sei. So1che WOlte zeigen nach Celsus,
dass die Christen "nur die Einfaltigen (T]Ât~1.ouç)" überzeugen wollen
undkonnen.
lm nachsten Fragment, das Origenes in Buch VI anführt (fr. VI.15),
kommt Celsus auf die christliche 'tun8tvocppoO'oVTJ zu sprechen (die
wiederum auf dem Missverstiindnis philosophischer Aussagen beruhe).
Seine Kritik: "Wer niedrig gesinnt ist (6 'tun8tvocppovéOv), emiedrigt
sich ('tun8tvou'tat) auf unschickliche und unwürdige Weise". Von einer
inakzeptablen Selbstemiedrigung hatte Celsus auch schon in fr. III.62c
gesprochen: Dort unterstellte er den Christen die Meinung: "Den Unge-
rechten wird Gott aufnehmen, wenn er sich aus Schlechtigkeit emiedrigt
('tun8tvmO'n)". Diese Entsprechung ist umso auffalliger, aIs in den erhal-
tenen Fragmenten des Alethes Logos an keiner weiteren Stelle von
Selbstemiedrigung die Rede ist.
Weiter: In fr. VI.l6 zitiert Celsus aus Platons Gesetzen 23 , es sei
unmoglich, dass ein hervorragend guter Mensch zugleich auch hervorra-
gend reich sei. Diesel' Satz sei von Jesus verunstaltet worden, aIs er sagte,
leichter gelange ein Kamel durchs Nadelohr aIs ein Reicher in das Konig-
reich Gottes (stç 'ti)v puO'tÂstuV wu S80U). Wen die puO'tÂstU wu
S80U tatsachlich aufnehmen wird, lieB Celsus die Christen bereits in fI'.
III.59 sagen: den namlich, "der ein Sünder ist, unverstiindig, unmündig
und, kurz gesagt, armselig".
Zu allen bisher genannten Gegenüberstellungen christlicher und philo-
sophischer Aussagen in den ersten Fragmenten der zweiten Halfte der
Argumentatio lassen sich also Entsprechungen innerhalb von Fragmenten
am Beginn der ersten Halfte der Argumentatio nachweisen.
23. Plato, Leg. V.12.
274 J.ARNOLD
Derartige ,Wiederholungen' - oder besser: ParaIlelen - von denen hier
nul' eine kleine Auswahl explizit angefülnt werden kann, unterstreichen
nicht nul' die sorgfaltige Gestaltung des Textes. Sie stellen ein Kriterium
dar für den Nachweis der ursprünglichen Reihenfolge der Aussagen des
Celsus - und letztlich einen Rahmen für eine neue Rekonstruktion des
Alethes Logos.
IV. EIN EINGRIFF DES ORIGENES IN DIE STRUKTUR DES
CELSus-TExTES
Die Relevanz dieses Rahmens sei an einer einzigen von mehreren
nachweisbaren Umstellungen des Celsus-Textes durch Origenes verdeut-
licht. Untel' den Celsus-Fragmenten, die Origenes wiedergibt, findet sich
nur ein weiteres, in dem eine cln'istliche Aussage in derselben Weise wie
in den eben referierten Fragmenten VLI bis VLl6 aIs Depravation phi-
losophischer ÂuBerungen kritisiert wird. Dieses Fragment erscheint
gegen Ende von Buch Vil Contra Celsum, aIs fI'. Vil.58, in erheblicher
Distanz zu den Fragmenten, die Origenes am Anfang von Buch VI
zitierte.
In fI'. VIL58 heiBt es, das christliche Gebot, einem Angreifer auch die
zweite Wange hinzuhalten, sei eine primitive, baurische Fassung uralter
philosophischer Aussagen. Celsus zitiert aIs Beispiel Sokrates' Dialog
mit Kriton, wo festgestellt wird, Unrecht dürfe nicht durch Unrecht ver-
golten werden. lm Anschluss an das Zitat aus Kriton sagt Celsus nun in
fI'. Vll.58: "In Bezug auf diese Dinge und die übrigen, die die Christen
verunstaltet haben, solI das Gesagte genügen". Zweifellos enden hier
Celsus' Ausführungen über christliche Depravationen philosophischer
Aussagen, die el' in fI'. V.65b angekündigt und in den Fragmenten VLI
bis VI.16 begonnen hatte.
Wenn Fragment VIL58 im Alethes Logos die Position hatte, die es
heute in der Wiedergabe des Origenes hat, ergeben sich zwei Schwierig-
keiten:
Erstens bieten die Fragmente zwischen fI'. VLl6 (vom Kamel und dem
Reichen) und fI'. Vil.58 (von der zweiten Wange) nur zum Teil weitere
Vergleiche zwischen christlichen und philosophischen Lehren24 . Und
24. So findet sich im gesamten Bereich der Fragmente VI.51-VIl.18, in denen Celsus
eine Vielfalt christlicher Vorstellungen kritisielt, kein Hinweis darauf, dass die Christen
Aussagen griechischer Philosophen falsch verstanden und in der Wiedergabe verfàlscht
hlitten. Für eine umfassende Plüfung der Fragmente Vl,18-VIl.53 s. ARNOLD, Slruklur
(Anm. 6), S. 101-108.
UNORDNUNG, BEDINGT DUReR HASS? 275
selbst, wo dies der FaIl ist, geschieht es in deutlich anderer Form aIs in
den eben referierten Fragmenten. Von einem einheitlich gestalteten Text-
Teil konnte man hier nicht sprechen25 .
Zweitens hatte Celsus in fI'. V.65b auch angekündigt, die christliche
Leln'e aIs solche zu untersuchen, und zwar nach der Behandlung christ-
licher Missverstandnisse und Verunstaltungen von ÂuBerungen der
Philosophen. Die Celsus-Fragmente, die bei Origenes !lach fI'. Vil.58
erscheinen, behandeln aber nur sehr wenige Inhalte christlicher Lehre,
namlich nul' die Ablehnung des Daimonenkults und der Idolatrie. Besteht
für Celsus allein darin der Logos der Cln'isten26 ?
Einzelne Interpreten vertraten die Meinung, Celsus habe bereits VOl'
fI'. VIL58 auf Inhalte der christlichen Lehre Bezug genommen27 . Dies
würde allerdings bedeuten, dass Celsus bei der Anordnung des Stoffes
seiner Themen-Ankündigung von fI'. V.65b nicht gefolgt ware. Die
zutreffende Erklarung der Schwierigkeiten liegt m.E. darin, dass Orige-
nes massiv in den Celsus-Text eingriff, und zwar direkt nach fI'. VL16,
also nach Celsus' Polemik gegen das Gleichniswort vom Kamel, das
leichter durchs Nadeloln' gelangt aIs ein Reicher ins Reich Gottes.
Wie Origenes kurz nach dem Zitat von fI'. VL16 ausfülnt, will Celsus
hier verachtlich machen, was bei den Christen über die ~a(nÀsia Scou
geschrieben stehe28 . Aus diesem Grund rüstet Origenes zum Gegenan-
griff: Weil Celsus kei!le der christlichen Aussagen zum Reich Gottes
tatsachlich zitierte und vergleichbaren philosophischen Aussagen gegen-
überstellte ('tou'tcov I-tÈv oùùÈv rcapÉSI>'to), will Origenes selbst diesen
Vergleich durchführen (<pÉpI> oÀiya rcapa~aÀcol-tl>v)29. Die folgenden
Ausführungen beruhen also auf Origenes' Initiative. Wenn aIs nachstes
25. Vgl. bereits PICHLER, Slreil (Anm. 6), S. 153: "Fragwürdig ist es jedoch, den
ganzen Abschnitt inhaltlich nur vom Gesichtspunkt der 1tUpUKoUcrJ.lU'ta her zu betrachten,
wie es seit P. KOETSCHAU üblich geworden ist".
26. Vgl. C. ANDRES EN, Logos und NOlllos: Die Polelllik des Kelsos wider das Chris-
lentum, Berlin, de Gluyter, 1955, S. 42: "Nach seinen (sc. Celsus') eingehenden Eriirte-
rungen christlicher Anschauungen ist es ausgeschlossen, daB er der Ansicht gewesen ist,
mit den genannten beiden Punkten den gesamten Logos der Christen dargestellt zu haben" .
Anders A. WIFSTRAND, Die wahre Lell/'e des Kelsos, in Kungl. HUlllanisliska Velenskaps-
samfundets i Lund Arsberiiffelse / Bulletin de la Sociélé Royale des Leffres de Lund
1941/42, V, Lund, 1942,391-431, S. 412: Die "Ablehnung der heidnischen Kulte durch
die Christen ist eben in Kelsos' Augen mr Hauptpunkt, darum bewegt sich eigentlich sein
ganzes Buch".
27. So M. BaRRET, Origène, Contre Celse, vol. 5: /nlrodllclion générale, lables el
index (SC 227), Paris, Cerf, 1976, S. 90 (zu fr. V.65): "ce qu'il attaque sous le nom de
doctrine est indiqué non seulement dans le dernier livre, mais déjà dans les livres 6 et 7".
28. CC VI.17 (SC 147, 220.1f): Èç,su,SÂtcrul pouÂ6J.1svoç ,à 1tspi pucrlÂstUÇ Ssou
ysypuJ.lJ.lsvu 1tUp' T]J.llv.
29. CC VI.17 (SC 147,220.2.7).
276 J.ARNOLD
Celsus-Fragment ein Zitat aus dem platonischen Zweiten Brie! über
den "Kônig der Welt" erscheint30 , so fügt sich dieses Fragment deutlich
besser in die Argumentation des Origenes aIs in diejenige des Celsus -
der im letzten Fragment (VI. 16) mit einem ganz anderen Thema, namlich
mit der ethischen Bewertung des Reichtums bei Platon und bei Jesus
befasst war.
Wenn Origenes nun nach fr. VI.16 Celsus-Aussagen aus anderen
Zusammenhangen einfügte: was folgte dann bei Celsus auf fr. VI.16?
Dass hier der ursprüngliche Ort von fr. VII.58 war, erscheint aufgrund
der inhaltlichen und strukturellen Àhnlichkeit dieser Fragmente durchaus
môglich. Ein Argument für diese ursprüngliche Position von fr. VII.58
sind nun auch hier Text-Parallelen zum Beginn der ersten Halfte der
Argumentati0 31 : Der in fr. VII.58 zitierte Dialog zwischen Sokrates und
Kriton ist gepragt von den Verben à15tKEtv und àvru15tKEtv sowie von
dem Adjektiv 15iKuwç. Eine ahnlich wichtige Rolle spielen die Adjektive
15iKuwç und a15tKoç in den Fragmenten III.59 bis III.71, wo Celsus von
der angeblichen christlichen Bevorzugung der Sünder spricht. So fragt
er: "Mit dem Sünder - meint ihr damit nicht den Ungerechten ('"Cov
a15tKov)?" (fr. III.59) und behauptet, nach christlicher Auffassung würde
Gott "den Ungerechten ('rov IlÈv a15tKov)", wenn er sich aus Schlech-
tigkeit erniedrigt, aufnehmen, wahrend er "den Gerechten (-rov
15iKuwv)" nicht aufnehmen werde (fr. III.62c). Weiter stellt Celsus fest,
Gott werde "nichts Ungerechtes (a15tKov)" wollen (fr. III.70b), und das
Verhalten Gottes nach christlicher Vorstellung sei "hôchst ungerecht
(MtKID-rUWV)" (fr. III.71).
Wenn fr. VII.58 sich bei Celsus an fr. VI.16 anschloss, hat dies fol-
gende Konsequenzen: Seine Ausführungen zu christlichen Depravatio-
nen philosophischer Aussagen blldeten einen in sich einheitlichen ersten
Teil der zweiten Halfte seiner Argumentatio. Alle Abschnitte dieses ers-
ten Tells korrespondierten mit Aussagen am Beginn der el'sten Halfte der
Argumentatio. Celsus hat dann also auch in diesen Bereichen des Alethes
Logos seinen Text sehr bewusst gestaltet.
Weiter: Die Fragmente, die Origenes zwischen fr. VI.16 und fr. VII.58
überliefert, kônnen nun Celsus' Untersuchung des christlichen Logos aIs
solchen zugeordnet werden. Das ist insofern plausibel, aIs in diesen Frag-
menten so zentrale Themen der christlichen Lem'e behandelt werden wie
30. Fr. VI.18 = Ep. II.312 e - 313 a.
31. AIs weiteres Argument s. fr. VII.18, wo ebenso auf Aussagen der Fragmente VI. 1-
16 wie auf den Inhalt von fr. VII.58 angespielt wird.
UNORDNUNG, BEDINGT DUReR RASS? 277
Gottes Erkennbarkeit, das Reich Gottes, der Teufel, die Schopfung, die
Offenbarung Gottes in Christus, die messianischen VerheiBungen und das
ewige Leben.
Soweit zu einer einzigen der Textverschiebungen, die Origenes m.E.
vornahm. Zahlreiche andere lassen sich nachweisen - wie auch zahh'ei-
che andere Parallelen zwischen der ersten und der zweiten Halfte der
Argumentati0 32 • Aus Platzglünden muss hier auf weitere Details verzich-
tet werden.
V. DER ALETHES LOGOS UND DIE MYSTERIEN-STRUKTUR
AbschlieBend sei nach dem Sinn der Parallelen innerhalb der Argu-
mentatio gefragt und ein weiteres Thema angesprochen: Gegen Ende der
ersten Halfte der Argumentatio sagt Celsus im Blick auf seine jüdischen
Adressaten: "Diese Schar solI abtreten (ànt-rro 06-roç 6 xop6ç)". Diese
WOlte erinnern sicher nicht zufallig an eine Prorrhesis-FOlmel, mit der
im Rahmen einer Mysterien-Einführung ungeeignete Personen zurückge-
wiesen werden. Celsus selbst zitiert eine solche Formel an anderer Stelle
ausdrücklich, wenn el' sagt:
Diejenigen niimlich, die zu den anderen Weihen ('teÀetaç) einladen,
machen vorher offentlich bekannt: ,Wer rein ist an den Hiinden und ver-
stiindig im Reden .. .' Und andere wieder: ,Wer rein ist von jedem Verbre-
chen, bei wem die Seele von keinem Bosen weill und von wem das Leben
in guter und gerechter Weise geführt worden ist...' Und diese Dinge
machen diejenigen vorher offentlich bekannt, die Entsühnungen (Ka~apO"ta)
von Vergehen verheillen. Horen wir aber, wen in aller Welt diese (sc. Chris-
ten) einladen: ,Wer ein Sünder ist', sagen sie, ,unverstiindig, unmündig'
und, um es kurz zu sagen, ,mmselig', den, wird das Reich Gattes aufneh-
men' (fr. III.59).
Celsus spricht in seinem Werk nicht nul' konkrete Mysterien an, son-
dern gebraucht auch Mysterienterminologie und Mysterienntetaphorik.
Dmüber hinaus aber strukturiert el' den Alethes Logos nach dem Vorbild
einer Mysterien-Einführung. Eine vergleichbare Vorgehensweise ist für
Platons Symposion und Phaidros nachgewiesen worden, aber auch für
Clemens von Alexandrias Protreptikos 33 • Wie Christoph Riedweg zeigt,
32. Dazu s. ARNOLD, Struktur (Anm. 6), S. 257-339 sowie 371-373 (schematische
Übersicht).
33. CH. RIEDWEG, Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexan-
drien (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 26), Berlin, de Gruyter, 1987.
278 J.ARNOLD
sind drei Phasen einer Mysterien-Einführung festzusteIlen: erstens eine
Phase der Widerlegung (ËÀsyxOC;) und Reinigung (KuSupatc;) von fal-
schen Einstellungen und Überzeugungen; zweitens eine Phase der Beleh-
rung (èltouXi]) über die Inhalte der angestrebten Mysterien, schlieBlich
eine Phase der Schau des G6ttlichen (s1tomstu), in der menschliche
W orte verstummen. Diese drei Phasen lassen sich in jeder der beiden
Hiilften von Celsus' Argumentatio nachweisen.
Widerlegung und Reinigung ist zu Beginn der ersten Hiilfte Celsus'
Kritik am Glauben der Christen, der schon im voraus einnimmt, und an
ihrer Hinwendung zu Ungebildeten und Sündern, ebenso zu Beginn der
zweiten Hiilfte sein Nachweis, dass die Christen philosophische Aussa-
gen depravieren.
Auch in denjeweils folgenden Text-Teilen geht es um Widerlegung: In
der ersten Hiilfte der Argumentatio widerlegt Celsus zuniichst (frr. IV.2-23)
die Vorstellung der Juden und Christen, dass ein Gott oder Gottessohn aIs
Richter herabkomme und dass durch diese Herabkunft Gotteserkenntnis
vermittelt werde. AuBerdem widerlegt el' jüdisch-christliche Lehren von
g6ttlichen Strafen und einem ewigen Leben mit Gott. AnschlieBend kriti-
sieit Celsus die biblischen Aussagen über den Ursprung des jüdischen
Volkes und die Entstehung des Menschen (fU'. IV.31-47) sowie die allego-
rische Schriftauslegung der Juden und Christen (fU'. IV.48-52a).
Vergleichbare bzw. parallele Kritikpunkte finden sich in der zweiten
Hiilfte der Argumentatio, und zwar in umgekehrter Reihenfolge. Hier
kritisieit Celsus zuerst34 die jüdisch(-christlich)e Lehre von der Entste-
hung des Kosmos und des Menschen und die christliche Allegorese.
Danach35 widerlegt Celsus - im Rahmen der dreimal gestellten Frage
nach Gotteserkenntnis - christliche Lehren zur Herabkunft des g6ttlichen
Geistes in einen menschlichen K6rper36 , zur prophetischen Ankündigung
des Gottessohnes 37 sowie zu Auferstehung und Seelenwanderung38 . Hier
fanden sich m.E. ursprünglich auch die Fragmente, die Origenes nach
dem Celsus-WOlt über das Kamel und den Reichen einfügte: in ihnen
Zum Protreptikos ferner T. LECHNER, Rhetorik und Ritual: Platonische Mysterienanalo-
gien im Protreptikos des Clemens von Alexandrien, in F.R. PROSTMEIER (Hg.), Frühchris-
tentum und Kultur (Kommentar zu frühchristlichen Apologeten, Erg.B. 2), Freiburg -
BaseI- Wien, Herder, 2007, 183-221.
34. Fn. VI.47-65 (in Verbindung mit flT. VI.27c-29; vgl. ARNOLD, Stmktur [Anm. 6],
S. 349-352).
35. Fn. VI.66-VII.33.
36. Fn. VI.66-79.
37. Fn. VI.80-VII.2 (in Verbindung mit fr. VI.74a) sowie fn. VII.12-27 (vgl. ARNOLD,
Stmktur [Anm. 6], S. 355-359).
38. Fn. VII.28-34.40.
UNORDNUNG, BEDINGT DURCH HASS? 279
geht es um den Aufstieg der Seele sowie um den Teufel und wieder um
Strafen39 . AlI dies ist Widerlegung, ËÀsyx0C;.
Darauf folgt in beiden Hiilften der Argumentatio Belehrung (Otouxi]):
In fr. IV.52b kündigt Celsus ausdl'Ücklich an: "Ich willlehren (SSÉÀffi
Otouçat)"40. In den weiteren Fragmenten von Buch IV erfolgt eine
Belehrung über die Natur. Parallel dazu sagt Celsus in fr. VII.42 wieder:
"Ich willlehren (SÉÀffi Otoaçut)" . Nun geht es darum, auf dem Weg der
Analogie zu einer gewissen Gottes-Vorstellung zu gelangen.
Auf die "Belehrung" folgt nach dem Schema der Mysterien-Einfüh-
rung die Gottes-Schau. Findet sie sich auch im Alethes Logos? In der
ersten Hiilfte der Argumentatio, kurz nach dem Abschluss der Belehrung
über die Natur, heiBt es, dass Gott den Menschen durch die Gestirne
"enthüIlt wird" (fr. V.6: àvuKuÀ6msaSut). AIs "Logos alles Seienden"
(so fr. V.14) tritt Gott im Kosmos in Erscheinung. Eine andere Art der
Gottesschau begegnet in der zweiten Hiilfte der Argumentatio. Kurz nach
.
seiner Belelnung über den Weg der Philosophen zur Gotteserkenntrus .~
spricht Celsus hier von G6tterbildern42 und kritisiert die Christen, die die
Idolatrie ablehnen43 (obwohl sie gleichzeitig meinen, sie k6nnten Gott
selbst mit leiblichen Augen sehen44). Wenn auf dem H6hepunkt niichtli-
cher Mysterien-Einweihungen G6tterbilder gezeigt wurden, ist es wohl
kein ZufaIl, dass Celsus an dieser Stelle seines Werkes auf die Thematik
der G6tterbilder eingeht.
Die Zweiteilung der Argumentatio erkliirt sich nun, wenn wir die
jeweiligen Adressaten betrachten: in der ersten Hiilfte Juden (bis fr. V.4~)
und aIle Christen (bis fI'. V.65a), in der zweiten Hiilfte nur noch dIe
Christen bzw. die Fortgeschrittenen unter ihnen45 . Die ,Einweihung' in
die Gotteserkenntnis auf dem Weg der Analogie ist offensichtlich
anspruchsvoller aIs die ,Einweihung' in die Erkenntnis Gottes im Kos-
mos. AIs Vorbild dieser beiden gleich strukturieiten ,Einweihungen' auf
unterschiedlichem Niveau wU'd man nicht zuletzt die Kleinen und GroBen
Eleusinischen Mysterien sehen dütfen.
39. Fn. VI.17-27b.30-38a.42 (vgl. ARNOLD, Struktur [Anm. 6], S. 340-346).
40. Vgl. die Wiederaufnahme der AbsichtserklliIung in fr. N.73b.
41. Fn. VII.42.45.
42. Fn. VII.62, VII.68, Vrn.17, Vrn.28-41.
43. Fl1'. VII.62 und Vrn.17.
44. S.v.a. fr. VII.34. .
45. In fr. V.65a werden Christen erwli.hnt, die "im Bereich der Bildung fortgeschnt-
ten" sind (ol Èv "COte; Myote; 8ta~E~l1Kô'n;e; Xptcr-nuvoi). Diese Fortgeschritte?en sagen
von sich selbst, dass sie "mehr wissen aIs die Iuden" (7tÎcEtOV 'Io\J8uirov Èmcr'tucrSm
Â.6yo\Jcrt v ÉU\J"CODe;).
280 J.ARNOLD

Der Titel Alethes Logos, der bis heute Riitsel aufgibt, wird verstand-
licher, wenn es Celsus darum ging, seine Leser, soweit sie ihm folgen
konnten, in die Mysterien der wahren platonischen Lehre einzuführen. "CHE SIGNIFICA IL NOME 'LOGOS'
Seine umfassenden Widerlegungen jüdischer und christlicher Anschau- DATO AL FIGLIO DI DIO?"
ungen stehen dazu nicht im Widerspruch. Sie bilden vielmehr die not-
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCHIANA
wendige ers te Stufe und V oraussetzung der Einweihung in den wahren
NEL COMMENTa A GIOVANNI DI ORIGENE
Logos.

Phil.-Theo!. Hochschule Sankt Georgen
Offenbacher LandstraBe 224
D - 60599 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
arnold@sankt-georgen.de
Johannes ARNOLD "Che significa il nome 'Logos' dato al Figlio di Dio? È giusto che
rivolgiamo questa domanda a coloro i quali si servono esclusivamente
di questa denominazione, rifiutando le numerose altre, oppure esigen-
done un' accurata spiegazione quando qualcuno gliele propone, mentre
si accostano con sicurezza a quella di 'Logos', come se fosse
evidente" 1•
Con queste parole Origene interpella i suoi avversari monarchiani,
all'inizio della sua spiegazione deI titolo "Logos" (nell'esegesi di
Gv l,la), ed inizia una estes a polemica che 10 induce a ciû che "a
qualcuno potrà sembrare una digressione troppo lunga" (§156), yale a
dire ad un minuzioso esame dei principali titoli applicati al Figlio nella
Scrittura (§ 126-150.158-266) con il fine di far accettare meglio la sua
spiegazione deI titolo Logos e nello stesso tempo "pel' coprire di mag-
giore confusione e vergogna" i suoi avversari (§155-156). Tale pole-
mica occupa un posto fondamentale non solo pel' l'interpretazione che
Origene fa deI titolo Logos, ma anche pel' quella dell'intero Prologo
giovanneo, come emerge nell'esegesi aIle parole "Nel principio" (§90-
124)2.
Pel' meglio comprenderla accenneremo dapprima al rapporto di Ori-
gene con la polemica monarchiana e alla problematica suscitata dai
monarchiani intorno al titolo Logos, pel' poi passare all'interpretazione
che Origene offre a tale titolo.

1. CIo 1.151 (SC 120bis, 134; tr. CORSINI, 1968, 160) ho modificato leggermente nella
domanda la traduzione - un po' libera in questo punto - di E. CORSINI: Origene, Com-
mento al va/lgelo di Giova/lni, Torino, UTET, 1968. Per il testo greco seguo l'edizione di
C. BLANC: Origène, Commentaire sur saint Jean, Tome 1 (Livres I-V), SC 120bis, Paris,
Cerf, 21996. Nel testo, e a volte nelle note, citera direttamente i paragrafi dellibro 1 deI
Commento a Gioval/I/i.
2. Tale aspetto è emerso in un mio studio anteriore: La polemica al/timol/archia/la di
Origel/e /lei commento a Gv 1,1 a: Nel principio era il Logos, in A. EsCUDERO (a cura di),
Cristologia e Teologia. Miscellanea di studi in ol/ore di S.E. Monsignor Angelo Amato,
Roma, LAS, 2010, 11-38.
 282 A. CASTELLANO
I. ORIGENE, l MONARCHIANI E LA PROBLEMATICA RELATIVA
AL TITOLO "LOGOS"
Prima di affrontare la problematica circ a l'interpretazione deI titolo
Logos che costituisce l'oggetto deI confronto tra Origene e i monarchiani,
è bene fare alcune considerazioni introduttive, di tipo storico e letterario,
sul rapporto di Origene con questi suoi avversari.
Di sicuro Origene, nella sua tappa giovanile, ha avuto una conoscenza
personale diretta della polemica antimonarchiana ed essa - come vedremo
- occuperà un posto di rilievo già nella sua iniziale attività teologica ed
esegetica. È possibile dedurlo dalla notizia che Eusebio ci dà deI viaggio
fatto a Roma da Origene, nel desiderio di conoscere l' antica Chies a dei
romani, all'epoca deI papa Zefirin0 3. In tale occasione, secondo Giro-
lamo, l' Alessandrino ascoltè> una "omilia in Iode deI Signore Salvatore"
fatta da Ippolito che segnalè> anche la sua presenza in mezzo all'assem-
blea4 • P. Nautin, nella sua opera su Origene, afferma che sicuramente in
questo suo viaggio a Roma egli entrè> in contatto con i protagonisti della
polemica antimonarchiana che si stava dibattendo, proprio in quegli
anni5 • Essa era stata originata da alcuni discepoli di Noeto di Smime i
quali, giunti a Roma, insegnavano che il Figlio era 10 stesso Padre che si
era incamato ed aveva patito sulla croce. Secondo l'autore della Confu-
tazione di tutte le eresie 10 stesso vescovo di Roma, Zefirino, non aveva
saputo riconoscere l' elTore presente in tale dottrina ed aveva manifestato
simpatia verso di essa6 • Questa dottrina dei discepoli di Noeto (che
sm'anno chiamati "monarchiani") sarà invece confutata da Ippolito nel
Contra Noeto 7 che esporrà anche la vera dottrina della Chiesa dal punto
di vista della teologia deI Logos.
3. HE VI. 14.10. Zefirino fu vescovo di Roma dal 198 al 217. TI viaggio di Origene
deve essere avvenuto verso l'anno 212, forse il 215; secondo A. LE BOULLUEC, La
"scuola" di Alessandria, in L. PrnTRI (a cura di), Storia dei cristianesimo. Vol. 1: I1nuol'o
popolo (dalle origini al 250), Roma, Boda - Città Nuova, 2003, 500-544, p. 535.
4. De vir.iII., 61. L'omelia ascoltata è quella dei COlltro Noeto? Non siamo sicuri che
si tratti proprio dei CN, ma potrebbe essere, tanto più che tra gli studiosi attuali si propende
a riconoscere il carattere omiletico dei CN come afferma M. SIMONETTI nell'introduzione
di: Ippolito, Contro Noeto, Bologna, Dehoniane, 2000, pp. 27-33.
5. Cf. P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et SOli Œuvre, Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 365 e
418.
6. Confutazione di tutte le eresie, IX.lI-12 e X.27.3-4 (GCS fi, 245-251 e 283-284).
7. Tradizionalmente quest'opera è stata attribuita ad Ippolito di Roma, che mOrI
maltire ed è stato autore di altre opere esegetiche; nell'epoca contemporanea si è aperto
un dibattito circa la sua identità che è ancora lontano dall'essere concluso. Mentre per
quanto riguarda l'opera citata nella nota anteriore, la Confutazione di tufte le eresie,
anch'essa attribuita ad Ippolito, siamo sicuri che è di un altro autore. Su tali problematiche
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCIDANA NEL CIO 283
È interessante notare i rappOlti che ci sono a livello letterario e teolo-
gico tra il Contra Noeto ed i primi libri deI Commenta a Giovanni di
Origene. Si ha l'impressione infatti che Origene si sia ispirato agli argo-
menti di quest'opera per svilupparli ed approfondirli nel sua Commenta.
Tale supposizione è rafforzata anche da una celta concomitanza tempo-
rale tra questa sua opera e quella di Ippolito.
Ma più in generale, è probabile che ci sia un rapporto tra l'inizio della
attività letteraria dell' Alessandrino e il primo sviluppo della polemica
monarchiana COS! come la conosciamo dal Contra Noeto di Ippolito
(e poi anche dal Contra Prassea di Teltulliano). Sappiamo infatti che
l'Alessandrino inizia a scrivere quando è trentenneB ed abbiamo una noti-
zia sicura di celte sue opere scritte prima deI trasferimento da Alessandria
a Cesarea9 • Tra di esse si trovano i primi libri deI Commenta a Giovanni
e il De principiis. Data l'impOltanza che occupa la polemica antimonar-
chiana in queste opere, non è da escludere che la conoscenza che Origene
aveva avuto di es sa e la coscienza della sua gravità siano stati i motivi di
fondo che, uniti agli stimoli di Ambrogio, hamlO spinto Origene a supe-
rare la sua risel-va iniziale a scrivere per dare un suo contributo al fronte
antimonarchiano 10 •
Con Origene non ci troviamo di certo al "declino" della controversia
monm·chianall . Secondo Urfbarri tale questione, che "certamente non è
al di fuori dell'orizzonte delle sue preoccupazioni teologiche, non costi-
tuisce la chiave pel' eccellenza intorno a cui si è forgiato il sua pensiero.
La discussione con gli gnostici e con Marcione occupa un posto più
costante e preponderante nel compito teologico di Origene, che la confu-
tazione degli elTori patripassiani 0 10 sradicamento premuroso degli errori
estremi patripassiani e adozionisti" 12. Tali concetti, che introducono
l'analisi di Urfbani al contributo teologico di Origene alla controversia
monarchiana, riflettono bene quella che sembra essere ancora una opi-
nione comune tra gli studiosi attuali di Origene l3 • Ma una più attenta
cf. M.-Y. PERRIN, Roma e l'estremo Occidente fino alla prima metà dei III secolo, in
PrnTRI (a cura di), Storia dei cristianesimo. Vol. l (n. 3), 586-631, p. 610, nota 160.
8. Secondo H. CROUZEL tra il 215-220; cf. il sua Origene, Roma, BorIa, 1986, p. 33.
9. La fonte è Eusebio, HE VI.24.1-4; cf. CROUZEL, Origene (n. 8), p. 69.
10. Sulla riserva che Origene aveva in gioventù a mettere pel' iscritto il sua insegna-
mento cf. LE BOULLUEC, La "scuola" di Alessandria (n. 3), p. 532 (e la nota 238).
11. G. URmARRI B. parla dei contributo di Origene nel capitolo V: "La monarqufa en
el declive de la controversia 'monarquiana'" della sua opera Monarqufa )' Trinidad: El
concepto teol6gico "monarqufa" en la control'ersia "monarquialla", Madrid, UPCO,
1996, pp. 303-374.
12. Ibid., p. 305.
13. Cio si osserva anche da cio che annota A. GRILLMElER, nel sua Gesll il Cristo nella
fede della Chiesa. Vol. 1 Tomo 1: Dall'età apostolica al concilia di Calcedonia (451),
 284 A. CASTELLANO
analisi dell'esegesi di Origene al Prologo di Giovanni ci apre un'altra
prospettiva. Stimo infatti che con Origene ci troviamo davanti al miglior
frotto teologico ed esegetico della controversia monarchiana, e che essa
sia una delle principali "chiavi" per comprendere il suo pensiero.
Cio è evidenziato anche dal rapporto esistente tra i primi libri deI
Commenta a Giovanni e il De principiis, che si presentano come una
trattazione differente ma complementare di una medesima questione dot-
trinale di fondo, quella monarchiana appunto. Tale rappOlto permette di
comprendere meglio ognuna delle due opere (una più di teologia "siste-
matica", l'altra chiaramente esegetica), e pennette di valutare meglio il
contributo di Origene a tale problematica.
L'Alessandrino ha compreso chiaramente che la controversia monar-
chiana si giocava soprattutto sul piano esegetico, e più concretamente
sull'esegesi deI vangelo di Giovanni (a partire dal Prologo). Percio se egli
ha iniziato a scrivere il Commento a questo vangelo grazie all'insistenza
del suo amico Ambrogio che gli chiedeva di confutare quello di Eracle-
one, tuttavia è evidente che Origene 10 ha intrapreso e portato avanti con
l'intenzione manifesta di rispondere soprattutto alle questioni poste dai
monarchiani. E la prima e fondamentale questione era quella che riguarda
l'intelpretazione da dare al titolo "Logos".
Origene la articola intomo ai due limiti che egli vede che sono presenti
nella interpretazione di questo titolo da parte dei monarchiani: "l'arbi-
trarietà e la supelficialità" (''Co ùnoKÀ-llPffi"ClKOV Kat ùpacravtcr'tOv):
"arbitrarietà" perché "nonostante la moltitudine di nomi applicati a Cri-
sto, si limitano al solo appellativo Logos" e "supelficialità" per il fatto
che intendono questo titolo "senza ne anche rendersi conto deI perché il
Figlio di Dio sia stato definito 'Logos che è Dio, che è nel principio
presso il Padre e per mezzo deI quale tutto è stato fatto'" (§266)14.
Origene alla loro "arbitrarietà" contrappone una lunga lista di nomi
deI Salvatore presenti nella Scrittura (§126-150a)15 per concludere
dicendo che quello di "Logos" è solamente uno dei titoli che gli sono
attribuiti (§ 150b).
Brescia, Paideia, 1982, p. 349, quando, a proposito della nostra questione relativa al titolo
"Logos" nel primo libro deI Commenta a Giovanni, afferma che si sta parlando degli
gnostici.
14. Tali accuse sono presenti già nel primo paragrafo (§125) che apre la presentazione
della sua polemica nei confronti dell'interpretazione monarchiana deI titolo "Logos"
(§ 125-157).
15. Si tratta innanzitutto di nomi che il Salvatore stesso si applica sia nel Vangelo
(§126-131), come pure nellibro dell'Apocalisse (§132) e nei libri dei Profeti (§133-135).
E poi anche di nomi che gli vengono dati nel Vangelo (§136-137), negli scritti degli
Apostoli (§138-141) e in quelli dei Profeti (§142-150a).
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCHlANA NEL CIO 285
In un secondo momento attacca la loro "superficialità" perché inten-
dono tale titolo in modo "proprio" (KupiffiC;) (§ 125) e non ne indagano
il significato (§151). A sostegno della loro interpretazione adducono il
passo deI SaI 44,2 ("il mio cuore ha erottato una buona parola") dedu-
cendo da esso che il Figlio in quanto Logos è solo la manifestazione
estema del Padre, "l'atto di pronunciare (npocpopa) da parte deI Padre"
(§151), che percio non possiede un'esistenza personale (\mocr'tacrtC;)
distinta dal Padre e che persino non ha nessuna consistenza nell'essere,
nell'esistere, non essendogli attribuita nessuna "sostanza" (oùcria)
(§ 151-152). Origene conclude proponendo una regola elmeneutica: "pel'
ciascuno dei nomi [di Cristo] bisogna definire il concetto di colui che li
porta, partendo dal significato della denominazione, e poi spiegare con
argomenti probanti in che modo questo nome si applica al Figlio di Dio"
(§ 153). È questo il programma che egli propone pel' tutti i principali nomi
del Salvatore che troviamo nella Scrittura (da lui anterionnente ricordati)
e 10 applica al titolo "Logos" (§ 154-157).
Come si spiega questa problematica suscitata dai monarchiani rispetto
al titolo "Logos"? Quale credibilità meritano le parole di Origene? Cer-
chiamo di rispondere a queste domande rifacendoci alla polemica pre-
sente nel Contra Noeto.
Nella loro polemica contro i sostenitori dell'unicità di Dio (i monar-
chiani), i teologi della Chies a difendevano la manifestazione deI Figlio
nell'economia salvifica e la sua condizione divina grazie al titolo
"Logos" dato al Salvatore e alle affennazioni che di Lui si facevano
nel Prologo di Giovanni. Tale testo era divenuto presto la prova fonda-
mentale della Scrittura da contrapporre a tutte quelle addotte dai monar-
chiani.
Infatti, secondo Ippolito, Noeto ed i suoi seguaci sostenevano l'unicità
di Dio senza distinzione personale tra il Padre e il Figlio sulla base di
alcune testimonianze della Scrittura, quali Es 3,6 (e 20,3): "10 sono il
Dio dei padri vostri: non avrete altri dèi all'infuori di me", e Is 44,6: "10
sono il primo e l'ultimo, e dopo di me non c'è nessuno"16. Se il NT
affenna che Cristo è Dio essi 10 accettano, ma aggiungono: "certamente
egli stesso è il Padre perché Dio è uno solo"11. Essi si fondano anche
sugli annunci profetici in cui Dio stesso afferma di essersi fatto conoscere
dapprima a Israele e poi che si sarebbe reso visibile sulla terra tra gli
uomini (Bar 3,36-38)18.
16. Cf. CN 2.1-2 (SIMONEITl, 152).
17. CN 2.3 (SIMONEITl, 152).
18. Cf. CN 2.5 (SIMONETII, 152-154).
286 A. CASTELLANO
In breve, per Noeto e i suoi discepoli "il Padre è Cristo stesso, egli
stesso è il Figlio, egli è stato generato, egli ha patito, egli ha risusCitato
sé stesso"19. Ippolito risponde a tale dottrina confutando dapprima la sua
base scritturistica20 , e praponendo poi la "dimostrazione della verità"21.
Uno dei passi che secondo Noeto prova l'unicità di Dio è quello di
Is 45,14-15 neI quale Dio stesso annuncia che i vari popoli della terra
- quello dell'Egitto, gli etiopi e i subei - riconosceranno l'unico Dio che
è quello d'IsraeIe ("solo in te c'è Dio"), e 10 supplicheranno: "Tu infatti
se il Dio salvatore d'Israele". Ippolito osserva che se si leggono i versetti
anteriori (vv. 11-13) di questo passo, si vedrà che, si parla non solo deI
Padre (deI Dio creatore) ma anche deI Piglio. Infatti Dio afferma a un
certo punto: "l'ho ridestato con giustizia" (v. 13). Tali parole - spiega
Ippolito - si comprendono solo se si mettono in rapporto con la risurre-
zione deI Piglio (cf. Rm 8,11). Anche le parole: "solo in te c'è Dio"
(v. 14) debbono essere intese come dette in rappOlto al Figlio: "in chi
c'è Dio - si chiede infatti Ippolito - se non in Cristo Gesù, Logos deI
Padre e mistero dell' economia? "22. In breve, in questo passo il profeta
"dimostrava il mistero dell'economia, perché quando il Logos si è incar-
nato e si è fatto uomo, il Padre era nel Piglio e il Piglio nel Padre, anche
se il Figlio stava tra gli uomini. Cio significava, fratelli, che effettiva-
mente il mistero dell'economia era questo Logos che dallo Spirito Santo
e dalla Vergine ha realizzato pel' Dio (38<{> à1t8pyuauIl8vos) l'unico
Figlio"23.
Per confutare meglio l'esegesi di Noeto aIs 45,14-15, Ippolito adduce
il passo di Gv 3,13 ("Nessuno è salito al cielo se non colui che è disceso
dal cielo, il Figlio dell'uomo che èin cielo") che prova che colui che si
è reso presente in Cristo è 10 stesso Logos di Dio: "chi dunque stava in
cielo se non il Logos privo di carne, che è stato inviato pel' mostrare che,
mentre stava sulla terra, egli era anche in cielo?"24. Infine, il passo Gv
3,13 unito a quello di Dan 7,13 (in cui il profeta vede apparù'e sulle nubi
unD simile a un Figlio di uomo) prova l'antichità deI nome "Piglio".
Daniele" diceva giustamente che stando in cielo era chiamato con questo
nome fin dal principio, egli che dal principio è il Logos di Dio"25. Quindi
anche se il Logos si è dimostrato come "Figlio" grazie all'incamazione26 ,
19. eN 3.2 (SIMONEITI, 154).
20. Cf. eN 3-8 (SIMONETII, 154-170).
21. Cf. eN 9-18 (SIMONEITI, 170-190).
22. eN 4.5 (SIMONEITI, 158).
23. eN 4.7-8 (SIMONETII, 158).
24. eN 4.11 (SIMONEITI, 160).
25. eN 4.13 (SIMONETII, 160).
26. Cf. eN 4.12 (SIMONEITI, 160).
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCHIANA NEL CIO 287
tuttavia tale "nome" gli apparteneva già nella sua condizione celeste di
preesistente.
Concludendo si puà dire che per Ippolito, la confutazione dell' esegesi
di Noeto aIs 45,14-15 si fonda in definitiva sull'argomento che il Logos
si è fatto came e si è manifestato COS! quale "Figlio" di Dio. Percià si dà
un intimo rapporto tra il titolo "Logos" e quello di "Figlio". Da una
patte il titolo "Logos" caratterizza il Figlio preesistente neI suo rapporto
etemo con il Padre (principio di ogni paternità e di tutte le cose )27,
dall'altra il medesimo "Logos" è il soggetto dell' economia, cioè dell'in-
camazione, avvenimento che 10 manifesta quale "Piglio perfetto di Dio",
anche se - precisa Ippolito - "Figlio" già 10 era "fin dal principio, egli
che dal principio è il Logos di Dio "28. La confutazione degli altri passi
di Noet0 29 non fa che approfondire quest'argomento di fondo presentato
da Ippolito circ a il "mistero dell'economia" (deI Logos incamato).
Nella seconda sezione deI Contro Noeto denominata "dimostrazione
della verità"30, appare in modo ancor più evidente l'importanza che
assume pel' Ippolito il titolo "Logos" e il Prolo go deI vangelo di
Giovanni. Infatti nei capitoli 10-14 deI Contra Noeto troviamo una
mirabile sintesi della storia della salvezza, dalla creazione all'incama-
zione (passando dai profeti), in cui si mette in luce la costante presenza
deI Logos. Percio, come conclusione, Ippolito afferma che il "beato
Giovanni ricapitola (àvuK8<j>uÀuwthut)" nel Prologo al sua vangeIo
cià che vien detto circa l'attività deI Logos nella creazione e circa gli
annunci profetici riguardo alla sua incamazione (mostrandone la
realizzazione )31. In sintesi: secondo Ippolito da un rapido sgual'do
sulla storia della salvezza (e da Gv 1,1) emerge con chiarezza che Dio
Padre è l'unico principio, e che accanto a Lui dall'etemità c'è pure il
Figli032 .
27. Cf. eN 3.6 (SIMONEITI, 156).
28. eN 4.13 (SIMONETII, 160). Cf. tutto il capitoletto di eN 4.1-13 che è chiave per
questa visione di sintesi dell'economia salvifica intomo ai titoli "Figlio" e "Logos" (che
sono indissociabili per Ippolito).
29. Cf. eN 5-8 (SIMONETII, 160-170).
30. Cf. eN 9-18 (SIMONEITI, 170-190).
31. Cf. eN 12.3 e 14.1 (SIMONEITI, 174 e 176). Riportiamo il testo di eN 12.3: "Infatti
il beato Giovanni ricapitola cià che è stato detto per tramite dei profeti, mostrando che
questo è il Logos per opera dei quale sono state fatte tutte le cose. Dice COS1: 'Ill prillcipio
era il Logos e il Logos era pressa Dio e il Logos era Dio. Tzlfto è stato fatto pel' opera
sua e sellza di lui lIulla è stato fatto'. E più sotto: 'Ilmolldo è stato fatto pel' opera sI/a e
il mal/do 1101/ l'ha COI/asciI/ta. È vel/uto il/ ql/ella che era sI/a proprietà e i SI/ai 1/01/ la
hal/I/o accolto"'.
32. Cf. eN 14 (SIMONETII, 176-178).
288 A. CASTELLANO
Di fronte all'importanza assegnata da Ippolito al titolo Logos (e al
Prologo di Giovanni) a sostegno della dottrina della divinità deI Figlio e
della sua distinzione personale dal Padre, i suoi avversari hanno cercato
di muovere qualche obiezione contro questo argomento principale. Tale
resistenza appare chiaramente nel Contro Noeto dopo l'esposizione ini-
ziale (e fondamentale) della "dimostrazione della verità"33. Ippolito
infatti riporta un'obiezione: "Ma uno mi potrebbe obiettare: 'Mi presenti
uno strano argomento quando chiami Figlio il Logos. È vero che
Giovanni 10 definisce [Logos], ma egli fa semplicemente una allegoria"34.
Ippolito risponde che non si tratta di "allegoria" perché nel Prologo si
sta parlando deI "Logos" che si è manifestato chiaramente come "Figlio"
nell'incarnazione35 . E adduce come prova scritturistica di questo argo-
mento Ap 9,11-13 (insieme a Mic 2,7-8 e Rm 8,3-4) in cui si presenta il
"Logos di Dio" "rivestito di una veste aspersa di sangue" prova della
sua passione e percio della sua incarnazione nella quale si è manifestato
come "Figlio"36. Pel' Ippolito è l'incarnazione che manifesta con
evidenza a noi il Figlio di Dio in quanto tale (come "l'unico Figlio per-
fetto di Dio")37, anche se era già Figlio dall'eternità38 e noi non possiamo
spiegare in quale modo egli sia stato generat0 39 .
Dopo questa veloce rilettura del Contra Noeto di Ippolito, ritorniamo
al motivo che ci ha indotto a realizzarla. Siamo partiti dalla presentazione
della problematica che Origene affronta nel Commento a Giovanni circa
l'interpretazione monarchiana deI titolo "Logos". Ci siamo chiesti se era
possibile poterla comprendere un po' meglio ed anche verificarla facendo
ricorso al Contro Noeto.
Da quanto abbiamo visto, stimo che si puo concludere che c' è uno
stretto rapporto tra il discorso di Ippolito e la problematica relativa
all'interpretazione deI titolo "Logos" affrontata da Origene. Non è il casa
(né è possibile) pel' adesso stabilire un confronto esaustivo. Possiamo
solo osservare che la problematica è comune ed anche l' argomento di
fondo è uguale (il "Logos" è il Figlio che si è manifestato in Gesù).
Nell' analisi dell 'interpretazione di Origene al titolo "Logos" vedremo
altri rapporti basati su argomenti scritturistici più specifici.
33. Cf. CN 10-14 (SIMONETTI, 170-178).
34. CN 15.1 (SIMONETTI, 178).
35. Cf. CN 15.2-7 (SIMONETTI, 178-180).
36. Cf. CN 15.2 (SIMONETTI, 178).
37. Cf. CN 15.7 (SIMONETTI, 180).
38. Cf. CN 16.2 (SIMONETTI, 182).
39. Cf. CN 16.3 (SIMONEITI, 182). Per Ippolito infatti c'è una analogia tra la genera-
zione deI Figlio di Dio nella carne e la sua generazione eterna, ma mantiene il senso deI
mistero per quanto tiguarda la generazione eterna; CN 16.3-7 (SIMONETTI, 182-184).
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTlMONARCHIANA NEL CIO 289
Per adesso è sufficiente mettere in Iuce il rapporto esistente tra l'obie-
zione che viene fatta ad Ippolito dai suoi avversari in CN 15.1 secondo i
quali non c' è un vero rapporto tra il nome "Logos", che è un titolo alle-
gorico, e il Figlio di cui egli parla; e l'opinione degli avversari di Origene
secondo i quali il titolo "Logos" è l'unico che bisogna intendere in modo
proprio (KOptffiC;) e tutti gli altri titoli che gli sono dati nella Scrittura
debbono essere intesi in modo allegorico ('rp01ttK&C;) (§125). Apparen-
temente sembrano due opinioni esegetiche divergenti, ma riflettendo un
po' su di esse si scopre la sostanziale concordanza ai fini della difesa di
una identica tesi dottrinale (il Figlio non è "un altro" distinto dal Padre).
Cio è evidente se si considerano le conclusioni a cui giungono i due
gruppi, sia quello di Ippolito sia quello di Origene. Non è il casa di
riprendere quanto è stato detto per Ippolito 0 di anticipare quello che si
dirà in modo più approfondito per Origene.
C'è da dire solo una parola sul fatto della differenza per cio che con-
cerne l'argomentazione scritturistica dei due gruppi. Quello di Ippolito
infatti sembra respingere in modo radicale il valore deI titolo "Logos":
si tratta di una semplice allegoria usata dall'evangelista pel' affelmare che
il Figlio è la manifestazione visibile deI Padre (grazie all'incarnazione),
ma non bisogna attribuire a tale titolo il valore di prova della sua preesi-
stenza eterna in quanto Figlio. Gli avversari di Origene invece sembrano
aver accettato l'impOltanza assegnata al titolo "Logos" dal Prologo di
Giovanni. Essi giungono persino a considerarlo come l'unico nome pro-
prio deI Salvatore, ma poi sulla base della loro particolare esegesi di SaI
44,2 ("il mio cuore ha eruttato una buona parola") considerano il Figlio
una semplice manifestazione esterna dell 'unica sostanza deI Padre, senza
che egli abbia nessuna individualità propria (ipostasi) e neppure nessuna
consistenza in quanto all'essere (nessuna ousÎa). Tale "evoluzione" nel
dibattito da parte dei monarchiani, che adottano gli argomenti scritturi-
stici dei teologi deI Logos ma li reinterpretano secondo la loro tesi dot-
trinale, si spiega perché era una tecnica deI dibattit040 ed inoltre è testi-
moniata dai documenti che abbiam041 .
40. Abbiamo visto infatti che Ippolito gira a suo favore il testo di Is 45,14-15 usato
inizialmente da Noeto.
41. Cf. Origene, Dialogo COll Eraclide 1.6-15 (SC 67, 52-54). In tale opportunità il
vescovo Erac1ide (sospetto di eresia monarchiana) fa una confessione di fede sostenendo
di credere tutto cio che si afferma in Gv 1,1-3. Anche il Contro Prassea di Tertulliano,
rappresenta nel suo insieme una tappa sviluppata della controversia monarchiana, e proprio
in questo punto (l'interpretazione monarchiana deI tHolo "Logos") è molto vicino ad
Origene: cf. Prax., 6-7 (SCARPAT, 154-158).
290 A. CASTELLANO IL TlTOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCHIANA NEL CIO 291

"Logos" e "Sapienza". Poi anche le altre affermazioni che seguono nel

II. L'INTERPRETAZIONE DI ORIGENE AL TITOLO "LoGos"
Prologo ci fanno vedere la relazione tra il titolo "Logos" ed altri titoli
("Vita", "Luce"). Infatti "Giovanni, parlando deI Logos, aggiunge: 'cio
Abbiamo già accennato al fatto che Origene accusa i suoi avversari di
che è stato fatto in lui era Vita' (Gv l,4a)" (§ 112) e prosegue: "e la Vita
interpretare in modo arbitrario e supeIficiale il titolo Logos, giacché si
era la Luce degli uomini" (Gv 1,4b).
attengono solo ad esso e non prendono in considerazione tutti gli altt1
Cio pelmette ad Origene di scoprire un certo ordine nei titoli deI
titoli di Cristo e poi non li esaminano come si dovrebbe (§125). Per que-
Salvatore. È un ordine che emerge "secondo come è considerato" (roC;
sto Origene elenca dapprima una lunga lista dei principali titoli presenti
npoëtPilKUJ.tëV) il Salvatore, che sotto diversi nomi è sempre il medesimo
nella Scrittura per ricordare, alla fine, che il titolo Logos è "uno
Cristo Figlio di Dio (§112). DaI punto di vista della sua natura divina i più
dei tanti" (§126-150). Poi procede ad interpretarli uno ad uno, secondo
importanti nomi con cui egli è chiamato sono, innanzitutto, quello di
l' ordine della lista: prima tutti gli altri titoli (§ 158-266) e infine quello
"Sapienza" e poi quello di "Logos" che è intimamente associato al pl1mo
di "Logos" (§267-288).
(§111)42. Poi vengono quelli di "Vita" e "Luce degli uomini"43.
In tali liste, in modi diversi, emerge sempre l'importanza paIticolaI'e
1. Il titolo "Logos" e l'insieme dei titoU deI Salvatore che ha il titolo "Logos" in rapporto a tutti gli altri titoli. Infatti nella lista
dei §52-57, in cui Ol1gene presenta le "realtà significate" dai nomi deI
Tale modo di procedere mette in luce che, per Origene, esiste uno
Salvatore (sono "beni" annunciati agli uomini), egli dice alla fine: "né
stretto rappOlto tra i significati dei vari titoli di Cristo. Nel nostro caso,
va taciuto il Logos che è Dio dopo il Padre dell'universo: anche questo
in cui si sta indagando su quello di "Logos", sembra che l'insieme dei
è un bene, che non è inferiore ad alcun altro" (§57). Quindi, anche se
titoli sia per Origene quasi uno sviluppo, una grande spiegazione di
nella "grande lista" (§126-150) Origene nomina il titolo Logos solo alla
quello di "Logos". Tale idea sembra presente nella conc1usione fatta alla
fine ed in termini quasi riduttivi, come "uno dei nomi applicati al Salva-
lunga sezione dell'interpretazione dei titoli: "Abbiamo fatto tutte queste
tore" che non l'ha detto Cristo stesso ma è stato scritto da Giovanni
considerazioni nell'intento di confutare l'arbitt,u1età e la supeIficialità
(§ 150), tuttavia tale presentazione, dovuta chiaramente al contesto pole-
dei 'molti', i quali, nonostante la moltitudine dei nomi applicati a Cristo,
mico con avversari che 10 ritengono l'unico titolo valido, non deve traITe
si limitano al solo appellativo di 'Logos', senza neanche rendersi conto
in inganno crrca la vera opinione che Origene ha di esso.
de! perché il Figlio di Dio sia stato definito Logos che è Dio, che è nel
Viene da pensare che allo stesso modo che per Ippolito - come si è
principio presso il Padre e per mezzo deI quale tutto è stato fatto" (§266).
visto - la Scrittura testimonia la presenza e l'attività deI Logos lungo
Si ha quasi l'impressione che, in questo passo, Origene rimproveri ai
tutta la st0l1a della salvezza (creazione, annunzi profetici, incamazione)
suoi aVVerSaI1 di non aver saputo cogliere il val ore degli innumerevoli
e che tutto cio è stato "ricapitolato" da Giovanni nel Prologo al sua
titoli di Cristo presenti nella Scrittura (che es si quasi non considerano)
vangelo, COS! anche pel' Origene gli innumerevoli nomi deI Salvatore ci
paItendo propl10 dal titolo che es si privilegiano: quello di "Logos".
permettono di ripercorrere tutta la Scrittura44 ma di ritrovare ne! titolo
E cio succede perché essi non hanno inteso neppure cio che si dice deI
"Logos" quello decisivoche ci aiuta a comprendere tutti gli altri.
Logos in Gv 1,1-3. Viceversa, quindi, se si parte da una giusta compren-
sione di cio che si affelma deI Logos nel Prologo di Giovanni si scopre
anche il valore e il significato di tutti gli altri nomi deI Salvatore. 42. Naturalmente poi ci sono altri nomi uniti a quello di Sapienza: quello di "Principio"
L'esegesi concreta dell' Alessandrino illustra molto bene questa dichia- (Ap 22,13) - come si è visto - poi quello di "Primogenito di ogni creatura" (Col 1,lS)
(cf. §1l6.1l8), ed altri ancora. Lo stesso, vedremo, avviene nel casa deI titolo "Logos".
razione iniziale. Nella sua interpretazione di "nel principio" infatti, dopo 43. Cf. §S2-S7: in questa lista si riproduce meglio l'ordine dei nomi (Vita-Luce) in
la ricerca sui vari significati di "principio", Origene conc1ude dicendo sintonia con l'ordine che appare nel Prologo di Giovanni (Gv 1,4). Nella "grande lista"
che nel termine "principio" bisogna riconoscere un altro titolo deI Figlio di §126-1S0 c'è un piccolo cambio: si premette "Luce" a "Vita"; cf. §126. Tale ordine
poi è ripreso quando si spiegano tali titoli: "Luce" nei §lS8-180; "Vita" in §188; vista
(Ap 22,13) (§ 116) che gli spetta solo in quanto egli è la "Sapienza" la maggiore attenzione dedicata al titolo "Luce" nell'interpretazione, si comprende perché
(Pr 8,22) di Dio Padre (§117-118). Percio l'affermazione di Gv l,la: Origene ha invertito l'ordine.
"Ne! principio era il Logos" ci manifesta 10 stretto rappOlto tra i titoli 44. Infatti nella "grande lista" dei nomi dei Salvatore (§126-1S0) sono presenti tutte
le grandi parti della Scrittura: vangelo, scritti apostolici e profeti.
292 A. CASTELLANO
Anche nel De principiis Origene mette in evidenza l'importanza di tale
titolo. Dopo aver parlato deI Figlio di Dio in quanto Sapienza, afferma
che "nel modo in cui abbiamo inteso che la Sapienza è inizio delle vie
deI Signore (Pl' 8,22) [ ... ] nello stesso modo dobbiamo pensare che la
Sapienza è Logos di Dio in quanto rivela a tutti gli altri esseri, cioè a tutte
le creature, l'intelligenza dei misteri e degli arcani che proprio nella
sapienza sono contenuti. [... ] Pel' cui mi sembra esatta l'espressione che
è scritta negli Atti di Paolo: 'Questi è il Logos essere vivente'. E Gio-
vanni si esprime in forma più aIta e magnifica all'inizio deI suo vangelo,
definendo con proprietà e precisione il Logos di Dio: 'E il Logos era Dio
ed essa era all'inizio presso Dio' (Gv 1,1_2)"45.
Ma cerchiamo di vedere cosa dice Origene, in modo più specifico,
sull'insieme dei titoli di Cristo. Essi sono usati in rapporto all'attività che
egli esercita. Infatti, spiega, "Cristo è chiamato 'luce deI mondo' in virtù
della sua attività (napà 'tllv ÈvsPYEtav), deI fatto cioè che illumina il
mondo di cui è luce"; allo stesso modo gli altri suoi titoli (come: 'risur-
rezione', 'pastore', 'maestro', 're', ecc.) sono dovuti "ad altre sue atti-
vità" (nap' Ê'tspav npii~tv), e 10 stesso si deve dire pel' il titolo 'Logos'
(§267). Percio, se il Figlio "è chiamato con moIti e diversi nomi,,46, cio
è dovuto alla moIteplicità e varietà delle sue attività.
Ma le "attività" del Figlio sono espressione deI suo essere la
"Sapienza" di Dio Padre "in cui era contenuta virtualità e forma di ogni
futura creatura", percio la Sapienza "dice di essere stata creata quale
inizio delle vie di Dio (Pl' 8,22), cioè in quanto conteneva in se stessa
principi, ragioni e specie di tutto il mondo della creazione,,47. Tale è il
senso anche deI passo: "Dio ha fatto tutto nella Sapienza" (SaI 103,24),
una "Sapienza" dotata di "Logos", cioè con "il compito di trasmettere
agli esseri e alla materia" cio che essa conteneva, in una parola renden-
dola capace di creare48 • Percio il Figlio, in quanto è chiamato "Sapienza",
è principio (àpxit) pure lui degli esseri49 .
45. Prin 1.2.3 (tr. SIMONETTI, 1968, 144-145). Questa ammirazione comune (a Ippolito
e a Origene) e crescente verso il Prologo di Giovanni ha un lUolo fondamentale per la
considerazione e la stima verso tutto il quarto vangelo (proprio per i titoli in esso conte-
nuti); cf. CID 1.1-26 specie i §21-24 in cui Origene sostiene che il vangelo di Giovanni è
il culmine dei quattro vangeli giacché "nessuno di costoro [dei sinottici] infatti ha rivelato
in modo più puro di Giovanni la divinità di Cristo, ponendogli in bocca: '10 sono la luce
deI mondo' [ecc.]" (§22).
46. Prin 1.2.1 (SC 252, 110).
47. Prin 1.2.2 (tr. SIMONETI1, 1968, 144).
48. Cf. CID 1.113-115 (SC 120bis, 118-120).
49. Questa è la grande conc1usione a cui giunge Origene nel suo esame deI significato
di "in principio" di Gv l,la: "non è difficile dire, senza andare troppo per il sottile
(7tuxt'nepov), che il principio degli esseri è il Figliodi Dio" CID 1.116 (tr. CORSINI, 1968,
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCHIANA NEL CIO 293
L' "attività" deI Figlio è quindi una manifestazione del suo essere
arché dell'attività di Dio (àpXll cO<; 1tpa~EO)<;)50. Nel De principiis,
quando si tratterà di vedere le proprietà delle singole persone divine,
Origene, rispetto a Dio Padre "che tutto abbraccia, e che giunge fino a
ciascuno degli esseri facendolo partecipare deI suo essere e facendolo
essel'e cio che è" - delimiterà il raggio di azione deI Figlio ai soli esseri
razionali e poi, più ancora, quello dello Spirito Santo ai soli "santi"51. In
tale passo si pua scorgere un esempio della preoccupazione "subordina-
zionista" di Origene, ma si puo (e si deve) mettere in rilievo anche la sua
preoccupazione di mostrare l'unità e la sostanziale uguaglianza dei tre
nell'essere e nell'agire, "non potendo avere la salvezza se la trinità non
è completa, né è possibile diventare partecipi deI Padre e del Figlio senza
10 Spirito Santo"52.
L'attività deI Figlio presentata attraverso i nomi 0 titoli che la Scrittura
gli dà sono quindi un luogo pel' cogliere la sua dimensione divina, il suo
rapporto unico con Dio Padl'e fatto di unità nell' essere ma anche di
distinzione persona1e. Nel De principiis, quando parla deI Cristo consi-
dera che "i moIti e diversi nomi" che gli sono dati sono fondamentali
soprattutto pel' conoscere "la natura della sua divinità" e comprendere
cosa significhi che Cristo è "l'unigenito Figlio deI Padre"53.
Passando adesso a presentare, in sintesi, cio che Origene affelma circa
il significato deI titolo "Logos", bisogna innanzitutto osservare che que-
sto titolo caratterizza l'intera attività deI Figlio giacché - come si è
accennato sopra citando De principiis 1.3.5 - ci mostra che essa è relativa
agli "esseri razionali". In che modo si esercita quindi l'azione deI Figlio
su di essi?In due forme: innanzitutto il Figlio, che è il Logos, rende gli
uomini "Veramente dotati di Logos" (Ka'tà àÂ,itSEtav Â,oytKOU<;) (§267-
276), e in secondo luogo, il Figlio, sempre in quanto Logos, annuncia ad
es si i segreti delPadre (§277-288).
154). Tale conclusione è da mettere in rapporto con l'altro significato di arché presentato
in CID I.102 (tr. CORSINI, 1968, 147-148) in cui si dice che "il Dio dell'universo è chiara-
mente (cru<P!Ï'lç) 'principio', .giacché in quanto Padre è principio del Figlio, in quanto
creatore è principio delle creature, e, in, modo assoluto (Ct7tUÇU7tÂroç) in quanto è Dio
(ô 3eoç) è il principio degli esseri". Origene quindi riconosce che dopo il Padre anche il
Figlio è arc/lé (indissolubilmente unito al Padre ma anche distinto da lui).
50. Questoè· in definitiva, seconde> Origene, il significato di arché che si ritrova in
Pr 8,22 e che è adatto a Gv l,la; cf. CIo U08 (SC 120bis, 114-116).
51. Cf. Prin 1.3.5 (SC 252, 152-154)./.
52. Ibid. Per tutto cio non bisogna esc1udere che il titolo dell'opera Ile pi 'ApXrov che
si parli proprio delle tre persone divine come "principi metafisici dell' esistenza" da un
punto di vista cristiano;· cf. l'introduziàne dell'edizione di H. CROUZEL - M. SIMONETTI:
Origène, Traité des principes, Tome 1 (Livres 1 et 11), SC 252, Paris, Cerf, 1978, pp. 12-15.
53. Cf. Prin 1.2.1 (SC 252, 110)"
 IL TITOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCIDANA NEL CIO 295
294 A. CASTELLANO

Per Origene, infatti, sulla base di quanto dice la Scrittura in Rm 10,6-8

Si tratta di due aspetti dell'attività deI Logos che manifestano l'univer-
(cf, Dt 30,12-14) e in Gv 15,22, la risposta a tale domanda non puo essere
salità della sua azione (raggiunge infatti tutti gli uomini), ma anche la
che affelmativa, Nel primo testo scritturistico si tratta di parole dell'A-
grandezza e impOltanza deI suo compito (far conoscere il Padre). Questi
postolo che provano che il Logos è in ogni uomo e che il Logos è Cristo
due aspetti possono essere considerati anche come i due momenti, 0 le
(§269), Il secondo invece contiene parole del Salvatore: "Se non fossi
due dimensioni fondamentali della storia della salvezza, che ancora una
venuto e non avessi parlato loro, sarebbero senza peccato; ma adesso non
volta possiamo vedere compendiata nell'azione del Logos. Ed infine,
hanno più scusa per illoro peccato" (Gv 15,22) (§270), Si tratta di due
tutto cio che viene fatto dal Logos manifesta anche chi sia il Figlio.
testi complementari che provano - come affelma Origene nel De prin ci-
piis - "che il Padre e il Figlio agiscono [su tutti gli uomini] sia sui santi,
2. Il Figlio è chiamato "Logos" perché rende partecipi di sé tutti gli sia sui peccatori" giacché "tutti gli esseri razionali pmtecipano deI Logos
uomini di Dio"; infatti le parole di Paolo in Rm 10,6-8 dimostrano che "Cristo
è nel cuore di tutti, in quanto Logos", mentre quelle di Cristo in Gv 15,22
Il Salvatore (il Figlio) è chiamato "Logos" innanzitutto perché rende
ci fanno intendere "da che età [l'uomo] è soggetto al peccato"56, Questa
partecipi gli uomini del sua essere "Logos" (§267-276). Tale tema è
è l'idea presente pure nel §270: ogni uomo in quanto creatura partecipa
presentato dapprima nei suoi punti centrali (§267-268) e poi con un
al Logos divino e cio fonda la sua responsabilità morale,
approfondimento (§268-276). Cristo "è chiamato 'Logos' perché rimuove
Percio, secondo Origene, non è accettabile l'opinione dei "moiti" (Ol
da noi tutto cio che è privo di 'Logos' (aÀoyov) e ci rende [esseri] vera-
1toÀÀoi) secondo i quali le parole di Gv 15,22 si devono considerare dette
mente dotati di 'Logos' (ÀoytKoi) che fanno tutto [ ... ] a gloria di Dio"
dal "Gesù visibile" (È1tl '111 <mu 'tou opu'tou) (§271), Questo breve accenno
(§267). In questo primo momento Origene accenna al rapporto profondo
polemico deve essere riferito indubbiamente ai monarchiani, i quali - in
che esiste tra i titoli del Salvatore, un rapporto stabilito proprio dall'atti-
polemica con i teologi deI Logos - non potevano accettm'e che le parole di
vità del Logos. Infatti alcuni titoli, come "Luce del mondo", "llisune-
Gv 15,22 fossel'O una pl'Ova della venuta del Logos nella carne, e quindi una
zione", "Pastore", "Re", significano che partecipando di lui "siamo
pl'Ova della sua distinzione personale dal Padre, 1 monm'chiat.ù infatti affer-
risuscitati, illuminati e forse pure govemati [da lui]", e percio "è pure
mana l'unicità di Dio che secondo Bar 3,36-38 si è dato a conoscere dap-
evidente che diventiamo dotati di Logos in modo divino" (§268).
prima a Giacobbe e a Israele, "dopo di che è apparso in tena e si è intrat-
In tale contesto appare chiaramente l'importanza deI concetto di
tenuto con gli uomini" e anche Is 45,14-15 ha annunciato "un solo Dio,
"partecipazione" (Ils'wxi!). Un concetto che è varie volte ribadito
e questo è dichiarato visibile (Éllcpuvi!Ç)"57, A tali argomenti Ippolito
(§268.269.270.273) e che costituisce il tema centrale dell'approfondi-
risponderà con il testo di Ger 23,18 ("Chi [ ... ] ha visto la sua pal'Ola?") in
mento che segue: il Logos si è manifestato (è "venuto") pel' essere pre-
cui il pl'Ofeta annuncia la manifestazione deI Logos: "Solo la Pm'ola (Logos)
sente in tutti gli uomini. Nella nozione di "partecipazione" si trova la
di Dio si vede, quella dell'uomo si ascolta, Dato che il profeta parla di
chiave di volta dell'attività (rivelativa, salvifica) delle tre persone divine;
visibilità della parola, io debbo credere che colui che è visibile è stato
infatti ognuna si manifesta rendendo pmtecipi gli uomini - secondo un
inviato, E colui che è stato inviato non è altro che il Logos"58,
certo ordine (gradualità) - del proprio essere54 .
Anche pel' Tertulliano bisogna distinguere la proprietà della visibilità
Abbiamo affermato che il tema è approfondito da Origene grazie ad
che appartiene al Figlio da quella dell'invisibilità che è deI Padre59 , per-
una quaestio: "considera un po' se tutti gli uomini in qualche modo
cio "è certo che dal principio sempre fu visto colui che sm'ebbe stato
partecipino a lui in quanto è Logos" (§269). Si tratta di una questione
visto alla fine,,60.
che ha senza dubbio una portata antignostica55 , ma che presenta - come
vedremo - anche dei risvolti antimonarchiani.
la problematica affrontata nei confronti di Eracleone in CIo II,137-157 (SC 120bis 302-
316), '
54. Cf. ~r~n 1,3.5-6 (SC 252, 152-156): il Padre dà l'essere ad ogni cosa, il Figlio 56. Cf. Prin 1.3,6 (SC 252, 154-156),
rende parteclpl del suo essere "Logos" gli esseri razionali, e 10 Spirito Santo comunica la 57. Cf. CN 2,5-6 (SIMONETTI, 152-154),
santificazione. Bellissima la sintesi di Prin 1.3,8 (SC 252, 162-164) in cui, tra l'altro, si 58. CN 13.1-2 (SIMONETTI, 176),
vede ancora una volta l'importanza dei titoli di Cristo, 59. Tale distinzione è sviluppata in Prax 14-15 (SCARPAT, 178-186),
, 55, ,Come si coglie chiaramente, un po' più avanti nel Commento a Giovanni, quando 60. Prax 15,9 (SCARPAT, 186),
vlene nproposta per contras tare la dottrina sulle diverse nature di uomini; cf, pel' esempio
296 A. CASTELLANO
Per tale ragione Origene intende le parole di Gv 15,22 come riferite
alla condizione creaturale degli uomini in quanto IvOytKOt. Fin dalla cre-
azione dell'uomo il Logos è già "venuto" tra gli uomini, ha già iniziato
una presenza; in un certo sense sembra che per Origene si sia già fatto
"carne" in noi (Gv 1,14), in vista di una nostra crescita nel rapporto con
lui (§273-276).
La paltecipazione dell'uomo al Logos puo avvenire infatti in due
modi: la prima è quella che si produce per il fatto di essere uomini
(lvOytKot), e la seconda è quella che si puo avere grazie alla conoscenza
e uni one petfetta con il Logos divino. Grazie alla prima siamo responsa-
bili deI nostro agire morale; tuttavia tale partecipazione al Logos non è
sufficiente a compiere il bené I , anzi la storia della salvezza insegna che
l'uomo ha commesso il male 62 facendo l'esperienza di cadere nelle mani
"dei ladroni e dei predoni" (Gv 10,8), cioè dei demoni 63 . Percio non
basta fermarsi a questa venuta in cui "il Logos si è fatto carne" (Gv
1,14a), ma è necessario puntare alla partecipazione al "Logos che era
Dio" (Gv 1,1) pel' giungere alla contemplazione della "sua gloria come
di unigenito del Padre" (Gv 1,14b), passando dagli aspetti inferiori deI
Logos a quelli superiori, attraverso "qua1cosa di intermedio, per esempio
il Logos riportato ai suoi primitivi elementi (ùvacr'WtXEWU)!ÉVOu) dal
suo essere diventato carne, e reso poco a poco più smaterializzato, fino
a ritornare cio che era nel principio, Logos che era Dio" (§276)64.
Percio Origene giunge ad affermare che, "se noi comprenderemo il
Logos che era 'nel principio', che era 'presso Dio', che è Dio, potremo
forse dire che dotato di Logos (lvoytK6ç) è unicamente colui che parte-
61. Cf. CIo n.105-lIl (SC 120bis, 278-282) in cui Origene stabilisee un rapporto tra
la presenza deI Logos nell'uomo, come principio di discernimento tra il bene e il male, e
la Legge di cui parla Paolo nella lettera ai Romani. Per Origene l'affermazione di Paolo
secondo cui il peccato è sopraggiunto quando è venuto il comandamento (Rm 7,9) deve
essere intesa in rapporto al Logos che è in ogni uomo; è lui "la legge e il precetto", per-
cio l'uomo non ha più nessuna scusa per il suo peccato che commette non obbedendo alla
voce deI Logos che è in lui (Gv 5,22). TI passo di CIo n.105-lIO è molto espressivo per
comprendere che per Origene (come per Paolo) non basta la coscienza umana per seguire
la via dei bene.
62. L'idea deI peccato dell'uomo, nonostante la partecipazione creaturale al Logos, è
presente in Prin 1.3.6-7 (SC 252, 156-158) quando Origene parla che a causa deI peccato
si produce la perdita dello Spirito di santità presente nell 'uomo e si lichiede una sua nuova
elargizione.
63. Cf. CC vn.70 (SC 150, 176-178) in cui si cita Gv 10,8 in rapporto ai culti pagani
dei demoni.
64. Il tema della àVU(J'WlXct(j)(J\Ç è legato alla "rigenerazione" che per il Cristo
avviene passando attraverso la passione; si veda l'accenno a tale idea nell'articolo di
B. PSEPHTOGAS, La passion de Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ dans la théologie d'Origène,
in H. CROUZEL (ed.), Origeniana Seclinda (Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum, 15), Roma,
Ateneo, 1980,307-321, p. 312.
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCHIANA NEL CIO 297
cipa a questo· Logos in quanto tale, al punto da affermare anche che
soltanto il santo (aywç) è dotato di Logos"65.
3. Il Piglio è chiamato "Logos" perché rivela il Padre
Origene presenta in modo sintetico, ma con una alta intensità di con-
cetti, il secondo significato deI titolo "Logos" (§277-279). Poi si dedica
alla confutazione dell'esegesi fatta dai "moIti" al passo di SaI 44,2
(§280-287), e conclude con un accenno all'importanza di SaI 32,6 per la
comprensione deI titolo "Logos" (§288). Vediamo brevemente ognuno
di questi tre momenti cercando di mettere in evidenza gli aspetti polemici
antimonarchiani.
Se il primo significato del titolo "Logos" mostra la sua attività in rap-
porto agli uomini, resi da Lui partecipi della sua natura: "razionali"
(lvoytKoi), il secondo significato manifesta sempre una attività a favore
degli uomini ma che fa conoscere anche il rapporto unico e originale che
il Figlio ha con Dio Padre; infatti il Figlio è "Logos" in quanto rivela
pienamente il Padre, nella sua intirnità, nel suo "Intelletto" (vouç). Infatti,
spiega Origene, se il Figlio è detto "Logos", in modo analogo il Padre
puo essere chiamato vouç, percio il Figlio in quanto Logos è colui che
"annunzia" (nupà 'tà ùnuyyÉlvlvEtV) i segreti ('tà Kp6<jna) deI Padre.
"Come presso di noi la parola (Myoç) annunzia (napà 'tà ùnuYYÉlvlvEtV)
cio che è contemplato dall'intelletto (unà 'Wu vou), COS! il Logos di Dio
- conoscendo il Padre, al quale nessuna delle creature si puo avvicinare
(npocrpalvEtV UU'tro)66 senza guida - rivela colui che conosce, il Padre"
(§277)67. Anche pel' Ippolito c'è uno stretto rapporto tra il Logos e
l'Intelletto deI Padre; infatti nel generarlo, 0 nel proferirlo il Padre "invio
come Signore alla creazione il proprio Intelletto ('tàv ïowv VOUV)"68.
Dopo la presentazione di questo secondo significato deI titolo "Logos"
Origene adduce a1cune prove scritturistiche: Mt 11,27; Is 9,5 e Ap 19,11.
La prima, quella di Mt 11,27 ("Nessuno infatti conosce il Padre se non
il Figlio e colui al quale il Figlio 10 voglia rivelare"), è senza dubbio
quella più importante giacché presenta il Figlio come l'unico rivelatore
del Padre. Per Origene Mt 11,27 è quindi da ricollegare all'attività rive-
lativa deI Logos, che è intimamente associata aIl' attività contemplativa
65. CIo n.114 (tr. CORSINI, 1968,235).
66. Il significato di questa espressione è approfondita in FrIo 13 e 14 (GCS,JV, 494-
495 e 495-496); cf. tr. CORSINI, 1968, pp. 827-828 la nota 16.
67. Ho modificato un po' la traduzione di CORSINI, seguendo quella di BLANC
(SC 120bis, 200). Le medesirne idee le ritroviamo in Prin 1.2.3.7 (SC 252, 114-116. 124).
68. CN 10.4 (SIMONETTI, 172).
298 A. CASTELLANO
che egli ha "nel principio" "presso Dio" e di cui - alla fine - renderà
participi gli uomini che si uniscono a lui69 . Su questa linea Mt Il,27 si
ricollega pure intimamente con altri titoli fondamentali per comprendere
l'attività di rivelatore deI Logos: come quelli di "immagine deI Dio invi-
sibile" (Col 1,15)70 e di "impronta della sua sostanza" (Eb 1,3)71. Per
Origene l'attività rivelativa del Logos, presente pure in altri titoli, è alla
base deI riconoscimento simultaneo dell'altel'ità e della "somiglianza"
deI Figlio rispetto al Padre, perché da una parte il Logos rivela un altro
diverso da sé (il Padre), dall'altra per poterlo fare deve "riprodurre prima
in sé cio che vuol rivelare agli altri e che permette di comprendere e
conoscere Dio"72.
La seconda prova scritturistica, quella di Is 9,5 (il "messaggero deI
Gran Consiglio"), è a sostegno dell'idea che il Logos è il "messaggero"
(a/yyEAJ,.,OÇ) deI Padre. Il Figlio "in quanto Logos è 'messaggero deI
Gran Consiglio' (J.U;yUA:llÇ pOOA:ilç ayyrû,.)\'oç) da cui fu generato (oÔ
ÈyEvijB-rJ)" (§278). Il testo di Is 9,5 è usato in genere da Origene pel'
provare l' attività rivelatrice deI Figlio, in quanto "Angelo", nelle teofanie
dell'AT (come nel casa di Es 3,2.6f3. Tuttavia in questo casa gli serve
per alludere alla sua generazione etema da parte deI "Gran Consiglio",
cioè deI Padre. Naturalmente tutto cio serve a confermare l'eccellenza di
tale "messaggero" nella conoscenza che lui ci puo offrire deI Padre74 .
L'idea della nascita è presente nel testo di Is 9,5 ma Origene la svi-
luppa secondo una modalità a lui cara, e ad essa rimanda con il breve
69. CIo 1.92: "Allora quelli che sono giunti a Dio per il tramite deI Logos che è presso
di lui, avranno una attività unica: conoscere a fondo Dio, in modo da diventare, conformati
in tal modo nella conoscenza di Dio, tutti quanti esattamente un Figlio, nel modo in cui
ora soltanto il Figlio conosce il Padre" (tr. CORSINI, 1968, 144). In questo passo (ed anche
neI §93) Mt 11,27 svolge un ruolo fondamentale percio viene anche ricordato più volte.
70. Prin 1.2.6: "Pertanto il nostro Salvatore è Immagine dell'invisibile Dio Padre
(Col 1,15): in relazione al Padre è Verità (Gv 14,6), in relazione a noi, cui rivela il Padre
è Innnagine, per mezzo deI quale conosciamo il Padre, che nessun altro conosce se non il
Figlio e colui cui il Figlio l'avrà voluto rivelare (Mt 11,27)" (tr. SIMONETTI, 1968, 151).
71. Cf. Prin 1.2.8 (SC 252, 126-128).
72. Ibid. Origene inizia il passo di Prin 1.2.8 manifestando innanzitutto e in modo
esplicito la sua intenzione antimonarchiana: "Poiché Cristo è definito dall'apostolo non
solo Splendore della gloria, ma anche Impronta della sua sostanza (Eb 1,3), non mi sem-
bra superfluo osservare come un'altra oltre la sostanza di Dio [Padre], quale che sia quella
sostanza, sia definita Impronta della sua sostanza" (tr. SIMONETTI, 1968, 153). E poi spiega
che questa differenza si fonda sul fatto che 1'''Impronta'' ci fa conoscere il Padre, e nello
stesso tempo che essa deve avere uno stretto rappOito con l' essere dei Padre, infatti pel'
poter farIo conoscere deve essere una "sua Impronta".
73. Cf. CIo 1.218 (SC 120bis, 166).
74. A tal fine contribuiscono pure altre parole di Is 9,5 ricordate qui da Origene: "sulle
sue spalle è posto !'incarico di govemare (1'] ùpxi] È1tt 'tOI) WJ.lOU aùtoG), egli infatti ha
regnato per mezzo deI patimento della croce che ha subito" (§278b).
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" E LA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCHIANA NEL CIO 299
accenno che troviamo nel §278 (che il "messaggero" è stato generato
dalla J.lEyUÂTJÇ pooÂfjç). Nel De principiis infatti troviamo varie volte
affermato che il Figlio è nato dal Padre come "volontà che procede
dall'intelletto" e "che la volontà deI Padre è sufficiente a far sussistere
cio che vuole il Padre: infatti nel sua volere egli non si serve di altro
mezzo se non di quello che proviene dall'intenzione della volontà. Cos!
è da lui generata anche la sostanza deI Figlio"75. Anche questo tema ha
una chiara finalità antimonarchiana come si comprende dal breve com-
mento di Origene che segue aIle parole anteriori: "questo concetto [che
il Figlio è nato dal Padre 'come volontà che procede dall'intelletto'] deve
essere pel' prima cosa accettato da coloro che niente di ingenerato (inge-
nitum) ammettono all'infuori di Dio Padre"76. Ippolito nel Contro Noeto
si appella alla libera e sovrana volontà di Dio Padre pel' affermare la
generazione del Figlio e per richiamare al senso deI mistero chi pretende
di avere spiegazioni su come sia avvenuta: "tu ricerchi riguardo all'ori-
gine (yÉVEO'tV STJ't'dç) deI Logos, che Dio Padre ha generato quando ha
voluto e come ha voluto"77.
Il terzo testo addotto a fondamento del secondo significato deI titolo
"Logos" - cioè della sua funzione rivelatrice - è quello di Ap 19,11.
Origene presenta cosl il contenuto di tale passo: "nell' Apocalisse è detto
che un Logos fedele e verace cavalca un cavallo bianco, il che sta a
indicare, io penso, la chiarezza della voce ('t'à cracpÈç 't'fjç cpmvfjç) da cui
è portato il Logos quando viene a noi (6 1)J.ltV ÈntoTJJ.léOv)" (§278).
Secondo Origene, con il nome di "cavallo" (1) ïnnoç npocrTJyopia), la
Scrittura in moiti passi - e cita come esempio SaI 32,17 e SaI 19,8 -
indic a la "voce" (cpmvfjç) in cui si espone cio che è utile (CÜcpEÂO\JJ.lEBa)
se noi ascoltiamo gli insegnamenti divini (cf. §279).
Il tema della "voce" in rapporto al "Logos" indica, secondo Origene,
le concrete manifestazioni del Logos e quindi anche le necessarie media-
zioni umane 0 tenene di cui egli ha bisogno. Un'idea che è presente
anche in Ippolito 78 • Pel' Origene, se il Logos è il messaggero di Dio, esso
75. Prin 1.2.6 (tr. SIMONETTI, 1968, 149-150).
76. Ibid. Non è il caso, per adesso, di vedere cio che segue a questa affermazione, yale
a dire la presa di distanza dalle concezioni gnostiche che concepivano la generazione come
"emanazione" che divideva la sostanza divina. Si tratta di un' accusa che i monarchiani
dirigevano ai teologi dei Logos che parlavano della sua "generazione" da parte dei Padre.
Percio sia Ippolito aveva esplicitamente negato di concepire la generazione dei Logos in
tali termini (CN 11.2-3) come pure Origene nel presente passo (Prin 1.2.6: "infatti bisogna
stare attenti a non incolTere nelle assurde favole di quelli che immaginano aleune emanazi-
oni per dividere in parti la natura divina e per dividere Dio Padre nella sua essenza").
77. CN 16.4 (SIMONETTI, 182).
78. Per Ippolito infatti il concetto di <!>OlV~ è messo in rapporto al falto che il Figlio è
in quanto tale la manifestazione dei Padre. In tal senso sembra che per Ippolito la nozione
 300 A. CASTELLANO
ha bisogno di una "voce" che sia messaggera del Logos. Il casa più
tipico è quello di Giovanni Battista che si definisce lui stesso "voce" (Gv
1,23) ed è stato annunciato nelle profezie come "angelo" che prepara la
via del Salvatore (Mal 3,1), proprio in quanto "Voce che precorre la
Para/a"; "infatti affinché l'intelletto possa afferrare la parola significata
dalla voce, occorre che prima sia percepita la voce: ed ecco perché Gio-
vanni nasce alquanto prima di Cristo"79. Percio, continua Origene, svi-
luppando il parallelismo Giovanni-Cristo e "Voce-Parola", si percepisce
prima la voce e poi la parola. "Giovanni indica Cristo, COS1 come la
parola è significata dalla voce", ed anche se è Giovanni a battezzare
(purificare) Cristo, "per natura è il Logos che purifica ogni voce che la
significa"; in sintesi, "quando Giovanni indic a Cristo, abbiamo un uomo
che indic a Dio e il Salvatore incorporeo, una Voce [che esprime] la
Parola"80. Tali osservazioni ci pennettono di valutare meglio il rapporto
tra il Logos ed ogni sua mediazione umana: la sua stessa incarnazione,
la Scrittura, la Chiesa, ecc. 81 . In breve, si tratta proprio di quella che
potremmo chiamare la "struttura sacramentale" di ogni mediazione
umana deI Logos. Per Origene la parte umana deve essere presa con una
celta ponderazione, ma poi egli ha molta fiducia in essa: coloro che sono
preparati attraverso la sua "chiarezza", la sua "trasparenza", possono
scoprire la presenza del Logos.
Ritomando al passo di Ap 19,11-16, esso è molto impOltante per Ori-
gene ai fini di una piena comprensione del titolo "Logos" presente nel
Prologo deI vangelo di Giovanni. Per tale ragione egli riprende tale passo
- commentandolo ampiamente - in occasione dell'esegesi di Gv 1,282
giacché esso "ci ammaestra intomo al Logos di Dio, per comprendere in
modo più preciso cio che 10 conceme"83. Anche in questa citazione Ori-
gene vede sottolineata la funzione rivelatrice deI Logos che appare "nel
diphoné sia quasi equivalente a quella di "Logos"; affenna infatti: il Padre "profferendo
la prima voce (np01:épuv <p(j)v~v) e generando luce da luce, invio come Signore al mondo
il proprio hltelletto" CN 1004 (SIMONETII, 172).
79. CIo II.194 (SC 120bis, 342).
80. CIo II. 195 (SC 120bis, 344).
81. Cf. CCt II.6.8-9 (SC 375,386) in cui Origene ricorre a Ap 19,11-14 per spiegare
Ct 1,9 e presenta varie interpretazioni deI "cavallo bianco": il corpo del Salvatore, 0 la
sua anima, 0 entrambi, oppure la Chies a "che è anche chiamata suo corpo" e che egli 'ha
santificato con il bagno dell' acqua' ". Il rapporto con la Scrittura si coglie soprattutto nelle
citazioni di SaI 32,17 e SaI 19,8 che, come abbiamo visto, sono messe in rapporto con Ap
19,1lss. hl tal caso, il tono negativo che sembrano avere tali passi tratti dai Salmi ("Men-
zognero è il cavallo per la salvezza") si deve proprio al fatto che non bisogna fennarsi al
significato letterale della Scrittura (alla "voce") ma che bisogna puntare al "Logos" che
è da esso significato.
82. Cf. CIo II.34-63 (SC 120bis, 232-248).
83. CIo II.63 (SC l20bis, 248).
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" ELA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCHIANA NEL CIO 301
cielo aperto" cavalcando "un cavallo bianco". Il Logos, infatti, offre a
coloro che sono uniti a lui le realtà celesti, "le apre e le rende chiare
attraverso 'voci' che annunziano i significati reconditi (<j>rovut<; Tà
all/-tuwo/-tEVU ùnuYYEÂ,Â,ouaut<;) - 'voci' simboleggiate nell'atto di
cavalcare un cavallo, il cui colore bianco sta a indicare il carattere di
evidenza, di candore, di splendore della conoscenza spirituale"84.
Inoltre, per Origene, il simbolo deI "cavallo bianco" significa sicu-
rezza nella conoscenza della verità insegnata dal Logos nel momento di
discemerla dall'errore. In questo casa siamo chiaramente nel contesto
polelnico della lotta contro le eresie e gli errori dottrinali. Sappiamo che
tale confronto si realizza attraverso "voci" - cioè citazioni - della Scrit-
tura; per Origene il Logos stesso supera il sua Avversario grazie a certi
"passi" 0 "voci che non possono essere respinte" e che operano come
cavalli irraggiungibili e pieni di impet085 . Questo collegamento che Ori-
gene fa tra Ap 19,11ss. e la polemica dottrinale presente nella Chiesa del
sua tempo offre l'occasione pel' vedere meglio il rappOlto tra l'uso che
lui ne fa nel Commenta a Giovanni e quello fattone da Ippolito nel Con-
tra Noeto.
Ippolito infatti cita tale passo in un momento importante della sua
opera: quando deve rispondere all'obiezione circa il rapporto esistente
tra il titolo "Logos" (presente nel Prologo di Giovanni) e quello di
"Figlio". Pel' il suo avversario - come si è visto - il titolo "Logos" è una
metafora, una "allegoria", usata dall'Evangelista. Ippolito risponde che
non 10 si puo intendere in questo modo giacché 10 stesso Giovanni in Ap
19,11-13 parla deI Logos di Dio come deI Figlio incamato. Ippolito
infatti sottolinea soprattutto il dettaglio deI "mantello intriso di sangue"
con cui è avvolto il Logos (Ap 19,13), simbolo della sua incamazione e
della sua passione, percio - conclude Ippolito - il "Logos di Dio" (Ap
19,13) è colui che ha anche il nome di Figlio perché lui è stato mandato
nella came, infatti "in questo modo si è manifestato l'unico ,Figlio per-
fetto di Dio,,86.
84. CIo lIA7 (SC l20bis, 240). Sulla stessa linea interpreta, più avanti, Ap 19,14 ("e
gli eserciti deI cielo 10 seguivano su cavalli bianchi"): "tutto infatti è manifesto a coloro
che comprendono"; e Origene continua: "come alla fine dei tempi 'scompariranno
l'afflizione, il dolore e i lamenti' (Is 35,10), COSl io ritengo che scompariranno l'oscurità
e il dubbio, in quanta tutti i rnisteri della Sapienza di Dio si manifesteranno con chiarezza
e precisione" CIo II.62 (tr. CORSINI, 1968, 218).
85. CIo lIA8: "Colui che è chiamato 'fedele' siede sul cavallo bianco: questo significa
che egli è fondato in modo più saldo e, per COSl dire, più regale su 'voci' che non possono
essere respinte, che corrono più velo ci di qualsiasi cavallo e superano nel loro impeto
l'avversario deI Logos che simula di essere il Logos ed è ritenuto tale, la verità apparente
[che si oppone] alla Verità" (tr. CORSINI, 1968,215).
86. CN 15.6-7 (SIMONETI1, 180).
302 A. CASTELLANO
Al di là delle differenze esistenti, tra l'interpretazione di Origene (molto
più sviluppata) e quella di Ippolito si osserva soprattutto una sostanziale
consonanza pel' l'importanza attribuita da entrambi a Ap 19,11-13 nel
contesto di una comune polemica dottrinale e pel' l'accordo circ a il sua
significato di fondo: il Logos di Dio incarnandosi si è manifestato come
il Figlio di Dio (Ippolito) il che equivale - pel' Origene - a rivelare Dio
(come Padre). Anche pel' l'Alessandrino, infatti, è importante il dettaglio
secondo cui il Logos di Dio "indossa un mantello intriso di sangue" che
significa che "il Logos fatto carne reca su di sé i segni di cià che ha
subito [nella passione] "87; e poi il suo "nome" "che nessuno conosce"
(Ap 19,12) è messo in rapporto alla sua condizione di Figlio primogenito
del Padre che 10 rende conoscitore unico dei suoi segreti e quindi anche
mediatore della loro conoscenza presso gli uomini 88 . In sintesi, è possi-
bile quindi affennare con una certa sicurezza che Origene si è ispirato ad
Ippolito nel riprendere, valorizzare e interpretare il passo di Ap 19,11ss
nel contesto della polemica antimonarchiana.
Vediamo adesso come Origene esamina (~uO'UVtçro) il testo di SaI 44,2
("il mio cuore ha emttato una buona parola") (§280-287), un passo - come
ricorda subito all'inizio - "citato spessissimo dai 'moiti' come se fosse [da
loro] compreso" (§280). Si tratta di un esame con una chiara finalità pole-
mica, ma che non punta a scmtare deI tutto l'importanza di questo testo;
percià in un primo momento concede che le parole deI SaI 44,2 possano
essere intese come dette da Dio (§281-283), e poi in un secondo momento
mostra anche la possibilità di attribuirle al profeta Davide (al salmista)
(§284-287). Percià anche se questo passo non appare usato da Origene nel
resto delle sue opere, tuttavia in questa sua prima intelpretazione (§281-
283), esso potrebbe essere considerato come una prova scritturistica in più
per fondare il secondo significato deI titolo "Logos".
Ma prima di vedere cià che Origene dice adesso sul SaI 44,2 sarà bene
ricordare cià che aveva detto circa l'intelpretazione fatta dai suoi avver-
sari (§151-152). Per Origene si tratta infatti deI passo fondamentale su
cui si basano i monarchiani che egli sta combattendo, per affennare che
il titolo "Logos" riferito al Figlio di Dio dimostra che tale Figlio è solo
"una parola pronunciata" (Â6yov O:nuyyû"Â6J.tsvov) (§152). Percià essi
"credono che il Figlio di Dio sia l'atto di pronunciare (npocpopu) da
parte del Padre, che tennina per COS! dire nelle sillabe" (§151). TI Figlio
quindi non è qua1cosa di distinto dal Padre, non ha una propria "ipostasi"
(lJ1tOO''"CUO'tç) e neppure "una sostanza come che sia" (onroç noû
87. CIo 11.61 (SC 120bis, 246-248).
88. CIo II.60 (SC 120bis, 246).
IL TITOLO "LOGOS" E LA POLEMICA ANTIMONARCHIANA NEL CIO 303
oùO'tuV) (§151). Naturalmente, si lamenta Origene, in questo modo non
si comprende più il rappOlto tra il titolo "Logos" e la nozione di "Figlio",
e tantomeno si puà accettm'e che "un taleLogos" sia "annunciato a noi
come un Logos divino, vivente pel' sé stesso", soprattutto se si considera
come un Logos che non è distinto dal Padre, giacché non puà essere
considerato un "Figlio" non avendo in sé stesso sussistenza (J.tT]
ucpsO''"Cuvat) (§152). Dalle brevi spiegazioni di Origene si comprende che
i monarchiani, attraverso la loro particolare esegesi deI passo di SaI 44,2,
vanificavano ogni spiegazione della generazione divina del Logos.
Origene inizia la sua esegesi ricordando "il bisogno di spiegazione"
(8st'"Cut 8tllYTJO'sroç) dei termini presenti nel passo (§281). Questa era
l'accusa di fondo fatta da Origene all'interpretazione dei monarchiani al
titolo "Logos", un titolo privilegiato da essi in modo quasi esclusivo
(" quasi a dire che il Cristo di Dio è soltanto Logos ") e inteso in senso
proprio (§125), e di cui non danno nessuna spiegazione (§151).
Origene dapprima spiega in modo congiunto i termini "cuore" e
"parola", e poi spiega il verbo "eruttare". "Cosa è dunque 'il. cuor~' [d~
Dio] affinché in modo conseguente (O:KoÎl,oUSroç) al cuore SI mamfest~
'la parola buona'?" (§281). L'argomento di Origene è coer~nte: s.e 1
monarchiani non spiegano (e intendono in modo letterale) il terlll1ne
Logos allora non c'è bisogno neppure di spiegare quello di "cuore" ~i
Dio, e 10 si puà intendere come una "pmte" di Dio, come succede con Il
nostro corpo. Cià naturalmente è da scartare. Bisogna invece intendere
per "cuore" di Dio "la sua potenza di pensare ('"CT]V VOll'"ClKT]V 86vuJ.ttv)
e di predisporre (Kuî npOSS'"ClKTJV) riguardo a tutte le cose" , e pel' "Logos"
invece "il messaggero ('"Co o:nuyysÎI,'"ClKOV) di cià che è in essa conte-
nuto" (§282). E conclude osservando che solo il Salvatore puà essere
colui che annuncia la volontà deI Padre aIle creature che ne sono degne.
La spiegazione del verbo "ha eruttato" (ÈçllPsu~u'"Co) viene fa~ta met~
tendo in risaIto la pmticolarità di questo verbo nspetto ad aItn che SI
sarebbero potuti usare: "ha emesso" (npo8~uÎl,sV) 0 "ha detto"
(ÈÎI,uÎl,llO'sv). L'''eruttare'' è "il venir fuori al manifesto (stç cpuvspov
npo08oç) da colui che erutta di una certa aria nascosta" COS1 il Padre
"non contenendo i teoremi della verità ('"Cà '"CT\Ç o:ÎI,llSsiuÇ SsroPTJJ.tu'"Cu),
li erutta e ne crea l'impronta ('"Cov '"Cunov) nel Logos, che pel' questo è
chiamato 'immagine deI Dio invisibile' (Col 1,15)" (§283). Ci ritroviamo
chim'amente nella dimensione rivelativa del Logos, intimamente legata al
. . . " ClOe
sua essere "nel pnnclplO . , neIl a S '
aplenza 89
.
89. Cf. CIo 1.111.113-115 (SC 120bis, 116-118.118-120). Un tema questo che in
pratica corrisponde alla generazione deI Figlio.
304 A. CASTELLANO

Tale aspetto è ripreso nell'ultimo testo citato da Origene come impor-

tante per la spiegazione (siC; 'tllv Èçs'tCww) circa il "Logos": SaI 32,6
(§288), un passo questo che anche Ippolito aveva messo in stretto rap-
porto con Gv 1,3: "Se Giovanni dice: 'Il mondo è stato fatto per opera
sua' (Gv 1,3), come dice il profeta: '1 cieli sono stati stabiliti dal Logos
deI Signore' (SaI 32,6), per certo questi è il Logos che si è anche mostrato
manifesto [con l 'incarnazione] "90.
Concludendo, stimo che si possa affermare che da un confronto appro-
fondito tra l'esegesi di Origene al Prologo di Giovanni (ma anche all'in-
tero suo vangelo) e il Contl'O N oeto di Ippolito possono emergere sempre
più elementi che da un lato chiariscono i contenuti e le tematiche di V
entrambe le opere e dall' altro mettono sempre meglio in luce il molo
importante che Origene ha svolto con la sua teologia ed esegesi pel' il COMMENTARIES, HOMILIES AND
superamento della questione monarchiana. APOCRYPHA

Università Pontificia Salesiana Antonio CASTELLANO s.d.b.

Piazza dell' Ateneo Salesiano, 1
00139 Roma (RM)
Italia
castellano@unisal.it

90. Cf. eN 12.4 (SIMONETII, 174).

 ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNIENSIS SUR LE
CANTIQUE DES CANTIQUES!

1. ORIGÈNE DANS LES cHAÎNEs SUR LE CANTIQUE

Le Cantique des cantiques est un livre auquel Origène s'est beaucoup

intéressé. li a rédigé trois écrits exégétiques sur ce livre2 : (a) un «petit
commentaire qu'il écrivit dans sa jeunesse»; (b) deux homélies sur le
début du Cantique3 ; et (c) un commentaire majeur en dix volumes. Mal-
heureusement, pour aucune de ces compositions, le texte grec complet
n'est parvenu jusqu'à nous. Par conséquent, on doit consulter les traduc-
tions latines et la tradition grecque secondaire pour se faire une idée de
l'exégèse origénienne du Cantique.
La tradition grecque indirecte est la plus riche (et la plus complexe)
dans le cas du grand commentaire en dix volumes, qui est décrit par
Jérôme comme le comble de l'exégèse d'Origène (<<alors qu'il a dépassé
tous les écrivains dans ses autres œuvres, Origène, dans le Cantique des
Cantiques, s'est surpassé lui-même», HCt, prol.)4. De ce commentaire, il
ne nous reste que des fragments dans les chaînes et une traduction latine.

1. Nous tenons à remercier notre ami Laurent Poschet qui a bien voulu relire cet
article.
2. Outre ces trois écrits, on trouve peu de citations du Cantique par Origène. Voir la
liste dans J. ALLENBACH, et al., Biblia patristica. Index des citations et al/usions bibliques
dans la littérature patristique. Vol. Ill: Origène, Paris, CNRS, 1980, pp. 207-213.
3. Ces deux homélies, probablement écrites entre 240 et 245, expliquent le texte du
Ct 1,1-2,15. Seulement un morceau du texte grec est conservé, qui a été transmis dans la
chaîne dite d'Eusèbe (sur celle-ci, voir infra). TI a été identifié et édité par Barbàra: voir
M.A. BARBÀRA, Su 1/11 frammento catenario di Origene dalle homiliae in Canticum can-
ticorum, dans M. GIRARD! - M. MARIN (éds.), Origene e l'alessandrinisl1lo cappadoce
(III-N secolo). Atti dei V Convegno dei Gmppo Italiano di ricerca su «Origene e la
tradizione alessandrina» (Bari, 20-22 settembre 2000) (Quademi di "Vetera Christiano-
rum", 28), Bari, Edipuglia, 2002, 45-47 et ORlGENE, Commentario al Cantico dei Cantici.
Testi in lingua greca. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento a cura di M.A. BARBÀRA
(Biblioteca patristica, 42), Bologna, Dehoniane, 2005, p. 298. Une traduction latine,
préparée par Jérôme vers 383, a survécu: cf. ORIGÈNE, Homélies sur le Cantique des
Cantiques. Introduction, traduction et notes par O. ROUSSEAU (SC, 37 bis), Paris, Cerf, 2007
[= 21966] (d'après ORlGENES, Homilien zu Samuel l, ZI/Ill Holzelied I/nd ZI/ den Proplzeten,
KomlIIentar ZlIIII Holzelied, in RI/fins und Hieronymus' ÜbersetzllIlgen. Herausgegeben von
W.A. BAEHRENS [GCS, 33; Origenes, 8], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1925).
4. «Origenes, Cl/III in ceteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Canticorlllll ipse se vicit»
(texte latin et traduction française cités d'après ROUSSEAU [éd.], Origène, Homélies sur le
Cantique [no 3], pp. 62-63).
 308 R. CEULEMANS
Cette version latine, rédigée par Rufin d'Aquilée au début du Se siècle,
peut être caractérisée comme une paraphrase (plutôt qu'une traduction
fidèle) de la première partie du texte grec (Ct 1,1-2,lS)5. En consé-
quence, la tradition grecque secondaire, c'est-à-dire celle des chaînes
exégétiques sur le Cantique, s'avère très importante afin de se fabriquer
une image du commentail'e d'Origène.
Des fragments de ce commentaire se trouvent dans de nombreuses
chaînes sur le Cantique. Des types de chaînes grecques énumérés dans la
Clavis Patrum Graecorum (CPG)6, seules la chaîne de Grégoire de Nysse
et Nil d'Ancyre et celle dite «des trois Pères» ne contiennent aucune
scholie origénienne. Tous les autres types présentent des fragments du
commentaire d'Origène: l'épitomé de Pl'Ocope de Gaza (CPG 7431)1; la
chaîne de Polychronios (CPG C 83); la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe de Césarée
.5. L'ouvrage ORIGÈNE, Commentaire sllr le Cantique des cantiques. Texte de la version
latme de Rufin. Introduction, traduction, notes et index par L. BRÉSARD - H. CROUZEL avec
la collaboration de M. BORRET (SC, 375-376), Paris, Cerf, 1991-1992,2 vols. nous dOlllle
le texte latin (d'après BAEHRENS [éd.], Origenes, Homilien zum Hohelied [n. 3]). Sur le
caractère de la traduction de Rufin, on peut consulter A. CERESA-GAsTALDO, Variazioni
ermeneutiche neUa traduzione rufiniana deI "Commento al Cantico dei Cantici" di Ori-
gin~, dan~ Storia. ed esegesi in Rufino di Concordia (Antichità altoadriatiche, 39), Udine,
Artl Graflche Fnulane, 1992, 125-130 et surtout la contlibution de Jean-Marie Auwers
dans le présent volume. Des références aux études consacrées aux traductions de Rufin se
trouvent dans J.-M. AUWERS, L'inteTprétation du Cantique des cantiques à travers les
chaînes exégétiques grecques (Épitomé de Procope, chaîne de Polychronios, chaîne dite
d'Eusèbe, Catena Barberiniana), Dissertation présentée pour l'obtention du grade d'Agrégé
de l'Enseignement Supérieur, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2007,
2 vols, II, pp. 287-288 n. 4 et dans P. VAN DEUN, The Church Historians after Eusebius,
dans G. MARAsco (éd.), Greek & Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixtll
Century A.D., Leiden- Boston, MA, BriII, 2003, 151-176, pp. 173-175.
. .M.
~ GEERARD, Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Volumen N: Concilia, catenae (Corpus
Chnstlanorum), Tumhout, Brepols, 1980, nOS C 80-C 85. (Il faut omettre le n° C 86. Aucun
des manuscrits groupés sous ce numéro n'est une vraie chaille sur le Cantique. Le Vatica-
nus, Barberinianus gr. 332 [s. XN], ff. 33 v -39 contient en fait l'homélie De Turture seu
de Ecclesia de Ps.-Chrysostome: voir BARBÀRA [éd.], Origene, Commentario al Cantico
[no 3], p. 130 n. 184. Le Vatican us, Ottobonianus gr. 333 [s. XV], ff. 119-141' est un
~ém~in d'un commenta~e ~e Ps.-Nil d'Ancyre sur le Cantique: voir S. LucÀ, La fine
lIledlta deI commento dl Nilo d'Ancira al Cantico dei Cantici, dans Augustinianum 22
[1982]365-403, p. 369. Le Roman us, Casanatensis 241 [s. XI], ff. 185v -198 ne donne que
le texte grec du Cantique, sans exégèse. Seul l'Atllous, 1viron 555 [s. XN], ff. 261-263
[c~pié .dans l'Athous, S~iti Timi?u Prodromou1viron 3 (a. 1709)] contient des fragments
exegétlques sur l~ CantIque, malS aucun extrait d'Origène est identifié: voir P. GÉHIN Un
nouvel inédit d'Evagre le Pontique: Son Commentaire de l'Ecclésiaste dans Byza/;tion
49 [1979] 188-198, p. 190; ÉVAGRE LE PONTIQUE, Scholies aux Proverbes. Introduction
texte critique, traduction, notes, appendices et index par P. GÉHIN [SC, 340], Paris, Cerf:
1987, p. 65 n. 1; BARBÀRA [éd.], Origene, Commentario al Cantico [no 3], pp. 131-132.)
7. Et la catena Barberiniana, qui fait preuve d'un grand intérêt pour les scholies
d'Origène et qui est sans doute liée à l'épitomé de Procope. La nature de cette liaison
constitue un nœud de discorde. Comparez M. FAULHABER, Hohelied-, Proverbien- und
ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNIENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE 309
(CPG C 84, qui est en réalité d'origine inconnue - voir ci-dessous); et
la catena Cantabrigiensis (CPG C 8S)8. Deux fragments du commentaire
sur le Cantique sont incorporés dans des compilations qui ne sont pas des
chaînes sur le Cantique9 , c'est-à-dire dans la Philocalie et dans la chaîne
sur les épîtres catholiques dite d'Andréas 1o•
En outre, après la publication de la Clavis (dans laquelle les auteurs
ont copié des bilans antérieurs des manuscrits des chaînes sur le Can-
tique 11) , Maria Antonietta Barbàra a découvert une autre compilation
dans laquelle se trouvent des scholies empruntées au commentaire d'Ori-
gène sur le Cantique 12 : elle a identifié l'Athous, Iviron 566 (s. XIV),
ff. 3-6 comme le seul témoin d'une catena Athonita 13 • Ce manuscrit ne
contient de scholies que sur les trois demiers chapitres du Cantique
(Ct 6-8), dans la forme d'une chaîne à pleine page. Il contient des frag-
Prediger-Catenen (Theologische Studien der Leo-Gesellschaft, 4), Wien, Mayer, 1902,
pp. 37-39; M.A. BARBÀRA, La catena sul Cantico dei cantici trasmessa dal codice Bar-
beriniano gr. 388, dans Adamantius 14 (2008) 329-351; PROCOPII GAZAEI Epitome in
CantiCll1ll canticorum. Editio critica [parata a] J.-M. AUWERS. Dissertation présentée pour
l'obtention du grade d'Agrégé de l'Enseignement Supérieur, Université catholique de
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2007, pp. LXI-LXXII.
8. Sur cette chaîne, voir FAULHABER, Hohelied-Catenen (n. 7), pp. 65-69; NIL
D'ANcYRE, Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques. Tome 1. IntI'oduction, texte cri-
tique, traduction et notes par M.-G. GUÉRARD (SC, 403), Paris, Cerf, 1994, pp. 87-88;
BARBÀRA (éd.), Origene, Commentario al Cantico (n. 3), pp. 127-129.
9. On trouve ces textes dans BARBÀRA (éd.), Origene, Commentario al Cantico (n. 3),
pp. 292-298.
10. En outre, la chaille sur le prophète Jérémie attl'Ïbuée à Jean Droungarlos contient
une brève scholie anonyme sur Ct 1,5. Plusieurs éditeurs l'ont identifiée comme un pas-
sage du commentaire d'Origène sur le Cantique (cf. BAEHRENS [éd.], Origenes, Homilien
zum Hohelied [no 3], p. uv; BRÉSARD - CROUZEL [éds.], Origène, Commentaire sur le
Cantique [no 5], pp. 466-467; BARBÀRA [éd.], Origene, CommentarÎo al Cantico [no 3],
pp. 526-529). Récemment, Auwers a contesté cette identification: cf. AUWERS,
L'intelprétation du Cantique (n. 5), II, p. 287 n. 3.
11. À savoir G. KARo -1. LIETZMANN, Catenarum graecamm catalogus, dans Nach-
richten von der Kihziglichen Gesellschaft der Wissensclzaften ZII Gottingen. Philologisch-
historische Klasse (1902) 1-66,299-350 et 559-620, ici pp. 313-319 et FAULHABER, Hohe-
lied-Catel/en (n. 7), pp. 1-73.
12. Un autre manuscrit peut être ajouté à la découverte de Barbàra: G.c. HANSEN, Zwei
Splitter Friihchristlicller Literatur, dans Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993) 85-87, p. 86 a écrit
qu'un savant du 14e siècle avait ajouté la première phrase du commentaire d'Origène dans
la marge du Florentinus, Laurentianus Plut. LXX, 7 (s. X), f. 243 v • (D'après Barbàra, un
autre manuscrit -l'AthoIlS, 1viron 165 [s. XV], ff. 195-197 v - contient dans les marges au
commentaire sur le Cantique de Néophyte le Reclus une châme anonyme avec des schol-
ies anonymes rédigées sur la base du commentaire d'Origène; voir BARBÀRA [éd.], Ori-
gene, Commentario al Cantico [no 3], pp. 130 [no 184] et 490. Nous ne sommes pas
d'accord, comme nous le montrerons dans un autre article. Ce texte n'est pas une chaîne,
mais fait partie du commentaire de Néophyte: les matériaux origéniens que
Barbàra croit identifier sont en fait des allusions dans le texte de Néophyte).
13. BARBÀRA (éd.), Origene, Commentario al Cantico (n. 3), p. 114.
 310 R. CEULEMANS
ments d'Origène, de Grégoire de Nysse et de Philon de Carpasie mais il
manque un titre et les identifications des auteurs. Récemment, nous avons
argumenté qu'en fait cet Iviron 566 n'est pas le seul témoin d'une catena
Athonita, mais un témoin partiel d'un autre type de chaîne que nous
avons identifié comme la catena Hauniensis sur le Cantique l4 .
De tous les fragments du grand commentaire d'Origène sur le Can-
tique, seuls ceux qui figurent dans l'épitomé de Procope sont édités de
façon critique 1s • Comme cet épitomé occupe une place centrale dans
l'ensemble des chaînes sur le Cantique 16 , on peut supposer que le contenu
principal des matériaux grecs du commentaire d'Origène qui sont arrivés
à notre connaissance est déjà publié avec l'édition critique de l'épitomé
de Procope. Néanmoins, l'examen des fragments grecs du commentaire
d'Origène est loin d'être achevé. On attend l'édition et l'étude des frag-
ments qui sont transmis dans les autres chaînes, parce que le commen-
taire du Père alexandrin n'est évidemment pas utilisé de la même façon
dans toutes ces compilations. Ces recherches peuvent éclairer la manière
dont le commentaire d'Origène était lu dans le christianisme patristique
et byzantin. De plus, elles peuvent aussi avancer le dénouement de
l'écheveau des relations entre les diverses chaînes.
C'est précisément un tel examen qu'envisage cet alticle: une étude de
la manière dont une chaîne spécifique sur le Cantique, c'est-à-dire la
catena Hauniensis, s'est servie du commentaire d'Origène sur ce livre.
Le but n'est pas de découvrir des fragments inconnus de ce commentaire,
mais plutôt de montrer comment le compilateur a lu et utilisé les frag-
ments origéniens qu'il avait à sa disposition.
II. ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNIENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE
La chaîne dont nous étudions des fragments d'Origène est la catena
Hauniensis, que nous avons découverte récemment 17 • De cette chaîne
encore inédite, trois témoins complets sont préservés. Ils présentent tous
la disposition d'une chaîne marginale: le Hauniensis, Garnie Kongelige
14. R. CEULEMANS, A Catena Hauniensis Diseovered for fhe Book of Cal/fic/es, dans
ETL 85 (2009) 63-70.
15. Dans BARBÀRA (éd.), Origel/e, Commel/tario al Cal/fieo (n. 3) et dans AUWERS (éd.),
Proeopii Epifome il/ Cal/fiel/m (n. 7). Les scholies isolées qui se trouvent dans la Philoealie,
dans la chaîne d'Andréas sur les épîtres catholiques et dans celle de Jean Droungarios sur
Jérémie (sur laquelle: voir notre n. 10) sont incluses dans l'édition de Barbàra.
16. Ce jugement s'applique aussi bien aux fragments d'Origène qu'à ceux des autres
Pères.
17. CEULEMANS, A Catena Hauniensis (n. 14), pp. 63-70.
ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNIENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE 311
Samling 6,2 0 (s. X), ff. 142v -151 (= H); le Vindobonensis, theologicus
gr. 11 (s. XI), ff. 77 v -86; le Mosquensis, Bibliothecae Synodalis 147
(Vladimir 41) (s. XIII), ff. 142v -151. Bien que, dans ces trois manuscrits,
l'exégèse soit identifiée comme un résumé des homélies sur le Cantique
de Grégoire de Nysse l8 , nous croyons qu'elle peut être appelée une
chaîne. D'après nous, l'Athous, Iviron 566 (= A), que Barbàra a identifié
comme un catena Athonita, est en fait un témoin partiel de la catena
Hauniensis l9 •
Malgré son titre (cité dans notre n. 18), la catena Hauniensis ne
contient pas seulement l'exégèse de Grégoire de Nysse: on y trouve aussi
des fragments d'Origène, de Philon de Carpasie et de Cyrille d'Alexan-
drie. Toutefois, il est clair que Grégoire est la source principale jusqu'au
Ct 6,9, le verset jusqu'auquel il a commenté le Cantique dans ses homé-
lies 20 • Les fragments des autres Pères se trouvent surtout à partir du
Ct 6,10. Néanmoins, la présence de quelques fragments non-grégoriens
avant la démarcation du verset 6,9 (c'est vrai, ils sont fOIt peu nombreux:
voir le bilan dans l'annexe de cet article) peut indiquer que la chaîne
constituait un ensemble dès le début et qu'elle n'est pas le résultat d'une
addition postérieure, ajoutée pour compléter un résumé des sermons de
Grégoire 21 • Cette hypothèse peut être corroborée par une autre observa-
tion. Si déjà on peut identifier une sorte de démarcation, elle ne figure
pas en Ct 6,9 mais en 5,14, verset pour lequel la première identification
d'auteur (qui est en même temps l'avant-dernière) est donnée dans la
marge22 • En outre, le verset 5,14 est aussi le point à partir duquel nous
18. Voir le titre de la chaîne: Tou ayio\J rpllyo[pio\J] NUQ'(Ylle; Épllll[Vetu] de; 'tà
"~O'IlU'tu 'trov ~O'Il('Hrov Èv O'\JV'tOWfl (H, f. 142V ).
19. Nous avons développé cette thèse ailleurs. Voir CEULEMANS, A Catena Hauniensis
(n. 14), pp. 67-68.
20. Ses quinze sermons s'alTêtent au Ct 6,9. Dans son prologue, Grégoire a expliqué
que les circonstances l'ont empêché de continuer son exégèse au-delà (cf. GREGORll
NYSSENI il/ Cal/fiel/m Cal/fieorum. Edidit H. LANGERBECK [Gregorii Nysseni opera, 6],
Leiden, Brill, 1986 [= 1960], p. 13).
21. À première vue, l'observation que le manuscrit A ne contient que la dernière partie
du Cantique semble suppOlter l'idée d'une addition caténaire qui est ajoutée au résumé
des homélies de Grégoire. Ce n'est en réalité pas le cas: dans son état incomplet actuel,
le manuscrit A ne commence pas au Ct 6,9, mais il/ medias res, à la fin du Ct 6,1. (On
peut se demander à quel verset le début du texte dans le manuscrit A se trouverait dans
l'état complet du manuscrit. Si le nombre de pages qui manquent est de deux, comme le
pense S.P. LAMPROS, Ku'tuÂoyoe; 'trov Èv 'tule; ~t~ÂlOl}~Kule; 'tou 'Ayio\J "Opo\Je;
ÉÂÂl1V1KroV KroùiKrov. TOlloe; ùsu'tspoe;. Cafalogl/e of fhe Greek Mal/llseripfs 01/ Mali/If
Afhos. Volume II, Cambridge, University Press, 1900, p. 171, la chaîne n'aurait jamais été
complète dans A, manuscrit dans lequel le Ct 6,1-8,14 occupe cinq feuillets.)
22. C'est le nom d'Origène. La deuxième et demière identification d'auteur (sans
compter le titre) est celle de Grégoire de Nysse au Ct 6,8 (dans H etA). Voir aussi CEULE-
MANS, A Catena Hauniensis (n. 14), pp. 65-66.
312 R. CEULEMANS
avons pu identifier avec celtitude des fragments appartenant à Origène.
Est-il possible que le Ct 5,14 soit une démarcation dans la composition
de la chaîne? Une réponse définitive ne peut que résulter d'un examen
approfondi de toute la chaîne, d'une comparaison avec les autres chaînes
sur le Cantique (surtout avec la deuxième partie de la chaîne dite
d'Eusèbe23 ) et avec les méthodes des catenae Haunienses à l'Ecclésiaste,
à Job et aux Proverbes.
Une telle recherche exhaustive n'est pas le but de cet article, qui ne se
veut qu'un examen de la manière dont Origène est présent dans la chaîne.
Nous traitons quelques fragments du grand commentaire d'Origène sur
le Cantique qui sont compilés dans la catena Hauniensis. li faut souligner
que tous ces fragments se situent dans la partie de la chaîne suivant
Ct 5,14. Dans la chaîne, on ne trouve qu'une scholie (celle du Ct 5,14)
pour laquelle le nom d'Origène est donné. Toutes les autres sont ano-
nymes: leur indentification résulte de notre propre comparaison avec les
fragments origéniens des autres chaînes sur le Cantique24 .
li faut donc insister sur le fait que cette étude ne pmt pas à la recherche
des fragments origéniens inconnus. Elle se focalise plutôt sur des scholies
dont la paternité origénienne peut être détenninée sur la base d'une com-
paraison avec les fragments d'Origène préservés dans les autres chaînes.
La chaîne avec laquelle les fragments d'Origène et des autres Pères de la
catena Hauniensis sont comparés ici est l'épitomé de Procope 25 . Comme
nous l'avons précisé plus haut, l'épitomé occupe une place centrale dans
la tradition des chaînes sur le Cantique: le plus souvent, ses fragments
sont plus proches de la formulation originale que les scholies dans les
autres chaînes, comme celle de Polychronios.
Une première lecture de la catena Hauniensis révèle 19 fragments
(tous à pmtir du Ct 5,14) dans lesquels on trouve des matériaux emprun-
tés au commentaire d'Origène et qui se trouvent dans l'épitomé de Pro-
cope26 . li est clair que ces deux compilations font partie de la même
23. Sur cette chaîne, voir l'annexe de cet article.
24. Une telle comparaison est la seule manière par laquelle on peut identifier les frag-
ments d'Origène. Comme nous l'avons écrit plus haut, il n'y a pas de tradition directe et
la traduction de Rufin s'arrête à l'interprétation du Ct 2,15. En outre, de tous les autres
Pères qui sont compilés dans la eatel/a Hal/I/iel/sis (à l'exception de Grégoire de Nysse),
les textes originaux n'ont pas subsisté. Aussi, afin d'étudier leurs fragments, faut-il
recourir aux autres chaînes sur le Cantique.
25. L'édition des fragments origéniens de l'épitomé de Procope à laquelle nous nous
référons, est celle de BARBÀRA (éd.), Origel/e, Comlllel/tario al Cal/tieo (n. 3): pour le
moment, elle est plus accessible que celle d'AuwERs (éd.), Proeopii Epitome il/ Cal/tiel/111
(n. 7). Ce choix ne comporte aucun jugement de valeur.
26. Évidemment, ce nombre dépend des identifications faites par l'éditeur de l'épi-
tomé. Voir notre n. 72.
ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNJENSIS sUR LE CANTIQUE 313
tradition. Ce qui attire immédiatement l'œil est le grand nombre des
scholies dans laquelle l'exégèse origénienne est mélangée avec celle d'un
autre Père, presque toujours Philon de Cm~pasie27:
1. Ad Ct 5,14bu (f. 148 dans le manuscrit H): "Ecrn of> ... vo~ou
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 49).
2. Ad Ct 6,5ab (f. 148V) : Oi à<p~aÀ~ot ... Sil'Et
= Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG 40, 116AB) et Origène (cf. Barbàra
n° 52).
3. Ad Ct 6,10 (f. 149): 'H n:pOKon:.oucra ... <'>~ootatwç
= Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 55) et Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG 40,
117C).
4. Ad Ct 7,2ab (f. 149): Tàç n:poKon:àç ... dpilvTJç
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 58)28 et Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG 40,
121C)29.
5. Ad Ct 7,2c-4 (f. 149): Toùç ~TJpoùç ... 0TJÀot
= Origène (cf. Barbàra nOS 59-60) et Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG
40, 124B-125A).
6. Ad Ct 7,5bc (f. 149V) : Tocroihov <PTJcrt ... Ép~TJvE6E.at
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 62) et Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 63) ou
Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG 40, 125B)30.
7. Ad Ct 7,5de (f. 149 V): '0 Ka~apàv ... <'> ~uK'ilp
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 64).
8. Ad Ct 7,6a (f. 149V ) : KE<paÀ'i] ... n:Ept'O~fts
= Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 64).
9. Ad Ct 7,8b (f. 149V): Tà voil~a.a ... à~<paKtsov.a
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 66).
10. Ad Ct 7,9ab (f. 149V): "0-.' av yàp Kpa'ilcrn ... aù.oi3
=Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG 40, 129D-132A) et Origène (cf. Bar-
bàra n° 67).
11. Ad Ct 7,12-13a (f. 149V) : 'A1;tot ... SKKÀTJcrtatÇ
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 69) et Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG 40,
133BC).
27. Une liste plus détaillée des scholies origéniennes de la catena Hall/del/sis se trouve
dans l'annexe de cet article. Comme nous n'avons découvert la catel/a Hal/I/iel/sis que
récemment et que nos projets de recherches s'occupent d'autres sujets, nous n'avons pas
encore eu l'occasion d'étudier la chaîne de façon très détaillée. Ces deux bilans sont donc
provisoires: ils ne résultent que d'une première lecture. TI est fort possible que des recher-
ches futures apporteront des modifications.
28. Voir notre n. 77.
29. Voir notre n. 52.
30. Voir notre n. 82.
314 R. CEULEMANS ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNIENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE 315

12. Ad Ct 8,la (f. 150): Mfj'"CTJp ... '"Cilv SW'"COKOV sommes posée. est celle du rapport entre ces scholies et 'celles figurant
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 70) et Cyrille d'Alexandrie (cf. PO 69, dans l'épitomé de Procope.
1292C). En règle générale, les scholies d'Origène de la catena Hauniensis se
13. Ad Ct 8,lb-2au (f. 150): EupiGKouGa ... ÈXSpotç rapprochent assez de celles de l'épitomé. Dans la plupart des fragments
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 71) et Philon de Carpasie (cf. PO 40, de la Hauniensis, on reconnaît facilement le texte de l'épitomé. Les
138D-140C)31. accords verbaux entre les deux chaînes sont nombreux. Dans la catena
14. Ad Ct 8,3 (f. 150): '0 JlÈv vOJloç ... 8Eu'"CÉpa Hauniensis, les fragments sont généralement plus courts et formulés de
= Origène (?) (cf. Barbàra n° 74?2. façon plus heurtée.
15. Ad Ct 8,4 (f. 150): 'OpKiÇEt ... SEOÇ En ce qui concerne les fragments d'Origène, la catena Hauniensis
= Origène (?) (cf. Barbàra n° 75)33. appartient à la même tradition que l'épitomé de Procope. On a l'impres-
16. Ad Ct 8,6a-d (f. 150): IIpO'"CpÉnE'"Cat ... G'"Cpa'"Ctonaç sion que l'épitomé offre une meilleure voie d'accès vers le texte original
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 79). d'Origène que la catena Hauniensis 38 •
17. Ad Ct 8,8bc (f. 150V): m üytot ... vwcponiG'"Ccov (1) Voir, par exemple, la scholie origénienne sur le verset 8,12 (àJlnE-
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 84)34. MN Jlou ÈJloç ÈVcOntov Jlou' Ot XiÀ,tot Goi, LaÀ,COJlcOV, Kat oi 8taKo-
18. Ad Ct 8,9-10 (f. 150V): Et CHEpEà ... nopycov Gtot '"Cots '"CTJpouGt '"COV Kapnov aù'"Cou)39:
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 84)35.
19. Ad Ct 8,12b-13 (f. 150V): m XiÀ,tot .. , m'nou Cafena Hallniensis Épitomé de Procope
= Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 87)36. Di XiÎ-tot elcr!v lOto 10Ù ÙjllWÎ-rovoÇ ùvuKsi- Tuù1u ehe 1~Ç ÈKKÀ.Tjcriuç ehe 1~Ç VUjl<j>Tjç
jlevot 1<'!l LUÎ-OjlroV, 01 Ol; olUKocrtot ol1tep! 10Ù Myo\J IjI\JX~ç, È<j>' BKU1ÉpUÇ ùjl1teÎ-wv
Aux pages suivantes, celtaines de ces scholies sont étudiées: quelques- 1à uÎ-tKrol:epU OlUKoVoUjlevot Ol; wiS aylOlS, KUp1tO<j>Opoç voet1ut, KU! oivoç eù<j>puiVffiV
unes dans lesquelles Origène est le seul Père cité et quelques-unes qui se rus wiS ÙltoO'toÎ-OtS b I:tÉ«j!uvoS KUt oi JIU' Kupoiuv ùvi)pomo\J, ~OTj Ol; KU! crffil:~pOS
uùwU. 10Ù ùÎ-Tji)roç dpTjVtKOÙ. AÉyet yoùv Èv 101S
composent de matériaux d'Origène et d'un autre Père. Pour chacune des Kpaulç 1tpOç 1à C,uÎ-u ~ üjl1teÎ-oç' 'A<j>elcru
deux catégories, nous exposons un aspect spécifique des fragments qui 10V otvov jlo\J, 1~V eù<j>pocruVTjV WÙ i)wù
se trouvent dans la catena Hauniensis, à l'aide d'une comparaison avec KU! ùVi)pro1tffiV, 1tope\Ji)~crojlut üpXetv 1roV
l'épitomé de Procope37 . C,UÎ-ffiV; OÙKOÙV ÙKOÎ-O\Ji)ov Kul 10V Xptcr-
10V Ù1tO KUp1tOÙ 1~Ç 10lUUl:TjS ùjl1tÉÎ-o\J Î-ujl-
pavetv, oltep OTjÎ-OI10 01 XiÎ-tot WÙ LUÎ-O-
jlrov. EIKOÇ Ol; KU! 10ÙÇ <j>UÎ-UKUÇ ùyyÉÎ-o\Jç
III. EXAMEN DE QUELQUES SCHOLIES ORIGÉNIENNES DANS LA jle1uÎ-Ujlpavetv 10Ù 1~Ç VUjl<j>TjS ùjl1teÎ-rovoç,
CATENA HAUNIENSIS oltep 1tUpicr1U1Ut otà 10Ù Kui' Di OlUKocrtot
10lÇ 1TjpOÙcrt 10V Kuprrov UÙWÙ. Où yàp
jlOVOV 1iS <j>\J1euet, Kut 1iS 1Tjpei ùjl1teÎ-rovu
1. Scholies ol'igéniennes Kut où <j>aye1ut 10V KUp1tOV UÙWù; Tà 1tep!
i)wù wiv\JV OOyjlU1U 01 XiÎ-toi dcrt,
Pour ce qui est des fragments origéniens qui ne contiennent pas de cr\Jyyevroç 8XOVl:eÇ 1Îi jlovaot, 10 LUÎ-OjlWV
matériaux empruntés à un autre exégète, la question que nous nous
31. Voir notre n. 87.
32. Voir notre n. 89. 38. Cette observation n'implique rien en ce qui concerne la source concrète de la
33. Voir notre n. 90. cafena Hauniensis.
34. Voir notre n. 92. 39. Toutes les citations du texte grec du Cantique sont tirées de Sepfllaginta. Id est
35. Voir notre n. 92. Vefus Testalllentulll graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Edidit A. RAHLFS, Stuttgart, Deutsche
36. Voir notre n. 95. Bibelgesellschaft, 1982 [= 1935],2 vols., II, pp. 260-271. Des fragments de l'épitomé de
37. Une comparaison additionnelle avec la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe serait utile. Mais Procope sont toujours cités d'après BARBÀRA (éd.), Origene, COllllllentario al Cantico
comme les méthodes et les sources de cette compilation elle-même ne sont pas encore (n. 3) (voir notre n. 25). Les passages de la catena Ha//Iliensis sont empruntés au manuscrit
examinées de façon détaillée, une telle comparaison est impossible pour le moment. Voir H: ils ne sont pas édités de façon critique. Pour chaque exemple, les différences entres les
l'annexe de cet article. deux compilations qui sont analysées sont marquées en gras.
316 R. CEULEMANS
ÙVaKElJ.lEVot' 1:à oÈ ItEp! «DV Ka1:à1:~v ÜÂ.1]V
Ka! 1:à al<Jlt1]1:à 1:01Ç OlaKOVOIlJ.lSVOIÇ sv 1:n
üÂ.n OlaKO<J!OIÇ, ItpOç 1:~V olluoa <Jllyys-
VElaV ilXOIl<JI' ItEp! div 1:0' Tn yàp J.la1:aIÔ-
1:1]n ~ n!<Jlç ÛltE1:Uy1] OÙX ÉKOU<Ja, ÙÂ.Â.Ù
olà 1:0V Û1t01:uçavw. Ma1:atô1:1]ç yàp ~ üÂ.1]
Ka! 1:à <JCOJ.lanKU. m oÈ KapltO! 1:0U ÙJ.lltE-
Àrovoç, ùcp' div 0\ X!ÀIOI Ka! 0\ OlaKÔ<JIOI
O!OOVWI, 0\ Û1tÈp 1:rov Â.1]vrov EI<J1 'PaÀJ.lo!,
~V!Ka 0\ Kap1tol 1:OU ÙJ.lltEÀroVOÇ SKltIE-
ÇÔJ.lEVOI 1:0V Eùcppa!VOV1:a ltEOV Ka!
ùVltpc01tOIlÇ Ka! 1:0Ùç 1:1]pOUVWç otvov Itot~­
<JOIl<JIV.
La source des fragments d'Origène qui apparaissent dans la catena
Hauniensis semble être la tradition caténaire, et non pas la tradition
directe du commentaire du Père. On peut conclure cela des différences
entre cette chaîne et l'épitomé de Procope. Un examen de ces diver-
gences montre qu'elles ne sont pas le résultat d'un emprunt à la tradi-
tion directe et qu'elles ne font pas partie du texte origénien d'origine.
Elles sont probablement secondaires et proviennent des interventions
du compilateur de la catena Hauniensis (ou de la tradition caténaire
antérieure).
Le passage cité ci-dessus, par exemple, montre que la catena Haunien-
sis résume les mots d'Origène et ajoute une comparaison finale pour
rendre l'exégèse plus claire. Ces interventions paraissent secondaires.
(2) Voici le texte du Ct 7,5de: j.tUK'tYtP O'ou cOç; nûpyoç; 'toô At~uvou
O'KOn€ÛCOV npoO'conov Lluj.tuO'KOÔ. La scholie origénienne de la catena
Hauniensis présente beaucoup de ressemblance avec celle de l'épitomé
de Procope:
Catena Haz/lliensis Épitomé de Procope
'0 Kaltapàv Ëxcov 1:~V ùvaltvo~v 1:rov ÀOY!cov '0 oÈ Kaltapàv BXCOV 1:~V Ola1tVO~V Ka!, olà
1:rov ltEicov Ka! OIlVUJ.lEVOÇ {)1t!<JCO 0EOÎl clç 1:~ç al<Jlt~<JEcoç 1:0UltE!01l ÀÔYOIl, OIlVUJ.lEVOÇ
60'J.I~V J.lUpCOV OpaJ.lEIV olà 1:~ç al<Jlt~<JEcoç, 61t!<JCO aù1:OU Elç 6<JJ.lTtv J.lUpCOV aÙ1:0U
J.l1lK1:~p sO'nv a!<JltaVÔJ.lEVOÇ Eùcoo!aç OpaJ.lEIV, J.lIlKl~p s<Jnv a!O'ltaVÔJ.lEVOÇ
ItVEIlJ.lanK~ç, <JKOltEUCOV Ei n sV 1:01Ç ËltVE<Jt Eùcoo!aç ItVEIlJ.la1:1K~ç, <JK01tEUCOV Ei 1:1 S1tl-
OôYJ.lU s<Jn VOJ.llÇÔJ.lEVOV clval s1ttcpavsç. cpavÈç sv ËltVE<Jl OôYJ.la OOKEt. daJ.lUO'KOç
daJ.la<JKOç yàp slti1:rov sltvrov 1:SWK1:al' 1:0U yàp 1:à illtV1] ltap!<J1:1]O'I' 1:0U oÈ s1ttcpavouç
oÈ KUÂ.ÀOIlÇ <JUJ.lPoÀOV 1:0 npô<JC01tOV. '0 Oà Ka! KaÀou 1:0 ItpôO'conov <JUJ.lPoÀOV. '0 OÈ
A!pavoç ùvacpspE1:at s1ti ltllO'IUO'l~plOV A!pavoç ùvacpspE1:al s1tI1:0 ltIlO'la<Jl~pIOV
0cou i(J ltapapuÎJ,uat Ô J1IlKt~p. 1:0U ltcoU. '0 oÈ KUPJ.l1]Àoç S1t!YVCOO'IÇ
nEpl't'OJ.l~Ç ÉPJ.l1]VEUE't'al· ylVcO<JKEI oÈ ItEpl-
1:OJ.l11V 0 J.lE't'à napP1]<J!aç ÀByElV OIlVUJ.lEVOÇ'
'HJ.lElç S<JJ.lEV ~ ItEpl't'OJ.l~. 'Alto oÈ 1:~ç
KEcpaÀ~ç, 't'oll't's<Jn Xpt0'1:0U, slt!YVCO<J1ç
ItVEIlJ.lanK~ç SyEV~lt1] ItEpl't'OJ.l~Ç.
ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNJENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE 317
Les derniers mots du fragment dans la catena Hauniensis semblent être
ajoutés pour expliciter la comparaison qui se trouve dans le texte biblique.
Expliciter ce qui est implicite constitue aussi la raison pour laquelle le
pronom personnel UlYrOÔ est remplacé par 0€oô dans une allusion au
Ct l,4ab: une telle intervention accentue l'interprétation d'Origène.
(3) Les différences entre les deux versions de l'exégèse origénienne
du Ct 8,6a-d (SÉç; j.t€ cOç; 0'<ppuyt8u Ènt Tilv KupMuv O'OU, cOç; 0'<ppuyt8u
Ènt 'tov ~pUXlovu O'ou' on Kpu'tutà cOç; Suvu'tOç; àyunYJ, O'KÀ-YJPOÇ; cOç;
(i8YJç; çfjÀ-oç;) sont les suivantes:
Ca/ena Hauniellsis Épitomé de Procope
IIpOtpSnE'tal aùtllv 0 VIlJ.lcp!OÇ niiv vÔ1]J.la IIpO't'pSltE't'al aùtllv 0 VIlJ.lcp!OÇ Itiiv VÔ1]fla
Kat nàO'av npiiçlV J.lopcproO'at 't'<1"> Éall1:OU Kat npàçlV J.lopcproO'al 't'<1"> ÉalltOU xapaKt~pl.
xapan~pl, Ka! 't'~V ah!av 't'ou taÎÎta IIowtv oÈ WUtU cp1]<Jl 't'~v mç ltuva't'ov Kpa-
yEVSO'ltat OÜtCOç Kat J.lopcpcolt~vat S1ttcpSpEl, 't'alàv ùyun1]v. IIuvw yàp O'1:SyEt, ItUV1:U
ùya1t1]v EIval Â.sycov 't'~V mç ltuva1:OV Kpa- Û1t0J.lSVEt· 010 Kat Kpa1:atà Ka't'à ltava1:OV
tatav. 'H yàp ùyun1] ItUVW <J1:SyEl, ItUVW VEKPOUV1:U <olà> 't'~V aJ.lap1:!av. "Hyollv
1tlO''t'EUEl' Ola1:OÎÏtô SO''t'l Kpatalà, on nuvw SltE10~ ltaV1:COV SKpUt1]<JEV 0 ltava1:Oç, olà
Û1t0J.lSVEI. "H40 1:0U1:O ÀSyEl Ô XP10'tOS 1tpOç 't'O sv 1:<1"> 'AoàJ.lltavwç Ù1toltV~<JKElV, Ka! 0
aÙ1:~v' ltsç J.lE mç <Jcppayloa, 1tpOç 't'O {lo1]ç OJ.lo!coç, 't'OlaUt1], cp1]O'(V, ~ ùyalt1]' Kat
<Jcppay!ÇE1V 't'àç sVltIlJ.l~<JE1Ç <J01l Ka! 't'àç 0 ç~Àoç, ÔV oct ç1]ÀOUV 't'<1"> ltE<1">, <JKÀ1]pOÇ
ItpaçEtç, Ka! Ecoç ltava't'oll ùycOV10'at ÛltÈp Ka1:à 't'rov aJ.lapWVÔVtCOV Û1tUPXCOV, mç 0 1:OU
1:~ç ùÀ1]ltEiaç. Kat sv 't'<1"> {lon oÈ 't'ov XplO'- 'HÂ!oll Kat 't'ou <PtVESÇ . .oH 't'OUtO ÀSyEl 0
't'ov sç~Àco<Jav 0\ 'Iolloalol, Û1tocpltEipaVtEç VIlJ.lcp!OÇ ItpOç aÙt~v' 0Éç J.lE mç O'cppayloa,
tOÙç <J1:patlcOtaç. ItpOç 't'o <Jcppay!ÇElV 't'àç SVltIlJ.l~O'EtÇ <J01l Kat
1:àç ItpUÇE1Ç, Kat Ëcoç ltavu't'oll ùYcOvt<Jat
Û1tÈp 't'~ç ùÂ.1]ltEiaç. Kat sv 1:<1"> {lon oÈ 1:0V
Xpl<J1:0V sç~Àco<Jav 0\ 'Iolloalot, Û1tocp-
ltE!paVtEç 't'oùç <J't'pancOwç.
Comme dans le deuxième exemple, un des personnages du Cantique
(6 VUj.t<p1oç;), qui est évoqué dans la scholie, est identifié plus exactement
dans la catena Hauniensis (6 XptO''toç;), conformément à l'interprétation
d'Origène. Une autre différence est l'allusion qu'Origène fait à 1 Co 13,7:
tout porte à croire que les mots nuv'tu 1ttO''t€Û€t dans la catena Haunien-
sis sont ajoutés afin de compléter la citation.
Plusieurs différences et additions de la catena Hauniensis sont des
modifications secondaires qui se sont passées dans la tradition caténaire,
plutôt que des échos du texte original d'Origène 41 •
40. Bien que dans les chaînes la conjonction il introduit souvent la scholie d'un autre
exégète (ou nne autre exégèse du même Père), ceci ne semble pas être le cas ici. Aussi bien
AUWERS (éd.), Procopii Epitome in CanticZ/fIl (n. 7), nO 361 que BARBÀRA (éd.), Origene,
COfllfllentario al Canfico (n. 3), n° 79 ont édité la scholie comme un seul ensemble. Nous
remercions Gilles Dorival (Aix-Marseille I) qui a attiré notre attention sur cette conjonction.
41. Néanmoins, quelques autres parties des scholies origéniennes de la catena Hozmi-
ensis qui ne se trouvent pas dans l'épitomé pourraient contenir des fragments du com-
318 R. CEULEMANS
2. Scholies mêlées
L'énumération des scholies donnée plus haut montre qu'il y a beau-
coup de scholies dans la catena Hauniensis qui contiennent des maté-
riaux aussi bien d'Origène que d'un autre Père. La question qui s'impose
est la suivante: quelle place occupe le Père alexandrin dans ces fragments
mêlés 42 ?
Philon de Carpasie est le Père auquel Origène est joint le plus souvent.
On pense que ce Père plutôt inconnu occupait le siège épiscopal de Car-
pasie à Chypre au 4-5 e siècle. Malheureusement, il s'avère très difficile
d'identifier le texte original de ce commentaire, car sa tradition textuelle
brille par sa complexité43 . Des morceaux de son commentaire sont trans-
mis en quatre formes: un texte transmis en tradition directe44 ; une tra-
duction latine réalisée par Épiphane le Scholastique au 6e siècle à la
demande de Cassiodore (cf. ses Inst. 1, 5, 4)45; des fragments dans les
chaînes 46 ; trois citations chez Cosmas Indicopleustès (Topogl'. 10,57-58).
Les divergences entre les textes de ces quatre traditions sont nombreuses:
mentaire original. Ils sont signalés par BARBÀRA (éd.), Origene, COlllmentario al Cantico
(n. 3), passim. Notre conclusion ne s'applique donc pas à toutes les scholies.
42. Cette étude survole la question de la méthode: comment les fragments de Pères
différents sont-ils joints l'un à l'autre? Il n y a que deux scholies qui signalent explicite-
ment qu'elles se composent de deux parties différentes: au milieu des fragments ad
Ct 6,5ab et Ct 7,5bc, on trouve les indications Tl et il aÀÀcoç. En d'autres termes, presque
toutes les scholies mêlées demandent un examen scrupuleux afin de distinguer les dif-
férentes par1ies. Le compilateur n'adopte pas toujours la même méthode. Parfois Origène
et l'autre Père sont présentés l'un après l'autre (par ex. ad Ct 8,la), parfois leurs présenta-
tions se confondent (par ex. ad Ct 7,2c-4).
43. La meilleure étude est celle d'AmvERs, L'interprétation du Cantique (n. 5), II,
pp. 347-373.
44. L'édition de Giacomelli (1772) est réimprimée da1ls la PO 40, 9-153, qui est à son
tour reprise (avec quelques modifications mininres) da1ls K. CHATZIÔANNOU, 'H àpxutu
Kurrpoç El<; 'tàç 'EÀÀllvtKàç rrl1yaç. TOf.loç r' - MÉpoç A'. rpaf.lf.lu'tu - 'E1tt(n~f.lut
(tU'tplKl'j) - nXvut, àrro nov '0f.lllptKÔ)V Xpovcov f.lÉXpt 'toù 395 M.x. ("EKoocrtç
'Ispàç 'APXtS1ttcrKorr~ç Kurrpou Èrrl 't0 Îhst rruÀtYYEvacrluç), Lefkosia, 1975, pp. 412-
533.
45. Édition critique: PHILONIS CARPAsn Commentariulll in Canticum Cantico/'llm ex
antiqua 1'ersione latina Epiphanii Sc1wlastici. Editionem criticam cum prolegomenis,
italica interpretatione, notis et indicibus curavit A. CERESA-OASTALDO (Corona Patrum, 6),
Torino, Società Editrice Internazionale, 1979. Cette traduction latine est essentielle pour
l'histoire du texte biblique latin du Cantique: voir R. CEULEMANS, The Latin Patristic
Reception of the Book of Cantic/es in the Hexapla, da1ls Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009)
369-389, p. 374, où le lecteur prendra aussi connaissance de références bibliographiques
additionnelles.
46. Des fragments de Philon se trouvent da1ls presque toutes les chaînes sur le Can-
tique: l'épitomé de Procope, la chaîne de Polychronios, celle dite d'Eusèbe, la catena
Hauniensis, la catena Cantabrigiensis et l'Athous, 11'il'on 555. À part ceux de l'épitomé
(cf. AmVERS [éd.], Procopii Epitome in Canticum ln. 7], passim), aucun de ces fragments
n'est édité de façon critique.
ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNIENSIS sUR LE CANTIQUE 319
le texte qu'on retrouve dans les chaînes, par exemple, est pmfois très
différent de celui qui est imprimé dans la PO. Ces traditions diverses
peuvent indiquer que le texte original a subi bien de transformations au
fil du temps 47. La transmission complexe embrouille l'examen des frag-
ments caténaires: bon nombre des scholies transmises anonymement ou
sous le nom d'un autre Père (souvent Origène!) contiennent des échos de
l'exégèse philonienne. Évidemment, cette observation complique l'inter-
prétation correcte des scholies mêlées dans la catena Hauniensis 48 •
D'autre part, elle montre que la présence de telles scholies dans cette
chaîne ne s'apparente pas à un phénomène isolé: ainsi l'épitomé de Pro-
cope comporte-t-elle plusieurs fragments qui se composent aussi bien des
matériaux origéniens que de l'exégèse de Philon49 • En outre, la catena
Hauniensis peut être intéressante sur le plan de l'étude de la tradition
philonienne, cm' quelques-uns des fragments de Philon contenus dans
cette chaîne sont différents de ceux présents dans les autres chaînes.
Deux exemples illustreront la place centrale occupée par Origène dans
la plupart des scholies mêlées de la catena Hauniensis. En règle géné-
rale 50 , la scholie s'ouvre par un fragment d'Origène; ensuite, Philon est
ajouté afin d'expliquer l'exégèse du Père alexandrin ou la compléter.
(1) Le verset 7,2ab ('ri ropmffiSllcrav owBiu.ta'tU crou Èv Û1tooY\I.ta-
crtv, S6yan;p NaouB;) est expliqué ainsi51 :
Catena Hazmiensis (Origène et Philon) Épitomé de Procope (Origène)
Tàç 1tpoKo1tàç 1~Ç VUJ.l<PllÇ CtltoOÉXE1ut 6 T~ç VDJ.l<PllÇ tàç 1tpoKo1tàç Ct1tooÉXEtat, aç
Myoç. luu~~W.t1U yàp ui 1tpoKo1tul ÂÉyov- <Pllcrt OlUP~J.lUtU. 'Y1tOO~J.lUO'I oè toiç
ml mç 16 1tupà KUplou 1à Ota~~J.lU1U EÙUY'{EÂ1KotÇ ÂÉyEt llEcr1tlO'J.lucrl. Kullooouç
Ctvllpol1tou KU1EulluvE1Ut. 'Ev U1tOO~J.lUcrl 8È oè 'AKUÂUÇ Ë<pll tà OIU~~J.lUtu, aÇ Kullooouç 6
Ctvtl toU êv EÙUyyEÂtKOiç llEcr1tlO'J.lucrt. Ct1toO'wÂoç KUÂsî' CtVtlÂ~'I'EIÇ, KU~EpV~crEtÇ.
Touto "{àp Ka1. IIuuÂoS ÂÉ"{E\' U1tooll()'(lIlEVOI LUyKunrov oè taiç U1tOOEEcrtÉpotç,
tOÙS 1tOOUS Èv ê101Ila<ri{l wu EùaY'{EÂiou dlS U1toOEoÉcrllat ÂÉyEtut tà OlU~~J.lUtu, O'roJ.lu-
Eipf]vllS' tlKo:mpoç uùwtç <patV0J.lEVOÇ. 'AJ.ltVuoà~ oÉ,
apxrov ~youv f]yEJ.lroV ~ ÉKOUO'lUÇOJ.lEVOÇ
ÉPJ.ll1VEDEtul' oÔ lluyutllP f] VUJ.l<Pll' E'i11 0' uv
apxrov 6 ÀÉyrov' "AKOUO'OV, lluyutEp, 6 oè
uùt6ç ÉKOUO'IUÇOJ.lEVOÇ. 'EKOUO'lU yàp 1tUVtu
llEi!l.
47. Plusieurs explications de cette tradition complexe sont avancées par BARBÀRA
(éd.), Origene, Commentario al Cantico (n. 3), pp. 132-136. Une comparaison intéres~a~te
de quelques fragments philomens transmis dans les chaînes avec ceux de la tradltlOn
directe figure dans AUWERS, L'interprétation du Cantique (n. 5), II, pp. 351-373.
48. Voir notre n. 72.
49. AUWERS, L'intelprétation du Cantique (n. 5), II, pp. 365-368, fournit un examen
de plusieurs textes amalgamés avec des matériaux philoniens da1ls l'épitomé de Procope.
50. Mais pas toujours: voir le bilan dans l'annexe de cet article. .'
51. Dans les deux exemples qui suivent, l'exégèse considérée comme philomenne dans
la catena Hauniensis est écrite en gras.
 320 R. CEULEMANS ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNIENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE 321

La première pmtie du fragment origénien se tennine par la remarque Par conséquent, dans plusieurs scholies, l'exégèse de Philon est pré-
que l'expression Èv tl1tOùi]/lucnv fait référence aux prescriptions évan- sentée comme une explication ou une complétion de celle d'Origène. Ce
géliques. À ce point, une citation d'Ep 6,15 est ajoutée afin d'expliquer n'est pas le cas pour tous les fragments, mais le bilan des scholies origé-
cette comparaison. Cette citation se retrouve aussi dans Philon: il est bien niennes donné plus haut montre que, dans presque tous les fragments
possible que le compilateur la lui ait empruntée52 • Donc un fragment de mêlés, les matériaux d'Origène précèdent ceux de Philon.
Philon est introduit pour expliquer l'image créée par Origène.
(2~ Ce fragment est suivi par l'explication du Ct 7,2c-4 (puS/lot
/lllPcoV (YOU o/lotot ÔP/ltO"Kots Ëpycp XêtproV 't"êxvhou' O/lcp uÀ6 S crou IV. CONCLUSIONS
KpU't"i]p WpêU't"OS /li] ucr't"êPOD/lêVOS KPU/lU' KOtÀtU crou Sll/lcovtù
crhou 1têcppuY/lÉVll Èv KpivotS' 860 /lumot crou roS 860 VêPpot ùiùu- Après une première lecture de la catena Hauniensis, nous nous sommes
/lot ÙOpKUÙOS): fait une idée provisoire de la façon dont le commentaire d'Origène sur le
Cantique était lu par le compilateur de cette chaîne. il est clair qu'elle
Calena Haul/iel/sis (Origène et Philon) Épitomé de Procope (Origène)
doit être située dans la même tradition que l'épitomé de Procope. Une
ToùS /-II]POÙS Ènt yev6creoos eup[crKo/-lev (3 scholies séparées)
,e,aY/-I6vouS, Kat ÙdKVUcrlV 'Appaà/-l
comparaison entre ces deux compilations prouve que quelques diver-
ôpKiÇoov ,ov nmùa al}1:ou. 'EvmUi}a ,oivuv, IIoÀÀaxou «'mel ,OÙS /-II]POÙS Ènt ,~S gences ne reflètent pas le texte origénien mais qu'elles découlent des
tva Ùl]Àoo3TI ,~S VU/-I<PllS ,0 eüpu3/-10v Kat yev6creoos ~ ypa<p~. L1I]Àol wivuv Èvmu3a interventions du compilateur. Dans plusieurs scholies, Origène est joint
,rov aÙ'TI ltenpaY/-l6VOOV Èv ,Qi ,~S yev6creoos ,~S VU/-I<PI]S ,0 ,e,aY/-l6Vov Èv ,Qi ,~S yev6- à un autre Père, souvent à Philon de Carpasie. Un examen de quelques-
r
Xoopicp, eïpl],al ,0 JU3 /-1ot /-Il]prov crau, creoos Xoopicp Kat eupu3/-1ov, Ô~IO[cp nEpl-
uns de ces fragments indique qu'Origène y prend généralement la place
0/-lOlOl nepnpaXI]À[olS Ka,ecrKeuacr/-l6volS ,paXI]ÀiOlS Ka,ecrKEUacr/-lsvolS 'TI àpe'TI.
'TI àpe,fi· 'O/-l<paMs crou ÙS Kpa,~p WPEU- principale.
,OS· 'Ent wuwv ,OV Kpa,~pa ~ cro<pia cruy- 'Eni ,ov 6~I<paMv ùl: ,ov Kpa,~pa ~ cro<p[a il faut souligner que ces conclusions, qui ne sont formulées qu'après
KaÀet Àsyoucra' ùeu,e, nie,e oivov, OV cruyKaÀet Àsyoucra' L1eu,e, nie,e olvov ov un examen très limité, restent provisoires: nous devrons pousser nos
ùl]Àol ,~ nVEU/-Ia1:lKOV nO/-la. 01]/-Iooviav ùl: KeKspaKa U/-IlV, Kat ùl]Àol ,0 nVeUfla1:lKOV
crl1:ou Einev, tva '~V nVEU/-IanK~V ,p0<P~V n0/-la. Kat npocrs31]Ke Kat' 31]/-Ioovia crl1:ou,
recherches plus loin et confronter les résultats avec ceux qui sont fonnu-
crl]/-IUvn· M~ ucr,epou/-Ievos Kpà/-la, ,ou,scr- àvû ,ou cruvayooy~ àpe,rov ltÀ~30uS ElS ilv lés pour les autres livres salomoniques et Job. La catena Hauniesis invite
,IV àvevùe~S Kepucr/-la,os. To ,oivuv KOIÀia ,fi ô/-lovoi~ cruv,emY/-l6VI], tva ,~v à une édition critique aussi bien qu'à d'autres études.
crou 31]/-Ioovia crl1:ou, ùvd ,ou cruvayooy~ ltVEU/-Ia1:lK~V ,po<p~v crl]/-Iuvn.
ùpe,rov ltÀ~30uS ElS ilv 'TI Ô/-lovoi~ Kat
<pIÀi~ cruvtemY/-lsvl]. Til ùÈ lte<jlpœl/-lÉVI] Èv Kptva ù' av ell] Kat ,à av31] ,~s XUP1,OS
Kpi VOIS' toÎSto c'\I]ÀOUVtos I\(m V on ,ou 3wu, Cl cruveÀssaw ùno /-I6crOU ,rov ,ou ANNEXE
ltE<jlpaY/-IÉvl] toiS eÙ!flc'\E(J1 toU 3EOU MyoIS Piou ùKav3rov. ORIGÈNE DANS LA DEUXIÈME PARTIE DE LA CHAÎNE
tIlyxavel. Taum yàp tà Kpiva c'\1]Î.oi.
DITE D'EusÈBE
Les fragments origéniens de l'épitomé de Procope, qu'on retrouve
dans la catena Hauniensis, ne foumissent aucune explication du verset Comme nous l'avons précisé plus haut, la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe pré-
7,3c~ (1t~CPPUY/lÉVll Èv Kp{votS). Pour compléter l'exégèse origénienne, sente une certaine impOltance pour la tradition textuelle de la catena
le compilateur de la catena Hauniensis ajoute Philon. Hauniensis 53 • En fait, une annexe peut illustrer le lien étroit entre ces
deux compilations54 •
La seule édition disponible de la chaîne du Ps.-Eusèbe est celle prépa-
, 52. ~ien qu~ le c~mpilateur ait ~ussi ajouté Une citation du Ps 36,23a (rcapà Kupiou
rée par Ioannes Meursius (Johannes van Meurs) en 161755 • La chaîne
,a Ihap~/-Ia,a avllpmrcou Ka,e~~u,ve,at) au ~ilieu du fragment, qui ne se trouve pas
dans PhIlon, nous pensons que 1 eveque chypnote est la source de la citation néotesta-
me?taire. Néanmoins, il faut admettre qu'elle se manifeste aussi dans le commentaire de 53. Cf. déjà CEULEMANS, A Catena Hauniensis (n. 14), pp. 68-69.
Theodoret de C~r (~f. P? 81, 185A). ~ais comme ce Père ne se présente nulle part dans 54. Comme la châme dite d'Eusèbe n'est pas le thème de cet article, l'introduction qui
la calma HaUll/enSlS (m dans la deux1ème partie de la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe cf ci-des- suit sera très brève.
so~s), il est invraisemblable que le compilateur ait emprunté l'explication au'Pè;e antio- 55. EUSEBII, POLYCHRONII, PSELLI ill Canticunl canticorunl exposition es graecae.
chien.
I. MEURSIUS primus nunc e tenebris eruit, et publicavit, Lugduni Batavorum, Ex officina
322 R. CEULEMANS
s'ouvre par quatre prologues, qui ont tous leur propre titre 56 . D'après son
titre, le premier prologue est écrit par Eusèbe57 . Par eueur, Meursius a
tenu ce titre du premier prologue comme celui de la chaîne complète58 .
Ce n'est qu'en 1902 que Michael Faulhaber a signalé cette eueur de
Meursius 59 . En fait, le compilateur de la chaîne est inconnu, tout comme
sa date de rédaction.
Cette chaîne et l'épitomé de Procope sont des compilations voisines,
mais leurs rapports exacts ne brillent pas par leur clalté. D'après Theodor
Zahn, la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe est une des sources de l'épitomé et donc
une des chaînes les plus anciennes (deuxième moitié du 5e siècle)60. Plus
tard, Faulhaber a écrit qu'aussi bien la chaîne du Ps.-Eusèbe que l'épi-
tomé de Procope dépendaient d'une chaîne primitive (Urcatene) et que
celle du Ps.-Eusèbe était plus ancienne que l'épitomé (se siècle, d'après
Elzeviriana, 1617 (réimpression en 1746 dans le huitième volume des œuvres complètes
de Meursius). D'après Rahlfs, cette édition repose sur un seul manuscrit, le Leidensis,
Bibliothecae Universitatis Vulcanus 50 (s. XV-XVI): cf. A. RAHLFS, Die Catenenhand-
schrift des Meursills, dans Theologische Literatllrzeitllng 38 (1913) 763-764 (cf. aussi
R.M. KERR, Vetus Testamentulll in Lugdul/o Batavorum. Catalogue of al/ Exhibition of
Old Testamel/t Manl/scripts held in the Leiden University LibrO/)' July Ft-August 7th 2004.
On the Occasion of the XVIIlth Congress of the International Organization for the Study
of the OId Testament (JOSaT) at Leiden (1-6 August 2004) [Kleine publicaties van de
Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek, 60], Leiden, Legatum Warnerianum in Leiden University
Library, 2004, pp. 48-50). En 1883, le premier prologue de la chaîne était édité de nouveau
d'après le Vatical/us, Ottobonianl/s gr. 305 (s. XVI) par J.B. PITRA, Analecta Sacra spi-
cilegio solesmensi parata. Vol. III, Venetii, Mechitaristarum Sancti Lazari, 1883, pp. 530-
537. Une édition critique de la chaîne complète est en préparation par Jean-Marie Auwers
(Louvain-la-Neuve).
56. Le manuscrit Salmanticensis, Bibliothecae Universitatis 2716 (olim Matritensis,
Palatin us 20) (s. XVI) contient un cinquième prologue, qui est en fait identique à la pre-
mière partie de l'introduction de la chaîne de Polyclu'onios (cf. AUWERS, L'intelprétatiol/
du Cantique ln. 5], II, pp. 436 et 450 n. 4). Une étude récente et excellente de tous ces 4
(ou 5) prologues peut être consultée dans AUWERS, L'intelprétation du Cantique, II,
pp. 411-449.
57. EôcrE~iou 'tou l1uJ.l<piÀou Etc; 'tà ~AtcrJ.lU 'tlDV ~crJ.l(:mov 6S1lyrjcrtC; est le titre
qu'on trouve dans MEURslUs (éd.), Eusebii in Canticl/m (n. 55), p. 3. En fait, ce titre varie
dans la tradition manuscrite de la chaîne. Dans quelques manuscrits, par exemple, manque
la spécification 'tOu l1uJ.l<PîÀou.
58. En effet, Meursius a cru que c'était Eusèbe de Césarée qui avait compilé la chaîne
(cf. MEURSlUS [éd.], Eusebii in Canticum ln. 55], pp. 1 et 172-173), opinion pourtant
impossible en fonction de l'ordre clu·onologique. Zahn a suggéré qu'un autre Eusèbe était
le compilateur (cf. T. ZAHN, Forsellllllgen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichel/ Kanons
und der altkirchlichen Literatllr. II. Theil: Der Eval/geTiencommentar des Theophilus von
Antiochien, Erlangen, Deichert, 1883, pp. 254-255).
59. FAULHABER, Hohelied-Catenel/ (n. 7), pp. 57-58: cet Eusèbe n'est que l'auteur du
premier prologue, pas le compilateur de la chaîne. Selon Faulhaber, il était le Père de
Césarée, mais récemment, Auwers a démontré de façon convaincante qu'il s'agit ici d'un
autre Eusèbe (AmVERs, L'intelprétation du Cal/tique ln. 5], II, p. 424).
60. ZAHN, Forsellllllgen Zllr Geselzicllte (n. 58), II, pp. 248-254.
ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNlENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE 323
lui)61. Récemment, Auwers a confirmé l'hypothèse que ces deux compi-
lations dépendent d'une chaîne originale perdue, mais il ne s'est pas
62
prononcé en ce qui concerne la datation de la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe .
Les prologues sont suivis par le corpus de la chaîne qui a été étudié
par Zahn63 . La plupart des scholies sont anonymes. On trouve des
attributions (souvent fautives) à Philon (de Carpasie), Athanase
(d'Alexandrie), Didyme (d'Alexandrie), Isidore (de Péluse), Théophile
(sans davantage de précision) et Grégoire (de Nysse). La chaîne
64
contient aussi des fragments de Cyrille d'Alexandrie et d'Origène •
Sans doute, GrégoiI'e occupe-t-illa place centrale (bien que son nom
soit rarement mentionné). Souvent, une seule scholie contient des
échos de l'exégèse de plusieurs Pères, qui ne sont généralement pas
cités littéralement65 .
Dans l'édition de Meursius, la chaîne du Ps.-Eusèbe se termine par
l'explication du Ct 6,9. Par conséquence, la recherche contemporaine
tient cette chaîne pour une compilation qui n'explique que la première
partie du Cantique66. En effet, dans la plupart des manuscrits, parmi les-
67
quels la source de Meursius, ce verset 6,9 constitue la fin de la chaîne .
Néanmoins, dans quatre manuscrits, la chaîne continue son exégèse
61. FAULHABER, Hohelied-Catenel/ (n. 7), pp. 58-64. Nous ne sommes pas vraiment
convaincus par la datation de la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe suggérée par Faulhaber. I?a~s, ses
recherches, il a négligé toutes les scholies anonymes, bien qu'elles forment la majonte de
la chaîne (cf. sa p. 59). En outre, son argument principal est l'absence des 'ex~gètes plus
récents' (<<spatere Exegetel/»). Toutefois, nous pensons que l'argument SUlvant peut
inciter à reconsidérer la datation suggérée par Faulhaber: dans la chaîne du Ps.-Eusèbe se
trouvent de scholies (anonymes) qui sont attribuées dans l'épitomé de Procope à des
e
«spatere Exegeten» tels Isidore de Péluse (4-5" siècle), Cyrille d'Alexandrie (4-5 siècle)
et Procope de Gaza (5_6" siècle). . '
62. J.-M. AUWERS, La tral/smission des commentaires sur le Cal/flque des Canflques
dans l'Épitomé de Procope de Gaza, dans COll.llInic~zi~l/e e, ric.ezi~l:e ~el. documento
cristiano in epoca tardoantica. XXXII Incontro dl StUdlOSI dell anflelllta clï~flana. ROll~a,
8-10 maggio 2003 (Studia Ephemeridis "Augustinianum", 90), Roma, InstItutum Patns-
ticum Augustinianum, 2004, 763-776, p. 772 n. 41.
63. ZAHN Forsclll/llgen zur Geschicllte (n. 58), II, pp. 240-255.
64. En fait, quand on compte toutes les scholies qui se laissent identifier, Origène ~uit
Grégoire et Philon comme la source qui est utilisée le plus souvent. La ~haîne contlent
aussi le seul fragment grec des homélies origéniennes sur le Cantique (VOIT notre n. 3) ..
65. Cf. la conclusion de Zahn: «diesel' El/S. [ist] il/ der lI'illkiirlichstel/ Weise lIlIt
seil/el/ Vorlagel/ l/lIlgegal/gel/» (ZAHN, Forschl/I/gel/ Zl/r Geschicllte ln. 58], II, p. 241).
66. Voir par exemple C. CURTI - M.A. BARBÀRA, Catel/e esegetiche grec"~, dans.
A. Dr BERARDINO (éd.), Patrologia. Vol. V: Dai COl/cilio di Calcedol/ia (451) a G/Ovalllll
Damascello (t 750), 1 Padri oriel/tali (Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum), Genova,
Marietti, 2001 [= 2000], 609-655, pp. 633-634 ou CPG C 84.
67. Une liste de tous les manuscrits de la chaîne du Ps.-Eusèbe peut être consultée sur
le site web de Jean-Marie Auwers: http://sites.uclouvain.be/canticum/Mss3.htInl (accès le
plus récent: 24/06/2010).
324 R. CEULEMANS
jusqu'au dernier verset du Cantique (8,14)68. Le seul chercheur qui a
discuté de l'existence de la deuxième partie de la chaîne est Faulhaber69 •
Selon lui, ce bout de texte est très utile pour la reconstruction du com-
mentaire du Philon de Carpasie, qui y occupe la place centrale, mais il
ne fait pas paltie de la chaîne originelle du Ps.-Eusèbe: il n'est qu'une
addition postérieure. En effet, la disparité entre les deux parties est indé-
niable. Néanmoins, on pounait attirer l'attention sur quelques observa-
tions qui pounaient plaider en faveur de l'unité entre la partie précédant
Ct 6,9 et celle qui suit7°.
(1) Quoique la source principale de la première partie, c'est-à-dire
Grégoire de Nysse, soit complètement absente de la deuxième partie
(pour des raisons claires: ses homélies se terminent par l'exégèse
du Ct 6,9), le choix des Pères est par ailleurs bien uniforme dans les
deux parties. (2) Des attributions sont aussi rares après Ct 6,9 qu'avant.
(3) Dans la deuxième partie, les rapports avec l'épitomé de Procope sont
identiques à ceux de la première partie. (4) La façon dont laquelle les
textes exégétiques originaux sont compilés (voir ci-dessus) est bien uni-
forme dans les deux parties. (5) Autant avant qu'après Ct 6,9, la chaîne
fournit beaucoup de leçons hexaplaires (presque toujours anonymes).
Bien qu'on ne puisse pas nier la coupure entre les deux parties, nous
pensons qu'on ne peut pas proclamer l'inauthenticité de la deuxième
partie trop vite. li nous semble que les arguments énumérés ci-dessus, qui
plaident en faveur de l'originalité de la deuxième paltie, doivent être pris
en considération avant de rendre le verdict finaFI. Peut-être la catena
Hauniensis offre-t-elle une clé pour résoudre le problème: la deuxième
68. Mutinensis, Estensis gr. 154 (s. XVI), ff. 70-119; Salmanticensis, Bibliothecae
Universitatis 75 (olim 1.1.19) (s. XVI), ff. 102-147v ; Salmanticensis, Bibliothecae Uni-
versitatis 2716 (olim Matritensis, Palatin us 20) (s. XVI), ff. 1-48v ; Vindobonensis, theol.
gr. 258 (s. XV-XVI), ff. 1-34v • Deux de ces manuscrits étaient déjà signalés par Faulhaber
(Hohelied-Catenen ln. 7], pp. 53-56) et un troisième par Barbàra (Origene, Commentario
al Cantico ln. 3], p. 126). La deuxième partie se trouve aussi dans une traduction latine
de cette chaîne: le Matritensis, Bibliothecae Nationalis 3996 (olim Convento s. Vicente de
Plasencia, P.38) (s. XV), ff. 6-40, édité dans Quorundam veterum commentariorum in
Cantica Canticorum antiqua versio latina nunc primum edita a A.C. VEGA (Scriptores
Ecclesiastici Hispano-Latini Veteris et Medii Aevi, 1), El Escorial, Typis Augustinianis
Monasterii Escurialensis, 1934. Sans avoir aucunement connu ces manuscrits, Zahn
(Forschungen zur Geschiclzte ln. 58], TI, pp. 242 n. 1) avait formulé l'hypothèse que
l'existence de cette partie de la chaîne (Ct 6,9-8,14) était possible.
69. FAULHABER, Hohelied-Catenen (n. 7), pp. 53-56.
70. Une discussion plus approfondie se trouve dans R. CEULEMANS, A Critical Edition
of the Hexaplaric Fragments of the Book of Cantic/es with Emphasis on their Reception
in Greek Christian Exegesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, diss. doct., 2009, pp. 163-
168.
71. C'est l'éditeur de la chaîne qui doit se charger de cette tâche: cette annexe ne
résoudra pas ce problème.
ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNIENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE 325
partie de la chaîne du Ps.-Eusèbe ressemble fort à la partie conespon-
dante de la Hauniensis. En effet, il est clair que presque toutes les chaînes
sur le Cantique (celle de Polychronios, du Ps.-Eusèbe, l'Hauniensis,
l'épitomé de Procope, etc.) sont en relation les unes avec les autres. Pour-
tant, le rapport entre la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe et la catena Hauniensis
s'avère particulièrement frappant.
Cette annexe ne se propose pas de répondre définitivement à la question
du rapport entre ces deux chaînes: un tel examen demanderait un texte
fiable fourni par des éditions critiques et une étude des autres compilations
sur le Cantique. Nous ne voulons qu'illustrer cette ressemblance à l'aide
du sujet de cet article, c'est-à-dire les fragments origéniens qui se trouvent
dans la catena Hauniensis. Le bilan donné ci-après dénombre toutes les
scholies de la catena Hauniensis qui contiennent des matériaux du com-
mentaire d'Origène sur le Cantique et qui se trouvent aussi dans l'épitomé
de Procope. Nous les confrontons avec la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe72 •
On voit que presque tous les fragments d'Origène qui se trouvent
dans la catena Hauniensis se laissent identifier également dans la
chaîne dite d'Eusèbe, et ceci dans le même ordre. En outre, le plus
souvent, les deux chaînes joignent ces fragments d'Origène aux mêmes
scholies d'autres Pères. Bref, un lien étroit entre les deux compilations
est indéniable (ce n'est pas seulement le cas pour les fragments d'Ori-
gène, mais aussi pour les autres scholies). Néanmoins, l'une n'est pas
une copie de l'autre: chacune des compilations contient des éléments
qui ne sont pas présents dans l'autre. Ces différences ne concernent pas
seulement les scholies origéniennes 73: il y a aussi d'autres points de
72. Le bilan prend seulement la catena Hazllliensis comme point de départ (sur la base
du manuscrit H; les folios sont indiqués plus avant), et pas la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe (qui
est consultée sur la base du manuscrit Salmanticensis, Bibliothecae Universitatis 75 =0 S).
Il faut souligner que cette comparaison n'est pas détaillée: elle ne montre que de façon
approximative la structure semblable des deux compilations. Ce bilan ignore les ~eço~s
hexaplaires de la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe, qui sont toutes absentes de la catena Haumensls.
La dernière colonne identifie les fragments de façon provisoire. Sans doute sera-t-elle
corrigée par l'édition critique des deux chaînes et les recherches futures de la chaîne du
Ps.-Eusèbe que mènera son éditeur Jean-Marie Auwers. Pour l'identification, chaque
scholie est divisée en plusieurs parties (bien qu'elle soit toujours un ensemble dans les
deux chaînes). Cette division artificielle n'est pas complètement satisfaisante: elle n'existe
que pour montrer la structure semblable des deux compilations. L'ide~tification des Pèr~s
s'appuie sur celle qu'on trouve dans les éditions de BARBÀRA (éd.), Ongene, Commentano
al Cantico (n. 3), passim et AUWERS, L'intelprétation du Cantique (n. 5), I, pp. 143-154.
73. Les fragments d'Origène qui se trouvent dans la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe (à partir du
v
Ct 6,9) et qui manquent dans la catena Hauniensis sont les suivants: ad Ct 8,5c (f. 145
dans le manuscrit S) Tou'W ... alYl:rov = Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG 40, 144A) avec
Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 77; cette identification est marquée avec un point d'interrogation
par AUWERS, L'intelprétation du Cantique ln. 5], I, p. 153 [nO 357]); ad Ct 8~5~e (f. 1_46)
'H cràPS ... Man =0 Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 78); ad Ct 8,12b-13 (f. 147-147) Ev'muSa
 326 R. CEULEMANS ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNlENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE 327

désaccord74 • Peut-être les deux compilations dépendent-elles d'une troi-

Ct Caf. Hal/I/. Caf. Ps.-El/s. Identification provisoire
sième. Dans des recherches futures, ce rapport devra être examiné de
façon détaillée et complète. Kut odKvualv ... beaucoup plus long (f. 142) ? (inédit)8O
uùwù
Ct Caf. Halln. Caf. Ps.-El/s. Identification provisoire BV'Wù3u ... àpEtn quasi identique (f. 142) Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 59)
5, 14ba75 "EaTt 01; ... vOJ.lOU (ne s'applique pas) Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 49) Absent tO IEpU'I'ElOV ... IEpElÇ Cyrille d'Alexandrie
(f. 142) (cf. PG 69, 1292A) ou/et
6,5ab76 Qi oQ>3uÂJ.loi ... (ne s'applique pas) Philon de Carpasie Philon de Carpasie
rco30vaou (cf. PG 40, 116AB) (cf. PG 40, 126A)
~ (ne s'applique pas) '0J.lQ>uÀ6ç ... quasi identique (f. 142) Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 60)
roç BÂ30ual1ç ... (ne s'applique pas) Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 52) al1J.1 UVn
Ç~Tf:l ? (inédit)8!
~~ ÔatEpoUJ.lEVOÇ Absent
6,10 'H rcpoKoTC't'Ouau ... identique (f. 141) Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 55) ... KEpuaJ.lutoç
E1KuÇEtat To tOiVllV ... plus court (ff. 142-142V) Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 60)
Eltu al1J.1uivEl ... très différent (f. 141) Philon de Carpasie aUVTEtuYJ.l ÉVl1
ôJ.l0oiattoç (cf. PG 40, 117C) Tè oi; rcEQ>PUYJ.lÉVl1 plus court (f. 142V ) Philon de Carpasie
7,2ab Tàç rcpoKoTCàç ... quasi identique Origène (cf. Barbàra ... ol1ÂO\ (cf. PG 40, 124B-125A)
3EaTCiaJ.lum (ff. 14JY-142) nO 58)17 7,5bc ToaoùTov Q>l1a1 ... assez différent (f. 142V) Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 62)
Toùw yàp ... quasi identique (f. 142) Philon de Carpasie OJQ>EÂduç
EtP~Vl1Ç (cf. PG 40, 121C)78 ~ aÂÂOlç Absent
7,2c-479 Absent To tEtUYJ.lÉvov ... ÉUUT<!l Philon de Carpasie Absent BK rcoÂÂrov ... Xplawù Philon de Carpasie
(f. 142) (cf. PG 40, 121D-124A) (f. 142V) (cf. PG 40, 125C)
Toùç J.ll1POÙÇ ... identique (f. 142) Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 59) 01 oQ>3uÂJ.loi ... très différent (f. 142V) Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 63)
tE'WYJ.lÉvouç ÉPJ.ll1VEllEtul. ou Philon de Carpasie
(cf. PG 40, 125B)82
7,5de '0 Ku3upàv ... quasi identique Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 64)
J.lllKt~p (ff. 142V-143)
... aUYYEVElÇ = Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 87; cette identification est accompagnée d'un
point d'interrogation chez AUWERS, L'il/felpréfafiol/ du Canfique [no 5], J, p. 154 [n° 378]) 7,6a83 KEQ>UÂ~ ... Absent Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 64)
avec Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG 40, 152B-D). TCEpltOJ.l~Ç
74. il faut souligner que la cafena Hauniel/sis ne contient pas de leçons hexaplaires,
nombreuses dans la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe. (À cet égard, les méthodes de la cafena Haul/i- 7,8b Tà vO~J.lutu ... quasi identique (f. 143V) Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 66)
el/Sis sur le Cantique diffèrent de celles de la même chaîne sur l'Ecclésiaste, qui contient 0J.lQ>uKiÇov'W
beaucoup de leçons hexaplaires: cf. A. LABATE, L'apporto della catel/a Haul/iel/se Absent W\Ç trov Q>olViKOlV ... Philon de Carpasie
sull'Ecclesiasfe pel' il festo delle versiol/i greche di Si/lllllaco e della LXX, dans Rivista rcETCÂ113llJ.lÉVOV (f. 143 V) (cf. PG 40, 129C)
Biblica 35 [1987] 57-61 et Cafel/a Ha/miel/sis il/ Ecclesiastel/ il/ qua saepe exegesis ser-
vatur Diol/ysii Alexal/dril/i nunc primum edita ab A. LABATE [CCSG, 24], Tumhout,
Brepols; Leuven, University Press, 1992, p. XXXIII.) 80. D'après BARBÀRA (éd.), Origel/e, COlll1llel/tario al Cal/tico (n. 3), p. 459, ce frag-
75. Ce lemme-ci et le suivant sont inclus parce qu'ils sont suivis par des fragments ment pourrait être origénien.
d'Origène dans la catel/a Hazmiel/sis, mais pour la comparaison avec la chaîne dite 81. D'après BARBÀRA (éd.), Origel/e, COllllllel/fario al Cal/fico (n. 3), p. 462, ce frag-
d'Eusèbe ils ne sont pas vraiment intéressants: ce n'est qu'à partir du Ct 6,9 que les deux ment pourrait être origénien.
compilations sont semblables. 82. D'après BARBÀRA (éd.), Origel/e, Commel/fario al Cal/tico (n. 3), pp. 465-466 ce
76. Voir notre n. 75. fragment est origénien. AUWERS, L'il/telprétatiol/ du Cal/tique (n. 5), J, p. 152 l'attribue à
77. Cette identification est marquée avec un point d'interrogation par AUWERS, Philon de Carpasie.
L'il/telprétatiol/ du Cal/tique (n. 5), J, p. 152 (n° 304). 83. Dans la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe, le verset complet 7,6 est un KsLJ.lEVOV individuel. il
78. Voir notre n. 52. est suivi par la scholie IIÀ6KlOV ... tàç àpxuç, qui est de Philon de Carpasie (cf. PG 40,
79. La chaîne dite d'Eusèbe comprend trois scholies individuelles: ad Ct 7,2cd; ad 128B-D). Elle se trouve aussi dans la catena Ha/miensis, mais de façon plus courte
Ct 7,3ab; ad Ct 7,3c-4. (IIÂOKIOV ... È(J3~ç), assez différente et ad Ct 7,6bc.
328 R. CEULEMANS ORIGÈNE DANS LA CATENA HAUNIENSIS SUR LE CANTIQUE 329

Ct Cat.Hall/l. Cat. Ps.-Eus. Identification provisoire Ct Cat.Hall/l. Cat. Ps.-Eus. Identification provisoire
7,9ab ·Ot' av .. , ulnrov quasi identique (f. 143V) Philon de Carpasie 8,6a-d llpOtpÉltEtat .. , plus long et assez différent Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 79)
(cf. PG 40, 129D-132A) cr'tpunonuç (f. 146)
'0 j.lÈv Vllj.l<p(OÇ ... beaucoup plus long et Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 67) 8,8bc91 Oi «ytOt ... Absent Origène (cf. Barbàra
UUtOU assez différent (f. 143 V) vw<poo'ttmoov nO 84)92
7,12-13a84 'AstoÎ ... UltOOEÉcr- assez semblable (f. 144) Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 69) 8,9-10 Et cr'tEpEà .. , Absent Origène (cf. B arbàra
tE pu 1t\Jpyoov n° 84)93
·0 Èmw ... beaucoup plus long et Philon de Carpasie 8,12b-13 94 Oi X!Â.tot ... uuwu beaucoup plus long et Origène (cf. Barbàra
ÈKKÀ,rlcr(utÇ assez différent (f. 144) (cf. PG 40, 133BC)85 assez différent (f. 147) n° 87)95
8,la Absent 'Ev yàp ... UUtrov Philon de Carpasie
(f. 144V) (cf. PG 40, 137BC) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Reinhart CEULEMANS
M~tllP .. , quasi identique (f. 144V) Origène (cf. Barbàra n° 70) Faculteit Letteren Chargé de Recherches
tpu<p1]nK~ç
Onderzoekseenheid Griekse Studies du Fonds de la
'AytUSEtUt ... assez semblable (f. 145) Cyrille d'Alexandrie Blijde-Inkomststraat 21 bus 3318 - Recherche Scientifique -
SWt6KOV (cf. PG 69, 1292C)
BE-3000 Leuven Flandre (FWO)
8,lb-2aa86 Absent llupuÂ.~'I'oj.lut ... crUpKU Philon de Carpasie Belgique
(f. 145) (cf. PG 40, 138D-140C)
(avec Cyrille d'Alexan-
Reinhart.Ceulemans@alts.kuleuven.be
drie?)87

Eup!crKoucru ... quasi identique (f. 145) Origène (cf. Barbàra nO 71)
uut6v
Tà oè ... ÈXSpoÎç très semblable mais plus Philon de Carpasie
long (f. 145) (cf. PG 40, 138D-140C)
(avec Cyrille d'Alexan-
drie?)88
8,3 '0 j.lèv v6j.loç ... quasi identique (f. 145V) Origène (?) (cf. Barbàra
OEUtÉpU n° 74)89
8,4 'OpK!SEt ... SE6ç quasi identique (f. 14SV) Origène (?) (cf. Barbàra
nO 75)90

84. Dans la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe, le KctJlEVOV est plus long (Ct 7,12-13c). Par consé-
quent, la deuxième partie de la scholie (qui est de Philon) est plus longue dans cette
chaîne.
85. Cette identification est suivie d'un point d'interrogation chez AUWERS,
L'interprétation dit Cantique (n. 5), 1, p. 153 (nO 334).
86. Dans la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe, le KEiJlEVOV est plus long (Ct 8,lb-2b). Par consé-
quent, la deuxième partie de la scholie (qui est de Philon) est plus longue dans cette
chaîne.
87. Cette identification est suivie d'un point d'interrogation chez AUWERS,
L'intelprétation du Cantique (n. 5), 1, p. 153 (nO 348).
88. Voir notre n. 87.
89. Cette identification est marquée avec un point d'interrogation par AUWERS,
L'intelprétation du Cantique (n. 5),1, p. 153 (n° 351).
90. Cette identification est suivie d'un point d'interrogation chez AUWERS,
L'interprétation du Cantique (n. 5), 1, p. 153 (n° 353).
91. Dans la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe, les versets 8,8b-lIa sont un KctJlEVOV individuel.
il est suivi par la scholie Dt a:y\Ot ... '"COu XptO''tou, qui est de Philon de Carpasie (cf.
PG 40, 148A). Elle se trouve aussi dans catena Hauniensis, mais de façon plus courte
CH ÈKKÀ.llO'ia ... ÈO'tiv) et ad Ct 8,1I-12a.
92. Cette identification est marquée avec un point d'interrogation par AUWERS,
L'intnprétation du Cantique (n. 5),1, p. 154 (nO 372). Nous suivons l'argumentation de
BARBÀRA (éd.), Origene, Commentario al Cantico (n. 3), pp. 501-504.
93. Voir notre n. 92.
94. Dans la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe, cette scholie suit le KEiJlEVOV Ct 8,lIc-12a. Ad
Ct 8,12b-13, cette chaîne contient une autre scholie, qui est composée des fragments
d'Origène CEvtauSa ... O'\JyyEVctC;: une autre part de Barbàra nO 87) et de Philon de
Carpasie CH JlÈv ... ÈKKÀ.llO'ia; cf. PG 40, 152B-D). Ces fragments ne se trouvent pas
dans la catena Hauniensis.
95. Cette identification est suivie d'un point d'interrogation chez AUWERS, L'inter.
prétation du Cantique (n. 5), 1, p. 154 (nO 378). Nous reprenons l'argumentation dè
BARBÀRA (éd.), Origene, Commentario al Cantico (n. 3), pp. 509-511.
 DE PAUL À ORIGÈNE
ÉTUDE DE QUELQUES PHÉNOMÈNES STYLISTIQUES

La marque caractéristique du style origénien tient pour moi dans l'al-

liance quelque peu paradoxale:
1. d'un ton savant, précis, disert, à la limite parfois de l'excès de tech-
nicité,
et 2. d'une intense force de conviction personnelle, dont la tension est
presque toujours perceptible et affleure par moments avec vigueur, soit
dans la polémique, soit dans l'auto-défense, soit dans une élévation spi-
rituelle soutenue par le lyrisme.
Paul, avec l'originalité de son expression, innerve ces deux lignes
complémentaires, qu'Origène reprenne à l'Apôtre une vision théolo-
gique ou une position morale, ou qu'il s'identifie intérieurement à la
passion de Paul pour son Seigneur. Il n'est naturellement pas le premier
à faire place ainsi à la forme paulinienne à l'intérieur de sa propre
expression: dès les premiers textes chrétiens, comme chez Ignace
d'Antioche, c'est la fonction parénétique aussi bien que la prégnance
rhétorique de la théologie paulinienne qui dominent. Vers la fin du
second s. et dans le geme, non plus de la lettre pastorale, mais de l'ex-
posé théorique, la théologie et l'éthique de l'Apôtre occupent une place
décisive dans l'écriture d'auteurs théologiens ou moralistes comme
Irénée (qui doit répondre à l'usage de Paul fait par les gnostiques valen-
tiniens) ou Clément d'Alexandrie.
Origène hérite de cette riche exploitation des Epîtres pauliniennes dans
le christianisme primitif. Il reprend à Paul trois lignes principales:
- la vision théologique, qui permet de passer du récit biblique, parti-
culièrement évangélique, à son contenu transcendant;
la réflexion morale, voire canonique, dont il cherche à proposer
l'application et l'actualisation à la vie ecclésiale contemporaine, par-
fois à travers la mise en œuvre d'une certaine casuistique;
l'ardeur de la proclamation du Christ sauveur, et l'élévation du pro-
pos dans la prise en considération admirative d'une économie
divine.

Je m'attacherai ici plus étroitement à l'aspect rhétorique et stylistique,

en enquêtant sur le mode d'intégration à son propre discours par Origène
332 A. BASTIT-KALINOWSKA
du matériau constitué par la «tvÉçtç» de l'Apôtre!. La richesse et, parfois,
la hardiesse, de l'expression paulinienne2 supposait une grande diversité
de tons et de figures, dont les lecteurs antiques avaient une conscience
aiguë: «l'Apôtre, écrivait par exemple Irénée, use fréquemment d'hyper-
bates en raison de l'impétuosité de son discours et de l'élan de l'Esprit
qui l 'habite» 3.
Je retiendrai trois axes simples, suivant une progression allant de la
phrase vers la période et le développement plus largement compris:
1. les phénomènes de reprise et d'amplification, qui vont parfois jusqu'à
la répétition, le plus souvent dans un cadre antithétique; 2. Le travail sur
les images, voire les réseaux d'images,-à partir de métaphores et compa-
raisons pauliniennes; 3. L'influence de l'emprunt paulinien sur le rythme
du développement et l'explosion du lyrisme. il ne peut s'agir ici que de
simples pistes, de tentatives de généralisation que j'avance sur la base
d'analyses ponctuelles, car un examen systématique supposerait une
recherche infinie. Le Commentaire sur Matthieu a été privilégié pour des
raisons de commodité, mais les sondages effectués dans d'autres œuvres
conservées en grec me persuadent que les remarques que j'ai pu faire
seraient susceptibles d'extrapolation.
il convient au préalable de rappeler l 'habitude des auteurs des second
et troisième siècles d'isoler, dans le corpus paulinien, un énoncé, voire
une simple expression - en dehors bien sûr du cas où c'est le texte de
Paul lui-même qui est l'objet de commentaire. À un regard attentif
cependant, il apparaîtra que le contexte est rarement oublié, même si
certaines citations semblent devenues des formules qui se suffisent à
elles-mêmes.
1. Les modernes discutent sur la question de savoir si Paul avait reçu une formation
rhétorique à Tarse avant de devenir disciple de Gamaliel à Jérusalem et, conséquemment,
sur la légitimité du recours aux catégories de la rhétorique ancienne pour analyser les
Lettres pauliniennes, cf. S.E. PORTER, Paul of Tarsus al/d His Letters, dans ID., Hal/dbook
of Classical Rhetoric il/ the Hellel/istic Period (330 B.e. - A.D. 400), Leiden - New York
- Kèiln, Brill, 1997, pp. 533-586.
2. On ne fera pas ici de distinction entre Épîtres pauliniennes et deutéro-pauliniennes,
puisqu'Origène, comme les autres auteurs paléochrétiens mentionnés, considérait l'en-
semble de ces textes comme remontant à l'Apôtre, compte tenu de la pluralité de signa-
taires évoquée et exception faite de l'Épître aux Hébreux dont le statut pour Origè~e était
en théorie particulier, mais en pratique le plus souvent aligné sur celui des autres Epîtres,
cf. Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire Ecclésiastique VI, 25, 11-14, SC 41, p. 128.
3. Irénée, Adverslls Haereses III, 7, 2, SC 34, p. 143, Origène pour sa part, en particu-
lier dans le cadre du Commel/taire sur l'Épître aux Romail/s, mentionne lui aussi les
hyperbates pauliniens ainsi que ses anacoluthes ou autres difficultés de construction, mai~
davantage en philologue et en exégète qu'en stylisticien; voir Fr. COCCHINI, Il Paolo dl
Origel/e, Contributo alla storia della recezione delle epistole paoline nel III secolo (Verba
Seniorum, NS 11), Roma, Studium, 1992, p. 179.
DE PAUL À ORIGÈNE 333
I. REPRISE, ANTITHÈSE ET ÉQUILIBRE
Le mode le plus commun du recours à l'Apôtre est la reprise avec
amplification, en un usage qui demeure proche de la paraphrase. À cela
s'ajoute, en s'en distinguant, l'appropriation, où le commentateur reprend
le texte pour l'adapter à la nouvelle fonction qu'il veut lui faire jouer.
1. Insistance
Un exemple éloquent est le début de l'explication de la parabole mat-
théenne des deux débiteurs, c'est-à-dire en fait du débiteur du débiteur,
en Mt 18,23-34. Le récit commence par une expression curieuse, qu'on
traduira littéralement: «le royaume des cieux a été semblable - ou même,
selon Origène, s'est fait semblable - à un homme qui était roi» (ffi~otCÔ31l
1Î pacrttvEia 1"&v oùpav&v àv3pcô1tCf> paO'tlvët, Mt 18,23). Le telme qui
retient ici l'attention d'Origène, on le voit, est le verbe initial, qu'il com-
prend dans toute sa force «s'est fait semblable». Ce faisant, il se réfère
implicitement à l'assimilation du «royaume» annoncé à la personne de
Jésus, présente dans l'exégèse paléochrétienne et plus haut dans le Com-
mentaire d'Origène lui-même4 • Et il explicite: «s'il s'est fait semblable
à un roi, à qui faut-il l'identifier si ce n'est au Fils de Dieu?»
(In Mt XIV, 7). La racine de ce verbe - avec l'idée de ressemblance qu'il
recèle - permet à l'interprète d'intégrer la réflexion paulinienne sur la
«ressemblance» :
De fait, ce 'royaume des cieux' (Mt 18,23), lorsqu'il est venu 'dans la res-
semblance de la chair de péché', afin de 'condamner le péché à propos du
péché' (Rm 8,3), lorsqu'il 'a rendu péché pour nous' (porteurs du 'corps de
péché', Rm 6,6), celui 'qui ne connaissait pas le péché' (2 Cor 5,21), 's'est
fait semblable à un homme qui était roi' (Mt 18,23), à l'homme perceptible
en Jésus ... 5.
L'agrafe initiale, avec le mot <(()~oi(O~a», est la «ressemblance de la
chair de péché», qui introduit une première citation paulinienne, tirée de
l'Épître aIL" Romains. Origène la complète par un énoncé encore plus
direct de la Première aux Corinthiens - à l'intérieur duquel il inclut
d'ailleurs brièvement une expression des Romains -, où il n'y a plus
comparaison mais métaphore, où il ne s'agit plus de «ressemblance»,
4. Origenes. Bd. 10: Origenes Matthiiuserkliirllng. 1. Die griechisch erhaltenen Tomoi
/ unter Mitwirkung von Ernst BENz [und] von Erich KLOSTERMANN (GCS, 40), Leipzig,
Hinrichs, 1935; ComMt XII, 14, GCS 40, p. 97.
5. ComMt KW, 7, GCS 40, p. 290.
334 A. BASTIT-KALINOWSKA
DE PAUL À ORIGÈNE 335

mais d'assimilation et de fusion (<<il a été rendu péché» ... ). Il est carac- Si on attribue le «1» à la forme glorieuse et le «0» à la forme humaine:
téristique de relever que la répétition insistante du mot «péché» (â/lap- on formalisera ainsi cette superposition des deux antithèses de l'Épître
'tia) était déjà présente dans l'un et l'autre verset paulinien. Cependant aux Philippiens, où se répondent respectivement «l'image de la gloire»
Origène, outre qu'il constmit ainsi, de manière forte, imagée et sugges- et le «corps de bassesse» (Phil 3,21), la «fOlme de Dieu» et la «fOlme
tive, une théologie de l'incarnation, en passant de la «ressemblance» du d'esclave» (Phil 2,6-7):
corps humain à l' «assimilation» à un homme, renforce l'effet stylistique 0/1/0/0/1/1
déjà voulu par Paul, en ne faisant plus qu'une seule phras~ de ces deux
Les parallélismes, le mouvement répété de l'un à l'autre, plus insistant
passages ainsi pmfaitement soudés. À tenne, le mot de «péché» revient
dans la seconde partie, expriment, par la balance des «KmÀ,a» et l'effet
six fois en quelque trois lignes, créant une surexpressivité à la limite de
de miroir suscité entre les deux tennes de l'opposition, 1'halmonie et
l'obsession accompagnée d'un effet de contraste violent entre «le roi des
l'unité peu à peu opérées entre les fOlmes divine et humaine. La même
cieux» d'une part et le «corps de péché» de l'autre.
phrase peut être lue encore, d'un point de vue visuel, comme l'équilibre
organisé entre un mouvement de descente et un mouvement de remontée
2. Tension binaire l'impulsion vers la remontée surgissant au cœur de la «plongée», c'est~
à-dire, selon mon schéma, au centre 0/0 du groupe des six «KmÀ,a».
On sait la place occupée pm' les parallélismes et plus largement l'iso-
colie dans la prose grecque. Paul, aussi personnel et indifférent à l'atti-
cisme qu'il puisse être, n'y échappe pas et, comme dans l'art oratoire
II. À PARTIR DE LA MÉTAPHORE
classique, associe ces constmctions bipolaires à l'antithèse. Il suffit de
lire cette déclaration de l'Épître aux Galates, à laquelle il ne manque pas
Un second moment où le discours d'Origène recoUli au patrimoine
même le balancement /lSV / os: «la chair désire à l'encontre de l'esprit,
paulinien pour l'exploiter et le plier à son propos est celui de la métaphore,
et l'esprit à l'encontre de la chair» (Gal 5,17). Le relevé des couples
de la compm'aison et plus lm'gement du langage figuré. Les exemples pré-
antithétiques du corpus paulinien serait impressionnant, quantitativement
cédents l'auront déjà suggéré, il est possible de parler, pour Origène, de la
et qualitativement: spirituel/charnel, éternel/ temporaire, mOliifère/vivi-
constmction d'un imaginaire largement empmnté à l'Apôtre.
fiant, hors du corps/dans le corps, haut/bas, fOli/faible, premier/dernier,
vision directe/indirecte etc. Une telle richesse de contrastes représente
pour Origène une grille qu'il adopte et réutilise largement et qui lui per- 1. Les trois usages de la métaphore paulinienne
met, en quelque sOlie, de quadriller son objet.
Il convient de distinguer trois fonctions, qui parfois se superposent:
Cette tension binaire, qui stmcture profondément le propos de l'exé-
- une fonction hmméneutique et/ou théologique, la métaphore pauli-
gète, se prête aussi bien à évoquer les parties engagées dans le conflit
nienne et son traitement dans le texte apostolique apparaissant
qu'à distinguer les pôles d'une réalité plus large, englobante, qui réunit
comme une explicitation, ou un approfondissement, du langage figu-
les opposés. La phrase organise alors un va-et-vient au sein duquel l'an-
ratif scripturaire. Ainsi, l'association paulinienne «et la pierre était
tithèse unit plus qu'elle ne sépare:
le Christ» (1 Cor 10,4) pennet à l'exégète d'identifier le sens spiri-
Devenu comme eux afin qu'ils deviennent comme lui, tuel de la «piene» sur laquelle, selon Mt 16,18, est construite l'Église
'confOImés à l'image de sa gloire' (Phil 3,21),
de Jésus, ou encore les déclarations de Paul sur le levain (1 Cor 5)
puisqu'il s'est préalablement lui-même
confOImé 'au COIpS de notre abaissement' (Phil 3,21) servent de clé aussi bien pour une lecture de Lev 2 que pour celle
lorsqu'il 's'est réduit lui-même des logia de Jésus sur le «levain des Pharisiens» en Mt 16,6 et 127 •
en assumant la forme de l'esclave' (Phil 2,7),
il revient vers la 'forme de Dieu' (Phil 2,6) !', A. BASTIT, Le levain et l'enseignement (Mt 16,12): Une méthode heuristique chez
et les y rend 'conformés'6. Onge~le, dan~ G: HElDL - R. SOMOS (éds.), OrigenÎana Nona: Origen and Religious
Practlce of HIS Tune. Papers of the 9th International Origen Congress, Pécs, Hunga/y, 29
August - 2 September 2005 (BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 49-60.
6. ComMt XII, 29, GCS 40, p. 133.
336 A. BASTIT-KALINOWSKA
- une fonction poétique, au sens moderne et non antique du telme, par
laquelle le commentateur impose à son lecteur des images et réseaux
d'images, qui visualisent, dramatisent et renforcent la réalité décrite.
Il suffit de penser à la prégnance chez Origène de la métaphore
paulinienne in praesentia de «l'ultime ennemi», la mOlt (1 Cor 15,26),
qui se trouve souvent comme personnifié, ou encore au couple
«ténèbre/lumière» grandiosement mis en scène en Rm 13,12-13.
Origène est sensible à cet aspect expressif et théâtral du discours
paulinien, lié à 1'«ÈvapYEta», comme le montre la récurrence,
à propos du jugement final, de la précision suggestive «en un
moment insécable, en un clin d'œil», Èv ù'tO/lCf> , Èv pmn ô<j>SaÎv-
/lOD (1 Cor 15,52)8.
- une fonction que j'appellerais «schématique», c'est-à-dire le recours
à des catégories figurées mises en place par Paul et intégrées par
Origène - à la suite de la tradition chrétienne ancienne - à son arse-
nal conceptuel, comme la comparaison classique du «corps» et des
«membres» ecclésiaux, en 1 Cor 12,12, ou la métaphore de la
«tente» figure du corps en 2 Cor 5,4. Un cas particulier est la com-
paraison célèbre de la Première aux Corinthiens, opposant le lait des
êtres infantiles à la nourriture consistante des adultes (1 Cor 3,2,
cf. He 5,13-14), qu'Origène croise avec le passage de Rm 14,2, où
il est dit que, si l'homme de foi mange de tout, les légumes sont la
nouniture du faible: il obtient ainsi une gradation ternaire, souvent
replise, dont le degré le plus bas est le lait, suivi des légumes, eux-
mêmes inférieurs à la «nourriture solide».
2. Exploitation des métaphores et amplification
L'abondance et la richesse de ce matériau métaphorique sont telles que
je ne retiendrai ici que deux exemples, qui me paraissent caractéristiques
de la manière origénienne.
a) Commentant la lumière qui apparaît à la transfiguration sur le visage
de Jésus, Origène reprend fidèlement, mais dans un cadre amplifié, le jeu
paulinien de l'Épftre aux Romains sur la lumière et les ténèbres:
'Et son visage brillait comme le soleil' (Mt 17,2),
afin qu'il apparaisse devant les 'enfants de lumière',
préalablement dépouillés des 'actes de ténèbre'
et revêtus des 'armes de lumière' (Rm 13,12),
eux qui ne sont plus enfants 'de la ténèbre ou de la nuit',
8. Cf. ComMt XN, 9-10.
DE PAUL À ORIGÈNE 337
mais sont désormais devenus fils 'du jour',
marchant noblement comme en plein jour' (Rm 13,13).
Leur étant apparu, il brille pour eux, non seulement 'comme le soleil'
(Mt 17,2), mais en leur révélant qu'il est le 'soleil de justice' (Mal 3,20)9.
On voit que, grâce à un schéma binaire analogue à celui évoqué plus
haut, mais plus ample:
1 /1 /0 Il /0 / 0 Il Il Il Il
le jeu de contrastes entre la lumière et la ténèbre est au bénéfice de la
première, dont, là encore, la dominance surgit de l'insistance centrale sur
son contraire. En un épanouissement final qui rejoint le thème initial, le
commentateur dépasse son point de départ narratif pour remonter vers la
métaphore prophétique de Malachie, avec sa force évocatrice et sa valeur
eschatologique.
b) À propos de «l'accord de deux» évoqué en Mt 18,19, Origène se
réfère à une interprétation qui part de l'antagonisme de la chair et de
l'esprit pour annoncer leur hannonie future, en un dialogue entre l'anti-
thèse des Galates (tension entre la chair et l'esprit) et l'eschatologie des
Romains, annonçant la motion du corps par l'esprit:
Chez les mauvais 'le péché règne sur l'âme' (Rm 6,12), installé comme
dans son propre trône dans ce corps mortel pour rendre l'âme docile à ses
désirs, mais chez ceux qui ont fait en quelque sorte se lever du trône de leur
corps le péché qui y régnait auparavant et qui luttent contre lui, 'la chair
désire à l'encontre de l'esprit, et l'esprit à l'encontre de la chair' (GaIS,17).
Chez ceux qui se sont désormais rendus parfaits l'esprit l'a emporté, a 'mis
à mort les actes du corps' (cf. Rm 8,13) et fait participer le corps à sa propre
vie, comme si était déjà réalisé le: 'il vivifiera aussi nos corps mortels à
cause de son esprit qui habite en nous' (Rm 8,11)10.
On notera la matérialisation de la métaphore, à l'aide de détails
concrets (le trône, l'assise, le mouvement pour se lever du trône etc.),
mais aussi l'amplification de l'opposition binaire, sous la fonne d'un
conflit déclaré et tendu: celui qui vise à la perfection est montré comme
luttant physiquement contre un péché personnifié. Le procédé relève à la
fois de l' «Èvapysta» cherchant à mettre sous les yeux du lecteur une
antithèse abstraite en la rendant visuelle ll , et de la dramatisation ampli-
fiant le combat du disciple contre la domination du mal. Tout est action
9. ComMt XII, 37, GCS 40, pp. 153-154.
10. ComMt XN, 3, GCS 40, p. 279.
11. Sur l'«Èvapyetu», notion capitale liée intimement à la métaphore selon le troi-
sième livre de la Rhétorique d'Aristote (1410b35 sq.), voir H. LAUSBERG, Handbuch der
Literarischen Rhetorik, München, Max Hueber, 1960, §81O, t. l, p. 400.
338 A. BASTIT-KALINOWSKA
et expression de mouvement dans ce texte; l'accumulation des verbes
décrivant la lutte - «faire se lever», «lutter», «l'empOlter», «mettre à
mort» - se fait suivant une gradation d'intensité dans la violence prépa-
rant le retournement final, qui s'élève au dessus du combat en une vision
glorieuse, pacifiée: selon l'anticipation de la plénitude eschatologique
évoquée par Paul, la mise à mort du péché précède la vie à venir dans
l'Esprit. . encore plus explicite de l'Épître aux Hébreux: dans ces deux derniers
m. IMpULSION, RYTHME ET LYRISME
Le recours à la citation paulinienne joue un rôle important, et souvent
décisif, non seulement dans la découverte de l'interprétation, mais aussi
dans la génération et l'articulation du discours. On pourrait ainsi montrer
comment la citation d'Eph 6,12: «notre combat n'est pas contre la chair
et le sang ... » génère tout le développement d' / n Mt XII, 13-14 sur le
conflit des deux cités. TI en va de même, sous un mode moins visuel mais
plus théologique, de la référence à 1 Cor 2,2 «ne rien connaître parmi
vous si ce n'est Jésus-Christ, et celui-ci crucifié» pour la réflexion menée
en /n Mt XII, 17 sq.
1. Pluralité de l'inspiration paulinienne
Je m'arrêterai ici sur un passage qui me paraît d'un intérêt tout parti-
culier, le commentaire de la seconde annonce de la passion en Mt 17,22-
23 12 , qui associe, en une composition contrastée, deux références pauli-
niennes de nature très différente, dont la première joue le rôle de matrice
du développement. Dès l'abord, la spécificité de cet énoncé par rapport
à la première déclaration du même type faite par Jésus en Mt 16,21 est
déterminée comme résidant dans le verbe «rcapaotoovat», «livrer»,
absent de la première formulation: «le Fils de l'homme est sur le point
d'être livré aux mains des hommes» (Mt 17,22). Mais pal' qui, ultime-
ment, doit-il être «livré»? La réponse est empruntée à Paul: «on pourra
dire qu'apporte un éclaircissement sur ce point l'Apôtre ('wuw b117Yov-
llevoÇ 6 ùrcomoÀoç;) quand il dit de Dieu: 'il n'a pas épargné son propre
fils, mais l'a livré pour nous tous' (Rm 8,32)>> (/n Mt XIII, 8). La fonc-
tion heuristique et herméneutique du recours à Paul «OtYJyou,.u>voç;»
est ici clairement affichée, sur la base de l'emploi commun du verbe
«rcapaotoovat». Mais il y a plus: Origène construit, tout au long de
12. ComMt XIlI, 8-9.
DE PAUL À ORIGÈNE 339
l'ample examen du verset de Mt 17,22, une sorte de rencontre et de dia-
logue entre la théologie de l'Épître aux Romains d'une part, dominante
surtout dans la première moitié de l'analyse (on y relève sept occurrences
de Rm 8,32 13 ), et, de l'autre, l'évocation de la confrontation entre le Fils
livré et la puissance de la mort, avec ses conséquences pour les hommes,
décrite à l'aide de la Première aux Corinthiens et surtout d'un passage
textes, le Christ est dit devoir anéantir «son dernier ennemi, la mort»
(1 Cor 15,26), anéantir «pal' la mort même celui qui a la puissance de la
mort» (He 2,14).
Procédant, non seulement en théologien, mais aussi en écrivain,
Origène associe ainsi, comme en une sorte de tissage ou de balance, la
référence à Rm 8,32, marquée pal' la sérénité pathétique et l'équilibre
binaire de l'isocolie: «le Père n'a pas refusé son propre fils, mais l'a livré
pour nous tous» - qui s'élève au niveau proprement théologique des
perspectives éternelles de la «qnÀavSpffirc{a» divine (selon l'expression
d'Origène) -, à la description riche et mouvementée de l'affrontement du
bien et du mal, en un combat spirituel dont la force est empruntée à un
autre registre paulinien, plus dramatique, plus visuel et plus cosmique.
Ces deux tonalités stylistiques se génèrent l'une l'autre par effet de
contraste et se partagent l'ensemble du développement, où il est possible
cependant de dégager une ligne qui mène de la théologie du plan divin à
l'économie de la rencontre décisive avec la mort.
Avec la précision «par le fait même d'être livré et soumis», qu'il
présente comme une explicitation de l'expression apostolique (<<pal' la
mort il a anéanti la mort»), l'auteur intègre toute la réflexion précédente
sur le Fils «livré», celui ou ceux qui l'ont livré et à qui il l'a été. Pal'
là-même, sur le fond de la considération du libre dessein de Dieu, Ori-
gène exploite et amplifie le paradoxe exprimé par l'Épître aux Hébreux l4 •
Cette riche exégèse de Mt 17,22, prend, à la fin de la séquence, un
accent de victoire emprunté cette fois au psaume 2, non sans quelque
arrière-plan paulinien (cf. Col 2,15):
Et c'est pourquoi 'le Père n'a pas épargné son propre Fils, mais l'a livré
pour nous tous' (Rm 8,32), afin que ceux auxquels il a été remis et qui l'ont
13. Ces sept références se répartissent ainsi: deux vraies citations, deux citations modi-
fiées (avec une inversion expressive) et réduites, et trois citations réduites.
14. «TI me semble indispensable d'examiner aussi comment, par le fait même d'être
livré et SOl/mis à ceux auxquels il a été livré, il annihile 'celui qui possédait l'empire de
la mort' (He 2,14): 'par la mort en effet il anéantit celui qui possédait l'empire de la mort,
c'est-à-dire le diable, et a affranchi tous ceux qui, par crainte de la mort, étaient pour toute
leur vie assujettis à la servitude' (ibid.)>> (ComMt XIlI, 8 fin, GCS 40, p. 203).
340 A. BASTIT-KALINOWSKA
livré aux mains des hommes soient «ridiculisés par celui qui demeure aux
cieux» et «tournés en dérision par le Seigneur» (Ps 2,4). Car, contre leur
attente (nupà npoaÙoKtuv), c'est en vue (etC;) d~ l'effondrement de leur
royaume et de leur pouvoir (cf. He 2,14) que le Fils leur a été remis par le
Père ... 15 •
La vigueur expressive des verbes au passif, «être exposés au rire et à
la moquerie» (È'YrEÀaO'Sroow Kat ûnô 'Cou KUptoU ÈKJ.lUK'Cl1PtO'SroO'tv)
fait contraste avec la sobriété pathétique de l'énoncé de Rm 8,32, en une
opposition de deux couples caractérisant d'un côté la libéralité divine, de
l'autre la défaite des puissances mauvaises. En outre, Origène insiste, en
tennes de poétique aristotélicienne, sur l'effet de surprise (napà npoO'-
DOKtav) lié au retournement, proprement dramatique 16 , de la soumission
victorieuse: l'accent initialement placé sur l'expression décisive, «dS
Ka'CuÀuO'tv», et sur sa valeur finale, imprime à la phrase un net tournant
qui constitue l'amorce d'un de ces moments d'accélération du rythme et
de lyrisme sur lesquels je voudrais m'arrêter pour finir.
2. Rythme et lyrisme
Il n'est pas rare en effet que le développement aboutisse à une aug-
mentation de la tension et à une élévation du ton d'allure oratoire. Sou-
vent, cette exaltation repose sur une intensification des citations scriptu-
raires, qui se succèdent de plus en plus rapidement.
a) C'est le cas au tenne de XIII, 9:
... lui qui est 'ressuscité le troisième jour' (Mt 17,23), par le fait d'avoir
'anéanti son ennemi, la mort' (1 Cor 15,26) et de nous avoir 'conformés,
non seulement à sa mort, mais aussi à sa résurrection' (Rm 6,5), lui par qui
'nous marchons dans la nouveauté de la vie' (Rm 6,4) et ne sommes plus
'assis au pays et à l'ombre de la mort', grâce à 'la Lumière de Dieu qui
s'est levée sur nous' (1s 58,lOfMt 4,16)17.
On notera les relances: «oO''ttS, Dt' av, Dtà 'Co», qui à chaque fois
pennettent à la phrase de rebondir grâce à une nouvelle tonalité scriptu-
raire. On distinguera ainsi trois temps:
10. l'annonce de la résurrection en Mt 17,23 - texte commenté -, qui
repose sur le rappel de la victoire ultime (1 Cor 15,26, cf. He 2,14) et
15. ComMt XIII, 9 fin, GCS 40, p. 205.
16. Celui-ci correspond à ce qu'Aristote, dans la Poétique, appelle la «J.lE't"â~aO"IS»
de l'action (ch. X, 1452a16).
17. ComMt XIII, 9 fin, GCS 40, p. 205.
DE PAUL À ORIGÈNE 341
introduit à la théologie paulinienne du baptême, confOlmation à la mort
et à la résurrection du Christ, (selon le mot de Ph 3,21 associé à la
conception de Rm 6,5);
2°. l'évocation, déjà plus allègre, de la «nouveauté de la vie» procla-
mée par Rm 6,4;
3°. l'élargissement de la perspective qui, grâce à la superposition de la
prophétie d'Is 58,10 et de sa reprise en Mt 4,16, récapitule rapidement
toute l 'histoire du salut à travers le contraste de l'ombre et de la lumière,
de l'avant et de l'après, et se projette vers la venue ultime de la «lumière
de Dieu», qui est le Sauveur lui-même désigné à travers une métaphore
transparente aux riches connotations bibliques.
Origène part ici de l'évangile, son objet, pour y revenir, en passant par
la langue et la pensée de Paul. Quand la phrase se rabat sur la prophétie
d'Isaïe telle qu'elle était reprise au début de l'évangile de Matthieu, elle
apparaît chargée de l'évocation de trois plans antithétiques superposés,
dont le troisième - eschatologique - n'est, à mon sens, que suggéré:
Objet de l'action Temps de l'action Effet de l'action
fidèle Avant le baptême Nouveauté de la vie de baptisé
humanité Avant la venue historique de Salut apporté par la résurrection
Jésus de Jésus
humanité sauvée Avant la venue ultime du Eclat de la lumière défmitive
Sauveur
C'est la densité de ces superpositions de sens, associée à l'alacrité de
la progression de la phrase, qui provoque comme un effet de «décolage» .
b) Dans le même sens, revenons un instant au texte déjà invoqué de
l'accord paradoxal de la chair et de l'esprit. Nous y rencontrerons une
montée analogue, soulignée par l'expression de la conséquence: «de
sorte que ... »:
Et il se fera (ainsi) un accord des deux sur la terre (Mt 18,19), c'est-à-dire
du corps et de l'esprit. Une fois celui-ci établi, la prière aussi s'élèvera,
accordée, de 'celui qui croit en son cœur en vue de la justice' (Rm 10,10)
et de 'celui qui confesse de sa bouche en vue du salut' (Rm 10,10), de sorte
que le cœur ne sera plus éloigné de Dieu et qu'en accord avec le cœur le
juste s'approchera aussi de Dieu de ses lèvres et de sa bouche 18 •
Ici, le rythme binaire accordé au thème traité se fait va et vient, du
corps à l'esprit, du cœur à la bouche, en quatre reprises de plus en plus
18. ComMt XIV, 3, GCS 40, p. 279.
342 A. BASTIT-KALINOWSKA
intenses qui s'épanouissent dans l'évocation de leur unification ultime,
liée à la proximité de Dieu deux fois annoncée.
c) Enfin, l'empmnt oratoire à Paul peut intervenir au «point d'orgue»:
la fin du premier paragraphe du tome XII met en scène une longue accu-
mulation guerrière, qui s'achève sur une chute grandiose, empruntée
conjointement au psaume deux 19 , où est formulé le thème -les alliances
des rois ennemis contre l'élu de Dieu -, et à la Première aux Corinthiens,
qui en exprime le sens - cette ligue est l'image de celle des puissances
mauvaises:
afin que, par leurs visées 'contre le Seigneur et contre son oint' (ps 2,2), ils
mettent à mort 'le Seigneur de la gloire' (1 Cor 2,8)2°.
Là encore, la tension vers la fin de la période est marquée par une
conjonction finale, et le recours à l'Apôtre pelmet à la pensée de se poser,
et même de se fixer, en une alliance de violence et d'élévation, sur le
paradoxe paulinien de la «mise à mOlt du Seigneur de gloire».
Certes, l'apostrophe, le lyrisme, la montée vers le sublime sont moins
fréquents, chez Origène, dans les commentaires que dans les homélies.
Néanmoins, leur émergence - souvent signe d'une césure ou d'une pause
dans la succession des séquences - suffit à montrer, me semble-t-il, que
le discours d'Origène, aussi accumulatif et scientifique qu'il puisse être
patfois, est toujours sous-tendu par une vibration cachée, qui affleure par
moments et entraîne la phrase vers un autre registre, celui de l'inspiration
et de l'expressivité.
CONCLUSION
Si nous cherchons à rassembler ces quelques observations, j'évoquerai
deux aspects dominants;
1. La reprise par Origène de quelques procédés stylistiques pauli-
niens 2 1, tels:
la définition (par exemple celle de l' «à:yum']» en XII, 41)22
- la répétition (<<péché», ou encore «loi» en XII, 3)
19. Avec la mention: «contre le Seigneur et son élu» (Ps 2,2).
20. COll/Mt XII, 1 fin, GCS 40, p. 70.
21. On trouve, à la fin de l'étude de St. Pmier, une liste indicative de figures de style
susceptibles d'être relevées dans les Épîtres pauliniennes, voir PORTER, Paul of Tarsus
(n. 1),533-586: «IV. Pauline Rhetoric in Practice, §D Style» (ch. 18).
22. Certains termes, comme «àya1t~», appellent comme automatiquement une réfé-
rence paulinienne. Cf. ComMt XII, 23 et 41.
DE PAUL À ORIGÈNE 343
le parallélisme (<<parole de sagesse/ parole de connaissance» selon
1 Cor 12,8, en XIV, 6)
l'antithèse (<<Dieu / esclave», «lumière / ténèbre» etc.)
le paradoxe (<<tuer le Seigneur de gloire», «vaincre la mOlt par la
mort»)
l' «Èvapystu» ou visualisation (<<en un instant insécable»)
_ le pathétique ( «ne pas épargner son propre fils» )
Toutes ces figures, qui relèvent d'une rhétorique grecque commune,
sont ici observées, recueillies et amplifiées par Origène, qui s'amuse
même à parodier Paul, lorsqu'il écrit:
à moins que Jésus n'appelle 'scandale' pour lui-même tout disciple q~i
commet le péché, comme s'il disait, beaucoup mieux que chez Paul, du fait
de sa charité: 'qui est faible que je ne sois faible? qui est touché ~ar le
scandale que je ne sois, moi, enflammé?' (2 Cor 11,29), SUI' le mode~e de
quoi il serait possible de forger: 'qui est touché par le scandale que Je ne
sois, moi, touché par le scandale? '23.
On notera qu'ici, lorsqu'Origène réécrit Paul, il revient à une symétrie
insistante, rompue au contraire par l'Apôtre. Nous avons affaire alors à
la fonction expressive de la rhétorique.
2. L'insertion de l'expression paulinienne dans le discours origénien
Nous avons vu qu'Origène constmisait par moments -la fréquence de
ces passages de paulinisme saturé serait à étudier - son discou~s ~ .p.altir
de «KroÀU» ou d'expressions pauliniennes, soit convergentes, repetitives,
soit au contraires hétérogènes ou complémentaires. Sur le plan de la
phrase ou de la période, nous avons pu observer l'organisation d'un équi-
libre dynamique, à base d'alternance contrastée (1 /0), pour lequel les
indications de finalité ou de conséquence jouent un rôle moteur. Au
niveau plus large du développement, j'ai indiqué la puissance génératrice
de quelques citations, qui se rencontrent au début et ~u ~erm~ de la
séquence, voire patfois encore en son milieu, scanda~t amSl l~ ~lscours
et en marquant le rythme. Il s'agit alors de la fonction heunstique de
l'expression et de la pensée pauliniennes.
3. D'un point de vue hennéneutique, la «remontée» vers Paul pennet
d'éclairer théologiquement ou doctrinalement les notations de Matthieu,
et de leur conférer aussi une plus grande force expressive et rhétorique.
On pourrait s'interroger, pour prolonger l'étude, sur les rapports intrin-
sèques de Matthieu et de Paul, qui permettent à Origène - et pas seule-
23. ComMt XII, 23, GCS 40, p. 121.
344 A. BASTIT-KALINOWSKA
ment à lui, car le phénomène est largement partagé par les commenta-
teurs de Matthieu, comme on peut par exemple le constater sur l'exemple
de Chromace d'Aquilée - de passer ainsi d'un domaine à l'autre comme
s'il s'agissait d'un seul et même texte, dont on distinguerait seulement
des moments différents. Origène et la tradition patdstique des commen-
tateurs de Matthieu ne doutent pas de l'accord profond de ces deux cor-
pus et y puisent la justification de leur pratique d'un va-et-vient entre
théologie (paulinienne) et économie nanative (évangélique), spéculation
et histoire, inspiration et prose.
L'étude de ces quelques remplois de style paulinien aura ainsi montré
combien Origène était attentif à découvrir chez l'Apôtre des lignes de
force, des visions, un langage lui permettant, non seulement d'intégrer le
texte évangélique à une perspective plus générale, mais aussi de structu-
rer son propre discours à l'aide de catégories rhétoriquement fécondes et
théologiquement opératoires.
Université Paul-Verlaine-Metz Agnès BASTIT-KALINOWSKA
670, rue de Bourgogne
F-21410 Pont de Pany
France
agnes.bastit@univ-metz.fr
LA RÉÉCRITURE AU PASSIF ET SES ENJEUX
DANS LE COMMENTAIRE SUR JEAN D'ORIGÈNE
On connaît l'impOltance pdse par les citations scripturaires dans l'exé-
gèse d'Odgène, dont les commentaires exégétiques s'apparentent à bien
des égards à une réécriture des Écritures. Ces reformulations, ainsi que
les liens qu'elles entretiennent avec le contenu du commentaire ont été
étudiées en particulier par D. Pazzini 1•
C'est un type de reformulation, fréquent chez Origène et notamment
dans son Commentaire sur Jean, qui nous intéresse ici: la réécriture à la
voix passive. À la lecture, il apparaît en effet que nombre de versets
scripturaires sont réécrits à la voix passive dans le CIo: verbes conjugués,
infinitifs, participes, toutes les formes verbales semblent touchées par ce
type de reformulation passive.
r ai ainsi été amenée à formuler l'hypothèse que ces réécritures pas-
sives ne constituaient pas seulement un moyen pour insérer le texte
scripturaire dans la phrase origénienne, mais devaient être étudiées
comme un phénomène exégétique à part entière, et plus précisément
comme un moyen de l'inventio utilisé par l'exégète pour créer l'interpré-
tation à partir du lemme commenté.
Afin de montrer l'enjeu de ces reformulations passives dans le CIo, je
propose ici l'analyse de quatre d'entre elles, et des effets produits sur
l'interprétation. La transformation passive peut induire en effet un nou-
veau rapprochement de termes, une requalification de l'action décrite ou
une modification des relations entre le sujet et l'objet de la phrase.
1. UN NOUVEAU RAPPROCHEMENT DE TERMES
Tout d'abord, la reformulation passive, en bouleversant la phrase
johannique, conduit au rapprochement de certains mots, qui peut se révé-
ler fécond pour l'exégèse. C'est le cas dans le passage où l'exégète se
1. D. PAZZINl, Considerazione sulla lingua de/ Commento a Giovanni, in E. PruNZlVALLI
(ed.), Il Commento a Giovanni: Il testo e i suoi contesti (Atti dell'VIII Convegno di Studi
deI Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina, Roma, 28-30
settembre 2004), Villa Verucchio, P.G. Pazzini, 2005, 117-131; D. PAZZINI, Lingua e
te%gia in Origene: il Commento a Giovanni, Brescia, Paideia, 2009.
 346 A. ALIAU-MILHAUD
demande pourquoi l'évangéliste a tenu à signaler que Jésus avait parlé
dans le Trésor du Temple2 •
1. La phrase bouleversée
En effet, le verset Jn 8,20 que commente Origène se présente à la voix
active:
Tu~"Cu "Cà pil/-lu"Cu èÀŒÂT]O'SV F-V "Cé[> yuSO<j>UÂUKtcp otoŒO'KOOV F-V "Cé[>
tspcp·(... )
Il prononça ces paroles dans le Trésor, tandis qu'il enseignait dans le
Temple ( ... ) (Jn 8,20).
Or, immédiatement après la citation de ce lemme, en commençant son
interprétation, l'exégète le réécrit au passif:
Et /-lil "Ct xpilO't/-loV ~v /-lu,c}dv F-K "COù "Cà npostpnw~vu dnnryéÂ~ut \)no
"COù O'oo"Cfjpoç ÂSfu~fjO',c}Ut F-V "Cm yuÇO<!>UÀUKtOO, OÙK av npoO'é,c}T]KSV 0
sùUyySÀtO'T~S ois sinsv 0 'IT]O'OùS "Co «Tuù"Cu "Cà pil/-lu"Cu F-ÀŒÀT]O'SV F-V
"Cé[> yuso<j>uÂuKlcp otOUO'KOOV F-V "Cé[> ispé[>>> ...
S'il n'y avait rien d'utile à apprendre du fait que les paroles précédentes ont
été prononcées par le Sauveur dans le Trésor, comme le rapporte l'évangé-
liste, celui-ci n'aurait pas ajouté à ce qu'avait dit Jésus: «Il prononça
ces paroles dans le Trésor, tandis qu'il enseignait dans le Temple» (CID
XIXAO).
Cette première réécriture transforme le verbe actif «ÈÀaÀllaEv» en
verbe passif «ÀEÀaÀfjaSat», mais change aussi le temps du verbe,
puisque l'aoriste est délaissé au profit du palfait, qui confère au texte
jO~1annique un relief, voire une emphase qu'il ne possédait pas dans
l'Evangile, tout en le rendant actuel aux yeux du lecteur, comme si Jésus
était toujours en train de prononcer des paroles qui continuent d'agir3 •
Deuxième effet de cette réécriture passive, l'exégète exprime le com-
plément d'agent «uno 'wu aw .. fjpoç;» alors que le sujet de la phrase
n'apparaissait pas en Jn 8,20 (mais seulement dans le verset précédent
sous le nom de «Jésus»). Origène introduit ce complément au milieu du
verset (entre « .. à npoEtPll/.tÉva» et «ÀEÀaÀfjaSat»), ce qui contribue
au bouleversement de la phrase et va mener l'exégète à une modification
de l'ordre des tennes.
2. CID XIXAO-63 (SC 260, 70-87).
3. Pour cet «effet prolongé de l'action» dû à l'emploi du parfait, voir F. BLASS _
A. DEBRUNNER, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Earl)' Christian
Literature, trad. R.W. FUNK, Chicago, IL - London, The University of Chicago Press,
1973, p. 176.
LA RÉÉCRITURE AU PASSIF ET SES ENJEUX DANS CIO 347
2. L'émergence de l'interprétation
En effet, on trouve au paragraphe suivant une deuxième réécriture
passive du verset, qui accentue ce bouleversement:
ïv' oi'lv vOll,c}fj, "Ct "Co F-V "Cm yuço<!>uÀuKloo "Cuihu "Cà Pnuu"Cu {mo "COù
'IUO'Où sipfjO',c}ut ( ... )
Donc, afin de comprendre pourquoi c'est dans le Trésor que ces paroles
furent prononcées par Jésus ( ... ) (CID XIXAl).
On constate cette fois que la réécriture passive apparaît dans une inter-
rogation indirecte, comme si l'exégète associait ici deux méthodes heu-
ris tiques: la méthode de recherche par questions/réponses 4 et la réécriture
passive. Par ailleurs, le bouleversement du verset commenté se poursuit
ici, dans la mesure où le complément de lieu, «Èv .. 0 yasocpuÀaKlcp»,
au lieu de rester en fin de phrase, se retrouve au début, près du sujet
«..au.. a .. à P1l/.ta.. a». Or la suite de l'interprétation va précisément iden-
tifier les paroles prononcées par Jésus avec le Trésor, de sOlte que la
question posée contient en elle-même sa réponse: c'est dans le Trésor
que les paroles furent prononcées car le Trésor, ce sont les paroles de
Jésus:
il oi ,c}Slot Myot ... ;
.. à of; vO/-liO'f.lu"Cu "Ctvu av s'fT]
quelles peuvent être ces pièces de monnaie (déposées au Trésor), sinon les
paroles divines ... ? (CID XIXA4)5.
On peut donc dire que ces réécritures du lemme à la voix passive ont
permis un réagencement des termes de la phrase qui conduit à l'interpré-
tation, en permettant le rapprochement entre les paroles et le Trésor6 •
4. À propos de la méthode d'exégèse par questions/réponses, voir L. PERRONE, Per-
spectives sur Origène et la littérature patristique des «quaestiones et responsiones», in
G. DORIVAL - A. LE BOULLUEC (eds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen and
the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1995, 151-164, et en particu-
lier, sur le CID, pp. 156-157.
5. Voir aussi plus bas, lorsque l'exégète récapitule son interprétation: « ... 1tUV'OOV
cr\>VëtO'(pëpOV,OOV Èv ,0 yaÇocpuÀaKi<p ,ou LëpOU ,ou U1tÈp ,ou KOtVoU ,à SpÈ'I'0v,a
,oùe; OëOJ-lÈVOUe;, J-liiÀÀov 1tUV'tffiV Èxpflv ,ov 'IT]crouv cpépëlV ,à cllCPëÀi]crOVta, a1tëp
~v pi]J-la,a Çoofle; alooviou Kat oloacrKaÀia 't11tëpt SëOU Kat Éau<,ou>, ... alors que tous
apportaient leur contribution au Trésor du Temple, de quoi entretenir les indigents pour le
bien commun, plus que tous Jésus devait appOlter ce qui serait profitable, c'est-à-dire des
paroles de vie éternelle et un enseignement sur Dieu et sur lui-même» (CID XIX.53).
6. Notons que, si l'interprétation paraît ainsi annoncée par la reformulation origé-
nienne, l'arrière-plan théologique peut également conduire Origène à assimiler Jésus au
Temple (cf. Jn 2,21) et ses paroles au Trésor qu'il contient. Néanmoins, cette idée n'appa-
raît nulle part de façon explicite dans le passage qui nous occupe (ni d'ailleurs plus haut
dans le commentaire portant sur Jn 2,21), ce qui laisse penser que le rapprochement entre
 348 A. ALIAU-MILHAUD
II. UN NOUVEAU STATUT POUR L'ACTION DÉCRITE
Deuxièmement, la réécriture du verset commenté à la voix passive
peut induire un changement de perspective sur l'action décrite. On
constate ainsi qu'au tome XIII du CIo, en réécrivant au passif la péric ope
des marchands du Temple, Origène lui fait perdre son caractère histo-
rique et narratif, et lui confère ainsi une valeur morale.
1. L'action mise au premier plan
L'exégète est alors en train de commenter le verset Jn 4,45, où il est
dit:
VOte 06v ~ÀSev siS tY1V raÀtÀaiav, Ot raÀtÀatot ÈùÉçavto m'nov,
numa écopaKOtes éi ÈnoillO"ev Èv 'IepoO"oÀul!ots èv tn éoptn._
Lorsqu'il arriva donc en Galilée, les Galiléens lui firent bon accueil, parce
qu'ils avaient vu tout ce qu'il avait accompli à Jérusalem pendant la fête
(Jn 4,45).
S'interrogeant sur ce «tout, nav'ta» qu'avaient vu Galiléens à Jérusa-
lem, l'exégète cite un passage johannique antérieur, celui des marchands
du Temple:
Nous ne trouvons, mentionné plus haut, rien d'autre que: «TI trouva assis
dans le Temple les marchands de bœufs, de brebis et de colombes, et les
changeurs; s'étant fait un fouet avec des cordes, il les chassa (èçÉ~aÀev)
tous du Temple, ainsi que les brebis et les bœufs, répandit (èçÉxeev) la
monnaie des changeurs, renversa (&vÉO"tpe\jlev) les tables et dit (dnev)
aux marchands de colombes: Enlevez cela d'ici, ne faites pas de la maison
de mon Père une maison de trafic» (Jn 2,14-16) (CIo XIll.382).
C'est ce passage que l'exégète réutilise en citant le lemme commenté,
et en substituant? au «tout, nana» l'action de Jésus au Temple:
Ce «tout» (mlvta tauta), c'était que, par le fouet de cordes, brebis et
bœufs fussent chassés (èK~e~ÀflO"Sat) du Temple, que fût répandue à terre
(èKKexuO"Sat) la monnaie des changeurs, que fussent renversées (&va-
tetpu<j>Sat) les tables, et qu'il fût dit (sipflO"Sat) avec autorité aux ven-
les paroles et le Trésor est d'abord d'ordre discursif, même si des raisons théologiques ont
pu également l'autoriser.
7. Notons que D. PAZZINI définit trois types d'utilisation du texte johannique dans la
phrase origénienne: la substitution, la retranscription, et le replacement (<<collocazione»):
voir «Considerazione sulla lingua ... », p. 127. Cependant, tout en utilisant l'exemple qui
nous occupe ici pour illustrer le phénomène de «substitution» qu'il a identifié, l'auteur ne
le commente pas.
LA RÉÉCRITURE AU PASSIF ET SES ENJEUX DANS CIO 349
deurs de colombes: «Enlevez cela d'ici, ne faites pas de la maison de mon
père une maison de trafic» (CIo Xm.385).
Dans cette reforrnulation passive, ce sont les actions de Jésus qui sont
mises en relief, en premier lieu par l'emploi systématique du parfait à la
place de l'aoriste: la valeur narrative des actions produites s'estompe, au
profit d'une valeur d'insistance affective et d'expressivité conférée par
le parfaitS.
Autre élément qui montre que les actions prennent le devant de la
scène au détriment de leur auteur: la disparition du complément d'agent.
En effet, ce qui reste dans les mémoires des Galiléens, au moment où ils
accueillent Jésus chez eux, c'est moins la figure du Sauveur que les
œuvres qu'il a accomplies: à la narration des faits et gestes d'un homme,
de ses actions rapides et successives, se substitue le tableau toujours
vivace du désordre alors provoqué: animaux en fuite, argent répandu et
tables renversées.
La reformulation passive a ainsi permis la transformation d'une action
ponctuelle narrée par l'Évangile en une description à valeur plus géné-
rale, toujours présente au souvenir des Galiléens et rendue actuelle aux
yeux du lecteur.
2. La généralisation morale
Les réécritures ultérieures confirment cette généralisation de l'action.
On lit ainsi peu après:
lIÂijv éçeO"ttv raÀtÀatov oV'tU éoptUSelv èv 'IepoO"oÂ.6l!ots ytvol!e-
VOY, onou 0 vaos 'tOu Seou, Kat Secopetv nuvta oO"a Ènoiet èKe\:
'IllO"OUS, Kat lluÀtO"ta tiva tponov èKBuÀÀet tm èK O"xotvicov <ppœyeÀÀico
lm' aOtou nenotUblÉvCO nuvras toÙs ncoÀouvtas Boas Kat npoBata Kat
neptO"tepàs tU te npoBata Kat tOÙS Boas Kat tà Àotnu.
Or il est possible, lorsqu'on est galiléen, d'assister à la fête à Jérusalem, où
se trouve le sanctuaire de Dieu, de contempler tout ce que faisait Jésus là-
bas, et en particulier de quelle manière, avec le fouet de cordes fabriqué par
lui-même, il chasse tous les vendeurs de bœufs, de brebis et de colombes,
ainsi que les brebis, les bœufs, etc. (CIo Xm.387).
Cette seconde reformulation paraît bien différente de la première,
puisqu'on assiste à un nouveau renversement du passif à l'actif (ilnoiEt,
ilK~aÂ.Â.Et). Mais la valeur descriptive apparue grâce au parfait demeure
ici à travers l'emploi du présent (Éop'taÇEtv, ytvO!-lEVOV, SEropdv,
ilK~aÂ.Â.Et) et de l'imparfait (ilnoiEt). Enfin, l'apparition d'un lexique
8. Cf. P. CHANTRAINE, Histoire dll paifait grec, Paris, Champion, 1927, pp. 165-167.
 350 A. ALIAU-MILHAUD
spirituel, puisque les Galiléens ne voient plus seulement les signes don-
nés par Jésus (ÉcopaKo't'Eç;, Jn 4,45), mais les contemplent (~Ecopdv, CIo
XIII.387), permet l'émergence de l'exégèse morale.
En effet, celle-ci apparaît ensuite dans une demière reformulation, qui
conclut l'intelprétation:
I1p&mv oÔv iostv ost, ·mu.éO''ttv O'UVtéVUl, .à f-V '1spoO'oÀ6Jlots Epya
.0U '1l]O'ou reav.a, .iva .poreov Ka,9aipst .0 ispov ùreoKa,9tO'.àç aI'J.o
stç .0 dVUl «O{KOV .0U rea.poç» Kat UUKé'tt «O{KOV f-bl7copiou», ïva
Jls.à .0 ,9sffipfjO'Ul .au.a .Ov f-vspyijO'av.a .au.a ÀOyov OSScOJls,9a.
Il faut donc tout d'abord voir, c'est-à-dire comprendre, toutes les œuvres
accomplies par Jésus à Jémsalem, de quelle façon il purifie le Temple en
lui donnant d'être à nouveau «maison du Père» et non plus «maison de
trafic», afin qu'après les avoir contemplées, nous accueillions le Logos qui
les a accomplies (CIo Xm.389).
Cette demière reformulation relève explicitement de l'exégèse'morale,
comme le montre l'emploi de «Ka~ai.pEt, purifie». En effet, le sens
concret du verset Jn 4,45 (c'est parce que les Galiléens ont vu les actions
de Jésus qu'ils l'ont reçu chez eux) prend ici une valeur morale. Cette
nouvelle valeur est marquée par le changement lexical qui affecte le
verbe «opuco», employé en Jn 4,45, successivement réécrit en «O'\NtÉ-
vat» puis «~ECOPi1O'at». li exprime la condition nécessaire à un accueil
spirituel du Christ, la valeur morale de l'accueil étant à son tour marquée
par le changement de personne: le terme «è8Éçav't'o» (Jn 4,45) est réé-
crit en «8EçcO,.tE~a» à la première personne. Chacun de nous, dit Ori-
gène, doit «voir», «contempler» les œuvres pour pouvoir «accueillir»
Jésus.
On peut donc dire que la reformulation passive des actions de Jésus
dans le Temple a pu non seulement annoncer, mais jouer,le rôle de
déclencheur dans l'élaboration exégétique. En effet, l'aoriste actif du ver-
set, réécrit au pmfait passif, a d'abord permis une dé-narrativisation et
une généralisation de l'action, menant ensuite à l'interprétation morale,
formulée au présent actif.
III. UN RENVERSEMENT DU SUJET ET DE L'OBJET
On peut attribuer un troisième rôle à la reformulation passive: dans
certains cas, le renversement grammatical du sujet et de l'objet conduit
l'exégète à un renversement d'ordre sémantique, comme si le sujet du
verbe passif devenait alors le véritable auteur de l'action.
LA RÉÉCRITURE AU PASSIF ET SES ENJEUX DANS CIO 351
1. Un nouveau lexique pOUl' caractériser le sujet
C'est ce qui se produit, me semble-t-il, lorsque Origène interprète la
fin du verset Jn 8,20 (dont j'ai parlé précédemment):
Tau.a.à pijJla.a f-ÀaÀl]O'sv f-v.cp yaÇoqmÀaKüp OtMO'KffiV f-v,Cp ispcp'
Kat oMsiç f-reiaO'sv aI'J.ov, O'tt oureffi f-ÀUÀ(),9st ft éOpa aI'Jmu.
Il prononça ces paroles dans le Trésor, tandis qu'il enseignait dans le
Temple; et personne ne se saisit de lui, parce que son heure n'était pas
encore venue (Jn 8,20, cité en CIo XIXAO).
Après avoir expliqué ce que représente le Trésor, l'exégète s'intéresse
à la seconde partie du verset, et s'exprime ainsi:
OJlffiS Di; .00'au.a pijJla.a f-V .cp yaçoqmÀaKiq> ÀaÀ&v Kat OtMO'KffiV Q
'1UO'ouç f-v.cp ispcp ure' oMsvoç f-Kpa.st.o reffi' Kat m'nou yàp oi À6yot
iO'Xupo.spm f-.uYXavov .&v maO'at aI'J.ov ,9SÀOV'ffiV. Kat oO'ov ys
Àéyst, oMsiç aI'J.ov maO'st .&v f-m~ouÀsuOV'ffiV aI'J.& ùÀÀ' f-àv
O'lffireijO'TI, .o.s Kpœcshat.
Cependant, pendant que Jésus prononçait des paroles si importantes dans le
Trésor et qu'il enseignait dans le Temple, il ne se fit prendre par personne:
en effet, ses discours se trouvaient être plus puissants que ceux qui voulaient
se saisir de lui. Aussi, tant qu'il parle, aucun de ceux qui complotent contre
lui ne se saisira de lui, mais s'il vient à se taire, alors il se fait prendre (CIo
XIX.60).
Ce commentaire de «Kat où8dç; èni.aO'Ev aù't'ov» (Jn 8,20) est inté-
ressant parce qu'il mêle voix active et voix passive, avec une variation
lexicale sur le verbe «musco». On constate ainsi que le verbe «musco,
se saisir de» apparaît plusieurs fois à la voix active, comme dans le ver-
set johannique: «muO'at aù't'ov; où8dç; aùû>v mUO'Et». Inversement,
son synonyme «Kpa't'Éco», lui, est seulement conjugué à la voix passive
(ûn' OMEVàç; èKpa't'Et't'o, 't'O't'E Kpa't'Et't'at).
La reformulation passive s'accompagne donc de l'apparition d'un nou-
veau verbe, «Kpa't'Éco». D'un point de vue lexical, il semble qu'Origène
a seulement introduit une variatio, qu'il a trouvée dans l'Évangile de
Matthieu9 • Mais c'est aussi une nouvelle nuance de sens qui apparaît
alors, pm' rapport à l'emploi de «muçco, se saisir de». En effet, le terme
«Kpa't'Éco» peut signifier ici à la fois «vaincre, prendre», mais aussi, de
façon plus générale, «dominer», ou même <<comprendre», comme le
suppose E. Corsini lO • On remarque justement que l'exégète emploie
«muSco» pour parler des intentions des adversaires de Jésus ('t'ffiv muO'at
9. Cf. Mt 26,4.48.50.55.57 ...
10. E. CORSINI, COII/mento al Vangelo di Giovanni di Origene, Turin, Unione tipo-
grafico-edittice torinese, 1968, n. 14, p. 579.
 352 A. ALIAU-MILHAUD
atnàv BÛ,OV'tffiV»; «oùOsiS a\YCàv muast 'tillv Èm~ouÂ,SUOV'tffiV
a\YCé[» , et «Kpa'tÉffi» dans les phrases où il est question des actions de
Jésus lui-même: «otouaKffiV 6 'IllaouS Èv 'té[> lspé[> lm' oùOsvàS
ÈKpa'tSl'tO nffi»; «àÂ,Â,' Èàv atffinijan, 'to'ts Kpa'tSl'tat». Tout se passe
donc comme si les adversaires voulaient seulement anêter JéslJs, se saisir
de lui physiquement, tandis que, du point de vue de Jésus, c'est sa propre
puissance qui est mise en relief.
2. L'objet en position de sujet
La suite de l'exégèse confinue cette interprétation par une refOlIDula-
tion passive du même ordre:
... OBsv È1tet ê~06Â,s'W ûrcÈp 'Wu KOcrJ.tOU nuBstv, êçs't'uSoJ.tsvoC; ûrco
't'ou IItÂ,u'Wu Kut J.tucr't'ty06J.tsvoC; crW)TC!.l· ...
,
C'est pourquoi, parce qu'il voulait endurer la passion pour le monde, il se
tait quand il est interrogé par Pilate et il est flagellé (CIo XIX.61).
Dans cette phrase, c'est volontairement (È~ouÂ,s'to) que Jésus se tait
(atffini!) et est flagellé (J-HW'ttyoUJ.lsvoS). Or ce participe, «J.laa'ttyou-
J.lsvoS, flagellé», est une réécriture passive d'un verbe johannique actif
(<<ÈJ.laa'ttyffiasv, il le fit flageller», Jn 19,1). Dans l'Évangile de Jean,
qui emploie «Èntaasv» et «ÈJ.laa'ttyffiasv», Jésus est donc en position
d'objet, et subit le bon vouloir de Pilate et des juifs, alors que dans les
reformulations origéniennes au passif (Kpa'tSl'tal et J.laa'ttyouJ.lsVOS),
il devient sujet et s'abandonne lui-même, pour ainsi dire, à ce qui
advient.
À son tour, l'emploi du verbe «Kpa'touJ.lat» permet l'apparition du
terme «àaBÉvsta, faiblesse», dans une citation paulinienne:
et yàp Â,SÂ,UÂ,~Kst, ODKén êytvs't" UD't'<!> 't'o êcr't'uuprocrBut Èç acrBsveluC;,
êreelrcsp ODK ëcrnv acrBévsw êv otc; 0 MyoC; Â,uÂ,et.
Car s'il avait parlé, il ne lui aurait plus été possible d'être clUcifié par fai-
blesse (2Co 13,4), puisqu'il n'existe pas de faiblesse en ce qu'énonce le
Logos (CIo XIX.61).
L'exégète pose donc une équivalence étonnante entre la parole de
Jésus, démonstration de puissance, et son an'estation, «démonstration»
de faiblesse, ou faiblesse volontaire.
On peut donc dire que la reformulation passive de l'anestation de
Jésus a permis l'émergence d'un nouveau lexique (Kpa'touJ.lat, àaBÉvsta)
qui ouvre sur une interprétation paradoxale de cet événement. Jésus n'est
plus seulement la victime de Pilate et des juifs. Maître de ses actions et
de son destin par sa parole, il est puissant ou s'abandonne volontaire-
LA RÉÉCRITURE AU PASSIF ET SES ENJEUX DANS CIO 353
mentll . Cette insistance d'Origène sur la liberté de Jésus et sur la maîtrise
qu'il a de ses choix, notons-le au passage, est en accord avec sa concep-
tion de la kénôse du Christ, abaissement volontaire dans l'Incarnation et
jusqu'à la mort, loin du subordinatianisme arien qu'on a pu prêter à
l'Alexandrin 12 .
IV. UN APPROFONDISSEMENT DES RELATIONS ENTRE SUJET ET OBJET
Par l'analyse d'un dernier exemple, je vais essayer de montrer en quoi
la reformulation passive du verset permet un approfondissement, une
amplification du discours, qui mène à la définition de nouvelles relations
entre le sujet et l'objet de la phrase .
1. L'approfondissement du sujet et de l'objet
Il s'agit du passage, dans le tome VI du CIo, où Jean Baptiste voit
Jésus s'approcher de lui:
Tfj êreu6ptov ~Â,ércst 't'ov 'Il]crouv êpxoJ.tsvov repoc; UD't'OV.
Le lendemain, il voit Jésus qui vient vers lui (Jn 1,29, lemme cité en CIo
VI.251).
Ce verset est reformulé une première fois au passif, et amplifié:
Nuv oÈ 0 'Incrouç Ils't'à 't'à reQosçs't'ucrBév't'u lluQ't\)Qtu 'Irouvvou resQt
UD't'OU, UD't'OÇ ~Â,éres't'at ûrco 'Wu ~UTC'ttO"tou êQxollsvoÇ reQoç aDtov.
Maintenant, après les témoignages que Jean lui a rendus et que nous avons
examinés, Jésus lui-même est vu du Baptiste en venant vers lui (CIo
VI.252).
Cette première réécriture au passif, en inversant le sujet (Jean Baptiste)
et l'objet (Jésus) du verset, amplifie la désignation de chacun d'eux. Jésus
devient sujet, et l'accent est mis sur son rôle par l'ajout du pronom
«aù'tàs, lui-même» (aù'tàs ~Â,Éns'tat); en même temps, la figure du
Baptiste apparaît sous forme de complément d'agent (6nà wu ~an'tta­
wu) et l'exégète rappelle les témoignages qu'il a rendus (J.ls'tà 'tà
nposss'taaBÉv'tŒ J.lap'tupta 'Iffiuvvou). Le premier effet de la réécriture
11. Cette dialectique de la parole et du silence de Jésus face à Pilate sera reprise par
Origène au début de la préface du Contre Celse, mais dans une perspective un peu dif-
férente, selon laquelle Jésus se tait parce que la grandeur de ses actes parle d'elle-même.
Dans les deux cas cependant, c'est sa supériorité qui éclate, au moment même où il va
être condamné (voir aussi CC Vll.55).
12. Cf. C. BLANC, SC 290, note complémentaire VII, pp. 372-374. À propos de la
conception origénienne de la kénôse comme anéantissement volontaire, voir aussi
M. FÉDOU, La Sagesse et le Monde: Essai sllr la christologie d'Origène, Paris, Desclée,
1995, pp. 311-331.
354 A. ALIAU-MILHAUD
passive est donc de mettre en relief à la fois Jésus comme sujet, et le
Baptiste comme témoin.
2. L'interaction mise au jour entre sujet et objet
On trouve plus bas une deuxième reformulation, qui apparaît comme
une amplification de la première:
Kat ÈvSuos oi')v Ils,à ,àç; 'Irouvvou llap1Uptaç;, repon11v Ili;v 'TtV ureo
KSKpayolOç; Âsyollév11V Kat SsoÂOYOUVlOÇ;, oeu,épav oi; repoç; ,Oùç;
tspsî:ç; Kat ÂeuÎ1aç; ,oùç; ùreo 'IspocroÂVllrov ureo 'Iouoalrov ùrescr,aÂllé-
vouç;, Kat ,ph11V 'TtV repoç; ,Oùç; ÈK ,éOv <paptcralrov rctKPO,Spov ÈproT~­
crav,aç;, 'Incrouç üôn ~Âéres,at ureo ,ou b!ap1UPucrav,oç, ÈpX0b!svoç
repoç a\nov iht repOK01"C10V,a Kat ~sÂ110va ytvob!svov' (H') otovei yàp
Èv él;ijç; <Proncrllij) Kat oeu,épCT 1lllépCT reapà ,à repo,spov ô 'I11crouÇ; epxs-
,at, où 1l0VOV ytvrocrKollsvoÇ; cOç; llécroÇ; écr'l1Kffiç; Kat ,éOv OÙK eiô6,rov,
ùÂÂ' 11011 Kat ôProllsvoÇ; llKrov ,ij) ,au,a repo,spov ùreo<P11vallévcp.
Ici, donc, après les témoignages de Jean -le premier prononcé pour procla-
mer et annoncer la divinité (de Jésus), le deuxième adressé aux prêtres et
aux lévites envoyés de Jérusalem par les juifs, et le troisième aux émissaires
des pharisiens qui l'avaient durement intenogé, - Jésus désormais est vu de
celui qui lui a rendu témoignage, tandis qu'il vient vers celui qui progresse
encore et devient meilleur; ( ... ) en effet, c'est comme dans une illumination
ultérieure, et le deuxième jour par rapport au premier que vient Jésus, qui
n'est plus seulement reconnu comme se tenant au milieu même de ceux qui
ne le connaissent pas (Jn 1,26), mais désOlmais aussi est vu, lorsqu'il s'ap-
proche de celui qui a fait savoir cela auparavant (CIo VI.257).
Cette seconde réécriture au passif reprend et développe la première, en
insistant sur le rôle de témoin du Baptiste. En effet, non seulement ses
témoignages sont détaillés, mais le complément d'agent devient «{mo
'tou ).tup'tuP1ÎCl'uv'COC;» au lieu de «ll1tO 'tou pa7t:'ttCl''tou», En outre, cette
récapitulation des témoignages représente un progrès intérieui: (rep01core-
'tov'tu), qui fait passer le Baptiste de la simple reconnaissance (ytvCOCl'-
KO).t8VOC;) à la vision (Opffi).t8VOC;) de Jésus. On peut donc dire que la
reformulation passive a permis de «mettre en mouvement» Jean Baptiste.
Alors que dans le verset johannique, il semble immobile, en voyant Jésus
s'approcher, dans la réécriture origénienne, il est vu comme s'avançant,
progressant (repoKore'tOv'tu) vers l'illumination (cpC01tCl').t<p), imitant la
marche de Jésus vers lui et y répondant.
En effet, il s'ensuit une troisième réécriture du verset, qui ne garde de
celui-ci que le mouvement de Jésus vers le Baptiste, remettant au jour
suivant la vision de celui-ci:
IIpro'n oi')v 1lllépCT at Ilap,uptat ytvoV1Ut, Kat oSU1épCT 'Incrouç repoç
'Irouvvnv epxs,at· ,phn oi; écr,ffiç; ô 'IrouVV11Ç; Ils,à 060 llaS11'éOv, ÈVt-
LA RÉÉCRITURE AU PASSIF ET SES ENJEUX DANS CIO 355
offiv 'I11crou resptrea,ouvn eireffiv ,0 «'10s Ô ùllvoÇ; lOU Seau» rep01pérest
,Oùç; reapov,aç; ÙKOÂouSijcrat ,ij) utij) ,ou Seau.
Donc, le premier jour, ont lieu les témoignages, le deuxième, Jésus va vers
Jean; le troisième, Jean, qui se trouve avec deux disciples, regarde Jésus qui
passe, dit: «Voici l'Agneau de Dieu» (Jn 1,36) et exhOlte les assistants à
suivre le Fils de Dieu (CIo Vl.258).
Cette troisième réécriture ('IllCl'OUC; repoc; '!coavvllv ËpX8'tut) ne fait
plus apparaître le verbe «voir, pÀÉreco» au passif, mais maintient Jésus
en position de sujet. Cette insistance sur le rôle de Jésus rappelle l'idée
souvent exprimée par Origène que Dieu est véritablement actif dans les
visions qu'il donne de lui-même 13 • C'est bien le mouvement de Jésus
vers Jean Baptiste qui a permis le déplacement intérieur de celui-ci, et
qui le mène dans ce cas à un nouveau témoignage: la proclamation de
Jésus comme Agneau de Dieu.
Il me semble donc que la réécriture passive a été le moyen d'un appro-
fondissement dans la description des deux protagonistes, et dans le rôle
joué par chacun d'eux dans la rencontre. L'aspect factuel de celle-ci est
dépassé, de sotte que les relations entre les deux personnages sont redes-
sinées: au déplacement physique de Jésus répond le déplacement inté-
rieur du Baptiste. Les refotlDUlations passives ont pelmis de mieux défi-
nir cette interaction.
CONCLUSION
À travers ces différents exemples, il apparaît donc que la reformulation
passive du verset johannique pourrait être considérée comme un moyen
exploratoire, heuristique, employé par Origène dans son exégèse. La
transfotlliation passive s'accompagne, en effet, de modifications de la
phrase, telles qu'un changement dans l'ordre des mots ou une inversion
du sujet et de l'objet qui annoncent, voire déclenchent l'élaboration exé-
gétique. Associée à d'autres transformations (d'ordre lexical ou temporel,
par exemple), la réécriture passive permet ainsi, dans certains cas, l'émer-
gence de l'interprétation.
Université Sorbonne Paris-IV Agnès ALIAu-MILHAUD
26 lUe de BlUxelles
78 500 Smtrouville
France
agnessorbonne@aliau.net
13. Cf. Homélies sur Luc III.1.l6 et 18 (GCS IX). Voir aussi CC II.n (SC 132,456),
où il s'agit de la voix divine, qui ne peut être entendue sans la volonté de Dieu lui-même.
 L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE:
PASSI SCRITTURISTICI ED INTERPRETAZIONE
ALCUNE OSSERVAZIONI

A proposito deI confronto tra passi paralleli nei quattro vangeli, Ori-
gene espone in CIo la propria teoria ermeneutica: "Siccome ci sembra
necessario accostare ai passi di cui ci occupiamo altri passi analoghi dei
vangeli, e far cio per ciascuno di es si fino in fondo, per poter dimostrare
la sostanziale consonanza di passi apparentemente contrastanti e il valore
specifico di altri che invece sembrano dei tutto simili tra loro, appli-
chiamo dunque questo criterio anche nel presente caso"l.
li compito dell'esegeta è duplice: laddove le contraddizioni 0 le incon-
gruenze tra passi evangelici facciano dubitare della coerenza generale
della Scrittura con se stessa, sarà questione di evocame la sinfonia nasco-
sta; dove, invece, gli eIementi sembrano accordarsi e ripetersi, l'occhio
dell'esegeta cercherà le particolarità di ogni espressione e parola2 • L'a-
nalisi deI testo biblico si sviluppa, per cosl dire, in due direzioni: su un
piano orizzontale, alla ricerca di un'armonia delle parti di quel sistema
chiuso che è la Scrittura; in profondità, nella convinzione che ciascuno
degli eIementi che la compongono racchiuda un'inesauribile ricchezza di
misteri. li confronto tra testi, il reperimento e la raccolta di passi paralleli
rispondono a questa duplice finalità3 •

1. CIo VI.24.127 (SC 157, 228.1-6): 'E7td 010: àvaYKaiov llj.liv <paiwtat 7tapanlMvat
'tàe; oj.loiae; 'trov BùayyBÀicov ÀeSBte; 'toie; Èv XBpcrt pll'toie;, Kat 'tolho KaS'
ËKacr'tov j.lexpt 'tÉÀoue; 7totBtV 67tèp 'tOU 'tà j.lèv crUyKpOUBtV OOKouv'ta à7to-
oBiKvucrSat crUj.I<pcova, 'tà 0' oj.loicoe; ëxov'ta ËKacr'tov Ka't' toiav cra<PllViÇBcrSat,
<pepB 'tOU'to Kat ÈvmuSa 7tOt~crCOj.lBV; traduzione CORSINI 1968, 327, leggermente
modificata.
2. Su sinfonia e diafonia, accordo e disaccordo dei vangeli secondo Origene rimando
alla comunicazione di S. MORLET nel contesto di questo congresso ed al contributo di
É. JUNOD, Origèlle face au problème du désaccord (Ô.IA<DQNIA) elltre les Évangiles
(CIO X,3-36), in E. PruNZIVALLI (a cura di), Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene: Il testa
e i suai contesti. Atti dell'Vrn Convegno di Studi deI Gruppo ltaliano di Ricerca su Ori-
gene e la Tradizione Alessandrina (Roma, 28-30 settembre 2004), Villa Verucchio,
Pazzini, 2005, 423-439.
3. Tra le moIte pagine sull'argomento si veda M. HARL, Introduction: Le sens
global des Écritures «dispersé» à travers les textes, e Voir la paix des Écritures malgré
les contradictions apparentes, in Origène. Philocalie, 1-20. Sur les Écritures, intro-
duction, texte, traduction et notes par M. HARL (SC, 302), Paris, Cerf, 1983, 101,
313-315.
 358 C.BARILLI
Lo stesso principio pua essere generalizzato ed esteso a tutta l' attività
esegetica di Origene: non si tratta solo di accostare passo evangelico a
passo evangelico, un confronto spontaneo, ma anche passi neotestamen-
tari a passi veterotestamentari, testi profetici a libri sapienziali.
L~ considerazioni non sono nu ove, né riguardano il solo Origene.
Ma il tessuto letterario origeniano, più di altri, è pelmeato di Scrittura'
è la parol~ biblica stessa a fondarne, in buona parte, illinguaggio e l'ar~
gomentazlOne. Peraltro, il testo scritturistico conosce nell'autore uno
smembramento ed un assemblaggio, al termine dei quali le citazioni di
pa.lt~nz~ si presentano al lettore in una forma spesso lontana da quella
ongmana.
L'esegesi dell'Alessandrino, il suo significato e, più specificamente, la
tecnica della citazione e dell'allusione al testo biblico sono stati oggetto
di im~orta?ti pubbli~azioni4. Nel contesto di questo congresso, molta
attenzlOne e stata dedlcata al posto occupato dalla parola scritturistica ed
alla sua rielaborazione nell'opera origenianas.
4. Per un'introduzione ed una ricca bibliografia si vedano J.N.B. CARLETON PAGET
The Christian Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Alexandrian Tradition. §3: Origen a;
E.~egete of the Old Testament, in M. SlEB0 (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The
Hlsto/y of It~ b~telpre.~a~ion. Vol. I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (lillfil1300).
Part, I: An(,qlllty, Gottlngen,. Va~de~hoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, 499-534 a proposito
deU esegesl veterotestamentana ongemana; M. SIMONETTI, Scrittura sacra, in A. MONACI
CASTAGNO (a cura di), Orig~ne, di~iO/I~rio. La cultura, il pensiero, le opere, Roma, Città
N.uova, 2000, ~24-.4~7. Tra 1 contn~ufI, J.-N. ALETTI (D'une écriture à l'autre: Analyse
d U~I ~assage d Ongene: Commentalfe sur Jean, livre II, §13-21, in Recherches de Science
Re~lg~euse 61 [1973] 27-47) studia la relazione fI'a discorso origeniano e citazione scrit-
tunsfIca; M. HARL (Origène et les interprétations patristiques grecques de 1"obscurité'
biblique; i~ Vigili~~ Chris~ianae 3.6 [l.98~] 334-371) si sofferma sul significato degli
elemenfI dl.oscunta deI ImguagglO blbhco per l'esegesi origeniana; K.J. TORJESEN
(Hermeneuflcal Procedure and Theological Metlwd in Origen's Exegesis, Berlin - New
",,:ork, d~ Gn~~ter, 1:86) fo~nisce un'analisi approfondita deUa tecnica esegetica origeniana
al ~ue livelh ln CUl essa SI a:ticola: l'unità letteraria, costituita daU 'esegesi deI singolo
ve~so, e la struttura complesslva deI testo esegetico nei generi deU'omelia e deI commen-
tano.
. 5: A. ~lia.u-Milhaud ha richiamato l'attenzione sul fenomeno di riscrittura delle cita-
ZlOru, assaI dlffuso nell'opera dell' Alessandrino. Se ne veda la definizione negli atti deI
precede~~e,colloqui~ origeniano: ."Il s'agit ici d'une technique hennéneutique fréquem-
ment utilIsee par Ongène: la réécnture d'un texte scripturaire. En réécrivant le texte bibli-
que, I:exégète rest~ très pr?c?e ~e celui-ci, mais lui confère un sens moral, de sorte que
l~. p~l~phrase deVIent exeg~se ; A. AUAu-MILHAUD, Progrès du texte, progrès de
lllldl~,du dans le C?m~entalre de Jean d'Origène: Les techniques d'exégèse appliquées
au ~h~me du pr~gres, l~ G . HEIDL - R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nona: Origen and
RehglOus Practlce of HIS Tune. Papers of the 9 '" Intel'llational Origen Congress Pécs
HIll/gO/y, 29 ~ugl/st - 2 Sep~ember 2005 (BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, '13-23:
p. 15. A. B~~Jt h~ propost~ lmpo~'t.an.ti osservazi~ni sull'acquisizione deI testo paolino
nella prosa ongeruana, sul pIano stillstlco e teologlcO. Infine, il contributo di O. Murutich
propone 10 sguardo di un biblista sul ruolo della citazione nell'opera dell'Alessandrino.
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 359
Obiettivo di questa breve indagine è, più modestamente, osservare la
scelta e l'inserzione delle citazioni bibliche nel corpo deI testo origeniano
e la composizione dei dossier scritturistici, traendo, dai pochi esempi
considerati, alcune indicazioni a proposito del metodo e deI ruolo della
citazione stessa nell' opera dell' Alessandrino.
Nella ricca messe di citazioni puntuali, riprese 0 semplici allusioni al
testo biblic06 , ho scelto di concentrarmi su quei luoghi che, in vario grado
ed in modo differente7 , si riferiscono alla metafora infantile, e di osser-
vare come Origene includa e rielabori un'immagine attestata in larga
misura nella letteratura tanto classica, quanto biblica e cristiana8 •
Antico e Nuovo Testamento non sono avari di ritratti infantili, benché,
pel' 10 più, anonimi. Da infanti e lattanti, Dio ha tratto una Iode (SaI 8,3
LXX). In un affresco evangelico ben noto, Gesù chiama a sé un fanciullo
e 10 addita ai discepoli come esempio cui conformarsi (Mt 18,1-5, Mc
9,33-37; Lc 9,46-48); altrove, invita i discepoli stessi a non impedire ai
bambini di accostarsi a lui (Mt 19,13-15, Mc 10,13-16, Lc 18,15-17).
Paolo rimprovera ai Corinzi l'immaturità che ne ostacola il progresso
spirituale (lCm 3,1); attraverso la metafora infantile, l'Apostolo distin-
6. Sono molto utili le osservazioni di D. Bel'trand a proposito delle citazioni scritturi-
stiche in Orat ed il suo tentativo di cIassificazione dei vari riferimenti: D. BERTRAND, Bible
et prière: Typologie des références à la Bible dans le Discours sur la prière, in G. DORIVAL
- A. LE BOULLUEC (eds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen and the Bible
(BETL, 118), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1995,229-241. Nella maggior parte dei
casi che considero non si pua parlare propriamente di citazione; la nozione stessa di
'riferimento' deve essere spesa con cautela, nella misura in cui l'uso dellinguaggio biblico
è spesso COS! radicato nel nostro autore da non poter più essere considerato un prestito.
Ma un tentativo di cIassificazione più precisa è in questo contesto meno proficuo di
un'analisi condotta sulle singole riprese, caso per caso: osservare la natura dei diversi tipi
di approccio al testo è precisamente l'obiettivo di questo piccolo sondaggio. Pur consape-
vole dell'importanza di una cIassificazione, per un verso, e della sua complessità, per
l'altro, in generale mi limito di seguito a distinguere nel corpo dei testi riportati la cita-
zione, ove essa è una ripresa fedele deI testo biblico, da tutti gli altri casi - variazioni di
verbi (diatesi, modo, 0 tempo); sostantivi (numero, genere) etc. - premettendo un 'cf.'.
7. Prendera in considerazione passi la cui tenninologia è assai varia ed in cui la
nozione stessa di infanzia comprende un ampio spetfI'o di accezioni: nelle citazioni con-
siderate sarà questione di infanti, bambini, fanciulli, indicati da una varietà di tennini greci
(1ta.lC;, 1tutoîov, vi]1ttoC;, SllÀÛÇcoV, ppÉcpOC;, f.ltKp6C;). Non si tratta, dunque, di un'inda-
gine lessicale, ma dell'analisi di un tema esegetico multiforme. D'altronde, si vedrà, il
concetto di infanzia si lega di frequente non ad una fase biologica dell'esistenza, quanto,
piuttosto, ad una condizione spirituale ed intellettiva.
8. L'infanzia nell'età antica e tardo-antica e, in pat'ticolare, nel cristianesÎmo dei prirni
secoli, ha suscitato di recente molto interesse. Per una panorarnica degli studi e delle linee
di ricerca attuali e per una bibliografia ricca ed aggiomata si pua fare riferÎmento al recen-
tissimo C.B. HORN - R.R. PHENIX (eds.), Children in Late Ancient Christianity, Tübingen,
Mohr Siebeck, 2009. La raccolta di saggi abbraccia svariati ambiti e discipline degli studi
sulla antichità tardiva, e pennette di apprezzare la diversità delle nozioni e dei significati
associati ail' idea di infanzia.
360 C.BARlLLI
gue cio che era da bambino da cio che è da adulto, figurando la futura
pienezza della comprensione (lCor 13,11). Ai Galati, divenuti figli pel'
mezzo deI battesimo, Paolo pOlta l'esempio di un erede ancora minore,
posto sotto il controllo di tutori e pedagoghi, fino a che non giunga la
maggiore età (Gal 4,1-3).
La ripresa di questi ed altri luoghi scritturistici costituisce un filo della
fitta trama di cui si compone l'esegesi origeniana. Essi costituiscono, per
la frequenza stessa con la quale occorrono nei testi, un buon banco di
prova della tecnica di citazione deI nostro autore9 • Si tenterà di seguirne
10 sviluppo in alcuni passi, allo scopo di evidenziare alcuni aspetti dei
modus operandi dell'esegeta.
Sullo sfondo dei pochi esempi, ponemo la questione principale
riguardante il ruolo ed il posto assegnato al testo biblico nell'opera di
Origene: se cioè esso costituisca uno strumento ed una componente
intrinseca al discorso origeniano, 0 ne sia ispiratore. Più espressamente,
si tenterà di osservare se la combinazione e l'accostamento di diversi
luoghi scritturistici e la creazione di dossier di testi si pieghino alle
esigenze dell'esegesi e dell'argomentazione dell' Alessandrino, 0 sia
piuttosto la Scrittura stessa a compone e suggerire all' esegeta i propri
percorsi di lettura.
1. COMMENTO A MATTEO, XVI.25
Un primo, lungo estratto di CMt permetterà di apprezzare al meglio la
complessità dell' esegesi origeniana ed analizzame la composizione nelle
singole parti. Il commentario origeniano sul primo vangelo ha l'evidente
vantaggio di esserci giunto parzialmente in lingua originale. In CMt
XVI.20-25 l'Alessandrino dedica un ampio commento al resoconto mat-
teano dell'ingresso di Gesù nel tempio di Gerusalemme (Mt 21,12-16).
Unico tra gli evangelisti, Matteo introduce nella scena la guarigione di
ciechi e zoppi e le grida dei fanciulli alla vista dei miracoli. In risposta
allo sdegno di sacerdoti e scribi contro i bambini inneggianti nel tempio,
l'evangelista fa pronunciare a Gesù le parole tratte da SaI 8,3 (LXX): 8K
m0/-tU'wC; VT\1ttCOv Kuî Sl]ÂuÇOV't'COV KU't'T\P't'tcrco uïvov.
9. A. VAN DEN HOEK ha condotto un'indagine sulle tecniche di citazione in Clemente
Alessandrino che offre interessanti spunti di metodo ed osservazioni: Techniques of Quo-
tation in Clement ofAlexandria: A View of Ancient Literm) Working Methods, in Vigiliae
Christianae 50 (1996) 223-243. La mia ricerca è di minore respiro, perché si limita ad un
solo tema e ad un sondaggio su alcuni passi circoscritti.
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 361
La citazione deI salmo all'intemo dei passo evangelico costituisce per
Origene, evidentemente, un ponte tra Nuovo ed Antico Testamento: essa
fomisce la chiave di lettura dell'episodio, giustificando l'identificazione
dei bambini ripresi dai sacerdoti con gli infanti e lattanti dei salmo.
Autori precedenti aIl' Alessandrino si richiamano al passo ed interpretano
analogamente la citazione veterotestamentaria: pel' Ireneo, attraverso la
ripresa deI versetto, Gesù mostra inverata in sé la parola veterotestamen-
taria, sveIando, invece, la scarsa chiaroveggenza e la geIosia dei sapienti
d'IsraeIe, che non ne riconoscono la realizzazione; Clemente Alessan-
drino, nei primi capitoli dei suo Pedagogo, annovera il passo evangelico
tra quanti dimostrerebbero la sua tesi secondo cui bambini sono tutti i
cristiani; nella citazione deI salmo, che rende testimonianza a questa
identificazione, egli riconosce uno stimolo, una sorta di rimprovero
livolto a quanti disdegnano e trascurano i piccoli lO •
In CMt XVI.25 Origene stabilisce due livelli di esatta comprensione
dei testo. Secondo il senso letterale, storico (Ku't'à 't'llv lcr't'optuv), la
scena è di per sé perspicua: biasimevoli sono i sacerdoti cui, nello spe-
cifico, Gesù rivolge il proprio rimprovero per aver disprezzato i bambini.
Allo stesso modo, secondo un senso più elevato (Ku't'à 't'llv àvuycoYll v ),
è degno di rimprovero chiunque abbia responsabilità in sena alla chiesa
e, disprezzandone i piccoli, mostri di non avere compreso il senso deI
salmo, disonorando COS! il proprio mandato. L'Alessandrino riferisce
dunque il contenuto di questa spiegazione ai piccoli della comunità che,
pur attenendosi aIle norme di castità e purezza, subiscono il disprezzo di
quanti rivestono maggiore autorità.
Il passaggio da un'interpretazione stOlica e letterale ad una di natura
spirituale si articola per mezzo di un fitto intreccio di citazioni bibliche.
Origene riprende il testo evangelico oggetto di commento; non si limita
a citarlo testualmente, ma ne fornisce una parafrasi, che introduce eIe-
menti aggiuntivi al dettato evangelico originario.
Il s't'à 't'ou'to yÉypun't'ut ott oi tlPXtspetç Kut oi ')'publJlU'tetÇ, Kuttotys
i86v'tsç 'tà Suugu<nu fi ÈnotuO'sv b 'l'I1O'ou<;, KUt 'trov nutocov <lKOUOV'tS<;
ooç,uÇOV'tCOV 'tov uiov 'tou Ssou Èv 'tro ispro, 'tft ÈKKÀ'I1O'tQ-, U')'UVUK'tUO'UV
(cf. Mt 21,15) KU'tUcppovouv'tsç (cf. Mt 18,10) 'trov uIlVOUV'tcov 'tov
'l'I1O'ouv nutoicov (cf. Mt 18,2 88.), Kut <l')'UVUK'tUO'UV'tÉç (cf. Mt 21,15)
cpu<n 'tro O'co'tflpt· <lKOustÇ 'tt oiS'tot ÀÉ')'ouO'tv; (Mt 21,16) 6 oè ouO'conrov
uù'toù<;' tlnsKpi vu'to ott 'toO'ou'tco Xpovco (Gv 14,9) Èv 'tutç Seiut<; tlVU-
O''tpscpollsvot ')'pucpUtç (cf. Mt 21,42) IlÉXpt 'tou osupo OÙK <lvÉ')'vco'ts
(cf. Mt 21,16), ïvu gÛ KU'tUcppovUO'U'ts 'trov Èv 'tft ÈKKÀ'I1O'iQ- gtKproV (cf.
Mt 18,10) KUt natoicov (cf. Mt 18,2 88.) uIlVOUV'tcov Èllè KUt 'tov Èv 'tOtç
10. Ir., Adv.Haer., IV.11.3; Clem.Al., Paed., 1.5.13.1.
362 C. BARILLI
oùpavotç 1ta't'Épa uOU (cf. Mt 7,21; 10,32 et aL), on èK a't'oua't'oç vurdffiV
Kat BUÀaÇOV,ffiV Ka't'UP't'iaffi atvov; (Mt 21,16; SaI 8,3) Mi)\no't'f: oùv, cOs
Ka't'à 't'fjV ia't'opiav \jIEK't'oi Elatv oÔwt oi àpXtEpdç Kat ypauua't'dç,
oihffiS Kat Ka't'à 't'T]V àvaYffiyijv Elai 't'tvES \jIEKWt àPXtEpEtÇ (cf. Mt 21,15),
't'o ovol.ta 't'iis èntaKOniis où Koalwuv't'ES 't'ij) Éau't'&v ~i91 oùO~ èVOE-
oUIlÉvot 't'Ùv yv&atv Kat 't'ùv àÀi\BEtav (cf. Rm 2,20)11, O\n5;H oùv, Kai-
't'OtyE ~ÀÉnov't'ES 't'à wu Bwu BauJ.!<xata (Mt 21,15), oùOÈv T]'t"t'ov Ka't'a-
<fJpovoUat 't'&v èv 't'TI èKKÀllaiÇt UtKp&v (cf. Mt 18,10) IlÈV Kat vUniffiv
(SaI 8,3) ûllvouV,ffiv oÈ 't'ov BEOV Kat 't'ov XptO"t'ov aù't'ou, Kat àyavaK-
't'OOatv (cf. Mt 21,15) ènt 't'TI WU't'ffiV npOKonTI Kat Ka't'Dyopouatv (cf. Mt
27,12; Mc 15,3; Le 23,10 et al.) aù't'&v nap' aÙ't'ij) 't'ij) 'Illaou cOs ullap-
't'avov't'ffiv 't'&v 1lT] ullap't'avov't'ffiv, Kat cOs 1lT] àKouovn 1l110È naaav
't'ustv 't'llPOUV,t ÀÉyouatv aÙ't'ij). àKoUEtÇ 't'i oÔwt ÀÉyoUat; (Mt 21,16)12.
Nel riportare Mt 21,16 - OÙK àVÉyVOYCE .,. on ÈK O"'!oJlU't'OS VyptlffiV
KUt BllÀuÇov't'ffiv Ku't'llp't'iO'ffi utvov; - Origene apporta una significativa
variazione: introduce infatti nel testo un riferimento a Mt 18,10 nelle
parole ïvu Jll] KU't'U<ppOVijO'll't'E 't'(DV Èv 't'TI ÈKKÀllO'i(l Jlt*prov. Si
richiama COS! il divieto di scandalizzare i piccoli, che nel testo evangelico
segue l'episodio deI fanciullo posto da Gesù in mezzo ai discepoli in
Mt 18,1-5. Il verbo KU't'U<ppOVÉffi, in fOlma participiale, era già stato anti-
cipato all'inizio della pericope ed accostato a 1ÎyuVUK't'llO'UV. La ripresa
di Mt 18,10, d'altro canto, subisce una lieve modifica, che non manca di
avere conseguenze sull'esegesi: al testo evangelico atteso - Ôpil't'E Jll]
KU't'U<ppOVijO'll't'E ÉvàS 't'rov JltKproV WU't'ffiV - Origene aggiunge il com-
plemento di luogo Èv 't'TI ÈKKÀllO'i(l. Pel' mezzo di questa piccola inser-
zione l'esegeta introduce da subito un'intelpretazione altemativa alla pura
lettera deI testo: l'episodio viene riferito alla chiesa a lui contemporanea.
Il termine chiave dell'esegesi è dunque ÈKKÀllO'iu, menzionato già all'i-
nizio deI passo, quasi a chiosa della voce evangelica lEpov (Mt 21,14);
nello sviluppo successivo dell'esegesi 10 sostituisce quasi completamente.
È da osservare come quest'ultima modifica deI dettato evangelico origi-
nario non sembri essere suggerita ad Origene da loci paralleli.
L'accostamento deI secondo episodio matteano al passo oggetto di
commento sembra suggerire diversi sviluppi. Nel testo origeniano il
vocabolario tratto dai due brani si amalgama a formare un nuovo linguag-
gio ed un dettato 'sincretistico' , che devono ad entrambi i loci di partenza
alcuni dei propri elementi. La prossimità di contenuto delle due scene
induce l'esegeta a mischiame illessico. La terminologia si atTÏcchisce
11. Se si accetta la correzione di Klosterrnann, che nell' edizione deI testo sostituisce
yvroow alla lezione manoscritta oijÀ(j)Cl'tV sulla scorta deI confronto con il testo latino;
ma cf. Origenes. Der Kommentar Zl/m Evàngelilllllnach Mattaus, II, eingeleitet, übersetzt
und mit Anmerkungen versehen von H.J. VOGT, Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1990, 238, n. 82.
12. CMt XVl.25 (GCS XL, 557.17-558.19).
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 363
COS! di termini estranei al passo specifico considerato: se i fanciulli di
Mt 21,15 sono natOES, l'Alessandrino l'icone, si è visto, al JltKpOS di
Mt 18,6.10 ed al diminutivo nutOiov, una possibile suggestione di
Mt 18,2-5.
La somiglianza tra questo ed altri passi evangelici a livello lessicale,
d'altra parte, contribuisce a questa mistione di elementi eterogenei. Un
procedimento della sorta giustifica l'inclusione deI verbo KU't'llYOpouO'tv:
riferito ai sacerdoti nel testo origeniano, esso non risuIta nel passo evan-
gelico commentato, il quale si limita ad attestare l'aoristo 1ÎyuVUK't'llO'UV.
Origene pua aver tratto l'espressione da moiti altri luoghi evangelici. In
particolare, il verbo è il termine tecnico dell'accusa di Gesù dinnanzi a
Pilato ed Erode, accusa avanzata da sacerdoti ed anziani in Mt 27,12, dai
soli sacerdoti in Mc 15,3 e da sacerdoti e scribi, gli stessi di Mt 21,15,
in Lc 23,10. Le accuse delle persone insignite di autorità, rivolte contro
Gesù nel vangelo, colpiscono nella rilettura origeniana deI brano i piccoli
della comunità.
Il complemento di luogo figurato Èv 't'utS ... ypu<putS è parimenti
assente dalla nostra pericope evangelica; affiora invece in Mt 21,42, dove
si propone la celebre citazione di SaI 118,22 sulla pietra scartata dai
costruttori. La ripresa deI passo veterotestamentario è introdotta, come in
altri casi, da una formula molto simile a quella di Mt 21,15 e nella quale,
in aggiunta, compare il complemento di luogo: oMÉno't'E àVÉyVffi't'E Èv
't'utS ypu<putS. Il verbo, si vede, è il medesimo e pua ben aver suggerito
all'orecchio e alla memoria dell'esegeta la mistione dei luoghi scritturi-
stici.
Una somiglianza strutturale potrebbe forse spiegare la presenza di
't'oO'ou't'Q) XpovQ), espressione attestata in Gv 14,9. Nel passo, a Filippo,
che pure COS! a lungo è stato con Gesù, quest'ultimo rimprovera di non
averlo ancora conosciuto: OÙK ËyVffiKuS JlE. Benché la fOlma verbale ed
il senso differiscano evidentemente da Mt 21,16, l'assonanza potrebbe
forse aver richiamato all'orecchio di Origene il secondo passo, il che
renderebbe conto della sostituzione della negazione oùoÉno't'E di
Mt 21,16 con OÙK; ma qui l'ipotesi si spinge forse troppo oltre.
Con il riferimento alla chiesa, Origene anticipa l'interpretazione spm-
tuale dell'episodio. La riflessione sviluppata nelle righe successive si
riferisce, dunque, alla comunità dellettore, alla situazione a lui familiare:
Kat 't'ouw ÛÈ lht llaÀÀov auvijaollEV èntO"t'i)aav't'ES, 't'iva 't'ponov noÀ-
M.KtS 't'Otç çÉOUat 't'& nVEuuan (cf. Rm 12,11) Kat IlÉXpt qmÀaK&v n~os
't'OÙS ània't'ous napa~aÀÀollÉvotS Kat nav't'os KtvODVoU Ka't'a<ppovouat
Kat IlE't'à nuallS Eùwvias àaKoUatV uyvdav Kat napBEviav lotonatç
't'ft ÀÉÇEt (cf. 2Cor 11,6), èntnÀi)aaouatv cOs à't'UK't'OtS oi \jIEK't'Ot
364 C. BARll..LI
àPXtBpBtÇ Kat è')'KaÀoucnv m'lt01ç napù tcp '111 <JOU , mç m'ltot OtKato-
tBpOV npUttoVtBÇ trov oÜtCOç unÀrov Kat O'nouoatcov Kat XP~O'trov nat-
otcov. àÀÀ' 0 '1l1O'ouç tû1ç natototç (cf. Mt 18,2 ss.) J.l8V J.laptupd, t01ç
08 àPXtBpBUO'ty àJ.la~tav ')'parprov è')'KaÀB1 Otù toU ÀÉ')'Bty. où8ÉnOtB
àVÉyVCOtB ott èK O'tof.latoç vnntcov Kat ~UÀaçovtcov KatUPttO'co aIvov;
(Mt 21,16) Kat ènùv tOnç èv tfi èKKÀllO'tQ. tOÙç KatÙ tàv IIÉtpov ~
àpttYÉvvUta BpÉcpu tà ÀoytKàv aooÀov yuÀa è1ttno~ouvtaç (cf. 1Pt
2,2) Kat ~UMÇovtaç (cf. SaI 8,3) aùto, yuÀa nottçof.lÉvouç (cf. 1Cor
3,2), iht Kat DJ.lVoUVtaç tàv ~Bàv tfi nicrtBt Kat tcp ~tq>, ~BropBt ott
nÀl1pOUtat èn' aùtrov tà èK O'tof.latûç VUn{cov Kat ~UÀaçovtcov
KatUpt{O'co aIvov (SaI 8,3)13.
Al termine dell'esegesi, Origene riprende le parole deI vangelo ed
amplia 10 spettro dei riferimenti biblici: propone dunque di identificare
gli infanti e lattanti deI salmo con quei bambini appena nati, che bramano
il puro latte spirituale e se ne nutrono: 'toùC; Ka'tà 'tov IIlhpov cOC; &pn-
ysvvll'ta ~ps<Pll 'to ÀoytKoV aooÀov yaÀa Brtt1toSoi3v~,ac; Kat
SllÀaSov'tCt.C; aù'to, yaÀa 1tonsoj.tsvoOC;. L'esegeta introduce COS1 due
nuovi riferimenti biblici: il primo consiste, evidentemente, in una ripresa
di 1Pt 2,2, il cui dettato viene arricchito da Origene dal participio
SllÀaSov'tac;, a sua volta suggerito da SaI 8,3. È poi possibile riconoscere
nell'espressione yaÀa 1tonsoj.tsvoOC; un'allusione al testo di 1Cor 3,2,
yaÀa uj.taC; È1tonO'a, con una variazione di diatesi, tempo ~ modo deI
verbo.
La pericope si conclude con una citazione completa di Mt Il,25.
éautcp ')'ùp 0 9Bàç aIvov èv totç totoUtotç KatapttÇBtat (cf. SaI 8,3),
èrp' olç BùXaptO'trov tcp natpt 6 uiàç ÀÉ')'Bt· èçof.loÂ.oyouf.lai O'ot, nutBp,
KUptB toU oùpavou Kat tftç yftç, ott ànÉKpu\j!aç tauta ànà O'ocprov Kat
O'UVBtroV, Kat ànBKuÀU\j!aç aùtù VUntotç· val, 0 naTUP, ott oÜtCOç èyÉ-
VBtO (Mt 11,25 s,) Kat 'tù é1;ftç14.
Oltre ad attestare il telmine Vll1ttoC;, comune al salmo, la citazione
si attaglia perfettamente al senso generale dell'interpretazione proposta:
i piccoli, vittime deI biasimo degli intelligenti a causa della propria sem-
plicità, sono in realtà i destinatari della rivelazione.
li testo ci offre esempio di un composito dossier di citazioni scritturi-
stiche. li criterio di selezione e raccolta sembra costituito, nella maggior
parte dei casi, da affinità e somiglianze a livello contenutistico e lessi-
cale: immagini e termini in comune costituiscono il trait d'union tra i
diversi passi richiamati dall'esegeta.
13. CMt XVI.25 (GCS XL, 558.19-559.19).
14. CMt XVI.25 (GCS XL, 559.20-28).
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 365
Se, pel' un verso, il lessico condiviso dalle citazioni induce ad acco-
stare i relativi passi d'appartenenza, è la stessa associazione di idee che
si instaura tra concetti ed immagini simili a richiamare alla mente dell'e-
segeta possibili paralleli 15. Peraltro, Origene contribuisce appOltando alla
riflessione elementi non solo estranei al testo oggetto di analisi, ma non
suggeriti in modo esplicito da passi scritturistici affini. È il casa deI voca-
bolo ÈKKÀllO'ta, che compare nei vangeli in due sole occasioni, Mt 16,18
e 18,17, e sembra essere introdotto da Origene piuttosto sulla base della
lettura attualizzante applicata al passo.
Risultato di questo procedimento è un arricchimento del vocabolario
di partenza e, in conclusione, una sOIta di riscrittura deI testo commen-
tato. li passo scritturistico si presenta in una forma nuova, composita,
II. OMEUE SUL SALMO 36, IV.3
Un dossier di citazioni scritturistiche altrettanto ruticolato è richiamato
da Origene ad illustrazione di SaI 36,25 (LXX): VEonEpoc; ÈYEVOj.tllV Kat
yàp ÈyfJpaO'a Kat OÙK Eloov OtKUWV ÈyKa'taÀEÀEtj.tj.tSVOV oMi> 'to
O'1tSpj.ta aÙ'tOi3 Sll'tOi3v ap'tooc;. li passo biblico è oggetto di un esaustivo
commento in H36Ps N.3, giunta a noi nella traduzione latina di Rufino.
La perdita dell'omelia in lingua originale richiede certamente maggiore
cautela nella valutazione dell'utilizzo deI materiale scritturistico 16 • Un
frammento greco consel'vato, benché molto ridotto rispetto all'ampio svi-
luppo latino, rassicura tuttavia sulla complessiva fedeltà deI traduttore
15. "L'un des principes de son exégèse est en effet d'expliquer la Bible par la Bible.
À propos de chaque phrase du prophète il va donc évoquer les passages de l'Ancien
Testament ou du Nouveau dans lesquels il se souvient d'avoir rencontré les mêmes mots,
les mêmes images ou les mêmes pensées": P. NAUTlN, Introduction: La Bible en main et
la Bible en tête, in Origène. Homélies sur Jérémie. 1: Homéliés I-XI, traduction par
P. HUSSON - P. NAUTIN, édition, introduction et notes par P. NAUTIN (SC, 232), Paris, Celf,
1976, 112-123, p. 119. Si vedano in generale nel paragrafo suddetto le osservazioni di
N autin sulla tecnica di citazione e la scelta delle varanti bibliche, riprese e riconsiderate
da O. Munnich nel suo intervento.
16. La questione dell'attendibilità delle traduzioni latine di Rufino e di Gerolamo,
come è noto, è stata a lungo discussa dalla critica. In moiti casi la mancanza di un
riscontro diretto con il testo originale impone cautela. È pur vero che indagini condotte
su testi greci a noi giunti e le corrispettive traduzioni latine hanno ridimensionato le
inquietudini a proposito di eventuali deformazioni sostanziali dell'opera origeniana. Pur
con ogni precauzione, si puo condividere questa osservazione di Torjesen sulla tradu-
zione rufiniana: "Where Rufinus actually falsifies a text his interest is to correct here-
tical doctrine" (TORJESBN, Hermeneutical Procedure En. 4], p. 19). Si puo supporre che
nel caso di opere esegetiche e di contenuto morale il ris chio di eventuali modifiche 0
semplificazioni da parte deI traduttore sia generalmente minore rispetto a quello delle
opere dottrinarie.
366 C.BARILLI
all'originale nell'assemblare le citazioni bibliche17. Yale dunque la pena
considerare l'esegesi di straordinaria ricchezza e la scelta dei loci paral-
leli deI testo latino, con un occhio rivolto al frammento greco:
Sed videamus ne forte sint aliquae aetates interioris hominis nostri (cf.
Rm 7,22; Ef 3,16), ad similitudinem exterioris et cO/poralis aetatis. Unde
et interdum ad viras iam matura aetate dicitur quia pueri sunt, et aliis quia
illvenes (cf. 1Gv 2,14), et aliis quia senes et haec utique dici de cO/porali
aetate non convenit. Denique cum plurimi ante Abraham sexcentos et quin-
gentos, ut minimum certe trecentos annos vixissent, de mt/la illorum dictum
est quia senior et plenus dierum (Geu 25,8) fuerit, nisi Abraham tantum-
modo. Ex quo intelligendum est quod non hoc de aetate cO/paris, sed de
maturitate interioris hominis designatum est. Unde et nos optare debemus
non pro aetate co/paris, neque pro officia presbyterii appellari presbyteri
et seniores (cf. Geu 25,8), sed pro interioris hominis pe/fecto sensu et
gravitate constantiae, sicut et Abraham appellatus est presbyter nutritus ill
senectute bOlla (cf. Geu 15,15; 25,8). Est ergo aetas aliqua secundum
interiorem hominem (Rm 7,22) puerilis, est et aetas iuvel1ilis (cf.
1Gv 2,14), est et senilis secundum quod et apostolus dicebat: Citm essem
parvulus, loqllebar ut parvlllus, sapiebam ut parvulus, cogitabam ut par-
vulus; Cll1ll autem factus sum vil', quae parvuli erant deposui (l Cor 13,11).
Ergo haec ab apostolo non de co/porali aetate dici intellego, sed quoniam
cum in initia credidisset, fuit parvulus lIltper genitus, rationabile et sine
dolo lac concupiscens (cf. 1Pt 2,2), tunc intellegebat Scripturas ut parvu-
lus, sapiebat de Evangelio ut parvulus, cogitabat ut parvulus; sed post
haec proficiens aetale ad similitudinem Christi de quo scriptum est quia:
Proficiebat aelale et sapientia et gratia apud Deum et apud homines (Le
2,52), deponebat qllae erant parvuli; et propterea dixit: Cum factus Sll1l1
vil', quae parvuli erant deposui (lCor 13,11), ita ergo intellegendus est
etiam David dicere: [uvenis fui et senui (SaI 36,25), ut si diceret, cllm
essem pm'vulus (lCor 13,11), secundum interiorem (Rm 7,22) hominem,
nunc iam senui (SaI 36,25)18.
17. FrPs 24 (ed. PRINZIVALLI 1991, 480-481): 'E'rsproç ùÈ ïaJ.lEV tlÀtKtUV KU'rÙ 'rov
Earo uvSpron:ov (Rm 7,22), n:UlÙtOU, VwVtaKou (cf. 1Gv 2,14), yspovwç. I1po yoùv
'rOù 'APpuùJ.l 0\ n:oÀuXPOVtÛ)"tEPOt UÙ'rOù OÙK EtpllVmt n:pEap(nEpot· à,ÀÀ' UÙ'roç
n:po)"toç Ùl' à,PEÛjV n:pEapU'rEpoÇ èXPllJ.lU'rlaE, Kut Ùtù 'ro 'rOV Earo UÙ'rOù uvSpron:ov
KU'rUPYUKSVUl 'rù wù VUn:toU (cf. 1Cor 13,11). Kut 'IEpEJ.ltoU UKOUE' MÙ MYE,
(hl veâHEpoÇ èyw d,.n (Ger 1,7). Totoù'rov 'ri J.l0I VOEt Kut 1tEpt wù 6uptù· NUmoç
(lCor 13,1l ?), <PllatV, èyEvoblUv (SaI 36,25) KU'rÙ IOV Earo J.lou uvSpron:ov (Rm 7,22).
ME'rUpuÀcbv ùÈ èK VEUpOÙ tjSouç Kut à,PEPUtOU, KUS' av VEro'rEptÇrov VEWtEpOÇ tjJ.lllV,
etç y~puç ~ÀSOV, ~tOV à,KUÀiùrowv EXrov KUt n:oÀtùv cppovualV (cf. Sap 4,9). Kut
OÜ'rro n:pOKOIJIUç (cf. Lc 2,52), OÙK dùov ÙtKUtoV èyKU'rUÀEÂEtblblsVOV (SaI 36,25). 'Eùv
aroJ.lunK&ç à,Kounç, 'VEÙùOç èan. 6uo os Eiatv èyKUtUÂEt'VEIÇ' tl J.lÈv aroJ.lunK~, 1')nç
oùùÈv T]J.làç PM1t'rEt· tl ùÈ t~ç 'VuX~ç, 1')'rIÇ OMSplOÇ èanv. "Qaov J.lÈv of)v 1tÀouwù-
blEV èv EpyOtÇ (cf. 1Tim 6,18) OIKutolÇ, waoùwv J.làÀÀov pOllSouJ.lESu n:poç 'ro J.l~
èyKu-raÀEÎ1tEaSut J.lSXpl 'rsÂouç. 6to OÙK dn:EV, èyKU'WÀEI<pSSV'ru, à,ÀÀ'
èyKU'rUÂEÀEtblbl6VOV (SaI 36,25). 'En:Et, n:poç KUlpOV Kut èyKU'rUÀIJ.ln:uvoVmt ÙtKUtol,
roç 6 'Icbp, ïvu à,vucpuvn ÙtKutoÇ (cf. Gb 40,8). TI frammento, che riporto per intera, cor-
risponde a una sezione deI testo latino piùampia di quella che considera.
18. H36Ps N.3 (SC 411, 202.18-204.51).
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 367
A differenza della pericope evangelica matte ana prima considerata,
il versetto commentato dall'autore non contiene un riferimento esplicito
e diretto al tema dell'infanzia. Il termine greco vBonBpos indic a gene-
ricamente la giovinezza deI salmis ta, in opposizione alla maturÏtà ed
alla vecchiaia. Nondimeno, il riferimento fornisce aIl' Alessandrino 10
spunto per una riflessione più ampia sul motivo delle età ed il suo
significato.
L'esegesi origeniana prende le mosse dalla constatazione dell'assenza
di un senso letterale per il passo 19 : l'affermazione dell'autore deI salmo,
secondo cui mai avrebbe visto un giusto abbandonato, sembra contrad-
dire la comune esperienza ed i resoconti scritturistici delle privazioni
e fatiche cui i prafeti furono sottoposti. Pel' risolvere l'incongruenza,
l'esegeta propone di distinguere tra le tribolazioni fisiche, effettivamente
patite dai giusti, e l'abbandono autentico, quello in spirito, che es si non
hanno evidentemente sperimentato. Il dettato scritturistico dovrà dunque
essere inteso alla luce di questa seconda definizione.
Pel' rendere più chiara il distinguo Origene si richiama ad un'opposi-
zione binaria simile, quella tra aetas cO/porolis ed aetas spiritalis. La
tematica, sviluppata da Origene in diversi altri passFo, è quella delle età
dell'uomo interiore, in contrapposizione a quelle esteriori e percepibili.
L'una e l'altra sono assolutamente indipendenti. Un uomo nella piena
maturità pua essere, a ben vedere, un fanciullo in spirito, e viceversa.
A sostegno della propria interpretazione Origene appranta un ricco
apparato di passi scritturistici, tratti variamente dall' Antico e dal Nuovo
Testamento. Il primo parallelo evocato è con la figura di Abramo. MoIti
uomini vissuti prima deI patriarca ne eguagliarono la longevità, ma
lui solo è detto senior et plenus dierum. L'appellativo non pua dunque
riferirsi all'età anagrafica, bensl ad un patticolare concetto di anzianità,
spoglio di ogni nozione concreta.
L'espressione rufiniana si riferisce evidentemente a Gen 25,8, in cui
Abramo è detto npBcr~(:rt'T1S Kat nÀTJPllS iJIlBProV. La perifrasi npBcr-
19. È noto il principio ermeneutico origeniano secondo cui, mentre tutta la Scrittura
ha significato spirituale, non tutta ne possiede unD letterale: vd. Prin N.2.5.
20. Si vedano ad es. HIer 1.13; HNIIl I.l, IX.9; HLc XX.6-7; CCt Pro17-8 e FrCt 3
Appendice (ed. BARBÀRA 2005, 292-294). Oltre ai due ultimi luoghi citati, che si cor-
rispondono fedelmente, i dossier scritturistici di questi passi sono piuttosto uniformi. Tro-
viamo, tra le altre, la ripresa frequente di Ef 4,13 e 14 (CCt ProI2,7-8; FrCt 3; HIerI.13;
HLc XX.7), lGv 2,13 e 14 (CCt ProI2,7; FrCt 3; HNIIlI.l, IX.9), 1Cor 13,11 (CCt Prol
2,8; FrCt 3; HNIIl I.l; HLc XX.7). Sulla nozione .. di età dello spirito nella letteratura
cristiana si veda C. GNILKA, Aetas spiritalis: Die Ubenl'indung der natürlichen Alters-
stl/fen ais Ideal Früchristlichen Lebens, Bonn, Hanstein, 1972, in particolare pp. 96-100,
che cita moiti dei loci origeniani qui elencati e mette in evidenza l'apparato di riferimenti
scritturistici su cui si sostiene l' esegesi origeniana.
368 C.BARlLLI
pt'rtllÇ - 0 ltpWplm;pOç - Kut ltÀllPllÇ 1l1.tëProV - insignisce nella
Bibbia aleuni grandi personaggi: è il casa di Isacco (Gen 35,29), Giobbe
(Gb 42,17), Davide (lCr 23,1). TI comparativo ltpEcrpo'n;poç, cui sembra
riferusi la traduzione senior, e che, oltretutto, costituisce il pendant,
l'opposto speculare di VEO:rCEpOÇ, evoca uno schema esegetico binario,
strutturato sull'opposizione tra la nozione di vecchiaia fisica, anagrafica,
e quella di vecchiaia in spirito. Lo schema è attestato altrove da Origene,
che 10 mutua da Pilone 21 . La condizione auspicabile pel' l'uomo è quella
di una anzianità che, sul modello di Abramo, derivi dalla maturità inte-
riore e dalla gravità dei pensieri. Complice la polivalenza semantica deI
comparativo, che nella lingua greca indic a anche l'anziano insignito di
autorità, si fa COS! distinzione tra la oggettiva e riscontrabile constata-
zione dell'avanzamento dell'età fisica, e la condizione di onorabilità e
sapienza che deriva da una disposizione interiore spiritualmente matura.
Abramo pel' primo merita questo appellativo; tali sono dett! gli anziani
designati da Mosé su ordine divino, secondo Nm Il,16 - citazione richia-
mata da Pilone e ripresa da Origene in HIos XV!. 1. Rufino conserva
con la traduzione presbyter la stessa ambiguità di significato. TI passo
dell'omelia sul salmo è ancor più preciso: è necessario aspirare al titolo
di presbyteri et seniores non pro aetate corporis, e neppure pro officia
presbyterii, ma pro interioris hominis pelfecto sensu et gravitate con-
stantiae: vi è dunque un 'presbiterato' materiale, ed unD in spirito. La
nota sembra un monito rivolto, ancora una volta, aIle autorità della chiesa.
L'argomentazione si fa spirituale ed attuale.
Nel riproporre poco oltre il riferimento a Gen 25,8 il traduttore rende
direttamente presbyter nutritus in senectute bona, mischiando in questa
espressione, verosimilmente, anche un riferimento a Gen 15,15, citato
solitamente da Origene nella fOIma 'tpucpdç EV YllPIl KUÀéb 22 . L'acco-
stamento dei due pas si poteva verosirnilmente trovarsi già nel testo greco.
Un confronto tra il testo latino ed il frammento greco consente di
apprezzare, almeno pel' questo passo, la puntualità di Rufino nella resa
dello sviluppo omiletico origeniano, la fedeltà ne! riproporne i singoli
passaggi e le citazioni23 . L'espressione est ergo aetas aliqua secundum
21. Vd. HGn ID.3 e IV.4, a commento di Gen 18,11; HIos XVI.1, dove è questione di
Gs 13,1 (Kat 'Ill<YOùç ltpecrp<m;poç npopePllKcOç 'nov llJ.\eprov). Si menzionano in
quest'ultimo passo quidam ante nos che avrebbero per primi notato nella Scrittura la dif-
ferenza tra le due concezioni di anzianità;evidentemente, Filone: vd. Sob. 16 ss.
22. Vd. EM XlV.26; CMt XV.25, XVII.36; CIo XX.1O.79; cf. Dial xxm.23-24:
'tpacpelç Èv Y1lpet KaÀcp.
23. Sulla traduzione rufiniana delle omelie di Origene si veda A. GRAPPONE, Omelie
origenialle nella traduziolle di Rufino: Ull confronto con i testi greci (Studia Ephemeridis
Augustinianum, 103), Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2007 (in particolare
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 369
interiorem hominem puerilis, est et aetas iuvenilis, est et senilis si rispec-
chia abbastanza fedelmente nell'incipit deI frammento. Nell'elenco delle
tre età -llÀtKtUV ... ltutotoU, VEaV1.crKOU, y{;pOV'toç - è forse possibile
vedere un'allusione a 1Gv 2,14, con una sostituzione della categoria dei
'vecchi' ai ltU't{;pEÇ dell'epistola, ben comprensibile in questo contesto.
La citazione deI versetto, si è vist024, è frequente nei passi che trattano
deI tema dell'età spirituale; se fosse corretto riconoscerne una ripresa,
essa confermerebbe una volta di più la notevole uniformità nello sviluppo
di questo tema esegetico.
Dall'idea di anzianità, l'esegeta ha tutto l'agio di passare, pel' contrap-
posizione, a quella di infanzia. Anche nel casa di questa età i riferimenti
della Bibbia, in particolare di Paolo, non sono da intendere in senso pro-
prio. La citazione di 1Cor 13,11 descrive con precisione il progresso che
conduce dall'infanzia in spirito alla maturità dell'uomo perfetto. Origene
ne fornisce una prima citazione completa - cum essem parvulus, loque-
bar ut palïlulus, sapiebam ut pal'vulus, cogitabam ut pal'vulus; cum
autem factus sum vir, quae palïluli erant deposui - e procede poi ad una
sorta di parafrasi, una rielaborazione dei dettato, che diventa l'oggetto di
aleune modifiche. Inserisce dunque nel tessuto della citazione le parole
scripturas e de evangelio, che non hanno aleun riscontro nel testo pao-
lino; pel' meglio adattare; permettere l'aggiunta deI complemento
oggetto, il verbo loquor è sostituito da intel/ego. Le inserzioni modifi-
cano ed arricchiscono il testo scritturistico; i termini estranei al dettato
originario della citazione suggeriscono al pubblico dell'omileta l'inter-
pretazione spirituale adottata dall'esegeta, 10 introducono ad essa. TI pro-
le pagine 55-74, Caratteristiche delle traduz~oni. ruf.illia~,e) ~ l~ bib~ografi.a qui indicata.
A proposito deI trattamento riservato aIle c~tazlOUl scnttuf1~tl~h~ ID ~UfIDO, Gra?pone
sostiene: "Anche se non mancano nelle omehe greche esempl dl plccoh adattamentl della
frase biblica al contesto, sembra chiaro che il traduttore pieghi molto di più il testo biblico
aIle esigenze di un periodare elegante" (121); "In sintesi, ritengo, possiamo affe~are .ch~
se larga parte dei testi omiletici di Origene si presentano come una fltta rete dl cltazloru
bibliche, in cui aleune spiccano per la loro ripetitività, nelle traduzioni ruflniane quest~
tratto caratteristico generalmente si perde, sia per la variabilità del modo di presentare ~
versetti scritturistici sia per la tendenza deI traduttore a dilatare la lunghezza dei comment!
tra una citazione e l' altra" (123). Una prospettiva divers a si trova in uno studio, più datato,
di V. PERI, Omelie origeniane sui Salmi: COlltributo all'identificazione deI testo latino
(Studi e Testi, 289), Città deI Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1980: "Una let-
tura delle nove omelie origeniane sui sahni tradotte da Rufino [ ... ] serve [ ...] a confennare
senza possibilità di dubbio, sia pel' i contenuti e~ i modi eseg~t~ci c~e per 10" sch~ma
oratorio, una fedeltà perfino piatta deI traduttore latmo al testo ongmale (117); . RU~IDo,
interprete certo meno smagliante di Gerolamo, meglio di lui conse~a al de.tt~to ong~ruan~
l'andamento discorsivo e dimesso dellinguaggio parlato e la npresa dlligente dl ogm
citazione scritturale" (127).
24. Vd. supra, n. 20.
 370 C.BARllLI
cedimento ricalca, a ben vedere, l'aggiunta dell'espressione sv "Cil
sKKÂ,'rlCitÇt nel dettato di Mt 18,10, segnalata a proposito di CMt XVI.25.
In questo caso, l'intera citazione viene situata nel contesto della compren-
sione spirituale della Scrittura.
Incastonato ad arte tra la prima citazione di 1Cor 13, Il e la sua
rielaborazione, l' esegeta aggiunge un ulteriore riferimento a 1Pt 2,2 ed
all'infanzia che desidera il puro latte spirituale dei primi insegnamenti
cristiani: esso contribuisce ad esplicitare il senso delle integrazioni
apportate al testo paolino. È da osservare come la resa di Rufino appiat-
tisca la differenza tenninologica propria deI greco, traducendo con il
medesimo tennine latino pm'Vulus tanto il VTptlOS di lCor 13,11, quanto
il ~pÉ<pOC; di IPt 2,2: è da chiedersi se l'uniformazione tenninologica sia
della mana del traduttore 0 dipenda da una sovrapposizione dei due passi
già presente nel testo origeniano.
Abbandonato 10 stadio dell'infanzia ed i primi rudimenti, osserva
Origene, sarà possibile progredire secondo l'esempio di Cristo in età,
sapienza e grazia, come indicato in Lc 2,52 25 .
A conc1usione dell'excursus sulle età dell'uomo interiore é richiamato
un ultimo passo, l'episodio della vocazione del profeta Geremia (Gel'
1,5-7)26. Quest'ultimo mostra almeno due punti di contatto con il 'caso
esegetico' di SaI 36,25. A livello lessicale i due testi sono accomunati
dalla presenza deI termine VEcO"CEpOC;, iuvenis nella traduzione latina. Le
affinità tra i due sono ancor maggiori a livello contenutistico. Alle esita-
zioni deI profeta, che si dichiara inadeguato al mandato ricevuto a causa
dell'età (vEcOn,poc; sycO EiJlt), Dio oppone un rifiuto. In modo analogo
al salmo, la lettera deI testo profetico conduce pel' Origene ad un'aporia:
il profeta, dicendosi giovane, sostiene il vero; nel negarlo, si deve sup-
pone che Dio dichiari il falso? La soluzione, evidentemente impratica-
bile, spinge l'esegeta ad un'interpretazione spirituale deI dettato biblico.
Benché ancora fanciullo, Geremia ha già raggiunto la maturità dell'uomo
interiore:
Nisi enim senuisset, propheta non esset. Namque senum est prophetare.
Etiamsi videas aliqllando iuvenem prophetantem, non dubites dicere de eo
quia: secundllm interiorem hominem semât, propterea propheta est;
deniqlle leremias cum audivisset: Priusqllam te plasmarem in utero 1I0vi
te et alltequam exires de vulva sallctificavi te et prophetam ill gelltibus
feci te (Ger 1,5) respondit quia: Iuvellis ego sum et lIescio loqui (Ger 1,6).
Sed ille qui ei donavit gratiam ut non esset puer, sed esset senior secundum
25. L'inversione aetate et sapientia rispetto all'atteso sapielltia et aetate si trova attes-
tata presso le antiche traduzioni latine.
26. Cf. l'esegesi di Ger 1,6 in HIer 1.7.
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 371
interiorem hominem, ait ad eum: Noli dicel'e quia illvellis ego sum (Ger 1,7).
Alioquin nisi haec ita intellegantur, quid habebit rationis ut dicatur puero,
cuius aetas iuvenilis et rudis: Noli dicere quia illVellis ego SU11l (Ger 1,7)?
Hoc est dicere, non dicas quod verum est. luvenis ergo erat secundllm
aetatem cO/poris: sed quoniam Dominus dederat verba sua in ore eius,
qllibllS el'adicaret et sllbevel'tel'et et dispel'del'et ac l'lll'SU11l aedifical'et et
plalltal'et (cf. Ger 1,10), quae virtus verborum an imam eius illuminans et
sanctificans non eam sinebat esse puerilem, ideo merito ad eum dicitur:
Noli dicel'e quia iuvenis ego SU11l (Ger 1,7). Similiter ago et hoc quod
David dicit: Illve1lis fui et sellllÎ et 11011 vidi iustU11l derelictum, lIec semell
eius quaerells palles (SaI 36,25), secundum hoc ql/od supra de aetate iuve-
nili, vel senili interioris hominis diximus, sentiendum est 27.
Una volta dimostrato che i riferimenti scritturistici aIle età riguardano
l'uomo interiore, l'esegeta puo sostenere, per analogia, che anche la
nozione di abbandono applicata ai giusti è da intendersi spiritualmente e
ritomare COSt al tema principale dell'omelia. La soluzione esegetica di
Origene si basa dunque sull' accostamento di due elementi di difficoltà
deI testo biblico, legati ad una comprensione letterale della Scrittura.
Il procedimento logico scioglie le contraddizioni insite in un passo
pel' mezzo della comparazione con il secondo: la falsità apparente
dell'assunto di SaI 36,25 si giustifica in considerazione dell'assurdità
di Ger 1,7. Entrambi si comprendono solo se sanati dall'intervento
dell'interpretazione spirituale.
III. COMMENTa AL CANTICO, II.3.15-16, II.8.34
Si è avuto modo di osservare come l'accostamento delle citazioni
bibliche, raccolte a partire da analogie contenutistiche e lessicali, segua
in moiti casi schemi riconenti. Il fenomeno non è inusuale, né riguarda
unicamente Origene. La medesima tendenza ad evocare una sinfonia di
passi legati da un vincolo di parentela più 0 mena stretto è in atto in altri
autori. Nello specifico, un gruppo COl-pOSO di rife1'Îmenti biblici incentrati
sull'infanzia è attestato nel primo libro deI Pedagogo di Clemente
Alessandrino, richiamati a sostegno dell'equiparazione già menzionata
tra cristiani e bambini28 .
27. H36Ps IV.3 (SC 411,204.52-206.76).
28. In particolare, Paed. 1.5 propone una lista ricchissima di riferimenti scritturistici
sul tema. A proposito di questo capitolo si veda H.-I. MARRou, Introduction, in Clément
d'Alexandrie. Le Pédagogue, introduction et notes par H.-I. MARROU, traduction par
M. HARL (SC, 70), Paris, Cerf, 1960, pp. 24s.: "Clément, comme tous les Pères, aime
orchestrer un thème scripturaire en groupant, par ce que on peut appeler la méthode des
'concordances', les allusions les plus fugitives, les associations, même purement verbales,
 372 C.BARILLI
Molti studi sono stati dedicati alla creazione di repertori di passl scrit-
turistici a fini esegetici, dimostrativi 0 apologetici29 • Nel nostro casa non
è forse necessario pensare a raccolte fisse di pas si ereditate dall' Alessan-
drino, benché lui stesso, come si è visto, accolga schemi esegetici coniati
dagli autori precedenti. Basterà immaginare, piuttosto, sorte di 'indici',
mnemonici 0 materiali, che rammentassero agilmente all'esegeta i brani
affini pel' contenuto 0 lessico: collezioni scritturistiche cui Origene sem-
bra ricorrere a più riprese nei diversi contesti esegetici. Caso particolare
è presentato da testi in cui, benché il tema dell'infanzia non sia trattato
nello specifico, né l'intreccio delle citazioni scritturistiche ad esso corre-
late sembri essere richiesto dal contesto, riappare nondimeno l'ormai nota
serie di pas si biblici. Se già, come si è detto, la semplice presenza deI
termine VEQ:l'tEpOÇ; sembrava giustificare solo in parte il ricco sviluppo
sul binomio filoniano anzianità-infanzia, i passi cui qui ci si riferisce
presentano un legame ancor più flebile con il nostro tema esegetico.
1 testi in questione evidenziano meglio di altri un certo grado di 'formu-
larità' di simili raccolte scritturistiche. Essi indicano, inoltre, la ricchezza
semantica dell'immagine infantile, che si presta ad inserirsi nei contesti
esegetici più disparati.
Si considerano di seguito due pas si tratti dal secondo tomo del CCt,
giuntoci nella traduzione latina di Rufino. Il primo testo è CCt II.3.15-16,
dedicato all'esegesi della sposa posta a custodia della vigna dai figli della
madre in Ct 1,6.
L'esegeta propone diverse interpretazioni deI passo, illustrando dap-
prima il contenuto dell'azione drammatica. Ne fornisce poi la spiega-
zione tipologica, che riconosce nella madre della sposa la Gemsalemme
celeste, nei fratelli, gli apostoli di Cristo, e nella sposa stessa la chiesa.
Origene aggiunge poi una terza lettura, di contenuto morale ed indivi-
duale. Il versetto sarebbe rivolto ad ogni anima ancora infante e lattante
in Cristo, coinvolta in numerose battaglie contro i demoni che la richia-
mana alla vita precedente e sostenuta dagli angeli custodi, in attesa di
crescere ed affrancarsi dal controllo di tutori ed amministratori. Il tema
è quello dell'anima parvula, l'anima piccina e bisognosa di cres cita spi-
rituale. Origene vi si riferisce più volte in CCt, avendo cura di specificare
qu'on peut trouver ou établir en parcourant toute la Bible". Sarebbe interessante confron-
tare il dossier clementino ed alcuni passi origeniani altrettanto ricchi.
29. Sulla questione dei testimonia, ad esempio, si veda M.C. ALBL, "And Scripture
Cannat Be Broken": The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collec-
tions, Leiden, Brill, 1999. Bisogna evidentemente fare ordine e distinguere tra queste
raccolte di pas si veterotestamentari, impiegate in funzione 'probatoria', e le generiche
collezioni di testi scritturistici, quali quelle di cui qui ci occupiamo.
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 373
che la piccolezza non è da intendere come tratto sostanziale, bensl come
una condizione perfettibile di immaturità spirituale ed imperizia30 •
Quod si etiam tertium explanationis locum placet exsequi, referamus haec
ad unamquamque animam, quae conversa ad Deum et ad fidem veniens
patitur sine dl/bio cogitationum pugnas et obluctationes daemonum revo-
care eam nitentium ad prioris vitae illecebras vel infidelitatis errores. Sed
ne hoc fiat neve rursum daemonibl/s in ea tantum liceat, prospexit divina
providentia, ut parvulis (cf. Mt 18,10; 19,14) quibusque et his qui pro
semet ipsis adverslls astllnas diaboli (Ef 6,11) et daemollum pugnas dimi-
care non possunt, utpote illfalltes adhuc et lactantes in Christo (cf. 1Cor
3,1; SaI 8,3), daret angelos propugnatores et defensores, qui velut tutores
et procuratores (cf. Gal 4,2) cOllstituti sunt a Deo eorum qui infra aetatem
positi pro semet ipsis, ut diximus, pugnare non possunt. Et ut hoc maiO/'e
Cl/m fiducia agant, conceditur iis semper videre faciem Patris, qui in caelis
est (cf. Mt 18,10), et istos puto esse parvulos quos venire ad se Jesus il/ssit
et non sinit prohiberi (cf. Mt 19,14) et quos semper videre dicit faciem
patris (cf. Mt 18,10)31.
La lista delle citazioni include il repertorio più 'classico' dei passi
relativi all'infanzia, all'interno deI quale le epistole paoline, ricche di
riferimenti ai piccoli, trovano largo spazio32 : troviamo cosl menzionati
1Cor 3,1, Gal 4,1, cui si aggiungono gli episodi evangelici di Mt 18,1033
e 19,14. La perifrasi infantes ... et [aetantes in Christo sembra costituire
la fusione di 1Cor 3,1 (vrl1tÎotç; sv XptO''ti{» e SaI 8,3 (vrJ1tÎcov Kat
SllÂaÇ6vtcov), resa possibile dal denominatore comune ai due versetti, il
termine VTJ1tlOÇ;.
Il riferinlento conclusivo amalgama il dettato di Mt 18,10 e Mt 19,14
s., quasi i due passi formassero un unico episodio. La citazione di
Mt 18,10 sembra essere riferita ai piccoli, benché, come è stato osser-
30. CCt II.8.37 (SC 375, 428): Vel1lm quod pa/'Vulam Ilomillamus allimam, nemo ita
accipiat, quasi seculldum substalltiam pal'Vula dicatur, sed cui deest eruditio et ill qua
exiguus est illtellectus ac minima peritia, hallc pal'Vulam dicimus animam. Vd. anche
FrCt 83 (ed. BARBÀRA 2005, 278). In CIo XXXII.30.368 è l'anima degli apostoli, chiamati
da Gesù TEKvia, ad esser ancora piccina.
31. CCt II.3.15-16 (SC 375, 324).
32. Sulla metafora ed il linguaggio dell'infanzia in Paolo si veda R. AASGAARD,
Like a Chi/d: Paul's Rhetorical Uses of Chi/dlzood, in M.J. BUNGE- T.E. FRETHEIM -
B. ROBERTS GAVENTA (eds.), The Chi/d ill the Bible, Grand Rapids, Ml - Cambridge,
Eerdmans, 2008, 249-277.
33. La citazione di Mt 18,10 ed il ruolo dell'angelo protettore sono esaminati in CMt
XIII.28, dove si ribadisce la nozione di piccolezza dell'anima. Sul tema dell'angelologia,
che rives te un ruolo importante nel pensiero origeniano, si veda C. BLANC, L'angélologie
d'Origèlle, in E.A. L1V1NGSTONE (ed.), Studia Patristica XIV, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag,
1976,79-109; A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Allgelo, in EAD. (a cura di), Origelle, diziollario
(n. 4), 6-13. Sulla citazione di Mt 18,10, in particolare, e sui 'piccoli', si veda M. SIMONETTI,
Due Ilote sul/'allgelologia origellialla, in Rivista di cultura c/assica e medioevale 4 (1962)
165-208.
374 C.BARILLI
vat0 34, l' atto di contemplare il volto deI Padre sia predicato, nel vangelo,
degli angeli e non dei bambini.
Medesimo apparato di citazioni bibliche si ritrova in CCt II.8.34, de di-
cato all'esegesi degli oggetti simili aIl'oro di Ct 1,11, ad ulteriore con-
felma dell'uniformità dei dossier scritturistici. In aggiunta, un riferimento
al già noto Lc 2,52 conclude la pericope.
quod si ad unamquamque animam referatur expositio, videbitur: donec
pUl'Vula est ad/llic anima et impe/fecta et sub tutoribus et procuratoribus
(Gal 4,2) posita, sive doctoribus ecc/esiae sive a1lgelis, qui parvulorum
esse dicuntur et videre semper faciem Patris qui i1l caelis est (Mt 18,10),
similitudilles auri (Ct 1,11) fiullt ei, cum nOIl solidis et fortibus alitur
Verbi Dei cibis (cf. 1Cor 3,2), sed similitudinibus imbuitur, velut si
dicamus, pm'abolis et exemplis docetur, pro qui bus et ipse Christus
dicitur aetate et sapientia crescere et gratia apud Deum et homi1les
(Lc 2,52)35.
La riflessione suIl'infanzia ed il nutrimento comspondente aquesta età
si applica anche in questo casa aIl' anima bambina, agli inizi del pro-
gresso spirituale. I gioielli rappresentano l'istruzione adeguata all'anima
fintanto che essa è piccola ed anCOl'a imperfetta. L'identificazione dei
compagni dello sposo con i dottOl'i della chiesa 0 gli angeli e l'interpre-
tazione degli oggetti con le nozioni iniziali, uno stimolo alla ricerca delle
verità più complesse, chiama a sé la consueta nozione di infanzia spiri-
tuale e l'apparato di citazioni ad essa relative.
N. OMEUE su [SAlA, VII. 1; COMMENTO A MATTEO, XV.6
Gli esempi sin qui considerati evidenziano una cmta regolarità e coe-
renza, da parte di Origene, nella raccolta delle citazioni e nella forma-
zione dei propri dossier scritturistici. Si è vista la frequenza dei passi
tratti da 1Corinzi, Galati e dall'intero epistolario paolino. L'uniformità
deI repertorio scritturistico adottato non impedisce tuttavia aIl' esegeta di
sottolineare, di volta in volta, differenti sfumature nei passi ripresi e com-
mentati, di approfondirne 0 modificarne l'esegesi in funzione deI conte-
sto e delle necessità argomentative.
34. Cf. Origène. Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques, 1. Texte de la version
latine de Rufin; introduction, traduction et notes par L. BRÉSARD et H. CROUZEL avec la
collaboration de M. BORRET (SC, 375), Paris, Cerf, 1991, 324, n. 2.
35. CCt II.8.34 (SC 375, 426-428). 1 terrnini solidis ... cibis potrebbero celare, in
altemativa, un'allusione a Eb 5,12.
L'INFANZlA IN ORlGENE 375
L'omelia settima su Isaia, a noi pervenuta nella traduzione latina di
Gerolamo, è dedicata da Origene al commento di Is 8,18, tSoù ayro Kat
'Cà 7tatSia, fi flot ËSCOKEV 6 SE6ç, citato, come è noto, in Eb 2,13. Il
punto di partenza dell' esegesi Ol'igeniana è costituito appunto dalla
ripresa deI versetto profetico: agli occhi dell'Alessandrino la citazione in
Ebrei è una chiave di accesso fornita dall' Apostol0 36 al significato auten-
tico contenuto neIla Scrittura, un'occasione per acquisire, secondo il sug-
gerimento di Pr 9,9 citato all'inizio dell'omelia, maggiore sapienza ed
una conoscenza più profond a deI testo profetico stesso. Il passo di Isaia
va dunque letto attraverso le lenti dell'esegesi paolina, che mette nel
giusto risalto la condivisione della carne e del sangue dei piccoli attra-
verso l'incarnazione di Cristo. Chi sono i bambini cui il profeta, e Paolo
sulla sua scia, si rivolgono? Attraverso l'epistola ed altri luoghi paolini
si precisa un'immagine evidentemente troppo vaga.
Parvuli (Is 8,18) autem ommes homines sunt, si eos compares ad pelfec-
tionem Verbi; licet Moysen nomines, licet mll/m dixeris de prophetis, licet
Iohannem, quo maior in natis mulierum nemo fuit (cf. Mt Il,11), licet ad
Apostolos venias, Petrum, cui portae infemi 1l01l invalesce1lt (Mt 16,18),
vel Paulum, qui raptus est usque ad tertium caelum et audivit illdicibilia
verba (cf. 2Cor 12,2.4), non deponis eorum gloriam dicens quia et ipsi in
Us, quae intellexerunt, comparatione eorum, quae non intellexerunt, parvu-
lorum disciplinis eruditi slmt, quae hominibus traduntur. Dicit ergo Salva-
tOI' non de his, quos Paulus i1l Chl7sto parvulos (cf. 1Cor 3,1) nUflcupat et
adserit [acte potal/dos et 11011 forti cibo (cf. 1Cor 3,2; Eb 5,12), sed de
omnibus simul hominibus: ecce, ego et parvuli mei, quos mihi dedit deus
(Is 8,18). Vero quomodo in Plleris alii ab aliis alacriores et ea, quae his
sunt tradita, velocius consequuntur, sic, inqllam, similem ingeniosis pueris
factum Moysen et prophetas, sed et Domini Iesu Christi Apostolos37 •
Bambini sono da intendere tutti gli uomini; le parole di Is 8,18, attri-
buite a Cristo, indicano l'umanità intera, vissuta prima e dopo l'incarna-
zione. La condizione infantile contraddistingue l'uomo su un piano onto-
logico, benché poi si diano diversi gradi nella condizione di minorità:
alcuni, come i profeti e gli apostoli, possono dirsi a ragione fanciulli
alacri01'es 0 ingeniosi, più svelti ed abili, in rapporto agli altri. Eppure,
divenuti consapevoli di sapere cose 'da fanciulli', es si stessi ammettono
di conoscere parzialmente e parzialmente profetare; ed attendono, percià,
di contemplare faccia a faccia le realtà, abbandonate le ombre della cono-
scenza attuale. Ilriferimento è naturalmente a ICor 13,9.12. L'omileta
non menziona la metafOl'a del bambino e dell' adulto contenuta in 1Cor
36. Per Origene Paolo sarebbe l'autore 0, quantomeno, l'ispiratore dell'epistola: vd.
EpAfr 14; Eus. HE V1.25, 11-13.
37. His VII.l (GCS XIII, 280.5-19).
 376 C.BARILLI
13,11, che cosl bene esprime la dinamica tra la conoscenza parziale,
attuale, e quella futura; ma la prossimità dei due testi la richiama spon-
taneamente alla memoria.
Attraverso questo sviluppo si puntualizza cosl la lettura economica della
riflessione veterotestamentaria. La comprensione ontologica di Is 8,18 si
esplicita per mezzo del confronto con un ulteriore passo paolino, 1Cor
3,1-2, già incontrato in più occasioni. L'espressione in Christo pw'Vulos
ricalca il greco VllntotS Èv Xptcr'"0 di 1Cor 3,1; similmente, lacte potan-
dos et non forti cibo sembra riproporre in una fonna variata il greco yuÀa.
DJ.lUS Ènôncra., où ~p&J.la. di 1Cor 3,2, benché vi si possa vedere un
riferimento a Eb 5,1238 • Qui la nozione di piccolezza è sviluppata da Paolo,
secondo l'esegeta, in una direzione ed un senso molto diversi. Quale che
sia il passo preciso sotteso alla resa di Gerolamo, è importante rilevare
come Origene sembri distinguere due diverse concezioni di infanzia,
sostenute, rispettivamente, dai due passi biblici: per un verso 1èor 3,1 si
riferirebbe allo stadio spirituale deI cristiano agli inizi della fede, una
condizione pelfettibile e non sostanziale; Is 8,18, d'altro canto, raggrup-
perebbe tutti gli uomini in una condizione univers ale di minorità.
TI confronto tra le due nozioni di infanzia si trova confennato in un
frammento origeniano ad Ef 4,13-15, epistola che per l'Alessandrino con-
tiene la voce autentica di Paolo. A proposito di ïva. J.lllKsn d)J.lEV vi)mot
di Ef 4,14, l'esegeta si interroga sul plurale del verbo scelto dall'Apo-
stolo, in base al quale egli stesso sembrerebbe definirsi infante. Ma come
comprendere questa definizione? La questione è di stabilire se l'includere
se stesso tra i piccoli sia da interpretare come un atto di umiltà da patte
dell'autore dell'epistola, 0 debba invece ricevere maggior peso ed essere
inteso in senso letterale. Vedendo quanto distino la profezia e la cono-
scenza parziali dalla perfezione futura, Paolo potrebbe aver scelto, a
ragione, di definirsi vi)ntoS: il riferimento è, ancora una volta, a 1Cor
13,9.
More origeniano, altri passi scritturistici sono invocati a dirimere la
questione. A supporto della prima interpretazione andrà lCor 13,11, in
cui, con il tennine vi)ntos, l'Apostolo si riferisce al plurale all'infanzia
spirituale ed agli esordi nella fede, onnai superati, annoverandosi 'pel'
solidarietà' ed artificio retorico tra gli infanti in spirito di Corinto.
È interessante osservare come il discorso organico e conseguente di
38. Tuttavia, la vicina presenza di il1 Christo pm'vlIlos, calco deI greco, ed il verbo poto
suggeriscono piuttosto un riferimento a 1Cor 3,2. Si ricordi peraltro l'adattamento del
dettato di 1Cor 3,2 in CMt XV1.25, ya.Àa ltonÇoJ.!BvoIlÇ, che corrisponde alla nostra
traduzione latina. In ogni caso, la questione non è determinante. È significativa, piuttosto,
la comprensione di ls 8,18.
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 377
Paolo in 1Cor 13,9-12 si smembri, in Origene, in due prospettive distinte;
e come 1Cor 13, Il sia interpretato, almeno nell' obiezione possibile ripor-
tata dall' Alessandrino e da lui non necessariamente condivisa, come
segno di modestia. A sostegno della seconda lettura proposta si pOlterà
invece Is 8,18, di cui Origene ripropone la comprensione ontologica già
incontrata in HIs VII. 1 : "Ma un altro risponderà a questo che in con-
fronto ai più Paolo era, SI, divenuto uomo (cf. Ef 4,13), ma rispetto al
destino riservato ai santi era ancora un bambino (cf. Ef 4,14); e infatti la
pat'ola profetica chiama tutti fanciulli quando dice: ecco me e i fanciulli
che Dio mi ha dato (Is 8,18)"39.
La citazione di Is 8,18 si ritrova in CMt XV.6 nel contesto della ricca
esegesi ad un passo evangelico ben noto incentrato sull'infanzia. L'epi-
sodio è quello dei fanciulli condotti a Gesù perché imponga su di loro le
mani.
Tore I.lÈv l] àvayeypal.ll.lév11 iaropia yéyove roI5 Kat npoaevuvéxSat
natota rep 'l11aoi5, ~O\)ÂOl.léVffiV rrov npompepovrffiv ÈntSetvat m'nov
ràç xetpaç m'notç KalnpoaeuçaaSat (cf. Mt 19,13). iaréov oÈ ort OÙK
Eanv ore où npompéperat natota ritv 'l'\)xitv rep 'l11aoi5, È<p' oiç Âéyot
uv (wç napaKaraSiJK11v aùrà àno Seai5 Âa~rov) ro iooù È'Yro Kat rà
natOia a. flot EOffiKev 6 Seoç (Is 8,18). Kat àno rrov natotffiv ye rourffiv
nvà I.lÈv XP11l.lanÇérffi VUnta. aÂÂa oÈ ÂeyéaSffi SUÂuçovra. wç rrov
V11ntffiV onooeéarepa, Kat 6 KUptoÇ l]l.lrov ÈK arouaroç àl.l<porépffiv
KarapnÇérffi atvov, tva naS11l.lévot r11ç rotaur11ç aùroI5 eiç rà natota
eùepyeataç Âéyffil.lev ro ÈK aroflaroç VUntffiv Kat SnÂaÇovrffiv
Ka'tuprtaffi atvov (SaI 8,3 LXX). natota oÈ ÂeK'téov 'toùç Èv Xpta'tep
aapKt VO\)Ç Kat VUnto\)Ç (cf. 1Cor 3,1), 6noto\)ç Ko ptvStO\)Ç Ènta'tu-
I.levoç 6 ànoa'toÂoç IIai5Âoç EÂeye. Kà'Yro OÙK n0\)VUSUV OUtV ÂaÂfjaat
wç nve\)uanKOtç àÂÂ' wç aapKtvotÇ. wç VUntotç Èv Xpta'tro (lCor 3,1).
rà rotai5ra oit natOia npoauvéxSn Kat rore Kat àelnpoau'Ye'tat (cf.
Mt 19,13) rep 'l11aoi5. a11l.letOV oÈ 't11ç rrov v11ntffiv npoaayffiY11ç oi noÂ-
Âot 't11ç ÈKKÂ11ataç Èv Xptarep vuntot Kat SuMÇovreç (cf. SaI 8,3),
xpeiav Exovreç 'YuÂaKroç, où arepeiiç rpo<pfjç (Eb 5,12), npoç o\)ç
Âéyot uv 6 ÂéyffiV (wç uv 'tpo<poç SuÂno\)aa 'tà éaurfjç 'téKva (1 Ts 2,7)
MÂnffiv aùroùç) ro 'YuÂa Ofliiç Ènonaa, où Bproua· ounffi 'Yàp nouvaaSe,
àÂÂ' oMÈ En vuv ouvaaSe (lCor 3,2)40.
TI testo costituisce un' autentica summa dei riferimenti biblici legati
all'infanzia sinora considerati; la metodologia nel reperimento dei testi è
la consueta. I na.tota. deI passo evangelico evocano la citazione di Is 8,18,
39. FrEfII.39 (ed. F. PrnRI 2009, 302): ô oÈ ihspoç 1tpOç 'Coiho à.1tOKptvsÏ'tat, on
crllyKpicrst J.!Èv 'Crov 1toÀÀrov ÈysyÔVSl J.!Èv ô IIauÀoç à.viJp, 1tpOç ÛÈ 'Cà à.1toKdJ.!sva
'tOiç ayiolç 'CBÀll Ën viJmoç ~v· Kat 1ta.V'tUç yàp 0 1tpoqJllnKoç Myoç 1tatoia ÔVOJ.!a.ÇSl
a
ÀByroV ioo\) Èyro Kat 'Cà 1taloia J.!ol ËOroKSV 0 0sôç; traduzione PrnRI 2009, 303,
leggermente modificata.
40. CMt XV.6 (GCS XL, 362.4-363.12).
 378 C.BARILLI
che contiene il medesimo termine. Tra i bambini si riconoscono l aleune
differenze, come già osservato nel casa dell'omelia su Isaia. Per rendere
conto di queste, Origene cita SaI 8,3, che distingue diverse 'specie' nel
'genere' dei fanciulli: aleuni si diranno infanti, altri, lattanti; da entrambi,
Dio si procura una Iode. l vi]1na deI salmo richiamano poi alla mente
dell'esegeta, senza soluzione di continuità, l'occorrenza dello stesso ter-
mine in 1Cor 3,1. L'Alessandrino conc1ude dunque il commento con una
citazione completa di lCor 3,2. Prima ancora, tra la ripresa di 1Cor 3,1
e quella deI versetto successivo, Origene inserisce un fugace riferimento
a due altri testi: Eb 5,12 il quale, come si è visto, condivide le immagini
di 1Corinzi, e 1Ts 2,7. Le analogie concettuali e telminologiche produ-
cono il consueto affastellamento di riferimenti biblici e la selezione di
citazioni scritturistiche concorre ad illustrare il senso spirituale dell'epi-
sodio: Origene riconosce nei fanciulli portati a Gesù i piccoli nella
chiesa, con un'attualizzazione deI contenuto deI testo evangeliéo moIto
simile a quanto osservato a proposito di CMt XVI.25.
L'aspetto che interessa sottolineare di questa selezione di passi risiede
piuttosto nella comprensione di Is 8,18 proposta e nel suo accostamento
aIle citazioni tratte dalle epistoIe, espressamente rifiutato nell'omelia.
l bambini deI versetto sono in questo occasione natOia -ci]v \j!oxi]v,
gli infanti in spirito che quotidianamente si accostano alla chiesa, e che
Origene identifica esplicitamente con i neonati e camali di 1Cor 3,141. La
distinzione netta tra Is 8,18 e 1Cor 3,1 viene dunque abbandonata.
L'esegesi risultante si discosta da quella esposta nell'omelia su Isaia,
benché gli eIementi costitutivi siano i medesimi. In questo casa specifico,
gli obiettivi dell'argomentazione origeniana, differenti nei due contesti,
guidano e sviluppano l'esegesi stessa in direzioni diverse.
V. OMELIE su GEREMIA, XVIlI.6
MoIti luoghi origeniani presentano un apparato di citazioni scritturisti-
che sinille ai testi considerati sinora; gli esempi possibili sarebbero moIti.
A conc1usione di questa breve scorsa, invece, si prende in esame uno
studiatissimo estratto dalle omelie origeniane su Geremia conservate in
41. A proposito della citazione di Is 8,18 in CMt XIII. 18, M.!. Danieli osserva come
anche in quel passo Origene dia deI versetto una "lettura 'ecclesiale"', che preciserebbe la
"lettura 'economica'" attestata in HIs VIT. 1 : Origene. Commenta al vangelo di Matteo/2,
note a cura di M.!. DANIEL!, traduzione a cura di R. SCOGNAMIGL!O (Collana di testi patris-
tici, 151), Roma, Città Nuova, 1999, p. 65, n. 14.
L'lNFANZIA IN ORIGENE 379
greco. Nel passo in questione è la singola citazione ad assumere un ruolo
di guida pel' l'esegesi.
In HIer XVIII.6, dedicato al commento di Ger 18,7, illettore di Ori-
gene incontra un'immagine infantile sviluppata quanto inattesa, perché
non direttamente suggerita dal contesto. La metafora si innesta in una più
ampia riflessione dell'esegeta sul tema dell'uso traslato deI linguaggio
nella Scrittura e sugli antropomorfismi biblici. Alcuni eIementi di oscu-
rità deI testo, come il telmine nÉpaç di Ger 18,7, che sembra alludere ad
una fine già realizzata, richiedono una giustificazione che renda conto
delle apparenti contraddizioni della Bibbia, ponendole nella giusta pro-
spettiva ermeneutica. Un esempio uIteriore è fomito da Ger 18,10 in cui
il verbo IlE-caVoEtV, predicato di Dio ed avvertito come eccessivamente
personalizzante, compromette la credibilità deI dettato scritturistico. Si
tratta, nel casa specifico, di mostrare che sentimenti e reazioni quali, ad
esempio, il pentimento, non sono attribuiti a Dio in senso proprio, ma
solo in virtù della condiscendenza divina ai modi della comunicazione
verbale, prettamente umana. Di fronte ad un linguaggio biblico talora
sconcertante, l' omileta è chiamato a difendere contro ogni possibile
accusa il principio dell'impassibilità e trascendenza divine. L'analisi deI
versetto profetico fomisce ad Origene l'occasione di trarre dalla Scrittura
un insegnamento di valenza generale.
L'Alessandrino ha a disposizione uno schema esegetico composto di
tre citazioni: Nm 23,19 (OÙx wç avBpconoç 6 BEOÇ otapnjBilval, oùOs
wç oi.oç ùvBpffinoo ùnEtÂllBilvat), Dt 8,5 (on ÈnatOEocrÉ crE KUpWÇ
6 BEaç croo, wç Et nç natOEucrat avBpconoç -cov oiov aù-coo) e Dt 1,31
(È-cpono<paPllcrEv wç avBpconoç -cov oiov aù-coo). Si osservi per inciso
che la citazione di Dt 8,5, un un;cum nella produzione origeniana
trasmessaci, è imprecisa. Il dettato della Settanta recita infatti: on wç Et
nç natOEucrat avBpconoç -cov uiov aù-coo, OIJ'tCOÇ KUptoÇ 6 BEaç crou
natOEucrEt crE. Origene invelte i due cola e sostituisce al futuro della
seconda parte deI versetto un aoristo, ricaleato su quello di Dt 1,31:
l'Alessandrino sembra dunque assimilare Dt 8,5 a Dt 1,31. Quest'ultima
citazione, poi, è riportata in fOlma brachilogica.
È l'opposizione OÙx wç avSpconoç/wç avSpconoç ad interessare
l'Alessandrino. Dei tre passi, il primo sembra essere in contraddizione
con i restanti: mentre Nm 23,19 ci insegna che Dio non è come uomo,
le altre due citazioni lasciano intendere il contrario. In realtà, risolve
l'esegeta, solo la prima delle citazioni scritturistiche è predicata di Dio
propriamente; le due restanti si piegano ad una metafora comprensibile
ai più, pur non rivelando la vera natura divina. Il fine pedagogico della
metafora giustifica la 'licenza poetica'.
380 C.BARILLI
Altrove Origene attribuisce questa argomentazione ad un autore pre-
cedente42 : ancora una volta, verosimilmente, Filone. Questi, in effetti,
attesta a più riprese 10 schema esegetic043 . La formulazione filoniana,
tuttavia, non corrisponde esattamente a quella deI successore alessan-
drino: Origene assegna alla citazione di Dt 1,31 un molo che non è dato
trovare in Filone, pel' il quale è legittimo dubitare una citazione deI ver-
setto44 • In HIer XVrn.6 Origene mantiene effettivamente il riferimento,
già filoniano, a Dt 8,5, la cui citazione figura all'inizio dell'esegesi; non
si tratta dunque di una sua sostituzione pel' mezzo di Dt 1,31 45 . li primo
riferimento scritturistico, tuttavia, 'scompare' nel prosieguo dell'argo-
mentazione, ed il suo molo è evidentemente marginale rispetto al
secondo.
42. Cf. CMt XVII. 17 (GCS XL, 635.16-30): 1:rov ~Èv 1tpO tl~rov 1totijO'aç nç ~t~À,îa
vôwov \aprov àÀ,À,llYopîaç, 1:àç alO'1tapai àvSpco1to1taSfj 1taptO'1:âO'aç À,Éç,atç 1:0V Saov
ot1')y06~avoç Kal1:àç 1:0 Sdov aù1:Ou s~<patv060'aç, Évi ~Èv p1')1:0 sxpijO'a1:O 1tapi 1:OU
roç avSpco1tOV À,ÉyaO'Sat Bivat 1:0V Saov àvSpro1toUç OlKOVO~OUV1:a, 1:0 S1:p01tocpô-
PUO'É O'a K6ptoc 6 Saôc; O'ou roc; al nc; 1:p01tocpopuO'at avSpco1toC; 1:0V u\ov aù1:Ou
(Dt 1,31), Évi oÈ 1tapi 1:013 ~Tj roç avSpco1tOV Biva! 1:0V Saôv, 1:0 oùx roc; avSpco1tOC; 6
Saoc; otap1:USnvat (Nm 23,19). Manca all'appello la citazione di Dt 8,5.
43. Per una lista delle occorrenze si veda Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum. Frag-
menta graeca, introduction, texte critique et notes par F. PETIT, Les œuvres de Philon
d'Alexandrie 33, Paris, Cerf, 1978,54, n. d. In Conf. 98 l'esegesi concemente gli antro-
pomorfismi inc1ude un riferimento al solo Nm 23,19. Sullo schema esegetico si veda A.
KAMEsAR, Philo, the Presence of 'Paideutic' My th in the Pentateuch, and the 'Principles'
or Kephalaia of Mosaic Discourse, in Studia Philonica 10 (1998) 34-65. Si vedano inoltre
D. SATRAN, Pedagogy and Deceit in the Alexandrian Theological Tradition, in R.J. DALY
(ed.), Origeniana Quinta: Historica, Text and Method, Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica,
Origenism and Later Developments (BETL, 105), Leuven, University Press - Peeters,
1992, 119-124, pp. 120s., che contestualizza il ricorso aile due citazioni nella prospettiva
della tradizione alessandrina dell'inganno pedagogico, attestata anche in Filone e Clem-
ente; e D.T. RUNIA, Filone e i primi teologi cristiani, in Armali di Storia dell'Esegesi 14
(1997) 355-380, p. 367.
44. Eccezion fatta per il già menzionato Conf. 98, nei passi citati sopra Filone combina
sempre i soli Nm 23,19 e Dt 8,5. Se la sua identificazione con il predecessore origeniano
di CMt XVII. 17 è esatta, ci si attenderebbe di trovare una citazione di Dt 1,31. Cosa affatto
certa: la presunta citazione deI versetto in Sac. 101 segnalata da Biblia Patristica. Supplé-
ment, 82, consistente nella ripresa dell'espressione roç avSpco1toç, potrebbe essere con-
siderata verosimilmente una citazione di Dt 8,5. Di questo avviso è Petit, che corregge il
presunto riferimento a Dt 1,31 nel nostro passo ed in Deus 54; si veda anche La Bible
d'Alexandrie. Le Deutéronome, traduction du texte grec de la Septante, introduction et
notes par C. DOGNIEZ - M. HARL, Paris, Cerf, 1992, pp. 118s., n. a Dt 1,31.
45. Cosl a ragione KAMESAR, Paideutic My th (n. 43), p. 56, n. 81; A. VAN DEN HOEK,
Philo and Origen: A Descriptive Catalogue of Theil' Relationship, in Studia Philonica 12
(2000) 44-121, pp. 94s. Si confronti l'osservazione di Runia a proposito della'sostituzione
di Dt 1,31 a Dt 8,5 in CMt XVII.17: "Is it done on purpose because he thinks his own
text is better, or does he mistakenly think this was the text present in his source?" (D.T.
RUNIA, Philo and Origen: a Prelimina/)' SUI1'ey, in Philo and the Church Fathers: A
Collection of Papers, Leiden - New York - Küln, Brill, 1995, 117-125, p. 123).
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 381
La citazione di Dt 1,31 assume un'importanza centrale nel passo ori-
geniano. Pressoché assente negli autori precedenti aIl' Alessandrino, il
passo è citato da Origene in una forma alternativa a quella successiva-
mente adottata dalle moderne edizioni della Settanta. La tradizione mano-
scritta attesta infatti pel' il versetto due forme verbali distinte, derivate
rispettivamente da 'LpOlto<j>OpÉffi, 'sopporto i modi altmi, mi adatto', 0
'Lpo<j>O<j>OpÉffi, 'nutro, sostento'46. Origene è testimone della prima
lezione, che egli considera un neologismo ed un segno della straordinaria
creatività linguistica dei Settanta, ed adotta dunque le forme È'LpO-
nO<j>opT)cJEV ... 'Lpono<j>opijmn.
L'esegeta intende il verbo raro nel senso etimologico di prendere i
modi, accondiscendere; interpreta dunque l'intero versetto come l'espres-
sione dell'attitudine divina ad adattarsi allinguaggio ed all'intelligenza
umani. Nel contesto di alcuni passi47 dedicati al deciframento ed alla
giustificazione degli antropomorfismi biblici, la citazione di Dt 1,31
diviene, pel' un verso, un valido argomento a difesa dell'apatia e della
trascendenza di Di048, per l'altro, un'espressione dell'accomodamento
divino aIle facoltà intellettive ed espressive umane49 •
46. Le edizioni Rahlfs e Wevers della LXX accettano la lezione È1:po<po<pôp1')O'av. Si
vedano in proposito DOGNIEZ - HARL, Le Deutéronome (n. 44) e J.W. WEVERS, Notes on
the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1995, pp. 18s. Il versetto è poi
citato in At 13,18. L'edizione Nestle-Aland dei Nuovo Testamento greco adotta la lezione
È1:p01to<pôp1')O'av. Si veda tuttavia il commento di C.K. BARRETT, Atti degli Apostoli.
I: Prolegomeni. Commento ai Capp. 1-14, edizione italiana a cura di D. ZORODDU,
Brescia, Paideia, 2003, pp. 677s.: stante l'incertezza relativa al passo, Barrett preferisce
1:po<po<popÉco.
47. Oltre al citato CMt XVII.17 (vd. supra n. 42) CC IV.71; HEz VI.6; CMt X.14,
XVIIA.6. In tutti questi casi tranne uno, che non riporta la forma verbale ma un suo adat-
tamento al participio, in luogo di 1:p01to<popijO'at leggiamo 1:p01to<popijO'at.
48. S.F. Eyzaguirre illustra molto bene il molo della citazione origeniana di Dt 1,31
nella problematica più ampia dell'impassibilità divina e della passio caritatis: S.F. EyZA-
GUIRRE,'Passio Caritatis' according to Origen in Ezechielem Homiliae VI in the Light of
Dt 1,31, in Vigiliae Christiallae 60 (2006) 135-147. Sullo stesso argomento si vedano
P. NEMESHEGYI, Le Dieu d'Origène et le Dieu de l'Ancien Testament, in Nouvelle Revue
Théologique 80 (1958) 495-509; H. FROHNHOFEN, Apatheia tou Theou: Über die Affekt-
losigkeit Gottes in der griechischen Antike und bei den griechischsprachigen Kirchen-
vatern bis zu Gregorios Thaulllaturgos, FrankfurtjM., Lang, 1987, pp. 197-212;
M. FÉDOU, La 'souffrance de Dieu' selon Origène, in E.A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Studia
Patristica XXVI, Leuven, Peeters, 1993, 246-250; L. PERRONE, "La passione della
carità": llmistero della misericordia divina secondo Origene, in Parola, spirito e vita
29 (1994) 223-235; T. WEINANDY, Origen and the Suffering of God, in M.F. WILES -
E.J. YARNOLD (eds.), Studia Patristica XXXVI, Leuven, Peeters, 2001, 456-460.
49. Su H1er XVIII.6 e gli altri passi origeniani che sviluppano il tema
dell'accomodamento si veda S.D. BENIN, The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation
in Jewish and Christian Thought, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1993,
pp. 10-13.
382 C.BARILLI
Nel casa della nostra omelia su Geremia, la somiglianza strutturale di
Dt 8,5 e Dt 1,31 costituisce la più probabile ragione pel' l'inclusione della
seconda citazione nell'esegesi origeniana. Quanto al verbo 1:p01tOcpOpÉffi,
esso richiama alla mente dell' esegeta la metafora di un bambino piccolo,
il cui linguaggio sia ancora incerto, pel' cui l'adulto conia parole su
misura, appropriate aIl' età. Analogamente la sapienza divina si adegua ai
limiti dell'umanità, pur mantenendo la propria distanza ontologica dalla
condizione umana.
Kat 0 ~BOC; oi] ÀuÀd nutototc;. toou <Pllcrt Kut 0 crro.i]p èycO KUt .à
nmotu a l.lOt ilOroKBV 0 ~BOÇ (Is 8,18, Eb 2,13). ÀÉyot.o av .<$ yÉpovn
.<$ ÀuÀouvn npoc; .0 natoiov nmOtKroC; il, ïvu èll<panKcinBpov Btnro,
~pB<prooroC;50, on è.ponorpopucruç .ov ulov (cf. Dt 1,31) crou Kat .ov
.ponov ~<pOpBcrUC; .ou ~pÉ<pouC; KUt .i]v Ku.amucrtV uùwu àvstÀll<pac;.
oihroC; oùv VOBt Ilot Kut .i]v ypu<pi]v ÀÉyoucruv· è.ponorpopucrÉv crB
KUpWÇ 0 ~BOÇ crou, mç lOt .tç .ponorpopUcrBt av~pronoç .ov ulov uùwu
(Dt 1,31). Kut èotKucrtV ol àno a~puïcrllou apllllvBUcrUV.BC;, Ili] BUpOV.BC;
.i]v ÀÉstV KBtllÉVllV nup' "EÀÀllcrtV, àvunBnÀuKÉvm mc; èn' aÀÀrov
noÀÀrov KUt mU.llv Kut nBnotllKÉvm .i]v !hponorpopucrÉv crB KUpWÇ 0
~BOÇ crou, (.ou.Écrn .0ùC; .ponouc; crou è<pOpBcrBV), mç lOt nç .pono-
rpopUcrn av~pronoç Ku.à .0 nupaOBtYllu .ou.o 0 BtPllKU .ov ulov
aùwu (Dt 1,31)51.
Di Is 8,18 è riproposta la già nota comprensione economica: pel' mezzo
della citazione si conferma il parallelo tra la condizione infantile e quella
umana. Di fronte alla disparità tra adulti e bambini, sapienza divina e
linguaggio umano, la risposta consiste nella traduzione e nell'adegua-
mento delle fmme espressive. Con un'identica finalità l'uomo adulto crea
nomi appropriati pel' gli oggetti pel' rendersi comprensibile ai più piccoli,
gli autori della Settanta ricorrono alla creazione di un neologismo, la
ScrittUl'a accondiscende aIle regole dellinguaggio umano, altrimenti ina-
deguato ad esprimerne i contenuti. Origene conclude l' esegesi con una
similitudine che rende vivido ed immediato il senso deI versetto biblico:
immagina di attribuirne le parole ad un anziano che, imitando le insicu-
rezze linguistiche di un bambino in tenera età, adatti a lui e pel' lui il
proprio linguaggio, Il contenuto della citazione è riferito ad una situa-
zione familiare al pubblico dell'omileta. La ripresa conclusiva di Dt 1,31
si presenta sotto forma di parafrasi, con la consueta inserzione di ele-
menti estranei al dettato che ne chiarificano il significato.
50. Da osservare J'avverbio, che è un hapax legomel/ol/.
51. HIer XVrn.6 (SC 238, 200.69-82).
L'INFANZIA IN ORIGENE 383
L'immagine infantile in relazione allinguaggio è attestata in altri passi
origenianP2, mentre sembra essere assente dallo schema filoniano,
almeno nei passi indicati, Nello scegliere questa immagine, Origene
ampli a dunque il modello esegetico proposto dal predecessore. Attorno
al singolo termine 1:p01tOcpOpÉffi egli costruisce una significativa patte
della propria argomentazione. Una variante l'ara permette all'esegeta una
digressione teologica di ampio respiro.
La scelta di donare ris alto alla citazione di Dt 1,31 - versetto che, si
è visto, condivide una struttura ed una terminologia molto simili a quelle
di Dt 8,5, a conferma deI procedimento esegetico che accosta passi
biblici sulla base di una somiglianza lessicale e sintattica - costituisce
la novità principale. Nel riconnettere la propria esegesi ad una prece-
dente, l' Alessandrino innova l' apparato delle citazioni scritturistiche e,
conseguentemente, ne arricchisce il significato.
VI. RlFLESSIONI CONCLUSIVE
Un'indagine esaustiva delle occorrenze dei passi menzionati e di
numerose altre citazioni concernenti la metafora infantile consentirebbe
una valutazione più significativa di quella resa possibile dai pochi esempi
osservati. Di essi non si è poi considerato un elemento importante, la
datazione. Sarebbe interessante seguire questo fattore e valutarlo in una
dimensione diacronica, alla ricerca di un'evoluzione dei singoli terni ese-
getici, qualora essa sussista.
Pur con tutti i limiti, alcuni aspetti emergono da questo breve sondag-
gio: una certa coerenza nella scelta dei riferimenti, selezionati a partire
da somiglianze lessicali; pel' contro, alcune variazioni nella forma in cui
la citazione è presentata e nella sua interpretazione. La citazione stessa è
talvolta arricchita con elementi aggiunti ad essa che ne precisano il con-
tenuto e collocano l'insegnamento dell'esegesi in un contesto attuale e
familiare al suo pubblico.
Un quadro simile induce a interrogat'si se sia l'argomentazione a gui-
dare la scelta e l'uso delle citazioni 0, al contrario, se siano le citazioni
ad infmmare di sé la struttura stessa della riflessione origeniana sulla
Scrittura; in alcuni casi, l'andamento argomentativo dell'esegeta sembra
seguire fedelmente il testo scritturistico, uniformandovisi; in numerosi
altri contest" al contrario, sono le citazioni stesse ad adattarsi alla prosa
a
origeniana, mezzo di alcune modifiche deI dettato originario.
52. Si vedano per esempio HIer l,8; CC N.71.
384 C.BARILLI
Si puo forse formulare la questione più correttamente, ipotizzando che
entrambe le tendenze si vedano realizzate nell'esegesi origeniana. Per un
verso, l'Alessandrino dispiega la propria profonda conoscenza deI testo
biblico e delle singole varianti testuali, infOlmandone l'esegesi e costi-
tuendo un testo composito; 'ripescando', dunque, dalla memoria - 0 da
un supporto materiale - i passi paralleli, sulla base dei procedimenti indi-
cati. D'altro canto, nel prendere a prestito parole ed espressioni scritturi-
stiche e nell'appropriarsene, riformula questi stessi testi, coniando un
proprio linguaggio.
L'ultimo passo considerato mostra come l'esegesi possa svilupparsi a
pmiire da una singola parola, la cui pregnanza getta le basi pel' una più
ampia riflessione teologica: è un buon esempio di come una lezione l'ara
della Bibbia venga accettata e sia considerata, prima ancora che una stra-
vaganza linguistica, espressione dell'ispirazione della Scrittura.
chim·a.barilli4@unibo.it Chiara BARILLI
IL MATRIMONIO NEL COMMENTARIO A MATTEO
DIORIGENE
L LA DIALETTICA TRA NOZZE ETERNE E NOZZE TERRENE
li commentario a Matteo (d'ora in poi CMt) puo essere ritenuto uno
dei luoghi più significativi nei quali il maestro alessandrino dà voce alla
sua concezione dei matrimonio, a partu'e dall'interpretazione dei grandi
passaggi evangelici nei quali Gesù è chiamato a misurarsi con le interro-
gazioni sullibello di ripudio (cf. Mt 19,1-9) e sulla donna dai sette mariti
(cf. Mt 22,23-33).
È noto altresl come l' esegesi origeniana tenda a privilegiare la lettura
spu'ituale dei testi relativi all'amore e alla reIazione di coppia, come
l'esempio deI Commento al Cantico dei Cantici ampiamente documenta,
ma come anche la lettura deI CMt pm'zialmente dimostra. Si ritiene pero
che in quest'opera della maturità 1 Origene, sia perché sollecitato dalle
parole deI Signore, sia perché maggiormente coinvolto nella cura pasto-
rale della comunità di Cesarea, esprima in forma significativa le due
anime deI suo pensiero e dei suo approccio alla Scrittura; l'anima spiri-
tualizzante alla ricerca delle speculazioni teologiche più ardite, ma anche
quella della fedeltà al dato letterale della rivelazione e della responsabi-
lità nella guida delle anime.
Il tema deI matrimonio si prestava a questa grande sfida, perché imme-
diatamente suscettibile di risvegliare nell' alessandrino i riflessi condizio-
nati riguardanti le reIazioni coniugali pel' lui privilegiate (Logos - Anima,
Cristo - Chiesa) e perché argomento di primaria rilevanza pel' la vita
della comunità cristiana.
Attraverso l'individuazione di tre sezioni di commentario (rispettiva-
mente la procreazione umana nell'ambito della discussione sulla donna
dai sette mariti, il matrimonio come carisma e il libello di ripudio
sull'omonimo passaggio evangelico) il presente contributo intende dimo-
strm'e le diverse dinamiche dell'opera origeniana, l'incessante istanza deI
1. In base alla notizia eusebiana (cf. Eusebius, HistEcc/.,VI.36.2) la composizione deI
Commentario a Matteo va collocata negli anni deI principato di Filippo l'Arabo, vero-
similmente nella fascia cronologica compresa tra il 244 e il 249. Cf. P. NAUTIN, Origène:
Sa vie et son Œl/Vre, Paris, 1977, pp. 242, 375-376; M.1. DANffiLI, voce Matteo, in
A. MONACI CASTAGNO (a cura di), Origene - Dizionario: La cl/ltl/ra, il pensiero, le opere,
Roma, 2000, 270-274, p. 270.
386 G. BENDINELLI
superamento - trascendimento dei sensibile, ma anche l'impegno nei
confronti della responsabilità storica ed ecc1esiale.
II. LA PROCREAZIONE TRA PREESISTENZA E CIEU NUOVI
L'impoltanza di CMt come testimone privilegiato della dottrina matri-
moniale origeniana è anzitutto desUlnibile dalla riproposizione delle sue
concezioni antropologiche. Cosll'alessandrino dichiara apeltamente la
sua idea della doppia creazione, affrontando il testo di Genesi sulla cre-
azione dell'uomo e della donna evocato da Gesù nella risposta ai Farisei
a riguardo dellibello di ripudio (cf. XIV. 16) ; come pure in replica all'in-
terrogazione dei Sadducei sulla donna dai sette mariti, attribuisce la
distinzione sessuale alla presente fase terrena dei loghikoi, mentre la
esc1ude da quella finale, dei cieli nuovi e della terra nuova (cf. XVII.33)2.
Ecco allora che nel primo episodio citato non sfugge aIl' alessandrino
la disomogeneità tra il versetto "maschio e femmina li creo" (Gen 1,27)
e l'altro "i due saranno una carne sola" (Gen 2,24) riportati da Gesù, SI
da sCOl'gere in questa duplicità un chiaro rimando alla creazione delle
anime razionali e all'uomo plasmato dal fango della terra (cf. XIV.16).
L'uomo creato secondo l'immagine è evidentemente la creatura razio-
nale, mentre quello tratto dal fango della terra corrisponde alla condi-
zione conseguente la colpa premondana; è soltanto quest'ultimo ad
abbandonare il padre e la madre, per costituire con la donna una carne
sola. Il matrimonio inteso come relazione dei sessi è quindi un fatto
legato alla corporeità pesante e alla caduta originaria. La condizione pri-
mitiva delle creature razionali contemplava un altro tipo di relazione,
quella adombrata nelle nozze di Cristo con la Chiesa sulla sCOlta delle
parole di Paolo in Efesini e di cui CMt fornisce una delle descrizioni più
fOlti (cf. XIV .17).
La prospettiva origeniana vede dunque nell' Adamo maschio fatto ad
immagine, la creatura razionale unita irreversibilmente al Verbo, che ade-
risce altrettanto irreversibilmente alla sua sposa - Eva, ossia la Chiesa
della preesistenza - moltitudine dei loghikoi, sino al punto da accettare
l'abbassamento dell'incarnazione, quando quest'ultima si allontano da lui
attraverso il peccato, decadendo nella condizione attuale.
2. Tutto cio non fa che confermare il prevalere delle ragioni dell'ontologia, su quelle
dell'ermeneutica, per cui la considerazione sul senso letterale relativo alla conc~eta con-
dizione terrena della coppia, passa sempre in secondo ordine, rlspetto al problema reale
posto dai farisei sul problema deI ripudio.
IL MATRIMONIO NEL CMT 387
Il concetto origeniano di nozze è quindi riferito alla condizione para-
disiaca, ma esprime anche quella escatologica finale in cui si realizze-
ranno nozze che occhio non vide e orecchio non ud'l.. Anche a questo
riguardo CMt costituisce uno dei testimoni privilegiati, nel commento
alla donna dai sette mariti (cf. XVII.33).
L'interpretazione di questo passaggio evangelico rappresenta la
risposta dell'alessandrino alla pretes a di quanti, Sadducei e loro succe-
danei, non erano in grado di comprendere l' assoluta novità di sponsali
che trascendono ogni matrimonio e intendevano proiettare anche sulla
condizione finale la realtà presente legata alla generazione e alla cor-
ruzione. È anche vero pero che proprio il rimando aIle nozze finali che
saranno celebrate in unione con il Verbo, propizia un 'importante con-
siderazione origeniana sul conto delle nozze terrene. È un passaggio in
cui appare una delle poche riflessioni sul tema della coppia e della
procreazione.
Ma essi ignoravano che il Creatore, che agisce sempre in vista dell'utilità
(f]yv6ouv of: apu o'tt 6 orllHoupyoS navra notmv npos 10 XPi]crtIWV),
ha necessariamente stabilito tali relazioni per un mondo di divenire e cor-
ruzione, per cui un uomo grazie ad una donna si metta al servizio per gene-
rare dei figli (onou J.lf:V yévecris Bcr'tt Kut q,Sopa, nenoillKev àvuYKUicoS
1àS 10tU(nuS crxécrets, ïv' 6 J.lév 'ttS TI àV1lP otà yUVUtKoS OtuKoVoUJ.le-
vos nuiocov yevécret), e quelli che sono genel'ati, pel' il fatto stesso della
loro generazione, abbiano un legame di parentela, essendo fratelli (oi of:
yevvroJ.levot crxmcri 'tt BK lfjS otà lmv ufnmv yevécrecos cruyyevés, aV1es
àoû,q,oi). Essere padre, figli, madre, dipende dalla generazione (yevécrecos
oi; epyov ~v Kut nU1ltP KUt uioS KUt J.lll111P Kut Suya111P). Se, dunque
nella beatitudine, coloro che saranno stati ritenuti degni di questa ricom-
pensa, per essere ben vissuti nel secolo presente, 10 saranno in quella vita
- e nessuno di quelli che non hanno lottato in questo mondo è giudicato
degno della resUlTezione dai morti, è chiaro che Ii non ci sarà cià che la
generazione rendeva necessario quaggiù. Infatti Dio non fa nulla che pel' lui
sia superfluo 0 inutile (oùùi;v yàp nupéÀKoV 6 Se os noteî oùùi; J.la111V 'tt
nup' ufncp ylvelal?
La pagina citata esprime perfettamente il concetto in base a cui il
regime della vita matrimoniale, delle relazioni di coppia, di quelle
parentali, filiali e fraterne è essenzialmente relativo alla condizione pre-
sente deI divenire e non riferibile a quella finale. Proprio il criterio
dell'utilità creatrice in funzione deI fine - qui espressa nella locuzione
repos ,,0 xpi](Yl/-tov - impongono la relazione sessuale nell'eone attuale,
3. CMt XVII.33 (GCS X, 688.31-689.18); Origene, Commenta a Matteo, a cura di
R. SCOGNAMIGLIO - M.I. DANIELI, I-ll-III, Roma, 1998, 1999,2001: 2001, pp. 244-245.
388 G. BENDINELLI
mentre la escludono dall' eschaton. Ipotizzare il contrario significhe-
rebbe fare ripiombare nell'incertezza deI divenire 10 stato di beatitudine
finale, SI da riattivare la spirale inarrestabile di nascite, crescita, malattie,
peccato.
se ognuno riprenderà sua moglie, ci saranno di nuovo concezioni, di nuovo
generazioni di figli e morti, e se avverrà cio, vuol dire che ci saranno pure
malattie. Se ci saranno nascite, dovranno esserci pure infanzie, il crescere
dall'infanzia sino all'uso perfetto della lingua e, più tardi, della ragione
(on 1tuÀtv ÈK8ï t8Kvoyoviat Kat 1ta{Ùrov y8vécrne; Kat Buvatot· Bi ai>
taiha Kat vocrot, Bi ai> y8vécr8te; Kat VT]1ttOtT]t8e; Kat 1tpO~ucr8te; a1to
vT]motT]tOe; È1tt tO crUJ!1tÀT]poucrBat <tT]v> atuÀsKtoV Kat ücrtspov tOV
ÀOYov). Ma con la ragione verrà fuori la malizia e, allora, si potti trovare
a stento la virtù tra i pochi che la cercano. Che cosa di più stupido di tutto
cio (Èv til cruJ!1tÀT]pcOcrst toU ÀOyou KaKiav, Kat J!OÀte; 1tOti> 1tuÂ,w
apstT]v Èv ôÀiyote; toïe; ST]toucrtv aùtT]v supicrKscrBat. Toutrov ai> ti
av S'(T] J!atatotspov;)? Certo, meglio nessuna risurrezione anziché una
risurrezione COS! come la pensavano i Sadducei (Kat ~éÀnov yé Ècrn J!T]
sIvat avucrtacrtv toU totautT]v dvat émoiav U1tSVOOUV oi ~aaaou­
Kaïot)4.
È significativa l'esclamazione con cui l'alessandrino saluta in telmini
di insipiente follia una tale ipotesi, che rischierebbe di compromettere la
beatitudine finale.
Origene comunque avverte il complesso nodo relazionale che si costi-
tuisce attomo alla procreazione dei figli, proclama anche la convenienza
e utilità che tutto cio ricopre all'intemo deI piano divino e quindi corri-
spondente al suo disegno, definisce come "servizio" (otUKoVOUl!svoS)
il compito deI genitore (privilegiando ilmolo deI padre, secondo la ter-
minologia in base alla quale un uomo svolge il servizio di generare figli
tramite una donna), oltre a lasciare chiaramente intendere che la relazione
tra un uomo e una donna è subordinata al fine procreativo e non si legit-
tima che all'intemo di cio.
n passo citato costituisce uno dei pochi testimoni origeniani relativi
alla responsabilità della procreazione.
Assieme a questo è il casa di richiamare un passaggio di Contra
Ce/sum, in risposta all'attacco deI pagano che pretenderebbe dai cristiani
la semplice uscita di scena e il semplice abbandono deI mondo.
Del resto Dio ci ha permesso di prendere moglie, in quanto non tutti com-
prendono il bene essenziale, cioè l'assoluta purezza, e a quelli che hanno
preso moglie ha permesso di allevare con ogni mezzo i loro nati e ha proi-
4. CMt XVII.33 (GCS X, 689.21-690.4); Commento, 2001, p. 245.
IL MATRIMONlO NEL CMT 389
bito di uccidere i figli concessi dalla provvidenza CAÀÀà Kat ayscrBat
yuva'iKa È1tétps'l'sV ljJ!ïv 0 Bsoe;, me; Où 1tUVtrov xroPOUVtrov tO otaq,épov
tOU1:écrn tO 1tUVtn KaBapov, Kat aY0J!évote; yuvaïKae; tà YSVYcOJ!sva
1tUVtroe; tpéq,stv Kat J!T] avatpEÏv tà U1tO tije; 1tpovoiae; at06J!sva
téKva)5.
Testo significativo anche perché unica testimonianza antiabortistica
reperibile all'intemo dell'opera dell'alessandrino che afferma quindi non
solo il dono provvidenziale dei figli, ma anche la responsabilità della loro
cura ed educazione! ! !
È inoltre importante riportare FrCor XXXV in cui Origene parla anche
di una procreazione santa, corrispondente al piano stesso di Dio.
Quando entrambi sono in comunione anche nelle preghiere, in una procre-
azione santa e in tutto cio in cui i cristiani debbono essere in comunione,
dice che allora il matrimonio non è estraneo da Dio (È1ti ai> tillv mcrtillv,
OtS aJ!q,otspot KotvrovoUcrt Kat SÙXillv Kat 1tatao1totîae; ayiae; Kat
1tUVtrov cbV xptcrnavoùe; KotvroVEÏV aEÏ, Àéyst on 0 YUJ!oe; OÙK
aÀÀ6tptoe; Ècrn BEOU)6.
La hag{a pazdopoila rende le nozze non aliene a Dio, non estranee al
mistero della salvezza, nell'ordine pero che è loro proprio, ossia nella
prospettiva di un mondo di generazione e corruzione.
n confronto tra queste pagine confelma questa linea di tendenza molto
precisa da parte deI nostro autore, ossia l'afferrnazione della piena liceità
deI matrimonio, considerato nella sua funzione procrea~iva, se pure in
una posizione subordinata rispetto alla castità perfetta. '
Si ritiene comunque che l' alessandrino non sia particolarmente pre-
occupato di valorizzare questa tematica, che effettivamente rimane in
subordine, nel complesso delle sue riflessioni. Tale impressione risul-
terà ulteriormente rafforzata se suscettibile di un confronto con il pre-
decessore Clemente Alessandrino, che molto più di Origene sia in
Pedagogo che in Stromati affronta e sviluppa in forma specifica questo
discorso.
Cosl proponendo una definizione deI matrimonio, egli scorge nell'u-
nione legittima dell'uomo e della donna l'elemento generico e nella pro-
creazione dei figH, quello specifico.
Il matrimonio è unione di un uomo e di una donna, secondo la legge, in
primo luogo per la procreazione di figli legittimi (yuJ!oe; J!i>v oÎ'lv Ècrn
5. cc Vill.55 (GCS II, 272.11-14); Origene, Contro Celso, a cura di P. REsSA, Brescia,
2000, p. 608.
6. FrCor XXXV (JTS 9 [1908], ed. JENKINS, pp. 504-505); Origene, Esegesi Paolina
- 1 testi frammentari, a cura di F. PIERI, Roma, 2009, p. 145.
390 G. BENDINELLI
auvoôoç uvôpoç Kat î'UVatKoç ij TCpCÛt1] Katù VOllOV èTCt î'V1]a{ffiV
tÉKVffiV aTCopÇi)1.
E ancor più allorché la procreazione è considerata nell'orizzonte delle
finalità sociali, creaturali, biologiche.
Bisogna dunque sposarsi in ogni caso, sia pel' la patria sia pel' la successione
dei figli (rafl1]tÉoV o?iv TCaVtffiç Kat t'îlç TCatptÔoç EveKa Kat tfjç trov
TCatÔffiV Ôtaôoxfjç) sia pel' il contlibuto che - pel' quanto ci è possibile -
dobbiamo portare al compimento dei mondo (tfjç t06 Koaflou tO Qaov è<j>'
ijfllV auvteÀetCÛaeffiç), dal momento che anche i poeti compiangono un
matlimonio "incompiuto" quale è quello senza figli e definiscono invece
felice quello che è "pieno di fioli"8.
La procreazione si impone all'attenzione di Clemente anzitutto in vista
di una finalità civile, il bene 0 la salvezza della patria; ma è evocato
anche il principio della sopravvivenza della specie nell' affermazione
della successione dei figli; infine pare di cogliere nell'ideadi compi-
mento deI mondo il principio della collaborazione al piano divino, come
effettivamente viene dichiarato in un passo di Pedagogo
per questo l'uomo è immagine di Dio, pel' il fatto che, benché sia uomo,
collabora alla nascita di un uomo (Kat KatÙ t061:O etKroV ô av~pffiTCoÇ
î'ivetat t06 ~eo6, Ka~o etç î'Évecrtv UV~pCÛTCOU av~pffiTCoÇ auvepî'et)9.
L'estraneità di Origene a questo universo valoriale non rappresenta
motivo di particolare stupore. li silenzio origeniano su un procreazionismo
finalizzato all'incremento demografico 0 funzionale alla difesa dellimes
imperiale, è analogo alla presa di distanza espressa in Contra Ce/sum all'of-
ferta del pagano rivolta al cristiano di farsi carico delle sorti dello statolO.
Ma ancol'a di più non trova alcuna eco nelle parole di Origene l'idea di una
collaborazione al piano divino, attl'averso la generazione; sia perché l'uomo
ad immagine è soltanto quello originario e non certo quello coinvolto nei
processi genetici, sia perché la nascita secondo il corpo pesante l'appresenta
un evento esprimente una caduta e un peccato, non celtO un fatto che ha il
suo principio nell'iniziativa creatrice di Dio.
Anche l'idea di una fecondità redenta, ossia di una procreazione che
benché frutto di una colpa, consente comunque a Dio di moltiplicare
7. Stromata. II.xXIII.137.1 (GCS II, 188.25-26); Clemente Alessandrino, Stromati, a
cura di G. PINI, Milano, 1985, p. 341. A tale dichiarazione fa eco anche l'altra "scopo
degli sposati è la procreazione dei figli, fine è l'avere figli buoni e belli" (Paedagoglls
II.10.83.1 [Clemente Alessaudrino, Il Pedagogo, a cura di M.G. BIANCO, T0l1no, 1971, p.
349]).
8. Stromata II.XXIII.140.1 (GCS II, 190.15-18); Stromati, pp. 343-344.
9. Paedagoglls II.10.83.2 (GCS l, 20.10); Pedagogo, p. 349.
10. Cf. CC VIIl.73-75.
IL MATRIMONIO NEL CMT 391
gli effetti della sua misericordia attraverso la nascita di nuovi soggetti a
cui estendere i benefici della salvezza - come sarà per un autore come
Ambrogio ll - non puo trovare spazio nell'orizzonte concettuale di Ori-
gene, per il quale in nome della preesistenza delle anime, la nascita non
rappresenta 10 sbocciare di una nuova entità, ma semplicemente il dive-
nire secondo la corporeità pesante di creature razionali, create comunque
in numero definito all'inizio da Dio12.
La significativa relativizzazione deI matrimonio, perché intrinseca-
mente connesso alla genesi e alla caduta originaria, trova confetma in
quanto espresso sempre in CMt XVII.33 a riguardo delle nozze eterne,
da cui sarà esclusa ogni memoria e ogni richiamo all'esperienza vissuta
dalle anime allorché erano ricopelte di un corpo pesante.
Ora, - come l'ha dimostrato il discorso - allo stesso modo che l'essere
marito e moglie ebbe pel' conseguenza l'essere figli di padri, fratelli di altri,
e madli di figli generati, COS! forse il non essere moglie 0 malito avrà pel'
conseguenza quella di non essere più padre, madre e fratelli di altri, in
riferimento forse non soltanto al futuro, ma anche al passato (taxa où TCept
1.!eÀÀ6VtffiV floVOV unù Kat trov TCapeÀ1]ÀuB6tffiV). In quella vita, infatti,
non ci sarà più memoria di tipo carnale (OÙKÉtt t06 KatÙ aapKa î'Évouç
Batat flvi]fl1]) da parte di quelli che a giusta ragione sentono dirsi le parole:
"Non ricordate più le cose passate, non pensate più alle cose antiche: ecco
faccio nuove tutte le cose" (Is 43,18-19; Ap 21,5)13.
Non vi è modo più radicale pel' esprimere il significato transitori1o della
condizione presente, che la cancellazione di ogni sua traccia dall' escha-
ton, anche per quanto concerne quell'esperienza più intima e affettiva-
mente più pregnante, rappresentata dalla vita di coppia e dalle relazioni
parentali 0 filiali. Cio è detto in termini molto precisi nel seguito deI testo
attraverso la dichial'azione per cui Abramo non si dirà più figlio di
Terach, né che si potrà più dire padre di Ismaele 0 di Isacco 14 . Nella
tensione tra inizio e fine, tra pl'otologia e attesa escatologica, la condi-
zione presente segnata dalla corporeità pesante svolge certamente un
ruolo, ma ne risulta anche profondamente schiacciata 0 pel' 10 mena for-
temente ridimensionata.
11. Ambrogio in De Paradiso (47) giustifica la colpa di Adamo ed Eva che ha aperto
la porta alla generazione umana, affinché potessera esistere più esseri da potere salvare.
Cf. L.F. PIZZOLATO, La coppia IIl1lana in sant'Ambrogio, in R. CANTALAMESSA (ed.), Etica
Sesslia/e e Matrimonio, Milano, 1979, p. 194.
12. Cf. CMt XIII. 1.
13. CMt XVII.33 (GCS X, 690.17-32); Commento, 2001, p. 246.
14. Facciamo nostro al riguardo il disappunto di H. CROUZEL (Virginité et mariage
se/on Origène, Paris, 1963, pp. 37-38) che critica l'esagerazione e l'incapacità origeniana
di valorizzare un patrimonio di legami spirituali che comunque hanno profondamente
segnato la persona.
 392 G. BENDINELLI
III. IL LlliELLO DI RIPUDIO
1. L'adeguamento e la concessione
La testimonianza di CMt è ancora molto importante pel' la riflessione
di tipo letterale sullibello di ripudio 15 • Occorre ricordare che analoga-
mente all'interpretazione dei testi genesiaci sulla creazione dell'uomo e
della donna - in cui Origene privilegia l'approccio di carattere spirituale,
introducendo la fondamentale distinzione tra l'uomo creato secondo l'im-
magine e quello tratto dalla polvere della terra prima di sviluppare il
discorso sulle nozze terrene - COS! sulla questione deI libello egli opta
anzitutto pel' una lettura riferita al ripudio di Israele (cf. XIV.19-20) e al
rigetto dell'anima da parte deI suo angelo (cf. XIV.21), pel' impegnarsi
poi sul senso letterale della pagina. Molto significativamente egli dichiara
di non volersi sottrarre alla responsabilità di questa interpretazione anche
perché egli scorge nel passaggio il profilarsi di una questione teologica
di grande portata, ossia l'affermazione deI "principio dell'adattamento",
in base al quale a1cune leggi sono introdotte non tanto pel' la 101'0 eccel-
lenza, quanto pel' illoro adeguamento alla debolezza dei destinatari.
Anche se ci sembro di aver toccato, nella spiegazione di questi pas si, realtà
più profonde delle nostre capacità, nondimeno rimane ancora cio da dire, a
motivo deI senso letterale (Bi Kat È06ç,a~!Ev oÈ ~a3utÉpmv il Ka,à ùUva-
I!tV ~cp3at ete; ,oùe; ,01tOUe; 1tpaYl!u,mv, oùùÈv ~"ov iht otà ,i]v Àaç,tv
Kat ,au,a ÀeK,aov): alcune di queste leggi furono scritte non perché fos-
sero eccellenti, ma perché si adeguavano alla debolezza dei destinatari della
legislazione (o,t nVÈe; ,rov vOl!mv ÈypuCPllaav oùx me; olacpapov,ee;,
àÀÀ' me; aUI!1teptcpepol!evot ,il àa3evetÇ( ,rov vOI!03e,oul!avmv)16.
In questo casa il senso letterale non è mena gravido di approfondi-
menti rispetto alla lettura allegorica, perché apre la discussione sul prin-
cipio della condiscendenza divina 0 deI suo adeguamento alla condizione
umana, come documentano, a giudizio del nostro, una serie di nOlme 0
comandi espressi tanto nell'antico come nel nuovo testamento.
Nell'antico testamento Origene riconosce tutto cio nella ratifica della
permissione deI ripudio a motivo della sklerokardia (cf. Mt 19,8); men-
15. Si fa notare comunque l'importanza di questa testimonianza. Infatti, a parte tre
decisioni conciliari risalenti all'inizio dei N secolo (Concilio di Elvira, Arles e Nicea),
l'unica indicazione degna di nota risalente al ID secolo è quella offertaci dall' alessandrino.
16. CMt XIV.23 (GCS X, 339.7-14); Commento, 1999, p. 169. Il motivo della sym-
periphorà trova un'ulteriore applicazione in CMt XI.8 a proposito dell'ordine dato da
Paolo a Timoteo di farsi circoncidere, anche in questo caso inteso come adattamento e
convenienza.
IL MATRIMONIO NEL CMT 393
tre nel nuovo testamento questo dato è evidenziato nella concessione deI
matrimonio, come rimedio all'incontinenza, pel' tutti colom che non
sanno riconoscere il carisma più grande della verginità. Si tratta di una
riflessione propiziata dal ricorso alla pagina di lCor 7,1-5.
Ma anche nel Nuovo Testamento (Èv ,il Kat vn OÈ ota3i]Kn) ci sono aIcune
norme legiferate in modo analogo aIle parole: "Per la durezza deI vostro
cuore Mosè vi permise di rimandare le vostre mogli". Ad esempio, è per la
durezza dei nostri cuori che sta scritto (a motivo dell'infermità) (oiovei yàp
1tpàC; ,i]v aKÀllPoKapùiav fll!rov yaypa1t'Lat [otà ,i]v àa3avetav]): "E
cosa buona per l'uomo non toccare donna; tuttavia per il pericolo dell'in-
continenza, ciascuno abbia la propria moglie e ogni donna il proprio marito"
(ICor 7,1-2). Inoltre: "TI marito renda il suo debito alla moglie; ugual-
mente, anche la moglie al marito" (lCor 7,3). Al che, quindi, si aggiunge:
"Questo 10 dico a mo' di concessione, non per comando" (",ou,o OÈ Àaym
Ka,à auyyvlll!llV, où Ka,' Èm,ayi]v". lCor 7,6). Ma anche l'indicazione:
"La moglie è vincolata per tutto il tempo in cui vive il marito; ma se il
marito muore, è libera di sposarsi chi vuole, purché cio avvenga nel
Signore" (lCor 7,39), Paolo l'ha detta, per la nostra durezza di cuore 0
infermità, a coloro che non vogliono "aspirare a carismi più grandi" (lCor
12,31) e diventare maggiormente beati 17 .
Il principio della concessione (katà syggnômen) yale anche all'interno
deI mondo cristiano, si impone non solo pel' il riconoscimento deI matri-
monio, ma anche pel' l'affermazione dell'obbligo al debito coniugale (in
liferimento sia all'uomo che alla donna), oltre che alla concessione deI
diritto delle seconde nozze pel' la donna rimasta vedova. Si tratta comun-
que di scelte sempre di qualità inferiore, motivate come una sorta di
accondiscendenza nei confronti della debolezza umana.
È a questo punto, cioè nel contesto relativo all'adattamento, che
i'alessandrino aggiunge una notizia abbastanza importante riguardante
una iniziativa episcopale, apparentemente in contrasto con il dettato pao-
lino espresso in precedenza.
Ma già, malgrado quel che è stato scritto (1tapà ,à yeypal!l!ava), alcuni
tra i capi della chies a permisero le seconde nozze ad una moglie, il cui
marito era ancora in vita (nvee; ,rov flyoul!avmv ,ile; ÈKKÀllaiae;
È1ta,pe",uv nva &a,e "çrovwe; wu àvopàe;" yal!eta3at yuvalKa),
agendo contrariamente al testo della Scrittura (1tapà ,à yeypal!l!avov I!Èv
1totouv,ee;). Nel quale è detto: "La donna è vincolata al sua marito finché
egli muore" (lCor 7,39), e ancora: "Sarà dunque considerata adultera
quella che passa ad un altro uomo, mentre vive il marito" (Rm 7,3). Non
hanno avuto deI tutto torto nel fare COS! (où I!i]v 1tUV'll àÀoymS); è proba-
bile infatti che questo comportamento sia stato permesso, nonostante quanto
era stato legiferato e scritto dal principio a confronto di mali peggiori (eiKàe;
17. CMt XN.23 (GCS X, 339.24-340.16); Commento, 1999, p. 170.
394 G. BENDINELLI
yàp 'Ci]v aUllreepl<popàv 'Caln;l1v aUYKpiael Xnp6vcov ÈTCl'CpéreeaSal
reapà 'Cà <lre' <lpxfjs VeVOIlOSe'Clllléva Kat yeypalllléva)18.
Il passo evidenzia una serie di questioni di grande rilievo che sarà
opportuno elencare nel dettaglio.
Anzitutto l'iniziativa di alcuni capi di Chiese (alcuni vescovi) di intro-
durre una disciplina matrimoniale qualificata come TCapà 'Co YêYpall-
IlÉvov, espressione che puo essere intesa sia nel senso di "contro", "mal-
grado", 0 "al di fuori" 19, rispetto a quanto esplicitamente dichiarato nelle
Scritture.
Oltre a cio il passaggio attesta una concessione (cruIlTCspt<j)opà)
riguardante il casa di donne (e non di uomini), a cui fu permesso di
risposarsi, vivente il marito; si parla di "donna" al singolare, ma al
tempo stesso di "capi di Chiese", al plurale, lasciando chiaramente inten-
dere una disciplina posta in atto in varie Chiese e non un semplice casa
isolato. 1 testi scritturistici in contraddizione con tale decisione sono i due
passaggi paolini di ICor 7,39 e Rm 7,2 che sanciscono questi due prin-
cipi: l'obbligo della moglie a restare vincolata al marito sino alla sua
mOlte, il riconoscimento della colpa di adulterio alla donna che vivente
il marito sia passata ad altra unione.
La dichiarazione legittimante la concessione (synperiphoràn) consiste
nell'esclusione di mali peggiori, verosimilmente interpretabile come il
rischio dell'esposizione di tali donne ad una vita ritenuta in quel tempo
molto ambigua e equivoca se privata della protezione del marit020.
Non vengono comunque chiariti da Origene le ragioni che avrebbero
giustificato questo permesso; se cioè si trattasse di donne il cui marito si
fosse reso colpevole di adulterio, oppure di donne che avessero chiesto
il divorzio pel' motivi analoghi a quelli riconosciuti nella legislazione
giudaica, quali maltrattamenti, malattie ripugnanti, impotenza, rifiuto
delle relazioni coniugali21 .
2. Ecceffo il casa di fomicqzione
Più problematica invece sembra essere la risposta origeniana alla que-
stione del ripudio per il casa di fornicazione, in cui l'alessandrino affronta
l'intenogativo sui motivi di rinvio della moglie; egli infatti si trova alle
18. CMt XIV.23 (GCS X, 340.25-341.8 ); Commento, 1999, pp. 170-171.
19. Cf. G. CERETI, Divorzio nI/ove nozze e penitenza nella Chiesa primitiva, Bologna,
21997, pp. 212-213.
20. Cf. Origene, HEx 8.5.
21. Cf. C. MUNIER, Le témoignage d'Origène en matière de remariage après sépara-
tion, in Revue de Droit Canonique 28 (1978) 15-29.
IL MATRIMONIO NEL CMT 395
prese con la risposta di Gesù in cui la condanna della pras si mosaica
comprende pero anche l'eccezione rappresentata dall'inciso mattean0 22 .
L'argomentazione prende le mosse da una presa di distanza polemica
nei confronti di un ipotetico interlocutore giudaico che scorgerebbe
nell'eccezione proposta dal vangelo nient'altro che "la cosa vergognosa"
riconosciuta da Deuferonomio (24,1) come motivo sufficiente per il ripu-
dio. L'identificazione tra pomeia e aschemon pragma è respinta da
Origene perché contraddetta dalla Legge, per la quale l'adulterio (eviden-
temente identificato con porneia) veniva punito attraverso la lapidazione
e non esigeva la consegna deI libello di ripudio; conseguentemente
l'alessandrino attri.buisce alla "cosa vergognosa" un'accezione molto più
ampia, esprimente cioè qualsiasi motivo ritenuto plausibile dal marito.
In questo senso il nostro intende dichiarare la novità apportata da
Gesù, attraverso l'esclusione dello scioglimento delle nozze (ùtaÀ,ustV
YUlloUÇ) e il ripristino della condizione originaria, ma fatta eccezione pel'
il motivo rappresentato dall'adulterio - porneia.
"Ma all'inizio non è stato cosl". Dopo cio, il nostro Salvatore non pelmet-
tendo assolutamente 10 scioglimento di matrimoni (OtaÀ6elV YUllouS) per
altro motivo che non sia la fornicazione trovata nella donna, dice: "Chiun-
que ripudia la propria moglie, eccetto il casa di fomicazione, la espone
all'adulteIio" (OS av <lreoÀuan 'Ci]v yuvalKŒ Œll'COU, reapeK'CàS Myou reop-
veias, reotel ŒÙ'Ci]V 1l0lXeUSfjval?3.
Lo scopo perseguito dal Signore è quindi quello di salvaguardare al
massimo l'indissolubilità del matrimonio, ponendolo al riparo degli arbi-
tri cui poteva esporlo la legge mosaica, ma al tempo stesso riconoscendo
come eccezione il solo casa di adulterio - fornicazione. In questo senso,
proprio perché avvalorato dalle parole evangeliche, la clausola matteana
non rappresenta un problema pel' il didascalo alessandrino.
Più forti dubbi sembrano invece affollare la mente del nostro autore
nel prendere in considerazione un'ulteriore casuistica, non direttamente
contemplata nelle parole evangeliche, anche se riferibile a colpe assai più
gravi dell'adulterio.
Ma si potrebbe pOlTe il quesito, se egli per questo ordini di ripudiare la
propIia moglie, che cosa fare se sarà presa in flagrante delitto non di forni-
22. Si fa notare come in tutte e tre le citazioni deI versetto, non compaia mai la frase
"e ne sposa un'altra", ma il testo rifletta quello di Mt 5,32. Cià ha indotto i critici anche
in seguito a una debita comparazione con testinlonianze di altri autori, a ritenere' che la
tradizione testuale deI II-ill secolo relativa passaggio in esame coincidesse con quello di
Mt 5,32. Su questo argomento cf.. H. CROUZEL, Le texte patristique de Matthieu V 32 et
XIX,9, in New Testament Studies 19 (1972-73) 98-119. '
23. CMt XIV.24 (GCS X, 342.14-24); Commento, 1999, p. 172.
396 G. BENDINELLI
cazione, ma per esempio di avvelenamento 0 di infanticidio in assenza del
marito 0 di qualsiasi altro assassinio. Se è trovata a rubare, a dissipare, 0
devastare la casa deI marito, ma senza fomicare, qua1cuno porrebbe la que-
stione, se sia ragionevole ripudiare una donna simile, visto che il Salvatore
proibisce di rimandare la propria moglie, eccetto il casa di fornicazione
(STJ'tT]Cl'at 'ttç liv, si SÙÂ6yroç 'tytv 'tota6'tTJv ùnopaÀsî, mç 'tou Cl'ro'tflpoç
KroÀ6oV'tOÇ napsK'toç ÀOyou nopvsiaç ùnoÀuCl'ai 'ttVa 'tYtv Éau'tou
yuvaîKa.). In entrambi i casi si presenta qualcosa di assurdo: e quale cosa
sia veramente assurda, non so (ÉKa'tépros yàp ÈIl<jlaivs'tai 'tt li'tonov, OÙK
otoa oÈ si ùÀTJB&ç li'tonov). Da una parte, infatti, parrà essere irragione-
vole sopportare COS! gravi peccati, che sembrano essere peggiori dell'adul-
terio e della fornicazione; dall'altra, ancora, l'agire contro l'intenzione
dell'insegnamento deI Salvatore, chiunque ammetterebbe essere cosa empia
(nuÀtV 't'liv notflCl'at napà 'to P06Àrllla 'tflç otoaCl'KaÀiaç 'tou Cl'ro'tflpoç
nuç liv olloÀoyT]Cl'at ÙCl'SpÈS 'tuyxuvstV)24.
Origene si pone cioè l'interrogativo circ a la compatibilità deI ripudio
non solo con il casa di fornicazione, ma anche con altri flagranti reati,
quali infanticidio, avvelenamento, assassinio, furto, dilapidazione dei
beni deI marito, certamente assai più gravi dell'adulterio, benché non
apertamente riconosciuti nelle parole deI SignOl'e come possibile giusta
causa di rigetto; da qui scaturisce il dilemma molto serio tra la conces-
sione di tale diritto pel' una gravis sima colpa e la trasgressione del
comando deI Salvatore definita come cos a empia (asebès). Sarebbe
assurdo non ammettere questo fatto, ma al tempo stesso, non risultando
chiaramente affermato nelle parole di Gesù, un sua eventuale riconosci-
mento, creerebbe un serio sospetto circ a la fedeltà alla volontà deI
Salvatore.
L'alessandrino non potrebbe esprimere in termini più chiari il pro-
blema relativo all'autorità ecclesiale in merito all'interpretazione delle
Scritture e al tempo stesso i limiti di questo potere, SI da creare come in
questo casa non piccoli conflitti tra l'esigenza di fedeltà al dettato evan-
gelico e le urgenze pastorali non sempre apertamente riconosciute nella
rivelazione positiva.
3. L'esposizione all'adulterio
In seguito a cio il predicatore di Cesarea sembra spostare il fulero della
discussione, dal ripudio compiuto in forma lecita, a quello in forma ille-
gittima, ma soprattutto alle situazioni di vita suscettibili di esposizione
della donna all'adulterio. La svolta nella riflessione sembra essere
espressa da questa affermazione.
24. CMt XIV.24 (GCS X, 342.22-343.15); Commento, 1999, p. 172.
IL MATRlMONIO NEL CMT 397
Cerco pertanto di capire, per quale motivo non ha detto: Nessuno ripudi la
propria moglie eccetto il casa di fornicazione, ma: "Chiunque ripudia la
propria moglie, eccetto il casa di fornicazione, la espone ad adulterio"25.
11 Salvatore cioè non si è limitato a parlare di ripudio, ma ha specifi-
cato che ad esclusione deI casa di porneia, quell'atto espone la donna
all'adulterio. Ecco allora Origene, secondo il tipico modello della zetesis
- ricerca, intraprendere una discussione molto seria di carattere pastorale
su questo soggett0 26 •
Il primo casa di esposizione è ovviamente quello costituito dal ripudio
in assenza di fornicazione - adulterio, in quanto fornisce alla donna
l'occasione di passare a un altro uomo, trasgredendo il comando paolino
(cf. Rm 7,3).
Espone infatti la moglie ad adulterio, chiaramente (per quanto dipende da
lui) colui che ripudia colei che non ha fornicato. Dato infatti che è chiamata
adultera se, mentre vive il marito, passa ad un altro uomo, colui che l'ha
rimandata le fornisce l'occasione di contralTe seconde nozze: è chiaro che
ne fa un'adultera27 •
In seconda istanza sono elencati altri possibili modi, in particolare è
stigmatizzato l' atteggiamento troppo ingenuo e accondiscendente di
mariti, pronti a concedere alle mogli una libeltà non conveniente.
Ti potrai chiedere se possa essere scusato, 0 no, colui che ha fatto 10 stesso
con la moglie che avvelena 0 uccide, colta in flagrante ('tYtv 0' aÀouCl'av
<jlaPllaKiOa il <jlovov <il 'tt 'totou'tov> opuCl'aCl'av *** ùnoÀoyiav ëxstV
il 1lT], Kat Cl'\) STJ'tT]Cl'atS liv). Anche per altri motivi infatti, diversi dal ripu-
dio, l'uomo pua espOlTe all'adulterio: ad esempio se le permette di fare
quello che vuole, oltre il conveniente, e di accondiscendere all'amicizia con
gli uomini che vuole (né pa 'tou Oéov'toS Ènt'tpénrov npu't'tstV aù'tYtv li
p06Às'tat Kat siç <jltÀiav Cl'uyKa'tapaivstV ÙVOpUCl'tV ois p06Às'tat);
spesso infatti tali cadute avvengono tra le donne per l'ingenuità dei mariti.
Ma tu stesso, dopo attenta riflessione se ci sia 0 no motivo di scusare mariti
deI genere responsabili di tali mali, esprimerai il tuo parere sulle questioni
che ci siamo posti su questo pass0 28 •
11 casa considerato, oltre che documentare le quotidiane tentazioni dei
coniugi, evidenzia probabilmente anche una difficoltà molto specifica
all'interno delle coppie deI tempo, ossia la forte disparità anagrafica tra
25. CMt XIV.24 (GCS X, 343.16-24); Commento, 1999, p. 173.
26. MUNIER (Témoignage [no 21], p. 27) scorge in queste considerazioni origeniane
come un aiuto offerto da Origene a vescovi e direttori di coscienza, 0 se vogliamo un
metodo pastorale per evitare l'anarchia.
27. CMt XIV.24 (GCS X, 343.24-32); Commento, p. 173.
28. CMt XIV.24 (GCS X, 343.32-344.18); Commento, p. 173.
398 G. BENDINELLI
marito e moglie. È quanto è suggerito da alcuni critici29 a riguardo di
queste osservazioni origeniane, ricordando come abitualmente nella
società dell'epoca le ragazze fossera date in spose in età giovanissima
(12-13 anni), senza la richiesta di alcun consenso, mentre i mariti risul-
tavano sempre più anziani, di almeno 10 0 20 anni, con conseguenti non
piccoli prablemi di relazioni, di cui forse le annotazioni origeniane sono
una eco.
In terza istanza il pericolo di esposizione ad adulterio è posto in rap-
porto a quelli che potremmo definire motivi spirituali, legati all'asten-
sione matrimoniale in vista di una maggiore pelfezione.
Anche chi si astiene da sua moglie molte volte la espone ad adulterio, non
soddisfacendo i suoi desideri, benché feccia questo immaginandosi di rea-
lizzare una maggiore santità e castità (K<Ü <0> ù1tocr'tep&v oè ù1ta 't~S
yUVŒtKas Éamav 1totet aÙ'tl]v 1toÂÀ<iKtS 1l00xeuS~vat, Ill] àK1tÂllp&v
aù't~s 'tàS ôpÉçetS, KŒV <j>av'tacriq. 1tÂdovoS crellVOTll'toS Kat
crco<j>pocruVllS 'ta 'totoiho 1totT\). E forse è più da biasimare costui che (per
quanto sta in lui) espone lei all'adulterio non soddisfacendo i suoi appetiti,
anziché colui che l'ha ripudiata, non celto in casa di fornicazione, ma di
avvelenamento, assassinio 0 qualche altra gravis sima colpa (Kat 'taXa
lluÂÂov oÔ'tOS à1tiÂll1t'toS 0 ['ta ocrov à<j>' Éamé{>] 1tot&v aÙ'tl]v
llotxeuS~vat Ill] àK1tÂllP&V aù't~s 'tàS ôpÉçetS 11 0 Ù1toJ.,UcraS aù'tl]v
1tapeK'tas Â6you Ilèv 1tOPVdaS, à1tt <j>apllaKdq. oè 11 <j>ovq:J il nvt 't&v
papUta'tcov ullap't1lIla'tCOV)30.
È significativa la riflessione che accompagna la messa in guardia nei
confranti di una castità inesponsabile, ritenuta più biasimevole del ripu-
dio pel' atti molto gravi. Benché da un lato l' alessandrino, pramuova e
lodi la pratica dell'astensione sessuale in vista della preghiera, dall'altra
sa anche pone seriamente in guardia da un ricorso sconsiderato ad essa.
È oppOltuno pero richiamare le conclusioni della pagina, nelle quali si
evince la preoccupazione origeniana di riaffermare il principio della reci-
procità, uomo e donna, nel peccato di adulterio.
Come perà è adultera una donna, pur essendo in apparenza sposata con un
uomo, mentre è in vita ancora il suo primo marito, COS! un marito che sem-
bra sposare una ripudiata, in realtà non la sposa (come ha decretato il nostro
Salvatore), ma commette adulterio (rocr1tep oè IlOlXaÂ1S àcrn yuvij, KŒV
OOKTI yalletcrSat ùvopi, iht Ç&v'tOS 'tou 1tpo'tÉpou, olhcoS Kat ÙVl]P
yalletV OOK&V ù1toÂeÂullÉVllV où yallet [Ka'tà 'tl]V 'tou crco't~pOS 111l&V
ù1to<j>acrw] ocrov llotxeUet)31.
29. È quanto proposto da C. MUNIER, La sollicitude pastorale de l'Église Ancienne, in
Laval théologique et philosophique 44 (1988) 19-30, p. 25; J. GAUDEMET, Le mariage en
Occident, Paris, 1987, p. 32.
30. CMt XIV.24 (GCS X, 344.19-31); Commento, p. 174.
31. CMt XIV.24 (GCS X, 344.31-345.8); Commento, p. 174.
IL MATRIMONIO NEL CMT 399
Proprio perché la discussione sul casa di porneia era stata portata
avanti nel commento avendo come unico riferimento la situazione della
donna e il rischio della sua esposizione all'adulterio, prababilmente in
conclu sione di analisi Origene si sente in dovere di chiamare in causa
anche la responsabilità deI marito e il peccato cui anch'egli incol1'e, nello
sposm'e una ripudiata.
L'esame deI testo impone un elenco dettagliato delle conclusioni, rias-
sumibili nei seguenti punti.
1. Fedeltà di Origene al dettato evangelico, che sancisce una rigorosa
concentrazione della discussione sul problema deI ripudio della
donna!! Il testo evangelico in possesso di Origene non sembra
includere la frase "e ne sposa un'altra".
2. È riaffermato il principio evangelico dell'indissolubilità matrimo-
niale. Origene riconosce l'eccezione matte ana (eccetto il casa di
porneia), ma non la confonde comunque con "la cosa vergognosa"
di Dt 24,1.
3. Viene sostanzialmente espressa l'identificazione tra il concetto di
porneia e quello di moicheia.
4. È posta l'intenogazione circ a l'estendibilità dell'eccezione matte-
ana ad altri gravi casi di natura criminale.
5. È avanzata la questione circ a la fedeltà letterale 0 interpretativa alla
norma scritta! ! !
6. Sono llconosciuti atteggiamenti 0 situazioni potenzialmente provo-
catori di adulterio (eccessiva libeltà nelle relazioni extraconiugali.
Ascesi inesponsabile e distorta).
7. È riaffermata la reciprocità uomo - donna nel peccato di adulterio
e quindi la possibilità anche pel' l'uomo di inconere nella stessa
colpa in casa di unione con una ripudiata.
4. Interpretazione de! passo
Il testo Ollgeniano appena esposto e presentato nelle sue articolazioni
di fondo, pone in realtà non piccoli intenogativi di carattere elmeneutico,
che nella 101'0 essenzialità si possono riassumere in due posizioni.
Quella di coloro che scorgono nelle pm'ole dell' alessandrino la riaffer-
mazione nuda e cruda deI divieto deI divorzio, secondo la prassi riferibile
alla Chiesa latina occidentale.
Quella di colora che scorgono nelle parole di Origene ililferimento a
una disciplina più complessa, la quale accanto alla riaffermazione dell'in-
 400 G. BENDINELLI
dissolubilità matrimoniale fa spazio al princlplO dell'adattamento,
secondo il modello della Chiesa Orientale32 •
A sostenere la prima tesi è soprattutto H. Crouzel che in più occasioni
ha ribadito con vigore questa interpretazione33 •
• Egli scorge nel casa di pennesso di secondo matrimonio consentito
dai vescovi a una donna, niente più che una concessione per evitare
mali peggiori, che l'alessandrino comunque rimprovera, perché atto
in ogni casa contrario alla volontà delle Scritture, come sottolineato
per ben tre volte nel testo.
• Ancora egli sostiene che il casa in esame (della donna a cui è stato
concesso un nuovo matrimonio) non si inquadrerebbe nell'inciso
matteano, non sarebbe cioè una donna che avrebbe ottenuto illibello
di ripudio da parte di suo marito, dal momento che non si fa alcuna
allusione a questo testo e a questa procedura nel passaggio.
• Anche nel casa deI libello di ripudio non si troverebbe ragione per
giustificare il nuovo matrimonio deI marito innocente, giacché la
discussione è essenzialmente concentrata sulla questione deI ripudio
e non v'è traccia nellemma evangelico del passaggio a nuove nozze.
1 sostenitori della linea opposta ritengono invece che la Chies a antica
assumesse come scontato l'inciso matteano, ossia la possibilità di ripudio
della moglie nel casa di fornicazione - adulterio, anche perché la legisla-
z~o~e ci~ile in ambito mat~moniale era di fatto riconosciuta come prin-
ClplO onentatore anche all'mterno della comunità cristiana.
• ~l'int~rno della categoria di adulteri rientravano non solo i coniugi
mfedelt, ma anche i divorziati risposati, comunque ammessi previa
penitenza alla comunione.
• Testimonianze ulteriori, quali Pastore d'Enna (Pr. IVA.l), Tertul-
liano (adv. Marc. IV), Concilio di Arles documentano il dovere di
ripudio della parte adultera e oltre a cià la prassi deI secondo matri-
monio.
32. R~an~iamo per comodità ad alcune voci: CERET!, Divorzio nuove nozze (n. 19);
~YNl,ER, T~m?~glla,!e (n. 21), pp. 1~-29; C. MUNlER, Divorce, remariage et pénitence dans
1 Eglise pl'lllllt/ve, III Revue des SC/ences Religieuses 52 (1978) 97-117.
33. Rimandiamo alle opere già citate ,e in particolare: CROUZEL, Virginité et mariage
(n. 14), pp. 148-169; H. CROUZEL, L'Eglise primitive face au divorce Paris 1971
pp. 74-93; a proposito deI testo di Mt 19,9 utilizzato dai padri deI il-ID sec~lo ~OUZEL'
Le texte patristique (n. 22), pp. 98-119; sulla questione più generale delle sec~~de nozz~
nella Chie~a an~ca, H. CROUZEL, Divorce et remariage dans l'Église primitive, in Nouvelle
R~v~/e Theolog/que 98 (1~76) 891-917; H. CROUZEL, Les digamoi visés par le Concile de
N/cee dans son canon 8, III Augustinianum 17 (1977) 533-546; H. CROUZEL, Un nouvel
essai pour prouver l'acceptation des secondes noces après divorce dans l'Église primitive
in Augustinianwn 18 (1978) 555-566.
IL MATRIMONlO NEL CMT 401
• Le affermazioni origeniane andrebbero inquadrate in questo contesto
e starebbero a significare l'estensione deI diritto a un nuovo matri-
monio anche per la donna e non solo per l'uomo, il cui diritto al
riguardo risulterebbe scontato.
• Esse inoltre testimonierebbero la sollecitudine origeniana per la
ricerca di soluzioni ai casi difficili, anche non direttamente contem-
plati dalle parole evangeliche.
IV. MATRIMONIO COME CARIS MA
TI terzo momento di questa rassegna comprende l'esame deI passaggio
in cui l'alessandrino riconosce il significato di grazia inerente al matri-
monio. È indiscutibile che, sulla scorta dei discorsi appena compiuti, la
verginità esprima assai meglio la verità della vocazione cristiana, in
quanto icona più fedele della situazione protologica e anticipazione di
quella escatologica.
Non di meno, sempre nella sezione relativa al divorzio, CMt proclama
il valore pienamente cristiano dell'unione che conduce alla creazione di
una sola came, come iniziativa che procede da Dio.
In seguito il Salvatore, descrivendo cio che deve esserci tra i due esseri
congiunti da Dio in maniera degna dell 'unione realizzata da Lui, aggiunge;
"Cosi che non sono più due". E certo, li dove c'è concordia, accordo e
armonia (olloVota Kat aUIl<Pcovia Kat apllovia) dell'uomo con la donna e
della donna con l'uomo, l'uno che comanda e l'aUra che obbedisce, secondo
la parole: "egli ti dominerà", veramente si puo dire, di tali persone, che non
sono più due. In seguito, dovendo riservarsi a colui che aderisce al Signore
l'espressione: è diventato con Lui "un solo spirito", nel caso di due persone
unite da Dio, si aggiunge a "non sono più due, ma una carne sola". E' Dio
colui che ha congiunto i due in una sola realtà (Kat 0 Beoç Èanv 0 auSeu-
çaç 'tà 860 eiç Ëv), perché non siano già due, li dove "una donna è resa
adatta all'uomo da patte di Dio" (pr 19,11)34.
La congiunzione viene da Dio, come sottolinea per ben tre volte il
testo; è quindi Lui a garantire che i due siano una came sola, ma al tempo
stesso è anche vero il contrario, ossia è la triade rumonica (concordia,
sinfonia, rumonia) a esprimere e realizzare la vocazione all'unità, allor-
ché viene rispettato il principio della sottolllÎssione della donna all'uomo.
Pel' questa ragione il passo ulteriore dell'argomentazione origeniana è
quello di dichiarare il valore di "carisma" del matrimonio cristiano, in
fonna analoga e paritetica rispetto a quello deI celibato.
'
34. CMt XIV. 16 (GCS X, 323.11-324.2); Commento, 1999, pp. 152-153.
 402 G. BENDINELLI
E poiché è Dio che li ha congiunti, per questo motivo in quelli che sono
stati congiunti da Dio c'è un carisma (olà tou'W xapwlla ècrnv èv tots
unà ~€ou cruvsÇCUYIlBvolS). E proprio questo Paolo aveva ben capito, pel'
cui afferma uguaImente che come è carisma il casto celibato, COS! 10 è anche
l'unione matrimoniale (ènicrllS t0 stval ti]v ayvi]v àyalliav xapwlla
<Pll crt Kat tàv Katà ÂOyov ~€ou yallov stval xaplcrlla) secondo la parole
di Dio, quando dice: "VolTei che tutti fossero come me, ma ognuno ha il
suo proprio carisma da Dio, chi in un modo, chi in un altro" (lCm 7,7). l
coniugi uniti da Dio, poi, pensano e realizzano la parole: "Mariti, amate le
vostre mogli, come Cristo ama la Chiesa" (Ef 5,25?5.
Affermazione sul valore carismatico dell'unione coniugale, in cui è
visto il coinvolgimento diretto dell'iniziativa divina, nell'ottica dell'imi-
tazione dell'amore di Cristo per la sua Chiesa.
Il paragrafo citato si conclude poi con una riaffermazione dell'indis-
solubilità coniugale e una messa in guardia nei confronti dei suoi detrat-
tori, significativamente individuati nei rigoristi che vietano non solo la
fornicazione, ma anche il matrimonio e anzi premono in favore deI suo
scioglimento.
Dunque, il Salvatore diede ordine che l'uomo non separi cià che Dio ha
congiunto, l'uomo invece vuole separare cià che Dio ha congiunto, quando
si allontana dalla sana fede, e dà retta "a spiriti menzogneri e a dottrine
diaboliche, sedotto dall'ipocrisia di impostori già bollati a fuoco dalla pro-
pria coscienza, che vietano" - non solo di fomicare - ma addirittura "di
sposarsi" (1 Tm 4,3), e separa coloro che sono pervenuti all'unione in vÎliù
della provvidenza di Dio (OtaÂ6sl Kat toÙs <p~acravtas til npovoig.
cruvsÇsux~al 'Wu ~€OU)36.
Nell'inciso proposto trova ulteriore specificazione il prin~ipio per il
quale l'unione degli sposi è il frutto della provvidenza divina.
Il discorso proposto sembrerebbe deporre a favore deI valore piena-
mente sacramentale dellegame matrimoniale, che invece sembra smen-
tito da una serie di dichiarazioni tratte da Commenta a Romani, in cui le
nozze non sono riconosciute come un carisma spirituale, ma assimilate a
doni naturali quali le ricchezze 0 la salute.
L'apostolo ha necessariamente aggiunto l'espressione "spüituale", come se
esistesse anche un carisma non spirituale ('QS OVtoS oà xapicrllatos Ili]
nvsullanKou, àvaYKairoS npocrtB~Sltal tà nvsullanKov'); esistono
infatti dei carismi di questo tipo, come la ricchezza, la gloria, il matrÎl'nonio
(Ecrn yap nva xapicrllata où nvsullanKa, ms 6 nÂoutos, il 06é,a il
àv~pronivll Kat 6 yallos). Se questo fosse spÎl'ituale, non impedirebbe la
preghiera, mentre invece l'amplesso dell'uomo e della donna 10 impedi-
35. CMt XIV. 16 (OCS X, 324.2-19); Commento, 1999, pp. 152-153.
36. CMt XIV.16 (OCS X, 324.22-34); Commento, 1999, p. 153.
IL MATRIMONIO NEL CMT 403
scono. Che il matrÎl'nonio sia un carisma, l'apostolo 10 mostra: "io vOlTei
che tutti fossero come sono io, ma ciascuno ha il suo carisma proprio da
parie di Dio, l'uno questo, l'altro un altr0 37 •
La controprova deI valore non pneumatico deI carisma matrimoniale è
dato, a giudizio deI nostro autore, dall'impedimento che l'amplesso
coniugale pro duce sulla pratica della preghiera. È noto infatti come
Origene interpreti il consiglio paolino espresso in 1Cor 7,5 38 come un
comando che confermerebbe, il significato intrinsecamente contaminante
della relazione sessuale anche lecita come è tra coniugi, SI da imporre dei
tempi di astensione che consentano la preghiera. Si tratta di un'id~a ricor~
rente nell'opera origeniana39 , attestata in CMt in un passagglO aSSai
importante a riguardo dell'accordo nella preghiera (cf. Mt 18,19) come
condizione previa al sua esaudimento.
E' in questo senso che intendo anche la parole dell' Apostolo: "Non. aste~
netevi tra voi se non di comune accordo e temporaneamente, per dedlcarvl
alla preghiera" (lCor 7,5). Dacché infatti il te~e sinfo~a è impi~gato
nel casa di coloro che si uniscono in matrimomo secondo DIO, usato m tal
senso nel detto dei Proverbi: "Casa e patrÎl'nonio i padri li distribuiscono ai
figli, ma dono di Dio è una moglie che si accorda col m~r~to" (Pl' 19,14),
dall'accordo che viene da Dio ne consegue il potere beneflclare del nome e
dell'effetto della sinfonia (àKOÂouMv ècrn til ànà ~€ou aPllovig. tà
ovolla Kat tà EpyOV ànoÂausw tîiS crull<Provias dS sùxi]v), in vista di
una preghiera, come dÎl'nostra l'espressione: "se non di comune accordo"40.
Ma è tempo di trattar'e di un'altra spiegazion~, esposta da u~o, dei nostri pre~
decessori che esorta le persone sposate a Vlvere nella castita e purezza. SI
devono cioè intendere (diceva) i due che il Logos vuole si accordino sulla
terra marito e moglie, che in base ad un loro accordo si astengono dai reci-
proci rapporti coniugali, per dedicarsi alla preghiera (Mo yap, ~ÜS ~OUÂS;Wl,
<Pllcrtv, 0 Â6yoS crull<ProvstV ènt tîiS yîiS, avopa Kat y~va:Ka ~olltS,?V,
èK crull<Provias ànoO"tspouvtas àÂÂi]ÂouS (jrollatlKllS oll~ÂtaS, wa
crxoÂacrrocrt "til npocrsuxil "), dal momento che pr~gando "nceveranno
qualunque cosa avrarmo chiesto", concessa loro, ?raZle. a tale ac~ordo, dal
Padre di Gesù Cristo che è nei cieli. Questa spiegazIOne Cl pare (da mtendere)
nel senso non che sciolga illegame coniugale, ma che induca all'accord041 .
37. FrRm VIII (STAAB, p.78); oppure in JOl/rnal of Theological Studies 13 (1911),
Fr. III, p. 213; tr.lat, 1.12, PO XIV, 857C. . ... .
38. Come ricorda anche la nota di BI la concessione verte SUl penodl dl astlllen.za
nel matrimonio. Per altri esegeti cio che è pennesso come concessione è il matrimOlll?
Origene saJ'ebbe di questa seconda opinione, e quindi non ha difficoltà a trasfo~ar.e .~
precetto, cio che neHa mente dell'apostolo era solo un consiglio. Cf. CROUZEL, Vlrgllllte
et mariage (n. 14), p. 54. Cf. anche supra. . .
39. Si tratta di un concetto comunque confelmato da Ongene anche III FrCor XXXIV
e in Orat II.2; XXXI.4.
40. CMt XIV. 1 (OCS X, 272.30--273.12); COlllmento, 1999, p. 104.
41. CMtXIV.2 (OCS 277.30--278.17); COlllmento, 1999, pp. 109-110.

404 G. BENDINELLI
La lettura della pagina, in cui l' alessandrino rimanda aIl' autorità di un
suo predecessore42 , attesta l'esistenza di una incompatibilità tra esercizio
sessuale e preghiera, quasi che il primo possa impedire l'efficacia e l'e-
saudimento della seconda; e questo in ragione dell'impurità che inerisce
all'atto coniugale43 • È quindi comprensibile come, sulla scorta di queste
premesse, il carisma matrimoniale sia dichiarato non pneumatico, se rap-
portato a quello della verginità, comunque intesa come condizione pre-
feribile.
Come spesso accade nel nostro autore questa non è la sola parola da
lui espressa al riguardo, sicché è possibile scorgere un altro testo che
ridimensiona la portata deI passaggio precedente, lasciando intendere
un'azione pneumatica implicata nella vita di coppia. Si tratta di un fl'am-
mento sulla prima lettera ai Corinti.
Il matrimonio ha il profumo (spira) di un dono, quello che deriva dal
comune accordo, poiché mantiene le giuste misure. E in certi casi si puo
ben dire che in cio il matrimonio è un dono: quando non vi è discordia,
quando è tutta pace, tutta concordia (IIvÉBl xupicrJ.w:toç ô 'YUJ.loç, O,B ,à
J.lÉ,pa 'T]pBhat, ,où ÈK crUJ.l<PffiviaÇ. Kai àÂT],<}&ç Ëcr'tlV Binetv Èni 'tlv&v
O'tl ,olnq> ô 'YuJ.loç XUPlcrJ.lU Ècr'tlV, O,B OÙK àKu,acr,ucria, O,B nucru
eiP1lVT], nucra crUJ.l<Pffiviu)44.
A giudizio di H. Crouze145 infatti proprio il ricorso al verbo pnei, docu-
menta una relazione con l'iniziativa dello Spirito e rimanda alla sua
azione nell' opera creatrice.
V. CONCLUSIONE
La finatità ispiratrice deI presente contributo era di fare emergere il
significato profondamente dialettico della tematica matrimoniale, aIl 'in-
terno di CMt, ovvero la tensione fra speculazione origeniana e prassi
pastorale. 1 momenti scelti pel' il confronto sono stati, il tema della pro-
creazione, la questione dellibello di lipudio e il matrimonio come cari-
sma. Ne! primo caso si è sottolineato 10 scarso interesse mostl'ato dall'a-
lessandrino nei confronti della l'esponsabilità rappresentata dalla
paidopoiia: in uno dei pochi testi origeniani consacrati a tale problema-
tica non è dato individu are un'attenzione specifica ai doveri coniugali al
42. Evidentemente questo predecessore non pub essere che Clemente Alessandrmo.
È unD dei pochi rimandi a quello che sarebbe stato il suo maestro.
43. Cf. FrCor XXXIV.
44. FrCor XXXIV; Frammenti, p. 141.
45. CROUZEL, Virginité et mariage (n. 14), p. 144.
405
IL MATRIMONIO NEL CMT
riguardo, oltre che una tematizzazione sul ruolo della famiglia ai fini
educativi. Ragioni di natura ideologica, oltre che la collocazione di que-
sta riflessione nell'orizzonte escatologico delle nozze finali (dei cieli
nuovi e della terra nuova), non hanno consentito al nostro autore di misu-
rarsi con la concreta situazione matrimoniale, ma hanno esclusivamente
apelto la via alle considerazioni più familiari all'alessandrino rigual'danti
le nozze eterne.
Non cosl invece sul problema dellibello di ripudio. BencM anche in
questo casa sia rispettata la priorità riservata al senso spirituale deI pas-
saggio, pur tuttavia il maestro - predicatore si confronta con molto impe-
gno sulla questione dei fallimenti matrimoniali, facendo emel'gere in
maniera tl'asparente i diversi interrogativi in merito: le soluziol1i avanzate
dai vescovi de! tempo, la messa in guardia nei confl'onti di compol'ta-
menti a rischio pel' la vita di coppia, soprattutto l'afferrnazione deI prin-
cipio teologico dell'adattamento e quindi la questione circ a la legittima-
zione deI discemimento ecclesiale sull'esel'cizio di questo adattamento.
È il caso di ricol'dare che la sollecitudine pastorale e il prevalente inte-
l'esse pratico di questa sezione non sono tali da azzerare quella modaUtà
di approccio alla scrittura che è proprio della zetesis origeniana. Benché
impegnato in materia disciplinare Origene non rinuncia ad avanzal'e
proposte e concepire il suo impegno in terrnini di ricerca. Forse è anche
in conseguenza di cio che le sue dichiarazioni possono risultare un
po' oscure, suscettibili di aprire le porte a interpretazioni molteplici,
quando tra 101'0 non cosl apertamente discordanti.
Il val ore sacramentale deI matrimonio sembra poi avvalorato in un
passaggio ne! quale viene espresso in maniera forte la significazione di
grazia di questa unione, non infirmata, a giudizio di chi scrive, dalle
parziali sconfessioni di altri luoghi origeniani.
È legittimo dunque concludere che, al di là e a dispetto delle ambigue
premesse antropologiche che fanno da sfondo all'approccio origeniano al
matrimonio, egli abbia affrontato il problema con sensibilità ed equili-
brio, abbia mostrato una l'ara attenzione alle reali situazioni di vita dei
cristiani a lui affidati, non abbia sostanzialmente disdegnato una legittima
valorizzazione delle nozze, almeno all'interno delle sue coordinate di
pensiero. 1 testi sin qui esaminati evidenziano in forma abbastanza palese
quell'economia deI "tendere" e "allentare" da Origene molto sottoline-
ata nel commento alle lettere paoline46 , come ricerca di una sana misura
tra illassismo di taluni e ilrigOlismo degli altri. Non va infine omesso
come l'episodio esaminato rappresenta la confelma di uno dei capisaldi
46. Cf. FrCor XXXIII; XXXIV; XXXIX.
 406 G. BENDINELLI

dell'esegesi origeniana ossia la valorizzazione deI significato letterale deI

testo sacro, tanto maggionnente indagato, quanto più in esso sono coin-
DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND ORIGEN AS
volte questioni di primaria rilevanza pel' la vita deI cre dente e della
COMMENTATORS ON GENESIS
Chies a, come appunto il casa delle nozze47 •
A COMPARISON
Facoltà Teologica Fra Guido BENDINELLI op
dell 'Emilia Romagna
Bologna Origen's Commentary on Genesis is lost to a large extent; only a few
guido.bendinelli@infinito.it fragments and testimonies have survived 1• This loss is one of the great
tragedies in the history of ancient Christian literature: In his Commentary
on Genesis the Alexandrian theologian had explained the first four
chapters of Genesis in great detail, he had extensively discussed prior
interpretations, and he had set the agenda for future exegetical work on
Genesis. The next generations of commentators were heavily indebted to
him either as followers of his exegesis or as his critical opponents 2 • The
fragments and testimonies of the commentary together with the Homilies
on Genesis provide a base to sketch the oudines of Origen's exegesis.
Nevertheless, one is tempted to fill sorne of the great lacunae by drawing
conclusions about structure and content of Origen's lost work from Didy-
mus' Commentary on Genesis.
Didymus the Blind is regarded as Origen's faithful pupil and follower.
He was associated as a teacher with the very school in Alexandria which
had been shaped by Origen a century ago 3 • This connection is underlined
by a report that Didymus wrote a commentary on Origen's De principiis,
a literary product of Origen's teaching in Alexandria4 • And Jerome knows
that Didymus held Origen in high esteem and revered him as "teacher of

47. Si potrebbe citare come caso analogo, sempre all'intemo di CMt, l'episodio deI
giovane ricco (cf. CMt XV.15), sul quale Origene - forse anche in contrapposizione con
la lettura di Clemente Alessandrino - intende fomire una risposta anzitutto sul livello
letterale, cioè relativo alla piena attuazione delle esigenze di radicalità evangelica espresse
da Gesù.
1. For Origen's Commentary on Genesis see R.E. HEINE, Origen's Alexandrian Com-
menta/yon Genesis, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Oclava: Origen and Ihe Alexandrian
Tradition (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, vol. l, 63-73; ID., The Teslimonia and
Fragments Related 10 Origen's Commenla/y on Genesis, in Zeitschrift liir antikes Chris-
tentum9 (2005) 122-142; K. METZLER, Weitere Testimonienund Fragmente zum Genesis-
Kommentar des Origenes, in Zeitschrift liir antikes Christentum 9 (2005) 143-148.
2. Among the exegetes who make critical use of Origen's commentary are, for exarn-
pIe, Didymus the Blind, Basilius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan,
Augustine, Procopius of Gaza, John Philoponus.
3. How exactly Didymus was connected with the Christian school of Alexandria,
remains an unsolved problem (cf. E. PRrNZNALLI, Didimo il Cieco e l'interpretazione dei
salmi [Quaderni di studi e materiali di storia delle religioni, NS 2], Roma - L'Aquila,
Japadre, 1988, p. 9). A connection is mentioned by Rufinus, h.e. 11.7 (GCS Eusebius 2/2,
1012.5-1013.20) and Philippus of Side (pG 39, 229 testimonium XI; cf. P. NAUTIN, La
continuation de l'histoire ecclésiastique d'Eusèbe par Gelase de Césarée, in Revue des
études byzantines 50 (1992) 163-183, pp. 175-178 [Greek text with a French translation]).
4. See Jerome, adv. Ru! 1.6 (CCSL 79, 6.18 f.); 2.11 (45.68-70); 2.16 (50.21-24);
Socrates, h.e. 4.25.7 (GCS NF 1, 259).
 406 G. BENDINELLI

dell'esegesi origeniana ossia la valorizzazione deI significato letterale deI

testo sacro, tanto maggiormente indagato, quanto più in esso sono coin-
volte questioni di primaria rilevanza per la vita deI credente e della DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND ORIGEN AS
Chiesa, come appunto il casa delle nozze47 • COMMENTATORS ON GENESIS
A COMPARISON
Facoltà Teologica Fra Guido BENDINELLI op
dell 'Emilia Romagna
Bologna Origen's Commentary on Genesis is lost to a large extent; only él few
guido. bendinelli@infinito.it fragments and testimorues have survived 1• This loss is one of the great
tragedies in the history of ancient Christian literature: In his Commentary
on Genesis the Alexandrian theologian had explained the first four
chapters of Genesis in great detail, he had extensively discussed prior
interpretations, and he had set the agenda for future exegetical work on
Genesis. The next generations of commentators were heavily indebted to
him either as followers of his exegesis or as his critical opponents 2 . The
fragments and testimonies of the commentruy together with the Homilies
on Genesis provide a base to sketch the outlines of Origen's exegesis.
Nevertheless, one is tempted to fill sorne of the great lacunae by drawing
conclusions about structure and content of Origen's lost work from Didy-
mus' Commentary on Genesis.
Didymus the Blind is regarded as Origen's faithful pupil and follower.
He was associated as a teacher with the very school in Alexandria which
had been shaped by Origen a century ag0 3 • This connection is underlined
by a report that Didymus wrote a commentary on Origen's De principiis,
a literruy product of Origen's teaching in Alexandria4. And Jerome knows
that Didymus held Origen in high esteem and revered him as "teacher of

47. Si potrebbe citare come caso analogo, sempre all'intemo di CMt, l'episodio dei
giovane ricco (cf. CMt XV.15), sul quale Origene - forse anche in contrapposizione con
la lettura di Clemente Alessandrino - intende fomire una risposta anzitutto sul livello
letterale, cioè relativo alla piena attuazione delle esigenze di radicalità evangelica espresse
da Gesù.
1. For Origen's Commentruy on Genesis see R.E. HElNE, Origen's Alexandrian Com-
mentmy on Genesis, in L. PERRoNE (ed.), Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian
Tradition (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, vol. l, 63-73; ID., The Testimonia and
Fragments Related to Origen's Commentmy on Genesis, in Zeitschrift fiir antikes Chris-
tentllm 9 (2005) 122-142; K. METzLER, Weitere Testimonien und Fragmente zum Genesis-
Kommentar des Origenes, in Zeitschrift fiir antikes Christentlim 9 (2005) 143-148.
2. Among the exegetes who make critical use of Origen's commentary are, for exam-
pIe, Didymus the Blind, Basilius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan,
Augustine, Procopius of Gaza, John Philoponus.
3. How exactly Didymus was connected with the Christian school of Alexandria,
remains an unsolved problem (cf. E. PruNZlVALLI, Didimo il Cieco e l'interpretazione dei
salmi [Quaderni di studi e materiali di storia delle religioni, NS 2], Roma - L'Aquila,
Japadre, 1988, p. 9). A connection is mentioned by Rufinus, h.e. Il.7 (GCS Eusebius 2/2,
1012.5-1013.20) and Philippus of Side (PG 39, 229 testimonium XI; cf. P. NAUTlN, La
continuation de l'histoire ecclésiastique d'Eusèbe pal' Gelase de Césarée, in Revue des
études byzantines 50 (1992) 163-183, pp. 175-178 [Greek text with a French translation]).
4. See Jerome, adv. Ru! 1.6 (CCSL 79, 6.18 f.); 2.11 (45.68-70); 2.16 (50.21-24);
Socrates, h.e. 4.25.7 (GCS NF 1, 259).
408 C.KOCKERT
the churches after the apostles"5. Various studies on exegetical method
and hermeneutics have demonstrated Didymus' kinship with Origen and
also with regards to theological concepts close similarities have been
observed6 • This culminates in a widespread judgment that Didymus is
one of the few theologians in late antiquity who entirely took up Origen's
theological system?, and that his exegesis is often derived directly from
Origen8 •
But can it methodologically be justified to read Didymus' exegesis
where Origen's commentary is lost? In order to answer this question, one
has to compare the extant remains of both authors' commentaries on
Genesis. For the foIlowing study l use the testimonies and fragments of
Origen's commentary which are currently coIlected and edited by Karin
Metzler for the Berlin Corpus9 • Also the Homilies on Genesis contribute
to the picture of the commentary, since Eric Junod has convincingly
shown that Origen's interpretations in the homilies have their equivalents
in the commentaries, whereas not aIl interpretations of the commentaries
can be found in the respective homilies lO • Against this background, l will
read Didymus' Commentaly on Genesis as it is preserved in a papyrus
5. Jerome, de nom. hebr. praef (CCSL 72, 59.25f.).
6. J. LEIPOLDT, Didymus der Blinde von Alexandria (Texte und Untersuchungen, 14/3),
Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1905, pp. 52-148 (although after the findings of Tura and the intensive
research on the chain-commentalies Leipoldt's matelial reconstruction of Didymus' œuvre
is outdated, his evaluation of Didymus' exegesis and teaching has remained influential).
W.A. BIENERT, "Allegoria" und "Anagoge" bei Didymus dem Blinden von Alexalldria
(Patristische Texte und Studien [= PTS], 13), Berlin - New York, de Gruyter, 1972;
J.H. TrocHELER, Didyme l'Aveugle et l'exégèse allégorique: Étude sémantique de quelques
termes exégétiques importants de son commentaire sur Zacharie (Graecitas Christianorum
primœva, 6), Nijmegen, Dekk:er & van de Vegt, 1977; PRlNzrvALLI, Didimo il Cieco (n. 3);
B.J. BENNETT, The Origin of Evil: Didymus the Blind's "Contra Manichaeos" and His
Debt ta Origen's Theology and Exegesis, National Library of Canada, Hochschulschdft,
Ottawa, 1997; for a summarizing evaluation of Didymus' theological teaching see
B. KRAMER, Art. Didymus von Alexandrien, in TRE 8, Berlin - New York, de Gruyter,
1981,741-746, pp. 744f.
7. BIENERT, "Allegoria" (n. 6), p. 163.
8. LEIPOLDT, Didymus der Blinde (n. 6), p. 60.
9. Karin Metzler currently prepares an edition and a German translation of the remain-
ing fragments and testimonies (Origenes, Die griechischen und lateinischen Fragmente
der Genesis-Kommentierzmg, ed. K. METZLER [GCS Origenes 6/2], Berlin - New York,
de Gruyter; Origenes, Die Kommentie/'lmg des Buches Genesis, einge1eitet, übersetzt und
erliiutert von K. METZLER, Origenes. Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung 1/1, Berlin - New
York, de Gruyter, 2010).
10. É. JUNOD, Wodurch IIIlterscheiden sich die Homilien des Origenes von seinen Kom-
mentaren?, inE. MÜHLENBERO -J. VAN OORT (eds.), Predigt in der Alten Kirche, Kampen,
Kok Pharos, 1995, 50-81, p. 52; Junod takes K.I. TORJESEN, Hermeneutical Procedure
and Theological Method in Origen 's Exegesis (PTS, 28), Berlin, de Gruyter, 1986, a study
on Origen's Commentary on the Song of Songs, as a starting point.
DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND ORlGEN AS COMMENTATORS ON GENESIS 409
from Tura ll . Thereby l do not calI into question Didymus' general
dependency on Origen. Rather, l shaIl establish how Didymus reshapes
the given exegetical material and sets his own emphases. l am weIl aware
that a comparison of Origen's and Didymus' commentaries is still fraught
with difficulties mainly due to the fragmentary state of both author's
works. For example, the first 18 pages of Didymus' commentary, prob-
ably containing a prologue and parts of the interpretation of Gen 1,1, are
lost, the following pages explaining Gen 1,2-6 severely damaged 12 • Thus,
Origen's interpretation of these verses, which sets out the foundations of
his cosmological system and which can fairly weIl be reconstructed from
various fragments and testimonies 13 , has hardly a significant counterpart
in the material from Didymus' commentary. In tum, huge parts of Didy-
mus' commentary can only be compared to Origen's homilies. Neverthe-
less, a careful analysis may come to sorne reliable conclusions with
regards to range and extent, exegetical method, and theological and
philosophical content of both authors' commentaries, and will hopefully
contribute to a better understanding of the relation between Origen's and
Didymus' exegetical works.
A first observation is related to the l'ange and extent of the commentar-
ies. Origen's work consisted of 12 01' 13 volumes and covered the first
four chapters of Genesis 14• If one takes the length of a single volume in
his other commentaries as an analogyl5, it becomes obvious that his com-
mentmy on Gen 1-5,1 was far longer than Didymus' interpretation of the
respective passages. As Didymus' commentary goes at least up to Gen
11. Didyme l'Aveugle, Sur la Genèse: Texte inédit d'après lm papyrus de Toura,
introduction, édition, traduction et notes par P. NAUTIN (SC 233. 244), Palis, Cerf, 1976.
1978
12. For the state of conservation see ibid., tome 1, pp. 11f.
13. For Origen's exegesis see CH. K6CKERT, Christlic/ze Kosmologie und kaiserzeitli-
che Philosophie: Die Auslegung des Sc/zopfungsberichtes bei Origenes, Basilius und
Gregor von Nyssa var dem Hinterg/'llnd kaiserzeitlicher Timaeus-Interpretationen (Stu-
dien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 56), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 224-
311.
14. In CC 6.49 (GCS Origenes 2, 120.20-22) Origen states that he treated Gen 1,1-5,1
in his commentary. According to Jerome, ep. 33.4 (CSEL 54, 255.15) Origen wrote
a Commentary on Genesis consisting of 13 books; Eusebius of Caesarea, /z.e. 6.24.2
(GCS Eusebius 2/2, 572.1) speaks only of 12 books. For the range and the extent as weIl
as the date of the commentary see HEINE, Testimonia and Fragments (n. 1), p. 122.
15. In Origen's Commentary on John, for example, the extant books cover ca. 40 ta
70 pages of the modern GCS-edition: CIo 1 on Joh l,la (with a long preface): 50 pp.;
CIo 2 on Joh 1,lb-7: 44 pp.; CIo 6 (uncomplete) on Joh 1,19-29: 53 pp.; CIo 10 on
Joh 2,12-25: 55 pp.; CIo 13 on Joh 4,13-45: 71 pp.; CIo 19 (uncomplete) on Joh 8,19-24:
27 pp.; CIo 20 on Joh 8,37-53: 41 pp.; CIo 28 on Joh 11,39-57: 37 pp.; CIo 32 on
Joh 13,2-33: 55 pp.
 410 C.KOCKERT
17 16 , it is apparent that it do es not follow the range and extent of Origen's
work.
FUlther observations relate to the exegetical methods. In his commen-
taries Origen discusses topies of textual criticism 17 and he often uses
hexaplaric versions of the biblical text to introduce or to strengthen his
interpretation l8 • Although Didymus refers in sorne passages of his extant
commentaries to Aquila, Symmachus or Theodotion l9 , he does not use
these references for a philologie al pUl}Jose and takes them only occasion-
ally as a peg to hang on a bl'Oader exegetical discussion. The very
restricted interest in textual critieism, which Louis Doutreleau has pointed
out with regards to Didymus' Commentary on Zacha1ja20 , is mirrored
also in his Commentary on Genesis. Whereas sorne fragments and testi-
monies of Origen's commentary deal with problems of textllal criticism,
Didymus does not ponder on those questions at aIl. For example, Origen
discusses a surplus of his Septuagint version compared to "ancient
16. The last preserved passage (GenT 251.24-30 [SC 244, 238]) comments on
Gen 17,3-6.
17. See B. NEUSCHÂFER, Origenes aIs Philologe (SchweizerÎsche Beitrage zur Alter-
tumswissenschaft, 18/1-2), Basel, Reinhardt, 1987, pp. 103-122.
18. For examples of textual criticism see note 2U. For the interpretation of hexapla-
ric versions see Origen, FrGel/ on Gen 1,U., transmitted by Calcidius, in Ti. 276-278
(Plato Latinus IV, ed. J.H. WASZ1NK, 1962,280-283); Collectio Coisliniana 121 (CCSG
15, 125.23-29) with a discussion of Aquila's and Theodotion's translation of Gen 2,7.
For Origen's commentary as the source of the cited passage in Calcidius' commentary
see KOCKERT, Christliche Kosmologie und kaiserzeitliche Philosophie (n. 13), pp. 229-
237.
19. For example, Didymus points to Aquila and Symmachus in GenT 174.3 (SC 244,
76); to Aquila and Theodotion in ZachT 341.17 (SC 85, 934); to Symmachus in FrPs 106
(PTS 15, 185.5); to Theodotion and Symmachus in FrPr on Prov 1,6 (PG 39, 1624a [cf.
A. PAUTLER, Biblia Patristica, p. 18]). In the light of new research sorne of the texts which
LEIPOLDT, Didymus der Blinde (n. 6), p. 56 has collected cannot be assigned to Didymus.
Cf. Leipoldt's references with the material collected by R. DEVREESSE, Les Anciens Com-
mentateurs grecs des Psaumes (Studi e Testi, 264), Città deI Vaticano, Biblioteca Apos-
tolica Vaticana, 1970, pp. 147-210; R. DEVREESSE, Les Anciens Commentateurs grecs de
l'Octateuque et des Rois (Studi e Testi, 201), Città deI Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana, 1959, pp. 167-173; E. MÜHLENBERG, Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenemïber-
liefe/'llng (PTS, 15. 16. 19), Berlin - New York, de Gruyter, 1975. 1977. 1978; fol' a
summarized overview cf. the list of texts given by A. PAUTLER, Biblia Patristica: Index
des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique. Tome 7: Didyme
d'Alexandrie (Antiquité Romaine et Chrétienne), Paris, CNRS Éditions, 2000, pp. 13-22.
References to the meaning of Hebrew words 01' names and theu' Greek translations can be
found, e.g., in ZachT 44.11f. (SC 83, 292); 81.12f. (382); 100.12f. (SC 84, 440); 341.13-
15 (SC 85, 934) as weIl as in the explanation of the Psalms (PsT 20 10.1,9,17 [PTA 7,
38-40]; PsT 40 295.30 [PTA 12, 32]; FrPs 215 [PTS 15,243.7-12]).
20. Didyme l'Aveugle, SUl' Zacharie: Texte inédit d'après un papy/'lls de Toura, intro-
duction, texte critique, traduction et notes de L. DOUTRELEAU (SC 83), Paris, Celf, 1962,
pp. 48-50.
DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND ORIGEN AS COMMENTATORS ON GENESIS 411
manuscripts" in his commentary on Gen 1,9 21 . Commenting on Gen 4,8
and using Aquila's translation of the passage, he identifies an addition to
the Hebrew text in the Septuagint22 • Didymus, however, is silent on the
status of the Septuagint text in his commentary on those texts.
In view of Didymus' reluctance to make use of hexaplaric versions in
his commentaries, it is by no means accidentaI that his student Rufinus
very often omits discussions of textual versions or references to the
Hexapla in his Latin translations of Origen's exegetical works 23 . Didy-
mus' and Rufinus' works display the tendency to simplify the structure
of the commentaries and to relieve them of special philological discus-
sions, probably in order to make them more accessible to a bl'Oader pub-
lic.
This inclination is also apparent in the attitude towards a syntactical
analysis of the biblical text. Origen had introduced the philological
method into the exegesis of the Bible, and in his commentary on Gen
1,14 he affnms its hnportance for the understanding of the biblical text
in an aImost programmatic way24. In his interpretation of Gen l,lIa he
carefully analyses this complex verse and attempts to solve its syntactieal
problem25 . Subsequent commentators, as Basil of Caesarea or Pl'Ocopius
21. See Origen, FrGen on Gen 1,9, cited by John Philoponus, opif. 4.4 (Scripti sacri
et profani 1, 166.6-18).
22. See Catena in Genesim 509 (TEG 2, 17f.). For a similar critical comparison of
Hebrew versions, Aquila's translation and the version of the Septuagint see the comment
on Gen 2,4 (Catena in Genesim 191 [TEG 1, 133]).
23. See C. BAMMEL, Del' Romerbrieftext des Rufin und seine Origenes-Übersetzllllg
(Vetus Latina, 10), Freiburg/Br., Herder, 1985, pp. 231-238.
24. See Origen's methodological statement in his commentary on Gen 1,16 in Phil
14.2 (SC 302, 408-412): ... sl SUVa:,UI 1'ji}lK('lv 7tPO~ÂllJlU il <j>UO'lOÂoyoUJlsvov il
i}BQÂoYOUJlsvov XIDptÇ àKpl~Biaç O'lWUlVOJlSVIDV KUt 't'ON Ku't'à 't'àv ÂOylKàv 't'07tOV
't'paVOUJlSVIDV ÔV Sel 't'p07tOV 7tupiO''t'uO'i}ut. Ti yàp èho7tov àKOUSlV 1roV KUplOÂSK-
10UJlSVIDV sv 't'Utç SWÂSK't'OIÇ, KUt S<j>t0'1UVSlV S7tlJlsÎ.,roç 't'Otç O'llJlUlVOJlSVOIÇ; "EO'n
Sè 07tOU 7tupà 't'llV ayvowv 't'rov ÂOylKroV JlsyUÎ.,IDÇ 7tspl7ti7t't'OJlsv, Jli] KuSutpovrsç
't'àç 0JlIDvUJltaç Kut àJl<j>I~oÂtaç KUt KuruXPlÎO'SIÇ Kat KupioÎ.,sstaç Kut SWO''t'oÎ.,uç
(408.1--410.9). Fol' the grammatical analysis in Origen's commentaries see NEUSCHAFER,
Origenes aIs Philologe (n. 17), pp. 202-218 (the comment on Gen l,lIa is discussed at
p. 214).
°
25. The Septuagint reads in Gen 1,11: Kut et7tSV Ssoç' BÎ.,a0'11l0'u't'ID·~ y~ ~oru­
vllv xoprou, O'7tstpoV O'7tsPJla Ka1à ysvoç Kut Kui}' oJlOlOrll't'u ... This verse poses the
syntactical problem that O'7tStpoV (neutr.) cannot refer either to ~oruvll (fem.) or to xop-
10Ç (masc.). The Septuagint probably relates O'7telPOV O'7tSPJlu to the entire preceeding
phrase (see M. ALEXANDRE, Le Commencement du Livre. Genèse I-V: La version grecque
de la Septante et sa réception [Christianisme antique, 3], Paris, Beauchesne, 1988, p. 125).
For the solution presented by the translator Aquila see ALEXANDRE, ibid. Origen solves
the problem of O'OÂOIKIO'JlOÇ in Gen 1,11 by reordering the words, and he explains:
BÎ.,uO''t'llO'U't'ID f) y~ ~01UVllV XOp10U, Ku't'à ysvoç O'7tstpoV O'7tsPJla, àvu<j>spoJlsvoU
S7tt 't'à ysvoç 10Ù O'7tStpoV (Collectio Coislil/iana 48 [CCSG 15,46.10-12]).
412 C.KOCKERT
of Gaza, take up Origen's analysis and also attend to the problem26 .
Didymus, however, is silent on the syntactieal difficulties of Gen 1,lla27 ;
The dominant influence of Origen's exegetieal method can most fully
be grasped in Didymus' twofold explanation of the biblical text. In
general, the literaI meaning of a passage is followed by an anagogie
interpretation whieh usually refers to the condition and petfection of the
inner man28 . Wolfgang Bienert has claimed that compared to Origen
Didymus pays more attention to the literaI meaning of the biblical text
and studies with greater ptudence the biblical usage of individu al words 29 .
But this general assessment does not apply to the Commentary on
Genesis. In the homilies, indeed, Origen treats the literaI meaning only
roughly. In the commentary, however, he attends to it in more detail. For
example, he takes it as a staltingpoint for an extended philosophical
discussion, when commenting on the creation of the stars (Gen 1,14)30.
His other commentaries also testify to his interest in the literaI or
historieal meaning of the biblical text31 . In addition, the commentary on
Gen 1,1 provides an extensive analysis of the biblical usage of apxi}32.
Obviously, the differences between Origen's and Didymus' exegesis
have to be sought elsewhere.
26. See Basil of Caesarea, hex. 5.1 (GCS Basilius, 70.20-71.6); Procopius of Gaza,
comm. in Gell. (PG 87/1, 79b).
27. In other exegetieal works Didymus shows more interest in philologie al questions.
Cf., for example, the scholastic character of the Commentary on Psalms (PRINZIVALLI,
Didimo il Cieco [no 3], pp. 14f.108f.)
28. The two levels of the biblical text are distinguished by technical expressions that
can be found also in Origen's exegesis: Didymus, GellT 68.27 (SC 233, 170): To /1èv
oÔv 'to Pl1'tov 'toi51:o ... Kut 't1lV clVUYCOY1lV dPTJKU/18[V] ... ; 193.12,16 (SC 244, 120):
To /1èv Pl1'tov q,UV8pOV ... IIpoS oè Otuvotuv ... ; 197. 17f. (132): Kut ft /1èv clVUyCOY1l
oiS'tcoS' 'tà oè Pl1'tà OÙK aOl1Àu. Cf. e.g. 23.15-19 (SC 233, 68); 37.26f. (100); 55.5f.
(140); 103.5f. (242); 122.2f. (284); 151.2f.,18f. (SC 244,22); 165.7-9 (56); 195.2f.,27
(124-126).
29. BIENERT, "Allegoria" (n. 6), p. 163 with reference to Karl Holl.
30. See the interpretation cl1tO 'tils ÀÉS8COS in the dispute on Gen 1,26f. with Melito
of Sardes (Collectio Coislil/ial/a 73 [CCSG 15,73.15-74.40]), which prepares Origen's
(partly lost) anagogieal interpretation; the paragraph on God's command to rule over the
animaIs (Gen 1,26.28) including the remark that the Bible does not reckon the snake
among the reptiles but among the wild beasts (Collectio Coislil/ial/a 73 [75.65-76.100];
vgl. Catel/a il/ Genesim 319 [TEG 1,217], taken up by Procopius of Gaza, comm. in
Gell. [PG 87/1, 137a]). For Origen's commentary on Gen 1,14 see Phil 23.1-21 (SC 226,
130-204).
31. See the ex amples for a historical interpretation of the biblical text (la'toptKoV)
given by NEUSCHÂFER, Origel/es aIs Philologe (n. 17), pp. 155-202.
32. Origen, FrGel/ preserved by Calcidius, il/ Ti. 276 (plato Latinus N, ed. J.H. WASZlNK,
1962,280.14-281.15); cf. Origen, HGen 1.1 (SC 7bis, 24.1-12; 26.41-44); CIo 1.16.90-
1.19.118 (GCS Origenes 4, 20.1-24.22).
DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND ORIGEN AS COMMENTATORS ON GENESIS 413
The explanation of Gen 1,26 is fairly weIl preserved in both authors'
commentaries and it reveals a decisive difference in the consttuction of
the two exegetical works 33 . On the whole, both authors treat the same
question: They explain what man's likeness to god refers t0 34 . On this
occasion, Origen emphatically opposes an interpretation which he
ascribes to Melito of Sardes' treatise "On the corporeality of God"35. He
refuses to relate the likeness to god to man' s corporeal form because this
would imply an anthropomorphic conception of God. Rather, man's like-
ness to god refers to man's soul or to speak with Paul (1 Cor 15,49) to
the inner man and his action36 . In order to SUppOlt this claim Origen, first,
gives a collection of biblical references to god's limbs, which seem to
have put foreward by his adversary37. Then, he presents a second list of
passages which, for example, speak of god's seven eyes (Zach 4,10) or
wings (ps 90,4) and thus do not describe god in the form of man38 . Here
Origen argues with the literaI meaning of other biblical passages against
a literaI understanding of Gen 1,26f. 39 . Other biblical allusions to god's
shape obviously contradiet each other or are in confliet with accepted
scientific assumptions, as the reference to heaven and earth as god's
33. Origen's interpretation can be gathered from a fragment of the commentary pre-
served in a chain-commentary on Genesis (Collectio Coislil/iana 73 [CCSG 15, 72-77]);
from HGel/ 1.12f. (SC 7bis, 54-64); Prin 1.2.6 (GCS Origenes 5, 34.8-18; with reference
to the Commentary on Genesis) and 3.6.1 (280.6-17); from other works: HLv 14.3
(SC 287, 240.91-94); DiaI12.4-14 (SC 67,80); 15.28-16.10 (88); 23.2-4 (100). Cf. also
CC 3.40 (GCS Origenes 1,236.14-17); 4.37 (307.20-308.7) with reference to the Com-
mentary on Genesis; HLc 8.2 (GCS Origenes 9, 48.8-49.2). For Didymus' interpretation
of Gen 1,26f. see GenT 54.13-64.27 (SC 233, 138-162); for the discussion of man's like-
ness to god see, after a discussion of the different meanings of the word avSpco1tOS,
GenT 56.15-58.2 (SC 233, 142-146), followed by a discussion of the difference between
"likeness" and "simile" (GenT 58.3-59.24 [SC 233, 148-152]). In their commentaries
Origen and Didymus take up an explanation of Gen 1,26f. whieh Philo of Alexandria
presents in his Commentary on Genesis (opif. 23.69-71 [Philo Opera 1,23.2-24.10]).
34. In their commentaries on Gen 1,26 both authors treat the following topies: the
magnificence and honour of man; man's likeness to God; Christ as image of God and
man's imitation of Christ; the difference between image and simile; man's dominillm
terrae.
35. Origen, Collectio Coisliniana 73 (CCSG 15,73.2-74.40) with reference to those
who relate the image of God to the body, ... cllv Èan Kut M8Ài'tCOV, auyypu/1/1u'tu KU'tU-
À8ÀotmDS 1t8pi 'tou svaro/1utov dvut 'tov S80V (73.4f.). Eusebius mentions Melito's
treatise 6 II8pî Èvaco/1u'tou S80U in h.e. 4.26.3 (GCS Eusebius 2/1, 382.7).
36. Collectio Coislillial/a 73 (CCSG 15, 74.43-75.64): ... tO KUt' EtKoVU /11l sv t0
aro/1utt 8ivut, sv oè tU ÀOYtKU 'l'UXU ... "On oè tO KUt' EtKoVU ul 1tpUSEtS XUPUK-
t'lpiÇoucl't Kuî oùXî ft toU aro/1utos /1opq,TJ ... (74.43f.,49f.).
37. Collectio Coislil/ial/a 73 (CCSG 15,73.5-15).
38. Collectio Coislil/ial/a 73 (CCSG 15,73.15-25).
39. See Collectio Coislil/ial/a 73 (CCSG 15, 73.15f.): IIpoS oÎJS clycovta'tÉov 1tprowv
cl1tO 'tils ÀÉSECOS·
 414 C.KOCKERT
throne and footstool (Is 66,1)40. Therefore, Origen argues, aIl biblical
passages describing god have to be understood in a non-literaI sense and
do not support the literalists' interpretation of Gen 1,26.
Didymus comes to the same conclusion as Origen4l . He uses almost
the same biblical references and builds up a very similar argument42 • But
unlike Origen, he does not name his opponent, he does not present the
literalists' argument, and he neglects to refute it in detail. Didymus' com-
ment is far shorter and displays less polemics than Origen's.
ln his lost commentary Odgen had extensively discussed competing
explanations of the biblical text. This interest in previous as weIl as con-
temporary interpretations may have contributed to the enonnous length
of his commentary43. Commenting on Gen l,If., for examp1e, he vigor-
ously argues against dualistic interpreters of the creation account, so as
Hermogenes, and uses aIl rhetorical and polemical means at his dis-
posal44 . In addition, he rejects a platonizing understanding of Gen 1 as
had been put foreward by Philo and Clement of Alexandria4s . Although
Didymus knows and uses Philo's exegesis 46 , he does not consider it
necessary to critieize the Philonic cosmology in general. Commenting on
Gen 1,2 he pieks up key words of the traditional anti-dualistic critique
but directs them against the Manicheans 47 . Comprehensive discussions
of alternative interpretations and theh' implied philosophical frameworks
40. Collectio Coisliniana 73 (CCSG 15,73.25-74.40).
41. GenT 56.14-16 (SC 233,142): 00 xa:tà "Cov cruvSewv wlvuv xU"C' elxovu 0eoù
o avSpcoTCoS yÉyovev' 00 yàp àVSpCOTCOJ.lOp<j>OS 0 0eos.
42. E.g. GenT 56.18-57.2 (SC 233, 144): Zach 4,10; Ps 16,8 (cf. Ps 90,4 in Origen's
commentary) and the demonstration that biblical descriptions of god's shape are not to be
taken literally; GenT 57.3-9; (SC 233, 144): reference to PaulI Cor 11,7 (cf. 1 Cor 15,49
in Origen's commentary) and other references to Paul (Gal 4,19; Col 1,15; 3,10) in the
discussion of "likeness" and "simile".
43. See D.T. RUNIA, Philo ill Early Christian Literature (Compendia Remm Iudaicamm
ad Novum Testamentum, 3/3), Assen, Van Gorcum; Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1993,
p. 172.
44. See K6cKERT, Christliche Kosmologie und kaiserzeitliche Philosophie (n. 13),
pp. 278-293.
45. See ibid., pp. 273-277.
46. In the preserved palts of the commentary Didymus mentions Philo by name in
GenT 118.24; 119.2,19 on Gen 4,2 (SC 233, 276-280); 139.12 on Gen 4,18 (SC 233,
320); 147.17 on Gen 5,3-5 (SC 244, 12f.); 235.27; 236.7 on Gen 16,If. (SC 244, 202-
204). For Didymus' use of Philo in his Commentary on Genesis see NAUTIN, Didyme
l'Aveugle (n. 11), tome 1, pp. 26f.; for its relation to Philo in general see RUNIA, Philo
(n. 43), pp. 197-204 (200-202 on the Commentary on Gen).
47. Didymus rejects the concept of ungenerated and etemal matter put fm'Ward by
dualistic exegetes as, e.g., Hermogenes (GenT 3A.1-3B.15 [SC 233, 38]; cf. Tertullian,
adv. Hermog. 19.1 [Stromata 5, ed. WASZINK, 36.10-13]; 20.2 [38.7-10]; 23.1 [41.7f.];
27.1 [45.1-3]), and he rejects the teaching ofunqualified matter as the cause of evil, which
he assigns to the Manicheans (GenT 167.18-21 [SC 233, 60]). Polemics against the
DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND ORIGEN AS COMMENTATORS ON GENESIS 415
are missing in Didymus' commentary although they shape Origen's work
on Genesis. Only occasionally Didymus alludes to traditional debates but
directs them at heterodoxes of his time.
In his commentary Didymus does not only refrain from exegetical
debates but also abstains from philosophieal or scientifie digressions.
This can be seen from his interpretation of Gen 1,14 (the creation of the
stars) which is to a large extent taken from Origen. To his comment on
Gen 1,14 Origen connects an elaborate attack on astrological fatalism and
takes it as a clue to ponder on the relation between divine providence and
man's free will48 . In contrast, Didymus' comment on the function of the
stars (Gen 1,14) rejects the folly of fatalism in a single paragraph, which
summarizes only Origen's main points 49 . It is vastly outweighed by an
anagogic intetpretation of Gen 1,14-18 which focuses on the spiritual
meaning of the individu al stars. Origen's meticulous and multifarious
train of thought, which reveals a superior knowledge in astronomy and
astrology as weIl as good training in philosophical polemics, is not
reflected in Didymus' workso . The problem of man's free will is
neglected.
The comparison of Origen's and Didymus' commentaries on Genesis
has so far shown that Didymus' explanations are shorter, more simple
and do not contain complex exegetieal or philosophical discussions. This
tendency causes also shifts with regards to content.
As an example, 1 shall draw some attention to the interpretation of Gen
3,21: the "gannents of skin" whieh God produced for Adam and Eve
after their transgressionSl . A fragment of Origen's comment on this verse
Manicheans marks also the Commentary on Psalms (cf. PRINZIVALLI, Didimo il Cieco
[n. 3], pp. 81-84).
48. See Phil 23.1-21 and especially the questions which Origen poses at the end of
Phil 23.6 (SC 226, 150.20--152.30).
49. See Didymus, GenT 36.18-37.6 (SC 233, 98) who presents only a short and sum-
marized argument against ol "CiJv elJ.lUPJ.lÉVllV elcruyouJ.levot (GenT 36.21), ol TCept "Cà
J.luSilJ.lu"Cu (GenT 37. If.).
50. See Didymus, GenT 38.25-41.25 (SC 233, 100-108).
51. The interpretation ofGen 3,12 by Origen and by later Origenistic writers has already
been an object of manyfold research. For an overview see, for example, P.-F. BEATRICE, Le
tuniche di pelle: Antiche letture di Gen 3,21, in U. BIANCHI (ed.), La tradizione
dell'enkrateia: Motivazioni ontologiche e protologiche, Atti dei colloquio inte1'1lazionale
Milano, 20-23 aprile 1982, Roma, Dell Ateneo, 1985,433-482; J.F. DECHOW, Origen on
COIporeality: The Case of Methodius' On Resurrection, in R.I. DALY (ed.), Origeniana
Quinta: Historica, Text alld MetllOd, Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica, Origenism alld
Later Developmellts (BETL, 105), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1992, 507-518;
C. NOCE, Vestis varia: L'imlllagille della veste Ilel/'opera di Origene (Studia Ephemeridis
Augustinianum, 27), Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2002; M. SIMONETTI,
Alcune osservaziolli sul/' illtelpretazione origelliana di Gellesi 2,7 e 3,21, in Aevum 36
(1962) 370-381. H.I. VOGT has very conveniently collected and discussed the relevant
 416 C.KOCKERT
is transmitted by Theodoret of Cyrus and in a chain-commentary on
Genesis 52 , to which a passage from Origen's sixth Homily on Leviticus
may be related 53 • Origen, first, rejects a literaI understanding of the
"garments of skin" because it implies an unworthy conception of god54 •
Then, he discusses different non-literaI interpretations 55 • He criticizes the
traditional, gnostic view that the garments of skin stand for the human
body56, but also attacks the interpretation that the garments represent
man's mortality which he received after the transgression57 • The Greek
fragment does not report Origen's own positive intelpretation. But the
passage from the Homily on Leviticus suggests as solution that the
garments are the sign (indicium) of man's mortality and weakness which
spring from man's sin58 .
Also Didymus refuses a literaI understanding of the garments 59 • But in
contrast to Origen, he presents only a single non-literaI interpretation.
Unlike Origen, he explicitly identifies the garments as dense human body
which Adam and Eve required in the state of sin60 • Didymus passes over
Origen' s critical remarks and careful considerations and advocates the
traditional view that Origen had criticized. This tendency to reduce
Origen's complex explanation and to nail it down to a definite exegetical
texts from Origen's writings: Warum wl/rde Origenes z/(m Hiiretiker erkliirt? Kirchliche
Vergangenlleits-Bewiiltigllllg ill der Vergallgenheit, in L. LIES (ed.), Origelliana QI/arta
(Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck, Tyrolia, 1987,78-87.100-103.
52. Collectio Coisliniana 121 (CCSG 15, 124-126); vgl. Theodoret of Cyrus, qllaest.
in Gen. 3 (pG 80, 140c-141b).
53. Origen, HLev 6.2 (SC 286, 276.106-278.115).
54. Collectio Coisliniana 121 (CCSG 15, 124.2-6).
55. Collectio Coislinialla 121 (CCSG 15, 124.6-125.20).
56. Collectio Coislinialla 121 (CCSG 15, 124.6-125.12): l1uÀw "Cf: q,uy6v'tu 'to
OÜ'troS èhonov, ÀÉyEW 'tOÙS OEpj.lu'tîvouS Xt'trovuS OÙK aÀÀous dvat 'tou crO)j.lUWS,
~tSuvov j.lÈv Kui dS crUYKU'tUSEcrW È1ttcrnucrucrSat OUVUj.lEVOV, où ~li]V cruq,ÈS ros
uÀYJSÉC;' El yàp oi OEpj.lUnvot Xt'troVES crUplCEC; Kui ocr'tÉu dcrîv, nroS npo 'tolmov
q,YJcriv 6 Aouj.!' Touw vuv ocrwuv ÈK 'trov ocr'trov j.lou Kut cràpl'; BK 't~S crupKoS j.lOU;
VOGT, Warum wl/rde Origenes zllm Hiiretiker erkliirt (n. 51), p. 87 points to the teaching
o~ Valentinian gnostics as presented by h'enaeus, lIaer. 1.5.5 (SC 264, 86.88-88.99) and
Hlppolytus,lIaer. 10.13.4 (PTS 25, 391), and to the note on Julius Cassian by Clement of
Alexandria, str. 3.14.95.2 (GCS Clemens 2, 239f.).
57. Collectio Coislilliana 121 (CCSG 15, 125.12-20). . mortality; Epiphanius, haer. 64.4.9; 64.63.1-5 (GCS Epiphanius 2, 412-413; 500f.);
58. HLv 6.2 (SC 286, 276.112-278.115): Talibl/s enim oportebat indui peccatorem,
pelliciis, inql/it, tunicis, quae essellt mortalitatis, quam pro peccato acceperat, et fragili-
tatis eius, ql/ae ex cal7lis corruptione velliebat, illdicium.
59. For Didymus' interpretation see GenT 106.8-108.15 (SC 233, 248-254). He refuses
the literai understanding in 106.12-17 (SC 233, 250).
60. GenT 106.11f. (SC 233, 250): ... oi oEpj.lûnVot Kt'troVES yîvov'tat, OÜC; OÙK av
É'tÉpOUC; ns 'trov crroj.lû'trov Elnot. Didymus takes Job 19,25f. and 10,3 as biblical testi-
monies that the "garments of skin" are the bodies (GenT 106.17f.24f.): "On 01: noÀ-
Àuxou 'trov S[Ei]rov natoEUj.lu'trov 'to crroj.lu oÉpj.lu KUÀEltUt, scrnv EUpEtV.... LUq,ÈC;
yàp KUt àptoYJÀ,Ü'tU'tov OEtyj.lu wu 'tOÙS OEpj.lu'tîvouS Kt'trovuS dvat 'to crroj.lu ...
DIDYMUS THE BLIND AND ORIGEN AS COMMENTATORS ON GENESIS 417
decision is continued in a polemical way in the doxographic writings of
Origen's critics, as Methodius of Olympus or Epiphanius 61 • Didymus as
weIl as Origen's critics fail to keep level with the exegetical discussion
which Origen had presented in his commentary.
In conclusion: The comparison presented in this paper has hopefully
shown that Didymus' Commentmy on Genesis as preserved in a papyrus
from Tura is influenced by Origen's exegesis but cannot be regarded as
a verbatim copy of Origen's lost work. Didymus shortens and simplifies
Origen's explanations. He relieves them of special philological discus-
sions and neglects the philosophical and scientific digressions which are
so characteristic of Origen's commentary. In general, Didymus refrains
from exegetical debates; only occasionally he directs key words of tra-
ditional arguments at contemporary opponents. Finally, one has to take
into account that Didymus sometimes reduces a more complex explana-
tion and thereby shifts the emphasis of Origen's interpretation. Didymus'
Commentary on Genesis is not a substitute for Origen's lost work, but
testifies to the influence which Origen's commentmy had exercised on
following exegetes 62 •
Universitat Heidelberg Charlotte K6cKERT
Wissenschaftlich-Theologisches Seminar
Kisselgasse 1
D-69117 Heidelberg
Gelmany
charlotte.koeckelt@wts.uni-heidelberg.de
61. See Methodius, l'es. 1.39.6 (GCS Methodius, 283): the "garments of skin" are
anc. 62.3 (GCS Epiphanius 1,74): the "ga/ments of skin" are cOlporeality respectively
the bodies; in Methodius' dialogue l'es. 1.4 (GCS Methodius, 223f.) the Origenist Aglao-
phon puts foreward the intelpretation that the "garments of skin" stand for the body.
See VOGT, Warl/m wUl'de Origelles zum Hiiretiker erkliirt? (n. 51), p. 87 who evaluates
the exegetical discussion of Gen 3,21 in Methodius' and Epiphanius' writings.
62. For a simila/' result cf. PRlNZIV ALLI' s study on the Commentary on Psalms (Didimo
il Cieco ln. 3], pp. 73-94): "Didimo ha eliminato proprio le interpretazioni più caratleris-
tiche, originali e complesse di Origene ... Avremmo cosll'atteggiamento di un discepolo
che non ha bisogno di ricopiare la singola interpretazione deI maestro, perché sente di
avere forze sufficienti ad agire autonomamente ... " (ibid., pp. 84f.).
 UNIÔN MÎSTICA y OSADÎA
IMPLICANCIAS DEL TÉRMINO TOAMHTEON EN EL
COMENTARIO AL EVANGELIO DE JUAN

El objetivo central de nuestro artîculo estant diTigido a mostrar los

supuestos que subyacen en ciertas expresiones lingüîsticas utilizadas par
Orîgenes, al referirse a la uni6n mîstica que experimentan los pelfectos
(ot 'tÉÀ8tot). Nuestro marco de analisis se centrara en los dos primeros
libros deI Comentario al Evangelio de Juan, de los cuales A. Orbe des-
tac6 su importancia en su ya clasica obra En los Albores de la Exegesis
Iohannea al precisar que:
Uno de los mas seguros y ponderados conocedores de Origenes (Volker) ha
calificado al primer tomo del Comentario suyo a s. Juan coma "un libro de
gran fmpetu especulativo, que pertenece a 10 mejor que poseemos de la
pluma de Origenes". El elogio puede extenderse al segundo tomo, esclito
bajo la misma inspiraci6n e fntirnamente ligado al anteIior por su doctrina.
. " Los dos han de situarse dentro de la doctrina mas pura y significativa de
Origenes 1•

Como es sabido, el maestro alejandrino realiza en estos dos libros una

exhaustiva exegesis deI significado deI término A6yoS deteniéndose
especialmente en In 1,1 a In 1,72 . De manera magistral, muestra en estos
textos coma se resuelve el problema de la trascendencia e inmanencia de
Dios-Padre y de su A6yoS y al mismo tiempo la relaci6n entre las aImas
y la divinidad. Para comprender esta doctrina hay que dejar de lado uno
de los vicios mas acendrados deI pensamiento contemp0l'éineo. Esto es:
la necesidad de separar 10 que se Hama habitualmente marco teôi'ico, de
la riqueza propia de la prâctica3 • En la doctrina arigeniana no tiene nin-
gûn sentido hacer divisiones entre la comprensi6n profunda de Dios-
Padre y de su A6yoS, de la experiencia espiritual de hacerlo vida. La

1. A. ORBE, En los Albores de la Exegesis Iohannea (Analecta Gregoriana, 65), Roma,

Universidad Gregoriana, 1955, p. 11.
2. La exégesis de Jn l,la se extiende a todo el primer libro y 33 capitulos deI segundo.
Tiene una extensa introduccion sobre el concepto de Evangelio, as! coma también un
excurslls sobre el significado ùpxi) y una amplia discusion deI término AôyoC;. En ellibro
segundo analiza Jn l,lb a 1,7, planteando de manera exhaustiva la polémica con el
gnostico Heracleon.
3. P. CINER, Teologîa y experiencia lI/(stica en Orîgenes: l Ulla cllesti6n li/al plan-
teada?, in Scripta Medievalia 1 (2008) 71-90.
420 P.A. CINER
raz6n de nuestra insistencia en este punto se funda en la intenci6n explî-
cita de mostrar la c1aridad y precisi6n de las respuestas de Origenes
frente a cuestiones teol6gicas muy complejas, asi coma también su
inmensa capacidad pedag6gica de hacer vivenciar a sus lectores el camino
hacia Dios. En esta lînea de interpretaci6n han insistido te610gos de la
talla de Remi de Lubac4 en el siglo pasado y ultimamente Benedicto
XVI5 •
Ac1arados nuestros supuestos de trabajo, nos dedicaremos entonces, al
analisis de dos pasajes de estos libros, en los cuales Origenes usa el
adjetivo verbal 'toÎvl.l:rrcÉov al referirse a la posibilidad que tienen los
perfectos de alcanzar la uni6n total con Jesus Cristo, sin ninguna c1ase
de intermediaciôn. Estos dos fragmentos nos servinin de faro orientador
para iluminar el contenido de los dos libros deI Comentario, con respecto
al controvertido tema de los perfectos y su relaci6n con el Aoyoç. En ese
sentido, nuestro método de trabajo sera explicar 'Origenes con Orige-
nes'6. A modo de sintesis provisoria de nuestro trabajo sostendremos que
esta uni6n total, sôlo puede ser comprendida a partir de las coordenadas
teolôgicas de su sistema, intentando mostrar también que el maestro ale-
jandrino, habrîa usado esté término para re-significarIo desde su propia
concepciôn, ya que el mismo tenia una larga trayectoria en la historia de
la filosofia y de la teologia. A partir de esta tradici6n en el uso deI tér-
mino, y no olvidando nunca la inmensa cultura filosôfica y teol6gica de
Origenes, se podria pensar en una intenciôn explîcitade mostrar que la
verdadera 'osadia' consiste en afirmar la uniôn mistica absoluta.
4. Cf. H. CROUZEL, Origène et la cOl/naissance mystique, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer,
1961, p. 11: "En cuanto a saber si él fue un mistico, nos parece que s610 podran ponerlo
seriamente en duda los que hayan comenzado por establecer cierta dicotomia entre la
doctrina y la experiencia, tal como es corriente desde hace algunos siglos. Pero l,se justi-
fica realmente esta dicotomia? l,No constituye en todo caso un anacronismo? Por el
contenido mismo, por el vuelo de su pensamiento no separable de 10 mas intimo de su
vida, nos parece que Origenes es uno de los mas grandes misticos de la tradici6n mistica" .
5. Cf. BENEDICTO XVI, Los Padres de la Iglesia: De sal/ Clemente Romano a san
Agl/stfn (Catequesis durante las Audiencias de los miércoles), Buenos Aires, Agape, 2008,
pp. 31-42: "Hemos aludido a ese 'giro irreversible' que Origenes imprimi6 a la historia
de la teologia y deI pensamiento cristiano. l,Pero en qué consiste este hito, esta novedad
tan llena de consecuencias? Corresponde en sustancia a la fundaci6n de la teologia en la
explicaci6n de las escrituras. Hacer teologia era para él esencialmente explicar, compren-
der la Escritura; 0 podriamos incluso decir que su teologia es la perfecta simbiosis entre
teologia y exégesis. En verdad, la marca propia de la doctrina origeniana parece residir
precisamente en la incesante invitaci6n a pasar de la letra al espiritu de las Escrituras, para
progresar en el conocimiento de Dios".
6. CfI' H. CROUZEL, Orfgenes: Ull teologo controvertido, Madrid, BAC, 1998. p. 252:
"Para tratar de buscar con certeza las doctrinas de Origenes es necesario buscarlas en su
propia obra, estudiada no a través de tal 0 cual texto en palticular, sino en su conjunto".
UNI6N MÏSTICA y oSADÎA 421
1. BREVE HISTORIA DEL VERBO TOAMAn y SUS DERIVADOS
G. Fitzer1 en su articulo sobre el verbo griego 'toÎvJlUCO explica con
toda c1aridad coma el usa frecuente de este verbo estuvo asociado a
significados positivos 0 negativos en relaciôn a verbos de dicci6n, en el
sentido de 'osar' 0 'atreverse' a decir. Como ejemplo de esta generalidad
en el usa cita a los siguientes autores: Romero (Gd. 24.261ss); Platôn
(Fed. 241; 247c; Leyes X.89sa, Rep. V1.503b, etc.), Filodemo (Retorica
1.341) Y también Epictet08 •
Dodds por su parte, en su conocido !ibro Paganos y cristianos en una
época de angustia9 al buscar las causas que llevaron a divers as escuelas
de la Antigüedad tardia a experimentar un sentimiento de pesimismo muy
profundo con respecto a la existencia fisica, proporciona también una
interesante historia del término. Realizar'emos una sintesis de su posici6n,
intercalando al mismo tiempo nuestro propio analisis del tema. Para el
reconocido especialista inglés, la condici6n del hombre coma ser caido
podia explicarse de dos formas: coma un castigo par un pecado cometido
anteriormente 0 coma consecuencia de una elecciôn desacertada deI
alma. En ese sentido para Dodds, la idea de considerar la encarnaci6n
coma un castigo fue de origen pitag6rico y ôrfico y por esta razôn el
sustantivo 'toÎvJlU estuvo asociado a fuentes pitag6ricas, ya que éste era
usado para designar a ouuç, el principio de discardia (0 dualidad) opuesto
al Uno. Asi en efecto, 10 atestiguan los siguientes autores: Plutarco,
Anatolio, Olimpiodoro, Proc1o y Lido lO • Este ultimo atribuye el uso de
'toÎvJlu directamente a la escuela pitag6rica de Ferecides. Por su parte,
Arist6teles en su Protréptico 10 relaciona a "los expositores de los mis-
terios" y Crantor, mas vagamente a "muchos de entre los sabios"l1. De
tales fuentes, combinadas con la creencia judia de los angeles caidos, la
tomaron segun Dodds, los gnôsticos cristianos 0 semicristianos (Valentin,
7. G. FrrzER, voz 'toÂJlaro, en G. KrrrnL - G. FRmDRICH (eds.), TWNT, Stuttgart, 1969,
vrn, 182-187 (esp. c. 183).
8. Impresiona por su fuerza, la afirmaci6n deI pensador estoico cuando escribe que:
"Levanta la frente, puesto que la servidumbre es finita, ten la osadia de decirlo levantando
la mirada a Dios (Disertacioll 2.16.42 y 1.23; 2.20.32)".
9. E. DODDS, Pagallos y cristianos ell una época de angustia, Madrid, Ediciones
Cristiandad,1963,45-49.
10. Ibid., nota 65, p. 46: "Plut.,Is. et Os., 381 F; Anatolio, apud (Yiimb.), Theol.
Arithm, p. 719 de Falco; Olimpiodoro, III Alc, 48.17 Cr.; cf. Proclo, III Alc., 132.13 Cr.:
'tilv npo080v 'ta(Hllv 'toÂJlav ànoKaÂst IIuSayopEtov 'tponov. Lido, en De mens, 2.7,
atribuye este uso de 'toÂJla a la 'escuela de Ferecides', es posible que encontrara el .tér-
mino en alguna mixtificaci6n pitag6rica sobre 'Ferecides'''.
11. Ibid., nota 61: "Arist., Protrept., fI'. 106 DÜRING (=fr. 60 ROSE); Crantor, apud
Plut., COl/S. Ad Apoll., 27.115b".
422 P.A.CINER
Marci6n 12 , Bardesanes, Mani) y al parecer también Origenes y el helmé-
tieo pagano que compuso el Kore Kosmous 13 • Segûn este ûltimo, el delito
de las aImas consisti6 en una desobediencia inspirada pOl' una indebida
autoafitmaci6n ('t6À-~a). De tono menos mito16gico es otra versi6n de
esta misma doctrina en que el alma elige deliberadamente su propio des-
censo; en esto consiste su culpa. Esta es la doctrina que Dodds encuentra
en Numenio, en el hermético Poimandres y a veces en Plotino, expli-
cando que "10 que impulsa al alma se describe como amor a la naturaleza
o a la materia, 0 también como narcisismo pOl' el cual el alma se enamora
de su propia imagen reflejada en el mundo material. Para explicar esta
situaci6n estos autores utilizan el término 't6À-~a"14. También sefiala
como el maestro neoplat6nico habria fracasado en su intento de conciliaI'
la cosmologia deI Timeo con la psieologia deI Fed6n y deI Fedro 15 , ya
que en sus primeras obras habria aceptado totalmente el presupuesto pesi-
mista heredado de Numenio, de que el alma individu al desciende en
virtud de una elecci6n deliberada, a impulso deI deseo plenamente con-
sentido de "gobemar pOl' si misma una parte del mundo" 0 de sel' "duefia
de si misma"16. POl' esta raz6n en tres tratados sucesivos (VI.9.9, V.1.lO,
V.2.11), Plotino habria utiliza la terminologia pitag6rica relacionada con
la ide a de 't6À-~a17. Pero segûn Dodds se produce un cambio cuando
rompe definitivamente con el gnosticismo. En su tratado Contra los
Gn6sticos, son sus adversarios los que creen que el alma cre6 el mundo
pOl' an-ogancia y 't6À-~a18. A partit· de este momento, desapareceria de su
doctrina la terminologia relacionada con 't6À-~a y el descenso deI alma
individu al dejarîa de considerarse como una culpa. En IV.3.27.13 apare-
ceria entonces su opini6n madura al respecto: "las almas descienden no
deliberadamente ni pOl' mandato de Dios, sino instintivamente, obede-
ciendo a una "instrucci6n" (1tpo~h~O'~ta) intima, al modo de los cuemos
que le salen a un temero; se trata de una necesidad bio16gica"19. Si bien
12. Ibid., nota 63: "Segun Clemente, Strom., 3,3, los marcionitas tomaron esta doctrina
'impîa' de los fiI6sofos".
13. Ibid., Kore Kosmoll, 24 (CO/p. Herm., vol N, 8 NocK-FES'ruGIÈRE). En cuanto a
Origenes Prin 2.8.3 ('rDÂ.J.lu). . inclinaci6n dualista, aunque no fuese mas que transitoria, y un modo de concebir la materia
14. Ibid., p. 46.
15. Ibid., p. 47: "N, VIII.5: "Parece que Plotino tantea aquî el teneno como orientan-
dose hacia la concepci6n que mas tarde adoptara, pero sus palabras resultan aun mas oscuras
Oa oscuridad aumenta a causa de la corrupci6n deI texto en un pasaje crîtico, lîneas 16ss)".
16. Plotino, N.7(2).13-11; V.l(1O).1-5; N.8 (6).4,10-28.
, 17. Ibid., ":1.9:5.-29: en que el NoGe; se separa dei Uno por un acto de ,DÂ.J.lU V.1(lO).l:
'toÂ.J.lu es el pnnClplO deI mal para el alma; V.2(11 ).2.4-7: el elemento vegetativo deI alma
es 'Là 'toÂ.J.ll]pDta'tOV Kut ù<jJPOVÉ(HUtoV.
18. Ibid., II.9.11-21.
19. Ibid., p. 48.
UNI6N MlSTICA y OSADfA 423
el analisis de Dodds es muy emdito e interesante, su visi6n de la cuesti6n
referida a Plotino y los gn6sticos y en especial a Origenes, carece en
muchas ocasiones de precisi6n, ya que si bien el término 't6À-~a puede
asociarse tanto a la tradici6n pitag6rica como a la discusi6n doctrinaria
con los gn6sticos, estas no son las ûnicas causas en su usa, ya que tam-
bién esta relacionado con los presupuestos mismos de ambos sistemas 20 .
En el casa de Plotino, la cuidadosa y esmerada investigaci6n deI téImino
't6À-~a que realiza Garcia BaZan21 , unD de los mas reconocidos especia-
listas a nivel mundial en Antigüedad Tardia, completa aûn mas la infor-
maci6n sobre este término en referencia al maestro neoplat6nico. En
efecto en varios de sus libros y articulos muestra como el télmino 't6À-~a
siempre esta asociado a la insistencia en que el primer principio de la
realidad es el Uno y esto constituye en palabras de Garcia Bazan "la
b6veda de su ontologia profundamente unitaria y que la exonera de toda
acusaci6n de dualismo"22. Esta aclaraci6n nos permite con-egir también
la afirmaci6n de Dodds, acerca de que el término 't6À-~a no fue utilizado
en textos tardios de su producci6n, ya que esta en presente en los
20. Y como conclusi6n de su analisis Dodds afirma: "Nos encontramos por tanto
con que Plotino tennin6 por emanciparse de la influencia de Numenio. En ~no de su~
ultimos escritos, el tratado Sobre la persona y el organismo, tenemos la confirmaci6n
definitiva; se nos dice en él, efectivamente, que no hay mas pecado en que el alma
ilumine al cuerpo que en producir sombra. Plotino pudo tener sus dudas al principio,
pero al final se alz6 coma campe6n deI racionalismo helénico" (DODDS, Paganos y
cristianos [no 9], p. 48).
21. Cf. F. GARdA BAZÂN, Neoplatonis/llo y Vedanta, La doctrina de la materia en
Plotino y Slulnkara, Buenos A.ires, Depalma, 1982, pp. 15; 27 Y 127; Jamblico y el
descenso dei Alma: S(ntesis de Doctrinas y Relectura Neoplat6nica, in Syllecta Classica.
Vol. 8: Iambliclls: The Philosopher, Iowa lA, University oflowa, 1997, 134-135; Plotino
y la gnosis, Buenos Aires, Fundaci6n para la Educaci6n, la Ciencia y la Cultura, 1981,
248-249; Antecedentes, continuidad y proyecciones delneoplatonismo, en Anuario Filosô-
lico 33 (2000) 111-149.
22. Cf. GARctABAZAN,Neoplatonismo y Vedallta (n. 21), p. 5: "Es comprensible que este
lenguaje un poco crudo de Plotino y comun con otras conientes espiritualistas de la época,
haya podido desorientar a algunos intérpretes deI gran Neoplat6nico y habérsele atribuido una
coma un principio aut6nomo, que jamas estuvo en la mente de nuestro pensador, si somos
plenamente rigurosos con él. Efectivamente, ya en ese mismo tratado, 1.6(1), por inseguro que
pueda ser su emplazamiento en el tiempo, se ha referido previamente su autor al pasar a una
interpretaci6n de los seres sensibles coma "irnagenes y sombras", que, coma se tratara de
demostrar mas adelante, reiterada innumerables veces, constituye la clave de b6veda de su
ontologîa profundamente unitaria y que es, la que en gennen, ya aquî presente, 10 exonera de
toda acusaci6n de dualismo basada en la independencia deI componente material de la reali-
dad". En la p. 15 también Garda Bazan sostiene que: "Estos textos sefialados (VI.9[9].5.27-
29; V.2[11].2.4-7) sobre el concepto de 'LDÂ.J.lU, pareceIÎan sefialar la idea coma un elemento
clave en las Enéadas para explicar el dinamismo deI proceso ontol6gico descendente, es decir,
en su aspecto centrîfugo 0 hacia abajo".
424 P.A. CINER
siguientes tratados: VI.7(38).21.2 y en VI.8(37).1.8 23 . En estos fragmen-
tos plotinianos se pueden advertir coincidencias con la doctrina orige-
niana. Estas coincidencias no implican identidad, ni confusion entre sus
lîneas doctrinarias, ya que si bien en ambos sistemas existen puntos de
contacto, coma pOl' ejemplo, el decidido optimismo de ambos pensadores
con respecto a la posibilidad de mùon deI alma humana con 10 divino,
asi coma también la afirmacion deI cosmos sensible en contra deI anti-
cosmismo gnostico, en Origenes no hay subordinacion ontologica, coma
si la hay en el maestro neoplatonico. Ademas tampoco coincidimos con
Dodds en su afhmacion con respecto a Origenes acerca de que: "Sin
embargo, Origenes mantenia, en sustancia la concepcion gnostica; pues
atribuyo la creacion a la actividad de ciertas inteligencias incorporeas que
se hastiaron de la contemplacion y se volvieron a 10 inferior"24.
Esta contextualizacion historica deI término, nos permite entonces,
continuar con el analisis deI adjetivo verbal 'tOÂ.t-tll'tBOV en Orîgenes y
sus implicancias en los perfectos, des de una vision mas amplia de la
tradicion teologica y filosofica a partir de la cual piensa y escribe el
maestro alejandrino. También para situ al' la cuestion correctamente, nos
parece indispensable recordar los siguientes datos: a) que la redaccion de
este Comentario fue posible gracias a la ayuda economica que le propor-
cionara Ambrosio, un valentiniano al que el maestro alejandrino habîa
convertido yb) que en los dos primeros libros Orîgenes discute frecuen-
temente las interpretaciones dadas pOl' el gnostico Heracleon, autor deI
primer Comentario a Juan. Estos datos nos muestran claramenteJa inten-
cion profundamente antignostica de Orîgenes, 10 cual nos legitima en
nuestra intencion de postular la hipotesis del uso intencional de este tér-
mino para mat'car las diferencias con esta corriente teologica y quizas un
uso comun de este término en los intelectuales relacionados a la escuela
de Ammonio Saccas, que le habrîan imprimido una significacion posi-
tiva, dejando de lado la connotacion de defecto que siempre habîa tenido.
Esta significacion estaria dirigida a mostrat· la audacia coma una palabra
23. En VI.7(38).21.2 Plotino afinna que: "l,Qué es pues, eso que, estando presente
coma uno en todas las cosas, hace que cada una de ellas sea buena? Osemos ('t€'tOÂ-/.lllO'lhD)
dar la siguiente explicacion: tanto la inteligencia coma la Vida de alla son boniformes,
pero hay deseo aun de ellas en cuanto son boniformes" y en VI.8(37).1.8: "Pero en el
caso de los Seres primeros y del Principio soberano que esta sobre todas las cosas, hay
que tener la osadfa ('tQÂ-llll'tÉov) de plantearse una nueva pregunta: l,como pueden tener
albedrio aun concediendo que sean omnipotentes".
24. Dodds sugiere la lectura de los siguientes textos: Orig., Prin 2.8.3; Epif., Haer.
64.4 y A. ARMOSTRONG, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy [1947], p. 173: "para
Origenes, toda la creacion material es, por consiguiente, consecuencia del pecado; su
objeto es servir como purgatorio, y todo hubiera sido mucho mejor si nunc a hubiera sido
necesaria" .
UNl6N MÏSTICA y oSADÎA 425
clave relacionada directamente con la unidad y con la libertad y con
profundas implicancias misticas para todas las aImas.
II. LA AUDACIA DE LOS PERFECTOS EN EL COMENTARIO AL'
EVANGEUO DE JUAN
Reconocidos especialistas en Orîgenes, han sefialado la importancia
que el maestro alejandrino ha concedido al IV Evangeli0 25 . Eusebio habia
ya mostrado esta preferencia deI maestro alejandrino, al citar un frag-
mento del CMtS, en donde Orîgenes daba sintéticamente su opinion con
respecto a cada Evangeli0 26 . Sin embargo el pasaje mas revelador se
encuentra en el mismo CIo. Alli Origenes escribe que:
Por 10 tanto es necesario osar decir que, de todas las Escrituras, los Evan-
gelios son las primicias, pero que de todas los Evangelios las primicias son
el de Juan, deI que nadie puede comprender el sentido si no se ha recostado
sobre el pecho de Jesûs y no ha recibido de Jesûs a Maria para convertirse
también en su madre. Y para ser otro Juan es necesario convertirse de ta1
manera que como Juan sea designado por Jesûs, como siendo Jesûs mism027 •
Este fragmento, en donde aparece claramente el adjetivo verbal 'toÂ.-
t-tll'tBOV, sera completado a modo de lectura en paralelo, con el texto que
transcribimos a continuacion, en donde nuevamente Origenes vuelve a
utilizar la expresion:
Lo mismo que la luz del sol reduce a nada el resplandor de la luna y de las
estrellas, de la misma manera los seres iluminados por el Cristo y que reci-
ben en ellos sus rayos no tienen ninguna necesidad deI ministerio de los
ap6stoles ni de los profetas, "pues es necesario osar decir la verdad", ni de
los augeles; yo afiadiré incluso ni de las potencias superiores, ya que ellos
son ensefiados por la luz engendrada primera28 •
25. M. HARL, Origèl/e et la fOl/ction révélatrice du Verbe il/camé, Paris, Seuil, 1958,
p. 350; CROUZEL, Orfgenes: Un te6logo cOl/trovertido (n. 6), p. 65: "Del Comel/tario a
Jual/, que se puede considerar como la obra maestra de Origenes, poseemos solamente,
en griego, nueve libros".
26. Eusebio de Cesarea, Historia Eclesiastica (VI.25.9), Madrid, BAC, 2002.
27. CIo 1.23 (SC 120,70): TOÂ-llll'tÉov'toivuv d1t€tv dmxpxl']v Ili:v 1taO'rov ypa<j>rov
Bivat 'tà €ùayyÉÂ-ta, 'trov oÈ €ùayy€Â-irov d1tapxl']v 'to Ka'tà '!roa,VVllV, 06 'tov vouv
oùù€iç ùUva'tat Â-a~stv Ill'] dva1tsO'rov È1ti 'to O''t~Soç '!llO'ou ll110È Â-a~rov d1to 'lllO'ou
'tl']v Mapiav ytv0IlÉVllV Kai aùwu 1l1l'tÉpa. Kat 'tllÂ-tKOU'tOV oi: ysvÉO'Sat ost 'tov
ÈO'ollsVOV üÂ-Â-ov 'Iroa,vvllv, wO''t€ oiovd 'tov 'Iroa,vvllv ostxSijvat oV'ta 'lllO'ouv 01tO
'lllO'ou.
28. CIo 1.165 (SC 120, 142): "QO'1t€P oi: f]Â-iou <j>ro'tiÇovwç dllaupou'tUt 'to
ùUvaO'Sat <j>ro'tiÇstv O'€Â-itVllV Kat dO''tÉpaç, oô'troç oi ÈÂ-Â-all1t0llsvot 01tO XptO''tou Kat
'tàç aùyàç aù'tou KsXroPllKO'tSÇ oùùÉv 'ttvrov OtaKovouJ.,lÉvrov d1toO''toÂ-rov Kat
1tpo<j>ll'trov oÉov'tat 'tQÂ-Il11'tÉoV yàp Â-Éystv 'tl']v dÂ-itS€tav oùùi: dyyÉÂ-rov, 1tpoO'SitO'ro
426 PA CINER
Los dos fragmentos impresionan pOl' su belleza y profundidad mistica
y nos detendremos en su anâlisis, para poder explicar los supuestos teo-
logicos que subyacen en el adjetivo verbal 'toÂllll'tÉoV. El primer frag-
mento lleva a hacernos la siguiente pregunta: l,qué es 10 que contiene el
Evangelio de Juan que implica tal grado de osadia? En una primera
aproximacion podnamos responder esta pregunta, con las palabras del
rnismo Origenes cuando afirma en el CCt que" Juan reposo sobre la parte
principal del corazon de Jesus y sobre los sentidos profundos de su doc-
trina, y que alli indagaba y escudrifiaba a fondo los tesoros de la sabidu-
ria y de la ciencia que se esconden en Cristo Jesus"29. Sin embargo el
texto que estamos analizando nos muestra otra respuesta aun mâs audaz:
la posibilidad de que algunos seres humanos puedan realizar el arquetipo
de Juan adentrândose asi en el verdadero misterio deI Evangelio. El texto
griego es claro al utilizar el infinitivo aoristo segundo Y8vÉcr3ut que
implica la posibilidad de llegar a ser, de transformar y de la constmccion
de participio 'tov Ècroll8VOV a).. Âov '!couvvllV que muestra que no es
condicion exclusiva de Juan el comunicarse diœctamente con Jesus. La
pregunta que debemos haeer a continuacion ha de estar dirigida a averi-
guar quiénes son esos 'otros' que menciona el primer fragmento y que
pueden aspirar a tan magnfficas posibilidades y cuâl es el contenido de
10 que es ensefiado directamente (npûnoy8vvij'tf{> llu31l't8ooll8vot
<pco'tt) y sin intelmediarios pOl' el Cristo, segun 10 indic a el segundo frag-
mento. Y aquî cobra toda su dimension la categona supra-antropologica
de los perfectos. Decimos supra y no antropologica en vista al diâlogo
que Orîgenes entabla en el ComentarÎo con Ambrosio, cuando reflexiona
de la siguiente manera:
De hecho loqué significan todas estas cosas para nosotros? tU te 10 cuestio-
nanis cuando leas estas palabras, Ambrosio, ya que eres un verdadero hom-
bre de Dios y un hombre en Cristo y estas ansioso pOl' ser espiritual y dejar
de sel' human0 3o •
Si bien en este fragmento Ongenes utiliza la expresion nV8ollunKoç
y no la formula paulina31 ô 'tÉÂ8WÇ, que serâ la que use con mâs fre-
ÛÈ on oùùi; 'trov Kp8t1:1:0VOOV ÛUVâf-lëOOV, aù't<p 't<p 1tpOO1:OY8VV~'tq> f-laSll'tëUof-l8vot
<pOO'tl.
29. CCI 1.2-3: 1.2.3-5.
30. CIo 1.9 (SC 120, 62): Tt ûil1tâv'ta 'taUS' T]f-ltV pouÂ,8'tat; sp8te; sv'CUYXâvoov
'tOte; ypâf-ll:ao1V, 'Af-lPpocrt8, ÙÂ,llSroe; Swù avSpOO1t8, Kat SV XptCH<p avSpOO1t8 Kat
a1t860oov 8ivat 1tVEUf-la'ttKoe;, oÙKÉn avSpOO1tOe;.
31. Es evidente que en este fragmento esta haciendo alusi6n a tres textos paulinos
referidos directamente a los petfectos y a partir de los cu ales Orfgenes hara su propia
interpretaci6n. Con respecto a ser un hombre en Dios, esta citando a 1Tim 6,11, en cuanto
a convertirse en un hombre en Cristo a 2Cor 12,2 y finalmente en la maxima posibilidad
UNI6N MlSTICA y OSADIA 427
cuencia, las condiciones que asumirâ este estado serân las rnismas. POl'
eso a continuacion, sefialaremos las caractensticas que Ongenes otorga
a los pelfectos, ya que la descripcion que realiza de los mismos es muy
precisa:
Asi coma antes de su 11egada visible en el cuerpo, él vino para los perfectos,
aun antes de la proclamaci6n de su advenirniento, 10 mismo es hacia aque-
110s que todavia eran niîios, porque estaban bajo la autoridad de tutores y
administradores y no habian llegado a la plenitud de los tiempos, que flleron
los precursores deI Cristo que han sido bien 11amados pedagogos al adaptar
los discursos a las almas-niîios. Pero el mismo Hijo glorificado, el Dios
Logos, no ha 11egado todavia, esperando la preparaci6n necesaria de los
hombres de Dios, para sel' capaces de recibir en e110s su divinidad32 .
Esta explicacion nos permite realizar las siguientes consideraciones.
Uno de los aspectos mâs sobresalientes en la teologia de Origenes es sin
duda alguna, el énfasis en el papel deI progreso espiritual (npoKonij)
como camino para la divinizacion de la criatura racional. La consumacion
de este progreso estâ sintetizada en la categoria de los perfectos, pero
para ser comprendida en profundidad, debe hacerse a la luz de una pre-
misa irrenunciable para Orîgenes: la unidad deI Antiguo con el Nuevo
Testamento. Esto implica que aunque los profetas no hubieran conocido
al Cristo encarnado, ellos también habian recibido la presencia inteligible
del Aoyoç-Dios. De esta definicion se deduee que los perfectos se com-
pOltan a modo de pedagogos, instmctores 0 tutores de los cristianos sim-
ples y por tal motivo, tras la venida noética deI Aoyoç-Dios se convier-
ten en sus mensajeros. Pero llegados a este punto debemos profundizar
aun mâs en la naturaleza entitativa misma de los pelfectos y su relacion
con Jesus-Cristo, 10 cual responderâ a nuestra primera pregunta acerca
de quiénes son esos "otros" que pueden sel' semejantes a Juan y cuâles
son sus caractensticas. Con su acostumbrada "teologia en busqueda"33,
Ongenes investiga y profundiza en las cuestiones que podian tener varias
perspectivas de anâlisis. Y asi se plantea 10 siguiente:
que implica la trascendencia de la naturaleza humana misma para capacitarla plenamente
en la contemplaci6n de la Sabidurîa y la Verdad dei Logos-Dios, se refiere a lCor 3,1-3.
32. CIo 1.38 (SC 120, 80): uQa1t8p ûi; 1tpO 'tfje; sf-l<pavoùe; Kat Ka'tà arof-la S1tt-
Ûllf-ltae; S1tëû~f-llla8 'rOte; 't8Â,ëtote;, OÜtoo Kat f-l8tà tilv KëKllPUYf-lÉVIlV 1tapouatav 'toie;
litt Vll1ttote;, éhë "1'l1tO S1tt'tp01tOUe;" tuYXâvoucrt "Kat otKoVOf-lOUe;" Kat f-lllûÉ1tOO E1ti
'to 1tÂ,~pOOf-la toÙ XPOVOU E<pSaKoatV· <ote;> oi f-li;y 1tPOÛpof-lot Xpta'toù S1ttÛë-
Ûllf-l~Kaat, 1tatal IjIUxaî'e; apf-lOÇOVt8e; Myot, ëùMyooe; uv KÂ,llSÉVt8e; "1tatûayooyo{'"
aùtOe; ûi; 6 UIOe; 6 û8ûo1;aaf-lÉvoe; "SëOe; Myoe;" OÙÛÉ1too, 1tëptf-lÉVOOv 'ti]v ûÉouaav
Y8vÉaSat 1tp01tapaaK8ui]v 'toie; f-lÉÂ,Â,oucrt XOOp8tV aùtoù 'ti]v S80tllta ÙvSpOl1tote;
Swù.
33. Cf. CROUZEL, Or/gel/es: UI/ le6/ogo cOl/trovertido (n. 6), pp. 229-237.
428 P.A.CINER
Algunos piensan que los hombres que han sido auténticamente ensefiados
por Jesus son superiares a las otras criaturas, que 10 sean, segun algunos pOl'
naturaleza, segun otros, de acuerdo a su Hnea de conducta caracterizada par
un combate muy duro 34•
Evidentemente la segunda posibilidad es la que corresponde al sistema
teol6gico de Origenes. Y aquî cobra toda su fuerza el tema de la inicia-
ci6n (a'CotXel(j)(W;) a prop6sito de la participaci6n plena con el A6yoc,.
La iniciaci6n expresa dimlmicamente el paso deI conocimiento simple,
literaI y terreno deI A6yoc,-Came a la gnosis superior, inefable, deI
A6yoc,-Sabiduria. No se trata de categorias entitativamente diferentes
separadas coma en los gn6sticos, ya que la ubicaci6n en una u otra
depende del esfuerzo en el ascenso espiritual, de la gracia recibida y deI
tipo de alimento espiritual que cada alma tiene a su a1cance 35 • Para
Origenes todos los seres racionales participan deI A6yoc, y tienen la pasi-
bilidad de consumar el ide al de la perfecci6n. Y es por esto que tomando
posici6n contra la doctrina de los gn6sticos que afirrnaban s610 la salva-
ci6n de los nVEUl!anKoi, sostiene la posibilidad univers al de salvaci6n.
Sin embargo, este paso solo se logra trascendiendo completamente la
naturaleza humana, para pader comprender la sabiduria desplegada en el
A6yoc,. Esta divinizaci6n a partir de la identificaci6n con el A6yoc"
implica un gran combate espiritual. Y asi ensefia que:
Mas numerosas son en efecto las penas y mas peligrosa la existencia de los
que estan en la carne y la sangre que la de aquellos que estan en cuerpos
etéreos, pues si ellos asumieran cuerpos terrestres, incluso las luminarias
deI cielo no atravesanan par esta vida sin peligro ni sin ningun pecad036 .
Vemos pues coma Origenes, es plenamente consciente que este com-
bate implica la separaci6n de los aspectos temporales, de la dimensi6n
etema de las criaturas espirituales. El triunfo en esta lucha serâ ellogro
de la filiedad 37 adoptiva, por la cuallos pelfectos lograrân la identifica-
ci6n con el Cristo mism0 38 • Y asi 10 afirrna el maestro alejandrino a
34. CIo!.l72 (SC 120, 144): Etcrt yàp oi urcoÎ.-uIlPâvoV'tES IlEtÇOVUS dvut 'tOùs
uvSpcOrco\JS 'tOÙS 't<$ 'Illcroü YVllcrtroS IlElluSll'tE\JIlÉvo\JS 'trov aÎ.-Î.-rov Kncrllâ'trov, oi
IlÈV <j>6crEt 'to106't0\JS yEyEvllIlÉvo\JS, oi ùÈ Kat EV Â.6yrp 't<$ Ku'tà 'tov XUÎ.-ErccO'tEpOV
uyrovu.
35. Cf. CIo n.16-19.
36. CIo 1.173 (SC 120, 144-146): IIÎ.-Elo\JS yàp 01 rcoVot Kut ETCtcr<j>UÎ.-"S ft çro" 'trov
EV cruPKt KUt aïllun rcupà 'tOÙS Èv UWEptrp crcOllun, OÙK /iv 'trov Èv oùpav<$ <j>rocr't~prov
EV 't<$ uvuÎ.-upElv 'tà y~ïvu crcOllU'tu uKtv86vroS Kut rcâv'troS uvulluP't~'troS ùtavucrâv'trov
't"v ÈvmüSu çro~v.
37. J.J. AYÂN CALVO-P. DENAVASCUÉS -M. AROZTEGUIEsNAOLA, Filiaci6n, Madrid,
Trotta, 2005.
38. Cf. J.J. Rrus CAMPS, El dinamismo Trinitario en la divinizaci6n de los seres racio-
nales seglÎn Orfgenes (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 188), Roma, Pontificio Istituto
Orientale, 1970, pp. 355-473.
UNI6N MÏSTICA y OSADIA 429
continuaci6n, cuando se pregunta acerca deI método hermenéutico-mis-
tico que se requiere para interpretar correctamente tanto la Escritura en
general, coma el Evangelio de Juan en particular:
i., Qué inteligencia nosotros necesitamos para interpretar dignamente la pala-
bra guardada en los tesoros de arcilla, distinguiéndola de una manera de
hablar ardinaria, de la letra lefda par cualquiera, de la palabra hecha sensi-
ble pOl' la voz y que escuchan todos los que le prestan oidos? Pues para
interpretar este Evangelio con exactitud, es necesario poder decir en toda
verdad: "Nosotros tenemos el pensamiento de Cristo para conocer las gra-
cias que Dios nos ha acordado"39.
Sin embargo este fragmento no puede ser comprendido coma un plan-
teo exc1usivamente intelectualista, ya que la comprensi6n que tienen los
perfectos excede la mera comprensi6n racional deI texto biblico y
requiere de la gracia de Dios que pennita adentrarse en los misterios
divinos. Para Origenes es fundamental el postulado hermenéutico acerca
de que el Evangelio esconde misterios que requieren de una lectura sim-
b6lica y de una transformaci6n mistica para ser comprendidos en pro-
fundidad. La exégesis exacta y precisa de tadas las Escrituras no deja
de ser un conocimiento mediato de la Verdad, a través de tipas, palabras
y figuras, de parâbolas e imâgenes. Los sabios segun las Escrituras, aun
cuando hayan obtenido un breve sosiego, procurado por la comprensi6n
de las razones y pensamientos, experimentan en breve de nuevo la
misma perplejidad e incertidumbre que antes, puesto que 10 tenido por
ellos coma profundo ha sido incapaz de procurarles la uni6n con Jesus
Crist040. Por esta raz6n, todo el pensamiento de Origenes en el CIo, gira
en tomo a dos ejes: el esfuerzo deI ser humano por asemejarse al A6yoc,
y la gracia divina que permite la actualizaci6n de una de las Ènivotat
superiores del Hijo: la Sabiduria. l,Pera qué relaci6n existe entre el
A6yoc, la :2:o<J>ia y el Hijo? Los especialistas han sostenidos dos lineas
de interpretaci6n al respecto: la de Koch41, quien en una lectura plat6-
nica y filoniana de Origenes, afirrna una primacia deI A6yoc, sobre el
39. CIo 1.24 (SC 120, 72): 'HÎ.-tKO\J 'tOtVUV voü ftlllV ùEi, ïvu 'tov Èv 'tOlS ocr'tpu-
KtVots 'tTtS EÙ'tEÎ.-OÜS Î.-É~EroS SllcruupolS ÈvurcoKElIlEVOV Â.6yov, 'tOÜ urco rcâv'trov 'trov
ÈV't\JyXuvov'trov &.vuytvrocrKollÉvOU ypâllllu'tos Kat urco rcâv'trov 'trov rcapEXov'trov 'tàs
crrollunKàS &.Koàs &.1Co\JoIlÉvo\J utcrSll'toü ùtà <j>roVTtS Î.-oyou EKÎ.-apEiv KU't' &.~tUV
ù\JVllSroIlEV, 'tt ùEl Kut Î.-ÉyEtv; Tov yàp IlÉÎ.-Î.-ov'tu 'tuü'ta uKptProS Ku'tuÎ.-uIlPâvEtv
IlE'tà &.Î.-llSElUS EtrcEiV ùEi' 'HIlEtS ùÈ VOÜV Xptcr'tOü ËXOIlEV, ïvu EtùrollEV 'tà urco 'toü
SEOÜ xaptcrSÉv'tu ftlllV".
40. Esta cuesti6n es desarrollada por Origenes en el Libro XIII, al tratar la cuesti6n
referida a la fuente de agua viva, y la posibilidad de conocimiento que tienen los per-
fectos.
41. H. KOCH, Prol/oia und Paideusis: Studien über Origenes und sein Verhiiltnis zum
Platonislllus (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 22), Berlin-Leipzig, de Gruyter, 1932.
430 P.A. CINER
Hijo y la de Crouze142 que restituye al A6yoe; origeniano su pertenencia
a la nanaci6n de la Escritura y 10 situa en el aérea propia deI Hijo. Esto
implica que el discurso del A6yoe; se inscribe en el discurso del Hijo.
Nuestra investigaci6n continuarâ con esta misma linea, mostrando coma
en la teologia origeniana hay un segundo momento consustancial con el
Padre, el Hijo, que permite la manifestaci6n y la creaci6n deI universo
y que es la :Eoq,ia, la que realiza el "puente de comunicabilidad"43 entre
ambos. Siguiendo entonces con la linea propuesta por Crouzel, podemos
afirmar que el papel pedag6gico deI Hijo-A6yoe; es triple: por un lado
posibilita la creaci6n del cosmos de una manera ordenada y arm6nica,
también revela a los seres racionales en un sentido mâs sobrenatural que
natural, los misterios contenidos en la Sabiduria y al mismo tiempo les
ensefia c6mo hacerse hijos en el Hijo, y reencontrarse asi con Dios-
Padre.
La anterior explicaci6n nos permite comprender las razones por las
cuâles Origenes afuma que los pelfectos han devenido discipulos de la
Sabiduria deI A6yoe; y es éste su unico alimento espu·itual. Esta serâ
entonces la respuesta a nuestra segunda pregunta: "el contenido de 10
ensefiado por el Cristo es la sabiduria". Pero l, c6mo debemos entender
esta noci6n? Origenes hace en el CIo una caracterizaci6n muy exhaustiva
de la misma. Esto es comprensible, ya que el A6yoe; mismo se define y
explica a través de ella. Citaremos varios textos en los que Origenes
muestra las perspectivas metafîsicas y teo16gicas que a su criterio esta
noci6n adquiere en el cristianismo y las conespondientes consecuencias
antropo16gicas. Asi por ejemplo leemos que:
Es como principio que el CIisto es demiurgo, como él es Sabidurfa44 , pues
es porque él es Sabidurfa que es Hamado pIincipio. La Sabidurfa dice en
efecto en Salomon: "El Senor me ha fOlmado coma el principio de sus
caminos en vista de sus obras", de manera que "el Logos existfa en el
principio" (es decir) en la Sabidurfa: pues la sabidurfa es considerada en la
fOlmacion deI pensamiento que ha organizado, a todas las cosas y en la de
sus nociones, y el Logos en la comunicacion de las consideraciones de este
pensamiento a los seres dotados de razon45 •
42. CROUZEL, OrÎgenes: Un te6logo contro\'ertido (n. 6).
43. Cf. J. Rrus CAMPS, COllll/llicabilidad de la Naturaleza de Dias segûn Orfgenes, in
Orientalia Christian a Periodica 34 (1974) 5-37.
44. El Padre crea por el Hijo: es entonces al Padre que corresponde en primer lugar el
titulo de demiurgo: cf. Il.10.70-72 Y Il.14.102-104.
45. CIo 1.111 (SC 129, 118-120): 6rUHollpyoÇ OB 0 XpHnoç mç àpxi], KaS' Ô
O'o<pia BO'Ti, T<!> O'o<j>ia Eivat KaÂ-oÎlJ.lEVOÇ àpxi]. 'H yàp O'o<j>ia 1tapà T<!> LaÂ-0J.lroVTt
<j>llO'W' "'0 SEOÇ ËKTlO'ÉV J.lE àpxi]v Mrov aùwii siç Ëpya aùwii", ïva "sv àpxn ~ 0
Myoç", BV Tn O'o<j>iÇt' KaTà J.lBv Ti]V O'ÎlO'TaO'w Tf\Ç 1tEpt TroV ôÂ-cov SEcopiaç Kat
UNI6N WSTICA y OSADIA 431
Mira si nosotros no podemos interpretar el texto: "En el principio existfa
el Logos" segun el sentido espiritual: todas las cosas son creadas segun la
sabidurfa de acuerdo a lîneas directrices de un plan cuyos elementos
(nociones) estan en el Logos46.
Estos fragmentos muestran una clara relaci6n entre las Ènivotat Sabi-
duria y A6yoe;: la Sabiduria estâ mucho mâs 'en si', el A6yoe; mâs
vuelto hacia las criaturas. La funci6n deI A6yoe; es esencialmente la de
mensajero y en ese sentido revela a toda criatura los misterios contenidos
en la Sabiduria. Se puede pensar en esta ocasi6n, usando la terminologia
de TeOfilo de Antioquia47 en un ')..6yoe; Èvotaikwe; y en un ')..6yoe;
npoq,optK6e;, ciel1amente a condici6n de no olvidar que no hay para
Origenes sucesi6n cronol6gica, sino sucesi6n 16gica y que la distinci6n
entre atributos no implica ninguna divisi6n deI ser48 . La misma realidad
es llamada 'Sabiduria' segun su esencia, que es estar unida a Dios y
A6yoe; en tanto ella se inclina hacia las criaturas. Pero el maestro alejan-
drino, remata estos fragmentos con una cita en la cual se muestra la
originalidad del A6yoe;, desde una perspectiva estrictamente joânica: "Es
necesario agregar que después de haber producido, si yo oso decir, una
Sabiduria viviente (fhl'UXOV Cioq,iav), Dios le ha confiado el cuidado de
dar, segun los modelos que estân en ella, el modelaje, la fOlma y puede
sel' incluso la existencia a los seres y a la materia"49.
S6lo una Sabiduria viviente, pue de permitir el paso deI A6yoe; deI
principio al A6yoe; hecho carne. Este logos viviente, tiene pOl' funci6n
recordar a las criaturas racionales, también encarnados, que su verda-
dero destino es retornar al Padre. Esto es: la sabiduria desplegada en el
A6yoe;, busca concentrarse y volver al origen. El Logos-Dias, puede
entonces, revelar los misterios profundos de Dios que se hallaban
escondidos en la Sabiduria. La consecuencia antropo16gica mâs directa
VOllJ.lUTCOV Tf\Ç O'o<j>iaç voollJ.lÉVllÇ, KaTà OB Ti]V 1tpàç Tà Â-oytKà Kowcoviav TroV
TESECOPllJ.lÉVCOV Toii Myoll Â-aJ.lpaV0J.lÉvoll.
46. CIo !.lB (SC 120, 120): 'E1ttO'TllO'OV oÉ, si otov tÉ BO'Tl Kat KaTà Tà O'llJ.lat-
VOJ.lEVOV Toiiw BKÙÉXEcrSat ÎJJ.laç Tà "'Ev àpxn ~v 0 Myoç", ïva KaTà Ti]V O'o<j>tav
Kat TOÙÇ TÎl1tOllÇ wii 0'1l0'T11J.laToç TroV BV aùT<!> VOllJ.lUTCOV Tà 1tUvm yivllTat.
47. Cf. ORBE, En los Albores de la Exegesis Iohannea (n. 1), pp. 104-105: "Anâloga
idea, con mayor claridad, aparece en otros Apologistas. Pero quién la impost6 fuertemente
en la teologia trinitaria fue Tertuliano, con su Ad\'. Praxeall. Segun él Dios, que alguna
vez no fue Padre, comenz6 a serIo al decidirse a concebir en su mente la disposici6n y
economia que gratuitamente deseaba manifestar al exterior. Fruto de esta interna concep-
ci6n mental fue Sophia, la Sabiduria personal, segunda persona distinta dei Padre. En
Sophia concibi6 eI Padre al principio personal de todos los seres creados, por cuyo medio
iba a creaI' el mundo".
48. Cf. CIo Il.131; 1.200.
49. CIo 1.115.
432 P.A. CINER
es que el perlecto ha franqueado las limitaciones impuestas por el canon
de la iglesia terrena a la mayorfa de los fieles, adorando al Padre de
modo mas contemplativo. Esta idea se ve clat'amente en los siguientes
fragmentos:
Es por esto que es imprescindible ser cristiano espiritual y corporalmente a
la vez y donde se deba anunciar el evangelio corporal (literaI) declarando
"no saber nada entre los hombres camales excepto Jesus Cristo y Jesus
Cristo crucificado, se debe hacerlo. Pero cuando se los encuentre instruidos
por el espfIitu, llevando en si los frutos y enamorados de la sabiduna celeste
es necesario comunicarles deI Logos vuelto antes de encamar, acerca de 10
que "era en el comienzo con Dios"so.
Pero para los que progresan, marchan a grandes pasos hacia la sabiduna y
son juzgados dignos de ella, 61 no permanece senor - "porque el servidor
no sabe 10 que quiere su senor- 61 se convierte en su amigo"Sl.
m. Los VERDADEROS DISCIPULOS DEL AOrm:
Orfgenes era plenamente consciente de que la audacia de su interpre-
taci6n llevaba en palabras de M. HarI 'a una divinizaci6n de las criaturas
racionales'52, ya que la identidad de naturalezas pelmitfa el acceso a los
misterios mismos deI Hijo. La lectura de los dos primeros libros deI
Comentario muestra con claridad que el A6yoC; que esta en cada alma
humana es idéntico al A6yoC;-Dios y es par esto que el progreso espiri-
tuaI de los perlectos puede actualizar esta identidad esencial. Asf como
el A6yoC; divino es el mensajero de Dios Padre, el logos individu al es
también el intérprete deI contenido de ese mensaje, que no es otro que la
Sabidurîa. y es por esto que Orîgenes afirma que el A6yoC; es "como un
maestro inseparable deI alumno, inherente a la naturaleza de los seres
dotados de razon y sugiriendo siempre 10 que es necesario hacer, incluso
cuando nosotros no tenemos en cuenta sus ordenes"53.
50. CIo 1.43 (SC 120,84): Atonsp àvaYKatoV nVSUJla'ttKroc; Kat crro~la'ttKroc; Xptcr-
naviÇsw' Kat onou Jli;v XP~ 'to crroJlanKOV Kl1PUcrcrslV sùayyÉÂ,tov, <j>âcrKov'ta
"Jll10i;v siÔÉvat" <Sv> 1:OtC; crapKtVotc; "11 'Il1crouV XptIT'tOV Kat 1:OU1:OV Ècr'tauproJlÉ-
vov", 'tOU1:O notl1'tÉov' Ènàv oi; supsl}rocrt Ka'tl1P'tlO"JlÉvot 'ti\> nvsUJlan Kat
Kapno<j>opouv'tsC; Èv aù'ti\> Èprov'tÉC; 'tE 'tf]c; oùpaviou cro<j>iac;, ~ls'taoo'tÉov aù'tolC; 1:OU
Myou ÈnavsÂ,Mv'tOC; àno 1:OU crscrapKrocrl}at È<j>' Ô "~v Èv àpXU npoc; 'tov l}sov".
51. CIo 1.201 (SC 120, 158): IIpoKon'tov'trov <ob Kat Ènt 't~v cro<j>iav crnsu-
06v'trov Kat 'tau'tl1C; ù!;touJlÉvrov Ènot "6 oOùÂ,OC; OÙK otos 'ti l}ÉÂ,S( 6 KUPtoC; aù'tou"
où JlÉvst KUptoC;, ylVOJlSVOC; aù'trov "<j>iÂ,oC;".
52. lIARL, Origène et la fonction révélatrice du Verbe incarné (n. 25), p. 16.
53. CIo II.109 (SC 120, 276): otoâcrKaÂ,oc; 'tou Jlavl}âvov'toC; àxroptcr'toC; ecrnv 6
Èvunâpxrov 'tU <j>ucrst 'trov Â,oytKrov Â,oyoC;, ùot unopâÂ,Â,rov 'tà npaK'tÉa, Kav napa-
KoUroJlSV aù'tou 'trov ev'tOÂ,rov.
UNI6N MfSTICA y oSADÎA 433
Esta identidad de naturaleza entre el A6yoC; univers al y el A6yoC;
individual, es 10 que explica la controveltida teorfa de la preexistencia y
10 que permite el progreso espmtual y posteriormente la apocatastasis.
Con respecto a la preexistencia recordemos brevemente que en esta
cuasi-eternidad los V6EC; 0 criaturas espirituales estaban absortas en la
contemplaci6n de Dios. La cafda, pOl' la libre decision de ellas mismas,
va perturbar esta situaci6n inicial, que sera restituida al final de los tiem-
pos cuando segun Origenes:
Los que llegaran a Dios por el Logos que esta con 61, no tendran mas que
una sola actividad, comprender a Dios, a fin que todos lleguen a ser pelfec-
tamente un hijo, siendo transformados al conocer al Padre, como ahora solo
el Hijo conoee al PadreS4 .
El A6yoC; Univers al es uno en su esencia, pero puede manifestarse de
diferentes formas a sus discfpulos: naturalmente a todos los seres racio-
nales, revelado como A6yoC; encarnado (Jesus Cristo) a los simples fie-
les y manifestado plenamente como A6yoC;-Dios a los perfectos (ot
'tBÀEtot). En las tres posibilidades se encuentra una misma cuesti6n: el
ser humano entitativamente puede y debe escuchar al mensajero de la
Verdad, al A6yoC;. Origenes combate con esta doctriua todo tipo de rela-
tivismo ético. Entonces, si bien el sel' humano muchas veces no obedece
a su maestro interior, esta actitud jamas destruye la presencia del A6yoC;.
Es el individuo en su dimensi6n temporal el que no obedece sus indica-
ciones y mandatos, y pOl' 10 mismo comete pecados. Pero el A6yoC; como
maestro interior pelmanece siempre esperando a su discfpulo. El progreso
de los perlectos supera esta ignarancia transitoria, logrando la identifica-
cion con las dos Ènt votat esenciales del Hijo: A6yoC; y ~o<pta. Por esta
razon Origenes puede afirmar que:
Pues es neeesario que el Logos que purifica al alma, preexista en el alma
para que luego de 61 y su intervenci6n purificadora - una vez suprimida toda
muerte y toda enfermedad -, la vida sin mezcla venga a quedarse en todos
ss
aquellos que fueron capaees de recibir en ellos al Logos como Dios .
54. CIo 1.92 (SC 120, 108): To'ts yàp Jlia npà!;tc; Ëcr'tat 'trov npoc; l}sov otà 'to~
npoc; aù'tov Â,oyov <j>l}acrâv'trov f] 'tOu Ka'ta~ostv ;ov ~sov, ïv~ YÉ~rov't~t 0~'tro5 ev 'tn
yvrocrst 'tou na'tpoc; Jlop<j>rol}ÉV'tsc; nâv'tsc; aKptproc; uioc;, roc; vuv JlovoC; 0 uioC; syVroKs
'tov na'tÉpa.
55. CIo II.129 (SC 120, 292): Aoyov yàp npoü1tllp!;at 'tov Kal}atpov'ta 'titv \jIUxit v
êv 'tu \jIuxn ost, ïva Ka'tà 'tou'tOv Kat 't~v àn' aù'tou Kâl}apcrlV, nâGl)C; nsp~atp~Ss~crl1C;
VSKpO'tl1'tOC; Kat àcrl}svstac;, f] àKpat<j>v~c; çro~ eyyÉvll'tat napà nav'tt "CC!l 'tou Â,oyou
Kal}' Ô l}soC; ecrnv au'tov notTlcravn XroPllnKov.
434 PA CINER
IV. IMPUCANCIAS DEL ADJETIVO VERBAL TOAMHTEON EN LA
DOCTRINA ORIGENIANA
Es bien conocido por todos, las crîticas que Origenes ha debido sopor-
tar a causa de su supuesto elitismo y del papel secundario de Jesus
Cristo crucificado. Humildemente creemos que a través de la lectura en
paralelo de los dos fragmentos en los que aparece la expresi6n 'toÀ-
Ilrrci:OY nos da la clave y la soluci6n a este debate interminable. En
efecto, es a partir de la pasi6n de Jesus, que el perfecto es ensefiado
dil'ectamente pOl' el Cristo. Esto no implica pOl' supuesto, una posici6n
docetista con dos naturalezas dis tintas : la de Jesus y la deI Cristo, sim-
plemente sefiala el orden que asume el progreso espiritual56 • Si observa-
mos con detenimiento ambos fragmentos veremos claramente que en el
primero es Jesus y su seno, ellugar privilegiado para iniciar esta trans-
formaci6n, Marîa como madre es también la puerta mistica por excelen-
cia para recuperar la filiedad divina, que como sabemos para Orîgenes,
debe ser comprendida como filiedad adoptiva (3i:mn), ya que si bien
los YOES son desde la preexistencia seres divinos, requieren de la gracia
divina, para sel' nuevamente actualizada. Esta actualizaci6n les permite
adquirù' la capacidad mistica para descubrir, detnis de la forma humana
deI ÀOyoS, la forma de Dios primigenia. Justamente esta idea se advierte
plenamente al finalizar el primer fragmento analizado, cuando Origenes
agrega que:
En efecto, todo el que llega a la perfecci6n "No vive mis, pero el Cristo
vive en él" y cuando el Cristo vive en él se dice de él a Maria: "He aqui a
tu hijo; el Cristo,,57.
En este sentido es Îlnprescindible destacar que, en los dos fragmentos
que han guiado nuestra investigaci6n, es clave el uso de la voz pasiva
para comprender la presencia de 10 divino en la transformaci6n que
56. Cf. CIo II.60-61: "A continuaci6n de las diademas, esta escrito que 'éllleva un
nombre grabado que solo él conoce' - . Este Logos viviente es el ûnico que sabe ciertas
cosas: en efecto, a causa de la infedoddad de la naturaleza de los seres que vienen después
de él, ninguno de ellos puede ver todo 10 que él abarca. Pero los que participan de este
Logos, a diferencia de los que no participan de él, son posiblemente los ûnicos en saber
10 que no llega hasta los otros. Pero él no esta desnudo, el Logos de Dios que Juan ve a
caballo: el esta recubierto con un manto empapado de sangre, porque el Logos hecho
came, muerto porque se hizo carne, de manera que su sangre se expandi6 sobre la tierra
cuando el soldado atraves6 su costado - , queda envuelto con las marc as de su pasi6n.
Porque si nosotros llegamos un dia a la mas elevada y a la mas sublima contemplaci6n
dei Logos y de la Verdad, no olvidaremos sin duda totalmente que hemos sido introduci-
dos en él por su venida en nuestros cuerpos".
57. CIo 1.4.23.
UNI6N MÏSTICA y OSADIA 435
Îlnplica conveltirse en verdaderos hijos de Dios. En el primer fragmento
se destacan el infinitivo aoristo bE1X3fjYUl y en el segundo el participio
presente WX.311'tEUOIlEYOl. El uso de la voz pasiva, nos permite enfatizar
la condici6n mistica deI planteo de Origenes, ya que como afùma Paolo
Bettiolo en su artîculo sobre el Origenismo:
... mistico, pOl' otro lado, sera quien, mas alla de cualquier relaci6n decisiva
para ello, en si y pOl' si es constituido-mantener la voz pasiva me parece
esencial: la experiencia rnfstica no es nunca fruto de la mera voluntad- uno
con alguien distinto deI mundo comunmente experimentado, sea 0 no esta
alteridad, en principio neutra, acogedora respecto a este mund0 58 .
V. CONCLUSIONES
Nuestro trabajo ha intentado mostrar como el maestro alejandrino
sostenîa en el Comentario al Evangelio de Juan, que la verdadera auda-
cia consiste en concretar el destino para él cual todos estamos preparados,
siempre y cuando respondamos con solicitud a nuestro maestro interior.
Quedémonos entonces, con las palabras de este audaz maestro de la mîs-
tica que no teme mostrar las exÎlnias posibilidades que le est:in reservadas
al alma humana:
Asi entonces aquel que pOl' el Espfritu divino, sondea todo hasta las profun-
didades de Dios, al punto de poder exclamaI': Oh! Abismo de la riqueza de
la sabiduna y de la ciencia de Dios, éste puede sel' el hijo de los pozos y el
Logos deI Sefior viene hacia é159 .
Esteban Echevenîa 1006 Sur- Capital Patricia Andrea CINER
San Juan - A1'gentina - C.P: 5400
patriciacinel@yahoo.com.ar
58. P. BETIIOLO, Origenismo (en Oriente, sig/os V-VI), in Diccionario de OrÎgenes,
Burgos, Monte Carmelo, 2003, pp. 647-662.
59. CIo II.6 (SC 120,210-212): OihffiS 06v 6 1tavra ÈpEllvrov SsiCfl1tVEU!.IU'tt Kat
1:à ~aST] 1:0U SCOU, roCHE <l1tocpSêyçacrSat aù1:ov' "'n ~aSos 1tÀouwu Kat crocpias
Kat yVrocrEffiS SCOU", OUva1:at dvat "cppEa1:ffiV uios", 1tpOS av 6 À6yoS 1:0U Kupiou
yiVE1:at.
 L'ALLEANZA DEI DUE RE CONTRO GERUSALEMME
(IS 7,1-9)
UNA PAGINA ORIGENIANA

Come saggio di un lavoro più ampio che sto portando avanti, e che
spero di pubblicare tra breve, vorrei presentare una pagina della Enarra-
fia in praphefam Isaiam attribuito a Basilio di Cesarea (PG 30, 117-668).
Si tratta deI commento su Is 7,1-9, dove si parla dell'alleanza deI re
d 'Israele con il re di Aram pel' andare contro Gemsalemme, impresa che
poi fall!. La cosa sorprendente èche leggendo questo commento si ha
l'impressione di trovarsi di fronte a una pagina di chiara derivazione
origeniana. È percià indispensabile riportare il passo pel' intero (in inglese
alla fine dell'mticolo), seguito da alcune note di commento.
Tralasciando la succinta spiegazione letterale 0 storica (6 't11e; ÀÉsscoe;
voue; - " urcÀ11 8tYtyscne; 'tow l'n ll.lU'tCOV), ripOltiamo solo l'interpreta-
zione più profonda e attualizzante:
[191] Indagando un po' più a fondo il detto [profetico], si potrebbe trovare,
a partire dai fatti raccontati (iO"'t'opou).!Évcov), un riferirnento a noi e alla
edificazione della Chiesa. Quali dunque siano i re che si sono alleati (Ts 7,2
LXX) esaminiamolo secondo la nostra capacità. Ritengo che Aram si riferi-
sca alla dottrina (À6yoS) che si innalza, per la sapienza di questo mondo
('t'TI 0"0<1>111- 't'ou atéovos 't'OllTOU), contro (Ka't'u) la conoscenza di Dio (2Cor
10,5): Aram infatti significa "elevato" ().!e't'ÉCOpOS). Tale è la dottrina dei
principi di questo mondo, tutta dedita all'esame degli astri, dei loro movi-
menti, delle loro congiunzioni e figure, affermando che da li dipendono le
cause delle vicende umane. Tale dottrina è "elevata" pel' l'opinione che ha
di sé e la sua tronfia elevatezza, che solo seppe abbattere con le parole della
veritàil santo [Paolo], che con la potenza dello Spirito ha rovesciato ogni
altezza, che si erige contro la conoscenza (Ka't'à 't'fjç yvroO"scoç) di Dio
(2Cor 10,5)1. Invece, quella falsa gnosi (\jIeu8rovu).!ov yvrocrtv) (1Tm 6,20)
che si presenta secondo la recezione (Ka't'à napa8oxi]v) delle divine Scrit-
ture, ma che ha deviato dalla retta via, riteniamo che sia chiamata Efraim.

1. Cf. III Is. 228 (PG 30, 517AB): "Abbiamo visto che sono chiamati cedri anche i
caratteri duri e incorreggibili, che si erigollo cOlltro la cOlloscellza di Dio (cf. 2Cor 10,5).
Percio: Spezzerà il Sigllore i cedri dei Libano (SaI 28,5). Ma anche quelli che si erigono
sulla base della falsa gnosi e pretendono di comprendere i mistero dell'altissimo Dio, sono
chiamati cedri: Vidi l'empio illllaizarsi ed ergersi come i cedri dei Liballo (SaI 36,35);
ma la loro rovina è rapida: SOli a ripassato, ed ecco lion c'era più!". Notiamo che anche
qui vi è abbinata una duplice tipologia: quelli che si erigono contra la conoscenza di Dio
(pagani, cultori della sapienza dei mondo), e quelli che si erigono sopra una falsa cono-
scenza delle Scritture (evidentemente sono gli gnostici).
438 E. CATIANEO
In:fatti dalla tribù di Efraim ebbe Oligine Geroboamo, il primo che ha sepa-
rato dalla casa di Davide le dieci tribù, egli che era stato prima servo di
Salomone, era andato in Egitto e Ii aveva sposato la sorella di Tecemina,
moglie del Faraone. In seguito fece fare pure vitelli d'oro e allesti feste
religiose inventandosi tutt0 2• Quando dunque il discorso pagano (ÈSvtKàç
Àoyoç), orgoglioso delle sue argomentazioni dialettiche (OtUÀBK'ttKUi'Ç Ènt-
XBtpijO'BO'tv), si mette d'accordo con l'eresia e la perversione, si pua dire
davvero che Aram si è alleato con Efraim, nella brama di distruggere il
casato di Davide e devastare illuogo della vera adorazione. [ ... ]
[192] Vedi poi se puoi (a pu of: al 06vuO'w) prendere occasione anche
dall'interpretazione dei nomi (ÈK 'rfjç 'ribv ovo/-tu'rcov Ép/-tYJVatuç) per
vedere un po' più chiaramente il passo in questione 3 :
Acaz si traduce con "occupazione" (KU'rUO'XBO'tÇ);
Ioatan con "compimento (O'UV'rÉÀBtU) di Iaa";
Ozia con "forza (lO'xuç) di Iaa";
Aram (comme abbiamo già detto), con "elevato" (/-tB'rÉCOPOÇ);
Facea con "apertura" (Otuvoté,tç);
Romelia, con "elevato di circoncisione".
Si alleano dunque il discorso "elevato" e il discorso che promette di es sere
il rivelatore (O'u<PYJvtO''rilç) delle divine Scritture4 • Questo infatti rappre-
senta Facea, che significa "apertura", come di uno che assicura di essere
in grado da se stesso (Ot' ÉUuwù) di dare la spiegazione chiara (O'u<PYJvtO'/-tov)
di tutti i passi oscUli delle Scritture. Da quello che segue, viene poi dimo-
strato che l'accordo dei due re contro Gerusalemme - e cioè l' accordo di
chi si appoggia sulla sapienza deI mondo e di chi promette di disvelare i
punti oscUli della Scrittura - si fonda su dottrine e concetti contrari tra loro,
nella speranza di assoggettare a sé quelli che hanno appreso le dottrine della
Chiesa. In:fatti, il re di Aram e il figlio di Romelia hanno preso una delibe-
razione malvagia, dicendo: Saliamo in Giudea, e parlan do con 101'0 li atti-
reremo dalla nostra parte (ls 7,6). Le loro parole dimostrano chiaramente
che es si sperano di attirare dalla loro parte la casa di Davide con un discorso
persuasivo. Promettono anche di insediare come re il figlio di Tabeel. Ora
Tabeel significa "Dio è buono". Ora è proprio di chi vuole attaccare la
Chiesa promettere di trasmettere le proprietà deI Figlio di Dio, e con questa
lusinga ingannano i più semplici (àXBputO'rÉpouç) (cf. Rm 16,18). Che poi
queste cose siano allusioni (uiviy/-tu'ru), che passando attraverso la stOlia
(tO''ropiuç) portano allo stato attuale delle Chiese, è rivelato chiaramente
dal seguito deI discorso, che dice: Se non crederete, neppure capirete
(Is 7,9) (In Is. 191-192 [192-193]; PG 30, 445D-449B).
2. Cf. III Is. 227 (PG 30, 516B): "Questo è l'Efraim, da cui trasse origine l'apostata
Geroboamo, che separo le die ci tribù attirandole a sé, e, facendo fondere vitelli d'oro,
persuase il popolo ad abbandonare il culto di Dio e adorare gli idoli degli egiziani".
Cf. 3Re 11,26; 12,20.28.
3. La stessa espressione in III Is. 290 (pG 30, 625C): "Tuttavia, per non lasciare deI
tutto questo passo senza una spiegazione più profonda, suvvia, vediamo se è possibile, a
partire daU' etimologia dei nomi, aprirci una via per comprendere meglio cio che è detto".
4. lnfatti in Is 7,1 si parla dell'accordo tra il re di Ararn e Facea, figlio deI Te d'Israele,
per andare contro Gerusalemme.
L'ALLEANZA DEI DUE RE CONTRO GERUSALEMME 439
Penso che questa pagina possa essere spiegata adeguatamente solo nel con-
testo dell' opera origeniana. Cercheremo dunque di coglieme i punti in comune.
Cio che anzitutto colpisce è l'abbondante uso della etimologia dei
nomi ebraici (sette) come mezzo pel' passare dal senso storico a quello
più profondo, che concerne illettore in quanto membro della Chiesa. Ora
questo è un procedimento tipicamente origeniano. Di fatto pero la spie-
gazione si soffelma principalmente su due nomi: Aram, che si interpreta
come "elevato" e Facea, che significa "apertura". L' esegesi di tipo
attualizzante prende un tono decisamente polemico, come messa in guar-
dia contro i due sis terni di pensiero che combattono la dottrina della
Chies a : il primo è la "sapienza di questo mondo", che si fonda sulla
dialettica e si oppone alla conoscenza rivelata da Dio; il secondo è il
sistema gnostico, che si presenta con la pretes a di dare una spiegazione
esaustiva delle Scritture. Il primo pericolo viene dall'esterno (Aram
infatti era un paese straniero pel' Israele), mentre il secondo viene dall'in-
terno della Chiesa, cioè dall'eresia (Efraim infatti era abitata da ebrei
scismatici rispetto a Gerusalemme). Questi due sistemi di pensiero non
hanno nulla in comune, se non l'intento di COlTompere la fede dei sem-
plici (àKEpUW"CÉpOUç)5, che sono la maggioranza nella Chiesa.
Quanto alla "sapienza di questo mondo", va detto che Origene ha una
concezione sostanzialmente positiva della filosofia, nelle tre branchie che
sono la filosofia morale, quella naturale e quella "speculativa", nella
misura in cui concordano con la rivelazione6 • Dove non concordano, si
ha la "sapienza di questo mondo", la quale afferma, ad esempio, che la
materia è coeterna con Dio, che non c' è provvidenza, che la vita degli
uomini dipende dal corso degli astri e che il mondo è eterno7 • Strumento
del discorso è invece la dialettica, che entra in tutte le discipliné, e puo
essere usata bene 0 male9 . Usata contro la verità rivelata, essa riesce a
iniettare il suo veleno senza farsi accorgere, cioè sotto l'apparenza di
ragione. COS! essa è paragonata alla zanzara:
Questo animale vola pel' l'aria sospeso con le ali, ma è COS1 sottile e minuto
che sfugge alla vista di un occhio che non guardi con attenzione; tuttavia,
5. Telmine tipico di Origene per indic are la fede dei "semplici": cf. G. AF HALLsTRoM,
Fides sil11pliciorul11 accordillg to Origell of Alexalldria, Ekenlis, Societas Scientiarum
Fennica, 1984, p. 15. .
6. Cf. HGIl 14.3: "La filosofia non è né dei tutto in disaccordo né dei tutto in armoma
con la legge di Dio" (GCS, Orig. VI, 123.30-31).
7. Ibid.
8. Cf. CCt prolo (GCS, Orig. vrn, 75).
9. Cf. III Is. 92 (PG 30, 269C): "La forza della dialettica è un muro di difesa per le
dottrine di fede, impedendo che esse vengano facilmente rovesciate e abbattute da
chiunque voglia".

440 E.CAITANEO
quando si è posato sul corpo, 10 pelfora con una puntura moIto dolorosa,
sicché se uno non riesce a vederlo quando vola, 10 sente pero quando punge.
Ritengo percio che questo genere di animale possa essere paragonato moIto
giustamente all'arte dialettica (arti dialecticae), che perlora le anime con le
punture minute e sottili dei discorsi, e le insidia con tanta astuzia che chi è
ingannato non vede né capisce da dove venga l'inganno lO •
Se la sapienza deI mondo usa le argomentazioni dialettiche per respin-
gere la rivelazione, 10 gnostico parte da una posizione divers a, non più
esterna (re di Aram), ma interna (il re d'Israele): egli infatti si appoggia
sulle Scritture e promette di spiegarne tutte le oscurità. C'è un passo deI
CIo molto interessante, perché mette insieme proprio questi due sistemi:
Bisogna poi aggiungere che "prendere la via dei pagani" (cf. Mt 10,5) signi-
fica assumere qualche dottrina pagana, estranea all' "lsraele di Dio" (Gal 6,16),
e camminare seguendo quella; invece "entrare in una città dei Samaritani"
(Mt 10,5) significa accogliere la falsa gnosi di quelli che dicono di aderire
alle parole della legge 0 dei profeti 0 dei Vangeli 0 degli apostoli ll .
Ora i Samaritani occupano la regione della tribù di Efraim, che il re
Geroboamo ha separato dalla tribù di Giuda, fondando il regno del nord.
La notizia sulle vicende di Geroboamo si ritrova nelle omelie sull 'Esodo
di Origene quasi negli stessi termini dell'In Is.:
10 so che Geroboamo, il quale fuggendo da Salomone era disceso in Egitto,
non solo non crebbe in moItitudine, ma divise e conuppe il popolo di Dio,
perché discendendo in Egitto aveva preso come moglie dal re Susachim la
sOl'ella della moglie di lui Tecimena 12 •
L'In Is. vi ritorna più avanti:
Questo è l'Efraim, da cui germoglio l'apostata (ànoO'1:(l1;'IlS) Geroboamo,
che separo le dieci tribù attirandole a sé e, facendo vitelli d'oro, indus se
il popolo ad abbandonare il cuIto di Dio ('tllS ÀU'tpsiuS 'tou Bsou) per
adorare gli idoli dell'Egitto (In Is. 227; PG 30, 516B).
Anche questo passo ha un riscontro quasi letterale in Origene:
Allora Geroboamo, che era della tribù di Efraim, si mise a capo degli apostati,
e fabbricando dei vitelli [come idoli], distolse dal cuIto di Dio le dieci tribù13 •
10. Origene, HEx 4.6 (GCS, Orig. VI/l, 178.14-21).
11. Origene, CIo 13.52.343 (GCS, Orig. N, 280).
12. Origene, HEx 11.5. Su Geroboarno ritorna ancora l'III Is. 203 (PG 30, 468A):
"Efraim si separa da Giuda al tempo di Geroboamo, figlio di Nabot, il quale fece prevari-
care Israele e fu il primo a iniziare l'apostasia, dicendo: Noi 11011 abbiamo a che lare COli
Davide lié abbiamo nl/lla da spartire COli il figlio di Iesse (3Re 12,16)".
13. Origene, Frler 57.5-7 (GCS, Orig. III, 226): D'te 'Iepo~oà/-l 'tillv dnocr'tuv'tCDV
f]y~O'(l'tO, 't~e:; <j>uÂ.~e:; \mupxrov'E<j>put/-l, ocr'tte:; oU/-luÂ.ete:; noti]crue:; dnÉcr'tl1crev dno 't~e:;
"COu Se ou Â.u'tpeiue:; 'tàe:; ÛÉKU <j>uÂ.ue:;.
L'ALLEANZA DEI DUE RE CONTRO GERUSALEMME 441
Abbiamo visto che nell'In Is. l'interpretazione dei due re, uno pagano
e uno scismatico, che si alleanocontro Gerusalemme, rappresenta i due
grandi sistemi di pensiero, quello pagano e quello eretico (gnostico), che
hanno principi diversi, ma si accordano nel combattere la fede della
Chiesa. Ora è interessante notare l'uso della preposizione KU'tU: la
sapienza di questo mondo si erige contra (KU'tU + genitivo) la conoscenza
rivelata di Dio nelle Scritture; mentre la falsa gnosi si presenta come
conforme (KU'tU + accusativo) queste stesse divine Scritture, interpretate
pero in modo distorto. In ogni caso, la sapienza deI mondo e la falsa
gnosi sono entrambe "altezzose", "superbe" "piene di sé".
Tornando a In Is. sopra riportato, il discorso gnostico è quello che
promette di essere il rivelatore (O'uCP'llvtO''tYtç) delle divine S~ritture. Quest.o
infatti rappresenta F acea, che significa ",a~eltur~', c.ome dl uno. che ~SSI­
cura di essere in grado da se stesso (ot EUU'tOU) dl dare la splegazlOne
chiara (O'uCP'llvtO'Jlov) di tutti i passi oscuri delle Scritture.
Questo testo mette bene in luce la pretes a deI dis corso gnostico di
spiegare "da se stesso" (ch' ÉUu'tou) le sacre Scritture 14 • Ora pel' Origene
solo Gesù è il vero O'U<Pll VtO'Tf]Ç delle Scritture 15 . Commentando Gv
1,27, dove il Battista dice di non essere degno di sciogliere illegaccio
dei sandali di Gesù, Origene vi vede uri'immagine dell'oscurità delle
Scritture, che nessuno puo avere la pretes a di sciogliere:
Unico è illaccio che rappresenta l'oscurità (àO'ucpetu) [de!le Scritture], co~l
come unica è la chiave che apre la loro conoscenza (yvroO'tS). Neppure il
più grande tra i nati di donna è c.apace da se stesso (.lwB' U?'tov) di scio-
glierlo 0 di aprirlo, ma solo colm che ha legato e chiuso puo concede~e. a
chi vuole di sciogliere e di aprire illaccio dei sandali, cioè le parole slgl1-
late 16 •
L'In Is. riprende la tematica dei due re di Is 7,1 nel commento aIs
8 ,5-8 , dove sono nominati Rasin (re di Aram) e il figlio di Romelia (re
di Samaria):
Quelli dunque che non ricevono l'Inviato da.l ci~lo: ?is~rezzando, la su~
mansuetudine, seguiranno il figlio di Romeha, ClOe 11 dlscorso pleno dl
falsità sebbene prometta di dimostrarsi in conformità con le divine Scrit-
ture; ~ seguiranno pure Rasin, che significa "elevato", quell.o .cioè c~e
esaIta l'ascoItatore portandolo fuori dalla fede conforme alle dlvm~ Scnt-
ture, 10 insuperbisce e 10 distoglie dal fondamento della fede. lnfatt! Aram
si traduce con "elevato" (In Is. 209; PG 30, 480C).
14. Sulla pretesa gnostica di spiegare le Scritture, Cf. M. lIARL, Philocalie, 1-20 sur
les Écritures (SC 302, 403), Paris, 1983.
15. Cf. ibid., pp. 253-254.
16. Oligene, CIo 6.34.173 (GCS, Orig. IV, 143-144).

442 E.CATIANEO
Ritorna qui la stessa inteIpretazione dei due re che hanno fatto alleanza
contro Gerusalemme: il re di Samaria rappresenta la dottrina che appa-
rentemente si fonda sulle sacre Scritture, ma in realtà è falsa. Nel conte-
sto origeniano si tratta degli eretici gnostici (0 marcioniti)17. TI re di Aram
invece simboleggia la dottrina che attinge fuori dal fondamento della
fede, e cioè dalla cultura pagana. Questi due sistemi, COS! diversi tra loro
nei principi, hanno in comune il disprezzo pel' la dottrina della Chiesa,
giudicata troppo semplice, e hanno la capacità di stuzzicare l' orgoglio
intellettuale. Essi, infatti,
hanno un atteggiamento di disprezzo per la dottrina sana, non accettano la
verità stabile, tranquilla, serena, ma mescolano elementi estranei alla fede
con i lorD fraintendimenti delle Scritture (ibid.).
Una confernla indiretta deI fondo origeniano di In Is. 191-192 è data
da Girolamo. Anch'egli nel suo commento divide la spiegazione secun-
dum histariam da quella iuxta anagagen La prima è più dettagliata di
quella di Basilio, mentre la seconda è molto più breve: Girolamo è un
epitomatore, che riporta solo l'essenziale dell'interpretazione origeniana,
con il rischio di essere poco comprensibile:
L'interpretazione secondo l'anagogia è facile, e cioè mentre regnava
Acaz, re empio, il re di Aram, - che significa "eccelso" e "sublime", per
indic are l'arroganza della sapienza secolare (sapientiae saecularis) -,
e Facee, figlio di Romelia, - anch'egli secondo il profeta Osea era della
tribù di Efraim, dalla quale yenne Geroboamo figlio di Nabath, il qua le
aveva posto vitelli d'oro in Bethel e Dan, e aveva separato dalla casa di
David il popolo di Dio, e si riferisce agli eretici , si alleano insieme per
espugnare la Chiesa. Quando la casa di Davide, che come dice la Scrittura
doveva essere ristabilita con Ezechiele buon pastore, udi cio, fu attenita,
e con lei il popolo che con fede semplice si affidava a Dio. Fu atterrita
perché viene paragonata non agli alberi fruttiferi, ma a un bosco infrut-
tuoso. Non vi è dubbio poi che gli eretici e i pagani combattano contro la
casa di Davide con le stesse armi delle argomentazioni e dell'arte dialet-
tica (argul71entorul71 et dialecticae artis); sebbene divergano tra di loro,
nondimeno si accordano per attaccare la Chiesa. Cosi Erode e Pilato, men-
tre prima erano in dissidio, in occasione della passione deI Signore si
strinsero in amicizia (cf. Lc 23,12)18.
17. Cf. Origene, CIo 13.13.81 (GCS, Orig. IV, 237): "1 Samaritani sono immagine
degli eterodossi, avendo edificato un tempio sul Garizim, che significa "divisione 0 sepa-
razione"; in effetti, secondo la storia, sotto Geroboamo avvenne la divisione 0 separazione
delle dieci trÏbù dalle altre due".
18\ Girolamo, III Esaiam 3,11 (ed. R. GRYSON [Vetus Latina, 23], Freiburg, 1993,333-
334). E interessante notare che nell'apparato dei riferÏmenti è citato il III Is. 191 non come
Pseudo-Basilio, ma semplicemente come Bas. Is.
L'ALLEANZA DEI DUE RE CONTRO GERUSALEMME 443
Abbiamo sottolineato le corrispondenze del testo di Girolamo con
quello di Basilio. Si nota COS! il differente modo di lavorare dei due
autori: Girolamo sintetizza molto, con il rischio di rimanere oscuro;
Basilio invece, anche se abbrevia qualcosa, è molto più fedele alla fonte
origeniana. TI commento a Isaia di Eusebio non contiene nulla di tutto
questo 19 •
APPENDICE
English Translation of Basil, In Is. 191-192 [192-193] (PG 30,
445D-449B).
From a deeper analysis of the prophetic saying, it would be possible
to find from the reported facts (1.0''tOpOU/..lI3VroV) an understanding con-
cerning oUI'selves and the building of the Church. Let' s then evaluate,
according to our ability, who are the kings who made such alliances
(Is 7,2). 1 believe that Aram refers to the speech O",oyov) that elevates
itselj, by the wisdom of this world ('t'fi 0'0CP1Q. 't'OU ul.&voS 'tOUtou),
against the knawledge afGad (2Cor 10,5): Aram indeed means "eleva-
ted" (!!8'tÉropOS). This is the speech of the princes of this world, which
is completely dedicated to the study of the stars, of their movements,
conjunctions, and constellations, by stating that it is from there that the
basis of the human condition cornes from. Such speech is "elevated" for
its self-opinion and high esteem, such that only Saint Paul was able to
destroy it with bis words (,,-oyotS) of the truth, casting down by the
power of the Spirit every conceit that rises itselj against the knawledge
af Gad. On the other hand, the false knowledge (\jf8UOCÛVU!!OV YV&O'lV)
(1 Tm 6,20) that presents itself according to the reception (1tUp uoo X"v)
of the divine Scriptures, but that deviated from the right path, we believe
is called Ephraim. In fact, from the tribe of Ephraim came Jeroboam, he
who was initially a slave of Solomon, then moved to Egypt, where he
married the sis ter of Tecemina, wife of the Pharaoh, and who was the
first who separated the 10 tribes from the house of David. Later, he also
made golden calves, giving false religious celebrations by inventing
everything. Therefore, when the pagan speech (È~vtKàs ,,-oyoS), taking
pride of its own dialectic argumentation, joins the heretical one and the
perverted, we can say that Aram has made an alliance with Ephraim, with
19. Cf. GCS, Eusebius IX (ed. J. ZIEGLER) 44-46. Eusebio alla fine dice che con Is 7,9
termina il tomo ottavo dei commento di Origene.
444 E.CAITANEO
the desire of destroying the house of David and to devastate the site of
the true adoration. [ ... ]
Also, let us see if an interpretation of the following names can provide
a clearer understanding of the passage in question:
Acaz is translated as "retention" (KU'tUcrXBCHC;);
loatan is translated "achievement (crOV't8ÀBtU) oflao";
Oziah is translated "strength (tcrx uS) ofIao";
- Aram (as aIready stated) is translated "elevated" (/-lB't8COpOS);
- Phacee is translated "opening" (ÙtuvotçtS);
- Romeliah is translated "elevated by circumcision" (/-lB't8COpOC;
1tBp no /-lllS)·
Therefore, we have the speech "elevated" joining the speech that pro-
mises to be the one revealing the meaning (cru<PTJVtcr'ti!C;) of the divine
Scriptures. In fact, this represents Phacee, which means "opening," as
applied to somebody who is able to give by itself a clear explanlüion
(cru<PTJvtcr/-lov) of the obscure passages of the Scriptures. What follows
shows that the agreement of the two kings against Jerusalem - meaning
the agreement of those who rely on the knowledge of the worldwith
those who promise to reveal the obscure passages of the Scripture - is
based on doctrines and concepts that are in opposition to each other, in
the hope to subdue those who leamed the doctrines of the Church. In fact,
the king of Aram and the son of Romeliah, took an evil resolution by
saying: We will go to Judea and by talking to them we will convert them
to our side (ls 7,6). Theu' words show clearly that they hope to entice the
house of David by persuasive reasoning. They also promise to establish
the son of Tabeel as king; Tabeel is translated as "God is good." It is
characteristic of those who want to attack the Church to promise to con-
vey the characteristics of the son of God, and by this fallacy they cheat
the most naïve people (àXBpUto1:8pOOC;) (cf. Rm 16,18). That these
things are allusions (utviY/-lu'tu), by passing through history, which we
can bri.ng to the present state of the Churches, this is clearly revealed
by the following: If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not understand
(ls 7,9).
Via F. Petrarca 115 Enrico CA'ITANEO, S.J.
1-80122 Napoli NA
cattaneo.e@gesuitLit
L'EXEMPLUM DI PAOLO NEL
COMMENTa ALLA LETTERA Al ROMANI
Il Commento alla Lettera ai Romani di Origene-Rufino 1 orienta
l'attenzione dellettore non solo al contenuto dell'insegnamento di San
Paolo, ma anche alla sua persona. In questo intervento ci concentreremo
su un aspetto deI rapporto di Origene verso Paol02 • A partire dall'analisi
dei passaggi del Commento in cui i riferimenti a Paolo contengono il
termine exemplum, vogliamo comprendere come tale legame Paolo-exem-
plum influisce sull'immagine origeniana di Paolo.
I. PARADEIGMA (EXEMPLUM) NEL MONDO GRECO-ROMANO
Cominciamo con il precis are i concetti. L' etimologia trae il termine
greco paradeigma da deigma (campione)3. Fra i significati diparadeigma
(lat. exemplum)4 troviamo: schema, modello, idea, copia, esempio, avver-
timento, lezione, prova, opposizione 5•
La nozione paradeigma - exemplum ha giocato un ruolo importante
nel mondo greco-romano. Gli eroici paradeigmata di Omero costituivano
1. fu avanti nornineremo solo Origene, anche se ci riferiamo sempre alla traduzione
latina della sua opera, fatta da Rufino; cio non offre la certezza che le stesse espressioni
venivano usate anche da Alessandrino. li testo originale citiamo secondo l'edizione:
Origenes, Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos. Romerbrief-Kommentar. Lateinisch
Deutsch (Fontes Christiani, 2/1-6), trad. Th. HEITIIER OSB, Freiburg, Herder, 1990, e dalla
traduzione: Origene, Commento alla Lettera ai Romani, trad. F. COCCHINI, Casale Monfer-
rato, Marietti, 1985.
2. Un lavoro sintetico su questo tema è: F. COCCHINI, Il Paolo di Origene: Contribllto
alla storia della recezione delle Epistole paoline nel III secolo, Roma, Studium, 1992. Cf.
anche H. DE LUBAC, Histoire et Esprit: L'intelligence de l'Écriture d'après Origène, Paris,
Aubier, 1950; T. HEITHER, Translatio Religionis: Die Paulusdeutung des Origenes in
seinem Kommentar zlIm Romerbrief, Küln-Wien, Bohlau Veriag, 1990; T. HEITHER, Ein-
fiih1'llng in den Romerbriefkommentar des Origenes, in: Origenes, Commentarii in
Epistulam ad Roma/lOS (n. 1), t. I-VI e anche: G.A. GALLUCCIO, San Paolo Apostolo -
maestro di vita spirituale e di esegesi biblica, ne "1 principi" di Origene in La scala:
Rivista di spiritualità dei benedettini di Noci 63 (2009) 137-145.
3. Cf. Siownik grecko-polski, a cura di O. JUREWICZ, Warszawa, PWN, 2000, t. I,
p. 179. Altri significati riportati: esemplare, documento.
4. Cf. C.T. LEWIS - C. SHORT, A Latin Dictiona/)', Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1958,
p.682.
5. Cf. Siownik grecko-polski (n. 3), t. II, p. 148.
 446 S. KACZMAREK
la base dell'educazione greca; si cercava di emularli (aemulatio)6 e di
superarli. Conviene notare che, nei discorsi dimostrativi, l'esempio
lasciato da qualcuno alla posterità era un elemento della lode7.
NeIla retorica exemplum assume due significati: come similitudo
ristretta8, esso è la prova tratta dalla comparazione9 ; come una dellefigu-
rae sententiae emotive, invece, esso costituisce un elemento dell' orna-
tuslO. Secondo la "Rhetorica ad Herennium", la similitudo el' exemplum
si usano: ornandi causa aut probandi aut apertius dieendi aut ante oell-
los ponendill .
Platone utilizza la nozione di paradeigmata pel' parlare delle idee 12 ,
cioè dei modelli normativi, secondo i quali viene aIl' esistenza tutto il
sensibile l3 . La nozione mimesis (imitatio) si riferisce invece al divenire
simile a Dio l4 .
II. L'AUTOREVOLEZZA DI PAOLO NEL COMMENTa
Sulla forza dell' exemplum influisce l'autorevolezza della persona, a
cui tale exemplum si riferisce. Soffermiamoci dunque sull'autorevolezza
di Paolo nel Commento. Già nella Praefatio Origene dimostra come,
scrivendo la Lettera ai Romani, Paolo fosse più perfetto che nelle altre
Lettere lS . La sua pelfezione si esprime in un'adesione tale a Cristo, da
6. Cf. H.I. MAMou, Historia wycllOwania II' staroiyt/losci, trad. St. Los, Warszawa,
PIW, 1969, p. 43.
7. Cf. H. LAUSBERG, Relol)'ka literacka: Podstawy wiedzy 0 literaturze, trad. A. Gorz-
kowski, Bydgoszcz, Homini, 2002, §245 me.
8. Cf. Origenes, CMt X.4.24ss.
9. Cf. LAUSBERG, Retol)'ka (n. 7), §41O-426.
10. Cf. ibid., §1244, V a. Gli exelllpla sono usati in moIti generi letterari, non solo
nell'ellenismo. L'exemplum era impOltante anche pel' la letteratura ebraica (cf. COCCHINI,
Paolo di Orige/le [n. 2], pp. 161-162), che secondo Meynet, si distingue da quella ellenis-
tica, perché più che spiegare introduce illettore nel cammino di prendere da solo la deci-
sione (cf. R. MEYNET, Wprowadzenie do hebrajskiej retol)'ki biblij/lej, trad. T. Kot,
Krak6w, WAM, 2001, pp. 184ss.).
11. Rhetorica ad Here/l/liwl1, 4.45.59. Cf. B. FlORE, The FZII/ction of Personal Exalllple
in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles, Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1986, p. 29.
12. Cf. H.G. LIDDELL - R. SCOTT, A Greek-E/lglish Lexico/l, Oxford, Clarendon, 1958,
p. 1307.
13. Cf. G. REALE, Historia fi/ozofii staroiyt/lej, t. V, trad. E.I. Zielinski, Lublin,
Wydawnictwo KUL, 2002, p. 166.
14. Nel periodo imperiale l'idea di sequela di dio è accolta anche dai neostoici, neo-
pitagOlici, neoaristotelici e neoplatonici. Cf. REALE, Historia (n. 13), t. V, pp. 133 e 242.
15 .... videtur apostolus in hac epistula pelfectiorfuisse quam i/l ceteris (CRIIl, Prae-
fatio Orige/lis, FCh 2/1, 62.19s.). E importante notare che Ol'igene scrive sulla duplice
perfezione. Secondo la perfezione che cO/lsiste nell'esercizio delle virtù (CRm, Praefatio
Origenis, trad. F. COCCHINI, t. r, p. 6) Paolo non si considera pelfetto.
L'EXEMPLUM DI PAOLO NEL CRM 447
avere i suoi stessi sentimenti l6 . Le tappe dei suo cammino verso la per-
fezione erano: trattare duramente il corp017 e conformarsi alla morte e
alla resurrezione di Cristo 18 . La perfezione consiste allora nel rapporto
con Cristo, di cui Paolo è l'imitatore I9 , al quale è simile20 e che ama più
di come gli altri Lo amin0 21 . Inoltre, Paolo più intensamente di altri col-
labora con la grazia22 •
In riferimento al fatto di conoscere Dio e di proclamare i suoi misteri,
Paolo è chiamato conoscitore23 e dispensatore di essi24 . Paolo non esorta
a niente, che non si sia già compiuto in luFs. Sembra che l'esatta corri-
spondenza tra la vita e le parole dell'imitatore di Cristo è pel' Origene il
motivo pel' cui egli COS! spesso richiama la persona di Paolo.
III. LA FUNZIONE DEL TERMINE EXEMPLUM NEL COMMENTa
Pel' considerare il problema che ci interessa sullo sfondo più ampio deI
Commento, esaminiamo all'intemo di quest' opera, chi è colui che dà
l' exemplum 26 , e di che cos a 10 dà. Dio è colui che in Cristo ha dato27
l'esempio dell'obbedienza28 . Cristo ha dato l'exemplum oboedientiae29 ,
16. Cf. CRm, Praefatio Origenis (cf. Fi13,15); FCh 2/1, 64.
17. Cf. CRm, Praefatio Origenis (cf. 1Cor 9,27); FCh 2/1,68.
18. Cf. CRm, Praefatio Origenis (cf. Fil 3,11); FCh 2/1, 64.
19. Cf. CRm LI; FCh 2/1, 76.17.
20. Cf. CRm IV.8; FCh 2/2, 256.9ss.
21. Cf. CRIIl V.lO; FCh 2/3, 172.25ss.
22. Cf. CRm vm.7 (cf. 1Cor 15,10); FCh 2/4,248. É bene notare l'uso dei compara-
tivi, che mostrano superiorità di Paolo. Cf. anche CRIIl m.3: Paolo non è solo Sel1'US
inuti/is, ma poichè ha fatto qualcosa super praeceptum, pua essere nominato sel1'US fidelis
et prudens (FCh 2/2, 70.9ss).
23. Cf. CRIIl IV.8 (FCh 2/2, 258.26).
24. Cf. CRIIl V.1 (FCh 2/3,38.16); V.2 (FCh 2/3,94.15); V.5 (FCh 2/3,110.21).
25. Cf. CRm IV.6 (FCh 2/2, 232.24s); X.12 (FCh 2/5, 218.1ss).
26. Gli exempla sono anche le citazioni dalla Sacra Scrittura (CRm X.8; FCh 2/5.17 e
27). Nel caso dell'esempio deI faraone, exemplum esprime un avvertimento 0 una lezione
(exemplulll interitus - CRm VIl.16; FCh 2/4, 158.1s.). Nei frammenti greci è ~onservata
anche l'espressione: paradeigmatos he/leken (FrRIIl, 30; FCh 2/6, 176, lOs.). E usata pel'
introdUITe esempio che illustra la tesi posta. N ella versione latina troviamo espressioni:
verbi gratia (CRm VI.9; FCh 2/3, 278.6) 0 puta (CRIIl VIL8), che probabilmente venivano
usate pel' tradurre l'espressione greca sopra nominata.
27. n dare 1'esempio si esprime con i verbi: dare (CRm IV.12; FCh 2/2, 298.13s.);
pO/lere (CRm VII.9; FCh 2/4, 106.15s.); praebere (CRIIl m.2; FCh 2/2,54.4); relinquere
(CRm IX.39; FCh 2/5, 128.27); dereli/lquere (CRIIl IX.39; FCh 2/5, 130.23ss.), mentre il
riportare l'esempio con i seguenti: produrre (CRIIl IV.1; FCh 2/2, 158.18); adducere
(CRIIl VI.8; FCh 2/3, 260.12s.) - gr. epipherei/l (FrRm, 35; FCh 2/6.188,5); uti (CRIIl
V.1; FCh 2/358.279).
28. Cf. CRm VII.9 (FCh 2/4, 106.15s.).
29. Cf. CRm IX.39 (FCh 2/5, 130.23).
 448 S. KACZMAREK L'EXEMPLUM DI PAOLO NEL CRM 449

passionis et mortificationis30 , mortis31, resurrectionis et vitae novitatis32 , non propriis praesumpta senteniis, sed divinis munita festimonUs proferant.
mentre egli stesso è entrato nella morte exemplo Ionae 33 . Paolo, oltre ad Si enim ipse tantcls ac taUs apostolus auctoritatem dictorum sllorum suffi-
essere egli stesso exemplum, riporta gli esempi di altri (Abrahae 34 ). Alcuni cere posse non credit, nisi doceat in lege et prophetis scripta esse quae
diGit, quanto magis nos minimi hoc obsel1l are debemus, ut non nostras, cum
esempi li richiama anche l'Autore deI Commento (pueri 35 , latronis 36 ). docemus, sed Sancti Spiritus sententias proferamus? ... Sed et quod dixit
Gli scopi deI dare esempi sono i seguenti: probare 37 , docere 38 , osten- Apostolus: "Sicut scriptum est, quia non est iustus quisquam, non est intel-
dere 39 , declararéo, intelligi41 , explanaré2, evidentius fieri 43 , invitare 44 • ligens, non est requirens Deum", non eisdem sermonibus invenitur in psal-
L'accogliere e il seguire gli esempi è espresso con alcuni verbi, quali: mis, sed alii permutantur, alii assumuntur, alii relinquntur. Quod ab stu-
sumeré5 , imitari46 , sequi47 . diosis quibusque si observetllr diligentius, puto dari in hoc apostolicam
auctoritatem, ut, Cl/m scripturae testimonUs utendum fuerit, sensum magis
DaI punto di vista retorico una fOlma ridotta dell'exemplum è l'anto- ex ea quam verba capiamus. Hoc enim et in evangeliis factum frequenter
nomasia, che appare nel Commento anche in riferimento a Paolo48 • Nel invenies 50 •
Commento troveremo anche casi dell'applicazione dell'esempio di Paolo
senza l'uso deI termine exemplum, ma tali casi non saranno esaminati in Origene interpreta come praebere exemplum (dare l'esempio) la pra-
questa sede. tica, vista in Paolo, di accordare la sua dottrina con la Sacra Scrittura,
compresa come espressione dello Spirito Santo (Sancti Spiritus senten-
tiae). L'exemplum contiene anche la modalità usata da lui di attingere
IV. UNO SGUARDO SUI RIFERIMENTI A PAOLO, NEI QUALI APPARE dalla Scrittura, non alla lettera ma cogliendone il senso (sensum magis ...
IL TERMINE EXEMPLUM quam verba)51. Pel' Origene cio che Paolo fa e come 10 fa, diventano,
allora, ipso facto, exemplum, anche in casi mena evidenti, dove pel' com-
Veniamo alla presentazione dei passaggi del Commento, nei quali il prendere tale exemplum è necessario, come nel casa in esame, trovare ed
riferimento a Paolo è in relazione al termine exemplum. intepretare le differenze tra l'originale scritturistico e la maniera paolina
di citarlo.
1. Nel secondo capitolo del III libro, a Paolo è riferita l'espressione: I destinatari dell' exemplum sono i doetores eeclesiae, dei quali fa palte
praebet exemplum 49 . in prima persona anche l'Autore deI Commento, e che sono in seguito
.. . ut ei mori est, de scripturis sanctis vuft affirmare quod dixerat; simul et chiamati minimi. Nella comparazione di questo gruppo con Paolo, chia-
doctoribus ecclesiae praebet exemplum, ut ea, quae loquuntur ad populum, mato con l'antonomasia: ipse tantus ae talis apostolus 52 , si vede il tipo
di exemplum a mai01'e ad minus53 . Tale exemplum dimostra che - se
30. Cf. CRm IX.39 (FCh 2/5, 128.268.).
31. Cf. CRm IX.39 (FCh 2/5, 128.5).
32. Cf. CRm IX.39 (FCh 2/5, 128.23). 50. CRm III.2 (FCh 2/2, 54.2s8; 188s.) ... .come è sua solito VI/ole affermare mediante
33. Cf. CRm V.lO (FCh 2/3, 176.27). le Sacre Scritture quanta aveva detto; contemporaneamente offre 1111 esempio anche ai
34. Cf. CRm N.1 (FCh 2/2,158.18). dottori della chiesa affillché cio di cui parla/IO al popolo la espollgallo 11011 come cOlIget-
35. Cf. CRm VI.8 (FCh 2/3,260.12). turato dalle opiniolli proprie, ilia come rafforzato dalle testimolliallze diville. Se illfatti
36. Cf. CRm III.9 (FCh 2/2, 132.248.). Paolo, che è 1111 apostolo di cos, grande valore, 11011 ritielle che possa essere sufficiellte
37. Cf. CRm VIII.7 (FCh 2/4,240.23). l'autorità delle proprie parole se 11011 mostra che quanto dice sta scritto nella legge e llei
38. Cf. CRm VIII.7 (FCh 2/4, 242.6s.). profeti, quallto piû 1I0i che valiamo COsl poco dobbiamo attellerci a tale metodo COsl che
39. Cf. CRm VII.18 (FCh 2/4, 174.18.). quando illsegllamo 11011 esprimiamo idee 1I0stre, ma della Spirito sallto ... Ma allche
40. Cf. CRm X.8 (FCh 2/5,202.168.). quallto ha detto l'Apostolo: "Come sta scritto: Poiché 11011 vi è chi comprellda, 11011 vi è
41. Cf. CRm V.1 (FCh 2/3, 58.27s.). chi ricerchi Dio" (Rm 3,10-11) lion si ritrova nel salmo COli le medesime parole, ma
42. Cf. CRIIl V.7 (FCh 2/3, 128.218.). alclme sono cambiate, altre sono riprese, altre tralasciate. E se tale fatto viene osservato
43. Cf. CRm VI.9 (FCh 2/3, 278.5s.). COli phi attenziolle da qllalsiasi studioso, ritellgo che ill esso sia data alltorità apostolica
44. Cf. CRm X.14 (FCh 2/5, 228.28). al cogliere dalla Scrittllra il sigllificato phi che le parole, quando si deve usare della
45. Cf. CRm IX.39 (FCh 2/5, 128.6). testimolliallza scritturale. Troverai illfatti che cio è stato compiuto spesso allche lIei vall-
46. Cf. CRm VII.3 (FCh 2/4, 42.5). geli (trad. F. COCCHINI, t. l, p. 1298.).
47. Cf. CRm V.5 (FCh 2/3, 118.48.). 51. CRm III.2 (FCh 2/2, 54.24s.).
48. Cf. CRm III.2 (FCh 2/2, 66.26): 1'Apo8tolo. 52. CRm III.2 (FCh 2/2, 54.6s.).
49. CRm III.2 (FCh 2/2, 54.4). 53. Cf. LAUSBERG, Retol}'ka (n. 7), §420, b, ~.
 450 S. KACZMAREK
l'Apostolo considera l'autorità delle sue parole insufficiente e percio
attinge dalla Scrittura, tanto più gli altri non si dovrebbero limitare aIle
101'0 opinioni, ma dovrebbero controllame l'accordo con la Scrittura, per
presentare al popolo Sancti Spiritus sententiae54 . L'argomento aggiuntivo
è il seguente: la stessa pratica si trova nel Vangelo.
L'exemplum manifesta da un lato l'umiltà di Paolo nei confronti della
Scrittura, dall'altro la sua autorità nel citarla non letteralmente, ma
secondo il senso. Paolo diventa il modello deI modo di insegnare, non
esprimendo le proprie opinioni su Dio, ma quelle dello Spirito Santo,
attinte dalla Scrittura.
2. Nel settimo capitolo deI VI libro Origene si riferisce aIl' esempio di
quella tale similitudine 55 , usato prima (per exemplum cuiusdam sinlilitu-
dinis diximus)56. La frase che segue: Paolo esce da una stanza all'altra
con andatura incerta e poco visibile 57 pelmette di comprendere che si
tratta della parabola deI quinto libro, in cui Origene compara Paolo al
fedele e prudente servo dei re 58 • Attraverso porte socchiuse gli sono state
mostrate le dimore deI palazzo, collegate da diversi passaggi. In seguito
al servo è affidato il compito di fare il reclutamento. Pel' invogliare i
soldati, egli racconta qualcosa dei tesori dei re. Non volendo pero rivelare
il mistero dei re (cfr. Tb 12,7), non racconta dettagliatamente tutto. È
difficile dunque pel' gli altri intravvedere chiaramente come egli attra-
versa queste dimore regali59 •
Dallato formale, l'espressione exemplum similitudinis60 si puo com-
prendere come un esempio che ha il carattere della similitudo, cioe col-
legato con la dimensione comune della vita umana61 •
La comparazione aiuta a comprendere la ragione pel' cui Paolo non
precisa con quale significato usa il termine legge 62 nella Lettera ai Romani.
54. CRm m.2 (FCh 2/2, 54. lOs.).
55. CRm VI.7, trad. F. COCCHlNI, t. I, p. 328.
56. CRm VI.7 (FCh 2/3, 248. lOs). Cf. CRm V.l. In CRm VII.16 questa parabola è
definita come similitudo (FCh 2/4, 148.20s).
57. CRm VI.7, trad. F. COCCHlNI, t. I, p. 328.
58. Fidelisfamulus et prudens (CRm V.1, FCh 2/3, 40.17).
59. F. COCCHINI indica la provenienza di questa parabola dal Midrash Rabbah Song
of Song I.1, 8, dove la Scrittura è presentata come un palazzo con moIte porte, che si
aprono con la chiave dei metodo parabolico (cf. COCCHINI, Paolo di Origene [no 2],
p. 118). Origene spiega il procedimento di Paolo, che consiste in rivelare e in nascondere
i misteri di Dio, non solo citando 1Cor 13,9. 12, dove Paolo confessa di conoscere solo
parzialmente, ma anche con il fatto, che noi non siamo in grado nemmeno di cogliere la
sua conoscenza parziale (cf. CRIll V.1).
60. Si tralta di exemplulll come figura sententiae.
61. Cf. LAUSBERG, RetOlyka (n. 7), §423.
62. Sul problema della legge è rivoIta l'attenzione anche in CRm VII. 16.
L'EXEMPLUM DI PAOLO NEL CRM 451
Dall' exemplum appare l'immagine di Paolo ifidelis famulus et pru-
dens) nella sua relazione a Dio e agli uomini. Dio gli ha affidato i suoi
misteri, anche se non in maniera chiara e completa. Paolo, come servo di
Dio, compie fedelmente e prudentemente la sua missione, per attirare gli
uomini attraverso il suo mostrare le ricchezze di Dio, in modo da esor-
tarli ma senza rivelare l'intero mistero dei re.
L:exemplum di Paolo risveglia fiducia ed ammirazione verso di lui.
Esso costruisce l'autorevolezza di Paolo ed invita ad una più attenta let-
tura delle sue Lettere e ad imitare il suo modo di parlare di Dio. Origene
stesso in un altro capitolo, in cui toma il motivo ricol1'ente della legge,
rinuncia a spiegare accuratamente le parole dell' Apostolo e questo suo
modo di procedere 10 intende come segno di essere discepolo di Paol063 •
3. Nel nono capitolo deI VI libro deI Commento Origene presuppone
che Paolo entri nella situazione di un uomo camale con 10 scopo di
mostrargli il modo di compOltarsi exemplo Apostoli64 . A partire da que-
sta prospettiva l'Esegeta legge Rm 7,14-2465 •
Apostolus, ne quis nostrum erubesceret de his, quae intra se geri sentiret,
aut etiam conversus ad Dominum et mutata iam voluntate, ne l1aec adhuc
intra semet ipso geri descripsit, ut exemplo Apostoli nec corporis naturae
plldeat quemqllam nec pro emendatione desperet nec malorum suorum mul-
titlldines ignoret, ex qlliblls pel' Christi gratiam liberatur66 •
63. Idcirco igitur et nos in talibus suspenso pede tamquam in aula regia positi pau.ca
sermone, piura silentio transeamus ipso nabis apostolo Paulo magistro et duce hlllus
itinerisfacto (CRm VII. 16, FCh 2/4, 150.20ss.).
64. CRm VI.9 (FCh 2/3, 284.14).
65. Rm 7,14-25: Sappiamo infatti che la legge è spirituale: ma io sono camale, ven-
duto in potere dei peccato. Non sa infatti cià che compio: perchè non faccio quello che
vaglio ma faccio quello che odio. Se perà fac~i~.cià che non v~glio, s~no d'accorda c~n
la legge, poiché è bu a/w. Ora perà non sono plll 10 che ~o ~omplO, ma Il pec~ato che ~blt~
in me. Sa infatti che in me, cioè nella mia came, non ablta li bene. Il valere Il bene, difa~fI,
dipende da me: il compierlo, invece, non mi r~esce. Inf~t~i io nO~lfar.~io il bene ~he l:ogllO;
ma il male, che non vaglio, questo io complo. Se pOl 10 facclO CIO che non logllO, non
sono più io che la compio, ma il peccato che abita. in me ..Tro~'o ~unqu~ la ~egge, pel' me
che vaglio fare il bene, poiché il male sta pressa dl me. Difattlml compwcclO della legge
di Dio seconda l'I/omo interiore: ma veda nelle mie membra l/ll'altra legge elle latta
contra la legge della mia mente e mi trascina schiavo della legge dei peccato che sta nelle
mie membra. Che UO/11O infelice io sono! Chi Illi libererà dal COlpo di questa morte? La
grazia di Dio pel' mezzo di Gest/ Cristo Signore nostro. . ..
66. CRm VI.9 (FCh 2/3, 284.lOss.) ... .l'apostolo, affinché neSSl/110 dl nOI SI vergo~
gnasse di cià che sentiva accadere dentro di sé oppure per~esse ogni,speranz.a ren~end~s~
conta che, pur convertitosi al Signore e trasformata armai la volonta, tuttavw tailmofl SI
agitavano ancora nel sua intemo, egli stesso dZ/IIque li !w descri~ti come se accadess~ro
in lui, perché, dietro /'esempio de Il 'aposta/a, neSSllllO SI vergoglll della.nat~lra de.' co/P~
né perda /a speranza nei confronti della conversione né ignori la molfltudllle deI propn
mali dai ql/ali è liberato pel' la grazia di Cristo (trad. F. COCCHlNI, t. I, p. 344).
452 S. KACZMAREK
DaI contesto dèl Commenta (CRm VI.9) risulta che, secondo Origene,
Paolo entra nelmolo dei deboli per guadagnatfi67.In modo simile ai santi
dell'Antico Testamento, prende su di sé le debolezze dei discepoli68 , le
descrive come proprie e con il suo pianto mostra come si dovrebbe rim-
piangere la propria peccaminosità e vivere jl cammino della conver-
sioné9 , quando le opere non seguono la volontà7o.D'altra parte, affinché
nessuno perda la speranza di poter migliorare, 'con autorità apostolica71
Paolo mostra da quanti mali libera la grazia di' Cristo72 •
Origene attribuisce a Paolo l'intenzione di diventare, per chi pecca,
exemplum, con 10 scopo di fargli rimpiangere i suoi peccati, ma nello
stesso tempo al fine di non fargli dimenticare la forza della grazia di
Cristo e di invitarlo a tendere con speranza alla conversione. L' exempluni
rivela il cuore di Paolo, che compatisce con i deboli, accompagnandoli
67. L'espressione poi: "Ma io sono camale, venduto in potere dei peccato" (Rm 7,14);
qui ormai la pronuzia come dottore della chiesa che si assume pel' se stesso il 1'lI010
di chi è debole e percià anche in un àltro passo ha dello: "Mi sono fallo debole con
i deboli pel' guadagnare i deboli" (ICor 9,22) (CRm VI.9, trad. F. COCCHINI, t. 1,
p.339).
68 .... tamquam doctor ecclesiae personam in semet ipsum suscipit infirmorum (CRm
VI.9, FCh 2/3, 270.22n.).
69 ... .Pertanto conviene che noi, leggendo le parole dei santi, quando vediamo che
da essi sono pro1/llllciate frasi di questo genere, intendiamo e crediamo che essi desc-
rivono in se stessi le nostre passioni e i nostri peccati; e tali realtà essi piangono appunto
perché dai lol'O lamenti noi possiamo essere stimolati aile lacrime. Ritenevano infatti che
non si possa trovare neSS1l11O COS! duro e insensibile il quale, vedendo che le sue faite
sono piante da altri, non provi egli pure Zlll quaI che sentimento di dolore pel' esse (CRm
VI.9, trad. F. COCCHINI, t. l, p. 344).
70. Ma poiché Paolo, assunto il /1/010 di chi è più debole, ha insegnato cize all'intemo
dell'uomo ci sono tali lolle e ha mostrato come l'anima, anche contro la sua volontà, pel'
l'abitudine stessa dei peccare, mediante i desideri della came sia trascinata in potere dei
peccato, dà in una esclamazione stando ancora nel /1/010 di quel tale cize ha descritto, e
dice: "Che uomo infelice io sono! Chi mi libererà dal cO/po di questa morte?" (Rm 7,24)
... Questa esclamazione dunque è fatta a nome di quel tale che l'apostolo descrive come
uno che ha certamente accolto l'inizio della cOllversione, giacchè la volontà deI bene
dipende da lui, ma non è ancora arrivato alla sua realizzazione. Non gli riesce infatti di
compiere il bene poiché in lui la pratica e l'esercizio delle virtz/non erano an cora svilup-
pate (CRm VI.9, trad. F. COCCHINI, t. l, pp. 342-343). Sul tema della concezione dello
sviluppo spirituale in Origene Cf. E. STANULA, Czlowiek wewn/(trzny, in Orygenes,
Komentarz do Listu sw. Pawla do Rzymian, t. l, pp. 23-38; H. CROUZEL, Orygenes, trad.
J. MARGANSKI, Bydgoszcz, Homini, 1996, pp. 129-207.
71. A quanto costui aveva dello ... gli risponde poi, non pizl al suo nome, ma con
autorità apostolica: "La grazia di Dio pel' mezzo di Gesû Cristo Signore nostro" (Rm 7,25).
Da dove appare che l'apostolo ha descritto tullo cià e ha indicato i mali che si agitavano
dentro di noi, pel' mostrare e insegnare alla fine da quanti mali e da quante morti Cristo
ci ha strappati (CRm VI.9, trad. F. COCCHlNl, t. l, p. 343).
72 ... .haec ol/ZIlia descripsit apostolus et mala, quae intra IIOS agebantur, exposuit, ut
ad ultimum ostellderet et doceret, de quantis nos malis et de quantis mortibus Christus
eripuit (CRm VI.9, FCh 2/3, 282.6s.).
L'EXEMPLUM DI PAOLO NEL CRM 453
attivamente nel cammino della conversione. Paolo non vuole tenerli
legati a sé. È verso Cristo che li volge73 •
4. Nel settimo capitolo dell'Vrn libro troviamo due espressioni che
sono pel' noi di particolare interesse: ut hoc praesenti probaret exem-
plo74 e exemplo sui ... docebar7 5•
.. .propterea apostolus volens ista curare et ostendere, quia supersit salutis
via populo Israel, si credant, et quia non idcirco repulsi sunt, quia gC1lUS
sint Israel, sed quia non idcirco repulsi sim t, sed quia increduli fuerint, ait:
"Non reppulit Deus plebem suam, quam praescivit" (Rm 11,1). Et ut hoc
praesenti probaret exemplo, subiungit: "Nam et ego Israelita sum ex
semine Abraham et tribu Beniamin" (Rm 11,1) et tamen fidem Iesll doceo
et annuntio, quia ipse est Christus. QlIod si mihi non obfuit, quia sum Isra-
elita ex semine Abraham, quominus Christo crederem et ex fide eius iusti-
ficarer, certum est, quia "non reppulit Deus plebem suam, quam praesci-
vit" (Rm 11 ,2)16.
Nel Commenta la scama autopresentazione di Paolo come Israelita, in
Rm 11,1, è separata dal versetto seguente (Rm 11,2), in cui Paolo nega
il ripudio deI popolo da parte di Dio. L'elemento che separa questi ver-
setti è un enunciato fittizio (sermocinatio) di Paolo, che contiene un sil-
logismo: se Paolo insegna la fede in Cristo e per la fede in Lui è stato
giustificato, anche se era Ebreo, allora è certo (certum est)77 che Dio non
ha ripudiato il suo popolo. Origene spiega che Paolo, per paura che non
apparisse di poco valore il Jatto che egli mediante il sua esempio inse-
gnava78 (exemplo suif9, ha aggiunto un altro esempio tratto dalla Scrit-
tura80 , che introduce al tema del Resto eletto per grazia (Rm 11,5-6).
Exemplum sui constituisce qui una prova (probatio )81, conducente,
secondo Origene, a una conclusione certa. Indicando se stesso, Paolo nega
la ripudiazione deI popolo a causa dell' origine. Il contenuto dell' enunciato
73. Cf. CRm VI.9 (FCh 2/3,284.16).
74. CRm VIII.7 (FCh 2/4, 240.22s.).
75. CRm VIII.7 (FCh 2/4, 242.6).
76. CRm VIII.7 (FCh 2/4, 240. 18ss.).
77. CRm VIII.7 (FCh 2/4, 240.28).
78. CRIIl VIII.7, trad. F. COCCHINI, t. l, p. 55.
79. CRIIl VIII.7 (FCh 2/4,242.6).
80. Si tratta dell'esempio di Elia, che è convinto di essere lui solo fedele a Dio mentre
Dio gli parla sull'esistenza di settemila altri fedeli (cf. IRe 19,10. 18; Rm 11,3-4).
81. Tale affermazione attraverso introduzione alla causa per via di silogismo si avvi-
cina aIl' argulllentum, e percio della prova dedotta dalla stessa causa. Cf. LAUSBERG, Reto-
,yka (n. 7), §221; §§395-397. Le due esigenze poste all'exemplum non sono qui realizzate,
e cioè l'esigenza, che l'exempillm venga preso fuori della causa, e l'esigenza, negli esempi
di carattere storico, che l'exemplum fosse attinto dal passato (cf. LAUSBERG, RetO/yka
[no 7], §410), seppure Quintiliano non insiste che gli antichi esempi vengano presi
dall'antichità (cf. FIORE, Fllnctioll of Personal Example [no 11], p. 32).
 454 S. KACZMAREK
fittizio dell' Apostolo aggiunge alla causa deI ripudio d'Israele un nuovo
criterio, tratto dal contesto della Lettera, quello della fede e dell' apparte-
nenza al Rest0 82 •
L'exemplum sembra avere nel contesto ancora un' altra funzione, quella
di invogliare gli Israeliti ad imitare ed emulare l'Apostolo. Se Paolo ha
ottenuto la giustificazione, perché essi non potrebbero ottenerla? L' exem-
plum di Paolo non si limita a costruire la propria autorevo1ezza83 , ma
orienta l'attenzione sul disegno di Dio e su come i criteri esteriOl'i non
valgono più nel confronto con la fede in Cristo.
5. Nell'undicesimo capitolo deI X libro troviamo l'espressione vitae
exemplo84.
.. .qui evangelium sacrificat et verbum Dei annuntiat, curare omnimodis
debet, ne qua in praedicando macula, ne quod in docendo vitium, ne qua
in magisterio culpa nascatur; sed, ut ita dixerim, si fieri potest, semet ipsum
primo immolet, se primum vitUs iugulet, sua prius peccato membra morti-
ficet, ut non solum doctrina, sed et vitae exemplo discipulorum salutem
oblationem suam acceptam faciat Deo. Sanctificata", in quit, in Spiritu
H H
Sancto". Sanctificationis fons Spiritus Sanctus est, et ideo oblatio gentium,
quae Paulo sacrificante offertur, non pel' obsen'antiam legis, sed pel' Spi-
ritwll Sanctum accepta fieri dicitur De0 85 .
Il contesto è costituito qui dall'attività evangelizzatrice di Paolo, vista
da Paolo stesso come un'oblazione 86 • Questa oblazione, non legata all'os-
servanza delle prescrizioni della Legge87 , è associata alla salvezza dei
discepoli. Essa è gradita a Dio, quando - come scrive Origene - contiene
82. Cf. Rm 10-11.
. .83. La forza dell' exemplulll proviene dall'autorevolezza di Paolo, il quale stesso mette
mSleme la sua autobiografia e le citazioni scritturistiche (cf. Rm 11 ,3-4).
84. CRm X. 11 (FCh 2/5, 216.1).
85. CRIIl X. 11 (FCh 2/5, 214.22-216.6) ... .chi offre in sacrificio il vangelo e anllllllzia
la parola di Dio, deve badare in tutti i modi che non sorga qualche macchia nel predicare,
qualche difetto nell'insegnare, qualche colpa nella funzione di maestro, ma - pel' dir cosi
- se è possibile, i1l1l1lOli se stesso pel' primo, sCalmi prima se stesso ai vizi, faccia morire
pel' prima cosa le sue lIlembra al peccato, cosi da rendere gradita a Dio non solo con la
dottrina, ma anche con l'esempio della vita, la salvezza dei discepoli quale sua offerta.
"Sanctijicata - dice -nello Spirito santo". Fonte della santlficazione è 10 Spirito santo e
percià l'offerta dei gentili che viene compiuta mediante Paolo, che la offre in sacrificio,
si dice che diventa gradita a Dio non pel' l'osserl'a/lZa della legge, ma pel' 10 Spirito
santo" (trad. F. COCCHINI, t. II, p. 179).
86. Cf. Rm 15,15-16. Origene non lega nel brano esaminato esempio di vita con
il nome di Paolo, ma in tutto il capitolo fa riferimento a lui, e a conclusione ancora una
volta ricorda che l'offerta dei gentili, è compiuta mediante Paolo (Paulo sacrificante _
CRm X.11, FCh 2/5,216.4).
87. li Commentatore trae cià da Rm 15,16 sulla santificazione delle offerte attraverso
10 Spirito Santo.
L'EXEMPLUM DI PAOLO NEL CRM 455
due elementi: la doctrÎna 88 e l'exemplum vitae dell'evangelizzatOl'e. Tale
exemplum consiste nell'offrire se stessi nell'oblazione e nel morire a se
stessi. Senza questo nell'annunciare e nell'insegnare possono introdursi
la macchia, il vizio e la colpa, a causa dei quali l' offerta non è gradita a
Dio.
L'exemplum esprime qui di nuovo un aspetto dell'influenza sugli altri.
Origene mostra che l'accordo della dottrina con la vita dell'evangelizza-
tore è un'esigenza da paIte di Dio. Solo la vita che concorda con l'inse-
gnamento produce, come effetto dell'imitazione dei discepoli, il loro
avvicinamento alla salvezza. Nel testo che stiamo vedendo, dunque,
Paolo è colui che annuncia il vangelo non solo a parole, ma anche con il
sacrificio e con la mOIte al peccato .
V. CONCLUSIONI
Nei sei passaggi deI Commento, nei quali il tennine exemplum si rife-
risce a Paol0 89 , a volte il significato deI termine sottolinea l'aspetto pro-
batorio, a volte quello comparativo 0 illustrativo. Invece l'elemento sta-
bile è l'influenza eSOItativa dell'esempio di Paolo.
Il fatto di guardare la vita di una persona illustre alla luce dell'esempio
è contenuto nella tradizione classica. Tuttavia si pub notare che gli
esempi di Paolo proposti da Origene non sono evidenti ad una prima
lettura deI testo della Lettera90 • Origene li scopre grazie ad un'analisi
accurata della Lettera, esaminata nel contesto della vita di Paolo, delle
sue lettere e di tutta la Scrittura. Uno degli esempi che Origene manifesta
di Paolo è l'insegnamento in accordo alla Scrittura, non nel sua signifi-
cato letterale, bensl nel suo senso profondo. Sembra che qui si trovi la
chiave pel' comprendere in che cosa consiste l' exemplum di Paolo e la
sua imitazione. Non si tratta di copiaI'e le parole e le opere di Paolo, ma
di aprirsi al senso profondo deI sua modo di agu'e91, che, come abbiamo
88. CRm X.11 (FCh 2/5, 214.27).
89. In un passaggio Origene stesso si presenta come autore dell'esempio (CRm VI.7),
nei al tri invece riporta Paolo come au tore dell'esempio.
90. Ricordiamo che nei sopra menzionati esempi si tratta di: rafforzare insegnamento
di Paolo con testimonia della Scrittura, non nel senso letterale, ma spirituale; trasmettere
i misteri divini con cautela; avvicinarsi alle difficoltà dei discepoli, affinchè non perdano
la speranza; consegnare, da parte dell'insegnante, se stesso in offerta e realizzare fedel-
mente le verità evangeliche per la salvezza dei discepoli.
91. Ugualmente sul tema dell'esegesi origeniana, sul modello di Paolo, cf. DE LUBAC,
Histoire et Esprit (n. 2), p. 76 (/1 ne le suivra pas toujours à la lettre, bien loin de là!
Mais il s'efforcera toujours d'en rejoindre l'inspiration profonde).
456 S. KACZMAREK
visto, è in accordo con la dottrina insegnata da lui92 ; di aprirsi all'amore
che vivifica il suo agire, l' amore pel' Cristo e pel' coloro pel' cui egli fa
della sua vita un esempio.
Paolo è un esempio di fede pel' il suo popolo affinché costui alTivi alla
giustificazione pel' la fede in Cristo (CRm VIII.7); pel' coloro che si con-
vertono, le cui debolezze fa proprie, egli diventa un esempio, pel' attirarli
alla fiducia nella grazia di Cristo (CRm VI.9); pel' i dottori della Chiesa
egli è un esempio di umiltà e di conoscenza profonda della Scrittura
(CRm III.2), e un esempio di accordo tra la vita e l'insegnamento, affin-
ché il frutto delloro impegno sia la salvezza dei discepoli (CRm X.11).
Lo scopo di Paolo, mostrato da Origene, sembra essere quello di indulTe
gli altri ad imitarlo, tuttavia non in modo superficiale. Pel' imitarlo è
necessario conoscere e comprendere le sue motivazioni: attirarli a quel
senso che si rivela sotto la superficie, condurli a Cristo.
The Pontifical University of John Paul II Sylwia KACZMAREK
in Cracow Comunità Loyola
Theological Faculty
ul. Kanonicza 9,31-002 Krak6w
Poland
sylwiakaczmareklO@gmail.com
92. Secondo Origene Paolo non pensa di sè in modo alto (cf. Rm 12,3), ma nel suo
insegnamento tiene conto dei enunciati dello Spirito (cf. Rm 1,9).1 suoi annunci deI Van-
gelo li lega con la presentazione dell'offerta dalla sua vita (Cf. Rm 12,1), nella preoccu-
pazione per gli altri (cf. Rm 15,2). Paolo non dirnentica anche la sua gente, desiderando
attraverso il SUD esempio di condurli alla salvezza (Rm 11,13-14: Parla a l'ai, stranieri;
in quanta sono apostolo degli stranieri faccio al/ore allllio lIlinistero, sperando ill qualche
malliera di prol'ocare la gelosia (ad aemulandum) di quelli deI mio sangue, e di salvarne
alculll).
VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRINITARIA DI\ORIGENE
METAFORA E LINGUAGGIO TEOLGlGICO
I. lNrRoDuzloNE
La dottrina trinitaria di Origene, pel' il suo carattere antimonarchiano, è
molto chiara nello stabilire la distinzione reale tra\il Padre, il Figlio e 10
Spirito Santo, pel' mezzo della sua dottrina delle tre hypôstasis, pero,
riguardo alla affermazione della unità divina non sembra presentare una
formulazione chiara in termini ontologici, e offre solo formulazioni in ter-
mini dinamici. Già a pattire dal secolo N, questo tipo di unità dinatnica fu
giudicata insufficiente pel' esprimere il monoteismo e la divinità deI Figlio.
Il presente articolo cerca di studiare le metafore origeniane che illu-
strano il rapporto tra il Padre e il Figlio, in particolare la generazione
etema, perché esse contengono quegli elementi che permettono compren-
dere con maggior profondità come Origene concepisce l'unità in Dio e,
di conseguenza, il modo come risolve il problema monarchiano.
1. Unità e differenza tra le creature razionali e Dio
Pel' comprendere il pensiero trinitario di Origene, è necessario situarlo
nel suo contesto dottrinale e, percio, bisogna chiarire come concepisce il
rapporto di unità e di distinzione tra Dio e le creature.
A. Origene insiste, in funzione antignostica, che la bontà 0 il male non
appartengono alle creature razionali in maniera sostanziale, cioè pel'
natura (Ku'tà cpuow), ma sempre in maniera accidentale. Mfermando cio,
evidenzia molte volte che solo il Padre, il Figlio e 10 Spirito Santo sono
santi in maniera sostanziale, mentre tutti gli altri esseri posseggono la
bontà e la santità in modo accidentale 1• Dio è santo in modo stabile, pel'
natura e da sempre; mentre la bontà 0 il male delle creature è instabile,
perché cominciarono a essere2 , e perché dipende dall'esercizio dellibero
1. Cf. Prin 1.2.13: Jam vero si qua alia "bolla" in scripturis dicuntur, l'el angelus l'el
homo l'el se,"Vus l'el thesaurus l'el cor bOIlUIll l'el arbor bona, haec omnia abusive dicun-
tur, accidentem, lion substantialem in se cOlltinentia bonitatem (GCS V, 48). Cf. Prin
1.3.8; 1.5.5; 1.8.3.
2. Cf. Prin 1.2.4: qui creati sunt, pro eo ql/od lion naturaliter, id est substantialiter, ÎI/esset
eis bonI/ill sed accidells, nOIl valelltes inconvertibiles et incolI/lI/utabiles permallere ac semper
in eisdem bonis aequa ac II/oderata libratiolle durare (GCS V, 31-32). Cf. Prin 11.9.1-2.
458 S. FERNÂNDEZ
arbitrio propri03 • Queste affermazioni, che trovano illoro punto di par-
tenza nella polemica antignostica, manifestano la radicale differenza che
Origene concepisce tra le creature e Dio, cioè il Padre, il Figlio e 10
Spirito Santo.
B. La controparte, per cosl dire, della dottrina precedente, nel pensiero
di Origene, è la parentela che lui riconosce tra il Creatore e le creature
razionali. Se tra 101'0 non ci fosse nulla in comune, Dio sarebbe assoluta-
mente inaccessibile. Pero l'intelligenza ha una certa affinità con Dio, di
cui è immagine intellettuale; e pel' questo essa puà conoscere qualcosa
della natura divina 4 . Questa propinquitas quaedam, questa auyyÉv8tu5 ,
permette che la creatura razionale possa conoscere qualcosa della natura
divina, e cio legittima anche il discorso teologico. In continuità con la
antropologia greca, afferma che questa parentela radica non in tutto l'uomo,
ma nella patte superiore dell'anima6 , il voue;, che è immagine di Dio.
C. In sintesi, Origene, da una parte, afferma una radicale distinzione
tra le creature razionali e Dio, e, dall'altra, dichiara la esistenza di una
certa parentela tra le creature razionali e Dio. Pero, cosa è cio che rende
somiglianti le creature razionali e Dio? E cos a è cio che differenzia radi-
calmente il Creatore dalle creature?
Cio che rende somiglianti le creature razionali e Dio è il fatto che tanto
Dio come queste creature posseggono il sostrato intellettuale7 ; cio che le
differenzia è il modo di possedere questo sostrato. Se da una parte, le
creature razionali condividono il sostrato intellettuale con Dio stesso, è
necessario affermare che la differenza tra Dio e le creature intellettuali
radica nel fatto che Dio possiede il bene e la santità in modo sostanziale
e da sempre, e, percio, in modo immutabile e indefettibile, mentre le
creature razionali posseggono il bene e la santità in modo accidentale,
giacché 10 hanno ricevuto nel tempo e 10 possono perdere.
3. Cf. Prin 1.6.2. Il Creatore non è colpevole deI male: certe absurdum est, lit causa
malitiae ipsarum, remota ab arbitrii sui proposito, conditori earum necessario adscriba-
tur (Prin 1.5.3, GCS V, 72). Questa riflessione si riferisce al tema antignostico delle cause
della diversità come un argomento per accusare il Dio creatore. Cf. Prin 1.8.2; II.6.3;
II.9.5-6; ill.5.4-5.
4. Prin 1.1.7 (GCS V, 24, trad. SlMONETTI, p. 137).
5. Cf. Prin 1.1.7; IIl.1.13; N.2.7; EM 47; CC IIl.40; Prin IV.4.lO. Cf. J. PÉPIN, Idées
grecques sur l'homme et sur Dieu, Paris, 1971, pp. 5-20.
6. Di fatto, l'anima, per natura, è 'secondo l'imagine' di Dio, CMt XVII.27. La parte
superiore dell'anima si chiama, vouS in tennini platonici; TjyE~IOVtK6v, in telmini stoici,
e Kupoiu in tennini biblici. Cf. H. CROUZEL, L'anthropologie d'Origène: De l'archè au
telos, in U. BIANCIll (a cura di), Arché e Telos: L'antropologia di Origene e di Gregorio
di Nissa. Analisi storico-religiosa, Milano, 1981, 36-49, p. 37. Cf. PÉPIN, Idées grecques
sur l'homme et sur Dieu (n. 5), pp. 167-199.
7. Cf. Prin IIl.6.7; CC V1.70; Prin 1.1.6.
VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRINITARIA DI ORIGENE 459
Le creature razionali, cioè, quelle che posseggono l'essere in modo
accidentale, si differenziano non pel' il 101'0 sostrato, che è comune, ma
pel' il libero arbitrio. CosÎ 10 indic a Manlio Simonetti in un importante
articolo: La qualità che determina il sostrato amO/fo della natura intel-
letuale, individualizzandolo in un numero di singoli esseri intelletuali
tutti diversi ira 101'0, è illibero arbitrio, che dà a ognuno di questi esseri
una 'personalità' ben caratterizzata rispetto alla personalità degli altri 8 •
Cio che definisce una creatura razionale individuale, non è tanto un qual-
cosa, un sostrato generico, ma le sue caratteristiche proprie che proven-
gono dal modo di possedere il bene, in vutù dellibero arbitrio.
Seguendo le conclusioni di Simonetti, con alcuni contributi di Rius-
CatnpS 9, è possibile offru'e una presentazione unitaria deI complesso delle
affermazioni e dei testi che sono stati studiati: esistono due sostrati gene-
rali, quello intellettuale e quello corporeo. Il sostrato intellettuale è con-
diviso tanto da Dio come dalle creature razionali. La netta differenza tra
Dio e le creature razionali risiede nel fatto che il Padre, il Figlio e 10
Spirito Santo posseggono il bene in modo sostanziale e indefettibile lO ,
mentre le creature razionali 10 posseggono in maniera accidentale, e si
distinguono a causa dellibero arbitrio.
Fedele al pensiero biblico, Origene non accetta nessuna realtà interme-
dia tra Dio e le creature: il possesso deI bene solo puo essere sostanziale
o accidentale, e non ammette un tertium quÎd. Una volta stabilita questa
netta distinzione tra il Creatore e le creature intellettuali, è possibile affer-
mare che tra il Padre e il Figlio e 10 Spirito Santo, ci sono diverse maniere
di possedere il bene in modo sostanziale, come si vedrà più avanti, e cio
permette una pluralità e una certa gerarchia nel Dio unico, senza che
questa differenza implichi un vero subordinazionismo.
2.1 monarchiani secondo Origene II
Prima di affrontare la teologia trinitaria dell' Alessandrino, sembra utile
esaminare il modo col quale i monarchiani comprendevano la unità e la
differenza in Dio. Il problema monarchiano sorge da una esigenza logica:
8. M. SlMONETTI, Sulla teologia trinitaria di Origene, in ID., Studi sulla cristologia dei
Il e III secolo (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 44), Roma, 1993, p. 116.
9. J. Rrus CAMPS, OrÎgenes y su reflexion sobre la Trinidad, in N. SILANES (ed.), La
Trinidad en la tradicion prellicena: Cristo revelador dei Padre y emisor dei Espfritu en
las primeras generaciones cristianas, Salamanca, 1973, 189-213.
10. '.'Da! complesso di questi passi risulta un concetto molto chiara: per Origene la
divinità nella sua articolazione trinitaria è caratterizzata dal possesso sostanziale, e percià
idefettibile dell'essere, cioè deI bene", SlMONETTI, Sulla teologia trinitaria di Origene (n.
8), p. 118.
11. Cf. A. ORBE, OrÎgenes y los monarquianos, in Gregoriallllln 72 (1991) 39-72.
460 S. FERNÂNDEZ
cos a affermare della divinità di Cristo pel' non negare il monoteismo?
Davanti a questa difficoltà, si elaborano diverse risposte, anche contrarie.
A partire dai testi antimonarchiani di Origene 12 , è possibile distinguere
tre dottrine:
A. Gesù, un mera uomo. Questo gruppo semplicemente nega la divinità
di Cristo e dichiara che Gesù, sebbene provvisto di carismi particolari, è
solo un uomo. Percio essi nemmeno si pongono il problema della unità
e della alterità in Dio, perché, compresa in tal modo, la figura de Gesù
non minaccia in nessun modo il monoteismo.
B. Gesù, un uomo inabitato dall'unico Dio. Altri affermano che la
unica divinità, indifferenziata e unipersonale, è presente in Cristo, come
in un tempio. Questi non accettano nessun tipo de alterità in Dio stesso,
solo accettano quella che si da tra Gesù e l'unico Dio che abita in lui.
C. Il Padre e il Figlio sono una unica realtà con due nomi. lnfine, la
dottrina più complessa, è quella di chi accetta una certa alterità in Dio,
pero solo di nome. Accettano una certa distinzione tra il Padre e il Figlio,
ma non una distinzione reale, perché affermano la identità pel' numel'o
(àptSWp), sostanza (oùO't<.l), sostl'ato (U1tOK1::tJlÉVep) e pel' hypôstasis
(Ku'Cà U1toO''CuO'w); e solamente accettano la distinzione tra Padre e
Figlio pel' nome (ovoJlu) e pel' punto di vista (È1ttvotU)13.
II. VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRINITARIA DI ORIGENE
Tanto il problema deI monarchianesirno come la risposta di Origene,
girano intorno alla relazione deI Padre e del Figlio, senza integrare 10
Spirito Santo. Percio, e per ragioni di tempo, anche il presente articolo si
centra sulla relazione deI Padre e deI Figlio, senza abbordare il modo di
integrare organicamente 10 Spirito Santo. Speriamo poter trattare questo
tema in uno studio successivo.
Origene è consapevole che il discorso sulla relazione del Padre e del
Figlio è molto complesso. La difficoltà di questa dottrina teologica risiede
nella necessità di mantenere tanto la distinzione reale tra il Padre e il
Figlio come il monoteismo, senza negare la divinità deI Figlio. In questo
argomento, afferma Origene, è necessario distinguere e unire, e mentre i
12. CTt (apud Panfilo, Apol., 33); CIo II.16; Dial 4; CRm VIII.5 (pG XIV, 1169C);
VII.13 (pG XIV, 1140B-1141B).
13. Cf. CIo X.246; CMt XVII. 14; Diall-2.
VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRINITARIA DI ORIGENE 461
monarchiani, aut male separant, aut male confundunt, Origene cerca di
mostral'e l'igual'do a che cosa sono due (Ku'Cà 'Ct 860 dO'tv), e l'igual'do
a che cosa i due sono un solo Dio (Ku'Cà 'Ct sis 0EOS dO'w 0\ (60),
ovvero, unil'e dove si deve e, inversamente, sepal'al'e dove col'risponde 14 •
1. Reale distinzione tra il Padl'e e il Figlio (Ku'Cà 'Ct 860 dO'tv)
Inveliendo le dichiarazioni antirnonarchiane, si puo stabilire che Ori-
gene afferma che il Figlio è altra (lhEpOS) rispetto al Padre in quanto al
numero (àptSJloS), al sostrato (u1toKdJlEVOV), alla hypôstasis (Ku'Cà
U1toO''CuO'w), alla distinzione pel' proprietà (l8to'CY]S)15, e d'accordo alla
sostanza (oùO'tu) 16. Conviene ricordare che la telminologia teologica è
lontana dall'acquisire il suo significato tecnico, e che il telmine oùO'tu,
nel secolo ID possiede significati molto diversi, e cio rende impossibile
una ricostruzione precisa della teologia di Origene centrata soltanto sui
termini tecnici.
Oltre alla terminologia tecnica, pel' Origene, è evidente, a partire dalla
Scrittura, che il Figlio è altro rispetto al Padre. COS! 10 dirnostra anche il
carattere recipraco dei termini: se c'è ilfiglio dev'essere necessal'iamente
figlio di un padl'e, e se c'è il padre dev'essere padl'e di unfiglio 17. La reale
alteritâ tra il Padre e il Figlio non si presenta come un punto di mTivo, ma
un punto di partenza della sua riflessione teologica. La identificazione
monm'chiana deI Padre e deI Figlio, invece, è difesa dai patripassiani come
14. HLev XIII.4 (GCS VI, p. 474); DiaI2-4. Cf. CC VIII. 12.
15. Cf. CIo II.16; X.75; X.246; CC VIII.12; HLev XIII.4.
16. Cf. CIo II. 149 y Dial 3; A. ORBE, Hacia la primera teologfa de la procesion dei
Verbo, Roma, 1958, pp. 436-437. Alcuni interpretano CIo X.246 come una dichiarazione
dell'unità della sostanza: E. CORSINI, Commento al Vangelo di Giovanni di Origene,
TOl1nO, 1995, pp. 436-437; C. BLANC, Origène. Commentaire sur Saint Jeall (SC, 120),
Paris, 1966, nota ad loc.; H. CROUZEL, Théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène, Paris,
1956, pp. 103-104 e A. WOLFSON, The Philosophy of the CIll/rch Fathers, Cambridge,
1976, pp. 317-318. In Prin 1.2.6 e 1.2.4 si parla di communione generica e non numerica.
Ma il cOllcetta di o\Jcria è tra i più diJJicili da definire nell'uso origeniano (CORSINI, Com-
mento al Vangelo di Giovanni di Origene, p. 436, n. 51). Secondo A. ORBE, "El Padre y
el Hijo difieren en substrato (Ku-rà 61tOKslf.lEVOV), en hip6stasis (Ku-rà 61tocr-rumv),
en ousia (Ku-rà o\JcrlUV), y en propiedad (Ku-rà iotO-rlFU), mas no en circunscripci6n
substancial (Ku-rà 1tEptypa<pi)v -r~S o\Jcrlas)" (Hacia la primera teolog(a de la procesion
dei Verbo, p. 440), cosl, ci sarebbe una certa communione di sostanza tra Padre e Figlio
(cf. In Heb. Com., apud Panfilo, Apol., 99). Cf. A. MrLANo, Persona in teologia: Alle
origini dei signiftcato di persona nel cristianesimo antico, Napoli, 1984, pp. 105-111;
R. CANTALAMESSA, L'evoluzione dei concetto di persona nell'uso trinitario e cristologico
antico, in ID., Dai kerygma al dogma: Studi sulla cristologia dei Padri, Milano, 2006,
141-150; M. SIMONETTI, "Persona" nel dibattito cristologico dal III al VI secola, in
StudiuIII 91 (1995) 529-548.
17. CIo X.246 (GCS IV, p. 212, trad. CORSINI, p. 437); cf. HLev XIII.4.
 462 S. FERNANDEZ
una conseguenza logica di un ragionamento, che cerca di evitare il ditei-
smo 18 . Origene non sente la necessità di provare che il Padre e il Figlio
sono due, ma solo la necessità di mostrare in che modo i due sono uno.
2. Unità tra il Padre e il Figlio (Ka'tà "Ci dc; Saac; slow ot Mo)
Una volta studiata la distinzione reale tra il Padre e il Figlio, è neces-
sario esaminare, seguendo il programma origeniano riguardo a che casa
i due sono un solo Dio. Origene spiega la unità deI Padre e deI Figlio
sulla base di esempi biblici: Adamo è uno, Eva un'altra, ma arrivano ad
essere una sola carne (Gn 2,24); i credenti sono molti e arrivano ad
essere una sola anima (At 4,32); allo stesso modo, il giusto e Cristo, che
sono due, arrivano ad essere un solo spirito (ICo 6,17), e poi conclude:
Cos! il nostro Salvatore e Signore con il Padre e Dio dell'universo non
è una sola carne, neppure un solo spirito, ma qualcosa che sta piû su
della carne e della spirito, un solo Dio (dc; Saac;)19.
Forse a causa della semplicità degli ascoltatori, Origene ricorre a que-
sta spiegazione semplice e soddisfacente pel' la regola della fede, ma che
è molto lontada di chiarire riguardo a che casa il Padre e il Figlio sono
un solo Dio. Nel Contra Celso VIII.12, pel' respingere l'accusa che i
cristiani abbiano abbandonato il monoteismo, Origene sottolinea il carat-
tere oggettivo della distinzione tra il Padre e il Figlio, che sono due
npayl-tu"Cu, e spiega la unità attraverso della concordia, dell'armonia e
della identità della volontà. A causa di questa identità dinamica della
volontà, il Figlio puo dire Jo e il Padre siamo Ulla (Gv 10,30) e Chi vede
me, vede anche il Padre (Gv 14,9)20. Allo stesso modo, in altri testi pro-
pone l'unità del Padre e deI Figlio nell'amore 21 . Questo tipo di unità
dinamica tra il Padre e il Figlio è caratteristica della teologia origeniana.
Sembra che l'unità di Dio non trova una espressione COS! chiara come
la distinzione delle hypostâseis. Questo si spiega, in parte, perché Ori-
gene, insieme alla preoccupazione antimonarchiana, combatte la conce-
zione materialista di Dio, propria di celii ambienti cristiani influenzati
dallo stoicismo, che affermavano la unità divina nella oùaiu, compresa
pero come un sostrato materiale comune 22 .
18. Cf. Ps.-Ippolito, Refutatio, VII.35-36; Eusebio, Historia Ecc/esiastica, V.28;
Novaziano, De Trinitate, XXX.175; XII.65.
19. Dial3 (SC 67, 58, trad. LOMIENTO, pp. 57-58). Cf. CC VIII. 12.
20. Cf. CIo XIIl.228.
21. Cf. CCt, Praef, 2.26. Cf. CRIIl 1 (apud Panfilo,.Apol., 89).
22. Alcuni cristiani affermavano la corporalità di Dio. Cf. HGn I.l3; Prin I.l,I; CCt
IIl.13.46; Dial 12; SIMONE1TI, "Persona" nel dibattito cristologico dal III al VI secolo
(n. 16), p. 532, e nota 18 a, p. 546.
VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRlNITARIA DI ORlGENE 463
Ora, come comprendere meglio in che consiste questa unità di concor-
dia, armonia, volontà e am ore ? Come appare in vari testi, la unità deI
Padre e deI Figlio trova il sua fondamento nella relazione di origene deI
Figlio rispetto al Padre: il Padre e il Figlio sono uno, perché il Figlio
procede dal Padre, Ora sia l'U/JO sia l'altra sono un unico Dio, poiché per
il Figlio non c'è alh'o inizio della divinità che il Padre. [.. .J. Jnfatti Cristo
non è dopa il Padre, ma dal Padre (non enim post Patrem est ipse, sed
de Patref3. La unità deI Padre e del Figlio, quindi, si fonda nella genera-
zione deI Figlio. È il cammino che avevano percorso Ignazio, i valenti-
niani, gli apologisti, Ippolito, la Ps.-Ippolito e Tetiullian024 . In questo
modo, 10 studio delle espressioni che descrivono ilrapporto di origine deI
Figlio rispetto al Padre si presenta come un cammino adeguato pel' com-
prendere, secondo la mente de Origene, la unità deI Padre e deI Figlio.
III. ESPRESSIONI DELLA RELAZIONE DE ORIGINE DEL FIGUO
RISPETIO AL PADRE
La risposta a la quaestio riguardo a che casa i due sono un solo Dio
deve essere cercata, quindi, nella generazione deI Logos. Date le limita-
zioni dellinguaggio umano, la generazione deI Logos soltanto puo essere
descritta in modo metaforico. Posta che, da una parte, non è permesso
mettere sulla stesso piano (exaequare) il nostro linguaggio con la realtà
di Dio, pero, d'altra parte è necesario scegliere qualcosa che sia degno
anche di Dio, affinché l'intelletto umano passa intendere in che modo
Dio ingenerato diventi Padre deI Figlio unigenit0 25 • Le principali meta-
fore pel' mezzo delle quali Origene descrive la generazione dell'Unige-
nito sono quella deI figlio generato dal proprio padre, quella dello splen-
dore che proviene dalla luce, quella della volontà che procede dalla
mente e quella della immagine che proviene dalla verità.
1. MetafO/'a deI "figlio" che proviene dal "padre"
L'immagine più evidente pel' comprendere l'origine deI Figlio è quella
della generazione umana, suggerita da moiti testi biblici e dagli stessi
23. CRIIl VII.13 (trad. COCCHINI, voL II, 8; PG XIV, 1141A). Cf. CC VIIl.12; CIo
II.8.17-18; Prin 1.2.13.
24. Cf. Ignazio, Ad Magn., VIIl.2; Ireneo, Adv. lwer., 1.1.1-2 (valentiniani); Giustino,
Apol., II.6.3; Dial., 56.11; 61.1-2; 62.2; 128.4; Teofilo, Ad AutolicUIIl, II. 10; Atenagora,
Legatio, X.1-4; Ippolito, Contra NoetulIl, X.I-4; XI.I-2; Ps.-Ippolito, Refutatio, X.33.1;
Tertulliano, Adv. Praxean, V.
25. Prin 1.2.4 (GCS V, 32, trad. SIMONETII, p. 147).
 464 S. FERNÂNDEZ
nomi di 'padre' e 'figlio'. Nel Commento a Giovanni, Ol'igene insiste
sul CaI'attere cOlTelativo dei telIDini 'padre' e 'figlio': se c' è il figlio
dev'essere necessariamente figlio di un padre, e se c'è il padre dev'es-
sere padre di un figli0 26 • E nel Dibattito con Eraclide, utilizza 10 stesso
argomento, e afferma che i monal'chiani escludono il Figlio che proviene
dal Padre e negano, pel' forza, anche il Padre 27 , perché, ipso facto,
togliendo il Figlio tolgono a Dio l'essere Padre28 • Questo cal'attere COl'-
relativo è utilizzato da Origene pel' provare la pelfetta coeternità deI
Padre e deI Figlio, infatti i cOlTelativi sono simultanei e necessari: unD
non puà essere padre se non ha un figli0 29 • In questo modo, il carattere
cOlTeIativo deI Padre e deI Figlio pelIDette affernlaI'e, in discontinuità con
la tradizione teologica anteriore, la stretta eternità deI Figlio:
Percib no~ ~iconosciamo che Dio è sempre Padre dei Figlio suo unigenito,
che da lm e nato ed ha tratto il suo es sere, tuttavia senza alcun momento
d'inizio, non solo quello che si pub determinare cronologicamente, ma
neppure quello che la mente pub immaginare da sé e che, per COS! dire, si
~ub osservare solo con l'intelletto e l'animo: bisogna credere che la sapienza
e stata generata senza aIcun punto d'inizio che si possa esprirnere e Înlma-
ginare30•
Questa riflessione non solo parla deI Figlio, ma anche deI Padre. La
affermazione della eternità della generazione dei Figlio conduce Origene
direttamente aile implicazioni di questo rispetto alla natura di Dio, e in
particolare alla natura di Dio come Padre 31 • In aleun modo, allora, la
filiazione definisce la paternità e la paternità definisce la filiazione. Cio
che si dice deI FigIio si dice deI Padre e viceversa. COS! si dimostra che
la paternità divina forma parte della definizione di Dio, non è una carat-
teristica accidentale che gli si aggiunge al momento della generazione,
come pensava TertulIiano.
D'altra parte, in polemica con i valentiniani, sottolinea la discontinuità
che esiste tra la generazione umana e la generazione divina. Percio,
avverte:
N~n è pelmesso mettere sullo stesso piano (exaequare) dell'uomo, 0 di altro
ammale che genera, Dio padre quando genera e dà sussistenza al Figlio suo;
26. CIo X.246 (OCS IV, 212, trad. CORSINI, p. 437).
27. Dial4 (SC 67, 60, trad. LOMlENTO, p. 59).
28. ORBE, Or/genes y los Monarquianos (n. 11), p. 51.
29. Prin 1.2.10 (OCS V, 41, trad. SIMONEITI, p. 156).
30. Prin 1.2.2 (GCS V, 29, trad. SIMONEITI, p. 144). Cf. Dio I/on ha comil/dato ad essere
Padre, F:Cjn: 1 (apu~ Panfilo, Ap~l., 48, SC 4~4, p. 106); FrGn, 1: 'to uÎno J.lÉvtotye Kut
7tSpt 'tou uywu 7tveuJ.lu'toc; ÀSK'tBOV (apud Eusebio, Contra Marcellum, 1.4.22).
31. P. WIDDICOMBE, The Fatherhood a/Gad/rom Origen ta Athanasius Oxford 2004
p. 69: "Fatherhood is part of Ood's etemal nature". " ,
VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRlNITARlA DI ORIGENE 465
d'altra parte è necessario definire quaIcosa che sia degno anche di Dio (per
il quale assolutamente nessun termine di confronto si pub trovare non solo
nella realtà ma neppure nel pensiero e nell'immaginazione) affinché l'intel-
letto umano possa intendere in che modo Dio ingenerato diventi Padre deI
Figlio unigenito. Infatti questa generazione è eterna e perpetua COS! come
10 splendore è generato dalla luce32 •
Il testo contiene una severa tensione - quasi una contraddizione, -
giacché, da una parte, sottolinea l'insufficienza dellinguaggio umano pel'
parlare di Dio e, dall'altra, dichiara la necessità di scegliere qualcosa
degna di Dio affinché il pensiero umano possa comprendere la genera-
zione deI Logos, pero immediatamente osserva che non esiste un termine
di confronto tra la realtà divina e le realtà umane (!).
Il carattere eterno e perpetuo della generazione deI Logos appare come
cio che si presenta maggiormente in discontinuità con la metafora deI
padre umano. Origene non si sente comodo con questa metafora perché
terne che favorisca una idea corporale della generazione. Idea che,
secondo lui, era sostenuta dai valentiniani. Percio cerca di purificare que-
sta metafora da tutta la passione e da tutto l'aspetto cOlporeo.
2. Metafora della "luce" e deI suo "splendore"
Questa metafora è suggerita dal Libro della Sapienza 7,26 (Splendor
Lucis aeternae) e dalla Lettera agli Ebrei 1,3 (Splendor Gloriae), e ha
una lunga storia: è stata utilizzata dagli apologisti e, forse, ha la sua
origine negli stessi monarchianP3. Difatti, ancora ai tempi dell' Alessan-
drino, i monarchiani si valevano de questa metafora per provare, sulla
base di una combinazione di versetti biblici, la identità tra il Padre e il
Figli034.
Origene introduce questa immagine per affermare il carattere eterno e
perpetuo della generazione: lnfatti questa generazione è eterna e perpe-
tua (aeterna ac sempiterna), cos! come 10 splendore è generato dalla
luce3 5 • La eternità della generazione é una conseguenza immediata della
eternità di Dio36 . In una omelia conservata in greco sottolinea il carattere
permanente della generazione con la stessa in1magine:
li Padre non ha generato il Figlio in modo da staccarlo dalla sua generazione
ma sempre 10 genera (àBi YBVV{i) [ ... ]. Non èche l'irradiazione della gloria
32. Prin 1.2.4 (OCS V, 32-33, trad. SIMONEITI, p. 147).
33. Cf. Giustino, Dial., 128,2-4; Atenagora, Legatio, X.4; XXIV.2 (cf. Sap 7,25;
Sir 43,4); Ippolito, Contra Noetum, X1.1.
34. Cf. CIo II.149: la sono la luce (Ov 8,12) e Dio è luce (10v 1,5).
35. Prin 1.2.4 (OCS V, 33, trad. SIMONEITI, p. 147).
36. Cf. CROUZEL, Théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène (n. 16), p. 87.
 466 S. FERNANDEZ
sia stata generata una volta sola e non venga più generata; ma quanto la
luce è produttrice (notr]1:tKov) di irradiazione, altrettanto è generata
(YEvveX"Cut) l'irradiazione della gloria di Di037 •
La permanente dipendenza dello splendore rispetto alla luce illustra la
perpetua generazione deI Logos. La analogia indica allo stesso tempo la
continuità della generazione, mediante la qua le il Figlio riceve costan-
temente dal Padre la sua divinità e esistenza 38 • Il Salvatore è sempre
generato dal Padre (cid yEvviimt 0 O'coÛ1P D1tO 'Cou 1tU'CpÔç;)39, e questo,
di nuovo, non parla solo deI Figlio, ma anche dei Padre. Questa stessa
metafora evidenzia l'unità deI Padre e dei Figlio: Lo Splendore di questa
Luce è il Figlio Unigenito, che procede da Lui senza separazione (ex ipso
inseparabiliter), come 10 splendore dalla lucéo. Un testo dei De princi-
piis ofre le varie funzioni della metafora:
Dio è luce (1Gv 1,5). Splendore riflesso di questa Luce [=DioJ è la sua
Sapienza, non solo in quantoDio è luce, ma anche in quanto è luce etema
SI che la sua Sapienza è splendore etemo e di eternità. Se ben compreso:
q~esto concetto chiaramente dimostra che la sostanza deI Figlio deriva pro-
plO dal Padre (subsistentia Filii ab ipso Patre descendit), ma non temporal-
mente né da altro principio se non, come dicemmo, da Dio stesso (ab ipso
Deo)41.
Il Figlio proviene dal Padre stesso e da sempre, non come le creature
che sono state fatte nel tempo e dal nulla. Altro elemento che sottolinea
questa stessa metafora, è il carattere correIativo della luce e deI suo splen-
dore:
Che altra cosa possiamo intendere per Luce etema se non Dio Padre? Che
in nes~un ~omento ha esistito la Luce ~enza il suo Splendore (quindi nep-
pure SI puo comprendere la luce senza Il suo splendore). Se questo è vero
allora, non c'è mai stato un momento nel quale il Figlio non esisteva. Nod
e~a pero innato (innatus), come 10 afferrniamo per la Luce etema, neppure
blsogna int~odur~e due principii, ma che è nato dalla Luce, come Splendore
della Luce mgemta, avendo quella stessa Luce come inizio e fonte. Ma non
ci fu un tempo nel quale no era42 .
Il rapporto tra luce e splendOl'e gode dello stesso carattere correIativo
di padre e figlio: la espressione in nessun momento ha esistito la luce
sema il suo splendore equivale a uno non puà essere padre se non ha un
37. HIer IXA (GCS ru, 70, trad. MORTARI, p. 122). Il testo distingue tra 1t01Éro e yEvvuro.
38. ORBE, Hacia la primera teologîa de la procesiôn deI Verbo (n. 16), p. 391.
39. HIer IXA.
40. Prin L2.7 (GCS V, 37, trad. SIMONETTI, p. 152).
41. Prin L2.11 (GCS V, 45, trad. SIMONETTI, p. 160).
42. In Heb. Com. (aplld Panfilo, Apol., 50, SC 464, 08).
VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRlNITARIA DI ORiGENE 467
figli0 43 • Inoltre, il Figlio deriva totalmente e esclusivamente dal Padre, da
sempre, come dalla sua fonte, e non si deve ricorrere a un altro principio.
Una osservazione contenuta nel Commento a Giovanni XXXII.353 offre
un impOli ante elemento: Considera che il Figlio è splendore di tutta
(oÀllç;) la Gloria di Dio. Il Figlio non soltanto proviene totalmente da
Dio, ma anche la totalità della Gloria di Dio risplende neI Figlio.
Anche in questo caso, Origene è consapevole della precarietà di questo
linguaggio. Da una parte, è attento nell'avveliire in che senso è valida
ciascuna delle comparazioni che introduce; e, dall'altra parte, affelma
che questa Luce nulla ha in comune con la luce di questo sole44 •
3. Metafora della "volontà" che proviene dalla" intelligenza"
Questa metafOl'a è introdotta pel' sottolineare il carattere assolutamente
spirituale della generazione deI Logos. Si tratta di correggere l'idea,
troppo materiale, della generazione come emanazione, che, secondo Ori-
gene, suppone divisione della sostanza:
Riguardo al Padre, affenniamo che egli diventa Padre deI Figlio pur essendo
indivisibile e inseparabile, non avendolo emanato (où npo~uÀàlv UÙ"Cov),
come supongono alcuni [ ... J. Percio noi non affemùamo, come alcuni ere-
tici, che una parte della sostanza deI Padre si è mutata nel Figlio, né che il
Padre ha creato il Figlio dal nulla, cioè fuori dalla sua sostanza, SI che c'è
stato un tempo in cui il Figlio non è esistito. Affenniamo invece che, al di
fuori di ogni idea di corporeità, da Dio invisibile e incorporeo è stata gene-
rata la Parola e la Sapienza senza alcuna affezione corporea, come la volontà
procede dall 'intelletto45 •
Il testo cerca di correggere una idea materialista della generazione deI
Figlio, perciü procede pel' via negativa, cioè, esclude le false compren-
sioni dell'origine deI Logos. Origene rifiuta due soluzioni: il Figlio non
è dal nulla, e neppure è parte della sostanza divina, compresa material-
mente. COS! si intende la sfiducia verso la identità di ouO'tu tra il Padre
e l'Unigenito. Questo concepimento non comporta divisione46 • Il Figlio
procede esclusivamente dal Padre, in modo totalmente spirituale. La
volontà che procede dall'intelligenza non taglia una parte della intelli-
genza, ne la separa, ne la divide47 • Come la metafora della luce, il con-
fronto della volontà e della intelligenza sottolinea la continua dipendenza
43. Prin 1.2.10 (GCS V, 41, trad. SIMONETTI, p. 156).
44. Cf. Prin 1.2.6.
45. Prin IVA.1 (GCS V, 348-349, trad. SIMONETTI, p. 542).
46. Cf. CIo V,fr. 108 (aplld Panfilo, Apol., 106).
47. Cf. Prin 1.2.6.
468 S. FERNÂNDEZ
dei Figlio rispetto al Padre, poiché la volontà del Padre èsufficiente pel'
fare sussistere quello che vuole il Padre4 8 •
Nel contesto preniceno, che considera con particolare attenzione la
soteriologia, la riflessione sulla nascita eterna deI Figlio si realizza con
l'intenzione di comprendere la attività salvifica di Crist049. La porta di
accesso alla eterna relazione deI Figlio e deI Padre è l'attività di Gesù di
Nazaret, che è riflesso della attività deI Padre:
Se infatti 'tutto cio che fa il Padre, 10 fa similmente anche il Figlio', in
quanto il Figlio fa tutto come il Padre l'immagine deI Padre si forma nel
Figlio, che da lui è nato come volontà che procede dall'intellett0 50.
Si mostra il rapporto tra l' agire di Gesù e la sua origine eterna. Il
Figlio, in qualche modo, è la Volontà dei Padre, e percio dice: 10 e il
Padre siamo un0 51 . Non si tratta di una imitazione volontaria, ma della
stessa identità dei Figlio che procede dal Padre, come la volontà della
mente. In questo modo, l'agire salvifico si fonda nella relazione eterna.
Da sempre la vita deI Figlio si identifica con la volontà deI Padre.
4. Metafora della "immagine" che proviene dalla "verità"52
Pel' illustrare il rapporto tra il Padre e il Figlio, Origene si yale della
metafora biblica dell'immagine (dKcOV). Questa espressione trova appog-
gio nella Bibbia, in 2Cor 4,4, Col 1,15 e Sap 7,26.
Pel' comprendere come affermare la divinità deI Figlio e la sua alterità
ris petto al Padre senza contraddire il monoteismo, cioè, pel' risolvere il
problema monarchiano, Origene, come aveva fatto la tradizione teologica
a lui precedente, indaga l'origine dei Figlio. In questo lavoro, il concetto
di immagine si rivela molto utile pel' l' Alessandrino. Di fatto, in alcuni
testi si percepisce una stretta relazione tra l'essere immagine e l'essere
generat053 . CosI, la divinità deI Figlio non attenta contro il monoteismo 54 .
48. Prin 12.6 (GCS V, 35, trad. SIMONETTI, p. 149). Cf. ORBE, Hacia la primera feo-
logia de la procesion deI Verbo (n. 16), p. 402; CROUZEL, Théologie de l'image de Dieu
chez Origène (n. 16), p. 91.
49. Questa osservazione di A. ORBE si pua applicare anche al secolo III: "Entre los
autores cristianos deI siglo II no hay modo de separar la cristologfa de la soteriologia", y
continua: "En la persona deI Hijo de Dios todo se orienta hacia la salud deI hombre. Su
misma generaci6n 'a Patre' mira a la humana saIvaci6n" (A. ORBE, Crisfologia gnostica,
Madrid, 1976, vol. l, p. 5).
50. Prin 12.6 (GCS V, 35, trad. SIMONETTI, p. 149). Cf. Gv 5,19.
51. Cf. CIo XIII.228; CC VIII.12.
52. Cf. CROUZEL, Théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène (n. 16), pp. 75-111.
53. TI Figlio è immagine di Dio perché è nato da Dio, cf. Prin 12.6; CIo XXXII.359.
54. Cf. Prin 1.2.13.
VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRINITARIA DI ORIGENE 469
Nel Commento a Giovanni, Origene sviluppa questi importanti con-
cetti, a proposito di Gv l,lb: e il Logos era presso Dio. Il testo osserva
che la parola arriva presso i profeti pero era presso Di055 . In questa
differenza tra il verbo essere (st/ll) e il verbo arrivare ad essere (yiyvo-
/lat), Origene vede la netta differenza tra il Figlio di Dio e le creature
razionali. COS! si evidenzia nuovamente l'eternità e stabilità deI Figlio in
contrasto con la temporalità e inestabilità delle creature. Il Logos è cio
che è, pel' stare davanti a Dio: il fatto di essere Dio 10 riceve grazie ail'
'essere presso Dio' (àno -cof) dvat npàs aù-cov)56. Questa riflessione
non descrive, naturalmente, un processo cronologico, ma logico. In que-
sto rapporto tra Dio Padre (6 380S), fonte della divinità, e Dio Figlio
(38 0S), che eternamente riceve la divinità, l'Alessandrino trova la solu-
zione al problema monarchiano:
Mediante queste distinzioni è possibile trovare una soluzione alla diffico1tà
che turba moIti, i quali vorrebbero conservare l'amor di Dio, ma per il
timore di affelmare due dèi inciampano all'estremo opposto in dottrine false
ed empie: infatti 0 negano al Figlio una individualità dis tinta da quella deI
Padre, pur ammettendo che sia Dio colui che, a parer loro, soltanto di nome
è chiamato 'Figlio'; oppure negano al Figlio la divinità, salvandone la indi-
vidualità e la sostanza [individualmente] circoscritta, concepita come
dis tinta da quella deI Padre57 •
La risposta di Origene a queste difficoltà chiarisce il suo modo di
comprendere la relazione tra l'unità di Dio, cioè, il monoteismo, e la
pluralità in Dio, cioè, la distinzione reale tra il Padre e il Figlio. COS!
continua il testo:
Occorre dire a costoro: Dio (6 ~86C;) è Dio-in-sé (alyt6~80C;); e per questo
anche il Salvatore .nella sua preghiera al Padre dice: 'Che conoscano te,
unico vero Dio'. All'infuori del Dio-in-sé, tutti quelli fatti Dio per pm1eci-
pazione alla divinità di lui si devono chiamare più propriamente 'Dio'
(~86C;) e non 'il Dio' (6 ~86C;). Tra questi, di gran lunga il più augusto è il
'Primogenito di ogni creatura', in quanto, in virtù dell'esser 'presso Dio',
per primo trasse a sé la divinità58 •
Il monoteismo resta assicurato dalla priorità e dal carattere font ale
della divinità deI Padre, che è Dio in sé (aù't038os) ed è il Dio (6 380S),
in circostanze, che il Figlio è vero Dio perché partecipa da sempre e in
55. Cf. CIo II.8-9. Cf. Os 1,1; Is 2,1 e Ger 14,1.
56. CIo ILlO (GCS IV, 53, trad. CORSINI, p. 203). Questa osservazione conduce
Origene a esaminare l' ordine delle dichiarazioni di Gy 1,1 e ad ayanzare l'ipotesi che la
sequenza implica che il Logos è Dio proprio perché è pressa Dio. Cf. CIo II.I1-12.
57. CIo II.16 (GCS IV, 54, trad. CORSINI, pp. 204-205).
58. CIo II.17 (GCS IV, 54, trad. CORSINI, p. 205). Cf. Gy 17,3; Col 1,15.
 470 S. FERNÂNDEZ
modo stabile della divinità deI Padre. Il Figlio è Dio pel' il Jatto di 'essere'
pressa il Dio (té[> repos 't'ov Ssov dvat). Il Figlio, che riceve da il Dio
la divinità, è ministro della divinizzazione delle creature razionali. Il
ragionamento si conclude con una riflessione sorprendente:
Vero Dio è dunque 'il Dio' (6 Saoç); coloro invece che sono dèi, in quanta
prendono fOlma da lui, sono come immagini di un prototipo (mç dKovaç
rcpcO"co'nJrcou). E, ancora una volta (rcUÂtv), l'immagine archetipa delle
varie immagini è 'il Logos che era pressa Dio', che 'era nel principio'; egli
rimane sempre Dio per il fatto di essere pressa Dio; e non avrebbe questo
se non rimanesse pressa Dio; e non rimarrebbe Dio se non perseverasse
nella contemplazione perenne della profondità deI Padre59 •
La metafora della verità e della sua immagine illustra la relazione tra
il Padre e il Figlio. Il Padre è l'unico Dio vero, e il Figlio è Dio perché,
da sempre e in modo stabile, è immagine di Dio invisibile. L'immagine
dipende totalmente dalla verità e non compete con essa.
Con questa logica, Origene porta la sua ipotesi fino aIle sue ultime
conseguenze, presentando incluso la supposizione impossibile, secondo
l'espressione di H. Crouzel6o , che il Figlio lascerebbe di essere Dio se
smettesse di contemplare il Padre. Certamente, in un contesto antimonar-
chiano, l'intenzione dell' Alessandrino è sottolineare al massimo Dio
Padre come la fonte unica deI essere e della divinità deI Figlio (in modo
da mantenere il monoteismo). Perà, siccome questa comunicazione
dell'essere e della divinità non accade nel tempo, ma è da sempre, allora,
la alterità in Dio, ovvero, la reale distinzione tra il Padre e il Figlio, è
anch'essa da sempre e non è suscettibile di variazioni. Per questo il Figlio
è veramente e perpetuamente Dio.
Il ancora una volta (TC<iÂtv) che introduce Origene nel testo, 10 si deve
comprendere come una reiterazione della netta distinzione tra il Figlio,
che partecipa dell' essere e della divinità da sempre e in modo stabile, e
le creature razionali, che sono arrivate all'essere nel tempo e sono state
divinizzate dal ministero deI Figlio.
5. Visione d'insieme deI contenuto teologico delle metaJore
Il contenuto di queste metafore pelmette entrare nel modo con cui
Origene comprende la distinzione e la unità in Dio. Naturalmente, bisogna
discemere quale è il contributo di ogni metafora, perché ciascuna di esse
chiarisce solo alcuni aspetti detelminati.
59. CIo II.l8 (GCS IV, 55, trad. CORSINI, pp. 205-206).
60. Cf. CROUZEL, Théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène (n. 16), p. 86.
VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRINITARIA DI ORIGENE 471
Le metafore insistono sul carattere spirituale della generazione deI
Logos, che esclude tutto il corporeo. In questo senso, la metafora della
generazione umana si utilizza a contrario. Questa generazione non com-
prende in nulla la materia né la passione. Il Figlio non è una emanazione
deI Padre, perché nella generazione non esiste divisione di sostanza.
Il carattere correlativo dei telmini "padre" e "figlio" e di "luce" e
"splendore" implica il mutuo e necessario riferimento di uno all'altro.
Poiché non si puà definire uno senza il riferimento aIl' altro, non si puà
comprendere uno senza riferirsi all'altro. Nel piano trinitario, questo
significa che il Padre si definisce per il suo rapporto al Figlio e viceversa.
Il carattere correlativo deI Padre e deI Figlio implica anche la stretta
coetemità di tutte e due, è impensabile un padre senza suo figlio, come
una luce senza splendore: essi sono necessariamente simultanei. La
stretta coeteruità deI Figlio rispetto a Dio Padre è un passo avanti note-
vole rispetto alla tradizione teologica precedente. La paternità di Dio, si
manifesta come un attributo etemo, e non una conseguenza della gene-
razione deI Figlio. Questo stesso carattere correlativo indic a l'unità reale
e, a sua volta, la reale distinzione tra il Padre e il Figlio. La riflessione
deI carattere correlativo dei nomi è il un primo paso della dottrina delle
relazioni necessarie, cioè, non accidentali.
La generazione deI Figlio è perpetua e permanente. A differenza della
generazione umana 0 animale, che si da nel tempo, il Figlio è etema-
mente generato, come 10 splendore rispetto alla luce, 0 la volontà rispetto
alla intelligenza, 0 l'immagine rispetto alla verità. Il riferimento al Padre
mai cessa: il Figlio non si indipendentizza, ne acquista autonomia rispetto
al Padre. Percià, questo mutuo e permanente riferimento esprime l'iden-
tità tanto deI Padre come del Figlio. Alla generazione perpetua, da parte
deI Padre, conisponde, da parte deI Figlio, la perseveranza nella contem-
plazione. Questo mutuo riferimento e il carattere permanente della gene-
razione implicano, quindi, l'unità indivisibile deI Padre e del Figlio.
Le metafore dello splendore, della volontà e della immagine servono
anche pel' esprimere che il Figlio deriva totalmente ed esclusivamente dal
Padre. Non esiste che una unica fonte deI Figlio: il Padre. COS! si esclude
che il Figlio provenga dal nulla (come le creature) 0 che ci sia un altro
principio. COS! come tutto 10 splendore e tutta la volontà proviene dell'in-
telligenza, COS1 il Figlio proviene esclusivamente dal Padre.
La pelmanente dipendenza che si verifica nello splendore rispetto alla
luce, nella volontà rispetto alla intelligenza e nella immagine rispetto alla
verità esprime la assoluta dipendenza del Figlio in rappOlto al Padre. Questa
totale e esclusiva dipendenza mostra il Padre come fonte unica e permanente
deI Figlio. L'Unigenito di Dio è cià che è pel' la sua relazione col Padre.
472 S. FERNÂNDEZ
L'identità del Figlio non è data dalla sua emancipazione dal Padre, ma dal
suo totale riferimento a Lui; e l'identità deI Padre si verifica nella sua rela-
zione permanente e totale al Figlio, e non è precedente ad essa. TI Figlio è
altro rispetto al Padre, pero non è autonomo, in questo modo, la divinità del
Figlio non comporta un rischio pel' il monoteismo. Dio, il Padre, è l'unico
Dio vero e suo Figlio è l'immagine etema e perpetua dell'unico Dio.
IV. CONCLUSIONE
1. TI percorso fatto mostra la fecondità teologica dell' essame delle meta-
fore come cammino pel' capire la teologia trinitaria di Origene, in partico-
lare, il suo modo di concepire l'unità e la distinzione tra il Padre e il Figlio,
centro della soluzione al problema monm·chiano. Lo studio delle metafore
è un complemento a quel tradizionale essmne dei termini tecnici, non sem-
pre capace di indic are il preciso significato dei termine, il cui contenuto
verrà fissato soltanto alla fine deI secolo IV. La novità della rivelazione
trinitaria spinse ai teologhi non soltanto a utilizare illinguaggio filosofico
disponibile, ma anche, in certo senso, a creare uno nuovo, il cui contenuto
bisogna dedurre a partire degli stessi testi patristici. Pel' questo compito,
l'essame delle metafOl'e offre un significativo contributo.
2. Riprendendo le conclusioni dei punti precedenti, è possibile pres en-
tare una visione d'insieme del sistema che abbiamo studiato. l testi di
Origene affermano che tanto Dio come le creature razionali partecipano
del sostrato amorro della natura intellettuale, e cio comporta una certa
parentela tra Dio e le creature; e allo stesso tempo, glistessi testi, stabi-
liscono una netta distinzione tra il CreatOl'e e le creature intellettuali. Dio,
Padre, Figlio e Spirito Santo, possiede sostanzialmente l'essere e il bene,
da sempre e in modo indefettibile; al contrario, le creature intellettuali,
in ragione dell'essere create, posseggono l'essere e il bene accidental-
mente, perché 10 hanno ricevuto nel tempo e 10 possono perdere.
Ben stabilita questa netta distinzione, si pua affermm'e che le creature
intellettuali posseggono l' essere e il bene secondo molteplici maniere,
sempre accidentalmente, in virtù dellibero arbitrio. La causa della diver-
sità delle creature razionali non si deve cercare nella sua natura, che è
comune, ma nel modo di possedere l' essere e il bene, e potremmo
aggiungere la divinità. In questo modo, tra gli esseri che posseggono
accidentalmente il bene, esistono molteplici forme de possederlo. L'eser-
cizio della libertà, in Origene, acquisisce maggiore densità che nella tra-
dizione filosofica greca. L'azione non è solo manifestazione dell'essere,
ma in certo senso costituisce l'essere.
VERSO LA TEOLOGIA TRINITARIA DI ORIGENE 473
D'altra parte, è anche possibile affermare che tra quelli che posseg-
gono l'essere, il bene e la santità in modo sostanziale, cioè, il Padre, il
Figlio e 10 Spirito Santo, ci sono diverse maniere di possedere questi
beni. Le metafore studiate mostrano che il Padre possiede l'essere, la
bontà e la divinità come fonte, mentre il Figlio possiede l'essere, la bontà
e la divinità come ricevute dal Padre. In entrambi i casi, questi beni si
posseggono sostanzialmente, da sempre e in modo indefettibile. In questo
modo, esiste una unica divinità che il Padre, da sempre e sostanzialmente,
comunica a sua Figlio e, pel' mezzo di Lui, allo Spirito Santo, e 10 stesso
Padre, nel tempo, condivide la sua divinità, pel' mezzo deI Figlio e dello
Spirito, alle creature razionali, che sono capaci de possedere la divinità,
ma soltanto in modo accidentale.
Questa comprensione dà una risposta al problema monarchiano. Per-
ché, da una parte, permette affermare il monoteismo, senza ricorrere alla
sostanza divina come a un quarto elemento, e, dall'altra, permette com-
prendere l'mticolazione trinitaria dell'unica divinità. L'unità di Dio resta
assicurata dal Padre, unico Dio vero, che partecipa sostanzialmente la sua
divinità al Figlio e allo Spirito; la reale distinzione delle persone divine,
nella loro alticolazione trinitaria, restaassicurata dai diversi modi reali
di possedere la divinità: il Padre è l'unica fonte della divinità, il Figlio è
Dio, perché riceve la divinità deI Padre, e 10 Spirito Santo è Dio, perché
riceve la divinità deI Padre pel' mezzo deI Figlio.
Questa articolazione permette attribuire al Figlio eterno affermazioni
come il Padre è pÎù grande di me (Gv 14,28), senza il timore di cadere
in un subOl'dinazionismo eterodosso. In sintesi, la soluzione origeniana
permette affermare che il Figlio è minore deI Padre, che dipende dal
Padre, che è subordinato al Padre, senza che cio implichi una negazione
della sua vera divinità. TI Figlio e il Padre sono un solo Dio, perché il
Figlio deriva totalmente, in modo sostanziale e da sempre, dal Padre, e
il Padre si dona totalmente nel Figlio. Unità e distinzione si appoggiano
nello stesso fatto che uno è eternamente il Generatore e l'altro è eterna-
mente il Generato.
Questa netta distinzione, allora, che non ammette un tertium quid, per-
mette riconoscere un ordine all'intemo delle persone divine, n~l quale si
pua dire che il Figlio è minore, che il Figlio dipende dal Padre, che il
Figlio riceve tutto dal Padre, ecc., senza che questo implichi una nega-
zione della eterna e reale divinità deI Figlio.
Facultad de Teologia SamuelFERNÂNDEz
Pontificia Universidad Cat6lica de Chile
sfemane@uc.cl
 DIE PROLO GE DES ORIGENES ZUM PSALTER

1. DAS MATERIAL IM ÜBERBLICK

AIs an der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften

die Edition der Psalmenkommentierung des Origenes projektielt wurde,
stellte sich sehr bald heraus, daB es ein Ensemble von Textstücken gibt,
das zur Psalmenkommentierung gerechnet wird, ohne daB klar ware, ob
sie ihr ursprünglich auch angehihten, oder wie sie gegebenenfalls darin
positioruelt waren. Es handelt sich um Passagen, in denen Einleitungs-
fragen zum Alten Testament und insbesondere zum Buch der Psalmen
behandelt werden. Die überwiegend in HandschIiften von Psalmenkate-
nen und in der Philokalia überkommenen Textstücke liegen bereits ver-
streut in alteren, zum groBen Teil ungenügenden Editionen VOl' und sollen
nun erstmals vollstandig gesammelt und in einem eigenen Band ediert
werden. Die Bezeichnung "Prologe" entnehme ich der Katenenüberlie-
ferung; beispielsweise findet sich irn Oxforder Codex Barrocianus 235,
einem Hyparchetyp des Katenentyps VII und auBerordentlich wichtiger
Textzeuge für Origenes, die Überschrift: -réOv BtC; wùc; \jfaÀ.J.!OùC; ÈSYlYll-
'tlKéOv ÈKÀ.oyéOv 7tp6À.oyoC; (fol. Sr). Origenes selbst verwendet das Wort
7tp6À.oyoC; nicht nul' in den für Katenenprologe gesammelten Texten
nicht, el' scheint es überhaupt nicht gebraucht zu haben; die in der
Philokalia vorhandene Einleitung nennt el', wie andere Einleitungstexte
auch, ein 7tpOOiJ.!lOV2 •
Das gesamte Material habe ich vorlaufig nach der überlieferungs-
und editionsgeschichtlichen Situation in vier Komplexe oder Teilsamm-
lungen geordnet: Erstens habe ich es zu tun mit der von Walter Rietz
im Jarne 1914 aIs "Origenes-Prologe zum Psalter" herausgegebenen

1. Zum BalTocianus und den übrigen Handschriften des Katenentyps VI s. M. RICHARD,

Les manuscrits de la chaîne du type VI sur les Psaumes (Opera minora, 3), Turnhout,
Brepols, 1977, NI. 71; E. MÜHLENBERG, Psalmenkommentare aus der Kateneniiberliefe-
rung 1 (patristische Texte und Studien, 15), Berlin, de Gruyter, 1975, S. XV-XVI; Psalm-
enkommentare aus der Katenemïberliefe/'llllg III (patristische Texte und Studien, 19),
Berlin, de Gruyter, 1978, S. 26-27. M.-J. RONDEAU, Les commentaires patristiques du
psautier 1 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 219), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1982,
S. 57-61; einen ausführlich differenzierenden Versuch zur Tradition der paliistinischen
Katene unternimmt G. DORIVAL, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes 1
(Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 43), Leuven, Peeters, 1986, S. 115-325.
2. Epiphanius, Panarion 64.7.1 (GCS, 416.16).
476 px. RISCH
Stücke 3 , zweitens mit einigen der von Hans Achelis im Jahre 1897 aIs
"unechte griechische Einleitung in die Psalmen" von Pseudo-Hippolyt
ediel1en Passagen4, drittens mit den aus dem Panarion des Epiphanios5
und der Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius 6 zu erganzenden Exzerpten in
der Philokalia 2-3 7 und viertens mit einigen weiteren Abschnitten,
deren prominentestes der Bericht des Origenes über das Auffinden der
Quinta und der Sexta ist8 • lm folgenden konzentriere ich mich auf die
Rietz- und die Achelis-Texte.
II. DIE RIETZ-TEXTE
Der aus einem westpreuBischen Konradswalde 9 gebültige Schüler von
Lietzmann Walter Rietz sammelte zwolf Jahre nach dem Erscheinen des
bekannten Katalogs von Georg Karo und Hans Lietzmann aus den drei
vatikanischen Handschriften Vaticanus gr. 754, Vaticanus gr. 1422 und
Ottobonianus gr. 398 fünf Textstücke, die er aIs pr%gi bezeichnet. Das
erste Stück ist in den Handschriften mit Hypomnema überschrieben und
erortert in losem Zusammenhang vier Themen: die Bedeutung von
bestimmten, haufig gleichlautenden Überschriften; das Diapsalma; der
Unterschied von Gebets- und Liedpsalmen; zuletzt die Anardnung der
Psalmen lO • Das zweite Stück behandelt ausschlieBlich und ausführlich
nochmals das Diapsalma, das dritte berichtet von einer Diskussion beim
jüdischen Patriarchen lullos über anonyme Psalmen, aIs deren Vetfasser
Moses zu gelten habe, das viel1e zitiel1 ohne einen argumentativen
Zusammenhang aus Aristoteles und dem sonst unbekannten stoischen
Handbuchautor Herophilos philosophische Definitionen der Begriffe
3. G. RIETZ, De Origenis prologis in Psalterium: Dissertatio philologica, Jena, 1914,
S. 1-15.
4. H. ACHELIS, Die unechte griechische Einleitung zu den Psalmen, in GN. BONWETSCH -
H. ACHELIS (Hgg.), Hippolytus. Werke 1. Exegetische und Homiletische Schriften (GCS),
Leipzig, 1897, 136-145.
5. Panarion 64.6.1-7.4 (GCS, 415.8-417.3).
6. Kirchengeschichte VI.25.1-2 (GCS,572.10--576.2).
7. M. IlARL, Origène. Philocalie 1-20 sllr les Écritures. Introduction, texte, traduction
et notes (SC, 302), Paris, 1983, S. 9-468, hier S. 239-268.
8. G. MERCATI, Note di letteratura biblica e cristiana antica (Studi e Testi, 5), Roma,
1901, s. 29.
9. In WestpreuBen gab es drei Gemeinden gleichen Namens: im Landkreis Elbling des
Regierungsbezirkes Danzig, in den Landkreisen Rosenberg und Stuhm des Regierungsbe-
zirkes Marienwerder.
10. Âhnliche thematische Gliederung bei P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre
(Christianisme Antique, 1), Paris, 1977, S. 276.
DIE PROLOGE DES ORIGENES ZUM PSALTER 477
't'ÉÀoç; und BE6ç;, das fünfte informiert über die hebraische Fünfteilung
des Psalters.
Nichts deutet darauf hin, daB diese Texte derselben Quelle entnommen
sind. Abgesehen davon, daB sie sich allesamt auf den Psalter beziehen,
sind Darstellungsweise und lnhalt disparat; eine koharente Thematik
oder gal' das Konzept einer einheitlichen Schrift laBt sich nicht rekonst-
ruieren. Selbst wenn man sie, wie dies Bernhard Neuschafer untemom-
men hat, nach Gesichtspunkten einer spatantiken Proomientopik analy-
sieren kann ll , ist die ZugehOrigkeit zu einer einheitlichen Schrift nicht
bewiesen, sondem nul' vorausgesetzt. Ihre Aneinanden-eihung bei Rietz
sollte nicht AulaB zu falschen SchluBfolgerungen geben. Die Prasentation
mit der laufenden Nummer von 1 bis 5 suggerielt eine Foige und Zusam-
mengehOrigkeit, die in der Überlieferung nul' zum Teil gegeben ist. Bei
der Anordnung der Stücke geht Rietz nach eigenen Überlegungen var
und weicht deshalb auch von der Ausgabe von Karl Heinrich Eduard
Lommatzsch 12 ab, die ihrerseits auf der Edition von Charles Delarue und
seines Neffen Charles-Vincent Delarue 13 beruht. Bei Lommatzsch (und
damit bei Migne) folgen aufeinander die Stücke 4 5 3 2 1 und dann die
Auszüge aus der Philokalia mit den Erganzungen aus Epiphanius und
Eusebius. Die Foige 4 5 3 2 ist auch die im Vaticanus 1422 (= Parisinus
146), wo die Texte nul' geringfügig voneinander abgesetzt sind. lm Vati-
canus 754 lautet die Foige 5 4 2 3 und ist mit eingeschobenen anderen
Exzerpten unterbrochen. Das Hypomnema (= 1) begegnet im Vaticanus
754 an sehr viel spaterer Stelle , irn Ottobonianus stellt es den einzigen
Prolog-Text aus Origenes dar. Das Hypomnema war also schon inuner
von der übrigen Gruppe getrennt. Die Positionierung an erster Stelle bei
Rietz hat wohl nUl' damit zu tun, daB die Zuweisung an Origenes unzwei-
felhaft überliefert ist. Warum Rietz aber den Bericht über das Auffinden
der Quinta und Sexta, der im Vaticanus 1422 var seinem viel1en Stück
steht, nicht in seine Sammlung aufnahm, obwohl er Mercatis Argumen-
tation für die Echtheit zustimmte l 4, bleibt unklar. Die Achelis-Sammlung,
um die es mir in diesem V ol1rag besonders zu tun ist, erwahnt er zwar
mehrfach, aber nur kurz aIs alia fragmenta, deren Zuweisung an Orige-
11. B. NEuscHÂFER, Origenes ais Philologe (Schweizerische Beitriige zur Altertums-
wissenschaft, 18), Basel, 1987; eine Zusammenfassung der von Neuschiifer erhobenen
Topik findet sich bei M. SKEB, Exegese und Lebensform (Clavis commentariorum anti-
quitatis et medii aevi, 5), Leiden, 2007, S. 270.
12. K.H.E. LOMMATZSCH (Hg.), Origenis opera omnia tomus XI, Berlin, 1831, S. 351-
371.
13. CH. DELARUE - CH.-V. DELARUE (Hgg.), Origenis opera O/llnia tom us 1-IV, Paris,
1733-1759.
14. RlETZ, De Origenis prologis (Anm. 3), S. 44.
478 F.X.RISCH
nes el' andemorts aIs sehr wahrscheinlich beweisen wolle l5 , was meines
Wissens nicht geschehen ist.
nI. rnTEGRITÀT DES ACHELIS-TEXTES
lm ersten Band der Hippolyt-Ausgabe in den OCS druckte Hans Ache-
lis im Jam'e 1897 aIs Übell'este von Hippolyts Beschaftigung mit den
Psalmen neben einer Reihe von Kommentarfragmenten auch eine "syri-
sche Einleitung zu den Psalmen" 16 und, so die Überschrift, eine "unechte
griechische Einleitung zu den Ps almen " 17. Die Kommentmfragmente und
die syrische Einleitung galten ihm zum groBen Teil aIs unecht, die grie-
chische Einleitung, wie die Überschrift bereits besagt, zur Œinze. DaB el'
die unechten Texte in der Hippolyt-Ausgabe abdruckt und aIs solche
kennzeichnet, begründet el' mit dem Bedürfnis, nochmals klarzustellen,
in welchem Umfang bislang faIs cher Hippolyt aIs echter ausgegeben
worden war l8 . Für unsere Belange ist die Hippolyt-Frage nicht weiter von
Bedeutung, auch nicht die Frage, wie die syrische sich genau zur grie-
chischen Einleitung verhalt. Uns interessiert nul' die griechische Einlei-
tung, zu der Achelis nicht viel zu sagen weiBI9. Sie ist nichts anderes aIs
der Teil eines Prologes zur Psalmenkatene, deren Text in griechischen
Handschriften des Katenentyps VI und XXV sowie in den syrischen
Codices Ambrosianus syr. C 313 inf. (8. Jh.) und British Museum sYI'.
860, Add. 12154 (8.-9.Jh.) überliefert ist. Achelis weltete die syrische
Parallelüberlieferung der "griechischen Einleitung" nicht aus. Er
begnügte sich mit drei griechischen Katenen-Handschriften: Casanaten-
sis 1908 (12.-13. Jh.) und Parisinus gr. 143 (12. Jh.), beide von Karo und
Lietzmann aIs alleinige Reprasentanten des Katenentyps XXV klassifi-
ziert, sowie Vaticanus gr. 1789, der zum Typ VI gehort; nur für das dem
Euseb gehorende Fragment 6 verglich Achelis sieben weitere Codices 20 •
In der Anordnung der Textstücke folgt el' einfach dem Typ XXV. Damit
erzielt Achelis gegenüber seinen Vorgangem De Magistris und De
Lagarde, deren Edition der Casanatensis 1908 zugrundelag, und gegen-
15. Ibid., S. 33. 38. 46.
16. G.N. BONWETSCH - H. ACHELIS (Hgg.), Hippolytus. Werke 1. Exegetische l/nd
Homiletische Schriften (GCS), Leipzig, 1897, S. 127-135; vgl. hierzu H. ACHELIS, Hippolyt-
stl/dien (Texte und Untersuchungen, 16/4), Leipzig, 1897, 129-137.
17. Siehe die in Anm. 3 genannte Edition.
18. Vgl. H. ACHELIS, Hippolyt's kleinere exegetische l/nd hami/etise/le Schrijten:
Vorbemerkllllgen, in BONWETSCH - ACHELIS (Hgg.), Hippolytl/s. Werke 1 (Anm. 16), S. IV.
19. Vgl. ACHELIS, Hippolytstudien (Anm. 16), S. 126-127.
20. Vgl. ibid., S. 126.
DIE PROLOGE DES ORIGENES ZUM PSALTER 479
über Pitra, der zudem den Vaticanus 1789 herangezogen hatte21 , keine
wesentlichen Fortschritte. Die wichtigste Handschrift, der bereits
erwahnte, zuverlassige Codex Barrocianus 235, immerhin ein zweifels-
freier Hyparchetyp des Katenentyps VI, der palastinischen Katene, und
Vorlage des Vaticanus 1789, war ihm unbekannt geblieben. Das hatte
zwei gravierende Foigen. Zum einen ist der Text, wenngleich in der
sekundaren Überlieferung groBe Teile intakt geblieben sind, an einigen
Stellen fehlerhaft konstituiert; betroffen sind VOl' allem die Textabgren-
zung im Textstück 7, die Sinnhaftigkeit der Aussage in 9, eine Umstel-
lung in 12 sowie eine sekundare groBere Erweiterung in 13. Zum andem
ist die Autorschaft des Origenes nul' partiell, namlich für 7 und 9, erkannt.
lm einzelnen sind die Textstücke 6-17 bei Achelis wie folgt zu iden-
tifizieren: 6 wird in der Überlieferung dem Hippolyt zugewiesen, von
Achelis aber richtig aIs Eusebius (In Psalmos PO 23, 76A) erkannt.
7 wird von Achelis aus der syrischen Überlieferung richtig dem Origenes
zugeordnet. 8 ist anonym und laBt sich auch mit modemen Mitteln der
Textrecherche nicht identifizieren. 9 ist schon durch die Überschrift im
Barberinus nI 59, die von Achelis aus Pitra übemommen wird, dem Ori-
genes zugeordnet. 10 ist von Achelis aus dem Vaticanus 1789 richtig
dem Basilius (Homilia in psalmum primum, PO 29, 213B-C) gegeben.
11 ist von Achelis nicht erkannter Origenes. 12 ist von Achelis nicht
erkannter Origenes. 13 ist von Achelis nicht erkannter Origenes. 14 ist
ein von Achelis erkannter Auszug aus Epiphanius (De mensuris et pon-
deribus 5 = PO 43, 244D-245A). 15 ist ein von Achelis nicht erkannter,
obwohl im Vaticanus 1789 identifizierter, Auszug aus Didymus (Frag-
menta in Psalmos, fr. 1 Mühlenberg), erganzt mit einem Auszug aus
Theodoret (Interpretatio in psalmos. In Ps 1 = PO 80, 865B-C). 16 ist
ein von Achelis nicht erkannter Auszug aus Oregor von Nyssa (In
inscription es psalmorum n 3 = 75.1-6 McDonough). 17 ist und bleibt
anonym.
Achelis entging die Verfasserangabe im Vaticanus 1789, also in der
palastinischen Katene, zu seinen Stücken 7 und 9 velmutlich aus Unacht-
sarnkeit, wie überhaupt seine Angaben aus dem Vaticanus im Apparat unzu-
verlassig sind. DaB el' auch die Stücke 11-13 anonym abdruckt, laBt sich
indessen entschuldigen. Zwar gibt es auch zu Beginn des Fragmentes Il im
Vaticanus 1789 eine Zuweisung, aber der an diesel' Stelle schlechte physi-
sche Zustand macht sie fast unlesbar. Oenannt wird Origenes. Der Heraus-
geber hatte dies gewiB erkannt, wenn el' die Vorlage des Vaticanus 1789
eingesehen hatte, den Baroccianus 235, wo die Zuweisung klar lesbar ist.
21. Zu den von ACHELIS benutzten iilteren Ausgaben siehe S. 136 seiner Edition.
 480 F.X.RISCH
Da Achelis nicht die Absicht hatte, Origenes zu edieren, die Origenes-
Texte für ibn sozusagen nul' akzidentellen Charakter besaBen, fragte el'
auch nicht nach ihrem Verhaltnis zueinander und zu den übrigen Auszü-
gen. Der überlieferungsgeschichtliche Befund zeigt, daB die VOll Achelis
gebotene Reille der Exzerpte sek:undar erweitert ist. Die Textzeugen des
Katentyps VI bieten die Stücke 8, 16 und 17 nicht, übrigens übereinstim-
mend mit dem Ambrosianus syriacus, der ins 8 Jahrhundert gesetzt wird,
falls seine Prologi nicht schon, was ich für wahrscheinlich halte, im syri-
schen Urtext des frühen 7. Jahrhunderts standen. Die Prologkomposition
im Typ XXV ist mit Text 17 bei Achelis nicht abgeschlossen, was für
uns nicht weiter von Belang ist. Offenbar wurde aber der Prolog des Typs
VI aIs ganzes in der dOlt vorgenommenen Ordnung in den Typ XXV
übernommen. Diesel' Prolog im Typ VI, der für uns entscheidende Text,
ist im Vaticanus 1789 und Baroccianus 235 identisch komponiert22 .
Er begann mit einem Auszug aus Basilius und bringt dann, ohne die
erwahnten Erweiterungen, alle Texte, wie sie Achelis bietet, aiso die
Stücke 6 (dieses mit anderem Incipit) und 7 sowie 9 bis15. Mit dem Ende
von 15 endet der Prolog im Typ VI.
Wichtig ist nun, daB die Origenestexte, die von Achelis aIs fünf Stücke
geboten werden, der auBeren Form nach nur noch zwei Exzerpte ausma-
chen. Die Stücke 7 und 9 werden nicht unterschieden, ebenso nicht die
Stücke Il bis 13. DaB die Darbietung des Textes so aufzufassen ist, wird
kenntlich nur an der Autorenzuweisung, die im Baroccianus 235 aIs
zuverlassig angesehen werden dari. Die sonst üblichen Zeichen für die
Unterscheidung von Exzerpten haben für den Schreiber entweder keine
oder nul' geringe Bedeutung; we Verwendung wird von ilim nicht kon-
sequent verfolgt. Er beendet Exzerpte meist mit einem Hochpunkt,
zuweilen auch mit einem Tiefpunkt, nur sehr selten mit der üblichen
Paragraphierung, und er beginnt das neue Exzerpt mal mit, mal ohne
Hervorhebung der ersten MinuskeI; lediglich 13 zeigt zu Beginn eine
deutliche Hervorhebung.
Getrennt sind die beiden Passagen durch das Stück mit der Nummer
10, einem Auszug aus Basilius. Sieht man sich dieses Basilius-Exzerpt
und seine Positionierung etwas naher an, entsteht sofort der Eindruck,
daB es sich um einen Einschub in einen koharenten Text handeln musst.
Der Grund für den Einschub ist eine motivische Assoziierung: Die SteHe,
an der Origenes einen markanten und von spateren Exegeten immer wie-
der herausgehobenen Unterschied in der Klangerzeugung bei Psalterium
22. Vgl. die Aufschlüsselung der Prologtexte bei MÜHLENBERG, Psalmenkommentare
aus der Kateneniiberliefel'llng III (Anm. 1), S. 133.
DIE PROLOGE DES ORIGENES ZUM PSALTER 481
und Kithara mit k:urzen 'N orten anspricht, wurde mit der entsprechenden
Rezeption und Ausgestaitung derselben Aussage bei Basilius erganzt.
Das auf das Basilius-Exzerpt folgende Origenesstück allegorisiert das
Psalterium, paBt also genau zum Ende des VOl' dem Basilius-Stück ste-
henden Origenestextes. Diese Vorgehensweise, zuerst den physischen,
historischen Tatbestand anzuführen, um ihn dann für eine Anagogie
durch Allegorese zu benutzen, wird auch in darauffolgenden Passagen
des Textstückes 17 angewendet, wenn zuerst der Unterschied Psalm und
Lied erklart wird, um dann "die Gesetze der Anagogie"23 anzuwenden.
Liest man die beiden Origenes-Passagen über das Musikinstrument und
seine Allegorese, entsteht nicht das GefühI, daB etwas fehlt, vielmehr
wirkt der Basilius-Text aIs redundante Stôrung. Seine Einfügung gehôrt
vemmtlich zur ursplünglichen Form des Prologes in der palastinischen
Katene. Wenn in anderer Tradition eine unmittelbare Fortführung des
Textes von Il erfolgt, kann dies nicht aIs Argument für eine altere Über-
lieferung interpretiert werden. So ist im Vindobonensis theol. gr. 59
(fol. 5v) aus dem 13. Jahrhundelt zwar ein unmittelbarer AnschluB von
Il an 9 gegeben, muB aber auf freie Komposition in diesel' Katene
zU1ückgeführt werden. Das Basilius-Exzerpt wird an früherer Stelle gebo-
ten, nach dem dortigen Explicit ~UO'lÂEiuS (140.15 Achelis). Danach
fallen vier Zeilen Text aus; der AnschluB selbst ist leicht umfolIDuliert.
Der Vindobonensis 59, von Karo-Lietzmann dem Typ VII zugewiesen,
hat offenkundig Material aus der palastinischen Katene übemommen24 ,
ist aber weniger aIs Textzeuge denn aIs Dokument der Rezeptionsge-
schichte interessant. Hingegen darf man sich durch Hilarius bestatigt
sehen, wenn el' die Texte 9 und 11 unmittelbar nacheinander benutzt25 .
Mit anderen Worten: was im Typ VI in der Form von zwei Origenes-
Auszügen dargeboten wird, hing ursprünglich zusammen. Somit handelt
es sich bei den fünf Origenestexten bei Achelis in Wirklichkeit um einen
einzigen integralen Text. Die eben angesprochene Markierung von 13
kann, muB aber nicht bedeuten, daB eine Passage übersprungen wurde.
Denn 12 endet mit der eindeutig abschlieBenden Bemerkung: "Dies sei
aIs Allgemeines, aIs KuBoÂtKét., von uns gesagt"26. Mit 13 begann in
einem È'TCEt 013 - Satz vermutlich die Erôrterung von Detailfragen, deren
erste die nach dem Diapsaima ist. Überlieferungsgeschichtlich kann also
23. 141.24 ACHELIS: 'toùe; 'tile; àvaycoYile; vOf!oue;.
24. Vgl. auch MÜHLENBERG, Psalmenkommelltare ails der Kateneniiberliefe/'l/llg 1
(Anm. 1), S. XXI.
25. Hilarius, Inst/'lIctio Psalmo/'um 7 (CSEL, 22, 9.1-17).
26. 142.18-19 ACHELIS: Kat wu'tu SlPTtO'SCO T]f!tV KUSOl.,tKÙ OOUl.,suouO't 'tote;
O'T)I-IUtv0I-lBvote; 'tile; Spl-IT)VElUe; 'tc:Ov s~ool-lilKovm.

482 F.X.RISCH
an der Autorschaft des Origenes nicht gezweifelt werden, auch nicht
daran, daB es sich um einen zusammenhangenden relativ groBen Aus-
schnitt handelt, und nicht um fünf Exzerpte.
N. ORIGINALITÂT DES ACHELIS-TEXTES
DaB der Inhalt origeneisch ist, hat man seit je geahnt, war sich aber im
unklaren darüber, in welcher Fassung el' dargeboten wU·d. Haben wu' es
mit einem originalen oder einem überarbeiteten Text zu tun? Naherhin
ist zu fragen, ob den Achelis-Texten eine eigene Schrift zugrundeliegt,
ob sie eine Bearbeitung der Rietz-Texte sind, oder ob sie zusammen mit
diesen einer einzigen Originalschrift zugerechnet werden müssen, wobei
die einen authentisch, die anderen überarbeitet sind. Letzteres vertritt
Pierre Nautin, wenn el' der Sammlung der Origenesstücke bei Achelis nul'
sekundaren Wert beimiBt. Er zahlt zu ihr aIle Texte auBer 6,10,14-18
(= 17), zu Unrecht also auch 8 und die sekundare Erweiterung in 13, und
nimmt an, daB sie eine überarbeitete Fassung (remaniement) des in der
Rietz-Sammlung zum Teil erhaltenen authentischen Prologs des in Casa-
rea velfaBten Kommentars sei. Die Achelis-Stücke konnten hie und da
erganzenden Text enthalten27 . Nautins Beurteilung wurde meines Wis-
sens nie überprüft und war so einfluBreich, daB in der Clavis die Achelis-
Sammlung, mit Verweis auf Nautin, aIs retractatio der von Rietz
gedruckten praefatio bezeichnet wird. Diese Ansicht ist in ihrer indiffe-
renzierten Fonn nach wie vor der geltende und wenig entwickelte status
quaestionis. Man haIt die Achelis-Texte ohne nahere Beglündung für
sekundar; wahrscheinlich laBt man sich von ihrer Veroffentlichung aIs
Pseudo-Hippolyt beeindrucken. So ist auch nach Bernhard Neuschafer
die Authentizitat der Texte bei Achelis in Frage zu steIlen; es handele
sich um "die spatere Bearbeitung eines allerdings authentisch-origenei-
schen Psalmenkommentarprologs"28. Er nennt die Psalmeneinleitung
aber auch anonym29 , sie habe einen "unbekannten Velfasser" 30. Er
gehore neben Hilarius zu den beiden Bearbeitern einer oder mehrerer
origeneischer QueIlen31 , die el' auch aIs den Prolog des "casareensi-
schen" Kommentars definiert 32 , mit anderen Worten: Für Neuschafer
27. NAUTIN, Origène (Anm. 10), s. 279.
28. NEuscHÂFER, Origenes ais Philologe (Anm. 11), S. 358.
29. Ibid., S. 362.
30. Ibid., S. 69.
31. Ibid., S. 68.
32. Ibid., S. 69.
483
OlE PROLOGE DES ORIGENES ZUM PSALTER
enthalt die Sammlung von Achelis Material, das demselben Prolog wie
die Texte bei Rietz entnommen ist.
Ich glaube dagegen nicht, daB es sich um eine fremde Bearbeitung,
weder der Rietz-Texte noch eines eigenstandigen Originals, handelt. Ich
bin vielmehr der Auffassung, erstens daB der Achelis-Text selbst ein gut
erhaltenes Original ist, und zweitens, daB el' nicht zusammen mit den
Rietz-Texten einer gemeinsamen Schrift zuzuordnen ist. Dafür spricht
schon die getrennte Überlieferung. DaB Hilarius in der Einleitung zu
seinem Psalmenkommentar beide benutzt33 , wird aIs Argument für eine
gemeinsame Quelle durch den Tatbestand entwertet, daB el' auch das
vollig anders gealtete prooemium aus dem ersten Buch zum ersten Psalm
kennt34 . Hilarius hat einfach aIle ihm erreichbaren Einleitungstexte her-
angezogen.
Was immer unter Bearbeitung verstanden werden solI - Metaphrase,
Paraphmse, Epitomierung, Kompilierung, oder etwas dergleichen - es
müBte immer noch eine inhaltliche Einheit und mit fur auch eine gewisse
verbale Übereinstimmung mit der angeblichen Vorlage erkennbar sein.
Das ist nur in einem sehr geringen Umfang der FaU; der weitaus groBere
Teil in der Achelis-Sammlung ist gegenüber der Rietz-Sammlung neu.
Und wo Übereinstimmungen zwischen beiden Textsammlungen vorlie-
gen, sind sie zwar unverkennbar, konnen aber kaum aIs Übernahme zum
Zweck einer Bearbeitung interpretielt werden.
ln der Achelis-Sammlung werden folgende Themen behandelt: im
Text 7 der Titel des Psalmbuches, wobei das eigentliche Interesse in der
Frage liegt, ob das Buch von David ist; in 9 die Frage, warum es ausge-
rechnet 150 Psalmen gibt; angeschlossen wird das Problem der histori-
schen Folge; am Ende von 9 und in 11 die Bedeutung des Instrumentes
Psalterion; in 12 der Unterschied von Psalm, Lied, Liedpsalm und Psalm-
lied, und in 13 das Diapsalma.
Gegenüber den Rietz-Texten tallt hier die stilistische und konzeptio-
nelle Einheit auf. Themenwechsel werden durch Übergange vorbereitet,
beispielsweise in 9 zur Frage der historischen Reihenfolge mit einem
Hinweis auf die Schwierigkeit genauer Erkenntnis35 . Die einheitliche the-
matis che Ordnung hat, anders aIs bei den Rietz-Texten, einen deutlich
erkennbaren Schwerpunkt, namlich auf dem Psalter aIs ganzem, weshalb
ja auch Origenes selbst, wie bereits erwahnt, von KuSolvlKa spricht.
Wiihrend zum Beispiel im dritten Stück bei Rietz die lullos-Episode vol-
33. Hilarius, Instmctio Psalmol'ulIl, 1-24 (CSEL, 22, 3-19).
34. VgL ibid., S. 24.
35. VgL 139.29-140.1 ACHELIS.
484 F.X.RISCH
lig für sich steht und sich speziell auf die anonymen Psalmen 89-99
bezieht, 'ist sie im Text 7 bei Achelis in die Frage nach dem Autor des
ganzen Buches, nicht bloB einzelner anepigrapha, eingebunden36 •
Die inhaltlichen Übereinstimmungen, die Nautin zu seiner These ver-
anlaBt hab en und die keinesfalls in Abrede gesteIlt werden k6nnen, las sen
sich nicht auf die Thematik beziehen, sondern nur auf die Motivik. Unter
Thematik verstehe ich die Fragestellung, unter Motivik das zur Er6rte-
rung herangezogene Material. Die Themen bei Achelis und bei Rietz
stimmen, mit Ausnahme der Frage nach dem Diapsalma, nicht miteinan-
der überein. Was übereinstimmt, sind einzelne Gedanken, die in beiden
Sammlungen in einem thematisch verandelten Kontext auftauchen und
damit einer veranderten Zielsetzung der Argumentation unterwOlfen sind.
Das heiBt, daB auch bei inhaltlichen Übereinstimmungen nicht von
textueller Bearbeitung gesprochen werden kann. Wenn zum Beispiel die
Überschrift der Psalmen 8, 80 und 83 ins Blickfeld l'Ückt, im Text 1 bei
Rietz und 9 bei Achelis 37 , weist die Motivik durch den unterschiedlichen
Skopos eine je selbstandige Behandlung auf. Bei Rietz wird der Aus-
druck unÈp 't'wv Â-YJvwv auf die Vielzahl der KU'chen gedeutet, ohne daB
dabei aus der Zahlung der Psalmen ein Argument gewonnen würde, bei
Achelis stehen umgekehrt die Zahlen im Mittelpunkt und werden mithilfe
des Aspektes der KeIter aIs Symbol der VoUendung angesehen. Der
Skopos ist jeweils deutlich anders. Bei Rietz wird nul' die KeItel' allego-
risiert, bei Achelis vorwiegend die Zahl. Keiner der beiden Texte kann
eine Bearbeitung des anderen sein, zum Beispiel in Form einer Erweite-
rung oder Verkürzung. Die Gedankenfühtung ist jeweils selbstandig mit
je eigenem Ausgangspunkt und Ziel. Natürlich widersprechen sich die
Deutungen auch nicht: in beiden wird auf Christus (2.5) bzw. den wahren
Weinstock (139.11) verwiesen.
Sogar bei der dreimaligen Behandlung des Diapsalma, in 1 und 2 bei
Rietz und 13 bei Achelis 38 , liegt trotz der thematischen Gleichheit nicht
eine redigierte Reproduktion VOl', obwohl die Übereinstimmungen enger
aIs sonst sind. Denn deutlich sind Verschiebungen im Skopos zu erken-
nen; zum Teil sind die Informationen aber auch v6llig unterschiedlich.
In allen drei Fallen werden hexaplmische Informationen mit Angaben zur
Bedeutung des Ausdrucks verbunden. Die Aussagen in 13 bei Achelis
sind eine offensichtliche Rekapitulierung des zweiten Stückes bei Rietz
(erkennbar auch an sogar verbalen Übereinstimmungen), enthalten aber
36. Vgl. 137.16--27 ACHELIS.
37. 1.1 RIETZ (1.2-2.5); 9 ACHELIS (139.9-15).
38. 1.14 RIETZ (8.7-12); 2 RIETZ; 13 ACHELls.
DIE PROLOGE DES ORIGENES ZUM PSALTER 485
auch ein zusatzliches Definitionselement: die Setzung eines Diapsalma
wird begründet mit einem Wechsel in den Topoj39, meines Wissens der
einzige Bestandteil in den origeneischen Diapsaima-Definitionen, der
nicht rezipiert wurde. Das Hypomnema bietet ebenfalls ein eigenstandi-
ges Definitionselement, wenn es Diapsalma als Wechsel des Prosopon
erklfut40 , und hat darüberhinaus auffallige Abweichungen im hexaplari-
schen Befund; erwahnt sei hier nul', daB laut Hypomnema Aquila das
hebraische se/ah mit ~O'f-lU wiedergegeben habe, aiso nicht mit àEi, wie
von Origenes und in der griechischen Tradition sonst regelmaBig ange-
geben wird. Das muB nicht notwendig aIs Irrtum des Autors oder aIs
Fehler in der Überlieferung aufgefaBt werden, denn in der Syrohexapla
41
finden sich Angaben, die man dazu in Beziehung setzen kann •
Neben diesen beiden Stellen gibt es nUl' noch zwei weitere, die über-
haupt verglichen werden k6nnen, weil darin ahnliches Material benutzt
wird, sofern darin die Motive der Chronologie und einer bestimmten
Zahlensymbolisierung verwendet werden, namlich eine Passage aus dem
Hypomnema und der Text 9 bei Achelis42 • Aber auch hier sind Konzep-
tion und Ausführung so verschieden, daB kein Text die Bearbeitung des
anderen sein kann. Âhnliches gilt für die Stücke 3 bei Rietz und 7 bei
Achelis, wo jeweils die schon angesprochene lullos-Episode referiert
wird, einmal ausführlich und erzahlerisch aIs Erlebnisbericht über eine
Diskussion, die sich auf Moses bezog, das andere Mal abstrakt und nul'
das Resultat der Diskussion anwendend und auf David beziehend.
Eine weitere Stelle solI noch kurz erwahnt werden, die man auf den
ersten Blick für eine thematische Übereinstimmung halten k6nnte. lm
Hypomnema und im Text 7 bei Achelis 43 wird das scheinbar gleiche
Thema der nicht überschriebenen Psalmen behandelt, aber gemeint ist
jeweils etwas anderes: Bei Rietz werden die Psaimen ohne musikalische
Gattungsbezeichnung aIs "mit nichts davon überschrieben" (Ol f-lYJbS-
't'spu Èntysypuf-lf-lSVot 't'wv 'l'uÂ-f-lwv) bezeichnet; bei Achelis werden die
àvsntypucpot behandelt, womit Psalmen ohne Verfasserangaben gemeint
sind, also nicht Psalmen ganz "ohne Überschrift", was nul' für die beiden
ersten gelten würde. Der thematische Zusammenhang "Psalmen ohne
Überschrift" zwischen beiden Stellen ist also nul' marginal gegeben, ein
39. 142.22-23 ACHELls: 6m:crilfluvuv Ol ~ÉV'tES uù'to pU~floU nvoS 11 flÉf..OUS 11
flÉpouS flE'tU~OÎYi]v ysyovÉVat Ku'tà 'tOÙS 'tonous·
40. 8.12 RlETZ: npocromou flE'tU~Of..il·
41. !ch verweise hier nur auf die Note zu Ps 38,12 von F. FIELD, Origenis Hexaplorum
quae supersullt tomus II, Oxford, 1875, S. 149.
42. 1.16 RlETZ; 9 ACHELls.
43. 1.12 RlETZ (6.23-7.13); 7 ACHELIS (137.16-21).
486 p.x. RISCH
argumentativer nicht moglich. Beide Texte sind imgrunde unvergleich-
bar.
Ais Ergebnis des inhaltlichen Vergleichs, der ausführlich einer geplan-
ten Übersetzung beigegeben sein wird und hier nul' in Andeutungen
geboten werden konnte, laBt sich festhalten, daB einzig der Text 13 bei
Achelis, eine Diapsalma-SteIle, aIs eigentliche retractatio eines Rietz-
Textes (2 Rietz, nicht 1,14 Rietz) verstanden werden kann. Die retracta-
tio elfolgt jedoch nicht durch einen anonymen spaten Bearbeiter, sondern
durch Origenes selbst. Der Text 13 bei Achelis ist ein mit EÜpOJ!EV ein-
geleitetes zusammenfassendes Selbstreferat.
V. Zu DEN QUELLSCHRIFI'EN
Meiner Überzeugung nach dalf man es für ausgemacht halten, daB der
Achelis-Text nicht die Bearbeitung der Rietz-Texte sein kann. Und es ist
sehr unwahrscheinlich, daB beide zusammen verschiedene Auszüge aus
einer gemeinsamen QueIlschrift sind. Ware dies der FaIl, dann hatte Ori-
genes sich in ein und derselben Schrift auf eine ungelenke Art wieder-
holt, verandert, erganzt, widersprochen und rasant entwickelt; unter-
schiedliche Motivationen stünden sich unorganisch gegenüber; ich habe
dies im Vorausgehenden nur an einem Teil des komplexen Materials
skizzenhaft beleuchtet. Es handelt sich um ein Material, das einen bunten
und langen Arbeitsprozess dokumentiert. Die Annahme unterschiedlicher
QueIlschriften aus verschiedenen Arbeitsphasen erscheint mir unabding-
bar. Überlieferungsgeschichtlicher Befund und Inhalt lassen mindestens
drei Quellen vermuten: eine für das Hypornnema, eine oder mehrere für
die übrigen Rietz-Texte und eine für den Achelis-Text.
Welcher literarischen Art und welchem literarischen Ort diese QueIl-
schriften zuzurechnen sind, ist naturgemaB nicht einfach zu beantworten.
Ich gehe hier nicht auf die aus Hieronymus bekannte, nicht nul' termino-
logisch problematische Dreiteilung der exegetischen Arbeiten des Orige-
nes in Scholien, Kommentare und Homilien ein44 , sondern beschranke
mich auf ein paar abstrakte Überlegungen:
Den Achelis-Text würde ich, mich auf die origeneische Angabe
KuBoÀtKU berufend, am liebsten aIs introductio generalis bezeichnen, aIs
eine übergeordnete Einleitung in die Psalmenkommentierung, deren ein-
44. Zu diesem noÀuSpuÀT1"0V der Origenes-Forschung s. zu1etzt CH. MARKSCHIES,
Scl/Olien bei Origenes und in der zeitgenossischen wissenschaftlichen KOlllmelltierung, in
diesem Band S. 147-167.
DIE PROLO GE DES ORIGENES ZUM PSALTER 487
zelne Bücher durch ein eigenes prooemium eI'offnet wurden, das gleich-
wohl aIlgemein und für den ganzen Kommentar gültig gehalten sein
konnte, besonders wenn es der Erorterung des ersten Psalms voranging,
wie das prooemÎum in der Philokalie; damit relativiere ich die im Jahre
2007 publizielte These von Matthias Skeb, wonach dieses prooemium aIs
Einleitung zum gesamten "groBen Psalmen- Kommentar" (womit el' den
Kommentar aus der Zeit "in Casarea" meint) gedacht war"5. Es ist doch
eher eine Adresse, die in die Auslegung übergeht46 . Gut moglich ist es,
daB die von mir so genannte introductio generalis zum Psalmenkommen-
tar gehôrte, den die palastinische Katene bietet. Es faIlt jedenfalls schwer,
ihren Überlieferungsort in eben diesel' Katene aIs Zufall aufzufassen.
Hinsichtlich der Rietz-Texte ware es ein wenig voreilig, sie aIs das
anzusehen, aIs was sie überliefert sind, namlich aIs Prologe zur Kommen-
tierung der Psalmen. DaB sie heute aIs Prologe bezeichnet werden, ver-
danken sie, wie ich eingangs schon andeutete, den Autoren der Katenen,
die sie den Exzerpten der eigentlichen Katene voranstellten. Es ist
zunachst keineswegs ausgemacht, daB sie Texten entnommen sind, die
Origenes selbst aIs praefationes angesehen hat. Die Autoren der Katenen
haben ja oftmals auf Werke zurückgegriffen, die von iill'en Velfassern
formaI nicht aIs Einleitungstexte zum Psalter gedacht waren, aber inhalt-
lich aIs Einleitung fungieren konnen, zum Beispiel auf die Homilie zum
ersten Psalm von Basilius, die Psalmenkommentare von Hesych, Didy-
mus und Theodoret oder die Abhandlung in inscriptiones psalmorum von
Gregor von Nyssa. Für das Hypomnema kommt vielleicht ein Vortrag in
Frage; für die übrigen Passagen konnte man auch an Exkurse im Kom-
mental' denken, ahnlich dem in der Philokalie erhaltenen Exzerpt über die
zweiundzwanzig Bücher der Hebraer, das aus dem Kommentar zum ers-
ten Psalm genommen ist und mit dem vermutlich der Auslegungsgang
unterbrochen wurdé7 , oder wie die abrupt eingeschobenen und auBerhalb
einer Argumentation stehenden Ausführungen zur hebraischen Metrik im
Kommentar zu Ps 11848 • Moglich sind natürlich auch Briefe oder auch
die Stromateis oder die ratselhaften Scholia und Excerpta.
Von besonderem Interesse sind drei gelehrte Bemerkungen im Codex
Ambrosianus gr. B 106, einer Handschrift der Psalmenkatene yom Typ
XIV49. Ein unbekannter Autor leitet die Texte 3 und 2 bei Rietz und eine
Information, die den Text 7 von Achelis zusammenfaBt, mit Hinweisen
45. Vgl. SKEB, Exegese und Lebensforlll (Anm. 11), S. 138-147.
46. Àhnlich NAUTIN, Origène (Anm. 10), S. 265-266.
47. Philokalia 3 (SC, 302, 260).
48. In Psallllulll 118, 1-2 (SC, 189, 188.24-37).
49. Die Texte finden sich bei NAUTIN, Origène (Anm. 10), S. 306-307.
488 F.x.RISCH DiE PROLOGE DES ORIGENES ZUM PSALTER 489

auf die Hexapla ein. Giovanni Mercati schloB aus ihnen dreierlei50 : spricht aber von der Hexapla insgesamt und bezeichnet sie aIs überaus
erstens die Informationen beziehen sich sicher auf einen Codex der alt, wahrend el' die von ihm gesehene Psaimenhexapla nicht auf diese
HexapIa; zweitens sei hier der Titei der Hexapla bezeugt; drittens zeige Art qualifiziert. Offenkundig unterscheidet er die von ilim eingesehene
sich, daB noch umiaufende proèimiaie Partien zu den Prolegomena der Teiledition der Psaimen, die el' gesehen hat, von dem ursprünglichen
Hexapla gehèirten. Mercati war zudem der Meinung, daB diese Prolog- hexaplarischen Gesamtwerk, das el' nicht gesehen hat, laBt aber auch
texte auch im Ambrosianus gr. 0 39 enthalten waren, aiso in jenem keinen Zweifei an seiner Überzeugung aufkommen Iassen, daB 2 Rietz
berühmten Palimpsest, der verhaltnismaBig umfangreiche Pat'tien der aus diesem Ul'sprünglichen Gesamtwerk stammt und nicht erst aus einer
Psaimenhexapla (ohne hebraischen Text) enthalt. Wenn man Mercati spateren TeiIausgabe. Glaubt man ihm, dann ist nur 2 Rietz aus der
zustimmt, liegen in den Rietz-Texten Exzerpte aus der pl'aefatio zur praefatio zu HexapIa, wahrend die übrigen Texte vielleicht erst spater
Hexapla vor. Robel't Devreesse foigte Mercatis Überzeugung und gab einer Ausgabe der Psaimenhexapla vorangestellt wurden.
vor, aus den Rietz- und Achelis-Stücken die pl'aefatio zur Hexapla nach
dem Ambrosianus 0 39 rekonstruieren zu kèinnen 51 - obwohi dort Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie Franz Xaver RrscH
keinerlei Prologtexte mehr erhalten sind. der Wissenschaften
Die Angelegenheit muB differenzierter betrachtet werden. Zwar ist JagerstraBe 22-23
Mercati ohne jeden Zweifel Recht zu geben, wenn er sagt, der Anonymus D 10117 Berlin
des Ambrosianus B 106 spreche de ViSU 52 • Aber was hat er gesehen? Er risch@bbaw.de
hat meiner Meinung nach nicht die Hexapla selbst eingesehen. Er kann,
wie auch Nautin atmahm, eine Psaimenkatene mit hexaplarischen Lesar-
ten gesehen haben. Nautin begründete seine Auffassung mit der Bobach-
tung, daB der Anonymus an spaterer Stelle vier Exzerpte aus einer Katene
bietet. DaB es eine Katene war, atis der er zitiel't, ist erkenntlich an einem
der Stücke, das in der Katenüberlieferung begegnet; die drei anderen sind
sonst nicht bekannt53. Man kann aber auch unabhangig von Nautins
Überiegung erkennen, an des Anonymus eigenem W ortiaut, daB er nicht
die Hexapla selbst eingesehen hat. W 0 er den Text 3 bei Rietz prasentiert,
spricht er explizit aus, daB er den Text aus einer Ausgabe der Psaimen-
hexapla bezieht. Auch bei der dritten Mitteilung, in der er, aIs einziger
Textzeuge überhaupt, die Überschrift des Psalmenbuches hexaplarisch
(ohne hebraischen Text) wiedergibt, Iag ihm eine Ausgabe der Psalmen-
hexapla vor. In beiden Fallen sagt er SÜpol!SV - ein seit je üblicher
Ausdruck für Autopsie. Bei der Mitteilung zu 2 Rietz verhaIt es sich
anders: Er sagt nicht mehr, daB el' etwas gesehen hat, sondem drückt sich
nun unpersèinlich aus und sagt, daB der Text aus der Hexapla genommen
sei. Er spricht aiso nicht mehr von einer Autopsie der PsalmenhexapIa,

50. G. MERCATI, D'un palimpsesto Ambrosiano contenente i Sa/mi esapli ... , in Opere
minori 1 (Studi e Testi, 76), Roma, 1937,318-338, S. 325.
51. R. DEVREESSE, Les anciens commentateurs grecs des psaumes (Studi e Testi, 264),
Roma, 1970, S. 2-3.
52. MERCATI, D'ul! palimpsesto Ambrosiano (Anm. 50), S. 327: L'anonimo parla pro-
prio de visu.
53. NAUTIN, Origène (Anm. 10), S. 307-308.
 ZUR PSALMENAUSLEGUNG DES ORIGENES
EINIGE BEOBACHTUNGEN AM BEISPIEL VON PSALM 2

I. Zu DEN KATENENFRAGMENTEN DES PSALMENKOMMENTARES

Die Überreste der origeneischen Psalmenkommentierung' sind

bekanntlich vorwiegend in Katenen erhalten, was besonders im Hinblick
auf eine kritische Edition mehrere Schwierigkeiten in sich birgt: So ist
oft die Zuweisung einzelner Fragmente an bestimmte Autoren problema-
tisch, wenn etwa der gleiche Text in verschiedenen Handschriften unter-
schiedlichen Exegeten zugeschrieben wird, oder aber Doppelzuweisun-
gen in einem Textzeugen vorhanden sind. Zudem kann das Eingreifen
des Katenisten in Texte, wo keine direkte Überlieferung zum Vergleich
herangezogen werden kann, nicht genau eingeschatzt werden. Daher ist
es unumganglich, für jedes einzelne Fragment die inneren und ausseren
Kriterien genau anzuschauen und seine Autorschaft zu überprüfen.
Obwohl in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten viele wichtige Arbeiten2 zu den
Katenen und insbesondere auch zu den origeneischen Schriften zum Psal-
ter entstanden sind, ist die Lage noch immer sehr verworren, so dass viele
Hypothesen nochmals überdacht werden sollten und nul' in kleinen
Schritten etwas Klarheit in das Dickicht gebracht werden kann.
Das Ziel des folgenden Beitrages, der sich angesichts des betrachtli-
chen Umfangs des Materials und der Komplexitat der Überlieferungslage
nul' auf einige Fragmente zu Psalm 2 beschranken soll, ist bescheiden:
Es son zunachst kurz ein Blick auf die exegetische Aussage, wie sie in
den Fragmenten der Palastinischen Katene vorzufinden ist, geworfen
werden, um dann im Anschluss zwei einzelne Texte genauer zu bespre-
chen, anhand derer in einem Fan Beobachtungen zur moglichen Quelle

1. Die Edition der Fragmente des Psahnenkommentares wird z.Z. an der Berlin-Branden-
burgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften im Vorhaben "Die Griechischen Christlichen
Schriftsteller" vorbereitet.
2. Um nur einige zu nennen: E. MÜHLENBERG, Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenen-
überlieferung, 3 Bde. (patristische Texte und Studien, 15/16/19), Berlin - New York, de
Gruyter, 1975-1978; P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre, Paris, Beauchesne, 1977,
der die Katenenfragmente der Prologe untersucht hat; M.-J. RONDEAU, Les commentaires
patristiques du Psautier (/Ile-v< siècles), 2 Bde. (Orielltalia Christiana Analecta, 219/220),
Rom, Pont. Inst. Studiorum Orientalium, 1982/1985; G. DoRIVAL, Les chaînes exégétiques
grecques sur les Psaumes: Contribution à l'étude d'zlIIe forme littéraire, 4 Bde., Leuven,
Peeters, 1986-1995.
492 B. VILLANI
der Katenenfragmente, im anderen zur Zuschreibung eines einzelnen Stü-
ckes gemacht werden sollen.
Leider ist die Katenenüberlieferung des Kommentares nicht zu allen
Teilen des Psalters gleich gut: Von Glück kann man sprechen, wo uns
die direkte Tradition der Palastinischen Katene - einer Katene, bei deren
Zusammenstellung der Katenist wohl noch direkt aus den Kommentaren
exzerpiert hat - zuganglich ist. Dies ist der Fall bei den Psalmen 1-50
sowie in der zweiten Halfte des Psalters, den Psalmen 77,1-78,3 und
83,4-150,63 • Zum ersten Drittel stehen uns für die direkte Überlieferung
der Palastinischen Katene sechs Handschriften4 zur Verfügung, welche
Marcel Richard ausführlich beschrieben und deren Abhlingigkeit darge-
stellt hat5 . Diese werden im Katalog von Georg Karo und Hans Lietz-
mann6 aIs Typ VI klassifiziert. Der wichtigste Textzeuge innerhalb diesel'
Überlieferungsgruppe, der einen Hyparchetyp der nachfoigenden mittel-
alterlichen Überlieferung bildet, ist der Baroccianus 235 yom Ende des
9. Jh., der heute in der Bodieian Library in Oxford liegt und dessen
Autorenzuweisungen sich, wie Untersuchungen von Marcel Richard und
Marie-Josèphe Rondeau zeigen, aIs ziemlich zuverlassig erweisen7 ; ln
diesel' Handschrift finden wir zum zweiten Psalm elf dem Origenes zuge-
schriebene Fragmente von verschiedener Lange, wovon eines eine Dop-
pelautorschaft in Gemeinschaft mit Euseb tragt. In diesem Beitrag bezieht
sich die Untersuchung auf die Fragmente dieses Katenentyps VI, vertre-
ten durch den Baroccianus, da es sich, was die Lemmazuweisungen und
die Textgestalt betrifft, um die zuverlassigste Quelle für origeneische
Textstücke zu den Psalmen handelt. Die Origenes zugewiesenen Frag-
menten gehen in die sem Textzeugen zuweilen beinahe nahtlos ineinander
3. Vgl. DORIVAL, Chafnes exégétiques (Anm. 2), Bd. 1, S. 117.
4. Oxon. Baroee. 235 (9./10. Th.), Vat. gr. 1789 (10. Th.); Athous Iviron gr. 597
(11. Th.); Monae. gr. 359 (10./11. Th.); Bukarest Akad. Rom. gr. 931 zusammen mit Istanbul
Panhagias Kamariotisses gr. 9 (11. Th.). G. DORIVAL, Chafnes exégétiques (Anm. 2), Bd. 1,
S. 116, erg1inzt diese um zwei weitere Handsehriften: Oxon. Auet. T. 1.1 = Mise. 179
(17. Jh.) und Oxon. Baroee. gr. 154 (15. Th.). Bei letzterer handelt es sieh um eine
Absehrift des Baroee. 235.
5. M. RICHARD, Les manuscrits de la chafne du type VI SUl' les Psaumes, in Revue
d'histoire des textes 3 (1973) 19-38.
6. G. KARo - H. LIETZMANN, Catenamm graecamm Catalogus (Naehriehten von der
konigliehen Gesellsehaft der Wissensehaften zu Gottingen. Philologiseh-Historisehe
Klasse), Gottingen, 1902: zu den Psalmenkatenen, S. 20-66.
7. M. RICHARD, Les premières chaînes SUI' le Psautier, in Bulletin de l'Institut de
Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes 5 (1956) 87-89; zu den Psahnen 29 und 30 im Falle
des Didymus s. M.-J. RONDEAU, A propos d'une édition de Didyme l'Aveugle, in Revue
des études grecques 81 (1986) 385-400, hier S. 399, wo der Vergleich mit den Tura-Papyri
die ZuverHissigkeit der Zuweisungen im Baroecianus 235 bestiitigt: " ... eelui-ci (sc. der
Tura-Papyrus) pelmet d'éprouver dans le détailla qualité des lemmes de la chaîne VI".
ZUR PSALMENAUSLEGUNG DES ORIGENES 493
über, so dass man den Eindruck eines fortiaufenden Textes bekommt, der
nul' durch Einschübe anderer Autoren unterbrochen ist. Dies ist etwa
der Fall bei der Kommentierung der Verse 1-4, die durchkomponielt
scheint und wohl nicht allzu sehr yom origeneischen Originalkommentar
abweichen dürfte. Leider muss man jedoch viel Ofter mit gr6Beren,
nahezu drastischen Kürzungen rechnen, etwa dort, wo man sieht, dass
Gedankengange etwas abrupt abrechen oder an Fragmentübergangen
sogar Satze nicht richtig zu Ende geführt werden. Dennoch geben uns die
langeren Textstücke zum zweiten Psalm insgesamt ein relativ gutes Bild
der origeneischen Auslegung.
II. ZUR AUSLEGUNG DES 2. PSALMES BEI ORIGENES
Psaim 2 ist mitunter einer der am haufigsten im Neuen Testament
zitierten alttestamentlichen Texte und wU'd bereits da christologisch
gedeutet, was die Basis für eine breite messianische Auslegung bei den
Vatern bildet8 • Origenes' Interpretation lasst sich beinahe zum gesam-
ten Psaim rekonstruieren, Iediglich zu den Versen 6, 7a und 8 fehlen
uns im Typ VI ganzlich Origenes zugeschriebene Stücke. Inhaltlich
finden wir gemaB der für den Alexandriner üblichen Methode der Kom-
mentierung auch in unseren Texten die verschiedensten Elemente der
Interpretationstechnik: Von Einzeldefinitionen, philologischen Beob-
achtungen und lexikographischen Angaben über theologische Fragen
zur prosopologischen Exegese und den verschiedenen Deutungsebenen
ist die gesamte Breite der Auslegungskunst aufgeflichert. So schwenkt
Origenes von der allegorischen Ausiegung der vier Gruppen der Rebel-
lierenden am Anfang des Psaims hin zu grammatikalischen Beobach-
tungen über die unterschiedlichen Tempora in den divers en griechi-
schen Übersetzungen und zu den verschiedenen Übersetzungsvarianten
eines hebraischen Verbs und unternimmt auch noch einen Exkurs über
die Gottesnamen.
Vor der eigentlichen Ausiegung der Einzeiverse behandelt Origenes in
einer Art Einleitung zum gesamten Psalm zunachst die rein formaie Frage
der Nummerierung des Psalmes, welcher in einigen hebraischen Hand-
schriften noch zu Psalm eins gezahlt wird, sowie die zentrale Frage nach
der Pers on des Sprechers, das Verfahren der prosopologischen Exegese -
8. Das gilt insbesondere fijr Ps 2,7, der aIs ehristologisehe Aussage gewertet wurde.
Zur neutestanlentliehen Auslegung dieses Psalmverses s. J. DUPONT, "Filius meus es tu":
L'interprétation de Ps. II,7 dans le Nouveau Testament, in Recherches de Science Reli-
gieuse 35 (1948) 522-543.
494 B. VILLANI
eine gerade in den Psalmen iiuBerst wichtige Technik9 : Demnach spricht
die Prophezeiung über Christus in den Vers en 1 und 2 ('Iva "Ci s<ppoasav
1WVll Kat Àaot S!!8ÀÉ"CllO'av K8va; napÉO'''CllO'av 01. paO'lÀ8tç TflÇ Y'flÇ,
Kat oi apxov"C8Ç O'UVllxSllO'av snt "Co aù"Co Ka"Cà "Cou Kupiou Kat Ka"Cà
"Cou Xpw"Cou aù"Cou) entweder der Heilige Geist oder der Prophet selbst,
nach dem Diapsalma am Ende von Vers 2 aber errolgt ein Sprecherwech-
sel, bei dem nun Christus zur sprechenden Pers on wirdlO.
Praktisch ist der Psalm also durch das Diapsalma zweigeteilt, wobei
Origenes inhaltlich die Verse 3 und 4 (~taPPllSCO!!8V wùç Ù8O'!!OÙÇ
almDv Kat ùnopphjlCO!!8V Ù<p' 1Î!!rov "Cov çuyov aù"Crov. 0 KawtKrov SV
oùpavotç sKy8Àa0'8"Cat aù"Cooç, Kat 0 KOpWÇ SK!!UK"CllPt8t aùwoç)
noch zu den Versen davor ziihlen mochte und diese Niihe durch seine
Auslegung verdeutlicht: AIs Leitfaden für den Gesamtduktus der Inter-
pretation von Bedeutung werden die in den ersten beiden Vers en genann-
ten vier Arten der Rebellierenden gedeutet, und zwar auf zweifache
Weise, einmal auf der Basis des Verstiindnisses diesel' Verse in Apg
4,25-27 typologisch, wonach also die aSvll mit den Ungliiubigen, die
Àaoi mit den Juden, die Konige (paO'lÀstç) und Herrscher (apXOVl'8Ç)
mit Herodes, Pontius Pilatus und den Anführern der Juden identifiziert
werden. Darauf folgt eine weitere allegorische Interpretation, wo die Auf-
stiindischen mit den unsichtbaren Miichten in Verbindung gesetzt werden,
welche für die Kreuzigung Christi verantwortlich zu machen sind. Diese
Deutung schliigt sich auch in anderen Werken des origeneischen Oeuvres
nieder, insbesondere in Prin III.3.2 11 , so dass ein Vergleich mit diesel'
9. Zur prosopologischen Exegese, die Origenes in der Psalmenkommentierung anwen-
det, vgl. M.-J. RONDEAU, Commel/taires patristiques (Anm. 2), Bd. 2: Exégèse proso-
pologique et théologie, S. 40-135. Allgemein bei Origenes vgl. A. VILLANI, Origel/es ais
Schriftsteller: Eil/ Beitrag zu seil/er Verwel/dul/g VOl/ Prosopopoiie, mit eil/igen Beobach-
tUl/gel/über die prosopologische Exegese, in Adamal/tius 14 (2008) 130-150.
10. Zum Verstiindnis des Diapsalma bei den Kirchenviitem vgl. J.OOGOIN, Recherches
sur le Diapsalma, in Le Psautier chez les Pères (Cahiers de la Biblia Patristica, 4), Strasbourg,
Centre d'analyse et de documentation patristiques, 1993,7-20. Irigoin, S. 7, leitet aus dem
Fragment zu Ps 2,2 ab, für Origenes hiitte Diapsalma die Funktion, einen Sprecherwechsel
anzuzeigen.
11. Hier sagt Origenes innerhalb einer Erkliirung der "Weisheit" von lKor 2,6-8:
[gitur il/ scripturis sal/ctis il/vel/il11us pril/cipes esse per sil/gulas gel/tes, sicut in Danihelo
legil11us 'principel11' quendam esse 'regl/i Persa/'lll11 , et alium 'principem regl/i Graeco-
/'1/111', quos non hOl11il/es esse sed virtutes quasdam evidenter ex cOl/sequel/tia ipsius lec-
tiol/is ostel/ditur. Sed et il/ Hiezechihelo propheta 'pril/ceps Tyri' virtus esse quaedam
spiritalis mal/ifestissime desigl/atur. Hi ergo et alii huiusmodi 'pril/cipes ll/tius mill/di',
habel/tes singuli sapiel/tias suas et adst/'llel/tes dogmata sua variasque sel/tel/tias, ut vide-
/'III/t domilllllli et salvatorel11 nost/'llm pollicel/tem et praedical/tem se ob lzoc vel/isse il/
hUl/c IIllmdll/lI, ut destrueret omnia quaecumque illa essel/t 'falsi I/omil/is sciel/tiae' dog-
mata, cOl/til/uo, quis obtegeretur il/tril/secus igl/oral/tes, insidiati Sll/zt ei; "adstite/'llllt"
el/illl "reges te rra e, et principes COl/vel/e/'llllt il/ unum adversus domil/um et adversus
ZUR PSALMENAUSLEGUNG DES ORIGENES 495
Stelle die verknappte Form in der Katene des Psalmenkommentares
erhellen kann: Die Volkerengel in Dan 10,12 und 20 e sowie in Ez 28
sind mit den Miichten gleichzusetzen, die Christus aus Unwissenheit über
des sen Wesen und im Glauben, selbst die Weisheit zu besitzen (nach
lKor 2,8), nachgestellt haben. AIs Grundgedanke zieht sich unterschwel-
lig besonders die erste Deutung - zuweilen unterbrochen durch Exkurse
zu grammatikalischen oder etymologischen Beobachtungen - durch den
ganzen Psalm und wird explizit am Ende durch eine Art Rahmenbildung
nochmal priisentiert.
Auf die vier Gruppen von Rebellierenden werden in der Foige die
anderen Verse aufgeteilt: SA handelt es sich bei den in Vers 3a Gefessel-
ten um die Heiden, welche von ihren eigenen Sünden verschnült sind,
das Joch in 3b wird aIs Joch des buchstiiblich verstandenen Gesetzes
ausgelegt und muss demnach von den Judenvolkern abgeworren werden.
Vers 4 wu-d auf die Konige und Herrscher in Vers 2 angewendet, welche
verlacht und verhohnt werden, da sie den Heilsplan und die Weisheit
Gottes nicht erkannt haben.
Der Mittelteil des Psalmes veranlasst Origenes dazu, den Zorn Gattes
(s. u. bei III.l.) und die Bestrafung der Sünder zu behandeln. Dabei wu-d
die Strenge Gottes im übertragenen Sinn aIs notwendiges Züchtigungs-
mittel für diejenigen, die sich nicht durch Milde bekehren lassen, verstan-
den. Auf diese Weise wird auch die Zerschmetterung in Vers 9 (not!!av8tç
aù"Coùç sv papùcp O'tÙllPçx., cOç O'KslJll K8pa!!Écoç O'UV"Cphjl8tÇ aù"Cooç)
auf das Herz und den Geist bezogen, welche notwendig ist, um von der
eigenen Einbildung loszukommen und sich Gatt zu niihern.
Wenn spiiter in Vers 10 (Kaî vuv, paO'tÀstç, 0'\)V8"C8' natù8oS11"C8,
nav"C8ç ai KpivoV"C8Ç "CT]V Y'flV) wieder von Konigen sowie von Richtern
die Rede ist, kommt Origenes auf die Grunddeutung der Anfangsverse
zU1ück und zieht zuniichst die Gleichsetzung mit den Konigen der Erde
am Anfang und der Richter mit den Herrschern, deren Aufgabe es ja ist
zu richten, in Betracht, entwickelt aber auch noch eine ganz andere Deu-
tung, niimlich die Moglichkeit, dass es sich an diesel' Stelle um Heilige
handeln konnte, die danach streben, das Konigreich des Himmels zu
erben und an welche die Aufforderung von Vers 10 ergeht, ihre Affekte
zu beherrschen und sich von der Sünde ganz abzuwenden. In diesem
Sinne kann auch die FOltsetzung des Psalmes verstanden werden: AIs
Respekt und Demut werden die Begriffe der Angst und des Zitterns aus
Vers 11 (ÙouÀ8oO'a"C8 "Cq> Kupicp sv <poPCP Kat ùyaÀÀtaO'S8 aù"Cq> sv
Christum eius" (ed. GORGEMANNS - KARPP, S. 590). Àhnlich auch in z.B. CMt XIII.9 und
HGen IX.3.
 496 B. VILLANI
't"pOJ..lq» ausgelegt, zwei Eigenschaften, welche Rechtschaffenen zu eigen
sein sollten.
Gerade in diesem Psalm tritt die flexible Auslegungsweise des Orige-
nes besonders deutlich zu Tage: So verhindelt das zwei- oder mehrglei-
sige Verfahren, welches immer verschiedene Deutungen zulasst, ein star-
l'es Beharren auf einer letztgültigen Interpretation und Mfnet mit
Vorschlagen den Weg zu einer lebendigen Diskussion schwieriger bibli-
scher Stellen. Dabei verliert der Alexandriner seinen eigenen, einmal
eingeschlagenen Weg nie aus dem Blick und rundet sein Bild trotz hau-
figer Exkurse und Detailbehandlungen schlüssig ab.
III. ZWEI EINZELUNTERSUCHUNGEN
1. Zur Quelle der Katenenfragmente
Bei den in den Katenen vorliegenden Fragmenten stellt sich auch
immer die Frage, aus welchem Werk der Katenist bei der Erstellung
s~ines Kettenkommen~~res wohl exzerpiert hat. Es ist allerdings ange-
slchts der schlechten Uberlieferungslage fraglich, ob sich in den aller-
meisten Fallen überhaupt Aussagen machen las sen konnen. Zumindest
lassen sich nicht ohne weiteres allgemeine Behauptungen aufstellen.
Doch bei genauer Plüfung jedes einzelnen Fragmentes lassen sich durch
Verweise innerhalb des origeneischen Gesamtwerkes durchaus Indizien
finden, die zumindest auf bestimmte Schaffensperioden des Alexandri-
ners hindeuten und vorsichtige Rückschlüsse auf einzelne Werke zulas-
sen. Daher solI hier anhand eines Beispiels versucht werden, solche Hin-
weise im origeneischen Corpus im Blick auf die Art der Quelle
auszudeuten. AIs Grundlage hierzu soll das Fragment dienen, welches
Vers 5 kommentielt.
In der Deutung dieses Psalmverses kommt ein Motiv auf, welches _
wie ohen bereits erwahnt - eine zentrale Stelle in der Interpretation des
gesamten Psalmes einnimmt, namlich der Zorn Gottes. Hier zunachst der
Text, wie el' in der Katene zu finden ist12 :
In Ps 2,5 (Barocc. 235, f. 25-26 = PG XXIII 85D + PG XII l105BC):
T?re /,aÂ~ael npàç avroùç èl' ôPYtl avrov /Ça! èv rep f).Vf..lep avrov rapaç81
avrovç
. 12. A~l~ griechischen Textpartien sind in der Form abgedruckt, wie sie voraussichtIich
ID der EdItion der GCS stehen werden.
ZUR PSALMENAUSLEGUNG DES ORlGENES 497
Et ot Myot trov à1tEtÀroV, Myot dcrtV èv ôpyfl à1tapGÀ,M~IEVOt.
ùntcrXVEttat oè é SEOÇ IlwcavoilcrEtV à1to trov KaKrov, COV ÀaÀd wu
1totflcrat, èùv IlEtavoilcrcocrtV ot àKOUOVtEÇ. èÀtiÎv11crE oè èv ôpyfl aÙtoU
Otù 'Icova é SEOÇ totç NtVEUÎ'tatç' Kat è1tEt èl' aa/Ç/ÇqJ Ka! a1to(5ep f-œrel'ol1-
aal' (Mt 11,21; Lk 10,13), oùùèv 1tE1tOVSacrtV, dJV àK11Koacrtv. 1tpOE-
ytVcocrKÉ 't"E é SEOÇ 1tÉIl1tCOV tOV 'Icovav tTjv ècrollÉV11V IlEtaVotav, è1tt
crCOt11ptq, aùtrov 0l1Àovon a1tEIl1tE tOV 'Icovav, taxa oÔv Kat èVSaoE è1tt
crCOt11Ptq, ÀaÀilcrEt 1tpOç aùtoùç tOÙç Ullaptavovtaç èv ôpyfl aùtou. où
yùp Gt1tE' KoÀacrEt aùtoùç èv ôpyfl aùtou Kat IlTjv IlEtavoilcravtaç.
Ata<j>ÉpEt oè SUlloÇ ôpyflç, &ç <j>acrt Kat oi 1tEpt tÙ ôvollata OEtVOt, teP
SUlloV Ilèv Gtvat ôpyTjv àvaSUlltCOIlÉV11V Kat an èKKatollÉvllv, ôpyTjv
oè OpEStV àvnnllcopilcrECOÇ. oiovEi oÔv àtEÎvÉcrtEpOÇ nç ôpYil ècrnv é
SUlloÇ Kat ft011 1tpOç to à1totÉÀwlla n ècrttv 1] ôpyil, àKoUcrtÉov oè
tfjç àvnnllcopilcrEcoÇ vuv cOç 1tpOç tTjv 11llEtÉpav xpflcrtV àvti tfjç KoÀti-
crECOÇ tflç è1tt totç 1]llapt11IlÉvotÇ Kat tflç ÔpÉSECOÇ àvtt tflç SEÀilcrECOÇ.
on IlÉVtotyE Kat KatÙ tTjv SEtav ypa<j>Tjv nattov tt ècrnv é SUlloÇ tfjç
ôpyflç, oflÀov èK tOU ÀÉywSat aÎvEYXOV Ilèv SUlleP ytVEcrSat, 1tatoEucrtV
oè ôpyfj. KVp18, yap <j>llcrt, f..l~ rep f).Vf..lep aov èÂéyçnç f..le M(5è rtl ôpytl aov
nwl5evanç f..le (ps 6,2). èÎvÉYXEtat oè é an èÀ1ttoa axcov SEpa1tdaç tflç
XCOptç ~acravcov Otù ÀOyou KaSa1ttoIlÉvou' é oè 1l1l0èv à1t' èÎvÉyxou
cb<j>EÀllSEiç XPUSEt 1tatOEUcrECOÇ tflç Otù Ilacrttycov Kat pa~ocov, niiaa
yàp nwl5efa npàç rà napàl' ov (5OTafi Xapiiç ell'w, àÂÂà Âvnl1Ç' varspol' (5è
lCapnàl' elPl1l'//Çàl' roî'ç (51' avrfjç yeyvf..ll'aaf..lél'Olç àno(5f(5wal (5l1WlOaVl'l1ç
(Hebr 12,11). ÀaÎvilcrEt totVUV é SEOÇ 1tpOç toÙç 1]llaptllKotaç, o\)ç
èKYEÎvi! Kat IlUKtll ptSEt an ovtaç èv totç 1tapa1ttcOllacrt Kat Ot'
àvatcrSllcrtav IlÉya <j>povoovtaç cOç è1tt àyaSotç tOtç 1,0totç KaKotç èv
tfl ôpyfl aùtou Kat èll<j>ilvaç to SUlloucrSat tapaSEt aùtouç. où yùp
àSpocoç è1tayEt 1tpOEntcrtpE1tttKoO Myou tESUIlCOIlÉVOU <j>o~cp
IlEtavotav aùtotç èll1totfjcrat OUVallÉVOU ~acravouç Kat KoÀacrEtç 1tptV
à1tEt1tdv aùtoùç tTjv Otù trov <j>tÀavSpco1totÉpcov SEpa1tdav' 8Ecrcra-
ÀOVtKEUcrt youv ypa<j>cov é llaKaptoç IIauÀoç 1tEpt 'IouOatcov trov
crtaupcocravtcov tOV KuptoV <j>llcrtv' eq;f).aael' èn' avroùç ~ ôpy~ elç réÂoç
(1 Thess 2,16), il OÙK a<j>SacrEV è1t' aùtoùç Otù 1tdpaç 1] 1tpoava<j>covllSEtcra
ôpyTj 1taSOvtaç imo 'Pcollatcov navta OEtvÙ Kat àvilKWta;
Anhand der Jona-Geschichte wird illustriert, wie Gott seine im Zorn
gesprochenen Drohungen nicht wahr macht, sofern sich die Sünder, so
wie die Bewohner der Stadt Ninive, zur Umkehr bewegen lassen. Auf
diese Weise lasst sich der Gotteszorn auch im Psalmvers verstehen. Kern-
punkt der Argumentation ist die Unterscheidung und Definition von
ôPYll und SUJ..lOC;, die Origenes einem Lexikon entnommen zu haben
scheint 13 , Auf Grundlage dieser Unterscheidung wird ein Zwei-Stufen-
13. Cadiou vermutet, es konnte sich um ein stoisches Lexikon der zweiten Sophistik
handeln, s, R. CADIOU, Dictionnaires antiques dans l'œuvre d'Origène, in Revue des
études grecques 45 (1932) 271-285, hier S. 281. Tatslichlich scheint die Definition
auf stoische Philosophen zurückzugehen, was die Nlihe zu einem erhaltenen Fragment
Chrysipps zeigt, wo eine lihnIiche Definition vorgeschlagen wird, wenn auch die Interpre-
 498 B, VILLANI
Modell entwickelt: Wut (BuJ.l6S) wird aIs die unvollstandigere Art
des Zomes (opyi]) definiert, welche ihrerseits bereits in einer gewissen
Endgültigkeit verankert ist. Ausgehend von diesel' Beschreibung fülut
Origenes die Untersuchung - gemaB dem Prinzip der biblischen Intertex-
tualitat - auf diejenigen Bibelstellen (Ps 2,6; lThess 2,16) weiter, welche
ebenfalls von diesen beiden Affekten sprechen, um Bestatigungen für
seine These der inhaltlichen Unterscheidung dieser zwei Gemütszustande
zu finden. Dabei stellt Origenes heraus, dass der Tadel Gottes mit der
niedrigeren, unvollstandigen Stufe, dem BUJ.l6S zu tun hat, die opyi]
dagegen schon im Bereich der Züchtigung liegt. Somit werdenim Bibel-
vers mit zwei verschiedenen Ausdl'Ücken zwei verschiedene Erziehungs-
maBnahmen Gottes angesprochen. Auf die Art der Adressaten, also der
Gruppen von fehlgetretenen Menschen, an die Gott seinen Zom und seine
Wut richtet, kommt Origenes auch in spateren Fragmenten zu sprechen,
einmal in der Kommentierung von Vers 9 (notJ.luysts UlYCOÙS Èy pupocp
O' t0 11PÇi, cOs O'K86 11 K8pUJ.lÉroS O'uV'tpl\jf8tS uùw6S) und dann wieder zu
Vers 12c (o'CUY ÈKKuuBij Èy 'CuX8t 0 BUJ.làS uù'Cou) und unterscheidet
dabei zwei Arten von Sündem. Wahrend in Vers 5 noch von Menschen
die Rede ist, bei denen Hoffnung auf Umkehr durch tadelnde Worte
besteht, geht Vers 9 eine Stufe weiter und behandelt die Züchtigung der
tierhafteren Naturelle, die im Gegensatz zu den milden Harte benotigen
und sich zum Zwecke der Besserung einer Strafe unterziehen müssen!4.
Die Begriffe "Wut" und "Zom" bezogen auf Gott weisen jenseits aller
wortlich zu nehmenden Mfekte auf notwendige MaBnahmen zur Bekeh-
rung fehlgeleiteter Seelen hin, es handelt sich aiso gleichsam um eine
Art Hilfeleistung für die Menschen, die auf Gottes Erbarmen veltrauen
konnen.
In diesel' Art und Weise wurde die Thematik des Gotteszomes von
Origenes auch auBerhalb der Psalmenkommentierung haufig behandelt,
wie uns Hieronymus in seinem kleinen Psalmenkommentar bestatigt,
wenn el' sagt: De ira et ira Dei et Lactantius librum pulcherrimum scrip-
sit, et ipse Origenes creberrime disputavit!5. So ist es nicht erstaunlich,
dass man diesel' Thematik im origeneischen Corpus immer wieder begeg-
tation der Begriffe SUl10Ç und opyij im Vergleich zu unserem Fragment vertauscht sind:
Clnysipp, Fragmenta MO/'a/ia, Frg. 416 (ed. ARNIM, Stoicorum veterumji'agmenta, vol. m,
Nachdruck München - Leipzig, K.G. Saur, 2004, S. lOlf.): 0uI1àç ùÉ È(j"n sÉcrtç 1'OU
1t6pi KupÙtuV uïl1u1'Oç ÈS àvuSUl1uicr6roç 1'fiç XOÀfiç ~ àVUSOÀÛ:Jcr6roÇ YtV0 I1 ÉV ll ...
scrn ù'l'h6 KUt 6 SUl10Ç Ècrnv Op6StÇ àv'tt'ttl1ropijcr6roÇ .. "
14. Ausführlich über die Bedeutung des Herzens bei Origenes spricht H. CROUZEL, Le
CŒur selon Origène, in Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 85 (1984) 5-16 und 99-110.
15, Hieronymus, Commentarioli in Psalmos, Anmerkul/gen Zl/m Psalter, libers. u. ein-
gel. von S. RIssE, Turnhout, Brepols, 2005, S. 76,
ZUR PSALMENAUSLEGUNG DES ORIGENES 499
net!6. Nicht immer fülut Origenes jedoch ein angesprochenes Motiv in
aller Lange aus, sondem weist, um Doppelungen zu vermeiden, den
Leser auf die Stelle hin, wo el' den besagten Gegenstand ausführlich
behandelt hat!7. Dies ist auch hier bei Psalm 2,5 der Fall, und zwar zwei-
mal. Die erste Passage befindet sich im zweiten Buch von De principiis,
Kap. 4, wo es heiBt:
Sed nos sive in veteri sive in novo testamento, cum de ira dei legimus, non
secundum litteram quae dicuntur advertimus, sed spiritalem intellectum
requirimus in talibus, ut ita sentiamus, sicut intellegere de deo dignum est.
De quibus seculldum parvitatem senSl/S nostri cum secundi psalmi expo-
neremus illum versicitlum, in quo ait: "Tunc loquetur ad eos in ira sua, et
in furore suo conturbabit eos" , prout potuimus, qua liter hoc intellegi debe-
l'et, ostendimus 18 •
Hier verweist Origenes also direkt auf eine Stelle im Rahmen einer
Einzelversauslegung von Psalmen, was nahelegt, dass el' dort, in jenem
früheren Werk, die Thematik des Gotteszornes mit einer gewissen
Ausführlichkeit behandelt hat. Es ist aiso nicht von der Hand zu weisen,
dass el' hier auf seinen Psalmenkommentar anspielt, denn nur so ist ein
solch vager Hinweis für seine Leser verstandlich, dann namlich, wenn es
sich um ein umfangreicheres Werk handeIt, das seinem Urnfeld bestens
bekannt sein dürfte. Da sich das Werk De principiis zeitlich noch in die
Schaffensperiode in Alexandria einordnet, kann der Verweis auch nul' auf
den frühen, den sogenannten alexandrinischen Kommentar gerichtet sein,
den Origenes in der Stadt seiner ersten Lebensphase zu sclu'eiben ange-
fangen hat. Man kann somit aufgrund der Übereinstimmung zwischen
dem in der Passage aus Prin aufgewOlfenen Gegenstand sowie mit des-
sen relativ ausführlicher Auseinandersetzung in der Palastinischen Katene
davon ausgehen, dass die Quelle der Katenenfragmente mit dem alexan-
drinischen Psalmenkommentar zu identifizieren ist.
Die prominente Behandlung dieses Themas im origeneischen Psalmen-
kommentar bezeugt eine weitere Stelle, wo ein allerdings nur sehr
knapper Verweis zu finden ist. Diesen findet man in einem spaten exe-
getischen Werk, im vierten Buch des um 243-44 veIfassten Romerbrief-
kommentares (eRm N.lI zu Rom 5,8-9). Origenes unterlasst es hier,
16. So z.B. HIer 18.5-6 (ed. KLOSTERMANN - NAUTIN, GCS 6, Origenes Werke m,
S. 155-160), wo die Argumentation genau in diesselbe Richtung geht wie in der Psa\m-
auslegung; es heillt am Ende der ErHiuterung: Èàv àKoûcrnç SUl1àv SGOu KUt opyi)v
QI'nou, 11i) V0l1ts6 1'i)v opyi)v Kut 1'àv SUl1àv 1tuSll 6tVUt SGOu. OlKOVOl1tat Xpijcr6roÇ
ÀÉS6cOV 6lm 1tpàç 1'à ~pÉqlOÇ È1tlcr1'pÉll'at KUt ~6À1'troSfivut (S. 160).
17. Zu den Selbstzitaten siehe L. PERRONE, Origenes pro domo sua: Self-Qllotations
and the (Re)col/struction of a Litera/)' Œuvre, in diesem Band, S. 3-38.
18. Or., Prin IIAA (ed. GORGEMANNS - KARPP, S. 340).
500 B. VILLAN!
eine langere Ausführung über den Zorn Gottes zu unternehmen, denn
dies habe er, erklart er, schon anderswo getan: Ira vero Dei quomodo
intelligi debeat, in secundi a nobis psalmi expositione plenius dictum
est .. . 19. Welcher Art eine aIs expositio bezeichnete Auslegung ist, lasst
sich schwer bestimmen20 • Es gibt aber keinen Grund anzunehmen, dass
Origenes nicht dasselbe Werk im Sinn hatte wie in seinem Verweis in
De principiis; vielmehr ist er sich dessen bewusst, dass er an einer
bestimmten Stelle in einer früheren Schrift, namlich in seinem Kommen-
tar zu den Psalmen den Begriff des Zornes ausführlich behandelt hat;
daher kann er immer dann, wenn die Rede auf denselben Gegenstand
kommt, den Leser auf sein frühes Werk verweisen, was ihm allzu haufige
Wiederholungen erspart21 • Aus der Tatsache, dass es sich beim ersten
Verweis um seinen groBen, noch in Alexandrien verfassten theologischen
Traktat, handelt, ergibt sich der terminus ante quem für die Quelle der
Katenenfragmente zu Psalm 2: Es muss sich um den Kommentar han-
deln, den Origenes zu den Psalmen 1-25 in Alexandrien verfasst hat.
Nur kurz solI darauf eingegangen werden, ob es überhaupt eine Alter-
native aIs Quelle gabe, also etwa die sogenannten Scholia22 , eine Homi-
lie oder sogar eine zweiten Kommentar. Eine Homilie lasst sich aus-
schlieBen, da abgesehen davon, dass nicht überliefert ist, Origenes hatte
zu Psalm 2 überhaupt eine geschrieben, die Fragmente deutlich den
Charakter eines Kommentarwerkes haben23 • Ebenso ist es wahrscheinli-
cher, dass Origenes von Kommentar oder theoretischer Abhandlung zum
selben Genre verweist, da er hier davon ausgehen kann, dass der gebil-
dete Leser seine Werke kennt. Bei einer Homilie hat er es mit einem
weitaus weniger spezialisierten Publikum zu tun, das nicht ohne weiteres
das origeneische Oeuvre im Blickfeld hat. Komplexer ist die Frage nach
19. Or., CRm N.n (ed. HAMMOND BAMMEL, S. 352).
20. Zumindest !1isst sich rur den lateinischen Bereich, wie das Werk Cassiodors, die
Expositio in psalterium zeigt, das Wort auf einen umfangreichen Kommentar anwenden.
21. Das bedeutet allerdings nicht, dass er in seinen Werken nie mehr auf den Zorn zu
sprechen kommt. Vgl. z.B. Anm. 16.
22. Zur Frage der Excerpta/Scholia vgl. CH. MARKSCHIES, Scholien bei Origenes und
in der zeitgenossischen wissenschaftlichen Kommentierzmg, in diesem Band, S. 147-167.
Demnach waren die Excerpta nicht ein zur Veroffentlichung bestimmter Kommentar,
sondern lediglich so etwas wie Vorlesungsnotizen, aiso entweder von Origenes zur Vor-
bereitung seiner Vorlesung verfasst, oder aber Mitschriften seiner Studenten. fi diesem
Faile ware es sehr unwahrscheinlich, dass Origenes in anderen Werken auf eine Passage
innerhaib einer Schrift, die der Offentlichkeit nicht zuglinglich gemacht werden soIlte,
verweist.
23. So werden z.B. in Homilien die Übersetzer der Hebrliischen Bibel nicht namentlich
genannt, wie NAUTIN, Origène (Anm. 2), S. 277 beobachtet, in unseren Fragmenten aber
regelmliBig.
ZUR PSALMENAUSLEGUNG DES ORIGENES 501
zwei Psalmenkommentaren: Piene Nautin24 hat die These aufgestellt, es
gabe zwei origeneische Psalmenkommentare, einen alexandrinischen und
einen casariensischen, die beide nùt der Kommentierung am Anfang des
Psalters angefangen hatten. Ol'igenes hatte demnach in Casal'ea seinen in
Alexandl'ien begonnenen Kommentar nicht etwa dOIt fortgesetzt, wo el'
in seiner Heimatstadt aufgehôrt hatte, sondern wieder neu angefangen.
Akzeptiert man diese Hypothese, kônnte es sich theoretisch aufgmnd der
Abfassungszeit bei obiger Stelle aus dem Rômerbl'iefkommentar auch um
einen Verweis auf einen neuen, spaten Psalmenkommentar handeln.
Allerdings spricht eher wenig dafür: Es scheint weniger nachvollziehbar,
dass Origenes, sollte er tatsachlich noch einmal in Ciisarea bei Psalm 1
angefangen haben, nochmals das Thema des Zornes in der Art ausgeführt
haben sollte, dass el' quasi einen neuen Referenzpunkt geschaffen hatte,
auf den er fortan ans telle des früheren verweisen würde. Abgesehen
davon ist schon die Existenz zweier Kommentare fraglich: Die For-
schungsmeinung Nautins wird heutzutage nicht von allen Forschern
akzeptielt, da die Katenenfragmente keinerlei Hinweise auf einen Doppel-
kommentar geben und auch bei Euseb nichts darauf schlieBen lasse5 •
Doch auch unabhangig von der Frage, ob es je zwei Kommentare, die
beide mit der Kommentierung ganz am Anfang des Psalters beginnen,
gegeben hat, kann die Quelle der Fragmente zu Psalm 2 aufgl'und der
oben genannten Beobachtungen mit dem in Alexandrien velfassten Kom-
mentar identifiziert werden.
2. Ein Zuweisungsproblem: Ist das Fragment zu Ps 2,7bc eine Aus-
legung von Origenes?
Wie anfangs bereits erwiihnt, besteht eine weitere Schwierigkeit bei
der Beschaftigung mit Katenenfragmenten in der oft nicht eindeutigen
Zuweisung eines Textstückes an einen Autor, wenn sie entweder anonym
sind oder Doppelzuweisungen enthalten, was bei einem Fragment in der
paHistinischen Katene, welches Ps 2,7bc kommentiert, der FaU ist. Das
Lemma in der Katene des Baroccianus 235 verzeichnet die Zuweisung
'OptyÉVOUS ô~oi(OS Eùm:;~iou. Die Bezeichnung ô~oi(OS bedeutet laut
Gilles Dorival26 meist die Tatsache, dass der Katenist sich der Âhnlich-
24. NAUTIN, Origène (Anm. 2), S. 262-275.
25. Z.B. zweifelt Prinzivalli daran, dass Origenes wieder beim ersten Psalm angefangen
habe. Die These Nautins ist ihrer Meinung nach nicht genligend begrlindet. V gl.
E. PruNzNALLI, "Salmi (scritti esegetici sui)", in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (Hg.), Origel/e.
Diziol/ario. La cultura, il pel/siero, le opere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 422-424, hier S. 423.
26. DORIVAL, Chafnes exégétiques (Anm. 2), Bd. 1, S. 124.
 502 B. VILLANI
keit der Auslegung zweier Autoren, deren Werke er vor Augen hatte,
bewusst war und dies durch diese Kennzeichnung dem Leser klarmachen
wollte, so dass er eine in seinen Augen unnotige Doppelung vermeiden
und nur eine Stelle wiedergeben kann. Das würde in diesem Fall bedeu-
ten, dass der Velfasser der Katene - sollte die Reihenfolge der genannten
Autoren eine Releyanz haben - die Stelle aus dem origeneischen Kom-
mentar übernimmt und auf die Parallele bei Euseb hinweist. Allerdings
kann eine solche Bedeutung der Folge der Namensnennung nicht festge-
stellt werden. Über die Zuweisung dieses Fragments besteht keine Einig-
keit: In der im 16. Th. gedruckten Katene von Daniele Barbar027 finden
wir Origenes aIs Autor, in der Patrologia Graeca, wo die Edition Mont-
faucons aufgenommen wird, kursieli das Fragment unter Euseb. Wam'end
Ekkehard Mühlenberg 28 die Passage Origenes zuspricht, vermutet Robeli
Devreesse29 bei Euseb den Ursprung der Stelle.
Der Text in der Katene Iautet folgendelmaBen:
In Ps 2,7bc (Barocc. 235, f. 26v = PG XXllI 88AB):
Kvpzoç elne npaç fle' vf6ç JLOV er 0'15, èyw O'tlJ18pOV yeyévl'IJTCG. O'e'
To O'ill!epov ovol!a Xp6vou EO'1;tV' iO'oouval!el yàp lTI EveO'lmO'TI
T}I!Ép~' T}I!Épa of: otUO'ly]I!U "Ct XPOVIK6v EO'''CtV. d oÔv <l>Y]O't npoe; m'nov
ô KUpWe;' èyw O'~flepov yeyévvrj1cG. O'e, oY]À,ov6"Ct nept l11e; XpoVtKlle; ë<l>Y]
yevvilO'ecoe; l11e; Kal' OiKoVol!tav yevoI!ÉvY]e;' nept yàp l11e; npmlY]e; yev-
v110'ecoe; l11e; npo Xp6vou Kat npo naVl0e; at&voe; {) m'noe; À,Éyet ~auîO
BK npoO'mnou 10Ù Seoù Kat nalp6e;' bc ya0'7:pàç npà éOJO'rjJapov èyévV1}O'G.
O'e (Ps 109,3). yevvii1at of: O'ill!epov oùxt ùpxijv O'uO'1uO'ecoe; EV 1&
yevvàO'Sat À,aI!Puvcov, ùÀ,À,' de; uioSeO'tav yevvmwvoe; <he (i"Cpemoç
avSpC07tOe; yÉyovev. {) yàp À,apffiv èçovO'fav rbcvov geoo yevé0'9w
(Joh 1,12), Ole ytW:l,?-t lÉKVOV otà 10Ù pa7tltO'l!al0e; ùvayevvml!evoe;,
ëlep6v lt npo 10Ù Bivat lÉKVOV 67tUPXcoV ESeuyeVtÇelat. {) J,tÉV10t ye
'EppalOe; ë<l>aO'Kev 10 KUpWV l11e; À,Ésecoe; ,ëleKov' dvat 07tep Kat {)
'AKUÀ,ae; ne7tOtY]Kev. {) of: Ù7t60'10À,0e; voJ,toJ,taSije; 67tuPXcoV EV lf1 7tpOe;
'Eppatoue; lTI À,Éset lTI l&V 'EPooJ,tilKovla ExpilO'alo.
Sieht man sich die Aussage dieses Fragmentes an und zieht die inhalt-
lichen Kriterien heran, ergibt sich folgender Befund: Zunachst erfolgt
eine Definition des Begriffes "heute" aIs zeitlichem Abstand30 . Es geht
27 .. D. BARBARO, Aurea il/ quil/quagil/ta DaI,idicos psalmos doctorum graecorum catel/a,
Venedlg, 1569, S. 19.
28. MÜHLENBERG, Psalmel/kommel/tare (Anm. 2), Bd. 3, S. 135.
29. R. DEVREESSE, Les al/ciel/s commentaires grecs des Psaumes, Vaticano, Tipografia
~oligl,otta ':~ticana, 1970, S. 7f. Anm. 59: "Le commentaire du v. 7 ... me paraît revenir
a Eusebe ....
30. Vgl. dazu F. COCCHINI, L'" oggi " biblico: L'il/telpretaziol/e origel/ial/a di Ul/a
scal/siol/e dei tempo, in Studi e materiali di storia delle religiol/i 67 (NS 25) (2001) 221-
ZUR PSALMENAUSLEGUNG DES ORIGENES 503
aus den WOlten 7tEpi 'LTtS XpovtKTtS yEVVytO'EffiS klar hervor, dass der
Autor den Satz "heute habe ich dich gezeugt" auf die zeitliche Zeugung
Christi bezieht. Christus wU'd, wie es heiBt, "am heutigen Tag" zur Sohn-
schaft (UloSEO'ta) gezeugt31 , was nicht aIs Beghm seiner (schon vorzeit-
lichen) Existenz zu verstehen ist, sondern auf seine Menschwerdung
bezogen wird32 • Gleichzeitig wird in unserem Fragment auf die erste
Zeugung vor aller Zeit ein anderer PsaImvers angewendet, namlich
Ps 109,3: "Aus dem Bauch var der Morgemote habe ich dich gezeugt",
ein PsaImvers, der sonst gerne zusammen mit Ps 2,7 in dieselbe Richtung
hin interpretiert wird33 • Die Deutung des Verses 7 aIs Aussage über die
zeitliche Zeugung widerspricht nun aber dem Verstandnis, das Origenes
diesem Vers an anderer Stelle, namlich in einer wichtigen Passage im
Johanneskommentar, entgegenbringt. Obwohl er den Vers ansonsten rela-
tiv selten zitiert 34, vermutet Francesca Cocchini, dass er darauf seine
Lem'e von der ewigen Zeugung des Sohnes yom Vater, wie sie im ersten
Buch des Johanneskommentares prasentiert wird, gegründet haben
konnte 35 • Dort heiBt es innerhalb der ErkIarung der yerschiedenen
227 = DIES., Origel/e. Teologo esegeta pel' Ul/a idel/tità cristial/a, Bologna, Dehoniane,
2006,71-78.
31. Zum Begriff uloSecria und seinem Verstandnis bei Origenes s. J. RruS-CAMPS, El
dil/amismo tril/itario el/ la divinizaciôl/ de los seres raciol/ales seglÎl/ Orîgel/es, Rom,
Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1970, S. 222-277.
32. Eine andere Interpretation finden wir bei Justin, Dial. 88.8; 103.6 sowie bei
Clemens von Alexandrien, Paed. 16.25.2. Beide erwahnen den Psa!m in Zusammenhang
mit dem Taufereignis, bei dessen Beschreibung in Lk 3,22 Psa!m 2,7 in einem Teil der
Überlieferung zitiert wird. Die Zeugung bezieht sich in diesem Zusammenhang auf den
Zeitpunkt, wo Jesus sich den Menschen durch seine Tatigkeit zu erkennen gibt, also den
Anfang seines Wirkens. Clemens spricht dabei von einer "Wiederzeugung", cr~J.lspoV
àvvaysvvl1SdC; (die Wortwahl erinnert an das Fragment der palastinischen Katene),
wodurch Jesus in der Taufe vollkommen wird. Dies vergleicht er dann mit der Taufe der
Menschen, welche so Kinder Gottes werden. Vgl. DUPONT, "FilillS mells es tll" (Anm. 8),
S. 526 Anm. 5. Dieses letztere Element findet sich auch in unserem Fragment, wo der
Autor den Begriff des "Wiedergezeugt-werdens" (àvaysvveOJ.levoc;) in Zusammenhang
mit der Taufe verwendet. Der Gedanke der "Wiedergeburt" durch die Taufe ais eine von
verschiedenen Interpretationsmoglichkeiten taucht bei Hilarius in seinen Tractaflls super
psalmos wieder auf, welche, wie besonders Goffinet aufgezeigt hat, von Origenes in
starkem Ma6e abhiingig sind. S. dazu E. GOFFINET, L'utilisation d'Origène dans le com-
mentaire des Psallmes de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers, Louvain, Publications universitaires
de Louvain, 1965. Hilarius versteht allerdings den Vers so nur in Zusammenhang mit
dessen Wiederaufgreifen beirn Taufereignis in Lk 3,22. Die Aussage von Vers 7 innerhalb
des Psa!mes bringt el' mit Apg 13,32f. zusammen und bezieht sie auf die Auferstehung.
S. Hilarius, Tracfatus in Psalmum II.30.
33. C. BASEVI, La generazione etema di Cristo nei Ps 2 e 109 secondo S. Giustino e
S. Ireneo, in Augustinianum 22 (1982) 135-147, untersucht diese beiden Psa!men bei
Justin und Irenaus, wo el' auf die Theorie der ewigen Zeugung des Logos zu treffen glaubt.
34. So in anderem Zusammenhang z.B. in HLc 31.4 und HEz 6.3.
35. COCCHINI, L'" oggi" biblico (Anm. 30), S. 73.
504 B. VILLAN!
Bezeichnungen Christi, den sogenannten Èni votut, welche zuvor aufge-
zahlt wurden und im Anschluss erklart werden:
'AÀ'Aà otà 1:061:cov nuv1:cov où O"a<j>éOç 11 eùyÉveta napiO"1:a1:at 1:0U UlOU,
01:10 of: 1:0 u16ç flOU el 0'6, èyw O'/lflepov yeyévvlJlCQ. ae 'AÉye1:at npoç aÙ1:ov
uno 1:0U Seou, <p aei èO"tt 1:0 "O"~/!epov", - OÙK Ëvt yàp éO"nÉpa Seou,
èyffi of: l1you/!at, ott OÙÙf: npcoîa, a'A'Aà ô O"u/!napeK1:eivcov 1:n ayevlFep
Kat aïoiep aùwu Çcon, LV' OÜ1:COç elnco, Xpovoç l1/!Épa èO"1:tv aÙ1:é{> 0"11/!e-
pov, èv Tt yeyÉvvll1:at ô uioç -, apxftç yevÉO"ecoç aÙ1:ou OÜ1:COç OÙX
euptO"Ko/!ÉVllÇ mç OÙÙf: 1:llÇ 11/!Épaç36.
Diese Passage befindet sich fast am Ende der Reihenfolge von Titeln,
mit welchen Christus in der Bibel bezeichnet wird. Del' Psalmvers wird
an diesel' Stelle besonders hervorgehoben, die lange Reihe von Ènt vowt
kulminiert quasi in ihm: Erst el' verdeutlicht die himmlische Abstam-
mung Christi aIs Sohn Gottes, dessen Zeugung auBerhalb von Zeit
geschehen ist.
Wenn Origenes hier ein solches Gewicht der übertragenen Bedeutung
dieses Wortes beimisst, scheint das buchstabliche Verstandnis im Psal-
menkommentarfragment in Widerspruch zu diesel' Stelle zu st({hen. Dazu
kommt, dass beide Werke zeitlich nicht allzu weit voneinander entfemt
entstanden sein dürften und die Interpretation eines Verses erwrutungs-
gemaB eine einzige Richtung einschlagen sollte.
Man müsste nun annehmen, dass Origenes einen Vers in verschiede-
nen Werken unterschiedlich auslegt, was nicht a priori abzuweisen ist.
In Auslegungen werden biblische Passagen oft ihrem jeweiligen Zusam-
menhang angepasst. Der jeweilige Kontext, in welchem ein Vers zitiert
wird, ist von nicht geringer Bedeutung. So kann ein einze1nes W ort, ein
Ausdruck oder ein Vers auf verschiedenen Textebenen einen unterschied-
lichen Sinn haben, so dass sich gezwungenennaBen diverse Interpretati-
onen ergeben, die sich aber gegenseitig nicht ausschlieBen. Wenn nun irn
Johannesevangelium, wo der Psalmvers innerhaib der verschiedenen Ènt-
votut Christi eine bestimmte Funktion hat, namlich die gôttliche Her-
kunft Christi und seine zeitlose Zeugung zu beweisen, eine andere Aus-
legung vorgestellt wird aIs im Psalmenkommentar, haben wir es nicht
notwendigerweise mit einer fehlerhaften Zuweisung des Katenisten zu
tun, sondem kônnen in diesem Fall mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit ver-
muten, dass es sich um eine Interpretation handelt, welche zwar Euseb
môgIicherweise von Origenes übemommen und in seinen eigenen Kom-
mental' integriert hat (was die Doppelzuweisung erklaren würde), der
KompilatOl' der Katene in diesem FaU jedoch aus dem Werk des Alexan-
36. Or., CIo 1.204 (ed. BLANC, SC 120, S. 160).
ZUR PSALMENAUSLEGUNG DES ORIGENES 505
driners geschôpft hat. Denn auch die Autorschaft des Euseb ist nicht ohne
weiteres nachweisbar. Sieht man sich die Lage bei diesem Autor an, so
lassen sich keine überzeugenden Argumente finden, die eine Zuschrei-
bung an ihn ohne weiteres rechtfertigen würden: Zwar zitiert er in seinen
Werken mehrfach Psalm 2,7 (so z.B. in der Passage der Demonstratio
evangelica N.16, die den zweiten Psalm erklart), doch meistens mit Vers
8 zusammen und geht nirgends naher auf die Bedeutung des crill..tEpoV
ein, so dass kein eindeutiger Hinweis auf eine Autorschaft Eusebs gefun-
den werden kann37 •
Nun gibt es aber noch ein konkreteres Argument, das für die Zuwei-
sung an Origenes spricht: In der Katenentradition gibt es neben dem
Typ VI der palastinischen Katene noch andere Zeugnisse: In der Hand-
schrift Vindob. theol. gr. 838 , welche uns auf Origenes zurückgehende
Fragmente liefert, und die teilweise nicht auf die palastinische Katene
zurückzugehen scheinen, befinden sich einige Zeilen, die Vers 2,7 sehr
knapp und nicht besonders klar kommentieren, aber die Psalmstelle
doch deutlich ebenfalls auf die zeitliche Zeugung Christi beziehen. Es
heiBt in diesel' Handschrift nach der Zitierung des Anfangs des PsaIm-
verses:
ô Ka1:à 1:0 avSpO:l1ttvov 1:0U O"C01:ftpoç voou/!Évov, èv 1:é{> Xpovep yeyev-
vll/!Évov' èS oÔ 1:0 O"l]/!epov Ka'Aehat 1:otoO"oe unÉO"1:ll. 1:au1:u <j>llcrt otà
1:0Ùç axptç oÔ 1:0 O"~/!epov Ka'Aet1:at oeo/!Évouç ~01lSeiaç39.
Der erste Satz zeigt mit dem Ausdruck Èv 'tC(> Xp6vC(> eine deutliche
ParaUe1e in der Interpretation zum Fragment der paIastinischen Katene.
Auch wenn es sich nul' um ein Bruchstück einer Kommentierung handeIt,
kann es aIs Argument dafür angesehen werden, dass Origenes durchaus
bei der Behandlung des Verses in seinem Psalmenkommentar den
Schwerpunkt auf die Zeugung in der Zeit geIegt hat, auch wenn er im
J ohanneskommentar damit anders verfahren ist. Es spricht demnach
wenig dagegen, das Fragment in der palastinischen Katene Origenes
zuzuschreiben.
37. In d.e. IV.16 wird der Vers aIs Beweis der Gottessohnschaft zusammen mit
Spr 8,25 und Ps 109,3 genannt. An weiteren Stellen, so d.e. III 2.65. IV.1O.9 und VI.2.1
werden Ps 2,7-8 weithin auf die Aussage der Erbschaft hin intelpretiert. Eine klare Unter-
scheidung des Inhaltes von Ps 2,7 und 109,3 liisst sich bei Euseb nicht finden.
38. René Cadiou hat diese Handschrift untersucht und einige Fragmente ediert.
R. CADIOU, Commentaires inédits des Psaumes: Étude sur les textes d'Origène contenus
dans le manuscrit Vindobonensis 8, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1936.
39. Vind. theol. gr. 8 f. 2v. Bei CADIOU, Commentaires inédits (Anm. 38), S. 72,
ediert. Er bemerkt über das Fragment: "L'archaisme de certaines formules est incontes-
table ... ", S. 42.
506 B. VILLAN!
IV. SCHLUSSBEMERKUNGEN
Trotz der lediglich indirekten Überliefemng der origeneischen Psalmen-
kommentiemng Hisst sich die Auslegung für einige Psalmen, wie am
Beispiel von Psalm 2 aufgezeigt wurde, in den Katenen recht gut nach-
vollziehen (was für die meisten spateren Psalmen, wo die Kommentie-
mng ausdünnt, leider nicht gilt). Dass aIle Fragmente des Typs VI zusam-
mengehoren, also aus einer Quelle stammen, wird aufgmnd der
inhaltlichen Bezüge und Rückverweise rasch deutlich. Diese Quelle
zu identifizieren ist nicht einfach, erst wenn sich mehrere Indizien zu
einer Kette verbinden lassen, konnen stabilere Aussagen gemacht werden.
Allgemeine Schlüsse aus Einzelbeobachtungen zu ziehen, ware aufgmnd
der Komplexitat der Katenensituation jedoch problematisch. Vielmehr
muss jedes einzelne Fragment für sich allein auf seine Autorschaft und
seine Quelle hin untersucht werden, wobei der Blick immer auf die ver-
schiedensten Aspekte gerichtet bleiben solI.
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie Barbara ,VILLANI
der Wissenschaften
JagerstraBe 22/23
D-lO 117 Berlin
villani@bbaw.de
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE
ÉTUDE DES HOMÉLIES SUR JÉRÉMIE
J'ai jusqu'ici abordé l'œuvre d'Origène à partir de la perspective que
je connais, l'histoire du texte de la Bible grecque et le travail d'édition
qu'Origène lui consacre l ; je voudrais ici étudier la place de la Bible dans
l'écriture du texte origénien. Je m'en tiendrai aux Homélies sur Jérémie
qui présentent l'immense avantage de nous être conservées en grec;
avec l'excellente édition de J. Ziegler pour la Bible grecque 2 et celle
d'E. Klostennann revue par P. Nautin pour le texte origénien3 , l'analyse
peut être menée sur des bases solides. Je voudrais définir les ressources
scripturaires dont disposait Origène dans ces Homélies et déterminer si
le texte biblique n'est que l'objet de son propos ou si, en outre, il tient
une place dans l'élaboration de celui-ci.
1. LE TEXTE SCRIPTURAIRE DE L'HOMÉLISTE
Avant d'examiner ce qu'Origène fait du matériel dont il dispose, il
convient de déterminer la nature de celui-ci.
1. Septante, recension hexaplaire, révisions juives
Selon P. Nautin, Origène prononce ses homélies avec, devant les yeux,
un exemplaire de la Septante «révisée par ses soins»4. Or, un examen,
même rapide, des citations montre que la réalité est moins simple. Certes,
1. Origène, éditeur de la Septante de Daniel, Studien zur Septuaginta - R. Hanhart zu
Elll'en, éd. D. FRAENKEL - U. QUAST - J.W. WEVERS, Giittingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1990, pp. 187-218; Les Hexaples d'Origène à la lumière de la traditionmanllscrite de la
Bible grecque, in G. DORlVAL - A. LE BOULLUEC (éds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la
Bible / Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1995, 167-
185.
2. Ieremias, Baruch, Tlll'eni, Epistula Ieremiae, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentllm grae-
cum, vol. XV, Giittingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957 e1976). . .
3. Origenes Werke III. JeremiallOmilien, Klageliederkommentar (GCS, 6), Lelpzlg,
Akademie Verlag, 1901. Dans ce qui suit, on citera le texte dans j'édition française:
Origène, Homélies sur Jérémie, trad. P. HUSSON - P. NAUTlN, édition, introduction et notes
P. NAUTlN, SC 232 et 238, Paris, Cerf, 1976-1977.
4. P. NAUTlN, Introduction in Origène, Homélies sur Jérémie, SC 232, p. 116.
508 O.MUNNICH
dans bien des cas, l'auteur - désormais «Or.» - cite le texte de sa recen-
sion hexaplaire (0 dans l'édition de G6ttingen):
Jér 4,5 clKoucrB1'rtro Èv IspoucruÀT)jl' s'(rcct'ts LT)/lUVU'tS Èrct Tils
'Yils cruÀm'Y'Yt.
clKoUcrMI1:ro / Èv IspoucruÀT)/l] tr. 0 Or. (HIer V.15:
SC 232, 320.38-39) = !ln
Èrct Tils 'Yils / cruÀrct'Y'Yt B-S A] tr. rel. (Or., ibid.) = IDL
Pour la première variante, seule la recension hexaplaire et la citation
de l'Homélie V présentent l'ordre conforme à l'hébreu.
Pourtant, dans d'autres cas, Origène s'éloigne de la recension hexa-
plaire et cite un texte conforme à la Septante ancienne. Cela vaut:
- pour des points mineurs, où son texte conespond à celui de la
Septante ancienne, mentionné dans le lemme:
Jér 1,10 clrcOÀÀ6Sty Or.] + (l~ 0) Kat KUTUcrrcUV 0 407 Ann Or.
= !ln (HIer I.16.33);
Jér 2,21 ÈcrTPU<PT)S Or.] + O>l:i 0) /lot 0 L-62 Ann Tht.P = !ln (HIer
II.1: SC 232, 240.29ss);
*
Jér 3,6 ÈrcopsUST)cruv B-S A-41O Q* Bo Arab] srcopsuST) rel.;
+ wUtT) 0 Arm = !ln (HIer IV. 1.42): la citation origé-
nienne présente le singulier srcopauST) mais non le pro-
nom caractéristique de la recension hexaplaire;
Jér 5,4 Swu Or.] + (* 0) uUtrov 0' L'-106 Aeth. Chr. Tht. = !ln
(HIer VI.3: SC 232,336.20);
- pour des segments plus impOltants:
Jér 3,9 1') rcopvdu ct\'nils 01'.] + (* 0) Kat S<pOVOKToVst TT)V 'YT)V
o L-62 87mg-91 mg Ann Chr(comm) = !ln (HIer IV. 1.63)
Jér 11,6-9 après le v. 6, Origène suit le texte de la Septante et omet
l'addition des v. 7 et 8inif., soit plus de cinq lignes asté-
risées dans la recension hexaplaire (HIer IX.4: SC 232,
388.10-13).
Il existe un troisième cas qui conespond aux lieux où l'auteur propose
une fOlIDulation sans parallèle dans l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite
de la Bible grecque, ainsi dans l'Homélie VIII: st 06vacrat tOEtV 'Co
sv 'CcP 'Im~ 'Ys'Ypa).q.tÉvov, cOs sv wïç àKpt~8O"'C(hotç àvn'Ypa<j>otç
sopo)1sv, on Ëcr'Cl]crsv ct\'mlv 'sn' oùosvi' ... , «si tu peux voir écrit en
Job - comme nous le trouvons dans les copies les plus exactes - qu'il (le
Seigneur) l'a posée SUI' rien» ... (HIer VIII. 1 : SC 232, 352-354.18-20):
en Job 26,7, l'addition astérisée comporte snt oùOsv6S, citée ainsi par
Origène, mais nul témoin n'atteste le datif.
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 509
Enfin, il existe une quatrième cas de figure: Origène mentionne le
texte unanime de la Bible grecque, alors même que celui-ci comporte une
faute: la leçon authentique de la recension hexaplaire ou la consultation
des révisions juives aurait permis à l'homéliste de la signaler; ainsi, dans
l'Homélie VI, il commente longuement Jér 5,3 KOpts Ot ô<j>B-aÀ)1oi
crou Btç nicrnv, «Seigneur, tes yeux sont sur la foi»; à la différence
d'A. Rahlfs, J. Ziegler conjecture le texte suivant: KOpts Ot ô<j>B-aÀ)1oi
crou <OÙXt> Btç nicrnv. Dans la révision hexaplaire - ici mal conservée
- Origène avait probablement noté lui-même la négation sous astérisque
en se fondant sur le témoignage des révisions: <oùXt> stç nicrnv] a' )1l]
ouXt stç mcrnv, cr' )1T] ouXt stc; aÀT]B-stav Syh.
Il ne serait pas étonnant que, dans le cadre de plusieurs homélies - a
fOltiori d'une seule -, l'auteur se réfère constamment au texte courant de
la Bible ou, au contraire, à celui de la recension hexaplaire. La perplexité
naît ici de l'absence d'homogénéité des données. Or, on voudrait montrer
que celle-ci devient compréhensible, si l'on considère le projet argumen-
tatif de l'auteur.
Dans l'Homélie XVIII, Origène parle du potier qui façonne un objet
d'argile et il y voit l'image de Dieu qui forme son peuple. Le texte de
Jér 18,3-4 est le suivant: Kat tooù alnoç snotst Ëp'Yov snt 'Cwv ÀWcov'
4 Kat otÉnscrs 'Co à'Y'YEtov, ô aù'CC)ç snoist, sv 'Caïç xspcrtV aù'Cou, Kat
naÀtV aù'Coç snoiT]crsv aù'Co à'Y'YEtov Ë'Cspov, KaB-ms llpscrsv svwmov
aù'Cou 'Cou notfjcrat, «Et voici, il faisait lui-même un travail SUI' les
pierres; le vase qu'il faisait lui-même tomba de ses mains et de nouveau
il en fit lui-même un autre vase, comme il lui plut de le faire».
Par rapport au texte scripturaire, la citation d'Origène présente les
variantes suivantes:
Tillv ÀWrov] Tillv xstpillv uùwu Or. HIer XVIII.3: SC 238,
184.3 (et XVIII.7, SC 238, 204.15)
Èrcotst] + (* 0) Èv TI{> rcT)ÀI{> 0-233 Ann Or. HIer XVIII.3:
SC 238, 184.3 = !ln
UÙTOS ÈrcotT)crsv] om. UÙTOS A Q-V-239-534-544-613-71O
0-233 L'-36-198 verss. Or. (HIer XVIII.3: SC 238, 184.3)
= !ln.
cl'Y'YStOV ihspov] tr. Or. HIer XVIII.3: SC 238,184.5.
Centrant tout sur l'objet dans les mains de Dieu, Origène écarte la
mention des pienes, inutile à son propos; dans la suite, il cite un texte
spécifiquement hexaplaire parce que toute son exégèse porte sur l'oppo-
sition entre le vase «d'argile crue» (niJÀtVov, HIer XVIII. 1 : SC 238,
176.6) et celui «d'argile cuite» (ôcr'CpaKtVov, HIer XVIII.1: SC 238,
176.9).
510 O.MUNNICH LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 511

En revanche, dans l'Homélie l, il commente Jér 1,10 selon la fmme "Cepa alnIDv Ëpya llaKapto"Cl1'tOÇ dey, È1td avSpro1toi e1.crt Kat Èv
ancienne du texte: 1.00Ù Ka"CÉcr"CaKu cre cri]llepov Met ËSVll Kat È1tt ullap"Ctatç yeyovacrt, 1tpID"COV Oet à1toÀ.apetv ai'noùç "Càç Ullap"Ciaç
pacrtÀ.Elw; ÈKptSOUV Kat Ka"CacrKU1t"Cetv Kat à1toÀ.À.6etv Kat atnIDv. Kat opa el. Ili] ô À.oyoç Ècr"Ctv àÀ.l1Si]Ç, «'Et je donnerai, dit-il
àvotKooolldv Kat Ka"Ca<j>lne6etv, «Voici que je t'ai établi en ce jour en effet, d'abord le double salaire de leurs injustices et de leurs péchés'
sur des nations et des royaumes pour déraciner, détruire, anéantir, ( ... ). Est-ce sans y penser que certains ont supprimé le mot 'd'abord'
reconstruire et replanter». Les seules variantes sont les suivantes: dans les manuscrits ou les Septante l'ont-ils supprimé en vue d'une Éco-
omo !ln!. 2° B-S 0 L'-198-130'-613 26 106 verss.P et multi
nomie, c'est Dieu qui pounait le savoir; nous, en tout cas, en comparant
patres gr. et lat. avec les autres éditions nous avons trouvé qu'il y a: 'Et je donnerai
ùnoÀÀ6etv] + (* 0) Kut xu'tuO'nuv 0 407 Alm Or. 1273 d'abord le double salaire de leurs injustices', pour montrer que même
= WL s'ils étaient dignes de la béatitude à cause de leurs secondes œuvres , il
leur faut d'abord, parce qu'ils sont hommes et sont tombés dans le péché,
Dans une longue pattie de cette homélie, Origène explique qu'il faut
recevoir le salaire de leurs péchés. Et vois s'il n'y a pas là une parole
déraciner la mauvaise herbe semée pat' le diable, les vices formant des
vraie» (HIer XVI.5: SC 238, 144.12-25). Suit un développement de près
nations et des l'Oyaumes 5 , détruire la constmction du diable et anéantir
de deux pages qui se conclut ainsi: 'AvaYKairoç 1tpocrKet"Cat "Co
les ruines, de peur que le Malin ne sème à nouveau l'ivraie; à cette
'1tpID"COV" 1tpID"COV yàp "Cà "Cf1ç àOtKtaç, eha "Cà "Cf1ç otKawcr6vl1ç
condition seulement, on peut reconstruire en Jésus un temple de Dieu et
à1tooioo"Cat, «lI est nécessaire d'ajouter le mot 'd'abord', car c'est
y trouver, pour plantation, un paradis de Dieu. Le commentaire des trois
'd'abord' le prix de l'injustice et ensuite celui de la justice, qui est dis-
premiers verbes s'étend sur une centaine de lignes aux §14-16, alors que
tribué» (HIer XVI. 6 : SC 238, 148.15-17). Pour un verset patticulière-
celui des deux derniers n'occupe que six lignes et se distingue à peine de
ment difficile, Origène retient donc le texte des versions contre celui de
la doxologie6 • Par rapport à cette interprétation allégorique des verbes, il
la Septante, mais il le fait à la suite d'une étude approfondie, alors que
semble que Ka"Cacr1tUv, «renverser», s'insérait mal dans la gradation et
le choix entre le texte de la Septante ancienne et celui de la recension
n'apportait rien à la démonstration. Voilà sans doute pourquoi l'auteur
hexaplaire donne, chez lui, rarement lieu à un commentaire.
n'a pas pris en considération l'addition de la recension hexaplaire.
On trouve ailleurs une telle réflexion sur une variante textuelle: dans
En somme, entre la Septante ancienne et sa recension hexaplaire, l'au-
l'Homélie XIV, Origène aborde un lieu (Jér 15,10) où le texte est mal
teur opte pour celle qui nourrit le mieux son propos et qui lui donne le
établi: 'OÙK W<j>ElÀ.l1cra, 060s W<j>ElÀ.llcrÉ Ilot 06OElç'. Atcrcri] yup
plus de force; dans les rares cas où il s'éloigne de l'une et l'autre, il le
Ècrnv lÎ ypa<j>i]' Èv IlSV yàp "Cotç 1tÀ.Elcr'tOtç àvnypu<j>otç 'OÙK
fait aussi par choix et non par erreur. Or, il ne paraît pas agir autrement
W<j>ÉÀ.llcra, 060s W<j>ÉÀ.llcrÉ Ile oùoeiç', Èv os "COtç àKptpeO"'tu"Cotç Kat
avec les révisions juives: dans l'Homélie XVI, il signale qu'il aborde un
crull<j>rovoucrt 'tOtç 'EppaïKOtç 'OÙK W<j>ElÀ.llcra, 060s W<j>eiÀ.llcrÉ Ilot
verset qui «va nous donner du mal» (Tà Éçf1ç àyIDva IlÉÀ.À.et lÎlltV
o6Oetç'. Ad oÔv Kat "Co KaSllllaçeullÉvov Kat <j>epollevov Èv "Catç
ÈIl1totetv (HIer XVI.5: SC 238,142.8), tant il s'accorde difficilement à
ÈKKÀ.l1criatÇ otl1yi]cracrSat Kat "Co à1to "CIDV 'EppaïKIDv ypa<j>IDv àOti]-
ce qui précède. Suit la citation de Jér 16,18 dont on ne mentionnera que
Yl1"COV Ili] Ka"CaÀ.t1tdv, «'Je n'ai pas été en dette et personne n'a été en
le début, suivi du commentaire fait par l'homéliste: 'Kat àv"Ca1toomcrro'
dette à mon égard'; l'Écriture est en effet double: dans les copies les
yup <j>l1crt '1tpID"COV Ot1tÀ.uç "Càç àOtKiaç atnIDV Kat "Càç ullap"Ciaç
plus nombreuses: 'Je n'ai pas fait de bien et personne ne m'en afait', et
atnIDV ( ... )' (Jér 16,18). To '1tpID"COV' eÏ'te Ili] voi]crav"Ceç ÈçdÀ.uv
dans les copies les plus exactes qui concordent avec l'hébreu : 'Je n'ai
nveç "CIDV yeypallllÉvrov, eÏ'te Kat otKovolli]crav"Ceç ÈçeÀ.dv ot
pas été en dette et personne n'a été en dette à mon égard'. il faut donc
'Epoolli]KOV'ta, Seoç av dOElll' lÎlldç IlÉv'tOt cruyptvav"Ceç 'tatç
à la fois expliquer la leçon ordinaire qui a cours dans les églises et ne pas
À.ot1tatç ÈK06crecrtv el5pollev KElllevov' 'Kat àv"Ca1toomcrro 1tpID"COV
laisser inexpliquée celle qui vient de l'hébreu» (HIer XIV. 3 : SC 238,
Ot1tÀ.uç "Càç àOtKiaç atnIDv', ïva ol1À.roSft (ht el. Kat açwt otà "Cà oe6-
68.2-7)7. Dans la suite, Origène présente une exégèse des deux formula-
5. Le rapprochement entre «nations» et «royaumes» explique sans doute l'omission
de sni 2°, contraire à m. 7: Alors qu'A. Rahlfs retient, dans son édition, la leçon oo<jJÉÂTjO"u ••• OO<jJBÂTjO"SV,
6. SC 232, pp. 226-236. J. Ziegler opte pour oo<jJstÂTj(l"U ... oo<jJs{ÂTjO"s: en dehors du témoignage indirect
 512 O.MUNNICH
tions, mais l'essentiel tient ici aux premiers mots de son commentaire:
«l'Écriture est double»: l'auteur ne tranche pas entre les deux leçons
mais les juxtapose, de façon à dédoubler l'ÉcritureS. La diversité des
àv'Ciypu<j>u n'est pas pour lui un problème philologique mais la source
d'un enrichissement de la lettre du texte9 • P. Hadot parle de la valeur
séminale du contresens dans la pensée antique et montre ce que l'histoire
de la philosophie lui doitlO; il y a aussi, pour l'exégète, une valeur sémi-
nale de la variante.
En revanche, au début du même verset (Jér 15,10), Origène trouve une
expression qui sera pour lui un véritable leit-motiv, repris douze fois au
cours des Homélies XIV et XVl1: o'(llot Èyw, 1l1ln;p, roc:; 'Civu 118 ~h8K8e:;
avopu otKuÇ Oll8VOV KUt otUKptvOj.t8VOV Èv nuaTI 'Cn rn; 'malheureux
que je suis, ô mère, qui as-tu enfanté en moi, un homme mis en jugement
et contesté sur toute la terre l '; la variante principale, attestée seulement
par Philon d'Alexandrie, est celle-ci: avopu otKUÇ. Ko,t otaKp.]
uvSpomov lluXlle:; KUt uvSpffinov <*
uvopu 0 Clu'. = ~) ull0tae:; Philo
= ~, «un homme de combat et un homme de désagrément». Elle trouve
un écho dans les révisions juives, mentionnées par J. Ziegler dans son
second apparat:
*
me; 'ttva - nUCiTI 'tu 1'n] a' o'tt S'tSKSe; /lS avùpa /laXTte; Kat
avùpa (a' -9' avùpa Q 86 (sub ot y') aTtÙtae; (a' aTtÙtae;
Syh) <naCil1 'tTt YTt> Ci' o'tt S'tSKSe; J.lB avùpa ste; /laXTtv
Kat ste; aTtùtav <naCil1 'tTt YTt> t(O' ... avùpa noÀs/lote;
ast Kat maCisCitV a<j>mptCi/lsvov sm naCiTle; 't'Ile; YTte; 86.
d'Origène et de Philon d'Alexandrie, <l>cpsîÀllcru est attesté par le seul ms 106 (14è s.) et
<l>cpsîÀllcrs par les mss 106 et 88 (lOè s.). Le choix de J. Ziegler ne prête pas à discussion,
mais on se trouve en présence d'une faute très ancienne.
8. Ce lieu est étudié par M. lIARL, La Septante et la pluralité textuelle des Écritures:
Le témoignage des Pères grecs, article repris dans La langue de Japhet, Paris, Cerf, 1994,
p.258.
9. La perspective est sensiblement différente dans l'homélie suivante: «'Nuln 'a eu de
dettes à mon égard' (OUK <l>cpelÀllcrÉ Ilot ouOi; etC;). Bien que nous ayons lu le texte de
cette façon, il faut savoir que la plupart des copies de l'édition des Septante ne portent pas
cette leçon; mais, quand ensuite nous avons examiné les autres éditions, nous avons
reconnu qu'il y avait une faute de copie (ayvrollsv ypUcptKoV dvat UIlUPtllllu). Quoi
qu'il en soit, on peut expliquer le passage de l'une et l'autre manière» (HIer XV.5,
seo 238, 124.13-18); l'auteur présente ici <l>CPÉÀllcru et <l>cpÉÀllcrs comme des fautes et
semble s'en remettre au témoignage des révisions juives, qu'il ne mentionnait pas dans
l'Homélie XIV.
10. Philosophie, exégèse et contresens (1968), repris in Études de philosophie ancienlle,
Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1998, p. 9.
11. HIer XIV.2 (SC 238, 66.15); XIV.5 (SC 238,72.2,74.25,30,34,38); XIV.6 (SC
238,78.34); XIV.7 (SC 238,80.1,82.19); XV.2 (SC 238, 114.5); XV.4 (SC 238, 120.1,
122.21,27).
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 513
Le sens des deux énoncés est radicalement différent: il est question,
dans un cas, d'un réprouvé et, dans l'autre, d'un être hostile. Tirant de
ce stique une lamentation sur le malheur du Juste, Origène retient
l'énoncé de la Septante ancienne et ne mentionne pas même la formula-
tion des révisions juives, suivies par Philon qu'il a pourtant lu, comme
on le vena plus bas.
P. Nautin utilise ce lieu comme exemple des inexactitudes que
commet Origène, lorsqu'il cite de mémoire: selon ce critique, l'homé-
liste mentionne deux fois «textuellement» ÈyÉvvllaue:;, «mais partout
ailleurs, citant de mémoire, il prend la liberté de remplacer ÈyÉVVll-
aue:; par ~hBK8e:;, 'tu as enfanté' ... parce qu"engendrer' se dit plutôt
du père, le propre de la mère étant d"enfanter'»12. Curieusement
P. Nautin suppose dans le texte biblique un verbe ÈyÉvvllaue:; qui ne
s'y trouve et que n'atteste aucune variante. Néanmoins, sa remarque
appelle l'attention sur la variante présente, à deux reprises, dans le
texte cité par Origène: dans l'Homélie XIV, la première fois où il cite
le verset avec ÈyÉvvllaue:; (HIer XIV.5: SC 238, 72.2), Origène met
l'énoncé en relation avec Jér 1,5, npo 'COÙ 118 nÀuaut aB Èv KotÀi~
Ènia'Cullui a8, 'avant de t'avoir façonné dans le ventre de ta mère,
je te connais': la perspective conespond à celle du projet paternel et
le remplacement de ihBK8e:; par ÈyÉvvllaue:; est naturel; d'une façon
plus nette encore, Origène oppose, dans le second cas, l'interprétation
courante du verset à celle qu'il trouve chez Philon, mentionné ano-
nymement 13 : '0'(1101 Èyw, 1l1l'CBP, roe:; 'tivu 118 ÈyÉVVllauc:; avopu
o1KUÇOll8VOV KUt otuKPtv01l8VOV nuaTI 'tn rn;' Trov npo ÈlloÙ OÉ
ne:; ÈnÉ~uÀ8 'Cé? 'Cont:]) ÀÉyffiV on 'Cuù'Cu 8À8y8V où npoe:; 'Cijv
1l11'CÉpU T11V affillunK"v, àÀÀù npoe:; Il,,'C8pU 'tiJv yBvvroauv
npo<j>,,'Cue:;' 'Cic:; oÈ Y8VV?!- npo<j>,,'tuc:; dl> i} Cio<j>iu 'COÙ S80Ù; 'Mal-
heureux que je suis, ô mère, qui as-tu engendré en moi, un homme
mis en jugement et contesté sur tout la terre l' L'un de mes prédéces-
seurs qui s'est appliqué à ce passage dit que Jérémie adressait ces
paroles, non à sa mère selon le corps, mais à la mère qui a engendré
des prophètes; or, qui engendre des prophètes sinon la Sagesse de
Dieu?» HIer XIV.5: SC 238, 74.25). Il n'y a ici, chez Origène, nulle
erreur de mémoire: la mention de ÈyÉvvllaue:; dans le lemme est
concertée: elle prépare l'interprétation qui suit (HIer XIV.5: SC 238,
74.28 y8vvroauv, 1. 29 Y8VV?!-) et selon laquelle la «mère» ici invo-
12. NAUTIN, Il/troduction, SC 232, p. 119.
13. Sur ce recours à l'anonymat pour évoquer Philon ainsi que d'autres auteurs, cf.,
dans ce volume, la contribution de L. PERRONE, Origenes pro domo sua: Self-quotations
and the (Re)collstruction ofa Literai)' Œuvre.
514 O.MUNNICH
quée est la Sagesse divine, à laquelle le verbe yEvvav est plus appro-
prié que 't'iK't'EW I4 .
Selon P. Nautin, celtains écarts entre la formulation de la citation
scripturaire dans les Homélies et le texte biblique s'explique par le fait
que l'Alexandrin cite, non l'Écriture, mais des auteurs antérieurs l5 : la
fonnulation de Job 14,4-5 ('Personne n'est exempt de souillure, même si
sa vie n'est que d'un jour', HIer V.14, SC 232, 318.39) résulte, écrit
P. Nautin, d'une réminiscence de Clément de Rome ou de Clément
d'Alexandrie. Une telle hypothèse n'a rien de contraignant: comme les
autres citateurs, Origène peut transformer spontanément l'intelTogation
de la Septante en affirmation et remplacer, pour des raisons idiomatiques,
6 j3ios; par T] smiJ. Quant à la façon dont l'Alexandrin cite Jér 4,4 dans
HIer V.14 (SC 232, 314.2 et 26), elle ne doit rien à la Controverse de
Jason et de Papiscus: nEpt't'ÉflEcr~k 't'"v à.Kpoj3ucr't'iuv 't'11S; KupùiuS;
ûfl&V cOlTespond, pour le verbe, au texte de la recension hexaplaire et,
pour le substantif, à celui de la Septante ancienne l6 • De même, la citation
d' 1 Rs 15,11 flE't'uflEflÉÀllflut cht sj3UcriÀEUcrU 't'ov L:uouÀ' ElS; j3ucrt-
ÀÉu, 'je me repens d'avoir oint Saül roi' ne dérive pas d' «une source
juive qui traitait la question de l'antlu:opomorphisme biblique» 17: dans
les HIer XVIII.6 (SC 238, 196.29) et XX.l (SC 238, 252.30), Origène
cite la phrase, non selon la Septante ancienne (nupuKÉKÀllflut), mais
d'après la formulation majoritaire qui est celle de la recension hexaplaire
(flE't'uflEflÉÀllflut); dans le premier lieu, l'homéliste commente l'expres-
sion flE't'uvoiJcrm, «je me repentirai», prêtée à Dieu en Jér. 18,10, et
introduit 1 Rs sous la forme la mieux adaptée à son argumentation; dans
le second cas, la citation d'l Rs est invoquée dans un long développe-
ment sur la flE't'uflÉÀEtU divine.
Selon P. Nautin, Origène «confond», dans HIer XIX.15 (SC 238,
244.84), le passage où il est question de l'adultère (hSoj3oÀllSiJcroV'wl
sv ÀiSots;, Deut 22,24) et celui qui traite du blasphémateur (KUt
ÀtSoj3oÀiJcroucrtV ut)'t'ov nacru T] cruvuymyiJ, Lév 24,14)18. Or, l'homé-
liste consacre son développement à opposer le châtiment réservé à l'adul-
tère d'autrefois (i. e. l'ancienne alliance) à celui d'«aujourd'hui» (6 sv
14. Dans leur traduction, P. Husson et p, Nautin donnent une valeur adversative à ùÉ
(<<mais l'un de mes prédécesseurs ... ») et rendent ÈyÉvvllcraç; par «enfanter» (SC 238,
75); en fait, l'explication de Philon ne s'oppose pas, pour Origène, au «sens général» ('1:0
KOlVOV, SC 238, 74.24), mais elle en est l'expression.
15, «La Bible en main et en tête», P. NAUTIN, Introduction, SC 232, 120.
16. Se fondant sur l'édition d'A. Rahlfs, P. Nautin suppose que celle-ci comporte
crKÂ-l]poKapùîav.
17. SC 232, 121.
18. SC 232, 122.
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 515
WU'tots; EÛpESEiS; fl01X0S;, 1. 85). Dans cette mesure, il est logique qu'il
reformule le texte scripturaire à paltir d'un passage présentant l'avantage
de comporter un singulier et non un pluriel. La substitution ne procède
pas d'une confusion mais d'un rapprochement délibéré.
Origène parle souvent des «ressources» - à<j>oPflui - qu'offre l'étude
précise du texte l9 ; ce qui précède montre qu'il tient les fOlmes ancienne
et hexaplaire de la Bible ainsi que les révisions juives comme autant de
«ressources» pour élaborer son discours homilétique20 • Ce que P. Nautin
tient pour des citations d'auteurs antérieurs s'explique, en fait, par un jeu
sur les ressources du texte scripturaire lui-même, envisagé dans la diver-
sité de ses fOlmulations.
2. L'homélie: Un discours érudit?
Au-delà des états du texte - Septante ancienne, recension hexaplaire,
révisions juives -, les variantes mêmes entre les manuscrits de la
Septante sont, semble-t-il, mobilisées au service de l'argumentation.
On oppose communément l'homélie, destinée à un large public, aux
réflexions plus savantes que contiendraient les commentaires et les trai-
tés. Or, les Homélies SUI' Jérémie manifestent souvent une réflexion pous-
sée sur la diversité textuelle de la tradition manuscrite et l'homilétique
est, à cet égard, directement tributaire du travail philologique de l'Alexan-
drin. On en donnera ici deux exemples:
a) Homélie X
On lit après le prologue: «Voilà ce que dit le prophète. Voyons ensuite
ce que dit le Sauveur présent dans le prophète: 'Moi, comme un jeune
agneau sans malice qui est emmené pour être sacrifié, je n'ai pas su
('Eym ms; àpviov aKuKov àyoflEVOV 'toG SUEcrSUt OÙK syvmv). Ils ont
comploté contre moi en disant: Venez, jetons du bois dans son pain et
retranchons-le de la terre des vivants et qu'on ne se souvienne plus de
19. Ainsi, après avoir parlé globalement (1tpOXEtpon:pov) de l'objet présent da~s l~
main du potier, il annonce ainsi qu'il va procéder à une étude détaillée du texte (Ka1:a 1:0
Â-E1t1:0V): '1ùroflEV ùl; &.1t' aÙ1:~ç; 1:~ç; Â-ÉÇ,EroÇ; ... 1troç; alJ'toç; 6 Èv 1:'0 1tpo<l>f]1:TI Â.6yoç;, 6
KUptoÇ; 6 1tpo<l>ll1:Eurov Èv aù1:i!> , &.<I>oPflàç; ùîùrocrt Kat anaç; où ~paxdaç; 1:~ç;
épfll]vdaç; 1:rov Ka1:à 1:0 1tÂ-acrfla 1:0 Èv 1:0 XEtpi 1:oli. KEpaflÉroç;, «mais ,voyons à. partir
des mots mêmes ... comment la parole elle-même qm est dans le prophete, le SeIgneur
qui prophétise en lui, nous fournit d'autres ressources, non négligeables, pour interpréter
l'histoire de l'objet modelé qui est dans la main du potier» (HIer XVIII.2: SC 238,178-
179.1-6). .
20. Sur le telme &.<I>opflai, «points de départ» selon M. Har!, cf. la note de celle-Cl
dans la Philocalie: Origène, Philocalie 1 -20 suries Écritures et La Lettre à Ajricanus sur
l'histoire de Suzanne (SC, 302), Paris, Cerf, 1983, p. 252, n. 2.
516 O.MUNNICH
son nom' (Jér 11,19), comme le dit aussi le prophète Isaïe: Christ 'a été
emmené comme un agneau pour être immolé (WC; npo~Œ'wv Ènt cr<j>uyi]v
t'tXBl1), et comme un mouton muet devant celui qui le tond, il n'ouvre pas
la bouche' (Is 53,7). Là c'est Isaïe qui parle du Christ, mais ici c'est le
Christ qui parle de lui-même: 'Moi, dit-il, comme un jeune agneau sans
malice qui est emmené pour être immolé, au sacrifice, je n'ai pas su'
CEyro, <j>11c:rt, wC; àpvtov aKuKov Ènt cr<j>uyi]v àyollsvov 'Wu B6scrBat
OÙK syvcov)>> (Jér 11,19)21.
On laissera de côté «l'analyse prosopologique visant à distinguer les
propos du prophète de ceux prononcés par le Christ à travers lui»22 et
l'on envisagera le rapprochement fait par Origène entre Jér 11,19 et Is
53,7, verset situé à l'intérieur de l'oracle dit du «Serviteur souffrant» et
cité dans les Act 8,32. La parenté thématique des deux lieux ainsi que
certains recoupements formels rendent naturel leur rapprochement; néan-
moins, on remarque qu'Origène, s'il cite en quelques lignes deux fois le
même verset de Jérémie, ne le fait pas sous la même forme: la seconde
fois, il ajoute Ènt cr<j>uyiJv, leçon que n'atteste aucun manuscrit de la
Septante. Y a-t-il là une imprécision de l'homéliste, due à une contami-
nation de Jérémie par Is 53,7? On doit bien plutôt être attentif, en Jér
11,19 à une note marginale, signalée par Ziegler dans l'apparat des révi-
sions juives: 19 init. - OÙK syvcov] cr' syco OB 111l11v COC; ullVoC; nBucroc;
unuyollBvoC; BtC; cr<j>uYl1V (cr' ullvoC; nBucroC; unuyollBvoC; BtC; cr<j>uYl1V
Syh) KUt OUK 110Btv 86.
En Jér 11,19, Origène a trouvé dans la colonne «Symmaque» de ses
Hexaples la traduction BtC; cr<j>uYl1V; il a donc d'abord cité le texte selon
sa fmme Septante, puis, après la citation d'Isaïe, il a cité une nouvelle
fois Jérémie en y introduisant un doublet: la leçon de la Septante - 'Wu
BUBcrBat - voisine avec celle de Symmaque - BtC; cr<j>uYl1V - qu'Origène
a vraisemblablement légèrement modifiée pour la rapprocher du texte
d'Isaïe - Ènt cr<j>uyiJv. L'expression «comme le dit aussi Isâïe» (wC;
<j>l1crtv KUt ô npo<j>iJ'tl1C; 'HcruîuC;) résulte déjà de la parenté entre les
deux textes, mais le KUt semble s'expliquer par ce qui suit et porter sur
le retravail textuel par lequell'homéliste renforce le rapprochement de
Jérémie 11 avec Is 53. Ce qu'on peut prendre pour une inexactitude ou
pour une liberté oratoire procède, en fait, de l'incorporation dans le déve-
loppement homilétique d'un matériel hexaplaire. On imagine que l'homé-
21. SC 232,398.19-28.
22. Ce mode d'exégèse origénienne a récemment été remarquablement étudié par
A. VILLAN!, Origenes aIs Schrijtsteller: Ein Beitrag Zli seiner Verwendung von Proso-
popoiie, mit eilligell BeobachtllllgenlÏber die prosopologische Exegese, in Adamantius 14
(2008) 130-150.
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 517
liste a devant les yeux un manuscrit biblique doté de notes marginales ou
interlinéaires, un exemplaire comparable aux manuscrits que l'on
conserve de la Syro-hexaplaire.
b) Homélie V
Ailleurs, le développement suppose une connaissance, non seulement
des révisions juives - comme dans le cas précédent -, mais aussi des
àv'tiypu<j>u bibliques, fait qui peut échapper à une lecture cursive du
texte. Après le prologue de l'Homélie V, Origène consacre HIer V.2 à
commenter Jér 3,22. On citera d'abord le texte critique de la Bible
grecque, tel que l'édite J. Ziegler et, sous forme abrégée, les éléments
significatifs de son apparat critique:
Jér 3,22 ènt<H pa<j>rrrE, uiot èntO"'t" pé<j>oV'w;, Kut iacrollut "Cà
cruv"CPtllllu"CU ull&V. oŒE TJIlEte; ècrollEBa crot, on crù
Kuptoe; 6 BEoe; l'lIl&V d.
OtoE ZL] tDOU otDE Q-V-46-544-613 0-233 L-407 C' Or. III
31 33 33 6 14; tDOU DE 198; tDoU \)tot 534; tDoU DOUÀot
B-S-130'-239-538 A-410 62 26 Aeth Arab Or. III 32 1;
tDOU 106 Bo Or. III 3220 26'
L'Alexandrin offre, pour un tel verset, le commentaire suivant:
«Remarque comment Dieu nous invite, si nous nous convertissons, à
nous convertir complètement, quand il nous promet que, si nous nous
convertissons à lui, en nous convertissant, il guérira par Jésus Christ ce
qu'il y a de brisé en nous; C'est nous qui répondons ('HIlBtC; of> àno~
KPtv0IlBVot), nous qui n'attendons ni ne tardons quand il s'agit du
salut, comme l'a fait cet Israël (ÈKBtVOC; ô 'IcrpuiJÀ), et qui disons: 'ces
gens que nous sommes, nous serons à toi' (OïOB 1l1lBtC; ÈcrollB~hi crot).
Dieu a dit: 'Convertissez-vous,fils, en vous convertissant, et je guérirai
ce qu'il y a de brisé en vous»; 'c'est nous', ceux de la gentilité, 'qui
serons tes esclaves' (LlouÀot ÈcrollBBu 1lIlBtC;) - auparavant nous ne
l'étions pas -, mais nous étions ceux des démons et étions la part des
puissances adverses ( ... ). Dieu nous a donc dit: 'Convertissez-vous,
fils, en vous convertissant, et je guérirai ce qu'il y a de brisé en vous'.
Et nous, en voyant ce qu'il y a de brisé en nous et la promesse de la
guérison, nous répondons aussitôt et disons: 'Voilà, c'est nous, nous
serons à toi, parce que tu es le Seigneur notre Dieu' ('Iooù 1lll BtS
ÈcrollBBu crot, on crù KUPtoC; ô BBOS 1lIléOv). Ayant donc répondu à
l'invitation et dit: 'Nous serons à toi', rappelons-nous que nous avons
fait une promesse à Dieu en lui disant: 'Nous serons à toi'; et puisque
nous lui avons dit: «Nous serons à toi», ne devenons la propriété de
personne d'autre, ni de l'esprit de colère, ni de l'esprit de tristesse, ni
518 O.MUNNICH
de l'esprit de convoitise, ne devenons la propriété ni du diable ni de ses
anges. Au contraire, puisque nous avons été appelés et que nous avons
dit: 'Nous voici, nous serons à toi', montrons par nos actes qu'ayant
promis de lui appartenir nous ne nous sommes offerts à personne
d'autre qu'à lui. Et nous disons: 'Parce que c'est toi, le Seigneur notre
Dieu', car nous ne reconnaissons, nous, personne pour Dieu, ni le
ventre comme les gloutons qui ont pour Dieu le ventre, ni l'argent
comme les hommes d'argent, ni la cupidité qui est idolâtrie; nous n'éri-
geons en Dieu et ne divinisons rien de ce que la foule divinise, mais
nous avons pour Dieu le Dieu qui est 'au-dessus de tout, à travers tout
et en tout', et puisque nous étions attachés à notre amour pour Dieu
- car c'est l'amour qui nous soude à Dieu - nous disons: 'Nous voici,
c'est nous qui serons à toi, parce que c'est toi le Seigneur notre Dieu'
('looù 01:0E f]J.tEtC; Ècr0J.tE-SU crot, on crù KOPtoC; ô -SEOC; f]J.t&v)>> (HIer
V.2: SC 232, 282-286.16-65).
Origène entreprend d'abord de montrer que le début du verset s'adresse
à «nous» et non aux juifs. Pour ce faim, il se fonde sur la présence, dans
le lemme, du pronom f]J.tdC;; il souligne l'opposition entre «nous» (les
chrétiens) et Israël en retenant la leçon OïOE f]J.tdC; qu'il oppose à ÈKEtVOC;
ô 'lcrpui)À, tendant ainsi au maximum l'opposition entre «ces gens que
nous sommes» et «cet Israël». Le lemme est ensuite répété avec une
interruption après le terme uJ.t&v, sur lequel porte désormais l'explica-
tion: en s'adressant à nous quand il dit «ce qu'il y a de brisé en VOliS»
('tà crUVtptJ.tJ.tU'tu uJ.t&v) , l'Esprit Saint, explique Origène, parle aux
hommes de la gentilité. L'accent porte désormais sur ÈcrOJ.tE-SU, mis en
relief par la reformulation négative: où npOtEpOV OVtEC;: «'c'est nous',
ceux de la gentilité, 'qui serons tes esclaves' - auparavant nous ne
l'étions pas». Le propos suppose une déduction: si le texte emploie un
futur (<<nous serons tes esclaves»), c'est qu'il concerne des individus qui
ne servaient pas Dieu mais les démons et cela ne peut s'appliquer qu'aux
Gentils. On notera combien l'argumentation est resserrée: c'est l'intona-
tion - en l'occurrence la mise en relief du futur ÈcrOJ.tE-SU - qui soutient
la preuve. Il est remarquable que, dans cette seconde formulation du
verset, Origène s'écarte du texte qu'il avait cité juste auparavant: au lieu
de 01:0E f]J.tdC; ÈcrOJ.tE-SU crot, on lit ici ~ouÀot ÈcrOJ.tE-SU f]J.tdC;, soit un
texte, où le substantif n'a pas d'équivalent dans le texte hébreu mais qui
est attesté, dans la Septante, par le Vatican us et la presque totalité de la
tradition manuscrite. Cette deuxième formulation est plus appropriée que
la précédente à la démonstration de l'Alexandrin: «nous serons tes
esclaves ... alors que nous étions ceux des démons ainsi que la part des
puissances adverses».
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 519
Après avoir développé cette idée, l'auteur revient à la citation et pro-
pose un commentaire qui semble encore qualifier le futur ÈcrOJ.tE-SU:
«nous répondons aussitôt» (EÙ-SS())C;); l'idée s'appuie sur une troisième
formulation du lemme: 'looù f]J.tdC; ÈcrOJ.tE-SU crot, 'nous voici, nous
serons à toi'; dans la Bible grecque, l'adverbe est présent dans la totalité
de la tradition manuscrite, tantôt avec 01:0E, tantôt avec oouÀot, tantôt
sans ceux-ci. L'auteur met ensuite, dans le lemme, l'accent sur le pro-
nom crot: «nous serons à toi et à personne d'autre». Plus haut, 01:0E
f]J.tEtC; appelait l'opposition avec ÈKdvoC; ô 'Icrpui)À; ici crot suscite
une nouvelle antithèse, cette fois avec les puissances mauvaises. Le
verset est cité une dernière fois mais réduit à sa fin: '''On crù KOPtoC; ô
-SEOC; f]J.t&v d'et le commentaire porte ici sur le pronom cro: 'Parce
que c'est toi, le Seigneur notre Dieu'; cela donne lieu à une nouvelle
ligne d'antithèses entre Dieu et le ventre, l'argent et la cupidité, divini-
sés par les hommes; on a là un série ternaire à laquelle s'oppose la
fOlmule ternaire d'Éphésiens 4,6, «le Dieu qui est 'au-dessus de tout, à
travers tout et en tout». Le développement s'achève de façon métapho-
rique: Origène parle d'être «attaché», «soudé» à Dieu: il donne à la
deuxième partie du verset la connotation amoureuse qui est la sienne en
Jér 3 et, avec l'emploi du verbe KoÀÀav, établit un rapprochement avec
1 Cor 6,16-17: ô KOÀÀIDJ.tEVOC; tn nopvll sv cr&J.tu Ècrnv ... ô 08 KOÀ-
ÀIDJ.tEVOC; tép Kupicp sv nVEuJ.tu Ècrnv, «celui qui s'unit à la prostituée
fait avec elle un seul corps ... mais celui qui s'unit au Seigneur est avec
lui un seul esprit».
À la fin de cette section, Origène répète la partie du verset qui a été
commentée: 'looù 01:0E f]J.tdC; Ècr0J.tE-SU crot, on crù KOPtoC; ô -SEOC;
f]J.t&v; de fait, tooo, OïOE f]J.tEtc;, ÈcrOJ.tE-SU, crot et cro ont successive-
ment nourri l'homélie. Comme souvent, l'homéliste progresse en répétant
le lemme 23 , mais la composition est entièrement fondée sur un accent
tonique 24 soulignant chaque terme successivement et ouvrant ainsi des
perspectives fondées sur des réseaux d'explication (ainsi ÈcrOJ.tE-SU ... où
npOtEpOV OVtEC;) ou d'opposition (par exemple ÈcrOJ.tE-SU crot J.tlloEvoC;
aÀÀou YEVIDJ.tE-SU). La mise en relief par le ton permet une concision
qu'on ne trouve, semble-t-il, pas dans les Commentaires origéniens.
23. La première partie du verset est citée quatre fois: HIer V.l (SC 232, 280.46-7);
V.2 (SC 232, 282.22-23; 284.30-31 et 43-44), la seconde (en tout ou en partie) à sept
reprises: V.2 (SC 232, 282.21-22 et 24; 284.32 et 46-77; 286.54,56-57 et 65).
24. Cf. P. NAUTIN: «Toutes ces répétitions peuvent désorienter le lecteur ... Mais dans
la prédication ... le ton suffisait à distinguer les mots qui étaient simplement répétés et
ceux sur lesquels allait porter le commentaire», Introduction, SC 232, 129.
520 O.MUNNICH
Si le soulignement successif de chaque mot du lemme est un fait connu,
les modifications qu'introduit Origène dans la fOlmulation de celui-ci sont
moins bien repérées par la critique. Dans ce développement, l'homéliste
cite le verset sous quatre formes: OŒ6 TJ/l6te; (SC 232, 282.21, 284.32),
'Iooù TJ/lBle; (SC 232, 284.46, 286.54), ~ooÂot (sO"o/l6Ba) TJ/lBle;
(SC 232, 282.24), 'Iooù Oï06 TJ/lBle; (SC 232, 286.65); les trois dernières
sont documentées dans la tradition manuscrite de la Bible et la première,
que Ziegler présente comme une conjecture, repose sur une formulation
qui n'est-plus attestée en tradition directe mais que connaissait sans doute
l'Alexandrin. Certes, il est possible qu'Origène ait lu, dans son texte,
'Iooù Oï06 TJ/l6te; et qu'il ait, selon les cas, retenu tel ou tel mot. En tout
cas, la mention de oooÂot dans son développement n'est probablement
pas étrangère à l'existence de cette variante dans la tradition manuscrite
du texte scripturaire: c'est dans celle-ci que l'homéliste trouve - sinon
l'inspiration - du moins la confirmation de son commentaire. En somme,
ce développement semble reposer sur la connaissance d'au moins deux,
sinon trois ou quatre formes du texte de la Septante. Comme l'écrit A. Le
Boulluec, «le texte est élucidé, non par l'assimilation des variantes, mais
par leur conjonction» 25; toutefois, alors que cet auteur entend par
«variantes» les lectures de la Septante et celles des révisions juives, sa
remarque doit ici être élargie aux divergences entre les manuscrits de
la Septante elle-même. À nouveau, il faut, en un tel cas, supposer que
l'homéliste se reporte à un exemplaire annoté et doté de variantes margi-
nales, correspondant non aux leçons des révisions juives, mais à des
variantes internes à la Septante; il s'agirait d'un exemplaire collationné
sur d'autres àvdypu<j>u, en somme du livre d'un étudit.
II. LE TRAVAIL LITTÉRAIRE SUR LA CITATION
Origène - on le sait - explique la Bible par la Bible26 ; je voudrais
étudier ici les modalités littéraires de cette intetiextualité et montrer que
25. Les représentations du texte chez les philosophes grecs et l'exégèse scripturaire
d'Origène: Influences et mutations, in R.J. DALY (éd.), Origeniana QI/inta: Historica,
Text and Metlwd, Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica, Origenism and Later Developments
(BETL, 105), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1992, p. 107.
26. Sur ce point, cf. B. NEusCHÂFER, OMHPON ES OMHPOY 1:ArJ>HNIZEIN, in
Origenes als Philologe, Bâle, Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, 1987, 276-285. Les Homélies
sur Jérémie comportent une illustration d'un tel principe: en 1.7, face à un lieu où le texte
scripturaire est embarrassant, Origène invoque le précepte du Deutéronome: «Toute parole
sera fondée sur la déclaration de deux ou trois témoins» (Deut 19,15). Cette formule, note
Origène, convient plus aux textes à interpréter (bd 'trov Otl1yi]crBroV) qu'aux hommes:
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 521
la citation biblique, loin d'être un matériau importé dans le texte origé-
nien, fait partie de sa trame elle-même.
1. La réécriture comme mode d'explication de la Bible par la Bible
a) Homélie VII
Ce n'est pas au moment où l'homme pèche que Dieu lui inflige l'in-
tégralité de son châtiment, déclare Origène dans le prologue de cette
Homélie; Dieu juge peu à peu - Ku'tà ~puX6 -laissant place au repen-
tir27 ; la suite du prologue et le début du développement sont les sui-
vants: «On en trouve l'exemple dans le Lévitique: dans les malédictions
contre ceux qui transgressent la Loi, il est écrit à la suite des premiers
châtiments: 'Et voici que, si après cela, vous ne vous convertissez pas,
dit le Seigneur, j'ajouterai moi-même contre vous sept plaies' - Kut
ËO"1:at, sàv /l6'tà 'tuo'tu /li! smO"'tpu<j>ij't6, ÂSy6t K6ptoe;, npoO"BilO"ro
ulllv Kàyro nÂYJyàe; Én'ta - (Lév 26,21); et, de nouveau, il expose un
autre châtiment: 'Et voici que, si après cela, vous ne vous convertissez
pas mais que vous venez vers moi avec fourberie, moi aussi j'irai vers
vous avec une colère fourbe' - Kut ËO"'tut, sàv /l6'tà 'tuo'tu /li!
smO"'tpu<j>ij't6, àÂÂà nop660"YJO"B6 npoe; /l6 nÂaytot, Kàyro nop660"0-
/lut W:B' u/léOv BU/lcf> nÂuyicp - (Lév 26,23-24); tu reconnaîtras que
Dieu mesure les châtiments avec ménagement - il veut en effet conduire
le pécheur à sa conversion - et qu'il ne les lui fait pas payer tous à la
fois. Voilà donc ce qui s'était littéralement (snt 'tcf> PYJ'tcf» passé pour le
peuple, et en le menaçant de ce qu'il aurait à souffrir après cela, la
Parole lui dit: 'Et voici qu'en ces jours-là, dit le Seigneur ton Dieu, je
ne vous frapperai pas jusqu'au bout'» - Kut ËO"'tut sv 't(x,le; TJ/lspute;
SKBtVute;, ÂSy6t K6ptoe; ô B60e; O"OU, où /li! nu'taç,ro U/lue; de; O"uv'ts-
Â6taV (Jér 5,18?8.
Dans son introduction, P. Nautin remarque que la citation de Jérémie
contient une imprécision et il l'attribue au fait qu'Origène cite de
mémoire29 ; plus loin, il note un «écart plus important» dans la citation
de Lév 26,23-24 et conclut: «le sens est respecté, mais le texte est
reconstitué par une mémoire défaillante»30. L'erreur du critique consiste
chaque lieu doit se fonder sur le témoignage de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament ou
d'un Évangile, d'un prophète et d'un apôtre (SC 232, pp. 208-210).
27. li Y a là une reprise de Sag 12,10: lCptVroV oi; lCu'tà ~puxù êoi8ouS 'torcov JlB'tU-
votUS, «en jugeant peu à peu, tu laissais une place au repentir».
28. SC 232, 340-342.
29. SC 232,118-119.
30. SC 232, 121 et 122.
 \
"

522 O.MUNNICH LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 523

à étudier les citations séparément, alors que, envisagées ensemble, elles Jérémie: c'estl'Écriture qui interprète littéralement l'Écriture, dans un
manifestent la sûreté avec laquelle l'homéliste use du texte. mouvement qui échappe à l'auditeur ou même au lecteur, puisque ceux-
Le texte critique des trois lieux bibliques cités est le suivant: ci ne disposent pas de la fin de Lév 26,24: le «frottement» entre les lieux
Lév 26,21 Kut EÙV f!elù luÎhu reopeullcr3e reÀuywt Kut f!i] ~ouÂllcr3e scripturaires et la réécriture qui en résulte constituent ici un mode de
ureUKoUetV f!0U, repocr3i]crCù uf!'iv reÂ1lYùç f:mù (KU1Ù réflexion propre à l'interprète plus qu'une preuve à l'adresse de l'audi-
lÙÇ Uf!UPltuÇ Uf!rov); toire. Face à un tel montage textuel où la frontière entre les énoncés
Lév 26,23-24 Kut Eret 10U'rOtÇ EÙV f!i] reatoeu3file, ànù reopeullcr3e s'estompe, on peut se demander si l'expression I!ê't' sKdvu potte sur
rep6ç f!e reÀuywt, 24reopeucrof!ut Kàyro f!e3' uf!rov 3uf!<{)
nelO'ov'tat, comme nous l'avons traduit ou sur CPllO'tv, comme l'estiment
reÀuyüp (Kut reuluçCù uf!iiç Kàyro f:reluKtç àVlt lroV
uf!up1trov Uf!roV)31; les traducteurs des Sources chrétiennes.
Jér 5,18 Kut scrlut EV lu'iÇ ftf!Éputç EKdvutç, ÀÉyet KUpWÇ 6 3e6ç Par rapport à de telles touches de réécriture, les mots snt 'tf!) Pll'tf!),
crou, où f!i] reoti]crCù uf!iiç etç cruvlÉÀetuv. «littéralement» peuvent sembler paradoxaux, mais une telle mention n'a
rien d'indu si l'on songe à l'argumentation de l'auteur: OÙX ul!U 'tf!)
Le texte d'Origène manifeste, pour l'usage de l'Écriture, un travail
ul!Up'tfjO'at KOÂ-USffiV cpÉpêt 'ti]v O'llV'têÂ-elUV 'tfjc; KOÂ-UO'êffiC; snt 'tàv
proprement littéraire: dans les deux citations du Lévitique, Kut sO"tut est
ill!up'tllKO'tu, «ce n'est pas au moment où l'homme pèche que Dieu lui
à l'évidence un préparation presque musicale de Jér 5,18. Après ce KUt
inflige l'intégralité de son châtiment»: Lév 26,21.23-24.27-28 ainsi que
sO"tut, l'auteur reformule le texte du Lévitique et remplace le début des
les versets intennédiaires répètent trois fois la même idée. La remarque
deux versets par une expression unique: sàv ,.Hnà, 'tuih"u I!i]
d'Origène est donc exacte, si l'on la prend au niveau oû elle se situe.
sTCtmpucpfj'tê, mais - pour l'idée - il reste fidèle au texte scripturaire
Reste la question de ce travail sur les citations: il paraît difficile
qui, à travers des reprises de tennes - nopêollO'Bê, nÂ-uytot, Ku'tà 'tàC;
d'attribuer les variantes - toutes pertinentes sur le plan de l'argumenta-
ul!up'tfuC; Ul!rov -, suggère une persévérance dans la désobéissance. En
tion - à une improvisation. Deux hypothèses semblent possibles: ou bien
revanche, pour la suite, la citation d'Origène est aussi précise qu'elle
l'homéliste a introduit ces retouches textuelles lors de la rédaction défi-
était, auparavant, libre32 • Un tel fait prouve que les écarts précédents ne
nitive de l'homélie, ou bien - solution plus plausible - il disposait d'un
sont pas des elï'eurs de mémoire.
exemplaire où les citations du Lévitique, en tout ou en sténographie, se
L'homéliste cite également Jérémie avec une variante (nu'tuSffi au lieu
trouvaient dans la marge; les adaptations textuelles (KUt smut, nu'tuSffi)
de notlÎO'ffi), alors même qu'il connaît la fonnulation exacte, puisqu'il
étaient spontanément faites à l'oral par l'homéliste car ce sont elles qui
rapporte COlï'ectement le verset dans la suite (HIer VII.2.16-17). Une telle
l'avaient conduit à rapprocher les textes pour composer son propos.
liberté de citation répond à une intention évidente: Origène prolonge les
rapprochements entre Lévitique et Jérémie en important, dans le second, b) Homélie X
le verbe nœruSffi, présent dans le premier, juste à la suite de la deuxième
Le § 4 de l'Homélie est consacré à Jér 11,20-23, passage dans lequel
citation qu'il en a donnée. Derrière ce que la critique interprète comme
Origène lit plusieurs annonces du rejet du Christ par les juifs et du châ-
l'effet d'une «mémoire défaillante», se cache un travail de couture
timent que cette conduite leur a valu; le v. 20 est scindé en deux car la
particulièrement fin: les citations du Lévitique sont refonnulées en fonc-
première partie est l'objet d'un rapprochement avec l'Évangile de Luc:
tion de Jérémie, mais celle de Jérémie l'est aussi en fonction du Lévi-
«'Seigneur des puissances, qui portes des jugements justes - KOptê 'trov
tique; de cette reformulation des lieux scripturaires l'un par l'autre
OllVUl!êffiV KpfvCùv OfKuta -, qui sondes reins et coeurs, puissé-je voir
découle - et c'est sans doute la pointe du rapprochement - l'éclairage
la vengeance que tu tireras d'eux' (Jér 1,20). C'est par mode prophétique
que jette, avec le verbe nu'tuSffi, le verset du Lévitique sur celui de
qu'il fait ce voeu - voir la vengeance que Dieu tirera d'eux -, car «Jéru-
salem est entourée pal' des armées et sa dévastation s'est approchée»
31. Cf. aussi Lév 26,27-28 'Eùv D1> E1ti 10(notç ~Tj u1taKou(Hl'tÉ ~O\) Kai 1tOPSUllO"Ss - KêKOKÂ-ffi'tat yàp unà O''tpu'tonÉoffiv il 'lêpOUO'UÂ-lÎl!, Kut f}yytO'êV il
1tpaç ~s 1tÀ.aytot 28Kai aù'toç 1tOpsuO"o~at WS' u~&v EV S\)~<$ 1tÀ.ayiC(l, Kat 1tatDSUO"(O
SPlÎl!fficrtC; uù'tfjc; - (Luc 21,20).
u~aç Èyro B1t'taKtç Ka'tù 'tàç a~ap'tiaç u~&v.
32. Les variantes sont infImes: Uv 26,211tpoO"SijO"(O u~tv] + Kà.yCÛ Or., 1. 8; Uv 26,4 La «preuve» scripturaire est renforcée par le travail sur les citations:
1tOpsuO"o~at Kà.yCÛ] tr. Or., 1. 11. pour Jérémie, Origène suit, non la Septante, mais sa recension hexa-
524 O.MUNNICH
plaire: Jér 11,20 Kopts] + 'trov oDvullsrov V 0 L'-538 106 Sa Aeth
Arab Ann Or. III 73 Chr. Tht. = M. L'homéliste crée ainsi un écho
entre 'tillv oDvûllsrov (Jérémie) et cr'tpu'tonÉorov (Luc). D'autre part, il
modifie dans le sens d'un énoncé historique la syntaxe du verset luca-
nien (Luc 21,20: "O'tuv of: toll'ts KDKÎvoDIlÉVllV \)1tO cr'tpu'tonÉorov
'IspoDcruÎviJll, 'to'ts yvill'ts on fJyytKsV " ÈpiJllrocrtÇ; Ul)'tllÇ;)·
À travers ces deux exemples, tirés des Homélies VII et X, le travail de
l'auteur apparaît comme celui d'un «rhapsode», «cousant» les citations
bibliques pour les unifier entre elles et tissant, à partir d'elles, son propre
discours exégétique.
2. La place de la citation dans l'élaboration de la pensée
Dans certains cas, Origène pense - si l'on peut dire - à l'intérieur de
la phrase biblique; il se coule dans celle-ci pour formuler sa propre
phrase. La citation ou l'allusion bibliques ne sont plus, dès lors, pour
l'exégète, des illustrations mais un mode d'élaboration de sa propre
pensée.
a) L'Écriture comme langue de l'exégèse
D'une façon remarquable, le début de l'Homélie II ne présente pas une
question sur l'Écriture mais une question de l'Écriture: " àpxil 'tou
àvuyvrocrlluwÇ; " Èv 'tep npocpiJ'tn olov ÈnunoPll'ttKillç; ËÎvsysv, «le
début de la lecture prophétique vient de dire comme sous la forme d'un
problème»33, 'Anopd oÔv ÈV,9ûos npoç; wùç; ulluP'tûvov'tuç; ÈÎvSYK-
nKillç; ÎvÉyrov 0 Îvoyoç;, «c'est donc un problème que pose ici l'Écriture,
quand elle s'adresse aux pécheurs pour les confondre» (SC 232,240.28).
Ce problème soulevé par l'Écriture résulte, en fait, d'un réagencement
des textes, opéré par l'auteur. Au paragraphe 1, on trouve d'abord une
citation de la Sagesse: «'Dieu n'a pas fait la mort - '0 ,9soç; ,9ûvu'tov
OÙK Ènotllcrsv -, et il ne prend pas plaisir à la perte des vivants; car il
a créé (ËKncrs) toutes choses pour qu'elles existent et les générations du
monde sont salutaires; il n'y a pas en elles un poison de ruine ni sur la
terre un règne d'Hadès' (Sag 1,13-14); puis sautant un peu sur ce qui est
fOlmulé, je dirai: d'où est donc venue la mort? 'C'est par l'envie du
diable que la mort est entrée dans le monde' - <D,9ovep of: otUPOÎvOD
,9ûvu'toç; dcrllÎv,9sv dç; 'tov KocrlloV - (Sag 2,24)34. Citant de façon
sélective, Origène rapproche deux segments qui, dans sa source, se trou-
33. SC 232, 238.9-10.
34. SC 232, 238.1-6.
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 525
vaient éloignés l'un de l'autre et crée ainsi une antithèse. La conjonction
des deux assertions produit un problème: «Si donc Dieu a fait (nsnotll-
KSV) envers nous ce qu'il y a de mieux et que nous nous sommes nous-
mêmes créé (ÈK'ttcrullsv) le mal et les péchés, pour cette raison, ici aussi,
le début de la lecture prophétique vient de dire, comme sous la fOlme
d'un problème, à ceux qui renferment en leur âme une amertume contraire
à la douceur que Dieu y avait disposée: 'Comment t'es-tu changée en
amertume, vigne étrangère?' (Jér 2,21)>>. L'auteur souligne le lien entre
le texte de la Sagesse et celui de Jérémie en refOlmulant le second dans
le style du premier: «Dieu n'a pas fait la claudication» (1. 13, cf. «Dieu
n'a pas fait la mort», Sag 1,13); «Dieu a crée originellement tous les
membres en bonne santé» (11. 15-16, cf. «les générations du monde sont
salutaires», Sag 1,14).
Un deuxième groupement de citations exprime le caractère aporétique
du stique: l'auteur combine Gen 1,26 <<faisons l'homme à notre image
et à notre ressemblance» et 1 Cor 15,49 «nous avons revêtu l'image du
terrestre ... Revêtons l'image du céleste» (SC 232, 240.18-26). li inter-
prète le premier texte à partir du second: dans le cas d'Adam, l'être «à
l'image» est plus ancien que ce qu'il a assumé «lorsqu'il a revêtu par
son péché l'image du terrestre» (o'ts Ècpopscrs otà 'tilv ulluP'ttUV ''tilv
dKOVU 'tou XOïKOU', 11.22-23); il interprète également le second texte
à partir du premier: la citation d' 1 Cor 15,49 est décontextualisée: il ne
s'agit plus d'une progression, de l'état de l'homme tenestre, à celui de
l'homme céleste mais d'un retour à cet état originel; pour Origène, l'es-
sentiel dans le texte néo-testamentaire tient à la mention du verbe
'EcpopÉcrullsV: si les hommes ont revêtu l'image du tenestre, c'est qu'à
l'origine, ils sont tous, tels Adam, 'à l'image'. Cet état qui 'touche tous
les hommes' ('to yàp «notiJcrrollsv av,9pronov KU't' dKOVU Kut KU,9'
0llotrocrtv "lls'tÉpuv» cp,9ûvst Ènt nûv'tuç; àv,9pronoDç;, 11. 18-20) rend
problématique CAnopd), conclut l'auteur, la formulation de Jér 2,21. Ici
encore, Origène souligne stylistiquement le lien entre les deux textes
invoqués: la tournure jussive 'cpopÉcrrollsV' Ils'tuvoouv'tsç; ''tilv stKoVU
'tou ÈnoDpUVtoD' s'écmte du texte d'l Corinthiens qui comporte un futur
(cpopÉcrollsV) pour créer un écho avec le jusif notiJcrrollsv de Gen 1,26.
En définitive, au début de 1' Homélie II, le stique de Jérémie est disposé
entre deux groupements de citations: il y a là bien plus qu'une disposi-
tion formelle, puisque l'auteur utilise l'Écriture comme mode de réflexion
sur l'Écriture: il fOlmule à partir de Sagesse ou de Genèse - 1 Corinthiens
l'aporie que présente Jér 2,21. Cependant, au moment où l'activité de
l'exégète semble se réduire à juxtaposer des énoncés contradictoires, elle
est, en fait, considérable: de diverses façons, l'auteur ré agence les cita-
 526 O.MUNNICH
tions pour introduire, entre les lieux scripturaires, des relations problé-
matiques qui ne s'y trouvent pas. Comme on plonge sa plume dans
l'encre, Origène cite ici l'Écriture pour réfléchir au verset qu'il examine.
Un tel phénomène se retrouve au paragraphe suivant où le texte - la
Bible - est pris par l'exégète comme langue du commentaire: Jér 2,22
est cité trois fois en une page qui débute ainsi: «Après cela, voyons la
phrase: 'Si tu te laves avec du nitre et entasses sur toi de l'herbe, tu
restes souillée dans tes iniquités devant moi, dit le Seigneur'» (Mxv àno-
nÀ.6vn Èv vhpcp Kat 1tÀ.llS6vnç crsa\nfj n6av, KSKllÀ.iùcocrat Èv 'tal<;
àÙtKiatç crou Èvav'tiov Èl-tou, À.Éyst K6ptoç, SC 232, 242.1-3). L'âme
pécheresse ne peut, commente Origène, s'en remettre au 'nitre matériel'
(vhpcp atcrSll'té[» ni à «cette herbe qui lève de la terre» (n6av 'ta6'tllv
Û1V àva'tÉÀ.À.oucrav àno yf]ç) pour se purifier, «puisque la Parole dit ici
à la vigne changée en ameltume et devenue amère»; suit alors la seconde
mention du verset' Si tu te laves avec du nitre ... ' (11. 9-11). La parole a
toute puissance, écrit Origène, en particulier celle du remède, de la puri-
fication et de la détersion complète. Il existe donc une p~role qui est
'nitre' et une autre qui est' herbe»; son seul énoncé purifie les saletés
de cette sOlte ('Ecrnv oÔv nç À.6yoç 'vhpov' Kat Ëcrn 'ttç À.6yoç 'n6a',
ocrnç 'toùç 'toto6'touç p6nouç KaSaipst À.aÀ.llSaiç, Il. 18-19): c'est un
acte de parole et non un acte concret, souligne l'homéliste, qui délivre de
l'impureté. Dans un troisième temps, l'auteur pose une distinction entre
les fautes qui peuvent être soignées (Sspans6s'tat) par telle parole qui
est nitre et telle autre qui est herbe et d'autres, plus graves, sur lesquels
nitre ou herbe n'ont pas d'effet, telles les fautes de l'âme à laquelle il est
dit; vient alors la troisième mention de la citation 'Si tu te laves avec du
nitre ... ' (11. 24-26).
À ce stade, 1'homéliste a tiré du verset une distinction entre deux
saletés - au sens propre - ou deux fautes - au sens figuré - de degrés
différents. Pour qualifier la plus grave, l'homéliste recourt à un autre
texte, tiré d'Isaïe: «de même que, parmi les blessures ('tpaul-tu'tcov), il
yen a certaines qui se soignent à l'émollient (a l-taÀ.uyl-tan Sspans6s-
'tat), d'autres qui se soignent à l'huile (ÈÀ.aicp), d'autres qui ont besoin
d'un bandage (Ka'taùÉcrl-tou) et sont ainsi guéries mais qu'il y a d'autres
blessures à propos desquelles il est dit: 'Il n'est possible d'appliquer
ni émollient, ni huile, ni bandages, mais votre pays est désert, vos villes
sont consumées par le feu'('OùK Ëcrn l-tuÀ.ayl-ta ÈntSalvat 06'ts
ËÀ.atov 06'ts Ka'taùÉcrl-t0uç' àÀ.À.ù f] yf] UI-tOW ËPlll-toç, at n6À.stç
ul-tmv nupiKaucr'tot', Is 1,6-7), de même il y a des péchés (ul-tap'ti]-
I-tam) qui salissent (punol) l'âme et l'homme a, pour ces péchés,
besoin d'une parole de nitre, d'une parole d'herbe mais il est des
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 527
péchés qui ne se soignent pas ainsi car ils ne se comparent pas même
à la saleté (p6ncp)>>35.
Malgré son caractère élaboré sur le plan stylistique, cette ample compa-
raison entre blessures curables et incurables d'une part et péchés qu'on peut
ou non laver d'autre pmt, suscite un double étonnement: d'abord, on ne
saisit pas ce que cette affirmation appOlte de neuf par rappOlt à ce qui pré-
cède, d'autant que la suite de l'homélie revient aux péchés et ne mentionne
plus les blessures. Ensuite, alors que, dans le comparant, la délimitation de
la citation d'Isaïe est à l'évidence concertée - Origène écarte le début du
v. 6 et la fin du v. 736 -, on ne comprend pas à quoi correspond l'allusion
aux dévastations guerrières, auxquelles rien ne correspond dans le compm·é.
Après une transition sur laquelle on reviendra, l'homéliste propose une
longue citation, tirée d'un autre chapitre d'Isaïe: «'Le Seigneur lavera
la saleté (ÈKnÀ.uVal K6ptoç 'tov p6nov) des fils et des filles de Sion et
les rendra purs du sang qui est au milieu d'eux par un souffle de juge-
ment et par un souffle de cautérisation' (nvs6l-tan Kpicrscoç Kat nvs6-
I-tan Ka6crscoç): saleté et sang (p6nov Kat aïl-ta); saleté, 'par un souffle
de jugement'; sang, 'par un souffle de cautérisation'. Si, sans avoir com-
mis un 'péché qui conduit à la mort', tu as tout de même péché, tu es
sale: 'le Seigneur lavera' donc 'la saleté des fils et des filles de Sion et
les rendra purs du sang qui est au milieu d'eux'; ensuite la peine: pour
la saleté 'par un souffle de jugement' et pour le sang 'par un souffle de
cautérisation'. Et ce dont nous avons besoin, nous le commun, quand
nous péchons assez gravement, ce n'est pas de nitre ou d'herbe entassée
mais du souffle de la cautérisation»37.
Sensible à la structure binaire du verset, Origène isole un premier
couple de termes, p6nov Kat aïl-ta, et l'éclaire par un second, nvs6l-tan
Kpicrscoç Kat nvs6l-tan Ka6crscoç, créant entre eux un rappOlt d'analo-
gie: la saleté appelle le souffle de jugement et le sang celui de cautérisa-
tion. Cette dernière citation éclaire Jér 2,22: le péché que ne supprime
pas la pm'ole qui nettoie requiert un traitement par le feu. Le recours à Is
4,4 est habile: le verbe liminaire ÈKnÀ.uvsl (1. 43) fait écho à ànonÀ.6vn
au début de la citation de Jérémie et, pour le sens, il prolonge celle-ci en
signalant la punition appropriée à la faute réfractaire au lavage.
35. SC 232, 242-244.26-36.
36. Le texte complet d'Is 1,6-7 est le suivant: d1to 1toùiOv !lroç Ks<jJaÀf\ç ou,s ,pa6Jla
ou,s JlroÀrolJ! ou,s 1tÀTlYll <jJÀsYJlaîvouO'a, OÙK sO't! JluÀaYJla ÈmSdvat ou's sÀawv
ou's Ka,aùÉO'Jlouç. 7ft yf\ uJliOv sPllJloÇ ai 1t6Àstç uJliOv 1tUpîKauO',ol' ,l'lv xropav
uJliOv Èvromov uJliOv dH6,pWl Ka,sO'SîouO'IV aù,i]v, Kai f]pi]~lrotal Ka'tscrtpaJlJlÉvll
U1tO ÀaiOv dÀÀo,pîrov.
37. SC 232, 244.38-49.
528 O.MUNNICH
Dans ces conditions, pourquoi Origène n'associe-t-il pas directement
Jérémie 2 et Isaïe 4? Il faut revenir sur ce qui suscitait plus haut notre
surprise et comprendre qu'Isaïe 1 fonctiOlme ici comme une médiation:
ce texte oppose l'emploi de remèdes au recours à la cautérisation; la
première partie de la citation (émollient, huile, bandages) se rattache
naturellement à Jérémie 2 (il est, dans les deux cas, question de realia et
de produits bienfaisants), tandis que la seconde annonce Isaïe 4 et le
thème d'une rémission par le châtiment du feu. Contrairement à ce qu'on
peut croire, ce développement intennédiaire n'est donc pas redondant:
sur le plan du comparant, on ne trouve rien de nouveau (il y a des bles-
sures qui peuvent ou non être soignées ou - pour le dire autrement - des
fautes que peut ou non laver une parole de nitre), mais sur celui du com-
paré la citation d'Is 1,6-7 suggère que, lorsque les remèdes sont ineffi-
caces, on doit recourir à des solutions radicales.
Si l'on y songe, on voit qu'Origène utilise le texte scripturaire comme
langue. Il met en place un montage littéraire par lequel Jér 2, Is 1 et Is 4
sont reliés comme les éléments d'un énoncé unique. L'élément central
- plus de pansements mais le feu (Is 1) - permet d'utilise!' Is 4 comme
la fin de la phrase présente en Jér 2: pour les fautes graves, il n'existe
qu'une purification par le feu. L'exégète utilise ici le texte scripturaire,
non comme objet d'étude, mais comme mode de formulation de sa propre
pensée; il ne s'agit pas seulement pour lui d'intelpréter l'Écriture par
l'Écriture mais de penser un lieu scripturaire avec les ressources lexicales
et syntaxiques que lui offre l'Écriture elle-même. Sur le plan littéraire,
on a ici une tentative très élaborée de faire de l'Écriture la matrice de sa
propre interprétation. À propos d'Origène dans ses Homélies sur Jérémie,
P. Nautin écrit: «en dehors des citations explicites, les mots et les expres-
sions bibliques s'incorporent à sa phrase»38; la remarque est juste, mais
on doit dire, plus profondément, qu'Origène puise dans l'Écriture les
éléments de sa propre invention interprétative. Isaïe 1 foumit à Jérémie
2 plus que la «clef» dont parle la belle tradition du maître hébreu
d'Origène, rapportée dans la Philocalie 39 : un texte foumit le moyen
de réfléchir l'autre, de le penser40 • Dans le cas de Philon d'Alexandrie
38. P. NAUTJN, Introduction, SC 232, p. 122.
39. Commentaire sur le Ps 1, rapporté dans la Philocalie 2.3 (SC 302, p. 245).
40. Cette interprétation s'accorde avec ce que dit Origène lui-même dans le texte pré-
cédemment cité: 'Hyoullut youv KUt 'tov Ù1tO(l"'toÀov 'ti]v 'tOWUTr)V ECPOOOV 'tou cruVtÉ-
vut 'toùç Seiouç A.6youç 61to~aÀÀovm ÀÉyEtv . '''A KUt ÀUÀOU~tEV OOK âv OIOUK'tO!Ç
ùvSp(f)1t{VT)ç crocp{uç Àoyotç, ùÀÀ' âv OIOUK'tO!Ç 1tVEullu'toÇ, 1tVEullu'ttKO!Ç 1tVEUllu'tIKÙ
cruyKpivoVTEÇ', «En tout cas, je pense que l'Apôtre lui aussi suggère un mode d'approche
similaire pour la compréhension des divines paroles lorsqu'il dit: 'Et cela nous le disons
non pas dans des mots qu'enseigne la sagesse humaine, mais dans des mots qu'enseigne
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 529
_ V. Nikiprowetzky l'a montré -, la paideia grecque fournit une «langue
de la raison» procurant l'intelligence de 1'Écriture41 • D'une façon com-
parable, l'Écriture est utilisée par Origène comme langue et comme mode
de raisonnement pour accéder à son intelligence. L'homéliste semble
faire de l'Écriture le sujet actif de sa propre interprétation De ce fait,
l'auteur paraît lui-même se retirer de son propos: en raison de la
congruence entre le développement tiré d'Isaïe 1 et celui emprunté à
Isaïe 4, Origène déclare (c'est la transition que nous évoquions plus
haut): ~tà 'tO\ho 't'àS ow<j>opàS 't'&v ullap't'l1llémnv È1ttO''t'UIl8VoS ô Èv
't'CP 'HO'atÇt KOPtoS opa 1t&S ÀSy8t 't'o 'ÈK1tÀUV8t KOPtoS ( ... )', «Pour
cette raison, regarde comment, parce qu'il connaît les différences entre
les péchés, le Seigneur qui parle en Isaïe déclare: 'Le Seigneur lavera
( ... )'» (Is 4,4; HIer II.2.36-37). L'homéliste présente le Seigneur comme
le véritable auteur du rapprochement qu'il propose et se donne lui-même
comme le tachygraphe du véritable homéliste qu'est le Seigneur.
En fait, au moment même où l'auteur semble s'en remettre à une autre
voix, celle de l'Écriture, prononçant à travers ces trois citations une phrase
unique, son activité littéraire est maxintale: Origène prépare le rapproche-
ment entre les textes par une série d'interventions lexicales; on mention-
nera d'abord la plus remarquable: le substantif p01tOS est particulièrement
rare dans la Bible grecque (Is 4,4, cité ici, et trois occurrences en Job) et
exceptionnel dans le Nouveau Testament (1 Pi 3,21) et le verbe PU1toi'5v
n'y est pas attesté; on rencontre rarement ces mots chez Origène (une
trentaine d'occurrences pour le substantif et quatre pour le verbe); or, le
substantif et le verbe sont, dans cette page, employés respectivement sept
et deux fois. Alors que le substantif se trouve dans la troisième citation
(Is. 4.4, ÈK1tÀuvd KOPtoS 't'ov p01tOV 't'&v u'i&v Kaî 't'&v Suya't'sprov
LtCÔV, 11. 38-39), Origène l'utilise dans son commentaire de la première,42
et dans la conclusion qu'il tire de la seconde,43. On voit ici par quel travail
littéraire l'auteur suggère le lien organique entre les trois citations: il com-
mente les deux pretnières en employant - une fois dans le pretnier cas,
deux fois dans le deuxième (11. 32, 35) - un terme très rare présent dans
la troisième et cinq fois repris dans le commentaire qu'il en donne
l'Esprit, rapprochant les choses de l'Esprit des choses de l'Esprit' (1 Cor 2,13)>>, Philo-
caUe 2.3 (SC 302, p. 245).
41. Le commentaire de l'Écriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie, Leyde, Brill, 1977, p. 183.
42. «TI y a une parole qui est 'nitre' et une autre qui est 'herbe'», dont le seul énoncé
purifie les saletés de cette sorte (ocr'ttç 'tOùç 'towu'tOuç pU1tOUç KUSU{pEt ÀUÀT)Seiç,
1. 19).
43. «De même, il y a des péchés qui salissent l'âme» (il pU1tO! 'tl)V 'Vuxi)v); «mais
il est de péchés qui. .. ne se comparent pas même à la saleté» (il ... oùOè yùp pU1tCp
1tupu~aÀÀE'tut, 1. 35).
530 O.MUNNICH
(11. 40(his), 43, 44, 46); la composition de la page est pensée en fonction
de sa chute; la finalité argumentative a ici une incidence stylistique. En
outre, Origène renforce le lien entre le thème du péché et celui de la bles-
sure, respectivement présents dans la première et dans la deuxième cita-
tion, en commentant la première citation avec des termes inspirés par la
deuxième: «tout péché n'est pas soigné» (où 1tacra al!ap"Cia SEpa1tEOE-
"Cat), là où l'on attendrait «tout péché n'est pas lavé» 44.
Le travail de l'écrivain touche également la citation scripturaire elle-
même: l'argumentation se noue - on l'a vu - autour de la citation
d'Is 1,6-7 qui présentait une opposition entre divers remèdes et un recours
à la dévastation et au feu: OÙK Ëcrn l!aÂaYl!a È1ttSdVat othE ËÂawv
othE Ka"CaoÉcrl!ouç' àÂÂà 11 yft UI!&V ËPT\I!0ç, at 1tOÂEtÇ UI!&V 1tupi-
Kaucr"Cot (11. 30-31). Or, un tel texte n'est attesté par aucun témoin de la
Bible grecque et la tradition manuscrite présente les deux stiques en asyn-
dète; le texte édité par J. Ziegler est le suivant: OÙK Ëcrn l!aÂaYl!a
È1ttSEtVat othE ËÂawv othE Ka"CaoÉcrl!ouç' 11 yft UI!&V ËPT\l!oç, ai
1tOÂEtÇ ul!&v 1tUpiKaucr"Cot. En somme, dans cette partie centrale dont
la citation constitue le coeur, l'opposition présentée comine scripturaire
est, en fait, une initiative d'Origène.
Sur le plan littéraire, le paradoxe est donc le suivant: alors même que
l'auteur semble s'effacer den'ière une Écriture qui guiderait le discours,
son intervention est totale: disposition des citations, soudures lexicales
(en particulier p01tOç) et SUltout infléchissement ponctuel mais essentiel
de la citation scripturaire elle-même (àÂÂa). À la lecture de cette homé-
lie, mais de bien d'autres aussi, on a l'impression que l'auteur se laisse
guider par l'Écriture; en réalité, la situation est inverse et l'écrivain arrive
à ce résultat parce qu'il mobilise l'Écriture pour réfléchir à l'Écriture,
comme l'orateur use du langage sur le plan de l'inventio mais aussi sur
celui de l'elocutio, le travail de formulation (qu'on songe à l'emploi de
p01tOç/pU1touv) venant renforcer l'organisation logique.
Il n'en reste pas moins que, en d'autres cas, l'auteur semble lui-même
pris par le schéma qu'il a repéré dans l'Écriture, ainsi dans la suite de
notre homélie: Lltà wU"Co 0 'IT\crouç ~a1t"CisEt - "Caxa vuv EupicrKCO "Cov
Myov - 'Èv 1tVEOl!an [Kat] ayicp Kat 1tupi', oùx on "Cov aù"Cov 'Èv
1tVEOl!an ayicp Kat 1tupi', àÂÂà "Cov I!f:V aywv 'Èv 1tVEOl!an ayicp',
"Cov of: I!E"Cà "Co 1ttcr"CEucrat, I!E"Cà "Co à1;tcoSftvat ayiou 1tVEOl!a"Coç,
1taÂtv 11I!ap"CT\Ko"Ca ÂOOEt Èv '1tupi', roç 1!11 "Cov aù"Cov EtVat Bamtso-
I!EVOV U1tO 'IT\crou 'Èv 1tVEOI!a'tt ayicp Kat 1tupi', «C'est pourquoi Jésus
baptise - peut-être est-ce maintenant que j'en trouve la raison - 'dans
44. sc 232, 242.21-2; cf. aussi, p. 244.34-5.
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 531
l'Esprit Saint et dans le feu' (Luc 3,16). Non pas qu'il baptise le même
homme 'dans l'Esprit Saint et dans le feu', mais il baptise le saint dans
l'Esprit Saint, tandis que l'autre qui, après avoir cm, après avoir été jugé
digne de l'Esprit Saint, a péché de nouveau, il le lave dans le feu, en sorte
que ce n'est pas le même homme qui est baptisé par Jésus dans l'Esprit
Saint et dans le feu» (HIer 11.3.1-7). Il semble que l'opposition précé-
dente entre 1tVEol!an KpicrECOÇ et 1tVEOl!an KaocrEcoç suscite, par une
association quasi automatique l'interprétation de Luc 3,16, de même
qu'une autre, qui suit: "E1;EÂEocrE"Cat' yàp 'paBooç ÈK "Cftç piST\ç
'IEcrcrai, Kat avSoç ÈK "Cftç PlST\ç àvaBi]crE"Cat', 'paBooç' È1tt wùç
KoÂaS0I!Évouç <'avSoç È1tt "Coùç otKaiouç'>. «'Une verge sortira de
la racine de Jessé et une fleur poussera de la racine' (Is 11,1): verge
pour les châtiés, fleur pour les justes» (lI. 11-12). Ces oppositions binaires
- et deux autres qui suivent - paraissent se présenter spontanément à
l'esprit de l'homéliste et la formule «peut-être est-ce maintenant que j'en
trouve la raison» (HIer II.3.1) n'est probablement pas un artifice rhéto-
rique: Origène a mis en place une antithèse qui a comme sa dynamique
propre et qui appelle des associations libres, sinon automatiques. En défi-
nitive, cette brève homélie met en lumière deux aspects distincts de la
citation: tantôt elle a une valeur d'illustration et de soulignement expres-
sif (ainsi à la fin); tantôt elle est au coeur du raisonnement et constitue
le langage qui fournit à l'exégète la conception et la formulation de sa
pensée (ainsi au début).
b) L'Écriture comme source d'inspiration littéraire de l'homéliste
Le recours à un autre texte biblique est parfois, pour l'homéliste, une
source d'inspiration littéraire, celui-ci trouvant dans le texte scripturaire
les ressources de sa propre écriture, comme je tenterai de le montrer en
examinant en détaille §3 de l'Homélie VII. Dans ces pages, Origène
présente successivement trois interprétations de Jér 5,19: 'AvS' <Î>v
ÈOouÂEocra"CE Swtç àÂÂo"Cpiotç Èv "CTI YTI UI!&v, oiS"Ccoç OOUÂEOcrE"CE
àÂÂo"Cpiotç Èv YTI OÙx UI!&v, «en échange de ce que vous vous êtes
asservis à des dieux étrangers dans votre pays, de la même façon vous
serez asservis à des étrangers dans un pays qui n'est pas le vôtre»
(SC 232, 346.3-5). L'homéliste fournit d'abord deux brèves explications
de l'expression «Servir des dieux étrangers»: l'une, historique, concerne
les fils d'Israël: alors qu'ils possédait «la tene sainte, le Temple, la mai-
son de la prière», ils ont fait venir les idoles de Damas, écrit Origène en
se contentant d'une allusion aux livres des Règnes45 ; l'autre, allégorique,
45. HIer VII.3: sc 232,346.5-15.
 532 O.MUNNICH
conceme les passions que l'homme divinise: le glouton divinise le ventre
et l'avare l'argent46• Dans ce second cas, le développement comporte une
brève citation de Mt 6,24 ('Vous ne pouvez servir Dieu et Mammon, nul
ne peut servir deu.;" seigneurs').
Vient alors une transition où, sous la forme d'une prétérition, l'auteur
évoque une interprétation plus élevée, à laquelle il consacrera pourtant
toute la fin de son homélie, soit une quarantaine de lignes: Tauta Katù
/liav tpo1toÂoyiav, ïva /li] vuv 1tEptEpyUÇffi/lat 'Cù l'msp È/lauû)v Kat
1tEpt t11ç Y11ç, 1tEpt ~ç d1tEV 0 crffit"p . 'To lJ/lÉ'CEpOV 'Ciç DcOcrEt 6/ltv;
(Luc 16,12)' Kat on YEvo/lÉVllÇ 1tpO<JKUV"crEffiÇ Èv t11 Y11 nvoç OÜtffiÇ
o SEOÇ <PKOVO/lllcrEv ÈKpÂllS11vai nvaç à1to 'C11ç Éau'Cou Kat ÈÂSdv
È1tt 'Ci]v y~v, 1tEpt ~ç yÉypa1t'Cat '''AKoUE, 'Icrpa"Â' 'Ci on Èv Y11 'Cillv
ÈXSpillv Ei; cruvEÂoyicrSllÇ /lE'CÙ tillv Katapawov'CffiV Biç (iDOU' ÈyKa-
'CÉÂt1tEÇ 1tllyi]v çffi11ç 'Cov K6ptov' 'C11 M4) 'Cou SEOU Bi È1topE6S11Ç,
Ka'CcpKEtç av Èv Bip"vn 'Cov ai.illva Xpovov' (Bar 3,9-13), «Voilà pour
une unique interprétation allégorique, afin que je ne consacre pas une
peine excessive à ce qui me dépasse et au sujet de la terre dont le Sauveur
a dit: 'Ce qui est à nous, qui vous le donnera? (Luc 16,<12)' ainsi qu'au
fait que, après qu'une adoration a eu lieu dans la terre de quelqu'un
d'autre, Dieu a décidé dans sa Providence que certains seraient expulsés
de sa terre et qu'ils iraient dans la terre dont il est écrit: 'Écoute, Israël,
d'où vient que tu es en terre ennemie? Que tu as été mis au nombre de
«ceux qui descendent dans l'Hadès? C'est que tu as abandonné le Sei-
gneur comme source de vie. Si tu avais marché dans la voie du Seigneur,
tu habiterais dans la paix pour toujours' (Bar 3,9-13) ( ... ). Origène sug-
gère ici une tout autre interprétation de Jér 5,19: les âmes ont délaissé
leur patrie, qui est Dieu, et aspirant aux biens de ce monde où règne
«quelqu'un d'autre», c'est-à-dire Satan, elles sont venues dans un corps
et vivent, de ce fait, dans une terre étrangère. Les deux citations sont
congruentes par rapport à la ligne interprétative proposée: outr~ qu'elle
précède le verset lucanien - «aucun serviteur ne peut servir deux maîtres
( .•• )>> - correspondant à Matthieu 6,24, cité auparavant, la citation de Luc
16,12 se situe dans un développement opposant les «tentes célestes» et
le «Mammon de l'injustice» (v. 9) et, dans la citation, «ce qui est à
nous» (c'est Jésus qui parle)47 et «vous» qui vous confiez au règne de
l'argent; dans la citation de Jérémie - car, pour les Pères, Baruch fait
46. HIer VII.3: SC 232, 346-348.16-35. La mention de SEOS dans le texte de Phil 3,19
(~V ô SEOS 1Î KotÂ,ia) auquel fait allusion Origène l'amène à modifier légèrement sa cita-
tion de Jér ~,19: 1l0UÂ,EUO",E'tE SEOtS &Â,Â,o'tpiot<;, «vous servirez des dieux étrangers», et
non 1l0UÂ,EUO"E'tE &Â,Â,O'tPWt<;, «vous servirez des étrangers» (SC 232, 346.18).
47. Origène cite le texte avec une variante: 'to 1ÎIlÉ'tEpoV et non 'to l>Il É'tEpOV.
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 533
partie du livre de Jérémie - il est question d'un abandon de «la source
de vie qu'est le Seigneur» et d'un séjour dans «les pays des ennemis».
Néanmoins, la mention des deux lieux s'explique par le fait qu'ils com-
portent tous deux, comme Jér 5,19, le mot àÂÂo'Cptoç: Luc 16,12 Kat Bi
Èv 'C4) àÂÂO'Cpiq> 1ttcr'Cot OÙK SyÉVWSE, 'Co 6/lÉ'CEpOV 'Ciç 6/ltv DcOcrEt,
'et si vous n'avez pas été dignes de confiance pour ce qui vous étranger,
qui vous donnera ce qui est à vous?'; Bar 3,10 'Ci Ècrnv, 'IcrpallÂ, 'Ci
on sv Y11 tillv ÈxSpillv d, s1taÂatcOSllç sv Y11 àÂÂotpiç., 'Qu'y a-t-il,
Israël, qu'y a-t-il pour que tu sois dans le pays des ennemis, que tu aies
vieilli dans un pays étranger?'. On mesure, chez Origène, la distance
entre l'analyse et la synthèse, pour parler en termes cmtésiens; la pre-
mière montre le cheminement du raisonnement et relève de la «résolu-
tion», la seconde de la «composition», écrit Descartes48 : ici l'enquête
procède par rapprochement de textes comportant un même telme impor-
tant (àÂÂo'Cptoç), mais le résultat de l'enquête ne retient, dans les autres
versets, que les éléments pertinents absents du verset étudié. Comme
dans le cas du rapprochement entre Jér 5,18 et Lév 26,24 (supra, 1. 1. a),
l'homéliste n'explicite pas la logique scripturaire de son propos.
Origène ne tire pas des deux citations des éléments de même nature;
dans le cas de Luc, le rapprochement engage l'interprétation exégétique
(le «pays étranger» dans son opposition aux «tentes célestes»), alors
que, dans celui de Baruch, la citation inspire la composition même du
texte origénien, mais cela ne se fait pas sans une réécriture du verset
scripturaire lui-même. On donnera ici le texte de la Bible grecque pour
Baruch 3,9-15 et l'on énumérera les vm'Ïantes que présente la citation
qu'en fait Origène: "AKouE, 'IcrpallÂ, ÈVtoÂùç çffi11ç, ÈVffiticracrSE
yvillvat <\>povllcrW. lO'Ci Ècrnv, 'IcrpallÂ, 'Ci on sv Y11 'Cillv ÈxSpillv
d, s1taÂatcOSllç Èv yft àÂÂo'Cpiç., llcrUVE/ltuvSllÇ totç VEKpotÇ,
1tpocrEÂoyicrSllÇ /lE'CÙ 'Cillv Biç (iDou; 12ÈyKa'CÉÂt1tEç 'Ci]v 1tllyi]v 'C11ç
cro<\>iaç. 13 t11 M4) 'Cou SEOU Bi È1tOPE6S11Ç, Ka'CcpKEtç av Èv Bip"vn
'Cov aiillva. 14/lUS E 1tOU scrn <\>povllcrtÇ, 1tOU Èmw icrx6ç, 1tOU scrn
cr6VEcrtÇ wu yvillvat u/la, 1tOU Ècr'Ct /laKpopifficrtÇ Kat Çffi", 1tOU Ècrnv
<\>illç ô<\>SaÂ/lillv Kat EÎp"Vll. 15'Ciç E6pE 'Cov 'C01tOV aÙ'C11ç, Kat 'Ciç
Bicr11ÂSEv Eiç 'Coùç Sllcraupoùç aÙt11ç; 'Écoute, Israël, des commande-
ments de vie, tendez l'oreille pour connaître la prudence. Qu'y a-t-il,
Israël, qu'y a-t-il pour que tu sois dans le pays des ennemis, que tu aies
vieilli dans un pays étranger, que tu aies été souillé avec les cadavres et
compté parmi ceux qui sont dans l'Hadès? Tu as abandonné la source de
la sagesse. Si tu avais suivi la route de Dieu, tu habiterais dans la paix
48. Réponses de l'Auteur aux secondes objections, §51.
534 O.MUNNICH
pour l'éternité. Apprends où est la prudence, où est la force, où est l'intel-
ligence pour connaître en même temps où sont la longévité et la vie, où
est la lumière des yeux et la paix. Qui a trouvé le lieu où elle se trouve
et qui a pénétré dans ses trésors? '49.
9 omo EV"COÀ.ÙS - 10 Icrpal1À. Or.; omo EnaÀ.atwSl1S - vEKpolS
Or.; llnpocrEÀ.oytcrSl1S] crovEÀ.oYtcrSl1S Or.; "CIDV] + Ka"Ca!3atvov"Cffiv
22mg Lav Sy Arm Or.; 12 "C11S cro<!>tas] Sffil1S Aeth Or. (+ "COV KOpWV);
pl'. vitae et Las.
Les abrègements pratiqués par l'auteur mettent en relief "Ct on EV yfl
"CIDV EXSpIDV El, qui fait écho à EV yfl oùx UIlIDV (fin de Jér 5,19) ainsi
que le thème de la descente dans l'Hadès (la Bible parle de ceux qui sont
dans l'Hadès); cette variante se rencontre dans quelques témoins de la
Bible grecque ("CIDV] + Ka"Ca!3at VOV"CffiV 22mg Lav Sy Arm Or). L' exis-
tence d'une telle variante dans un témoin lucianique (22mg) et dans la
version arménienne, souvent marquée par la tradition 4exaplaire, fait
penser qu'Origène a connu une tradition qui compOltait ce pmticipe50 . En
outre, là où la Bible grecque évoque un abandon de la sagesse, Origène
parle d'un abandon du «Seigneur comme source de vie»51: le témoi-
gnage d'une version aussi ancienne que l'éthiopien ainsi que la correction
dans un manuscrit de la Vieille latine font supposer qu'Origène a connu,
en Bar 3,12, un texte comportant cette variante. On voit, à nouveau,
combien Origène sait choisir, entre les antigrapha, ceux qui attestent une
formulation appropriée à sa démonstration; toutefois, on ne peut exclure
que la tradition textuelle soit elle-même marquée par des retouches de
type exégétique, l'histoire du texte et son intelprétation suivant ainsi un
même chemin.
Sur le plan littéraire, l'homéliste tire d'un tel texte deux éléments fon-
damentaux: le thème d'un lieu perdu (très présent au V. 14 que ne retient
pas Origène dans sa citation) et d'un Créateur qui seul connaît les secrets
de l'univers (v. 32-38), ainsi que le style du questionnement rhétorique
(v. 10, 14 et 15). Après sa citation de Baruch, l'auteur creuse le thème
de l'étranger: le mot ùÀ.À.o"CpWS est employé dix fois en une dizaine de
lignes52 ; si le monde entier obéit au «Prince de ce siècle» et est étranger
49. I. ASSAN-DHOTE - J. FINE, Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de Jérémie (Bible
d'Alexandrie, 25/2), Paris, Cerf, 2005, pp. 102-104.
50. Il peut aussi s'agir d'une assimilation à des lieux parallèles (Ps 113,25 OÙX Ot
vEKpo1 alvÉcroucrtV crE KUptE oMÈ n:UVtEe; Ot Kata~atVOVtEe; Ele; Çi80u ou - surtout-
Bar 3,19 iJ<j>avtcrSllcrav Kal Ele; Çi80u KatÉ~l1crav.
51. Il Y a sans doute là une assimilation secondaire à Jér 17,13 ÈYKatÉÀ,tn:ov n:llY~V
sco~e; tOV KUptoV, «ils ont abandonné le Seigneur, source de vie».
52. À la suite de B. Cordier (1648), P. Nautin tient une des mentions de l'adjectif pour
secondaire: Nuv oÔv Èv yfi ùUOtptçt Ècrf.lÉv, Kal EÙx0f.lESa tO Èvavttov n:ot~crat, me;
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 535
à Dieu, il n'y a plus, écrit Origène, de limite à l'exil et Babylone est
partout. Dans ces conditions, l'exclamation du Ps 136 doit être reformu-
lée et le questionnement réitéré - inspiré par Baruch mais dans la section
que ne cite pas l'auteur - prépare la chute, dont Baruch a également
donné à l'homéliste l'idée: KahotYE Kai SÉÀ.OV"CES 'Cov ùÀ.À.o"Cptov 'CIDV
"C11S ullap"Ctas npaYllu'Cffiv npocrKOVElV SEOV EV "Cfl yfl "C atH ll "C11S
KaKwcrEffiS, 'Ct nowGIlEv '(OffiIlEV. Où À.ÉyoIlEV· «11IDS {icrffillEV "Cl'lv
<p8l'lv KOptoO Eni Y11S ùÀ.À.o"Cpias; (ps 136,4)>> ùÀ.À.u· nIDS {icrffillEV "Cl'lv
<p8l'lv Kopioo OÙK Eni Y11S ùÀ.À.o"Cpias "COu"COo; Tonov Sl1"CoGIlEv 'CoG
{i8Etv 'Cl'lv <p8l'lv Kopioo, 'Conov 'CoG npocrKovE5v KUpWV "COV SEOV
YtIlIDV Eni Y11S ùÀ.À.o"Cptas. TiS oÔv ô "Conos; Eupov 'CoG"Cov (cf. Bar
3,15) ~À.SEV Eni 'Cau"Cl1v <!>opÉcras crIDlla "Co crIDcrav ( ... ), «cependant,
bien que nous voulions adorer sur cette terre de corruption le Dieu étran-
ger aux oeuvres du péché, voyons ce que nous faisons. Nous ne disons
pas: 'Comment chanter le cantique du Seigneur sur une terre étran-
gère?' (Ps 136,4) mais: Comment chanter le cantique du Seigneur sans
être sur une terre étrangère à celui-ci? Un lieu où chanter le cantique du
Seigneur, un lieu où adorer sur une terre étrangère le Seigneur notre
Dieu, voilà ce que nous cherchons 53. Quel est donc ce lieu? J'ai trouvé
celui-ci (cf. Bar 3,15). li est venu sur cette terre pOltant le corps qui a
sauvé ( ... )>>. Le jeu sur la citation psalmique, la reformulation du «com-
ment» (nIDS) en terme spatial avec l'emploi en anaphore du mot «un
lieu» ("Conov), préparent le finale qui est habilement fOlmulé à partir du
texte de Baruch: 'CiS E6pEV "Cov 'Conov aÙ'C11S , «qui a trouvé le lieu oû
elle se trouve» (la sagesse) devient, chez Origène, TiS oÔv ô "Conos;
Èn:Olllcrav 0\ utol 'IcrpaijÀ, Èv tfi yfi tfi aytçt· ÈKEtVOt f.lÈv yàp [tà ùÀ,À,6tpta] Èv tfi
yfi tfi aytçt ùÀ,À,Otplote; n:pocrEKuvllcrav, f]f.lEte; 8È Èv ùÀ,À,OtPlçt yfi tO~ ùUOtptoV
t~e; y~e; n:pocrKUVOUf.lEV SEOV, ùÀ,À,OtptoV tillv Èn:l y~e; n:paYf.lutcov, «mamtenant donc
nous sommes en une terre étrangère et nous souhaitons agir de façon inverse, comme l'ont
fait les fils d'Israël dans la terre sainte: eux, dans la terre sainte, ils ont adoré des réalités
étrangères pour des étrangers; nous, dans une terre étrangère, nous adorons le Dieu étran-
ger à la terre, étranger aux affaires terrestres (HIer VIl.3, 348-350.46-50). Dans la
construction délibérément symétrique, l'accusatif tà ùÀ,À,otpta a pour équivalent tOV
ùÀ,À,OtptoV ... SEOV (le verbe est toujours construit transitivement dans l'Homélie VII);
quant au datif ùÀ,À,Otptote;, présent dans le texte biblique, il a pour correspondant Èv
ùÀ,À,Otptçt yfi. Pour l'idée, les chrétiens veulent inverser leur situation et agir, en c~la,
comme les fils d'Israël et non «faire le contraire de ce qu'ils ont fait», selon la traductIOn
de P. Husson et de P. Nautin (ad loc.).
53. Dans la citation ainsi que dans la traduction, je me suis écarté du texte qu'édite
E. Klostermann et qu'adopte P. Nautin: n:ille; {icrCOf.lEV t~V <!>8~v KUptoU OÙK Èn:1 y~e;
ùÀ,À,otpiae;; Toutou ton:ov Sl1touf.lEV tOU {i8EtV t~V <!>8ijv KuptoU, t01tOV tOU
1tpocrKUVEtV KUPtoV tOV SEOV T]f.lillv Èn:1 y~e; ùÀ,À,otpiae;. La traduction française ne rend
pas Toutou qui, avec cette ponctuation, est intraduisible. Plus grave, ce choix d'édition
affaiblit l'anaphore. On rapprochera le texte que nous éditons - Èn:1 y~e; ùÀ,À,otptae; toU-
toU (1. 59) - de Èv tfi yfi tlVOe; (1. 39).
 536 O.MONNICR
E6poy 'Coi'hoy; «Quel est donc ce lieu? J'ai trouvé celui-ci»: la diffé-
rence est ténue et l'on mesure la prouesse littéraire de cette réécriture,
passant naturellement de la Sagesse au Christ. Dans les dernières lignes,
l'auteur joue sur l'ambiguïté concernant 'Coi'hoy (1. 62): àla fois «un
lieu» et le Christ. Par son incarnation, il permet à l'homme d'adorer Dieu
«ici» - BySaOE (1. 67) -, «dans la terre étrangère», puis «dans la terre
sainte» (1. 68), en somme d'être le lieu de l'adoration qui abolit le fossé
entre celles-ci.
Quel lecteur ancien, ne disposant pas de nos apparats scripturaires
et - a fortiori - quel auditeur pouvait saisir l'usage filé du texte de
Baruch 3 dans la fin de cette homélie? La dernière citation de Baruch
présente une différence pal' l'apport aux précédentes; celles-ci sont
toutes introduites pal' un élément qui signale la citation, ainsi au §3:
<l>YJcriy yàp 6 Âoyoç UÙ'COlç, «le Verbe leur dit» (1. 16), <pacrKCOY,
«disant» (1. 24), nEpi ~ç EÎnEY 6 crco'Cilp, «dont le Seigneur a dit»
(11. 37-38), nEpi ~ç yeypun'Cut, «dont il est écrit» (1. 41), où Âeyo-
flEY, «nous ne disons pas» (1. 57). La citation, dans de tels cas, sou-
tient l'argumentation. En revanche, dans le dernier cas, elle a, pour
ainsi dire, une valeur créatrice; elle lance un développement. Ici,
l'auteur ne signale pas l'Écriture cal' il y puise, sur le plan littéraire,
les ressources de sa propre écriture. On peut supposer qu'il a procédé
ainsi: pour sa deuxième interprétation allégorique de Jér 5,19, il s'est
reporté à Bal' 3,9-13, formellement proche; il n'a'pas seulement extrait
la phrase qu'il y cherchait mais probablement lu cette page, dans
laquelle il a trouvé toutes une série d'interrogations sur des termes qui
s'apparentent à des titres du Christ (<PPOYYJcrtç, ïcrxoç, crUYEcrtÇ, Çcoil,
<prnç, dpilYYJ, v. 14), suivie de la question 'Ciç E6pEY 'COY 'ConoY
uù'Cf1ç; (v. 15) où le pronom reprend la paix ou, plus globalement, la
sagesse. Il semble qu'il a trouvé là, pour son homélie, l'idée d'un
finale et qu'il a rétrospectivement composé son texte pour préparer une
telle chute: Dieu est étranger aux affaires terrestres cal' elles sont mau-
vaises; «comment chanter le cantique du Seigneur sur une terre étran-
gère / sans être sur une terre étrangère» devient «Nous cherchons sur
une terre étrangère le lieu où chanter ... , le lieu où adorer. .. Vient alors
la paraphrase tirée de Baruch: «Quel est ce lieu? Je l'ai trouvé». Les
deux citations de Baruch (en fait, une allusion dans le second cas)
n'ont pas la même fonction: la première illustre le propos, alors que
la seconde résulte de l'innutrition d'un texte scripturaire dans lequel
l'homéliste conçoit, imagine le sien: ici, le texte scripturaire est pour
lui, moins inspiré qu'inspirateur; il est, pour Origène, la source d'une
création littéraire.
LE RÔLE DE LA CITATION DANS L'ÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE 537
CONCLUSION
Origène ne fonde pas son discours homilétique sur un texte homogène
de la Bible; il ne suit pas l'Écriture mais la choisit et, en ce sens, il l' écrit
un peu: recension hexaplaire, révisions juives et même antigrapha grecs
de la Bible sont, selon sa propre expression, autant de «ressources» pour
son propos; loin de se distinguer du travail savant des Hexaples, l'homé-
lie le présuppose et repose, semble-t-il, sur un exemplaire doté d'un
double appareillage de notes marginales ou interlinéaires: variantes
hébraïsantes, variantes internes au grec, fruit du travail hexaplaire et
amorce de la tradition lucianique dans laquelle les formulations alterna-
tives se juxtaposent54 . En ce sens, l'homélie apparaît comme la pointe du
travail exégétique d'Origène55 . Néanmoins, il conviendrait de prolonger
l'enquête en examinant si les autres œuvres d'Origène - en particulier les
grands commentaires - manifestent, dans le traitement de l'Écriture, des
options aussi élaborées.
Rares sont les erreurs de citations ou - plutôt - ce que nous concevons
comme des erreurs est, le plus souvent, l'indice d'un retravail subtil qui
vise, pal' un montage textuel, à rapprocher et à expliquer - au niveau du
mot et de la formulation -l'Écriture pal' l'Écriture.
La citation ne se réduit pas à sa fonction de preuve. Elle n'est pas
qu'un moyen de réfléchir l'Écriture dans le miroir de l'intertextualité
mais de réfléchir à l'Écriture. Inversant le rapport ordinaire entre texte
commenté / langue du commentaire, Origène utilise le texte scripturaire
comme langue et comme logique du commentaire: comme l'a si juste-
ment écrit A. Le Boulluec, l'Alexandrin, invente une «textualisation de
la pensée»56. On touche sans doute ici l'application du principe souvent
mentionné dans les Homélies, selon lequel Dieu est le véritable didas-
cale: '0 nu'Cytp oÈ 6 BY 'COlç oùpayotç OtoacrKEt l1'Cot KUS' Ull1:0Y ft
otà 'COu Xptcr'Cou ft BY ayiq> nYEuflun ft otà IIuuÂoo, <pep' dndY, ft
Ota IIe'Cpoo ft otà nyoç 'CrnY üÂÂCOY ayicoy, flOYOY Swu nYEUflu Kui
54. Les Pères tirent profit des variantes connues par les Hexaples, «ils les utiliseront
à l'occasion pour leur interprétation», écrit M. HARL, La Septante et la pluralité textuelle
des Écritures: Le témoignage des Pères grecs, in La Langue de Japhet. Quinze étl/des sl/r
la Septante et le grec des chrétiens, Paris, Celf, 1994, p. 254; cette remarque, entièrement
juste sur le plan général, paraît, dans le cas d'Origène, bien minimale.
55. Elle va, en effet, plus loin qu'une comparaison avec l'hébreu, centrée sur les
grandes unités, cf. Philocalie: IIoAAà /)i; Kat 1:otaÎha Kat EV 'IEPElliq Ka1:EvoTjcraJlEV,
EV <p KalnoAAilv JlE1:élSEcrw Kat EvuAÀ.aYilv 1:ilS À,ÉSEOJS 1:0W npoQlll1:EUoJlÉvOJv EÜpO-
JlEV, «j'ai observé beaucoup de phénomènes de ce genre chez Jérémie aussi, où j'ai
trouvé, à la fois, bien des changements et des déplacements dans le texte des prophéties»
(§7, SC 302, 530).
56. Les représentations du texte (n. 25), p. 111.
 538 O.MUNNICH
3cou À,6yoç Ènt8rll.!Et'"t"ID Kat 8t8acrKÉ'"t"ID, «le Père qui est dans les cieux
enseigne ou bien en personne, ou par l'intelmédiaire du Christ, ou dans
l'Esprit Saint, ou encore par l'intermédiaire de Paul, mettons, ou de
Pierre, ou de l'un des autres saints, pourvu que l'Esprit de Dieu et le
Verbe de Dieu viennent enseigner»57.
L'idée, fréquemment rencontrée, selon laquelle le Seigneur prophétise
à travers Jérémie 58 , invite Origène à chercher un supplément de sens et,
sur le plan logique ainsi que littéraire, à utiliser la Bible comme un orga-
non pelmettant, en demeurant à l'intérieur de la Bible, de produire des
énoncés bibliques et de prolonger ainsi ceux du texte de dépatt. La rela-
tion d'immanence qu'entretient la pensée de l'exégète par rapport à la
Bible explique que, dans certains cas, le principe des rapprochements
entre les textes ne soit pas explicité, l'auteur tronquant la citation pour
les telmes que les lieux scripturaires ont en commun59 ou s'inspirant d'un
segment textuel qu'il laisse de côté6o : le discours exégétique d'Origène
n'est pas en quête de preuves, car sa pratique littéraire consiste à se faire
le pOlte-parole d'une Écriture qui, selon lui, n'a pas besoin de se justifier:
les ellipses logiques du discours témoignent ici, mieux que tout, du pro-
jet littéraire et théologique.
Paradoxe littéraire d'une abolition de l'écriture qui disparaît derrière
l'Écriture, alors que, pour cela, l'Écriture est soumise par l'homéliste à
une subtile réécriture. Elle est, pour lui, À,6yoç, au sens de langue et de
raison, mais, en dernière instance, source d'inspiration littéraire et mode
d'animation de l'imagination créatrice de l'orateur / auteur.
Université Patis - Sorbonne Olivier MUNNICH
U.M.R. 8167
«Orient et Méditerranée»
28 rue Serpente
F-75006 Paris
Olivier.Munnich@paris-sorbonne.fr
57. Prologue de l'Homélie X, SC 232, 396.8-12.
58. Homélies II (cf. supra, II. 2. a), VII (II. 1. a), X (1. 2. a), XVIII (1. 1. n. 19).
59. Cf. nu'tŒSro en Lév 26,24 (supra, II. 1. a); àÂÂQ'tplOS en Luc 16,12, Jér 5,19 et
Bar 3,10 (supra, II. 2. b).
60. Cf. les éléments présents en Bar 3,14 (supra, II. 2. b).
LA "FIGURA" TIPOLOGICA VERA
NELLE OMELIE DI ORIGENE SU EZECHIELEI
1. PROLOGO
Le Omelie di Origene sul profeta Ezechiele probabilmente furono pro-
nunciate dopo 240 a Cesarea di Palestina. Questa serie di Omelie, perve-
nutaci nella traduzione latina di Girolamo, comprende quattordici ser-
moni2 • Ma ordinariamente i brani di Ezechiele sono esaminati non in ogni
omelia. Nella Prima Omelia l'Adamanzio analizza davvero il capitolo
primo di Ezechiele, invece dalla Seconda alla Dodicesima Omelia illustra
in lungo e in largo i testi ezecheliani che vanno dal capitolo 13 al capitolo
17; inoltre nella Tredicesima Omelia prende in esame i capitoli 28-29,
e nell'Ultima Omelia spiega la profezia deI capitolo 44.
Perché queste Omelie presentano una struttura COS! irregolare? All'i-
nizio dell'Omelia XIII, Origene spiega il motivo pel' cui tralascia qualche
capitolo e inizia a commentare Ezechiele dal capitolo 28, cioè dall'ora-
colo contro il principe di Tiro. Egli dice: "Ci viene indicato da parte dei
vescovi di commentare l' oracolo contro il principe di Tiro, affinché ne
mettiamo in luce le lodi e le colpe, e contemporaneamente siamo invitati
a riprendere alcuni punti relativi al Faraone re d'Egitto"3. Probabilmente
i vescovi di Cesarea di Palestina si sono interessati circa le descrizioni
intorno al principe di Tiro a causa della vicinanza tra Cesarea e Tiro.
Questo oracolo, che inizia già dal capitolo 26 di Ezechiele, Origene inizia
a trattarlo soltanto dal capitolo 28,13, dove si leggono le seguenti parole
di Dio: "[0 re di Tiro,] vivevi nell'Eden, il giardino di Dio, ed eri coperto
d'ogni specie di pietre preziose .... Ho messo un cherubino imponente
dietro a te per proteggerti". Qui la bellezza di Tiro è paragonata al giar-
dino dell'Eden (Gen 2,8-15), invece il "cherubino" è quello che si rife-
risce a Gen 3,24. Origene quindi, in relazione con l'oracolo contro il
principe di Tiro, tratta in realtà le frasi che fanno riferimento alla Genesi.
Nello stesso tempo egli commenta la frase "ogni specie di pietre pre-
1. Al p. Gennaro Antonio GALLUCCIO o.s.b. dell'abbazia "Madonna della Scala" (Noci /
BA), che ha rivisto il testo italiano di questo saggio, esprimo il mio grazie cordiale.
2. Per le Omelie su Ezechiele ho tenuto presente il testo edito da M. BORRET S.J.,
Origène. Homélies sur Ézéchiel (SC, 352), Paris, Cerf, 1989.
3. Per la traduzione italiana dell'Omelie Sil Ezechiele ho usato quella di N. ANTONIONO,
Origene. Omelie Sil Ezechiele (Collana di testi patristici, 67), Roma, Città Nuova, 21997.
540 M.AKIYAMA
ziose" citando la descrizione simile riferita alla nuova Gerusalemme
dell'Apocalisse (Ap 21,19). D'aItra parte nell'inizio dell'Omelia XIV
l'Adamanzio commenta la "porta chiusa" deI nuovo tempio che si legge
in Ezechiele 44, omettendo ancora qualche capitolo. In fondo, quando
chiediamo se i terni trattati nelle due ultime Omelie abbiano una coe-
renza, si rende chiaro che in entrambe le omelie Origene spiega effetti-
vamente i passi ezecheliani, che si riferiscono soprattutto ai brani dell' A-
pocalisse e della Genesi. Infatti l'acqua dei fiumi, che appartengono non
a Faraone ma a Dio (cfr Ez 29), scaturisce dal trono di Dio e dell'Agnello
della nuova Gerusalemme (cfr Ap 22; Ez 47). InoItre in tali espressioni
dell'Apocalisse pua vedersi simboleggiato il Paradiso cioè l'Eden, men-
zionato dalla Genesi e al cui centro sono piantati gli alberi della vita
eterna (cfr Ap 22,2).
COSl dietro alla struttura delle due ultime Omelie· su Ezechiele
potremmo cercare la visione tipologica 0 proto-escatologica di Origene.
In questo resoconto proveremo a chiarire perché l'Omelie su Ezechiele
presentano tale costruzione nella figura tipologica dell' Agnello descritto
nell' Apocalisse (Ap 5,6).
II. PORTA CHIUSA
In primo luogo vorrei esaminare piuttosto l'ultima Omelia, cioè la XIV.
All'inizio di questa Omelia Origene commenta l'espressione "porta
chiusa" deI nuovo tempio. Questo capitolo di Ezechiele comincia COSl:
"L'uomo mi condusse alla porta esterna situata a est delsantuario: era
chiusa. li Signore mi disse: 'Questa pOlta sarà chiusa, e non si aprirà e
nessun uomo passerà per essa, poiché il Signore Dio d'lsraele entrerà per
essa e ne uscirà, poi resterà chiusa. Tuttavia solo il princîpe, in quanto
sovrano, siederà in essa pel' mangiare il pane davanti al SigD;ore secondo
la via di Eloam, che significa 'vestibolo della pOlta'. Ed entrerà secondo
la sua via e pel' la stessa uscirà'" (Ez 44,1-3). Qui invece Origene ricorda
il "libro" descritto nel capitolo 5 dell' Apocalisse. Questo "libro",
apparso in visione, non pua essere aperto da nessuno, "e io - dice l'au-
tore dell' Apocalisse -, piangevo. Ma uno degli anziani mi disse di non
piangere. Ecco, illeone che è della tribù di Giuda, il rampollo di Davide,
ha vinto pel' aprire illibro e schiudere i suoi sigilli. E colui, che era della
tribù di Giuda, 10 aprl e manifesta le cose che erano scritte" (Ap 5,5).
Poi Origene spiega che dalla venuta deI Signore il velo per leggere l' An-
tico Testamento è scoperto; ma, secondo lui, anche allora vi resta chiusa
una porta, attraverso la quale nessuno passa. Nonostante riconosca che
LA "FIGURA" TIPOLOGICA VERA NELLE HEZ 541
questo passaggio possa aprirsi eccezionalmente, egli indaga maggior-
mente sul perché questa porta sia chiusa. Secondo lui, questa porta del
santuario è esteriore e immateriale: solamente il Signore Dio d'lsraele
entra ed esce attraverso di essa, affinché sia conosciuto dal principe, dal
Salvatore che mangia il pane, che chiude la porta assieme al Padre.
Infine, interpretando questo Salvatore che si ciba di nutrimento spirituale,
egli cita la frase deI vangelo di Giovanni: "li mio cibo è fare la volontà
di colui che mi ha mandato e compiere l'opera sua" (Gv 4,34). Poi
Origene, sebbene riconosca che un aItro vi possa mangiare, poiché
nell'Apocalisse è scritto "Ecco, io sto alla porta e busso: se uno mi
aprirà, entrera da lui e cenera con lui ed egli con me" (Ap 3,20), tuttavia
conclude che "c'è un cibo che egli solo pua mangiare"4.
Sembra che Origene rinunci a chiarire perché questa porta sia chiusa.
Ma vorrei osservare che egli ha citato il capitolo quinto dell' Apocalisse
che, dopo la frase riferita da lui, descrive l'Agnello.
III. AGNELLO SULLA CROCE
L'Apocalisse continua a presentare illeone della tribù di Giuda dopo
il brano con cui Origene termina la sua citazione. Essa presenta questo
"leone" come Agnello scannato, COSl: "Vidi allora in piedi, fra il trono,
i quattro Viventi e i Vegliardi, un Agnello come scannato, avente sette
corna e sette occhi, che sono i sette Spiriti di Dio, mandati in missione
pel' tutta la terra. Ora, egli si fece avanti e prese il libro dalla destra di
colui che è assiso sul trono" (Ap 5,6-7). Origene fa rnerimento a questa
frase dell'Apocalisse nel Commenta al Vangelo di Giovanni, scrivendo:
Esaminiamo la dichiarazione di Giovanni Battista in rapporto a Gesù:
"Ecco l'Agnello di Dio che toglie i peccati deI mondo" (Gv 1,29) insieme
con contemplazione dei piano di salvezza di Dio, che provvede la venuta
cOlporale dei suo Figlio nella vita umana .... Anche nell' Apocalisse è visto
l'Agnello "in piedi come scannato" (Ap 5,6). Questo Agnello scannato,
infatti, secondo le dottrine ineffabili divenne sacrificio offerto in espiazione
per il mondo intero. In favore deI mondo, accordandosi con la benevolenza
deI Padre per l'umanità, egli stesso ha accettato anche l'uccisione. Egli ci
ha redento a prezzo dei suo sangue da colui che ci possedeva per i nos tri
peccati5•
Alla fine dell'Apocalisse (Ap 21-22), come si legge nell'originale
greco, si dice che questo Agnello "Éa-'llKôS IDS 8a<!>aY/-lÉvov" siederà
4. HEz XN.3, SC 352, 442.
5. CIo VI.53.273-274 (SC, 157), Paris, Cerf, 1970, 336-338.
542 M.AKIYAMA
sul trono della nuova Gerusalemme. Possiamo interpretarlo come simbo-
leggiante Cristo crocifisso sulla croce, poiché l' apostolo Giovanni scrive
nel vangelo: "1 soldati si avvicinarono a Gesù e videro che era già morto.
Allora non gli spezzarono le gambe, ma uno dei soldati gli trafisse il
fianco con la lancia. Subito dalla ferita usd sangue con acqua" (Gv
19,33-34). Quindi da Gesù sulla croce, sebbene sia già morto apparente-
mente ed è morto davvero, scaturllo Spirito Santo come il segno opera-
tivo deI Padre su Cristo. 1 Padri della Chies a, soprattutto gli orientali,
sulla base deI dogma trinitario spiegano questo sangue e quest'acqua
come simboleggianti 10 Spirito Santo. Anche oggi nelle liturgie orientali
chi presiede la liturgia è significato tradizionalmente questo Cristo sulla
croce, anziché il Cristo dell 'Ultima Cena. Potremmo applicare detta ese-
gesi sacramentaria anche alla tipologia cristologica di Origene, poiché
cià pelmetterebbe di acquisire qualche chiave per interpretare il signifi-
cato deI "cibo" secondo la sua dottrina spirituale.
IV. FrvME
Alla fine dell' Apocalisse, nel capitolo 22, si legge che "dal trono di
Dio e dell' AgneUo sgorga il fiume dell' acqua che dà vita". Questo
"Agnello" è quello di cui sopra, yale a dire l'Agnello sulla croce. Quindi
al trono centrale della nuova Gerusalemme si trova l'Agnsllo crocifisso,
dal quale scaturisce il fiume d' acqua della vita. Il capitolo 22 deU' Apo-
calisse dice: "Poi l' angelo mi mostrà il fiume dell' acqua che dà vita,
limpido come cristallo, che sgorgava dal trono di Dio e dell'Agnello.
ln mezzo alla piazza della città, da una parte e dall' altra deI fiume,
cresceva l'albero che dà la vita. Esso dà i suoi frutti dodici volte all'anno,
per ciascun mese il suo frutto. Il suo fogliame guarisce le nazioni"
(Ap 22,1-2). Anche il capitolo 47 di Ezechiele presenta press 'a poco la
medesima descrizione sull'acqua sgorgante dal tempio nuovo. Infatti vi
leggiamo:
L'uomo mi riportà all'entrata deI tempio. Allora vidi acqua scaturire da
sotto l'entrata e SCOITere verso est; infatti, la facciata del santuario era
rivolta a est. L'acqua discendeva dallato sud del tempio e passava a sud
dell'altare .... Dovunque an1verà il tOITente, brulichel'anno animali di ogni
specie e i pesci si moltiplicheranno. Risanerà l'acqua del mare, dovunque
scoITel'à porterà la vita. ... Su entrambe le rive del tOITente cresceranno
alberi da frutta di ogni tipo. Non smetteranno mai di prodUITe fmtti e le loro
foglie non appassiranno mai. Anzi daranno un raccolto al mese, poiché sono
irrigati dall'acqua che SCOITe dal santuar10. l loro fmtti serviranno da cibo
e le loro foglie saranno usate come medicine (Ez 47,1-12).
LA "FIGURA" TIPOLOGICA VERA NELLE HEZ 543
In verità le Omelie ezecheliane di Origene non offrono alcun com-
mento su questa descrizione deI capitolo 47 del profeta Ezechiele, poiché
esse anivano fino al capitolo 44. Ma nell'Omelia XIII, riferendosi al
"fiume" descritto nel capitolo 29 di Ezechiele, egli cita Sai 45(46),5 che
canta: "Un fiume e i suoi ruscelli allietano la città di Dio". Inoltre,
seguendo questo versetto salmico, Origene si connette da un lato a
Gv 4,13-14 dove Gesù proclama che "se uno beve dell'acqua che io gli
darà, non avrà mai più sete: l'acqua che io gli darà diventerà in lui una
scm'gente per l'eteruità" e dall'altro lato a Gv 7,37-38 dove Gesù dichiara
che "se uno ha sete, si avvicini a me, ... da lui sgorgheranno fiumi
d'acqua viva". Finalmente al termine di questa Omelia Origene consiglia
ail' ascoltatore:
Percià, quando beITai dell'acqua, fa' molta attenzione, affinché tu non beva
pel' caso da quel fiume in cui giace il dragone, ma bevi dell'acqua viva e da
quel fiume in cui si trova la parola di Dio e in cui sta il Signore nostro Gesù
Cristo.
Senz'altro questa "acqua viva" significa 10 Spirito escatologico di
Dio, che i credenti avrebbero ricevuto. Quindi, potremmo presumere che
Origene, riferendosi al "fiume" del capitolo 29 di Ezechiele, pensi all'ac-
qua di vita escatologica, cioè all'acqua sgorgante dal trono dell' Agnello.
V.CIBO
Dall'Omelia XIII, dove discute sul significato di detto "fiume" ,
Origene prosegue l'Omelia XIV che inizia interpretando la "porta chiusa"
deI nuovo tempio, da cui sgorga il fiume. Il santuario di questo tempio è
di tale fattura per cui il principe possa mangiare il "cibo". Quindi questo
"cibo", posto nel santuario deI nuovo tempio descritto da Ezechiele,
potremmo identificarlo con l'Agnello sulla croce. Origene rileva che alla
luce dell' Apocalisse questo cibo puà essere partecipato tipologicamente
anche a un altro. Inoltre, ricordiamoci qui dell'essenza di questo Agnello:
è quella di essere comunità. Nell' Apocalisse la vita di questa comunità
si espone nel capitolo 22: "Beati coloro che lavano i loro abiti, nel
sangue dell'Agnello, per aver diritto all'albero della vita ed entrare neUa
città per le porte" (Ap 22,14; cfr. 7,14). Certamente questo "albero della
vita" sarebbe da una parte "1'Agnello sulla croce" e dall'altra parte ''l'al-
bero deI giardino" descritto nella Genesi. Qui potremmo prendere in
considerazione che l'Adamanzio, neUo spiegare il significato del "cibo"
riferendo la frase di Gesù citata nel vangelo di Giovanni, "Il mio cibo è
 544 M.AKIYAMA
fare la volontà di colui che mi ha mandato e di compiere l'opera sua"
(Gv 4,34), indica come realtà della vita questa vita comunitaria, cioè
trinitaria.
Quindi potremmo concludere cosl: Origene discerne l'essenza della
profezia di Ezechiele, che non solo ha profetato la venuta del Salvatore,
ma ha anche esposto già la dimensione della vita comunitaria, sacramen-
taria ed escatologica. Illibro di Ezechiele, diremmo, contiene tutti questi
elementi prima dellibro dell' Apocalisse, e Origene, forse pel' mancanza
di tempo, ha scelto questi brani pel' indic are tale essenza come già
contenuta nella profezie dell' Antico Testamento.
VI. CONCLUSIONE
Come abbiamo visto, Origene alla luce degli scritti di Giovanni
specialmente dell' Apocalisse, ha mostrato che nel libro di Ezechiel~
possiamo trovare 10 spazio interpretativo sia pel' la venuta del Salvatore
e pel' la comunità sia pel' l'albero della vita proto-escatologico. Secondo
Origene, non solo l'immagine deI futuro tempio descritto da Ezechiele,
ma anche il testo stesso deI suo libro profetico è già il Verbo eterno
incamato. Quindi, a livello tipologico origeniano, potremmo dire che in
questo mondo la "figura", ossia la prefigura che attiene alla venuta deI
Salvatore, deve essere quella che pua contenere la qualità eterna in se
stessa e puo aprirsi aIl' eternità.
Università di Tsukuba Manabu AKIYAMA
Facoltà dell'Umanità
305-8571 1-1-1 Tenno-dai
Tsukuba, Ibaraki
Giappone
makiyama@lingua.tsukuba.ac.jp
L'APOCRIFO GIUDAICO "PREGHIERA DI GIUSEPPE"
NELL'INTERPRETAZIONE ORIGENIANA
(CIO II.31.188-190)
L'apocrifo Preghiera di Giuseppe ci è conosciuto soltanto dalle tre
citazioni in Origene 1• La seconda di quelle frasi è riportata anche da
Eusebi02 e da Procopio di Gaza3 • Il patriarca di Costantinopoli Niceforo
(806-815) scrisse nell'appendice alla sua Cronografia, che il testo intero
contava 1100 versi4 . A dire il vero, è tutto cio che sappiamo di questo
test05 • Non è possibile stabilire né la lingua dell'originale, né illuogo
della sua composizione, né l'autore, né la data, anche se ci sono varie
ipotesi sul tema. Possiamo soltanto dire che dal fatto che Origene sapeva
ad Alessandria che i Giudei usavano quel testo, esso doveva essere cono-
sciuto in quegli ambienti.
Ecco i frammenti conservati:
A. CIo II.31.188-190 (trad. di Eugenio Corsini)
(188) Ché se poi si accetta anche quell'apocrifo ebraico intitolato Pre-
ghiera di Giuseppe, vi si troverà immediatamente e chiaramente espressa
la dottrina secondo cui questi esseri, dotati fin dal principio di caratteri-
stiche superiori a quelle umane, superiori di molto aIle altre anime, sono
discesi dallo loro condizione angelica alla natura umana. (189) Dice dun-
que Giacobbe: "10, Giacobbe e Israele, che parlo a voi, sono un angelo
di Dio e uno spirito dominante. Abramo e Isacco furono creati prima di
ogni altra creatura. E io, Giacobbe, chiamato Giacobbe dagli uomini, mi
chiamo invece Israele, sono stato chiamato da Dio Israele, uomo che vede
Dio, in quanto sono il primogenito di ogni essere vivente, vivificato da
Dio". (190) E aggiunge: "Mentre venivo dalla Mesopotamia di Siria,
yenne fuod Uriele, l'angelo di Dio, e disse che io sono disceso sulla tena
1. Origenes, CIo II.31.188-190; Phi/oealia 23.15 e 26.19, frammento deI perduto Com-
mento alla Genesi.
2. Eusebius Caesariensis, Praeparatio evangeliea 6.11.
3. Procopius, ComGn 29; PL 87, 85.
4. PG 100, 1059.
5. Cf. J.H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2: Expan-
sions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Phi/osophieal Literature, Prayers,
Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost JlIdeo-Hellenistie Works, New York, Doubleday,
1985, pp. 699ss. J.Z. SMITH, The Prayer of Joseph, in J. NEUSNER (ed.), Religion in Antiq-
uity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenollgh, Leiden, Brill, 1968, 253-294.
546 H.PIETRAS
e abitavo tra gli uomini e fui chiamato Giacobbe. Provo invidia e mi
assali e lotto con me, affermando che il suo nome e quello di colui che
è sopra ogni angelo è prima deI mio. E io gli dissi il suo nome e quale il
suo grado tra i figli di Dio: Non sei tu Uriele, l'ottavo in ordine dopo di
me, e non son io Israele, arcangelo della potenza deI Signore e il capo
delle schiere tra i figli di Dio? " .
B. Philocalia 23.15, dal CGn III
Ho letto sulle tavole deI cielo tutto che accadrà a voi e a vostri figli 6 •
C. Philocalia 23.19
Giacobbe era superiore rispetto agli uomini, ha superato il suo fratello
ed ha confessato - nel libro deI quale abbiamo preso la citazione: Ho
letto sulle tavole deI cielo - di essere capo delle huppe deI Signore e di
ricevere già prima il nome Israele. Lo ha riconosciuto svolgendo il suo
servizio nel corpo, come glielo ha ricordato l'arcangelo Uriele7 •
1. IL TESTO DELL' APOCRIFO
Prima di analizzare l'interpretazione origeniana fermiamoci breve-
mente sul significato di queste affelmazioni nel contesto giudaico.
1. Israele - Angelo di Dio
Giacobbe è un nome terreno dell'angelo di Dio che in realtà si chiama
Israele. Jonathan Smith fornisce una ampia nota, dove elenca tutte le fonti
d~v~ Is~aele è presentato come angelo, sia nei testi magici sia nei tm'gu-
n~ml .. SI sofferma a~che su un frammento della Confusione delle lingue
dl Fllone Alessandrmo, dove Israele è uno dei nomi di Logos.
Vi leggiamo:
(146)9 E se anche ci fosse qualcuno che non è ancora degno d'essere chia-
~ato ."figlio di .Di~:', si affre~ti a me~tersi ~ sintonia con il Suo primoge-
mto, 11 Logos, il plU venerab11e degh angeh, potremmo dire l'Arcangelo.
A questo Logos si atttibuiscono moiti nomi, secondo che sia chiamato
6. Çf. la lunga nota di É. Junod in SC 226, pp. 181-183 sul nostro apocrifo.
,7. E. Juno? ~aduce: "quand l'archange Urielle provoque". In greco .sta lmo/.ltll-
vllCYKovwÇ auwv.
8. Th~ Old Testam~nt Pseudepigrapha (n. 5), Vol. 2, pp. 701-702 e note relative.
. 9. ~hrlo Alexandrmus, Confusione delle lingue 146, in Philo Alexandrinus, La
lI11grazlO/~e verso l'etemo, a cura di R. RADICE, Milano, Rusconi, 1998, p. 335. Cf. Philo
Alexandrmus, Allegorie delle leggi m.l77, 1 sogni 1.240.
L'APOCRlFO GlUDAlCO "PREGHIERA DI GIUSEPPE" (CIO II.31.l88-l90) 547
"principio", "nome di Dio", "Logos", "uomo a immagine", oppure "il
Veggente", ossia "Israele".
Anche Jean Daniélou si richiama a questo testo mostrando la prove-
nienza filoniana delle idee ivi contenute lO • Lo studioso conclude che
il testo dell'apocrifo in realtà sarebbe giudeocristiano e dimostra certe
affinità tra di esso e gli scritti di Giustino, dove Israele-Giacobbe in realtà
è il Logos.
2. Israele - figlio primogenito di Dio
Un ide a tale è espressa già in Es 4,22 e forse in questa scia s. Paolo
scrive di Cristo in Col 1,15, che Egli è primogenito di ogni creatura. Che
Israele fosse anteriore ad Abramo trova il suo liflesso cristiano in 10 8,58
dove Gesù dice di se stresso: "prima che Abraham fosse io sono".
3. Vedente Dio
Probabilmente sia un'eco di Gn 32,31, dove si dice d'Israele che "ha
visto Dio faccia a faccia". La stessa affermazione spesso ricorre in
Filone ll , la citano i Padri qua e là e la troviamo anche in una delle pre-
ghiere per la fine della messa nelle Costituzioni Apostolichel 2 •
4. L'Arcangelo Uriele
Secondo il libro etiopico di Enoch Uriele è uno dei quattro angeli -
con Michele, Gabriele e Suriele - mandati da Dio in questo mondo pel'
rimediare al male causato dagli angeli caduti unitisi aIle donne ed alla
generazione dei giganti (1 Hen 9,1). Uriele pure è una guida di Enoch e
viene descritto come angelo deI tuono (1 Hen 20,2). Secondo il nostro
apocrifo egli dice una frase non del tutto chiara in greco. La traduzione
di Corsini dice: "venne fuori Uriele, l'angelo di Dio, e disse che egli era
disceso sulla terra e abitava tra gli uomini e fu chiamato Giacobbe". Cosl
traduce anche Cécile Blanc l3 e Jean Daniélou l4 in francese. Jonathan Z.
Smith dà una proposta differente. Lui comprende l'espressione applicata
10. J. DANIÉLOU, Trinité et angélologie dans la théologie judéo-chrétienne, in Recher-
ches de Sciences Religieuses 45 (1957) 5-41, pp. 23-25.
11. SMITH, The Prayer of Joseph (n. 5), p. 266.
12. Constitution es Apostolorum Vm.15.7, in Synodi et Collectiones Legum (SCL) 2,
Krak6w, Wydawnictwo WAM, 2007, p. 250.
13. SC 120, Paris, Cerf, 1966.
14. Théologie du judéo-christianisme, Tournai, Desclée; Paris, Cerf, 1958, ad loc.
 548 H.PIETRAS
a Uriele come riguardante in effetti Giacobbe e traduce: "ed ha detto che
io sono sceso sulla terra ed abitai tra gli uomini e otterrai il nome Gia-
cobbe". In cio si richiama alla cOlTispondenza con il padre Daniélou, il
quale cambio il parere dopo la pubblicazione della Théologie du judéo-
christianisme nel 1958 e gli ha scritto a proposito nel 1965 15 • Uriele,
allora, avrebbe parlato qui di Giacobbe e non di se stesso, dimostrando
soltanto la sua conoscenza dei piani divini. La preposizione allora non
contribuisce interiormente al ritratto di Urie le. Aggiungiamo che COS!
doveva comprendere questo testo anche Origene, se nel nostro fram-
mento C (Phil 23.19) dice che era Uriele a ricordare a Giacobbe, chi era.
5. Ho letto sulle carte deI cielo
Cosiddetto "Libro astronomico", cioè una parte deI Libro di Enoch
(1 Hen 72-82) comincia con le parole su un "Libro celeste" (1 Hen
72.1). Anche l'Apocalissse di Abramo XXI paria dell'immagine cosmica
della creazione 16
6. Il carattere dell'opera
DaI momento che disponiamo solo dei pochi frammenti deI testo assai
lungo, ci è impossibile stabilire la forma ed il contenuto deI suo insieme.
Grosso modo esistono cinque ipotesi a proposito: che fosse un opera
anticristiana, cristiana antigiudea, giudeocristiana, gnostica 0 semplice-
mente giudaica, come dice Origene. Ci Interessa in questa sede non tanto
l'apocrico come tale ma l'uso che ne fa Origene, allora non passo alle
analisi di queste ipotesi, rinviando a Jonathan Smith, il quale 10 fece con
molta attenzione 17 •
7. L'inteJpretazione d'OrÎgene
Origene cita un frammento della "Preghiera di Giuseppe" in appoggio
alla sua ipotesi ferre a della preesistenza degli esseri razionali. Nel Prin
sembra non poter decidersi, se tutti quanti si sono allontanati da Dio -
con l'unica eccezione di quel logikos che dovrebbe diventare l'anima
15. SMITH, The Prayer of Joseph (n. 5), p. 257.
16. Cf. R. RUBINKIEWICZ, L'Apocalypse d'Abraham (Towarzystwo Naukowe Kato-
lickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego: Zrodla i monografie, 129), Lublin, Société des Lettres
et des Sciences de l'Université Catholique de Lublin, 1987, pp. 171-175; M.E. STONE
(ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Compendia Rerum ludaicarum ad
Novum Testamentum), Assen, Van Gorcum; Philadelphia, PA, FOltress, 1984, pp. 417.428.
17. SMITH, ThePrayer of Joseph (n. 5), pp. 271-281.
L'APOCRIFO GIDOAICO "PREGHIERA DI GIDSEPPE" (CIO II.31.188-190) 549
umana di Cristo - oppure no. Ci sono varie possibilità e ricordiamocene
prima di occuparci di quei esseri razionali a cui si riferisce direttamente
la citazione.
II. lPOTEsI D'ORIGENE PERTINENTI AL SENSO DEL
FRAMMENTO CITATO
1. Tutti i "Iogikoi" si sono allontanati da Dio, chi più chi meno
Origene parla delle differenze tra gli esseri, causate dalle libere scelte
di loro. Scrive:
Penso che non dobbiamo ritenere uguale per tutte la caduta e la degrada-
zione dell'intelligenza, ma che si siano trasformate in anima una più una
mena e che alcune abbiano conservato qua1cosa della primitiva capacità,
altre nulla affatto 0 pochissimo. Percio troviamo che a1cuni fin dall'adole-
scenza son dotati di intelligenza più fervida, altri di intelligenza più tarda;
altri poi nascono completamente ottusi e non adatti ad apprendere 18 •
Cio significherebbe che tutti gli esseri razionali si fossero allontanati
da Dio. Percio mutano, si distinguono sempre di più gli uni dagli altri e
quelli che si dimostrano adatti a quello, diventano anime umane più 0
mena corrotte. Sembra che la prima frase abbia il significato più generico
e parla di tutti gli esseri, invece la seconda si riferisce agli uomini e si
richiama a un'esperienza comune della gente più 0 mena capace. Da
questa affermazione origeniana, in quanto fosse ipotetica, sembra risul-
tare che le libere scelte dei logikoi in ogni casa causano un allontana-
mento da Dio, anche se minimo. Lo conferma una frase dal capitolo
seguente dove leggiamo che: "ogni intelligenza (unaquaeque mens),
trascurando più 0 mena il bene a causa dei suoi mutamenti, veniva tratta
al contrario deI bene, cioè al male"19.
2. L'eccezione dell'anima umana di Cristo
A questo proposito Origene scrive nel Prin II.6. Non dubita che l'a-
nima di Cristo fosse della stessa natura di tutti gli altri logikoi. Dalla
Scrittura sa pero della sua impeccabilità2o • Quello gli fa pensare che il
Cristo, dotato come tutti della possibilità di scegliere tra il bene e il male,
ha amato la giustizia
18. Origenes, Prin Il.8.4.
19. Origenes, Prin Il.9.2.
20. V.g. Is 53,9, Heb 4,15 010 8,46.
 550 H. PIETRAS
in maniera tale da aderire a lui inseparabilmente e immutabilmente per
immensità di amore. COS! la felmezza deI proposito, l'immensità dell'affetto
e l'inestinguibile calore dell'amore hanno eliminato ogni senso di muta-
zione e cambiamento S! che cià che dipendeva da libeltà di volere per la
lunga intimità si è mutato in natura21 •
Quell'anima non è stata creata in un modo speciale e dotata delle pre-
rogative speciali, ma è rimasta legata al Logos-Sapienza, cioè al Media-
tore della creazione, perché COS! voIle. Quel legame si è manifestato
insolubile. li Cristo quindi si è trovato sulla te11'a non come gli altri, cioè
in conseguenza delle proprie libere scelte che avrebbero provocato in lui
certi cambiamenti e l'avrebbero allontanato dalla dimora primordiale, ma
perché ha voluto COS! pel' il bene degli altri. Vorrei sottolineare che quel
modo di parlare di Origene, presente nel Prin, con la caduta univers ale e
con un'unica eccezione di Cristo, non troverà riscontro nel Commento a
Giovanni, in quei libri che sono stati composti già a Cesarea, come
vediamo più avanti.
3. La condizione di Satana
Su questo tema avevo la possibilità di parlare quattro anni fa alla con-
ferenza di Pecs, quindi adesso presento solo le concIusioni di quella
ricerca, con le quali per ora sono d'accordo 22 • Vediamo un testo impor-
tante:
(182) 'E lui infatti quel "primo Tenestre", perché è caduto per primo dalla
condizione superiore e ha desiderato una vita divers a da quella superiore,
meritando COS! di es sere il principio non già della creatura e nemmeno della
fattura, ma soltanto di cià che è stato plasmato col fango dal Signore, dive-
nuto tale da costituire ludibrio per gli angeli del Signore (Hiob 40,14).
Anche la nostra ipostasi principale consiste in cià che è a immagine deI
Creatore; invece quella che ci viene dalla colpa consiste nel corpo plasmato
con la polvere della tena23 •
Satana è un essere razionale come gli altri, solo che è il primo a usare
la propria libertà contro Dio e percio si è separato da Lui. li cambiamento
del suo corpo sostanziale era COS! grande, direi: bizzano, che è divenuto
21. Origenes, Prin II.6.5.
22. Origenes parla di Satana in modo sistematico in Prin I.5. Cf. il llÙO L'il/izio
dei mOI/do materiale e l'eleziol/e divil/a in Origel/es, in G. HEIDL - R. SOMOS (eds.),
Origel/ial/a NOl/a: Origel/ al/d Religious Practice of His Time. Papas of the 9/1. II/terna-
tiol/al Origel/ COl/gress, Pécs, HUI/gary, 29 August - 2 September 2005 (BETL, 228),
Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 653-669; Lisa R. HOLLIDAY, Recol/sideril/g Origel/'s TheO/'y of
Volitiol/ il/ Peri Archol/, in Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009) 1-23.
23. Origenes, CIo XX.22.182.
L'APOCRIFO GIUDAICO "PREGHIERA DI GIUSEPPE" (CIO II.31.188-190) 551
oggetto di derisione da parte degli angeli. La sua forma di essere, Origene
la descrive in analogia all'anima di Cristo. Come abbiamo visto, illogikos
di Cristo ha amato COS! Dio e COS! si è legato alla Sapienza che quel
legame divenne la sua seconda natura. Satana invece si è allontanato da
Dio fino al punto che in lui "la malvagità persistente ed inveterata si
trasfOlma pel' la consuetudine come in una natura"24. Origene distingue
pero e vede la differenza tra Satana e quegli esseri razionali che sono
schiavizzati da lui, cioè dai demoni vari 25 . Ma tutti sono lontani da Dio
e non vengono nutriti dalla Sapienza, perché non 10 voglion0 26 .
4. Gli angeli27
Agli angeli ed arcangeli sono stati assegnati vari obblighi, a seconda
dei meritj28. Pel' esempio si curano degli uomini, delle città 0 delle nazioni
di rilievo più 0 mena grande. Dovrebbero occuparsi sul serio di questi
affari, perché saranno sottoposti al giudizio e potrebbe dru'si che al giu-
dizio si manifesti che un uomo fece deI male a causa della trascuratezza
del suo angelo custode29 . Origene pensa pero che i Principati, le Potestà,
le Dominazioni e i Troni costituiscano "un solo ... supremo ed eccelso
ordine di creature celesti e razionali, disposto in gloriosa varietà di
ufficpo. Si potrebbe allora pensare, che ci siano degli angeli che abbiano
qualche peccato sul suo conto, ma anche quelli che hanno solo i meriti,
non hanno mai scelto niente di contrario alla volontà di Dio.
5.1 cO/pi celesti
Si credeva comunemente nei tempi di Origene che le stelle, il Sole ed
altri corpi celesti siano esseri viventi ed intelligenti. li nostro Autore
crede che essi abbiano i corpi COS! belli e splendenti a causa dei 101'0
meriti. Nel Prin scrive:
. .. Alcuni di coloro che hanno meglio meritato, in funzione dell'ordina-
mento deI mondo vengono collocati a patire insieme con gli altri ed a pre-
24. Origenes, Pril/ I.6.3; CIo XX.21.174.
25. Cf. Origenes, HIos XV.5.
26. Sulla possibile salvezza di loro cf. il mio L'escatologia della Chiesa dagli scritti
gil/daici fil/o al IV secolo (Sussidi Patristici, 13), Roma, Augustinianum, 2006, pp. 93-96.
27. Sull'angelologia di Origenes difficilmente si potrebbe dire più di quanta scrisse
Adele MONACI CASTAGNO, in Origel/es. Diziol/ario - la cl/ltl/ra, il pensiero, le opere,
Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, sl/b l'oce.
28. Origenes, Prin I.8.1.
29. Cf. Origenes, HNm 11.4.
30. Origenes, Pril/ I.8.4.
552 H.PIETRAS
star servizio agl'inferiori, partecipando COS! anch'essi della pazienza deI
creatore, secondo quanto dice 1'Apostolo: Infatti la creazione è stata assog-
gettata alla vanità, contro il proprio volere, ma a causa di coloro che l'ha
assoggettata in vista della speranza (Rom 8,20)31.
Merita attenzione la frase citata di s. Paolo, che questi esseri sono
stati soggetti alla vanità non per propria scelta ma per voler di Dio. Nel
contesto di tante locuzioni di Origene, dove vediamo sempre che la sorte
di ciascuno dipende dalle proprie scelte, mi è difficile stabilire con
certezza che cosa avesse in mente. Dicendo con parole povere: se le
stelle non hanno voluto brillare, perché Dio 10 ha fatto fare a loro? Forse
bisogna pensare che esse siano degli esseri razionali eternamente buoni,
che non hanno mai fatto niente di male e in nessun modo meritano di
essere collocati vicino alla terra creata per i caduti. Non meritano quindi
una "condanna" a fare servizio agli uomini illuminandoli. La loro fun-
zione non pua essere considerata come causata dalle libere scelte ma
come una missione. Loro la intraprendono con obbedienza a Dio, allora
è un altra buona scelta da parte loro.
6. Giovanni Battista e Giacobbe
Sembra che questi due personaggi biblici appartengano a un altro
gruppo degli esseri razionali, cioè quelli che non solo siano pronti a
collaborare con Dio obbedendogli - come le stelle - ma per di più si
fanno avanti con la propria iniziativa. Ed è proprio nel contesto della
missione di Giovanni quando Origene cita un frammento dell'apocrifo di
cui ci occupiamo. Sembra, quindi, che si possa parlare di Giovanni e
di Giacobbe insieme. Origene scrive infatti che richiama la figura di
Giacobbe citando "una scrittura tutt'altro che trascurabile ... per rendere
. .mtorno a G'lOvannl'''32 .
più degna di fede la nostra trattazlOne
Nel Commento a Giovanni Origene parla deI Battista interpretando la
frase deI vangelo: "Venne un uomo mandato da Dio e il suo nome era
Giovanni" (10 1,6)33. In questo contesto la sua stabile ipotesi di preesi-
stenza si presenta pera come una teoria più seria che non un'ipotesi.
Scrive: ho katholou peri psyches logos - un'opinione comunemente
accettata sull' anima. Giovanni mandato da Dio doveva essere mandato
da qualche altro luogo. Richiama Mt 11,7-14, dove l'evangelista riporta
la profezia di Malachia 3,1 ("io mandera un mio messaggero a preparare
31. Origenes, Prin II.9.7.
32. Origenes, CIo II.31.192.
33. Origenes, CIo II.31.175-192.
L'APOCRIFO GIUDAICO "PREGHIERA DI GIUSEPPE" (CIO II.31.188-190) 553
la via davanti a me") e 10 identifica come Elia34 . li mandare Giovanni
sulla terra non viene presentato COS! come il mandato degli altri esseri,
come le stelle, contrariamente alla loro volontà, 0 almeno senza un stretto
rapporto con le loro scelte. Qui Origene dice
Nessuna meraviglia che, essendosi incamato il primogenito di ogni creatura
(Col 1,15) per il suo amore verso gli uornini, alcuni siano divenuti irnitatori
ed emuli di Cristo, desiderando mettersi al servizio della sua benignità verso
gli uomini con un corpo sirnile al SU035 •
In questo luogo introduce il frammento della Preghiera di Giuseppe
annunciando che "vi si troverà immediatamente e chiaramente espressa
la dottrina secondo cui questi esseri, dotati fin dal principio di caratteri-
stiche superiori a quelle umane, superiori di molto aIle altre anime, sono
discesi dalla loro condizione angelica alla natura umana"36. Vuol dire che
si sono abbassate da sole, e non era Dio ad abbassarle.
Giovanni è allora un logikos, il quale nel processo di diversificazione
è diventato un "angelo santo" che non merita nessuna punizione, non
vuole allontanarsi da Dio, ma desidera "nel corpo simile a quello di
Cristo mettersi al servizio della sua benignità"37. Nel Prin Origene
parla di Giacobbe e di Esaù, dei quali la Scrittura dice che Dio ha amato
il primo ed ha odiato il second0 38 . Anche Giacobbe, quindi, potrebbe
essere un "angelo santo" che non cade sulla terra, ma vi è mandato con
una missione, perché vuole essere mandato. Tuttavia Origene ci tiene
a sottolineare la differenza grande tra quei due e il Cristo stesso. Infatti,
Giovanni, descritto con belle parole nellibro secondo deI Commenta-
rio, nel sesto è mostrato come mena perfetto. Interpretando la frase di
10 1,27 , dove Giovanni confessa di non es sere degno di sciogliere il
legaccio deI sandalo di Gesù, Origene cerca di comprendere il motivo
di questa indegnità. Arriva alla concIusione che si potrebbe trattare di
due grandi misteri legati alla missione di Gesù, cioè alla sua discesa
sulla terra ed alla sua discesa ulteriore nell' Ade· per la salvezza dei
mortP 9. C'è quindi qualcosa che Giovanni non sa, allora è mena per-
fetto di Gesù.
34. Cf. 1. RAMELLI, Matt 17: 11: "Elijah Will Come, and Ail Beings Will Be Restored" .
Philological, Lingllistic, Syntactical and Exegetical Arguments,in «Maia» n.s. 61 (2009)
107-126.
35. Origenes, CIo II.31.187.
36. Origenes, CIo II.31.188.
37. Origenes, CIo II.31.187.
38. Cf. Gn 25,22-26; Ml 1,2-3.
39. Origenes, CIo V1.37.184-187; M. SIMONETTI, Praecllrsor ad inferos: Una nota
sllll'interpretazione patristica di Matteo 11,3, in Ecclesia orans. Mélanges A. G. Hamman-
AlIgustinianllm 20 (1980) 367-382, pp. 369ss.
554 H.PIETRAS
Di Giacobbe parla in modo differente. Pensa che Giacobbe sia stato
identificato col Cristo da Isaia e cita: "Giacobbe il mio servo, io 10
sostelTo, Israele, il mio diletto, l'anima mia l'ha accolto" (Is 42,1)40,
scrive che il Cristo è Giacobbe, perché vede il Padre41 . Nellibro tredice-
simo pero, commentando l'incontro di Gesù con la Samaritana, sottolinea
le differenze. La fonte di Giacobbe propone di comprendere come i
misteri nascosti nelle Scritture, l' acqua di Gesù invece come verità più
alta della conoscenza delle Scritture. Dice: "Le Scritture nelloro com-
plesso, pel' quanto comprese esattamente e a fondo, non costituiscono,
penso, se non i primissimi elementi e un'introduzione affatto sommaria
rispetto alla totalità della conoscenza"42. Giacobbe ha bevuto da quella
fonte, ma non 10 fa più. Anche i suoi figli hanno bevuto, ma adesso hanno
una bevanda più perfetta43 . In seguito dice che Giacobbe con i figli hanno
bevuto in modo più perfetto degli altri, perché 10 facevano in modo razio-
nale44 • Adesso avrebbero una conoscenza superiore. Che cos a ne risulta
pel' la comprensione della citazione deI nostro apocrifo?
III. CONCLUSIONI
1. l "logikoi" hanno le possibilità di sviluppo oltre i propri limiti
Giacobbe - secondo il testo della Preghiera di Giuseppe - ha visto Dio
ed è primogenito della creazione. Anteriore ad Abramo ed agli altri esseri
razionali. Possiede i tratti messianici e puo essere compreso come tipo di
Cristo, perché descritto con i termini riservati dai cristiani al Cristo stesso.
Se Origene non discute con il contenuto dell'apocrifo, ma addirittura vi
vede un appoggio alla propria ipotesi, potrebbe darsi che sarebbe pronto
ad accettare l'idea di una creazione non momentanea, ma percepita come
un processo, e - per di pitt - non solo un processo che ha avuto luogo una
volta, ma un processo continuo. Quindi potrebbe anche darsi che Dio non
ha finito ancora con la creazione dei logikoi. Giacobbe, il primo creato,
riesce a mantenersi nella sua dignità di es sere libero ed amato da Dio.
"La causa di diversità e varietà nelle singole creature dipende dai loro
movimenti più alacri 0 più pigri sia nel senso del bene, sia nel senso deI
male "45 - scriveva Origene nel PA. Siccome in Giacobbe non c' era nes-
40. Origenes, CIo 1.23.144.
41. Origenes, CIo 1.35.260.
42. Origenes, CIo XIII.5.30.
43. Origenes, CIo XIII.5.31.
44. Origenes, CIo Xm.6.37.
45. Origenes, Prin 1.8.2.
L'APOCRIFO GIUDAICO "PREGHIERA DI GIUSEPPE" (CIO TI.31.188-190) 555
suna pigrizia, un qualsiasi mutamento in lui poteva es sere causato solo
dei movimenti verso il bene. È sceso sulla terra per compiere una qualche
missione pre-cristiana, in quanto tale è stato sottoposto aIle regole di
questo mondo, ma non prescindendo della sua volontà - come le stelle
- ma deI tutto volontariamente. Uno dei limiti ai quali è stato sottoposto
era il limite nella conoscenza. Segno di questo era che non si ricordava
della vita precedente. Nel frammento C abbiamo visto che secondo Ori-
gene era Uriele a ricordarglielo. Percio la fonte di Giacobbe non contiene
dell'acqua della conoscenza COS! pura, come l'acqua di Gesù, anche se
lui stesso riusciva a conoscere la verità meglio degli altri, in modo razio-
nale, cioè conformemente allo stato di essere logikos non contaminato da
nessun peccato. Dopo la sua avventura terrena tomo a Dio, dove di nuovo
puo bere dalla stessa fonte della verità e puo svilupparsi ulterionnente.
Rimane tuttavia minore di Cristo il quale anche sulla telTa conservava
memoria di chi era prima dell'incarnazione. Cio sarebbe da comprendere
in legame con la teoria dei cibi spirituali, oppure del nutrimento spmtuale
- teoria in parte ereditata da Filone46 .
Origene scrive:
(220) Mentre la folla di colora che sono ammaestrati ricevono questo nutri-
mento dalle mani dei discepoli di Gesù, che hanno l'ordine di distribuirlo
alla folla (Le 9,14), i discepoli invece 10 ricevono direttamente dalle mani
di Gesù oppure, in qua1che caso, dalle mani dei santi angeli. Invece il Figlio
di Dio 10 riceve soltanto dal Padre suo e senza intermediatio a1cuno.
(221) E non è assurdo neppure dire che 10 Spirito Santo riceve anch'egli il
sua nutrimento: occorre pero cere are un testo della Scrittura che ci sugge-
risca quest047 •
Da questo testo si conclude che il Figlio ed eventualmente 10 Spirito
siano eccezioni nella questione di ricevere un nutrimento da Dio. Solo
Essi 10 ricevono direttamente, tutti gli altri invece mediante il Figlio. Ma
Origene non 10 dice chiaramente. L'eminenza deI Figlio consiste in qual-
cos'altro. Il cibo deI Figlio è fare la volontà del Padre (104,34); come
stanno le cose con 10 Spmto, Origene lascia apert048 . Pel' quanto riguarda
gli altri esseri razionali, anche se facessero tutto conforme alla volontà di
Dio, essi "non sono assolutamente capaci di accogliere in sé l'impronta
della volontà di Dio nella sua totalità"49. Se tutto fanno secondo la
volontà deI Padre, anche 101'0 potrebbero dire, che illoro cibo sia il com-
46. Philo Alexandrinus,Allegorie delle leggi m.l77. Cf. mia introduzione al: Origenes,
Prin, in Zr6dla Mysli Teologicznej 1, Krak6w, Wydawnictwo W AM, 1996, pp. 18-20.
47. Origenes, CIo xm.34.220-221.
48. Origenes, CIo XIII.36.230-231.
49. Origenes, CIo Xm.36.231.
556 H.PIETRAS
piere la volontà divina, ma non sono l'immagine di Dio e non sono in
grado di fado in tale misura, in quanto 10 sa fare il Figlio. Qui probabil-
mente ci sia posto pel' que11ogikos che è stato chiamato da Dio Israel,
cioè vedente, e dagli uomini Giacobbe. Ma c'è anche posto pel' illogikos
divenuto l'anima di Cristo. Quegli non è immagine di Dio, ma l'imma-
gine dell'immagine, come tutti gli altri logikoi, creato all'immagine
deI Figlio-Logos so . La sua unione con il Logos è pero COS! speciale,
che oltrapassa i limiti di un essere creato ed anche sulla terra possiede
"l'acqua della vita" la quale ha più valore dell'acqua della fonte di
Giacobbe.
La citazione presa dall' apocrifo sembra suggerire che la posizione di
Giacobbe fosse COS! alta, che è difficile immaginare un personaggio più
eminente di lui. Di nuovo la sua figura si scontra con quella di Giovanni,
di cui è stato detto, che "tra i nati di donna non c'è nessuno più grande"
di luisl . Origene, a proposito di questa affermazione, osserva, che "biso-
gnerebbe comprendeda in un doppio senso: nessuno è più grande di lui
pel' quanto riguarda la grandezza della grazia ricevuta, ma anche "vi sono
a1cuni uguali a lui"s2 in quanto profeti. È una spiegazione assai semplice,
ma Origene doveva avere qua1cos'altro in mente, se nel Commento
a Matteo scrisse: sarebbe una cosa rischiosa cercar di provare che
Giovanni sia stato più grande di Isacco 0 di Mosès 3 • In che senso:
"rischiosa" ?
Tomiamo alla descrizione di Giacobbe nell'apocrifo. Origene non
mette in dubbio niente deI sua contenuto, scrive addirittura: "Ammetto
che queste cose siano state dette da Giacobbe secondo verità e pel' questo
trascritte"S4! Sarebbe d'accordo, quindi, con la descrizione di Giacobbe
come primogenito, 0 primo davanti a Dio? Allora in che cos a illogikos
- anima di Cristo potrebbe essere superiore a lui? Sarebbe possibile pen-
sare che a Origene fosse venuta l'idea che uno e 10 stesso logikos sia
disceso unavolta come Giacobbe e un' altra, unito al Logos, come Gesù?
Possibile ... Questo S! che sarebbe rischioso e in contrasto con le parole
di lui sulla sua unione con il Logos dall'inizioss . Teoricamente Origene
forse non sarebbe stato opposto al pensiero che un logikos possa venire
in questo mondo più volte. Conosceva certi testi giudaici, dove si diceva
che Pincas, figlio di Eleazaro dai Num 25,8-12 infatti fosse Elia. Scrive
50. Cf. Origenes, Prin II.6.1-5.
51. Le 7,28.
52. Origenes, CIo VI.21.116.
53. Origenes, CMt XIII. 15.
54. Origenes, CIo II.31.191.
55. Origenes, Prin II.6.3.
L'APOCRIFO GIUDAICO "PREGHIERA DI GWSEPPE" (CIO n.31.188-190) 557
a proposito: "a torto 0 a ragione, non è il casa di star qui a indagare"S6.
E in seguito fa un elenco dei problemi legati all'anima di quali vorrebbe
indagare in futuro. Tra l'altro vi scrive:
... se sia possibile 0 mena che essa entri una seconda volta in un corpo, se
cio le accada nel medesimo cielo temporale e nel medesimo sistema cosmico
o meno, nel medesimo corpo 0 in uno diverso; e se nel medesimo corpo,
questo permanga il medesinlo secondo il substrato materiale quanto secondo
la qualità; e infine se l'anima si servirà sempre deI corpo COS! com'è 0 10
cambierà: tutto questo andrà esaminato e discusso di proposito in altra occa-
sione più accuratamente e più diffusamente, (86) Si dovrà allora anche esa-
minare che cosa significhi propriamente metensomatosi e in che cosa essa
si distingua dell'ensomatosi e se chi afferma la metensomatosi debba affer-
mare di conseguenza anche l'incorruttibilità deI mondoS?
Va osservato che Origene non ha mai scritto un'opera consacrata a
questi terni e siamo costretti a prendere le sue parole a proposito dal
Prin come se fossero la sua ultima risposta. Il libro sesto deI Com-
mento a Giovanni Origene dettava pero già in Cesarea, qua1che anno
dopo la stesura di Prin. Se pensa che questi terni dovessero essere presi
sotto esame ancora una volta, poteva non essere più d'accordo con cio
che scrisse prima. Bisognerebbe allora rivedere l'opinione assai
comune, che Origene non avesse cambiato niente dalle sue ipotesi
dopo Prin.
Nei contesto dell'incontro con la Samaritana e della frase "il mio cibo
è fare la volontà di colui che mi ha mandato e compiere la sua opera"
(10 4,34), parla della doppia venuta di Cristo, 0 almeno dei due aspetti
della sua venuta. Dice: " ... fu mandato il Salvatore in primo Iuogo,
perché facesse ... la volontà di colui che l'aveva mandato; in secondo
luogo, pel' compiere l'opera"58. COSl traduce Corsini e senz'altro si puo
fare COSl. Ma ne risulterebbe che fare la volontà fosse più impOltante deI
"compiere l'opera" e non vedo perché. Origene scrive proton ... deuteron
... Nello stesso Commentario pada delle due venute di Cristo spiegando
la frase sulla seconda visita di Gesù a Cana di Galilea (10 4,46). Dice
COSl:
Forse significano le due venute del Salvatore nel mondo: la prima per
rallegrare i convitati, la seconda per guarire il figlio, non deI re ma di un
dignitario regio, prossimo a morire. (392) E forse in dignitario regio era
Abramo oppure Giacobbe, il cui figlio (che è il popolo) egli alla fine sal-
verà, allorché sarà entrata la pienezza delle genti (Rom 11,25). Ci possono
56. Origenes, CIo VI.14.84.
57. Origenes, CIo VI.14.85-86.
58. Origenes, CIo XIII.37.241.
558 H.PIETRAS L' APOCRIFO GIUDAICO "PREGHIERA DI GillSEPPE" (CIO TI.31.188-190) 559

essere perà anche due venute deI Logos nell'anima: la prima, a distribuire certi esseri razionali più pelfetti di come erano stati creati e che a Dio
il vino derivato dall'acqua per rallegrare i convitati; la seconda, a eliminare interessa non soltanto il ritomo dei peccatori, ma anche 10 sviluppo
la debolezza residua e cià che minaccia di portare a morte 59 •
volontario dei santi.
Nello stesso luogo vediamo allora differenti spiegazioni della venuta
di Gesù. Interessante notare che quasi mai Origene parla della sua venuta University School Henryk PrnTRAS SJ
alla fine dei tempi. Pel' lui è più impOltante che il Cristo viene in conti- of Philosophy and Education
nuazione tante volte, quante servono, perché "la maggior parte delle "Ignatianum"
opere che Dio compie rimane avvolta nel miste1'O"60. PL 31-501 Krakôw
Forse quindi non ci sia bisogno di buttarsi in una ipotesi davvero hpietras@jezuici.pl
rischiosa, che Giacobbe e Gesù fossero 10 stesso logikos. Basta immagi-
narlo come un unico operare di Dio che ha vari momenti, a seconda dei
bisogni. Giacobbe faceva la volontà di Dio, e Gesù faceva altrettanto, ma
essendo unito al Figlio 10 fece nel senso assoluto, mentre Giacobbe in
proporzione alla propria adesione al Logos. Tra l'opera di uno e dell'al-
tro ci sono molte analogie, resta pero il mistero di Dio tutto cio che va
oltre questa analogia.

2. La fine phi grande dell'inizio

Origene spesso dice che la fine sarà simile all'inizio. Se tutti i cambia-
menti degli esseri razionali, causati dalle 101'0 libere scelte, avessero come
conseguenza l' allontanamento da Dio, il lol'o ritomo allo stato primitivo
significherebbe un superamento deI peccato e della caduta. L'esempio di
Giacobbe e di Giovanni il Battista ci insegna pero che ci siano dei logikoi
che non solo sono sempre rimasti da Dio, ma anche si sono sviluppati e
cresciuti, passando oltre i limiti deI creato. Pel' 101'0 un ritomo allo stato
primitivo significherebbe una privazione deI bene acquisito. Bisogne-
rebbe quindi rivedere il nostro concetto deI ritomo, che ci siamo fatti
leggendo Origene fin ora. Non dovrebbe trattarsi di una semplice restau-
razione, ma piuttosto di un Regno di Dio dove regna l' amore di Dio e la
sua volontà, ma dove anche le differenze tra gli esseri saranno ancora più
grandi di quanto abbiamo potuto immaginare. Sembra, che secondo Ori-
gene Dio avrebbe creato i logikoi con un gran potenziale di sviluppo e
non soltanto con la capacità di rimanere presso di lui. Insomma, questo
è logico. Il continuo nutrirsi con il Dio stesso dovrebbe produne uno
sviluppo e non soltanto garantire la sopravvivenza. L'uso dell'apocrifa
Preghiera di Giuseppe da pmte di Origene ci insegna che secondo lui nel
Regno di Dio, alla fine della serie dei mondi, avremmo a che vedere con

59. Origenes, CIo XIII.57.391-392.

60. Origenes, CIo XIII.57.393.
 VI

THE LANGUAGE OF ORIGEN

 REMARKS ON ORIGEN'S ANALOGIES FOR TRE
ROLY SPIRIT

I. INTRoDuCTION

On the façade of the Cathedral of Como, along with the statues of

Pliny the Younger and Pliny the EIder, wise pagans from the city, there
is a representation of the Roly Spirit in the guise of a child. This is an
iconography that successively disappeared from Christian art, following
the condemnation of Benedict XIV in the bull Sollicitudini nostrae of
1745. The reason for the provision was the possible misunderstanding
among the people that the image could elicit, regarding an incarnation of
the third Pers on of the Trinity. In this context, it was affirmed that the
nature of God cannot be represented in any way, for which reason, unlike
the incarnate Son who can be represented in his humanity, the Roly Spirit
cannot be represented. Nevertheless, the bull affirms the possibility to
make use of the figures through which Re revealed himself, e.g., as a
dove. Thus those images found in Sacred Scripture were permitted1.
The solution, obviously motivated by pastoral concerns, encounters,
however, one difficulty: It depends in fact on exegesis, and concretely
on the interpretation of which Biblical passages are to be attributed to the
third Person. As for the representation mentioned above, it is interesting
to refer to a text, the value of which has been auspiciously accentuated
by F. Cocchini2, in which Origen intelprets in a Pneumatological sense
the young child3 , placed among the disciples by Jesus, of Mt 18,1-4.
The question as to the theological value of the images employed by
the great Alexandrian to speak of the Roly Spirit thus arises. The problem
has added interest due to the Semitic component that is found together
with the Greek elements of his thought. This perspective can prove itself
useful in approaching the Trinitarian thought of Origen, itself heavily
marked by interpolations and correction on the part of his Latin transla-
tors. The goal of this work is, then, to follow, without pretext of com-
pleteness, the more significant images to which the Origenian exegesis

1. Cf. BENEDICT XIV, Sollicitudini nostrae, n. 36.

2. F. COCCHINI, Origene: Teologo esegeta per li/la identità cristiana, Bologna,
Dehoniane, 2006, pp. 51-56. See also C. BARILLI, "Farsi piccoli" : Il tema dell'infanzia
nel Commento a Matteo di Origene, Disseltation, University of Bologna.
3. CMt 13.18.
 564 G.MASPERO
has recourse to speak of the Roly Spirit, and in particular those that did
not survive through the 4 th century, in order to understand which theo-
logical elements inspired these concrete exegetical choices. In this man-
ner we seek to encounter the Trinitarian theology of the Alexandrian in
a way that avoids interpreting his thought anachronistically, that is par-
tially, in light of the perspectives of the 4 th century. For it is only in this
way that one can appreciate the proper value of Origen iri the deve1op-
ment of dogma. This will unfold in a synthetic methodological perspec-
tive, which values not only the Greek component, but also the Semitic
one, starting from the relationship between fonu and content, and the
theological value of the image in itself.
II. THE ROLY SPIRIT AS CHaD
The fundamental text is taken from the Pneumatological sense given
to the 1tatolov of Mt 18,2. It does not only refer to the simplicity and
absence of passions that link children to the more properly spiritual
dimension. For, after presenting moral exegesis, Origen specifies that he
is offering a doctrinally oriented explanation as a sort of exercise (El1:E
mc; 06Yllu'Wc; El1:E mc; yUllvucrlou SVEKEV)4:
You see, then, that it can be said that the child that Jesus called is the Holy
Spirit who has humbled himseIf, called by the Saviour and placed at the
centre of the soul of the disciples of Jesus. And if He wants us to, having
abandoned aIl other things, we tum to the ex amples proposed by the Holy
Spirit, in such a way that we become like children - that is the disciples -
who have also abandoned those things and have become like the Holy
Spirit. Such children has God [the Father] given to the Saviour, according
to that which Isaiah says: Behold, !, and the children that the Lord has
given me (Is 8,18)5.
The text explicitly refers to a humbling of the Roly Spirit, who comes
to dwell among men and communicate himse1f to those who are worthy.
The essential point is that the child is not like the Roly Spirit, but is the
4. CMt 13.18.3-4: GCS, X/l, 226.20-21.
5. opu oÈ Et ouvucrUt 'to 'tU1tEtvrocrUV Éuu'to 1tVEUJ.lU liytov 61to 'tou crco'tîlpoç
1tpocrKÎ"llSÈV KUt cr'tuSÈv sv J.lÉcr<p 't<$ TJyEJ.lOVtK<$ 'trov J.lUSll'trov 'Illcrou Et1tEtV Eivut
ô 1tpOcrEKUÀÉcrU'to ô 'IllcrouÇ 1tUtOloV EYtE ~OUÀE'tat TJJ.lîiç 1tuv'tu 'tà aÀÀu
a1tocr'tpu<pÉv'tuç cr'tpu<p~VUt 1tpOç 'tà 1tUpUOElyJ.lU'tU 61to 'tou &.yloU 61tO~UÀÀOJ.lEVU
1tVEUJ.lU'tOÇ mcr'tE TJJ.lîiç ou'tco YEVÉcrSat ruç 'tà 1tatOlU 'tOu'tÉcrn 'toùç a1tocr'toÀouç 'tà
Kut ulnà cr'tpu<pÉV'tU Kat ôJ.l0tcoSÉV'tu 't<$ &.ylqJ 1tVEUJ.lun· linvu 1tUtOlu SOCOKEV ô
SEOÇ 't<$ crCO't~pt Ku'tà 'to sv 'HcruîQ. ÀEÀEYJ.lÉVOV· <dooù syro KUt 'tà 1tUtOlU li J.lot
SOCOKEV Ô SEOÇ» (CMt 13.18.7-24: GCS, X/l, 226.24-227.11).
REMARKS ON ORIGEN'S ANALOGIES FOR THE ROLY SPIRIT 565
Roly Spirit. For Origen, the moral dimension is essentially anchored ta
ontology: Only he who has the Roly Spirit can act as Jesus does. That
which follows in the text clarifies:
This Holy Spirit, who from his pelfection lowered himself to come to men,
was called by Jesus and placed as a child among the disciples. It is thus
necessary, abandoning desires for worldly things, to humble oneself, not
orny like a child, but, as is written, like this child. And to humble oneseIf
as that child means to humble oneself for God and to imitate the Holy Spirit
who lowered himself for men. And that the Saviour and the Holy Spirit
were sent by the Father for the salvation of men is shown in Isaiah, who
says in the name of the Saviour: Now the Lord God has sent me together
with his Spirit (Is 48,16). But one must pay attention as the expression is
double: For either God [the Father] sent, and also the Holy Spirit sent the
Saviour, or, as it is interpreted, the Father sent both the Saviour and the
Holy Spirit6 •
Two aspects are worth mentioning: i) the dimension of like is not that
of image (this child is the Roly Spirit), but on the level of the disciple
(who must be like this child), insofar as he is called to become ever more
spiritual in an imitatio Spiritus 7 , which is a condition for the imitatio
Christi in Origen. ii) The reading of Is 48,16, and thus of the possible
roIe of the third Pers on in the sending of the second, is tied to this. This
aspect appears to be essential in understanding the dogmatic value of the
images used for the third Pers on of the Trinity. M. Simonetti8 has de sig-
nated two different Trinitarian schemata in Origen's thought: One is
called linear, in which the Son is presented after the Father, and after the
Son the Spirit. It is to this that the Arians will refer as to an authority.
And another more archaic one, called triangulaI', which presents the Son
and the Spirit together in mission. The image of the child appears to be
inserted into this last representative form, precisely because the first
6. 01tEp 1tVEUJ.lU liytov 1tpocrKUÀEcrUJ.lEVOÇ ô 'IllcrOûÇ a1to 't~ç iOluç 'tEÀEtO'tll'tOÇ
Ku'tu~E~llKoÇ 1tpOç avSpro1tOUç ruç 1tatoiov scr'tllcrEv uù'to sv J.lÉcrqJ 'trov J.luSll'troV. OEt
o6v cr'tpu<pÉv'tU a1to 'trov KocrJ.ltKroV smSuJ.ltrov 'tU1tEtvrocrUt Éuu'tov oùx &.1tÀroç ruç 'to
1tUtOloV ùÀÀà Ku'tà 'to yEypUJ.lJ.lÉVov ruç 'to 1tUtOloV 'toû,o. scrn oÈ 'to ,U1tEtvrocrUt
Éuu'tov ruç 'to 1tUtOloV sKEtVo 'to 'tU1tEtvrocrat Éuu'tov 61tÈp SEOU Kut 'to J.ltJ.lT]crucrSut
'to 61tÈp crco'tllPlaç avSpomcov 'tU1tEtvrocrUV Éuu,o 1tVEÛJ.lU liytov. on oÈ ô crcotTjp Kat
'to liytov 1tVEUJ.lU SSU1tEcr'tUÀll 61to 'tOU 1tu'tpoç S1tt crCO'llpiQ. 'trov avSpro1tCOV OEOT]-
ÀCO'tat sv 't<$ 'HcruîQ. SK 1tpocrro1tOU 'toû crco,~poç ÀÉyov'tt' «Kut VUV KuptoÇ a1tÉcr'tEtÀÉ
J.lE KUt 'to 1tVEUJ.lU UÙ'tOU». icr,Éov J.lÉV'tot on aJ.l<Pl~oMç scrnv Tj Â-Éstç' il yàp ô SEOÇ
a1tÉcr,EtÂ-EV a1tÉcr'tEtÂ-E oÈ KUt 'to 1tVEÛJ.lU 'to liytov ,OV crCOtT1Pu il (ruç sSEtÂ-il<PUJ.lEV)
aJ.l<po'EpU a1tÉcr'tEtÂ-EV ô 1tu'tT]P 'tOV crco,~pu Kut ,0 liytov 1tVEUJ.lU (CMt 13.18.29-56:
GCS, X/l, 227.16-228.24).
7. Cf. M. BEYER MOSER, Teacher of Holiness: The Holy Spirit ill Origen's Commen-
ta/y 011 the Epistle to the Romal/s, Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias Press, 2005, pp. 146-169.
8. M. SIMONETII, Note sulla teologia trinitaria di Origelle, in Vetera Christiallorum 8
(1971) 273-307.
 566 G.MASPERO
underscored aspect, the spiritual one, and only the spiritual one, is the
essential dimension of both the mission of the Spirit and that of the Son.
Because of that, the imitatio Spiritus is condition of the imitatio Christi.
For the present study it is sufficient to note that this exegesis is taken
up by Jerome alone, and in a c1early dependent manner, insofar as one
finds the same movement from a first moral reading to a more specifi-
cally doctrinal one, which identifies the child and theSpirit9 • It is easy
to understand why the Greek theology of the 4th century, before the Arian
and Pneumatomachian heresies, left this identification aside. It is how-
ever worthwhile to manifest, as is often the case, how the Alexandrian
opened a path of thought. For, at the end of the cited passage, the text of
Matthew is placed in parallel with the He who does not receive the king-
dom of Gad like a child willnot enter into it of Lk 18,17:
And the expression is double: For, either he who receives the kingdom of
God becomes like a child, or he receives the kingdom of God, which has
become like a child for him lO •
The Origenian identification of the child with the Roly Spirit con-
c1udes with the identification of the third Pers on with the kingdom of
God, which will then be taken up by Gregoly of Nyssa to respond to the
Macedonian heresy, in an attempt to c1arify the role of the Spirit in the
relationship between the Father and the Son ll . In the case of the Nyssen,
the theological argument that identifies the Spirit with the Kingdom is
also tied to the Lukan variant of the Our father, which he knows through
the Syriac tradition 12 : the Thy kingdom come of Mt 6,10 is held as
equiva1ent to May your Spirit descend on us and purify us of the variant
ofLk 11,2.
The essential difference between the identification of the Roly Spirit
with the Kingdom in Origen and in Gregory of Nyssa is that the first
reflects on the economic level, associating the Son and the Spirit with the
9. Cf. Jerome, Commentarii in el/angelil/m Matt/wei III.486-492: CCL 77, p. 156.
10. Kat sO''ttV ùf.l<!>ipoÀoC; ~ Àsstc; Tl yàp ïva 0 OEXOf.lEVOC; TTjV TOU SEaU PUO'IÀElUV
ysvllTat roC; nutoiov Tl ïva Û1V TOU SEaU pUO'IÀElaV nupuosSllTat yEvof.lsVllV aÎncp roC;
natoiov (CMt 13.19.94-99: GCS, X/l, 233.18-21).
11. Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus Macedonianos, GNO III/l, 102, 26-28. For a
commentary, G. MASPERO, The Fire, the Kingdom and the GIO/y: The Creator Spirit and
the Intra-Trinitarian Processions in the Adversus Macedonianos of GregO/y of Nyssa, in
V.H. DRECOLL - M. BERGHAUS (eds.), GregO/y of Nyssa: The Minor TI'eatises on Trinitar-
ian Theology and Apollinarism, forthcoming.
12. Cf. M. ALEXANDRE, La variante de Lc 11,2 dans la Troisième Homélie sur
l'Oraison Dominicale de Grégoire de Nysse et la controverse avec les pnel/matomaql/es,
in M. CASSIN, et al. (eds.), Grégoire de Nysse: La Bible dans la construction de son
discol/rs.i}ctes du colloque de Paris, 9-10 février 2007 (Études Augustiniennes), Paris,
Institut d'Etudes Augustiniennes, 2008,163-189.
REMARKS ON ORIGEN' S ANALOGIES FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT 567
Kingdom in mission, while the second identifies the third Person with
the Kingdom on the immanent level, as his personal and distinctive char-
acteristic in respect to the Son, who is King insofar as perfect image of
the Father who is King.
The economic perspective of Origen is also manifest by the reference
to kenosis, not only of Christ, but also of the Spirit: Given that the world
itself is a lower reality, the presence of the two Trinitarian Persons in
time cannot be read except as a kenosis. In the 4 th century the distinction
between economy and in1manence will require to recognise the mission
of the Spirit in the world, not only as a lowering, but as the fullness of
the presence of the divinity in histOly.
In brief, after having considered this first image, three more properly
dogmatic aspects that underpin the text can be enumerated: 1) The role
of direct imitation of the Spirit, and not of the humanity of Christ, tied
to the radical spiritualization of God, and thus of sanctification. 2) The
placement on the same level of the Son and the third Person, according
to the triangular schema. 3) The kenosis of the Spirit in mission, parallel
to that of the Son. These three elements are c10sely conelated to each
other in the expression of the image in question.
III. THE EYES OF THE DOVE
These three aspects can be better understood, in the context of Orige-
ni an Trinitarian doctrine, by turning to the Song of Songs, the most
spiritual and theological book of the Old Testament, particularly in the
commentaries tied to the Alexandrian tradition.
In Chapter III of the commentary on Song (GCS 33.173-174), refenmg
to behold you are beautiful, your eyes are doves (Ct 1,5), Origen has
recourse to the following argumentative line: The dove is symbol of the
Roly Spirit, and the eyes of the bride are designated as doves because
they are capable of a spiritual regard, of a regard according to the interior
man. Rowever, according to a movement analogous to that noted in CMt,
immediately following the spiritual exegesis, Origen' s attention turns
towards an even more p7'Ofmtnd myste1y, where he applies behold you are
beautiful to the Church. In this context is found a completely original
interpretation:
For this reason her eyes are called doves, in such a way that the two doves
that are the two eyes are interpreted as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit.
And do not be surprised that both are called doves, from the moment in
which each of them is called advocate in the same way. For the evangelist
 568 G.MASPERO
John caUs the Holy Spirit Pm'ac/ete, that Îs, advocate (Jn 14,16), and in the
same way, in his letter he says of Jesus Christ that He is the advocate with
the Father for our sins (1Jn 2,1), But, even more, it is believed that the two
olive trees placed at the right and left of the lamp stand, according to Zech-
ariah (cf. Zc 4,3), designate the Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit 13 ,
In CIo X.28.173 (SC 157,488), Origen interprets the eyes of the dove
in a moral sense, in reference ta the observational capacity of those who
are spiritual. This exegesis will be appropriated in the 4 th century by
Gregory of Nyssa, in his commentary on Song 14 • In the cited text how-
ever, there is a passage ta a deeper mystery, which can be read as an
explication at the level of dogma, which is the foundation for the spiritual
interpretation. Origen is conscious of the surprising nature of his original
exegesis. It is nevertheless founded in his theology, whose starting affir-
mation is that God is Spirit 15 : The Son and the Spirit are bath called
doves, because they belong ta the Trinity who is Spirit, that is, dove. The
entire created world, on the other hand, is typified by materiality, even if
it is ethereal as in the case of the angels. At the same time however, the
Son and the Spirit are distinguished from each other and from the Dave
itself, without ever being separated from the others. This is expressed
through the use of the image of the eyes of the Dave, identified with the
second and third Persans. This passage is favoured by the comparison of
Jn 14,16 and 1Jn 2,1, where the title ofParaclete is attributed ta the Spirit
or ta Christ. The origin of the use of the image seems ta be rooted in the
necessity of placing Christ and the Spirit on the same level. We are
openly in the triangular Trinitarian schema. At the same time, Origen also
manifests the need ta distinguish the two Persans, when in Prin he reads
Paraclete in reference ta the third Persan in terms of consolation, insofar
as He reveals the spiritual sense, while Pm'aclete as referred ta the
second Persan is read as advocate l6 • From the perspective of the relation-
ship between economy and immanence, it is as if Origen was seeking to
anchor the missions of the Son and of the Spirit, placed side by side like
13. Et ibi dicat èsse oculos eius columbas, ut duorum oculomm duae columbae intel-
ligantur esse filius Dei et Spiritus sanctus. Et ne mireris, si columbae simul dicantur, cum
uterque si~liter advocatus dicatur, sicut lohannes evangelista declarat Spiritum quidem
sanc~~ dIc.en~ par~c/etu1/l, quod est advocatus; et de lesu Christo nihilominus in epistola
sua diCIt qUIa Ipse sIt advocatus apud patrem pro peccatis nostris. Sed et apud Zachariam
prophetam dl/ae olivae ad dexteram et ad sinistram candelabri positae unigenitum nihil-
ominus et Spiritum sanctum designare creduntur (CCt ID, GCS 33, 174.13-22).
14. Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, In Canticl/m Canticoml11, GNO VI, 116 and 219.
15. Cf. M. SIMONEITI, Spirito Santo, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origene. Dizion-
ario: La cl/ltura, il pensiero, le opere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 451.
16. Cf. Prin 11.7.3: SC 252, 332.
REMARKS ON ORIGEN'S ANALOGIES FOR mE HOLY SPIRIT 569
the eyes of the dove, also read as doves, in the nature of Gad itself which
is Spirit, that is dove.
The image of the two eyes of the dove is then connected ta the clearly
Semitic image of the two olive trees of Zc 4,3. In this case, as for
the child of Mt 18,1-4 and the eyes of the dove in CCt, the interpretation
will be abandoned in the 4 th century. Didymus, in his commentary on
Zechariah, manifests his awareness of this Origenian exegesis, which will
however be reinterpreted in terms of notions on the Son and on the Spirit
(oi 1tSpt Yioo Kat ayiou IIvs6!!a't'o<; dO"w Myot)17. For this he will
cite the authority of the Church of Alexandria, probably referring ta
Athanasius l8 • The semantic shift is evident, inserted in arder ta avoid any
possible misunderstanding on the divine nature of the Son and the Spirit,
by moving from the level of being ta that of language.
The Origenian connection of the two olive trees with the Son and the
Spirit is clearly ta be tied ta Judeo-Christian theology and ta angelomor-
phic Christology and Pneumatology. This is supported by the parallel
with the exegesis of the two Seraphim:
For, without a doubt, aU those who walk the earth, that is aU the earthly and
corporeal realities, are participants in the Holy Spirit, receiving Him from
God [the Father]. A Hebrew master himself said that those two seraphim,
that in Isaiah are described with six wings, proclaiming one to the other,
saying: Holy, Holy Holy, the Lord of hosts (ls 6,3), are to be understood as
the Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit. But we maintain that that which
is said in the canticle of Habakkuk must also be understood as referring to
Christ and the Holy Spirit: You will be known among the two animaIs (or
living beings) (Hab 3,2, LXX Lat.). For every knowledge about the Father is
received in the Holy Spirit, by the revelation of the Son, in such a way that
both of those beings that are caUed besouled or living beings by the prophet,
exist for the knowledge of God the Father I9 •
J. Daniélou traces this reading back ta the Judeo-Christian circle rather
than ta Phil020 • It is interesting ta note that Origen not only continues the
17. Didymus, In Zachariam 1.286 (SC 83, 342).
18. Cf. ibid., n. 3, p. 343.
19. Sine dubio enim omnis qui calcat terram, id est terrena et corporalia, particeps est
spiritus sancti, a deo eum accipiens. Dicebat autem et Hebraeus magister quod duo illa
Seraphin, quae in Esaia senis alis describuntur clamantia adinuicem et dicentia: Sanctus
sanctus sanctus dominus Sabaoth, de unigenito fHio et de spiritu sancto esset intellegen-
dum. Nos uero putamus etiam illud, quod in cantico Ambacum dictum est: In medio
duorwll animalium (uel duarum uitarum) cognosceris, de Christo et de spiritu sancto
sentiri debere. Omnis enirn scientia de patre, reuelante filio, in spiritu sancto cognoscitur,
ut ambo haec, quae secundum prophetam uel animantia uel uitae dicuntur, causa scientiae
dei patris existant (Prin 1.3.4: SC 252, 148-150).
20. Cf. J. DANIÉLOU, Théologie du Judéo-christianisme, Tournai, Desclée, 1958,
p.222.
570 G.MASPERO
angelomorphic exegesis he received, but reinforces it with the reading of
the two living beings of Hab 3,2 in telms of the Son and the Spirit.
In fact, in the Judeo-Christian cu'cle, the image of the Angel of YHWH
was used as a fu'st rudimentary concept of person21 , in order to indicate
that God himself acted in history and had entered into a relationship of
intimacy with the people. It was a means of protecting the absolute tran-
scendence of YHWH while manifesting his personal dimension at the same
time. In the first Trinitarian reflection from Semitic circles it is reason-
able to think that this image naturally developed to be applied to the Son
and the Spirit, in order to indicate their mission in time.
In the case of these images as weIl, three elements of historical and
dogmatic nature can be enumerated: (1) The divine nature is in fact iden-
tified with the spu'itual dimension. (2) The association of the Son and the
Spirit is tied to the Semitic tradition, and in particular to the Judeo-Chris-
tian cu'Cle. (3) For this reason, the images can be related to angelology
and early angelomOlphic Trinitarian doctrine.
IV. REINTERPRETING THE IMAGES
Therefore, for that which has been seen up to this point, Origen refers to
the Holy Spuit through various images, aIl of Biblical and Traditional der-
ivation, but which are read in a Pneumatological key in light of the totality
of the Alexandrian's theology. Other than the child of Mt 18,1-4, from
which we began, we can also include the eyes of the dove of Ct 1,15, the
olive trees of Zc 4,3, the seraphim of Is 6,3 and the living beings of Hab
3,2: AH these images can be presented as a synthesis of the fundamental
themes of Origen's thought and the expressive form of the Sernitic matrix.
Origen is conscious that use of creaturely images to refer to the thil'd
Pers on, even images of plants and animaIs, requu'es an explanation to
avoid misunderstandings. For this reason, he engages himself in explain-
ing the sense of that which he proposes, changing the value and modify-
ing the images in respect to the tradition from which he draws. In doing
this he purifies and criticizes, manifesting thus the theological value of
the images themselves.
One clear case of this reinterpretation is the image, always directly
Semitically derived, of the Holy Spu'it as mother of Christ:
If one accepts the Gospel according to the Rebrews, where the Saviour
himself says My mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and
21. Cf. ibid., p. 205.
REMARKS ON ORIGEN' S ANALOGIES FOR THE HOLy SPIRIT 571
led me to the great mOllntain, Tabor, he will find himself before the diffi-
culty of how the Roly Spirit can be the mother of Christ, when Re was
made by me ans of the Word, But it will not be difficult to thus explain this
as weIl: For ifwhoeverfulfils the will ofmy Father who is in heaven, is for
Him brother, sister and mother (Mt 12,50), and if the name of brother of
Christ refers not only to the race of men, but also to more divine realities
than them, it will be in no way absurd that, more than any other who
receives the title of mother of Christ, the Roly Spirit is his Mother, insofar
as He accomplishes the will of the heavenly Father22 •
The Alexandrian takes up an image in aIl probability tied to the prim-
itive theology of the Semitic cu'Cle, conditioned by the use of the femi-
nine for the word spirit in both Hebrew and Syriac23 . The image was also
present in the Gnostic theology of Egyptian origin24 , FOlm Origen's per-
spective, this attribution of matemity to the Spu'it will influence the dis-
cussion of a possible role of the third Pers on in the sendulg of the second,
something already seen in the commentary on Mt 18,1-4 referencing
Is 48,16. For this reason the image is reinterpreted in light of the concord
of will of the three divine Hypostases.
This solution, which could appear weak from the perspective of the
4 th century, can however be received in aIl of its force by situating the
affinnations in the philosophical background of middle-Platonism. For
Origen, Gad is essentially Love, in the sense that the three divine Persans
are united in libelty. Gad moves from the Greek realm of necessity ta
that of the most pure and true libelty. That this explanation will be later
intelpreted on the level of moral unity alone cannat make us forget the
radical originality introduced here. The doctrinal development of the
4th century will look ta protect the nucleus of this Origenian intuition, by
means of the introduction of the highly sophisticated instrument of the
language of <puO'tC;.
22. 'Eùv os npocnfj'tut nc; 'to KUS' 'E~pu{ouc; eùuyyÉÀ.Wv ËvSu Uù'tOC; 6 crro'tllP
<!>1l<JlV' «"Apn ËÀ.u~É I-le ft I-lll'tllP I-l0u 'to liywv nVeÎJl-lu ~v I-lt~ 't&v 'tptX&v I-l0U
KUt &nllveyKÉ I-le etc; 'to opoC; 'to I-lÉyu 0u~cOp» ~nunoPllcret n&c; I-lll'tIlP Xptcr'toù
'to otù 'toù t..6you yeyeVlll-lÉVOV nVeÙl-lu liywv dvut 06vu'tut. Tuihu os Kut 'to(mp
où XUÀ.enov Épl-lllveùcrut· el yùp 6 not&v «'to SÉÀ.llI-lU 'toù nu'tpoc; 'toù ~v 'toiC;
oùpuvoiC; &OeÀ.<!>OC; Kut &OeÀ.<!>1'] Kut I-lll'tIlP ~cr'ttV» uùwù Kut <!>SUvet 'to &OeÀ.<!>OC;
Xptcrwù ovol-lu où I-lovov sni 'ta 't&v &vSpcOnrov yÉVOC; ÙÀ.À.Ù KUt ~nt 'tÙ 'to(nou
SetO'tepU oùOsv Il'tonov Ë<J'tat l-luÀ.À.ov nucrlle; XPlll-lunsou(J]lC; I-lIl'tpoC; Xptcrwù,otÙ
'ta notEiv 'to SÉÀ.llI-lU 'toù ~v 'toiC; oùpuvoiC; nu'tpoc; 'ta nVeÙl-lu 'to liywv eivut
I-lll'tÉpU (CIo II.12.87.1-88.8: SC 120,262).
23. Cf. E. KANIYAMPARAMPIL, The Spirit of Life, Kottayam, OIRSI, 2003, 208-223.
24. The Elkesaites were a heterodox Iudeochristian group of the II century character-
ized by Gnostic elements. Ris founder had the vision of the Roly Spirit as a feminine
being. Cf. G.G. STROUMSA, Le couple de l'Ange et de l'Esprit: Traditions juives et chré-
tiennes, in Revue Biblique 88 (1981) 43-47 and S.C. MIMOUNI, Le judéo-christianisme
ancien, Paris, Cerf, 1998, pp. 287-316.
 572 G.MASPERO
Therefore, the Alexandrian reintelprets the Semitic images known to
him, moving in the same theological direction that willlead to the disap-
pear'ance of the feminine images in reference to the Spirit, and, in the
Syriac cU'cle, even to the change of gender of the term ruhâ in the 4 th
century, for specifically theological motives 25 • This is nothing other than
an ever more theological understanding of the images themselves and an
effort to adapt them in a continually more perfect manner in order to refer
to the Mystery, moving beyond any expressive form and the misunder-
standings that it can provoke.
Perhaps the witness of a similar exegesis, in a context that remains still
clear'ly of Semitic flavour, can be found in the commentary on Ps 122 in
the Selecta in Psalmos, of dubious attribution to Origen26 • In reference
to the second verse, Beho/d, as the eyes of servants are directed ta the
hands of their masters, and as the eyes of a maidservant ta the hands of
her mistress; sa our eyes are directed ta the Lord our Gad, until He have
mercy upon us, it states:
the spirit and the body are servants of masters, that is of the Father and the
Son; while the soul is the handmaid of the mistress, the Roly Spirit. And
these three are the Lord our Gad, because the three are but one. For, the
eyes of servants regard the hands of masters, that is of the Father and the
Son, and their powers belong ta the mistress, the Roly Spirit27 •
The text associates angelology, anthropology and Trinitarian reflec-
tion, in a whole that has a clearly archaic note and speaks of the Spirit in
feminine terms, identifying Rim with the mistress to which the verse of
the Psalm refers. The tripaltite division of man into spirit, body and soul
is placed here in relation to the three divine Persons.
Origen introduces the same tripartite division in his intelpretation of
the image of le aven of Lk 13,21: The woman who kneads the dough with
leaven is interpreted in an ecclesiological manner, while the Spu·it is
identified with the leaven itself, and the three portions are tied specifi-
25. Cf. S. BROCK, The Holy Spirit as Feminine in Early Syriac Literature, in J. MARTIN
SOSKICE, After Eve (ed.), London, Harper Collins, 1990. Significantly, in Hebrew and
Aramaic this change ~f gender did not occur, insofar as there was neither a lùgh level
theological development nor a proper dogmatic elaboration in these two languages.
26. For exegetical writings on the Psalms, see the article Salmi, of E. PRlNZIVALLI, in
MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origene. Dizionario (n. 15),422-424.
27. ô.ooÀ,ot Kupicov lIa:tpoç Kut Ytoo nVBoJlu Kut mÎlJlu' natlHcrKIl oÈ Kupiuç 't'oo
ayiou lIvë\JJlu't'oç fI 'l'Uxit. Tù oÈ 't'piu Kuptoç 6 0BOÇ fIJliOv Ècrnv' ai yùp 't'pBtÇ 't'O
Ëv BtcrtV. 'O<jJ3uÀJlot yoov oouÀcov BtÇ Xëî'puç Kupicov 6piOvtëç <hB Otù XBtpiOv VBUOV-
't'BÇ KBÀBUcrOUcrtV. "H XBtpEÇ Kupicov JlSV IIu't'poç KUt Ytoo' ot BKU't'ÉpOU UyyEÀOl'
Kupiuç os 't'oo ayiou lIvEuJluwç ut OtKEtat al)'t'oo OUVUJlEtÇ (SeiPs 122, PO 12, 1633C).
REMARKS ON ORIGEN'S ANALOGIES FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT 573
cally to the body, spirit and soul of man28 • Once again the material sym-
bolism is at the service of the affirmation of the Spuit in the world, and
in man in particular.
This exegesis is taken up by Jerome, who refers to the tripartite divi-
sions of man29 and develops the interpretation in a Trinitarian manner,
tying the three portions of dough to the three Persons 30 . In another pas-
sage Jerome connects the woman who kneads with the widow who gives
her offering in the Temple (cf. Lk 21,1-4; Mk 12,41-44) and to the image
of the mus tard seed (Mt 13,31-32; Mk 4,30-32; Lk 13,18-19), in order
to read the text in a Tlinitarian sense and, once again, in relationship to
Semitic angelology31.
But a citation of Irenaeus, who witnesses to the Gnostic exegesis of
Lk 13,21, seems more pertinent to understand Oligen's use of the image:
The three palts there represent the three classes into which men are
divided, and the woman represents Sophia, while the leaven represents
the Saviour himse1f3 2 • From this perspective it can be seen how the Alex-
andrian is engaged in an ecclesiological and anthropological reintelpreta-
tion of the Lukan passage, in which Pneumatological exegesis is at the
service of an orthodox reading of the Gospel.
Thus, both in the case of the Roly Spirit presented as mother of Christ
and in that of the Leaven and the three portions of dough, Origen rein-
terprets the texts in an anti-gnostic sense for theological reasons.
28. 'E't'Épcoç Ecr't't ÀU~ëî'v 't'~v JlllV yuvulKu stc; 't'~v ÈKKÀllcriuv 't'TtV oÈ ÇUJlTlV siç
't'o nVEoJlu 't'o üytoV cru't'u oÈ 'tpiu criOJlu nVEOJlu 'l'uxitv. aytUÇE'tut oÈ 't'uo'tu 't'fi ÇUJlll
'too ayiou nVEUJlu'tOÇ rocr'tE YEvÉcr3ut npoç 't'o üytoV nVEo~lu ilv <jJupuJlu (Fr 82: OCS
49,205.1-3).
29. II/ cuius fm'il/ae salis Iribus mit/il ferl1lel/lulll eual/gelica lIlulier; elul spirilus quo
sentimus el anima qua uiuimus, el co/pus qllo il/cedimus, ill lill/lm sal/ctulll spiritum redi-
gantllr iuxla aposlolum: ill ipso l/il/imus, moueml/r et sumus (Jerome, Commentarii in
prophelas minores, In Osee II.8.164-168: CCL 76,86).
30. Ml/lierem islam el ipsi ecclesiam inte/pretalltur quae fidem hominis farinae salis
tribus commiscuerit credulitali patris et filii et spirilus sallcti Cl/m que in unum fueril
fermentata non nos ad triplicem deum sed ad unius diuinilatis perducit noliliam (Jerome,
CO/llmentarii in euangelium Matt/zaei, II.912-916: CCL 77, 109-110).
31. Uellio ad uiduam de euallgelio, uiduam pallperculam, ollllli israhelilico populo
ditiorem, quae accipiells grallllm sinapis et mittensfermel/lulll infarinae salis tribus palris
et filii confessionem spirilus sancti gratia temperauil et duo minuta misil in gazophylacium
quidqllid habere poterat in slibstal/lia sua ul/iuersasque diuitias ill Ilfroque fidei suae
obtulit testamenlo. haec sunt duo Seraphin ter glorificanlia trinilatem el in Ihesauro eccle-
siae cOI/di la, Illide et forcipe ulriusque intrumenti ardens carbo comprehellsl/s pl/l'gal
labia peccatoris (Jerome, Epistulae, 54.17: CSEL 54, 484.9).
32. Kut 't~v ûiç ÇUJlTlÇ 1tUpu~oÀ~v ilv fI yuv~ ÈYKEKpU<jJÉVUI ÀÉyE'tUt siç &ÀEUpOU
cru't'u 't'piu 'tÙ 't'piu yÉVIl OTlÀoov ÀÉyoucrr. yuvulKu JlÈv yùp 'tTtV Lo<jJiuv ÀÉyscr3ut
OtOUcrKoUcrtV &ÀEUpOU oÈ cru't'u 't'piu 't'ù 'tpiu yÉVIl 'tiOv &v3pul1tcoV 1tVEUJlU'tlKOV
'l'UXtKOV XOïKOV (lrenaeus, Adversus haereses I.424.11-15: W.W. HARVEY, 1857).
574 G.MASPERO
V. 'THEOLOGICAL READING
That which has been seen up to this point shows how the use of the
various images in order to indicate the Holy Spirit is charged with imme-
diate theological value, which Origen attempts to refine· by taking from
the tradition known to him and reinterpreting it in light of the theological
errors of his time. It is not by chance that many of the images appear in
a context of deepening the mystery, in a study that would be today called
properly dogmatic or systematic.
In this sense the use of these images can also be useful to understand
the perspective of Origen in his development of his Trinitarian reflection.
For him that the Spirit is enumerated along with the Father and the Son
in the Trinity is an essential aspect from the apostolic Tradition, as weIl
as the fact that this same Spirit is He who spoke through the prophets of
the Old Testament. This assertion, which is also present in the creeds in
a general manner, aims at affirming the divinity of the third Person, as it
ties Him to the unique Creator God who saves his people, precisely as
divine. That however which is not yet c1ear to theological reflection, is
how to characterise the distinction between the Logos and the Spirit. For
this reason Origen writes:
[The apostles] have thus transmitted that the Holy Spirit is associated
with the Father and the Son in honour and dignity. But it has not been
clarified in an explicit manner whether He is engendered or unengen-
dered, and also whether He must be considered Son of God or not. But
these things are to be studied according to one's abilities from Sacred
Scripture and must be investigated with wise research. The fact is certain
that this Holy Spirit inspired each of the saints, prophets and apostles,
and that there is not a different spirit in the ancients and in those who
were inspired in the coming of Christ. And this is preached in a most
clear manner in the Church33 •
In this sense, the dissussion on the divinity of the Spirit has as imme-
diate interlocutor the Hebrew tradition, to which the prophets and the
nan'ations regarding the Spirit of YHWH belong. The same can be said for
the special recourse to the angels in order to explain the action of the
33. Tum deinde honore ac dignitate patti ac filio sociatum tradiderunt spmtum sanc-
tum. In hoc non iam manifeste discemitur, utrum natus aut innatus, uel filius etiam ipse
dei habendus sit, necne; sed inquirenda iam ista pro uiribus sunt de sancta scriptura et
sagaci perquisitione inuestiganda. Sane quod iste spiritus sanctus unumquemque sancto-
rum uel prophetarum uel apostolorum inspirauerit, et non alius spiritus in ueteribus, alius
uero in his, qui in adeuntu Christi inspirati sunt, fuerit, manifestissime in ecclesia praedi-
catur (Prin, praef. 4: SC 252, 82).
REMARKS ON ORIGEN'S ANALOGIES FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT 575
absolutely transcendent and unique God in history. In this context one
notes the effOlt of Origen to affirm the priority of order of the second
Pers on in relation to the third, once again with an exegesis of Is 48,16
expanded to underscore the unity of the Spirit in the Old and New Testa-
ments, at the same time avoiding a conception tied to images like that of
the mother of Jesus in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which inverts the
position of the Son and the Spirit:
But since it is the Hebrew who doubts the scriptural narration of the descent
of the Holy Spirit on Jesus in the form of a dove, one could respond to hirn:
You tell me who it is who says in Isaiah: Now the Lord God has sent me
together with his Spirit (Is 48,16). The text here is ambiguous: Was it the
Father and the Spirit who sent Jesus, or was it the Father who sent Jesus
and the Holy Spirit? The second is true. After the sending of the Saviour
the sending of the Holy Spirit took place, so that that which the prophet had
said be accomplished34 .
It is in Clo 35 , where the Alexandrian speaks in a more explicit manner
of the question. He affitms there that the Father, the Son and the Spirit
are 'L'pEle; UnO(HaO'lne; (75.1) and that only the Father is unengendered
(à:yÉvvll'L'Oe;) (75.3), while the Spirit is the greatest of the beings that
originated through the mediation of the Word (75.4-5: nav"CCov 8tà 'L'oG
À6you yavoJ.lÉvillV) in such a way as to be the first in order among those
who have their origin from the Father by means of Christ (75.5-7: Kat
'L'açat npillwv naV'L'illV 'L'illv uno 'L'oG na'L'poe; 8tà Xpt<HoG yay aV llJ.lÉ-
VillY). For this reason, He is perhaps ('L'axa) not called Son of God (76.1).
This 'L'axa appears to indicate that Origen is taking a position on an as
yet undefined subject, therefore presenting it as his own personal theo-
logical reflection. In this way he can eliminate doubt as to the possible
generation and filiation of the Spirit, characterising the distinction
between the second and third Pers ons in a c1ear manner from the theo-
logical perspective:
Insofar as it is only the Only Begotten who is Son by nature from the begin-
ning, in such a manner that it seems that the Holy Spirit needs his mediation
in order to subsist, not only to be (tO dvat), but also to be wise, intelligent,
34. 'E1td 8i> 'Iou8aî:oç EO'ttV 0 1tBpt 'toù àvayBypaJ.lJ.lévou ayiou 1tVBtlJ.la'toç
Ka'tû"l1Âu3évat EV Bt8Bt 1tBptO''tBpaç 1tpàç 'tàv 'IllO'oÙV à1toprov ÂBK'téov av Blll1tpàç
aù'tov' a; 061:Oç 'tiç EO'ttV 0 EV 't0 'HO'aît;( Myrov' Kat vùv KtlptoÇ à1téO''tBtM J.lB Kat
'tà 1tVBÙJ.la aù1:Où; EV cP àJ.l<Pt~oÂou OV1:Oç 'toù Pll'toù 1tO,BpOV 0 1ta'ti)p Kat 'tà aytov
1tVBÙJ.la à1téO''tBlÂav 'tàv 'IllO'OÙV 11 0 1ta'ti)p à1téO''tBtÂB 'tov 'tB XptO''tàv Kat 'tà aytov
1tVBÙJ.la 'tà 8Btl'tBpOV EO'ttV àÂ113éç. Kat E1td à1tBO"tuÂll 0 O'ro'tIÎP Bha 'tà 1tVBÙJ.la 'tà
aytov ïva 1tÂllpro3fI 'tà BtpllJ.lévov \l1tà 'tOù 1tpo<PlÎ'tOu (CC 1.46.29-38: SC 132, 196-
198).
35. CIo Il.12.75: SC 120,254-256.
 576 G.MASPERO
just and all that one must say of Him - by participation in the attributes of
Christ that have been already enumerated36 •
The incompleteness of the Origenian Trinitarian conceptualization on
the level of participation is apparent here37 , because he does not have
conceptual and expressive instruments at his disposaI that avoid a limit-
ing understanding of the communication of being from the Father to the
Son and from them to the Spirit. For example, in the cited text, it is c1ear
that 'LÔ dvut received by the third Person is not identified with 'LÔ dvat
(jo<j>ov, À,oytKoV, ÙtKUWV ... , that is, with the divine attributes, as should
be the case with He who is Being itself.
This speculation leads to the development of the linear conception of
the Trinity, which willlater be fundamental for the reflection of Athana-
sius and the Cappadocians in the defence of dogma against the Arians. It
however seems important to underscore that the triangular conception of
the Trinity, as has been seen in the aforementioned images, is not inde-
pendent from the linear one, as if it were a different traditional movement
that later dried up and wilted. One good demonstration is the recourse to
Is 48,16 in both contexts.
The reflection of Origen attempts instead to understand the images and
to develop a thought that founds economy in immanence, tying the
triangular conceptualization, more adapted to speak of the missions, to
the linear one, which tries to express something of divine immanence. In
this sense, the effort of the Alexandrian will bear its fruit in the 4 th cen-
tury, in patticular with the in depth rereading of his heritage which, under
pressure from the Arians and the Pneumatomachists, willlead the Cap-
padocians, and in patticular the two Gregories, to determine the personal
proprium of the Spirit, just as generation characterises the Son. Origen
cannot yet reach this point, mainly because he do es not yet have a devel-
oped concept of <j>o(jtç: For him, the divinity is characterized by pure
immateriality and spirituality 38, while aU other beings, from angels to
men, at'e characterized by a body to such a point that it can be said that
there is no authentic distinction of nature between the angelic and human
36. IlOVO\l 'tou 1l0VOyEVOUC; Q>UcrEt \llOU àPXfjSEV 't\lyXuvov'toC; oÔ xpnsEtv EOtKE
'to aytoV}tVEUlla OtŒKOVOUVWC; aù'tou 'tn ulwcr'tumn où lloVOV Etc; 'to etvat à'A'Aà Kat
croQ>OV Eivat Kat 'AOytKOV Kat OlKatov Kat niiv onnowuv xpil aù'to VOElV 't\lYX UVEtV
Ka'tà IlE'toxilv 'tiOv npoEtPllllÉvrov ~lllV Xptcr'tou E1ttvotiOv (CIo II. 10.76.2-7: SC 120,
256).
37. Cf. D.L. BALAs, The Idea of Participation in the Structure of Origen's Thought.
Christian Transposition of a Theme of the Platonic Trdition, in H. CROUZEL (ed.), Orige-
niana (Quademi di Vetera Christianorum, 12), Bari, Università di Bari, 1975, 257-275,
p.263.
38. Cf. CMt 17.30.
REMARKS ON ORIGEN'S ANALOGIES FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT 577
worlds. It is precisely this line, which can be traced to Philo, for whom
angels, demons and men are nothing but SOUlS39 , that pushes Origen to
read the child of Mt 18,1-4 in a Pneumatological key, and which offers
him the exegetical space to reread as Trinitarian the material and angelic
images of the Semitic and Old Testament tradition. A weIl known Orige-
nian exegetical principle is behind this:
For there is no need to think that historical realities are figures of histOlical
realities and that corporeal realities are figures of corporeal realities, but that
corporeal realities are figures of spiritual realities and historical realities are
[figures] of intellectual realities40 •
This principle is nothing other than the translation on the interpretative
level of Origen's cosmological and anthropological conceptualization,
which remains in constant play in his theological use of these images.
VI. CONCLUSION
The cited images to which Origen has recourse in order to refer to the
Holy Spirit will disappear in the theology of the 4 th century, when the
distinction between economy and immanence will need to be further
made explicit in order to respond to subordinationism. Neveltheless, this
will not mean the simple victory of the linear schema over the triangular
schema, insofar as fol' Origen himself, theological development moves
from the connection of the two schemata and the reinterpretation of the
images themselves to respond to the Gnostics. This is aU the more evi-
dent when one remembers that it will be a patticular reading of the linear
schema that will provide arguments for the Arian heresy.
Instead, the disappearance of the cited Trinitarian images must be
attributed in a decisive manner on the influence of the theology of natures
and the cOlTelated distinction between economy and immanence on exe-
gesis. The problem, more than one of Trinitarian theology, is to be placed
on the level of anthropology and theology of history. Origen managed to
correct the characteristic conception of necessity of Gnosticism, by which
men are divided into various categories, but could not refer to a c1ear
distinction of nature in order to separate the purely spiritual world from
39. Cf. Philo, De Gigantibus 16. For Origen the term of angel and that of man refer
to the same reality, cf. CIo II.23.144.6-7 (SC 120,302) and II.23.146.6-7 (SC 120,304).
40. Où yàp vOlltcr'tÉoV 'tà lO"'toptKà \cr'toptKiOv eiVŒt 'tuno\lC; Kat 'tà crrollanKà
crrollanKiOv à'AM crrollanKà nVE\lllanKiOv Kat 'tà \crwptKà vOl1'tiOv (CIo X.18.11OA-6;
SC 157,448).
578 G.MASPERO
the material one. Re is thus obliged to identify the divinity with the
purely spiritual realm, and to characterise the material world with a neg-
ative and transitory signification.
This leads, on one hand, to perceive the mission of the Spirit as a
humbling, in parallel to that of the Son. On the other hand, it leads to a
notable allegorical freedom in the use of creaturely images, insofar as the
spiritual sense is extra-historical rather than intra-historical.
ln this sense, one can conc1ude that the use of images can be an impor-
tant source for understanding the theological doctrine of an author, inas-
much as there is an intimate connection between content and expressive
fOlm. Images themselves can manifest the entire theological conceptual-
ization, with its strong and weak points. Beyond every didactic separation
between the Greek and Semitic sources, it remains important to read
Origen while keeping these two essential components present, in order
to avoid the risk of reductions that hinder full apprehension of the impor-
tance of his influence on the authors of the 4 th century, and on the
Cappadocians in particular. Concretely, in the case in point, the dia-
clU'onic approach can more readily manifest the continuity between these
authors in the search for a proper fOlmulation of the distinction of the
Son and the Roly Spirit, along with the personal characterization of the
latter. For, as Origen reinterpreted the images received from Tradition in
order to respond to the Gnostics, so too the authors of the 4 th century
reinterpreted the Origenian heritage in view of a more luminous repre-
sentation of the ineffable Mystery of the One and Triune God.
Pontifical University of the Roly Cross Giulio MASPERO
Via dei Famesi 82,
00186 Rome
ltaly
maspero@pusc.it
FIGURA SIMBOLO LEGGE LINGUISTICA NELLA
PROSA DI ORIGENE
Tp61toç, O'XYtI.W, figura: dalla definizione di metafora (È7tt<j>opa:
1457 b7; Il E-rU<j>tpEtv / -SECOpEtV: 1459a 7-8) nella Poetica di Aristotele
alla collocazione di metafora fra i tropi nel libro VIII della Institutio
Oratoria di Quintiliano, che precede la trattazione di figura e la distin-
zione figurae sententiarum e figurae verborum svolta nellibro IX!, con
una variazione su Cicerone2 •
Quell'opera rivoluzionaria dell'umanesimo italiano, che è la Dialectica
di Lorenzo Valla effettua una revisione critica degli O'XYtIlU-rU / figurae:
ma sono le figure del sillogismo categoric03 • 1 tropi perdono d'impor-
tanza e con essi la giustapposizione figurae verborum,figurae sententia-
rum. La questione non verte su di un confronto retorica e dialettica. Il
movimento è verso la perspicuità: argumenti necessarii elocutio 4 • La
questione verte sulla retorica, espressione della storicità della lingua,
quale tensione fra USliS e ratio (loqllendi consuetudo)5.
1. Quint., fllst. Or. VIII.6.4 (tropi: "Incipiamus igitur ab eo, qui cum frequentissimus
est tum longe pulcherrimus, translatione dico, quae flstu<j>opâ Graece vocatur"); IX.1.17
(figura: duas eius enim esse partes, OluvotuÇ, id est mentis vel sensus ;el senten~iat;Im
[ ... ] et Â.ÉSsroç id est verborum vel dictionis vel elocutionis vel sermoms vel oratlOms).
Arist., Poet., 1456a.33.36-37: nspl. Â.Éssroe; Kut otavoîue; dnslv [ ... ] !fcrn os Kutà tllV
ôUlvoHlv tulitu, ocru {mo wli Â.6you ôst:nupucrKsuucr~livul ("quanto alla 0lâv01U cio
che deve essere messo in mostra dalla parola"); 1456b.7-9: trov os nspt tllV Â.ÉSlV, Ëv
flÉv ÈcrtlV dooe; ~sropîue; tà crxi]JlUtU tlie; Â.Éssroe; ("quanto alla Â.Ésle; un aspetto
dell'indagine sono gli crxi]JlUtU": crxi]JlUtU dunque solo in rappOiio a Â.Ésle;: di compe-
tenza pero non della Poetica ma dell'arte declamatoria (fmoKpnlKft: 1456b.9): alla Poet~
ica è pl'Opria la suddivisione in parti (JlÉpll: 1456b.20-21); Rhet. 1403b.l: nspi tll V
0lâv01UV [ ... ]nspl Â.Éssroe; (libl'O I e II: olâvota; libro III: Â.Ésle; [di cui pero si enumera
la àpsti] non 10 crXilJlu: 1404b.1-2]); Rhet. 1401a.7-8: un falso entimema: Kut SOIKS tO
tOlOliwv sIVUI nupà tO crXliJlu tlie; Â.Éssroe; ("questa fallacia è il risultato d~lla forma
di espressione"); 1408b.21-22: tO os crXliJlU tlie; Â.ÉSsroe; ost: JlfttS BJlJlstpoV siVUI JllFs
applSJloV ("la forma della dizione deve essere né metrica né senza ritmo"). .
2. Cic., Brutus 17,69: "Omari orationem Graeci putant, si verborum immutatiombus
utantur, quos appellant tp6noue;, et sententiarum orationisque formis, quae vocant crX.i]-
JlUtU". Su Aristotele Cicerone Quintiliano cfl'. 0. ANDERSEN, fm Gartell der Rhetonk:
Die KUllst der Rede ill der Alltike, Dmmstadt, Primus Verlag, 2001, pp. 71-82 (die Fig-
uren1ehre: tl'Opi, metafore, figure deI discorso, figure deI pensiel'O).
3. Laurenti Valle Repastinatio Dialectice et Philosophie (= Dialectica), ed. G. ZIPPEL,
I, Padova, Editrice Antenore, 1982. Libro III.3-9, pp. 286-300: S. CAMPOREALE, Lorellzo Valla:
Umallesimo e Teologia, Firenze, Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascirnento, 1972, pp. 52-56.
4. Dialectica III.1.7 p. 28. Valla rielabora in maniera originale Quintiliano, fllst. Or.
V.2 (de argumentis): CAMPOREALE, Lorellzo Valla (n. 3), pp. 47. 50-51.
5. Dialectica II, proemio 6, p. 176; III.1; III.15.42, p. 345: CAMPOREALE, Lorellzo
Valla (n. 3), pp. 86-87; M. REGOLIOSI, Usus e ratio ill Valla, in M. REGOLIOSI (ed.), Le
580 D.PAZZINI
1 Principi della Scienza Nuova di Giambattista Vico, sezione seconda
(logica poetica), stratificano in quattro esemplificazioni i tropi, asse-
gnando a metafora il primo luogo. La delineazione di metafora nel capi-
tolo secondo è uno sviluppo della trattazione deI mito inteso, nel capitolo
primo, come fase prelinguistica: 1l530ç, mutus, i primi popoli sono
mutoli 6 •
La Metafm'a viva di P. Ricœur nasce dall'istituzione della discontinu-
ità fra discorso speculativo e discorso poetico. Ecos! nel momento più
acuto deI procedimento conoscitivo la figura, in quella forma precipua
che è la metafora, viene disgiunta7 •
Questo percorso storico di 'Cponoç crXilllujïgura, questa collocazione
di figura 0 prima 0 dopo la logica 0 altrove non sembra consegnarsi negli
studi recenti sui testi patristici. In questi studi già l'analisi sulle esempli-
ficazioni codificate della retorica quali parallelismo e antitesi8 , compara-
radici umanistiche dell'Europa: Lorenzo Valla e la rifOl"/lle della lingua e della logica,
I-II, Firenze, 2010, I, pp. 113-130.
6. PrincipLdi scienza nuova, a cura di F. NICOLINI, Milano, Mondadori, 2003, pp. 158-
162.
7. P. RICŒUR, La métaphore vive, Paris, Seuil, 1975 passa attraverso i contro-esempi
da opporsi ,alla tesi della discontinuità fra discorso speculativo e discorso poetico: nel
punto di mas sima vicinanza (Tommaso, De potentia quo 7 art. 6ad 7: agens univocum
agens aequivocum) più netta è la demarcazione fra analogia e metafora (p. 353): "Tel est
l'admirable travail de pensée par lequel a été préservée la differance entre le discours
spéculatif et le discours poétique au lieu même de leur plus grand proximité" (p. 356 );
un'enigmatica osservazione di Aristotele, che è rimas ta senza eco nel corpus aristotelico
(Rhet. m:1411b.24-25: "signficare le cose in atto" / 1412a.1O: i versi del poeta "rendono
il movimento e la vita: ora l'atto è movimento"): non la metafora che incrocia, mediante
l'analogia, l'analisi categoriale, ma l'enunciazione metaforica che mette in gioco l'essere
come atto'e come potenza (pp. 388-392): "la pente entropique du langage rencontre le
mouvement, par lequel nous régressons en deçà des distinctions entre acte, action, fabrica-
tion, mouvement" (p. 392); una lettura di Heidegger lettore di Hôlderlin: il pensiero
speculativo che ricorre alla possibilità metaforica dei linguaggio non è unD scandalo per
il pensiero"perché pensiero che replica, che cerca la risposta (p. 395): "À la puissance
spéculative de la poésie pensante, le poète répond par la puissance spéculative de la pen-
sée poétisante" (p. 394).
8. R. RUETHER, Gregor of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher, Oxford University
Press, 1969, pp. 66-67 (ossimoro e metonimia, p. 84; iiK<j>pacrtç e metafora, pp. 94-95;
"Rhetoric must be plucked from its native value system and transferred into the Christian
value system", p. 111); A. CAMERON, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Devel-
opment of Christian Discourse (Sather Classical Lectures, 55), Berkeley, CA, University
of California Press, 1991, cap. 5: The Rhetorik of Parodox, pp. 155-188: paradosso e
antitesi da omamento retorico a indispensabile risorsa dei pensiero: "oppositions as a
means of hinting at what was essentially inexpressible" (p. 160); T. ALEXOPOULOS, Die
Paradoxie ais Ausdrucksmittel tiefgriindiger theologischer Gedanken bei Gregor von
Nyssa, in Vigiliae Christianae 50 (2006) 431-446: rassegna delle asserzioni antitetiche
soprattutto di In Canticum Canticorum (GNO VI): "l'antitesi non appartiene solo al
campo della elocutio ... ma è un importante mezzo attraverso cui viene portato ad evidenza
il paradosso teologico", (p. 432).
FIGURA SIMBOLO LEGGE LINGUISTICA NELLA PROSA DI ORIGENE 581
zione9, prosopopealO , esordio ll , ravvisa un modo per dire il pensiero. Ma
soprattutto si potrebbe parlare di una nuova retorica, con nuovi tropi e
12
figure. Nuovi termini sono caricati di un particolare potere evocativo •
Altri termini sono prelevati dal loro classico contesto e sono assunti a
l
designazione di un'intera teologia13 • TI metodo prima di Borst 4, poi di
Neuschafer, che cerca la contiguità figure dell'elocuzione figure del pen-
16
siero 15 ma non riesce a collocare su questo piano allegoria e metafora ,
sembra essere ridiscusso dagli studi recenti: ma non nel senso di una
divaricazione fra due diverse realtà che non si toccano più, bens! nel
senso di una loro identificazione. E, esemplarmente, l'importante rilievo
di strutture sintattiche estranee alla forma attica17 , attesta non una retorica
9. J. LEEMANS, Style and Meaning in Gregory of Nyssa's Panegirics on the Marty~s,
in ETL 81 (2005) 109-121: comparazione con eventi della natura, agricoltura, astronomIa,
medicina, teatro, stadio (pp. 116-119).
10. A. VILLANI, Origenes ais Schriftsteller: Ein Beitrag Zlt seiner Verwendung von
Prosopopoiie, mit einigen BeobachtWlgen über die prosopologische Exegese, in ~da/llall­
tilts 14 (2008) 130-150: impiego storico letterario del1tpocrro1tOV ÂÉYov. senza flcorso ~l
senso secondo per risolvere le aporie del senso letterale (pp. 144-145); pluttosto analogla
fra esegesi allegorica e costruzione del metodo prosopografico (p. 150).
11. M. RIzzI, Ideologia e retorica negli exordia apologetici: Il problema dell'altro
(Il-III sec.) (Studia Patristica Mediolanensia,18), Milano, Vita e Pensjero, 1993: la ÂaÂtâ
nel Protrettico di Clemente Alessandrino, il1tpootIlIOV, il KatVoV (tcrlla; e sulla ÂaÂtâ
ancora TH. LECHNER, Rhetorik und Ritual: Platonische Mysterienanalogien, in ER. PRoST-
MElER (ed.), Friihc1lristentum ltnd Kultur, Freiburg, Herder, 2007, 183-22.1, p .. 200. .
12. Sehnsucht, Ilostalgia: A. RICKENMANN, Selmsucht naclz Gott bel Ongenes: El1l
Weg zltr verborgenen Weisheit des Hohenliedes (Studien zur systematischen und spirituel-
len Theologie, 30), Würzburg, Echter, 2002.
13. Atâcrnwa, gap, varco, i Cappadoci: S. DOUGLASS, Theology of the Gap: Cappa-
docian Language TlzeOl'y and the Trinitarian Controversy, New Yo~k, Peter ~ang, 200.5:
la logica, anche se non abbandonata, è subordinata alla manifestazlOne dell essere ad.Ia-
stematico di Dio (p. 151); la figura (mediastemic intrusion) lungi dall'~ssere una po~tlCa
sostituzione aggiunta, è indispensabile veicolo per comunicare la ve?tà .come fun~lO~e
della sua struttura poetica: evidente l'influenza di Ricœur: ma subordmazlOne / sostItuZI-
one non significa cosl. un ritrarsi e un fondersi in assenza di una funzione specifi~~? E
inversarnente qui l' analisi stilistica non è fondata da piuttosto che fondante l'anahsl sul
otâcr'owu ? . ..'
14. J. BORST, Beitriige zur sprachliclz-stilistichen und rhetorlsclzen Wurdlgill/g des
Origenes, diss. München, Freising, 1913.. . . . ..
15. B. NEUSCHÂFER, Origenes ais Plulologe (Schwelzeflsche Beltrage zur Altertums-
wissenschaft, 18), Basel, Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, 1987, pp. ~~8-240.
16. Ibid., p. 235: "Die in Metapher und Allegorie angelegte. Ubertrag~ngsforrn ~eutet
aber auf ein Phfulomen hin, das den ursplünglichen Rahmen emer rhetonschen Stilfigur
sprengt, viehnehr konstitutiv fur die biblische Sprache i~t: das~ sie.. eine~ tiefere~ Sinn
enthiilt"; p. 237 "Die Allegoria bzw das, was sie inten.dl~rt, relcht uber .em rheto~sc~es
crXl1ll a hinaus und ist gesarntsprachlicher Natur: J~de blblis~he Au~sage lst g~ndsatzhch
allegorisch verstehbar": la differenza non è fra pIano retoflco e pIano esegetIco ma fra
piano retorico e piano linguistico! ..' .. .
17. C. FAERICIUS, Der sprachliclze Klassizismus der grleClzlSchen Klrchenvater: Em
philologisches und geistesgeschiclztliclzes Problem, in Jahrbuchfiïr Antike und Chrlsten-
582 D.PAZZINI
mancata ma una retorica adeguata al nuovo universo esegetico omiletico
liturgico 18 .
Alla medesima conclusione dello scarto conduce la vicenda modema
dei simbolo raffrontata con gli studi sul testo patristico. La dissociazione
modema fra simbolo ed allegoria costruisce un recinto di difesa dell'al-
legoria patristica e, sul lato deI simbolo, registra la serie delle varianti,
sino a CJl1IlEtOV: pagine pertinenti della Connaissance mystique di
CrouzeF9. E la breve ma fondamentale pagina dell' Exégèse Médiévale
di De Lubac sottrae l'allegoria deI quadruplice senso all'immagine ridu-
zionistica modema dell'allegoria artificio, contro cui celebra la sua vit-
toria il simbol0 2o . Eppure, liberata da questa pretesa antistorica, preziosa
è la vicenda dei simbolo sino alla teoria di A verincev e di Bachtin, e pua
raggiungere il testo patristico: il richiamo etimologico, i due pezzi di una
lamina scissi ma insieme addotti pel' il reciproco riconosciment021, non
tum 10 (1967) 187-199, pp. 187-188. Fondamentale il contributo di CH. KLOCK, Un ter-
suclullIgen zu Stil und Rhythl1lus bei Gregor von Nyssa: Ein Beitrag Zl/m Rhetorikver-
standnis der griechischen Vater, FrankfurtjM, Athenaum, 1987: crXTJJ.lu'tu e 'tp6not
(L. MÉRIDIER, L'influence de la seconde sophistique sur l'œuvre de Grégoire de Nysse,
Thése Paris, Rennes 1906: Méridier come Borst!) solo come mezzo (p. 140); Transzen-
dierung des rhetorischen Systems (p. 141); ma coappartenenza (Zusammengehen) di
retorica e teologia perché il mistero è articolato nei precisi mezzi espressivi (bestimmten
Ausdruckmitteln) dei linguaggio religioso, e inversamente l'istanza retorica, entrata nel
piano omiletico, si relativizza (p. 206). E ancora: retorica e critica filosofica della retorica
nella tecnica argomentativa dei "De anima et resurrectione" di Gregorio di Nissa
(8t'OJ.lOAOYOUJ.lÉvrov A6yC[l npocruyElv, argomentazione razionale per condurre alla
verità: all./'es. 17 A 11; 76 B 9): H.M. MErssNER, Theologie und Rhetorik: Der Dialog
Gregors von Nyssa De anima et resurrectione (Patrologia, 1), FrankfurtjM, Peter Lang,
1991, pp. 115. 127. 138-139.
18. W. KINZIG, The Greek Christian Writers, in S.E. PORTER (ed.), Handbook Classical
Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period: 330 B.e. - AD. 400, Leiden, Brill, 1997, 633-670, p.
647. L'autore avverte pero, per tutto il corso dell'articolo, 10 stato insoddisfacente degli
studio La relazione fra retorica cristiana ed esegesi biblica limane oscura. Kinzig cita il
detto di G.A. KENNEDY, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition !rom
Anciellf to Modem Times, London, Croom Helm, 1980, p. 138: cio che la dialettica è alla
retorica nel sistema aristotelico, l'ermeneutica è alla omiletica nella retorica cristiana: ma,
precisa Kinzig, rimane la questione se e come l'esegesi di un testo biblico abbia influen-
zato il modo in cui i risultati di questa esegesi vengono presentati (p. 648). Ma Kinzig
rimane ancora nella prospettiva dei concordismo fra esegesi e retorica (e in questo senso
non si discosta dai presupposti di Kennedy): rispetto al momento in cui l'esegeta si volge
all'omiletico espositivo retorico, vi è un momento linguistico proprio dell'esegetico, che
rimane ancora da valutare.
19. H. CROUZEL, Origène et la "Connaissance mystique" (Museum Lessianum section
théologique, 56), Bruges, Desclée de Brouwer, 1961, pp. 216-235.
20. H. DE LUBAC, Exégèse Médiévale: Les quatre sens de l'Écriture (Théologie, 41),
II/II Paris, Aubier, p. 178: "Or c'est là une distinction que le moyen âge latin n'a pas mise
théoriquement en valeur".
21. S.S. AVERINCEV, Simvol, in Kratkaja literatumaja enciklopedija, vol. VII, Moskva,
1972, coll. 826-831: trad. italiana a cura di G. BOTTIROLI, in Symbolon IV n.s. (2008)
FIGURA SIMBOLO LEGGE LINGUISTICA NELLA PROSA Dl ORIGENE 583
22
pua essere una forte immagine di quel mondo che è la frase origeniana ?
Prima che l'inventario dei simboli, 10 stesso carattere simbolico della
lingua. E pertanto oggetto di queste considerazioni è la frase origeniana
osservata nelle sue possibili costanti, rischierei dire leggi, [ungo la linea
di intersezione delle sue diverse proposizioni, prima dell'area dei tropi e
delle figure e deI concetto stesso di "forma attica" dello stile orige-
nian0 23 •
I. IL VERBO RADDOPPIATO
Il raddoppiamento deI verbo pua intendersi variamente 24 . Innanzitutto
come raddoppiamento deI modo. Spesso sembra iniflesso. Momenti
dell'eloquio piuttosto che della scrittura. Qua1cosa di idiomatico. Un
90-100: "pezzi di una lamina di legno che servivano come reciproco riconoscimento e che
sancivano un rapporto di amicizia durevole nel tempo. Il simbolo permetteva
l'identificazione e l'intesa reciproca. A differenza dell'allegoria, in cui si puo decifrare
l'altro, nel simbolo c'è il calore di un mistero che unisce" (pp. 91-92). M. BACHTlN, Pel'
una metodologia delle sciel/Ze lI/nane, in C. STRADA JANovrê (ed.), L'autore e l'eroe:
Teoria letteraria e scienze lI/nane, Torino, Einaudi, 1988, pp. 375-387: "La correlazione
fra identità e non identità ... il calore di un mistero che unisce. TI momento della contrap-
posizione deI proprio all'altro. Il calore dell'amore e il freddo dell'estraniazione. Contrap-
posizione e comparazione" (p. 375). Ma prima ancora, in area russa, la lettera di Florenskij
(14 giugno 1904): "1 simboli vengono costruiti dallo spirito in base a determinate leggi e
con una necessità interiore ... Le allegorie si fanno e si ditruggono; le allegorie sono
qualcosa di nostro, di puramente umano, convenzionale; i simboli affiorano e nascono
nella coscienza e da questa scompaiono, ma di per sé sono etemi procedimenti di scoperta
interiore, eterni per la loro fOlma ... noi non possiamo inventare i simboli, essi vengono
da sé quando ti riempi di un altro contenuto": A. BELYJ - P.A. FLORENSKI, L'arte, il
simbolo e Dio: Lettere sullo spirito russo, trad. e cura di G. GIULIANO, Milano, Medusa,
2004, p. 53 (quasi, nel simbolo, la trasposizione dell'allegoria deI quadruplice senso:
pagina dell'Exégèse Médiévale citata nella nota precedente): cfr. N. VALENTINI, Pavel A.
Florenskij: La sapienza dell'amore. Teologia della bellezza e linguaggio della verità
(Nuovi Saggi Teologici, 41), Bologna, EDB, 1997, pp. 218-219.
22. Y. DE ANDIA, Symbole et mystère selon Denys l'Aréopagite, in Studia Patristica 37
(2001) 421-451: il richlamo aIl' origine etimologica ravvisato nella correspondance di Baude-
laire e Rimbaud (p. 421); movimento anagogico dalla varietà dei simboli al mistero e invers-
amente movimento discendente da'" unicità deI mistero alla varietà dei simboli (Areopagita);
l'unione ipostatica legame di simbolo e mistero (Massimo il Confessore) (p. 450).
A. ANDREOPOULOS, The Symbol, the Ieon, and the Body: An Examination of Christian Semeio-
tics, in Stl/dia Patristica 40 (2006) 137-141: l'etimologia greca converge nel binomio simbolo /
icona: un'assenza ma anche una presenza deI mondo divino in quello umano (p. 141).
Simbolo e mistero, simbolo e icona: una via per superare la coupure fra simbolo e
allegoria? .
23. G. KENNEDY, Gl'eek Rhetorie l/lldel' Christian Emperors, Princeton, NJ, Prmceton
University Press, 1983, p. 138.
24. D. PAZZINI, Lingl/a e teologia in Origene: Il Commento a Giovanni (Studi Biblici,
160), Brescia, Paideia, 2009, pp. 47-49.
 584 D.PAZZINI
esempio 10 possiamo trovare nelle espressioni al gerundio-gerundivo: "Si
deve intendere (KU'rUVOV'rsov) con più attenzione come si deve (OEt)
accogliere ... " (CIo 20.294).
Più elaborati, con una movenza quasi retorica, i seguenti ottativi
potenziali: "Come Dio avrebbe potuto pone (av È'rWE'ra) nel paradiso
l'uomo imperfetto? Colui che poteva coltivare l'albero della conoscenza
razionalmente non potrebbe essere detto (av Â-syOl'ro) imperfetto"
(CIo 13.240). Il raddoppiamento qui non è una ridondanza: piuttosto è
un pensiero ulteriore, legato al primo, una ripresa. L'ottativo classico è
un'opzione fra desiderio e possibilità (Meillet). L'ottativo origeniano
esprime il differimento: "qualcuno potrebbe ribattere (àVSUrtEVSyKot os
nç;) ... ma non è difficile mostrare" (CIo 1.286-287): cioè il contesto
zetetico trasforma l'ottativo nel pensiero indiretto, si potrebbe dire nella
seconda battuta: nel processo che raggiunge il testo con sicurezza ma non
immediatamente, bensl con il beneficio deI dubbio.
Il raddoppiamento, come differisce dalla ripetizione, differisce anche
dalla enumerazione. L'enumerazione è elemento linguistico e insieme
logico fondamentale della prosa origeniana. Basta solo segnalare: l'enu-
merazione dei titoli cristologici (le Èrtivotat), che sono il volto antropolo-
gico deI Figlio (CIo 1.126-150) ma anche lettura cosmologica (CIo 10.64);
l'enumerazione entra nella tecnica esegetica come fila di domande poste
(CIo 13.411), come successione di ipotesi e replica (CIo 20.50), a volte
circuito (CIo 20.284); sui vari sensi di principio (CIo 11.110). Ebbene vi
è un luogo in cui si tocca con molta chiarezza la differenza fra enumera-
zione e raddoppiamento, soprattutto il raddoppiamento dell'ottativo:
"Ognuno potrebbe riconoscere (o/!oÂ-oyflcYUt av) che una sola è la verità.
Nessuno infatti a proposito di questo oserebbe dire ('rOÂ-/!TJO'Et nç; Â-SyEtv)
che una (É'rspuv) è la verità di Dio e un'altra (hspuv) quella degli angeli
e un'altra (hspuv) quella degli uomini. Nella natura degli esseri una sola
è la verità concernente ciascuno" (CIo 2.39). La successione dei due otta-
tivi porta avanti il pensiero. Ma non è questo il punto. Invece è interessante
osservare la specificità che assume l'enumerazione: essa vive di un con-
trappunto completamente diverso da quello dei raddoppiamento. E' il con-
trappunto di enumerazione e legge, caratteristico dello stile di Origene:
prima disseminazione 0 pluralità 0 enumerazione (altra, altra, altra), poi
concentrazione, condensazione, confronto, legge (una sola è la verità). Il
raddoppiamento è un evento linguistico eminentemente dialettico. Lo pos-
siamo cogliere soprattutto nelle forme nominali deI verbo, l'infinito e il
participio, certamente la cifra della lingua origeniana. Ho già trattato deI
pruticipi025 • Scelgo ora due esempi dall'infinito.
25. Ibid., pp. 49-68.
FIGURA SIMBOLO LEGGE LINGUISTICA NELLA PROSA DI ORIGENE 585
II. L'INFINITO NOMINALE
CIo 13.436:
Guarda l'economia (a pa ùè 'tTtV OiKOVOJlîav), se possiamo comprendere
(voijO'at), l'essersi l'evangelista notato ('r0 Kat È7ttO'EO'llJlEtmO'Bat) sull'es-
sere accaduto questo segno per secondo (1tEpi 'tou 8et)1;EpOV 'tou'tO 'to
O'1lJlelOV YEyovÉvat), giunto il Signore dalla Giudea alla Galilea.
Incredibile fila di tre infiniti, unD dentro l'altro in un periodo brevis-
simo. Frase assolutamente significativa deI procedere di Origene.
DaI primo infinito (voflO'ut) dipendono due infiniti nominali. Primo:
ÈrttO'EO'yt/!EtmO'Sut, infinito perfetto medio, da ÈrttO'yt/!EtOO/!Ut, indicare.
Sul senso passivo prevale il medio: l'avere l'evangelista fatto una nota.
Ecco: ÈrttO'EO'yt/!EtmO'Sut e O'yt/!dov. Gesù compie il O'yt/!dov,
l'evangelista compie un altro O'yt/!dov intorno a questo. Questo secondo
livello è implicito nel O'yt/!EtOV stesso. Ne apre l'intelligenza piena.
Che non è un'aggiunta dell'evangelista ma è una ripercussione nell'evan-
geIista dell'essenza stessa deI O'yt/!EtoV. Ma noi possiamo ulteriormente
differenziarci dall'interpretazione dell'evangelista, e quindi pone un
terzo livello di distanza da! O'yt/!dov: guarda se possiamo comprendere
(voflO'ut) l'economia.
Il seconda infinito nominale: rtEpt 'rO\) OEO'rEpOV 'rO\)'rO 'ro O'yt/!dov
yEyOVSVUt, sull'essere accaduto questo segno pel' secondo. Non è coor-
dinato al precedente infinito nominale ma piuttosto ne dipende. Contiene
la nota dei Battista (intorno a, rtEpt 'ra\). Potremmo dire infinito nomi-
nale equivalente ad un complemento di argomento. Doppia reduplica-
zione. Reduplicazione deI termine: ÈrttO'EO'yt/!EtmO'Sut / O'yt/!dov.
Reduplicazione deI modo deI verbo, l'infinito: 'ro ÈrttO'EO'yt/!EtmO'Sut / 'ra\)
yEyoVSVat. Reduplicazione non come giustapposizione ma reduplica-
zione dialettica in entrambi i casi: il passaggio da un livello ad un altro
dei segno; la germinazione di un infinito nominale da un altro.
Origene indaga sul movimento deI Gesù storico: dalla Giudea alla
Galilea. É nuovamente un modo indefinito deI verbo, il genitivo assoluto,
a fissare questo movimento: È1tUVEÂ-SOV'rOç; ... 'rO\) Kupiou; giunto il
Signore dalla Giudea alla Galilea: fra il primo miracolo (Cana) e il
secondo (il figlio dell'ufficiale regio) è accaduta la salita in Giudea, la
cacciata dei venditori dal tempio (che pel' Origene è il miracolo più
grande), il ritorno in Galilea.
La considerazione storica contenuta nel genitivo assoluto conclude
l'intera frase. Ma la frase è iniziata con un altro termine dal significato
eminentemente storico: guarda l'economia. In questo prima e dopo
storici la successione dei due infiniti nominali come si colloca? Quella
586 D.PAZZINI
reduplicazione che funzione enneneutica assume? Dice contemporanea-
mente l'accadimento storico deI segno e la sua comprensione nell'evan-
gelista; dispone quella valutazione della circostanza cronologica, questo
segno secondo, entro la storia totale quale il termine OlKov0J.tia design a
aIl 'intelligenza credente.
CIo 19.153:
Chi è il credente se non colui che ha avuto in sorte dal conformarsi (èK taU
ÙtaK8tO'Sat) secondo il Logos e dall'essere connaturale (O'UIl1t8<PUKÉvut)
a lui ... il non precipitare ('ro Ili! èll1t80'8tO'Sut av) ... nei peccati per la
mOlie e il non peccare (OÙx ulluP'r&'V8tv) in qualcosa di contrario al retto
logos?
Ecco: ÈK 'rou OtaK8tcr3at / crUJ.t1t:8<pUKÉVat, dal confonnarsi secondo
il Logos e dall'essere connaturale a lui: due infiniti nominali coordinati;
1:0 J.ti! ÈJ.t1t:8cr8tcr3at / OÙX aJ.tap1:aV8tV, il non precipitare, il non
peccare: altri due infiniti nominali coordinati.
L'uso degli infiniti nominali esprime tutto il movimento e tutta
l'azione: essere confonnati, essere connaturali, non precipitare, non
peccare. Sembra di assistere al concetto di caduta del mondo: 0 stare 0
precipitare. 1 quattro infiniti definiscono la natura deI credere. La parola
(nel precedente esempio l'economia, in questo lafede) con cui inizia il
periodo (chi è il credente) viene indotta ad aprire il suo senso dal movi-
mento inverso degli infiniti nominali che hanno la funzione di mostrarla
sospesa fra due estremi: confonnità / connaturalità al Logos oppure pre-
cipitare nel peccato. Ma proprio qui bisogna cogliere la peculiarità deI
raddoppiamento dialettico origeniano. Vi è una sostanziale differenza fra
il raddoppiamento dell'infinito nominale all'intemo di ciascuna coppia,
poiché cOSl si tratta di infiniti nominali coordinati (essere confOlmati ed
essere connaturali, non precipitare e non peccare), e il raddoppiamento
nel passaggio da una coppia aIl' altra, perché in questo secondo casa
una coppia funge da oggetto, l' altra da condizione dell' azione indicata
dal verbo centrale (chi è il credente se non colui che ha ottenuto dal ...
il ... ): duplice infinito nominale portato da un antecedente duplice infi-
nito nominale.
Questo raddoppiamento asimmetrico dell'infinito nominale è la stra-
tegia linguistica usata da Origene pel' mostrare la natura della fede.
Giovanni esprime con l'ipotetica di primo grado la scelta (se non credete
mornete nei vostri peccati), Origene mantiene l'ipotetica ma rovescia il
rapporto fra negativo e positivo (se credete non mornete nel peccato)
e dispone nel registro dell'unico modo verbale (l'infinito nominale), la
sincronia delle due condizioni, il credere e il non precipitare. Ma egli è
FIGURA SIMBOLO LEGGE LINGillSTICA NELLA PROSA DI ORIGENE 587
in questo modo un fedele interprete di Giovanni perché non pone il cam-
mino inverso della fede - rispetto al peccato - come il risalire dal fondo
in cui il peccato ha precipitato, cioè come un ritomo allo stato antece-
dente la caduta, bensl come l'opzione stessa: non la fede dall'esperienza
deI baratro ma dalla fede la conoscenza rispetto al baratro e alla sua
dimensione mortale: se crederete non morirete.
III. IL TEMPO COMPIUTO
"E' del tutto chiaro che Origene è pelfettamente consapevole deI signi-
ficato deI Past Tense: esso denota cio che viene all'essere ad un momento
deI passato indefinito, mentre prima non esiste affatto"26. É invece
escluso ogni casa di past tense pel' adombrare la vita di Dio stesso: pel'
dire la quale è invece usato l'imperfect tense 0 il present tense27 .
Palticipio aoristo passivo: 1t:po1:pavro3Év1:ae; ... ""oroue; (CIo 1.114),
logoi prefigurati: presenti nella Sapienza ma non dall'etemità bensl
nel temp028. Non saranno moiti a seguire Tzamalikos su questo piano
che 10 porta ad escludere in Origene l' etemità della creazione noe-
tica e a ravvisare in Prin 1 4,3-5 una catastrofica interpolazione di
Rufin0 29 .
Ma bisogna accogliere la provocazione di Tzamalikos. Se il past tense
denota l'inizio nel tempo di un evento passato, vi cOl1'isponde un'espres-
sione verbale pel' denotare la fine? Rispetto al tempo iniziato vi è una
strottura linguistica pel' il tempo finito 0 meglio compiuto?
CIo 13.16:
10 ho un logos tale che diviene (&0''r8 Y8vÉO'But) fonte di acqua viva in
colui che accetta le parole da me annunciate ... COS! da sgorgare (&0''r8
àvu~ÀUO''r&'V8tv) in lui una fonte che gli fa trovare tutto cio che cerca.
26. P. 'TzAMALIKos, Drigen: Cosma/ogy and Dnt%gy ofTime (Supplements to Vigiliae
Christianae, 77), Leiden, Brill, 2006, p. 128.
27. Ibid., p. 127.
28. Ibid., pp. 50. 128.
29. Ibid., p. 152. Prin 1.4.3-5 manca nelle edizioni precedenti KOETSCHAU; presente in
a (Consensus Codd. ABC) è assente in g (Consensus Codd. GMAbS). Corrispondenza
pero (SC 253, pp. 79-80) ira Giustiniano, MANs! IX,528 (nuy'ru 'tà yÉYll Kat 'tà e'(ol1 àd
~y, uÂ-Â-oe; oÉ ne; êpel Kat 't0 KaS' ËY àptSf.I<j), nÂ-i)Y SKa'tÉproe; 011Â-oÎ3'tat on OOK
llPsa'to 0 Seoe; 011f.1toUPyelY àpyi]crae; no'tÉ) e Rufino, Prin 1.4.5.102-105 (SC 252,
172): "sine dubio Olnnia vel genera vel species fuelUnt semper, et fortassis etiam per
singula, Verum tamen omni modo hoc est, quod ostenditur, quod non deus conditor ali-
quando esse coeperit, cum ante non fuerit" ,
588 D.PAZZINI
Ancora raddoppiamento deI verbo: né dell'infinito nominale né deI
participio nominale ma della subordinata consecutiva. Non una coordi-
nazione fra due consecutive, ma una consecutiva della consecutiva30 •
Platone, Cratilo. Socrate ha già posto la contraddizione che riassume
tutto il Cratilo. l legislatori dei nomi li hanno attribuiti conoscendo le
cose a cui i nomi si riferiscono, ma la conoscenza delle cose (gli ovta)
non è possibile se non tramite i nompl. Il suo interlocutore è nella mas-
sima difficoltà nello sciogliere l'aporia. Socrate allora muta il discorso e
pone l'attenzione sull'intenzionalità dei primi legislatori dei nomi, con-
figurandoli come seguaci della dottrina di Eraclito:
lndaghiamo (O'Ks'l'rol.ts~a) se davvero quelli che hanno posto i nomi li
hanno posti pensando (8tavoll~Év'tsS) come se tutte le cose sconessero
sempre e se ne andassero (ms lovtCOV amlv'tolV &d Kat pSOV'tffiV) ... ma
forse la cos a potrebbe non stare cosi e questi stessi legislatori forse sono
travolti quasi caduti (èl.t1tsO'ov'tsS) in un vortice e vi finiscono dentro tras-
cinando (è<j>SÂ,KOl.tsvot) anche noi ... indaga (O'KÉ'l'at), 0 meraviglioso
Cratilo, cio che io stesso vedo in sogno: diciamo che sono qualcosa (n
sivat) 10 stesso bello (alno KaÂ,ov) e buono (ù:ya~ov) e ciascuno degli
ov'ta, oppure no? (439 bC?2.
Una ÇiJt'l1O'lC; origeniana. Lo "indaghiamo" (O'KE'lfCÔI-lE3a) iniziale e
10 "indaga" (O'K8'1fat) finale potrebbero essere 10 ÈTctO't'l1O'ov. Il pdmo
lungo periodo si svolge attraverso la successione dei participi, che hanno
la funzione di qualificare i tre verbi centrali: hanno posto i nomi pen-
sando (otaV0'l138VtEC;) ... sono travolti quasi caduti (ÈI-l1tEO'oVtEC;) ... vi
finiscono dentro trascinando (È~EÂKOI-lEVOt) anche noi. Inoltre il primo
participio (pensando, otaV0'l138VtEC;) non conclude la sua funzione espli-
cativa: ma a sua volta si sdoppia in due genitivi assoluti (come se tutte
le cose scorressero sempre, IDC; tOVtffiV â1tUVtffiV àei, e se ne andassero,
pEoVtffiV). Vi è un gioco di participi fra 101'0 coordinati: tOVtffiV /
pEoVtffiV; ÈI-l1tEO'OVtEC; / È~EÂKOI-lEVOt. Ma la coordinazione riguarda la
strottura stessa della frase che è un'avversativa: hanno posto i nomi pen-
sando / ma sono travolti quasi caduti in un vortice. L'avversativa vor-
rebbe precis are il pensiero che da una parte i primi legislatori hanno
30. Su un piano parallelo il doppio tva di CID 19.28: "1 profeti dicevano e scrivevano
Dio come Padre in segreto e in maniera non conoscibile a tutti, affinché non anticipassero
(tva Ili) 1tpOKa'taÂa~roow) la grazia riversata da Gesù su tutto il cosmo, lui che chiama
tutti alla figliolanza affinché sia narrato (ïva Ùtl]yij<Hj'tat) il nome di Dio ai fratelli": tva
Ili) 1tpOKa'taÂa~roo'lV / tva Ùtl]yijO'll'tat: doppio tva non coordinato ma in dipendenza il
secondo dal primo: la spinta verticale, la nominazione di Dio come Padre, velata nel
linguaggio profetico.
31. Plat., Crat. 438ab.
32. Crat. 439bc.
FIGURA SIMBOLO LEGGE LINGUISTICA NELLA PROSA DI ORIGENE 589
posto i nomi quasi volendo felmare il flusso delle cose e dall'altra che il
flusso delle cose cattura invece la 101'0 stessa opera di legislatori. Questa
avversativa nasconde pero una corrispondenza costituita dai due &C; /
&O'1tEp, che configura due comparative ipotetiche: pensando come se
tutte le cose scorressero sempre ... caduti come in un vOl'tice. Questa
cOlTispondenza è la sbuttura più intema della frase: participio che si
esplicita in una comparazione, non importa se espressa da un altro parti-
cipio (IDC; tOVtffiV) 0 da un sostantivo (&O'1tEp ELC; otV'l1v).
La vicinanza con la prosa origeniana è evidente: il pensiero è portato
dall'uso dei paIticipi. La peculiarità della prosa deI Cratilo è in cio: il
tempo finito è congiunto con un modo indefinito che 10 lascia continua-
mente apelto e sembra non concluderlo mai: il pensiero ininterrotto deI
divenire, il precipitare che non si an'esta mai in un baratro. E questa
congiunzione di finito e indefinito si ripete cristallizzata nella coordina-
zione: è delle cose, è deI pensiero.
La stessa attitudine "delimitato / illimitato" nella frase origeniana non
si consegna invece alla simmetda della cOOl'dinazione bensl alla dialettica
della reduplicazione della consecutiva: tale che diviene (&mE YEV80'3at)
fonte di acqua viva ... cosl da sgorgare (&O'tE àva~À,t)O'tUvEtV) una
fonte. Un Kat congiunge le due proposizioni ma non le coordina (come
se dicesse: tale che diviene e che sgorga), perché il secondo infinito
consecutivo è la conseguenza deI primo. Con il secondo infinito conse-
cutivo a sgorgare non è più il Logos ma la fonte. Un altro concetto si
introduce rispetto al primo: un anello fra il Logos e i beni: la fonte di
acqua viva diviene passaggio verso i beni dall'alto. Nella doppia conse-
cutiva origeniana l'incessante movimento della frase deI Cratilo, che non
giunge ad attuazione, si trasforma in un movimento che, progredendo,
continuamente si compie33 • Vi è una temporalità della consecutiva. Il
rappOlto consecutivo entra nel tempo aprendolo a rinvenire e a conse-
guire cio che è dell'oltre.
Ai participi della frase centrale risponde nel Cratilo l'aggettivo neutro
astratto, slegato da qualsiasi riferimento ad un oggetto particolare.
L'aggettivo è di per sé delimitante perché indica una qualità al posto di
un'altra. Ma questa qualità si incorpora in una realtà assoluta, astratta. Il
bello, il buono, aôû> KaÀ,ov Kat àya30v. Questa combinazione di deli-
mitazione e assoluto risponde alla contiguità fra delimitato / illimitato,
tempo finito e modo indefinito. Ma la risposta deI Cratilo è l'antitesi,
l'eraclitismo da una paIte, 10 stare (dvat n) dall'altra. Le due diverse
indagini si susseguono senza nesso: indagheremo ... indaga meraviglioso
33. PAZZINI, Lingua (n. 24), p. 62 n. 1.
590 D.PAZZINI
Cratilo. La frase origeniana è unica, interminabile, sino a quando si sia
conc1uso il pensiero, in un salto senza scissione.
CIo 32.285-289:
Dopo avere compreso 10 scambio (àv'Clùoow) qui di beni materiali con beni
spirituali puoi vedere come Gesù allo indegno di pane abbia dato un boc-
cone (\jfCO/llOV) affinché, attraverso il boccone, togliesse (ïva ... à<j>ÉÀn) a
lui la pace ... : tolta la quale (~S à<j>atpe~si<JllS), colui che cercava i tempi
(Katpous) dell'ingresso nell'anima di lui e chi gli des se 10 spazio ('ronov)
per entrare, entro in Giuda (32.285).
E "intinto il boccone 10 prende e 10 dà a Giuda Iscariota" (Gv 13,26).
Guarda, a proposito di questo passo, se puoi dire che il pane integro è non
intinto (àPa<j>ll) ed è pane di pel' sé nutritivo. Ma il boccone dato (èm-
ùtùo/.œvov) a Giuda non era pane integro e neppure boccone non intinto
(àpa<j>ÉS), ma intinto (PepaflflÉvov) in cio che era in grado di cacciare
dall'anima di lui (Giuda) l'immersione (pa<j>T]v) sopraggiunta in una certa
misura in lui dal Logos, affinché (ïva) dopo il boccone entrasse in questo
Satana (32.289).
32.285: due proposizioni, finale e temporale: il passaggio dalla pro-
posizione finale al gerutivo assoluto temporale avviene attraverso l'uso
dello stesso verbo, impiegato prima nella forma attiva dell'aoristo
(àcpÉÂ-ll, affinché tolga), poi nella forma passiva (àcpatpeSd<JTje;, tolta
la quale). Questo raddoppiamento è un inequivocabile segno dialettico.
Le due proposizioni nella 101'0 successione immediata sono parte di
un'unica frase: giustapposte senza che sia esplicito il nesso fra l'una e
l'altra. E' possibile che in questo interstizio sia da rinvenire una prima
intenzionalità deI gesto di Gesù.
Gesù porta un tempo compiuto e configura il setiso .di un tempo per-
duto. COS! sono da intendere le due proposizioru. Lo scambio (àvTl80-
me;) fra bene materiale offelto e bene spirituale perduto, il toglimento
della pace mediato dall'offerta deI pane, la sproporzione prodotta da un
gesto materiale è una rappresentazione deI tempo come di un processo
che si è compiuto. La pace che riposa nella persona cui viene offerta,
secondo Lc 10,16, è un bene superiore, eminentemente dialogico,
espresso come processo temporale che si svolge. La fine di questo pro-
cessa non è indicata come adempimento, una pace realizzata, ma al con-
trario con il segno opposto della sottrazione di questo bene: un atto che
sancisce il processo temporale deI rifiuto. Origene differisce fra Gv 13,2
e Gv 13,27, fra istigazione e ingresso di Satana: sono i due estremi fra i
quali avviene il processo temporale deI compimento come sottrazione
(CIo 32.286). Lo ïva àcpÉÂ-ll non è l'espressione deI determinismo sulla
libertà ma piuttosto la convocazione deI tempo al punto della sua fine.
FIGURA SIMBOLO LEGGE LINGUISTICA NELLA PROSA DI ORlGENE 591
Il tempo perduto della seconda proposizione si svolge tutto sul piano
orizzontale deI meccarusmo fra sottrazione della pace e ingresso di
Satana. Questo tempo è un tempo perduto perché non si dà più un pro-
cessa temporale. Massimamente significativa è la considerazione sui
tempi (Katp06e;) e sulluogo ('rém:ov). l tempi e illuogo sono stati seque-
strati. Colui che entra in Giuda li ha aspettati e li ha occupati.
32.289: "Il pane dato (èm8t86flevov) a Giuda non era un pane integro
ma intinto (f3ef3aflflÉvov)": la successione dei due participi (dato ...
intinto) svela l' altra finalità del gesto di Gesù: pane intinto in cia che era
in grado di cacciare l'immersione (f3acpilv) sopraggiunta in Giuda in una
certa misura dal Logos. La puntualizzazione sul pane intinto richiama di
colpo l'altro processo temporale: la cacciata deI Logos. Processo che
viene ancora una volta espresso mediante la stes sa terminologia:
f3ef3aflflÉvov / f3acp1}v. Il pane intinto / immerso caccia via l'immersione
derivata dal Logos.
Una circostanza contingente, il doppio gesto di Gesù che intinge e dà,
chiama a compimento un duplice processo che non pua rimanere indefi-
nito. Compimento come sottrazione. Fra due patticipi passati (past tense):
pace tolta (àcpatpeSd<JTje;) e pane intinto (f3ef3aflflÉvov): il primo a
sancire il telmine, il secondo l'inizio (Tzamalikos) deI processo di sot-
trazione. E fra due ïva: 10 ïva deI tempo compiuto, quello della sottra-
zione della pace ("affinché togliesse la pace": CIo 32.285) e 10 ïva deI
tempo perduto, dell'istantaneità meccanica, dello spazio occupato
("affinché dopo il boccone entrasse in quello Satana": CIo 32.289): pro-
babile eco - ma in senso inverso - dello ïva paolino che opera il rove-
sciamento: lCor 1,27: Dio ha scelto le cose infime deI mondo pel' con-
fondere: ïva Ka't'at<Jx6vll.
Conclusione. Non intendo trovare un accordo fra la considerazione
introduttiva e l'analisi sviluppata. Potrei essere spinto a forzature. Prefe-
risco ripercorrere l' analisi segnalando le possibili aperture.
Il passaggio, il salto è la nota più acuta che mi è parso di cogliere nello
sviluppo della frase origeniana. Esso è tanto più forte quanto è più con-
tratto. Nessuno pua dire che la frase origeruana è concisa. Al contrario è
massimamente complessa, composita, interminabile. Pua essere anche
breve ma sembra comunque interminabile. Solo pel' reazione essa ha poi
bisogno di concentrarsi in una pausa 0 sintesi 0 sentenza34 • Ma se ci
34. Forma bipartita: D. PAZZINI, Considerazioni sulla lingua, in E. PRINZIVALLl (ed.),
Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene: Il testo e i suoi contesti (Biblioteca di Adamantius,
3), Villa VelUcchio, Pazzini, 2005,117-131; PAZZINI, Lingua (n. 24), p. 123.
592 D.PAZZINI
fermiamo a studiare questa struttura composita e spesso estenuante
è singolare il rilievo che il passaggio dialettico avviene spesso nella
ripetizione di un termine, un nome, preferibilmente un verbo, meglio
nella forma nominale, anche nella ripresa della medesima subordinata.
Ecos! nel periodo più composito è immanente un costrutto contratto (un
tempo abbreviato?), due battute immediatamente successive, attraverso
le quali il medesimo si trasforma e il procedimento noetico raggiunge il
nucleo linguistico, in cui si compie.
Via Rocca 3 Domenico PAZZINI
1-47040 Verucchio Rn
angepazzini@alice.it
LA SYMBOLIQUE DES NOMBRES ET LE DIABLE DANS
L'EXÉGÈSE ALLÉGORIQUE ALEXANDRINE
Selon la règle de l'herméneutique biblique de Philon et d'exégètes
chrétiens en Alexandrie, radicalisée par Origène, chaque mot du texte
biblique devait être digne de Dieu et contenir un sens spirituel profond.
li n'y a donc rien d'étonnant à ce que les Alexandrins entre les Ile et
ve siècles aient aussi traité des nombres bibliques comme de symboles
contenant un sens caché. A. Quacquarelli a consacré plusieurs publica-
tions à la numérologie dans la littérature et l'art de l'époque patristique l ,
mais les savants ne se sont pas fréquemment intéressés au développement
de cette symbolique par les exégètes alexandrins 2 • Dans cet article, je
voudrais présenter la manière dont ceux-ci utilisaient la symbolique des
nombres bibliques pour exprimer des thèses essentielles de leur démono-
logie.
Dans leur exégèse, les Alexandrins interprétaient la symbolique des
nombres propre à la Bible selon le principe d'explication de l'Écriture
par l'Écriture elle-même3 ; mais leur interprétation dépendait aussi des
besoins de la doctrine chrétienne en développement qu'il fallait éclairer
à l'aide d'un texte biblique, souvent dans une polémique antihéretique4 ,
et elle dépendait également - voire le plus souvent - de conceptions,
1. A. QUACQUARELLI, Il triplicefrutto della vita cristiana: 100,60 e 30. Matteo XIII-8
nelle diverse interpretazioni, Bari, Edipuglia, 1989; L'ogdoade patristica e i suai riflessi
nella liturgia e nei monumenti, Bari, Adriatica, 1973; Recupera della numerologia pel' la
metodica dell'esegesi patristica, dans Annali di Storia dell'Esegesi 2 (1985) 235-249;
Nlimerologia ed esegesi patristica, dans Retorica patristica e sue istitllzioni interdiscipli-
nari, Roma, Città Nuova, 1995, 93-112.
2. li Y a quelques années, j'ai publié un livre sur le sens spirituel des nombres dans
l'exégèse alexandrine entre Ile et ve siècles: M. SZRAM, Dlichowy sens liczb li' alegOlYcz-
nej egzegezie aleksandlyjskiej (II-V w.), Lublin, Redak:cja Wydawnictw K~tolickiego
Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 2001. Cet article est un petit fragment de la SUIte de mes
recherches.
3. Par exemple, trouvant dans un texte le nombre 3, ils cherchaient alors des liens avec
la Trinité ou avec la résurrection de Jésus. Origenes, HNm 1.3 (SC 415, 46); FrMt 565
(GCS, XlI/l, 232-233); Cyri.llus Alex., Commentarii in Isaiam 1.4 (pG 70,173-176).
4. Un bon exemple peut être l'interprétation du nombre 17 par Cyrille. Ce nombre
détermine l'âge de Joseph Égyptien, fils de Jacob (Gn 37,2). Cyrille explique tout d'abord
que 17 est une somme de deux nombres parfaits mathématiquement: 10 et 7. Cyrille liait
ces nombres à Jésus, en expliquant par eux la doctrine des deux natures dans la personne
du Christ, dont d'ailleurs Joseph était la préfiguration. Le 10 symbolisait sa nature divine
et le 7 - nombre plus petit - signifiait sa nature humaine subordonnée à la divinité. Le
nombre 17 est donc, selon Cyrille, une image de l'incarnation du Fils de Dieu, qui a lié
594 M.SZRAM
propres à des auteurs, avec un caractère moral et mystique et destinées
au développement spirituel des chrétiens 5 • Cependant les exégètes alexan-
drins empruntaient en outre à une source grecque païenne la symbolique
numérologique pythagoricienne et néopythagoricienlle: ils y puisaient
avant tout la théorie mathématique des nombres parfaits (surtout les
nombres qui égalent la somme de leurs propres diviseurs) et imparfaits,
ainsi que sa signification philosophique, une fois appliquée à l'interpré-
tation de la Bible (ce qui fut réalisé la première fois par Philon, comme
l'ont remarqué K. Staehle et V. Nikiprowetzky en essayant de recons-
truire le contenu et le but de son traité perdu IIEpi àplS/l&y6). En
Alexandrie, le caractère mathématique exceptionnel des nombres était
souvent le point de départ d'une exégèse numérologique, en particulier
pour Didyme, qui - comme le souligne E. Prinzivalli - avait une grande
passion pour la symbolique des nombres 7 • Il convient encore de mention-
ner l'influence du gnosticisme: dans le mythe gnostique, les notions fon-
damentales étaient liées aux nombres. Même si Origène reprochait à
l'exégèse numérologique d'Héracleon d'appliquer à des textes bibliques
ses propres principes aprioriques 8 , lui et les autres Alexandrins s'accor-
daient parfois avec certaines solutions gnostiques. Par exemple, Clément
d'Alexandrie, en interprétant les nombres 6, 7 et 8 dans le contexte de la
scène de la Transfiguration de Jésus, s'inspirait de l'exégèse de Marc
Mage 9•
Cette présentation de l'exégèse arithmologique des Alexandrins est
certes monolithique - ses règles fondamentales restent, en effet, les
mêmes -, mais nous venons bientôt que, d'un auteur à l'autre, cette
exégèse différait dans les détails. Par exemple, Didyme utilise plus que
les autres l' arithmologie pythagoricienne, Origène expose dans son inter-
prétation des nombres ses propres idées au caractère spirituel, tandis que
Cyrille reste fidèle à la typologie christologique traditionnelle.
Selon Origène, les nombres peuvent concerner des notions aussi bien
glorieuses que pleines d'iniquité, et ce sont fréquemment les mêmes
dans sa personne la divinité parfaite avec l'humanité parfaite. Glaphyra in Genesim 6
(PG 69, 298).
5. Par exemple, pour Origène et Didyme, le nombre 5 symbolisait un combat entre
les sens charnels et spirituels dans l'âme humaine. Origenes, HLv 3.7 (SC 286, 150);
Didymus, Commentarius in Zachariam III.62-63 (SC 84, 648).
6. K. STAEHLE, Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon VOl] Alexandria, Leipzig - Berlin, Teubner,
1931; V. NIKIPROWETZKY, Le commentaire de l'Ecriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie: son
caractère et sa portée; observations philologiques, Leiden, Brill, 1977.
7. E. PRINZIVALLI, Didimo il Cieco e l'interpretazione dei Salmi, Roma, L'Aquila,1988,
p.51.
8. CIo XIII.9.51 (SC 222,60).
9. Stromata VIXVI.l40.3-4 (SC 446, 340-342).
LA SYMBOLIQUE DES NOMBRES ET LE DIABLE 595
nombres. Souvent, tout dépend non seulement de la signification des
réalités que les nombres accompagnent, mais aussi de la connotation
mathématique, philosophique et religieuse de chaque nombre. Cette
connotation peut de temps en temps unir des éléments opposés, positifs
et négatifs. Dans les œuvres conservées des quatre Alexandrins princi-
paux - Clément, Origène, Didyme et Cyrille -, je n'ai trouvé aucun
nombre lié exclusivement à Satan. Plusieurs ont généralement un sens
négatif, mais chacun d'eux a aussi, dans certains contextes, un sens posi-
tif lié à Dieu.
Par exemple, le nombre 2 était reconnu par Origène et Didyme, sous
l'influence des pythagoriciens, du platonisme et de Philon, comme le
premier nombre pair et, à ce titre, symbolisait une division. Il était consi-
déré aussi comme corporel (O'ffi/lU'TtK6ç, c01poreus) et impur (àKUSUp'COç,
immundus) 10. C'est pourquoi Noé introduisit dans l'arche des arIimaux
impurs deux par deux ll . Chez les mêmes auteurs, ce nombre était cepen-
dant également le symbole d'une intégrité au sens positif, comme celle
des deux personnes divines (soit du Père et du Fils, soit du Fils et de
l'Esprit Saint)12 ou celle des deux Testaments 13 •
De même, le 5, moitié imparfaite de la décade pmfaite, comme nombre
des sens humains, symbolisait la vie sensuelle et charnelle. Dans les
homélies d'Origène sur Josué, cinq rois rassemblés contre Israël symbo-
lisent non seulement toutes les choses mauvaises qui sortent du cœur
humain, mais aussi les puissances ennemies et les démons qui enva-
hissent les âmes des hommes et luttent contre elles l4 . Mais il y a aussi
l5
cinq sens spirituels, que doit développer chaque homme .
Pareillement, le nombre 4 et ses multiples 40 et 400 sont - selon
Origène - matériels, corporels et très mauvais (UÀlKU, O'ffi/lunKu,
KUKffi'TtKU) 16. Ainsi, Moïse, Élie et Jésus ont jeûné pendant quarante
17
jours pour la purification des péchés de la nature humaine charnelle • Le
même Origène ne pouvait cependant pas passer sous silence la tradition
qui remontait aux pythagoriciens et selon laquelle le 4 était la sainte
10. Origenes, P,Mt 538 (GCS, XII/l, 219); CRm III.8 (PG 14, 947 C).
11. Origenes, PrLc 84 (SC 87, 540-543); Didymus, Commentarii in Genesim 177
(SC 244, 82-85).
12. Origenes, CCt III.1.11 (SC 376, 496); Didymus, Commentarii in Zachariam 1.284-
286 (SC 83, 340-343).
13. Origenes, CIo X.28.174-175 (SC 157,488-490); Didymus, Commentarii in Zacha-
riam V.79-90 (SC 85, 1012-1019).
14. Clos 14 (SC 71,314--328); HNm 25.3 (GCS, VII, 235-237).
15. HLv 3.7 (SC 286, 150). K. RAHNER, Le début d'une doctrine des cinq sens spiri-
tuels chez Origène, dans Revue d'ascétique et de mystique 30 (1932) 113-145.
16. PrIo 79 (GCS, N, 546); PrGn 23 (pG 17, 13 D).
17. PrDt (PG 12, 816 AB).
 596 M.SZRAM
Té.trade - le nombre spécial, parce que la somme des quatre premiers
chiffres (1+2+3+4) formait le miraculeux nombre 10, qui contient toute
la nature des nombres l8 •
Aussi le 6 - nombre lié avec les choses créées :.... n'était pas, dans
l'exégèse alexandrine, conçu comme entièrement corporel et matériel. li
signifiait le temps de ce monde et le temps des souverains de ce monde
mais simultanément, comme le soulignaient Origène et Didyme, c' étai~
un nombre parfait, raison pour laquelle il a été utilisé pour déterminer la
durée de la création l9 •
Les nombres cités ci-dessus se rapportaient donc à la matière à la
chair, au péché et à l'impureté, c'est-a-dire aux réalités auxquelle; était
d'une certaine manière liée l'action de Satan. Néanmoins aucun de ces
nombres n'était reconnu comme un symbole réservé à une réalité mau-
vaise. C'est la conséquence logique de l'exclusion de tout dualisme radi-
cal. C'est aussi l'effet de la conviction que Dieu a créé les nombres dans
sa sagesse, comme le soulignaient Origène et Didyme. Aussi aucun d'eux
ne peut-il être exclusivement lié au diable, dont le pouvoir doit finale-
ment être subordonné au créateur unique.
Ci-dessous, je voudrais désormais présenter quelques fragments
d'œuvres d'auteurs alexandrins dans lesquels des nombres généralement
considérés comme saints et exceptionnels du point de vue mathématique
p~uvent q~e~quefois signifier aussi une réalité contraire à Dieu. lis appa-
raissent mnsi comme le signe d'un combat (certamen) permanent entre
di~boh~s - l'ex peccati et Christus - l'ex iustitiae, comme le dit Origène20,
et Ils demontrent Une certaine façon d'agir de Satan.
Pour tous les Alexandrins, comme d'ailleurs pour les pythagoriciens
et mésoplatoniciens, le nombre 1 (npanoç aptBJ.laç, numerus pelfectus)
se rapportait à Dieu. Cependant, selon Origène, bien que le royaume de
Satan soit caractérisé par la multiplicité des pouvoirs ennemis, il n 'y a
quand même qu'un seul prince de l'iniquité. Le nombre 1 peut donc
symboliser Satan, mais - comme le dit Origène - il est <<un» seulement
en apparence, du fait qu'il cause le chaos, tandis que Dieu est réellement
«un», parce que, comme créateur, il est l'auteur d'un ordre et enseigne
une vérité unique, même si elle est exprimée par de nombreuses paroles21.
L'autre nombre attribué par Origène à Satan est le 3. C'est étonnant,
parce que ce nombre est libre et saint (èÀsOBspoç Kai uytoç), ainsi
18. CIo X.38.261 (SC 157, 538-540).
19..?~igenes, l!Ios 10.3 (SC 71, 278); CMt XII.36 (GCS, X,150-152); Didymus, Com-
mentam III Genes/m 6.3 (SC 244, 31-33).
20. HLc 30.1 (SC 87, 370).
21. HIos 15.5 (SC 71, 350).
LA SYMBOLIQUE DES NOMBRES ET LE DIABLE 597
qu'exceptionnel du point de vue m'ithmétique en tant que somme récon-
ciliant les deux premiers nombres - «un» impair et «deux» pail', comme
le dit Origène sous l'influence du pythagorisme22 . li était le nombre lié
à la sphère divine dans la majorité des civilisations antiques et le symbole
des trois personnes divines dans toute l'exégèse alexandrine. Pourtant,
dans le fragment du Commentaire sur l'Évangile selon saint Matthieu
concernant le verset suivant: «À la quatrième veille, Jésus est venu à ses
disciples en marchant sur les vagues du lac» (Mt 14,25), nous trouvons
l'interprétation suivante des trois premières veilles: «La première veille
représente le père des ténèbres et du péché; la deuxième, son fils, l'ad-
versaire, en révolte contre tout ce que l'on nomme Dieu ou ce qui est
objet d'adoration; la troisième, l'esprit ennemi de l'Esprit-Saint»23. La
quatrième veille, annonçant l'approche du jour, signifie, bien sûr, l'arri-
vée du Fils de Dieu - «sainte Tétrade» qui rendra la paix aux hommes.
Dans ce texte, Origène rapproche le nombre 3 de l'activité du diable,
suggérant que, dans le combat perpétuel contre la Trinité divine, Satan la
«singe», en opposant à chaque personne divine une personne satanique.
Cette image de la triade satanique revient encore une fois dans le Com-
mentaire sur l'ÉpUre du saint Paul aux Romains, où Origène interprète
les trois jours entre la mort et la résurrection de Jésus comme un symbole
de la victoire de la Trinité divine sur «le père des ténèbres et de l'igno-
rance, le Mensonge né de lui et l'esprit d'erreur» 24. C'est une exégèse
originale d'Origène, qu'on ne retrouve plus chez les autres auteurs
alexandrins ni en Occident. Elle pourrait avoir été inspirée par les trois
tentations de Jésus pal' Satan dans le déselt ou par trois esprits impurs
semblables aux grenouilles de l'Apocalypse (Ap 16,13).
Les réminiscences de la triade satanique apparaissent encore dans deux
autres textes d'Origène. Dans un fragment des homélies sur l'Exode,
inspiré par l'exégèse de Philon25 , les triples équipages de chars apparte-
nant au Pharaon qui symbolise Satan représentent des anges mauvais. lis
conduisent les hommes au triple péché: pal' action, pal' parole et pal'
pensée, par analogie aux trois voies conduisant au bien26 . Dans les frag-
22. CIo XXVIII.1.1-6 (SC 385, 58-60); FrMt 565 (GCS, XlI/l, 232-233); FrIo 79
(GCS, IV, 547).
23. CMt X1.6 (SC 162, 296-298): "[ ... ]ltpdl't11Y <l>UÀUK~Y 1:0Y ltU1:Épu 'tOu
O'K01:0US
Kut 1:~S KUKtuS, Kut OEU'tÉpUY 1:0Y UlOY U\l'tOU 'tOY àY'ttKstJ.lEYOY KUt ÈltatpOJ.lEYOY
<Èlt(mlY'tu ÀEyOJ.lEYOY SEOY ~ O'ÉpuO'J.lu>, Kut 1:phl1Y 1:0 ÈYUY1:tOY 1:il> &.ytq> ltYEuJ.lun
ltYEUJ.lU [ ... ]"; Cf. CMt XII.20 (GCS, X, 115).
24. CRm V.8 (PG 14, 1040 C).
25. Philo Alex., De IIllltat;one 1l01ll;1l1l1ll 236-237.
26. HEx 6.3 (SC 321, 176-178): «Mihi videntur terni statores pro eo dici quod triplex
est hominibus peccandi via, aut enim in facto, aut in dicto, aut in cogitatione peccatur».
 598 M.SZRAM
ments conservés du Commentaire SUI' les Proverbes d'Origène, nous
trouvons une explication analogue dans l'image biblique d'une sangsue
qui a trois filles (Prov 30,15 selon la version de la Septante?? Selon
Origène, la sangsue c'est le diable (PÔÉÀÀu, ôtapoÀoç), parce qu'il boit
le sang d'une âme, c'est-à-dire la veltu qui donne la vie. li a trois filles
et pas de fils, n'ayant rien en lui de viril, mais il est plein d'une volupté
efféminée (oMÈv yàp ùvôpëlov, ùÀÀà nàO'uv llôov"v). Ces trois filles
(SUyUtÉpëÇ) sont: l'ensemble des maux (KUKiu), une doctrine athée
(ÙSëOÇ ÔtÔuO'KuÀiu) et une âme qui ne devient jamais meilleure (\jIUx1Î
J.tll ÔÈv pëÀnouJ.tÉvll), même après avoir entendu et accepté la Parole de
Dieu. Dans les deux fragments cités ci-dessus, Origène utilise donc la
signification du nombre 3 comme symbole d'une totalité (le commence-
ment, le centre et la fin), bien connu chez les pythagoriciens, pour mon-
trer tous les gemes possibles de maux qui peuvent être liés à Satan.
La même méthode d'interprétation concerne le nombre 7. C'est un
nombre saint et padait mathématiquement. li symbolise Dieu, les dons
de l'Esplit Saint, l'ordre du cosmos, la plénitude des temps. Mais, comme
le souligne Origène, ce nombre signifie aussi sept esplits impurs qui
résident dans l'âme d'un pécheur et luttent contre le pouvoir septuple de
l'Esprit Saint28 •
L'autre nombre associé dans l'exégèse alexandrine à Satan, et cette
fois exclusivement à cause des connotations théologiques, et non philo-
sophiques ou mathématiques, est le 14. Cyrille d'Alexandrie dans son
œuvre Glaphyra in Exodum 29 commente, à l'aide de la typologie chris-
tologique, la nuit pascale précédant l'exode des Israélites d'Égypte
(Ex 12,1-6), en rappelant que le nombre 14 est lié au salut de l'homme.
L'offrande de l'agneau le quatorzième jour du premier mois, la veille de
l'exode, est une annonce de la mort du Christ -l'agneau véritable sur la
croix, le quatorzième jour du mois Nissan. Cyrille signale cependant que
le quat?rzième jour du premier mois est simultanément le temps de
Satan. A cette date tombe la pleine lune (O'ëÀllvuioç KUKÀOÇ), lune qui
éclaire le monde d'une toute autre lumière (voSq:> <pcoti) , laissant l'im-
pression que c'est à elle qu'appmtient la gloire, et non au soleil. Selon
Cyrille, cette lune, brillante pendant la nuit, est symbole de Satan - prince
des ténèbres (VUlC't'oç apxcov), qui triomphe le quatorzième jour du pre-
mier mois. Dieu, en choisissant justement ce moment pour détruire le
27. FrPr 30 (PG 17, 160 CD). M. RICHARD, Les fragments d'Origène sur Provo XXX,
15-31, dans J. FONTAINE - CH. KANNENGIESSER (éds.), Epektasis. Mélanges patristiques
offerts au cardinal Jean Daniélou, Paris, Beauchesne 1972,385-394.
28. HLv 8.11 (SC 287, 66).
29. Cyrillus Alex., Glaphyra in ExodulIl 2 (pG 69, 424A- 425A).
LA SYMBOLIQUE DES NOMBRES ET LE DIABLE 599
pouvoir de Satan ('wu ÔtupoÀOU KU't'ÉÀUO'ë ôOçuv), démontre que la
victoire du diable n'était que provisoire et illusoire.
En résumé, il faut constater que chez Origène les nombres 1 et 3 pré-
sentent le diable comme une triste simia Dei, qui imite son action, et le
nombre 14 montre finalement que qui gladio ferit, gladio perit, parce que
Satan qui singe deviendra sa propre victime. Selon les Alexandrins, le
phénomène de la double symbolique - positive et négative - des nombres
dans l'exégèse alexandrine cache en soi l'idée d'un combat du mal contre
le bien, de la chair contre l'esprit, de Satan contre Dieu. Ce combat qui
dure continuellement dans ce monde semble être égal, parce que ce sont
deux triades qui luttent: la divine et la satanique. Cependant, comme le
dit Origène, ce combat finira avec l'arrivée de la quatrième veille qui
symbolisera la victoire définitive de la sainte Tétrade, c'est-à-dire de
Jésus - soleil qui reviendra à la fin des temps.
J'ai signalé au début qu'aucun nombre dans les œuvres conservées des
Alexandrins n'était exclusivement lié à Satan. On peut se demander
ce qu'il en est du nombre 666 (ùptSJ.toç Sllpiou) de l'Apocalypse
(Ap 13,18). Nous ne connaissons toutefois aucun commentaire alexan-
drin complet sur l'Apocalypse. Irénée liait exclusivement ce nombre à
l'Antéchrist30 • On peut soupçonner que les Alexandrins faisaient la même
chose en essayant de trouver une explication gématrique de ce nombre
(une explication basée sur la valeur numérique des lettres), mais on ne
trouve pas beaucoup de traces d'utilisation de cette méthode chez nos
auteurs. Si par exemple Origène ou Didyme interprétaient ce nombre, ils
tiendraient, à mon avis, le même raisonnement qu'avec les autres
nombres. lis pourraient donc dire que le nombre exact 666 est un sym-
bole de l'Antéchrist, fils du diable. Mais ce nombre pourrait aussi être,
pour les auteurs alexandrins, un autre exemple de l'imitation de Dieu
- sainte Tétrade - par l'Antéchrist - triade des multiplications de «six»:
ÈÇUKOO'tot SÇ"KOV't'U Ëç. Le 6 peut avoir dans l'exégèse alexandrine un
sens négatif, lié aux péchés du monde, mais le même 6 montre finalement
Dieu comme créateur et souverain de ce monde créé par lui, bien que le
diable se dise son prince en singeant le Créateur.
Je voudrais telIDiner par une conclusion plus générale. On pense sou-
vent que l'utilisation du symbolisme arithmologique dans l'exégèse
alexandrine était seulement un élément rhétorique. li est vrai que surtout
Didyme était pmticulièrement sensible à l'aspect érudit, en faisant étalage
30. h'enaeus, Adversus haereses V.30.1-2 (SC 153, 370-378); A. LUKASZEWICZ,
APleMOE eHPIOy. UlI'agi oApk 13.18, Warszawa, UniwersytetWarszawski-fustytut
Archeologii - Zaklad Papiro1ogii, 2002, p. 23-24.
600 M.SZRAM
de sa science sur la conception pythagoricienne des nombres patfaits
et en présentant une explication des symboles numériques comme une
théorie scientifique (l}Ecopia È1tt(H·lll.WYtK1l 'LWY àptl}J.lwy). il lui arrivait
de présenter une caractéristique d'un nombre reprise du pythagorisme et
ensuite de ne pas l'utiliser dans l'exégèse du fragment biblique com-
menté. Mais je suis persuadé que les Alexandrins dans la majorité des
cas, surtout Origène, croyaient réellement à un langage symbolique des
nombres dans la Bible prévu par Dieu, son premier auteur. Malgré un
cet1ain apriorisme et une curiosité d'intetprétation, ils essayaient de com-
prendre les nombres bibliques en harmonie avec l'esprit de l'Évangile et
de la règle de foi, mais en même temps à l'aide de tous les instmments
possibles que procurait l'ÈYKllKÀtos natoEta. ils proposaient ainsi un
modèle de lecture spirituelle des nombres bibliques qui inspirerait tout le
Moyen Âge, comme le remarquait H. de Lubac 3!. Selon l'opinion des
auteurs alexandrins, ce langage numérique, loin d'une quelconque s0l1e
de magie, divination ou code déterminant un avenir, n'est pas fortuit ni
sans valeur, mais cache et révèle en même temps les mystères divins
importants pour le développement de la vie spirituelle (npoKon1l
cOQ>ÉÀEta). Ce langage le fait aussi bien ou même encore mieux que les
autres genres de paroles bibliques, parce que - comme le dit Origène -
c'est par l'intermédiaire de chaque verbe de l'Écriture que parle le Verbe
avec un grand «V», c'est-à-dire Christ - Logos «par excellence»
(aÙ'LoMyoS)32.
Université Catholique de Lublin Mariusz SZRAM
ul. Radziszewskiego 7
20-039 Lublin
Pologne
m.szram@wp.pl
31. H. DE LUBAC, L'Exégèse médiévale: Les quatre sens de l'Écriture, II/2, Paris,
Aubier-Montaigne,1961.
32. CIo II.3.20 (SC 120,220). H.U. VON BALTHASAR, Parole et Mystère chez Origène,
Paris, Cerf, 1957, p. 72.
LA FORME LIITÉRAIRE DES HEXAPLES D'ORIGÈNE
D'où est venue à Origène l'idée géniale de présenter la Bible hébraïque
et ses versions grecques anciennes sous forme de colonnes parallèles?
Existait-il à son époque une forme littéraire de ce type? Ou bien Origène
est-il l'inventeur du genre de ce que l'on appelle de nos jours les synopses
et les Hexaples sont-ils une œuvre «unique, radicalement innovatrice»,
comme le veulent Anthony Grafton et Megan Williams!?
1. LES HEXAPLES D'ORIGÈNE
il faut commencer par quelques rappels. Les «Sextuples» d'Origène
étaient constitués de six colonnes parallèles: de la gauche vers la droite,
et de haut en bas, se lisaient le texte hébreu de la Bible, sa translittération
en caractères grecs, la traduction d'Aquila (vers 130), la traduction de
Symmaque (vers 160), la version des Septante (Ille_ne siècles avant l'ère),
la traduction de Théodotion (vers 30-50). Au livre des psaumes, il y avait
deux colonnes supplémentaires contenant, la première, la Quinta ou
cinquième édition, trouvée à Nicopolis près d'Actium, la seconde, la
Sexta, ou sixième édition, découverte dans une jarre près de Jéricho, avec
d'autres livres grecs et hébreux: la plus ancienne étape dans la décou-
verte des manuscrits de la mer Morte!
Les lignes des colonnes ne comportaient que quelques lettres formant
des mots complets: dans un des fragments conservés des Hexaples sur le
psaume 45 (46),1-3, chaque ligne de la translittération contient entre
quatre et dix lettres, qui correspondent à un ou deux mots lexicaux,
juxtaposés ou coordonnés; le ou les mots lexicaux peuvent être précédés
par le connecteur «et», le déterminant, une préposition, voire une néga-
tion. Les lignes des traductions grecques comprennent de trois à dix-huit
lettres, qui fOlment un ou deux mots lexicaux, accompagnés ou non de
mots grammaticaux2. Eusèbe de Césarée qui, au début du Ive siècle, a vu
1. A. GRAFTON - M. WILLIAMS, Christianity and tlze Transformation of the Book:
Origen, Eusebius, and the LibrG/y of Caesarea, Cambridge, MA - London, Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 2006, pp. 86-132, en particulier p. 86 (<<a single, radically innovative work»).
2. H.B. SWETE, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge, University
Press, 1900, pp. 59-86, en particulier pp. 62-63 (réimpression: New York, Ktav Publishing
House, 1968).
602 G.DORIVAL
les Hexaples dit qu'Origène avait divisé les traductions «par membre»
(pros kôlon). La comparaison avec les témoins manuscrits conservés
montre qu'il ne pouvait entendre par là une phrase complète, mais
seulement un court membre de phrase (Histoire ecclésiastique VI 16,4).
Les Hexaples forment ce que l'on appelle de nos jours une synopse.
Toutefois il faut éviter d'employer ce mot, parce qu'en grec, il ne désigne
jamais une œuvre du type de celle d'Origène, mais des écrits qui donnent
une vue d'ensemble sur un sujet donné, écrite sous le signe de la brièveté.
Par exemple, Galien avait composé 8 livres intitulés Synopse des dialo-
gues platoniciens et une Synopse sur les pulsations; chez lui, le mot est
synonyme de résumé (epitomê) ou d'esquisse (hypotypôseis) ou encore
de série de sommaires (kephalaia). En milieu chrétien, Jean Cluysostome
a rédigé une Synopse de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testaments dont l'au-
thenticité reste discutée: elle consiste en une préface et des notices qui
consistent à résumer le contenu de chaque livre de l'Ancien Testament;
les notices sur le Nouveau Testament ont dispam.
On ne sait pas grand-chose de la confection des Hexaples. Lorsqu'il
commente les psaumes 1 à 25 à Alexandrie vers 222-225, Origène connaît
et utilise Aquila, Symmaque et Théodotion. Les découvertes de la Quinta
et de la Sexta semblent remonter aux années 245 et à la période césa-
réenne de sa vie. On ignore également si les Hexaples étaient copiés sur
des rouleaux ou s'ils formaient des codices: Anthony Grafton et Megan
Williams, qui sont pm1isans de la seconde hypothèse, ont calculé qu'ils
occupaient environ 40 codices comp0l1ant 400 folios chacun et que leur
confection avait coûté au total 150 000 denarii, - une somme considé-
rable, mais qui était à la portée d'Ambroise 3 •
Pourquoi Origène a-t-il composé les Hexaples? Lui-même donne trois
explications. Dans la Lettre à Africanus 9, il invoque les nécessités de la
discussion avec les Juifs: lorsque l'on discute avec eux, il est nécessaire
d'argumenter, non à partir des passages qui manquent dans la Bible
hébraïque, mais au contraire en se fondant sur ceux qui s'y trouvent,
même s'ils sont absents de la Septante; toute autre méthode conduit la
discussion dans l'impasse. Les deux autres explications figurent dans les
Commentaires sur Matthieu XV.14. Tout d'abord, Origène souligne le
mauvais état textuel des manuscrits de la Septante: la comparaison avec
les autres versions permet de corriger le texte fautif. En cas de divergence
entre les témoins de la Septante, la voie à suivre est de choisir la leçon
qui «s'accorde avec les autres éditions», pour une raison qui est donnée
dans les Commentaires sur Jean VI.41: les autres versions, de date
3. GRAFfON - WILLIAMS, Christianity (n. 1), pp. 102-107, 117-132.
LA FORME LITTÉRAIRE DES HEXAPLES D'ORIGÈNE 603
récente, n'ont pas eu le temps d'être détériorées pm' les générations de
copistes, En second lieu, se focalisant sur la cinquième colonne de la
Septante, Origène indique qu'il veut établir un texte avec les signes cri-
tiques qui indiquent les plus et les moins par rapport à l'hébre~, Ainsi,
au total, le but d'Origène est d'atteindre le meilleur texte possible de la
Septante, qui est la Bible des églises, et les versions sont indispensables
dans cette perspective,
Les Hexaples étaient conservés dans la bibliothèque d'Origène, à Césa-
rée de Palestine. Ils ont dispam à une date qu'on ne connaît pas. Il ne
subsiste d'eux que quatre fragments, dans des manuscrits conservés à Cam-
bridge, Milan et Rome (Vatican)4. Tous ces témoins sont postérieurs à la
fin du IXe siècle, sauf celui de Cambridge, qui provient de la Genizah du
Caire et qu'on date d'avant 500. Des leçons hexaplaires se lisent dans les
mm'ges des manuscrits de la Bible grecque et dans cel1aines chaînes exé-
gétiques. D'autres, écrites tantôt en grec tantôt en syriaque, figurent dans
les marges des manuscrits de la Syro-Hexaplaire, qui est la traduction
syriaque de la cinquième colonne de la Septante pm' Paul de Tella au début
du VIle siècleS. La documentation la plus abondante provient des Pères de
l'Église, qui, dans leurs exégèses des Écritures, font appel aux versions.
L'ensemble de ces témoignages n'est pas négligeable sur le plan quantita-
tif. Au début du XVIIIe siècle, la documentation patristique a été une pre-
mière fois réunie pm' l'émdit bénédictin Montfaucon, qui a proposé une
première reconstitution des Hexaples en deux tomes 6 • Un siècle et demi
après, la même documentation a été complétée et élargie au domaine
syriaque par un savant d'Oxford, Field, qui a publié en 1867-1875 une
nouvelle reconstitution des Hexaples en deux volumes 7 • On doit signaler
que la reconstitution de Field n'adopte pas la disposition en colOlmes de
l'original, mais se contente de citer les témoignages anciens à la suite. Une
refonte de Field est en cours, par les soins de l'Hexapla Institute: le but est
de tenir compte de la documentation nouvelle, en grec, en syriaque et dans
d'autres langues du premier millénaire chrétienS,
4. M. HARL-G. DORIVAL- O. MUNNIcH, La Bible grecque des Septante: Dujudaïsme
hellénistique au christianisme ancien, Paris, CeIf, 1988, pp. 162-165.
5. A.M, CERIANI, Codex syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus photographice editus, Milan, Biblio-
theca Ambrosiana, 1874; A. VOOBUS, The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla:
A Facsimile-Edition of a Midyat Ms Discovered in 1964 (CSCO, 369), Leuven, Peeters,
1975; ID., The Book of lsaiah in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla: A Facsimile-Edition of
Ms St Mark 1 in Jerusalem with an Introduction (CSCO, 449), Leuven, Peeters, 1983.
6. B. DE MONTFAUCON, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt, 2 tomes, Paris, Guerin,
1713.
7. F. FIELD, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt Fragmenta, 2 tomes, Oxford, 1867-
1875 (reproduction anastatique: Hildesheim, Olms, 1964).
8. http://www.hexapla.org.
604 G.DORIVAL
Chaque colonne pose des problèmes difficiles. Énumérons-les. La pre-
mière colonne a-t-elle existé? Quelles étaient l'origine et la finalité de la
colonne de translittération? S'il est logique que le texte hébreu occupe la
première colonne, la translittération la deuxième et les versions grecques
les colonnes suivantes, comment expliquer la succession des traductions,
d'abord Aquila, puis Symmaque, ensuite la Bible grecque des Septante,
enfin Théodotion? Cet ordre ne correspond pas à la chronologie relative
des traductions: Septante, puis Théodotion, puis Aquila, enfin Sym-
maque. li ne correspond pas non plus à la fidélité plus ou moins grande
au texte source: Aquila, puis Théodotion, puis Symmaque, le statut de la
Septante variant d'un livre à l'autre. La cinquième colonne de la Septante
contenait-elle le texte courant de la Bible grecque? .Ou bien offrait-elle
l'édition d'Origène, dans laquelle les obèles indiquaient les plus du grec
par rappOlt à l'hébreu et les astérisques signalaient les moins, comblés le
plus souvent avec l'aide de la sixième colonne de Théodotion? Cette
dernière contenait-elle toujours la version de Théodotion? La Quinta et
la Sexta existaient-elles à d'autres livres que les psaumes? La Septima,
la septième version, est-elle une réalité ou une fiction? Pour les livres du
Pentateuque, y avait-il une colonne supplémentaire contenant la traduc-
tion grecque du Pentateuque samaritain? Que signifie exactement la ter-
minologie ancienne, Hexapla, «Sextuples», Tetrapla, «Quadruples»,
Tetrassa, «Quadruples», Tetraselidon, «<Livre> à quatre colonnes»,
Oktaselidon, «<Livre> à huit colonnes»?
Les recherches récentes ont permis d'avancer sur deux points. D'abord,
malgré l'absence de tout texte hébreu dans les fragments des Hexaples,
il est sûr que la première colonne a existé et que Jérôme l'a eue sous les
yeux, ainsi que P. Jay l'a établi de manière convaincante9 • Elle était sans
nul doute conforme aux usages de la librairie hébraïque de l'époque
d'Origène: seules les consonnes étaient notées, à l'exclusion des voyelles.
En revanche, la deuxième colonne de translittération était vocalisée et ce
qui subsiste d'elle constitue un précieux et rare témoignage de la pronon-
ciation de l'hébreu au IIIe siècle.
En second lieu, grâce aux travaux d'O. Munnich, il est aujourd'hui
établi que la cinquième colonne contenait l'édition origénienne de la
Septante, avec les obèles et les astérisques, et non pas un texte courant,
non recensé lo .
9. P. JAY, L'Exégèse de saint Jérôme d'après son Commentaire sur Isaïe, Paris, Études
Augustiniennes, 1985, pp. 411-417.
10. O. MUNNICH, Les Hexaples d'Origène à la lumière de la tradition manuscrite de
la Bible grecque, dans G. DORlvAL - A. LE BOULLUEC (éds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène
el la Bible 1 Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1995,
LA FORME LITTÉRAIRE DES HEXAPLES D'ORIGÈNE 605
II. LA FORME LITTÉRAIRE DES HEXAPLES
l. Les Hexaples sont-ils une reprise d'une ancienne synopse Juive?
Peut-être est-il possible de progresser sur un autre point, qui est celui de
la forme littéraire des Hexaples. Pierre Nautin a formulé l'hypothèse
qu'Origène ne faisait que reprendre une forme littéraire du judaïsme
hellénophone, celle de la synopse. Son raisonnement est le suiva.'1t. li
remarque que la Septante n'occupe que la cinquième place dans l'ordre des
colonnes, alors qu'elle est la Bible des églises aux yeux d'Origène: elle
aurait dû figurer en tête des versions et occuper la troisième colonne. Cette
place inattendue ne peut se comprendre que si Origène a réutilisé une
synopse juive qui présentait le texte hébreu, la translittération, Aquila et
Symmaque ll . Cette synopse elle-même aurait pour origine une synopse
comprenant les trois premières colonnes, sans Symmaque. Dans ces condi-
tions, la mise en colonnes serait une innovation du judaïsme hellénophone.
li y a cependant de fortes objections contre cette hypothèse. D'abord,
il n'existe aucune trace de ces deux synopses antérieures à Origène.
Ensuite, compte tenu des dates d' Aquila et de Symmaque, la première
d'entre elles est nécessairement postérieure à 130 et la seconde à 160.
Or, il semble bien que, depuis la révolte des Juifs de la diaspora en 115-
117, la communauté juive d'Alexandrie ait partiellement disparu et ait eu
d'autres soucis en tête que la confection d'œuvres savantes. li en va de
même en Judée-Palestine, marquée par la seconde guerre juive des almées
132-135. Enfin, l'ordre des traductions peut se comprendre, au moins
dans une certaine mesure: Aquila est mis immédiatement après l'hébreu
et la translittération parce qu'il est le traducteur le plus proche du texte
hébreu; Symmaque le suit, parce qu'on peut considérer que sa traduction
met celle d'Aquila en grec acceptable; la Septante vient alors parce
qu'elle est la version de référence; elle est suivie par Théodotion parce
qu'Origène lui emprunte la majeure partie des plus qu'il introduit dans
la cinquième colonne 12 •
167-185. GRAFTON - WILLIAMS, Christianity (n. 1), pp. 88 et 116-117, sont de l'avis con-
traire, mais ils ne discutent pas la démonstration d'O. Munnich, qui est absent de leur
bibliographie. .
11. P. NAUTlN, Origène: Sa vie et son Œuvre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris,
Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 303-361.
12. G. DORIVAL, Esapla, dans A. MONACI CASTAGNO (éd.), Origene, Dizionario, Rome,
Citta Nuova, 2000, 138-141. Voir une explication proche chez R. CLEMENTS, Origen's
Hexapla and Christian-Jewish Encoulller in the Second and Third Centuries, dans
T. DONALDSON (éd.), Religious Rivalry and the Strllggle for Sliccess ill Caesarea Mari-
tima, Waterloo, Ont., Wilfried Laurier University Press, 2000, 303-329.
606 G.DORIVAL
2. La lecture en parallèle à l'époque romaine
S'il faut renoncer à invoquer une synopse juive, d'où vient la forme
littéraire des Hexaples? Dans quels domaines la disposition en colonnes
parallèles et la lecture en parallèle sont-elles attestées à l'époque
d'Origène?
L'expression de lecture en parallèle ne peut manquer d'évoquer les
Vies parallèles (Bioi parallêloi) de Plutarque (vers 40-120). Le titre
remonte à Plutarque lui-même (Thésée 1,2; Cimon 2, 2; etc.). Mais la
mise en parallèle qu'opèrent les Vies ne reçoit pas de traduction particu-
lière dans la mise en pages, par exemple sous forme de colonnes comme
dans les Hexaples: les vingt-trois paires de vies parvenues jusqu'à nous
racontent la vie d'un Grec puis celle d'un Latin et se terminent par une
comparaison (sygkrisis) entre les deux. Le parallèle s'accommode donc
d'une présentation successive. En règle générale, chacune des deux vies
fOlmant une paire peut se lire de manière indépendante et le parallèle
n'existe en fait que dans la comparaison finale.
En second lieu, la lecture en parallèle n'implique pas nécessairement
la disposition en colonnes. Par exemple, la disposition ancienne des com-
mentaires se traduisait sans doute par l'existence de deux rouleaux de
papyrus: le premier d'entre eux offrait le texte de référence (Homère, les
Tragiques, etc.); le second donnait les commentaires; un système de
signes de renvoi conventionnels permettait au lecteur de passer d'un rou-
leau à l' autre 13 • Plus tard, le texte commenté et les commentaires ont été
disposés sur le même support, mais sans recours au système des colonnes
parallèles: le texte commenté est découpé en courtes unités de sens et
chaque unité est suivie du commentaire qui lui conespond; il y a donc
un enchaînement de la lecture.
Inversement, la disposition en colonnes n'entraîne pas obligatoirement
la lecture en parallèle. Dans les rouleaux de papyrus, les textes sont
copiés sur des colonnes d'écriture successives: les colonnes, se/ides, se
lisent les unes après les autres, et non les unes en rapport avec les autres.
Dans les cahiers d'écoliers, les listes de mots sont souvent disposées sur
deux ou trois colonnes, mais les colonnes doivent se lire à la suite 14 • Le
même phénomène est attesté dans les anciens codices: les grands manus-
crits bibliques des IVe et ve siècles écrits en onciales disposent les livres
13. Voir T. DORANDI, Le commentaire dans la tradition papyrologique: Quelques cas
controversés, dans M.-O. GouLET-CAZÉ (éd.), Le Commentaire entre tradition et innova-
tion, Paris, Éditions du CNRS, 2000, 15-27.
14. Voir par exemple P. JOUGUET-P. PERDRIZET, Le papyrus Bouriant no1: Un cahier
d'écolier grec d'Égypte, dans Studien zur Paleographie und Papyruskunde 6 (1906) 1-14.
LA FORME LI'ITÉRAIRE DES HEXAPLES D'ORIGÈNE 607
de la Bible sur plusieurs colonnes d'écriture, qui se lisent l'une après
l'autre, de gauche à droite et de haut en bas: deux colonnes dans le cas
du codex Alexandrinus, trois dans le codex Vatican us, quatre dans le
codex Sinaiticus. Cette mise en pages paraît conespondre à la volonté de
mettre en valeur le texte de référence.
y a-t-il, dans la pratique écrite de l'Antiquité, des dispositions en
colonnes avec lecture en parallèle, comme chez Origène? On vient de
voir que l'existence de synopses juives antérieures à Origène était hau-
tement improbable. Le fait que les Hexaples présentent un texte hébreu
et ses diverses traductions grecques invite à rechercher des témoignages
du côté des traductions anciennes gravées sur piene. Selon Hérodote,
Histoires IV 87, Darius à Byzance «fit dresser sur le rivage deux stèles
de marbre blanc où figurait, en caractères assyriens sur l'une et grecs sur
l'autre, la liste des peuples qui le suivaient». La liste qui se lisait sur les
deux stèles était identique. Peut-on assimiler les deux stèles à deux
colonnes se lisant en parallèle? En fait, la stèle en cunéifOlme était
destinée aux lecteurs de cette écriture; la stèle en grec, aux Grecs. Les
lecteurs n'étaient nullement invités à comparer les deux stèles entre elles:
ils ne lisaient pas en parallèle, même si un spécialiste de ces deux écri-
tures pouvait le faire. D'autres stèles bilingues ou trilingues fo~ctionnant
de manière analogue sont connues, par exemple à Xanthos, en Egypte ou
à Palmyre. Dans la trilingue de Xanthos, découverte en 1973, les versions
lycienne et grecque sont disposées sur chaque face de la stèle rectangu-
laire: elles ne peuvent être lues en même temps; quant à la version ara-
méenne, elle est disposée sur la tranche; il n'y a donc pas de lecture
synoptique possibleI 5 • Rapprocher ces stèles des Hexaples est donc peu
pertinent. Il en va de même pour les édits d'Asoka, au milieu du
Ille siècle avant notre ère. L'édit trouvé en 1958 traduit un texte indien:
la traduction grecque figure dans la pmtie supérieure de l'inscription, la
traduction araméenne dans la partie inférieure 16 • Dans ce cas, il n'y a pas
de colonnes pm'allèles et nulle incitation à comparer les deux textes.
Même constat dans le cas de la cippe de Malte, du Ile siècle: les 4 lignes
de phénicien précèdent les 3 lignes de grec. Gravée au début du Ile siècle,
la piene de Rosette présente un cas un peu plus complexe, puisqu'il y a
15. Sur l'inscription de Xanthos, voir P. BRIANT, Histoire de l'empire perse de Cyrus
à Alexandre, Paris, Fayard, 1996,727-729. Je remercie Pierre Briant pour son mail éclai-
rant du 9 janvier 2008. Sur Palmyre, voir par exemple H. INGHOLT, Deux inscriptions
bilingues de Palmyre, dans Syria 13 (1932) 278-292: la première inscription, datée de 198
de notre ère, donne le grec en haut et le palmyrénien en bas; la seconde offre le grec sur
la colonne de gauche, le palmyrénien sur celle de droite.
16. E. BENVÉNISTE, Édits d'Asoka en traduction grecque, dans Journal asiatique 252
(1964) 137-157.
 608 G.DORIVAL
trois niveaux d'écriture: l'édit ptolémaïque est écrit en haut, en hiéro-
glyphes; au centre, en démotique; en bas, en grec. Là encore, il n'y a pas
de lecture en parallèle. En fait, c'est Champollion qui a eu le premier
l'idée de lire ces textes en parallèle: on le sait, cette intuition lui a permis
de déchiffrer l'écriture en hiéroglyphes.
3. Les tableau"'( chronologiques d'Eusèbe de Césarée
Est-il possible de trouver des rapprochements plus pettinents? La
lecture en parallèle existe dans l'œuvre historique d'Eusèbe de Césarée
intitulée Canons chroniques et abrégé de l'histoire complète des Grecs
et des Barbares 17 • Le titre est trompeur, car il laisse attendre d'abord des
listes de dates, puis un abrégé de l'histoire universelle. Or la Chronique
d'Eusèbe procède à l'inverse: elle commence par l'abrégé de l'histoire
des peuples anciens et se termine par des listes de dates. Dans la première
partie, la disposition est la pleine page. En revanche, les canons sont des
tableaux chronologiques disposés en colonnes parallèles, ce que l'on
appelle aujourd'hui des tables synchroniques ou des tableaux synchro-
niques. La colonne de gauche présente les années du monde; elle est
parfois dédoublée en olympiades et en années conespondantes d'Abra-
ham. Les colonnes suivantes sont en nombre variable: cinq au début
(Hébreux; Assyriens; Sicyoniens; Argiens; Égyptiens); puis six (les
Athéniens sont ajoutés devant les Égyptiens); plus loin, sept (Hébreux;
Assyriens; Corinthiens; Laconiens; Athéniens; Latins; Égyptiens) et
même huit (les Hébreux sont divisés en Juda et Israël); le nombre de
colonnes se réduit au fur et à mesure que l'on avance dans le temps: deux
(Macédoniens; Perses); puis, à partir de la conquête de Jémsalem en 70,
une seule: le monde est alors unifié par les Romains.
La disposition en cololliles parallèles offrant des tableaux chronolo-
giques est-elle l'invention d'Eusèbe? La question a été et reste discutée,
mais il se pounait bien que la contribution propre d'Eusèbe ait été l'in-
vention du curiosus ordo dont il est question dans la traduction de
Jérôme: c'est Eusèbe qui aurait mis au point les tableaux synchroniques18.
Pour d'autres savants, une telle disposition remonterait aux Chronogra-
17. Canolls chroniques, traduction latine de Jérôme, éd. R. HELM, Eusebius Werke VII
(GCS, 47), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1924; traduction arménienne, éd. J. KARsT, Eusebius
Werke V (GCS, 20), Leipzig, Akademie Verlag, 1911.
18. A,A, MOSSHAMMER, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographie Tradi-
tion, London, Associated University Presses, 1979, pp. 36-37, 62-63, et B. CROKE, The
Originality of Eusebius' Chronicle, dans The American Journal of Philology 103 (1982)
195-200.
LA FORME LITTÉRAIRE DES HEXAPLES D'ORIGÈNE 609
phies de Julius Mricanus, un contemporain et conespondant d'Origène 19.
Est-il possible de remonter plus haut dans le temps? Chez les auteurs
païens, il est question de canons, qui sont des tables chronologiques ou
astronomiques. Étaient-elles disposées en colonnes parallèles? Le peu
que nous savons des Écrits chroniques d'Eratosthène (IIIe siècle) et de la
Syntaxe chronique d'Apollodore (Ile siècle) ne va pas en ce sens; pas
plus que n'a convaincu l'hypothèse formulée par David Asheri se fondant
sur Polybe, Histoires xn 11, 1, selon laquelle l'historien Timée, au début
de l'époque hellénistique, aurait inventé les tables chronologiques20•
L'innovation pounait donc bien être le fait d'Eusèbe. Mais elle n'est
pas sortie de rien, comme le montre un texte de Plutarque, Vie de Solon
27, 1: selon lui, les Canons chroniques présentent des contradictions qui
n'ont pas cessé d'être conigées au fil du temps: cette précision montre
que les données chronologiques étaient lues en parallèle par Plutarque;
cela n'implique pas qu'elles étaient disposées en parallèle, mais elles
l'étaient au moins virtuellement21. Sans doute Eusèbe est-il l'inventeur
des tableaux synchroniques. Mais ceux-ci étaient en préparation, si l'on
peut reprendre ce terme cher à l'évêque de Césarée, dans la littérature
des chroniques antérieures: elles rassemblaient des matériaux chronolo-
giques qui ne prennent leur sens que si on les compare entre eux; et la
meilleure manière de les comparer est de les mettre en parallèle, au moins
implicitement.
Il est difficile de proposer une conclusion sûre. Si les tableaux chro-
nologiques sont une invention d'Eusèbe, ils ne peuvent pas avoir
influencé la disposition des Hexaples, puisqu'Eusèbe est postérieur à
Origène de deux générations environ; tout au contraire, l'idée de mettre
en colonnes parallèles des données chronologiques a pu venir à Eusèbe
parce qu'il était un grand lecteur des Hexaples 22 • Si, maintenant, les
19. Par exemple, H. GELZER, Sextius Julius Afrieanus ulld die byzantinisehe Chrono-
graphie, Leipzig, Teubner, 1880, p. 26. Le meilleur spécialiste actuel de Julius Africanus,
Martin Wallraff, est d'un avis contraire et pense que les tableaux synchroniques sont
l'invention d'Eusèbe (information donnée oralement le 28 septembre 2009).
20. GRAFTON - Wn..LlAMS, Christianity (n. 1), pp. 172-174, qui signalent toutefois que
le Liber annalis d'Atticus, dont Cicéron parle avec enthousiasme dans son Brutus m.13-14
et IV.15, présentait sans doute un tableau synchronique; mais cette œuvre n'a pas été
connue en Orient.
21. Voir aussi Plutarque, Vie de Thémistocle 27.1-2: Thémistocle a-t-il rencontré
Xerxès, comme le veut Ephore, ou le fils de Xerxès, selon la version de Thucydide? Les
tables chronologiques vont dans le sens de Thucydide, mais elles ne sont pas sûres. Cette
conclusion implique que Plutarque se livrait à un travail comparatif entre des données
diverses.
22. C'est l'hypothèse que formule T. BARNEs, Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge,
MA - London, Harvard University Press, 1981, p. 120; elle est reprise par GRAFTON-
Wn..LIAMS, Christianity (n. 1), pp. 142-143, 169-170.
 610 G.DORIVAL
tableaux chronologiques remontent à Julius Africanus ou à un clu'oni-
queur païen antérieur, ils peuvent avoir joué un rôle dans la disposition
des H exaples: Origène aurait transposé dans le domaine des traductions
bibliques une mise en pages attesté dans le geme historique.
4. Les scholies
Un autre rapprochement peut être fait avec le geme des scholies: il
semble bien que celtaines scholies aient été disposées sur une colonne
d'écriture parallèle à celle du texte donnant lieu aux scholies. Ce qui
limite la portée de ce rapprochement, c'est que cette mise en pages est
attestée dans le cas d'œuvres chrétiennes de l'époque d'Origène ou
postérieures à lui. Dans les écrits païens antérieurs, les scholies sont
plutôt écrites entre les lignes du texte de référence ou encore dans les
marges entourant ce demier. Cependant il a existé, semble-t-il, des papyri
qui présentent le texte de référence en colonnes séparées par de larges
marges, lesquelles sont occupées par des scholies; ainsi, pour les Péans
de Pindare, l'Oxyrhynchos 841 du Ile siècle de notre ère. Il est donc
possible que les chrétiens aient repris à la librairie païenne une mise
en pages existante23 • Il faut cependant ajouter que, dans la forme des
scholies, il y a seulement deux colonnes: l'une pour le texte, l'autre pour
les scholies. On est loin des six ou huit colonlles des Hexaples.
5. La forme littéraire des Canons
On a vu que la Chronique d'Eusèbe s'appelle en fait Canons chro-
niques. Or la fOlme littéraire des canons ne se limite pas au genre histo-
rique. Le telme «canon» désigne à l'origine la tige du roseau puis toute
règle longue et droite. Dans la librairie clu'étienne, il revêt plusieurs signi-
fications. Celle de corpus de textes reconnus comme inspirés par une
communauté de fidèles ne conceme pas notre sujet. Il n'en va pas de
même pour les canons pascals et les canons évangéliques. Aux dires
d'Eusèbe (Histoire ecclésiastique VI 22), Hippolyte avait écrit un traité
Sur la Pâque, où il proposait un «canon de seize ans» pour le calcul de
la date de Pâque. Ce canon est un tableau organisé en colonnes. Toutefois
les colonnes ne se lisent pas en parallèle, mais à la suite24 •
23. G. DORIVAL, Les ChaÎnes exégétiques grecque sur les psaumes, tome l, Leuven,
Peeters, 1986, pp. 81-85.
24. Voir Hippolyte de Rome, Canon pascal, PG 10, 875-884; Démonstration des
temps de Pâque, PG 10, 869. Je remercie J6zef Naumowicz de m'avoir éclairé sur ce
document.
LA FORME LITTÉRAIRE DES HEXAPLES D'ORIGÈNE 611
En revanche, canon au sens de tableau fait de colonnes parallèles
est attesté dans le cas des canons évangéliques. Aux dires d'Eusèbe de
Césarée (Lettre à Kmpianos qui sert de préface aux Dix canons ou
Canons évangéliques), Ammonios d'Alexandrie, qui était sans doute
un contemporain d'Origène, avait mis en parallèle de l'évangile de
Matthieu les péricopes «homophones» des autres évangiles 25 • Nous ne
savons pas combien de colonnes présentait cet ouvrage. Son inconvé-
nient était d'aligner les trois évangiles sur Matthieu et de détruire
l'ordre de leurs péricopes respectives. D'où l'amélioration apportée par
Eusèbe: les Dix canons. Eusèbe explique qu'il a donné un numéro aux
péricopes de chaque évangile; sous chaque chiffre il a fait figurer un
«sous-signe» écrit au cinabre: il consiste dans un chiffre de 1 à 10,
qui indique dans lequel des dix canons se trouve la péricope concemée.
Le premier canon est fait de quatre colonnes correspondant aux quatre
évangiles et il contient les chiffres des péricopes communes. Les
canons deuxième, troisième et quatrième sont faits de trois colonnes
donnant les chiffres des passages communs à Matthieu, Marc, Luc,
puis Matthieu, Luc, Jean, enfin Matthieu, Marc, Jean. Les cinq canons
suivants offrent deux colonnes contenant les chiffres des passages
présents dans deux des quatre évangiles: Matthieu, Luc; Matthieu,
Marc; Matthieu, Jean; Marc, Luc; Luc, Jean. Le dixième canon donne
les numéros des péric opes propres à chaque évangile. La lecture des
dix canons montre que Matthieu était divisé en 355 péricopes; Marc
en 235; Luc en 342; et Jean en 232. Ces exemples montrent que les
canons sont des listes; dans le cas des canons 1 à 9, ces listes sont
des tableaux faits de quatre, trois ou deux colonnes qui se lisent en
parallèle. Dans les Canons évangéliques les colonnes sont remplies de
chiffres que le lecteur peut confronter et dont il a la clef de compré-
hension.
Pour des raisons de chronologie relative, les Canons d'Eusèbe
n'ont pas pu exercer d'influence sur les Hexaples. En revanche, il est
possible de rapprocher les colonnes des H exaples et la mise en
colonnes parallèles des évangiles par Ammonios. Dans les deux cas,
il s'agit de travaux relatifs à la Bible. Toutefois rien ne prouve une
influence directe, ni dans un sens, ni dans l'autre. Ce que l'on peut
dire simplement, c'est que la mise en parallèle et la lecture en paral-
lèle sont dans l'air du temps à l'époque d'Origène quand il est ques-
tion de Bible.
25. Dù' canons ou Canons évangéliques, PG 22,1276-1292.
 612 G.DORIVAL
6. Les papyrus bilingues
. ~e rapprochement peut-être le plus éclairant est donné par les papyrus
bIhngues2~. Nous connaissons une quinzaine de glossaires alphabétiques
ou thé~at1ques. Ce~ demiers envisagent les mots relatifs, par exemple,
aux pOlssons, aux legumes, aux vents, aux dieux. Tous donnent, sur la
colonne de gau~he, les telmes latins et, sur la colonne de droite, les équi-
valents grecs. A chaque ligne, sont copiés normalement un mot latin
dans la colonne de gauche, et un mot grec, dans la colonne de droite:
Toutefois, dans les glossaires alphabétiques, plusieurs équivalents grecs
peuvent être proposés. Ces glossaires sont très proches des Hermeneu-
mata P seudodositheana qu'a transmis la tradition médiévale' toutefois
dans ce demier cas, le grec occupe la colonne de gauche et 'le latin l~
colonne de droite. A qui étaient destinés les glossaires? Dans la majo~·ité
des cas, à un lectorat de Grecs voulant apprendre le latin; toutefois, dans
quelques cas, le public ciblé semble consister dans des Latins voulant
apprendre le grec. Les spécialistes divergent sur la date d'apparition de
ces documents bilingues: André Bataille la situe au premier siècle de
n,otre. ère, Bruno Roch~tte au Ille siècle seulement, car la plupart des
t~mOlg~ag~s p~~yrologlque~ datent de l'époque immédiatement posté-
neure a DlOcletlen; toutefoIs, de manière paradoxale, le même Bruno
Rochette reconnaît que le matériel lexicographique bilingue a dû se
constituer à l'époque d'Auguste. Cette question de datation est impor-
~ante pour n.otre propos: selon la date retenue, le modèle bilingue a pu
mfluencer dlfectement Origène ou non. Or il semble bien avoir existé à
Alexandrie un peu avant l'époque d'Origène.
Il existe également des glossaires bilingues d'auteurs latins ou encore
des traductions grecques de ces auteurs disposées sur la colonne de
droite, l' original latin occupant la colonne de gauche. Virgile et Cicéron
sont ~es plus concemés, à un degré moindre Salluste, Térence, Juvénal,
Lucam. Les traductions sont littérales et reproduisent l'ordre des mots de
l'original. Elles se ressemblent suffisamment pour que l'on puisse
. 26: A. BATAILLE, Les glossaires gréco-latins sur papyrus, dans Recherches de papy-
,ologce 4 (1967) 161-169; E.A. FISCHER, Greek Translations of Latin Literature in the
Fourth AD, dans Yale Classical Stl/dies 27 (1982) 173-215' J V~" ~R Gl " l'autre, les traductions grecques. Le papyrus d'Oxyrhynchos 2745, du Ve siècle, contient
b,{, 'Century
. . , ,~'U<AMl;, ossalla
'. ~Ilgu~a III papYrls~t membranis reperta, Bonn, Habelt, 1983, complété par Glossaria
blllllgllla altera, MU?Ich - Berlin, Saur, 2001; B. ROCHEITE, Le Latin dans le monde grec:
Recherches ,sur l~ diffusi~n de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellél/o-
phol/es .de 1. EmpIre roma/n,' Bruxelles, Latomus, 1997, pp. 177-206; R CRJJ3IORE, Higher
Educatl.ol/ III Early B?'zal/tllle Egypt: Rhetoric, Latin, and the Law, dans RS. BAGNALL,
Egypt II/ (he Byzantllle World, 300-700, Cambridge, University Press, 2007, 47-66,
Je ~emer~Ie Jean-I:uc FOU1;net,.directeur d'études à l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études
(IV sectIon des SCIences histonques et philologiques), pour ses indications précieuses.
LA FORME LITTÉRAIRE DES HEXAPLES D'ORIGÈNE 613
conclure qu'elles dépendent d'un dictionnaire gréco-latin, dont la date
de confection peut remonter au premier siècle de notre ère. La majeure
partie de ces documents n'est pas antérieure au IVe siècle. Toutefois, il
existe au moins un papyrus de Virgile du premier siècle, si du moins la
datation du document est c01'l'ecte27 .
Il faut ajouter que les glossaires et les autres documents voisins peuvent
apporter un éclairage à la question de la deuxième colonne de translitté-
ration des Hexaples. En effet on note que les mots latins sont plus sou-
vent transcrits en lettres grecques qu'ils ne sont donnés en lettres latines.
La translittération apparaît comme une étape obligatoire dans le proces-
sus qui consiste à passer d'une langue à une autre. Par conséquent, dans
le cas de Hexaples, ce qui aurait été surprenant, c'est que cette œuvre
n'ait pas présenté la colonne de translittération.
III. CONCLUSION
Une conclusion minimale s'impose: les exemples de certaines
scholies, d'Ammonios et des papyri bilingues prouvent qu'à l'époque
d'Origène la disposition en colonnes parallèles et la lecture en parallèle
sont dans l'air du temps dans les domaines de la Bible et de la traduction.
Du rapprochement avec les glossaires bilingues et les textes d'auteurs
bilingues, dont certains semblent être attestés dès le premier siècle
de notre ère, on peut sans doute tirer davantage: par sa profession de
professeur de grammaire, Origène était nécessairement informé de ces
méthodes de présentation linguistique. La disposition des H exaples peut
être considérée comme une reprise chrétienne de cette mise en pages
païenne.
27. Cordula Bandt a bien voulu relire le présent mticle. Dans un mail du 7 décembre
2009, elle rappelle qu'aux dires de Jérôme (Liber intelpretationis hebraicorum nomil/um,
ed. P.A. DE LAGARDE [CCSL, 72], Turnhout, Brepols, 1959, p. 57), l'Onomasticon
d'Origène était disposé sur deux colonnes parallèles: l'une contenait les mots hébreux;
quelques bribes d'un Onomasticoll de ce type, dont la paternité origénienne est discutée.
Aux dires de Jérôme, Origène dépendrait de l'Ollomasticoll de Philon d'Alexandrie.
Cordula Bandt signale aussi l'existence de glossaires hébreux-grecs au musée égyptien de
Berlin, mais ces glossaires sont probablement beaucoup plus tardifs, comme le montre le
cas du glossaire retrouvé à la Genizalt du Caire (voir N. TCHERNETSKA - J. OLSZOWY-
SCHLANGER - N. DE LANGE, An Early Hebrew-Greek Biblical Glossary from the Cairo
Genizah, dans Revue des études juives 166 [2007] 91-128). Je remercie Cordula Bandt
pour ces précieuses indications, qui confirment que le modèle littéraire des Hexaples est
à chercher du côté des glossaires bilingues.
614 G.DORNAL
Une telle conclusion ne diminue en rien l'originalité d'Origène. Elle
permet en fait de mieux la définir. Elle est quadruple. Origène a transposé
au domaine hébréo-grec une forme littéraire gréco-latine. Ensuite, il
donne à la fois le texte hébreu original et sa translittération grecque, alors
que les glossaires proposent soit le texte latin original soit sa translitté-
ration grecque. De plus, il ne limite pas la traduction grecque à une seule
colonne, mais il donne autant de colonnes qu'il connaîr de versions
grecques de la Bible. Enfin, il pourvoit le texte de la Septante de signes
diacritiques empruntés à la tradition philologique d'Aristarque; certes, il
y a pmfois des signes critiques dans les glossaires bilingues, mais ils
concernent exclusivement l'accentuation et la longueur des voyelles et
on ne trouve parmi eux ni l'obèle ni l'astérisque. Chez Origène, ces deux
signes sont pratiquement les seuls et ils prennent un sens nouveau, celui
d'indiquer les plus et les moins de la Septante (Commentaires sur
Matthieu XV 14).
Aix-Marseille Université Gilles DORlVAL
CNRS - Institut Universitaire de France
33 impasse Croix de Régnier
F - 13004 Marseille
gilles.dorival@orange.fr
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE
DNINE IN ORIGENE
IL PADRE E IL FIGLIO A COLLOQUIO CON L'UOMO
OORODUZIONE
Scopo di questo intervento è illustrare un procedimento caratteristico
della prosa di Origene, che chiunque abbia fatto l'esperienza della lettura
di una qualunque delle sue opere - si tratti di omelia, commentario, trat-
tato teologico 0 apologetico - non pua non aver riscontrato: la prosopo-
pea. L' Alessandrino l'icone ad essa a più riprese e secondo differenti
propositi, utilizzandola pel' fm' pm'lare in prima persona una molteplice
varietà di figure: da Dio Padre fino agli astri, passando attraverso perso-
naggi biblici, personaggi 'tipo' che gli servono solo come casi 'di scuola',
figure reali che si oppongono ad alcune sue proposte interpretative, 0
ancora avversari fittizi, che l'esegeta stesso costruisce pel' propone un
dialogo che renda più vivace la sua esposizione.
Innanzitutto si deve sottolineare che la prosopopea oggetto di questo
contributo non è tanto la figura retorica appartenente aIle cosiddette
figure di pensiero, quanto piuttosto unD degli esercizi preparatori, i
progymnasmata, su cui si tornerà fra breve.
Come accennato, i generi letterari non sembrano giocare un ruolo par-
ticolare nella scelta di riconere a questo mezzo retorico, anche se nelle
omelie si registra un numero di esempi lievemente maggiore rispetto alla
media degli altri scritti, come è deI resto naturale. Pel' poter comunque
verificare l'eventuale incidenza della particolare fOlma di un testo sulle
funzioni che la prosopopea viene di volta in volta a ricoprire, si prende-
ranno qui in considerazione alcune delle più significative opere orige-
niane conservate nell'originale greco, SI da passare al vaglio più 0 mena
l'intero spettro delle fOlme letterarie impiegate: HIer, CIo, Orat e CCl.
Si pmtirà dalle omelie, passando poi ai commentari pel' giungere infine
ai trattati, con una successione che procede da scritti a carattere più gene-
1. L'esclusione di CMt è dovuta all'analisi condotta in altra sede su questo testo, i
risultati della quale sono esposti in A. Vn..LANI, Personae loquentes: analisi degli aspetti
formali ed esegetici dell'I/so della prosopopea nel Commento a Matteo, in Il COlllmento
di Origene al Vangelo di Matteo. Atti del X Convegno deI "Gruppo ltaliano di Ricerca
su Origene e la tradizione alessandrina" (Napoli, 24-26 settembre 2008), a cura di
T. PISCITELLI, Brescia, in corso di stampa.
616 A. VILLANI
raIe - se non altro per il più ampio raggio dei destinatari - a quelli con-
cettualmente più impegnativi, oltre che destinati ad un uditorio più
ristretto.
Inoltre, l'indagine si limiterà aIle prosopopee divine - cioè ai discorsi
pronunciati in prima persona da Dio Padre e da Gesù Cristo - per com-
prendere se esse costituiscano un casa eccezionale all'intemo deI più
ampio panorama, in virtù dell'eccezionalità deI personaggio a cui sono
assegnate.
Più in generale, alla base di questo studio sta l'idea che a1cuni aspetti
dello stile origeniano, a tutt'oggi rimasti inesplorati, meritino di suscitare
l'interesse e dunque l'attenzione degli studiosi, al fine di comprendere in
modo più completo e mena schematico di quanto non si sia fatto sin qui
la figura di questo versatile intellettuale deI terzo secolo dell'era cristiana,
che ha dedicato l'intera esistenza all'approfondimento deI significato deI
testo sacro, e tanto si è impegnato a divulgarne il messaggio, di cui rico-
nosceva, se letto alla Ince di un'adeguata interpretazione, la capacità di
persuadere e convertire2 •
2. Negli ultimi decenni si registra, comunque, un'inversione di tendenza da salutare
con favore e che ha trovato un autorevole suggello proprio nel convegno di Cracovia di
cui qui si raccolgono gli atti. Cosl, a quasi un secolo di distanza, si puo finalmente leggere
una seconda monografia - dopo 10 studio di J. BORST, Beitriige zur sprachlich-stilistischen
und rhetorischen Würdigung des Origenes, Diss., Freising, 1913 - dedicata unicamente
allo stile dell' Alessandrino: D. PAZZINI, Lingua e teologia in Origene: Il Commento a
Giovanni, Brescia, 2009. Non sono mancati, inoltre, singoli studi che hanno messo in luce
questo 0 quel particolare aspetto letterario dell'opera origeniana: si vedano, per citare solo
alcuni esempi, T. ADAMIK, La rhétorique dans les Homélies sur le Cantique des Cantiques
d'Origène (HCt l, 1), in G. HEIDL - R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nona: Origen and
Religious Practice of His Time. Papers of the 9'h International Origen Congress, Pécs,
Hungmy, 29 August - 2 September 2005 (BETL, 228), Leuven, 2009, 3-12; L. l'ERRoNE,
Il profilo letterario dei Commento a Giovanni: Operazione esegetica e costruzione dei
testo, in E. PruNZIVALLI (ed.), Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene: Il testo e i suoi con-
testi. Atti dell'vrn Convegno di Studi deI "Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la
tradizione alessandrina" (Roma, 28-30 settembre 2004), Villa Verucchio, 2005, 43-81;
D. PAZZINI, Considerazioni sulla lingua dei Commento a Giovanni, in Il Commento a
Giovanni di Origene, 117-131; K. TORJESEN, Influence of Rhetoric on Origen's Old Testa-
ment Homilies, in G. DORIVAL - A. LE BOULLUEC (eds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la
Bible 1 Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, University Press -. Peeters, 1995,
13-25; P. O'CLEIRIGH, Topoi of Invention in Origen's Homilies, in ibid., 277-286; l'in-
troduzione di Nautin a Origène, Homélies sur Jérémie. Tome 1 (Homélies I-Xl). Traduction
par P. HUSSON - P. NAUTIN. Édition, introduction et notes par P. NAUTIN (SC, 232), Paris,
1976 [= SC, 232], 183-191. Ben prima di questi contributi, comunque, alcuni studiosi,
partendo dall' analisi di singole opere, avevano espresso l' esigenza di specifiche indagini
sullo stile e la retOl'ica origeniana: cf. ad es. l'introduzione a Origene, Commento al
Vangelo di Giovanni, a cura diE. CORSINI, Torino, 1968 [= CORSINI], pp. 96-102; W. GESSEL,
Die Teologie des Gebetes nach De oratione von Origenes, München - Paderborn - Wien,
1975, pp. 13-34; l'introduzione a Origene, Esortazione al Mm·tirio, a cura di C. NOCE,
Roma, 1985, pp. 37-40.
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 617
1. ANTECEDENT! E MODELLI PER LA COMPOSIZIONE DI
PROSOPOPEE
l modelli dai quali Origene ha tratto ispirazione per la pratica della
prosopopea provengono dalla tradizione sia c1assica sia biblica, secondo
una prassi ben attestata per i primi scrittori cristiani e valida per questo
come per molti altri ambitP. DaI mondo greco egli deriva l' elaborazione
concettuale, l' aspetto più propriamente teorico e tecnico, mentre da
quello ebraico i concreti esempi presenti nella Scrittura, da cui volentieri
si lascia guidare per la propria attività di scrittore.
Come ho cercato di dimostrare altrove, Origene ha una chiara e precisa
conoscenza della teoria relativa alla prosopopea, quale si trova formulata
soprattutto nella letteratura di progymnasmata, esercizi preparatori che
gli studenti nel mondo antico affrontavano al momento deI passaggio
dalle lezioni del grammatico a quelle del retore, ossia quando raggiunge-
vano il più alto livello di istruzioné. Cio è ricavabile in tutta evidenza
da CC 7,36-37, brano in cui l'Alessandrino si dilunga sul corretto modo
di comporre una prosopopea, per poter criticare il sun avversario su que-
sto specifico aspetto, dando COS! prova di padroneggiare la letteratura
sull'argomento. In particolare, da quanto scrive in questo passo e altrove,
Origene sembra essere a conoscenza delle teorie elaborate da Elio Teone
nel sun trattato di Progymnasmata, composto probabilmente ad Alessan-
dria alla fine deI l sec. d.C.5.
Allo stesso modo, è chiara anche la derivazione biblica: a più riprese
Origene afferma che 10 Spirito - nella sua ottica reale autore della Scrit-
tura, al di là dei singoli autori biblici - fa parlare talvolta uno talvolta un
altro dei vari personaggi messi in scena. Lo Spirito, cioè, utilizza nella
sua opera letteraria delle prosopopee, e ne legittima quindi implicita-
mente l'impiego anche da parte dell'esegeta6 •
3. Per alcuni esempi di metodi e pratiche in cui istruzione classica e formazione biblica
si intrecciano indissolubilmente cf. L. l'ERRONE, Metodo, s.v., in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (a
cura di), Origene. Dizionario. La cultura, il pensiero, le opere, Roma, 2000, 276-281.
4. Cf., ad esempio, T. MORGAN, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman
Worlds, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 190-193.
5. Cf. A. VILLANI, Origenes ais Schriftsteller: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Verwendung von
Prosopopoiie, mit einigen Beobachtungen über die prosopologische Exegese, in Adaman-
tius 14 (2008) 130-150, specialmente pp. 138-140, con i rimandi alla bibliografia specifica
sull'argomento e ID., Il posto della retorica nella strategia polemica di Origelle contra
Celso, in COl'sodi. stampa in Auctores Nostri 9 (2011).
6. Particolarmente chiari a questo proposito sono i passi di Phil 7, 1 e 2, per una breve
analisi dei quali rimando a quanto proposto in VILLANI, Origenes ais Schrifsteller (n. 5),
pp. 140-146.
618 A. VILLAN!
Inoltre Origene, nel suo esercizio di interprete della Bibbia, riconosce
le prosopopee presenti in un brano - come è deI resto naturale attendersi
da chi ha da giovane esercitato la professione di ypaf.1I1a'CtKOe; - e tal-
volta ne segnala la presenza, sia nei commentari eruditi (cf. ad es. FrRm
41 7) sia, addirittura, in alcune omelie (cf. HIer 5, 10).
Tenendo a mente tale duplice derivazione, si puo adesso passare all'e-
same di alcuni tra i più significativi casi di prosopopee presenti nelle
opere sopra citate, con un occhio sempre attento alla eventualità che i
discorsi divini rispondano ad esigenze differenti rispetto a quelli umani.
II. IL PIANO PROVVIDENZIALE SPIEGATO AI FEDELI:
LE PROSOPOPEE NELLE OMELIE SU GEREMIA
Alcuni interessanti esempi di prosopopee divine si trovano in HIer che,
essendo praticamente le uniche omelie dell'Alessandrino conservate nella
lingua originale - se si eccettua HReG -, permettono di elaborare rifles-
sioni, anche di tipo stilistico e retorico, su una base sostanzialmente
sicura.
HIer 4 8 comincia con una dichiarazione relativa alla difficoltà, 0
meglio 'oscurità' deI passo oggetto della lettura deI giorno (Ger 3,6-11)
che, dunque, prima di essere inteso nel senso spirituale, deve essere chia-
rito secondo la lettera9 • E' il compito che Origene si appresta subito a
svolgere (§1), richiamando brevemente le vicende storiche deI popolo di
Israele - dalla suddivisione in dodici tribù e due regni fino alla prigionia
tra gli Assiri -, le quali vengono lette come conseguenza dei peccati
commessi da Israele prima e da Giuda poi, e che sono causa di una ine-
vitabile e definitiva condanna da parte della Provvidenza. Quindi l' ese-
geta ricapitola il discorso, rimanendo ancora nell'applicazione "a quel
7. Una breve analisi di questo interessante frammento, oitre ad aleune considerazioni
più approfondite sulla derivazione classica dei metodo, rilerto in chiave cristiana, si trova
in VILLANI, Personae loquentes (n. 1).
8. Per un esame della struttura e dei passi chiave dell'omelia cf. E. ABBATTISTA,
Origel/e legge Geremia: AI/alisi, commel/to e riflessioni di //Il biblista di oggi, Roma,
2008, pp) 51-60. . A questo punto, conclusa l'esposizione di carattere storico, e ormai chia-
9. Origene affelma che il senso letterale ("to Pll"toV) deI passo letto ha qualeosa dl
oscuro ("tt àcra<j>és): si trarta di espressione di carattere tecnico indicante i passi il cui
senso non è immediatamente percepibile e che dunque necessitano di un'indagine più
approfondita. Una panoramica sulla concezione origeniana, e dei Padri greci in genere,
relativa all'oscurità biblica è offerta da M. HARL, Origène et les interprétations patris-
tiques grecques de l' «obscurité» biblique, in Vigiliae Christianae 36 (1982) 334-371, ris!.
in EAD., Le déchiffrement du sens: Études sur l'herméneutique chrétienne d'Origène à
Grégoire de Nysse, Paris, 1993, pp. 89-126.
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 619
popolo di allora", e ne chiarisce il senso concedendo la parola a Dio
stesso, che entra COS! sulla scena pel' spiegare il sua comportamento:
Nonostante i COS! grandi peccati commessi in Israele, l'assemblea di Giuda,
udite le loro cadute e in che modo io li avevo condotti in cattività, non ne
tu ammaestrata, ma aggiunse peccati ai peccati, COS! che per tale aggiunta,
se si raffrontano questi peccati ai peccati di Israe1e, si trova più giustizia in
Israele che in Giuda lO •
In pratica, qui Dio chiarisce le ragioni deI sua tanto duro comp011a-
mento nei confronti di Israele, prima di ammonire Giuda che non è stato
in grado di comprenderlo: egli spiega, infatti, che ha agito con durezza
nei confronti dei peccati di Israele perché da cio Giuda potesse traiTe un
ammaestramento, ed evitare di comp011arsi nuovamente in tal modo. Cio
significa che l'azione divina era ispirata ad un criterio di esemplarità
volto a risparmiare al secondo popolo le pene cui è andato incontro il
primo. Giuda, tuttavia, che non ha fatto tesoro di questo insegnamento,
ha continuato a peccare, ed anzi ha aggiunto a quanto già commesso
peccati ancora più gravi. Comunque, al di là deI fallimento di Giuda, una
volta posto, il criterio dell'esemplarità avrà necessariamente valore per
tutti i secoli e pel' tutti i popoli a venire, e l'esegeta puo COS! propone
senza alcuna difficoltà un'interpretazione di tipo attualizzante, grazie alla
quale le parole di Dio di quel tempo antico saranno percepite come
ancora valide.
DaI punto di vista formale, questa prosopopea è costruita sostanzial-
mente su un solo verbo usato in prima persona (1tE1toi:rIKa), che peraltro
non compare subito né nella frase principale. Ne deriva una sorta di
'effetto sorpresa', sebbene in parte anticipato dalla formula che precede
l'inizio della prosopopea (ŒE 'tIXe; ÀÉSEle; 'tou 1tpo<PTt-rou, ct f.l1l -rotou-ro
'Ct ol1Àoucn) attraverso la quale il predicatore lascia intendere che cio che
sta pel' dire non è una citazione letterale deI testo biblico, ma che esso è,
in qualche modo, riadattato, trasformato.
Riprende poi la parola l'esegeta, pel' spiegare che Dio, nella sua
magnanimità, continua ad offrire a Giuda la possibilità della salvezza,
questa volta ordinando a Geremia di profetare affinché inviti il popolo
alla conversione.
rito quanto all'inizio appariva oscuro, Origene potrebbe passare diretta-
10. Trad. da Origene, Omelie su Geremia. Introduzione, traduzione e note a cura di
L. MORTARI, Roma, 1995 [= MORTARI], p. 58. Per comodità, si rimandano ad un'apposita
appendice le citazioni per esteso e in lingua originale dei testi particolarmente lunghi qui
trattatL Per HIer 4, 1 v. Appendice, n. 1.
620 A. VILLAN!
mente all'interpretazione "mistica". Invece, con evidente intento didattico,
egli vuole ulteriormente ricapitolare il discorso, ed esorta gli interessati a
riconsiderare il passo in questione rileggendolo alla luce dei chiarimenti
appena forniti. Non si accontenta, tuttavia, di un'esortazione, per COS1 dire,
passiva, ma offre lui stesso l'esempio da seguire, e rilegge il brano aggiun-
gendovi quelle annotazioni che gli sembrano necessarie. Tuttavia, non si
tratta soltanto di brevi interventi marginali inseriti tra i vari versetti biblici,
per rendeme più comprensibile l'andamento e appianare le eventuali diffi-
coltà, ma talvolta il predicatore 'confeziona' un intero passo biblico in
modo nuovo e originale, tramite il ricorso alla prosopopeall . Questo modo
di procedere fonde insieme la citazione autentica con il discorso fittizio
costruito ad arte dall'esegeta, e perviene ad un notevole accrescinlento
della forza espressiva deI discorso che Dio rivolge al suo profeta. Per usare
un altro teffilÏlle retorico, si tratta di una amplificatio, in greco aü~YJO"ts,
attraverso la quale Dio ha modo di chiarire più ampiamente di quanto fatto
in precedenza sia i mezzi della sua azione provvidenziale nei confronti deI
popolo -l'averlo ripudiato, gettato tra le braccia degli Assiri, e COS1 via-,
sia i firri che attraverso di essa si proponeva di raggiungere -l'anlillaestra-
mento di Giuda -, sebbene sia poi costretto ad ammettere di non essere
riuscito a conseguire il risultato sperato.
Chi si interessa alle letture, prenda le parole di tutta quanta la lettura di oggi
e allora vedrà che il senso ne è stato chiarito: E il Signore mi disse nei
giorni dei re Giosia: Vedi cià che mi ha fatto la casa di !sraele - non di
Giuda, ma, prima, di Israele -, essa è andata su ogni monte elevato e sotto
ogni albero sacra e si è prostituita. E io ho detto, dopo che ha commesso
tutte queste prostituzioni: Ritorna a me; e non è tornata. E l'infedele Giuda
vide la sua infedeltà - cioè dell'assemblea di Israele. E hanno visto - quelli
di Giuda - che pel' lutte le fornicazioni pel' le quali era stata abbandonata
la casa di Israele, io l'ho ripudiata e le ho dato illibello di divorzio [Ger
3,6-8]. Bisogna che Giuda ne sia ammaestrata - poiché io ho ripudiato
Israele, l'assemblea di Israele, li ho gettati in mezzo agli Assiri e le ho
messo in mana un libello di ripudio - e non ha avuto timore l'infedele
Giuda [Ger 3,8]. Dopo tanti mali inflitti a Israele, scacciandolo, dando il
libello di ripudio, bisognava che l'assemblea di Giuda fosse ammaestrata
da quanto quelli avevano patito, ma es si non solo non furono ammaestrati
bensl aggiunsero peccati ai peccati, cosl che i peccati dell'assemblea di
Israele in confronto ai peccati dell'assemblea di Giuda sembrano essere
giustizià, e le ho messo in mana illibello di ripudio; e non ha avuto timore
l'infedele Giuda sua sorella ma è andata a prostituirsi anch'essa e pel' lei
la prostituzione è divenuta un nulla e si è prostituita col legno e con la
pietra. E con tutto questo non è tornata a me l'infedele Giuda con tutto il
Il. Nel testo greco riprodotto al n. 1 deU' Appendice le parti in cui Dio parla in prima
persona sono sotto1ineate.
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 621
suo cuore, ma falsamente [Ger 3,8-10] si è volta a me: non mi ha temuto
dopa quanta avevo fatto a Israele, cosl da ritomare a me perfettamente.
Mentre bisognava che tomasse in modo verace, essa è ritomata a me falsa-
mente. E con tutto ql/esto non è ritornata a me l'infedele Giuda con tutto il
suo Cl/ore ma falsamente. E il Sigllore mi ha detto: Ha giustificato la sua
anima Israele in confronto all'infedele Giuda [Ger 3,10-11] - i peccati di
Israele paragonati aIle colpe di Giuda sono divenuti giustificazione deIl'a-
nima dell'assemblea di Israele -, va' dunque e leggi queste parole verso
settentrione (trad. MORTARI, pp. 58-59).
Nessuno tra i commentatori di questo passo - che meritava di essere
riportato nella sua interezza - ha messo in luce la presenza della proso-
popea: il solo Nautin ha segnalato, per questa seconda parte, che il testo
biblico riletto da Origene è completato da glosse esplicative 12 • Cià è
valido, tuttavia, solo pel' quelle piccole annotazioni a margine che in
effetti l'esegeta inserisce solo a scopo di chiarezza, e che non v'è motivo
di ritenere pronunziate da Dio; ma quando a quest'ultirno sono assegnati
veri e propri discorsi di non modesta ampiezza limitarsi a parlare di
glosse significa ridurre 10 stile origeniano a quello di un compilatore,
privandolo di quella carica e di quel dinamismo che invece indubbia-
mente possiede. Casomai, sarebbe più COlTetto parlare di libero adatta-
mento a carattere esplicativo, perché è pur vero che Origene riconnette
sempre i discorsi fittizi al testo biblico autentico, in modo che ne risulti
un tessuto unitario e compatto 13 ; ma anche in questo modo non si evite-
rebbe di appianare e quindi banalizzare la prosa origeniana, finendo pel'
nascondere la presenza della prima persona divina nelle parti aggiunte
dall' esegeta, e dunque pel' celare una peculiarità stilistica meritevole
invece di essere evidenziata.
12. Cf. NAUTlN in SC, 232, p. 256 n. 2: "Origène donne d'abord, dans le paragraphe
présent, le plan et le sens général de la péricope, puis, dans le paragraphe suivant, il va
relire le texte en y insérant des gloses explicatives"; 0 p. 257 n. 7: "Après les explications
précédentes, le texte est devenue clair. Origène prend sa bible et relit le texte en y insérant
des gloses pour marquer quels mots se rapportent à Israël et lesquels à Juda. On observera
aussi combien il insiste sur le fait que Juda aurait dû comprendre la leçon que constituait
la punition d'Israël, car c'est sur ce point qu'il va mettre l'accent dans l'interprétation du
sens spirituel". Si deve pero sottolineare che Origene accentua questa insistenza proprio
grazie alla prosopopea, facendo SI che a riproporla sia Dio stesso.
13. Che qui si abbia a che fare con una prosopopea potrebbe essere inoltre confermato
da quanto si legge all'inizio dei §4, in cui nuovamente la parola è affidata a Dio, che
riassume quanta detto in precedenza: 'Eàv oOv MyU roc; 1tprotoV È1;U1tÉO"t:EtÂU otà "Cà
aJ.lup"C~J.lu"Cu "Cov 'Iapui]Â Kui È1;U1tÉa"CEtÂu Etc; J.lE"CotKtuV uù"Cov, 6 oÈ 'loMuC; ÙXOUCOV
"Cà YEV0J.lEVU "C0 'Iapui]Â OÙK È1tÉa"Cp61j16, My6t 1t6pi "Crov T]J.l6"CÉPCOV aJ.lupnlJ.lu"Ccov
(ed. NAUTIN [SC, 232], p. 266, 1-4); "Quando dunque dice [sc. Dio]: 'Dapprirna ho ripu-
diato Israele per i suoi peccati e l'ho mandato in cattività, ma Giuda, sebbene udisse
quanto accaduto a Israele non ritomo', parla dei nostri peccati" (trad. MORTARI, p. 62,
leggermente modificata).
 622 A. VILLANI
Che si tratti di vera e propria prosopopea 0 piuttosto di libera parafrasi
tendente alla 'drammatizzazione' deI testo, si ha comunque a che fare con
un mezzo retorico, attraverso il quale l'esegeta intende in qualche modo
sottolineare un tema che gli sta a cuore. In questo casa si tratta di chiarire
la ratio dell'agire di Dio, gli scopi che egli si propone, rilevandone l'in-
comprensione da pmte deI popolo di Giuda. Inoltre, poiché Dio qui rim-
provera il popolo di non aver compreso il suo atteggiamento, un suo
intervento in prima persona risulta più autorevole e dunque ancor più
efficace. E questo è proprio cio che preme al predicatore: indune i suoi
ascoltatori ad una vera conversione. Per raggiungere questo scopo, non
si fa scrupoli a impiegare le ris orse che la retorica gli offre per ottenere
maggiore efficacia persuasiva. E' infatti con la successiva applicazione
di questo discorso al tempo presente, immaginando cioè i rimproveri
divini come diretti al pubblico della chiesa di Cesarea, che si chiarisce il
senso della lunga interpretazione letterale.
In altre parole Origene, con questa esegesi attualizzante, vuol far rivi-
vere ai suoi ascoltatori gli stessi sentimenti sperimentati dall'antico
popolo di Giuda, in modo che non si ripeta nuovamente quanto Dio ha
dovuto verificare con Israele e Giuda. Le antiche vicende della storia di
Israele sono impiegate in funzione paradigmatica, in quanto insegnano,
anche a chi le legge vari secoli dopo, i retti sentieri della condotta morale.
Questo è cio che il predicatore vuole inculcare nei fedeli che 10 ascoltano,
s! da suscitare in loro un reverenziale timore di Dio l4 . Ma p~rché cio
risultasse convincente ed incisivo il testo biblico doveva essere spiegato
in modo chiaro anche sul piano storico-letterale. L'intento retorico più
spicciolo e immediato, come il richiamare l'attenzione degli ascoltatori
o rendere più vivace l'esposizione, è solo una marginale conseguenza
dell'idea più profonda che indirizza Origene alla scelta di questa tecnica
retorica, che consiste piuttosto nel desiderio di raggiungere più in
profondità il suo pubblico, presentando il suo messaggio in modo più
autorevole e dunque più persuasivo ed efficace lS • Inoltre, cio compOlta
14. il passo citato nella nota precedente mostra chiaramente che questo è 10 scopo dei
predicatore. Anche li, in tutta evidenza, la prosopopea, che richiama l'azione punitiva di
Dio, ha la funzione di spingere gli uditori a comportarsi in modo più saggio di quanto non
fece il popolo di Giuda.
15. Anche TORJESEN, Influence of Rhetoric (n. 2), analizzando aspetti diversi della
tecnica retorica presente nelle omelie origeniane, tra i quali ad esempio i frequenti appelli
ail' ascoltatore, perviene a conclusioni deI tutto simili, che contribuiscono ad avvalorare
anche questa presentazione. Mi pare comunque eccessiva, nel saggio di Torjesen,
l'importanza data alla consapevolezza origeniana di fondare, nei suoi ascoltatori, una
(nuova) identità cristiana. Certo questo avviene, ma più come naturale conseguenza della
predicazione che non per un preciso intento dei predicatore - 0 almeno i segnali in questa
direzione non paiono COSl evidenti come si vOlTebbe. futendendo in tal senso, infatti, si
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 623
un'operazione di ridefinizione dell'immagine dl Dio, i cui tratti più
umani e più rudi, tipici della raffigurazione divina di AT, vengono abil-
mente levigati e, per COS! dire, ammorbiditi.
Alcune brevi prosopopee il cui protagonista è ancora Dio Padre si
hanno nel corpo centrale di HIer 18 16 : nel §5 17 Dio si rivolge alla
"seconda nazione" di cui parla Ger 18 - interpretata come il popolo
cristiano - pel' avvertirla che, nonostante le grandi promesse ricevute, nel
casa in cui essa pure si abbandoni ai peccati, subirà le stesse pene l'Ïser-
vate alla "prima nazione", Israele, cioè l'abbandono, la cattività e COS!
via. Si tratta dunque ancora una volta di una minaccia, 0 comunque di un
avveltimento, il cui fine, messo bene in chiaro dal predicatore, è quello
di evitare danni e punizioni al popolo. Anche qui l'intento di Odgene è
attualizzante: egli desidera che il suo pubblico tragga insegnamento da
quanto ascolta, e ritiene che a tal fine il modo migliore sia quello di pone
sulla scena il protagonista e concedergli la pm'ola, consentendo agli ascol-
tatori di visualizzarlo, di immaginare la situazione come potrebbe avve-
nire se assistessero ad una rappresentazione teatrale, e dunque di imme-
desimarsi in essa e trame un vero coinvolgimento personale, che non
sarebbe altrettanto facilmente raggiungibile se si parlasse di Dio in terza
persona.
Nel §6 un ragionamento cominciato molto prima giunge ad una ica-
stica conclusione con un solo verbo in prima persona da pmte di Dio, una
sorta di 'mini-prosopopea', ma estremamente ricca cH significato perché
collegata alla spinosa tematica degli antropomorfismi divini. Qui, infatti,
nella prima persona presente deI verbo IlE'tuvoÉco, Dio si attribuisce la
'passione' deI pentimento. All'inizio del pm'agrafo Origene ha posto la
perderebbe di vista la eminente preoccupazione pastorale, volta interamente alla salvezza
delle anime degli ascoltatori, che invece informa in ogni pagina l'omiletica origeniana.
16. Sull'intera omelia, particola1Tllente lunga e complessa, cf. ABBATTISTA, Origelle
legge Geremia (n. 8), pp. 213-229.
17. HIer 18, 5: ed. NAUTlN [SC, 238], pp. 190,41-192, 50: ë~EYE yàp ÈKElVcp 't0
ilSVEl 0 SEOC;' J.lE'tUVOT]crU'tE, KUt 00 J.lE'tEvol1cruV. ME'tà 'tà ÈKEivotc; dpf\crSut 'tui:hu,
MyEt 'to(ncp 't0 OEIl'tépcp ilSVEt 0 SEàC; 'tà REpt 'tou àVOlK000J.lElcrSUt uO'to, op;;i ot
011 Kut 'touw 'tà ESvoC; avSpcolto( dcrt OIlVUJ.lEvot ltU~W ltUpUltEcrstV' otà 'touw Kut
'tOu'tcp àltEt~st KUt <PllcrW' d KUt ltpostltOV 'tà ltEpi 'tf\c; OlK000J.lf\C; Kui 'tà RE pi 'tf\c;
KU'tU<pIl'tEUcrECOC; KUt 'tf\c; YECOPY(UC;, J.lé~~Et ot uJ.lUp'tUVEtV Kut 'tou'to 'tà ëSvoC;, Kut
'tou'tcp uJ.lup'tT]cruvn crIlJ.l~T]crE'tat 'tuo'tà altEp E1Pll'tat ÈKsivotc; otà 'tà uJ.luP'tT]J.lU'w,
Kutlts\crovwt Èàv J.lT] J.lE'tUVOT]crcocrt; "Poiché Dio diceva a quella nazione: 'Conver-
titevi', e non si sono convertiti. Dopo aver detto loro COS!, Dio parla a questa seconda
nazione della sua ricostruzione, ma vede che anche questa nazione è composta di uomini
che possono cadere di nuovo, percià minaccia pure questa e dice: 'Anche se prima ho
parlato di costruire e di piantare e di coltivare campi, anche questa nazione dovrà peccare
e a lei che pecca accadranno le stesse cose dette a quegli altri a motivo dei loro peccati, e
se non si pentiranno saranno piegati'" (trad. MORTARI, p. 228).
624 A. VlLLANI
quaestio relativa alla possibilità deI pentimento in Dio: poiché egli cono-
sce in anticipo tutte le cose non pua non decidere bene ed essere in
seguito costretto a pentirsi della sua decisione. Riprendendo più avanti
l'argomento, dopo aver discusso dei modi che Dio assume nel suo rap-
porto con l'uomo, l'esegeta chiarisce: "Poiché dunque noi siamo gente
che si pente, quando parla a uoi che ci pentiamo Dio dice: '10 mi pen-
to"'18. In altre parole Dio, pel' porsi in relazione con gli uomini in modo
tale da essere compreso, si abbassa al loro livello, ne assume i modi -
come la Bibbia esprime con il verbo 't"p01tO<pOpSffi - commettendo COS!
una benevola finzione. In questo caso, dunque, il verbo con cui Dio
esprime in prima persona il proprio pentimento serve a concIudere l'ar-
gomentazione, esponendo in modo icastico l' azione divina.
Ancora, nel §7, si ha una prosopopea che sviluppa la citazione di Ger
18,11, aggiungendovi un senso palesemente assente nel testo biblico:
In seguito, dopo il discorso delle due nazioni, la prima a cui è fatta la
minaccia, e la seconda a cui è fatta la promessa, dice all'indirizzo eviden-
temente dei primi: E ara ho detto agli uomini di Giuda e agli abitanti di
Gerusa/emme: COS! dice il Signore: Ecco io p/asmo contra di voi dei mali
[Ger 18,11]. Poiché nella mia mana sono queste cose che io plasmo contra
di voi, possono cadere; fatele cadere dalla rnia mano, affinché io cambi i
mali che plasmo contra di voi e ne faccia dei beni19 •
In questo caso, la dura minaccia contenuta nel testo biblico viene rela-
tivizzata dalla prosopopea, che la trasforma - confOlmemente all'idea
'medicinale' secondo cui ogni minaccia ha come prima finalità la sal-
vezza deI peccatore ed è pertauto parte di un più grande piano provvi-
denziale - in un consiglio che Dio patemamente rivolge al suo popolo
pel' far SI che i mali che egli è stato costretto a preparare contro di lui non
si realizzino. Al contrario di quanto visto in precedenza, stavolta la pro-
sopopea, che in parte forza il testo da cui prende avvio, vuole portare alla
luce l'altro aspetto deI volto divino, di solito nascosto tra le pieghe
dell'ira e della violenza che traspare da molte pagine veterotestamentarie,
yale a dire la sua misericordia e la premurosa attenzione nei confronti
della sOlte deI suo popolo.
18. Trad. MORTARI, p. 233; 'End 'totvuv l1JletS JlE'tavooUJl!w, ihav l1JltV OtaÀÉ-
yl]'tat JlE'tavooucrtv, 0 SEOS MyEt· JlE'tavoro (ed. NAUTIN [SC, 238], p. 200, 82-84).
19. Trad. MORTARI, p. 235; 'Eç~S JlE'tà 'tov nEpt 'trov 060 ÈSvrov Myov, 'tou npo-
'tÉpou <l> <11> dnEtÀl'j otoo'tat, Kat wu OEU'tÉpOU <l> 11 ÈnayyEÀta otoo'tat, <!>llcrtv - dnE
01lÀOVO'tt WlÇ npo'tÉpots - «Kat vuv Binov npos avopas 'loMa Kat npos 'toi>S
Ka'totKouv'tas 'IEpoucraÀijw oihroS MyEt KUptoS' tooi> Èyro nÀucrcrro È<!>' bJlaS KaKu»'
on Èv 't\l XEtpt Jlou 'tau 'tu scrnv Cl nÀucrcrro È<!>' bJlaS, O6va'tat OtanEcretV, notijcra'tE
'tau'tU otanEcretV dno 't~S XEtpOS Jlou, ïva a nÀétcrcrro S<!>' bJlaS KaKà JlE'ta~uÀro Kat
notijcrro àyaSu (ed. NAUTIN [SC, 238], p. 204, 1-9).
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 625
In generale di dimensioni minori, ma non per questo mena interessanti,
sono le prosopopee di HIer in cui è il Figlio ad esprimersi in prima per-
sona, di cui si possono menzionare almeno due esempi.
HIer 1 è per intero attraversata da riflessioni di carattere prosopolo-
gico, relative aIle diverse possibili attribuzioni dei versetti oggetto della
spiegazione al profeta Geremia ovvero al Salvatore2o • L'ultimo capoverso
deI §8, che concIude una lunga sezione dedicata alla plausibilità dell'at-
tribuzione delle parole di Ger 1,6 ("Non so pat'lare, sono troppo gio-
vane") a Gesù, telmÏna con un discorso in prima persona di quest'ultimo,
inanellato all'intemo di due citazioni autentiche:
Dice dunque: Non sa par/are, so cose più grandi del parlare, so cose più
grandi di questo linguaggio umano; vuoi che io ~ar1i a~li uornini? Non h~
ancora assunto una lingua umana, ho la lingua dl te, DIO, sono la parola dl
te, Dio, con te so conversare, agli uornini non sa par/are, sono frappa gio-
vane 21 •
La spiegazione offerta è chiara: Origene sostiene che que ste parole
possano adattarsi perfettamente anche al Salvatore perché non derivano
da una qualche sua manchevolezza 0 imperfezione, ma si spiegano facil-
mente se si chiat'Îsce il senso del concetto di giovinezza. Gesù non cono-
sce la lingua degli uomini perché a lui è abituale quella di Dio; la giovi-
nezza è cioè intesa come relativa all'incamazione, e diviene dunque
comprensibile. Non a caso, poco ~Itre Origene spiegherà riassuntiva-
mente, con un'altra breve prosopopea: "la parola detta dal Salvatore:
Non so par/are, equivale a dire: 'Non so parlare in linguaggio uma-
no,,,22.
In questo caso la prosopopea - la cui efficacia retorica è accresciuta
dall'apostrofe di Gesù nei confronti di Dio in essa contenuta - serve ad
argomentare, per poi anche concIudere, la proposta avanzata da Origene
di attribuire a Cristo i vv. di Geremia. Si verifica, cosi, un interessante
20. Sull'esegesi prosopologica cf. soprattutto M.J. RONDEAU, Les Commentaires
patristiques du Psautier (IIl'-Ve siècle). Vol. II: Exégèse prosopologique et théologie,
Roma, 1985, B. NEuscHÂFER, Origenes ais Philologe, Basel, 1987, pp. 263-276, e VILLANI,
Origenes ais Schriftsteller (n. 5), pp. 140-}46. ~ ~
21. Trad. MORTARI, p. 39; AÉyEt oùv 'to «OÙK Ènicr'taJlat ÀaÀEtv», oiou nva
JlE{Çova 'tou ÀaÀEtV, oiou 'ttva JlEiçova 'tou <!>Soyyou 'tou'tou 'tou dvSpronivou'
SÉÀEtS JlE ÀaÀEtV àvSpal1tots; oünro OtUÀEK'tOV dv~prontvl]v dVE{Àll<!>a, IlXro OtUÀEK-
'tOV crou, 'tou Swu, À6yoS dJll crou, 'tou SEOU, crot oiOa npocrOtaÀÉyEcrSat, àvSpal1tots
«OÙK Èntcr'taJlat ÀaÀEtv», «VEcO'tEpOS dJlt» (ed. ~A~TIN [~C, 232], p. 2!4, 51-5?).
22. Trad. MORTARI, p. 39; ...'(crov OUVUJlEVOV 'tCf> OUK smcr'taJlat ÀaÀEtV àvSpromva
'to «OÙK È7tlcr'taJlat ÀaÀetV» (ed. NAUTIN [SC, 232], p. 216, 12-14). Una profonda l?ttura
di questo passo alla luce dell'idea dell'umiltà di Gesù è off~rta da M. FÉDOU, s.J., La
sagesse et le monde: Essai sur la christologie d'Origène, PariS, 1995, pp. 173-175, che
tuttavia non rileva la presenza della prosopopea.
 626 A. VILLANI
intreccio tra prosopopea ed esegesi prosopologica: se è la possibilità di
distinguere tra il Salvatore in quanto Logos preesistente e in quanto
Figlio incarnato a consentire al predicatore di offrire questa spiegazione,
sono le parole stesse di Gesù a conferirle quella necessaria autorità che
la mettano al riparo da eventuali critiche.
In HIer 14, 13 23 il Figlio si rivolge direttamente al Padre pel' esortarlo
a "non essere longanime" (J-ll) J-lUKpOSDJ-lijcrTIÇ) nei confronti degli
uomini, che hanno commesso contro di lui grandi delitti. Innanzitutto egli
sottolinea come l'agire di Dio sia sempre stato improntato a misericordia,
quindi avanza la richiesta di interrompere questo atteggiamento di ecces-
siva benevolenza. Tale paradossale richiesta che il Figlio eleva al Padre
ha più che altro il sapore di uno 'sfogo'; Gesù è cosi scoraggiato nei
confronti degli uomini da chiedere a Dio che, una volta tanto, agisca nei
loro confronti senza misericordia. Del resto questo non è l'unico caso,
nell'opera di Origene, in cui Gesù lamenta col Padre la cattiva condotta
degli uomini nei suoi confronti. Nella stessa omelia, al §6, si legge un'a-
naloga e ancor più estesa protesta che il Salvatore rivolge a Dio sempre
a riguardo degli uomini - in un passo che vanta, peraltro, uno stringente
parallelo in CMtS 135 24 - arrivando sino a denunciare la mancanza di
utilità deI sua sacrificio sulla croce.
li dialogo fittizio che il Figlio instaura con il Padre, oltre a creare un
indubbio effetto di teatralizzazione della scena, allo scopo di impressio-
nare l'uditorio, serve, ancora una volta, a sottolineare il procedere dell'a-
zione provvidenziale: Dio infatti - spiega Origene nel seguito dell'ese-
gesi - accoglie la richiesta e abbandona il sUo popolo. Tale abbandono è
pero, come sempre, medicinale, volto cioè alla salvezza finale, perché
permette a chi 10 subisce di comprendere i propri errori e pentirsene,
ponendo cosi le condizioni pel' riacquistare il favore divino. In questo
modo è chiarito l'apparente paradosso della richiesta di Gesù che, al di
là dell' amarezza che lascia comunque trasparire, è mossa dal desiderio
23. Ti Bcrn 1:à «J.!l'] Eiç J.!uKpolh)J.!lcw»; 'EJ.!UKPOSÛJ.!llcruç dEi Brei 1:à" Àuàv Èrei
1:otç aJ.!up1:~J.!ucrtv, Brei of; 1:otç KU1:' BJ.!Où 1:EWÀJ.!1lJ.!ÉV01Ç J.!l'] J.!uKpoSuJ.!ilcruç (ed.
NAUTIN [SC, 238], p. 94, 15-17); "Che cosa significa sel/Za longanimità? 'Tu sei sempre
stato longanime con questo 'popolo con i suoi peccati, ma con tutto cià che hanno osato
commettere contro di me non essere longanime'" (trad. MORTARI, p, 180).
24. li forte parallelismo tra i due brani di HIer 14, 6 e CMtS 135 è messo in evidenza
in VILLANI, Personae loquentes (n. 1). A questo proposito, si rileverà ancora una volta
come il fatto che anche un conmlentario erudito contenga tali prosopopee, che danno sfogo
alle 'lamentele' di Gesù, indichi chiaramente che non si tratta di un semplice mezzo
retorico tipico dello stile orale, magari impiegato pel' richiamare l' attenzione di ascoltatori
poco concentrati, quanto di una pratica utile allo scrittore per esprimere, ponendole in
evidenza, idee e concezioni che gli sono care.
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 627
di offI-ire al popolo una ultima, sebbene quasi disperata, possibilità di
salvezza.
E' inoltre evidente l'intenzione del predicatore di proporre un para-
digma che, in questo caso, funziona e contrario, poiché costituisce una
sOlta modello negativo, da non seguire e anzi da capovolgere: se l'uomo
di oggi si comporterà nel modo contrario rispetto ai contemporanei di
Gesù, farà SI che egli non sia costretto a rivolgere nuovamente al Padre
le stes se preghiere.
III. LA SCENA AL SALVATORE: LE PROSOPOPEE NEL
COMMENTa A GIOVANNI
Rimanendo nell'ambito di scritti a carattere esegetico, si puo adesso
volgere l'attenzione a CIo: il grande commento sul quarto vangelo non
contiene - almeno nella parte conservata - nessun esempio di prosopopee
deI Padre, ma è ricco di casi in cui è Gesù a prendere la parola, come è
logico in unD scritto dedicato alla spiegazione di un vangel02s • Dei nume-
rosi esempi che il testo offre si farà brevemente cenno ad aIcuni tra i più
rilevanti, scorrendo il testo libro pel' libro, e soffelmando l'attenzione
prevalentemente su uno.
Singolare il brano di l, 31, 223, in cui Origene fa stilare a Gesù un
breve elenco delle proprie epinoiai. All'interno della famosa sezione di
CID dedicata appunto all'analisi dei molteplici aspetti di Cristo (CIo l,
19, 109-39, 292) desunti dalle denominazioni presenti nella Scrittura,
giunto aIle qualificazioni di "primo" e "ultimo" attribuite a Gesù da Ap
22,13 (1, 31, 209) l'esegeta si propone di chiarirne il significato pattendo
dalla differenza tra questi termini e gli apparenti sinonimi "Alfa" e
"principio", da una parte, e "Omega" e "fine", dall'altra. Segue un
lungo ragionamento che, classificando tutti gli esseri razionali dal più alto
al più basso - da Dio all'uomo - intende dimostrare una sorta di grada-
zione anche all'interno delle epinoiai di Cristo. Proprio pel' avvalorare
questa suggestione interviene 10 stesso Gesù, il quale prende la parola e
chiarisce: "Sono principio in quanto sono 'Sapienza', secondo (met-
tiamo) in quanto sono 'invisibile', terzo in quanto sono 'vita', dal
25. Un'analisi dei carattere propriamente letterario di CIo è offerta in PERRONE, Il
profilo letterario dei Commento a Giovanni (n. 2), che accenna anche alla pratica della
prosopopea. Anche G. BENDINELLI, Il Commento a Giovanni e la tradi.zione scola,stica
dell'antichità, in Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene (n. 2), 133-156, dedlca aleune nfles-
sioni alla prosopopea (pp. 145-146), pur senza distinguere tra prosopopea come pratica
retorica ed esegesi prosopologica.
628 A. VILLAN!
momento che 'cio che fu fatto in lui era vita' [Gv 1,4]"26. Tale discorso
è peraltro introdotto dalla formula mud ËÀ8y8V, che costituisce un mar-
catore tipico pel' segnalare la presenza di una prosopopea27 • Essa assume
dunque, in questo caso, una funzione dimostrativa, che serve all'esegeta
pel' corroborare la sua proposta, concedendogli l'approvazione deI 'diretto
interessato', oltre a renderla più perspicua.
L'esempio di maggior interesse si legge, pero, in CIo XIII, 3, 15-16,
dove Origene si trova a interpretare Gv 4,13 e 14 ("Chiunque beve di
quest'acqua avrà di nuovo sete"; "Chi beve dell'acqua che io gli daro,
diventerà in lui sorgente d'acqua zampillante nella vita etema")28. Innan-
zitutto, si rileva la presenza nel brano (3, 13) di un termine tecnico dell'e-
segesi 'ginnastica' 0 'zetetica' tipica di Origene, çrrcrJ'!:Éov, con cui si
pone il tema che sarà oggetto della successiva indagine, ossia la "sete"
di Gv 13. Dopo una breve spiegazione basata sull'analogia con il mondo
corporeo, in cui un uomo, dopo aver bevuto, toma ad avere sete, l'esegeta
26. Trad. CORSINI, p. 180; OÙKOUV at sntvotat aù'tou Ëxoucrtv àpxi]v Kat oeu'tepov
'tt napà 'ti]v àpxi]v Kat 'tphov Kat ou'troe; I!ÉXpt 'tÉAOUe;' rocret ËAeyev «àpXit etl!t Ka3'
o cro<j>ia eil!t», oeu'tepov Oé, et ou'tro 'tUxot, «Ka3' 0 àopa'toç eil!t» , Kat tphov «Ka3'
o çro1't», Ènet «0 yÉyovev SV aù'tep çroi] ~v» (ed. BLANC [SC, 120], p. 168).
27. La si ritrova ad esempio in CMt 15, 11; HIer 2,1; 14, 12 ecc.
28. Questo passo è analizzato in due interessanti contributi: da una parte, M. SIMONE'ITI,
Il pozzo di Giacobbe, in Vetera Christiano1'llm 37 (2000) 113-126, rist. in ID., Origene
esegeta e la sua tradizione, Brescia, 2004, 225-237, specialmente pp. 226-227, che
annota: " ... Origene sviluppa l'interpretazione dellemma trasferendo il concetto di aver
sete dal piano materiale a quello spirituale mediante una ampia parafrasi delle parole di
Gesù che s'immagina pronunziata da lui stesso (13,15-16): le acque del pozzo, che sono
considerate profonde da colui che attinge, significano pensieri che questi scopre ritenen-
doli molto profondi; ma in un secondo momento sarà ancora assalito dal dubbio, perché
quella supposta profondità non pub dargli la comprensione chiara e dis tinta dell'oggetto
della sua ?cerca, SI che ricadrà nel dubbio e nell'incertezza che l'opprimevano prima che
avesse attmto a quell' acqua. Invece la parola di Cristo è tale che diventa, in chi l' accoglie,
~orgente della bevanda della vita, una bevanda che zampilla nella vita etema, cioè innalza
il pensiero e 10 fa volare velocissirno verso l'alto, fino a raggiungere la vita eterna. In
questa parafrasi esplicativa che Origene fa delle parole di Gesù, e che nel passaggio dalla
sete materiale a quella spirituale corrisponde da presso al significato di quelle parole, è
chiara la contrapposizione tra la dottrina significata dall' acqua deI pozzo, la cui profon-
dità è soltanto supposta e comunque tale da appagare chi la conosce solo per un breve e
illusorio momento, e la dottrina che si apprende dalla parola di Gesù, tale da far attingere,
a chi l'accetta, la vita eterna" (p. 227). Dall'altra parte, E. CATTANEO, L'episodio della
Samaritana (Gv 4,/-42) come paradigma di conversiolle dallo gllosticismo, in Il Com-
mento a Giovanni di Origene (n. 2), 537-553, specialmente pp. 541-542, a proposito
di questo brano, di cui comunque non rileva la componente retorica, parla con felice
espressione di "analisi introspettiva di quello che potremmo chiamare uno 'gnostico in
crisi'" (p. 541).
Inoltre, una fine analisi delle arditezze linguistiche e sintattiche presenti in questo brano
è proposta da D. PAZZINI, Figura, simbolo, legge linguistica nella prosa di Origene, in
questo stesso volume. Evidentemente, tale passo risulta particolarmente ricco e significa-
tivo agli occhi di lettori interessati agli aspetti linguistici e stilistici della prosa origeniana.
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 629
ribadisce il problema già sollevato, stavolta alla luce deI successivo
v. giovanneo, e presenta poi una quaestio ("Ora, come potrà ancora aver
sete colui che ha in sé una sorgente? "29), la spiegazione della quale è
affidata direttamente aIle parole di Gesù 30 • Una breve introduzione
avverte il lettore che quanto sta pel' leggere non corrisponde agli ipsis-
sima verba Iesu, ma piuttosto al senso delle sue parole, cio che egli aveva
in mente, salvo poi essersi espresso in modo più breve e ellittico: Tà
)!Év'tOt y8 npollyou)!Évroç 01lÀOÛ)!8VOV 'towihov av atll. Da notare, a
margine, l'uso dell'avverbio npollyou)!Évroç, indice della consapevo-
lezza origeniana di non proporre l'unica interpretazione possibile ma, al
contrario - conformemente alla sua convinzione che il testo biblico
nase on da una molteplicità di senso inesauribile e dunque, in ultima
istanza, inesplorabile nella sua interezza -, di limitarsi ad esplicitare solo
il senso "principale". A questa breve introduzione segue il testo vero e
propri031 :
Chi attinge a parole che <soltanto all'apparenza> sono profonde, dice, sarà
appagato pel' poco tempo, finché potrà accettare come profondissimi i pen-
sied attinti che gli sembra di scoprire; in un secondo momento perà, dflet-
tendo meglio, cadrà di nuovo in dubbio su quanto <una volta> 10 appagava,
<in quanto> quella supposta profondità non è in grado di fomirgli la com-
prensione chiara e dis tinta di cià che fOlma oggetto della sua dcerca.
E pertanto, anche se uno si lascia carpire il suo assenso dalla forza persua-
siva delle parole, sentirà in seguito sorgere in sé 10 stesso dubbio che aveva
pdma di apprendere tali cose.
10 invece ho una paroI a tale che diventa una sorgente della bevanda di vita
in colui che accoglie le parole da me annunciate. Etale è il beneficio che
dceve colui che attinge dalla mia acqua, che in lui sgorga una sorgente di
acque balzanti verso l'alto, capace di trovare tutto cià che cerca, perché al
seguito di quest'acqua mobilissima anche il pensiero zampilla e vola velo-
cissimo; e questo zampillare e balzare 10 pOlia di pel' sé verso l'alto, verso
la vita etema. Egli, in certo modo, dice che il <telmine> di quest'acqua
zampillante è la vita etema32 •
Mentre per un'analisi più approfondit a dei contenuti si rinvia ai due
saggi citati alla nota 28, basterà qui soffermarsi sugli aspetti formali deI
29. Trad. CORSINI, pp. 459-460.
30. Su questo modo di procedere tipico dell'argomentazione origeniana cf. L. PERRONE,
«Quaestiones et responsiones» in Origene: prospettive di I/n'analisi formale dell'argo-
mentazione esegetico-teologica, in Cristianesimo nella Storia 15 (1994) 1-50; più in
generale, sull'esegesi 'ginnastica' 0 'zetetica' quale adottata nei commentari cf. ID., Les
commentaires d'Origène sl/r Jean et Matthieu: tradition, innovation et système, in Proche-
Orient Chrétien 51 (2001) 35-69 e G. BENDINELLI, Il commentario a Matteo di Origene.
L'ambito della metodologia scolastica dell'antic1/ità, Roma, 1997.
31. il greco, con la prosopopea sottolineata, al n. 2 dell' Appendice.
32. Trad. CORSINI, p. 460, parzialmente modificata.
 630 A. VILLANI
passo. Sebbene si debbano scontare alcune difficoltà testuali, compren-
denti lacune colmate dagli editori / traduttori con varie congetture, il
brano si presenta assai compatto e ben costruito dal punto di vista stili-
stico. E' evidente la struttura bipmtita: nella prima parte, a carattere mm'-
catamente negativo, Gesù descrive il sentimento di frustrazione che, dopo
un effimero e breve appagamento, attanaglia colui che si è lasciato
attrarre da dottrine profonde solo all'apparenza, ma in realtà non in grado
di fornirgli quella "conoscenza chiara e distinta" di cui andava in cerca.
In queste righe si nasconde senza dubbio la polemica antignostica: sem-
bra proprio che Origene abbia voluto rappresentare una sorta di lotta tra
'eretici' e 'ortodossi', nella quale le due fazioni cercano di pOltare a sé
la preda da conquis tare, ossia l'anima di colui che è in cerca della verità.
Pel' raggiungere tale fine e recuperare alla vera chiesa l'anima in
questione, Origene impiega la miglior risorsa di cui dispone, offrendo la
parola direttamente a Gesù, che è l'essenza stessa della fede di cui egli
si fa portavoce, e che non a casa pel' tutta la seconda pmte deI discorso
focalizza l'attenzione su di sé, tramite l'uso della prima persona e di altri
piccoli accorgimenti.
Conclusa questa prima sezione, una frase intermedia fa da cerniera tra
la palte, pel' COS! dire, negativa e quella propositiva, ricapitolando la
prima e accennando preliminmmente alla seconda ("e pertanto, anche se
uno si lascia cmpire il sua assenso dalla forza persuasiva delle parole,
sentirà in seguito SOl'gere in sé 10 stesso dubbio [àn:opia] che aveva
prima di apprendere tali cose"). Essa rappresenta forse il momento più
efficace dell'intera prosopopea, in virtù degli accenti che esprimono una
struggente eppur frustrata ansia di conoscere da pmte di colui che, nono-
stante sia stato irretito e sia caduto nel complotto posto in essere contro
di lui, comincia pero a dubitare, compiendo COS! il primo indispensabile
passo pel' ritrovare la strada della vera conoscenza33 •
Dopo aver dimostrato a quest'uomo il sua errore, e la conseguente
necessità di una svolta nella sua ricerca, il tentativo di condurre sino in
fondo il suo recupero entra adesso nel vivo con un'argomentazione strin-
gente, che Gesù, come accennato, gioca interamente sulla sua persona e
sui benefici che egli è in grado di offrire. Questa sezione comincia infatti
con un sym oÉ estremamente indicativo, proprio perché propone, attra-
verso il cÉ, il totale sovvertimento di atmosfera che sta pel' verificarsi, e
con l'sym l'essenza, il motivo, di questo stravolgimento, yale a dire la
33. CATIANEO, L'episodio della samaritana (n. 28), ritiene che Origene abbia tratto
ispirazione per queste considerazioni da colloqui avuti con gnostici convertiti, quale ad
esempio doveva essere il dedicatario di CIo e mecenate di Origene, Ambrogio (p. 551).
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORlGENE 631
persona stessa di Gesù. Nel seguito egli continua a richiamare l'atten-
zione su di sé ("il mio annunzio", 1:à un:' s/-lOU àn:ayysÀÀo/-lsva; "la
mia acqua", 1:0 s/-lOV üOrop), ma presenta anche i vantaggi che puo
conseguire chi accoglie la sua parola: costui otterrà dentro di sé una
"sorgente della bevanda di vita" che, come chiarisce poco oltre, è "una
sorgente di acque balzanti verso l'alto, capace di trovare tutto cio che
cerca, perché al seguito di quest' acqua mobilissima anche il pensiero
zampilla e vola velocissimo". li Àoyoç di Gesù, la sua dottrina, è una
sorgente di acque seguendo le quali il pensiero dell'uomo vola veloce
verso l'alto. Detto altrimenti, Gesù prospetta a chi riceve il sua insegna-
mento la possibilità di saziare quella brama di conoscenza in virtù della
quale egli aveva inizialmente creduto aIle false promesse delle dottrine
gnostiche, rimanendone poi deluso. Ma i benefici che Gesù presenta non
si fermano qui: il versetto giovanneo parla infatti di "acqua zampillante
nella vita eterna" e, su questa scia, anche nella rielaborazione costituita
dalla prosopopea, Gesù giunge a parlare del raggiungimento della vita
eterna. Al ché Origene, riprendendo la parola, chiosa: "Egli, in certo
modo, dice chè il <termine> di quest' acqua zampillante è la vita eterna".
Cio che Gesù offre agli uomini non è solo la conoscenza, ma anche la
vita eterna. E questo vita ben cOlTisponde alla concezione origeniana, che
non si chiude mai in un astratto intellettualismo conoscitivo, ma è sempre
prospettata al fine ultimo dell 'uomo, che è appunto la vita eterna, nella
forma di una contemplazione di Dio e dunque assimilazione a lui il più
possibile perfetta.
Alla fine di questo discorso, l'anima di quest'uomo in cerca della
conoscenza, sarà senz' altro definitivamente guadagnata alla grande
Chies a, e gli gnostici dovranno rassegnarsi ad averla perduta.
Questa prosopopea che, come rileva SimonettP4, pel' la sua insistenza
sulla trasposizione della sete materiale a quella spirituale, non si distacca
troppo da quanto si puo leggere nei vv. evangelici, riveste una funzione
paradigmatico-parenetica e polemica allo stesso tempo: paradigmatica,
perché offre un esempio a tutti coloro che, leggendo il commentario
origeniano, si trovino in un momento incertezza, di crisi, di dubbio, i
quali vengono indirizzati dalle stesse parole di Gesù alla sua dottrina, che
potrà rischiarare la loro anima; polemica, perché nel prospettare questo
itinerario dell'anima dall'oscurità della falsa gnosi alla luce della cono-
scenza autentica, l'esegeta ha modo di presentm'e i suoi avversari come
ingannatori che basano la loro attività di propaganda su false promesse,
che non sono poi in grado di mantenere.
34. Cf. SIMONETTI, Il pozzo di Giacobbe (n. 28), p. 227.
 632 A. VILLAN!
Inoltre, non si puo negare che qui la prosopopea esprima anche una
funzione propriamente poetica 0 immaginifica: essa ries ce a ricreare con
efficacia due atmosfere contrapposte, visualizzabili come oscurità e luce,
ed espresse con immagini legate aIl' acqua. Da una parte la finta profon-
dità, che è come acqua stagnante, dall' altra prute, la sorgente zampillante
che trascina con sé il pensiero, facendolo volare verso l'alto. Inoltre, è
assai interessante come nella prima parte questa atmosfera sia creata sol-
tanto tramite la descrizione, proposta da Gesù, di questa situazione di
dubbio, di incertezza, in cui l'uomo puo venire a trovarsi, mentre nella
seconda essa sorga dalla presenza quasi palpabile del Salvatore che, pro-
prio attraverso questa sorta di 'presenza scenica' prodotta dal sapiente
uso della prosopopea, riesce a presentru'e se stesso come la vera soluzione
alla crisi. E' la sua persona, che appare ai lettori come se fosse 101'0 di
fronte - perché è lui che sta parlando -, il vero oggetto della ricerca.
Indubbiamente Origene ha qui saputo cre are immagini di grande forza
ed efficacia espressiva, traendo dalla prosopopea tutte le sue potenzialità
al fine di raggiungere più efficacemente il suo scopo, yale a dire convin-
cere un'anima in ricerca che solo in Gesù e nella sua vera Chiesa potrà
trovare la vera conoscenza.
Prima di abbandonare l'esame di CIo si richiamerà ancora XXXII 2
16-1735 , in cui Gesù si rivolge a Pietro in prima persona pel' spiegar~ ii
gesto della lavanda dei piedi che l' apostolo non è ancora in grado di
comprendere. La prosopopea qui serve a dare maggior rilievo ad una
scena di dialogo tra maestro e discepolo, ed è dunque impiegata in virtù
della sua funzione rappresentativa 0 illustrativa: essa infatti rappresenta,
mette in scena Gesù in un particolru'e e significativo momento della sua
esistenza terrena, quello della spiegazione dei suoi gesti, a prima vista
incomprensibili, ai suoi discepoli 36 • Ad Origene sta particolrumente a
35. ÀÉyovwe; 'I11croù "0 Il~ dMn "ô"e II!hpcp, à'A'Aù yvcocrollévcp Ile"ù "aù'W "à
llu<H11Pwv "~e; Vhl'Eroe; "rov o1tà 'Illcroù Ka.9aptÇollévrov 1toorov "à «'Eùv Il~ vhl'ro
cre, OÔK Ëxete; Ilépoe; Ile,,' ElloÙ». "01tEp Ç11"ijcrete; "i 011'A01' 1tÔ"EPOV on oôO' o'Aroe;
Ëxete; Ilépoe; foÙV Il~ vhl'ro cre àyaMv, il oô Ile,,' folloÙ Ili;v wù otDacrKu'Aou Kat KUplOU
Il~"ù "rov fo~a""ôvrov Dé Ilou, foV ote; etcrw oi Ile"ù "à 'Aoucracr.9at Ilij"e DEt1tvijcrav"ee;
w Il,E''' folloU ?et1tVOV llij"E Vt'l'U~IEVOt 01t' ElloÙ "oùe; 1tôOae;, il Det1tvijcrav"ee; Ilév, oô
vt'l'allevot DE (ed. BLANC [SC, 385], p. 192, 54-63); "Cerca di conoscere che cosa
vogli~no dir~ le ~aro!e che Gesù rivolge a Pietro, che non comprende ancora (Io compren-
derà ID segUlto) Il mlstero della lavanda dei piedi, purificati da Gesù: 'Se non ti lavero i
?iedi non avrai p~te con me' [Gv 13,8]: 'se non ti lavero, non avrai alcuna parte buona
ID senso assoluto ; oppure: 'non avrai parte con me, che sono Maestro e Signore, ma
solt~to con quelli che sono inferiori a me, tra i quali vi sono coloro che dopo la [prima]
abluzlOne non cenarono con me né ebbero i piedi lavati da me, oppure cenarono bens! ma
non ebbero i piedi lavati da me?'" (trad. CORSINI, p. 738, parzialmente modificata).
36. In CMt compaiono a più riprese scene di dialogo tra Gesù e gli apostoli rappresentate
attraverso la prosopopea, come rilevato in VILLAN!, Personae loquentes (n. 1). A questo
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 633
cuore questo atteggiamento 'didattico' di Gesù, su cui attira spesso l'at-
tenzione, forse anche perché vi sc orge un modello da seguire nel rapporto
che egli stesso, in qualità di didaskalos, è chiamato ad instaurare con i
suoi allievi, ad Alessandria prima e a Cesarea poi.
IV. l DISCORSI DEL PADRE E DEL FIGLIO NEL TRATI'ATO
SUlLA PREGHIERA
Dopo aver analizzato alcuni esempi tratti da omelie e commentari, si
puo adesso affrontare un'opera particolare, il trattato dedicato alla pre-
ghiera, uno scritto ricco di indicazioni pratiche sul retto modo di pregare
ma al contempo, e forse soprattutto, un testo di grande spessore specula-
tivo. Cio non compOlta pero, come forse si potrebbe pensare, che in esso
l'autore rinunzi a porre sulla scena il Padre 0 il Figlio e a concedere 101'0
la parola. Anzi, non è esagerato affermare che proprio qui si trovano
alcuni tra i più suggestivi e interessanti esempi dell'impiego della proso-
popea. Se ne analizzeranno uno pel' persona37 •
Una prosopopea di Dio ricca di interesse pel' il suo rapporto con la
tematica degli antropomorfismi divini si trova in Orat 29, 1438 • A questo
punto dell'opera, all'intemo della sezione dedicata al commento del
proposito, è interessante anche un brevissimo discorso diretto che Gesù rivolge a Paolo in
CID XX, 17, 139: 'A'A'Aù Kat 1tpà trov xpôvrov "~e; 1tlcrteroe; IIau'Aou à'A11.9oùe; oV'tOe;
"OÙ «El 6 .9Eàe; 1ta"TtP 0llrov ~v, Îlya1tihE av follé» oytroe; ~v 1tpocr'Aa~e1v oiovEt
ÀÉyov'W "àv 'I11croùV' «à'AM Il~V follÈ OÔK àya1t;;ie;, OÔK lipu 6 .geàe; 1tatijp crou focrnv,
cL IIaù'Ae» (ed. BLANC [SC, 290], p. 226, 18-22); "Tuttavia, prima deI tempo in cui Paolo
giungesse alla fede, se è vera l'affermazione: 'Se Dio fosse vostro Padre, mi amereste'
[Gv 8,42], sarebbe logico arnmettere che Gesù gli dicesse press'a poco COS!: 'Tu certo non
mi ami: dunque, Paolo, Dio non è tuo Padre'" (trad. CORSINI, p. 630, parzialmente modi-
ficata).
37. Sugli altri due casi, dei quattro complessivi, ossia quelli di Orat 6, 4-5 (Dio) e
15, 4 (Gesù), si possono leggere alcune brevi considerazioni in VILLANI, Origenes ais
Schriftsteller (n. 5), pp. 147-148.
38. il testo greco al n. 3 dell' Appendice. "E per lorD ingenerare disgusto non si accon-
tento dei promettere; ma per chi puo bene intendere aggiunse una minaccia, come sembra
potersi arguire dalle parole: 'Ne mangerete non solamente cinque giorni, né dieci giorni,
né venti giomi, ma per tutto il mese finché vi esca dalle narici per nausea quanto vi sem-
brava tanto appetitoso; COS1 scomparirà la brama malvagia e vituperevole che prima ave-
vate presa. E COS1 vi faro sortire dalla vita, liberi dai desideri, e dipartendovi in sirnile stato,
voi, mondi come sarete dal desiderio e memori delle grandi fatiche, sostenute per la libera-
zione, non ricadrete. Voi dei resto non starete in guardia, se non riceverete la parola che
vi libera perfettamente da ogni desiderio e ricadrete nei mali; e, Îluine, desiderosi di
rinascere, domanderete di ottenere di nuovo quello che desiderate: avendo invece in uggia
l'oggetto dei vostri desideri, potrete di nuovo correre verso le cose belle e il nutrimento
celeste, il cui disprezzo vi faceva ricercare il peggio'" (Origene, La preghiera, a cura di
G. DEL TON, Milano, 1984 [= DEL TON], pp. 154-155).
 634 A. VILLAN!
Padre nostro, Origene è giunto all'esame della penultima petizione della
preghiera, "e non ci indurre in tentazione", che ritiene meritevole di
un'attenta indagine. In prima battuta, egli enuclea l'aporia proveniente
dalla constatazione che la vita dell'uomo è costellata per tutta la sua
durata da tentazioni e che, d' altra parte, il Signore non puo celto eSOltare
l'uomo a domandare l'impossibile (Orat 29, 1). La trattazione deI pro-
blema si estende fino al §19, ma già nel §2 è offelto un primo chiari-
mento, tratto dalla citazione paolina di 1 Cor 10,13: Dio non tenta l'uomo
al di sopra delle sue forze, ma 10 mette di fronte a prove che egli è in
grado di sostenere39 • Il seguito dell'esposizione si muove prevalente-
mente su due linee: da una pmte l'aporia è sviluppata e articolata meglio,
ad esempio con la dimostrazione che Dio tenta sia il povero che il ricco,
sia il sana che il malato e via dicendo; dall'altra, grazie ad un sapiente
intreccio di citazioni vetero e neotestamentarie, addotte peraltro in modo
simmetrico, vengono evocate alcune figure bibliche che dalle tentazioni
cui Dio le ha sottoposte hanno potuto trarre grandi giovamenti. Nei §§13-
14, Origene menziona tre passi correlati che propongono un ulteriore
esempio, quello deI popolo di Israele che, durante il soggiorno nel
deserto, si lamenta di essere costretto a nutrusi solo di manna, mentre in
Egitto poteva gustare cibi succulenti (Nm 11,4-6), è udito da Mosè
(11,10) che si rivolge a Dio, il quale gli ordina di annunciare al popolo
che adesso mangerà carne pel' un mese intero, in quantità tale che non
potrà più sopportarla (11,18-20). Le parole che a questo proposito il testo
biblico attribuisce a Dio sono palticolarmente dure, e costituiscono una
manifestazione tipicamente veterotestamentaria dell'ira divina, che Ori-
gene si vede costretto a giustificare, con ogni probabilità nell'intento di
contrastare il divisismo di gnostici e marcioniti, che proprio in passi di
AT come questo trovava il maggior sostegno. In primo luogo egli spiega
che l'intento di Dio è di ingenerare negli israeliti il disgusto della carne,
cosl che la loro brama ne sia saziata; quindi recupera la citazione di
Nm 11,19-20, e la amplia trasformandola in una prosopopea. In essa
Dio, dopo le minacce, fornisce le motivazioni deI sua comportamento, in
qualche modo dunque discolpandosi e spiegando che solo attraverso
questa apparente durezza gli israeliti potranno realmente purificarsi e
liberarsi dalla \jI8K't"Tt Kat ataxpà 6mSollla che li aveva colti. In altre
parole, solo se avranno provato disgusto pel' quanto prima avevano tanto
desiderato, sm'anno liberi di volgersi con animo rinnovato al nutrimento
39. La stes sa citazione paolina ritoma in numerosi brani origeniani: cf. ad es. Prin
3,2,3, Altrove tuttavia, basandosi su Ef 6,12 Origene ammette la possibilità di tentazioni
sovrumane, opera di spiriti malvagi, che l'uomo è in grado di superare solo se sostenuto
dall'aiuto di Dio (cf. Prin 3, 2, 4).
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 635
celeste. L'Alessandrino, che ancora una volta veste i panni dell'avvocato
di Dio pel' difenderlo dall'accusa di comportarsi in modo ingiusto, uti-
lizza 10 stmmento retorico per presentare agli uomini il vero volto di Dio,
quello ricco di misericordia, non soggetto all'ira 0 alla vendetta, quanto
piuttosto preoccupato di trovare il mezzo più adatto per salvare il popolo
dal peccato nel quale, pel' propria volontà, è sprofondato.
DaI punto di vista fOlmale, questa prosopopea, non segnalata da alcun
indizio, costituisce una sOlta di ampliamento naturale delle parole auten-
tiche di Dio nella citazione; cio provoca un 'effetto sorpresa' che dona a
tutta la scena una forza rappresentativa e drammatica - nel senso teatrale
deI termine - ancora maggiore. La funzione che essa qui svolge è tipica-
mente argomentativa, dal momento che proprio attraverso le parole di
Dio che vengono ad aggiungersi alla citazione vera e propria si com-
prende l'interpretazione che il predicatore propone, sebbene il ragiona-
mento si estenda ancora per vari paragrafi, richiamando numerosi albl
esempi di derivazione biblica.
In Orat 14, 140, in cui a pm'lare è Gesù, la prosopopea funge da intro-
duzione all'm'gomento che sarà ripreso e ampliato più avanti, l'analisi
delle varie fOlme di preghiera. In questa sorta di premessa Ollgene cita
un logioll extracanonico di Gesù ("Domandate le cose grandi e le piccole
vi sm'anno aggiunte; domandate i beni celesti, e i terresbl vi saranno
aggiunti"), la spiegazione deI quale affida a colui che 10 ha pronunciato,
il Verbo divino, che è rappresentato nell'atto di esortare gli uomini a
imitare le preghiere dei santi pel' diventare spirituali e poter cosl ottenere
in eredità il regno dei cieli. Altrimenti detto, il Logos esprime 10 aKo7t6ç
della preghiera, yale a dire il fine che gli uomini spirituali potranno con-
seguire grazie ad essa. Questa spiegazione è inoltre corredata da un
risvolto pratico, a dimostrazione della premurosa attenzione che muove
40. KCÛ etKOÇ; ott ô SEtOÇ; ~f.laç; Myoç; rrpoKaÀoÎlf.lEvoç; srrt 'to f.llf.lEtcrSat 'tàç; 'trov
ayirov EùXàÇ;, ïv' ahrof.lEv aù'tàç; Ka'tà 'to àÀT)SÈç; &v sKEtVOt srrE'tÉÀouV W1tlKroV,
<pT)crt «'tà srroupuvla» Kat «f.lEYuÀa», OEOT)Àrof.lÉva olà 'trov rrEpt S1tlyEirov Kat
f.ltKprov rrpayf.lu'trov, ÀÉyrov' Uf.lEtÇ; 0\ rrVSUf.la'tlKot dvat ~OUMf.lEVOl Otà 'trov
rrpocrEUXrov ahi)cra'tE «'tà srroupuvla» Kat «f.lEyUÀa», ïv' aù'trov 'tUXOVtEÇ; âJç; srrou-
pavirov ~acrtÀEiav oùpavrov KÀT)pOVOf.li)crT)tE Kat âJç; f.lEyaÀrov 'trov f.lEyicr'trov àyaSrov
àrroÀaÎlcrll'tE, 'tà. OÈ «srr(YEla» Kat «f.l1Kpà», &v Otà 'tàç; crrof.lattKàç; àvuyKaç; XPUSE'tE,
f.lÉ'tpCP 'tOÙ OÉov'toç; S1tlXOPllyi)crU Uf.ltV ô na'ti)p (ed. KOETSCHAU [GCS, 3], p. 330,
11-20); "Giustamente il Verbo divino, esortando ad imitare le preghiere dei sanli, affinché
domandiamo in verità quanta essi conseguirono in figura, dice che i beni grandi e celesti
sono significati nelle cose piccole e terrestri; intendendo: «Voi che volete essere spiri-
tuali, domandate nelle vostre preghiere beni celesti e grandi, affinché per illoro possesso,
in quanto celesti, possiate ereditare il regno dei cieli; e in quanto grandi, possiate fruire
dei più grandi beni. Allora i beni terres tri e piccoli, di cui avete bisogno per le vostre
necessità corporali, il Padre ve li darà per sopraggiunta nella misura del necessario»"
(trad. DEL TON, pp, 74-75, con alcune modifiche).
636 A. VILLANT
il discorso deI Salvatore: egli infatti rassicura gli uomini che, pregando
per le cose grandi, non finiranno per essere privi deI necessario, ma anzi
10 otterranno come sovrappiù.
Attraverso l'uso della prosopopea Origene ha modo di sottolineare
l'attività mediatrice deI Verbo nei confronti dell'uomo, oltre a metterne
in risalto l'attività di maestro, in questo casa maestro di preghiera. Infatti,
grazie all'impiego di questa tecnica retorica Gesù, pur avendo ormai con-
cluso la sua permanenza nel mondo, è in grado di portare avanti tale
attività, ampliando e approfondendo ulterionnente i temi raccolti dagli
evangelisti nei loro scritti. Del resto, dietro le parole di Gesù, possono
leggersi i propositi che guidano 10 stesso Origene nella sua funzione di
studioso, che si esprime attraverso la trattatistica, la predicazione 0 l'at-
tività più strettamente esegetica: anch'egli, infatti, si propone come
instancabile maestro che vuole indic are a chi leggerà i suoi scritti - a
partire da Ambrogio, cui Graf è dedicato - il modo pel' innalzarsi al
livello spirituale e intraprendere quella via di perfezione che condurrà,
infine, all'assimilazione con Dio.
V. PROSOPOPEE APOLOGETICHE? LE PAROLE DIVINE NEL
CONTRO CELSO
Due ultimi esempi, tratti dal grande scritto apologetico CC, relativi uno
al Padre ed uno al Piglio, potranno fornire un'adeguata conclusione
all'indagine, perché con es si risulterà grosso modo coperta l'intera
gamma di generi letterari impiegati dall' Alessandrino.
ID CC 3, 79 Origene, pel' confutare l'accusa di Celso che critica il modo
in cui vengono "adescati" i cristiani, chiarisce che le punizioni prospettate
dalla dottrina cristiana ai 'fedeli semplici' fanno parte deI piano di Dio nei
confronti degli uomini e sono, conseguentemente, adattate alla 101'0 capa-
cità di accoglierle. ID questo contesto, prima richiama un'acuta risposta
offerta da Solone: " ... come uno dei legislatori rispose a chi 10 interrogava
se avesse imposto ai cittadini le leggi più convenienti: 'Non le più con-
venienti in assoluto, ma le più convenienti fra quelle che essi potevano
accogliere'''41, quindi, pel' analogia, mette in bocca a Dio, definito nu-rllP
'[013 Xptcntuv&v ÀOyou, un discorso dal tenore simile:
Allo stesso modo, anche il padre della dottrina cristiana potrebbe dire: "io
ho imposto le leggi e l'insegnamento rnigliore fra quelli che la massa poteva
41. La notizia, attribuita a Solone in luogo del generico "legislatore" origeniano, si
legge in Plutarco, S%lle 15, 2.
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 637
ricevere per il rniglioramento dei costurni, minacciando per i peccatori non
pene e punizioni false, ma vere e inflitte necessariamente per la cOITezione
di quelli che reca1citrano", anche se certamente essi non comprendono deI
tutto l'intento di colui che punis ce e l'opera delle pene42 •
ID altre parole, qui Origene, comparando l'azione di Dio all'attività
legislativa dei greci, anzi dellegislatore greco per antonomasia, dimostra
che la dottrina cristiana muove dagli stessi principi e quindi, implicita-
mente, fa intendere che i due modi di vita non sono incompatibili. Ma
cio che qui preme rilevare è che, se la comparazione è proposta espres-
samente dall' apologeta, poi egli lascia la parola a Dio - come avviene,
deI resto, anche per Solone in Plutarco - affinché sia egli stesso a espli-
citare il suo comportamento, cos a che egli fa mettendo in luce il progetto
pedagogico che 10 informa e 10 guida, e che prevede pene e punizioni
didatticamente adattate alla capacità di coloro per cui sono state pensate.
Si tratta, dunque, di un passo importante perché, nell' accostamento delle
parole di Solone a quelle di Dio, sono in quaIche modo i 'fondatori' della
civiltà greca e di quella cristiana a confrontarsi e a stabilire un comune
modo di procedere. In questo senso, al di là della funzione rappresenta-
tiva che anche qui la prosopopea riveste, aiutando l'autore a illustrare
l'argomento che sta svolgendo, non è forse improprio parlare di impiego
apologetico, a patto pero di intendere tale aggettivo nell'accezione ampia
valida pel' 10 scritto origeniano neI suo complesso. CC non presenta
infatti tutte le caratteristiche proprie dalla forma letteraria classica dell'a-
pologetica deI II secolo, ma comporta rispetto ad essa un maggiore sforzo
propositivo, che supera l' atteggiamento difensivo in favore di una sempre
più esplicita presentazione della dottrina e deI modo di vita cristiano: in
questa ottica, puo senz'altro leggersi in chiave apologetica il confronto
tra la prosopopea di Solone e quella di Dio.
La prosopopea di Gesù si trova in un passo tratto da CC 2, 25: il giu-
deo di Celso, in questa sezione dell'Alethes Logos, vuole dimostrare
che Gesù non conosceva sin dall'inizio la sorte cui sarebbe andato incon-
tro, e che dunque non si puo fondare su tale argomento l'ipotesi della sua
divinità. Giunto verso la fine deI ragionamento, egli cita il v. di Mt 26,39a
a dimostrazione dell'ignoranza di Gesù. La replica di Origene è partico-
42. Trad. RESSA, p. 284; OU'HO I..Éyot'to av Kat àno 'toù na'tpoe; 'tOù Xptanavrov
I..oyO\J on à)v E8ÎJvav,o 01 nol..I..ot Ete; ~E",irocrtV ~Srov ,oùe; Kal..I..iaw\Je; ESÉflllV
VOflO\Je; Kat otoaaKal..iav, novo\Je; où \jfE\JOEtS ànEII..rov Kat KOl..UaEle; 'tOIS uflap,u-
VO\Jcrtv àl..1..' àl..llSde; flÈv Kat àvaYKairoe; EtS EnavopSrocrtv 'trov àvn'tEtVov,rov npo-
aayoflÉvo\Je;, où fli]v Kat nuv'troç; vooûv'trov 'to 'où KO"-UÇOVTOÇ; ~oûI..llfla Kat 'to ,rov
novrov Ëpyov' Kat wù,O yàp npoç; 'to xpijatflov Kat Ka,à 'to àl..llSÈÇ; Kat flE't' E1tt-
KpÛ\jfEroÇ; a\Jfl<PEpov,roç; I..ÉyE'tat (ed. BORRET [SC, 136], p. 178,7-15).
638 A. VILLANI
Immente lunga: in primo luogo egli rileva (§24) la SCOlTettezza di Celso,
che menziona solo la prima parte deI v. evangelico, peraltro alterandola,
e ne tralascia il seguito; in un secondo momento pone l'accento (§25) sul
fatto che Gesù talvolta parla in quanto "primogenito di ogni creatura",
cioè come Dio, talaltra invece in quanto uomo. All'intemo di questo
discorso, l'Alessandrino procede con rilievi di tipo letterale 0 grammati-
cale, ad esempio prestando attenzione all'ordine delle parole ('ta1;tc; 'tIDV
ÀEÀEYl-U~Vo)V) e rilevando che il v. in questione, ascrivibile alla "debo-
lezza della came", è usato per primo, mentre alla fine, e quindi in posi-
zione di rilievo, si trovano numerose affelmazioni degne di grande corag-
gio; quindi passa all'ultima, e più ardita, spiegazione, per sostenere la
quale concede la parola allo stesso Gesù che spiega come, in realtà, egli
abbia eIevato al Padre la supplica di allontanare il calice solo per amore
degli uomini, affinché es si non subissero le deIeterie conseguenze che
sarebbero derivate dal metterlo a morte e dal trattarlo con tanta spieta-
tezza e crudeltà.
Ed io conosco anche la seguente spiegazione pel' questo passo, e cioè che
il Salvatore, vedendo quali pene avrebbe sofferto il popolo e Gemsalemme
pel' la punizione di cio che era stato osato dai Giudei contro Gesù, e volendo,
solo pel' l'amore nei loro confronti, che il popolo non soffdsse le cose che
doveva soffdre, disse: "Padre, se è possibile, si allontani da me questo
calice" [Mt 26,39], come se dicesse: "dal momento che in conseguenza deI
fatto che io bevo questo calice di sofferenza tutto il popolo saràabbando-
nato da te, ti prego, se è possibile, che 'questo calice si allontani', perché
la patte della tua eredità che tanto ha osato contro di me non sia completa-
mente abbandonata da te,,43.
Come si vede, in questa interpretazione Gesù si fa, in qualche modo,
avvocato degli uomini presso suo Padre: la sua richiesta, infatti, non
sorge da mancanza di coraggio 0 desiderio di fuggire la sofferenza, ma
è avanzata nel solo interesse dei popolo. DaI punto di vista formale,
questa prosopopea, peraltro segnalata da un marcatore che ne indic a
l'inizio ("come se dicesse"), si configura come una sorta di completa-
mento della citazione in es sa contenuta, di cui infatti esplicita le premesse
43. Trad. RESSA, p. 186; oIùu ùÉ 'tlVU Kut 'totaU'tIlV BIS 'tov 't01tOV ÙtlÎ'YllOW, O'tl
6prov 6 crco't~p otu 6 ÀUoc, KUt 'IspoucruÀl]fl 1tstcrs'tut È1tt 'tij ÈKÙtKlÎcrsl 'trov KU't'
uù'tOù 'ts'toÀflllflÉVCOV Imo 'IoUùutcov, où ùt' lino 'tl 11 Ùtù 'to 1tpOS ÈKsivouc,
Q>tÀuvSpC01tOV SÉÀCOV fll] 1tuSSIV 'tOV ÀUOV Cl Ëflsns 1tucrxstV Q>T]crt 'to «lIu'tsp, Sl
ÙUVU'tOV Ècr'tl, 1tUpSÀSÉ'tCO !ln' ÈfloÙ 'to 1to'tlÎpwv 'tOÙ'to»' roc, BI ËÀsysv' Èmd ÈK 'tOÙ
flS 1ttSIV 'tou't! 'to 't~c, KOÀucrsCOc, no't~pwv oÀov ËSVOS Imo croù ÈYKU'tUÀstQ>S~crS'tUl,
SÜXOflUl, BI ùuvu'tov Ècr'tl, nupsÀSsî'v «!l1t' ÈfloÙ 'to no't~pwv 'toùw», ïvu fll] ft flspic,
crou 'toÀfllÎcrucru KU't' ÈfloÙ nuv'tIJ 6no croù ÈyKU'tUÀstQ>Sij (ed. BORRET [SC, 132],
p. 354, 23-33).
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORlGENE 639
e chiarisce le conseguenze. E' evidente la funzione argomentativa che
essa svolge, accompagnata da quella illustrativa: è al solo discorso di
Gesù che è affidata l'interpretazione deI versetto evangelico, con il chim'o
scopo di smontare l'errata lettura che ne ha dato Celso. Allo stesso tempo,
attraverso di esso la figura di colui che 10 ha pronunciato risalta in modo
nuovo e assai più positivo rispetto a quanto percepibile ad una prima
lettura deI brano evangelico: alla luce di tali chiarimenti, infatti, la richie-
sta di Gesù non pua più essere considerata egoistica ma, al contrario,
mette in evidenza la magnanimità di colui che la avanza.
E' singolare, peraltro, che tale esegesi sia presentata come interpreta-
zione altrui ("conosco anche la seguente interpretazione ... "), quasi che
l'Alessandrino volesse in qualche modo prendeme le distanze. Forse si
pua comprendere meglio questa precisazione se si pone mente al fatto
che varie volte Gesù è presentato in situazioni diametralmente opposte,
nelle quali eSOlta il Padre a comportarsi con più rigore nei confronti degli
uomini. Due sono le possibili soluzioni: da una parte si potrebbe sup-
pOITe che l'esegeta legga in senso negativo questa richiesta di Gesù,
come se fosse dovuta alla "debolezza della came", perché non com-
prende che le sofferenze che si abbatteranno sul popolo saranno utili alla
sua crescita spirituale; dall'altra, invece, si potrebbe ritenere la supplica
genuina e mossa da sincera pietà nei confronti dell 'uomo, e il contrasto
che ne deriverebbe con gli altri passi andrebbe spiegato attraverso il dif-
ferente contesto nei quali es si si trovano. Qualunque sia la soluzione di
questa contraddizione, anche in questo casa si pua forse vedere nella
prosopopea un'inflessione apologetica, da intendersi pera qui nel senso
tecnico dei termine, come strumento difensivo, volto a confutare la let-
tura deI vangelo proposta da Celso.
VI. CONCLUSIONI
Uno dei principali scopi che questa indagine si è proposta sin dall'ini-
zio è la verifica dell'eventuale influenza esercitata dalla forma degli
scritti origeniani sulla funzione che in essi ricopre 10 strumento retorico
della prosopopea - sulla base deI presupposto che esso è presente in
ognuno dei molteplici generi letterari impiegati da Origene. L' analisi dei
testi ha messo in luce, al massimo, delle tendenze che privilegiano in
alcuni testi determinate funzioni, ma sempre con un ampio grado di
libertà. Esse possono schematizzarsi cosl:
1. Omelie: prevalenza della funzione paradigmatica a cui è spesso
strettamente legata quella parenetica, di invito alla conversione, al
640 A.VILLAN!
pentimento, alla vita perfetta. Talvolta anche funzione argomenta-
tiva 0 esplicativa.
2. Commentari: prevalenza delle funzioni argomentativa e rappresen-
tativa.
3. Trattati: prevalenza delle funzioni rappresentativa e argomentativa.
4. In ciascuno dei genel1 precedenti puo essere presente l'aspetto poe-
tieo 0 immaginifieo.
Innanzitutto si rileverà come nelle omelie l'intento parenetieo sorga
in modo quasi naturale dalla funzione poetiea 0 illustrativa: la prosopo-
pea mette in scena un personaggio in modo tale che l' ascoltatore possa
visualizzarlo e rimanerne colpito, e sia COS! reaImente spinto a credere
aIle sue parole, che non di rado altro non sono che un invito alla con-
versione. D'altra parte, si deve tener presente che la prosopopea è solo
unD tra i tanti mezzi cui Origene ha fatto ricorso pel' raggiungere e
impressionare i suoi ascoltat0l1, e va dunque compresa all'interno di un
più ampio contesto pedagogic044 • Inoltre, anche in ambito omiletico tal-
volta l'Alessandrino si serve della prosopopea solo pel' confermare una
sua proposta interpretativa argomentandola in modo diverso dal con-
sueto.
Nei commentari, questa stessa funzione argomentativa, che dimostra
la validità di un'interpretazione conferendole maggior valore e autorità,
si alterna all'intento rappresentativo, attraverso cui l'esegeta ritrae un
preciso aspetto, una caratteristica di Gesù pel' metterla sotto gli occhi dei
suoi lettori. Tra gli esempi analizzati spiecano il profilo dei maestro che
dialoga con i discepoli, 0 quello dei Cristo che attrae a sé le anime. Inol-
tre, in questo secondo casa (CIo XIII, 3, 15-16) la scena costruita da
Origene convoglia una serie di valenze diverse: polemico-parenetiea,
nell'invito implicito allettore a non lasciarsi ingannare dalla falsa dot-
trina proposta dalla gnosi, ed esortativa, nell'appello alla sequela di Cri-
sto, oltre che precipuamente poetica, nella capacità di creare immagini
vivaci e atmosfere di grande potenza espressiva.
Nei trattati, infine, due sono le funzioni principali: quella rappresen-
tativa, che si manifesta nell'intento di mostrare gli aspetti reali deI
personaggio a cui è data la parola, che si celano dietro le apparenze,
talvolta fuorvianti, delle espressioni bibliche, e quella argomentativa,
44. li già ricordato studio di TORJESEN, Influence ofRhetoric (n. 2), considera ad esem-
pio come fondamentali gli appelli diretti all'uditorio, alla materia trattata e al referente
deI testo biblico oggetto dell'esegesi. Sulla pedagogia origeniana cf. anche 10 stimolante
saggio di M.V. NrcuLEScu, Spiritual Leavening: The Communication and Reception of
the Good News in Origen's Biblical Exegesis and Transformative Pedagogy, in Journal
of Eastern Christian Stl/dies 15 (2007) 447-481.
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 641
della quale Origene si serve pel' avvalorare il proprio ragionamento con
l'autorità delle parole divine. Molto spesso dei resto, le due funzioni si
sovrappongono: quando si ascolta parlare Dio in prima persona e si
comprendono le reali motivazioni dei sua agire nei confronti degli
uomini, scoprendo che esso è sempre improntato al desiderio della 101'0
salvezza, in realtà si trova anche la vera interpretazione dell'esegeta,
che è libero dalla necessità di offrire una propria argomentazione. La
prosopopea fa in modo che Dio 0 Gesù divengano i portavoce dell'in-
terprete, in qualche modo sostituendolo. Del resto, non è un casa se
spesso essa interviene a conclusione di un tema, quasi a voler propone
l'ultima e definitiva parola.
Peraltro, si deve riconoscere come la schematicità di queste conside-
razioni - pur utile al fine di un primo inquadramento generale della tema-
tiea - sia talvolta contraddetta dalla flessibilità cui i generi letterari vanno
sottoposti. Se infatti la comice è sempre definita in modo abbastanza
stretto dal modello di riferimento, all'interno dei testo non di rado si
verifie a una sovrapposizione dei diversi generi, come quando, in Orat 29,
14, le parole di Dio intervengono all'interno di un'argomentazione inte-
ramente basata su esempi scrittur1stici, 0 ancora in CC 2, 25, dove la
prosopopea compare all'interno di un dibattito esegetieo che contrappone
Celso a Origene.
Da ultimo, si potrà osservare come il discorso divino intervenga pres-
soché sempre in contesti teologieamente rilevanti, quando cioè compa-
iono temi signifieativi nella riflessione origeniena, a dimostrazione che
il ricorso a tale pratica retorica non è motivato unicamente e soprattutto
da preoccupazioni di tipo stilistieo, bensl fornisce aIl' Alessandrino un
modo per far suonare un campanello d'allarme e richiamare l'atten-
zione dei sua pubblico di lettori / uditori, avvisandolo dei fatto che cio
che segue deve essere letto, 0 ascoltato, con una concentrazione parti-
colare.
Alla luce dell'analisi sin qui condotta sulle differenti funzioni che la
prosopopea è di volta in volta chiamata a ricoprire, si puo adesso tentare,
pel' concludere, una riflessione complessiva sulle figure deI Padre e deI
Figlio quali risultano dai discorsi che es si pronunciano in prima persona.
Ponendo la questione in altri termini, possono lintracciarsi, attraverso il
filtro offerto dalle prosopopee divine, delle caratteristiche specifiche delle
persone cui esse sono affidate' e che si discostino dai tratti generaImente
attribuiti 101'0 dalla riflessione delI' A1essandrino, 0 che comunque ne
mettano in luce determinate peculiarità piuttosto che altre?
Riperconendo i testi presi in esame non si potrà non rimanere colpiti
dalla omogeneità dei discorsi pronunciati in prima persona da Dio Padre,
642 A. VILLAN!
i quali si muovono pressoché tutti intomo al medesimo asse, quello deI
progetto provvidenziale per l'uom045 • Nell'intento, talvolta implicito ma
spesso espresso, di combattere il dualismo gnostico e marcionita, Origene
mette in atto un notevole sforzo concettuale volto a recuperare i testi
dell'AT che potrebbero essere tacciati di antropomOlfismo e contribuire
dunque alla separazione tra il Dio giusto e il Dio buono padre di Gesù
Crist046 quale professata da tali sette 'eterodosse'. COS!, ogni qualvolta
si trovi di fronte aIle anche aspre espressioni tipi che della rappresenta-
zione veterotestamentaria di Dio, l'esegeta fa ricorso al tema dell'econo-
mia provvidenziale: pene e punizioni inflitte 0 anche solo minacciate al
popolo peccatore, ben lungi dall'indicare una vendetta di Dio nei con-
fronti dell'uomo 0 dall'esprirnere sue passioni quali l'ira 0 10 sdegno,
hanno sempre una funzione medicinale, volta cioè alla salvezza di colui
cui sono somministrate. Dio stesso, nei discorsi che pronuncia, si pre-
mura di spiegare l'intento che muove il sua comportamento all'apparenza
bmsco, pel' far comprendere all'uomo che solo attraverso tali minacce, 0
le punizioni che ne conseguono, il peccatore sarà in condizione di capire
il suo errore, pentirsi, e intraprendere di nuovo il cammino verso la san-
tità. In altri termini, la prosopopea aiuta Origene a far risplendere il volto
misericordioso di Dio, liberandolo dal velo che 10 nasconde, costituito da
alcune espressioni e da alcuni comportamenti in apparenza ingiusti. In
questo contesto, risulta di particolare interesse il casa di HIer 18, 7 che
presenta alcune differenze rispetto a quanto fin qui descritto: invece che
spiegare il perché delle sue minacce 0 delle sue punizioni qui Dio eSOlta
gli uomini a comportarsi in modo tale da non essere costretto ad agire
con durezza contro di 101'0. Questa azione di prevenzione, deI resto, è ben
messa a fmtto dall'esegeta che - come spesso accade durante la predica-
zione - ha buon gioco a impiegare questo strumento retorico in chiave
attualizzante e parenetica: presentando le scene di AT, lette nella chiave
appena menzionata, il predicatore pua infatti facilmente incitare i suoi
ascoltatori a compOltarsi diversamente dall'antico popolo, a non intra-
prendere la strada del peccato, evitando COS! a Dio di dover agire da
castigatore.
Quanto a Gesù, l'immagine che risulta dalle prosopopee, al di là di
varie sfumature, è assai unitaria: sintetizzando, si pua affermare che,
45. Una rapida sintesi relativa a questo ampio tema si puo leggere in L. PERRONE,
Provvidellza, s.v., in MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origelle. Diziollario (n. 3), 392-396, con
rimandi ad ulteriore bibliografia.
46. A tal proposito cf. M. SIMONE'ITI, Dio (Padre), s.v., in MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.),
Origelle. Diziollario (n. 3), 118-124, specialmente pp. 122-123.
UNO SGUARDO D'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE DIVINE IN ORIGENE 643
attraverso i discorsi che pronuncia, il Figlio appare pressoché sempre
nella sua attività di mediatore tra il divino e l'umano. Più concretamente,
egli è rappresentato - quasi 'fotografato' verrebbe talvolta da dire - pre-
valentemente in momenti di dialogo, sia verso l'alto, con Dio, sia verso
il basso, con l'uomo. COS!, spesso al lettore è presentato un Gesù a
colloquio con il Padre, in discorsi dalle più varie colorature. Talvolta
l'argomento di questo confronto 'intradivino' è l'uomo, e rientra dunque
in gioco il tema dell'economia salvifica: in un caso, infatti, Gesù chie de
a Dio di inasprire il sua atteggiamento verso il popolo (HIer 14, 13),
mentre nell'altro, al contrario, domanda di risparmiargli eventuali casti-
ghi (CC 2, 25). In entrambi i casi, comunque, le richieste che il Figlio
avanza mettono in luce l'amore che egli nutre pel' il sua popolo, perché
il fine che le muove è sempre la salvezza dell'uomo nonostante la sua
condizione di peccatore. Altre volte, poi, Gesù è ritratto in scene di
dialogo con gli uomini, siano essi i suoi discepoli 0 i credenti in gene-
raIe, come quando si mostra nelle vesti di un maestro di preghiera, in
Orat 14, 1, 0 quando si propone come oggetto di fede in CIo XIII. In
questi esempi a calcare la scena è ovviamente il Gesù terreno, cui l'A-
lessandrino offre la possibilità di continu are l'opera di evangelizzazione
e di ammaestramento. Peraltro, da qui è facile capire come proprio l'im-
magine del maestro sia una della più care a Origene, che non si stanca
di richiamarla e proporla a modello al sua pubblico cosl come a se
stesso. Come si vede, la funzione mediatrice è espressa in tutte le fOlme
possibili, per mezzo di una sorta di gioco simmetrico: se pm'lando con
Dio Gesù intercede per gli uomini, quando dialoga con costoro dispensa
gli insegnamenti di Dio.
In conclusione, e più in generale, si pua rilevare come l'indagine qui
condotta mostri quanto fmttuosa sia la via che si proponga approfondire
10 studio dello stile origeniano, sondandone con attenzione e in profon-
dità i caratteri, senza limitarsi ad un mero inventario delle figure 0 tec-
niche retoriche rintracciabili, ma cercando di comprendere i motivi che
hanno spinto l' esegeta a fm'Vi ricorso. A tal scopo, è necessario che pre-
liminmmente si accetti l'opinione che l'intera produzione dell' Alessan-
drino esprirna, oltre che una grande abilità esegetica e competenza teo-
logica, anche una non minore carica letteraria, la quale, se anche non
perviene all'elaborazione di una vera e propria prosa d'arte, nondimeno
si serve della strumentazione tecnica che il mondo culturale greco-
romano metteva a disposizione al fine di raggiungere più in profondità il
pubblico, SI da smuoverlo nell'intimo e aiutarlo nel cammino spirituale
644 A. VILLAN!
che sta pereorrendo 0 che, in ogni caso, è chiamato a percorrere. Tale è
infatti 10 scqpo della produzione origeniana, e qua1unque risorsa che con-
tribuisca al suo conseguimento è, agli occhi di Origene, meriteyole di
essere utilizzata.
Georg-August-Uniyersitiit Gottingen Andrea VILLANI
Courant Forschungszentrum EDRIS
Nikolausbergerweg 23
D-37073 Gottingen
andrea: yillani@zentr.uni-goettingen.de
APPENDICE TESTUALE
1. HIer 4, 1: ed. NAUTIN (SC, 232), pp. 256, 21-260, 74.
Et VOOU/lBV 'tau'ta <hç npàç 'tàv Àaàv 6K61vov 'tàv 't6'tB, '(OB 'tèlç
ÀÉÇBtÇ 'tOU rçpo<pi)'tou, Bi /li] 'totou't6 n 0l1Àoucrt' Ka't11yopBL yèlp 'trov
â/lapnrov 'tOU 'lcrpai]À <hç À6yoç, Kai <P11crtv o'tt 'tocro(mov
âgap'tnbul'trov YBYBVUgÉVrov 'tro 'lcrPallÀ, àxoucracra ft '106Oa
cruvayroyù 'tèl 6KBtVroV n'taicrga'ta Kat 'tiva 'tp6nov nBnoiUKa aO'toùç
YBVÉcrSat 6V at:maÀrocria, OOK 6natOB6Su, àÀÀèl npocrÉSUKB 'taLç
âgap'tiatç, mcr'tB otèl 'tùv npocrSiJ1cUv 'trov âgap'tUWl'trov crUyKpt-
vogÉvrov 'tOLÇ âgap'tugacrt 'tOU 'lcrpaÙÀ OtKatocruvuv BupficrSat 6V
'tro 'lcrpaÙÀ napèl 'tàv '106Oav. Eha 6nt 'tOU'totç KBÀBUB'tat 0
npo<pi)'t11Ç npo<P11'tBucrat, <hç XBtpovoç YBVO/lÉvou 'tOU 'Iouoa napèl
'tàv 'lcrpai)À, '(va /lB'tèl 'tèl â/lap'ti)/la'ta 6mcr'tpÉ'I''IJ. MB'tèl 'ti]v
npo<P11'tBtaV oÔv 'ti]v npàç 'lcrpai]À KBÀBuoucrav 6mcr'tpÉ'I'at a\>'tàv
npo<P11'tBUBt 0 npo<pi)'t11Ç, on /lÉÀÀoucrtv liJ!a yivBcrSat 'lcrpai]À Kat
'Iouoaç Kat yivBcrSai no'tB /liav à/l<po'tÉprov pacrtÀBlav.
~nt oi], /lÉÀBt 'trov àvayvrocr/lû'trov, ÀapÉ'tro'tèl pi)/la'ta 't'îlç oÀ11Ç
cri)/lBPOV àvayvIDcrBroÇ Kat 't6'tB O'l'B'tat 'tèl voi)/la'ta OBo11ÀrocrSat.
«Kat dnB KUptoÇ np6ç /lB 6V 'taLç Tj/lÉpatç 'Irocriou 'tOU pacrtÀÉroç'
dOBÇ a 6noi11crûv /lot Tj Ka'tOtKia 'tOu 'lcrpai)À», OOK 'loMa, àÀÀèl
«'tOu 'lcrpai]À» npro'tov, «6nopBUS11 6nt nav opoç U'l'l1Ààv Kat
unoKû'tro nav-ràç ÇuÀou àÀcrIDoouÇ Kat 6n6pvBucrBv ÈK61. Kat dna
/lB'tèl 'tà nopvBucrat all'ti]v nûv'ta 'tau'ta' àvûcr'tpB'I'oV np6ç /lB' Kat
OÙK àVÉcr'tpB'I'B. Kat dOBV 'ti]v àcruvSBcriav aù'tftç» 't11Ç 'lcrpallÀ
cruvayroyftç «Tj àcrUVSB'tOÇ 'Iouoa. Kat doov» Ot ànà '106Oa, «ot6'tt
nBpt nûv'trov (bv Ka'tBÀBt<pS11 6V oIç 6/l0tXa'to Tj Ka'tOtKia 'tou
'lcrpai)À, Kat 6çanÉcr'tBtÀa aù'ti]v Kat ËoroKa ao't'IJ PtPÀiov àno-
UNO SGUARDO O'INSIEME SULLE PROSOPOPEE ONINE IN ORIGENE 645
cr'tacriou» [Ger 3,6-8] oÉov natoBuSfivat 'tàv 'louoav-6çanÉcr'tBtÀa
yèlp 'tàv 'lcrpaUÀ, 'tÙv cruvayroyùv 'lcrpaUÀ, 6çÉpaÀov aù'toùç Biç
'Acrcrupiouç «Kat ËoroKa aù't'IJ PtPÀiov ànocr'tacriou Biç 'tèlç x61paç
aù'tftç» - «Kat OÙK È<poPi)Sl1 Tj àcrUVSB'tOÇ 'loMa» [Ger 3,8] gB'tèl
'tocrau'ta oÈ a 6noiucrB 'tro 'lcrPallÀ, 6çanocr'tBtÀaç aù't6v, ooùç
PtPÀiov ànocr'tacriou, oÉov natOBUSfivat 'tùv 'Iouoa cruvayroyùv 6Ç
(bv nBn6vSacrtv 6KBLVot, oï oÈ où g6vov OÙK 6natOBuSucrav, àÀÀèl
npocrÉSUKav 'tOLÇ âgap'tugacrtv, mcr'tB 'tèl âgap'tuga'ta 'tfiç 'lcrpaÙÀ
cruvayroyfiç cruyKpicrBt 'trov âgap'tugû'trov 'tfiç cruvayroyfiç 'tOU '106Oa
OtKatocruvuv dvat OOKBLV, «Kat ËoroKa aù't'IJ PtPÀiov ànocr'tacriou
Biç 'tèlç x61paç aù'tftç' Kat OOK 6<poPi)Sl1 Tj àcrUVSB'tOÇ '106Oa» Tj
àOBÀ<pi] aù'tftç «Kat 6nopBuS11 Kat 6n6pvBucrB Kat aù'ti), Kat 6yÉVB'tO
aù'tftç Biç oôOÈv Tj nopvBla, Kat 6/loiXBUcrB 'tà çUÀov Kat 'tàv ÀWov.
Kat 6V nacrt 'tOu'totç OÙK 6nBcr'tpû<P11 np6ç /lB Tj àcrUVSB'tOÇ '106Oa
6Ç oÀ11Ç 'tftç Kapoiaç aù'tftç, àÀÀ' 6nt 'l'BUOBt» [Ger 3,8-10] 6nÉcr'tpB'I'B
np6ç /lB' OÙK ÙOÉcrSu gB 6Ç (bv nBnoiUKa 'tro 'lcrpaUÀ, '(va 'tBÀBtroÇ
6mcr'tpÉ\jfU, àÀÀèl ÙÉov aù'tùv 6mcr'tpÉ<pBtv 6V àÀuSBta, fi oÈ 6nt
\jfBUOBt 6nÉcr'tpB\jfB' «Kat 6V nacrt 'tOU'totç OÙK 6nÉcr'tpB'I'B np6ç /lB Tj
àcrUVSB'tOÇ 'Iouoa 6Ç oÀ11Ç 'tftç Kapoiaç aù'tftç àÀÀ' 6nt 'l'B6OBt. Kat
dnBv KUptoÇ np6ç /lB' ÈotKairocrB 'ti]v 'l'uxi]v aù'tftç 'lcrpai]À ànà 'tftç
àcruvSÉ'tOu 'Iouoa» [Ger 3,10-11], - 'tèl â/lap'ti)/la'ta 'tOU 'lcrpai]À
cruyKptv6/lBVa 'tOLÇ n'taicr/lacrtv 'Iouoa yÉyOVB otKairocrtç 'tftç 'l'uxftç
'tftç 'lcrpai]À cruvayroyftç'
2. CIo XIII 3,13-17: ed. BLANC (SC, 222), pp. 40, 1-42,29.
13. Zl1't11'tÉoV oÔv Kat 6K 'tOU «IIaç 0 nivrov 6K 'tOU'tou 'tOU üoa'tOç
Ot'l'i)crBt nûÀtv» [Gy 4,13] nOLov «Ot'l'i)crBt» ÀÉyB'tat' npro'tOv <hç 6nt
crro/lanKoU il Kat t 'tûXa 'tà 0l1ÀoU/lBv6v 6crnv on KaV npàç 'tà
napàv KOpBcrS'IJ, àÀÀ' BôSÉroÇ unoptpacrSÉvwç 'tOu no'tOu 'tà aù'tà
nûSoç nBtcrB'tat 0 mIDv, 'tou'tÉcr'tt Ot'l'i)crBt nÛÀtv, Biç o/lotoV 'tc?
àPXftSBV ànoKa'tacr'tûç. 14. 'Em<pÉPBt oÔv 'tà « "Oç 0' av ni'IJ 6K 'tOu
üOa'toç oÔ 6yro OIDcrro aù'tC?, yBVi)crB'tat n11yi] 6V aù'tc? üOa'tOç
âÀÀo/lÉvou Biç çro1)v atIDvtov.» [Gy 4,14] Tiç oÈ 6V Éau'tC? ËXrov
n11y1)v ot'l'ftcrat oI6ç 'tB Ëcr'tat; 15. Tà /lÉv'tot yB npo11you/lÉvroç
0l1Àou/lBvov 'tOtou'tov av B'(l1' 0 gB'taÀagpûvrov 'tou vogtsogÉvou,
<P11cri, pûSouç À6yrov, KaV npàç ôÀiyov àvanaucrU'tat, napaoBçûgB-
voç <hç paSu'ta'ta 'tèl àVtgIDgBva Kat BupicrKBcr3at OOKouv'ta vouga'ta,
àÀÀû yB nûÀtv OBU'tBpOV 6mcr'tUcraç 6nanopucrBt nBpt 'tou'trov, ocrotç
t t 6navBnaucra'tO, <6nBl> 'tpavùv Kat ËK'tunov nBpt 'trov SU'tOugÉvrov
Ka'tûÀU\jftv où 06va'tat 'tà vOgtÇ6gBVOV un' aù'tou pûSoç napacrXBLv.
16 ~t6nBp KaV cruvapnacrSBiç cruYKa'taSfi'tai nç 'tU m3av6'tun 'trov
 1\'O.DLLBX?ôCP ACOA9Ô13X AÇ?l, J3M'D.DI;îAOÔ<p'D1,'D)!
Jg 'At;t<pOÔl, AOlA'gÔQO At;tl, l'D)! 'f,l"('D)! 'f,ll, PL? ApiioôgA1"('D1L COl,go
3l,çn l'D)! 'AOA3iiçWiiClB11L? \>1, J3l,A'D.DI;î.D1ii '3l,piiClB11L? AqJ A13XCll,
Jlg 901, 3l,9'BLL3g A1"('g1L J3l,A'D.Dl;îiiClB11L? JC03.D?A3Jt J9'l, 3l, -A9ô3Wg
31,LL.D?1L1Ô31L J10)!'D)! J101, '31,LLg'g"('DA~ AOJt9"( J\>M'DlL JCloB'glL 'DMOl,
-1,'g"("('D1L~ JCO}3"(31, A\>l, l'D)! 31,LLX?.DOÔlL J10l,Cl'D? t;tii A'f,l? 'A'D}iiClB11L?
At;tl, 'f,llg 3wBA91L31L AqJ lOA3ii9A'DBA'D"(11L? 'J1og91ô31L ACOA9ôX
J1'DÔ)!'Dii '1'D1,3A}Jt 3WlL 91,901, 'DÔ'Q 13 'U 11,~ AP.D31L1Ô31L Q:l,Q'D JÇ?ii'DgLLii
10l,1J '31,LLJt'g"("(LLlL~ J9'l,Q'D ACOA91L ACO.DÇ ,1g '31, lOA?iiLLAii3ii J'D}iiClB11L?
\>1L~ 10Ô'DB'D)! JqJ 3l,9'BLLAClg J3M9B"(3~? 10l,9010l, l'D)! 'JmA9oiiClB1lL?
11,?)!LLii ClO}g 901, CO~'g"("('DlL~ J'Qiig ,A), ,'D}iiClB11L? 'f,lÔ X.Dl'D l'D)!
t;t1,)!3ïh \>l,Q'D lÔ31L t;L l'D)! An'D)! A1iig AOA?ii.D1iiOA3A \>1, JClOB'glL 90)!lÔ
-3"(OX 'f,l1,3ii «ACOdl}l,)!Clrf AÇ?l, )!? ÜB,,(?~? SCO~» ''DA9'ii J3M9oJt'D<pC03Ô)!
AO"(Ç ,<P? «'3B.D3A.'g<P» A01,9 0 .DOl, 11L? ,"("(~ 'JClO}.D'D"(1L1g ACOA}3)!?
J'f,ll, 11,~ ?gQO JClO}.D'D"(lLlg ACOl,C)0l, J'f,ll, ?gQO <<n?d)!» 'f,ll, J3l,AO}B.D?
«S'Dd?rflp> 3l,3.D1;î101L J'DA9ii «3M?1L ?gQO» ,ACOA,?"( '13)!9g? SlOl,Q'D
1'DB.D3)}d'DX AqJ ,1g p"(131L~ cbA?rf'DAClg 1'DA?lACl.D qn 'f,l,,(,,(~ 1m3"("(?U'D1L?
)!Qo PAOlO 'l'D.D\;!.lOlL SlOl,Q'D S?do)!.DodlL \>l,Q'D ?g SOA3rf9"(Clog
sa:J"llilOS 'lV:JIHdOSO'lIHd
'ÇZ-8 '68t: 'd 'Ct: 'S;)O) IlVHJS.LtlO)I 'P;) :"\71 '6Z JV,IQ 't:
IIA
.. 'AI}CO) A01A<Pl'D A~l, 1'DAp A1.Dlt<P S91,'Dgg ClOA?rfO"("(1,) 901, A~l,(l3"(3l,
PAolO 'LI 'Al;îco) A01A<Pl'D At;tl, 11L? 'AOÔ3l,<pA~ \>1, 11L? A'QgLLlL l'D)!
1'DB.D3"("('9, Ç?l, Ç?l,Q'D 11,AOÔ?<P '11,'Dgg COl,C)0l, COl,l;îA1)!Q3 Ç?l, JCOBc)o"(O)!~
JLLA?iimlLl1g m.D1X'g1, l'D)! JLLA?iio"("(1,) J'D}OAmg J9'l, 'ACOl,'ggg
ACOM<pgLLlL COA'Q Ç?l,Q'D A? A13A'gWCl"(g'DA~ ACOA?iiClOl,LL) AÇ?l, ACOM'glL
At;t)!11,3Ôg3 At;tJtlIlL 3WÇ? 'lm3.Dl):BU1,31tâ3Q3 JOwgg 90ii? 90l, M[lg'D"(
ct 3Jt A91,9 0 .DOl,llL? l'D)! ,'DA3iin"(3JtJt'D1L~ 90ii? ,1Lg 'f,ll, COA?ii'D~3g'DÔ'D1L
Ç?l, A? JOl,'Dii91L 90)!11,CO) 901, 1'DB.D?A3Jt At;tïtLLlL At;tl, 3WÇ? 'Aoïtn coX~
A0l,90101, ?g cpït? ,A13B'Dii 'f,lA11, 3g'g1, AlôlL A3Xp Ô3lLAIJ 'Ç?l,Q'D A? A'D.D
-ClOA'gXïtm A'D}ÔOlL~ At;tl,Q'D At;tl, 13.Dl;îôg3 AOÔ31,.og 3ït 'g"("(~ 'ACOA?iioït3"(

INVïïIA 'V 9179

 ORIGEN'S DOCTRINE OF APOKATASTASIS
A REASSESSMENT

l discuss here Origen's doctrine of the apokatastasis in its relationship

with Stoic and Platonic philosophy and Gnosticism, arguing that: 1) this
doctrine evolved from precise Christian antecedents, especially Clement,
Bardai~an, the Apocalypse of Peter and related literary traditions, and the
New Testament itself as the main foundation; 2) it was developed by
Origen on the basis of his polemic against Gnostic predestinationism and
the Gnostic and Marcionite separation between the Old and the New
Testament and between justice and mercy in God; 3) it does not follow
from a metaphysical or cosmological necessity, as it would he the case if
this doctrine really depended on pagan philosophy (Stoicism; Platonism:
on the contrruy, Origen opposes the Stoic conception of an infinite series
of identical cycles), but from Christ's incarnation, sacrifice, and resurrec-
tion. This is the point l emphasise most of all, arguing directly from
Origen's texts. Both Origen and St Gregory of Nyssa maintained the
apokatastasis as an anti-heretical doctrine, respectively against Gnosticism
(see Prin III) and "Arianism" (see In Illud: Tunc et Ipse Filius), and
endowed with strong Christological bases.

I. CHRISTIAN ANTECEDENTS TO ORIGEN'S DOCTRINE OF

ApOKATASTASIS

Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis evolved on the hasis, not only and

not so much of pagan (philosophical) and Gnostic ideas, but of precise
Christian antecedents. Origen himself suggests that there existed a tradi-
tion in CIo 1.16.91, in which he refers the term ànoKu'tucr'tucrtS to the
univers al restoration: "The end ['tÉÂ-OS] is in the so-called apokatastasis
['tn Â-syoJ.lÉVll ànoKu'tucr'tucrst], because then no enemy will he left, if
it is true that 'he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his
feet; the last enemy will be destroyed: death' [lCor 15,24-28]"1. The
expression "the so-called apokatastasis" clearly indicates that Origen had

1. See my lCor 15:24-26: Submission of Enemies and Annihilation of Evil and Death.
A Case for a New Translation alld a History of Interpretation, in Studi e materiali di
storia delle religioni 74 (2008) 241-258.
650 I.L.E. RAMELLI
a tradition behind him. Now, this tradition was not simply one that had
the concept of apokatastasis but not the word, such as the Apocalypse of
Peter or Bardai~an (see below?, nor was it the Stoic (pagan) tradition,
which had the term but to indicate a notion that was very different from
that of Origen, and which Origen overtly criticised, but it was a Christian
tradition that had both the telm itself and the concept. In this tradition
there was Clement, but at least also a New-Testament passage: Acts 3,21.
Of course, many other passages in the New Testament were taken by
Origen and his foIlowers, such as Gregory of Nyssa, to be a basis for
their doctrine of apokatastasis, for ex ample lCor 15,24-283 • Only Acts
3,21, however, joins both the concept and the very name of apokatastasis
(see also Matt 17,11)4. In Acts 3,21 Peter in his second speech in Jeru-
salem, after the ascension of Jesus, announces the eschatological times
of univers al restoration: "until the times of the comfort [àvu\jfuç tç] com-
ing from the Lord's face will arrive, and he sends Jesus Christ ... the
heavens will keep him till the times of the restoration of al! beillgs
[XpOVffiV ànoKœmO'-ruO'EffiÇ nuv-rffiv], of which God has spoken through
his holy prophets from time immemorial"5. The final univers al apokatas-
tasis is assimilated to the final àvu\jfuçtç, the comfort or consolation and
relief coming from the Lord; moreover, it will occur when aIl have con-
verted and their sins have been remitted (Acts 2,19-20). The apokatasta-
sis is here presented as a work of God and as God's plan, established
since the beginning. The prophets, according to Peter's speech, foretold
these eschatological times: we may think, for example, of Isa 9,5-6 with
the unending reign of the /-lEYuÀl1Ç /3ouÀl1ç ayyEÀoç, who of course is
Christ for Origen, and announces God's decision and will6 ; we may also
2. See my Origen, Bardailfan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation, in Harvard Theo-
logical Review 102 (2009) 135-168.
3. See 1. RAMELLI, Christian Soteriology and Christian Platonism: Origen, Gregory
of Nyssa, and the Biblical and Philosophical Basis of the Doctrine of Apokatastasis, in
Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007) 313-356.
4. On this passage and Acts 3,21 see my Matt 17: 11: 'Elijah Will Come, and Ali
Beings Will Be Restored'. Philological, Lingllistic, Syntactical and Exegetical Arguments
for a New bltelpretation, in Maia n.s. 61 (2009) 107-127.
5. A. MÉHAT, Apocatastase: Origène, Clément, Act 3.21, in Vigiliae Christianae 10
(1956) 196-214 interprets ùlWKUTaO'1;ucns here in the sense of "accomplishment, fulfil-
ment, realization", which, however, is not the meaning of the word, which rather points
to a restoration into a previous, good, and lost condition, e.g. to health or one's homeland.
See my introductory essay in 1. RAMELLI, Apocatastasi, Milan, Vita e Pensiero, 2011.
L. MISIARCZYK, Apokatastasis realizzata, attuale e futura nella tradizione patristica pre-
origeniana, in Augustinianll/11 48 (2008) 33-58, pp. 36-41, also disagrees with the meaning
"fulfihnent" of a promise.
6. According to the Origenian Eusebius, who connects this Isaiah passage to Acts 3,20,
God's "great will" is the plan of the univers al apokatastasis, which Peter says to have
ORlGEN'S DOCTRINE OF APOKATASTASIS 651
think ofIsa 11,6-8; 35; 55; 60, or Ez 37,1-14; 47,12, and Ps 28,30. Peter
repeats this concept, that the apokatastasis was foretold by the prophets,
soon afterwards, announcing the eventual restoration, in Acts 3,24
(nuv-rEç Di; ol npo<l>l1-rut , .. KUTflYYEtÀUV -ràç 1Î/-lÉpuç -ru6-ruç)1. In the
continuation of Peter's speech, the fulfilment of this prophecy is linked
with the accomplishment of God's promise to Abraham: Èv -rél> O'nÉp-
/-lu-rt O'ou ÈVEuÂoYl1BitO'oV-rat naO'at Ut nu-rpwt -rl1ç Yl1ç. This benedic-
tion of aIl farnilies of the earth in Abraham' s progeny is referred to in Ps
21,28-30, where it is prophesied that naO'ut ul nu-rptut -rrov ÈBvrov will
adore God and that ÈntO'-rpu<l>itO'ov-rut npoç K6ptov nuv-ru -rà nÉpu-ru
-rl1ç Yl1ç·
Now, Peter's (or Luke's) reference to the final apokatastasis of aIl
must be se en against the backdrop of Jewish eschatological expectations
attested between around 200 B.e. and A.D. 30, concerning the corning of
the Messiah and the restoration of Israel at the end of the exile. In sorne
cases, this hope also embraced the conversion to God and the inclusion
of the nations (ËBVl1) and the remis sion of sins, as has been studied by
many scholars, such as B. Pitre 8 • Indeed, Peter's speech addresses the
been announced by the prophets. In COll/m. in Is. 1.85 Eusebius uses also 1 Cor 15,24-28
to describe the apokatastasis, the culmination of the goods (Ta Trov ùyuBrov TÉÀOÇ), fore-
seen by the prophets (Acts 3,20-21), the ùpxuiu ~OIJÀi] mentioned by Isaiah and estab-
lished before creation (Tà 1tpOooplcrl1ÉVU I1Èv 1tpa KUTU~OÀfjS KocrI101J), as the submis-
sion of ail enemies and the destruction of evil and death (1tacrTjS KUKiuS ÈK1tOOroV
ùpBsicrTjS Kut TOO ÈcrxawIJ ÈXBpoo TOO BuvaTolJ KUTUPYTjBÉvwç), when God will be
"ail in aU" at the end of aU aeons: ô BEaç scrTa! 1taVTU Èv 1tucrlV.
7. Cosmas Indicopleustes in Top. ChI'. V.209 interprets this passage in reference to the
prophecies of "aU the prophets" conceming the remission of sins in the Messiah. Like-
wise, the Catena in Acta, 66.7 quotes our passage and refers it to the eschatological times
that were foretold by the prophets and are still to come. Ps.-Sphrantzes, Chrono 578.19,
draws a paraUel between Peter's words concerning the Ù1tOKuTacrTucrIS 1taVTooV in Acts
3,21 (dw ÈÀétÀTjcrEV 6 BEas olà crTOI1UTOÇ 1taVTooV TroV ayioov TroV Ù1t' utrovoS
1tP0<pTjTroV UÙTOO) and Mary's words in the Magnificat (Luke 1,55), KuBroS ÈÀétÀTjcrE
1tpas TOÙÇ 1tUTÉpUS Ytl1rov T0 'A~puàl1 Kut T0 cr1tÉPl1un UÙTOO Ëooç utrovoç, and
Zachariah's words in the Benedictus (Luke 1,70): KuBroS ÈÀétÀTjcrE olà mOl1uToç TroV
ayioov TroV Ù1t' utrovos 1tpO<pTjTroV uùwo, which are almost identical to Peter's words
in Acts 3,21. AU three passages belong to the Lukan tradition. It is to be noticed that
Zachariah too, just like Peter in his discourse in Acts 3,25, connects the prophecies of the
prophets with God's promise to Abraham in Luke 1,72-73.
8. Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and
the Origin of the Atonelllent, Tübingen, Moru' Siebeck, 2005; cf. S.M. BRYAN, Jesus
and Israel's Traditions of Judgment and Restoration, Cambridge, University Press, 2002;
J.P. W ARE, The Mission of the Church in Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the Context
of Ancient Judaislll, Leiden, Brill, 2005, shows that in Judaism in the time of Jesus and
the Apostles the eschatological conversion of the sBvTj was expected; see also F. PIllLIP,
The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon
Gentiles in Judaislll and the Early Development of Paul's Theology, Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 2005; M.E. FULLER, The Restoration of Israel: Israel's Re-Gathering and the
652 I.L.E. RAMELLI
Jews of Jerusalem and 1 see his reference to the eventual univers al apoka-
tastasis in connection with Acts 1,6, in which the disciples ask the ris en
Jesus when he would restore the kingdom to Israel (àrcoKUSW't'UV6lS).
Peter's aforementioned speech was composed by the author of Acts,
but the Petrine background of its reference to the apokatastasis is sug-
gested by the existence of other four texts be10nging to the Petrine tradi-
tion that equally point to the apokatastasis: the announcement and inter-
pretation of Christ's descensus ad inferos in 1Pt 3,19-21 (where Jesus is
said to bring salvation to those who did not believe prior to the Flood and
who also represent the non-baptised)9 and in the Gospel of Peter, and the
announcement of the eschatological salvation of the damned in the Apoc-
alypse of Peter, regarded as Scripture by Clement and by Origen, and in
the "Ps. Clementines" that form the framework of the Ethiopic Apoca-
lypse of Peter lO •
Now, the Vulgate translates àrcoKU't'ucr't'UCHS in Acts 3,21 with resti-
tutio, "restoration": cum venerint tempora refrigerii a conspectus Domini
et miserit eum qui praedicatus est vobis Iesum Christum, quem oportet
caelum quidem suscipere usque in tempora restitutionis omnium, quae
locutus est Deus pel' os sanctorum suorum a saeculo prophetarum ... et
omnes prophetae ... adnuntiaverunt dies istos. Vos estisfilii prophetarum
et testamenti quod disposuit Deus ... dicens ad Abraham: Et in semine
tuo benedicentur omnes familiae terrae. Origen chose this New-Testa-
ment phrase, àrcoKU't'ucr't'ucrtS rcuv't'cov, to indicate his doctrine: Rufinus'
version of it in his II6pi 'ApXrov, restitutio omnium, exactly corresponds
to the translation that the Vulgate offers for the Greek syntagm in Acts
Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2006;
G. HOLTZ, Damit Gott sei alles in allem, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2007, on Jewish and Pauline
universalism; T.L. DONALDSON, Judaism and the Gentiles, Waco, TX, Baylor University,
2007, who studies the Jewish expectation of the nations' eschatological participation in
the goods bestowed upon Israel for the period until A.D. 135; J.A. DENNIS, Jesus' Death
and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology
in the Light ofJohn 11.47-52, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007. In the Old Testament, many
passages portray the end of the exile as the restoration of the tribes of Israel. K.L. ANDER-
SON, "Bllt God Raised Him from the Dead": The Theology of Jesus' Resurrection in
Luke-Acts, Milton Keynes, Paternoster, 2006, chap. 7, who interprets Ù1tOKa'tûcr'tacrtC;
1tûv'tcov in Acts 3,21 as univers al restoration, in reference to the restoration of Israel,
which is a part of God's soteriological plan for humankind according to Luke (pp. 13;
47). See also H.C. VAN ZYL, The Soteriology of Acts: Restoration to Life, in J.G. VAN DER
WATT (ed.), Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology (Supplements
to Novum Testamentum, 121), Leiden, Brill, 2005,133-160.
9. For the soteriological interpretation of this passage see H. PIETRAS, L'escatologia
della Chiesa: Dagli scritti giudaici fino al IV secolo, Rome, Augustinianum, 2006,
pp. 37-46, and my Apocatastasi (n. 5), introductory essay, with documentation.
10. See RAMELLI, Origen, Bardai~an (n. 2).
ORIGEN'S DOCI1UNE OF APOKATASTASIS 653
3,21. In Prin II.3.5 Origen expressly refers to Acts 3,20 and interprets
the àrcoKU't'Ucr't'UcrtS rcuv't'cov of whieh Peter speaks as the "perfect
't'ÉÀOS" and the "perfecting of all" at the end of all aeons, when the
apokatastasis will take place. The original Greek expression that was
translated into Latin restitutio omnium, àrcoKU't'Ucr't'ucrtS rcuv't'cov, also
occurs twice in Origen's extant Greek works. In the first, HIer 14.18, he
relates Acts 3,21 to another Biblical passage in which the àrcoKuSicr't'TJ/!l
- àrcoKU't'Ucr't'UcrtS vocabulary appears, Jer 15,19: sàv smcr't'pÉ\vns, Kut
àrcoKU't'ucr't'i]crco cr6, "if you retum (or: repent), 1 shall restore you". In
order to c1arify what the noun àrcoKU't'Ucr't'ucrtS means, Origen explains
that it indicates a retum to what is proper and original to someone
(i} àrcoKU't'Ucr't'ucriS scr't'tv dç rà oÎlCBla), and offers examples: the thera-
peutie meaning, the retum of someone after an exile, and the reintegra-
tion of a soldier into the military unit from whieh he was chased. It is
remarkable that all of these meanings are attested in authors of the 1 cent.
l1
B.e. and 1 A.D. , and, above all, that all of them can be metaphorically
applied to the apokatastasis 12 • Then, Origen connects the Jeremiahpas-
sage with Peter's reference (Acts 3,21) to the eschatological univers al
restoration: "If we retum, God will restore us: and, indeed, the end of
this promise is the same as is written in the Acts of the Apostles, in the
following passage: 'until the times of the restoration of ail beings, of
whieh God spoke tluough his holy prophets from time immemorial', in
Jesus Christ"13. As is typieal of Origen's thought 14 , the final apokatasta-
sis announced by the prophets and by Peter depends on Christ.
Likewise, Origen interprets àrcoKu't'umucrts rcuv't'cov in Acts 3,21 as
a reference to the eventual univers al restoration in CMt XVII. 19, where,
in line with Paul, he remarks that now we do not see God as God is, but
in the end we shall do so, and this end will be the apokatastasis: "But in
the end, at the accomplishment of 'the restoration of all beings, of whieh
11. Al] attestations are analysed in RAMELLI, Matt 17: 11 (n. 4).
12. Olov, ssapSpov Ilou t.àv yÉvll'tat IlÉÂOC;, 6 ta'tpoc; 1tEtpihat Ù1tOKa'tûcr'tacrtV
1totfjcrat 'tou t.sûpSpou· <l'tav SSCO 'ttc; yÉvll'tat 'tfjc; 1ta'tplOoc;, d'tE OtKalCOC; EhE
ÙOlKCOC;, ù1toÂall~ûvn of; 'to ouvacrSat 1tûÂtV Èv 'tn1ta'tplOt dvat Ka'tà WÙC; vOlloUC;,
ù1tEKa'tÉcr'tll t.1tt 't~v 1ta'tplOa 't~v sau'tou' 'to uù'to VOEt Ilot KUt t.1tt cr'tpu'ttcll'tou
t.K~ÂllSÉV'tOC; Ù1tO 'tfjc; 10lUC; 1tUpU'tÛSECOC; KUt Ù1tOKuStcr'tuIlÉVOU.
13. 'Eàv È1tlcr'tpÉ'I'COIlEV, Ù1tOKU'tucr'ti]crEt T1J.!iiC;· KUt yàp 'to 'tÉÂOC; 'tfjc; È1tayyEÂlUC;
'totou'tov t.cr'ttV, roc; Èv 'tulC; IIpûSEcrt 'trov Ù1tocr'toÂcov yÉypa1t'tut t.v 'té!> axpt Xpovcov
ânoKurcuTraulicoç navrcov, d>v ÈÂûÂllcrEv 6 SEOC; otà cr'tolluwC; 'trov aylcov uù'tou Ù1t'
atrovoc; 1tPO<Pll'trov, t.v Xptcr'té!> 'IT]crou.
14. See argument in I. RAMELLI, Gregorio di Nissa Sl/ll'Anima e la Resurrezione,
Milan, Bompiani-Catholic University, 2007 (with reviews by P. TZAMALIKOS in Vigiliae
Christianae 62 [2008] 515-523; M.J. EDWARDS in Journal of Ecc1esiastical HistOly 60
[2009] 764-765), and below.
654 I.L.E. RAMELLI
God spoke through his holy praphets from time immemorial', we shaH
see God, not like now, when we see what God is not, but as it will
become that state, when we shall see what God iS"15.
In Acts 3,21 the apokatastasis is said to have been announced by the
prophets of old, and in CIo X 42.291 Origen identifies these praphecies
with those of a new paradise, a new Jerusalem rebuilt with precious
stones (the rational creatures), a new Temple, and the return of the people
of God from the exile to theiI' homeland, which all, on the spiI'itual plane,
symbolise the eventual restoration l6 •
That it is the Bible, more than pagan philosophy, to constitute the basis
of Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis is also demonstrated by the very
assimilation that he draws between à.véw'rucn<; (a Jewish and Christian
doctrine, different fram the pagan concept of à.vu~iffiO't<; and the like)
and à.n01cu'ruO''rucn<;. Thus, he uses the latter in reference to Christ's
resurrection (CIo XX.ll) or to that of Lazarus (ibid. XXVm.6). Ibid.
X.37 Origen even caHs the apokatastasis "the perfection of the resuq:~c­
tion", 'ro 'rÉA,stov 'rfl<; à.VUO''rU0'8ffi<;, when Christ will be with the Father,
and God will be aH in all thraugh Christ. This assimilation between
à.vuO''rucn<; and à.noKu'ruO''rucn<; will be taken up by Methodius, De l'es.,
m.2, and above all by Gregory of Nyssa, in many passages l7 .
Even the premise of the doctrine of apokatastasis that Origen had in
common with Platonism, i.e., the conception of the ontological non-sub-
sistence of evil and, as a consequence, its final disappearance (e.g. in
Prin II.9.2; 1.7.5; CIo II.13; CC IV.63; VII.72; SelPs 56; HIos 8.5; EM
13), which will be inherited by Nyssen as well18 , was also graunded in
the Bible, especiaHy in 1Cor 15,24-26 and in Revelation. Moreover,
Origen, very closely foHowed by Gregory of Nyssa (In Illud: Tunc et
15. 'Ent ùi; "CÉÀEt "Crov npay~émov Kat 'C~ç ànOlarraO''Co.O'BwÇ no.vrwv, div SÀUÀT)crE
ùtà crto~a"Coe; "Crov &'yirov SS atrovoe; npo<j>T)"Crov aùtou, Ôljlow;~a aùtov, OÙx roc; vuv,
o OÙK Ëcr"Ctv, àÀÀ' roC; npÉnEt "CO,E, 1) scr"Ctv.
16. IIapà "COtc; npo<j>i)tatc;, ~uÀtcr"Ca ùi; "C<!> 'Hcraî~, àvayEypa~~Évac; snayyEÀiac;
VOEtV roC; scro~Évac; nEpt t~V snt yfiC; 'IEpoucraÀi)~, àvuyKT) Iht, Et ~Età t~V atx~a­
Àrocriav Kat "C1'1v Katacrtpo<j>TJV "Cou vaou ÀÉyEtai "Ctva ËVùosa cru~PEPficr~at stc;
otKoÙO~TJV "COu vaou Kat "C~v ànOlca'Co.O'raO'lv rau Âaou àno "Cfic; atx~aÀrocriac;, ÀÉyEtV
f]~ac; yEyovÉvat toV vaov Kat nX~aÀro't'Eucr~at toV Àaov, snavEÀE6cr6(J~at ùi; snt
t~V 'Iouùaiav Kat "C~v 'IEpoucraÀTJ~ Kat otKoÙO~T)~i)cr6(J~at "COte; sv,i~otc; ÀiSotc; ,~v
'IEpoucraÀi)~ ... ~aKpatc; xpovrov nEptoÙotC;.
17. E.g., De anima, 148, very similar to Hom. in Ecc/. GNO V.296.16-18 (oùùi;
yàp aÀÀo "Ct scr"Ctv f] àvucrtacrtc;, st ~TJ nuv't'roc; f] EtC; "Co àpXatov ànoKa"Cucr"Cacrtc;; De
mort. GNO IX.51.16ff.; De homo op. 17.2; Or. in Pulch. GNO IX.472; De or. Dom. PG
44. 1148C.
18. Documentation in my Christian Soteriology and my Origen, Patristic Philosophy,
and Christian Platonism: Re-Thinking the Christianization of Hellenism, in Vigiliae Chris-
tianae 63 (2009) 217-263.
ORIGEN'S DOCTRINE OF APOKATASTASIS 655
Ipse Filius 17 Downing; De anima 104-105), argued for the final anni-
hilation of evil on the basis of 1Cor 15,28 in Prin m 6.2-3: "When God
will be 'all in all', we cannat admit of ev il, lest Gad may be fmmd in evil
... That God is said to be 'aH in all' means that God will be aH even in
the single creatures ... in the following sense: whatever the rational intel-
ligence, free fram evely diItiness of sin and purified fram every obfusca-
tion of evilness, will be able to perceive, grasp, and think, aH of this will
be God ... , therefore, God will be "all" for this intelligence ... because
evil will exist no more: for this intelligence, everything is God, who is
untouched by evil ... And not only in few or in many, but 'in ail' Gad
'will be ail', when there exists no more death, nor death's sting [lCor
15,55-56], nor evil any more, absolutely: then Gad will truly be 'al! in
ail'" (see also CC VI.36). What is more, Origen maintained, like Gregory
after him, that the eventual destruction of evil will be possible only
thanks to Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection: "A human being
died, and his death not only constituted a model of death by devotion,
but also produced the principle and advancement of the destruction
of what is evil and the devil, which ruled upon the whole earth"
(CC VII. 17).
Similarly, the conception of the eventual apokatastasis as a return to
perfect unity in God is not only a Platonic motif, but is constantly
graunded in Jesus's great prayer for unity in John 17 (see, e.g., CIo 1.16;
Prin m.6.4; 6.6; CMt X.2; FrIer 28; Cet I, GCS, vm, 103)19. And the
characterization of apokatastasis as the result of instruction and perfec-
tion in knowledge (e.g. in Prin III.6.9) do es not only depend on a philo-
sophical idea, but certainly also on 1TiIn 2,4-6, according to which "God
wants aIl human beings to be saved and to reach the knowledge of
Truth". Of course, this also depends on Christ's identification with the
Logos and Wisdom.
Again, the fundamental notion of Christ-Logos (or God) as Physician,
who will heal aH rational creatures (e.g. Prin II. 10.6-7; II.7.3; m.1.15;CIo
1.20.22; CC II.67; II1.62; HLv 8.1; HIer 12.5; HEz 1.2), which is clearly
an important pillar of the apokatastasis doctrine and was aheady devel-
oped by Clement, does not only derive fram the traditional conception of
philosophy as animi medicina, but also finds a basis in the New Testa-
ment, especially in Matt 9,12. Likewise, the idea of apokatastasis as the
full recovery of the pure 81KcOv of God in every human being, after the
19. See my Clement's Notion of the Logos "All Things as One": Its Alexandrian Back-
ground in Philo and Its Developments in Origen and Nyssen, in Z. l'LESE - R. HIRscH-
LUIPOLD (eds.), Alexalldrian Persollae: Sc/lOlarly Culture and Religious Traditions in
Ancient Alexalldria (lst ct. BCE - 4ct. CE), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
656 I.L.E. RAMELLI
removal of the dirtiness of sin, which is typical of Origen (see e.g. Prin
IV.4.9-1O; HGn 1.13; 13.4; CC IV.83; II.l1) and then of Nyssen, is
grounded in the Biblical doctrine of the so-called "theology of the
image", which goes back to the Genesis account of the creation of the
human being in the image of God20 •
Moreover, imp0l1ant antecedents to Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis
are to be found in the Apocalypse of Peter and other related apocryphal
texts, in Clement, and in Bardai~an of Edessa. Since 1 have aIready dem-
onstrated this e1sewhere21 , 1 shall only mention the main points very
briefly. In the Apocalypse of Peter, a text of the second century which
both Clement and Origen not only knew very well, but also considered
to be an inspired writing, the damned in hell ("the river of fire") are said
to be pulled out by Christ and transferred to the Kingdom after receiving
a baptism of salvation in the Acherusian Lake in "the Elysian valley",
thanks to the intercession of the just. This notion also appears in the
Apocalypse of Elijah and in the Epistula Apostolorum. The Ora.cula
Sibyllina, weIl known to Origen, in the second book contained a sort of
paraphrase of the passage of the Apocalypse of Peter on the salvation of
the damned. And in a Latin recension of the Life of Adam and Eve God
the Father dec1ares that he will use mercy upon aIl in diem dispensationis
qui dicitur economia, quando faciam omnibus misericordiam pel' dilectis-
simum Filium meum.
As for Clement, he insisted on the pedagogical and therapeutic value
of aIl suffering decided by GOd22 and on God's salvific will and provi-
dence for every creature. The necessary instructions (nutOEUcHnç) are not
retributive punishments, but are inflicted by God out of goodness
(àyuB6'tYJ'tt), not only in preliminary judgments, but also in the final
judgment, and "they force even those who are extremely hardened to
convert": ÈKPtuÇOV'tut I-tE'tUVOEtv. Indeed, according to Clement,
repentance, which leads to salvation, is always possible, "both here on
earth and on the other side", because God's goodness operates every-
where, even in hell (Strom., IV.6.37.7; see also VI.6.45-47). Moreover,
as will be the case in Origen's thought, the main agent of this salvific
Providence is Christ-Logos, who always "encourages, admonishes,
saves" (Protr., 1.6.2; see also 9.87.6).
20. Full account in my Gregorio di Nissa (n. 14), also with comparison between
Origen's and Gregory's doctrine.
21. hl Origen, Bardaio$an (n. 2).
22. E.g., in Strom., n.15.69-71; Vn.16.102.1-3; vn.6.34.1-3 regarding the nup ulro-
vwv, which is not "eternal" but "of the other world". See J. RAMELLI, Apocatastasi (n. 5).
Clement also regarded this world as a nutoê\Yt'ilpwv.
ORIGEN'S DOCfRINE OF APOKATASTASIS 657
1 have mentioned that Clement has both the concept and the denomina-
tion of apokatastasis. In Strom., II.22.134.4, on the basis of Rom 6,22, he
identifies the "end" ('tsÂ-oç) with life in the other world (Çcoll uicùvwç)
and contends that Paul teaches that this end is the hoped-for apokatasta-
sis: 'tsÂ-oç ÔtoacrKEt 'tllv 'tftç ÈÂ-ntÔoç ànoKu'tucr'tucrw. Clement is
c1early thinking of Paul's prediction in lCor 15,24-28, which will be one
of the favourite passages of Origen in support of the apokatastasis. For
Paul, there, exactly explains that the 'tsÂ-oç (he uses this very word) will
come when Christ, during his reign, has submitted everyone and destroyed
death and the powers of evi.l, and will hand aIl creatures to God, who will
thus be "aIl in aIl". This is why Clement can teach that, according to
Paul, the 'tsÂ-oç will be the apokatastasis, for which we hope. And, citing
Rom 5,4-5, Clement immediately adds that this hope "does not disap-
point". Clement thus expresses, not only the hope, but the conviction,
that in the end the apokatastasis will take place. Origen, of course, knew
very weIl both Paul's prophecy and Clement's comment. In Strom.,
VII. 10.57. 1-4, moreover, Clement describes the apokatastasis as the pas-
sage from unbelief to faith and from faith to yvrocrtç, which is followed
by àyunYJ - which will be c10sely related to apokatastasis by Origen as
weIl - and leads to the restoration, explicitly named ànoKu'tucrUcrtç and
described as peace and l'est, àvunuocrtç. 1 have aIready pointed out
Peter's remarkable description of the ànoKu'tucr'tUcrtç nuv'tcov as
àvu'l'o~tç in Acts 3,20-21, a passage that Origen, and probably also
Clement, read as a reference to the eventual univers al restoration. Indeed,
in Strom., VII.1O.56.2-5 Clement explains that the apokatastasis, which
he mentions again by name, will come after the necessary purification of
all sins through a "salvific instruction" or nutoEocrtÇ. After which,
human beings will enjoy "the apokatastasis in eternal contemplation".
Origen was c1early influenced by these ideas.
For his part, Bardai~an of Edessa, shortly before Origen, supported the
doctrine of apokatastasis, which is referred to pretty c1early at the end of
the Liber Legum Regionum; he too, like Origen, sees it as the eventual
disappearance of aIl evil, ignorance, foolishness, and opposition, as a
result of purification and instruction and as a voluntary adhesion to the
Good, not due to violence, but to persuasion. Bardai~an also shares many
other important doctrines with Origen, as 1 have demonstrated else-
where23 •
23. See my Bardaio$all of Edessa: A Reassessment of the Evidence and a Re,ïnterpreta-
tian. Also in the Light of Origen and the Original Fragments from De hldla (Eastern
Christian Studies, 22), Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2009.
 658 I.L.E. RAMELLI
II. THE GENESIS OF ORlGEN'S DOCTRINE OF APOKATASTASIS IN HIs
ANTI-GNOSTIC POLEMIC
The doctrine of apokatastasis was developed by Origen on the basis of
his polemic against Gnostic predestinationism and Gnostic and Marcion-
ite separation between the Old and the New Testament and between jus-
tice and mercy in GOd24 . Origen presents his polemic in many passages
and especially in Book III of Prin, devoted to freewill and the philo-
sophical and theological problems connected to it, quite a debated prob-
lem in the philosophy of his day25. Straight from the preface to Book l of
Prin 5, contrasting astral determinism, Origen argues that the Church
holds as a dogma that every rational creature is endowed with freewill
and is not subject to necessity. In several commentaries on Old-Testa-
ment books, such as Hlud 3.3 or Hlos 7.4, and in Phil 23, mostly based
on his Commentary on Genesis, Origen cardes on this discussion. Against
Gnostic and astrological determinism, he daims that God is not respon-
sible for the different conditions of the rational creatures (Prin I.7.4), and
has no unrighteousness. Present sufferings must be explained eifher as
pedagogical strategies applied by God, or as a result of one's demerits,
or as a choice of generous souls who are willing to suffer in this life in
order to assist the process of salvation (Prin II.9.7)26.
24. l demonstrated this in La coerellza della soteriologia origellialla: dalla polemica
collfro il determillismo gllostico all'universale restaurazione escatologica, in Pagalli e
cristiani alla ricerca della salvezza. Affi deI XXXIV Incontro di Studiosi dell'Alltichità
Cristiana, Rome 5-7.v.2005 (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 96), Rome, Augustinia-
num, 2006, 661-688.
25. See RAMELLI, La coerenza (n. 24), and G. BOYS-STONES, Middle Pla/ollism 011 Fate
alld Human Au/ollomy, in R. SORABn - R.W. SHARPLES (eds.), Greek alld Roman
Philosophy 100 Bc-200 AD, London, Institute of Classical Studies, 2007, 431-447. AIso:
A. LE BOULLUEC, La place de la polémique antignostique dalls le Peri ArchôlI, in
H. CROUZEL (ed.), Origelliana (Quademi di Vetera Christianorum, 12), Bari, Università di
Bari, 1975,47-61; A. DIHLE, Die Vors/elhmg philosophischer Lehrell l'om Schicksals und
Freiheit in der Friihchristlichen Theologie, in Jahrbuch fiir Antike und Christentum 30
(1987) 14-28; H. CROUZEL, Theological COllst/'llction alld Research: Origell on Freewill,
in B. DREWERY - R. BAUCKHAM (eds.), Scripture, Tradition alld Reasoll, Edinburgh,
T&T Clark, 1988, 239-265; E. NORELLI, Mm'cione e gli gllostici sullibero arbi/rio e la
polemica di Origelle, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Il cuore il/durito deI Faraone, Origene e il
problema dellibero arbi/rio, Genoa, Marietti, 1992, 1-30; J. Rms CAMPS, Orfgenesjrellte
al desaffo de los gllosticos, in R.J. DALY (ed.), Origelliana Quillta: Historica, Text and
Met/lOd, Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica, Origenislll alld Later Developlllell/s (BETL,
105), Leuven, University Press - Peeters, 1992, 57-78; H.S. BENJAMINS, Eingeordllete
Frei/leit: Freiheit und Vorselllmg bei Origenes, Leiden, Brill, 1994.
26. See KA. CLARK, The Origenistic Controversy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University
Press, 1992, pp. 195-196.
ORIGEN'S DOCTRINE OF APOKATASTASIS 659
l think that the doctrine of human free will was at the basis of Origen' s
theory of apokatastasis, as is evident in Book III of Prin. Here he begins
by contrasting the Valentinian27 deterministic theory of the threefold divi-
sion of humanity into "fleshly," "psychic," and "spiritual" persons,
destined respectively to damnation, an inferior salvation, and pelfect sal-
vation. Then he contends that the Bible supports the doctrine of free will
everywhere, and he explains away such difficult passages as the harden-
ing of Pharaoh's he art by invoking God's pedagogical strategy and the
conciliation of Providence and free will. He also criticises the Gnostic
and Marcionite distinction between the Old and New Testament and
between justice and goodness in GOd28 . On this basis he can put forward
27. Rather than "Gnostic" tout court. Of course, when speaking of "Gnosticism", it
is always necessary to be aware of the often puzzling complexity of tbis category. See
K. KING, What ls Gnosticislll?, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2003;
1. RAMELLI, review of King's book, Illvigilata Lucemis 25 (2003) 331-334; EAD., Gnos-
ticislllO, in A. Dr BERARDINO (ed.), Nuovo Diziollario Pa/ristico e di Antichità Cristialle,
Genoa, Marietti, 2007, vol. II, 2364-2380; new English edition forthcoming in Cam-
bridge; Z. PLESE, Gllostic Literature, in R. HrRscH-LuIPOLD - H. GORGEMANNS - M. VON
ALBRECHT (eds.), Religiose Philosophie und philosophische Religioll derfriihen Kaiserzeit,
Tübingen, Mohr, 2009, 163-198, who objects to a total deconstruction of the Gnostic
category. 1. DUNDERBERG, Beyond Gllosticism, New York, Columbia University, 2008,
builds upon Williams' and King's arguments and regards the term "Gnostic" as mislead-
ing in particular for Valentinianism, on wbich he focuses.
28. Outside Book III of Prill, other important passages conceming Origen's polemic
against Marcionites and Gnostics are, e.g.: CRIIl VIII.7.85-89 [1 refer to the tbree-volume
edition by C. llAMMOND BAMMEL, Der Romerbriefkomlllelltar des Origelles, Freiburg,
Herder, 1990-1998; the Roman numbers will refer to the book, the Arabie numbers to the
chapters and the lines indicated in this edition; the double numeration, with a second
chapter-number in parenthesis, is also taken from Hammond Bammel's edition]: Multo
melius est lion sapere quam male sapere. NOIl illquam tibi uidetur quod Marcion, qui
aduersum crea/orem Deum blasfema scripta composui/, uel Basilides l'el Ualelltinus uel
ceteri auctores prauorum dogmatulll beati fuissellt si mt/los quibus male sapuerullt cO/'dis
oculos habuissellt?; IV.7.49-51: Simul autem et illud ostellditur quod haereticis nOIl pla-
cet: quia Deus cui credidit Abraham et fidem eius ad iustitiam reputauit ipse est qui et
Domillllln Iesum resuscitauit a mortuis, lIec relillquitur locus ut alhls Deus legis alhls
Domini Iesu Christi Pater illtellegatur; similarly in V.6.1ff.: ex his apostoli uerbis
Marcion et ceteri haeretici occasiollem capere uiderentur tamquam haec fuerit causa
datae legis ut peccatum, quod alite legelll 11011 fuerat, abundaret; in II.9(12-13).460ff.
Origen rebukes Marcion et ollmes haeretici qui Uetus Testamelltum repudiallt ulla cum
gelltilibus, also because Marcion does not accept the allegorical interpretation of the Bible:
Marcioll salle cui pel' allegoriam ni/lil placet illtelligi. The same occurs in III.8(11).1O-19:
Saluator in euallgeliis dicit quia 'Moses de me scripsit'. Qui aga 11011 credit Christo de
quo Moses scripsit ill lege destruit legem .. , Nam Marcioll, qui alium dicit Deum legis,
alhl/Il Patrem Christi ... destruit legem. Hoc et Hebioll facit et O/llIleS qui ill fide catholica
aliquid corruptiollis illterSe/'llllt.
In the same way, Origen opposes Gnostic and Marcionite dualism in CRm IV.12.6-8:
11011 esse aliquam sl/bstalltiam quae secl/lldl/Ill defillitiollem Marciollis I/el Ualentilli natl/-
raliter inimica sit Deo, where the same point against the Valentinian and Basilidean divi-
sion of humanity into tbree natures as in Prin III (see end of note) is made: Nescio ql/o-
 660 I.L.E. RAMELLI
the doctrine of apokatastasis of ail rational creatures after their purifica-
tion and instruction, as the victory not only of divine justice, but also of
divine goodness. It is precise1y with this doctrine thathe concludes this
coherent book, made of a complete argument, which significantly begins
with the polemic against the opponents of the doctrine of human freewill
to end up with the apokatastasis. Book III of Prin offers a veritable
"archaeological" reconstruction of the theoretical genesis of Origen's
argument for the apokatastasis, which detracts nothing from each human
being's free will, but is grounded in its defence against predestination-
ism29 •
That the theoretical basis, rooted in theodicy, of Origen's doctrine of
apokatastasis is his defence of human free will and of the coexistence of
justice and goodness in God was well perceived by Rufinus, who in Apol.
c. Hier., II.l2 remarked that the supporters of apokatastasis, especiaUy
Origen, aimed at Dei iustitiam defendere et respondere contra eos qui
vel fato vel casu cuncta moveri dicunt ... Dei iustitiam defendere cupi-
entes ... bonae illi et incommutabili ac simplici naturae Trinitatis con-
venire ut omnem creaturam suam in fine omnium restituat in hoc quod
ex initio creata est et post longa et spatiis saeculorum exaequata sup-
plicia finem statuat aliquando poenarum. The theoretical motive of the
apokatastasis, according to Rufinus, who weU knew Origen's Prin, is the
defence of human free will and both God's goodness and God's justice
against determinism - i.e., it is theodicy.
III. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION OF ORIGEN'S
DOCTRINE OF APOKATASTASIS
The apokatastasis in Origen's thought does not follow from a meta-
physical or cosmological necessity, as it would be the case if this doctrine
modo hi qui de schola Ualentini vel Basilidis ueniunt, haec ita a Paulo dicta non
audientes, putent esse naturam animarum quae semper salua sit et numql/am pereat et
aliam ql/ae semper pereat et numql/am saluetur, cum aperte Paulus dicat fractos esse
ramos bOllae oliuae pl'optel' incredulitatem suam ... et l'ul'sum oleastl'i ramos, ql/ae apud
iIlos natura perdita pOl/itur, il/sertos esse radici pinguedinis oliuae ... Unam esse naturam
omnium hominum, immo omnium rationabilium, dicimus, et ad salutem aeqllaliter abilem
et ad perditionem ... omnium rationabilillm Ul/a natura sit, arbitl'ÎÎ proprÎÎ aequaliter
libel'tate donata. The same critique is addressed to the Gnostie theory in lIA. 138-140:
excludantur hael'etici qui dicunt bOllas uel malas animamm natul'as, et al/diant quia nOIl
pro l/atura unicuique Deus sed pro opel'ibus suis reddit. The same polemie against the
Valentinian division of natures is earried on in Prin lII.6.6 and 1.8.2; cf. 1.5.7. Also,
polemies against Mareion's alterations of Seripture are present in CRm XA3.7-13.
29. Full demonstration in RAMELLI, La coerenza (n. 24), pp. 661-688.
ORIGEN'S DOCTRINE OF APOKATASTASIS 661
reaUy depended on pagan philosophy, such as Stoicism or Platonism, for,
on the contrary, Origen opposes the Stoic conception of an infinite series
of identical aeons. For him, the apokatastasis primarily depends on
Christ's incarnation, sacrifice, and resurrection.
Let me briefly substantiate my claim that Origen does not depend on
Stoicism. In Stoic cosmology, àrcoKU't'UCHUO'lÇ indicates the periodical
return of a cosmic cycle (SVF II.599; 625); for the Stoics, the ut&vsç
are always identical to each other, or almost identicaPO, with the same
events, the same people, and the same behaviours, without end; each of
them ends with a periodical conflagration in which everything returns to
fire / ether / Logos, from which it will expand itself again into a new
world. Now, the Stoic aeons are very differently conceived from those of
Origen, who criticised the Stoic notion of apokatastasis - already attacked
by Tatian in Or. ad Gr., 6 - in that he thought 1) that the series of aeons
will not at aU be infinite, but will have an end with the apokatastasis
itse1f; 2) that the aeons will not be identical to one another, with persons
acting in the same way every time, but will be the theatre of the rational
creatures' progress. For example, in CC IV.12; IV.67-68, Origen criti-
cises the Stoic theory in that it denies human free will; in V.20 the Stoic
doctrine of cyclical worlds is also ascribed to Platonists and Pythagore-
ans; in Prin II.3.4 the Stoic notion of apokatastasis is again accused of
denying human free will and resp onsibility , and in 3.5 the end of aU
aeons is affirmed, coinciding with the apokatastasis, "when aU will be
no more in an aeon, but God will be 'aU in aU "'. In 3.1 Origen ah'eady
envisaged "a stage in which there will be no aeon any more", just like
in CIo XIII.3: after "life ulcOvwç", which will be in the next aeon, in
Christ, there will come the apokatastasis, in which aU will be in the
Father and God will be all in aU. Similarly, in SelPs 60 after the sojourn
in the aeons there cornes the dwelling, not only in the Son, but also in
the Father, or better in the Holy Trinity, which is the apokatastasis; this
idea corresponds to what is expressed also in CIo X.39 and III.1O.3. In
HEx 6.13, too, Origen foresees the end of aeons 31 •
30. See J. BARNES, La doctrine du l'etou/' éte1'llel, in J. BRUNSCHWIG (ed.), Les Stoïciens
et leur logique, Paris, Vrin, 1978,3-20, pp. 9-12; A. LONG, The Stoics on World-Confla-
gration and Everlasting Recurrence, in Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 suppl. (1985)
13-38, pp. 26-31; J.-B. GOURINAT, Éternel retour et temps périodique dans la philosophie
stoïcienne, in Revue philosophique de la France et de l'étranger 127 (2002) 213-227;
ID., L'éternel retour: Nietzsche et les Grecs, in M. LEQUAN (ed.), Philosophie allemande
et philosophie antique = Cahiers philosophiques de Strasbourg 11 (2007) 125-144;
1. RAMELLI, Le origini della filosofia: greche 0 barbare? L' enigmatico mito deI Boristenitico
di Dione, in Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica 99 (2007) 185-214.
31. See analysis in my Gregorio di Nissa (n. 14), first Integrative Essay.
662 I.L.E. RAMELLI
Origen's doctrine of the succession of utww:ç, the end of aIl UtWVEÇ,
and apokatastasis (see, e.g., Prin ill.3.5, CIo XIII.3; SelPs 60)~2 does not
deny, but rather emphasises, the uniqueness and etemal value of Christ's
sacrifice 33 . This is evident especiaIly from Orat 27,15, where Origen
relies on Heb 9,26 and Eph 2,7 to daim that there will be an end to the
aeons and that Clu'ist's sacrifice was made once and for aIl. These aeons
display God's grace because they point to one end, the eventual apoka-
tastasis of aIl, attained not by necessity, but by aIl rational creatures'
voluntmy adhesion to the Good, and thanks to God's grace and to Cluist's
work. After it, there will be no more UiWVEÇ, but the àïotO'LllÇ of apoka-
tastasis, characterised by unity, àyarcll, and ~Mcocnç. From the analysis
of Origen's conception of the aeons and of his vocabulmy of utmvwç
and àtoWç34 it emerges that Origen indeed he1d an essentiaIly 'ethica1'35
rather than cosmological conception of the sequence of UiWVEÇ, which
will cease in the àïotO'LllÇ of apokatastasis: theu' succession is govemed,
not by necessity, but by the rational creatures' free will. This is pedectly
consistent with what 1 have argued beforehand, namely, that the apoka-
tastasis doctrine was maintained by Origen against Gnostic pre(,iestina-
tionism 36 . This aeon must pass away, because there is much evil therein,
which has to be purified by divine fire, and the state and duration of aIl
aeons depends on the free moral actions of the rational creatures, who,
at the end of each uimv, survive in that they are intelligible entities, and
their condition in the subsequent UiWVEÇ is determined by their free
choices in the past. Origen's notion is Oliginal vis-à-vis the Stoic theOl'y,
but also vis-à-vis Platonic and Pythagorean cosmologies, which too
entailed conflagrations and periodical catadysms. In Origen's view, the
aeons are the theatre in which the logikoi exercise their free will and bear
the relevant consequences, but when aIl have been purified and have
attained the knowledge of the Good, who is God, aIl will volun~arily
adhere to it, as Gregory too will maintain. This view is vely far from the
Stoic endless repetition of UtWVEÇ, each of which is govemed by neces-
32. Also HEx 6.13. See the essay on apokatastasis in Origen and Gregory in my
Gregorio di Nissa (n. 14).
33. See 1. RAMELLl, The Universal and Eternal Validity of Jesus' High-Priestly Sacri-
fice, in R. BAUCKHAM, et al. (eds.), A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in
Its Ancient Contexts, London, T&T Clark, 2008, 210-221.
34. Which 1 have conducted in Termsfor Etemity, in collaboration with D. KONSTAN,
Piscataway, NI, Gorgias, 2007; new edition 2011.
35. 1 use the expression of P. TZAMALIKOS, Origen: Cosmology and Ontology ofTime,
Leiden, Brill, 2006, pp. 272-309.
36. See my La coerenza (n. 24) and E. PRINZIVALLl (ed.), Il commento a Giovanni di
Origene, Verrucchio, Pazzini, 2005, introd.
ORlGEN'S DOCTRINE OF APOKATASTASIS 663
sity. Origen explicitly contests such a vision of 'LE1'uYIlÉvut àVUKUKÀi]-
O'EtÇ that should occur Èç àvaYKllç; in this perspective, he observes,
Jesus should dweIl on earth many times and do the same things, not
ürcuç, but KU'Là rcEptOoOUç (CC IV.67-68). Origen's UiWVEÇ37 are not in
the least a repetition of identical cycles, nor does theu' sequence continue
indefinitely, but it will come to an end with the apokatastasis. This radi-
cal difference is given by Origen's asseltion of aIl rational creatures' free
will and the centrality of Christ's role for the apokatastasis.
Indeed, Oligen ascribes to Clu'ist a crucial function in the apokatasta-
sis, as 1 think should be stressed38 . As 1 endeavoured to demonstrate39 ,
Origen insists on the univers al and etemal validity of Jesus's sacrifice,
perfonned when he offered himself as a victim. That his sacdfice had a
universal effectiveness is pointed out in CIo I.35.255, where Odgen
states that Jesus, as a great high-priest, offered himself in sacrifice once
and for aIl, "not only for the sake of human beings, but also for aIl
rational creatures". He relies on Heb 2,9, both variant readings of which
support the apokatastasis: xaptn 0wo urcf;P rcuv'Làç ÈyEUO'UW 3uva-
'LOU, and xCOptç 0wo urcf;P rcuv'Làç ÈyEUO'UW 3uva'Lou. Odgen con-
cludes that, if Christ experienced death for the sake of aIl (apart from
God), he died not only for aIl human beings, but also for aIl rational
creatures. Aiso in CC III.49 Origen describes Jesus Christ as the saviour
and propitiatory offering for definitely aIl: O'co'Lilp rcav'Lcov àv3pmrccov
... KUt tÀuO'lloÇ ... où 1l0VOV of; rcEpt 'LWV TJIlE1'ÉpcoV [ullupnwv],
àÀÀà Kut rcEpt oÀou 'LOO KOO'Il0U (see also CC IV.28). The univers al
effectiveness of Christ's atonement is also proclaimed by Origen, very
consistently, in CRm III.4(7).163-166 and ill.5(8).1O-11: Detinebatur
ergo apud hostes humani generis captiuitas peccato tamquam bello
superata; uenit Filius Dei qui factus est nobis non solum Sapientia a Deo
et iustitia et sanctificatio, sed et redemptio, et semet ipsum dedit redemp-
tionem, id est semet ipsum hostibus tradidit ... pro omni genere humano
redemptionem semet ipsum dedisset, ut eos qui in peccatorum captiuitate
37. Cf. 1. EsCRIBANO-ALBERCA, Zum zyklischen Zeitbegriff der alexandrinischen und
kappadokischen Theologie, in Stl/dia Patristica 11 (1972) 42-5.1. On Grego~y's con~epti~n
of time also B. Ons, Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadoclan ConceptIon of Tlme, In
Stl/dia Patristica 14 (1976) 327-357; A. SPIRA, Le temps d'un homme selon Aristote et
Grégoire de Nysse, in Le temps chrétien, Paris, CNR, 1984, 283-294.
38. See S. FERNÂNDEZ EYZAGUIRRE, El carGcter cristol6gico de la bienaventuranza
final, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition
(BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 641-648; P. TZAMALIKOS, Origen: Ph~/osophy of
Histo/y and Esclwtology, Leiden, Brill, 2007, pp. 65-116; RAMELLI, The Ulllversai and
Etemal Validity (n. 33); EAD., La dottrina dell'apocatastasi eredit~ ori?enial/~ nel pen-
siero escatologico dei Nisseno, in EAD., Gregorio di Nissa (n. 14), fIrst mtegratlve essay.
39. Especially in The Universal and Etemal Validity (n. 33).
 664 I.L.E. RAMELLI
tenebantur redimeret, dum sine Deo pro omnibus mortem gustat4°. This
as for the assertion of the universality of the effects of Jesus's s~crifice.
As for its eternal validity, this is argued by Origen on the basis of the
statement in Hebrews that Jesus's high priesthood is eternal, as opposed
to the Jewish yearly high priesthood41 . Now, since Christ's priesthood is
eternal, he didn't need to repeat his sacrifice: the uniqueness of his sac-
rifice, proclaimed by Origen in Fr/ob 387.14 (a:n:aç yayovsv ô O'''Caupaç),
is emphasised by him in several passages and contrasted with the plural-
ity of aeons. This is why Christ's sacrifice can provide the àïota"C1'Jç of
the apokatastasis, beyond aH aeons, when aIl plurallty will be brought to
unity. The power of Jesus's sacrifice is such that it is able to bring about
salvation for aIl atéOvsç and aIl rational creatures. By way of example,
1 add one significant text, CRm V.1O.187-195, from which it is clear that
Origen has the univers al and eternal apokatastasis depend on Christ, and
in particular on his sacrifice: "1 do not deny in the least that the rational
nature will always maintain its free will, but 1 declare that the power and
effectiveness of Christ's cross and of this death of his, which he under-
went at the end of aeons, are so great as to be enough to set right and
save, not only the present and the future aeon, but also aIl the past ones,
and not only this order of us humans, but also the heavenly orders and
powers. For, according to what the apostle Paul himself said, Christ, with
the blood of his Cross, pacified not only the beings who are on earth, but
also those who are in heaven,,42.
It is Christ who pacifies both humans and angels with God, as Origen
repeats in CRm X.9.12-14 pacificauit pel' sanguinem cl'ucis suae non
solum quae in terra sunt, sed etiam quae in caelis. For the apokatastasis,
designated by means of the 1Cor 15,28 formula, will be the unity of
aIl rational creatures in God, achieved thanks to Christ: tel'restl'ium et
caelestium fiat un us grex et unus pastor et sit Deus omnia in omnibus
(CRm VII.2(4).182-184)43. Indeed, the apokatastasis is repeatedly pre-
40. See Heb 2,9 and above for this variant reading.
41. In Heb 9,12 the uniqueness of Christ's sacrifice, which occurred È<jJû,1taS, is con-
nected to the etemity of its effectiveness (atrov[av Àu.procrtv)j in Heb 9-10 it is stressed
in opposition to the iteration of the Hebrew high priests' sacrifices, repeated every year.
42. Manere quidem naturae rationabili semper liberum arbitrium non negamus, sed
tantall! esse uim cl1lcis Christi et mortis huius, quam in saeculorumfinem suscepit, asseri-
mus, quae ad sanitatem et remedium non solum praesellfis et futuri, sed etiam praeterito-
I1Im saeculol1llll, et non solum humano Judc nostro ordini, sed etialll caelestibus uirtutibus
ordinibusqlle sufficiat. Secundum sententialllnamque ipsius Pallli apostoli, Christus paci-
ficauit pel' sanguinem crucis suae non solum quae in terra sunt, sed et quae in caelis.
43. See also: Reconciliauit utrosque in ZIIIO cO/pore Deo pel' crucem, et quod intelfe-
cit inimicitiam in cruce ... mors eius mortem inimicitiae dedit ei quae erat intel' /lOS et
Deum ... morte sua peccato ipsi intulerit mortem (CRm IV.12.55-78)j Affuit ergo Jesus
ORIGEN'S DOCfRINE OF APOKATASTASIS 665
sented by Origen as univers al submission to Christ, especiaIly in connec-
tion with the exegesis of Phil 2,10 and 1Cor 15,25-28. For instance, in
SelPs 41, the submission of aH rational creatures to Christ is related to
Paul's prediction that every knee will bend before Christ. In turn, in
SelPs 36, commenting on Ps 36,7, Origen44 observes that this submission
must be understood as the eviction of evil in every sinner, which is per-
fectly consistent with Origen's repeated exegesis of the eventual univer-
saI submission to Christ as univers al salvation45 . That the main agent of
the eviction of evil at the time of the univers al submission to God is
Christ is also clarified in CIo 1.32, in reference to the exegesis of 1Cor
15,25-28. Thanks to Cln'ist's work, "evil will be l'emoved from the en tire
world" and "not even the tiniest sin will subsist under the reign of the
Father, and the saying will be fulfilled that 'God will be aIl in aIl"'.
By means of his own death and resurrection Christ, through the afore-
mentioned eviction of evil, has already destroyed the kingdom of death;
death itself will be destroyed at the end, as the last enemy, as it is again
revealed in 1Cor 15,26 (CRm V.1.560-572). With his death Christ
destl'uxit eum qui habebat mOl·tis imperium, id est diabolum, ut liberaret
eos qui tenebantur a morte. From its dependence on the devil it is clear
that this death, from which Christ liberates the dead, is primarily spiritual
death. This is why Christus adytum iustificationis aperuit pel' quem vita
ingl'edel'etur ad homines, et ideo dicebat de semet ipso: Ego sum ostium
(CRm V.4.6-8). Origen also insists on Rom 5,18, which points to univer-
saI salvation, and underlines that this salvation passes through Clni.st: pel'
unius iustitiam, pel' unius oboedientiam: pel' oboedientiam Christi iusti-
ficatio, et pel' iustificationem uita (CRm V.1.77-8246 ; V.2.47-48 47), Christ
who was moved to his sacrifice not by necessity, but sola miseratione
(CRm V.2.54-55). In CC Vill.72, too, Origen declares that it is Christ-
Logos who deterrnines the apokatastasis, which is made possible by the
Christus filius Dei, et in quo lex infirmabatur pel' camem Deus, filium suum mittens in
similitudine camis peccati, de peccato damnauit peccatl/m in came, et IIlzlIldum quidem
reconcilial/it Deo, exuit autem principatus et potestates tyralllzi, triumfans eas in semet
ipso (V.1.501-505).
44. Of course the Selecta in Psalmos are of dubious authenticity and must be evaluated
critically, but the thought expressed here is fully Origenian.
45. See analysis in my Christian Soteriology.
46. 'Sicut pel' zlIIius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, ita et pel' unius
iustitiam in O/llIleS homines ad iustificatiollem uitae'. Et ut euidentius ostenderet Olllfles
homines et mulfos Izomines idem esse, addidit his: 'Sicut enilll pel' inoboedientiam unius
hominis peccatores constituti SZlIIt mulfi, ita et pel' zlIIius oboedientiam iusti constituentur
mulfi'.
47. Pel' oboedientiam uero Christi iustificatio et pel' iustificationem uita multo magis
in phl/'es abzllldauit.
 666 I.L.E. RAMELLI
complete elimination of evil: "The Logos is more powelful than any
illness that may exist in the souls: he applies to everyone the necessary
therapy, according to God's will, and the end (''CÉÂ-oç;) of aIl will consist
in the elimination of evil". It is Christ-Logos, in that he also created aIl
creatures, that will be able to heal aIl of them from the illness of evil:
"Nothing is impossible for the Omnipotent; no being is incurable for the
One who created it" (Prin III.6.5: here Origen was "correcting" Plato's
statement in Gorg. 525C2 that sorne souls are àvia:wl in that they are
too deeply contaminated by evil deeds (àolKT]!-lU'm) and thus cannot be
purified and healed by suffering, which in their case tums out to be only
retributive, and cannot retum to the contemplation of the Ideas).
From tbis, and from many other elements, wbich l have systematically
pointed out elsewhere, it emerges that Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis
primarily rests on Chrisr8 • In CRm IV.7.29-32 Origen particularly insists on
the importance of Christ's resunection to tbis end: Ego pro paruitate sensus
mei illud aduerto quod multo sit magnificentius in lalldibus Dei resllscitasse
Iesum Dominum nostrum a mortuis quamfecisse caelllm et terram, creasse
angelos, et caelestes condidisse uirtutes. In Prin II.6.1-2 Origen also insists
on the impOItance and wonder of Clu'ist's incarnation, death, and resunec-
tion, and the link between Christ's incarnation and human salvation is weIl
expressed by him in Dial 7: "humanity would not have been wholly saved
if Christ had not taken up humanity in its entirety" (OÙK av of: ÔÂ-oç;
av3proTCoÇ; ÈO'c0311 Et !-l'Il ôÂ-ov "Càv av3proTCov àVElÂ-T]<j)El). It is Cluist-
Logos who works in view, of "the restoration of the world and the renovation
of the whole creation, wbich was restored through the resurrection of the
Lord" (CRm IV.7.3). This univers al restoration performed by Christ-Logos
is described by Origen ibid. IIA.5 as the "CÉÂ-oç; consisting in the "conversion
to God and the transformation of the entire world". The same "CÉÂ-oç; in CC
IV.99 is described as "the retum of the whole universe to God", ÈTCtO"'CpÉ<j)Etv
"Cà ôÂ-ov npàç; suu"C()V ("Càv 3EOV).
The apokatastasis entails a 3ÉroO'lç; whlch passes tlu'ough Clnist-Logos
and only tlu'ough him. Origen indeed designated the apokatastasis as
3ÉroO'lç;, for example in Grat 27.13 (3EOTCot113éO!-lEv) and in CMt XVII. 32
(3EOnol1131lvut); as communion with the divine (iJ npàç; "Cà 3EtOV
48. 1 have demonstrated this especially in Gregorio di Nissa (n. 14), first integrative
essay. See also FERNÂNDEZ EYZAGUIRRE, El carâcter cristol6gico (n. 38). TZAMALIKOS,
Origen: Philosophy of Histol)' (n. 38), pp. 65-116, underlines the centrality of Christ to
Origen's philosophy of history. The importance of Jesus in salvation according to Origen
is also emphasised by A.E. JOHNSON, In the Name of Jesus: Consequences of Preaching
in Origen's Homilies on Joshua, in J. BAUN -A. CAMERON -M. EDWARDS - M. VINZENT
(eds.), Studia Patristica XLVI, Leuven, Peeters, 2010, 223-228.
ORIGEN'S DOCTRINE OF APOKATASTASIS 667
KOlVroviu) in CC III.80, and as "becoming God" (yiYVE0'3at 3EOV) in
SelPs 23. Above aIl, in EM 25 Oligen makes it clear that it is Christ-
Logos who operates the eventual "deification"49: "Cotç; vTCà wu
Aayou
.9EOTCol11 3dO'l.
The dependence of the final apokatastasis on Christ in Oligen's thought
is particularly evident from CIo XXXII.26-39, where Origen argues on
the basis of a whole series of Scriptural quotations. He stmts from John
13,3, according to whom "the Father remitted aIl into the hands" of
Jesus. Origen paraIlels thls with other Biblical passages, especiaIly with
Ps 109,1 (in tum related to lCor 15,24-28), in whlch God guarantees to
Clu'ist that he will put his enemies as a stool under bis feet, from whlch
Origen deduces that the Father will hand also the enemies to Clu·ist. The
second main Scriptural passage that Origen cites in SUppOIt of his thesis,
in chapters 26-27, is lCor 15,22: "As ail die in Adam, so will al! be
vivified in Christ". Origen interprets tbis statement in the sense that aIl
rational creatures who died the death of sin will be vivified by Clu'ist,
evidently thanks to their liberation from sin. He ideaIly relates this pas-
sage to Rom 5,18-19, announcing the univers al justification (OlKUlOO'\)Vll)
brought about by Clu'ist in contrast to the univers al sinfulness introduced
by Adam. The Christocentrism of Origen's conception of the apokatas-
tasis is patent. Against Valentinianism and its theory of predestination
according to tlu'ee <j)UO'ElÇ;, Origen holds fast to the notion of the retribu-
tion of merits for each one, basing himself on the immediate continuation
of Paul's passage: "each being in its own order / place". And when
Oligen goes on to say that Cluist will hand the Kingdom to the Father
after the destruction of every hostile power, up to the annihilation of the
last enemy, death (chapters 30-31), he has no other source than Paul in
lCor 15,24-26, an eschatological prophecy ending with v. 28, whlch was
very dear to Origen: 6 0Eàç; "Cà mxv"Cu Èv nom. In chapters 32-34 Origen
insists on the submission to Christ-Logos even on the pmt of the devil,
who is identified with the subject of Job 15,25: "he raised his neck
before the Omnipotent Lord". In chapter 35 Origen meditates on the total
restoration of creatures to God, achieved thanks to Christ-Logos. For the
Logos, tlu'ough its Ènuv3pcOTCllO'tÇ;, detached itselffrom God for the sake
of those creatures who had detached themselves from God, that they
49. For the "deification" as depending on Christ-Logos who performs both an illumi-
nation of the minds and the unification of multiplicity see my Cristo-Logos in Origene:
ascendenze filoniane, passaggi in Bardesane e Clemente, e negazione dei subordinazion-
ismo, in A. VALVO - R. RADIeE (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference Dai
Logos dei Greci e dei Romani al Logos di Dio. Ricordando Marta SOI'di, Milan, Catholic
University of the Sacred Heart, 11-13 November 2009: Milan, Vita e Pensiero, 2011.
668 I.L.E. RAMELLI
might return into God's hands, through Jesus, "because, following Jesus,
they will find themselves in God". The apokatastasis passes through
Christ because the submission-salvation of all creatures passes through
Christ: "Just as the submission of the Son to the Father means the pelfect
restoration of the whole of creation, so do es the enemies' submission to
the Son mean the salvation, in the Son, of those subjected and the resto-
ration of those who were lost" (Prin m.5.7). The same dependence of
the eventual submission-salvation-restoration on Christ is asserted by
Origen in CRm IXA1.8: "But when he has handed the Kingdom to
God the Father, that is, once he has presented to God as an offer ail those
who have converted and refol'med, and when he has wholly pelfol'med
the mystery of the reconciliation of the wOl'ld, then they will be in the
presence of God, that God's word may be fulfilled: "Because 1 live - the
Lord says - every knee will bend before Me, every tongue will glorify
God". Just because the submission to Christ will be voluntary and will
be the salvation of those who will submit, the restoration performed by
Christ will have as a result that all creatures will joyously praise the Lord.
For it is Jesus' s sacrifice and resurrection, prefigured by Isaac' s sacrifice,
that brings about the apokatastasis according to Origen: Gaudens unicum
offerebat quia in eum non interitum postel'itatis sed reparationem mundi et
innouationem totius creaturae quae pel' resul'rectionem Domini l'estituta est
cogitabat (CRm IV.7Al-43). It is Jesus's resunection that makes the resti-
tutio, i.e. the apokatastasis, of every creature and of all the world possible.
The Latin translation restituta est surely renders a Greek form of
à1toKuS1.cr~rll!t, and even reparatio mundi probably conesponds to à1tOKU-
'tucr'tuO't<; 'tou Kocrll0\). Every creature will be renovated, c1early not only
through the physical resunection, but also through a spiritual resurrection,
that is, complete liberation from evil and restitution to its original state,
before evil entered the world. AlI this, according to Origen, will occur only
thanks to Jesus's sacrifice and resunection, which took place for our justi-
fication, as is stated ibid. 100-103: resurrexit propter iustificationem nos-
tram ... surrexit nobis Christus ad iustificationem nostram. It is Christ's
sacrifice first of aIl that produces our salvation: Ab ira uentura etiam si
fides nostra nos saluet, etiam si opera iustitiae, super haec tamen omnia
multo magis sanguis Christi saluos nosfaciet (CRm IV.11.73-75).
That the apokatastasis relies on Christ's incarnation, death, and resur-
rection is very c1early emphasised by Origen: Unigenitus Filius Dei pro
salute humani generis inca1'11atus et passus sit et morte sua destruxerit
mortem et resurrectione reddiderit uitam. Christ defeats not only death,
but also the devil as the holder of the power of death, which is evil
(CRm V.3.65-70), with which Origen makes it c1ear that it is again pre-
cisely Christ who prepares the main premise for the apokatastasis, i.e.,
ORIGEN'S DOCfRINE OF APOKATASTASIS 669
the annihilation of evil and death. Drawing inspiration from Eph 2,14-15,
in CRm IV.8AO-44 Origen states: Christus aduenit ut inimicitias solueret
et pacemfaceret ac dissidentes nos propter saepem malitiae, quam pec-
cando texuimus, reconciliaret Deo, peccati saepe resoluta. Fol' it is only
through Christ that sin is abolished (CRm VI.12.64. 67. 70-76)50. Apoka-
tastasis is a result of Christ's sacrifice and God's Providence, whose l'ole
is emphasised in Prin 11.1.2; II.9.7; m.1.17; m.5.5.
Against aIl accusations of owing his apokatastasis theory to pagan phi-
losophySl, Origen thought that univers al salvation is made possible, not by
a metaphysical or cosmological necessity, but by Christ and divine Grace:
in Prin Ill. 1. 12 and 15 he c1aims that the culmination of beatitude is attained
by grace. And combining Eph 2,7 and Rom 6,23 in FrRm (from the Cate-
nae) 22.11, Origen proc1aims that eternallife is a gift from God, which does
not come from us. While retribution is commensurate to sins, blessed life
after purification is a gift from God and has no limit and no end. Gregory of
Nyssa will take up this crucial idea - just as much else in Origen's thought
- and will argue for it especially in his De Anima et Resurrectione52 •
IV. CONCLUSION: THE ApOKATASTASIS AS AN ANTI-HERETICAL
DOCTRINE IN ORIGEN AND NYSSEN
The doctrine of apokatastasis, far from being a sort of yielding to
"pagan philosophy", is definitely Christocentrical in Origen, just as in
Nyssen, and grounded in Scripture. Origen maintained it against Gnostic
predestinationism, and Gregory, in his In /llud: Tune et Ipse Filius,
against "At'ian" subordinationism53 . Indeed, both Origen and St Gregory
of Nyssa held the apokatastasis as an anti-heretical doctrine, respectively
50. Pro nobis omnibus tradidit ilium ... appartât innouissimis diebus ad destructionem
peccati [Hebr 9,26] ... damnauif peccatllm in came sua ut iustificatio legis impleatur in
nobis ... post hanc etenim hostiam carnis Christi quae oblata est pro peccato et dalllnauit
peccatlllll, hoc est fugauif ef abstulit, iustificatio legis impletur in nobis qui legelll seczm-
dum spiritlllll custodilllus. It is Christ that will be not only the judge, but also our advocate
and intercessor (CRIIl VII.8.14-19; 40-42). In CRIIl N.8.74-75 the Christological basis of
salvation and apokatastasis is again asserted: "Ego sum ostium et nelllo uenif ad Patroll
nisi pel' me",' pel' ipsulIl ergo quia OStizlllZ est accessulll lzabemus ad gratiam.
51. That Origen was Christian more than Platonist is pointed out by M.J. EDWARDS,
Origen against Plato, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2002, and TZAMALIKOS, Origen,' Philosoplzyof
Histo/y (n. 38). For the accusations e.g. CLARK, The Origenistic Controversy (n. 26);
E. PRINZlVALLI, Magister Ecclesiae, Rome, Augustinianum, 2002; W.A. BIENERT, Zur
Entstehz/Ilg des Allfiorigenismus, in PERRONE (ed.), Origenialla Octava (n. 38), 829-842.
52. See my commentary in Gregorio di Nissa (n. 14).
53. See essay on III Illud in my Gregorio di Nissa (n. 14) and S.R. BARMoN, The Work
of Jesus Christ and the Universal Apokatastasis, in E. MouTsoULAs (ed.), Jesus Christ in
St.GregOly of Nyssa's Theology, Athens, Eptalophos, 2005, 225-243.
 670 I.L.E. RAMELU
against Gnosticism and "Arianism", and endowed it with a strong Chris-
tological foundation.
As for Origen's maintaining it against Gnosticism, I have already dem-
onstrated this especiaIly on the basis of Prin III (see above, section ll).
Let me now just concisely explain the reason why I contend that Gregory
supported the doctrine of apokatastasis against "Arianism". In his In
/llud: Tune et Ipse Filius, Gregory's anti-subordinationism in the Trini-
tarian field is connected to the argument for the apokatastasis 54 . In this
short exegetical work, GregOly faces the problem of the eventual submis-
sion of the Son to the Father (lCor 15,28), and, deriving each argument
fl'Om Origen, as I extensively demonstrated elsewhere55 , he daims that
the Son's submission cannot be interpreted as a sign of inferiority or
slavery, as was contended by the "neo-Arians", but it indicates the sub-
mission of aIl humanity - the "body of Christ" - to God in the end, so
that God will be "aIl in aIl". Gregory thus bases his theory of apokatas-
tasis in his defence of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine against "Arian" sub-
ordinationism (whieh was already contrasted by Origen himself ante
litteram)56, just as Origen based it on his defence of orthodox Christian
doctrine against "Gnostic" predestinationism57 . For both of these Patris-
tic philosophers, the apokatastasis will really be "the gift of God",
through Jesus Christ, and "the victory of God"58.
Catholic University of the Sacred Hea~t llaria L.E. RAMELLI
Depattment of Philosophy
Largo A. Gemelli 1
I-20123 Milan
Italy
ilaria.ramelli@virgilio.it
ilaria.ramelli@unicatt.it
54. See 1. RAMELLI, The Trinitarian Theology of GregOl)' of Nyssa in his In Illud: Tunc
et ipse Filius: His Polemic against "Arian" Subordinationism and the Apokatastasis, in
International Congress on Trinitarian Theology in Gregory of Nyssa, Tübingen September
2008, Leiden, Brill, forthcoming.
55. "In Illud: Tunc et Ipse Filius": GregOly ofNyssa's Exegesis, Its Derivationsfrom
Origen, and Earl)' Patristic Interpretations Related to Origen's, in J. BAUN - A. CAMERON-
M. EDWARDS - M. VINZENT (eds.), Studia Patristica XliV, Leuven, Peeters, 2010, 259-
275.
56. See my The Trinitariall Theology, with thorough demonstration.
57. As argued by RAMELLI, La coerenza (n. 24).
58. 1 draw the former expression from Paul and Origen (XaplCij.lU 'Wu 0wu, 0wu 1:()
oropov), and the latter, felicitous expression from PIETRAS, L'escatologia (n. 9), p. 104, who
applies it to Gregory of Nyssa's doctrine of apokatastasis: "la vittoria di Dio sarà totale".
BIBLICAL AND METAPHYSICAL IN THE TEXTURE OF
ORlGEN'S WRITING (CIO II.175-192)
In order to trace how biblical and metaphysical strands interact in the
actual texture of Origen's writing in the Commentmy on John, I have
chosen a passage dealing with the soul of John the Baptist, which can serve
as weIl as any other to clarify the nature of Origen's style of thought and
expression1. To be sure, there are many discussions that are more immedi-
ately attractive, whether for the density of philosophical reference (e.g. the
discussion of arehê at CIo I.90-118, with its Aristotelian resonances) or for
their theologieal significance (e.g. the derivation of the divinity of the Logos
fl'Om his being "with God", at CIo ll.1-35). The passage I have chosen
tums on the question of the preexistence of the soul, which is central in the
Peri Arehôn, where it lays the basis of the cosmological and historie al
vision that enframes the entire exposition of Christian doctrine, but which
is marginal to the principal concems of the Commentmy on John. However
Origen's attention to this topic, whenever the scriptural text seems to sug-
gest it even vaguely and obscurely, reveals an interesting aspect of his
exegetical style and his way of thinking. It is one of the quasi-philosophical
topics that guide h:im in his interrogation of the biblical text. Such topies
may shed light on the text, but often they intl'Oduce a distortion of perspec-
tive, or betray the presence of a chronic tension between the reader of
Scripture and the speculative theologian, a tension that stimulates Origen's
thought and writing and that is variously resolved, sometimes more in
favour of speculative, philosophical desires, sometimes more in favour of
the biblical text that resists them. The desires just referred too indude not
only the desire for rational explanation or ultimate grounds, corresponding
to what Leibniz will cali the principle of sufficient reason, but also a desire
for a rieh fabric of relations knitting together the cosmos, corresponding to
a principle of plenitude that might also be seen as anticipating Leibniz.
The figure of the Baptist stimulates Origen's speculation about origins
- in partieular, the origin of souls 2 • A network of biblical cl'Oss-references
1. This essay supplements the reflections of my book (J.S. O'LEARY, Christianisme et
philosophie chez Origène, Paris, Cerf, 2011). 1 quote Origen from A. ROBERTS - J. DONALDSON
(eds.), Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IX. For the Greek text 1 use C. BLANC'S text, in Origène,
Commentaire sur saint Jean 1 (SC, 120bis), Paris, CeIf.
2. See J.T. LIENHARD, Origen's Speculation on John the Baptist, in R.J. DALY (ed.),
Origenialla QI/inta: Historica, Text and Metlwd, Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica,
 672 J.S.O'LEARY
links John with other personages whose pre-natal life is hinted at in
Scripture, such as Jacob and Esau, or who are angels vested in human
flesh, such as several of the Prophets (see CIo XIII.293), along with
Methusaleh and perhaps Abdias, according to Jerome3 • The identity of
angels and human souls is taught with only the slightest suggestion that
it is merely a hypothesis at CIo II.144-148. The discussion sends Origen
reaching after apocryphal lare and philosophical theories as weIl, in a
rich mélange of traditions, and thus fonns one of those passages which
are like busy switchboards, where different lines of thought become
entangled with unpredictable results. As with the later, more guarded,
discussions of the Baptist in the Homilies on Luke and Commentmy on
Matthew, the tapie is treated with a certain elusiveness, reflecting the
elusiveness of the gospel accounts of John's origins, notably in the puz-
zling references ta Elijah. The text commented is John 1,6: "There was
a man sent from God (napà 0EOU), whose name was John".
(175) He who is sent is sent from somewhere to somewhere, and the careful
student will, therefore, enquire (Çrp:i)aet) from what quarter (no~ev) John
was sent, and whither (nou). The "whither" is quite plain4 on the face of
the story (KŒ'tÙ llèV 't~v ta'topiŒv); he was sent to Israel, and to those who
were willing to hear him when he was staying in the wildemess of Judaea
and baptizing by the banks of the Jordan. According to the deeper sense
(KŒ'tÙ oè 'tov ~Œ~6'tepov Myov), however, he was sent into the world, the
world being understood as this earthly place ('tau neptyeiou 'tonou) where
men are; and the careful student will have this in view 5 in enquiring from
where John was sent (èçe'tuaet, n&ç Oel ÂŒIl~uvetv 'to «no~ev»). Exam-
ining the words more closely (~ŒaŒviÇ(üv 'ti]v ÂÉçtv), he will perhaps
dec1are that as it is written of Adam, (176) "And the Lord sent hirn forth
out of the Paradise of pleasure to till the earth (èpyuÇea~Œt 'ti]v Yllv), out
of which he was taken" (Gen 3,23), so also John was sent, either from
he aven or from Paradise, or from sorne other quarter to this place on the
eroth. He was sent that he might bear witness of the light (CIo TI).
Origenism and Later Developments (BETL, 105), Leuven, University Press - Peeters,
1992, 449-453.
3. See Jerome, Ep. 73.2; Y.-M. DuvAL, Vers l'In Malachiam d'Origène, in W.A. BIENERT-
U. KUHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des
4. Jahrhunderts (BETL, 137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999, 233-259. Jerome rejects Origen's
theory that Malachi was an angel: Quod nos olllnino non recipimus, ne animarum de caelo
ruinas suscipere compel/amur (In Mal., CCSL 76A, 902).
4. This translation misleadingly suggests that the deeper sense is contrasted with a
plainer literai sense, as does R.E. HEINE's translation (in Origen: Commentary on the
Gospel According to John, Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press,
1989). In fact the contrast is between the plainness of the whither and the obscurity of the
whence.
5. This is an addition of the translator; the Greek says, "The whither being plain ...
one will examine how the whence is to be taken".
BIBLICAL AND METAPHYSICAL IN CIO Il. 175-192 673
Focussing first on the word "sent", Origen notes that someone who is
sent is sent from one place to another, a remark which might seem use-
lessly obvious, and he insists that we need to ask about the whence and
whither, which might seem superfluous, since the gospel text tells us
plainly that John is sent from God to human beings, ta give witness. But
Origen takes napà 0EOU ta mean "by God" rather than "from God," so
that he can ask from where ta where Gad sent John. By such scholastic
grammatical teasing of the text, Origen generates a quaestio and sets up
a discussion. The scholastic procedure is far from the natural reasoning
of scriptural exegetes or from that guided by Rabbinic concerns. The
questions asked set up a great speculative to-do, taking the style of
philosophical speculation. Thus scholastic reasoning, though it conceives
itself to be penetrating the text rationally, in fact constructs a world of
thought at an angle away from the text. The logic of its questions takes
on a momentum of its own, which it becomes impossible to calI back to
its base in the original scope of the biblical text; on the contrary, the
scholastic insights are prized as superior to the inferior level of reasoning
found in the text.
Ta what extent is Origen's quizzing of the details of the text led by a
prior speculative motive - by a desire to make the text speak of angelic
and psychic pre-existence? Is his exegesis, at least in passages such as
this, less disinterested and relaxed than it looks? Is it proceeding on a
deliberate path toward a goal? It seems that Origen's speculative aims
are substantial, yet are pursued with a lack of insistence or emphasis, in
order that he can at the same time maintain a receptive attitude ta the text
and provide a demonstration of open-ended exegetical questioning to his
students.
It is clear where John is "sent". According to the literaI nal1'ative, he
is sent to the desert of Judaea and the Jordan. The precise reference to
places which Origen had no doubt seen with his own eyes during his
sojourn in Palestine in 216 anchors the commentary in gritty realia. But
immediately he conjoins with this literaI exegesis "a deeper account
(paSu'tEpoV !v6rov)": John is sent "into the world". Origen does not
immediately think of the subtle resonances of kosmos in John or of Pla-
tonist cosmology; rather "world" is defined as the earthly location where
humans dwell - a surprisingly flat account, especially since it is pre-
sented as the deeper sense. It seems to add little to the desert and the
Jordan as the literaI sense. However, the reference to the earth secretes a
possibly significant distinction between the entire physical universe and
the human world, and a possible reference also ta the distinction between
the human world and other worlds, such as those of angels, or the Para-
 674 J.S.O'LEARY
dise to which he will presently refer. The spaceof thought within which
such ruminations move is not one with which we are automatically famil-
iar, and often we may be surprised to discover that Origen's ideas of
humanity and cosmos are far indeed from our own. Indeed, if such
moments of surprise are lacking we are probably not meeting Origen at
aIl but merely seeing him through a veil of conventional pre-understand-
ing. To set up the dialectie of a Gadamerian "fusion of horizons" between
Origen's world and our own is difficult, for Origen's world is slow to
reveal its full breadth, its density of texture, its coherence, so as to acquire
the solidity to impact on us in its challenging othemess.
Since both the literaI and the deeper senses of the "whither" are clear,
Origen now tums to the "whence", an alluring topie for inquiry. Rather
than begin from the gospel controversy about whether John's authority
is from God (Mt 21,24-27 par; Jn 1,19-29), Origen will focus chiefly on
the Lukan infancy nanative, bringing in the topie of John's biIth, not
touched on in the FOUlth Gospel. Following his usual procedure, as he
scrutinizes the passage Origen introduces a biblical cross-reference, to
Gen 3,23. This is an extraordinary swerve, which seems completely arbi-
trary. John is no longer simply sent from God, but sent from one par-
ticular place to this earth, and the paradise presents itself as a likely
locality. The introduction of Gen 3,23 is implicitly justified by the fact
that both Adam and John are sent to "this earthly surface where humans
are" - the defillition of "the world" given above, which is now seen to
have been a preparation for this cross-reference (which is signaled by the
words added in the English translation, "the careful student will have this
in view in enquiring from where John was sent").
Origen often assimilates the earthly paradise with the place in whieh
the unfallen intelligences, the logikoi or noes residé; the transgression
of Adam then becomes symbolic of the fall from that realm into this
life, and the heavy corporeality represented by the "garments of skins"
(Gen 3,21). In tension with this Platonist vision a more historieal approach
to the biblical story makes the Paradise a real earthly place, an intermedi-
ary between the realm of unfallen noes and the present world. This para-
dise still exists, and is revisited by the soul on its way back to heaven.
Origen thinks of it above aIl as a place of mental joy, a great seminar in
whieh instruction on theology, cosmology and biology is generously dis-
pensed: "AlI the saints who depart from this life will remain in sorne
6. See P. PISI, Peccato di Adamo e cadl/to dei noes nell'esegesi origeniana, in L. LIES
(ed.), Origeniana QI/arta (Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck, Tyrolia,
1987, 322-335, p. 324.
BIBLICAL AND METAPHYSICAL IN CIO II.175-192 675
place situated on the earth, whieh holy Scripture calls paradise, as in
sorne place of instruction ... in which they are to be instructed regarding
aIl the things whieh they had seen on earth ... If any one indeed be pure
in heart, ... he will, by making more rapid progress, quickly ascend to a
place in the air, and reach the kingdom of heaven, through those man-
sions, so to speak, in the various places which the Greeks have telmed
spheres, ... in each of which he will fiI'st see clear'ly what is done there,
and in the second place, will discover the reason why things are so done"
(Prin n.ll.6). Paradise, for Origen, is a place where the double thirst of
the intelligence - according to the principle of reason and the principle
of plenitude - is fully satisfied; aIl the puzzles of earthly diversity are
solved by an exhibition of its reasons, and a stilll'Îcher field of enquiry
is opened up as new realms of diversity are revealed, while others are
promised. The shimmering ambiguity sunound the nature of "paradise"
for Origen corresponds to his ambiguity about the status of the unfallen
Adam. The ambiguities are sustained as Ol'Îgen sus tains the tension
between his two sources, the biblical and the Platonie nanatives. Perhaps
much of what appears to us to be indecisiveness, desultoriness or "pull-
ing of punches" in Origen's writing is really a kind of "negative capabil-
ity", a pedagogy in how to refrain from unwananted assertions and to
keep open a play of perspectives.
The retum of the soul to this paradise after death is a joumey full of
variety, as in Plato's Phaedrus (246-247)7; in each of the heavens tra-
versed one first perceives what is going on there and then the reason for
it. The entire universe become the soul's school and cornes to me et its
thirst for rational explanations, as "it nourishes itself on the contempla-
tion and understanding of things and what causes them" (Prin n.ll.7).
The theoretization of Christian thought is in full flight here; the biblical
eschatological hope has been sidelined by a Platonist myth, and its con-
7. A tradition Philo links with Jacob's ladder in De Somniis 1.133, to which Origen
refers in CC VI.21. EDWARDS argues that the body, subtilized, accompanies the soul on
that joumey, Origen being so resolutely anti-dualist that he could not "imagine that the
cleansing of the soul could be effected without a corresponding change in the outer man"
(M.J. EDWARDS, Origen Against Plato, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002, p. 110). However, while
it is true that for Origen the soul is always, in an attenuated sense, corporeal, what it
experiences in its posthumous sidere al journey is rather the joy of being able to understand
in a way that was impossible when it was in the flesh: "And so, when they have finished
ail those matters which are connected with the stars, and with the heavenly revolutions,
they will come to those which are not seen, or to those who se namesonly we have heard,
and to things which are invisible ... And thus the rational nature, growing by each indi-
vidual step, not as it grew in this life in flesh, and body, and soul, but enlarged in under-
standing and in power of perception, is raised as a mind already perfect to perfect knowl-
edge, no longer at ail impeded by those camaI senses" (Prin Il.11.7).
 676 J.S.O'LEARY
tent has been changed into a thoroughly philosophical one. Theôria as
contemplation is fused with an intellectualist excitement. The chiefobject
of hope becomes the fulfilment of one's noetic longings. When this intel-
lectualism abated a few years later, Origen found the mental freedom to
hamass himself to the task of exegesis. As he meditates on the FOUlth
Gospel his intellectual investment shifts from cosmological speculation
to an embrace of the Logos in its gracious comings into the mind or into
the world. This central event of the history of salvation now occupies the
forefront of his thought, and a passage such as the present in which his
earlier speculations are reanimated remains marginal and generates less
excitement than it might have a few years earlier.
(177) There is, however, an objection (àv3u1tocpopUV)8 to this intetpreta-
tion, which is not to be lightly dismissed (OÙK SÙKutUcppOV1FOV). It is
written in Isaiah: "Whom shall 1 send, and who will go to the people? ... "
(Is 6,8). (178) He, then, who objects to that rendering of our passage which
appears to be the deeper (tfl pu3utÉpr;t àflCPutvoflÉvn l>1tovoir;t)9 may say
that Isaiah was sent not to this world from another place, but after having
seen "the Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up", was sent to the
people ... ; and that in the same manner John, the beginning of his mission
not being nanated, is sent after the analogy of the mission of Isaiah (CIo II).
The objection, somewhat laboriously stated, is that John like Isaiah was
sent by God through a prophetic call, not in the sense of being sent to emth
from another place. One wonders if Origen is recounting an actual objec-
tion made by one of his hearers, or by one of a group of critics who disap-
proved of his way with Scriptllre. Or did he compose the objection himself
as a way to keep the exegetical dialectic going? The objection gives a
plausible account of John's sending, drawing on a central biblical text, the
most fmnous account of a prophetic call, and it seems to convict Origen of
introducing superflllous speculative considerations. If Scripture had nar-
rated John's call, presumably it would have been something like Isaiah's.
This objection spurs Origen to ingenious efforts:
(179) So much we have said of the first sense (TOUtffiV o'ol)tffiS ÂSX3ÉVtffiV
liv 1tpOS tOV 1tprotOV ÂOyoV)lO; and now we adduce certain solutions which
help to confirm the deeper meaning about John (auYKutu3sow àma1tcO-
8. The rhetorical tenu means "reply to a possible or foreseen objection". BLANC thus
translates: "Cette interprétation a la possibilité de répliquer validement aux critiques qui
pounaient lui être adressées". The Isaiah quotation is thus introduced as confinning the
mission of John from another place; only in the next sentence does an objection that it
need not mean this arise.
9. Better, "the conjecture that reveals deeper things".
10. Better: "Such things having been said in regard to - or against- the first account";
the reference is the objection just made. HEINE has "against our first explanation".
BrnUCAL AND METAPHYSICALIN CIO II.175-192 677
flsvut 1tpOS tO 1tSpt 'Iffiuvvou pu3utspov l>1tOOUflsvoV)l1. In the same
passage it is added, "He came for witness, to bear witness of the light".
Now, if he came, where did he come from? To those who find it difficult
to follow us (1tpOS tOV oua1tapaOSKtOÜVta), we point to (ÂSKtÉOV)12 what
John says afterwards of having seen the Holy Spirit as a dove descending
on the Saviour. "He that sent me ... " (Jn 1,33). When did He send him and
give him this injunction? The answei' to this question will probably be
(slxoS à1tOKpivsa3ut)13 that when He sent him to begin to baptize, then
He who was dealing with him uttered this ward (CIo II).
The first response to the objection again tums on grammar: "If he
'came' he came from somewhere". This is as ingenious, and as incon-
c1usive, as the similar teasing out of alleged implications of the word
"sent". Apparently believing or affecting to believe that this argument
already establishes his point, but will not be readily accepted by sorne
because of its abstract nature, Origen attempts to fill in the abstract
"somewhere" with sorne concrete detail, milking for all it is worth the
Baptist' sone reference to the scene of his being sent. In this second
response Origen tries hard to deduce that God instmcted John in sorne
other place before sending him into the world to baptize. But he does not
get beyond an elusive and unconvincing suggestion. In fact Jn 1,33 would
fit better with the opponent's view that John's sending was a prophetic
sending just like Isaiah's.
Notice that Origen frequently uses imperative expressions such as
Â-sKtéov and verbs in the future tense such as sl1Tflcrst, ÈÇ,Stucrst,
à1tOKpivscr~at, as if not directly giving his views but instmcting students
on what must be said about the texts and what answers will be given to
objections. This meta-commentatorial framing of his exegesis is a stylis-
tic trait worth charting. Origen is demonstrating his methodology in a
self-conscious way, which gives a highly reflected quality to his exeget-
ical writing. He is also initiating his disciples into a broad, philosophical
way of handling texts, for the questioning he urges consists not in myopic
fussing about the letter but in casting one's nets into the deep to catch
the fullest meaning.
(180) But a more convincing argument (iht oi> ÈK1tÂllKttKcOtSpOV ...
u1to3satv)14 for the view that John was sent from another region when he
11. "To win assent to what is more deeply conjectured about John". HE1NE: "solutions
such as the foIIowing gain approval when they are brought to bear on the assumed deeper
meaning about John". "Assumed" is inconect here.
12. "li faut lui citer" (BLANC).
13. "On peut répondre avec vraisemblance" (BLANC).
14. The translator seems to make Origen concede that the two arguments just offered
are not convincing; but a better translation of the Greek would be, "a still more convinc-
 678 J.S.O'LEARY
entered into the body (èvcrcol!u't'ou,.lEvov), the one object of his entry (èTCt-
oYJl!tuç) into this life being that he should bear witness of the tlUth, may be
drawn from the nanative of his bitth. Gabriel ... says that John is to be
"filled with the Holy Spit·it even from his mother's womb" (Lk 1,15.26-27).
And we have also the saying, "For behold, when the voice of thy salutation
came into mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy" (Lk 1,44). (181)
He who sedulously guards himself m his dealmgs with Scripture agamst
forced (à8tKCOÇ), or casual, or capricious procedure (Ku't'à cruv't'uXtuv 11
àrcoKÂllPCOcrlV), must necessarily assume that John's soul was oider than
his body, and subsisted by itself before it was sent on the ministry of the
witness of the light. Nor must we overlook the text, "This is Elijah which
is to come" (Mt II,14) (CIo II).
Origen reaches to texts in Luke that have a certain fascination for him,
but again he rather desperately seeks to read into them the preexistence
of John's soul. The texts go no fUl'ther back than John's existence in his
mother's womb. It could be argued that Origen is exhibiting the very
vices of forced or capricious reading that he denounces. We can see how
he persuaded himself into this reading. He infers from John 1,6 that the
sole object of John's life is to bear witness to the light. The Lukan texts
suggest that even his conception and enfleshment are in view of that mis-
sion. John is no ordinary prophet (as the reference to the Elijah who is
to come attests), but one whose mission has been fixed by God from the
very start. The sending of John has already occUlTed at his conception,
so there is no need to imagine an Isaiah-like scene of an adult sending
- which might entail the possibility of refusaI, quite unthinkable in the
case of one whose mission is so clearly foretold by a divine messenger.
An argument that Origen could have made, but did not, is that when John
mentions the scene of his sending he cannot be refell'ing to an adult
experience, since he is sent from birth, so he must be refell'ing to an event
before his conception. Origen takes very literally scriptural passages in
which we would be likely to see legendary motifs, and eagerly collates
them, where we would rather keep them apart as belonging to different
strands of biblicalliterary imagination. His procedure greatly emiches a
speculative vision that sees itself as upholding the integrity and consist-
ency of biblical revelation. The theme of preexistence of souls is thereby
strengthened as necessary for this defence of Scripture.
The "necessity" claimed in this third argument is at once logical and
moral. The principle of sufficient reason demands that John's privileged
l'ole have a more substantial basis than just the calI that an ordinary
ing argument". The ward unoSEcrtc; (argument) is now used instead of unovow (conjec-
ture).
BIBLICAL AND METAPHYSICAL IN CIO II. 175-192 679
prophet receives. MOl'ally, the assumption of preexistence is laudable as
it does full justice to scriptural revelation, instead of listening casually to
the biblical word. But of course Origen has an extra motive in embracing
the hypothesis of a prenatal sending, namely his pet theOl'y of the soul's
preexistence.
The reference to Matthew 11,14 suggests a fOUlth argument, not devel-
oped. In fact, Origen seems to play with the idea that John is a reincama-
tion of Elijah. When he cornes back to a fuller discussion of the relation
between John and Elijah in CIo VI.62-87 15 and in CMt 16 , he finds only
that John and Elijah share the same pneuma and on both occasions
he refutes the ide a of reincamation, more gently in CIo VI, where the
ekklêsiastikos engages in a dialogue of equals with the proponent of
reincarnation. If John inherits only the spirit of Elijah and is not a rein-
camation of Elijah, then Mt 11,14 has no probative relevance to John's
preexistence; Origen does not seem to have realized this yet in his vague
reference here.
(182) For if that generai doctrme of the soul (6 KuSDÂou rcEpi 'l'UXllÇ
Â6yoç) is to be received, namely, that it is not sown at the same time with
the body, but is before it, and is then, for various causes, c10thed with flesh
and blood; then the words "sent from God" will not appear to be applicable
to John aione. The most evil of all, the man of sin, the son of perdition
(2 Thess 2,3), is said by Paul to be sent by God ... (quotes 2 Thess 2,11-12).
(183) But our present question may, perhaps, be soived in this way, that as
every man is a man of God, sitnply because God created him, but not every
man is called a man of God, but only he who has devoted himself to God,
such as Elijah and those who are called men of God m the Scriptures, thus
every man might be said m ordinary language to be sent from God, but in
15. Mt 11,14 identifies John with Elijah, but John denies this in Jn 1,21. "If John's
birth from Zacharias was a matter of common knowledge, and the Jews of Jerusalem yet
sent priests and levites to ask, Are you Elijah? then it is clear that in saying this they
assumed the doctrine of transcorparation to be true, and that it was a current doctrine of
their country, and not foreign to their secret teaching. John therefore says, l am not Elijah,
because he does not know about his own former life. These thinkers, accordingly, entertain
an opinion which is by no means to be despised (OIlK EIlKU'tWjlpovrl'tov). Our churchman,
however, may retum to the charge, and ask if it is warthy ... of such a one to lie, or even
to hesitate, out of ignorance of what he was ... If the doctrine in question really was
widely CUiTent, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had
actually been in Elijah?" (CIo VI.73-75).
16. "Someone might say, however, that Herod and sorne of those of the people held
the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they
thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the
dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which
was not more than six months, does not permit this faIse opinion to be considered credible.
And perhaps rather sorne such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers
which worked in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which he was thought
by the people to be John the Baptist" (CMt X.20).
 680 J.s. O'LEARY
the absolute sense no one is ta be spoken of in thls way who has not entered
this life for a divine ministry and in the service of the salvation of mankind.
(184) (examples: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) (185) The examples, however,
do not expressly speak of a mission from the region outside life into life ...
But there is nothing absurd (OÙK ùrcWavov) in our transferring the argu-
ment derived from them ta our question. They tell us that it is only the
saints ... whom Gad is said ta send, and in this sense they may be applied
ta the case of those who are sent into this life (CIo TI).
Tbis translation, with its murky "in tbis sense", glosses over Origen's
somewhat illogical boldness in extending the explanation about the saints
to aIl souls 1? Scripture speaks only of the saints as being sent (from a
region outside this life, in Origen's forced reading), and Origen extends
this to aIl souls, in the name of what to him seems reason or common
sense, without any scriptural warrant.
So far Origen has argued strictly as an exegete, whatever the tacit
philosopbical motivation. Now he explicitly appeals to philosophy, in a
move that takes him beyond the particular case of John. It tums out that
he has aIl along been implicitly speaking of the preexistence of souls in
general, and not only of the origin of John. AlI people are "from God"
and can be said to be "sent by God" even if the titles "man of God" and
"sent" are reserved in biblical usage for prophets. He concedes that
biblical usage do es not favour univers al preexistence, even if "come"
and "sent" are taken ta indicate preexistence, wbich should undercut his
entire argument. A special "whence" of John has dropped out of view,
and a more ordinary preexistence is smuggled in although the Bible
offers no real textual basis for it. Rather it rests on "the general theory
of soul".
We hear of tbis theory elsewhere. In 2nd century scholastic philosophy
and philosopbical gnosis, the question of the soul was discussed in four
stages: its nature, its enfleshment, the lot of the enfleshed soul, and its
eschatological destiny. This schema, found in Aetius, Alcinoos, the Poi-
mandres, Tertullian and Iamblichus, is weIl known to Origen:
At another time than this, the point would certainly caU for a careful
enquiry, and the argument would have ta be well weighed as ta the essence
of the soul, as ta the principle of her composition [or "origin of its exist-
17. HEINE translates: "Just as God is said to send only the saints, whose examples we
supplied, so we must admit this to be the case also of those who are sent into life". BLANC
has: "cependant il faut également l'admettre pour (tous) ceux qui sont envoyés en cette
vie"; the "cependant" serve here to smooth over the tension. CORSINI translates OOK
à1ttSavov as "con qualche bona ragione" which prepares us to accept the bland non-
sequitur, "la stessa cosa si deve intendere ... " (E. CORSINI, Commento al Vangelo di
Giovanni di Origene, Turin, Unione Tipografico, 1968).
BIBLICAL AND METAPHYSICAL IN CIO II.175-192 681
ence"], and as to her entering into this body of earth. We should also have
to enquire into the distributions [or "elements"] of the life of each soul, and
as to her departure [or "deliverance"] from this life, and whether it is pos-
sible for her to enter into a second life in a body or not (CIo VI.85).
Origen is prepared to make a full study of the varieties and implica-
tions of IlE't,>VO'OOllu't'OOcrtS and of the opposing, biblically-inspired theory
that "the soul is sown along with the body" (CIo VI.86). His reference
to ÈVO'OOIlU't'OOO'l<; may point to his own theory of the preexistent soul's
assumption of a body in contradistinction to these theories, but tbis is not
made explicit. Origen never composed the projected study, but he does
retum to this "typical Platonist schema"18 in answer to Celsus, whom he
praises for bis sobriety in handling it. Is the soul bound to a body because
of the economy of the universe, or in expiation of a fauIt, or in view of
a purification of the passions that burden it? "He shows prudence in cit-
ing the theories of numerous authors ... without daring to affirm that one
of them is false" (CC VIII.53). Such allusions to respectable academic
theory are a strategy of defence, helping Origen to clarify and justify his
controversial ideas 19. The academic baggage is aIl the more welcome
when the scriptural support is so flimsy. Even when no longer pushing
the vision of bis Peri Archôn, he keeps open by such dexterous allusions
the space of thought explored in that work.
(186) As we are now engaged20 with what is said of John, and are asking
about his mission, 1 may take the opportunity to state the view (ûrcovota)
which 1 entertain about him. We have read this prophecy about him,
"Behold, 1 send My messenger (angel) before Thy face, who shaH prepare
Thy way before Thee" (Mt Il,10; Mal 3,1); and at this we ask if it can be
one of the holy angels who is sent down on this ministry as forerunner of
our Saviour. (187) No wonder if, when the first-bom of aH creation was
assuming a human body, sorne of them should have been filled with love
to man (<ptÀavSpcorciav) and bec orne admirers and foHowers of Christ, and
thought it good to minister ta his kindness (XPllO''to'tT]1:t) towards man by
having a body like that of men. And who would not be moved at the thought
of his leaping for joy when yet in the beUy, surpassing as he did the com-
mon nature of man? (CIo 11).
Origen cornes back from these general speculations to the question of
John, and now reveals bis personal opinion about John's prenatal iden-
tity. Unlike the 61tOSEcrt<; about the preexistence of souls tbis is a 61to-
18. A.-J. FESTUGIÈRE, quoted, SC 150, 290.
19. See R. CADIOU, Introduction au système d'Origène, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1932,
p. 44. See also CCt n.5,21-29 (SC 375, 366-72).
20. 'Avaçu1tÂmç, "simply," is left untranslated; the word marks a contrast between
the preceding generalities and the specifie theory about John.
 682 J.s. O'LEARY
vota - perhaps we may say a conjecture rather than an established the-
ory. The retum to origins, motlvated by the principle of sufficient reason,
does not stop at the preexistence of a human soul, in John's case, but
transgresses the border between species to people our world with angels
in human disguise. John, as an angel, is seen as inspired by the example
of the Logos, the fil'St-bom of ail creation. This title, not mentioned in
the discussion of the È1ttvoiat of Christ in CIo I.140-141; 241-258, refers
to Christ as divine (see CIo II.17; II.104; Dialogue with Heraclides 2)21.
If the fU'st-born consents to be incarnate, it is understandable that angels,
who are second- or thu'd-bom seek to foilow his example by becoming
incarnate as weIl. Earlier in this discussion (II.180) Origen has used the
term È1ttè)ruüa in connection with John's entry into this world, the same
term that is consistently used to describe the mission of the Logos. The
words qn"avSpronia and XPllO''to'tllÇ above have an analogous status in
this connection. Subordinationist Christology aIlows such approxhna-
tions between the Logos and angelic figures, with a tendency to reduce
the distinctive identity and the incarnation of Christ to terms more asshn-
ilable by a Platonist mentality that is at home with mediatmg figures such
as oaifloVëÇ. Again, the quasi-Leibnizian principle of plenitude is satis-
fied with the thought that the Logos is not alone but is attended by
ouvaflëtç (CIo X.40) and imitated by a series of unfaIlen souls variously
preparmg or supplementing his mission.
Note that this introduction of the theme of John as an angel undercuts
the probative relevance of aU that has been said above for the pre-exist-
ence of human souls in general, and it also undercuts the relevance of the
philosophical theories on the soul that were invoked above. Unless, that
is, Origen's theOl'Y of preexistence also includes the theOl'Y of continuity
between angelic and human natures, both made from the same material
originally (see Prin III. 1.22). In that case, the angelic nature of John do es
not make hhn essentially different from other humans; the only differ-
ence is that he enters the fleshly world not as a resuIt of falling off from
God, through satiety (KOpOÇ), as a punishment, but rather on a mission
in the service of God and humanity.
(188) Should the piece entitled "The prayer of Joseph", one of the apocryphal
works CUITent among the Hebrews, be thought worthy of credence, this
dogma (MYf.la) will be found in it clearly expressed. Those at the beginning,
it is represented, having sorne marked distinction beyond men, and being
much greater than other souls, because they were angels, they have come
21. In Athanasius this title designates the relationship of the Logos to creation (Contra
Gentes 41; COl/tra Arial/os I.39), and also "the condescension of the Logos towards
creatures, whereby he became the brother of many" (Col/tra Arial/os II.62).
BIBLICAL AND METAPHYSICAL IN CIO II.175-192 683
down to human nature. (189) Thus Jacob says: "l, Jacob, who speak to you,
and Israel22 , 1 am an angel of God, a mling spirit ... 1 am the first-bom of
every creature (npffi"CoyoVOS nav"Cos SCPOU)23 which God caused to live".
(190) ... "Uriel, the angel of God, came f011h, and said, 1 have come down
to the earth and made my dwelling among men, and 1 am called Jacob by
name. He ... wrestled against me, saying that his name and the name of Him
who is before every angel should be before my name. And 1 told him his
name and how great he was among the sons of God; Art not thou Uriel my
eighth, and 1 am Israel and archangel of the power of the Lord and a chief
captain among the sons of God? Am not 1 Israel, the first minister in the sight
of God, and 1 invoked my God by the inextinguishable name?" (CIo 11).
Origen needs apocrypha to bolster his panpsychist vision with quasi-
biblical authority. Here the apocryphon supports a startling ullplication
of the theory, that sorne men were originaUy angels. Coming to earth
not as a punishment but to fulfil a saving mission, like the Logos hhn-
self, they are untouched by original sin, whether conceived as pre-cos-
mic faU or as the fauIt of Eden. Note that the text quoted makes Jacob
superior to the angel he wrestles with: "my eighth" means "eighth in
rank after me". Indeed, Jacob is close to having the status Origen gives
the Logos.
One can see how what to us is a bizarre myth fits weU in the frame-
work of Origen's rational explanations. The topography of his world and
his ontology of the human being might seem to us irrational in them-
selves, but that is not how they feel to Origen, who develops them with
calm logic. One can also see that Origen is "ominously fond of subordi-
nating human hiStOl'Y to 'heavenly' history"24, a heavenly history that can
be counted as part of biblical salvation history only if one takes on board
the entire sweep of Origen's speculation.
(191) Consider whether the celebrated question about Jacob and Esau has
a solution ... (quotes Rom 9,11:13) (192) How if we do not go back to the
works done before this life, can it be said that there is no unrighteousness
with God when the elder serves the younger and is hated (by God) before
he has done anything worthy of slavery or of hatred? We have made some-
thing of a digression in introducing this story about Jacob and appealing to
a writing which we cannot weIl treat with contempt; but it certainly adds
weight to our argument about John, to the effect that as Isaiah's voice
declares he is an angel who assumed a body for the sake of bearing witness
to the light (CIo II).
22. Misleading translation; "Israel" is simply Jacob's other name.
23. The translation invites confusion with the Christological title npano'toKos nÛ<H1S
K'ttcrêffiS (Col 1,15).
24. R.P.C. HANsoN, Allegoly al/d Evel/t, London, SPCK, 1959, p. 148. See in this
volume the contribution of H. PIETRAS.
684 J.S.O'LEARY
Origen's credulity toward the apocryphal story is encouraged by the
way it dovetails with one of his favorite theories, about the prenat~l ori-
gins of the inequality between Jacob and Esau. The discussion of the
Baptist and Jacob as disguised angels might seem to be a marginal
hypothesis about figures with exceptional missions, so that it would con-
tradict the idea of a continuity between angelic and human nature for
ordinary mortals 25 . But in linking it with the problem of Jacob and Esau,
already discussed in Peri Archôn, Origen seems to revoke the absolute
singularity of such figures. Again, he rather wilfully extends to aIl souls
the pre-existence story he sees the Bible telling about certain exceptional
figures.
The favour enjoyed by Jacob requires an explanation, not only logi-
cally but also moraIly, given that Paul denies any injustice in divine
e1ection (Rom 9,14). Prenatal merits provide that explanation: "As it is
found not to be unrighteousness that even in the womb Jacob supplanted
his brother, if we feel that he was wOlthily beloved by God, according to
the deserts of his previous life, so as to deserve to be preferred before his
brother; so also is it with regard to heavenly creatures, if we notice that
diversity was not the original condition of the creature, but that, owing
to causes that have previously existed, a different office is prepared by
the Creator for each one in proportion to the degree of his merit" (Prin
II.9.7; cf. III.3.5). The philosophical rationalism here is in tension with
a sense of the gratuity of salvation, and it is not surprising that Jerome
would see in Origen a Pelagian avant la lettre. Pushing his speculation
to the limit, Origen sees aIl diversity among creatures as caused by their
choices: "He created aIl whom He made equal and alike, because there
was in Himself no reason for producing variety and diversity. But since
those rational creatures themselves ... were endowed with the power of
free-will, this freedom of will incited each one either to progress by
imitation of God, or reduced him to failure through negligence. And this,
as we have ah'eady stated, is the cause of the diversity among rational
creatures, deriving its origin not from the will or judgment of the Creator,
but from the freedom of the individu al will" (Prin II.9.6). The theOly
satisfies both logic and morality, offering a picture of the world that is
pleasing in every way.
Mark Edwards daims that the variety of the world is here traced to the
foreseen variety of human choices, not to an antecedent faIl26; for Janse-
nius and Huet too, election according to Origen would be ex praevisis
25. As claimed by EnwARDs, Origen Agaillst Plato (n. 7), p. 101.
26. Ibid., p. 105.
BIBLICAL AND METAPHYSICAL IN CIO II.175-192 685
hominum meritis. But such reasoning is found only in the late Commen-
tmy on Romans. Charles Bigg holds that human beings in Origen are so
free that God himself cannot foresee what they will choose or do, and
that Origen denies divine foreknowledge as commonly understood, in
CRm VII. 827 : "not that anything can be hidden from that nature which
is everywhere and never lacking, but because aIl that is bad is held
unwOlthy of his knowing or foreknowing".
In any case the early Origen links the diversity of destinies to the fall
of souls: "They are in beatitude when they participate in holiness, wis-
dom and divinity themselves. But if they neglect this participation or do
not take care of it, then by the fauIt of their own laziness, one earlier, one
later, a third more or less deeply, each becomes for himself the cause of
his fall and degeneration" (Prin I.6.2f8. Without the concrete doctrine
of Original Sin found in Augustine, Origen goes back behind earthly
history to question a prehistOly in the world of souls. The drama of the
fall of the intelligences (noes) is the background of the Eden story, where
they faH into an ealthly body, and then into a punitive body such as we
have today. The biblical story becomes a text to be gone beyond, so that
its metaphysical grounds come into view. The resultant metaphysical
story becomes a new myth in rivahy to the biblical one. The retelling of
the biblical stOly becomes a transcription into a strange new key, produc-
ing the shock of "insight" that had made the Gnostics' readings of Scrip-
ture seem such thrilling revelations.
Origen's Christological transmutation of the Old Testament, by such
methods, has often won rather uncritical admiration. Perhaps equally
questionable is the promotion of Origen as one who reads Scripture as
the charter of a philosophy of freedom. "Since the act that led from
original equality to the present order of the world was a free decision of
spiritual beings, freedom become the most generallaw of the universe"29.
Origen, it is argued, brought a revolutionary turn in western thought, by
subordinating substances to freedom, essence to existence, anticipating
from afar the most advanced ideas of German idealism and French exis-
27. C. BIGG, The Christian Platonists of Alexalldria, Oxford, Clarendon, 1886, p. 200.
Justification on the basis of foreseen merits was only a second line of defence to be taken
up if appeal were made to absolute divine foreknowledge (p. 201).
28. EnWARDS thinks that Rufinus betrayed Origen here by making it seem that aIl
humans have angelic origin (Origen Agaillst Plato [no 7], p. 118). Yet the Greek given
by Justinian (SC 253, 94) does not contradict Rufinus. We find the same ideas at II.9.2,
"one of the rare passages of Prin that would suggest that the fall reached all rational
creatures ... perhaps it only considers those that are actuaIly fallen" (CROUZEL and
SIMONEITI in SC 253, 214).
29. CADIOU, Introduction au système d'Origèlle (n. 19), p. 32.
686 J.S.O'LEARY

tentialism30 • Sorne scepticism is in order. In Plato already, the destiny of

souls is determined by their behaviour. When Origen cries: "Destroy the
freedom of virtue and you destroy its very essence" (CC N.3), he echoes
Plato, Republic 617E: "Virtue has no master" (see SC 136, 194).
Origen's defence of freedom may be more Hellenistic than biblical.
The interest of these discussions is not that of knowing what third
century Christians may have thought about the soul, but that of tracing
how philosophical reason established itself as a force within Christian
reflection. Origen is no longer a catechetical or apologetical thinker, but
initiates a movement that sets faith at the service of speculative construc-
tion, itself at the service of a cosmic vision in which relations are multi- VIII
plied so that every corner of space and time is filled with life. The theo-
rization of faith serves not merely to reinforce or illuminate faith but DISCIPLES AND FOLLOWERS
becomes an autonomous pursuit of the ory for its own sake - theory in OF ORIGEN
the two senses of science and contemplation. Perhaps speculative reason
inherently c1aims such autonomy. One cannot play at speculation, for
once a speculative question is posed it develops according to its own
dynamic. Thus even in examining the humble beginnings of Christian
speculation, we should never take its accord with an authentic thinking
of faith for granted. Yet one observes at the same time a counter-thrust
in Origen's writing, a hesitant holding back that sturdily preserves a
sphere of biblical thought ineducible to philosophical systematization.
The flow and counter-flow of the two currents, sometimes fusing, some-
times checking each other, sometimes generating elusive, shifting criss-
cross patterns, makes of this writing a mirror of the subtle rapports and
tensions between Athens and Jerusalem.

Dept. of English Literature Joseph S. O'LEARY

Sophia University
7-1 Kioi-cho,
Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 102-8554, Japan
josephsoleary@hotmail.com

30. DANIÉLOu writes: "For him, it is freedom that determines essence, and 1 need not
point out how modem trus the ory is. At the start there exist only two realities: the Trinitar-
ian God and the libeliies, of spiritual persons ail equal" (J. DANIÉLOU, Origène [La Table
Ronde], Paris, 1948, p. 204). This gives a too personalist colour to Origen's doctrine; he
may weil have seen the noes as united to God in an ideal pre-personal state, and as becom-
ing individuals or persons only as they detach themselves from this state.
 ORIGEN LOSING HIS TEXT
THE FA1E OF ORIGEN AS A WRITER IN JEROME'S LATIN
TRANSLATION OF THE HOMILIES ON ISAIAH

This paper is an attempt to say something about Origen as a writer,

which is a task not easy to fulfil. Furthermore, following my recent wOl'k
on Origen's Homilies on Isaiah and the recently-published frrst volume of
the new edition of his works with German translation 1, l take the opportu-
nity to say something about this text, because these homilies are not in the
focus of current research on Origen. My purpose is to delineate sorne
aspects of Origen's Homilies on Isaiah which might be interesting. These
homilies are not among his major works, but inc1ude sorne important
aspects of his thought. Preparing for this conference, l vacillated between
different themes. What might be interesting for the audience? The central
theological topic in this collection may be Origen's reflections on the
medium Dei and the motus De{l. What Origen says about this notion proved
to be a really exciting discovery entailing a variety of far-reaching conse-
quences pertaining to the subject "Origen on history". l was very much
inclined to choose this one, but in the end, l wasn't able to find a link with
the overriding theme of the conference. Hence, l decided to deal with this
question on another occasion, looking for a subject connected with the
symposium. So l ended up writing the following pages.
The Origen whose works spread in the Westem tradition of theology
was mainly the Origen of Jerome (and the Origen of Rufinus, respectively).
The author "Origen" read in the Latin Church during a millennium was,
in fact, an Origen shaped by Jerome (and other translators). In our view, a
translation of one of our books into a foreign language is considered an
honour. In the case of Origen, however, this honour is a highly ambiguous
one. Surely, a considerable number of his texts, especially of his homilies,
were saved by their Latin translations and, consequently, transmitted
through the ages. But in the sense to be described in this paper, sorne of
Origen's texts were lost in translation3 , at least partially. In the wake of the

1. A. FüRST - C. HENGSTERMANN (eds.), Origenes, Die Homi/ien zum Bueh Jesaja

(Origenes Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung, 10), Berlin - New York, de Gruyter;
Freiburg - Basel- Wien, Herder, 2009.
2. Cf. Orig.Hls 1.2 (GCS VIII, 245); 4.1 (GCS VIII, 257-258); FüRST-HENGSTERMANN,
Origenes (n. 1), pp. 132-158.
3. As to this phrase, P. T6TH, Lost in Translation: An Evagrian Term in the Different
Versions of the Historia Monachorum in Aegypto, in G. HEIDL - R. SOMOS (eds.), Orige-
 690 A. FÜRST
Origenist controversy at the end of the fOUlth century, the author Origen
eventually became a dubious person accused of heresy. His works were
read in translations which must be regarded as partial, regardless of which
of the adversarial parties produced it. Their intention was either to accuse
Origen of heretical opinions or defend him from such charges, but in no
case were they meant to render his texts as correctly as possible, even if
that was precisely what aIl the translators, especially Jerome, claimed for
themselves. In order to learn something about Origen's theology, the Latin
translations, used cautiously, remain useful and cannot be replaced. But in
order to leam something about Origen as a writer, it is his works extant in
Greek that we have to analyse. The works preserved in Latin translations
may serve as an example of the fate of Oligen as a wliter in his translated
texts or, to say it with a famous phrase, as an example of the common
notion that a "traduttore" is a "traditore".
Origen's Homilies on Isaiah can be regarded as a paradigm of this
indissoluble connection. 1 will try to demonstrate this by referring to two
aspects: firstly, the selection of homilies translated by Jerome and the
biblical texts explained in it and, secondly, the rendering of the Greek
text in some passages.
1. THE SELECTION OF TIffi HOMILIES
Of 25 or 32 Greek homilies on Isaiah which were delivered by Origen
and written down by shorthand writers 4 , Jerome translated nine into
Latin. The authenticity of the ninth homily has been called into question,
but the arguments against it are not convincing5 • The exegesis of Isaiah
in these nine homilies does not follow the order of the biblical text. As
in the case of the Homilies on Jeremiah, Jerome obviously translated
them confuso ordine, "in disturbed order":
Homily 1 Isaiah 6,1-7
Il 7,11-15
III 4,1
N 6,2-7
V 41,2; 6,1.5-6
VI
6,8-10
VII 8,18-20
VIII 10,10-13
IX 6,8-10
niana Nona: Origen and Religious Practice of His Time. Papers of the 9 'h Internationaf
Origen Congress, Pécs, Hzmgary, 29 August - 2 September 2005 (BETL, 228), Leuven,
Peeters, 2009, 613-621.
4. The figure 25 is mentioned in Hier. in Es. 1.1 (VL.AGLB 23, 138), while in epist.
33.4 (CSEL 54, 257) he noted 32 homilies.
5. For further discussion FÜRST - HENGSTERMANN, Origenes (n. 1), pp. 23-27.
ORIGEN LOSING HIS TEXT 691
Homilies l, IV and V comment upon Isaiah 6,1-7 and homilies VI and
IX upon Isaiah 6,8-10. So five homilies out of nine which cover more
than half of the text are concemed with the famous vision of the prophet
Isaiah. In these homilies, we find a good many repetitions, the explana-
tions being partly identical, though modified and with a different focus
in some aspects. Within this framework, the other homilies deal with
verses in chapter 4 (homily III), chapter 7 (homily II) and chapters 8 and
10 (homilies Vil and Vlil). The selection of these verses and homilies
seems to be rather accidentaI.
An explanation for this disorder may be found in the headings of each
homily in the manuscripts. Whilst homilies I-IV have different forms of
inscriptions, the beginning and the end of the biblical passage commented
on are indicated with precision in those of homilies V-IX6 • Perhaps, in
translating homilies I-IV, Jerome did not use the same group of Greek
manusclipts as in homilies V-D(l. This may have been the case. But in
order to explain this set of homilies and the selection of biblical verses
treated in them, we have to take into account fUlther observations.
Apart from the fact that of 25 or 32 homilies, oilly nine have survived
in Jerome's Latin translation, which alone makes this corpus a scanty
selection, even the nine extant homilies are far from being complete.
Oilly numbers l, VI, Vil and VIII look like complete homilies. In the
others, we detect different hints that they are fragments or abstracts. In
that, 1 do not look at homily IX which is obviously a fragment: The text
stops abruptly after two pages in the midst of commenting on Isaiah
6,10, far from the verse 7,11 which is quoted in the inscription as the
end of the passage refened to. In most of the manuscripts, the missing
continuation is provided quite senselessly by the rather large conclusion
of the ninth homily on Jeremiah in Jerome's translation (in which it is
counted as number SiX)8. And so is homily IV, insofar as the title is
6. Orig. HIs 1: Visio prima. "Et factum est in anno, quo mortuus est Ozias rex, vidi
Dominum sedentem super solium excefsum" (Is 6,1). -Il: "Ecce, virgo inutero accipiet"
(Is 7,14). - Ill: De septemmulieribus (Is 4,1). - N: Rursum in visione aliter / Visio de
duobus Seraphin aliter / De visione Dei et (de) Seraphin (et cetera). - V: De eo, quod
scriptum est: "Quis efevavit ab oriente iustitiam?" (Is 41,2) et de visione iterum aliter. -
VI: De eo, quod scriptwn est: "Quem mitto, et quis vadit?" (Is 6,8) usque ad eum loeum,
in quo ait: "Et convertantllr, et sanabo eos" (Is 6,10). - VIl: De eo, ql/od scriptzllIz est:
"Ecce, ego et pueri lIlei, quos mihi dedit Del/s" (Is 8,18) et cetera. - VIll: De eo, quod
scriptum est: "Ululate seufptifia in Hierusalem et in Sa/llaria" (Is 10,10) usque ad eUIll
fOCUIll, in quo ait: "Et com/llovebo civitates, quae inhabitantur" (Is 10,13). - IX: De eo,
quod scriptum est: "Et audivi vocem Domini dicentis: Quem mittam, et quis ibit ad
populum istulll?" (ls 6,8). Et transgrediens lIlodica pervenit usque ad focum, in quo
scriptulll est: "Pete tibi signl/m a Domino Deo tuo in profimdum aut in excelsu/ll" (Is 7,11).
7. Cf. R. GRYSON - D. SZMATULA, Les commentaires patristiques sur Isaïe d'Origène
à Jérôme, in Revue des études augustiniennes 36 (1990) 3-41, pp. 25-27.
8. Cf. the Latin text of this supplement in PG 13,355-358.
 692 A FÜRST
missing9 and the beginning is probably mutilated, because the interpre-
tation starts with Isaiah 6,2, not 6,1. While interpreting Isaiah 6,5, the
exegesis of 6,1 is mentioned as if it had, in fact, been treated lO • More
revealing and troubling are the contents of homilies II, III and V. In
homily II, the prophecy of Isaiah 7,14, which was so important in the
Barly Church, is quoted in the inscription, which suggests that it was its
central theme. In the text of the homily, however, this verse, while
indeed being quoted three times, is not discussed at aIl. In homily III,
orny one verse is explained, Isaiah 4,1, in combination with the famous
list of the seven (or, according to the Hebrew text, six) gifts of the spirit
in Isaiah 11,1-3. If we take into account that Origen quite often picks
out one sentence or even one word of a biblical text and takes it as a
starting point for extensive theological and spiritual considerations, we
may assume that in this case he followed this procedure and that, there-
fore, homily III might be complete after aIl.
The most intriguing homily is the fifth one. It seems to be unfinished
rather than mutilated. It is not unusual for Origen to start with sorne
remarks on a verse (here Isaiah 41,2) which is not prut of the liturgical
reading, but whose contents are connected with the passage read in the
service and explained in the homilyll. The problem, however, is that
Isaiah 41,2 has nothing to do with Isaiah 6,1 and 6,5-6 commented upon
in the subsequent exegesis. Origen himself marks this awkward introduc-
tion as a digression caused by someone calling, if the phrase vocatus
abierat is to be understood in this sense. Considering that Origen is
indeed interacting with his audience 12 , this understanding may be correct.
Apart from a shout which induced Origen to start a digression, further
remarks Origen made about his audience substantiate the suggestion that
the service in which Origen delivered this homily was disturbed. That is
nothing extraordinary. Origen quite often, if not always complains that
the people are restless and inattentive 13 • One leaves the service after or
even during the reading, the other do es not catch anything of the reading
9. Concerning the different forms of headings of homily N which occur in the manu-
scripts (above n. 6) cf. FÜRST - HENGSTERMANN, Origenes (n. 1), p. 228 n. 60.
10. Cf. Orig. HIs 4.3 (GCS vrn, 260).
11. See P. NAUTIN (ed.), Origène, Homélies sur Jérémie, Tome 1 (SC, 232), Paris, Cerf,
1976, pp. 123-125, for examples in the Homilies on Jeremiah.
12. Cf. Orig. HEz 4.6 (GCS vrn, 367) where Origen responds to an objection of an
eruditus auditor.
13. See A. HARNACK, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des
Origenes. I. Teil: Hexateuch und Richterbuch (Texte und Untersuchungen, 42/3), Leipzig,
J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1918, pp. 68-69.71.83; W. SCHÜTZ, Der christliche
Gottesdienst bei Origenes (Calwer Theologische Monographien, 8), Stuttgart, Calwer,
1984, pp. 46-48; NAUTIN, Homélies sur Jérémie 1 (n. 11), pp. 111-112.
ORIGEN LOSlNG ms TEXT 693
or the homily, because they withdraw into a corner of the church, chat-
tering about worldly matters 14 . In brief, the Christian flock did everything
they could to discourage and enervate their shepherd, who was a preacher
as ambitious and demanding as Origen. Homily V was obviously deliv-
ered in such an atmosphere. The service took place on a Friday, maybe
in the Holy Week. The church was crowded, and Origen asked the people
to be attentive: "As there are many people present because it is Friday
and especially the day of the Lord which reminds us of the passion of
Christ. .. , ask God the Almighty that his word might come to us ... If you
want to listen at least now, let us pray the Lord together that at least now,
when his word is coming, we might manage to attend to the words of the
prophet"15. But the flock were not inc1ined to follow their shepherd.
Obviously, Origen was distracted by the restlessness of his audience,
apparently unable to concentrate on his topic. His explanations of Isaiah
6 do not add anything to what he said in homilies 1 and IV. Bventually,
he adduces two sentences from the gospels (Matthew 25,27; Luke
19,20.23) whose connection with the vision of Isaiah is not made clear.
And, above aIl, the homily ends without the final doxology of 1 Peter
4, Il which is typical of Origen' s homilies. These peculiarities sum up to
the overall impression that Origen felt so disturbed that he wasn't able to
deliver an ordinary homily and that, annoyed by the ado, he came to an
abrupt end without finishing his exegesis. The question is: Why did
Jerome translate such a deficient piece of writing?
The answer to this question coincides with the explanation of the shape
of the selection of homilies Jerome chose for his translation. The major
biblical passage repeatedly discussed in them is the vision recorded in Isaiah
6. This famous text is the main topic of ihis selection, the subject matter of
five of the nine homilies (inc1uding the incomplete number V). When
Jerome translated these homilies during his stay in Constantinople in 380
- 1 prefer this traditional dating as against the assumptions that he translated
them either eru'lier, sometime between 375/6 and 379/80 in Antioch 16 , or
14. Cf. Orig. HEx 12.2 (GCS VI, 264): Aliqui vestl'llm ut recitari audierint, quae
leguntur, statim discedunt .... Alii ne hoc ipsum quidem patienter exspectant, usque dUll!
lectiones in ecc/esia recitentur. Alii vero nec, si recitentur, sciunt, sed in remotioribus
dominicae domus locis saecularibus fabulis occupantur.
15. Orig. HIs 5.2 (GCS vrn, 265): Et quia nunc populi multitudo est propter para-
sceuen et maxime in dominica die, quae passionis Christi commemoratrix est ... , orate
Deum omnipotentem, ut veniat ad /IOS sermo eius .... Si vultis vel nunc al/dire, ore/llliS in
commune Dominum, ut saitemlllillc adveniente verbo prophetica dicta valeamus advertere.
16. As assumed by P. NAUTIN, La lettre Magnum est de Jérôme à Vincent et la traduc-
tion des homélies d'Origène sur les prophètes, in Y.-M. DUVAL (ed.), Jérôme entre
l'Occident et l'Orient, Paris, Études Augustiniennes, 1988, 27-39, pp. 35-37.
694 A.FÜRST
later, after 392/3 17 - he obviously was, above aIl, interested in Origen's
explanation of the celebrated vision of the prophet Isaiah.
The background of this interest is to be seen in the theological debate
about the Trinity in the fOUlth century. Against Arian concepts of the
Christian God, theologians who defended the creed of the council of
Nicea were searching for biblical testimonies in which the same features
are attributed to the Father, the Son and the Roly Spirit in order to dem-
onstrate their equality. The vision of Isaiah provided such a testimony.
Isaiah 6,9-10 is quoted in the Gospel according to John (12,39-41) and
in Acts (28,25-27); and because in Isaiah these words are spoken by God
the Father, in John by the Son and in Acts by the Roly Spirit, this text
seemed to fulfil this requirement of anti-Arian theologians l8 • The first to
use two of these biblical passages (Isaiah 6,8-11 and Acts 28,25-26) in
this context was Didymus the Blind in his treatise on the Roly Spirit
which was probably written in 358/9 and translated by Jerome in 384/7:
"Rence, this prophecy which, as the Apostle Paul confumed, has been
proclaimed by the Roly Spirit, is mentioned by the book of the prophet
as spoken by the Lord ... From this it is clearly demonstrated, as we have
aheady often said, that the Lord and the Roly Spirit have one will and
one essence, and when the Spirit is menti one d, the name of the Lord is
meant as weIl" 19. In a treatise on the Trinity which is probably falsely
ascribed to Didymus, aIl three relevant texts are refelTed to: Isaiah rec-
ognizes the Lord Sabaoth who appeared to him as God the Father, Paul
asselts in Acts that the Roly Spu·it appeared, and according to John, it
was the Son of God20 . In order to demonstrate the divinity of the Roly
17. See O. BARDENHEWER, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Bd. 3, Freiburg-
Base1 - Wien, Herder, 1912, p. 612; W.A. BAEHRENS (ed.), Origenes Werke. Bd. 8:
Homilien zu Sal1lltel J, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten. Kommentar ZlIm Hohelied in
Rufins und Hieronymus' Übersetzungen (GCS Orig. VIII), Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs'sche
Buchhandlung, 1925, p. xlvi.
18. See L. CHAVOUTIER, Querelle origéniste et controverses trinitaires: À propos du
Tractatus contra Origenem de visione Jsaiae, in Vigiliae Christianae 14 (1960) 9-14,
pp. 10-13; P. NAUTIN, Le "De seraphim" de Jérôme et SOli appendice "Ad Damaslllll",
in M. WISSEMANN (ed.), Roma renascens: Beitriige zur Spiitantike und Rezeptionsge-
schichte. Festschrijt fiir J. Opelt, Frankfurt/M., Peter Lang, 1988,257-293, pp. 274-275.
19. Didym. spir. 129-130 (SC 386, 264-266): Hanc igitur prophetiam quam apostolus
Paulus affirmat a Sancto Spiritu prol/lllltiatam, ipse liber prophetae a Domino dictam esse
commemorat ... Ex quo liquido ostenditur, ut saepe iam diximus, una et volzl1ltas et natura
esse Domini et Spiritus Sancti, et in /lll1lcupatione Spiritus etiam Domini nomen intellegi.
20. Cf. (ps.-)Didym. trin. 1.19 (pG 39, 364-365); 131 (PG 39, 424-425); Il.Il (PG 39,
657); Il.23 (PG 39, 741-744). See J. BARBEL, Christos Angelos: Die Anschauung von
Christus aIs Bote und Engel in der gelehrten und volkstümlichen Literatur des christlichen
Altertums. 2ugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ursprungs und der Fortdauer des
Arianismus (Theophaneia, 3), Bonn, Hanstein, 1941, pp. 142-144; G. KRETSCHMAR, Stu-
dien zur frühchristlichen Trinitiitstheologie (Beitrage zur Historischen Theologie, 21),
ORIGEN LOSlNG HIS TEXT 695
Spu'Ït against Eunomius, Gregory of Nyssa in 383/4 explained the three
passages in precisely the same sense and drew a general conclusion: It
was "by means of Roly Scripture itself" that the Apostle Paul "demon-
strated that each vision and each appearance of God and every word
spoken in the name of God is connected with the Father, the Son and the
Roly Spirit"21.
In this atmosphere, Origen's notorious interpretation of the seraphim
in Isaiah 6 as symbols of the Son and the Roly Spirit22 was regarded as
supporting Arian concepts of the Trinity and eventually deemed heretical.
By the end of the first Origenist controversy around 400, Theophilus
of Alexandria composed a polemical pamphlet against this Origenian
exegesis, which Jerome translated into Latin23 . Jerome himself rejected
Origen's ulterpretation in a short treatise De seraphim, which he wrote
in Constantinople in 380 and which is the first exegetical work of Jerome's
we possess. This small writing fits weIl into the historical and theological
context just outlined. In Constantinople, Jerome became acquainted with
Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa and pursued his studies of
Greek biblical exegesis under the supervision of Gregory of Nazianzus
(in any case, so he claimed in later works). Fmthelmore, during this stay,
he got to know the works of Origen and discovered the Alexandrian
theologian as the great master of biblical exegesis. Being apparently
fascinated by Origen's work, Jerome translated 14 Homilies on leremiah
and 14 Homilies on Ezekiel into Latin and began to write scriptural com-
mentaries on his own, which depend much on Ol'Ïgen. The subject matter
to which he paid attention the most seems to have been Origen's inter-
pretation of the vision of Isaiah. Notwithstanding the criticism advanced
against it in his treatise De seraphim, he obviously read Origen's Homi-
lies on Isaiah and translated nine of them into Latin. The selection made
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1956, p. 79; NAUTIN, Le "De seraphim" (n. 18), p. 275 n. 14 (ibid.,
p.292). ,N ,
21. Greg. Nyss. ref conf Eun. 192-193 (GNO Il, 3~3-394): ... ota 'Wu npo<j>l1'Wu
'Hcraîou nEpt 1:~S yEvoflÉVl1S aÙ1:cr SEO<j>avEias, 01:E BiOE 1:0V KaMlflEv.?V snt Spovou
lHl'l1 ÀOÙ Kat 6nl1PflÉVOU, 11 flÈV àpXato1:Épa napuoocrts 1:0V na1:Épa Bivat ÀÉYE1,1:0V
à<j>SÉvw, 6 oÈ EùayyEÀlcr1:~S 'Irouvvl1S BtS 1:0V KÛPtoV àva<j>ÉpEt 1:~V npo<j>l11:EtaV~
ÀÉyrov nEpt 1:rov fl~ nE1ttcr1:EUK01:rov 'Iouoa(rov 1:~S 1:cr npo<j>fFn Pl1S~lcras nEpt 1:0U
KUp{OU <j>rovàS on Taù1:a dnEv 'Hcratas, 01:E dOE 1:~V 86~av aÙ1:0U Kat 6ÀUÀl1crE
nEpt aù'Wù. 6 oÈ flÉyaS ITaùÀos 1:cr ayiq> nVEÛfla1:( 1:0V aÙ1:ov 1:0Ù1:OV Myov npocrE-
fl a p1:Îlpl1 crEv sv 1:n YEvoflÉVn aÙ1:cr npàs 1:0ÙS 'Iouoalous Ka1:à 1:T]V 'P mfll1 v 0l1fl-
l1yopiÇt, 01:E <j>l1crt KaÀros dnE ~Ept ufl,rov, 1:~ nv~ù~a ,1:0 aytov on:AK~fi à~OÛcrE;E
N
Kat où flT] crUV~1:E, OEtKVÙS cOs olflal Ot aU1:l1S 1:l1S aytas ypa<j>l1S, on nacra on1:acrt~
SEto1:Épa Kat nacra SEO<j>uvEta Kat nas ÀOyoS SK npocrmnou SEOÙ ÀEYOflEVOS snt 'Wu
na1:pos vOEhat Kat snt 1:0Ù ulOU Kat snt 1:0U nVEÛfla1:0S 1:0Ù ay{ou.
22. See FüRST - HENGSTERMANN, Origenes (n. 1), pp. 75-82.
23. See ibid., pp. 180-187; text with translation and commentary: ibid., pp. 330-365.
 696 A.FÜRST
by Jerome - to be precise, we must admit that we do not know whether
aIl were available to him at this time - is obviously occasioned by the
Trinitarian debate, whose general outlines Jerome had known since the
trouble he had l'Un into over this issue during his stay in Syria. 1 think it
is plausible to infer that Jerome was further instructed by Gregory of
Nazianzus who surely drew his attention not simply to Origen but also
to the disputed and dangerous aspects of his thought. In this context, the
set of nine homilies on Isaiah translated by Jerome begins to lose much
of its oddity. The vision of Isaiah and its intetpretation was at the core
of the debate, and therefore Jerome was interested especially in the hom-
ilies in which Origen refers to this passage. For this purpose, the Ol'der
of the homilies was not important. To overstress the point a little, Jerome
did not translate Origen's Homifies on Isaiah, but Origen's interpretation
of the vision of Isaiah in his homilies. The subject matters treated in the
other homilies translated by Jerome are not reaIly attractive: Romily II
deals with a petty philological detail in Isaiah 7,14 and the symbolic
meaning of butter and honey in 7,15, homilies VII and VIII are con-
cemed with verses 8,18-20 and 10,10-13, respectively, which are as dif-
ficult to understand in the Rebrew text as in the Greek of the Septuagint
- a matter that might have appealed to Jerome, the philologist. Only the
topic of homily III, the seven gifts of the spirit, is of sorne significance
in ancient Christian theology. But aIl the other five homilies are con-
cemed with the vision of Isaiah.
It is time to retum to my argument. What exactly do we read when
reading the ®,e homilies of Origen on Isaiah translated by Jerome? Of
course, their original author was Origen. But what we now read is what
the translator Jerome was interested in. And, to avoid any misunderstand-
ing, what Jerome gives us to read from Origen is Origen. But what we
get to know is only a certain piece of Origen' s exegesis of Isaiah, namely
his interpretation of the famous vision (and sorne lllÎnor remarks on other
verses). From this, we leam nothing about Origen as an exegete of Isaiah,
about Origen who wrote a commentary of 30 books on Isaiah of which
only five fragments and a few testimonies are extant, about Origen who
delivered 25 or 32 homilies on Isaiah, about Origen who commented
upon this prophet in notes (crx6Àtaf4. Apart from his interpretation of
the vision in Isaiah 6, we do not get any glimpse at what Origen found
of interest about this biblical book besides that. Origen' s exegesis of the
book of Isaiah is lost, and it is lost even in the translation of his homilies
made by Jerome. The set of homilies presented by Jerome is shaped by
24. Cf. Hier. ill Es. 1.1 (VL.AGLB 23, 137-138).
ORIGEN LOSING ms TEXT 697
the time and circumstances when Jerome stayed at Constantinople in 380.
Origen's Homilies on Isaiah are a selection showing us what was impor-
tant in his exegesis at this time rather than Origen's exegesis of Isaiah as
such. In this sense, the author Origen lost his text in translation, even if
parts of his text were saved.
II. CHANGES IN THE ROMILIES
This is aIl the more the case in respect of another observation on the
integrity of Jerome as a translator. Even though he modified the translated
texts by means of rhetorical emphasis, by embellishing metaphors and by
adding minor explications, his translations are highly trustworthy. Their
reliability can be confirmed when one compares Jerome's Latin versions
of Origen's Homilies on leremiah with the homilies extant in Greek25 .
Still, as to the Homifies on Isaiah, Rufinus of Aquileia accused Jerome of
having inset1ed a complete sentence in a passage which contains Origen's
interpretation of the seraphim as the Son of God and the Roly Spirit: "In
the Homifies on Isaiah, concerning the vision of God, Origen refers the
words to the Son and the Roly Spirit; and so you [i.e., Jerome] have trans-
lated, adding, however, words of your own which would make the passage
have a more acceptable sense"26. The text in question l'Uns as follows.
Origen had said: "Who are those two seraphim? The Lord, my Jesus27 ,
and the Roly Spirit". And Jerome added: "And do not assume the essence
of the Trinity to faH apart if we look at the roles connected with these
names"28. In adding these words, Jerome intended to render Origen's
exegesis orthodox according to f0U11h-century standards.
In three other passages of the Homilies on Isaiah, it is highly probable
that Jerome added sorne 011hodox explanations29 . They aH concem the
25. See E. KLOSTERMANN, Die Überliefe/'llllg der Jeremiahomiliell des Origelles,
Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1897, pp. 19-31; V. PERI, 1 passi sl/lla Trillità
lIelle omelie origellialle tradotte ill latillo da sali Gerolamo, in Studia Patristica 6 (Texte
und Untersuchungen, 81), Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1962, 155-180, pp. 157-164.
26. Rufin. apol. c. Hier. II.31 (CCSL 20, 106): Delliql/e in omeliis Esaiae visio Dei
Fi/hall et Spiritllll1 Sallctl/m retl/lit. Ita tl/ ista trallstl/listi, adiciells ex te quod sellSl/m
al/ctoris ad clementiorem traheret illtel/ectl/m; cf. ibid. II.50 (CCSL 20, 122).
27. Meus lesus is an address typical of Origen, FÜRST - HENGSTERMANN, Origelles
(n. 1), p. 199 n. 14.
28. Orig. HIs 1.2 (GCS VIIl, 244-245): Ql/ae SUllt ista duo Seraphim? Dominl/s meus
lesus et Spiritl/s sal/ctus. Nec pl/tes trinitatis dissidere I/atl/ram, si I/omil/um sen>al/tur
officia.
29. Demonstrated by PERI, 1 passi sl/l/a Trillità (n. 25), pp. 177-179, and accepted by
P. NAUTIN, Origèlle. Sa vie et SOli œl/vre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne,
 698 A. FÜRST
Trinity and begin with the same formula (nec putes or a similar phrase)
as the one detected by Rufinus: "And do not believe it to be a debase-
ment for the Son's nature if he is sent by the Father. Lastly, for you to
see the Godhead's unity within the Trinity, the following is to be said:
In the present reading, it is Christ alone who is remitting sins now, but it
is certain that sins are remitted by the Trinity. For whoever believes in
one (pers on) believes in aIl three (of them)"30. - "Nor must you believe
wisdom, intellect and the other spirits to be lacking anything, as someone
else is theu' food, for the whole dispensation has but one kind of food:
God's essence"31. - "Nor must one suppose that the one who has received
them cannot have them because they are still in the possession of the one
who has given them to him"32. A fOUlth sentence is not introduced by
this fOlmula, but concems the same problem; Jerome stresses the holi-
ness of aIl three persons of the Trinity , "which consists in the ever-
renewed community of their three-fold holiness; to the Father's holiness
are joined the Son's and the Holy Spu'it'S"33. As to one passage in the
Honlilies on Jeremiah, we are able to prove this conduct by comparing
Jerome's translation with Origen's Greek text. To a conect translation of
the sentence: "We know of one God, then and now, of one Christ, then
and now", he added: "and of one Holy Spu·it, etemal together with the
Father and the Son"34.
Another change can be deduced from a passage in Theophilus' s Trea-
tise against Origen about the Vision of Isaiah. In the last chapter,
Origen's interpretation of the seraphim is heavily criticized. Refening to
the disputed passage of Origen's first homily, Theophilus presents a quo-
tation which is not to be found in this selmon or in other texts written by
Origen: "He [i.e., Origen] does not hesitate to burst out sacrilegiously
19~7, ~. 257, an~ ~. FÜRST, Hieronymus gegen Origenes: Die Vision Jesajas im ersten
Ongelllsm.usstrelt, ID Revue des études augustiniennes 53 (2007) 199-233, pp. 222-223.
.3.0, Ong. !lIs 1.4 (GCS VIII, 246): Nec putes naturae contullleliam, si filius a patre
mlftlfur. Delllque ut unitatem deitatis in Trinitate cognoscas, so/us Christus in praesenti
/ectione peccata nunc dimittit et tamen certum est a Trinitate peccata dimitti. Qui enim in
uno crediderit, credit in omnibus.
. 31. Orig. HIs 3.3 (GCS VIII, 257): Nec putandllln est aliquid indigere sapientiam et
lI/tel/ectum celerosque spiritus, quia alillln cibum habeant, cum totius dispensationis unus
sil cibus natura Dei.
32. Orig. HIs 7.1 (GCS VIII, 281): Nec putandus est non habuisse qui accepit, cum
adhuc habeat ipse, qui dederit.
33. Orig. HIs 4.1 (GCS VIII, 259): ... quae est trinae sanctitatis repetita communitas'
sal/ctitati patris sanctitas iungitur filii et Spiritus sancti.
34. Orig. HIer 9.1 (GCS III, 64): T),.l6tÇ ùi; Ëva o'iùaj.I6V SSOV Kat TOTS Kat vuv Ëva
Xptcl"tOV Kat TOTS Kat VOy; Hier. HIer Orig. 6.1 (pG 13,350): nos l/llUm novimus Deum
et in praeterito et in praesenti, unum Christum, et tunc et modo similiter, et l/Ilum Spiritum
sal/ctum, cum Patre et Filio sempite/'llum.
ORIGEN LOSING HIS TEXT 699
that 'the seraphim receive theu' share in holiness from him who is holy
in a principal way, and that they are exclaiming to one another: Holy,
holy, holy' (Is 6,3)"35. As Theophilus suggests, this sentence was part of
Origen's homily. But while Jerome translated it within Theophilus's trea-
tise, he omitted it in his translation of the homilies. This procedure is
highly revealing. In the course of the Arian controversy, the subordinat-
ing way of thinking about the Trinity expressed in this sentence had
become heretical. Apparently, Jerome was weIl aware of this develop-
ment, even in Constantinople in 380. At this early stage of his career,
he was an ardent disciple of Ol'igen. And though in De seraphim, he
rejected the Trinitarian interpretation of the seraphim, his translation of
the Homilies on Isaiah adapted Origen's text to the Olthodox standards
of the fourth century in order to make Origen's bold exegesis acceptable
in the eyes of post-Nicene theologians. Twenty years later, however,
he had distanced himself from his great teacher and did not hesitate to
demonstrate the heretical issues in Origen's theology. Translating Theo-
philus's treatise against Origen, Jerome did not conceal the shortcomings
of the Alexandrian theologian and, thus, translated a sentence deemed
heretical which he had suppressed twenty years before.
What do we leam from this? Not only was Jerome's selection ofnine
homilies out of 25 or 32 occasioned by the theological standards and
conflicts at the end of the fOUlth century. These circumstances influenced
the text, too, at least at sorne crucial points that concemed the olthodox
understanding of the Trinity. This does not imply at aIl that these changes
of the text necessarily led to a falsification of Origen' s thought. As to the
addition criticized by Rufinus, there is to be found an analogous passage
in another text of Origen's extant in Greek. In his Commentmy on the
Gospel of John, reflecting on the different aspects (Ènivotat) of Christ,
Origen points out that nobody should take offence at his distinction
between the different aspects of the Saviour, but should take into account
that Christ is conceived of as identical with himself in his essence36 .
Jerome's additional remark in the fU'st homily on Isaiah that the essence
of the Trinity does not fall apart if we look at the roles connected with
the different names of Father, Son and Holy Spu'it is not to be regarded
35. Theoph. tract. vis. Es. 5 (Morin, AMar III/3, 119): ... et in hunc sacrilegii erumpit
vomitum "a principali Sancto Seraphin sanctitatis accipere consortium, et a/ter clomot
' ad a/terum: Sanctus, sanclus, sanclus" .
36. Orig. CIo 1.28.200 (GCS N, 36): Mllùstç ùi; rcpocrKorcTÉTCO ÙtaKptVOVTCOV T)j.H'bv
Tàç sv Tcp crcoTilPl sTCtvotaç, oioj.lsvoç Kat TTI oùcrtÇl. TaÙTOV T)j.laç rcolstV. Cf. Prin
IVA.1(28) (GCS V, 350): Quae [Le. the srcivotat] quidem quamvis inlel/eclu mu/ta esse
dicanlur, re tamen el substantia I/llum sunt.
700 A.FÜRST ORIGEN LOSING ms TEXT 701

as a falsification of Origen's thinking, but can be considered as transfer-
ring an Origenian Christological concept to a Trinitarian scheme.
Jerome's addition matches Origen's theology quite weIl. As to the related
text, however, this addition is a falsification. These words in the first
homily on Isaiah are not Origen's, but Jerome's.
So we are coming to the same result as in the first pmi of this paper.
Origen's Trinitarian theology is preserved in Jerome's translations, even
in passages in which Jerome altered the Greek text, because his additions
did not falsify Origen's thought. But as for the original Greek text, there
are sorne passages in which Origen's considerations are not preserved in
the original shape in which he had put them forward. Once more, the
author Origen lost his text in translation.
there can be found links or even testimonies in the Greek writings of
Origen -, the process of translation itself, which is always intertwined
with interpretation, tends to open a gap between the author and his text.
The Homilies on Isaiah are evidently a collection of homilies whose
amount, whose selection, whose order and whose wording in certain pas-
sages is due to Jerome, not to the original author. What does this mean
for the relationship between Origen the writer and his text? Obviously,
Origen was right in regarding writing as dangel'ous 39 • Viewed strictly
from the philological 01' literary perspective in which this issue is to be
treated, Jerome the translator is the unavoidable link or obstacle between
the author Origen and his Greek text translated and thus partially lost in
Latin.

WesWilische Wilhelms-Universitat Alfons FÜRST

III. 'TRANsLATION: A GAP BETWEEN THE AUTHOR AND HIS TEXT Katholisch -Theologische Fakultiit
Seminar rur Alte Kirchengeschichte
Origen losing his text - only Origen? In a recently-published PhD Johannisstr. 8-10
thesis in Classical Philology at the University of Muenster entitled The D-48143 Münster
Author and His Text, the author argues that the transmission of ancient Germany
writings, especially those from Late Antiquity, is interspersed with falsi- afuerst@uni-muenster.de
fications of various kinds 37 . Surely, there are ancient works mixed up
with interpolations, as is well-known in the case of the poems of PlUden-
tius, for example. But in overdoing this observation, the author imagines
he can detect interpolations even in Augustine's Confessions. This is to
kiIl the goose with the golden egg. Unfortunately, in this thesis, the trans-
mission of the works of Origen is not taken into account, although it
would provide a lot of material to confinu this assumption. As to the
Latin translations of his works, particularly the translation of the De prin-
cipiis by Rufinus, the reliability of many readings provided in them is
discussed in detail. In the last decades, research on the Latin translations
of Origen' s works has shown a strong tendency to suspect aIl notions
which are reminiscent of Nicene theology as modifications or interpola-
tions of Rufinus and Jerome, respectively38. Even if this means to suspect
these translations too much - for quite a number of suspected notions

37. See M. MÜLKE, Der Autor und sein Text: Die Velfiilschung des Originals im Urteil
antiker Autoren (Untersuchungen zur Antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 93), Berlin - New
York, de Gruyter, 2008.
38. See e.g. B. STUDER, À propos des traductions d'Origène par Jérôme et Rufin, in
Vetera Christiano/'llm 5 (1968) 137-155; ID., Zur Frage der dogmatischen Terminologie in 39. Orig. ProlPsFr in Epiph. haer. 64.7.2 (GCS Il, 416): olà 'to stoÉvat 'tov Kivouvov
der lateinischen ÜbersetzulIg von Origenes "De PrinCÎpiis", in Epektasis. FS J. Daniélou, où ~6vov 'tou ÎIoÉyslV nspi 'trov ayirov, ùÎIoÎloà noÀ.À.<\> nÎloÉov 'tOu ypa<j>slV. Cf. CIo V.1
Paris, Beauchesne, 1972,403-414. (GCS IV, 100).
 LE COMMENTAIRE DU CANTIQUE DES CANTIQUES
DANS LA TRADUCTION LATINE DE RUFIN ET DANS
L'ÉPITOMÉ DE PROCOPE

Le grand Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques d'Origène com-

portait à l'origine dix livres et couvrait l'ensemble du texte biblique. Il
nous est accessible dans la traduction latine de Rufin jusqu'à l'exégèse
de Ct 2,15. Du côté grec, il n'est pas conservé en tradition directe, mais
la tradition indirecte nous a transmis d'assez nombreux fragments dans
la langue originale - ce qui ne veut pas dire dans la forme originale.

1. L'ÉPIToMÉ SUR LE CANTIQUE

La source principale est l'Épitomé sur le Cantique de Procope de

Gaza, dont le texte peut être contrôlé à partir des trois chaînes qui lui
sont apparentées, à savoir la chaîne de Polychronios le diacre, celle dite
d'Eusèbe, et la chaîne du Barberinianus graecus 388 (XIIIe-XIVe S.), qui
contient une sélection de scholies empruntées surtout à Origène l . Le
texte de l'Épitomé de Procope a été édité par A. Mai en 1837 d'après
un manuscrit du XVIe s., qui donne un texte souvent fautif, avec des
attributions erronées 2 • C'est ce texte qui a été reproduit par J.-P. Migne
au tome 17 de la Patrologia Graeca pour les seuls fragments d'Origène
(cc. 253-288) et au tome 87/2 pour le reste de la chaîne (cc. 1545-1753).
M.A. Barbàra a fort utilement republié en 2005 l'ensemble des frag-
ments origéniens conservés en grec 3 • Une nouvelle édition de l'Épitomé
de Procope paraîtra bientôt dans la Series Graeca du Corpus Christia-
norum4•

1. Pour une présentation d'ensemble des chaînes sur le Cantique, voir C. CURTI -
M.A. BARBÀRA, Catme esegetiche greche, in A. DI BERARDINO (ed.), Patrologia, t. 5,
Genova, Marietti, 2000, 632-634.
2. A. MAl (ed.), Classici Al/ctores, t. 9, Roma, 1837,257-430.
3. Origene, Commentario al Cantico dei cantici. Testi in lingua greca. Introduzione,
testo, traduzione e commento a cura di M.A. BARBÀRA (Biblioteca patristica, 42), Bologna,
Dehoniane, 2005.
4. Procopii Gazaei Epitome in Canticl/m canticorl/lIl, Introduction par J.-M. AUWERS -
M.-G. GUÉRARD. Édition critique par J.-M. AUWERS (CCSG, 67), Turnhout, Brepols, à
paraître en 2011.
 704 J.-M. AUWERS
Dans l'Épitomé, le texte du Cantique est réparti en 123 lemmes, que
commentent un nombre variable de scholies. Comme les manuscrits ont
généralement conservé le nom de l'auteur à qui chaque scholie revient et
comme, d'autre patt, beaucoup de ces textes sont transmis par ~illeurs
(tradition dil'ecte, autres traditions caténiques, traduction latine partielle
dans le cas d'Origène), on peut attribuer
92 scholies à Grégoire de Nysse;
75 scholies à Nil d'Ancyre;
74 scholies à Origène (et peut-être encore 8 autres, qui restent anonymes
dans les manuscrits, mais que M.A. Barbàra attribue à Origène avec de
bons arguments);
47 scholies à Cyrille d'Alexandrie;
41 scholies à Philon de Karpasia, avec des différences de contenu parfois
notables par rapport au texte transmis en tradition directe;
15 scholies à Apollinaire de Laodicée;
1 scholie à Théodoret de Cyr, 1 à Didyme d'Alexandrie, 1 à Isidore de
Péluse et 1 à Théophile (sans doute Théophile d'Alexandrie).
Trois scholies sont attribuées ou bien à Cyrille ou bien à Origène
(selon les manuscrits, qui sont partagés), une scholie ou bien à Cyrille ou
bien à Philon de Kat·pasia. Les manuscrits attribuent certaines scholies
conjointement à deux auteurs: Apollinaire et Origène (l scholie), Origène
et Cyrille (l scholie), Philon et Origène (1 scholie), Cyrille et Philon
(3 scholies). L'étude des sources montre que certaines scholies amalga-
ment deux auteurs: Grégoire et Origène (l scholie), Origène et Philon
(1 scholie), Didyme et Grégoire (1 scholie), Cyrille et Grégoire (1 scholie).
Enfin, plusieurs scholies amalgament une source inconnue à un auteur
identifié: Origène (1 scholie), Grégoire (l scholie), Philon (3 scholies).
La patt des scholies dont la source est totalement inconnue est minime5 •
Comme on le voit, la part d'Origène est importante. C'est, après
Grégoire de Nysse et avec Nil d' Ancyre, l'auteur le plus souvent cité
dans la chaîne. Les scholies origéniennes vont du premier verset du
Cantique jusqu'au dernier. Elles ont en moyenne une dizaine de lignes,
les plus brèves n'en ayant qu'une seule (scholies nO 199 et 243), la plus
longue en comptant trente-deux (scholie n° 45)6, Sur le total de 123
lemmes, 75 sont commentés par au moins une scholie dont Origène est
la source avérée ou probable; en d'autres telmes, 48 lemmes ne sont pas
suivis d'exégèses attribuables à l'Alexandrin.
5. Pour plus de détails, voir J.-M. AUWERs, L'interprétation du Cantique des cantiques
à travers les chaînes exégétiques grecques (Instrumenta Patristica et Medievalia, 56),
Turnhout, Brepols, 2011, pp. 129-179.
6. Les numéros des scholies sont ceux de l'édition CCSG (n. 4).
LE CCTDANS LA TRADUCTION DE RUFIN ET DANS L'ÉPITOME DE PROCOPE 705
M.A. Barbàra a bien montré que c'est le grand Commentaire, et non
les Homélies, qui constitue la source des scholies origéniennes qui
figurent dans l'Épitomé. Il n'y a aucun doute à ce sujet?
II. LA RÉÉCRITURE D'ORIGÈNE
La confrontation des scholies origéniennes portant sur les deux
premiers chapitres avec la traduction de Rufin est riche en enseigne-
ments. 25 scholies sont ici concemées 8 • Le plus souvent, le caténiste s'est
concentré sur une partie bien délimitée du commentaire origénien. La
sélection peut porter sur un mot patticulier du lemme. Ainsi, la scholie
nO 50 sur Ct 1,lOa est centrée sur l'interprétation des joues de la Bien-
aimée; la scholie n° 116 SUl' Ct 2,9 est centrée sur la signification des
fenêtres de sa maison. La sélection peut aussi pOlter sur un type d'inter-
prétation (par exemple ecclésial, plutôt qu'individuel). Il anive aussi
que la sélection soit commandée par la nécessité de compléter d'autres
exégèses représentées par des auteurs précédemment cités dans la chaîne.
Ainsi, la scholie n° 20 sur Ct l,4c (<<Le roi m'a introduite dans sa salle
du trésor»)9 résume le premier tiers de l'exégèse d'Origène, dont elle
retient surtout les réminiscences bibliques; le résumé s' anête là où
Origène évoque le cas de Paul qui, ravi jusqu'au troisième ciel, a connu
la même expérience (cf. 2 Co 12,2-4). Le rapprochement entre la Bien-
aimée et Paul a été mentionné dans la scholie précédente (tirée de
Grégoire de Nysse); il n'y avait donc pas lieu de le répéter.
Sept scholies juxtaposent des éléments interprétatifs isolés, en omet-
tant les excursus et les considérations qui sont moins en prise directe sur
7. M.N. EsPER, Allegorie und Analogie bei Gregor von Nyssa (Habelts Dissertations-
drucke. Reihe klassische Philologie, 30), Bonn, Habelt, 1979, p. 155, n. 5 a émis
l'hypothèse que les fragments origéniens qu'offre l'Épitomé étaient repris au petit Com-
mentaire du Cantique qu'Origène a rédigé à Alexandrie (donc avant 231) et dont la
Philocalie d'Origène nous a conservé un passage (SC 302, 326-327). Cette hypothèse est
gratuite et ne résiste pas à un examen attentif: là où une comparaison avec le grand Com-
mentaire est possible (c.-à-d. jusqu'en Ct 2,15), on peut montrer que, dans presque tous
les cas, c'est bien ce texte qui constitue la source de la chame, même si «Procope» l'a
résumé et adapté à son propos, sans répéter ce qui a déjà été dit par les auteurs précédem-
ment cités dans la chaîne.
8. Je reprends ici ce que j'ai écrit dans Du bon usage d'une édition d'Origène: À propos
du Commentario al Cantico dei cantici de MA. Barbàra, in AdamantÎus 13 (2007) 287-
296.
9. Pour Origène, le mot 'tctl-ltslov désigne le lieu où le roi conserve ses trésors
(CCt 1.5.1 et 4-5; SC 375, 242-244). Si Rufin a traduit le mot par cubiculum, c'est parce
qu'il est tributaire de l'ancienne version latine.
 706 J.-M. AUWERS
l'interprétation du texte biblique, considérations qui, de ce fait, inté-
ressent moins le caténiste, lequel est avant tout un bibliste lO •
C'est ce qui explique aussi le phénomène inverse, c.-à-d. la présence,
dans la chaîne, de matériaux qui n'ont pas de parallèle dans la traduction
de Rufin. Dans la préface à sa traduction des Homélies sur le Cantique,
Jérôme déclare, en telmes explicites, qu'Origène, dans son Commentaire,
a commenté le poème «d'abord selon les Septante, ensuite d'après
Aquila, Symmaque et Théodotion, et finalement d'après une cinquième
version, qu'il a trouvée, d'après ce qu'il écrit, sur la côte d'Actium» 11.
Rufin, dans sa traduction, n'a pas jugé bon d'attirer l'attention de ses
lecteurs latins sur les textes autres que celui des Septante. Le caténiste,
par contre, était intéressé par ce geme d'infOlmations.
Tous les écmts entre Rufin et l'Épi tomé ne s'expliquent pas par l' omis-
sion systématique, chez Rufin, des traductions hexaplaires. Prenons le
commentaire de Ct 2,1: «Je suis une fleur de la plaine, un lis des val-
lées». La confrontation de la scholie origénienne avec le texte traduit par
Rufin laisse pelplexe 12 • Voici une traduction française de la scholie n° 78
mise sous le nom d'Origène dans l'Épitomé:
(Le texte) parle d'une fleur qui est en voie de devenir un fmit. Donc, dans ce
lieu terrestre qui est appelé «plaine», l'Époux-Verbe est une fleur, en tant
qu'orienté vers l'avenir. Car, «lorsque viendra ce qui est parfait» (1 Co 13,10),
la fleur changera pour devenir un fruit. Et, puisque ceux qui sont sur terre ne
comprennent pas plus que la comparaison avec une fleur, l'Époux est devenu
comme une fleur de la plaine. Car «il s'est anéanti lui-même, prenant forme
d'esclave» (Ph 2,7) pour que, après cela, nous puissions «contempler sa
gloire» (Jn 1,14). À moins que, pour les (endroits) plus nobles et unis, appelés
«plaine», il ne soit une fleur, tandis que, pour ceux qui sont plus bas et plus
encaissés, il soit un lis. Après avoir dit cela, l'Époux compare sa compagne à
d'autres jeunes filles - aux âmes restantes - qui, comparées à elle, ne sont que
des épines (cf. Ct 2,2). Telles sont les âmes qui ne deviennent pas compagnes
de l'Epoux. Mais la compagne est un lis qui brille au milieu de celles-ci l3 •
Le texte de l'Épitomé est confus pm' endroits, mais le sens général de
la scholie est clair. Mis dans la bouche du Verbe-époux, le verset du
Cantique devient une allégorie de l'Incarnation: le Verbe s'est fait fleur
de plaine pour rejoindre l'humanité où elle est. En d'autres termes, il
s'est anéanti lui-même, prenant forme d'esclave (ph 2,7). Mais la kénose
10. Il s'agit des scholies n° 27 (sur Ct l,4e), 35 (sur Ct 1,6),45 (sur Ct 1,8), 83 (sur
Ct 2,3), 120 (sur Ct 2,10-13), 125 (sur Ct 2,14) et 128 (sur Ct 2,15).
Il. Jérôme, Préface à Origène, HCt (SC 37, 58; SC 37bis, 68).
12. Cf. J.-M. AU\VERS, Ct 2,1 au miroir de la chaîne de Procope, in ETL 79 (2003)
329-346.
13. C'est la scholie n° 18 dans l'édition de M.A. Barbàra (174-176).
LE CCT DANS LA 1RADUCTION DE RUFIN ET DANS L'ÉPITOME DE PROCOPE 707
est un état provisoire et «lorsque viendra ce qui est pmfait, ( ... ) nous
pourrons contempler sa gloire» (cf. 1 Co 13,10; Jn 1,14). Au passage, le
recours au langage analogique est brièvement justifié par la faiblesse de
l'entendement humain, qui «ne comprend pas plus que la comparaison
avec une fleur» 14. La chaîne signale ensuite une autre manière de com-
prendre le verset: dans les hautes plaines, le Verbe-époux est une fleur;
dans les ravins, il est un lis. Cette autre possibilité d'interprétation reste
assez théorique, dans la mesure où elle n'est assOltie d'aucune explica-
tion. Par contre, l'exégèse de Ct 2,2 (<<Comme un lis au milieu des
épines, ainsi ma compagne au milieu des filles») ne pose aucune diffi-
culté: l'image du lis au milieu des chardons est intelprétée de l'âme
pmfaite, compagne du Verbe, qui surpasse en éclat les autres âmes.
Voici à présent le passage correspondant dans la traduction de Rufin:
L'Époux fut cette «fleur» dans ce peuple [juif], mais parce que la Loi
n'a conduit personne à la pelfection (cf. Rb 7,19), le Verbe de Dieu ne
3 put progresser à partir de la fleur et parvenir à la pelfection des fruits.
Toutefois dans ce ravin des nations, il s'est fait lis. Mais un lis de quelle
sOlte? Tel sans nul doute que celui dont lui-même dit dans les Évangiles
6 que le Père céleste en revêt et que pas même Salomon dans toute sa
gloire ne fut vêtu comme l'un d'eux (cf. Mt 6,28-30). L'Époux devient
donc lis dans ce ravin, en ce sens que le Père céleste l'a revêtu d'un tel
9 vêtement de chair que pas même Salomon dans toute sa gloire n'a pu
en posséder. Car Salomon n'a pas eu une chair immaculée, conçue
en-dehors du désir chmnel de l'homme et de l'union avec la femme, et
12 absolument exempte de tout péché.
De plus, on semble montrer la raison pour laquelle celui qui avait été une
fleur dans la plaine a voulu être un lis dans les ravins. En effet, alors que
15 la fleur avait longtemps été dans la plaine, il ne dit pas qu'une fleur à son
imitation et à sa ressemblance soit venue de cette même plaine. Mais dès
qu'il s'est fait lis dans les ravins, aussitôt sa compagne aussi se fait lis à
18 son imitation, pour être le prix de son service, puisque lui-même s'est fait
lis pour que sa compagne, c'est-à-dire toute âme qui s'approche de lui,
suit son exemple et l'imite, devienne également lis.
14. Cf. Origène, CCt m.9.4: «Ces réalités, à cause des ho~es qui ne peuvent com-
prendre autrement que par les mots qui sont en usage, la divine Ecriture les rapporte de la
manière humaine de parler, pour que nous les entendions certes grâce aux termes connus
et familiers, que nous comprenions toutefois au sens digne d'elles les réalités divines et
incOIporelles» (trad. L. BRÉSARD - H. CROUZEL, SC 376, 585). Voir aussi J. CHÊNEVERT,
L'Église dans le commentaire d'Origène sur le Cantique des Cantiques (Studia. Travaux
de recherche, 24), Bruxelles - Paris, DDB; Montréal, Bellarmin, 1969, pp.83-91.
 708 J.-M. AUWERS
21 Quand l'Époux dit: «Comme un lis au milieu des épines, ainsi ma com-
pagne au milieu des filles», nous comprenons qu'il le dit de l'Église des
nations, soit parce qu'elle a émergé du milieu des infidèles et des non
24 croyants comme au sortir des épines, soit parce que, du fait des morsures
des hérétiques vociférant autour d'elle, on peut la dire placée au milieu
des épines.
27 Cela semblera d'autant plus vraisemblable qu'il ajoute: «Ainsi ma com-
pagne au milieu des filles». Car il n'aurait pas appelé filles ces âmes qui
n'étaient absolument jamais parvenues à croire. En effet, tous les héré-
30 tiques viennent d'abord à la foi, puis se détournent du chemin de la foi
et de la vérité des doctrines. Ainsi l'Apôtre Jean aussi dit dans sa lettre:
«lIs sont sortis de chez nous, mais ils n'étaient pas de chez nous; car
33 s'ils avaient été de chez nous, ils seraient à coup sûr restés avec nous»
(1 Jn 2,19).
Mais nous pouvons, en le rappOltant aussi à chaque âme, enseigner que
36 pour cette âme qui, en raison de sa simplicité, de son caractère uni, de
son égalité d'humeur, peut être dite une plaine, le Verbe de Dieu se fait
fleur et enseigne les commencements des bonnes œuvres. Mais pour ceux
39 qui déjà cherchent des vérités plus profondes et scrutent des réalités plus
cachées, pour ainsi dire dans des ravins, en raison de la splendeur de sa
pureté ou de l'éclat de sa sagesse, il se fait lis, pour qu'eux aussi
42 deviennent des lis surgissant au milieu des épines, c'est-à-dire fuyant les
pensées et les soucis du siècle qui sont comparés à des épines dans
l'Évangile (cf. Mt 13,22)15.
Si c'est bien ce texte - ou plus exactement son modèle grec - qui est la
source de l'extrait caténique qui nous occupe, on constate qu'il a été retra-
vaillé avec beaucoup de liberté par le caténiste. Les lignes 2-3 du Commen-
taire (<<le Verbe de Dieu ne put progresser à partir de la fleur et parvenir à
la perfection des fruits») semblent contredites dans la chaîne, d'après
laquelle il est ici question «d'une fleur qui est en voie de devenir un fruit».
L'inteIprétation de la plaine comme désignant Israël (1. 1-2), et des ravins
comme désignant les Nations (1. 4), n'est pas développée par le caténiste,
peut-être parce qu'elle a déjà été signalée dans la scholie précédente, tirée
de Nil d' Ancyre. La comparaison avec Salomon (1. 9-10) et l'allusion à la
conception virginale (1. 10-12) ne sont pas reprises, sans doute parce qu'il
s'agit plutôt de digressions. C'est peut-être la même raison qui explique
l'omission des phrases sur les hérétiques (1. 24-26; 29-33). L'application «à
chaque âme» (1.35-44) est condensée au point de devenir incompréhensible.
15. Origène, CCt III.4.3-7 (SC 376, 516-520).
LE CCT DANS LA TRADUCTION DE RUFIN ET DANS L'ÉPITOME DE PROCOPE 709
Ici, une première observation s'impose: Origène est cité en dernière
position dans l'Épitomé, après Cyrille, Philon de Karpasia, Grégoire de
Nysse et Nil d'Ancyre. Il est logique que le caténiste ait éliminé les
développements qui auraient fait double emploi avec ce qui précède dans
la chaîne. Il n'en demeure pas moins que la teneur du texte original est
à peine reconnaissable. L'Origène caténal développe l'interprétation du
verset à partir de trois références néo-testamentaires (1 Co 13,10, Ph 2,7
et Jn 1,14) qui sont absentes à cet endroit du texte de Rufin. Il se pourrait
que le traducteur latin ait abrégé sa source. Mais on ne peut exclure que
le caténiste ait amalgamé au texte du Commentaire un autre texte, origé-
nien ou non, ou même qu'il ait attribué à l'Alexandrin ce qu'il lui restait
à dire à propos de Ct 2,1.
III. L'AMALGAME DES SOURCES
On voit ici la complexité du problème du traitement des scholies. En
voici un autre exemple: il s'agit de la scholie n° 6, qui est attribuée à
Origène dans les témoins de l'Épitomé. Elle se rapporte aux premières
paroles de la Bien-aimée: «Qu'il me baise des baisers de sa bouche» (Ct
1,2a).
Voici une traduction de cette scholie:
Autre explication: Qu'il ne me demande pas en mariage par l'intermédiaire
des prophètes, dit-elle, mais qu'il s'entretienne lui-même avec moi selon le
sens spirituel, d'après lequel Jean dit: «Et nos mains ont palpé du Verbe de
la vie» (1 Jn 1,1). Elle s'exprime ainsi comme si elle avait entendu les
prophètes dire: «Le Roi s'est épris de ta beauté» (Ps 44,12) et ailleurs:
«Comme un époux se réjouira à cause de l'épouse, ainsi le Seigneur se
réjouira à cause de toi» (Is 62,5)16.
Si la scholie commence par Kat uÀ,À,roç (<<Autre explication»), c'est
parce qu'elle est précédée d'une première scholie, tirée de Grégoire de
Nysse.
Voici maintenant une traduction du texte correspondant dans la version
de Rufin:
Parce que déjà le siècle touche à sa fin, et que sa présence [= celle du
Verbe] certes ne m'est pas donnée, mais que je vois ses serviteurs seuls qui
montent et descendent sur moi (cf. Gn 28,12), pour cette raison, à toi, Père
de mon époux, j'adresse ma prière et je te supplie qu'enfin, prenant pitié de
16. C'est la scholie n° 1 dans l'édition de M.A. Barbàra (150).
 710 J.-M. AUWERS
mon amour, tu me l'envoies, pour que maintenant il ne me parle point par
ses serviteurs, à savoir les anges et les prophètes, mais qu'il vienne lui-
même en personne, et qu'il me baise des baisers de sa bouche, c'est-à-dire
qu'il répande dans ma bouche les paroles de sa bouche, que je l'entende
lui-même parler, que je le voie lui-même enseigner!7.
D'un côté comme de l'autre, le sens du texte est clair: l'épouse, qui a
déjà reçu, par l'intelmédiaire des prophètes, les cadeaux de fiançailles
que sont les enseignements de l'Ancien Testament, demande au Père de
l'époux de lui envoyer son Fils pour qu'il l'instruise de sa propre bouche,
symbolisée par les baisers. L'idée est plus appuyée dans la traduction de
Rufin que dans la scholie caténique. Par contre, on ne retrouve pas chez
Rufin la citation de 1 Jn 1,1 ni les deux citations de l'Ancien Testament
(Ps 44,12 et 1s 62,5). La consultation de la chaîne dite d'Eusèbe, qui a
puisé au même fonds que l'Épitomé de Procope, est ici instructive: le
contenu de la scholie n° 6 de l'Épitomé s'y retrouve, mais réparti entre
deux scholies anonymes distinctes: les scholies n° 2 et n° 4 de la chaîne
dite d'Eusèbe. La première (= scholie n° 2) est présentée comme un
commentaire du titre du livre: «Cantique des cantiques»:
(Eusèbe nO 2) Autre explication: Qu'il ne me demande pas en mariage par
l'intennédiaire des prophètes, dit-elle, mais qu'il s'entretienne par lui-même
avec moi. Car autre que le sens chamel est le sens spirituel, d'après lequel
Jean dit: «Et nos mains ont palpé du Verbe de la vie» (1 Jn 1,1) et l'épouse
désire donner un baiser (sic). Le Cantique des cantiques, c'est le saint Esprit
qui le dit; il chantera ce cantique pour quiconque vit en paix, libéré de ses
passions 18 •
L'autre scholie (n° 4 dans la chaîne d'Eusèbe) porte explicitement sur
Ct 1,2 (<<Qu'il me baise des baisers de sa bouche»):
(Eusèbe n° 4) Autre explication: Quand les prophètes, porteurs de cadeaux
de fiançailles, amènent à l'épouse l'oubli des maux, la suppression du
péché, la transfonnation de la nature, le royaume d'en-haut du paradis de
délices, alors, s'étant couverte de joie comme de fleurs, elle se précipite vers
ce don et elle s'empresse vers l'union. Car c'est de la même manière que
Moïse qui, à plusieurs reprises, a été jugé digne de ce baiser et qui, rempli
d'assurance, s'est entretenu avec Dieu de bouche à bouche (Nb 12,8), lui a
dit, alors qu'il ne le voyait pas: «Manifeste-toi à moi» (Ex 33,13). De
même, les prophètes disent: «Le Roi s'est épris de ta beauté» (ps 44,12)
17. Origène, CCt 1.1.7 (SC 375,180-182).
18. "AÎcÎcroç. M~ 8tà npo<P11't"rov I!V11<l"t"EUO'uO'Sro W:, <P110'\, àÎcÎcà 81' Éauwu
ol! lÎc11O'U't"ro I!E. "AÎcÎc11 8è napà 't"~V O'apK1K~V ~ nVEUl!a't"lK~ atO'Sl1O'lç 81' ~ç (5 't"E
'IrouVV11Ç <P11O'iv' Kal al Xe1peç llfiwV èlJl11ÀaifJ1wav nepl 'Wu Àayov 't"iiç ,w~ç Kat ~ VUI!<P11
<plÎc~O'at noSeî'. ~A10'I!a Q.O'l!u't"rov 't"o üylOV nVEiil!u <P11O'tV, npoç nuv't"a etp11vEuov'ta
àno 't"rov naSrov {iO'E't"at 't"o ~O'l!a 't"ou'W.
LE CCT DANS LA TRADUCTION DE RUFIN ET DANS L'ÉPlTOME DE PROCOPE 711
et ailleurs: «Comme un époux se réjouira à cause de l'épouse, ainsi le
Seigneur se réjouira à cause de toi» (Is 62,5)!9.
On voit bien que la scholie n° 2 d'Eusèbe mêle à une explication
se rapportant aux baisers de Ct 1,2 une réflexion générale sur le titre
«Cantique des cantiques» (Ct 1,1). La critique des sources montre que
la scholie n° 4 d'Eusèbe amalgame elle aussi des matériaux de prove-
nance diverse: les deux premières phrases (jusqu'à la citation d'Ex 33,13)
sont reprises, avec une liberté sans cesse croissante, à Grégoire de
Nysse 20 • Les citations de Ps 44,12 et 1s 62,5 proviennent d'une autre
source, sans doute Philon de Katpasia, qui cite ces deux textes à cet
endroit de son commentaire21 •
À partir de ce constat, deux hypothèses peuvent être envisagées pour
la scholie nO 6 de l'Épitomé: ou bien la pièce doit être scindée en deux
scholies distinctes, la première revenant à Origène, la deuxième à un
autre auteur, dont le sigle aurait disparu dans nos manuscrits; ou bien le
caténiste, qui, dans la scholie précédente a condensé le commentaire de
Grégoire, n'a pas voulu perdre les rapprochements intra-bibliques qu'il
a trouvés dans ses sources (1 Jn 1,1 est cité par Grégoire de Nysse;
Ps 44,12 et 1s 62,5 par Philon), et il a «gonflé» la scholie origénienne
avec du matériel non-origénien qui lui paraissait pertinent. Ce qui est
certain, c'est que cette scholie, attribuée à Origène dans nos manuscrits
de l'Épitomé, fusionne des matériaux de différentes provenances; l'écati
avec la traduction de Rufin s'explique par là.
CONCLUSION
Une conclusion s'impose: le caténiste ne s'est jamais donné la peine
de fournir à son lecteur une vue complète de l'exégèse origénienne d'un
verset. il a omis les excursus théologiques, ainsi que les digressions sur
l'emploi de tel mot à travers les deux Testaments ou encore les exh01ia-
19. "AÎcÎcroç. Trov È8vo<poprov npo<P11't"rov àyov'trov 'tTI vUI!<Pn àl!v11O''tiav KaKrov,
ul!ap'tiaç dvaipEO'tV, I!E't"aO'wtxEiroO'lV <pUO'EroÇ, napa8EiO'ou 't"pu<p~ç 'tTtV avro
~aO'lÎcEiav, Èç,aVSEtç 'tTI xapÇi, Ka't"E1t1O'nEu8Et 't"~v 86O'tV~ Kat ~poç 'tTt~ àvuKpaO'l~
ÈnEiyE't"at. Qü'tro yàp Kat MroO'~ç nOÎcÂétKlç 'tOU'tou yE 't"ou <p1Îc11l!a'toç aç,lroSE1Ç Kat
O''tol!a npoç O''t"ol!a nÎc11po<poP11SEiÇ SEÔV, roç I!Tt sropaKroç aÎJ'tov ËÎcEyEV 'EfiifJaW(J'av
fiai (J'eavrav, roç nDV npo<P11'trov ÎcEyOV'troV 'Ene9vwwev b [Ja(J'IÀeùç 'Wu KaÀÀovç (J'av
Kat àÎcÎcaxou "01' 't"panov eùifJpav911(J'eral vVfiifJÎoÇ ènl vvpifJ/l, ol5rw eùifJpav9~(J'eral
KVplOÇ ènÎ (J'al.
20. Grégoire de Nysse, Homélies surie Cantique des cantiques, l (éd. H. LANGERBECK,
Leiden, 1960,24.6-13; 31.8-32.1).
21. Philon de Karpasia, Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques, 1 (PG 40, 33A).
 712 J,-M, AUWERS
tions moralisantes; par contre il a un intérêt marqué pour les variantes
hexaplaires, que Rufin n'a pas jugé utile de traduire pour ses lecteurs
latins. On a bien l'impression que, dans l'Épitomé, l'Alexandrin est cité
en complément d'autres auteurs, Grégoire de Nysse en particulier2 • C'est
ce qui explique sans doute qu'à plusieurs reprises le caténiste a privilégié
l'interprétation ecclésiale proposée pal' Origène, l'application du verset à
l'âme individuelle du croyant étant déjà représentée pal' Grégoire 23 • Cette
positi~n. secondaire d'Origène dans l'Épitomé explique aussi le fait que
le catemste a amalgamé à la scholie origénienne des matériaux d'une
autre provenance. Les cas où la scholie se superpose à la traduction de
Rufin et où on peut penser être en présence d'une citation ad litteram
sont exceptionnels. Il faut avouer qu'au total l'Épitomé ne donne qu'une
idée très partielle de l'exégèse origénienne du Cantique, et que parfois
même il en dénature le contenu24 •
Faculté de théologie Jean-Marie AUWERS
Grand-Place, 45
B - 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
jean-marie.auwers@uclouvain.be
22. Mat~de, AUSSEDAT a fait la même observation à propos du traitement d'Origène
dans la chaille a auteurs multiples sur Jérémie: «(Le caténiste) ne cherche pas tant à
respecterla lett!'e du texte origénien qu'à mettre en valeur l'esprit de celui-ci, en sélection-
nant, quelques Id~es qu:il ,résume et récrit, pour les intégrer plus facilement dàns la suc-
cession des extraIts patnstiques»: Les chaînes exégétiques grecql/es sl/r le livre de Jérémie
(chap, 1-4), Présentation, édition critique, tradl/ction française commentaire [thèse
soutenue à l'Université de Paris IV, 2006, non publiée], t. 1,245, '
o 23, Dans d'autres cas, c.'est l'application du verset à l'Église qui est omise (scholies
n 30 e~ 125). Dans la schohe nO 35, un paragraphe de l'interprétation collective du verset
est récnt dans un sens individuel. li n'y a donc pas d'exclusive,
~4. (\, RICKE~, Selmsl/cht nach Goff bei Origenes: Ein Weg zur verborgenen
W:"shelf des Hohenlledes (Studien zur systematischen und spirituellen Theologie, 30),
Wurzburg, Echter, 2002, pp, 204-205 arrive à la même conclusion,
ORIGEN IN THE MAKING
READING BETWEEN (AND BEHIND) THE LINES OF EUSEBIUS'
'LIFE OF ORIGEN' (HE 6)
In antiquity just as today, there are several ways for becoming famous.
A person's achievements can speak for themselves. Or, if need be, one
can make them speak by emphasising, in one way or another, their
importance. But often also it is not just a matter of one's own initiative.
Others have to pick up on what you have been doing, or saying, or writ-
ing, whether to put it to use, to fUlther it, or to fight it. A sure indication
you really can be called famous, it would seem, then as now, is when
others start writing your biography, thereby (re-)constructing your 'life'
andyour 'person' 01' 'personality'.1t is an honour that also befell Origen
when Eusebius of Caesarea, who had aIready contributed to his teacher's
Pamphilus' Apology of Origen 1, decided to include sorne biographical
information on this character in his Ecclesiastical Hist01Y (HE) and
arrange it into (sorne sort of) a 'Life of Origen'. History has shown
through many ex amples that such can also tum out to be a dubious hon-
our. Indeed the biographer can 'honour' 01' 'dishonour' his subject; 01' he
can also make it into an opportunity to 'honour' himself, or a cause he
stands fol'. That the latter has (a1so) happened with Eusebius' 'Life of
Origen' is the topic of this essay.
The materia1 in Book 6 is one of the primary sources fol' our knowl-
edge of Origen' s life, in part because it relied on information that
stemmed from Origen himself but otherwise has been 10st, though that is
a1so part of the prob1em modem scho1ars have with Eusebius' 'Life'. The
'ups and downs' and 'back and forth' of the research on Origen' s life and
biography are well known and there is no need to repeat this here. As
before, Pierre Nautin's detailed ana1ysis of Book 6 remains the model of
a most accurate and critica1 reading2 • This remains true, even if "not aU
of [his] theories have gained the same degree of hearing among scho1-
ars", as John Anthony McGuckin has formu1ated it most elegantly in his
account of Origen's 1ife3 • A very different approach of the same text has
1. See the edition of R, AMACKER and É. JUNOD in SC 464-465 (2002),
2, P. NAUTIN, Origène, 1. Sa vie et son oel/vre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, 1977,
3, Art, The Life of Origen, in ID, (ed,), The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Louis-
ville, KY - London, 2004, 1-23, here p. 1 n. 1.
714 J. VERHEYDEN
been offered by Patricia Cox working from the model of the 'holy man'4,
an approach that is not without any problems itself and indeed recently
again has raised the anger of John Dillon, because he thinks there is a
real danger that a modem scholar's thoughts and framework take over
and turn us away from the text itself5. In 2002 Origen's biography took
central stage in an international conference held in TOI'inO, of which the
acts were published two years later6 • Eusebius' 'Life' obviously takes a
place of honour in it. It is studied for what it can learn us about the author
Eusebius 7 , its relation to the Apology ofPamphilus 8 , the 'martyrological'
model it follows 9, its reception by RufinuslO, and some specific issues it
deals with - Origen's youth ll and the persecution by Severus of 202 in
Alexandria 12.
It is not my intention once more to go over the many detailed observa-
tions of Nautin, or squarely to challenge the 'holy man' approach, or to
comment on the essays of the Torino conference. Rather, 1 want to draw
attention to a set of observations and questions that can be raised or
culled from the text of Eusebius itself. They have to do with the purpose
of his account and will be dealt with on the overall hypothesis that what
has not been said is as important, and indeed perhaps even more impor-
4. Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man (The TransfOlmation of the
Classical Heritage, 5), Berkeley, CA, 1983, pp. 69-101.
5. Holy and Not So Holy: On the Intelpretation of Late Antique Biography, in
B. McGINN - J. MOSSMANN (eds.), The Limits of Ancient Biography, Swansea, 2006, 155-
167, p. 156.
6. A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), La biografia di Origene fra storia e agiografia. Affi
deI VI Convegno di Studi deI Gl'lIppO Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione
Alessandrina (Biblioteca di Adamantius, 1), Villa VeIUcchio, 2004.
7. C. MARKSCHIES, Eusebius aIs Schriftsteller: Beobachtungen ZlIIIl sechsten Buch der
Kirchengeschichte, 33-50.
8. É. JUNOD, L'Apologie pour Origène de Pamphile et Eusèbe et les développements
sur Origène dans le livre VI de l'Histoire ecclésiastique, 183-200 (response: E.I'RINZIVALLI,
201-206).
9. C. MAzzucco, Ilmodello martiriale nella "Vita di Origene" di Eusebio, 207-255
(response: C. GIANOTTO, 257-258).
10. E. BONA, Origene nella versione di Rufino deI VI libro dell' Historia di Eusebio:
Interventi e dijferenti accentuazioni, 289-310 (response: F. PIER!, 311-313).
11. E. NORELLI, Il VI !ibro dell' Historia ecclesiastica: AppzlI/ti di storia della reda-
zione. Il caso dell'infanzia e dell'adolescenza di Origene, 147-174 (response: C. ZAMAGNI,
175-181): with special interest in the importance of this motif in biographies, in the
sources of Eusebius, and in the relation of this section to the one on Origen's youth in the
Apology. On the genre and sources, see already R.M. GRANT, Eusebius as Church Histo-
rian, Oxford, 1980, pp. 77-83. On Origen's early years, see now also A. FÜRST, Derjunge
Origenes illl Bildwzgsmilieu Alexandriens, in F.R. PROSTMEIER (ed.), Friihc1zristentllmllnd
Kultur (Kommentar zu frühchristlichen Apologeten. Erganzungsband, 2), Freiburg, 2007,
249-277.
12. E. DAL COVOLO, "Quando Severo scatenà una persecllzione contro le clziese ... ":
La persecllzione deI 202 ad Alessandria, 279-288.
ORIGEN IN THE MAKING 715
tant, as what can be read in it. Of course, this does not mean that the facts
about Origen do not matter, or that they would aIl be WOIthless. The
reader for sure gets facts on Origen, even though one had wished to find
more, and part of it is probably just good reliable stuff, if only because
it is not polemically 01' theologicaIly biased. But it is my hypothesis that
there is more to this 'Life' than a mere interest in historical research on
the part of Eusebius or the wish to provide the reader with a handy
'standard' biography of a very important pers on that was dear to the
author. So 1 have read once more through the account in Book 6 with this
hypothesis in mind. What 1 have been looking for takes on various forms
as 1 will briefly show with some illustrations.
1. 'THE SOURCES
One way in which 'the untold' certainly is of importance has to do
with the sources Eusebius has been using and the fOImat in which he has
been using them. He tells the. reader about these sources right at the
beginning of his account in 6.2.1. Being well aware that a full account
of so important a figure would take a volume of its own (iùiac;
o7t03Éc)EcoC;), Eusebius continues, "However, for the present 1 shaIl cut
down most parts of the story to the fewest possible words, and mention
only a few features of his career. The facts here set forth are drawn from
some letters and from the recollections of those of his friends who have
lived on till my own time" (6.2.1)13. These words look quite hannless.
They are not. For in one clause Eusebius has declared all his sources
'sound and reliable'. He caIls upon his own authority as a scholar to war-
rant the truth of the oral tradition ("recollections") he will make ample
use of (the argument: 'he has known these people'). And by the same
token the letters are cleared as weIl. They are not further identified at this
stage. It is not even said who has authored them. In fOImulating the way
he does ("from some letters and from the recollections of those of his
friends ... "), it looks as if these too had been written by some friends and
acquaintances whose trustWOIthiness Eusebius has guaranteed by his own
pers on. That is aIl the more remarkable as one of the more important of
13. oJ.!roç ù' flruiiç sni 'tou napovwç È7tt'tEJ.!OJ.!Evot 'tà nÂ,EtO''ta ùtà ~paXÉrov <hç
olov 'tE, ôÂ,tya a't'ta 'trov nEpi aù'tov ÙtEÂ,EuO'oJ.!ESa, l:K nvrov S7ttO''tOÂ,rov Kai !O''tOptaç
'trov Kai dç flJ.!aç 't<\1 ~t41nE<puÂ,aYJ.!Évrov aù'tou yvroptJ.!rov 'tà ÙllÂ,OtlJ.!Eva <pÉpoV'tEç.
Citations of the Greek text are taken from the edition of E. SCHWARZ (GCS II.2, 1908), re-
edited by F. WINKELMANN (GCS NF, 6, 1999). The English translation cited here is that
of G.A. WILLIAMS ON for Penguin Books (1965, repr. 1967).
 716 J. VERHEYDEN
these letters, indeed a major source of Eusebius as Nautin has demon-
strated, came from the pen of Origen himself and, moreover, was an
apology explaining his troubles with the bishop of Alexandria14 . Later
on, in 6.19.12-14, Eusebius will quote from this letter and duly identify
it as an apology on the part of Origen defending his good name as a con-
noisseur of Hellenistic culture (6.19.14), but at this crucial opening Euse-
bius simply 'forgets' to say anything on the status of these letters. We
are supposed or invited to start reading in good faith; or altematively, for
the more critically minded, to develop, right from the start, a sound sus-
picion towards the quality of the material that is related. Eusebius like-
wise 'forgets' to mention here that he himself had co-authored an Apol-
ogy of Origen (he will refer to it twice much later in 6.23.4 and 6.36.4),
which 1 would think is basic information for a reader trying to get a clear
picture of the state of affairs with regard to the sources and the capacities
of the author to write such a 'biography'. Eusebius does not care. It looks
as if he takes it for granted that by now the reader should have built up
enough confidence to trust the author. Instead of bothering about his
status as a biographer of Origen and that of his sources, what Eusebius
has been doing in 6.2.1 can only be described as a bold attempt at draw-
ing up what he thinks should be seen as nothing less but the 'standard'
biography of this hero. It may well be that he has been (very) selective,
or has abbreviated here and there, and he does not openly say that one
should no longer care about the 'other material' that he has left out. But
the net result of the whole operation Eusebius has been conducting, and
the way he writes about it, is that readers are given the strong impression
there is no need anymore to try and get a look at that other material which
apparently is not easy to access (recollections of a long-gone era and
private letters). Why still bother about this material if one has now a good
and readily accessible account at hand?
And there is more to it. Eusebius quotes directly from these letters, but
he also uses them to write his account of the facts on Origen. If anything
else, this mixture of quotations and narrative creates confidence. The
fOlmer show that the author is not afraid from giving the reader direct
access to his sources, but at the same time they should contribute to the
impression that the narrative is equally reliable. In doing so Eusebius has
also transferred part of the biographical material he passes on from one
genre to another, from an autobiographical apology to a self-styled 'neu-
tral', 'scholarly' account of the history of the church of Alexandria and
some of its major representatives. By this very procedure he has also
14. Origène (n. 2), pp. 21-24.
ORIGEN IN THE MAKING 717
saved this material and freed it from the suspicion or criticism it would
certainly be liable of if it were only transmitted through that other genre
of the autobiographical apology. Indeed, the easy way for Eusebius to
inform his readers would have been merely extensively to quote from
Origen's own letter, but it would also have been the less profitable one.
For who among the readers of HE that were somewhat critical of Origen
would put any faith in an account that merely cites from the man's own
work? Yet that is what Eusebius has been doing. Only, by transferring
that material into a 'Life of Origen', and making it part of HE at that, the
material can keep its validity and is, so to speak, 'made reliable'. So far
for the story about the sources, in which what is not said has been shown
to be as important as what the text says.
II. A SCHOLAR ON THE MOVE
But there are other ways in which 'the untold' is of importance, and
that have more directly to do with how Eusebius represents Origen's
career, his literary production, and his struggles with the leaders of the
church in Alexandria. Readers of the 'Life' in Book 6 may well get the
impression that this is the account of a (in part at least) failed careel".
From a celtain point of view this is true, and the facts as they are told by
Eusebius offer little to counter this. Origen is introduced as some kind of
boy wonder who seemingly embarrasses his own father with his theo-
logical skills, though the latter also prides himself of being the father of
such a prodigy (6.2.9-11). He finishes his studies in a record time and is
off for what promises to become a brilliant career as a teacher and soon
also as a churchman. But healso seems to have developed a taste for
extreme asceticism (6.3.11-12), even causing controversy (6.8 !)15, and he
will never make it to the top16. Instead at one point he 1eaves (has to
leave, or was lured away17) for Palestine and starts over in foreign terri-
15. Eusebius leaves no doubts about it that Origen's self-mutilation was very badly
received by his bishop Demetrius. Things tumed for the worse when Origen is then
ordained to the priesthood by bishops of Caesarea Palestina and Jerusalem (6.8.4-5).
16. On various aspects of the 'Alexandrian' years, see several essays in the collection
edited by C. KANNENGIESSER - W. PETERSEN, Origen of Alexandria: His World and His
Legacy. 1: Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, Notre Dame, IN, 1988; also A. JAKAB,
Ecclesia alexandrina: Évolution sociale et institutionnelle du christianisme alexandrin
(Ile et IlI' siècles) (Christianismes anciens, 1), Bem, 2001, pp. 141-173. Jakab puts great
emphasis on the dramatic character of the move away from Alexandria for aIl parties
involved. In particular he wonders why Heraclas, Origen's pupil, never seems to have
taken any initiative to calI back his former teacher (172).
17. So McGuCKIN, Life (n. 3), p. 14.
718 J. VERHEYDEN
tOly, a fact that Eusebius relates with no emotion, however dramatic it
must have been 18 • As if to make things worse, Eusebius do es not fail
to mention that in Alexandria he was succeeded by his fOlmer pupi!
Heraclas, whom Origen had appointed as his collaborator for the intro-
ductOly level (6.15). Very much unlike Origen, this Heraclas directly
went on to the highest position and to le ad the church of Alexandria after
the death of Demetrius (6.26). The same career was reserved for another
disciple of Origen: Dionysius succeeded to Heraclas in both capacities
(6.29.4 and 6.35). If Eusebius could not keep silent about what happened
in Alexandria after Origen had left, he at least could have refrained from
telling this in the very same ShOlt passage in which he recalls Origen's
departure from Alexandria. He does not.
As Eusebius represents it, the tensions with Demetrius have to do with
the bishop opposing Origen's overzealous asceticism and with sorne
colleague-bishops overstepping juridical boundaries (at least in the eyes
of Demetrius) by ordaining Origen into the Caesarean church. Eusebius
does not clarify whether or not Demetrius had the law on his side in
criticising the ordination. He does not mention Origen's remorse about
his self-mutilation (in Matt. 15.3). It aIl vely much looks as if Demetrius,
and Demetrius only, is the bad guy and Origen a model of innocence.
And it does not stop there. Apparently the whole long tmm of Demetrius'
office (in aIl fOlty-three years!) can be summarised in this controversy
with Origen. Eusebius knows of nothing else worth telling about the
bishop. In line with this, his passing away is mentioned in one clause and
no further comments whatsoever in one of the many chronological notes
Eusebius has interspersed and used as a framework for arranging Origen' s
life (6.26). The clause stands in strong contrast, both in length and in
tone, with the most sympathetic and highly praising chapter that follows
it, in which Eusebius explains at length how several of the great
colleagues of Demetrius, Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of
Caesarea, but also PirmiIianus of Caesarea in Cappadocia, consider
Origen as their sole master and teacher (ota otoao'KuÂcp /lovcp, 6.27) and
invite him to their dioceses.
And what a great teacher and scholar Origen must have been. He was
it aIready in Alexandria, but as Eusebius sees it, it is in Caesarea that he
l'eally became the leading scholar of his day. One way to illustrate this is
by drawing up Origen's bibliography. Eusebius has a keen interest in this
18. A short chronological note is ail there is: "It was in the tenth year of Alexander's
reign that Origen made the move from Alexandria to Caesarea" (HE 6.26). Cf. the note
in the Chronicol/: "Origenes de Alexandria ad Caesaream Palestinae transit".
ORIGEN lN THE MAKlNG 719
matter, especially in questions of dating and locating the many works
Origen wrote. This is not presented in the form of a general catalogue or
sorne sort of appendix to the 'Life' itself, but fully integrated into the
account and broken up according to the various periods in Origen's life.
The way in which this is told by Eusebius gives the impression that the
larger part of his works were composed after he had left Alexandria in
232. This may indeed have been the case, but was it really necessmy to
make this point so emphatically as it is done in the 'Life'? Of course,
Origen had aIready published when still in Alexandria. The reader gets
what looks as the fuIllist of his publications from that period in 6.24. As
a matter of fact this bibliography was aIready quite impressive with three
major books (On Resurrection, Stromateis, De Principiis, aIl in multiple
volumes) and no less than four commentaries (Psalms 1-25, Lamenta-
tions, John, Genesis). But it should be noted that it was in Caesarea that
he wrote the larger part of the commentmy on John and that he finished
the one on Genesis. It is in Caesarea that Origen pro duces his commen-
taries on Isaiah (6.32.1), on Matthew and on the Minor Prophets, as weIl
as the c. Celsum (6.36) and the Exhortation on Martyrdom (6.28). And
it is in that same city that he started working on his commentary on
Ezekiel and finished the one on Canticles (6.32.2). This list may not seem
to surpass the one of the Alexandrian period, but Eusebius has ways to
make the reader believe that things were quite different indeed. In 6.32.3
he breaks off the list of Origen's writings "from that period" (i.e., those
written under the Gordiani, 238-244) and refers the reader to the full long
catalogue he says he had drawn up and included in his Vita Pamphili.
The original is lost, but Jerome made a selection from it of no less than
800 titles (Ep. 33 ad Paulam) and informs us that in fact it counted up to
2000 (!) titles (adv. Rufinum 2.22). By mentioning this catalogue only
here in 6.32, and not also when listing the production in Alexandria, the
reader is given the impression that the list in 6.24 is complete, whiIe the
one in 6.32 is only a very small selection from a bibliography that would
need "a study of its own" (6.32.3 iotas OEO/lEVOV crxoÂf)S)·
Eusebius repeats this same procedure in a somewhat different forrn in
6.36.3-4 after having given a second list of Origen's writings from the
Caesm'ea period. Now he also mentions letters to the emperor (Philips
Arabs) and his wife, which prove that Origen was in correspondence with
the highest authorities and also that he had not been 'forgotten' after his
move from Alexandria where he once had been contacted by the mother
empress Julia Mammaea (6.21.3-4). There is mention of letters to several
other addressees, among them the bishop of Rome and numerous other
Church leaders. Eusebius informs the reader that he has collected this
720 J. VERHEYDEN
cOITespondence of more than 100 letters in "special volumes" (Èv tbiutc;
-rOJ..lIDV 1t6ptypU<j>uî'C;) and has cited from them in his Apology for Origen.
Again the impression is that this cOITespondence came about when
Origen stayed in Caesarea. It may have been true, but was it that impor-
tant?
It is in Caesarea, long ago when he first visited the city in or around
215, that Origen had first begun to preach, with the consent and support
of "the bishops of the region" (6.19.16). Preaching then became one of
the major activities of Origen after he had moved to Caesarea, and one
that resulted in a good deal of literary activity when he finally allowed
secretaries to take down his words as Eusebius reports in 6.36.1. Again
aIl this strengthens the impression that it was not in Alexandria but in
Caesarea, to where he had moved in his late forties and where he would
spend the last two decades of his life, that Origen reaIly became the
prolific author as later generations have come to know him.
And Origen was not just an author, he also became a most cherished
master and teacher and a much sought after referee in numerous theologi-
cal disputes. He is given aIl possible support from the highest circles (the
bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea) to dedicate himself to learning and
study (6.27). He is visited by brilliant youngsters from far abroad, such as
the brothers Theodore and Athenodorus (6.30), who will go on to be
elected bishops in their native Pontus. In any case they prove to be much
more respectful of Origen than his one time disciple Heraclas in Alexan-
dria, who never seems to have cared much about him after he had left
Alexandria and made no effort whatsoever to reclaim him for his native
city 19. Origen is in cOITespondence with such prestigious scholars as Julius
Africanus whose merits as a theologian are recalled in detail in 6.31. He is
cited by Eusebius as an expert on so obscure a sect as that of the Elkesaites
(6.38). And he is solicited in theological disputes in Bosra (6.33) and else-
where in Arabia (6.37). In a word, it is in Caesarea that Origen finally gets
the respect and recognition that had been refused to him in Alexandria.
Now one might think little of a theologian who is 'big in Bosra', especiaIly
from an Alexandrian perspective and if that person was a fmIDer teacher
of the famous school of Alexandria. But that is oruy one way of looking at
the evidence. The other is that it shows Origen to be the leading theologian
of the whole of Palestine. And after aIl, the disputes are not with nobodies.
19. Theodore may well be the same person as the author of the discourse in gratitude
of Origen that goes under the name of Gregory the TIlaumaturge. On this document, see
G. DORIVAL, Est-il légitime d'éclairer le Discours de remerciement par la Lettre à
Grégoire et réciproquement? Ou la tentation de Pasolini, in MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.),
Biografia (n. 6), 9-26 (response: M. R!zZI, 27-32).
ORIGEN IN THE MAKING 721
Beryllus is a bishop and the controversy with 'the Arabs' in 6.37 is solved
only by a local but "not unimportant" synod in which Origen is like the
central figure and cornes out victoriously, not by acting upon his sheer
power, as Demetrius probably would have done, but because of his intel-
lectual superiority20. There may be sorne or even much truth in this whole
picture, but it most certain1y is not the full truth.
But so far again for the story that has been toId. Behind it is another
one that has not been told openly, but that nevertheless is very much
present and of great importance to Eusebius. In telling his story of
Origen's life Eusebius has refrained as much as possible from any com-
ments of a kind. But it is obvious from the story itself, and from the way
it is toId, that for Eusebius Origen's move to Caesarea marked no less
than the beginning of the decline of Alexandria as a centre of learning
and the rise of a new one, and one that for obvious reasons was most dear
to Eusebius. Caesarea, and by extension Palestine, is the place where
things are happening once Origen moved in, with the fun support of its
bishop. Alexandria, by contrast, had lost its great son, its luminary,
through the meddling of its bishop.
The previous clause needs two further comments, one about Alexan-
dria, and another one about Caesarea. Of course, Alexandria had not 10st
an of its glory at once. Dionysius, the former student, managed to keep
up appearances, as Eusebius duly notes, once calling him "the great
bishop of Alexandria", quite an exceptional qualification, and quoting
extensively from the bishop's letters about how the Alexandrian church
suffered heavily from the hOITors of Decius' persecution (6.40-42). But
apparently that was aIl he has to tell about this bishop, who is represented
as a pastor rather than as an intellectual21 . Later on Eusebius will inform
the reader that one Anato1us was appointed the head of the Peripatetic
school of the city (7.32.6)22 and even was elected bishop of Laodicea
20. HE 6.37 Kat 3it Kat 't6'tE crUYKpO'tllSEicrllÇ où crl.ltKpUÇ cruv630u, 1taÎvlV
'QptyéV'lç 1tapaKÎvllSEtÇ Kat ÈV'ta@a Kwftcraç 'tE Îv6youç È1tt 'tOU KOWOU 1tEpt 'tOU
Sll'touj.lévou, OÜ'tcoç i]véXSll <l>ç j.lE'ta'tESi;vat 'tàç 'trov 1tp6'tEpOV Ècr<paÎvj.lévcov
3wvo{aç. Williamson's "he opened a public debate" (so also P.L. MAœR, 1999) for
Kwftcraç 'tE Îv6youç È1tt wu KOWOU may be closer to the mark than G. Bardy's mere
"après avoir fait des discours à l'assemblée".
21. JAKAB (Ecclesia alexandrina ln. 16], p. 245) points to the great influence and
prestige of the bishop, as this can be demonstrated from ~s letters, ~ut he also adds, '.'nous
devons également reconnaître que ses lettres ... ne fourrussent pratiquement aucune mfor-
mation sur la vie et la situation de sa propre communauté"; as a consequence, "Une tradi-
tion 'légendaire' s'est substituée donc à l'absence des connaissances plus précises" (227).
22. But of the heads of the Alexandrian school he mentions oruy two, and quite later
in his work (7.32.30). Grant (Eusebius, p. 75) notes the contrast with Eusebius' interest in
this topic for the earlier generations.
 722 J. VERHEYDEN
in succession of his countryman Eusebius (7.32.5.12); fmther also that
a certain Achillas was made the head of the didaskaleion and that
Dionysius was succeeded by such weIl deserving bishops as Maximus,
Theonas, and Peter, one of the last to die a martyr in 312 (7.32.30-31).
But Eusebius has not much more to report on any of these men, not
even on the intriguing Anatolus who has caught the attention of modern
23
scholars ; and maybe indeed there was not much more to add.
As for Caesarea, a remarkable and puzzling silence is to be noted in
Eusebius' account. Apparently he has nothing to say about Origen's
efforts to put together a library. Of course, Origen did not actually
'found' the libl'ary at Caesarea. Its existence is documented aheady at
the end of the second century, but he cel'tainly played a major role in
giving it its international renown. The library itself is lost and very little
information has come to us about the details of Origen's activity at this
24
point • But it can hardly have been the case that Eusebius had nothing
to tell about it. Could it be that he takes away from Origen to give to
another (i.e., himself), even if he does not say so explicitly 25?
23. Cf. G. BARDY, Eusèbe de Césarée: Histoire ecclésiastique, 2 (SC, 41), Paris, 1955,
p. 223 n. 8: "Renseignement important à plusieurs titres. C'est, paraît-il, la première fois
que nous voyons un catholique orthodoxe enseigner la philosophie aristotélicienne,
généralement fort malmenée dans l'Église".
24. Its history and Origen's, and Eusebius', role in it has recently been studied in
sorne detail. See A. CARRIKER, The Librmy of Eusebius of Caesarea (Supplements to
Vigiliae Christianae, 67), Leiden, 2003, pp. 1-36. "A true library, with works oflitera-
ture and scholarship, can be said to have been established at Caesarea when the great
Alexandrian biblical scholar Origen settled at Caesarea" (3). Carriker has done a great
job in trying to reconstruct the contents of that library under Eusebius. Cf. also
A. GRAFTON - M. WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen,
Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea, Cambridge, MA - London, 2006, pp. 22-85.
"Despite his fame and his vast literary output, however, we have little infolmation
about the contents of Origen's library or the concrete uses to which he put his books.
... the sources cannot take us very far, making context crucial for any reconstruction"
(22). That context is provided by likening Origen's dealing with books and scholarly
activities to that of contemporary philosophers. This certainly offers sorne useful mate-
rial to compare with, even though, as the authors indicate, "we are not unaware that in
sorne quarters, this claim may seem controversial" (23).
25. While being well aware that he was working on the foundations that had been laid
by Origen and Pamphilus, Eusebius celtainly was not afraid of also demonstrating how
under his 'command' this scholarly system was further perfected and used for several huge
projects - the publication of several multivolume works of high learning that could simply
not have been made without the help of a library or the production of manuscripts of the
highest quality, with the 'boss' occasionally also overplaying his hand. Perhaps the best
illustration of such a project that was very much promoted by Eusebius, and probably even
inspired by him, but that neveltheless seems to have failed, is the famous episode of the
biblical manuscripts he promised the emperor. On the importance of the latter project, and
what it meant for the relation between Church and Empire, and generally on the role of
Eusebius in furthering scholarly life in Caesarea, see GRAFTON - WILLIAMS, Transforma-
OruGEN IN THE MAKING 723
III. A 'MARTYR' IN HIs OWN RIGHT
Ol'igen did not only fail his career, at least from a certain p.erspec~iv~,
he also failed his death. "li avait manqué sa mort", as Nautm put 1t m
the final paragraph of his book26 • But again that is only an impression
and one should read through the facts. AlI his life Origen had longed for
a mrutyr's death. It was not granted him. His first attempt was fmstl'~te~
by his mothel" Towru'ds the end of his life he suffered b~dly from DeclUs
henchmen, but he survived the damned emperor and h1S persecutors and
died an apparently peaceful death undel' Decius' successor Gallus. The
fact is mentioned ahnost in passing in the opening lines of Book 7 and
does not even belong anymore to the account of O ngen . '1''''
s lIe 27 . E useb'ms
does no try to turn Origen into a 'real' martyr, one wh~ ~eets hi~ fate at
the hands of a persecuting emperor. Probably the tradit~on. o~ his death
did not allow for such a drastic move. Eusebius knew his hmits and the
limits of an author working with tradition, but he also very weIl knew
how to exploit that tradition. .
Origen failed his death, but it did not make his.life.lack a chmax; .on
the contra1')'. Again there is the unto1d story behmd 1t. When Eusebms
was writing his HistOly there was good hope that the days of the m~yrs
might soon be over and martyrs something of the ~ast, a revered bme,
but one that was gone28 • Eusebius surely thought lt necessary to keep
alive the memories of the church's martyrs. Mter an he authored a book
on the Martyrs of Palestine 29 • A martyr Origen never was, tho~g.h he also
never tried to escape that faith as Eusebius notes; but he defmltely was
a confessor, one who had stood up and spoken out for the tmth in the
. (24)
tlOn n. , p 178-232
p . . The title of 'impresario' they . give Eusebius b"is in itself
tr'bsignifi-
f .
cant. More significant even is the way they describe, ~ one word, E~s~ lUS con. l u ton.
"The formation of the library at Caesarea by Pamphilus ... was m ltself nothing. new .
What came afterward was revolutionaty" (231). On the 'legen?ary.' character of the ltbraty
at Caesarea, with Grafton and Williams themselves contnbutmg to that legend, see
pp. 233-243.
26. Origène (n. 2), p. 441. _, • , Îv •
27. HE 7.1 'QptYBVllS Èv "tOUtC!> ÉVOS OBoVtU t~S ÇCOllS spooflllKOVtU U1tolt ll<ms
ihll, tSÎvEU"t«:i. 1 .. 1 (9) 249'
28. Somewhat in the same line also MAzzucco, Model 0 martma e~. '. p. .
"Eusebio tende a presentare il periodo della vita di Origene co~e Olmal de~lsa~~nte
orientato a una crescita dei credenti e della Chiesa e a~ favo~e d.ell'lmpero ~e~ il c:Isttan-
esimo .... Le persecuzioni invece appaiono come manifestaZtolli anomale dl nsentlmento
da parte di singoli imperatori". . ..
29. See my Pain and GIO/}': Some IntroductO/y COllllllents on the ~hetortcal Qualttles
and Potential of the Martyrs of Palestine by Eus~b~us.of Caesare~, f i J. LEE.~NS (ed.),
Martyrdolll and Persecutioll in Late Antique Clmst/Oll/ty. Festschrift BoudeWIJIl Dehalld-
scJ/l/tter (BETL, 241), Leuven, 353-391.
724 J. VERHEYDEN
face of great danger30 . And this type of hero might tum out to be more
apt for use in the near future. In itself, being a confessor would be enough
to cast bim in a role model for fellow Christians. But Origen is not 'your
usual' confessor. Eusebius has added to it yet another dimension. Origen
did not just face the wrath of a Roman govemor; he also stood by his
convictions when challenged by members of bis own church who unjustly
had tried to subdue him, and he triumphed over them. Here is a model
for a kind of fight that would go on even after the persecutions had
become sometbing of the past. His death may have been uneventful, but
as a model of one who faces dangers of bis own people Origen reached
weIl beyond his own time. Of course, at this point biography is on the
verge of meeting with hagiography. Eusebius has refrained from spilling
over into the latter genre and does not develop this in more detail, but l
suspect that tbis too is sometbing the attentive reader is bound to discover
in this 'Life'.
IV. CONCLUSION
What has been told is of primary impOltance for the reader looking for
information on Origen's life, and overall it is relatively reliable. But as
l have tried to argue, there are reasons to believe, both by the way
Eusebius has handled his sources and has toId the life and story of bis
hero, that what was passed under silence, the message that can be gained
from reading between or behind the lines and from reaching beyond the
account, may well be of equal importance to Eusebius, because it was
this what made him tell the story of Origen's life and made himself very
much part of it. Origen was bigger than life, and bigger than his own life.
That is one aspect of the untold story behind Eusebius' 'Life of Origen'.
30. See the long section (one clause!) in HE 6.39.5, and the efforts of the judge to
keep him alive: orou t'E t'à KUt" uÎnov ihuXEV t'BÂ.OUÇ, 1-l11/iU/.UDÇ m'nov àVEÂ.ElV 1tuvt't
O'SBVEt t'ou /itKUO''tOU <ptÂ.OVEtKCOÇ ÈVO't'uv'toç. D. MENDELS, The Media Revolution of
Early Christianity: An Essay on Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Grand Rapids, MI,
1999, pp. 84-89, correctly points out that the story is a somewhat 'dull' one after the many
accounts of martyrs' deaths that had preceded it. One reason may indeed have been that
by now such stories had become too repetitious. People get bored of hearing the same
story over and over again, even if it is a most horrible one. According to Mendels, the one
new thing Eusebius brings in this story, and the reason why he relates it in sorne detail
after ail, is that he can mention sorne new methods of torturing. 1 would add that the fact
that such a prominent figure as Origen escapes death may have been another reason for
telling the story. Mazzucco also points to the impression Origen' s resistance under suffer-
ing may have made upon pagans, "una qualità apprezzabile anche agli occhi di un pagano"
(Modello martiriale [no 9], p. 240).
ORIGEN IN THE MAKING 725
And there is another aspect to it, and it is but all too clear and obvious:
it is Origen who made Caesarea the most brilliant centre of Christian
culture, and is that not also Eusebius' own place? Scholars
may go on debating whether or not Eusebius did serve Origen well with
his 'Life'. It certainly also served his own position and status; and that
readers can grasp from reading the story of Origen's life. 'Origen in the
making' is also to sorne extent 'Caesarea, and Eusebius, in the making'31.
Catholic University Leuven Joseph VERHEYDEN
Faculty of Theology
St-Michielsstraat 4/3101
B-3000 Leuven
Belgium
jos.verheyden@theo.kuleuven.be
31. In so far as this motif - the messenger being (nearly) as important as the message
_ is (also) a characteristic of good rhetoric, this essay can be regarded as a modest
contribution to the somewhat hesitant revival of a more positive appreciation of Euse-
bius' qualities as an author that we are living today. For other illustrations taken from
the same sixth book of HE, see the essay by Markschies cited in n. 7 above. Markschies
is right when he adds that such an appreciation for the rhetorical and authorial aspects
does not in itself decide on the broader discussion about Eusebius the theologian and
historian, but it is an aspect that should duly be reckoned with: "Sicher ist jedenfalls,
dass in Zukunft noch viel genauer auf die literarischen und rhetorischen Fonnen der
Prasentation dieses Materials geachtet werden muss" (Eusebius aIs Schriftsteller [no 7],
p. 50). The ab ove is one attempt at doing this.
Needless to add that the phrase is inspired by such works as J. DUNN'S Christianity ;n
the Making, Grand Rapids, MI, 2003, and M. WILLIAMS' The MOllk and the Book: Jerome
and the Making of Christian Scholarship, Chicago, IL - London, 2006. A most intensive
scholarly activity and the collection of a library are two crucial factors also in describing
Jerome's life (see WILLIAMS, MOllk, pp. 25-62 and 133-165).
 THE/A ANAGNOS/S / LECTIO DIV/NA
ORIGENE, AMBROGIO, AGOSTINO

E' ben noto che la lectio divina - intesa come esercizio stabilmente
codificato di lettura della sacra pagina, con i suoi tempi e i suoi gradi
- si afferma piuttosto tardi: è solo nel mondo monastico di lingua latina
che la lectio - COS! compresa - vive più ampia consuetudine, fino a
trovare il suo esplicito legislatore in Guigo II, prime della Grande
Certosa quando Bernardo era morto ormai da vent' anni.
D'altra parte, pero, la lectio divina - più ampiamente intesa come
"lettura e ascolto pregato della Parola di Dio", 0 anche come "lettura
che concede molto spazio alla preghiera e alla conversione della vita" -
precede di gran lunga il XII secolo. Possiamo affermare anzi che essa
non è successiva alla Bibbia, ma interna ad essa. li discorso inaugurale
di Gesù nella sinagoga di Nazaret (Luca 4,16-27) non è forse un esempio
di lectio divina? l discepoli di Emmaus, che sentono ardere il cuore
mentre il Maestro spiega loro le Scritture (Luca 24,27), non fanno
l'esperienza caratteristica della 1ectio 1?
In verità, fin dai primi se coli cristiani, i Padri greci hanno coltivato e
raccomandato quella che Origene chiama la théia anâgnosis2 , e che i
Padri latini chiamano lectio divina: e proprio su questo segmento di
storia della lectio divina vonemmo concentl'are adesso la nostl'a atten-
zione, esaminandone i due snodi fondamentali, il primo - decisivo -
segnato da Origene, l'altl'O da Ambrogio e da Agostino.

1. Cfr. G. ZEVINI, La lectio divina nella comllllità cristiana: Spiritllalità - Metodo -

Prassi (Interpretare la Bibbia oggi, 1/2), Brescia, 22001, pp. 120-121; G. ZEVINI -
M. MARITANO (a cura di), La lectio divina nella vita della Chiesa (Studi di spiritualità,
15), Roma, 2005 (vedi in particolare il mio studio: La lectio divina nei Padri della Chiesa:
Dalla "svolta origeniana" aile regole monastiche,jino a GlIigo Il, 97-111); A.M. CANOPI,
Lectio divina, in L. BORRIELLO, et al. (a cura di), Encic/opedia della preghiera, Città dei
Vaticano 2007, 365-376.
2. L'espressione compare per la prima volta nellinguaggio cristiano in Origene,
Lettera a Gregorio 4, ed. H. CROUZEL (SC, 148), Paris, 1969, pp. 192-193. Cfr. M. MAsINI,
La lectio divina: Teologia, spiritllalità, metodo (Parola di Dio, 15), Cinisello Balsamo,
22002, pp. 13-15. Dello stesso autore, vedi anche la voce Lectio divilla, in M. SODI -
A.M. TRIACCA (a cura di), Dizionario di omiletica, Torino - Bergamo, 22002, 757-761
(con bibliografia essenziale). A differenza di quanto Masini sembra credere, è tutt'altro
che certa l'identificazione deI destinatario di questa lettera di Origene con l'autore dei
Ringraziamellfo: cfr. M. RIzzI, Gregorio il Taumatllrgo (?): Ellcomio di Origelle (Letture
cristiane dei primo millennio, 33), Milano - Torino, 2002.
 728 E. DAL COVOLO
Questo itinerario storico-teologico non consente di apprezzare 10 svi-
luppo della lectio divina nella tradizione orientale, dopo Origene. Rimane
i~ fatto che l'influsso dei Padri orientali è decisivo nella storia comples-
SIva della lectio divina. Tuttavia è nell'ambiente di lingua latina che la
lectio si definisce con maggiore precisione nelle sue tappe fondamentali
(lectio, meditatio, oratio e contemplatio), a partire appunto da sant' Am-
brogio.
ORIGENE
In primo luogo ci riferiamo dunque al III secolo, e a quella "svolta
origeniana" che ha segnato irreversibilmente la teologia dei Padri3.
Come è noto, la "svolta origeniana" cOlrisponde in sostanza alla fon-
dazione della teologia nell'esegesi, 0 meglio alla perfetta simbiosi tra
teologia ed esegesi: "Solo con Origene si giunge", a dire di Manlio
Simonetti, "all'interpretazione sistematica di libri interi della Scrittura 0
di larga parte di essi, e questo modo di insegnare", cioè di fare teologia
"si sarebbe perpetuato nella scuola alessandrina ... La conoscenza, ampi~
se ben lungi che completa, che abbiamo sia delle omelie sia dei commen-
tari di Origene ci permette di conoscere a fondo il suo modo d'insegnare,
che si identifica col suo modo d'interpretare la Scrittura"4.
Rimane, è vero, il De Principiis, che si configura come una serie abba-
stanza organica di discussioni relative a fondamentali argomenti teologici
(Dio, l'uomo, il mondo), affrontati in modo da approfondire razional-
mente il dato di fede. Ma è altrettanto vero che proprio nel De Principiis
Origene teorizza l' esegesi spirituale della Bibbia come cardine della
conoscenza di fede e della perfezione di vita5 •
3,' Cf~. su ,q,uesto ~, JUNOD, Des Apologètes à Origène: Aux origines d'une forme de
«theologle cn~/que», mRe,vue de Théologie et de Philosophie 121 (1989) 149-164, p. 164.
Qualcuno sostlene che Ongene non ha mai pensato a un itinerario individuale di lectio
divina, perché le sue sollecitudini erano ben più complessive, Questa riserva mi lascia
totalmente perplesso. Numerosi passi dell' Alessandrino attestano esattamente il contrario
E' sufficien~e r,ich~amare a questo proposito due passi dei Principi (1,10 e 4,2,4), m~
soprattutt? ,Il nfenmento alla celebre metafora delle noci (Omelia sui Numeri 9,7),
vol~a esph~ltamente a descrivere il cammino individuale di progresso nella scienza delle
Scntture (clOè, appunto, la théia anognosis 0 lectio divina).
4. ,M. SIMONETTI, Catechesi ed esegesi dal 1 al III secolo, in Esegesi e catechesi nei
Padn (sec.c. II-IV) (Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose, 106), Roma, 1993, p. 26; cfr. In., La
Sacra. Scnffura ne/la Chiesa delle origini (I-III secolo): Significato e intelpretazioni, in
Sales/anl/m 57 (1995) 63-74 (soprattutto pp. 72-74).
5. Cfr. L. PERRONE, La legge spirituale: L'interpretazione della Scriffura secondo
Origene ("1 Principi" , IV 1 -3), in Rivista di Ascetica e Mistica 17 (1992) 338-363.
THE/A ANAGNOS/S / LECTIO DIV/NA 729
In verità la sigla propria deI metodo teologico di Origene sembra
risiedere appunto nella sua incessante raccomandazione a trascorrere
dalla lettera allo spirito delle Scritture, pel' progredire nella conoscenza
di Di0 6: e questo "allegorismo" - come osservava già Hans Urs von
Balthasar - "non è nient'altro che 10 sviluppo deI dogma cristiano operato
dall'insegnamento dei dottori della Chiesa, insegnamento che è, esso
stesso, Scrittura in atto"7.
Coerentemente, la critica è concorde nell'apprezzare il "ruolo primor-
diale" esercitato da Origene nello sviluppo della lectio divina s. Da parte
mia, ho potuto controllare tale rilevanza specialmente nel corso di questi
ultimi anni, nei quali - dal 1996 ad oggi - ho avviato a Roma una
"lettura pubblica" delle opere di Origene9•
E' soprattutto nelle Omelie sul Levitico che Origene esplicita in mas-
simo grado il rapporto inscindibile che lega tra 101'0 la vita deI credente
(l'esercizio deI sacerdozio comune e l'itinerario incessante di perfezione,
a cui il fedele è chiamato) e la scienza delle Scritture (la théia anagnosis,
ovvero la "divina ricognizione" della sacra pagina: in definitiva, come
vedremo, la lectio divina). In particolare nella quarta Omelia, prendendo
10 spunto dalla legislazione levitica, secondo cui il fuoco pel' l'olocausto
doveva ardere perennemente sull'altare (Levitico 6,8-13), Origene apo-
strofa COS1 i suoi fedeli: "Ascolta: deve sempre esserci il fuoco sull'al-
tare. E tu, se vuoi essere sacerdote di Dio - come sta scritto: "Voi tutti
sarete sacerdoti deI Signore", e a te è detto: "Stirpe eletta, sacerdozio
l'egaIe, popolo che Dio si è acquistato" -, se vuoi esercitare il sacerdozio
della tua anima, non lasciare mai che si allontani il fuoco dal tuo altare"lO.
Qui l'Alessandrino allude scopertamente alle condizioni spirituali, che
rendono il fedele più 0 mena degno di esercitare il suo sacerdozio. COS1
infatli prosegue l'Omelia: "Cià significa quello che il Signore comanda nei
Vangeli, che "siano i vostri fianchi cinti e le vostre luceme accese". Dun-
que sia sempre acceso per te il fuoco della fede e la lucema della scienza" 11.
6. Cfr. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, Il senso spirituale della Scriffura, in Ricerche Teologiche
5 (1994) 5-9; 1. DE LA POTTERlE, Presentazione dell'introduzione di H.U. von Balthasar,
in ibid" pp. 11-17. . .,
7. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, Origene: Il mondo, Cristo e la CI/lesa (Teologla. Fontt, 12)
(ed. francese, Paris, 1957), Milano, 1972, p. 43.
8. Cfr. D. GORCE, La lectio divina nell'ambiente ascetico di san Girolamo (ed. fran-
cese, Paris, 1925), Bologna, 1990, p. 63; MASINI, La lectio divina: Teologia (n. 2),
pp. 14-15.
9. Si pua vedere il puntuale resoconto dell'iniziativa scie~~fica e della pub?li~azion~
dei relativi volumi nei fascicoli annuali di Adamantius, la nVlsta deI gruppo ltahano dl
ricerca su Origene e la tradizione alessandrina.
10. Origene, Omelia sul Levitico 4,6, ed. M. BORRET (SC, 286), Paris, 1981, p. 180.
11. Ibid.
 730 E. DAL COVOLO
In definitiva, da una parte i "fianchi cinti" e gli "indumenti sacerdo-
tali", yale a diTe la purezza e l'onestà della vita, dall'altra il "fuoco
sempre acceso", cioè la fede e la scienza delle Scritture (perché non
esiste pel' l'Alessandrino un'altra scienza vera, se non questa), rappresen-
tano pel' Origene i requisiti indispensabili di un'autentica vita cristiana.
Tuttavia Origene nelle sue opere insiste molto di più sul "fuoco
acceso", cioè sulla lettura e sulla meditazione della Parola di Dio, che
sui "fianchi cinti".
In ogni caso, la vera "tessera" pel' accedere al cammino di pelfezione
è pel' lui la sGÏenza delle Seritture, cioè quella medesima théia anâgnasis
che egli raccomanda a Gregorio, quando gli scrive: "Dédicati alla leetia
delle divine Scritture; applicati a questo con perseveranza. Impégnati
nella leetia con l'intenzione di credere e di piacere a Dio. Se durante la
leetia ti trovi davanti a una porta chiusa, bussa e te l'apriTà quel custode,
deI quale Gesù ha detto: 'Il guardiano gliela aprh·à'. Applicandoti COS1
alla !eetia divina, cerca con lealtà e fiducia incrollabile in Dio il senso
delle Scritture divine, che in esse si cela con grande ampiezza. Non ti
devi pero accontentare di bussare e di cercare: pel' comprendere le cose
di Dio ti è assolutamente necessaria l' O1·atia. E' pel' eSOltarci ad essa che
il Salvatore ci ha detto non soltanto: 'Cercate e troverete' e 'Bussate e
vi sarà aperto', ma ha aggiunto: 'Chiedete e riceverete"'12.
AMBROGIO
Colui che pel' primo ha raccolto ed elaborato la dottrina esegetica di
Origene in Occidente è Ambrogio l3 • Si puo dh'e anzi che egli ha trasferito
in ambiente latino la théia anâgnasis origeniana, iniziando COS! la storia
di quella !eetia divin a , che verrà codificata compiutamente solo in età
medievale.
Sappiamo che nelleggere la Scrittura, come nell'accostarne i vari per-
s~naggi, Ambrogio Usava il metodo allegorico-sphituale, che di fatto pre-
slede alla {eetia divina. Infatti la lettura sph'ituale della Bibbia _ COS! come
la intendevano i Padri alessandrhIi, e come Ambrogio hnparo a praticarla _
impIica contemporaneamente l'attenzione all'esegesi letterale e storica, ma
soprattutto l'anelito incessante di andare altre il vela della lettera14.
12. Origene, Lettera a Gregorio 4, ed. H. CROUZEL, pp. 192-195.
13. Cfr. G. VISONA', Origene nella spiritllalità di Ambrogio, in L.F. P=OLATO -'-
M. R=I (a cura di), Origene maestro di vita spirituale (Studia Patristica Mediolanensia
22), Milano, 2001, 223-247.
1~. Rest~o fon?~entali al riguardo L.F. P=OLATO, La dottrina esegetica di sant'Am-
broglO (Studla PatnstlCa Mediolanensia, 9), Milano, 1978, e naturaImente M. SIMONETTI,
THEIA ANAGNOSIS 1 LECTIO DNINA 731
In questo senso Ambrogio allude più volte alla !eetio divina, espres-
sione che proplio nei suoi scritti compare pel' la Pl'ima volta nella lettera-
tura cristiana latina.
Nel De ban a martis egli si propone di svolgere la riflessione pren-
dendo esempio dalla leetia di alcuni testi bibIici l5 . Spiegando il Salmo
118 (119), raccomanda l'esercizio della eatidiana {eetio e della frequente
meditatia, perché l'anima sia nutrita dalla linfa deI Vangelo l6 • Infine,
commentando la risposta di Gesù a Satana ("Non di solo pane vivrà
l'uomo": Luca 4,4), Ambrogio annota che con tali parole Gesù ci esorta
a "nutrirci deI Verbo celeste" mediante la leetia divina 17 .
AGOSTINO
Da parte sua Agostino, "discepolo di Ambrogio", raccomandava ad Anto-
nino e alla sua famiglia il nutrimento della leetia divina 18 , e nel De opere
monaeharum fissava un posto preciso alla leetia nella giomata dei monaco.
COS!, a conclusione di questo itinerario stol'ico-teologico, propongo
una sorta di icona patristica, che, interpretata alla luce di quello che è
stato detto, puo rappresentare in estrema sintesi gli inizi della !eetia
divina in Occidente.
Nel sesto libro delle Canfessiani Agostino racconta deI suo incontro
con Ambrogio. Agostino scrive testualmente che, quando si recava dal
vescovo di Milano, 10 trovava regolarmente hnpegnato con eatervae di
persone piene di problemi, pel' le cui necessità egli si pl'odigava; oppure,
quando non era con loro (e questo accadeva pel' 10 spazio di pochisshno
tempo), 0 ristorava il corpo con il necessario, 0 alhnentava 10 spmto con
letture. E qui Agostino fa le sue meraviglie, perché Ambrogio leggeva
le Scritture a bocca chiusa, solo con gli occhi: "Cum legebat", scrive
Agostino, "oculi ducebantur pel' paginas et cor intellectum rimabatur,
vox autem et lingua quiescebant"19.
Letfera e/o allegoria: Un contribllto alla storia dell'esegesi patristica (Studia Ephemeri-
dis "Augustinianum", 23), Roma, 1985.
15. Ambrogio, Il bene della morte 1,2, ed. C. SCHENKL - C. MORESCHlNl (Saemo, 3),
Milano - Roma, 1982, p. 130.
16. Id., Commento al Salmo 118, Lettera "Labd" 33, ed. M. PETsCHENIG-L.F. PJZZOLATO
(Saemo, 10), Milano - Roma, 1987, p. 42. .
17. Id., Esposizione dei Vangelo seconda Luca 4,20, ed. G. COPPA (Saemo, 11), Milano-
Roma, 1978, p. 314.
18. Agostino, Lettera 20,3, ed. M. PELLEGRINO - T. ALIMONTI (Nuova Biblioteca
'
Agostiniana, 2/21), Roma, 1969, p. 98.
19. Agostino, Confessioni 6,3, ed. M. SKUTELLA (Bibliotheca Teubneriana), Stuttgart,
1981, p. 101.
 732 E. DAL COVOLO
Come è noto, nei primi secoli cristiani la lettura era strettamente con-
cepita ai fini della proclamazione, e illeggere ad alta voce facilitava la
comprensione pure a chi leggeva: che Ambrogio potesse scorrere le
pagine con gli occhi soltanto, segnala ad Agostino ammirato una capacità
assolutamente singolare di lettura e di intimità con le Scritture.
Ebbene, in quella "lettura a fior di labbra", dove il cuore si impegna
a raggiungere l'intelligenza delle Scritture20, si pua intravedere il seme
della lectio divina in Occidente: Agostino stesso 10 raccolse dal vescovo
Ambrogio, pel' consegnarlo alla tradizione monastica e ai suoi sviluppi
successivi, fino ai nostri giornFI.
Pontificia Università Lateranense S.E. Mgr. Emico dal COVOLO
edalcovolo@sdb.org
20. "Cor intellectum rimabatur": ibid.
21. A questo proposito, tra le più antiche Regole occorre menzionare almeno _ oltre
alla Regola di sant' Agostino stesso - l'Ordo monasterii a lui attribuito; le Col/ationes e
il De institutis eoenobiorum di Cassiano; la Regula ad monaehos e gli Statuta sanetarum
virginum di Cesario; la Regula ad Virgines di Aureliano, suo successore come vescovo di
Arles; la Regula ad monae/ws di Ferreolo di Uzès, e finalmente la Regula Magistri. Ma
il punto di riferimento fondamentale della legislazione monastica in Occidente rimane la
Regula di san Benedetto, scritta verso il 540. In essa si dispone, tra l'altro, che il monaco
si dedichi alla leetio divina in ore ben fissate: in alcuni tempi i monaci devono essere
occupati nellavoro manuale, in altri momenti nella leetio divina. Cfr. Benedetto, Regula
48,1, ed. A. DE VOGUÉ - J. NEUFVlLLE (SC, 182), Paris, 1972, p. 598; ibid., 4,55, ed. A.
DE VOGUÉ - J. NEUFVILLE (SC, 181), Paris, 1972, p. 460; B. CALATI, La "Leetio divina"
nel/a tradizione monastiea benedettina, in Benedietina 28 (1981) 407-438.
LES LAMENTATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE ET
L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME (NHC II, 6) CHEZ ORIGÈNE ET
OLYMPIODORE D'ALEXANDRIE
Si le diacre Olympiodore (première moitié du VIe siècle!) ne jouit pas
de la même réputation qu'Origène, son Commentaire sur les Lamenta-
tions de Jérémie n'en mérite pas moins la plus grande considération. En
effet, il est le commentateur de Jérémie le plus souvent cité dans les
chaînes - plus souvent même que le grand Origène 2• Ce commentaire
nous est parvenu par deux voies distinctes:
- d'abord, par la tradition caténique, la seule éditée à ce jour. Les
fragments d'Olympiodore appartiennent à une chaine dite à auteurs mul-
tiples (catena multiplex), puisque seize auteurs y figurent (sept seulement
pour les Lamentations), ainsi que des anonymes 3 • Son auteur pourrait être
Johannes Drungarius, un nom cité dans le prologue de la chaîne sur
Isaïé. Cette chaîne porte successivement sur les quatre grands prophètes:
Isaïe, Jérémie-Baruch-Lamentations, Ézéchiel et Daniel. Elle est conte-
nue dans une douzaine de manuscrits. L'éditeur en est Michael Ghislerius
(Ghisler ou Ghisleri): In Ieremiam prophetam commentarii, item in
Baruch, et breves D. Jo. Chrysostom. In Ieremiam explanationes, et octo
Origenis homiliae, quae nunc omnia in lucem emittuntur, Lyon, 1623,
volume III, pp. 1-224. li a travaillé à partir de deux manuscrits seulement,
le Vatican us gr. 1154 (V) et un second, inconnu, qui semble avoir été le
Chisianus gr. 45 (C) ou un codex très proche. Les passages attribués à
1. On peut le dater d'après une souscription présente dans le codex Vatieanus
Barberinus gr. 549, à la fin du Commentaire sur Jérémie (fol. 122v d'après la CPG III
p. 392): «". l'ouvrage du bienheureux Olympiodore, diacre d'Alexandrie, ordonné par
Jean Nikiotès, archevêque d'Alexandrie» (entre 505 et 515/516). Voir E. KLOSTER-
MANN, Die Überlieferzwg der Jeremiahomilien des Origenes, Leipzig, 1897, p. 111;
U. - D. HAGEDORN, Olympiodor, Diaeon von Alexandria. Kommentar zu Hiob, Berlin-
New York, 1984, p. XLV.
2. À titre d'exemple, la CPG fait état de 800 mentions d'Olympiodore dans la chaîne
dite de Jean Drungarius sur Jérémie (contre 760 pour Jean Chrysostome, et seulement 139
pour Origène), et de 292 dans la chaîne sur les Lamentations (contre 117 pour Origène):
CPG N, pp. 218-219. Mais M. Aussedat m'a fait remarquer que les citations d 'Olympiodore
sont toute extrêmement brèves (ce sont de simples scholies que le caténiste reprend
textuellement à la tradition directe du Commentaire).
3. CPG N, pp. 218-219.
4. CPG N, C 60 (pp. 216-217) et C 75 (pp. 220-222); voir aussi M. FAULHABER, Die
Propheten-Catenel/ l/aeh l'omise/zen Handsehriften, Freiburg/Br., 1899, pp. 130-134.
 734 B.POUDERON
Olympiodore dans l'édition de Ghislerius ont été publiés séparément dans
la Patrologie grecque de Migne: PG 93, 726-76l.
- ensuite, en tradition directe, dans un seul manuscrit, le Vaticanus Bar-
berinianus gr. 549 01. 45), du xe siècle - dont il existe toutefois une copie
partielle, le Vatican us Barberinianus gr. 433 (IV. 15), du XVIe siècle, lui-
même copié au XVIIe siècle dans le Vallicellanus 2125 • C'est ce manuscrit
dont un de mes étudiants, Alain Demillac, a préparé l'édition et la traduc-
tion pour obtenir le diplôme de Master (manuscrit dactylographié en dépôt
à l'Université de Tours). Je ne sais encore s'il compte poursuivre son tra-
vail pour publier une édition critique avec traduction et annotation du Com-
mentaire d'Olympiodore sur les Lamentations; mais la tâche sera encore
bien mde, car il paraît difficile de ne pas tenir compte de la tradition caté-
nique, et ce serait alors l'ensemble des manuscrits de la chaîne qu'il fau-
drait collationner6 , en isolant les seuls passages d'Olympiodore sur les
Lamentations. On remarquera au passage que le caténiste cite textuelle-
ment et presque intégralement le Commentaire d'Olympiodore tel qu'il est
actuellement conservé dans la tradition directe - soit qu 'Olympiodore n'ait
livré à la postérité qu'un embryon de commentaire (son texte s'étiole au fil
des chapitres commentés), soit que le caténiste n'ait eu accès qu'à un texte
lacuneux, celui-là même qui est parvenu jusqu'à nous -, ce qui est en soi
assez extraordinaire? Ce double travail, portant à la fois sur la tradition
directe et sur la tradition indirecte, ne serait celtes pas inutile, car en maint
~ndroit le texte édité par Ghislerius, le seul disponible, se trouve déficient.
A l'inverse, l'édition de Ghislerius fournit des passages absents du codex
Barberinianus. Quoi qu'il en soit, le texte que présente Alain Demillac est
déjà autrement plus complet et plus sûr que celui que Ghislerius a publié
dans son édition des chaînes sur Jérémie. C'est donc sur lui que nous
appuierons notre propre recherche.
L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME
La lecture attentive du travail de mon étudiant n'a évidemment pas été
sans fmit. L'exégèse que donne Olympiodore des plaintes de Jérémie
5. CPG III, 7456 (p. 393). Voir aussi FAULHABER, Die Propheten-Catenen (n. 4),
p. 118; M. AUSSEDAT, Les chaînes exégétiques sur le livre de Jérémie (chap. 1-4) thèse
dactylographiée, Paris-Sorbonne, 2006, note 354, p. 130. '
6. En fait, d.'après les .t~avaux de M. Aussedat, il faudrait ne prendre en compte que
quatre manuscnts: le Cllls/anus gr. 45 (C), le Vaticanus gr. 1154 (V) [éventuellement
complété par ses deux copies, à savoir le Parisinus gr. 159 (Q) et le Pii II 18 (X)],
l'Ottobonianus gr. 452 et le Parisinus gr. 158 (P). ' 9. C'est la datation de J.-M. SÉVRIN, dans Écrits gnostiques (é,d. J.-P. MAHÉ -
7. Voir AUSSEDAT, Les chaînes exégétiques (n. 5), p. 131 (et correspondance échangée
avec elle).
LES LAMENTATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE ET L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME (NHC 11,6) 735
m'ont en effet immédiatement suggéré un rapprochement avec l'un des
ouvrages de la dite «bibliothèque» copte de Nag Hammadi, l'Exégèse
sur ['âme (NH II, 6)8.
L'Exégèse sur l'âme (le titre copte est l'exacte transcription du grec
ÈsilYll crt<; 1tEpt 'ti\<; ,!,oxi\<;, «récit sur l'âme») est sans doute l'une des
premières versions du mythe de déchéance de la Sophia gnostique,
puisque l'héroïne en est encore l'âme, et non la Sagesse. Le récit primi-
tif, qu'il s'agisse déjà d'une œuvre écrite ou simplement d'une tradition
orale serait donc nécessairement antérieur à la version dite valentinienne
du m~the, mettant en scène le drame de Sophia, dont Irénée est l'un des
témoins; une datation plus précise semble impossible, même si l'on peut
penser au 1er siècle de notre ère ou au début du second. Quant à l'original
grec perdu qui le reprend, très vraisemblablement intitulé lui aussi
'ESilYll crt <; 1tEpi 'ti\<; ,!,oxi\<;, il faudrait le situer entre 120 (diffusion de
l'évangile de Jean, cité en ExAnim 135.1-4) et 180 (acmé d'Irénée et
diffusion du mythe de Sophia, qui rend obsolète l'ancienne version du
mythe); la date la plus probable se situerait vers 150. La traduction copte
est évidemment postérieure à l'original grec; de combien d'années? Si
elle a été effectuée à peu près au même moment que le reste du corpus
de Nag Hammadi, il faudrait la situer entre la fin du me siècle et le milieu
du Ive (les codex ayant été pour leur part assemblés dans la seconde
moitié du IVe siècle)9.
L'Exégèse sur l'âme est un récit allégorique de l'incarnation de l'âme
et de son retour dans le monde d'en haut. Il raconte comment l'âme,
présentée sous les traits d'une jeune vierge, a quitté la maison de son Père
(le monde d'en haut) pour gagner le monde d'en bas, c'est-à-dire com-
ment elle s'est incarnée (ou plutôt comment elle s'est liée à un corps).
Cette vierge est présentée comme androgyne, dans la plénitude primitive,
l'unité en soi qui caractérise le monde d'en haut et qu'elle perdra dans
sa chute. En effet, à peine la jeune fille a-t-elle foulé la telTe des hommes
que des brigands s'emparent d'elle, la violent ou abusent d'elle par de
séduisantes promesses. Puis, lassés d'elle, ses cOlTupteurs finissent par la
prostituer.
Bien entendu, la jeune femme se repent de sa sotte naïveté et tente
d'échapper à son sort, se tournant vers d'autres hommes, qu'elle veut
croire animés de plus nobles sentiments et qu'elle souhaite prendre pour
8. Nous avons utilisé l'édition de J.-M. SÉVRIN, Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi,
n° 9, Québec, 1983.
P.-H. POIRIER), Paris, 2007, p. 474; voir aussi P.-H. POIRIER, dans Ecrits gnostiques,
p. XXXIV.

736 B.POUDERON
époux. Mais ses anciens maîtres la rattrapent, lui donnent par de nou-
velles promesses quelques illusions, puis la quittent, la laissant souillée
et défraîchie. De plus, les enfants qu'elle a eus de ses différents amants
se révèlent sourds, aveugles et débiles. Aussi, prenant conscience de sa
déchéance, adresse-t-elle une prière au Père (à son Père céleste) pour
qu'il la tire de ce mauvais pas ... Dieu l'écoute et l'exauce, la «conver-
tit» au sens plein du mot, puisqu'il retourne sa matrice de l'extérieur vers
l'intérieur, pour la détourner des réalités matérielles au profit des spiri-
tuelles. Puis il lui envelTa un «Sauveur» en la personne de son Fils - qui
est aussi le double céleste de l'âme, issu du même Père, mais qui semble
distinct du Christ de la tradition chrétienne, même s'il est qualifié une
fois (et une seule) de «Christ» 10. Le mariage qu'elle contractera avec lui
la purifiera de ses souillures, et elle poulTa ainsi regagner le monde d'en
haut et retrouver la maison de son Père.
À cet épisode nanatif, qui occupe la majeure partie de l'écrit, succède
une parénèse, sous la forme d'une exhortation à la conversion, qui pro-
longe en écho le récit et en révèle la portée. Cette parénèse offre la par-
ticularité de contenir deux autres récits allégoriques, très concis, évoquant
l'un la nostalgie d'Ulysse prisonnier de Calypso et désirant revoir sa
terre, l'autre les remords d'Hélène, avide de retrouver son époux légi-
time: deux magnifiques «types» de l'âme en peine, aspirant à regagner
le monde d'en haut ll !
L'ouvrage lui-même est parsemé de citations scripturaires. Celles
qui nous intéressent pour notre présente étude ont trait à la chute de
Jérusalem, à la déchéance de la ville et de ses habitants, ainsi qu'à la
déportation du peuple hébreu en Babylonie. Ces différents événements
y sont présentés sous la forme allégorique de l'abandon de la maison
du père par la jeune épousée, de l'union conjugale et de l'adultère (la
«prostitution», nopveia). Ces citations se trouvent exclusivement
dans le récit lui-même (jusqu'à 134.27), à l'exclusion de la parénèse
qui suit (à partir de 135.4); en voici la liste complète, dans l'ordre où
elle se trouvent:
1) JI' 3,1-4 (SUl' le thème de la prostitution de l'épouse, en laquelle il faut
voir Jérusalem pécheresse), en ExAnim 129.8-22;
2) Os 2,4-9 (SUl' le même thème de la prostitution de l'épouse) en ExAnim
129.23-130.11;
3) Ez 16,23-26a (toujours SUl' le thème de la prostitution de Jérusalem) en
ExAnim 130.11-20;
10. ExAnim 135.22-24.
11. Voir notre article Hélène et Ulysse comme deu.-.: âmes en peine: Une symbolique
gnostique ou pythagoricienne?, dans Revue des études grecques 116 (2003) 132-151.
LES LAMENTATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE ET L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME (NHC II,6) 737
4) simple allusion à Ac 15,20.29 (<<gardez-vous de la prostitution») en
ExAnim 130.30;
5) citation de 1 Co 5,9-10 (sur le thème de la prostitution) en ExAnim
131.3-8;
6) citation de Eph 6,12 (sur les forces du mal) en ?xAnim 131.9-13;
7) allusion à Gn 2,24 (les protoplastes Adam et Eve fOlmant une seule
chail') en ExAnim 133.3;
8) citation approximative de 1 Co 11,3 (SUl' le rôle du mari, «seigneur de
la femme» - inspiré de Gn 3,16b) en ExAnim 133.9-10;
9) citation de Ps 44,11-12 (sur l'abandon de la maison du père par la jeune
épousée) en ExAnim 133.16-20;
10) citation de Gn 12, b (sur l'abandon par Abraham de la maison de son
père).
Un second groupe de citations, celle de la parénèse, concerne le repen-
tir et le salut; elles comprennent des logia du Sauveur, puis des paroles
du Père s'exprimant par les prophètes, à l'exclusion de la dernière, qui
fait parler Israël:
Il) Jn 6,44 (paroles du Sauveur énonçant une condition du salut), en
ExAnim 135.1-4;
12) Mt 5,4(7).6 (extrait des Béatitudes, rapporté au salut), en ExAnim
135.16-19;
13) Lc 14,26 (parole du Sauveur, énonçant une autre condition du salut),
en ExAnim 135.20-21;
14) fragment prophétique dit du pseudo-Ézéchiel, peut-être repris de
Clément Romain, 1 Cor. 8,3 (parole du Père sur le repentir, faite d'une
combinaison de textes prophétiques, ou simplement repris par Clément
12
à un auteur inconnu identifié par Clément d'Alexandrie à ÉzéchieI ),
en ExAnim 135.31-136.4;
12. Même si ce n'est pas là l'objet de notre communication, la présence dans l'Exégèse
sur l'âme de ce passage, connu également par Clément Romain (dans son intégralité) et par
Clément d'Alexandrie (partiellement), pose problème. Ou bien, en effet, il s'agit d'un extrait
d'un auteur inconnu, mais d'une grande autorité, comparable à celle des textes scriptur~es
qui l'entourent, ce qui explique que l'auteur de l'Exégèse sur l'âme et les ~eux Clé~ent l' ~!ent
tous trois cité; ou bien il s'agit réellement du texte de Clément Romam, !orgé.a partIT de
réminiscences scripturaires (en fait, un amalgame très libre de passages d'Ezéchiel), auquel
cas il faudrait admettre que, vers 150, Clément Romain jouissait d'une autorité apostolique
quasiment égale à celle des auteurs du Nouveau Testament, au point d'être cité aux côtés de
Jean et de Paul apôtre ... Mais pourquoi, en ce cas, Clément d'Alexandrie, Paed. 1.10.91.2,
attribue-t-il le passage à Ézéchiel? Cette attribution tendrait plutôt à prouver que l'auteur de
l'Exégèse sur l'âme ne voyait pas en lui un passage de Clément Romain, mais plutôt une cita-
tion prophétique, annoncée comme telle (<<C'est pourquoi il dit par l'esprit d~ pro~hète ... »,
ExAnim 135.29-31) - peut-être extraite d'un midrash judéo-hellénistique sur Ezéchiel et con-
fondue avec le texte même du prophète dès l'époque de Clément Romain. Ces précisions ont
été apportées à la suite d'une remarque de G. Dorival, frappé par l'étrangeté d'une éventuelle
citation de Clément Romain au sein d'une séquence de citations scripturaires au moment de
la rédaction de l'ouvrage gnostique, ce qui aurait pu être le signe d'une fonne de «canonisa-
tion» à très haute époque de la 1ère al/X Corinthiens (le codex A de l'Ancien et du Nouveau
Testament [l'Alexandrin us, du V· siècle] la fait figurer juste après l'Apocalypse de Jean).

738 B.POUDERON
15) Is 30,15 & 30,19-20 (parole du Seigneur, le Saint d'Israël, sur le repen-
tir), en ExAnim 136.4-8 & 9-15;
16) Ps 6,7-10 (faisant parler Israël, prisonnier en Égypte), en ExAnim
137.16-22.
Outre ces citations, la parénèse contient deux paraphrases homériques,
se rappOltant l'une à la «nostalgie» d'Ulysse retenu par Calypso (136.27-
35) et l'autre aux remords d'Hélène, regrettant amèrement sa faute
(136.35-137.11).
L'unité thématique des citations du premier groupe est frappante;
toutes se rapportent à l'union de l'épouse à l'époux, soit par l'intermé-
diaire du thème de l'épouse infidèle, soit de celui de la jeune épousée qui
doit «abandonner la maison de son père», soit de celui de l'union patfaite
de l'homme et de la femme formant une seul chair. Mais le thème de la
«prostitution» (rcopvEia) y est dominant. D'autre part, plusieurs de ces
passages sont des évocations allégoriques de la déchéance de Jémsalem,
je pense en palticulier aux extraits de Jérémie (consacrée à l'apostasie
d'Israël), d'Osée (sur l'épouse infidèle de Yahvé) et d'Ézéchiel (histoire
symbolique d'Israël, comme épouse infidèle de Yahvé). Mais si le Livre
de Jérémie est représenté par une seule citation, en revanche, les Lamen-
tations sont totalement absentes.
Le lien de ces différents passages scripturaires avec le récit est évident:
la déchéance de l'âme est évoquée avec les mots qui ont servi au prophète
ou au psalmiste pour décrire le péché et la déchéance de Jémsalem, ou
encore l'abandon de la maison fatniliale pat' la jeune épousée. POUltant, si
l'abandon de la maison paternelle correspond très exactement à l'abandon
par l'âme de la demeure du Père, qui est le royaume d'en haut, en aucun
cas on ne peut véritablement assimiler l'âme vierge à une épouse infidèle:
le père que l'on quitte pour de justes raisons ne peut pas être aussi l'époux
à qui l'on est infidèle. Ce qui fait le lien, en ce cas, c'est évidemment le
thème de l'abandon, devenu apostasie et corruption, en un mot la «prosti-
tution» (nopvEia) - un terme très fOlt et qui peut désigner, dans les tra-
ditions juive et chrétienne, outre le commerce de son corps, l'adultère ou
la rébellion contre Dieu. C'est ce même thème qui sera exploitée par Olym-
piodore dans son exégèse des Lamentations de Jérémie.
OLYMPIODORE, ORIGÈNE ET LES LAMENTATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE
Olympiodore, dans son Commentaire sur les Lamentations, donne plu-
sieurs exégèses des plaintes du prophète. Elles peuvent être classées
ainsi:
739
LES LAMENTATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE ET L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME (NHC II,6)
• explication typologique ou «prophétique» à caractère «historique»:
le prophète, en se lamentant sur les malheurs de Jémsalem conquise par
les Babyloniens, annonce par avance ceux du peuple juif vaincu par
Rome durant la première guerre juive - par ex. In Lam., 1,1 = BarberÎnus
gr. 549, fol. 203v, 1. 8-10 = PG 93, 725B: «Sur le plan historique (Ka1'à
1'TJV tO'1'opiav), le prophète se lamente sur la captivité dans laquelle se
trouve alors Jérusalem, mais prophétiquement et plus réellement
(rcpOCPll't'tKroÇ oÈ Kat àÂ,ll~}tO'1'spov) sur celle qu'elle a subie ~ous
les Romains à cause de son audace abominable contre le Seigneur».
Origène, dans son propre Commentaire SUI' les Lamentations (lui aussi
connu uniquement par les chaînes), propose une explication similaire,
mais de façon beaucoup plus allusive, par ex. en In Lam., 4,10 = PG 13,
653D-656A = frag. 105 Klostermann (renvoi à F. Josèphe: les mères
dévorant leurs enfants; parall. chez Olympiodore,In Lam., 2,20 [41]); In
Lam., 4,19 (autre renvoi à F. Josèphe: vanité de la fuite durant la guerre,
même dans les montagnes; rapprochement intéressant à faire avec
Mt 24,16) .
• explication typologique ou «prophétique» à caractère christolo-
gique: les malheurs de Jérusalem annoncent ceux du Cht'i~t dans l'é.co-
nomie, tandis que les ennemis d'Israël représentent les Juifs meUl:ners
du Juste: In Lam., 3,52-54 (215 V, 14-15; absent de la PG): «Par l'mter-
médiaire du prophète, le Seigneur prédit ce qui va lui arriver au moment
de l'économie». Mais il voit aussi dans l'invocation du prophète une
annonce de la résurrection: In Lam., 3,55-57 (215 V, 35 = 750B-C): «TI
prédit clairement la résurrection du Seigneur». Origène l'a précédé ~ans
cette voie: In Lam., 3,6 (644A = frag. 69K.): «Les deux lamentatlOns
pourraient se référer au Christ, dont le type (1'urcoç) est Jérémie, qui a
tant souffert de la part des Juifs, et qui à la fin a été livré à la sépulture».
• explication allégorique, de type «psychologique»: Jérusalem repré-
sente symboliquement l'âme en proie au péché ou au vice, et Babylone,
le péché ou l'état de péché - par ex. In Lam., 1,1 (203V, 12-14 = ;~5~!:
«Les écrits font aussi référence à l'âme, s'écartant de la vertu, preCIpItee
dans les caractéristiques du vice, et, à cause de cela, (désormais) dans la
confusion (i'>v O'uyxuO'st ysvoI!ÉVllv), car Babylone signifie 'confusion',
et emmenée en captivité par les ennemis intelligibles (ûrco 1'rov vOll1'rov
rcoÂ,sl!tcov)>>. Cette explication se trouvait déjà chez Origène, qui, toute-
fois, tend à personnifier le vice sous la forme des mauvais démons: In
Lam., 1,1 (608B & 612A = frag. 2 & 10 K.): «Selon la 'théorie' (Ka1'à
Ssm piav): Si nous (y) voyons l'âme devenu la proie d~ diabh~, o~ mê~e
de ses anges, et en un mot des puissances ennemIes (1'a\ç sxSpaç
Ouvul!sO't). [ ... ] Si le Logos .. , appelle Jérusalem l'âme parfaite, on
 740 B.POUDERON
pourrait dire qu'élIe pleure parce qu'elle est tombée (ÈK1tEO"060"u) de son
lieu (Xcbpw;) propre, (désormais) dans la confusion (Èv O"UYXUO"Et yEVO-
/-lBvrJ)>>. D'ailleurs, chez Origène aussi, Babylone signifie 'confusion':
CC VII.22, commentant le Psaume 136,8-9: «Les petits de Babylone, qui
signifie 'confusion', sont les pensées inspirées par le vice ... ».
• interprétation allégorique de type «gnostique»: Jérusalem représente
l'âme privée de la connaissance - par ex. In Lam., 2,12 [33] (210\ 19-20
& 25-26; absent de la PG): «Sur le plan historique (1tpOç lm;opiuv), il
se lamente sur la famine provoquée par le siège; au sens figuré (1tpOç 0;'
otuvotuv), sur l'épuisement de la parole magistrale [ ... ] ils ont beau être
sur le sein de leur mère, ils s'épuisent parce qu'ils sont en manque d'en-
s~ignement». Parmi ces adversaires désignés par Olympiodore, les Juifs,
bIen sûr: In Lam., 2,19 (211 T, 21-22; absent de la PG): «La parole s'ap-
plique aussi aux Juifs, qui sont dans la nuit à cause du reniement de la
lumière», mais aussi aux hérétiques de tout bord: In Lam., 4,1 (216V,
9-12; absent de la PG): «Il vise les docteurs, dans la mesure où ils
troublent les enseignements de la Loi et de l'Évangile»; même exégèse
dans In Lam., 4,3 (216V, 32-33; absent de la PG): «Le propos est encore
contre les faux docteurs et les hérésiarques, qu'il appelle même dragons».
Le parallèle avec Origène In Lam., 4,1 et 4,3 (frag. 93 & 95 K) est frap-
pant: «On pourrait dire que la lamentation porte sur ceux qui aban-
donnent la piété, s'ils sont célèbres et amènent les autres à l'erreur [ ... ]
Les dragons, ou même les Sirènes, selon Symmaque, tu les comprendras
comme les esprits mauvais, qui allaitent leurs nouveau-nés d'un mauvais
lait; tels sont ceux qui introduisent aux enseignements des impies».
• en revanche, l'interprétation allégorique de type protologique (l'ori-
gine céleste, sinon divine, de l'âme humaine, la cause de sa déchéance et
de son emprisonnement dans un corps avant son retour au lieu dont elle
est issue, bref, le «cycle» de l'âme, qui est le thème premier de l'Exégèse
sur l'âme nag-hammadienne) est totalement absente des Commentaires
d'Origène et d'Olympiodore.
Les quelques parallèles que nous avons établis entre les différentes
interprétations que donne Olympiodore des Lamentations de Jérémie et
les textes origéniens correspondants ne laissent aucun doute sur l'in-
fluence qu'a pu exercer le grand Alexandrin sur son successeur. Et encore
faut-il faire remarquer que la chaîne sur les Lamentations contient bien
moins de passages d'Origène que d'Olympiodore, et que je n'ai pris en
compte que le Commentaire sur les Lamentations de Jérémie de l'Alexan-
drin, et non son Commentaire sur le Livre de Jérémie lui-même. Mais
une telle dépendance semble bien naturelle chez un diacre d'Alexandrie
et ce serait le cas contraire qui passerait pour bien étrange. ' l'agent» (ln Lam., 1 = PG 81, 780D-781A).
LES LAMENI'ATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE ET L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME (NHC IT,6) 741
OLYMPIODORE, ORIGÈNE ET L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME
Aussi avons-nous restreint nos recherches dans une seule direction:
celle d'une possible influence du traité gnostique intitulé l' Exégèse sur
l'âme, en dehors d'un éventuel truchement d'Origène. Notre enquête sys-
tématique s'est limitée au premier thrène des Lamentations, soit 1,1 à 22;
mais elle a aussi utilisé des passages d'autres thrènes (d'ailleurs bien
moins abondamment expliqués dans le Commentaire d 'Olympiodore
sous la forme que nous lui connaissons actuellement). Elle n'a porté, bien
évidemment, que sur l'exégèse «psychologique» du texte des Lamenta-
tions, telle qu'elle peut être mise en relation avec le récit allégorique de
l'Exégèse sur l'âme. Elle a consisté à mettre en parallèle les trois textes,
celui d'Olympiodore, celui de Nag Hammadi et celui d'Origène, en en
dégageant soit la parenté, soit l'originalité. Voici les passages que nous
avons relevés comme étant les plus significatifs:
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,1 (203V, 12-14 = 725B): «Les écrits font
aussi référence à l'âme, s'écartant de la vertu, précipitée dans les carac-
téristiques du vice, et, à cause de cela, (désormais) dans la confusion
(Èv O"UYXUO"Et YEVO/-lBVllV), car Babylone signifie 'confusion', et
emmenée en captivité par les ennemis intelligibles ({)1tO 'Cillv vOll'Cillv
1tOÎvE/-llcOV)>>. Passages parallèles: ExAninI 127.19-128.26 (évoquant la
chute de l'âme dans le monde d'en bas, son ensomatose et sa déchéance);
Origène, In Lam., 1,1 (608B & 612A = frag. 2 & 10 K): «Selon la
'théorie': Si nous (y) voyons l'âme devenu la proie du diable, ou même
de ses anges, et en un mot des puissances ennemies ('tutç ÈXSputç
ouvu/-lEO"t). [ ... ] Si le Logos ... appelle Jérusalem l'âme parfaite, on
pourrait dire qu'elle pleure parce qu'elle est tombée (ÈK1tEO"o60"u) de
son lieu (Xcbpuç) propre, (désormais) dans la confusion (Èv O"UYXUO"Et
YEVO/-lBllV)>>; CC VII.22: «Babylone signifie 'confusion'». La dépen-
dance d'Olympiodore par apport à Origène est incontestable, et se
marque même dans le vocabulaire (Èv O"UYXUO"Et) et le recours à l'éty-
mologie (celle du mot Babylone). Le commentaire que fait Théodoret
du même prologue est autrement plus pragmatique: se situant unique-
ment dans une perspective pastorale, il veut montrer le profit que l'on
peut tirer de l'évocation des malheurs de Jérusalem: «Si la lamentation
est un signe de compassion et de charité, je pense que le divin prophète
a composé ses lamentations à la fois pour le profit (mcpBÎvEtu) des
hommes de son temps et célui de la postérité, afin que ceux-ci comme
ceux-là comprennent par ces écrits de combien de maux le péché est
 742 B.POUDERON
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,1 (203V, 17-19; absent de la PG): «(Les
lamentations) comportent un certain enseignement (otoao'KaÂia) qui
articule (owpSpoucra) l'âme, la restaure (àvacr'totXEtoucra) et la conduit
à la vertu». Parallèles: ExAnim 131.16-134.11 (l'intervention du Père
céleste et celle du Bien-aimé, à la fois époux et frère, qui «purifie» et
«renouvelle» l'âme, pour qu'elle «s'engendre elle-même et revienne à
son état premier»; Origène, In Lam., 1,1 (608B = frag. 2 K): «Mais en
se réfugiant dans le Christ, qui a proclamé, selon le prophète Isaïe, la
libération (Ü<j>EcrtV) des captifs, nous serons libérés de la captivité
(eÂEuSEpffiSllcrollESa àno 'tfls alXllaÂfficrias)>>. Olympiodore est plus
proche de l'écrit gnostique en ce qu'il met l'accent plutôt sur la régéné-
ration que sur la libération du péché. Mais aucune expression précise ne
renvoie d'un texte à l'autre, seule la thématique est, sinon commune, du
moins très proche.
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,1 (203V, 20-22; absent de la PG): «Une
âme de la sorte mérite des lamentations, le vice est la captivité (alX-
llaÂillcria) de l'âme, et nous sommes sous la domination de maîtres
violents et ennemis». Si le thème de l'âme captive est bien présent
dans le Commentaire d'Origène (le terme atXllaÂfficria y apparaît
appliquée à l'âme en In Lam., 1,1 (608B = frag. 2 Klost.), celui des
maitres violents semblent plutôt inspiré par ExAnim 128.4-10: «Après
qu'elle se fut livrée à des amants insolents et infidèles pour qu'ils la
prennent, elle sanglota d'abondance et se repentit. Puis encore, quand
elle se détourne de ces amants, elle court vers d'autres, et ils la forcent
à demeurer avec eux et à être leur esclave, comme des maîtres, dans
leur lit».
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,1 (203V, 28 = 725B): «Elle est devenue
comme une veuve, privée du Logos, son époux». Parallèles: Origène, In
Lam., 1,1 (609A = frag. 7 K): «Elle a perdu le Logos, son époux, deve-
nue comme une veuve»; ExAnim 128.16-18: «À la fin de tout cela ils
la quittent et s'en vont. Elle alors devient comme une veuve». Mêm~ si
le terme de «veuve» (ms xilpa) appartient au texte même des Lamenta-
tions, il est difficile d'imaginer qu'Olympiodore ne dépende pas d'Ori-
gène! Car c'est par le même mot, Logos, qu'est désigné le Fils, entre
plusieurs dénominations ou titres possibles (Cln'Îst, Fils, Sauveur, etc.).
Mais il n'est pas non plus impossible qu'Origène dépende lui-même de
l'Exégèse sur l'âme et qu'il y ait ainsi source commune, et non dépen-
dance des deux auteurs, puisque l'époux céleste à qui son Père destine
l'âme dans l'Exégèse sur l'âme n'est autre que le Sauveur.
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,2 (204r , 18-22 = 725D): «Tous ceux qui
la chél'Îssaient l'ont trahie (ftSÉ'tllcrav), habitants de Jérusalem, faux pro-
LES LAMENTATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE ET L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME (NHC IT,6) 743
phètes et démons impurs, qui naguère faisaient semblant (npocrnotoUIlE-
vot) d'aimer une telle âme». Ce thème de la trahison (au sens amoureux
du terme) et de la tromperie est absent du passage conespondant d'Ori-
gène (612B = frag. Il K), qui oppose l'amour philia, corporel et plus
humain, à l'amour agapè, spirituel et plus divin. En revanche, il apparaît
dans le récit de la déchéance de l'âme de l'Exégèse sur l'âme (ExAnim
128.13-17: «lis lui font illusion longtemps, se donnant pour des maris
fidèles et véritables qui la respecteraient beaucoup; à la fin de tout cela,
ils la quittent et s'en vont». La présence de ce thème des faux amants est
l'un de nos plus sérieux indices d'une éventuelle influence du récit allé-
gorique de l'Exégèse sur l'âme.
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,3 (204V, 1-5 = 727A): «Une personne qui
s'est détournée du chemin de Dieu est soumise aux passions, les démons
impurs, dit-on, l'opprimant, car les passions pourchassent l'âme, et les
démons les activent; voilà pourquoi l'apôtre ordonne et dit: Fuyez la pros-
titution ('tllV nopvEiav)>>. L'assimilation des passions de l'âme à la prosti-
tution est l'un des leitmotiv de l'Exégèse sur l'âme; elle est évoquée soit
directement, dans le récit lui-même (ExAnirn 128.29-31: «Le Père d'en haut
la voit sangloter à cause de ses passions et de sa disgrâce, se repentir de la
prostitution à laquelle elle s'est livrée», soit indirectement, dans les citations
de Jérémie, d'Osée et d'Ézéchiel que nous avons déjà mentionnées. Mais ce
thème est aussi présent chez Origène, dans le commentaire d'un autre pas-
sage: In Lam., 1,19 (629C-D, frag. 40 Klost.): «Ézéchiel [Ez 23,23] a mon-
tré qui sont les amants, en s'adressant à Jérusalem, qu'il appelle Oliba:
Voici,j'éveille tes amants qui sont autour de toi, les fils de Babylone, et tous
les Chaldéens. Eux qui auparavant étaient des amis, selon la providence
divine, ils ont changé (cette amitié) en haine, ce qui arrive souvent pour
l'amour changé en haine. Car il dit de Samarie: Oëla s'est prostituée loin
de moi et s'est jointe à ses amants, les Assyriens. Et peu après: C'est pour
cela qu'il l'a livrée aux mains de ses amants les mains des Assyriens. De
Jérusalem il dit aussi: Et sa sœur a vu Oliba, et elle a corrompu son impo-
sition au-dessus de la fornication de sa sœur et elle est allée rejoindre les
fils des Assyriens». Toutefois, chez Origène, il est simplement question de
Jérusalem, épouse adultère (adonnée à la nopvEia, c'est-à-dire à la prosti-
tution, ce qui est une des façons de désigner l'abandon du vrai Dieu au
profit des dieux des Nations), et de ses alliés, qualifiés d'amants, mais non
de l'âme en proie au vice, assimilée à une prostituée.
Un autre point commun unit Olympiodore et l'Exégèse sur l'âme au
détriment d'Origène: c'est la citation du passage de 1 Co sur la prostitu-
tion (1 Co 6,18 en In Lam., 1,3, et 1 Co 5,9-10 en ExAnim 131.4-5) et
son application à l'âme, dont nous avons déjà souligné l'impOltance. Car
 744 B.POUDERON
si ce passage de Paul, largement divulgué, apparaît plusieurs fois aussi
chez Origène, c'est d'une part en dehors du Commentaire sur les Lamen-
tations, et d'autre prut sans référence à une quelconque forme de prosti-
tution de l'âme, mais seulement pour condamner la réalité bien concrète
de la faute charnelle13:
- HGn 7.3: incitation à fuir les voluptés de la chair au même titre qu'une
«grande persécution»;
- HJos 5.6 et 8.6 (bis): se livrer à la fornication, c'est faire des membres
du Christ (i.e. les chrétiens) ceux d'une prostituée; la fuite honorable
qu'est la fuite de la 1topveia; fuir la fornication, c'est aussi fuir d'autres
vices: colère, avarice, etc.;
- CMtS 42 (p. 84-85) et 44 (p. 88 et 90): sur la fuite honorable qu'est celle
de la fornication; à propos de la parole évangélique: «Fuyez dans les
montagnes» ;
- FrCor 31 et 32 (bis): exégèse de lCo 6,18 (il importe de savoir si «tout
péché est extérieur au corps» et 1 Co 6,19-20 (nous commettons une impiété
envers l'Esprit, le Fils et le Père quand nous nous livrons à la 1topveia);
- [ps.] FrPs p. 22: celui qui pratique la 1topvBia comment une faute envers
son propre corps; et p. 39: fuir la 1topveia.
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,7 (205'0 36-38 = 728D-729A): «Elle s'est
souvenue, Jérusalem. Elle s'est souvenue des jours d'avant son humilia-
tion, quand ils habitaient Jérusalem et qu'ils avaient des offrandes; ou aussi
dans ce sens: elle s'est sOUvenue de ses propres péchés qui ont eu pour
conséquence la captivité. Tout ce qu'elle désirait: littéralement: le Temple,
les solennités, les sacrifices, les vases sacrés; au sens figuré: elle s'est
souvenue, dit-il, de ses désirs auxquels elle a succombé et dont elle est
devenue prisonnière. En la voyant, ses ennemis: c'est le propre des démons,
en effet, après avoir dégradé l'âme, que de se moquer alors d'elle». Ori-
gène commente le même passage (Lam 1,7 en 617A; non retenu par K)
ainsi: «Elle s'est souvenue de ses propres péchés, à cause desquels elle est
(tombée) en captivité»; en revanche, il ne fait allusion ni à la fortune pas-
sée de Jérusalem, ni aux moqueries de ses ennemis, qui sont des thèmes
présents dans l'Exégèse sur {'âme: l'un sous la forme du regret et du repen-
tir (par ex. 128.29-30), l'autre sous la forme de la goujaterie et de l'infidé-
lité des amants d'occasion (par ex. 127.27-29 & 128.13-17).
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,8 (205 V , 16-18 = 729B): «Au sens figuré,
l'âme pécheresse est bousculée de sa juste place ('t"fls ôpSfls (nuO'êwS
1tUPUKlVllSêtO'U)>>. Origène ignore ce thème dans son exégèse du verset,
13. Source: Biblia pafrisfica, t. ID (Paris, 1980) et site Biblindex de l'Institut des
Sources Chrétielmes. Cette recherche a été faite sur la suggestion de M.-O. Boulnois
(EPHE, Paris). Les éditions utilisées sont celles indiquées dans le volume ID de Biblia
pafrisfica consacré à Origène.
LES LAMENTATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE ET L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME (NHC II,6) 745
et ne mentionne que le trouble (O'uÂ-OS, 't"upuX11) de l1âl:ne (617C-D =
frag. 21 K), son éloignement du bien (à1toO''t"uO'uv. 't"éOS KUÂ-éOv). En
revanche, il l'a développé au tout début de son commentaire; ainsi que
nous l'avons déjà noté: In Lam., 1,1 (612A = frag. 10 K.) i «Si le Logos ...
appelle Jérusalem l'âme parfaite [var. une telle âme]; on pourrait dire
qu'elle pleure parce qu'elle est tombée (SK1tWOOO'U) de son lieu (XropUS)
propre, (désormais) dans la confusion (sv O'U'YXOO'êl rêVOf.lÉllV)>>. C'est
le thème majeur de l'Exégèse sur l'âme: l'abandon de la maison pater-
nelle. Mais si l'auteur gnostique voit dans cette demeure première le
monde d'en haut, d'où sont originaires toutes les âmes, ni Origène, ni
Olympiodore ne reprennent ici ce thème, qui pourtant s'accorde si bien
avec la doctrine origénienne de la préexistence des âmes et de leur chute.
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,11 (206', 23-24 = 732A): «Cherchant du
pain: soit le pain pour le corps, à cause du siège, soit le Logos/la parole
qui nourrit l'âme». Pareille disette est évoquée dans l'Exégèse sur ['âme
(128.19-20): «Elle n'a rien qu'une once (de nourriture) au sortir de son
affliction». Et le thème se retrouve évidemment chez Origène, à propos
d'un autre passage (In Lam., 4,4, 652B = fmg. 97 K): «On pourrait dire
aussi qu'ils ont supporté non pas le manque (Â-lf.lOS) de pain, ni d'eau,
selon la parole prophétique, mais celui d'entendre la parole du Seigneur».
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,16 (207', 21-23 & 24-26; absent de la PG):
«Soit c'est le prophète qui se lamente sur Jérusalem à cause de ce qui va
lui an'iver, soit c'est Jérusalem elle-même, soit vraisemblablement l'âme
qui a commis des péchés dont elle ne peut se consoler [ ... ] L'intelligence
de l'âme pleure en quelque sorte et s'attriste sur ses péchés». Les lamen-
tations de l'âme, s'apitoyant sur son propre sort et regrettant ses fautes
est le thème dominant de l'Exégèse sur ['âme. Mais il est aussi très pré-
sent chez Origène, par exemple, à propos du même verset (In Lam., 1,16,
628B =frag. 34 K): «L'âme, privée de ses dons (xupiO'f.lu't"u) et payant
le prix (de ses péchés), reconnaît/confesse ce qu'elle a subi [ ... ] Tout en
se désolant, elle tire profit de ses plaintes et de ses pleurs, qui présentent
comme promesse la consolation et le sourire».
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,18 (207 V , 22-23; absent de la PG): «Mes
vierges: derrière le sens littéral, comprends par 'vierges' ceux qui vivent
loin de la corruption». Ce passage est attribué par Ghislerius, et, à sa
suite, par les deux Delarue dans la Patrologie de Migne, à Origène (629C
=frag. 39 K.)14. La virginité de l'âme avant son ensomatose est l'un des
14. M. Aussedat m'a suggéré que cette erreur d'attribution peut provenir tout aussi
bien d'une mauvaise abréviation du nom de l'auteur (erreur de copie ou de lecture) que
de l'utilisation par Ghisler d'un manuscrit fautif (tradition erronée).
 746 B.POUDERON
traits caractéristiques de l'âme déchue dans l'Exégèse sur l'âme - la
désignant comme une fille, et non comme une épouse, en contradiction
avec la représentation de la Jérusalem épouse infidèle des citations pro-
phétiques, ou même avec celles d'Hélène (infidèle à Pâris) et d'Ulysse
(otage de Calypso) dans la partie finale du traité.
V
e Olympiodore, In Lam., 1,19 (207 , 31-38 = 733C): «Elle accuse ses
amants ... faux prophètes et interprètes de prodiges, et encore prêtres et
clercs (\jIëUoonpoq,ll't&V Kut otcovooxomov E't"t Kut npscrpu'tÉpcov Kut
tsp&v), et les démons impurs; on les appelle ses amants, soit parce
qu'elle-même aimait leur affection, ou plutôt leur séduction, soit parce
qu'eux, feignant (npocrowuJ.tSVot) de l'aimer, ont été pour elle la cause
de la colère divine ... ». Parallèles chez Olympiodore: In Lam., 1,2 (204f ,
18-21 = 725D): «Tous ceux qui la chérissaient l'ont trahie: en transgres-
sant les lois divines, habitants de Jérusalem, faux prophètes et démons
impurs qui naguère faisaient semblant d'aimer une telle âme»; et 1,21
(208 f , 31-35 =736A): «Tous mes ennemis: les démons impurs, ennemis
de l'âme, qu'on appelle ses amants. Et en effet, étant des ennemis, ils
font semblant de l'aimer, eux qui, après l'avoir persuadée de pécher, se
réjouissent aussi de sa chute». Origène souligne lui aussi, dans son exé-
gèse du même passage (629 C), le retournement de sentiments de ces
faux amants: «Les amants que désigne Ézéchiel (Ez 23,23) ... qui étaient
auparavant ses amis, par la providence de Dieu, ont tourné (leur amitié)
en haine». Le thème de l'abandon de la jeune fille séduite par des amants
infidèles est, ainsi que nous l'avons dit, largement présent dans l'Exégèse
sur l'âme. L'exégèse de Lam 1,19 est à rapprocher de celle d'un autre
passage, à savoir In Lam., 2,9, aussi bien chez Olympiodore (21O f , 26-28
= 737D): «Ceux qui avaient pour mission d'enseigner (ot 'tl'tv otoucr-
Ku"tuV nsntcr't"suJ.tÉvot) ont été plongés dans les affaires tenestres (dS
'tà yytïvu)>> que chez Origène (636C = frag. 53 K.): «On pounait dire
que ceux qui, autrefois, tenaient le premier rang (npscrpsuov'tSS) dans
la vertu, d'où leur nom (npscrpu'tspot, 'prêtres'), devenus tenestres
(XOïKOUS), installés dans des passions inationnelles, ne font plus rien
selon le logos (Logos), en tournant vers la tene (à,noyscOcruv'tUS) l'esprit
hégémonique qui est en eux, en rendant digne de chagrin la sagesse qu'ils
possédaient autrefois, et en corrompant les pensées qu'ils conservaient
autrefois indemnes de corruption». Origène et Olympiodore ont évidem-
ment à l'esprit les «prêtres et faux prophètes» de leur temps (respective-
ment In Lam., 2,9 = PG 13, 636B = frag. 52 K. et In Lam., 1,19, 207v,
31-32 = PG 93, 734C, d'après JI' 6,13: à,nà tspÉCOS Kut ËcoS
\jIsuoonpoq,yt't"üu nunss snotllcruv \jIëUofj, ainsi que l'ensemble des
chapitres 33 à 36 de Jérémie), c'est-à-dire les hérétiques et les schisma-
LES LAMENTATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE ET L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME (NHC II,6) 747
tiques. Pareille accusation est évidemment plus difficilement imaginable
dans le milieu qui a produit l'Exégèse sur l'âme - même si l'on en trouve
l'équivalent dans certains textes polémiques dirigés contre la grande
Église, tel que l'Évangile de Judas. Mais précisément nous avons désigné
dans l'Exégèse sur ['âme un ouvrage acceptable dans les milieux
chrétiens orthodoxes, et même (c'est notre thèse propre) susceptible d'y
exercer assez d'influence pour être utilisé, anonymement, bien sûr, dans
les commentaires des meilleurs exégètes.
Pour d'évidentes questions de temps et d'espace, j'ai limité mon tra-
vail de comparaison au chapitre premier des Lamentations, le plus abon-
damment cité à la fois par Origène et par Olympiodore. Mais d'autres
passages méritent la confrontation avec le texte de l'Exégèse sur l'âme.
Parmi eux, il faut impérativement mentionner:
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 2,10 (210" 37-38 = 737D): «Ils se sont
assis: ils (c'est-à-dire les vieillards de Sion) ont été ravalés au niveau du
sol en pensant aux choses tenestres», par allusion, selon le sens premier,
aux mauvais interprètes de la Loi, et, au sens prophétique, aux mauvais
maîtres qui polluent actuellement les communautés, «les précipitant dans
les choses tenestres». Nous avons déjà vu qu'Origène identifiait les
«vieillards de la fille de Sion» aux mauvais prêtres ou docteurs de son
temps (636C = frag. 53 K.), par un glissement de sens du mot npscrpu-
'tspot. L'Exégèse sur l'âme interprète la position assise, non pas d'ail-
leurs d'après les Lamentations, mais en citant le Livre de Jérémie 3,2,
comme la position d'attente (ou de racolage) de la prostituée: «N'étais-tu
pas assise dans les rues, souillant la tene de tes prostitutions?» (129.16-
7). L'origine de l'image et son interprétation diffèrent donc considérable-
ment selon que l'on considère les deux exégètes alexandrins et l'auteur
gnostique. Mais, dans tous les cas, la position assise est assimilée à un
contact avec le sol, c'est-à-dire avec les choses tenestres .
• Olympiodore, In Lam., 4,22-5,22, ici 5,6 (220V, 17-21 = 760A):
«L'Égypte a donné la main: [ ... ] pendant que les Romains assiégeaient
Jérusalem, les Assyriens envoyaient des vivres à l'armée; quant aux
Égyptiens, ils participaient aux combats. Au sens profond, tu compren-
dras ainsi: l'Égypte est employée pour suggérer la déportation, les Assy-
riens pour suggérer la captivité; la déportation peut aussi désigner la
vanité de ce siècle ('tfl J.tu'tato'tll't"t 'toG ut&VOS) et Assur, l'accomplis-
sement de mauvaises actions». Le passage conespondant d'Origène
manque (les extraits de son commentaire contenus dans le~ chaînes
s'arrêtant précisément à Lam 4,22). Mais l'assimilation de l'Egypte au
sensible, au corporel ou au tenestre est commune chez Origène, par ex.
dans HEx 5.5: «Exterminer l'Égyptien, c'est vivre non pas charnelle-

748 B.POUDERON
ment, mais spirituellement; externliner l'Égyptien, c'est chasser de son
cœur les pensées souillées et impures»; et elle remonte en fait à Philon,
par ex. Migr. Abr. 23 (<<l'habitation corporelle de l'Égypte»). Dans
l'Exégèse sur l'âme, ce sont les «fils d'Égypte» avec lesquels se prosti-
tue Jérusalem (Ez 16,26) qui sont assimilés aux réalités chamelles: «Or,
qui sont les fils d'Égypte, les hommes aux grandes chairs, sinon les
réalités charnelles et sensibles, et les choses par lesquelles l'âme s'est
souillée en ces lieux». La commune dépendance d'Origène, d'Olympio-
dore et du rédacteur de l'Exégèse sur l'âme par rapport à l'exégèse judéo-
hellénistique est évidente, et rend bien vaine sur ce point précis l'hypo-
thèse d'un emprunt direct de l'un à l'autre des auteurs chrétiens susnom-
més.
* se retrouve peu ou prou chez Olympiodore, tout en étant absents (ou très
li est temps maintenant de dresser le bilan de cette confrontation. La
première constatation que j'ai pu faire ne cOlTespond ni au but que je
m'étais fixé, ni au résultat que j'attendais. Car même si l'on admet qu'il
y eut, de la part du caténiste, quelques confusions dans l'attribution des
fragments et que ce qui revenait à Origène a été indûment attribué à
Olympiodore, ou vice versa, il n'en demeure pas moins qu'il existe une
telle ressemblance entre le Commentaire d'Origène et celui d'Olympio-
dore qu'on ne peut que conclure à une étroite dépendance. Cette dépen-
dance est-elle directe ou indirecte? La présence d'une expression com-
mune, au sein même du maigre corpus que nous avons choisi (uniquement
le premier thrène), à savoir Èv cruyx6<nn YEV0I!ÉVllV pour In Lam., 1,1,
serait un solide argument en faveur d'une lecture directe par Olympio-
dore du Commentaire d'Origène.
Mais Origène est-il la seule source possible? Nous avons déjà constaté
qu'il y a un thème au moins qu'Origène n'a pas utilisé dans son Com-
mentaire sur les Lamentations, c'est celui de la prostitution de Jérusalem,
qui est si prégnant dans l'Exégèse sur l'âme, que ce soit à travers les
citations prophétiques ou dans l'exégèse qui en est donnée, voir dans le
récit lui-même, même s'il est vrai que la protagoniste du drame est une
vierge. Or, ce thème est bien présent chez Olympiodore, en particulier
par l'intermédiaire d'une citation de l'apôtre Paul (1 Co 6,18 en In Lam.,
1,3). De même, l'évocation des amants cyniques et trompeurs, autre
thème romanesque de l'Exégèse sur l'âme, est totalement absente d'Ori-
gène, si l'on admet que les amants-faux amis de In Lam., 1,19 sont chez
lui plutôt les anciens alliés du peuple hébreu, Babyloniens, Assyriens ou
Samaritains, et non les figures romanesques allégoriques de l'Exégèse sur
LES LAMENTATIONS DE JÉRÉMIE ET L'EXÉGÈSE SUR L'ÂME (NHC II,6) 749
l'âme, alors qu'il revient plusieurs fois chez Olympiodore (In Lam., 1,2;
1,7; 1,19; 1,21).
Nous en arrivons donc aux conclusions suivantes: Olympiodore avait
ce1tainement, sinon sous les yeux, du moins sous la main, le commentaire
d'Origène sur les Lamentations de Jérémie, et il l'a utilisé. Mais il est
possible qu'il ait aussi eu accès à une tout autre tradition, représentée par
le texte gnostique intitulé l'Exégèse sur l'âme, qui offre la particularité
de traduire en un récit allégorique apparenté aux romans de l'époque dit
de retrouvailles ou de reconnaissance l'épopée mystique de l'âme qui
veut rejoindre, malgré les fautes où l'ont entraînée les vicissitudes cor-
porelles, le royaume d'en haut qui est le sien. Parmi les traits marquants
de ce petit roman de l'âme, la présence de brigands ravisseurs, d'amants
cyniques et d'une vierge-épouse éplorée livrée un temps à la prostitution.
Chacun de ces traits, peu banals dans l'univers chrétiens de l'allégorie,
discrets) chez Origène.
Mais est-il possible qu'Olympiodore ait eu accès, au début du VIe siècle,
à ce type de littérature, qui devait «sentir le soufre», comme on aurait
dit quelques siècles plus tard? Ce n'est pas impossible, dans la mesure
où seul un regard exercé pouvait déceler dans cet ouvrage - où le Sauveur
est le Fils, voire le Christ, et où les citations scripturaires, aussi bien
vétérotestamentaires que néotestamentaires, abondent - un écrit gnos-
tique, c'est-à-dire parfaitement hétérodoxe. Le texte, vraisemblablement
rédigé en Égypte, en langue grecque, vers le milieu du ne siècle , a dû
15
y circuler depuis plus librement que les ouvrages explicitement désignés
comme séthiens ou par trop teintés de valentinisme. Néanmoins, nous ne
présenterons ici cette hypothèse que comme une incitation à chercher
chez d'autres auteurs de la grande Église, même tardifs, des traces de la
lecture de ces ouvrages dits gnostiques, dont bon nombre devaient alors
déjà faire l'objet d'une interdiction.
Université François Rabelais Tours Bernard POUDERON
Institut Universitaire de France -
Centre d'Études Supérieures de la Renaissance
bernard.pouderon@libertysurf.fr
15. D'après J.-M. SÉVRlN, dans Écrits gnostiques, p. 474.
 DIDIMO IL CIECO E GU ANTROPOMORFISMI BIBUCI

I. CONTESTO STORICO

L'idea di un Dio assolutamente incorporeo era spesso rilevata già da

due grandi maestri alessandrini, Filone e Origene. Sembra perà che
Didimo, difendendo fOltemente l'immaterialità di Dio, non soltanto pro-
segua la tradizione della sua propria scuola, ma in gran misura sia con-
dizionato anche dalla cosiddetta controversia antropomorfita. Questa,
essendo una discussione su come concepire e immaginare Dio, costitui-
sce uno dei principali episodi della prima controversia origeniana, sorta
nella Chies a d'Oliente negli ultimi decenni deI IV secolo. Al centro della
polemica stavano le colonie degli anacoreti a Nitria e Sceti in Egitto.
È difficile dire con esattezza quando e come l' Oligenismo sia penetrato
nel deserto egiziano. Negli studi passati dominava l'opinione che il
monachesimo egiziano originariamente avesse costituito un ambiente
intellettuale omogeneo, contrassegnato dalla semplice cultura di quel
paese. Questa situazione sarebbe cambiata dopo l'anno 370 con l'arrivo
dei monaci colti, fOlmati dalla cultura greca, e in campo teologico fautori
della dottllna di Origene 1• Invece negli studi recenti si puà liscontrare la
convinzione che il primitivo monachesimo egiziano non costituisse
affatto un ambiente isolato e chiuso alla riflessione teologica, ma al con-
trario, la tradizione origeniana esistesse a Nitria e Sceti molto prima di
Evagrio, e che non sia l'origenismo, ma l'antiorigenismo ad essere pene-
trato dal di fuori nel deselto egiziano negli ultimi decenni deI IV secol02 •
La soluzione di questo problema oltrepassa ovviamente i limiti deI nostro
articolo. Comunque sia, 10 scontro di diverse posizioni teologiche ha
pOltato alla formazione di due gruppi tra i monaci, che già in quel tempo
si denominavano a vicenda con i nomi di "origenisti" e "antropomorfiti"3.

1. Cf. A. FAVALE, Teofilo d'Alessandria (345 c. - 412), Diss. PDG, Torino, Società
Editrice futernazionale, 1958, p. 93. A. GUILLAUMONT (Les 'Kephalaia gnostica' d'Évagre
le Pontique et l 'origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens [patristica Sorbonensia, 5],
Paris, Seuil, 1962, pp. 55-58) considera Ammonio ed i "Lunghi Fratelli" come prirnÎ
origenisti tra i monaci d'Egitto.
2. Cf. S. RUBENSON, Origen in the Egyptian Monastic Tradition of the Fourth Centllly,
in W.A. BIENERT - U. KUHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den Allseinallder-
setzllngen des 4. Jahrhz/Ilderts (BETL, 137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999, 319-337, pp. 325-329;
336-337.
3. Cf. Socrates, Hist. ecc/., VI.7 (ed. G.Ch. HANSEN, GCS Neue Folge 1, Berlin, 1995,
p.324).

752 R.M. PANCERZ
Questo primo partita aveva il suo centro a Nitria, e come dirigenti
intellettuali Ammonio ed Evagrio Pontico. Quei monaci dotti, seguendo
la tradizione alessandlwa, difendevano la verità che Dio è assolutamente
incorporeo, privo di qualsiasi forma e aspetto esteriore. Percià non accet-
tavano di immaginarsi Dio come una figura simile a quella umana4 •
Questa convinzione ha trovato una delle sue espressioni più tipiche
nell'insegnamento di Evagrio sulla "preghiera pura" (KuSupà npocr-
EUxi]). In tale preghiera la mente umana doveva prescindere da qualsiasi
immagine di Dios. Va inoltre aggiunto che, conformemente all'idea di un
Dio assolutamente immateriale e in armonia con la teoria della preesi-
stenza delle anime, Evagrio localizzava l'immagine di Dio, secondo la
quale l'uomo è stato creato (Gen 1,26), solamente nell'intelletto (vouS)
umano preesistente. Successivamente questa immagine sarebbe andata
perduta in seguito alla precosmica caduta delle animé.
Il secondo partito, gli antropomOlfiti, monaci incolti, abitavano prin-
cipalmente a Sceti. Nella loro semplicità credevano che Dio avesse una
forma e membra umane 7 • Sembra che il formarsi di questo gruppo fosse
anzitutto una reazione all'insegnamento evagriano sulla "preghiera
pura"8. È infatti una caratteristica della gente semplice l'immaginarsi le
realtà spirituali in modo afferrabile dall'intelletto, il che ha pure un'im-
portanza pratica, yale a dire facilita la preghiera. In questa prospettiva
è chiaro che l'idea della "preghiera pura" costituiva per quei monaci
semplici un gran problema e poteva suscitare fOlti obiezioni e resistenze 9 •
È possibile che una certa importanza avesse anche il fattore storico -
religioso. L'immagine antropomorfica di Dio poteva in effetti essere un
residuo della religione pagana, praticata prima dagli egiziani lO • Non si
possono infine escludere gli influssi della setta di Audio dalla vicina
4. Cf. Socrates, Hist. eccl., VI.7 (GCS Neue Folge I, 322).
5. Cf. Evagrius, De oratione 66-67; 114; 116 (PG 79, 1181AB; 1192D; 1193A).
6. Questa teoria è stata esposta da Evagrio principalmente nelle opere: Kephalaia
gnostica e Epistula ad Melanialll, pervenute a noi in lingua siriaca: cf. E.A. CLARK, The
Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Const/'llction of an Early Christian Debate, Prince-
ton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992, pp. 71-74 (con la documentazione delle fonti).
Ovviamente già Origene, spiegando Gen 1,26, mette in rilievo che l'inunagine divina
nell'uomo non si riferisce al SUD corpo, ma all' homo interior, poiché quella prima opinione
implicherebbe che Dio stesso avesse un corpo e una forma umana: HGn 1.13 (ed.
L. DOUTRELEAU, SC 7bis, Paris, 1976, 56-58).
7. Cf. Cassianus, Conlationes X.5 (ed. E. PrCHERY, SC 54, Paris, 1958,79); Socrates,
Hist. eccl., VI.7 (GCS Neue Folge I, 322); Gennadius, De script. eccl., 33 (pL 58, 1077).
8. Cf. GUILLAUMONT, 'Kephalaia gnostica' (n. 1), p. 61 con nota 62.
9. Cf. Cassianus, COlllationes X.3 (SC 54, 77).
10. Cf. Cassianus, COlllationes X.5 (SC 54, 78-79); CLARK, Origellist COlltroversy
(n. 6), p. 52.
753
DIDIMO IL CIECO E GLI ANTROPOMORFISMI BIBLICI
Siria11. Per confermare la loro posizione, gli antropomorfiti interpreta-
vano il passo di Gen 1,26 in modo superficiale: l'immagine di Dio era
• 12 Q . .
riferita all 'uomo intero, anche al suo aspetto estenore . uesta tmmagllle
sarebbe stata conservata anche dopo il peccato del primo uomo. Tale
convinzione a sua volta si fondava sulla testimonianza di Gen 9,6 che
parla dell'alleanza con Noè, si riferisce quindi al periodo dopo la caduta
primordiale: "Chi sparge il sangue dell'uomo, dall'uomo il sua sangue
sarà sparso, perché ad immagine di Dio Egli ha fatto l'uomo"13.
Alla fine del IV secolo la polemica antropomorfita deve aver raggiunto
dimensioni assai grandi, dato che nel 399 Teofilo, vescovo di Alessan-
dria, decise si intervenire con la sua Lettera pasquale, condannando le
idee erronee degli antropomorfiti. Pure la violenta reazione di es si e la
costrizione di Teofilo alla ritrattazione deI sua insegnamento e alla con-
.
danna delle opere di Origene dlmostrano ch e la"
sltuazlOne era t esa 14.
Definitivamente la controversia ebbe gravi ricadute sui monaci origenisti,
a causa deI voltafaccia di Teofilo, che per motivi personali si voIse con-
tro di 10ro 1S .
n. PRINCIPI INTERPRETATIVI DEGLI ANTROPOMORFISMI
Nelle opere didimiane troviamo due immediate menzioni dell'errore
degli antropomorfiti: "Alcuni assoggettano il senso delle parole aIle
parole stesse e alla loro lettera (â,8po'tltS). A causa delle espressioni figu-
rate ('tà 'tponC!> 'YE'YPUj.lj.lÉvu) della Scrittura essi hanno osato spingersi
a tal punto di semplicioneria 0 di eresia da credere che Dio abbia una
forma umana (àvSpIDnoj.lopcpoS). E dicono che Dio ha membra: mani e
piedi, nonché un aspetto esteriore, ecc."16; "[Gli antropomorfiti] sosten-
Il. Questa opinione sostenuta già nel passato da alcuni st~diosi, p.oi riget~at~
(cf. FAVALE, Teofilo d'Alessandria [no 1], p. 94; GUILLAUMONT, Kephalata gnost/~a
[no 1], nota 62, p. 61), ultimamente è stata riproposta da F. LEDEGANG, Antropolllorphltes
and Origenists in Egypt at the End of the Fourth Celltllly, in BIENERT - KUHNEWEG (eds.),
Origelliana Septillla (n. 2), 375-379, pp. 376-377.
12. Cf. Cassianus, Conlationes X.2; 5 (SC 54, 76-79).
13. Cf. E. DRlüTüN, La discussion d'llIl moille allthropomO/phite audien avec le patri-
arche Théophile d'Alexandrie en l'année 399, in Revue de l'Orient chrétiell 20 (1915-
1917) 92-100; 113-128, p. 98. .
14. Cf. Cassianus, Conlationes X.2 (SC 54, 75-76); Socrates, Hlst. eccl., VI.7 (GCS
Neue Folge I, 322); Gennadius, De script. eccl., 33. (PL 58, 1077-1078)., ..
15. Per ulteriori informazioni su questo tema SI veda FAVALE, Teofilo dAlessandlla
(n. 1), pp. 96-109.
16. PsT 1.12-15 (In Psalmos IPapyrus Turanal (=PsT), ed. L. DoUTRELEAU - A. GESCHÉ-
M. GRüNEWALD, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen [= PTA] 7, Bonn, 1969,4).
 754 R.M. PANCERZ
gono che Dio abbia pure un volto umano, e dicono che l'uomo [creatoJ
a immagine e somiglianza di Dio è stato fatto tale secondo la stmttura
deI corpo"17. Quindi Didimo li rimprovera di basarsi non soltanto sul
passo Gen 1,26, ma anche su altri brani biblici che, parlando di Dio,
usano illinguaggio metaforico. Percio, commentando i brani deI genere,
l'Alessandrino spesso fa osservazioni riguardo ad una COlTetta interpre-
tazione di es si.
Il maestro mette in evidenza che quando la Scrittura presenta Dio ado-
perando l'analogia con l'essere umano, tali espressioni non vanno intese
letteralmente 18 , ma diventa necessario l'uso dell'interpretazione spiri-
19
tuale , cio che peraltro costituisce una regola ermeneutica fondamentale
nella tradizione alessandrina. L'allegoresi è in questo casa dettata da un
principio ben definito: le espressioni antropomorfiche - e Didimo ripete
cio moIte volte - devono essere intese BE01tpE1t&Ç, yale a dire in modo
degno di Dio, adeguato alla natura di Di020. Il significato più pl'Ofondo
della ÀÉçtç viene categoricamente sottoposto al concetto (SVVOLct,
v0'I'J(nç) di questa realtà a cui la ÀÉçtç si riferisce 21 . Pel' cui nell'inter-
pretazione degli antl'Opomorfismi si deve tener conto che Dio è un essere
incorporeo (àcrcû,"W/COç)22, una sostanza spirituale (voEpà oùcrla?3, anzi
al di sopra (tmEpÉKEtVa) di essa24 , un essere invisibile (àopœcoç?5,
privo di colore, forma e grandezza, non legato ad alcun post0 26, incom-
17. PsT 199.34--200.1 (ed. M. GRüNEWALD, PTA 8, Bonn, 1969,270).
18. Cf. PsT 247.11-12 (ed. M. GRüNEWALD, PTA 12, Bonn, 1970,232); PsT 199.33
(PrA 8, 270); ln Genesin /ex catenis/ 3.9 (ed. R. DEVREESSE, Les anciens commentateurs
grecs de l'Octateuque et des Rois [Studi e Testi, 201], Città dei Vaticano, 1959, 167);
GenT 7 A.7 (III Genesin /Papyrus Turana/ (=GenT), ed. P. NAUTIN, SC 233 e 244, Paris,
1976; 1978; SC 233, 46).
19. Cf. ZaT V.34 (SC 85, 984).
20. In questa accezione Didimo usa il termine l}E01tPE1troÇ; 10 volte: PsT 1.12; 17
(PrA 7, 4); PsT 247.11 (PTA 12,232); GenT 7A.6 (SC 233, 46); GenT 194.16 (SC 244,
122), il medesimo frammento in: ln Genesin lex catenisl 8.1 (ed. DEVREESSE, 170);
ZaT V.34; 39 (ln Zachariam /Papyrl/s Turana/ (=ZaT), ed. L. DüUTRELEAU, SC 83-85,
Paris, 1962; SC 85, 984; 988); PsCat fr. 75 (ln Psalmos /ex catenis/ (=PsCat), ed.
E. MÜHLENBERG, Patristische Texte und Studien (=PTS) 15-16, Berlin - New York, 1975;
1977; PTS 15, 163); PsCat fr. 1040; fr. 1227 (PTS 16,255; 334). Inoltre 10 scrittore 6
volte adopera questa parola in altra accezione: PsT 308.9-10; ZaT III.68; V.69; PsCat
fr. 39; fr. 914; III Acta Apost. lex catellisl 2,22 (ed. J.A. CRAMER, Catenae GraeC011l111
Patrum ill NOVI/Ill Testamentum, 3, Hildesheim, 1967).
21. Cf. PsT 1.8-9; 19-22 (PrA 7, 2; 4); ZaT V.35 (SC 85, 986).
22. ZaT V.32; 35 (SC 85, 984; 986); ZaTI.198 (SC 83, 296); cf. PsT 34.15 (PrA 7,
138).
23. ZaT V.32 (SC 85, 984); ZaT I.198 (SC 83, 296).
24. ZaT V.32 (SC 85, 984).
25. ZaT V.32; 36 (SC 85, 984; 986); PsCat fr. 104 (PTS 15, 184).
26. ZaT V.32 (SC 85, 984); cf. III Acta Apost. lex catenisl 17,23 (ed. CRAMER, 291-
292).
DIDIMO IL CIECO E GLl ANTROPOMORFISMI BIBLlCI 755
posto (où crUVBE't'Oç?7, immutabile (àvaÀÀolo)'t'oç, lhpE1t't'OÇ, où I-lE't'a-
~aÀÀOI-lEVOÇ) e libero dagli affetti umani (à1taBilç)28. Quindi capire il
testo biblico BC01tpE1t&Ç, per Didimo significa praticamente interpretarlo
in confOlmità al suddetto canone degli attributi divini, il quale costituisce
ovviamente un retaggio della tradizione platonico-aristotelica.
Inoltre l'Alessandl'ino, dicendo che nell'interpretazione degli antropo-
morfismi bisogna "conservare la fede" (crepSEtV 't'llV 1tlcr't'tv)29, "inten-
derli secondo la vera fede" (EÙcrE~ft tJ1toÀ'l'JI-l'l'tV SXEtV)30, sembra
l'ichiamare l'attenzione sulla l'egola che è entrata in teologia sotto il nome
di regola dell' analogia della fede. In virtù di questo principio - come è
risaputo - le singole frasi 0 espressioni della Scl'ittura non hanno un
valore assoluto, ma vanno connesse con l'intero contenuto della fede.
Ritornando ancora al termine BE01tpE1t&Ç, c'è da notare che l'idea
espressa da questa parola è fortemente radicata nella storia del pensiel'o
ellenico. Nell'antica letteratura e filosofia greca, nel contesto della critica
deI mondo degli dèi descritto da Omero ed Esiodo, si incontra spesso la
sollecitudine che non vengano attribuite a Dio (agli dèi) le carattel'istiche
che non si confanno a Lui (a 101'0). Come risposta a questa esigenza nasce
negli stoici e negli scoliasti di Omel'O l'interpretazione allegorica di quei
testi scandalosp1. L'idea di parlare di Dio in modo adeguato alla sua
natul'a occupa poi un posto importante nell 'interpretazione degli antropo-
morfismi vetel'otestamentari in Filone d'Alessandria. Questi peraltro è il
primo ad aver usato la parola BE01tpE1t&Ç nell'accezione in cui la usava
Didim032 . Il medesimo concetto, nonché l'uso dell'allegoresi, sono pre-
senti infine nell' esegesi degli antropomorfismi biblici in Origene, il
quale, COS! come Filone, rileva fortemente l'immaterialità e l'immutabi-
lità di Di033 .
27. PsT 1.9 (PTA 7, 4).
28. ZaT V.35 (SC 85, 986); ZaTII.195-196 (SC 84, 516-518); PsCat fr. 28 (PTS 15,
133).
29. PsT 1.11-12 (PTA 7, 4).
30. PsT 1.18 (PTA 7, 4); cf. ZaT V.36 (SC 85, 986).
31. Cf. O. DREYER, Untersuchungell zum Begriff des Gottgeziemelldell ill der Alltike.
Mit besonderer BerücksichtigulIg Phi/olls VOII Alexandriell (Spudasmata, 24), Hildesheim
-New York, Georg Olms Verlag, 1970, pp. 20-67.
32. Cf. ibid., pp. 11; 73-145.
33. Cf. Prill IIAA (ed. H. CRüUZEL - M. SlMüNETTI, SC 252, Paris, 1978, p. 288);
Orat 23.1-5 (ed. P. KüETSCHAU, GCS Origenes Werke II, Leipzig, 1899, pp. 349-353);
HGII 1.13 (SC 7bis, 58); CIo I.38 (ed. E. PREUSCHEN, GCS Origenes Werke IV, Leipzig,
1903, pp. 49-50). Per una sintesi su l}W1tPE1troÇ; in Origene si veda H.M. KUITERT, Gott
ill Mellschellgestalt: Eille dogmatisch-hermelleutische Studie über die Allthropolllorphis-
men der Bibel (Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie, 45), München, Kaiser, 1967, pp. 57-
60.

756 R.M. PANCERZ
Va ancora aggiunto che, introducendo il criterio di spiegare la Scrittura
SE01tpE1troC;, Didimo e i suoi predecessori allegoristi ebbero anche il
vantaggio di giustificare i metodi allegorici che, mentre erano COSl spesso
usati nell' ambiente ales s andrino , destavano invece dubbi e critiche in
altri ambienti. Infatti nell 'interpretazione degli antropomorfismi diventa
chiaro che l' allegoresi non è fine a se stessa e non è qualcosa di casuale,
ma serve ad un fine più importante.
III. "FIGURA" E "MEMBRA" DI Dro
Nei seguenti paragrafi analizzeremo come 10 scrittore alessandrino con-
cretamente spiega le espressioni antropomorfiche della Bibbia. In primo
luogo l'attenzione va rivolta all'interpretazione delle parole di Gen 1,26
che riguardano la creazione dell 'uomo "ad immagine e somiglianza di
Dio". Ovviamente non intendiamo approfondire qui questo argoment0 34,
presentiamo soltanto cio che è legato direttamente con il nostro tema.
Didimo rileva anzitutto che l'uomo non è in se stesso immagine di Dio,
ma è stato creato ad immagine di Dio, yale a dire che è disposto a conte-
nere questa immagine, a parteciparne. L'immagine perfetta di Dio è invece
il suo Figlio unigenit0 35 . Poi l'Alessandrino non ammette di riferire la
creazione a immagine divina all'uomo intero come ad un essere compo-
st036 , né al corpo uman037 , mettendo in evidenza che Dio non ha una forma
umana38 . Altrimenti - domanda Didimo - come spiegheremmo questa
immagine prendendo in considerazione i brani biblici che parlano delle
"ali" (Sai 16,8) 0 dei "sette occhi" (Zc 4,10) di Dio?39 E rispondendo alla
questione in modo positivo, il maestro riferisce l'essere ad imaginem Dei
all'anima40 0 alla mente umana41, e questo si esprime principaImente nella
capacità di ragionare42 e nell'imitazione della divina potestà43 . Didimo
34. Pel' approfondimenti su questo tema si veda P.O. STEIGER, The Image of Gad
ill the 'Commelltary 011 Gellesis' of Didyml/s the Blind, in F. YOUNG - M. EDWARDS -
P. PARVIS (eds.), Stl/dia Patristica 42, Leuven, Peeters, 2006, 243-247.
35. GenT 58-59 (SC 233, 148-150).
36. GenT 56 (SC 233, 142).
37. PsT 200.3-4 (PrA 8, 270); HiT 273.25-26 (ed. U. HAGEDORN - D. HAGEDORN-
L. KOENEN, PrA 3, Bonn, 1968, p. 134). TI passo di Gen 1,26 si riferisce secondo Didimo
soltanto alla creazione dell'anima, mentre quello di Gen 2,7 ("Allora il Signore Dio
plasmà l'uomo - polvere delle terra") è relativo alla creazione deI corpo umano: cf.
HiT 273.28-33 (PrA 3, 134).
38. HiT 273.26-27 (PrA 3, 134); GenT 56 (SC 233, 142).
39. Cf. PsT 200.1-7 (PrA 8, 270); GenT 56-57 (SC 233,144).
40. HiT 273.25-26 (PrA 3, 134); GenT 49; 57 (SC 233, 128; 146).
41. GenT 58; 60 (SC 233, 150; 152-154).
42. GenT 59 (SC 233, 150).
43. GenT 57; 60; 61 (SC 233,144-146; 152; 156).
DIDIMO IL CIECO E GU ANTROPOMORFISMI BIBUCI 757
insomma, seguendo la tradizione alessandrina, riferisce la creazione ad
immagine di Dio alla dimensione spirituale dell'uomo. .
Lo scrittore alessandrino era sicuramente consapevole che la polemlca
con gli antropomorfiti non si limitava ad una corretta interpretazione di
Gen 1,26. Infatti la Bibbia in moiti passi parlava di una figura e di mem-
bra umane di Dio. Percio questi passi non di rado diventano oggetto delle
sue spiegazioni. Passiamo quindi ad alcuni esempi concreti. Nelle opere
didimiane molte volte incontriamo l'interpretazione deI "volto"
(1tpocrC01tov) di Dio. Spesso identificando il "~olto" co~ '?'i~~r~nt~
della sostanza di Dio" (Eb 1,3) e "l'immagme deI DlO mVIslblle
(Col 1,15), Didimo riferisce questo antropomorfismo al ~iglio di ~iO.44.
In un altro contesto il "volto" divino indic a la stessa eSlstenza dl DIO.
Qui "guardare il volto di Dio" equivale a "sapere ch~ Dio. es~s~e "45.
Infine in contrapposizione "volto - schiena", questo pnmo slgruflca le
idee di Dio mentre la "schiena" simboleggia le creature visibili, dato che
esse vengo~o dopo di Lui. Questa simbologia pelmette all' Alessandrino
di spiegare che a Mosè, il quale vide soltanto le "spalle" di Dio (Es 33,20-
. 46 . .
23) Egli rivelo esclusivamente la sua opera creatnce . La stessa antltesl
tro~a ancora un'altra interpretazione: Dio fa vedere il sua "volto" ai
santi mentre mostra la "schiena" ai peccatori, il che significa la salvezza
data ,a quei primi e l'allontanamento d'1 quel. second'147. L' espress l' one
"volto di Dio" pel' Didimo è quindi polisemantica.
Un'interpretazione interessante la troviamo nel commento al ~a~~ 10,4:
"1 suoi occhi guardano il povero, le sue palpebre scrutano 1 flgh deg~l
uomini". Gli "occhi" (o<j>SaÀ!loi) di Dio sono le sue potenze che custodl-
scono i poveri. Invece 10 scrutare atti e pensieri umani. "a~ave~so le palpe,-
bre (~ÀÉ<j>apa)" esprime la, divina c1e~enz~ 0 mlse~cordl~ (~ett.: 't~
<j>tÀavSpco1tov) nel giudizio. E come se DlO chiudesse gli occhi SUl peccatl
degli uomini. Infatti se Dio ci scrutasse con gli "occhi", yale a dire esatta-
mente 0 scrupolosamente, il sua giudizio sarebbe per noi inso~p01tab~e4~.
Analizzando il Salmo 16,6: "Ti invoco, 0 Dio, perché ml esaudlscI;
porgi l'orecchio, ascolta le mie parole", Didimo prima ~ette in rilievo
che l'invocazione di Dio da parte dell'uomo va caplta come voce
dell'intelletto, dell'uomo interiore. Invece il "porgere l'orecchio" da
44. PsCat fr. 1002; fI'. 1227 (PrS 16,241; 334); PsT 18.27-19.1 (PrA 7, 70-72);
PsT 149.15-16 (PrA 8, 102); PsT 301.26-28; 310.23-25 (PrA 12,64; 116); Ecc/T 89.19-
20 (Ill Ecc/esiasten /Papyrl/s Tl/ralla/ (=Ecc/T), ed. M. GRONEWALD, PrA 22, Bonn, 1977,
p. 120).
45. PsT 20.21-22 (PrA 7, 78-80); cf. PsT 200.8-16 (PrA 8, 270-272).
46. Cf. PsT 22.16-18 (PrA 7,88).
47. Cf. PsT 22.15; 19-20 (PrA 7, 88). .
48. Cf. PsCat fI'. 75 (PrS 15, 163). Cf. Origenes - Hieronymus, Tractatus /Il Psalmos
X.5 (ed. G. MORIN, CCL 78, Turnholti, 21958, pp. 360-361).
 758 R.M. PANCERZ
parte di Dio non è altro che la divina caratteristica di abbassarsi pel'
esaudire le preghiere dell'uomo. Nello stesso senso viene inteso anche
il Salmo 33,16: "Gli occhi deI Signore sui giusti, i suoi orecchi al lol'o
grido"49.
Similmente, spiegando il passo di Zc 3,2: "Il Signore disse a satana",
10 scrittore alessandrino nota che Dio non parla pronunciando parole, in
quanto è incorporeo e non si serve degli organi vocali. Pensare cosl signi-
ficherebbe essere dei semplicioni. Il "parlare" da paIte di Dio significa
piuttosto che Egli manifesta la sua volontà agli altti Nello stesso modo,
quando si dice che Dio "ascolta" qua1cuno, cio va inteso nel senso che
Egli conosce quello che l'altro ha in menteso .
Didimo - seguendo peraltro la tradizione ecc1esiastica - mette sulla
bocca di Dio Padre e riferisce alla generazione deI Figlio le parole deI
Salmo 109,3: "DaI seno, prima dell'aurora, io ti ho generato". Ovvia-
mente il "seno" (ya<J"ti]p) deI Padre è qui inteso in modo degno di Dio.
La generazione dal "seno" significa che il Figlio di Dio è un figlio natu-
raIe (YVi]<HOÇ) che proviene dal Padre stesso, contrariarmente ai figli
adottivi (B€'t'oi)Sl. Questa interpretazione serve quindi alla difesa della
divinità deI Figlio. Un senso simile hanno le parole deI Salmo 44,2: "Il
mio cuore ha effuso una buona parola". Qui il "cuore" (Kapoia) di Dio
Padre non è altro che Lui stesso. Il versetto parla quindi della generazione
deI Figlio (Verbo) dalla sostanza (oùaia) deI Padres2 .
Inoltre Didimo dà molte interpretazioni delle "mani" di Dio. Spie-
gando il passo di Gb 10,8: "Le tue mani mi hanno plasmato e mi hanno
fatto", l'Alessandrino riconosce che le "mani" (X€tP€ç) divine possono
simboleggiare la potenza operante di Dios3 , ma poi aggiunge che un'in-
terpretazione più precisa è quella, secondo la quale le "mani" deI Padre
indicano il Figlio e 10 Spirito SantoS4 . Questa ide a di Figlio e Spirito
Santo come due mediatori (due "mani") deI Padre nella creazione deI
mondo risale a Ireneo di Lioness . Invece la "destra" (O€stu) di Dio nel
contesto deI Salmo 15,11: "do1cezza senza fine alla tua destra", e deI
Salmo 16,7-8: "Preservami da quelli che si oppongono alla tua destra",
49. Cf. PsCat fI'. 104 (PTS 15, 184).
50. Cf. ZaT 1.198 (SC 83, 296).
51. PsCat fI'. 1040 (PTS 16,254-255). Cf. PsT 333.25-26 (PTA 12,212).
52. PsT 333.14-19 (PTA 12, 210).
53. HiT 274.6-11 (PTA 3, 134). Cf. PsCat fr. 153 (PTS 15,209-210); PsCat fr. 1040
(PTS 16, 254-255); PsT 333.27-334.4 (PTA 12, 212). In un altro fl'ammento Didimo
f~cend~ il :ifel'imento a G~n 2,7, rileva che Dio non ha plasmato l'uomo dalla terra a guis~
dl vasalO, lU quanto matenalmente non possiede mani: EcclT 103.15-19 (PTA 22, 168).
54. HiT274.11-14 (PTA 3, 134).
55. Cf. Adv. lIaer., N.20.1 (ed. A. ROUSSEAU, SC 100, Paris, 1965, p. 626); Adv. haer.,
V.6.1; 28.4 (ed. A. ROUSSEAU - L. DOUTRELEAU - Ch. MERCIER, SC 153, Paris, 1969,
pp. 72; 360).
DIDIMO IL CIECO E GU ANTROPOMORFISMl BIBUCI 759
indic a il Figlio di Di056 . Oltre aIle interpretazioni trinitarie, le "mani" di
Dio possono simboleggiare anche la sua potenza punitivaS7 (eventual-
mente gli angeli che fanno il servizio di punizione58 ) 0 quella che manda
agli uomini dure proveS9 , nonché quella protettrice60 • Invece la "destl'a"
è sempre un simbolo della potenza salvatrice 0 della benedizioné 1• Lo
stesso significato è conferito al "braccio" (~paxicov) divino, il quale
viene anche interpretato cristologicamenté2. Infine le due "mani" di Dio
possono indic are ambedue i Testamenti63 . In questo contesto le parole deI
Salmo 30,6: "Nelle tue mani affido il mio spirito" esprimono il desiderio
di capire sia l'Antico che il Nuovo Testament064 .
Didimo dimostra una grande sensibilità teologica spiegando pure le
espressioni della Scrittura che parlano di un posto, in cui Dio dimol'a.
Cosl pel' esempio commentando il Salmo 139,14: "1 retti abitel'anno
davanti al tuo volto", dove il "volto" simboleggia il Figlio di Dio, allude
anche aIle parole di Gesù dal passo di Gv 17,24: "Padre, voglio che
anche quelli che mi hai dato siano con me dove sono io". E qui l'Ales-
sandrino sottolinea che le espressioni quali "dove" (onou), rifel'ite a Dio,
non vanno intese in senso topografico ('t'omKmç)65. Parimenti non si puo
capire in tale senso il divino "allontanamento" dal peccatore66 , né la sua
"vicinanza" all'uomo giusto, bensl queste locuzioni espl'imono la nostra
l'elazione con Di067 . Infine non è da intendere in senso topografico il
dimol'aI'e deI Figlio alla "destra" deI Padre68 .
IV. "AFFETII" Dl DIO
In questo paragl'afo ci occupel'emo dell'interpretazione degli antropo-
morfismi biblici che attribuiscono a Dio vari sentimenti umani, nonché
56. PsCat fr. 98; fr. 105 (PTS 15, 181; 184). Cf. PsT 310.23-25 (PTA 12, 116).
57. Fragm. ill Hiob 1,11 (pG 39, 1121D); PsT 309.15-19; 310.11-14 (PTA 12, 110;
114); cf. PsT 20.10-21.4 (PTA 7, 78-80).
58. PsT 309.16-17 (PTA 12, 110). Qui si tratta probabilmente degli angeli cattivi: cf.
PsCat fI'. 44 (PTS 15,143-144); PsCat fI'. 878 (PTS 16,165).
59. PsT 309.19 (PTA 12, 110).
60. Fragm. ;11 Hiob 1,11 (pG 39, 1121D); PsCat ff. 275 (PTS 15,268); PsT 139.19-
20; 148.30-31 (PTA 8, 52; 98-100).
61. Cf. PsT 20.10-21.4 (PTA 7, 78-80); PsT 309.23-26; 310.14-23 (PTA 12, 110-112;
114-116); PsCat fI'. 641a (PTS 16,45-46).
62. Cf. PsT 310.20-25 (PTA 12, 114-116).
63. PsT 139.14-15; 18-19; 149.6 (PTA 8, 50; 52; 100).
64. PsT 139.15-16 (PTA 8, 50-52).
65. Cf. PsCat fI'. 1227 (PTS 16,334).
66. Cf. HiT 344.7-20 (ed. U. HAGEDORN - D. HAGEDORN - L. KOENEN, PTA 33.1,
Bonn, 1985, pp. 94-96).
67. Cf. PsT 228.20 (PTA 8, 402).
68. Cf. III Acta Apost. lex catellisl 2,25-26 (ed. CRAMER, 46).
 760 R.M. PANCERZ
stati psichici e psicosomatici69 . Tra di essi quella più volte spiegata da
Didimo è la "collera" di Dio. li più ampio commento in proposito 10
troviamo nell'esegesi di Zc 7,12: "COS! si accese un grande sdegno da
pmte deI Signore degli eserciti". L' Alessandrino rileva qui, come pure
in altri frammenti similï1°, che la "collera" (opyi]) di Dio non va consi-
derata un affetto (nu30C;) umano 0 un mutamento (-rponij). Pensare in
questo modo sarebbe addirittura una stoltezza. Infatti la collera - ricorda
10 scrittore - è un desiderio di vendetta. Quindi "l'ira" di Dio deve essere
intesa come una punizione divina nei confronti di quelli che ne hanno
bisogno per migliorarsi. E che questa punizione non ha niente a che fare
con la vendetta, cio viene espresso anche dall'accento posto sulla sua
dimensione medicinale: la "collera" di Dio, yale a dire il castigo, è "una
dolorosa terapia (0 educazione)" dell 'uomo 71.
Secondo la stessa logica Didimo spiega ancora altri passi biblici. Nel
Salmo 6,2: "Signore, non punirmi nel tuo sdegno", la "collera" di Dio
esprime i travagli che Egli manda ai perversi72 • NeI Salmo 73,1: "Perché
divampa la tua ira contro il gregge deI tuo pascolo?", questo affetto
indic a il rifiuto dei peccatori da parte di Dio73 • Anche la divina "esaspe-
razione" della quale parla il Salmo 5,11, simboleggia il castigo, cui
l'anima è sottoposta a causa dei peccati74 . Della divina punizione parla
infine il passo di Es 15,7: "Hai mandato il tuo furore e li ha divorati
come paglia"75. Qui il fatto che la "collera" di Dio non è un moto pas-
sionale viene confermato secondo Didimo anche dal verbo "mandm·e".
Infatti l'affetto non è qualcosa che puo essere mandat076.
L'interpretazione dell'''ira'' divina viene invece modificata rispetto a
Giobbe. Nel passo di Gb 1O,171'Alessandrino deve spiegare le sue parole
rivolte a Dio: "Mi hai trattato con grande ira; mi hai messo alla prova".
Poiché nell'intero commenta1'Îo Didimo difende l'impeccabilità di
Giobbe, qui "l'ira" di Dio indica SI un travaglio mandato al protagonista
dei Libro, ma in qualità di una prova, tentazione, non di un castigo. Cio
è peraltro confermato - come nota 10 scrittore - dalla seconda pmte dei
versetto77 •
69. Questi antropomorfismi da alcuni studiosi sono definiti come "antropopatismi".
70. Si vedano le note 72-77; inoltre PsCat fr. 850 (PTS 16, 151).
71. Cf. ZaT II.195-196; 199-200 (SC 84, 516-520).
72. PsCat fr. 32 (PTS 15, 136-137).
73. PsCat fr. 773A (PTS 16, 109).
74. PsCat fr. 28 (PTS 15, 133).
75. Cf. HiT 286.2-8 (PTA 3, 164).
76. HiT 91.17-27 (ln Hiob IPapyrus Tutanal (==HiT), ed. A. HENRlcHs, PTA 1, Bonn,
1968 1, pp. 256-258); HiT 345.11-14 (PTA 33.1, 96); cf. PsCat fr. 32 (PTS 15, 136-137).
77. Cf. HiT 286.2-16 (PTA 3, 164).
DIDIMO IL CIECO E GU ANTROPOMORFISMI BIBUCI 761
La "collera" di Dio trova ancora un'altra spiegazione nel commento
al Salmo 87,17: "Sopra di me sono passati i tuoi furori, i tuoi spaventi
mi hanno impaurito" - parole messe sulla bocca deI Salvatore. Qui i
"furori" e "spaventi" non significano divini castighi, bensl1e potenze
impure che fanno il servizio di punizione, i cosiddetti "strumenti dell'ira".
li versetto parla quindi dell'azione delle potenze diaboliche che passando
su Gesù hanno suscitato la sua angoscia78 .
A questo punto va aggiunto che interpretazioni analoghe della divina
"collera" le troviamo in Origene: essa esprime le punizioni che Dio
infligge ai peccatori79 (in altre parole: il modo severo di educarli80),
oppure il diavolo stesso. Questa ultima interpretazione permette a
Origene di spiegare in che senso la "collera" di Dio ha incitato Davide
a fare il censimento deI popolo (cf. 2Sam 24,1)81.
Didimo sporadicamente interpreta ancora altri stati psichici riferiti
nella Bibbia a Dio. Nel commento alla 1 Lettera di Giovanni troviamo
una digressione sul pentimento (IlB-ruIlÉÂ,Btu) e sull'oblio (Â,ij3r]) che
nell'Antico Testamento sono ascritti a Dio. L'Alessandrino rileva anzi-
tutto che essi non vanno considerati come fenomeni psichici (nu3r]), dato
che Dio conosce tutto, ma queste cose sono dette su d1· LU1. OLKOvolltKillC;
l ~ 82
.
Con questa parola 10 scrittore esprime indubbiamente la stessa idea che
Origene - anche trattando degli antropomOlfismi - esprimeva con il ter-
mine KU-r' olKovoll{UV. Yale a dire, tali espressioni antropomorfiche
costituiscono un elemento della divina oiKovoll{U: esse
corrispondono al disegno divino, orientato a una più efficace educazione
della gente semplice83 •
Analizzando il passo di Gen 8,1: "Dio si ricordo di Noè", Didimo
evidenzia che il "ricordo" (Ilvijlll1) da parte di Dio non sussegue
l'oblio, ma la Bibbia dice cosl in relazione al privilegio di fare Noè
capo deI genere uman0 84 . Allo stesso modo non va inteso letteralmente
il "sonno" di Dio di cui parla il Salmo 43,24: "Svégliati, perché
78. Cf. PsCat fr. 878 (PTS 16, 165). Sulle potenze diaboliche che sono strumenti deI
divino castigo si veda PsCat fr. 44 (PTS 15, 143-144).
79. FrIo fr. 51 (GCS Origenes Werke IV, 525-526).
80. CC IV.72 (ed. M. BORRET, SC 136, Paris, 1968, pp. 360-362).
81. Cf. CC IV.72 (SC 136,362).
82. Cf. ln 1 Epistulam Ioannis 2,3-4 (ed. F. ZOEPFL, Didymi Alexandrini in Epistolas
canonicas brevis enarratio [Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, 4/1], Münster, 1914,
pp. 44-45). Sulla paternità didimiana di questa opera si veda K. STAAB, Die griechischen
Katenenkommentare zu den katholischen Briefen, in Biblica 5 (1924) 296-353, pp. 315-
320. Sul divino "oblio" e "pentimento" cf. PsCat fr. 28 (PTS 15, 133); PsT 20.7 (PTA
7,76).
83. Cf. HIer 18.6 (ed. P. NAUTIN, SC 238, Paris, 1977, pp. 202-204).
84. Cf. GenT 194 (SC 244, 122).
 DIDIMO IL CIECO E GLl ANTROPOMORFISMI BIBLlCI 763
762 R.M. PANCERZ

dormi, Signore?" Esso signifie a invece che Dio non vuole intervenu'e questo problema, FiloneB9 e poi Origene90 spiegavano che la Scrittura,
subit0 85 . parlando di Dio con illinguaggio antropomOlfico, non ci dice come Egli
Le parole deI Salmo 20,8: "li re confida nel Signore" sono messe è in realtà, ma si adatta al modo di ragionare umano, dal momento che
dall' Alessandrino sulla bocca di Cristo. Pero la sua speranza non riguarda tale fonna di insegnamento è più utile pel' l'ammaestramento morale
Lui stesso, ma la salvezza di quelli per i quali è venuto al mondo. Questa della gente semplice ('t"IDV rcOI-,I-,IDV). È quindi una specie di pia fraus.
speranza è infallibile, è quindi l'attesa di cio di cui Egli q sicuro, attesa Come unie a allusione didimiana a questa teoria puo essere considerata
chiamata "speranza" soltanto perché si riferisce al futuro. In questo con- quella breve affermazione, analizzata sopra, secondo la quale gli antro-
testo l'autore spiega che l'espressione "Dio ha speranza (Èl-,rciÇst)" va pomorfismi sono usati nella Bibbia come elemento dell' economia divina
intesa come un'espressione figurata (Ka/cà 't"1)v Èrcivotav)86. (OlKOV Ol-ttKIDC;)91. Tuttavia 10 scrittore non sviluppa questo argomento.
Infine, commentando il Salmo 36,13: "li Signore ride dell'empio, per- Egli sembra annettere più importanza all'interpretazione stessa degli
ché vede arrivare il suo giorno", Didimo mette in risalto che il "l'ÎSO" di antropomOlfismi e alla questione di una corretta conoscenza di Dio.
Dio non è da concepire umanamente, ma simboleggia la divina pre- Tutto sommato, bisogna dire che grazie ad una risoluta presa di posi-
scienza l'Îguardo al giudizio che attende i peccatori. Invece il passo di zione contro le idee ingenue degli antropomorfiti, Didimo appare a noi
Es 10,2: "Affinché tu possa raccontare ai tuoi figli e nipoti come io ho come un teologo maturo che difende l'immaterialità e la trascendenza di
deriso gli Egiziani" vuol dire che Dio ha posto quel popolo in ridicolo, Dio, sa interpretare saggiamente la Scrittura e l'Îesce a ricavarne numerosi
vincendolo con degli animali misel'Î, come zanzare, mosche, rane e caval- e validi contenuti teologici.
lette87 .
WSD Ojcôw Bernardynôw (OFM) Roland Marcin P ANCERZ
Bernardynska 25
V. CONCLUSIONI PL - 34-130 Kalwaria Z.
rolandpan@tlen.pl
Nell'esegesi didimiana molti antropomorfismi, come deI resto altre
espressioni simboliche, sono polisemantici, il che sembra una cosa natu-
l'ale. L'Alessanddno stesso giustifica peraltro questa varietà interpreta-
tiva. In un frammento deI Commenta ai Sa/mi spiega che le espressioni
figurate non si riferiscono a cose du'ettamente ed in ogni aspetto, ma a
seconda dei vari aspetti possono essere intese in diversi modi 88 . Ovvia-
mente l'interpretazione degli antropomorfismi non è completamente
libera. Di solito il lol'o significato è logicamente legato con la loro con-
notazione; inoltre è condizionato dal contesto in cui es si si trovano.
In moIti casi il maestro alessandrino risente della tradizione anteriore.
Un'analisi più dettagliata della storia dell'interpretazione dei vari antro-
pomorfismi esigerebbe certamente uno studio più ampio. Paragonando
complessivamente Didimo con i suoi grandi predecessori Filone ed
Origene, va notato che egli praticamente non espone la teoria che giusti-
fichi il frequente uso degli antropomOlfismi nella Bibbia. Mfrontando

89. Cf. DREYER, Untersuclll/llgen (n. 31), pp. 127-132; KUITERT, Gott in Menschen-
85. Cf. PsT 228.26-27 (PTA 8, 404). gestalt (n. 33), pp. 83-84; 86.
86. Cf. PsT 19.13-20.7 (PTA 7, 74-76). 90. Cf. CC N.71 (SC 136,358-360); HIer 18.6; 19.15 (SC 238,196-204; 240-242);
87. Cf. PsT 247.9-14 (PrA 12,232). KmTERT, Gott in Menschengestalt (n. 33), pp. 84-92.
88. Cf. PsT 35.9-14 (PTA 7,142). 91. Si veda sopra, nota 82.
 EVAGRIUS AS WRITER
THE EXAMPLE OF EULOGIOS 2'S DISCUSSION OF XENITEIA

As a writer, Evagrius is associated with a pithy apophthegmatic style

whose roots, as Harmless points out, are to be found above aIl in "the
terse wisdom and the great silences of Egyptian monasticism" 1. The trea-
tise To Eulogios: On the Confession of Thoughts and Counsel in Theil'
Regard (IIapz ÀOyWj1wv èç1JYopiaç Kaz aVj1fiovÀiaç. IIpàç EiUoylOV) is
an exception to this ruIez. One of Evagrius' longest works, it comprises
a detailed exposition of the ascetic life in a discursive fOlmat that allows
its author a narrative freedom precluded by his usual minimalism. Its
second chapter - the first of the treati~e proper, following a dedicatory
prologue to the monk Eulogios 3 - exploits that freedom to powerful
effect, with Evagrius availing himself of conventional Christian and
pagan motifs, Scriptural allusion and autobiographical elements to paint
a vivid picture of the experience of the desert monk.
The treatise begins where the ascetic life begins, with what Evagrius calls
xeniteia, "voluntary exile"4. For him this means renunciation of the secular
world, not just in physical terms, but, more fundamentally, in the sense of
overcoming the psychological habit of unreflective immersion in sensible real-
ity, the result and symptom of the choice of the nous to tum away from God,
and the expression and perpetuator of its resulting fragmentation. Accordingly,
Eulogios 2 centres upon the inner conflict that is the lot of the fallen nous. It
has three sections. The first sets up the characterisation of xeniteia as a spir-
itual contest, the second describes the sort of agôn or peirasmos that the con-
testant must face, and the third instructs him in how to prevail.

1. W. HARMLESs, "Salt for the Impure, Light for the Pure" : Reflections on the Peda-
gogy of Evagrius Ponticus, in Studia Patristica 37 (2001) 514-526, p. 517.
2. The manuscript version of the Eulogios upon which this paper is based is that
of Athos, Lavra r 93, used by SINKEWICZ for his translation and reproduced by him at
R.E. SINKEWICZ, Evagrius of Pontus: The Greek Ascetic Corpus (Oxford Early Christian
Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.
3. The prologue to the Eulogios indicates that it was composed in response to a specifie
request as is also the case with the trilogy of Praktikos-Gnostikos-Kephalaia Gnostika, the
addressee of whieh is Anatolios; Chapters on Prayer, the probable addressee of which is
Rufinus, and the Antirrhëtikos, the addressee of which is Loukios.
4. Except where otherwise stated, translations of Evagrius are those of SINKEWICZ, with
minor amendments. He notes at SINKEWICZ, Evagrius (n. 3), p. 236, n. 5, that "the term
xeniteia is not very prominent in early ascetic vocabulary, even though the notion itself is
a commonplace".
 766 M.TOBON
The chapter opens with an appeal to the monk as spiritual athlete:
npO:l1:11 "t"rov Àa/lnprov ùYffiVtcr/lU"t"ffiV Ècr"t"iv ~ ~EVl"t"eia
The first of the illustrious contests is voluntary exile.
Wit~ thes~ .words Evagrius echoes Paul's Use of athletic ima e to
~ymbohse spl1'ltual struggle5 and also follows Athanasius who m' dg ry"b
mg Ant "d '1 ' escll-
nfl' ony a~ aI y a martyr to his conscience, and contending in the
c~ lcts of ~alth~' (K~.s' T]ll spuv Ilup'wprnv "Cn O'OVEtOllO'Et Kut à OlYt-
ÇOIlEvoe; "COte; "CTJe; ntO'''CECOe; a.sÀme;)6 implicitly appointed him Y
the monk f th d ,and so
s0 e es~rt, successors as paradigms of Christian pelfection
to those whos~ who, m a previous era, had shed their blood in the arena.
The foIlowmg clause amplifies the appeal:
t~À~~l~~~~tf:~u~~E"t":t6voç nç ÈKoll/lotll, nU"t"piou, yévoç, unap-
es~ecially when to this end one should go abroad alone lik hl
stnpped of homeland, family and possessions. ' e an at ete
Now ~ more complex web of associations is being Woven. Continuin
~he Paul~e. themes, athletes had to leave their native towns to corn et!
m competltiOns abroad7 while Abraham's wI'II' 1 p
ki ' mgness to eave "country
ndred ~nd father's house"B demonstrated a faith that amounted to right~
eousness . But there are also more distinctively Eva .
K';;\0
1 Al h . gnan concerns at
t ough It was evidently in Jerusalem that Evagrius took the
.a l~ ,he could have returned home to Cappadocia to realise hi
tlon m one of B l' . s voca-
.asl ~ monastlc establishments, yet instead he headed for
Egypt, completmg his severance from the secular world b . for the logismoi and must be "stripped off" by the athlete lest he be
y
not just it but aIl geographical proximity to his fonn l'.... C renouncmg
th' b' el' he. onsequently
ere IS an auto lOgraphical strand to Eu/ogios 2 that we b The opening exhortation continues:
Eulog' Id h . can e sure
. lOS w~u ave ~een aware of and that Evagrius knew would
mcrease the Impact of hiS words l l .
" Evagrius con~iders it necessary for the monk to divest himseIf of
homeland, fallllly and possessions" because they represent attachments
EVAGRIUSAS~R 767
that keep the nous earthbound and so prevent it from realising its true
nature as part of the intelligible order, incorporeal image of the incorpo-
real God 12 • Accordingly, in the prologue to the Eulogios he enjoins its
addressee:
"t"li "t"rov unEp"t"u"t"ffiV ÀU/lnll06vt "t"i]v vOEpàv oùcr{av ÈnpE<j>6/lEVOÇ, "t"atç
cruvayffiya.tç "t"rov Àoytcr/lrov "t"ov 0YKOV "t"rov crapKrov ùn60ucrat, EtoroÇ on
üÀll crupKroV "t"po<j>i] Àoytcr/lrov KaStcr"t"a"t"ut.
in nomlshing your intellectual substance on the brilliance of the supreme
realities, strip off the weight of the flesh by collecting your logismoi, for
you know that the matter of the flesh constitutes the nourishment of logis-
moi.
Evagrius would intend his use of the verb apodusai in this context to
remind Eulogios of Paul's reference to "those who strip off the old self
with its practices" (ànEKooO'(lllEVot "Cov nuÂ,utov av.spconov O'ùv nue;
npaSEO'tv utnou)13. The logismoi, in Evagrius' usage, aI'e the habits of
thinking associated with "the old self"; that is, the expression of unre-
flective irnrnersion in sensible reality; we shaU see below what he me ans
by "coUecting" them. The "matter of the flesh" can be understood in
three senses: fU'st, literaIly, as the physical elements that constitute the
body; second, as the soul insofar as it serves the flesh, and, thu'd, more
loosely as the objects of desires arising from the flesh 14 ; the "impure
desires" of Rom 1,24. Homeland, family and possessions belong in the
latter category, since aU relate to, and are attachments of, the person as
part of the secular world 15 . Consequently, aU are potential nourishment
"hindered by his tunic and easily dragged about"16.
OÜ"t"ffiÇ yàp av Èv"t"oç "t"rov /lE"t"{mffiv EUpESdç ùycOVffiV, "t"cp "t"éÀEt "t"ilç
uno/lovilç crcOav 'tau'tllv ùnocrcOsffiv, n"t"épuç,tV ùpE'tilç 8cr"t"Ut nEptKEXpU-
crcO/lEVOÇ, 'trov otKeiffiV 'tE 't6nffiv ù<j>tn"t"u/lEVoÇ, npoç aù'tov àvamilval
'tov oùpuvov ÈnEtxSi]crE"t"Ut.

12. Cf., e.g., Kephalaia GI/ostika 3.32; 6.73.

5. E.g. 1 Cor 9,24; Phil 3,14; 2 Tim 47-8' Eph 6 12 13. Co13,9.
6. Life of Amony, 47, trans. H. ELLERS~W Lffi >fA . .. 14. 1 have argued elsewhere that Evagrius believes that the physical constitution of the
(Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers ù/~)e ~ ~1f~I/Y, Select WI1l~l/gs ofAtha~lasills body must itself be transmuted as part of the ascent of the whole person to God, a process
1994, pp. 195-221. ' ,ea 0 y, MA, Hendnckson Pubhshers, which in tum depends upon the training of the pathetikoll part of the soul; see M. TOBoN,
7. Cf. SINKEWICZ, Evagrius (n. 3), p. 236, n. 5. Apatheia il/ the Teachillgs of Evagrius Pal/ficus, PhD thesis, Department of Greek and
8. Cf. Gen 12,1-2. Latin, University College London, 2009, pp. 65-81.
9. Cf. Rom 4,:.22; also Gal 3,6; Jas 2,23. 15. Thus, e.g., Praktikos 98: "The death of his father was made known to one of the
10. Cf. Pallad1Us, Lausiac Histo/y, 38.9. monks, but he said to the one who brought the news: Stop blaspheming, my father is
11. At Rhetoric 1356a.3-13 Aristotle h . irnrnortall "; according to Palladius, Lausiac Histo/y 38.13, the monk in question was
acter to his persuasiveness. notes t e Importance of a speaker's good char- Evagrius himself.
16. 011 Thoughts 6.28-29.
 768 M.TOBON
For if in this way someone should find himself engaged in the most demand-
ing competitions, preserving this exile safe and sound by the goal of perse-
verance, with the gilded wing of virtue he will take flight from his own
familiar haunts and make haste to fly away towards heaven itself17.
Evagrius is alluding here ta Ps 54,7, but rather than quote it directly
he transposes it into a Platonic key by replacing "wings like a dove" with
the "wing of virtue". In the Phaedrus Plata describes how the soul is
naturally winged; in the case of gods the wings are perfect, enabling
them ta travel above the earth and through the heavens, but in the case
of mortals the soul has become "weighed down by being filled with
forgetfulness and incompetence" (ÎvilSllC; "tE Kat KaKiac; 1tÎvllO'Saî'O'a
papovS il)18 and as a consequence has lost its wings and fallen to earth,
in the process taking on a solid, earthly body. It need not be assumed that
Evagrius expected Eulogios ta be familial' with the Phaedrus, nor even,
necessarily, with the motif, but we cannot doubt that it would have been
in his own mind, and the resemblance ta his anthropology is striking 19.
His other substitution into Ps 54,7, that of "heaven itself" for "[being]
at rest", exchanges one way of talking about apatheia for another, dif-
ferently nuanced: attainment of apatheia bestows stability and tranquil-
ity, and sa rest20 , but it is also, when "accompanied by true knowledge
of beings" (IlE"tà yVcOO'EIDC; "trov OV"tIDV ÙÎvllSouC;), the "kingdom of
heaven" (PacrtÎvBia oùpavrov)21. The cultivation of virtue leads to the
attainment of apatheia but necessitates perseverance, the reference to
which looks ahead to the next section. The "familiar haunts" are both
physical and psychological- the "matter of the flesh" and the logismoi
nourished by it - thus the injunction to "take flight" from them is equiv-
aIent ta that ta "strip off the weight of the flesh". In addition, Evagrius'
words have echoes of Origen's Exhortation to Martyrdom - with which
17. Cf. Ps 54,7.
18. Phaedrlls 248c7, trans. C.J. ROWE, Plato: Phaedms, Warminster, Aris & Phillips
Ltd., 2000.
19. Evagrius attributes the pre-cosmic movement of the logikoi, which largue at
TOBON, Apatheia (n. 14), pp. 17-19 he regards as distinct from, and the cause of, the FaU,
ta inattentiveness (Kephalaia Gnostika 1.49), negligence (KG 3.28) or carelessness
(KG 3.28). At Prin 1.3.8 (62.17) Origen attributes it ta "satiety" (satietas); at 1.3.8 (63.6)
ta "negligence" (Ileglegelltiam); at 1.5.5 (78.2) ta "sloth and negligence" (desidiam et
Ileglegelltiam) and at 2.9.2 (165.27-28), ta "sloth and weariness of taking trouble to pre-
serve the good, coupled with disregard and neglect of better things" (desidia et laboris
taedillm ill servalldo bOllo et aversio ac neglegentia meliorum); trans. G.W. BUTTER-
WORTH, Origell 011 First Prillciples, Gloucester, MA, Peter Smith, 1973.
20. See the discussion of Ad Monachos 31 at J. DRISCOLL, OSB, Evagrills of Pontus:
Ad Monachos (Ancient Christian Writers), New York - Mahwah, NJ, The Newman Press,
2003, pp. 249-259; also TOBON, Apatheia (n. 14), pp. 178-198.
21. Praktikos 2.
EVAGRlUSAS vnuTER 769
he would have been familial' - when, expanding upon Mt 19,29 Origen
declares,
rocntEp oi pamlvo\)ç Kat novo\)ç unol!stvaVtEç trov I!i] èv toUtotç èSll-
taO'l!évmv Àal!npotépav ènE<'EtsavtD ti]v èv tep I!apt\)picp àPEti]V,
olStmç oi npoç tep <ptÀoO'ml!atEtV Kat <ptÀoÇmdv Kat toÙç toO'OUtO\)Ç
KOO'l!tKoÙÇ OWI!OÙç OWKo'l'aVtEç Kat Otappi!saVtEç I!EyUÀn tn npos
SEOV àyunn XPllO'UI!EVot Kat àÀllSroÇ àVEtÀll<POtEÇ tOV çrovta tOU Swu
ÀOyov Kat èVEpyft Kat tOWOtEpOV «unèp naO'av I!uxatpav oiO'tol!ov»
OEOUVllVtat tOÙS toO'OUtO\)S OtaKO'l'aVtEç OEO'I!OÙÇ Kat KataO'KE\)uO'av-
tES BUUtOtS ntép\)yaç roO'nEp àEtOS èntO'1:pé'l'at «dS tOV O'(KOV tOU
npoEO'tllKOtOS» Ba\)trov22 •
Just as those who endure tortures and sufferings demonstrate in martyrdom
an excellence more illustrious than those not tested in this way, so also
those who by using theu' great love for God have broken and tom apart such
worldly bonds as these in addition to their love of the body and of life, and
who have tmly borne the Word of God, living and active, sharper than any
two-edged sword23 - these have been able to retum like an eagle to the
house of their master by breaking apart such bonds and by fashioning wings
for themselves 24 •
Now Evagrius' focus shifts ta the opposition against which the monk
must contend:
àÀÀà tftO'OE tà ntEpà tfts nOÀttEias ô tftç KaKi as yEvétllS 1!1lxavatat
nEptKO'l'at Kat notKiÀats aùti]v nEtpatat KatapaÀdv 1!11XaVatS' Kat
napà I!èv ti]v àpXi]v àvaxattiÇEt npos ôÀiyov lims av ti]v 'l'\)xi]v nEpt
tàS SÀi'l'EtS Katal!uSll va\)ttroO'av' Kat tOtE Àotnov ti]v trov ÀoytO'l!rov
VUKta ènt<pEPOI!EVOS ô ço<pcl>OllS VUKttKopaS èntO'KOtiÇEt ti]v 'l'\)xi!v,
tftç trov KpEtttOVmv àKttVoÇ ànoO'tEproV.
But the author of evil contrives to cut off the wings of this way of life and
attempts to cast it down by means of various contrivances, and in the
begiIming he restrains it for a little while, until he observes the soul over-
come by nausea at his afflictions; then the dark owl brings on the night
of logismoi and brings darkness upon the soul by robbing it of the ray of
superior goods.
The "wings", it emerges, attach not so much ta the soul pel' se as to
the soul leading the monastic life, a life Evagrius denotes not with the
ward bios, which from the standpoint of classical usage might seem the
22. EM 15.
23. Heb 4,12.
24. Trans. R.A. GREER, Origen: An Exhortatioll to Martyrdom, First Principles: Book
IV, Prologue to the Commentary 011 the Song of Songs, Homily XXVII on Numbers (The
Classics of Western Spirituality), Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 1979. OrÎgen's imagery of
eagles' wings is, however, biblical rather than Platonic, referring most obviously ta Exod
19,4; cf. also, e.g., Isa 40,31; Prov 23,5.
 770 M.TOBON
obvious choice25 , but politeia, meaning "citizenship"; the monk, he is
affiIming, is a citizen of the City of God (ft nOÂ.t',; 't06 0806) refened
to at Ps 45,4 (LXX) and 86,3 (LXX)26. So how does the devil attempt to
"cast down" this life; that is, the soul of the monk? As Evagtius explains
in the Praktikos, the demons' main weapon in their war against monks
is logismoi2 7 , and so consequently it is these that the devil deploys. But
fiI'st he utilises "various contrivances" to increase the monk's vulnerabil-
ity; as we shall see, these consist at least pattly in physical illness, but
1 think they too should be understood partly in terms of logismoi, such
that at first these beset the monk sporadically but then develop into the
"night" that "casts darkness upon the soul". We are about to meet a
graphic depiction of this, but first Evagrius' use of the word "attempts",
peiratai, should be noted The verb peiraomai means, as well as "to
attempt", "to make proof or trial of" and in that sense "to tempt", and
as Rowan Williams has pointed out, a "temptation", peirasmos, in its
Septuagintal and Cluistian Greek sense is not, as for us, "an impulse
towards an act that is compromising or fOl'bidden" , but, rather, "a test of
virtue and fidelity"28. So in attempting to "cut off the wings" of the
monk's soul the devil is not trying to induce him to commit particular
sins so much as testing his fidelity to his way of life and so to God him-
self.
And so we come to the second section of Eulogios 2, the agôn:
Bi ùè Kat napU'ru't'tOt't6 nç Ka'tù Jl6vaç èv 'tTI 'tfjç èpi]JloU naÂ.aicnpa,
'tux ot oé ncoç 'tà a&Jla unà àppcoa'tiaç 'tpcoBfjvat, 't6'ts JluÂ.ta't'a
xaÂ.sni]v unOOatKvUat 'tfl \jfUXTI 'ti]v ssvt'tsiav, OÙK èv 't6mp, àÂ.Â.' èv
'tp6nq:> Ka'topBouaBat 'tù 't&v àps't&v unopuÂ.Â.cov, Kat on napuKÂ.ll atv
sxcov OlKot 'ti]v ànà 'tou yévouç, èKatas JliiÂ.Â.ov àK6ncoç Kat 'tù 'tfjç
~K'tllJlO?UVll~ a,BÂ.~ Ot~vU~stsNV' ,svBa :Cfjç àaBsvataç npoall vi]s
unllpwta K,?-t oux coç VUV SK 'tllÇ aOsÂ.<j>o'tll'tOç 'ti]v 'tfjç <j>tÂ.oSsviaç
anouoi]v. Ba't'tOv youv, :AntBt, <j>llai, xapùv 'tep aep yévst Kat oosav
aau'tàv ànoKoJliÇcov, oiç Kat 'tà névBoç à<j>6pll'tOv Ka'taÂ.éÂ.otnaç
àO"l)JlnaB&ç' noÂ.Â.ot yùp Kat na'tpioa Jli] <j>uy6v'tsç, èv Jléaco 't& yévst
llÂ.av'to 'tatç àps'tatS. ' ,
~5. Cf., e.g., J. SELLARS, The Art of Living: The Stoics on the Nature and Function of
Plulosophy (Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Philosophy), Aldershot, Ashgate, 2003.
~ELLARS notes that. "!n antiquity the word ~to<; or 'life' referred to an individual's way of
lIfe or manner of lIvlllg"; Ibid., p. 21.
26. Cf. Ps 47,1.2.8 (LXX); Isa 45,13.
27. Cf. Praktikos 48.
28. R. WILLIAMS, "Tempted as we are: Christology and the Analysis of the Passions":
the Archbishop of Canterbury's Opening Lecture at the Fifteenth Oxford International
Conference on Patristic Studies, St Ma/)' the Virgin Church, Oxford, 6 August 2007, to be
pubhshed in Studia Patristica, 2010.
EVAGRIUS AS WRITER 771
But if aIl alone one should stand ready in the wrestling school of the desert
and if the body should in sorne way happen to be impaired by illness, then
does the devii present voluntary exile to the soul as especially difficult,
suggesting that the tasks of vÏJ.iue can be pe1fOlmed not (merely) in sorne
paliicular place, but by a manner of life, and that at home with the consola-
tion of family it could attain the prizes of freedom from possessions with
less weariness; there it would have a pleasant service for its weakness, and
not misery and painful despondency as it now has, because the zeal for
hospitality is especially lacking in the brotherhood. Therefore, he quickly
says, "Go away, cany yourself off, you who are the joy and glory of your
family! - to these you have without compassion left behind an unbearable
sorrow, for most people have lighted upon the virtues in the midst of their
family, without having fled their homeland".
We see now how the devil exploits the monk's attachments to "home-
land, family and possessions" to try to induce him to abandon the monas-
tic life, and with it, his spiI'itual project. The logismoi that Evagrius
is describing here are those of the "most oppressive of aH the demons"
(6 ... mxV'tcov .ffiv Oaljlovcov ... pap6.a.o',;)29, namely acedia, as com-
pat'ison with its Praktikos definition makes plain. There we read that this
demon instills in the monk "a dislike for the place and for his state of
life itself ... and also the ide a that love has disappeared from among the
brothers and there is no one to console him" (jll:ao',; npo',; .ov 'tonov
8jlPUÂ.Â.Et Kat npo',; .ov Ptov m'nov ... Kat 8.t 8KÂ.SÂ.otnE nupà .ot',;
àOEÂ.CPOt',; ft àyunll Kat OÙK !::crnv 6 napaKaÂ.ffiv?O; that it "leads him
on to a desire ... for other places" (ayEt oÈ aù.ov Kat st',; 87ttSUjltUV
.oncov É.SpCOV)31, and that finally it
Luvun'tst oi; 'tOU'tOtç Kat Jlvi]JlllV 't&v oiKatCOV Kat .fjç npo'tépaç
otaycoyfjs' Kat Xp6vov .fjç çcofjç unoypu<j>st JlaKp6v, 'toùç àaKi]ascoç
n6vouç <j>épcov npà o<j>BaÂ.Jl&v· Kat niiaav 'tà oi] Â.sy6Jlsvov Ktvst
Jlllxavi]v ïva Ka'taÂ.sÂ.otmbç 0 JlovaXàç 'ti]v KéÂ.Â.av <j>uYll 'tà métùtov 32 •
joins to these suggestions the memory of his close relations and of his
fonner life; it depicts for him the long course of his lifetime, while bring-
ing the burdens of asceticism before his eyes; and, as the saying goes, it
deploys every device in order to have the monk leave his cell and flee the
stadium.
That the logismoi most especiaHy threatening to the monk engaged in
the contest of xeniteia are those of ace dia explains the reference in the
previous section to perseverance, this being the pre-eminent vmue with
29. Praktikos 12.1.
30. Praktikos 12.9-12.
31. Praktikos 12.14-15.
32. Praktikos 12.18-24.
772 M.TOBON
which to combat this vice33 • Such logismoi are unique in that, unlike
other types, they involve movements of both epithumia and thumos;
commenting upon Ps 118,28 Evagrius notes that acedia is
KivTj<nç Èv 'té!> alné!> noÂuXpovwç ,(}uJ.l0U Kat Ènt,(}uJ.liaç· 'tOU J.lÈv 'tOlÇ
napouow ôpYtÇoJ.lévou, 'tllÇ oÈ È<j>tBJ.lévTjç 'trov J.li] napov'trov34 .
a prolonged movement of thumos and epithumia at the same time, the for-
mer angry at what is present, the latter longing for what is not present.
But it is not only the pathëtikon part of the soul that acedia affects; the
scholion continues:
[àKlloia] vucr'taYJ.loç Ècr'tt 'l'uxflç ÂOYlKflç àJ.léÂBla 'trov àpB'trov Kat 'tflç
YVÛ)crBroÇ 'tflç 'tou 0wu' onvoç Ècr'tt 'l'uxflç ÂoytKflç xroptcrJ.laç ÈKOU-
crwç àna OV'troç Çroflç35.
[acedia] is a drowsiness of the rational soul, neglect of the virtues and of
the knowledge of God; it is a sleep of the rational soul and a wilful separa-
tion from true life36 •
Acedia, then, is an insurrection of aU three parts of the soul, and the
desperation it can occasion finds vivid expression in the Antil'l'hëtikos:
For the soul that, due to the thoughts of sloth and acedia that have persisted
in it, has become weak, has been brought low, and has dissipated in the
miseries of its soul; whose strength has been consumed by its great fatigue;
whose hope has nearly been destroyed by this demon's force; that has
become mad and childish with passionate and doleful tears; and that has no
relief from anywhere 37 .
As such an insurrection, acedia represents a rift within the monk's very
being. The soul, for Evagrius, is the nous - our true essence - in its fallen
condition, its three parts the post-Iapsarian expression of the triune nous
created in the image of the Triune God. Thus when it rises up in revoIt,
there is not sorne other part of the person with which it cornes into con-
flict. Rather, the soul has become divided against itself - and not merely
33. Cf., e.g., Praktikos 27, 28; On the Vices Opposed to the Virtues, Prologue (1); 6
(4).
34. Sch. 13 on Ps 118,28. The translation of this scholion is my own, from a text
kindly madeavailable to me by L. DYSINGER, OSB, recpnstructed according to the key of
M.J. RONDEAU, Le commentaire sur les Psaumes d'Evagre le Pontique, in Orientalia
Christiana Periodica 26 (1960) 307-348. Cf. Sch. 1 on Ps 139,3.
35. Schl 13 on Ps 118,28.
36. Cf. The Chapters of the Disciples of Evagrius, 177.1-2, which reports Evagrius as
stating that,acedia derives from man qua rational (ÈK t'ou ÀoytKoU àvl}pûmoll), implying
that it musbinvolve the logistikon.
37. Antirrhëtikos 6.38, translation D. BRAKKE, Evagrius of Pontus: Talking Back -
Antirrhëtikos: A Monastic Handbookfor Combating Demons, Collegeville, MN, Cistercian
Publications, 2009.
EVAGRIUS AS WRITER 773
in the sense of one of its parts contending against another, a common
occurrence in the non-virtuous soul - but all tluee seeming to unite
against sorne remaining part that yet continues to hold fast to its commit-
ment. That Evagrius recognises the possibility of division within the soul
other than between its parts, and that he sees acedia in these terms, is
evident from Praktikos 27, where he recommends the deliberate, thera-
peutic use of psychic division in such cases:
"O'tav 'té!> 'tflç àKllOiaÇ nBptnécrroJ.lBV oaiJ.lovt, 'ta 'tTjvtKau'ta 'ti]v 'l'Uxi]v
J.lB'tà oaKpurov J.lBpicrav'tBç 'ti]v J.lÈv napaxaÂoucrav 'ti]v oÈ napaKaÂou-
J.lévTjv notYtcrroJ.lBV38 •
When we come up against the demon of acedia, then with te ars let us divide
the soul and have one part offer consolation and the other receive consola-
tion.
The psychic rupture that characterises acedia exemplifies with particu-
lar force the post-Iapsarian fragmentation of the nous, and would, we can
imagine, be experienced as a profound betrayal. This brings us back to
Ps 54. The psalm begins with an appeal for God's help in a time of afflic-
tion, and the final eight of its twenty-four verses anticipate the forms that
help will take. The intervening verses, with the exception of the two to
which Eulogios 2 explicitly refers, describe that affliction
and should, l suggest, be read as supplementing and expanding upon
Evagrius' description of agôn. They begin as follows:
(ht Èi;éKÂlVav Èn' ÈJ.lÈ àvoJ.liav, Kat Èv ôPYTI ÈVBKO'tOUV J.lot. 'H Kapoia
J.lou È'tapuX,(}Tj Èv ÈJ.lot, Kat oBtÂia ,(}avu'tou ÈnénBcrBv Èn' ÈJ.lé. <I>o~oç
Kat 'tpoJ.loç ~Â,(}BV Èn' ÈJ.lÈ Kat ÈlCuÂU'l'é J.lB crKO'tOç39.
For they heaped lawlessness upon me, and in anger were spiteful to me. My
heart was troubled within me, and the fear of death fell upon me. Fear and
trembling came upon me and darkness covered me40 .
The idea of "lawlessl1ess" being "heaped upon" someone fits well
with their entire soul rebelling, anger pulling one way, desire another41 ,
and the rational part beleaguered and desperate. Evagrius has spoken
of the logismoi bringing darkness upon the soul, and clearly the he art
of such a person will be "troubled within him", but the psalm also
draws attention to the fear he suffers, something Evagrius' does not
mention.
38. Praktikos 27.1-3.
39. Ps 54,4-6.
40. Translation of Ps 54 my own.
41. Cf. Evagrius, Letter 27,6, G. BUNGE, Evagrios Pontikos: Briefe aus der Wiiste,
Trier, Paulinus, 1985, p. 240.
 774 M.TOBON
Next come the two verses alluded to in Eulogios 2, then the psalm
continues:
KœrŒn:ovn(JOV KuptE Kat Kataoiû,E tàç yÂ-cO(l'O'aç aùtmv, on doov
àvoJ.l,iav Kat àvnÂ-oyiav f.V tfl n:OÂ-Et. 'HJ.l,Épaç Kat VllKtàç KllKÂ-cOO'Et
aùti]v Èn:t tà tdXl] aùt~ç, àvoJ.l,ia Kat n:ovoç Èv J.l,ÉO'cp aùt~ç Kat àotKia,
Kat OÙK U,ÉÂ-tn:EV f.K tmv n:Â-atEtmV aùt~ç tOKoÇ Kat OOÂ-Oç42.
Drown, Lord, and divide their tongues, for l see lawlessness and contradic-
tion in the city. Day and night he shaH cü'Cle around it on its waHs, lawless-
ness and trouble are in its midst, and umighteousness; and oppression and
trickelY do not leave its streets.
The "city" is the soul, according to the reading that 1 am imputing to
Evagrius. But who "circles around it on its walls"? Although kuklôsei is
singular, its subject has often been taken to be "lawlessness and
contradiction"43. But 1 think that for Evagrius it is the demon of acedia;
we find a similar idea in the Kephalaia Gnostika:
One in whom the nOlis always attends to the Lord ... is it appropriate for
him not to fear our adversaries who circle outside our bodies?44
Again, these verses fit well with Evagrius' understanding of acedia;
the "trickery" being the various "ruses" with which the demon tries to
make the monk "flee the stadium".
And now the psalmist reveals the identity of his tormenter:
"On Et ÈXBpàç cOvEiotO'É J.l,E, u1t'IlvEYKa av, Kat Et 0 J.l,tO'mv f.n:' f.J.l,È
ÈJ.l,EyaÂ-oppl]J.l,OVl]O'EV, ÈKpUPl]V av àn:' aÙtoù . .tù oÈ avBpcon:E tO'O\jfllXE,
1l:yEJ.l,cOV J.l,Oll Kat yVCOO'tÉ J.l,Oll, oç f.n:t tà aùtà f.yMKavaç ÈOtO'J.l,ata, f.V
tcp otKCP toÙ 0EüÙ Èn:opEUBl]J.l,EV Èv oJ.l,oVOi~45.
For if an enemy had reproached me, l would have endured it; and if one
who hates me had spoken vauntingly against me, l would have hidden from
him. But you, 0 equal-'souled man, my guide and my familial' friend, who
in companionship with me sweetened our food; we walked in the house of
God in concord.
His enemy, it turns out, is one who had formerly been close to him;
whom he had trusted and enjoyed hannonious relations with; apt meta-
phors for the inception of radical conflict within a soul - and in particu-
lar a rational faculty - accustomed to experience itself as a unity , and so
for the ascetic' s contest with the demon of acedia.
42. Ps 54,10-12.
43. So, e.g., the RSV, NRSV, NEB and King James.
44. KG 4.73, translation L. DYSINGER, OSB, Keplzalaia Gllostika, at www.ldysinger.
com/Evagrius/.
45. Ps 54,12-14.
EVAGRWS AS WRITER 775
Evagrius' description of this contest certainly has an autobiographical
basis. But it also references the Agony in the Garden, where Jesus him-
self found, in his peirasmos, his "time of trial", that while the spirit is
willing (.. ô IlÈv nvëDlla np6SulloV), the flesh is weak (i] oÈ cràpS
ÙcrSëVi!C;)46, and the Christological reference becomes more explicit at
the beginning of the third section of Eulogios 2:
'An' 0 ti]v n:opqmpioa47 tmv BÂ-i\jfECOV, tOlltÉO'n ti]v un:OJ.l,OV11y48, f.V
tfl n:apatUSEl t~ç SEvttdaç n:EptPEPÂ-l]J.l,Évoç, Kat tmv KOn:COV tàç
èÂ-n:ioaç n:iO'tEt n:EptEO'tEJ.l,J.l,ÉVOÇ, àowÂ-dn:tcp EùxaptO'ti~ tmVOE tmv
Â-oytO'J.l,mv tàç vt<puoaç ÈK tmv Èvtàç ÈKnvUO'O'Et' Kat OO'cpn:Ep av
un:oO'tpÉ<pElV ti]v Kapoiav f.KEtVOl KatavayKuscoO't, toO'OUtcp J.l,uÂ-Â-ov
1lJ.l,EtÇ En <pEUyoVtEÇ, Kata\jfaÂ-oÙJ.l,EV aùtmv tà "'IOoù f.J.l,UKpllVa
<pllyaoEucov, Kat l]ùÂ-iO'Bl]v f.V tfl f. PT] J.l,cp. n:pOO'EOEXOJ.l,l]V tàv BEàv tàv
O'cOSOVtU J.l,E àn:à OÂ-tyo\jfllxiaç Kat Ku,tatyiooç."
But he who is clothed in the pUlple of afflictions, that is, in perseverance,
in the battle line of voluntary exile, and is surrounded by faith in regard to
hopes in ascetic labours, will with unceasing thanksgiving shake off the
raindrops of these logismoi from within hiIn; and the more they should
compel the heart to turn back, aH the more shaH we still flee and chant
against them: "Behold, l have fled far away, and taken lodging in the
desert; l waited for God, who saves me from faintheartedness and
tempest"49.
Now we come to the means by which the monk might prevail. The
expression "clothed in the purple of afflictions" evokes the accounts in the
Gospels of Mark and John of the Crowning with Thorns; Mark tells us that
the soldiers "clothed [Jesus] in pUl'ple cloak" (àvot86crKoUcrW atnôv
nopcpupav)50, and John, that they "dressed him in a pUlple robe" (tllunov
nopcpupoDv nëptÉ~aÀov aù .. ôv)51, and just as Jesus prevailed in his
peirasmos by persevering through it, so to can the monk. At the same time
Eulogios is reminded that as a monk he carries in his body the death of
Jesus so that the life of Jesus might be manifested therein52 : for Evagrius,
the spirituall:ife is a kind of "death" in that it involves dying to the exter-
nal world by renouncing our atlachments to it, but the real death suffered
by the nous is that in which it turns away from God, and its "death" to the
external world heralds its "resurrection" :in knowledge of GOd53 . "The
46. Matt 26,41; Mark 14,38; cf. Luke 22,40.46.
47. MIGNE has 1topcpupav; cf. PG 79, 1096D.
48. 'wlltÉcr'tl tl']v U1tOI.WV~V omitted in MIGNE; cf. PG 79, 1096D.
49. Ps 54,8.
50. Mark 15,17.
51. John 19,2.
52. Cf. Praktikos, Prol. 6; 2 Cor 4,10.
53. Cf., e.g., 011 Tlwughts 38.
 776 M.TOBON
purple of afflictions" also has a secondary reference, to the martyrs, and
possibly a tertiary, since, as Liddell and Scott note, p01phureos is used at
Iliad 17.361 of gushing blood54 •
Next cornes the lovely, but curious, image of "shaking off the rain-
drops of the logismoi"55, and this is followed by the second allusion to
Ps 54, this time to verse 8. This time Evagrius quotes the psalm directly,
and the effect is to bring into sharp relief what previously was only
glimpsed: the glimpse was of an aspiration and goal- to take flight on
the gilded wing of virtue from familial' haunts to he aven itself; what is
now revealed is the reality of the monk's situation: he has "fled far away
and taken lodging in the desert" and there he awaits God in the certainty
that he will save him from "faintheartedness and tempest". Likewise,
Praktikos 27 conc1udes its prescription for acedia by invoking the psalm-
ist' s words:
ÈÂ1tiOw; àyaSàs Balnots u1toO'1tsipovtss Kat to tOU ayiou Llauîû
KatS1tÇtO ovte S' ïva ti 1tspiÂu1toS et, ~ \jlUxiJ J.!0U, Kat ïva ti O'uvmprw-
O'elS J.!s; ëÂ.1tlO'ov Md toV 0eov, Ott Èl.;oJ.!oÂoyiJO'0J.!at aÙtê{>' O'oniJpwv
taU 1tpomimou J.!0U Kat 6 0soS J.!OU 56 •
And sowing within ourselves goodly hopes, let us chant with holy David
this incantation: "Why are you saddened, 0 my soul, and why do you
trouble me? Hope in God; for 1 shaH confess him, the salvation of my face
andmy God".
Eulogios 2 ends with a typically Evagrian reflection upon peirasmos:
Kat yàp 1tetpaO'J.!oùs È1tl<!>épouO't Kat ùvaKUJ.!'I'at KoÂaKeuouO't Kat
ôvstûiÇovtes SÂipouO'tV, ïva tilS 1tpoSéO'ecoS KsvcOO'avn:s Kat tils èv
tn U1toJ.!ovn sùxaptO'ttas ÛtaKO'l'COO't· Kat ol5tco Âot1tOV J.!stà 1toÂÂils
tfjs ùûstas tàS oiKeias 1tayiOas ÈK "cov 1tp0O'llKOVtCOV sÙpuvcoO'tV.
For the logismoi bring on peirasmoi, they coax (the he art) into turning back
and afflict it with reproaches so as to drain it of its resolution and to cut it
off from its perseverance in thanksgiving; and so they then set their snares
abroad with complete freedom beyond what is seenùy.
Integral to Evagrian asceticism is the cultivation of inner watchfulness
and discemment57 , and an important aspect of this becoming familial'
54. aïf.lU'tl (li; X~kov (leue'w 1tOpq>tlpÈrot, "the ground ran with red blood", trans.
R. LATTIMORE, The llliad ofHomer, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1961, p. 364.
~5: One would have supposed rain to be as welcome to a dweller in the Egyptian desert
as 1t lS rare; Peter BROWN notes that the annual rainfall in Egypt is oilly 1.1 inches; cf.
P. BROWN, The Rise and FWlction of the Holy Mail in Late Antiql/Îty, in JOl/mal of Roman
Stl/dies 61 (1971) 80-101, p. 83.
56. Praktikos 27.3-7.
57. So, e.g., A.D. RICH, Discemment in the Desert Fathers: A10.KpU71Ç in the Life and
Thol/ght of Early Egyptiall Monasticism, Bletchley, Patemoster, 2007, p. 41: "the discem-
EVAGRIUS AS WRITER 777
with the demons and their strategems. In his writings Evagrius prescribes
various exercises for doing S058, and Eulogios 2's description of agôn,
as well as being a message of fellowship and support for Eulogios in
his own peirasmoi, is an example of such an exercise. By means of it
Evagrius demonstrates the use of observation, analysis and reflection ta
lay bare the "oppression and trickety" with which the demon of acedia
tries to force the monk to "flee the stadium". Ta expose the demon in
this way is ta rob it of at least sorne of its power. At the same time, for
the monk ta subject the demon's behaviour to this sort of rational scru-
tiny is for him to open up sorne distance between him and it and in this
way tao weaken its hold. Hence it is this sort of procedure that Evagrius
is urging upon Eulogios when, in the treatise' s prologue, he speaks of his
"collecting his logismoi".
In sum: Evagrius' understanding of the human condition and of the
consequent imperatives of the spiritual life entails the necessity of
radical severance from everything that can impede the restoration of
the nous to God, a process that he characterises in the prologue to the
Eulogios as "stripping off the weight of the flesh". Its starting point
is xeniteia, the renunciation of the secular world that marks the begin-
ning of the monastic life. In Eulogios 2 he paints a vivid picture of
the struggles that this involves, as well as the aspirations that motivate
and sustain it. For him xeniteia is not just physical; it is, above all,
psychological. The monk is a spiritual athlete who must "strip himself
of homeland, family and possessions" in emotional as well as geo-
graphical terms, because it is these attachments, these "familiar
haunts", that the devil, via the demon of acedia, exploits in trying ta
persuade him ta "flee the stadium" of the desert and l'eturn ta the
unreflective immersion in sensible reality that prevents his nous from
being "nourished on the brilliance of the supreme realities", and, in
the process, becoming healed of its fragmentation and restored ta
knowledge of Gad. Acedia divides the soul against itself, exemplify-
ing this fragmentation with particular force, and Evagrius describes
its logismoi both explicitly and by reference ta Ps 54's account of
betrayal. The monk's peirasmos in his contest with this, the "heaviest
of all the demons", echoes the peirasmos of Jesus in the Garden
of Gethsemane, and in persevering through it he is "clothed", like
Our Lord, "in the purple of afflictions". Finally, Evagrius reminds
ment of spirits, logismoi and of spiritual and practical matters is at the centre of [Evagrius']
teaching".
58. Most especially in On Thoughts; cf., e.g., 2, 4, 8, 9, 19,25,28, 34, 37, but cf. also,
e.g., Praktikos 43, 50, 51.
778 M.TOBON

Eulogios of the need to cultivate inner watchfulness and discernment

so that, with God's help, he might prevail in "the first of the illus-
trious contests". A REDISCOVERED AUTHOR AND ORIGEN'S HERITAGE
DIDYMUS THE BLIND
Depaltment of Greek and Latin Monica TOBON
University College London
Gower Street
I. SOME BIBLIOGRAPillCAL REMARKS
London WClE 6BT
monica.catcabal@gmail.com
In Antiquity there was no more faithful follower of Origen's teaching
than Didymus. Of course, Origen profoundly influenced even those who
rejected fundamental aspects of his teaching, e.g. Methodius of Olympus
and Augustine of Hippo. Amongst Origen's adtnit'ers, the Cappadocian
fathers developed their thought, starting on occasion from positions that
were critical of him, even though in substantial agreement over formula-
tion. Following in the footsteps of his teacher Pamphilus, Eusebius of
Caesarea continued Origen's philological endeavour and produced apol-
ogetic works 1• Rufinus forsook his friendship with Jerome and his per-
sonal tranquility in order to defend Origen's memory. However, all of
these people either criticised or passed over in silence sorne, or at least
one, of the exoteric teachings of Origen. Only Evagrius of Pontus took
these teachings as a starting-point in order to surpass Origen in intellec-
tuaI daring 2 •
In the light of a brief review, the literary production of Didymus
appears to be that which is the most balanced in juxtaposing faithfulness
to Origen's teaching with a re-thinking of this very teaching. His goal is

1. An apologetic intention can be discemed not only in the obvious instance of the
Apologia pro Origelle (see the recent critical edition produced by R. AMACKER - É. JUNOD
as SC 464-465 in 2002), but also in Eusebius Hist. Eccl. VI: see my response to É. JUNOD,
L'Apologie pour Origèlle de Pamphile et Eusèbe et les développements sllr Origèlle dalls
le Livre VI de l'Histoire Ecclésiastique, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), La biografia di
Origelle fra storia e agiografia, Villa Verucchio, Pazzini, 2004, 201-206.
2. For the Origenist controversies of the third and fourth century, see J.F. DECHOW,
Dogma alld Mysticism ill Early Christiallity: Epiphallius of Cyprus alld the Legacy of
Origell, Macon, GA, Mercer, 1988; aU the volume W.A. BlENERT- U. KUHNEWEG (eds.),
Origellialla Septima: Origelles ill dell AliseillalldersetzlIlIgell des 4. Jahrhllllderts (BETL,
137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999; P. BETTIOLO (ed.), L 'epistula fidei di Evagrio POlltico: Temi,
cOlltesti, sviluppi. Atti dei III Convegno deI Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su "Origene e la
Tradizione Alessandrina", Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2000; E. PRINZI-
VALU, Magister Ecclesiae: Il dibattito su Origelle fra III e IV secolo, Roma, Institutum
Patristicum Augustinianum, 2002, pp. 9-31; E. PRINZIVALU, La cOlltroversia origellialla
di fille IV secolo e la diffllsione della conoscellza di Origelle ill Occidellte, in Augllsti-
lIiallum 46 (2006) 35-50. Always useful A. GUILLAUMONT, Les 'Kephalaia gllostica'
d'Évagre le POlitique et l'histoire de l'origéllisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriells, Paris,
Seuil, 1962.
 780 E. PRINZIVALLI
not that of denying certain points nor of advancing others and thereby
surpassing his model. Rather, he is engaged in the more modest, but
nevertheless useful and effective task of updating Origen's teaching so
as to take account of the changed circumstances of the Church and doc-
trinal evolution that had occuned since the time of Origen.
After two comprehensive monographs at the start of the last century
(Leipold in 19053 and Bardy in 19104) and two doctoral theses dedicated
to the study of the Roly Spirit (Reston in 19385 and Staimer in 19606)
vis-à-vis the work translated by Jerome, De Spiritu Sancto, there was a
renewed interest in Didymus in the wake of the discovery of the papyri
of Tura in Egypt. In terros of importance, these are hardly less significant
than those, almost contemporary, from Qumran and Nag Rammadi.
The rebirth of Didymian studies, which began with the monograph by
Gesché (1962)1, has proceeded in tandem with the publication of the
papyri, which is a project that has yet to be completed8. From a compre-
hensive point of view, this rebirth has been characterised by two
approaches. One approach, more commonly represented, is dedicated to
exegetical research. This approach manifested itself primarily in publica-
tions between the 1970s and the 1990s. Listed in order they include a
general monograph by Bienert in 19729, which was followed by two
important articles by Manlio Simonetti10 as well as a series of mono-
3. J. LElPOLDT, Didymus der Blinde, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1905.
4. G. BARDY, Didyme l'Aveugle, Paris, Beauchesne, 1910.
5. E.L. HEsTON, The Spiritual Life and the Role of the Holy Ghost in the Sanctification
of tlle Soul, as Described in the Works of Didymus of Alexandria, Notre Dame, IN, Pon-
tificia Università Gregoriana, 1938.
6. E. STAIMER, Die Schrift "De Spiritu sancto" von Didymus dem Blinden von
Alexandrien: Eine UntersucJumg zur altchristlichen Literatur und Dogmengeschichte,
München, Universitiit München, 1960.
7. A. GESCHÉ, La christologie du «Commentaire sur les Psaumes» découvert à Toura,
Gembloux, Duculot, 1962.
8. Cf. T.W. MAcKAY, The Newly Edited Pages of Didymos the Blind on Psalms, in
Stl/dia Patristica 42, Leuven, Peeters, 2006, 175-179. Didymus' works from Tura have
been published by a number of editors in Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlzmgen, Bonn,
R. Habelt, 1969-1985, with the exception of the Commentmy on Zaccariah (= ZacT), by
L. DOUTRELEAU in SC 83-85, Paris, Cerf, 1962 and the Commentary on Genesis (= GenT),
by P. NAUTlN in SC 244, Paris, Cerf, 1978. The other abbreviations used in this article for
Didymus' works of Tura are: EcclT for the CommentalY on Ecclesiastes, PsT for the
Commentary on Psalms; HiT for the Commentmy on Job.
9. W.A.BIENERT, "Allegoria" und "Anagoge" beiDidymosdemBlindenvonAlexandria,
Berlin-New York, de Gruyter, 1972.
10. M. SIMONETTI, Lettera e allegoria nell'esegesi anticotestamentaria di Didimo, in
Vetera Christian01'llm 20 (1983) 341-389 and M. SIMONETTI, Didymiana, in Vetera Chris-
tianorum 21 (1984) 129-155, now re-published in ID., Origene esegeta e la sua tradizione,
Brescia, Morcelliana, 2004, 357-392 and 393-412. See also P.F. BEATRICE, Didyme
l'Aveugle et la tradition de l'allégorie, in G. DORIVAL - A. LE BOULLUEC (eds.), Orige-
A REDISCOVERED AUTHOR AND ORIGEN'S HERITAGE 781
graphs dedicated to individu al works: both Wijnand Marchal ll on the
Commentmy on Job and Tigcheler 12 on the Commentmy on Zechariah
in 1977; Prinzivalli on the Commentmy on the Psalms in 1988 13 and
Diego Sânchez on the Commentmy on Ecclesiastes in 1991 14. Another
approach, focused upon the intersection of christology and anthropology,
has come into being since the tum of the millennium. W orthy of note
are: the monograph by Ghattas on christology (2002)15, an alticle by
Byard Bennett on original sin and moral responsibility according to
Didymus and Origen (2005)16 and two mticles by Layton on the subject
of propatheia 17 • Lastly, aside from the conclusions that it reaches, Lay-
ton's monograph (2004)18 has the merit of attempting - nearly a century
after the monographs of Leipoldt and Bardy - to provide an overall
vision of the figure of Didymus within his historical context. 1 regret to
say that one of the best works to deal with the spirituality of Didymus,
Placido Solari's 1995 doctoral thesis 19 , has never been published. In con-
cluding this brief and necessarily selective review, 1 would note Didy-
niana Sexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, University
Press - Peeters, 1995, 579-590.
11. Cf. G. WIJNAND MARCHAL, Didymus de Blinde en zijn interpretatie van het boek
Job, Sneek, Doevendans, 1977.
12. J. TrGCHELER, Didyme l'Aveugle et l'exégèse allégorique: Étude sémantique de
quelques termes exégétiques importants de son commentaire sur Zacharie, Nijmegen,
Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1977.
13. E. PRlNZIVALLI, Didimo il Cieco e l'interpretazione dei Salmi, L'Aquila-Roma,
Japadre, 1988.1 should like to point out that subsequently my work upon Didymus resulted
in the first Italian translation of one of the works dedicated to Tura, which was accompa-
nied by a commentary and notes: Didimo il Cieco, Lezioni sui Salmi. Il Commento ai
Salmi scoperto a Tura. Intr., tr. and notes by E. PRlNZIVALLI, Milano, Paoline, 2005.
14. E. DIEGO SANCHEZ, El Comentario al Eclesiastés de Didimo Alejandrino: Exégesis
y espiritualidad, Roma, Teresianum, 1991.
15. M. GHATTAS, Die Christologie Didymos' des Blinden von Alexandria in den
Schriften von Tura: Zur Entwicklung der alexandrinischen Theologie des 4. Jahrhunderts,
Münster, Lit Verlag, 2002.
16. B. BENNETT, The Soiling of Sinful Fles1l: Primordial Sill, InherÎted Corruption alld
Moral Respollsibility ill Didymus the Blind and Origen, in Adamantius Il (2005) 77-92.
17. R.A. LAYTON, From Holy Passion to Sinfui Emotion: Jerome and the Doctrine of
Propassio, in B.M. BLOWERS, et al. (eds.), In Dominico Eloquio-In Lordly Eloquence.
Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert Louis Wilken, Grand Rapids, Ml, Eerd-
mans, 2002, 280-293; R.A. LAYTON, Propatheia: Origen and Didymus on the Origin of
the Passion, in Vigiliae Christiallae 54 (2000) 262-282.
18. R.A. LAYTON, Didymus the Blind and His Cù-cle in Late-Antique Alexandria:
Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship, Urbana, IL, University of lllinois Press,
2004; see my book-review at Adamantius Il (2005) 545-546.
19. P. SOLARI, Human Beillgs, Virtue and the Restoration ofGod's Image as Presellted
in the Works of Didymus the Blind, Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1995.
Deserving of especial notice is the recent doctoral thesis of M. PANCERZ, Christi anima
apud Didymum Caecum, Università Pontificia Salesiana, Facoltà di Lettere cristiane e
classiche, Roma, 2007.
 782 E. PRINZIVALLI
mus' importance as an indirect source for the establishment of the text
of the Gospels 20 , for the recovery of ancient pagan authors (especially
Porphyry)2', and for the study of Manichaeism 22 .
In view of what l said at the outset about Didymus' faithfulness to
Origen, l now plan to illustrate two fundamental points. Pirst, thanks to
the very ease of a comparison with Origen, the study of Didymus' works
sheds much light upon what were the most controversial points in the
doctrinal debates of his time. Secondly, such study reveals the extent of
doctrinal debate within Egyptian Christianity in the fourth century. At
that point, it will be evident what are the merits of this creative faithful-
ness that updates the Origenist tradition by adapting it to the times. This
is effected by means of a medietas that does not mean mediocrity of
thought in comparison with the heights of Evagrius of Pontus and the
creative liberty of the Cappadocians. Rather, it is a cautious adaptation
to the needs of the times, aiming to eIiminate certain points of conflict
between the master's thought and legitimate criticisms that were
expressed in subsequent debate 23 .
Since time does not permit me to engage in a detailed treatment24,
l shaH focus upon four areas - institutional, exegetical, doctrinal and
ethical in character - where Didymus perceptibly modifies the point of
view expressed by Origen. l shaH conc1ude by looking at an aspect that
is simultaneously social and doctrinal in character: the attitude shown
towards the Jews. In this instance, Didymus' continuity with Origen
20. B.D. EHRMAN, Didyll1us the Blind alld the Text of the Gospels Atlanta GA Scholars
1986. ' " ,
21. Didymus, HiT 280.1 and EcclT 281,17-25, on which see A. CARLlNI, La polell1ica di
POIfirio c~llfro l'esegesi tipologica dei cristiani, in Studi classici e orientali 46/1 (1996) 385-396.
22. Dldymus also wrote Contra Manichaeos (PG 39, 1085-1110). He considered
(EcclT 30~,12-16) t?e Manichaeans to be one of the gravest dangers for the Church,
together wlth the Armns and Eunomians (who were considered separately on account of
the~ particul~ identity.withi~ the context of Alianism: see n. 26 below). Didymus' infor-
mation regardmg Mamchaelsm probably tends to mix ide as and explanations deriving
from ~ther groups to which Origen was opposed in his time: see B. BENNETT, Didyll1us
the Blll1d' s Knowledge of ManichaeislllUs, in P. MmECKI - J. BEDUHN (eds.), The Light
and the Darkness: Stl/dies in Manichaeislllus and Its World, Leiden, Brill, 2001, 38-67.
2~. The s~holastic c?ntext plays an important l'ole in the form of the quaestio and the
solutiOn provlded by Ongen for problems arising within Origenism: see LAYTON, Didymus
the Blind (n. 18), cap. 6.
. ~~. As far as the conception of the resurrected body is concemed, in response to the
cnt~c~sms ~ade by Methodius of Olympus, and for how the future kingdom of God was
envlsiOned m rest:0nse to Ma:cellus of Ancyra, readers are referred to my previous studies:
P~ALLI, 1v!aglst.er Eccleslae (n. 2), pp. 65-136; E. PruNZIVALLI, A proposito dell'influsso
~I M~I:cell~ dl :tncl/:a sulla teologia deI IV secolo: L'intelpretazione deI regno di Cristo
111 Didimo Il Cleco, m A. ISOLA - E. MENESTO - A. DI PILLA (eds.), Curiositas: Studi di
cultl/ra classica e medievale in onore di Ubaldo Pizzalli, Napoli, ESI, 2002, 285-292.
A REDISCOVERED AUTIIOR AND ORiGEN'S HERITAGE 783
implies the conscious choice of a position at odds with the decidedly
anti-Jewish mood of the time.
II. MAINTAINING A RESPECTFUL DISTANCE FROM THE lNSTITUTIONAL
REALITY OF THE ALEXANDRIAN EPISCOPATE
Rufinus and Palladius inform us that Didymus had a privileged relation-
ship with the bishop Athanasius of Alexandria and collaborated with him
in the struggle against Arianism2S . The anti-Arian perspective of Didymus
is manifest in his works 26 . Equally manifest is his aloof respect for the
episcopate. The mood in Didymus' writings is quite different from that
infonning the works of Origen. The latter had suffered on account of the
bishop Demetrius; he had experienced the fust negative consequences of
the reinforcement of the episcopal institution at Alexandria and he had wit-
nessed the progressive moral dec1ine of the c1ergy. As a result, he had
attempted to fight this trend, bath preaching a rigorous life for presbyters
and invoking a spiritual hierarchy that stood beside and was superior to the
institutional hierarchy27. Didymus, by contrast, betrays no hint of polemic
and nonetheless shows himself serenely independent of the hierarchy.
On one occasion28 , he refers to the interpretation of the parable of the
sower, which, ta the best of our knowledge, was first given by Athana-
SiUS29 . This interpretation assigns the number 100 ta the virgins and
the number 30 to the spouses, but makes no mention whatsoever of the
number 60. Didymus provides an exact repOlt of the interpretation30 . Then
he goes on to observe that it is valid only as concems the quantity expressed
by the numbers, and not their nature. In other words, it does not take into
25. Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. 2.7; Palladius, Hist. Laus. 4.4.
26. Aside from having written tracts Contra Arhllll and Contra EZ/IIomiulII, the anti-
Arian perspective is ever present in his writings.
27. V. PERI, Coram hominibus/apud Deum. Accenti d'allticlericalislllo evangelico ill
Origelle, in R. CANTALAMESSA - L.F. PIzzOLATO (eds.), Paradoxos politeia: Studi patris-
tici ill onore di Giuseppe Lazzati, Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1979, 208-232; for the inten-
sification of this polemic within the Comlllentarius ill Matthaeum: M. SIMONETTI,Intro-
dl/zione al Commento a Matteo di Ol'igene, in T. PISCITELLI CARPINO (ed.), Il Commento
di Origene al Vangelo di Matteo. Atti deI X convegno deI Gruppo ltaliano di Ricerca su
Origene e la tradizione alessandrina, in press; see also in the same volume, E. CATTANEO,
Servus servorum dei: La figura Ideale delministro della chiesa secondo il Commento a
Matteo di Origene.
28. PsT 186 on Psalm 33.
29. Athanasius, Ad mon. AmI//.; PG 26, 1173BC.
30. lt is this that makes one thinks that he is referring to Athanasius, since Didymus
never names in the course of his works, just as he names no other Christian author, except
for Clement of Alexandria, for the discussion of the pseudepigraphic books: EcclT 7,34.

784 E. PRINZIVALLI
account the special language of numbers. In view of Didymus' predilection
for arithmology, this criticism is significant, albeit expressed in a very
subdued manner. Didymus goes on to provide another explanation in
which the lesser value attributed to the number 30 is completely cancelled.
Therefore, there can be no doubt as to his pollte wish to distance himself.
On another occasion, he expressly refers to the "explanation of the
bishop"31 concerning Psalm 30,16a (my fate is in your hands). In the Greek
of the Septuagint, "fate" is expressed by clb'os, wherefore the bishop
(most likely Athanasius) says, in an ascending climax, that the fates in the
hands of God are the deacons, presbyters and bishops. Before providing
another interpretation, Didymus specifies that "in agreement with the
explanationjust provided" he understands the tenn "fates" to indicate "all
of those who have been chosen to serve" God, i.e. "apostles, prophets and
teachers" in a Pauline echo of 1 Cor 12,28. Didymus thereby nullifies the
emphasis placed upon the hierarchy and returns to the charismatic termi-
nology - not yet institutionalized - that had been used by Paul.
Consequently, if we accept the contested notice given by Rufinus and
Philip of Side that Didymus had been the head of the didaskaleion 32 , then
he fulfilled that role in the full knowledge of his special function as the
teacher of a spùitual elite and he did so in a manner that was independent
of the bishop's preaching.
III. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION
During the period in which Didymus was active, there arose a reaction
to the Alexandrian allegorical method of interpretation. On the one hand,
Apollinaris of Laodicaea preached a typological approach that was
extremely traditionaP3, renewing the exegesis of Hippolytus. On the
other hand, the Antiochenes Diodol'US of Tarsus and Theodol'Us of Mop-
suestia practiced a self-consciously literaI exegesis.
Didymus revives fully the Alexandrian presupposition that aH Scrip-
ture has a spiritual meaning. However, in order to face the literalists
without betraying his roots, he frequently fails to make explicit the neg-
31. In Greek: papatikai exêgêseis (PsT 148).
32. Rufinus, Hist. Ecc!. 7.32.30; Philip of Side, fr. in G.C. HANSEN, Theodoros
Anagnostes Kirchengesclzichte (GCS, 54), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1971, p. 160.
33. Regarding the exegesis of Apollinaris, see PRINZlVALLI, Magister Ecclesiae (n. 2),
pp. 151-175 and the remarks ofL. VIANÈs-ABou SAMRA, L'eschatologie d'Apollinaire de
Laodicée à travers les Fragments sur les Psaumes, in Annali di storia dell'esegesi 21
(2004) 331-371. For Didymus' open polemic with Apollinaris also in this regard, see
EcclT 153. 16ff. and the commentary of Kramer, III, 88ff.
785
A REDISCOVERED AUTHOR AND ORIGEN'S HERITAGE
ative implication of this claim. In other words, he avoids saying, as
Origen instead did say, that not all Scripture does have a literaI meaning
(defectus litterae)34. Rather, Didymus is at pains to underline, at certain
points, the legitimacy and the importance of the literaI meaning. He
employs the criterion of opheleia, i.e. the utility that can be had from this
meaning as well35 . However, the fact that he employs the particle kai
("also") indicates, in the Alexandrian manner, that it is the literaI mean-
ing that must be confirmed since the spiritual meaning is always presup-
posed. Moreover, favouring the characteristics of the different biblical
books interpreted, Didymus voluntarily proposes a moral exegesis with-
out recourse to allegory for those biblical books that more readily allow
him to do so, as is the case with Job and Ecclesiastes.
The change that Didymus makes in a ce1ebrated instance of exegesis
by Origen can be deemed the symbolic representation of this attitude. In
discussing the biblical verse Psalm 21,19a (they have divided my c/othes
amongst themselves), Didymus distinguishes the clothes (which are the
literaI sense of expressions) not only from the body of Christ (which is
inspired Scripture), but also from the bones (which are the most elevated
of interpretations). He thereby effects a change in meaning with regard
to Origen, who held that Scripture is the body/flesh of Christ in so far as
it is literaI meaning that hides the spiritual Logos 36 . Didymus, by con-
trast, holds that the literaI expression is the pure sound of the words that
restores to Scripture its ever-spiritual sense once their meaning has been
understood. This is a subtle distinction that helps to have a positive view
of Scripture in its entirety since it is an inspired text.
IV. THE ANTI-APoLLINARIAN CHRISTOLOGY
Didymus' opposition to Apollinaris was radical and unceasing. As
a result of his rigorously Origenist education, Didymus perceived the
34. The method of defectus litterae is certainly not absent from the work of Didymus.
However, he only very rarely employs it in explicit fashio~, e.g. in C:~nT,. with regard. to
celebrated passages for which there existed a well-establtshed tradltIon m Alexandnan
exegesis, such as Gen 3,7-8 (the fig leaves) and Gen 3,21 (clothes from animal s~s), or
with regard to a scandalous passage such as that in which Job curses the day on which he
was born HiT 55.16-60.
35. Exemplary in this regard is the dispute with his students recorded ~tEcc!T2?5,lOff.
over Eccl 7,8, where Didymus defines as spiritual (allagoge) the mor~l mteryretatlO.n th~t
appears to his students to be literaI: cf. SIMONETI1, Lettera e allego/'la lIell esegesl antl-
cotestamentaria di Didimo (n. 10).
36. For example, see Origen, HLv 1.1; GCS VI 280,5-20.
786 E. PRINZIVALLI
danger - invisible to Athanasius - that was rooted in Apollinaris' chris-
tology. There was the risk that Christ's choice made possible by his free
will would be rejected together with the function of the rational soul in
Christ. In effect, this would be to deny Christ's full and complete human-
ity, which gives people the possibility of imitating his obedience. In order
to reassert Christ' s freedom of choice and the ever real opportunity for
humanity not to give way to temptation, Didymus engaged in a christo-
logical exploration of the doctrine of propatheia, which had been devel-
oped by Origen in an anthropological sense37 • The clearest text on this
subject mns as follows:
Since it has been subjected ta trial in everything except in sin (Hebr 4,15),
we attribute ta it the initial stage of passion. However, the initial stage of
passion is not sin. For, if you do not even attribute this ta his soul, you make
the soul another substance. As a result, [the soul] no longer has glory and
is wOlthy neither of being praised nor of being crowned.
Didymus, therefore, examines the implications of Cln'ist's humanity,
even if his reflection upon this subject is not fully matured. In fact, by
attributing them to Christ's soul and not to the Logos, the doctrine of
propatheia plays an essential role in justifying Christ's reactions of fear
and terror in the face of his imminent death. These reactions had been
cited by the Mans as further pro of of Cln'ist's inferior divine nature 38 •
However, Didymus had to be careful not to diminish Christ's exemplary
role. For that reason, he asserts that what he pre aches about the humanity
of Christ can also be said about men, but, in the final analysis, the model
remains without equaP9. The Arian crisis had two effects upon the chris-
tology of Didymus: on the one hand the elevating of the divinity of the
Logos, on the other the emphasis upon the petfection of his humanity.
Of course, many of the implications of the doctrine of propatheia
remain completely hidden to Didymus, who was, after an, a product of
his time. It would have been unthinkable for him to attribute to Jesus
37. The Greek terrn propatheia probably lies behind Rufinus' translation primi intem-
perantiae motus (Prin m.2.2, SC 268, 160); see R. SORABJI, Emotion and Peace of Mind
{rom Stoic Agitati~n to Christian Temptation, Oxford, University Press, 2000, p. 343. An
unportant restoratlOn of the terrn propatheia within the Greek original of Origen's com-
mentary upon the Letter to the Ephesians has been made in the critical edition of F. PIERl,
Origenis Exegetica in Paulum. Excerpta et fragmenta. Origene. Esegesi paolina. 1 testi
frammentari, Roma, CÏttà Nuova, 2009, pp. 312-313.
38. In the Dialogue with a he/'etic (prT, 114, 17ff.), another text discovered at Tura
Didymus is extremely careful to deny that the resemblance of the Logos to the soul con~
cerns their being both "created" (kata genêton), because the Logos is unchanging and not
created: rather, their likeness concerns their participation (metochê) in the flesh and blood
i.e. bodies, with a subsequent reassertion by Didymus of the doctrine of pre-existence. '
39. Cf. PsT 3 in Psalm 20 (Didimo il Cieco. Lezioni sui Salmi [no 13], p. 104).
A REDISCOVERED AUTHOR AND ORIGEN'S HERITAGE 787
propatheia towards a woman. Yet, this is the classic example that he
provides when he has to speak of propatheia towards any man whom-
ever40 • Still, even within the limits remarked, Didymus' reflection is the
most profound that patristic literature to date had proposed regarding the
humanity of Jesus. Rather, we cannot pass over in silence the fact that
this gain occurred at the expense of a reducing of the communicatio idi-
omatum, which was certainly due to the lively polemic with Apollinaris'
christological unitarianism. Didymus did not accept a thesis such as "the
Logos was cmcified", which Origen had himself once proposed41 • Didy-
mus' christologicallanguage is traditional, aside from his preference for
the kyriakos anthrôpos, and lacks a word to designate the unity of the
person of Christ, even if Didymus is clear as to the union of the two ele-
ments - divine and human - in a single subject42 •
V. RE-THINKING ETIDCS FOR PossmLE PERFECTION IN
CONTEMPORARY LIFE
Didymus most certainly shared with Origen the doctrine of the pre-
existence of souls and that of the apokatastasis. The passage between
these two poles is marked, in Origen, by an articulated vision of the
development of rational creatures, which is not necessm'ily linear. Within
a very wide meta-historical horizon, there can be failure and regression
as well as advances. Given the nature of the biblical text upon which he
commented, Didymus focuses more upon the present.
Against Manichaeism and surviving Gnostic groups, his abiding
conviction - shared with Origen - is that living for God, just as living
for sin, is dependent upon free will. This is an inalienable gift from God,
but God brings hum an effort to completion. 1 have discussed in detail
elsewheré3 the nature of Didymus' ethical teaching, which is optimistic
and inspired by moderate wisdom, and shan not repeat myself here. 1
shalliimit myself to saying that the Commentary on the Psalms, in par-
ticular, is pitched so as to lead readers to a virtuous life in their present-
day circumstances. It is here, in the meeting between biblical exegete
and master of the spiritual life, that the distinctiveness of Didymus'
experience emerges; it is in this balancing of perspectives that we find
the key to his personality.
40. Thus, for example, PsT 76.
41. Origen, Prin II.6.3.
42. See, for example, de spir. sancto 230.
43. Didimo il Cieco. Lezioni sui Salmi (n. 13), pp. 63-79.

788 E. PRINZIVALU
From this perspective, the information to be found within Didymus'
work squares perfectly with those aspects of his personality that are
reported by the historie al sources. Of course, these latter already display
a tendency towards hagiographie veneration, even when those writing are
people who knew him personal1y, as in the cases of Rufinus and Jel'Ome44 •
While the Origenist tradition that appears in Palladius was infOlmed by
the desire to show Didymus as an exemplary figure, we must recognise
that moderation and peacefulness of spirit are qualities that authentically
belonged to him. In a city like fourth-century Alexandria, which most
certainly was not free from conflicts within the Christian community, and
in an author who kept abreast of all the disputes of his time, this fact is
striking and worthy of note.
1 shal1 close by citing one of these disputes, that of the relationship
between Jews and Christians. We have had occasion to see Didymus
updating in moderate fashion the teaching of Origen with regard to cer-
tain controversial issues. Here, however, he does not so much innovate
in substance with regard to Origen as add atone that is more severe and
forthright in stigmatising certain anti-Jewish expressions that were cur-
rently being used by Christians. His stance is so balanced as to anticipate
the best of modem positions.
Didymus makes two obvious observations, but these do not seem to
me to have had any consequences at the practical level. First, he
observes that many "of the circumcision" had believed in Christ, in
primis the disciples and the apostles and many of their contemporaries
or near-contemporaries. Thus, in commenting upon Psalm 21,3b (the
generation that cornes will announce the Lord) he specifically asserts
that the people of the circumcised have not been rejected in so far as
they are such, but by the virtue of their mistaken behaviour. In fact, the
Greeks are rejected together with them in so far as they display the
same wickedness. Second, he recalls the fundamental passage of Rom
11,30-34 and upbraids the Greeks for stupidly saying to the Jews "you
killers of the Lord" and similar things, even though only a certain num-
ber of Jews was responsible for his death. He goes on to specify, like
Paul, that it is God, rather, who has sealed all in disobedience in order
to show mercy to aIl.
Now, the substance of what Didymus says can also be found in
Origen45 and in almost the whole of Christian literature of an elevated
44. Hier., Ep. 68.2; Ep. 112.4; Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. 2.7.
45. For Origen's position, see G. SGHERRI, Chiesa e Sinagoga neUe opere di Origene
Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1982.
A REDISCOVERED AUTHOR AND ORIGEN'S HERITAGE 789
46
tenor, when it is not immediately involved in anti-Jewish polemics and
especially when it engages in reflection upon Rom 11 47 • But what is of
greater interest to us and suggests that Didymus is reacting to a wide-
spread hostility towards the Jews is what he says to the "Greeks" in the
two instances. His WOl'ds aim to cancel the practical consequences - of
daily coexistence, 1 would say - that derive from anti-Judaism. If we read
carefully, Didymus expresses himself with a discretion equal to that
which we saw used in the case of the proper relationship to be maintained
with the episcopate. Thus, we are in a position to correct in part the asser-
tion made by Wilken in a book that was useful in its time. According to
Wilken, the exegetical works of Didymus tell us little about the Jews of
his time. This was a period in which, as is weIl remarked by Wilken,
from Athanasius onwards relations between orthodox Christians and
Jews at Alexandria progressively worsened until there occurred serious
riots under Cyril48 •
Perhaps Didymus do es not tell us much about the Jews of his time, but
he permits us to see the climate of hostility then obtaining and shows us
that at least some Christians sought to follow another route.
Sapienza Università di Roma Emanuela PRINZlVALLI
Piazzale Aldo Moro 5
00185 Roma
emanuela.prinzivalli@uniroma1.it
46. On the other hand, aimed as they are at a popular audience, the homilies are
markedly more anti-Jewish. For this fundamental distinction between these two stances,
see N. BONCOMPAGNI'S introduction to Pseudo Cipriano, Contro i Giudei, Bologna,
Dehoniane, 2008, pp. 16-17.
47. In fact, even though he greatly emphasizes the anti-Jewish polemic in other
respects, the same tone is to be found in Cyril of Alexandria. See R.L. WILKEN, JlIdaism
and the Early Christian Mind: A Stlldy of Cyril of Alexandria's Exegesis and Theology,
New Haven, CT _ London, Yale University Press, 1971, pp. 60ff. For assertions by Cyril
that resemble Didymus' first proposition, see ln XIII proph., ed. A.M. PUSEY II, 345,23-25.
For assertions that resemble the second proposition advanced by Didymus, see Cyril, In
ep. Rom. (ed. PuSEY III, 242-243). In general, as regards Cyril's exegesis of the Letter to
the Romans, see D. D'ELIA, L'olivo e l'oleastro: Una prospettiva ecclesiologica in Cirillo
di Alessandria, Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2006.
' 48. See Socrat., Hist. Eccl. 7.7-13.
 FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR
ST METHODIUS OF OLYMPUS' CRITIQUE OF ORIGEN

I. THE TESTIMONIES AND CI-IRONOLOGY OF

METHODIUS' CRITIQUE OF ORIGEN

There is no doubt that the earliest comprehensive criticism of Origen

was launched by the end of the 3rd century by Methodius of Olympus.
Methodius belonged to the intellectual circles that might be expected to
be sympathetic to Origen's works due to his indebtedness to the scrip-
tural interpretation of the Alexandrian author'. There are many tes timo-
nies, which substantiate the ide a that Methodius was both the follower
of Origen and at the same time one of his most influential critics. Thus,
Apologia pro Origene 2 undertaken by Pamphilus and finished by Euse-
bius, preserved in the Latin translation of Rufinus, states that Methodius,
who depended frequently on Origen's teaching, dared to attack the great
Alexandrian. Jerome also testifies that Methodius wrote against Origen3 •
Indeed, Methodius' critique of Origen had serious consequences on
Origen's reputation. Thus, Epiphanius of Cyprus, influenced by Metho-
dius' criticism of the Origenian myths regarding the faU, the restoration
of the souls and the embodied existence, presented in his Panarion 4
these teachings as heretical. Gregory of Nyssa, in his De hominis opifi-
cio and De anima et resurrectione mostly relying on Methodius' De
resurrectione, challenged Origen's anthropological stance. Photius of
Constantinople in the 235 th chapter of his Bibliotheca extensively quoted
Methodius' work Xeno or De creatis, where the bishop of Olympus
refuted Origen's teaching regarding the eternity of the world. However,
the scholarly consensus agreed that Origen remained a guide for Metho-
dius in scriptural interpretation, and that mostly Origen's cosmological
and anthl'Opological attitudes were criticized by the bishop of Olympus.
There is still a matter of question whether Methodius is 'turncoat'
Origenist, as he was seen by Eusebius, 01' his criticism rather has a cor-

1. L.G. PATTERSON, Methodius of Olympus: Divine Sovereignfy, Human Freedom, and

Life in Christ, Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 1977, p. 5.
2. Pamphilus, Apologia pro Origene 127 (SC 464, 208-209).
3. Hieronymus, De Viris Illustribus 83 (PL 23, 727b).
4. Epiphanius, Panarion 64 (GCS 31, 503504).
 792 V. CVETKOVIC
rective purpose because Origen strayed to heterodoxy in sorne of his
teachings. If one opts in favor of the first option, then it is worth asking
to ask when the rupture with Origen had taken place. However, the dat-
ing of Methodius' writings is not an easy task. The majority of the
sc~olar~ have agreed that the latest among Methodius' works against
Ongen IS Xeno or De creatis. The other two works De libero arbitrio
a~d Aglaophon: De resurrectione were dated as Methodius's early and
mlddle works. A signifieant problem has to do with the fact that sorne
of the works against Origen were preserved only in the Paleoslavic
translation, such as the De libero arbitrio and the De resurrectione
while othel' works such as the De creatis, whose orthodoxy seemed
allegedly dubious to the Slavonie translators, exists just in Greek frag-
~ents. The usual order of these works including also the work Sympo-
~/Um or On chastity whieh is the only work entirely preserved in Greek
IS as follows: De Zibero arbitrio, Symposium, De resurrectione, De
creatis. The significance of Methodius' Symposium lies in the fact that
it propou~ds sorne ide~s which resemble Origen's and they are perhaps
even den~ed. from hlm as Jerome claimed5• Patterson has rightly
remarked ln hlS monograph that Methodius of the Symposium is nothing
~lse6 but.a follower of Origen on the principles of scriptural interpreta-
tIon . It IS not a matter of dispute at aIl whether Methodius' reliance on
Origen is explicit or not in the Symposium, but whether the works writ-
ten at the same time represent an attack on Origen. The testimonies on
Methodius coming from Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa and Photius have
agreed with regard to one point: the works De Zibera arbitrio and De
resurrect~one ar~ w~tten against Origen. Photius also added the dialogue
De creatls to thls hst. If the aforementioned order of Methodius' writ-
ings is correct, then we encounter the following problem: how is it
possible for Methodius of the Symposium to be an Origenist in the mid-
dIe of two attacks directed at Origen: the earlier one in the De Zibero
arbitrio and the later one in the De resurrectione and De creatis?
II. 'THE MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF METHODIUS' CRITICISM
In order to preserve the consistency of Methodius' critieism of
Origen Vaillant places the De libero arbitrio later than the Sympo-
. New York, Newman, 1958, pp. 11-12.
4235;_d~ieronymus, Contra 10G/lIl. 1er., 8.415 (PL 23, 377c); Contra Rufini 11.466 (pL 23,
6. PATIERSON, Methodius ofOlympus (n. 1), p. 130.
FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 793
sium? Thus, Methodius as Vaillant pictures him, after his Origenist
phase in the Symposium experiences the split with his teacher in the De
Zibero arbitrio, and finally he declares war to Origen in the De resur-
rectione and De creatis. Vaillant substantiates his idea by pointing to the
consistency in Methodius' arguments against Origen from the early to
the late phase. Even if Methodius does not mention Origen by name in
the De libero arbitrio, the position he is attacking in this early dialogue
is identical to the position of the heterodox opponents personifying
Origen in the De resurrectione and De creatis. Therefore, according to
Vaillant the turn of Methodius from Origenism is a slow and graduaI
process commenced in the De Zibero arbitrio and whieh reached its cli-
max in the De creatis. Contrary to Vaillant, Patterson, following Musuri-
110, dates the Symposium among Methodius middle dialogues, and
locates it with certainty after the De Zibero arbitrio. Musurillo argues
that the dialogue was written in the period between the two persecutions,
one of Valerian (in 260) and the other of Diocletian (in 303) and should
be dated between 270'es and 290'es8 • Patterson offers textual evidences
as weIl claiming that the Symposium summarizes and alludes to sorne
arguments of the De Zibero arbitrio. He also warns that these arguments
will be misunderstood if they are not read against the background of the
De libero arbitrio9 • Considering the De Zibero arbitrio as the first work
in the order of Methodius' writings, Patterson had to deal again with the
alleged inconsistency of Methodius' criticism of Origen. Patterson
solves this problem by challenging the old claim that the De Zibera arbi-
trio is implicitly and covertly written against Origen. Thus, Patterson has
offered an alternative reading of the De Zibero arbitrio, predominantly
against the background of another dialogue known as the Dialogue of
Adamantius or De recta in deum fide (On the true faith in God) 10. The
main reason why the Dialogue of Adamantius is associated with the De
Zibero arbitrio lies in the fact that both wl'itings contain an almost iden-
tieal passage of more than two hundred lines. Moreovel', the same pas-
sage can be found in Eusebius' Preparatio Evangelica ll , where the pas-
sage is presented as a work On matter of a certain Maximus, who lived
dUl'ing the reign of Septimius Severes and who wrote extensively on the
7. A. VAILLANT, Méthode d'Olympe. Le "De autexousio" (PO 22.5), Paris, Finnin-
Didot, 1930, pp. 649-652.
8. H. MUSURlLLO (ed.), Methodius. The Symposium. A Treatise on Chastity (ACW, 27),
9. PATIERSON, Methodius of Olympus (n. 1), pp. 62-63.
10. R.A. l'REITY, Dialogue on the True Faith in God, Leuven, Peeters, 1997.
11. Eusebius Caesariensis, Praeparatio evangelica 7.21 (OSC, 33.1,404-416).

794 V. CVETKOVIC
matter and the origins of evil 12. While Eusebius attributed the text to
Maximus in the Preparatio EvangeZica, Gregory the Theologian and
Basil the Great attributed it to Origen. In their compilation of Origen's
writings called the Philocalia of Origen, they copied the text in the
twenty-fourth chapter under the title Matter is not uncreated, or the
cause of eviZ, with the acknowledgment that its source is Eusebius 13 •
Rufinus who made a Latin translation of the Dialogue of Adamantius by
the end of the 4 th century, also attributed this work to Origen. The mod-
em scholarship has univocally rejected the possibility that the author of
this work is Origen. However, there is no scholarly consensus over the
question whether the author of this work intended to attribute the l'ole of
the orthodox speaker Adamantius to Origen. Textual similarities between
this work and the works of Methodius led scholars to Methodius, but
after a detailed analysis, the possibility that the Dialogue of Adamantius
belongs to Methodius was overruled, due to the difference in style
between this dialogue and other of Methodius' writings. According to
Vaillant, the author of the dialogue might have been somebody who
believed that Methodius plagiarized Origen 14 . Another solution sug-
gested that the author is a follower of Methodius. There might have
existed also more than one reason why a follower of Methodius would
compose such a book. According to Patterson, it is likely that a disciple
of Methodius indented to preserve the unity of his teacher's writings
because the dialogue consists of an excerpt also from Methodius' De
resurrectione 15 • This argument seems to be an attempt to once more
substantiate the consistency of Methodius' teachings, and more impor-
tant the continuity in his attitude toward Origen. Another likely solution
would be that the intention of the author was to demonstrate that Origen
was more 'orthodox' than it had been supposed 16 . Finally, according to
T.D. Bames, the Dialogue of Adamantius is a work written in the middle
of the third century and Methodius copied the dialogue in both of his
works the De libero arbitrio and the De resurrectione 17 . However,
Bames' argument did not gain much appreciation among scholars.
12. Eusebius Caesariensis, Historia ecc/esiastica V.27.1 (GSC, 9.1,498). See also
G.A. WlLUAMSON - A. LoUTH (eds.), Eusebius. The HistO/}, of the Church, London, Penguin
Classics, 1999, p. 75. .
13. Origen, Phil 24 (ROBINSON, 143-150).
14. VAILLANT, Méthode d'Olympe (n. 7), p. 638.
15. PATTERSON, Methodius of Olympus (n. 1), pp. 62-63, 12f.
16. PRETTY, Dialogue on the True Faith in Gad (n. 10), p. 21.
17. T.D. BARNES, Methodius, Maximus, and Valentinus, in Joumal of Theological
Studies, N.S. 30 (1979) 47-55, p. 48.
FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 795
III. PATTERSON'S POSITION: A MATTER OF MISUNDERSTANDING
Patterson argues against Jerome that the De libero arbitrio is a covelt
attack on Origen on the basis of the textual similarities with ~he Dial~gue
of Adamantius, which is clearly the refutation of the Gnostlc teachmgs.
The fact that Eusebius, the editors of Philocalia of Origen and the author
of the Dialogue of Adamantius do not consider the text they copied ~s an
attack on Origen is a clear evidence for Patterson that t~e D~ .11b~ro
arbitrio is not an anti-Origenist dialogue 18 . Moreover, the IdentIflcatlOn
of the opponents of Adamantius as Valentinians could only suggest that
the De libero arbitrio, even without mentioning the name of the Valen-
tinians is an attack directed against them. Patterson went a step fUlther
offering a number of places from the Symposium as a proof th~t ~etho­
dius argues against Gnostics 19 . According to Patterson, Me~hodl~S lS .not
only indebted to Origen in the De libero arbitrio, but hlS Ongem~m
became far more explicit in the Symposium. Therefore, the rupture wlth
Origen or with the one of whom Methodius thinks that represents ~he
Origenist views began later in the De resurrectione where Methodms
20
subjected to criticism his own views adopted earlier from Origen .
According to Patterson even in the De resurrectione,. before he ch~l­
lenged Origen's views, Methodius dealt with the teac~gs of Valen:m~
ians and the other Gnostics. When it cornes to the pomt of Methodms
open criticism of Origen in the De creatis, Patterson makes the w?ole
case relative by claiming that Methodius misunderstood wh~t Ong.en
meant by "etemal creation"21. Moreover, many things Methodms attnb-
uted to Origen are never claimed by him, but they rather repres~nt the
possible implications of sorne Origenistic views. Patterson a~ml~s th~t
Methodius' treatments of the implications of the views of Ongemsts III
the De libero arbitrio and De creatis are scarcely similar, but he still
remains on the position that if the De Zibero arbitrio is regarded as cov-
ert criticism of Origenism then one is confronted with the puzzlement
caused by Methodius' reliance on Origen in this work and in the Sympo-
sium22 • •
My fUlther aim is to challenge Patterson's stance of the alleged Onge~-
ism of Methodius in matters of ontology and cosmology, as weIl as hlS
attitude according to which Methodius' criticism of Origen is a conse-
18. PATTERSON, Methodius of Olympus (n. 1), p. 32.
19. Ibid., p. 62, 38f.
20. Ibid., pp. 122-123.
21. Ibid., p. 135.
22. Ibid., pp. 211-212.
796 V. CVETKOVIC
quence of the misunderstanding of the great Alexandrian. In what fol-
lows, l would like to argue that Methodius' position on creation had not
been changed from his early to his late dialogues. In my opinion, Metho-
dius' three arguments: the first against the two agenneta, the second
against pre-existent matter and the third against etemal creation, are
rather different aspects of one and the same logic applied for the purpose
of dialogues. Patterson attempted to prove Methodius' reliance on Origen
by reading aIl other dialogues against the background of the Symposium.
In what follows, l will attempt to read two early supposedly Origenistic
dialogues the De Zibero arbitrio and the Symposium against the back-
ground of the anti-Origenistic De creatis.
N. THE ARGUMENTS FROM DE CREATIS
1. God as Almighty
In his dialogue De creatis or On created things, Methodius exposes
his refutation of Origen in the form of a dialogue between two charac-
ters: the Centaur, an Origenistic speaker, and apparently Methodius him-
self. Methodius commenced his first argument by evoking the idea from
Peri arch on 1,2, 10 that "the workman must be so called from his work,
and the maker from what he makes, and the Almighty Ruler from that
which He mIes over"23.
It is wOlthy to point out that the English word Almighty is the transla-
tion of the Greek term Pantokrator used by both Origen and Methodius.
George Florovsky rightly remarked that neither the English nor the Latin
translation conveys accurately the real meaning of the Greek word Pan-
tokrator. Both translations Ahnighty and Omnipotens stress the potential
capacity of God to exercise power, while the Greek term Pantokrator
refers to the actual exercise of mling power. In Origen's case the telID
further implies that God could not be Pantocrator from the etemity
unless ta panta existed from etemity24. The Centaur's daim go es exactly
along the same line, for he says that "the world was made by God from
23. Methodius, De creatis 2 (ANF 6, 379); (GCS 27,494). The quotation resembles
a passage from Origen, Prin 1.2.10 (tr. Butterworth, New York, 1966,23): "As one can-
not be a father apart from having a son, nor a lord apart from holding a possession or a
slave, so we cannot even calI God almighty if there are none over whom hy can exercise
his power".
24. G. FLOROVSKY, St Athanasius' COf/cept Of Creation, in Aspects ofChurch Histo/y
(The Collective Works of George Florovsky, 4), Belmond, MA, Nordland Publishing
Company, 1975, p. 43.
FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 797
the beginning, and there was no time in which it did not exist". The
opposite statement that it was a time when the world was not, would
imply that God was not a creator from the beginning. Thus, the unchange-
able and unaltered God has altered and changed from non-Creator into
Creator. The only way out of this logic is to daim that the world is not
without beginning and coetemal with God. Therefore, the etemal exist-
ence of another reality along God for Origen is not a premise, but rather
a consequence, which derives from the fact of the unchangeable nature
of God. It seems that the Platonic framework of dyadic cosmology is
more a refuge for Origen than a deliberate choice from beginning as
Patterson daims. The daim that the world is etemal is a price Origen has
to pay in order to secure divine omnipotent and peIfect nature, as weIl as
the permanency of His l'ole as Creator. Moreover, Platonic arguments
about the just, good and omnipotent God together with the doctrine of
generation of cosmos from Timaeus, peIfectly fitted in Origen's interpre-
tation of the creation.
Further in the dialogue, Methodius challenges the Centaur's position,
by developing his arguments from the same premises as Origen, namely
that God is peIfect and unchangeable. According to Methodius, God is
peIfect because He is not dependant on something else which is out ~f
his being. Therefore, God is considered perfect, Creator and Omlll-
potent not by means of the world but by Himself, because the per~ect
things possess their peIfection by themselves and not through anythlllg
else. Methodius condudes that God's need for the things through which
He is marvelously Almighty and Creator, would just imply that he is
imperfect. The next issue Methodius deals with 1s the alteration in the
divine being. Methodius focuses on Origen's argument that the Creator
will be exposed to change if the world is not etemal because He must
pass from not creating to creating the world. For Methodius, the doc-
trine of creation is also a question of biblical exegesis and therefore he
establishes his argument on the passage from Gen 2,2, which describes
the rest of God during the seventh day of creation. Methodius daims
that God would not be at rest from creating the world on the seventh
day if the world were not completed. However, the l'est implies the
change because God passed from the act of creating to the act of not
creating, but it is not necessarily a change in the divine being because
God did not change when He made the world from what He was when
He was not making it.
The very fact that Methodius deals first with ontological dependence
dearly implies that he understands the real origins of Origen's view of
the etemity of the world. Therefore, it would be wrong to condude that
798 V. CVETKOVIC
Methodius interprets Origen's speculation as arising from the eternity
of matter as Patterson did25 • By liberating God from the dependence on
the world, Methodius opens the possibility to regard created things not
as "without beginning" or "coeternal", but as having a temporal
"~eginning". Thus, Methodius launches an attack on the position that
t~mgs could ~e ~alled created, e~en if they did not have theu' begin-
mng. The begmmng of the world 1S a proof that things are created and
if they are created they must be created by some cause because' it is
hard to imagine existence without cause. Thus, Methodius concludes
that if the world was created it did not exist before. Therefore the cre-
ation that has a beghming could not be coexistent with its cause or God.
The alternative to this is to allow that the world is uncreated. This
would suggest that the world is unchangeable and perfect in itself and
without need of anytbing. Methodius develops this idea into the ~rgu­
ment based on the analogy between God and a sculptor and the world
and a statue. According to Methodius, the consequence of uncreated,
perfect and eternal world would be its incapability of change. There-
fore, the eternity of the world, even at the level of ideal existence is
closely tied up with ideas of perfection and independence and it chal-
lenges the role of the Creator because there is nothing to add to perfect
nature that exists from eternity.
In bis .D.e/ibero arbitrio, Methodius poses the same question regarding
the pos~1bility for God to be a creator, but in a totally different context,
where 1t serves more to the pm'pose of the refutation of the Gnostic
:i~ws, tha~ it attempts to deal with the possible consequences of Origen-
1stlc teaching. Methodius uses the same analogy of God and the artist like
in the De ~reatis, but with a different pm·pose. Methodius argues that a
human artisan by fashioning in the existing substances is capable to cre-
ate something that did not exist in substances before. Therefore accord-
ing to the bishop of Olympus declaring that God is just a c;eator of
properties from the pre-existing matter is reducing divine omnipotence
to the st~tus of a human artisan. Methodius concludes that is unaccepta-
ble· to think of God as Creator if He did not create both properties and
substances (12, 10-11).
These two arguments about God from the De libero arbitrio and De
creatis are different aspects of one and the same argument that God is
not a creator if He works in something which possesses substances and
properties from eternity.
2~ ..L.G. PATIERSON, The Creation of the Word in Methodius' Symposium in Studia
Patnsflca 9 (1966) 240-250, pp. 247-248. ' 27. PATIERSON, The Creation of the Word (n. 25), p. 240.
FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 799
2. The Providential Role of the Son
The next argument from the De creatis describes the role of the Son
in creation. This argument is usually associated with Arius, who applied
a similar logic not against the eternal creation of the world like Metho-
dius did, but against the eternal creation of the Son. The real purpose of
tbis argument is to distinguish between the creational and the providential
role of God.
Methodius clearly shows that God created the world, firstly by His will
and secondly out of nothing in the following words:
We said there are two kinds of fonnative power in what we have now
acknowledged; the one which works by itself what it chooses, not out of
things which already exist, by its bare will, without delay, as soon as it
wills. This is the power of the Father. The other which adoms and embel-
lishes, by imitation of the fOlIDer, things which already exist. This is the
power of the Son, the almighty and powerful hand of the Father, by which,
after creating matter not out of things which were already in existence, He
adorns it26 •
By the phrase that God "creates by Himself what He chooses" Metho-
dius is keen to show that God has absolute freedom in creation. God does
not encounter any restrictions, either in the form ideal pattern or the
preexistent materiaL Methodius' s emphasis that God creates through bare
will is another very important element, which completely frees God from
the necessity to create. If the creation is an act of will, the existence of
the world is accidentaI and not necessary; it is a kind of gift of God.
Finally, Methodius' words "without delay, as soon as God wills" show
bis awareness of the issue of the idle God. By denying any delay between
a divine decision to make the world and the actual act of making it,
Methodius provides an answer to the question "why not sooner". Thus,
God did not change his will by deciding to create, but His changeless will
was to create as soon as he wanted to create. The second formative
power, or the Son, shows more about the nature of the relationship
between God and the world. The passage "the other is that wbich adorns
and embellishes, by imitation of the former, things that already exist" is
usually interpreted in telms of the subordination of the Son to the Father.
For Patterson tbis passage does not oilly resemble Gnostic and Origenis-
tic teachings about the Son as a setni-God or an instrument of the Father
in creation, but also Methodius' proto-Arian stance27 • However, such an
interpretation is highly uillikely because Methodius' intention here is to
26. Methodius, De creatis 9 (ANF 6,381); (GCS 27, 498).
 800 V. CVETKOVIC
show that God did not abandon the world after creating it, but the world
is still the subject of His providential care. Therefore, by conferring the
governmental and providential role to the Son, Methodius does not in any
way challenge the power of the Son because it is clearly stated that He
is Almighty (navtaouva/-l0S). The bishop of Olympus rather proves that
the world is dependent on the Son's divine power, which keeps it in
existence. This is not the only place, where Methodius stresses the prov-
idential role of God. In the De resurrectione, Methodius describes the
Son as "the first-born of God, the parent and artificer of aIl things, [who]
brings forth everything into the world; whom the ancients called Nature
and Providence, because she, with constant provision and care, gives to
aIl things birth and growth"28. Even the interpretation of the theme of
tabernacle in the Symposium 9,1, which according to Patterson clearly
shows Methodius dependence on Origen's grand scheme of the spiritual
history of the fall and the restoration of the souls, points to the goveming
role of the Son. Methodius pursues the same argument like in the De
creatis, commencing with the quotation from Gen 2,1-2 about the rest of
God on the seventh day of creation. The rest does not signify that God
has finished the world and that the Fest of Tabernacle mentioned in the
Lev 23,39-43 has come. Thus, Methodius claims that:
For even now God is still creating by His omnipotent will and inscrutable
power: the earth still yields its fruit, the waters still gather together into
their receptac1es, light is still being divided from the darkness, the number
of man is still growing through the creation ... 29.
The recurrences of the same themes and the arguments usually scrip-
turally based, like it is the case with the interpretation of the Gen 2,1-2,
show that Methodius is consistent in his views on creation from his early
to his late writings.
As Patterson remarks, the chain of Methodius' conclusions does not
necessarily deals with authentic aspects of Origen. They are arranged as
a support for the refutation of the axiom that God is almighty only if He
exercise authority over the WOl'ld, which exists from the eternity30. How-
ever, Methodius does not attribute all the views against which he argues
to Origen, but he rather sees them as implications of Origen' s aforemen-
tioned axiom. He neither reads Origen's position as an interpretation of
the cosmological picture of Plato's Timaeus similar to the one given by
Atticus or Plutarch, where the "creation" is a rearrangement of preexist-
28. Methodius, De resl/rrectione 1.15 (ANF 6, 369).
29. Methodius, Symposium 9.1 (ACW 27, 132-133); (GCS 27, 114).
30. PATIERSON, Methodil/s of Olympus (n. 1), p. 213.
FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 801
ent matter. On the contrary, the implication of Origen's axiom of God's
omnipotence, as Methodius sees it, is the eternal existence of another
reality, which has the principle of its existence not in God but in itself.
Therefore, Methodius deals exactly with the Origenistic state of affairs
because the myth about the monad that preexisted from eternity and the
subsequent faU of rational beings from the unity with God reveal the
inner discrepancy of Origen's position: namely how something perlect
and unchangeable, which exists from eternity with God, and on which
God exercises His power is capable of change? This was not only a ques-
tion asked by Methodius, but every subsequent critic of Origen from
Gregory of Nyssa to Maximus the ConfessOl' pointed out this matter.
Therefore, it seems a bit naive to claim that Methodius' misrepresentation
of Origen that became highly influential shOltly after his death, led to the
condemnation of the latter at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 31 •
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Methodius' criticism of Origen was not a matter of
academic dispute, but it rather had a corrective pUlpose because Origen
in the eyes of the bishop of Olympus strayed to heterodoxy in sorne
of his teachings. Even if Methodius disagreed with Origen, the great
Alexandrian remained for him a 'man of the Church', as Methodius
claimed it in the De resurrectione, one of his most critical works on
Origen. What is relevant for us here is not whether or when did Metho-
dius turn from Origenism to anti-Origenism, but whether Methodius
changed his teaching on creation drastically to such extent that his later
writings contradict his earlier writings on this issue. The fact that Metho-
dius argued against the eternal creation and preexistence of matter from
the first until the last work in the same way proves that he had from the
beginning a very precise and consistent doctrine of creation. He was
always a severe critic of the elements taken from the Greek philosophical
tradition that contradict the Christian teaching on creation. Therefore,
whether Methodius attacks Gnostics by criticizing the Platonic myth con-
cerning the preexisted matter in their teachings or he argues against
Origen's usage of middle-Platonic idea of eternal creation, the bishop of
Olympus is always refuting pagan philosophical ideas inconsistent with
31. Ibid., p. 218. See also L. TuRCESCU, Review of: Methodius of Olympus: Divine
Sovereignty, Hl/man Freedom, and Life in Christ by L. G. Patterson, in Church HistOly
67 (1998) 121-123, p. 123.
802 V. CVETKOVIC

biblical beliefs. Methodius, as a good disciple of Origen in matters of

biblical interpretation, attempts to COlTect his teacher by offering an alter-
native interpretation of the relevant biblical passages that deal with the LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL
issue of creation. Therefore, Methodius' alleged misrepresentation of
Origen that led to the condemnation of the latter is not a real issue. The Y A-T-IL UNE INFLUENCE DU CONTRE CELSE D'ORIGÈNE
real issue is that Methodius' cOlTective criticism of Origen could not SUR LE CONTRE LES GALILÉENS DE JULIEN?
prevent Origen's readers to go astray by following the great Alexandrian.
Nevertheless, Origen remained a man of the Church for Methodius.
Comment peut-on expliquer la diversité entre les coutumes des diffé-
Faculty of Theology Vladimir CVETKOVIC rentes nations et ont-elles toutes la même validité? Faut-il attribuer cette
University of Aarhus diversité au hasard ou à la providence et, dans ce dernier cas, peut-on
Bygning 1443 l'expliquer par la répattition des régions du monde entre différentes puis-
Tâsingegade 3 sances tutélaires? Dans cette mosaïque de nations, le peuple juif a-t-il
8000 Ârhus C une place à part, comme il le prétend en invoquant son élection divine?
Denmark Ce sont là quelques-unes des questions qu'aborde Origène dans sa
vc@teo.au.dk réfutation du Discours vrai de Celse et que l'on retrouvera plus tard dans
le Contre les Galiléens de Julien, à son tour réfuté par Cyrille d'Alexan-
drie 1• Nous voudrions étudier l'influence qu'a pu avoir le Contre Celse
d'Origène sur la manière dont Julien a abordé la double question du rôle
des dieux ethnarques et de l'élection d'Israël. Sur l'utilisation d'Origène
par Julien, Jean Bouffattigue écrit ceci:
L'examen comparé des textes de Cyrille et d'Origène montre du même coup
que si Julien a connu le Discours vrai, il ne l'a pas connu grâce au Contre
Celse. En effet, Cyrille oppose à Julien les arguments même d'Origène: ces
arguments ne manquent pas de force et produisent pleinement leur effet
contre Julien qui, ne les connaissant pas, n'a pas eu la possibilité de les
parer2 •

Mais est-il si certain que Julien n'a pas connu le Contre Celse?
Avant d'étudier la question des influences à propos de la diversité des
nations, nous mentionnerons quelques arguments qui peuvent laisser pen-
ser que Julien a bien lu la réfutation de Celse par Origène et en a tiré
profit pour son attaque contre les chrétiens3 • Ainsi, Julien recourt préci-

1. Le Contre Julien de Cyrille d'Alexandrie (PG 76) est édité dans la collection des
SC pour les livres 1 et Il (SC 322) et en cours d'édition dans le corpus du GCS. Pour les
livres I-V, je m'appuierai sur l'édition critique que C. Riedweg a bien voulu me donner
avant sa publication définitive.
2. J. BOUFFARTIGUE, L'empereur Julien et la culture de son temps, Paris, Institut
d'Études Augustiniennes, 1992, p. 380.
3. C. RlEDWEG, With Stoicism and Platonism against the Christians: Structures of
Philosophical Argumentation in Julian 's Contra Galilaeos, dans Hermathena 166 (1999)
63-91, p. 91 suggère que Julien a pu lire Origène puisque, comme il le demande dans sa
lettre 106, il a bénéficié de la bibliothèque de l'évêque Georges et p. 90 Riedweg souligne
la proximité entre les argumentations de Julien et d'Origène sur la notion de la providence.
804 M.-O. BOULNOIS
sément à plusieurs textes bibliques que signale Origène en remarquant
que Celse ne les a pas invoqués. Certes, Julien connaissait bien la Bible
et peut avoir trouvé ces citations par lui-même. Néanmoins, la conver-
gence de plusieurs indices mérite au moins d'être relevée. Nous en signa-
lerons trois.
Origène relève que Celse a passé sous silence le motif du déplacement
des mages qui sont venus adorer Jésus, à savoir l'apparition d'une étoile
d'un genre particulier, qui ne se produit qu'occasionnellement lors de
grands événements. Et il précise que parmi les étoiles de ce type, on
trouve les météores qui ressemblent à une chevelure ou à une poutrelle
(Kol!rrrat·f1 ÔOKtÔë<;)4. Or dans l'un des fragments de son œuvre, Julien
évoque précisément ces astres qui apparaissent occasionnellement lors
des grands. événements et qui portent ces noms de KOl!ll'tat et ôOKiôë<;.
Il est malheureusement conservé dans le livre XI du Contre Julien de
Cyrille d'Alexandrie, dans un état très lacunaire, ce qui rend difficile une
comparaison plus détaillée de l'argumentation5 .
En second lieu, Origène signale une autre absence chez son adversaire:
Celse, s'il avait eu la patience de lire l'ensemble des écrits de Moïse,
aurait pu se demander pourquoi l'expression «Dieu fit» ne s'applique
qu'à la création de certains éléments du monde, alors que, pour d'autres,
l'Écriture se bome à dire «et la lumière fut»6. Si Celse n'a pas eu l'acri-
bie de repérer les différents types d'intervention divine dans le récit de
la Genèse, Julien, lui, en a tiré une objection contre l'incohérence du
Dieu biblique qui tantôt appelle par sa parole tantôt crée?
Un troisième texte peut encore avoir été suggéré à Julien par sa lecture
d'Origène; celui-ci indique un verset que Celse ne connaissait pas et sur
lequel il aurait pu appuyer ses dires à propos de la venue des anges. Il
s'agit de Gn 6,2: «les fils de Dieu virent que les filles des hommes
étaient belles et prirent pour femmes celles qu'ils avaient choisies entre
4. Origène, Contre Celse I.58 (SC 132,236). II faut noter que dans la proximité immé-
diate de ce passage du Contre Celse, Origène cite Gn 49,10 (CC I.53) et Nb 24,17
(CC I.59) qui se trouvent tous deux cités par Julien pour critiquer leur utilisation mes-
sianique par les clu'étiens, respectivement dans les fr. 62 (Cl VIII.2: 888B) et fr. 64
(Cl VID.15: 900D).
5. E. MASARACCHIA, Giuliano Imperatore - Contra Galilaeos: Introduzione, testo
critico e traduzione, Rome, Ateneo, 1990, fr. 91, p. 185.
6. Origène, CC N.55 (SC 147,325-327).
7. Fr. 18 (Cr ID.33: 648B): «Moïse raconte ce qui a rapport au ciel et à la terre, à ce
qui existe en elle, à la façon dont l'ordre y a été établi; il affirme que Dieu a ~rdonné à
certaines choses de naître - ainsi au jour, à la lumière, au firmament - qu'il en a fait lui-
même d'autres, comme le ciel et la terre, le soleil et la lune». Ce passage s'inscrit dans
une série de remarques contre les incohérences et lacunes du texte biblique des premiers
chapitres de la Genèse.
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 805
toutes »8. Or ce verset se trouve précisément invoqué par Julien comme
se référant aux anges 9 •
On peut encore se demander si Julien ne répond pas à Origène dans le
fragment 4 10 qui énumère les histoires «invraisemblables et mons-
trueuses» des Grecs sur leurs dieux: de fait Origène avait encore une fois
souligné le silence de Celse sur cette questionll , silence que semble au
contraire combler Julien. Malheureusement, ce fragment 4 est ici tronqué
par Cyrille qui ne donne aucune indication sur le sens qu'il avait dans
l'œuvre de Julien. De plus, il a probablement été déplacé par Cyrille par
rapport à sa place initiale, pour répondre à l'accusation de Julien selon
laquelle les chrétiens sont traîtres à l'hellénisme: la description que
Julien faisait de sa propre mythologie pelmettait à Cyrille de justifier
l'abandon de la religion grecque par les chrétiens. En raison de ces inter-
ventions, qui ont coupé ce passage de son contexte, nous ne pouvons plus
comprendre quel rôle jouait dans l'argumentation de Julien cet aveu sur
ses propres mythes. Mais étant donné qu'Origène reprochait à son adver-
saire d'avoir intentionnellement passé sous silence les passions des dieux
grecs et énumérait ces histoires pour dire que, même allégorisées, elles
restent honteuses, Julien a pu vouloir parer à cette critique.
La question de l'influence possible d'Origène sur Julien devient encore
plus intéressante quand il s'agit non plus seulement de tel ou tel argument
de détail, mais d'un thème aussi central pour Julien que la répartition des
nations entre des dieux ethnarques. L'enjeu est en effet double: il s'agit
d'une part de trouver une raison à la diversité ethnologique qui est l'un
8. CC V.55 (SC 150, 153).
9. Fr. 67 (Cl IX.2: 945A).
10. Fr. 4 (Cl II.li: 568C): «Or donc les Grecs forgèrent à propos des dieux une
mythologie invraisemblable et monstrueuse. Ils prétendirent que Kronos avait avalé ses
enfants, puis les avait vomis. Ils ont aussi parlé de noces contre nature: Zeus s'unit à sa
mère, puis, ayant eu d'elle des enfants, épousa sa propre fille, ou plutôt, non! il n'épousa
pas sa propre fille, mais se contenta de la déflorer avant de la donner en mariage à un
autre! Ajoutez à cela les dépeçages bacchiques et les recollements de membres ... Et voilà
ce que raconte la mythologie grecque! ».
11. CC 1.17: «Il a délibérément passé sous silence la légende des dieux supposés, aux
passions tout humaines, due principalement aux poèmes d'Orphée. Mais ensuite, dans sa
critique de l 'histoire de Moïse, il accuse ceux qui en donnent une interprétation figurée et
allégorique. On pourrait riposter à cet auteur illustre qui a intitulé son livre Discours
véritable: quoi donc, mon brave, des dieux s'engagent dans des aventures telles que les
décrivent tes sages poètes et philosophes, ils se livrent à des unions maudites, entrent en
guerre contre leurs pères, leur tranchent les organes virils, et tu prends au sérieux l'histoire
qui rapporte leur audace à commettre et à souffrir ces forfaits! Mais lorsque Moïse ne dit
rien de tel sur Dieu, ni même sur les saints anges, et qu'il raconte sur les hommes de bien
moindres méfaits- chez lui personne n'a les audaces de Cronos envers Ouranos, ni celles
de Zeus envers son père, sans ajouter que 'le père des dieux et des hommes' s'est uni à
sa fille!-, on pense qu'il égare ceux qu'il a trompés en leur donnant sa loi».
 806 M.-O. BOULNOIS
de ses sujets de prédilection 12 , d'autre part de combattre la prétention des
Juifs à identifier leur dieu national avec le dieu universel. À la différence
des exemples précédents, il s'agit là d'un argument déjà développé par
Celse, mais la manière dont Julien le traite semble davantage prendre en
compte la réfutation qu'en propose Origène que l'exposé de son prédé-
cesseur païen. On constate par ailleurs que, contrairement à ce que Jean
Bouffartigue déclare, Cyrille d'Alexandrie ne reprend pas sur ce sujet une
grande pattie de la réponse origénienne. C'est donc ce dialogue à quatre
voix que nous nous proposons d'analyser.
1. CELSE ET JULIEN
L'exposé de Julien sur les dieux des nations comporte des similitudes
avec celui de Celse 13 au point que Jean Bouffartigue a pu dire que «le
texte de Celse rapporté par Origène pourrait passer pour l'énoncé de base
à partir duquel Julien aurait bâti son commentaire relatif aux dieux
ethnarques»l4, même si ce n'est qu'une ébauche par rapport au dévelop-
pement abondant de Julien. Nous distinguerons chez Celse trois thèmes
intrinsèquement liés: la nécessité de préserver les coutumes tradition-
nelles, la répattition originelle des nations entre des puissances tutélaires
et la question de l'élection d'Israël.
1. Fidélité aux traditions
Pour Celse comme pour Julien, un des points les plus critiquables du
christianisme est son abandon des traditions d'où il est issu, point qui
constitue une ligne de fracture entre le christianisme et le judaïsme, ce
dernier étant loué pour sa fidélité à ses coutumes ancestrales. Même si
les Juifs se sont révoltés contre les Égyptiens 15 , Celse leur concède
d'avoir maintenu jusqu'à son époque les coutumes de leur pays et
d'observer une religion qui, quelle qu'elle soit, est du moins tradition-
12. Voir J. BOUFFARTlGUE, La diversité des nations et la nature des hommes:
L'empereur lulien et Cyrille d'Alexandrie dans une controverse incertaine, dans S. CRoGIER
PÉTREQUIN (éd.), Dieux et hommes. Mélanges F. Thélamon, Rouen, Université de Rouen,
2005, 113-126, p. 114: «Si Julien devait se voir créditer d'une contribution au trésor
philosophique, ce serait sans doute dans le domaine de l'ethnologie».
.13. Aucu~ des fra~ents actuellement connus du Contre les Chrétiens de Porphyre ne
tratte la questIOn des dIeux ethnarques, de sorte que l'on ne peut savoir si Julien aurait pu
trouver là une source.
14. BOUFFARTIGUE, L'empereur lulien et la culture de son temps (n. 2), p. 381.
15. CC m5 (p. 21).
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 807
nelle 16 . Or à la différence des Juifs, les chrétiens ont quant à eux trahi
leurs origines. Selon Celse, «ils se. sont séparés (à<l>8O"tT]KUCHV) des
Juifs» 17. La même accusation de sécession des chrétiens par rapport à
leur origine se retrouve chez Julien qui utilise le même verbe à<l>icr'trun.
(Il faut) demander à ceux qui ne sont ni Grecs ni Juifs mais font partie de
la secte galiléenne pourquoi, au lieu de notre religion, ils ont choisi celle
des Juifs, pourquoi aussi ils ne restent même pas fidèles à ce parti, mais
vont leur propre chemin après avoir fait sécession (à1tO(J't(lV'ŒS), sans adhé-
rer à quoi que ce soit de juste ou de sérieux, empmnté à nous autres Grecs
ou aux Hébreux descendants de Moïse18 •
Les clu-étiens se voient reprocher par Julien d'être doublement apos-
tats, ayant abandonné à la fois les coutumes grecques et les coutumes
juives 19. Cette accusation est un topos de la polémique antichrétienne20
et se fonde sur l'idée que, même si toutes les lois ne se valent pas, les
respecter est une valeur en soi. Celse peut ainsi s'appuyer sur Hérodote
qui, après avoir énuméré toute une série de peuples aux coutumes
diverses, conclut en louant le mot de Pindare: «la coutume (volloS)
règne sur toUS»21. Central dans le Discours vrai de Celse qui s'ouvre et
se felme pat' l'invocation des nomoi22 , ce respect des lois a un double
enjeu politique et religieux; et inversement, derrière l'accusation d'apos-
tasie des chrétiens se dessine l'accusation de sédition politique (CHucrtS)23.
La conséquence d'une telle position est la priorité donnée à la diversité
16. CC V.25 (p. 75).
17. CC V.33 (p. 97).
18. Fr. 3 (Cl II.9). Cette accusation revient à dénoncer l'innovation de la doctrine
chrétienne, ce que Julien hait plus que tout comme il le déclare dans sa Lettre 89A53b:
«Tous les dieux le savent, je n'improvise guère ici. Personne ne s'avance avec plus de
prudence que moi; je fuis l'innovation en toutes choses et spécialement en ce qui concerne
les dieux. Je pense qu'il faut s'en tenir aux lois que nos pères ont eues dès l'origine et qui,
manifestement, sont un don des dieux».
19. Voir Julien, fr. 47 (Cl VI.25: 808C) où il compare les chrétiens aux sangsues qui
tirent le plus mauvais sang. L'accusation de déserter l'hellénisme est repris dans des pro-
pos que Cyrille lui prête en Cl V.12: 745A et Cl VI.32: 816A.
20. Voir Eusèbe de Césarée, Préparation Evangélique 12.1-4. Ce passage a été retenu
par Harnack comme fI'. 1 du Contra Christianos de Porphyre. Mais S. MORLET, La démon-
stration évangélique d'Eusèbe de Césarée: Étude de l'apologétique à l'époque de
Constantin, Paris, Institut des Études Augustiniennes, 2010 a montré que l'attribution
à Porphyre de cet argument de la double apostasie était douteuse et que l'exposé d'Eusèbe
correspond davantage à des idées que l'on rencontre chez Celse, par exemple en CC V.33
et VAl où Celse accuse les chrétiens d'avoir abandonné les traditions grecques pour
adopter celles des juifs puis de s'être séparés des juifs .
21. CC V.34 (p. 105) citant Hérodote, Histoire IIl.38 (Pindare fr. 49).
22. CC 1.1 et VIIl.75 comme le souligne justement M. FÉDou, Christianisme et reli-
gion païenne dans le Contre Celse d'Origène, Paris, Beauchesne, 2000, p. 477.
23. CC m5 (p. 23) et 8 (p. 27).
808 M.-O. BOULNOIS
sur l'unité. Mais chez Celse comme chez Julien cette diversité n'a pas
seulement une origine humaine, et si elle mérite tant d'être préservée de
manière immuable, c'est parce qu'elle a en réalité une origine divine.
2. Le rôle des puissances tutélaires
Celse écrit
Chacun a en honneur les coutumes traditionnelles, de quelque manière
qu'elles aient pu être établies. Et il semble qu'il en anive ainsi, non seule-
ment parce qu'il est venu à l'esprit de différents peuples de se donner des
lois différentes et que c'est un devoir de garder ce qui a été décidé pour le
bien commun, mais encore parce que vraisemblablement les différentes par-
ties de la terre ont été dès l'origine attribuées à différentes puissances tuté-
laires (€1C01C't'UV;) et réparties en autant de gouvernements, et c'est ainsi
qu'elles sont administrées 24 •
La théorie des puissances tutélaires permet donc de donner un fonde-
ment théologique à la pérennité des diverses coutumes nationales. Cette
idée que les peuples ont été répartis entre des dieux n'est pas propre à
Celse et se trouve déjà chez Platon dans le Critias et les Lois qui com-
parent tous deux ces dirigeants divins à des bergers qui guident leurs
troupeaux25 . Platon émet aussi deux idées que développera surtout
Julien: chacune de ces divinités gouveme selon la mentalité (OlUVOtŒV)
qui lui est propre et c'est par philanthropie que le dieu a confié à ces
puissances la charge de veiller sur chacune des cités humaines. Cette
représentation hiérarchisée du monde divin qui permet de préserver la
transcendance du Dieu suprême est influencée par le modèle politique
du Grand Roi de Perse et de ses satrapes auxquels Celse compareexpli-
citement les puissances tutélaires 26 . Malgré les antécédents d'une telle
théorie, l'apport propre de Celse est de l'utiliser de manière polémique
pour dénoncer l'impiété des chrétiens. À partir du moment où les cou-
tumes ont été établies par la divinité qui a reçu la charge de telle partie
du monde, les respecter devient un acte religieux et comme le dit Celse
«il y aurait impiété à enfreindre les lois établies dès l'origine dans
24. CC V.25 (pp. 75-77).
25. Platon, Critias 109bc: «Or les dieux se sont un jour partagé la terre entière, par
régions. ( ... ) En vertu du lotissement fait par Dikè, chacun obtint ce qui lui plaisait et
s'établit dans sa région. S'y étant fixés, les dieux, comme font les bergers pour leurs
troupeaux, nous ont élevés comme leurs biens et leurs propres troupeaux. ( ... ) Telle
pilote, qui du haut de la poupe, gouverne son navire, les dieux s'attachèrent à conduire les
âmes par la persuasion, comme un gouvernail, selon leur dessein (Ùt6.votav) propre».
Platon, Lois IV.713CD.
26. CC VIII.35 (p. 251).
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 809
chaque région»27. Ce qui donne leur rectitude aux lois de chaque nation
n'est pas leur valeur morale intrinsèque, mais le seul fait qu'elles agréent
à la puissance qui l'administre. Le recours à cette doctrine platonicienne
des puissances tutélaires permet donc à Celse de prendre les chrétiens
en défaut de piété.
3. Élection du peuple des Hébreux
Mais par delà la polémique contre l'infidélité des chrétiens aux lois
ancestrales, Celse vise une deuxième cible: il veut réfuter la croyance des
Juifs dans l'idée qu'ils sont un peuple privilégié bénéficiant d'une attention
particulière de Dieu. Les Juifs ont beau avoir le droit, comme toute autre
nation, de garder jalousement leur propre loi, cela ne les autorise pas à faire
preuve d'arrogance (àÂasovEia) et à se croire supérieurs aux autres sous
prétexte qu'ils seraient la part choisie du Dieu suprême28 • «TI n'est pas du
tout vraisemblable qu'ils jouissent de la faveur et de l'amour de Dieu à un
plus haut degré que les autres, ni que les anges soient envoyés du ciel à
eux seuls ( ... ); nous voyons assez quel traitement ils ont mérité eux et leur
pays»29. En refusant aux Juifs toute prétention à un traitement de faveur
de la part de Dieu, Celse réduit à néant l 'histoire sainte.
Le point de départ de Celse est donc de justifier la pérennité des cou-
tumes de chaque pays pour accuser les chrétiens de déroger à cette fidé-
lité. Ce principe reçoit un fondement théologique dans la théorie de la
répartition du monde entre des puissances tutélaires qui collaborent avec
les législateurs pour établir les lois de leur région. En conséquence, les
Juifs ne peuvent prétendre à une quelconque supériorité de leurs lois.
Ces trois thématiques se retrouvent chez Julien, mais dans une pers-
pective différente. Celse centre son propos sur la fidélité aux lois et la
mention des puissances tutélaires est très peu développée, alors que chez
Julien cette théorie constitue un élément majeur de sa comparaison entre
la doctrine de Moïse et celle des Grecs. Tout le livre IV du Contre Julien
de Cyrille d'Alexandrie est consacré à l'examen du rôle des dieux
ethnarques, sans parler de la fin du livre III qui aborde la question de
l'élection d'Israël qui lui est liée30 • D'autre part, alors que chez Celse la
27. CC V.25 (p. 77).
28. CC V.41 (pp. 121-123).
29. CC V.41 (p. 123). Voir aussi CC vm.69 (p .. 335). Celse voit dans les malheurs
subis par les juifs la preuve que Dieu ne leur a accordé aucune p.rotectio~ particulière. Cet
argument sera repris par Julien fr. 49 (Cl VI.37: 820D): aux JUIfs, les dieux ont donné, à
part un bref moment de liberté, une condition permanente d'esclaves et d'immigrés.
30. Cl m.37: 652D-653A et 46: 661D-664B: fr. 19-20 et tout le Cl IV: fr. 21 c28.
 810 M.-O. BOUlNOIS
question de l'élection des Juifs n'est pas véritablement articulée à celle
des dieux ethnarques, elle l'est fortement chez Julien. Pour ce demier, la
doctrine mosaïque est à la fois fautive et lacunaire. Après avoir montré
la supériorité de la cosmogonie du Timée sur celle de la Genèse, Julien
prouve que les Grecs ont une meilleure conception de Dieu dans la
mesure où ils ne confondent pas le Dieu suprême et les dieux nationaux 31 .
Or c'est bien à une telle confusion que conduit la croyance des Juifs en
leur élection divine. Pour Julien, le dieu des Hébreux n'est qu'un dieu
tutélaire parmi d'autres qui n'a en charge qu'une portion limitée de ter-
litoire 32 . Le fait même qu'il ne se soucie que des Juifs est d'ailleurs la
preuve qu'il ne peut être le Dieu universel33 et l'attitude de jalousie qu'il
revendique lui-même en Ex 20,5 confirme qu'il s'agit bien d'un dieu
particulier, puisque le Dieu suprême est impassible34 . Par ailleurs toute
la suite du Contre les Galiléens vise à montrer l'inanité de la prétention
des Juifs puisque ce n'est pas à eux, mais aux Grecs, que Dieu a donné
les plus grands bienfaits 35 . La doctrine de Moïse est donc erronée sur ce
point, mais elle se révèle aussi lacunaire dans la mesure où elle ne parle
que de l'élection des Hébreux36 sans donner aucune indication sur l'ad-
ministration des autres nations. Le point de dép aIt de Julien n'est donc
plus comme chez Celse le défaut de fidélité des chrétiens à leur origine,
même si ce grief apparaît de manière récurrente dans le Contre les Gali-
léens, mais la dénonciation des déficiences de la doctrine mosaïque.
Seule la théorie des dieux ethnarques pelmet d'expliquer la diversité des
nations qui sinon serait due au hasard et échapperait à la providence
divine; quant à l'épisode biblique de Babel il ne pelmet pas de rendre
31. Fr. 6 (CIII.18): «Ce qui nous permettra de comparer (àvn1tapa~âÎ,,(j)Jlev) l'une
à l'autre la cosmogonie de Platon et celle de Moïse». Fr. 19 (Cl III.37: 652D): «Com-
parons entre elles ... ». Sur le caractère essentiellement comparatif du pamphlet de Julien
voir M.-O. BOULNOIS, Genèse 2-3: Mythe ou vérité? Un sujet de polémique entre païens
et chrétiens dans le Contre Julien de Cyrille d'Alexandrie, dans Revue des Études Augus-
tiniennes 54 (2008) 111-133. C'est encore un point qui le rapproche du Contre Celse
d'Origène. Voir CC I.18 et 19 qui propose précisément de «comparer» (1tapa~6.Â,Â,ecrl}at)
Moïse et Platon.
32. ClIII.38: 653B. il s'agit là non d'une citation expresse de Julien mais d'un résumé
par Cyrille des conclusions de son adversaire.
33. Fr. 20 (Cl III,46: 664A).
34. Fr. 20 (Cl III.46: 664B).
35. Voir déjà le fr. 25 (Cl IV.38: 717B): «il nous a donné des biens plus grands que
les leurs, tant ceux de l'âme que ceux qui nous sont extérieurs, comme nous 'le verrons
plus loin et il nous a envoyés à nous aussi des législateurs qui ne sont en rien inférieurs à
Moïse, pour ne pas dire que la plupart le surpassent de loin».
36. Fr. 19 (ClIII.37: 652D): «Moïse prétend que le créateur du monde a élu la nation
des Hébreux, qu'il ne s'occupe et ne se soucie que d'elle et il lui accorde l'administration
de cette seule nation».
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 811
compte de la diversité des coutumes qui est beaucoup plus importante
que la diversité des langues. Or nous constatons que l'articulation entre
l'élection d'Israël et la répartition des nations, l'insistance sur la provi-
dence divine et l'invocation de l'histoire de Babel se trouvent précisé-
ment au centre de l'argumentation qu'Origène oppose à Celse. Toumons-
nous donc maintenant vers l'analyse du Contre Celse pour dégager
ensuite les points qui auront pu retenir l'attention de Julien.
II. ORIGÈNE
En préambule, il convient de noter que la répartition des nations entre
des puissances protectrices n'est pas traitée par Origène uniquement
quand il répond à l'objection de Celse sur ce point dans le livre V. La
doctrine des anges des nations, qui a une origine juive 37 et qu'Origène a
héritée de Clément d' Alexandrie 38 , est très présente dans toute son œuvre
et, pour ne parler que du Contre Celse, a déjà été abordée au livre l à
propos des noms des démons terrestres qui ont reçu en partage des
régions différentes 39 et dans le livre IV pour répondre à l'objection de
son adversaire sur le retard de l'incamation: «Est-ce donc maintenant,
après tant de siècles, que Dieu s'est souvenu de juger la vie des hommes,
alors qu'auparavant il n'en avait cure?»40. Selon Origène, si l'on veut
élucider ce mystère, il faut replacer l'incarnation dans le contexte plus
large des différentes économies de l'histoire du salut que décrivent les
textes de Dt 32,8-9 et Ps 2,8 41 : le Très Haut a d'abord fixé les limites des
37. J. DANIÉLOU, Les sources juives de la doctrine des anges des nations chez Origène,
dans Recherches de Science Religieuse 38 (1951) 132-137 et Les anges et leur mission
d'après les Pères de l'Église, Paris, Desclée, 1990.
38. Clément d'Alexandrie, Strolllate VI.17.157,4-5 (SC 446, 375): «Les pensées des
hommes vertueux naissent d'une inspiration divine, quand l'âme se trouve dans une dis-
position déterminée et que la volonté divine se communique aux âmes humaines, grâce au
concours des ministres divins respectivement chargés de pareils services: si les patronages
des anges ont été répartis entre les nations et les cités, certains ont vraisemblablement aussi
été affectés à quelques activités de détail». Stromate VI12.6,4 (SC 428, 53): «C'est lui
aussi (le Seigneur) qui donne aux Grecs la philosophie par l'intermédiaire des anges inféri-
eurs; car les anges ont été répartis entre les peuples par une décision divine et ancienne».
39. CC 124-25 passage conservé dans la Philocalie 17.
40. CC IV.7 (p. 203).
41. CC IV.8 (pp. 205-207): «il faut aborder le sujet des divisions des peuples et dire
clairement pourquoi 'quand le Très Haut assigna aux nations leur héritage, quand il répar-
tit les fils d'Adam, il fixa les limites des nations suivant le nombre des anges de Dieu; et
la part du Seigneur fut son peuple Jacob, et le lot de son héritage, Israël' (Dt 32,8-9). Et
il faudra dire la cause de la naissance des hommes dans chaque région, sous la domination
de celui qui a reçu la région en héritage; et comment il était logique que 'son peuple Jacob
fût la part du Seigneur, et Israël le lot de son héritage'; et pourquoi, alors qu'auparavant
812 M.-O. BOULNOIS
nations qu'il a confiées à ses anges, à l'exception d'Israël qui est demeuré
la part du Seigneur, puis en un deuxième temps le Sauveur a réclamé à
son Père de réintégrer les nations à son héritage42 • Il s'agit donc pour
Origène d'un thème capital pour sa théologie de l'histoire et les auteurs
de la Philocalie, Basile et Grégoire de Nazianze, ne s'y sont pas trompés
quand ils ont retenu ce passage qui traite de la dispersion des peuples
dans leur section consacrée au libre arbitre43 .
Examinons donc comment Origène répond aux trois aspects de l'ob-
jection de Celse: l'observance des lois, le partage des régions de la terre
et le statut d'Israël44 •
1. Observance des lois
Pour réfuter la nécessité édictée par Celse que chaque nation garde ses
coutumes traditionnelles, Origène s'appuie sur la notion commune de
providence divine en soumettant son adversaire à un dilemme: soit c'est
Zeus qui a attribué le peuple juif à une puissance tutélaire, de sorte qu'il
est nécessairement d'accord avec les lois que cette puissance a établies
pour ce pays, soit l'attribution de chaque région est le résultat du hasard
et cela revient à nier la providence divine45 . L'une et l'autre hypothèses
de cette alternative ne peuvent que plonger Celse dans l'embarras,
puisque sous peine de nier la providence divine il est contraint de recon-
'son peuple Jacob était la part du Seigneur et Israël le lot de son héritage', pour les siècles
à venir il est dit au Sauveur par son Père: 'Demande-moi et je te donnerai les nations en
héritage et pour domaine les extrémités de la terre' (ps 2,8). li Y a de fait, pour les écono-
mies différentes concernant les âmes humaines, des raisons logiques et enchâmées qui sont
indicibles et inexplicables». Ces deux textes (Dt 32,8-9 et Ps 2,8) sont cités ensemble dans
CC V.29 et 32; HGn IX.3 et HEx VIII.2.
42. Après Origène, Eusèbe de Césarée (DE IV.7-8) reprendra de manière très proche
l'idée que l'incarnation est devenue nécessaire à la suite de ces économies successives.
43. Philocalie 22 (SC 226, 21): La citation empruntée à CC V.25-32 et 35 est introduite
par le kephalaion suivant: «Quelle est la dispersion sur terre des âmes rationnelles ou
humaines révélée d'une manière cachée par la construction de la tour et par la confusion
des langues qui s'y rattache? Où il est aussi question des nombreux seigneurs répartis sur
les dispersés selon leur condition. Extrait du tome 5 du Contre Celse».
44. Sur l'analyse de ce passage du Contre Celse voir FÉDOU, Christianisme et religion
païenne dans le Contre Celse d'Origène (n. 22), pp. 519sq.
45. CC V.26 (pp. 79-81): «Est-ce que Zeus, comme le nommerait Celse, aurait dis-
tribué à une ou plusieurs puissances le peuple des Juifs et leur pays, et voulait-il que celui
qui a obtenu la Judée établisse ces lois en vigueur chez les Juifs? Ou bien cela s'est-il
produit contre sa volonté? Quelle que soit sa réponse, vois combien son raisonnement sera
embarrassé. Et si les parties de la terre n'ont pas été attribuées par un seul être-à leurs
puissances tutélaires, c'est donc que chacune, à l'aventure et indépendamment d'un super-
intendant, s'est attribué au hasard une part de la terre. Mais c'est là dire une absurdité et
proprement nier la Providence du Dieu suprême».
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 813
naître aux Juifs le droit de respecter leur loi qui leur interdit de vénérer
un autre Dieu que le créateur de l'univers46 • À plusieurs reprises déjà,
Origène a utilisé contre Celse cet argument de la providence divine en
s'appuyant sur le fait que son interlocuteur, à la différence des épicuriens,
est lui aussi un ardent défenseur de la providence47 . Or la doctrine de
Celse, non seulement met en péril cette providence, mais conduit au rela-
tivisme. Si la rectitude d'une loi repose uniquement sur le fait d'être
agréée par la puissance tutélaire du lieu, la piété qui consiste à respecter
cette loi relèvera non plus de la nature (<\>6<nn), mais de la pure conven-
tion (Sscnn), autrement dit elle ne sera plus universelle, mais relative48 .
D'après lui la piété serait divine non point par nature mais par convention
et opinion; car c'est pour les uns un acte de piété d'honorer le crocodile et
de manger des animaux adorés par d'autres tribus ( ... ) Et ainsi les actions
d'un même individu seraient piété d'après telles lois, impiété d'après telles
autres: ce qui est le comble de l'absurdité49 •
Pour échapper à cette absurdité, Origène propose de distinguer deux
types de lois: «l'une est la loi de la nature, dont on peut dire que Dieu
est l'auteur; l'autre, la loi écrite des cités»50. À paltir du moment où les
lois nationales, établies par convention ne contredisent pas la loi univer-
selle de la nature qui a Dieu pour origine, elles peuvent être conservées.
Mais en cas d'opposition, c'est la loi de la nature qui doit l'emporter et
il peut être pieux d'enfreindre certaines lois de cités ou celtaines pra-
tiques religieuses.
Ces deux premiers types de réponse (sur la providence et l'universalité des
lois), qui relèvent du sens commun, pounaient suffire, mais Origène estime
utile d'aller plus loin pour les esprits plus critiques qui liront son traité.
Je cours donc le risque de proposer des éléments de spéculation plus pro-
fonde, renfennant une théorie mystique et secrète sur l'attribution dès l'ori-
gine à différentes puissances tutélaires des différentes régions de la tene51 •
46. CC V.27 (pp. 81-83).
47. CC I.57; IV.99; VII.68. En CC N.4 (p. 197) Origène fait explicitement allusion
à la thèse opposée des épicuriens.
48. CC V.28 (pp. 83-85): «Vois-tu si ce n'est pas faire preuve d'une grande confusion
sur la justice, la piété et la religion, que de ne pas les définir ni leur assigner une nature
propre permettant de caractériser comme des hommes religieux ceux qui leur conforment
leur conduite. Si vraiment la religion, la piété, la justice sont choses si relatives ('trov 1tp6C;
n scr'tlv) que la même attitude soit pieuse ou impie suivant la diversité des conditions et
des lois, ne s'ensuit-il pas que la tempérance aussi est relative, de même que le courage,
la prudence, la science et les autres vertus: rien ne pourrait être plus absurde».
49. CC V.27 (p. 83).
50. CC V.37 (p. 111).
51. CC V.28 (p. 85).
814 M.-O. BOULNOIS
On voit donc que la question du partage des régions du monde relève
d'un enseignement ésotérique.
2. Le partage des régions terrestres
L'idée d'une répartition des nations entre des êtres protecteurs est
commune aux Grecs et aux chrétiens, de sorte qu'Origène ne s'oppose
pas à Celse sur le fait en lui-même52 . On la trouve en effet dans la légende
de la lutte des dieux au sujet de l'Attique ou dans la division. des nomes
d'Égypte. Mais le désaccord pOlte sur les raisons mystérieuses de ce
pmtage53 . À la méprise de Celse s'oppose la juste explication de Moïse
qui considère cette répmtition au sein d'une vaste histoire de l'humanité,
comme le résultat des mérites ou des démérites de chaque peuple. Le
texte du cantique du Deutéronome 32,8-9 déjà cité dans le livre IV est
à nouveau invoqué avec la précision que cet état de pmtage est la consé-
quence de l'épisode de Babep4. Cette explication est introduite par
Origène comme une «théorie mystique et secrète»55 à laquelle doit
s'appliquer la parole de Tobie 12,7: «Il est bon de cacher le secret du
roi»56. L'épisode de Babel même «s'il comporte une celtaine vérité his-
torique manifeste en outre un sens caché»57. Cette insistance sur la signi-
fication secrète de ce récit contraste avec la position de Celse qui, bien
auparavant, avait évoqué l'histoire de la tour en niant qu'elle «contienne
aucune signification cachée»58. Il s'agissait pour Celse de prouver que la
52. Voir déjà CC 1.24 (p. 139), lui aussi conservé par la Philocalie 17, où Origène
explique l'origine des noms divins et leur puissance: «Et on trouverait de même que les
noms des démons terrestres qui ont en partage des régions différentes sont prononcés de
la façon qui convient au dialecte du lieu et du peuple».
53. CC V.29 (p. 85): «Celse me paraît donc s'être mépris sur quelques-unes des rai-
sons mystérieuses du pat1age des régions terrestres».
54. Dt 32,8-9 et Gn 11 sont également expliqués comme complémentaires par Origène en
HNm XI.4.4 (SC 442, 41): «Et quand nous lisons ce passage de la Genèse où Dieu s'adresse,
nul n'en peut douter, aux anges et leur dit: 'Venez, confondons leurs langues' (Gn 11,7), ne
sommes-nous pas en droit de penser que ce sont des anges différents qui ont fait régner chez
les hommes des langues, et des idiomes différents? Ainsi, par exemple, un ange, alors, aura
inspiré à un homme, la langue babylonienne, un autre ange à un autre homme l'égyptienne, à
un autre la grecque; alors chez ces peuples divers, ceux-là mêmes qui passaient pour avoir
inventé les langues et les idiomes auront sans doute été mis à leur tête. Mais la langue primi-
tive, l'hébreu, pensons-nous, transmise par Adam, continua à être pratiquée dans cette partie
de l'humanité qui n'est devenue la portion d'aucun ange ni d'aucun prince, mais qui est restée
'la portion de Dieu' (cf. Dt 32,9»>. Voir aussi CIo XIll.330-331 (SC 222, 215-217).
55. CC V.28 (p. 85).
56. CC V.29 (p. 89).
57. CC V.31 (p. 91). Voir aussi Eusèbe de Césarée, DE IV.7, 1 qui considère la répar-
tition des nations entre des anges selon Dt 32,8-9 comme «le plus grand des mystères».
58. CC IV.21 (p. 233).
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 815
Bible se contente de plagier les légendes grecques, en l'occurrence celle
des Aloïdes 59 . Pour le réfuter Origène lui oppose une argumentation chro-
nologique démontrant l'antériorité de Moïse, il soutient la véracité des
récits bibliques en se fondant sur la réalisation des prophéties, enfin il
revendique le droit d'y voir une signification cachée. Dans notre passage,
il en vient même à retourner l'accusation de plagiat contre Celse: «Cette
histoire doit être présentée par nous avec un sens caché pour établir les
vérités défOlmées par ceux qui ont dit: les différentes parties de la terre
ont été dès l'origine attribuées à différentes puissances tutélaires et répar-
ties en autant de gouvernements; et c'est la manière dont elles sont admi-
nistrées. C'est à eux que Celse a emprunté les paroles citées»60. Ainsi la
thèse défendue par Celse contient-elle une part de vérité puisqu'elle est
empruntée au récit biblique, mais Celse s'est mépris sur les raisons pro-
fondes de cette dispersion, du fait qu'il s'en est tenu à son sens historique
sans en découvrir le contenu mystique.
Si le Très Haut a divisé les nations et les a confiées à des anges, c'est
à cause de leur péché que raconte l'histoire de Babel. À l'origine tous
n'usaient que d'une seule langue et habitaient près de l'Orient, qui sym-
bolise Dieu, mais du jour où, par orgueil, celtains se sont «déplacés du
Levant» cherchant par l'édification de la tour à conspirer contre Dieu61 ,
ils ont été livrés à des anges plus ou moins sévères et dispersés dans des
régions plus ou moins inhospitalières en fonction de leurs péchés62 . Cet
état de démembrement n'est cependant pas définitif, puisque Dieu a
accédé à la demande de son Fils de reprendre les nations dans son héri-
tage. L'unité originelle brisée par l'éloignement des nations est donc
59. CC IV.21 (p. 233): «Moïse qui a raconté l'histoire de la tour et de la confusion
des langues a démarqué pour ce récit la légende des Aloïdes». De la même manière
l'histoire de Sodome et Gomorrhe détruites par le feu est à rapprocher du mythe de
Phaeton et le récit de la Genèse aurait pour source Hésiode (IV.36). Julien procède lui
aussi à ces rapprochements, mais son but est différent: il ne s'agit plus tant de prouver
l'antériorité et donc la supériorité des mythes grecs, mais d'assimiler la Bible à de la
mythologie. Philon d'Alexandrie avait déjà dû répondre à ce type d'assimilation dans De
confllsione 2. Ce traité a pour but de réfuter l'assimilation des récits bibliques aux mythes
païens qui avait été réalisée par des écrivains comme Abydenos, selon Eusèbe PE
IX.14.12.
60. CC V.32 (p. 95). Le retournement de l'accusation de plagiat se retrouve chez
Eusèbe de Césarée, PE XI.26.8 (SC 292, 177). Après avoir cité Platon, Lois X.906a2-7:
«Nous sommes les possessions des dieux et des démons», Eusèbe commente: «D'ailleurs
Platon semble paraphraser directement l'oracle de Moïse qui dit: 'Lorsque le Très Haut
pat1ageait les nations, quand il dispersait les fils d'Adam, il fixa les frontières des nations
d'après le nombre des anges de Dieu' (Dt 32,8); et c'est par là qu'il a défini le geme
humain tout entier 'possession des dieux et des démons'».
61. À comparer avec Philon, De confllsione 144 où l'épisode de Babel est mis en rap-
port avec le polythéisme et l'impiété des hommes à l'égard du Dieu unique.
62. CC V.30 (p. 91).
816 M.-O. BOULNOIS
recréée dans l'unité de l'Église. Cette doctrine se caractérise donc par le
fait qu'elle s'inscrit dans une histoire marquée par plusieurs retourne-
ments successifs, ce qui contraste avec l'immuabilité du système défendu
par Celse. Au particularisme intangible des peuples et à la valorisation
de la diversité qui aboutit à un relativisme moral, Origène oppose le
nouveau régime chrétien de l'universalisme et de la loi de la nature qui
n'est autre que celle de Dieu63 . Autrement dit, toutes les lois ne se valent
pas, mais elles sont plus ou moins justes selon que les peuples sont plus
ou moins proches de Dieu.
L'écart d'Origène par rapport à Celse concerne aussi l'identification
et le rôle des puissances tutélaires. Pour Origène, ces êtres ne sont ni des
démons ni des dieux, même si l'Écriture les nomme patfois ainsi, mais
ce sont des anges 64 qui reçoivent de Dieu la charge de dispenser aux
hommes ses faveurs, à chacun suivant son mérité5 • Leur fonction est de
châtier les audaces de ceux qui se sont éloignés du vrai Dieu et de
conduire les nations dans la région qu'elles méritent66 . Comme il le
montre dans le Traité des Principes, ce sont aussi les anges qui ont donné
aux nations les parcelles de vérité que contiennent leurs différentes reli-
gions 67 . Ainsi les nations ont-elles reçu en partage, selon Dt 4,19, le
soleil, la lune et les astres pour leur permettre d'accéder par leur contem-
plation à la connaissance du créateur, ce qui n'est pas le cas d'Israël qui,
lui, est la part choisie de Dieu68 . Il semble donc que les anges des nations
soient des anges de Dieu pourvus d'une fonction pédagogique. Ainsi
Origène déclare-t-il dans une Homélie sur Luc: «Il n'est pas juste ... de
croire que seuls de mauvais anges président aux destinées de chaque
province et que ces mêmes provinces et régions n'ont pas aussi de bons
anges pour les diriger»69. Néanmoins comme ce texte le laisse ~ntendre,
il y a aussi de mauvais anges, qu'Origène identifie souvent avec les
«princes» dont parle l'Écriture: eux se sont arrogés la possession des
nations et les empêchent d'accéder à une vraie connaissance de Dieu70 .
63. CC VAO (p. 121).
64. CC VIII.31 (p. 243): ce ne sont pas des démons, VIII.34 (p. 249): ce sont des
anges.
65. CC VA (p. 21).
66. CC V.30 (p. 91).
67. Prin III.32.
68. CC V.lO (pp. 35-37); CIo II.3.25-27 (SC 120 bis, 229). Le rôle du culte des astres,
comme un moindre mal par rapport à l'idolâtrie, est déjà présent chez Clément d'Alexandrie,
Stromate VLXN.11O, 4 et sera repris par Eusèbe de Césarée, DE N.7-8.
69. HLc XIIA (SC 87, 201-203).
70. HLc XXXV.6. Voir aussi HIer V.2 (SC 232, 283) où Origène déclare que les
nations appartenaient «aux démons, aux puissances adverses». Dans l'HNm XIA.3 (SC
442,39): Origène soutient qu'il y a de bons et de mauvais anges des nations: «Or il y a,
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 817
Néanmoins la distinction ne paraît pas toujours aussi tranchée. Dans le
Contre Celse, après avoir décrit la répartition des nations entre des anges,
Origène signale que par la suite le Sauveur à dû arracher les hommes aux
chefs des nations pour les réintégrer à son héritage71 • Cela semble laisser
entendre que ces anges n'étaient pas totalement au service de Dieu et
n'étaient pas disposés à lui rendre les nations qui leur avaient été confiées.
3. L'élection d'Israël
Justifier le choix du peuple hébreu par Dieu est le troisième enjeu de
la réfutation de Celse qui refusait à cette nation toute supériorité72 • La
situation de ce peuple qui a conservé la langue originelle, à savoir l 'hé-
breu73 , est symétrique de celle des nations, et l'inégalité de leurs condi-
tions respectives résulte non d'une décision arbitraire mais de l'utilisation
inverse de leur libre arbitre vis-à-vis de Dieu. Expliquant le sens de
l'expression «tirage au sort» dans une de ses Homélies sur Josué,
Origène cite le passage du Deutéronome pour établir que le partage
des nations suivant le nombre des anges de Dieu et le statut particulier
je pense, certains noms de peuples ou de rois que nous lisons dans les Ecritures qui se
rapportent sans aucun doute à de mauvais anges ou à des puissances adverses, ( ... ) Eh
bien! nous devons semblablement rapporter à de bons anges et à des puissances bienveil-
lantes ce qui est dit des saints et de la nations sainte».
71. CC V.32 (p. 97). À cause de la difficulté de la question, Origène laisse ouverte
l'hypothèse que Dieu aurait préposé de mauvais démons, ou bien que ceux-ci se seraient
organisés. Voir CC VII.70 (SC 150, 177): «li a beau dire encore qu'on trouve préposé à
chaque office, ayant obtenu la puissance du Dieu très grand, un être jugé digne d'une tâche
quelconque. Il faudrait une science bien profonde pour pouvoir résoudre cette question: à
la manière des bourreaux dans les cités et des hommes préposés aux fonctions cruelles
mais nécessaires dans les Etats, les mauvais démons sont-ils préposés à certains offices
par le Logos de Dieu qui gouverne l'univers, ou à la manière de ces brigands qui, dans
les lieux déserts, établissent un chef pour les commander, les démons organisés pour ainsi
dire en cohortes dans les diverses régions de la terre, se sont-ils donnés un chef qui fût
leur guide dans les entreprises qu'ils ont décidées pour voler et rançonner les âmes
humaines?» cf. A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Angelo delle nazioni, dans Origene. Dizionario,
Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, pp. 13-15: qui montre que la malveillance de ces êtres peut
résulter du fait qu'ils ne savent pas ou n'acceptent pas le caractère provisoire de l'ordre
sanctionné par Dt 32,8. Les sagesses que ces princes de ce monde essaient d'inculquer aux
hommes sont introduites non par dessein de blesser l'homme, mais par erreur, parce qu'ils
croient leurs doctrines vraies.
72. Pour réfuter l'objection de Celse, Origène donne un exemple historique de la pro-
tection divine dont a joui le peuple juif sous Alexandre de Macédoine. CC V.50 (p. 143):
«lis n'ont rien souffert de sa part, bien que certaines conventions et serments les aient
empêchés de prendre les armes contre Darius». Peut-être en réponse à cet argument,
Julien, dans le fr. 49 (Cl VI.37: 820D), reviendra comme Celse sur les malheurs subis par
le peuple juif tout au long de son histoire, en énumérant toutes les périodes de son escla-
vage ou de sa vie d'immigré.
73. CC V.31 (p. 93); HNm XIAA (SC 442, p. 41).
818 M.-O. BOULNOIS
d'Israël ne relève pas d'un simple effet du hasard, mais résulte des juge-
ments secrets de Dieu en fonction des mérites de chacun74 . Dans le
Contre Celse, il explique que si certains ont mérité d'être appelés la part
d'héritage de Dieu, toujours selon le texte de Dt 32,9, au lieu d'être
comme les nations confiées à des anges, c'est parce qu'au moins dans un
premier temps ils n'ont pas cédé à l'idolâtrie et au polythéisme75 .
Contre Celse, qui dénie toute prééminence au peuple juif et pour qui
ses lois n'ont pas plus de valeur que celles des autres peuples, Origène
soutient que la supériorité des préceptes juifs vient de ce que leur origine
n'est pas humaine mais divine. «Si donc les Juifs doivent garder jalou-
sement leurs propres lois, ce n'est pas en vertu des mêmes principes que
les autres peuples. Ils mériteraient le blâme et le reproche d'être insen-
sibles à la supériorité de leurs lois, s'ils croyaient qu'elles ont été écrites
de la même manière que les lois des autres peuples. Et, en dépit de Celse,
les Juifs ont une sagesse plus profonde non seulement que celle de la
foule, mais que celle des hommes qui passent pour philosophes, car les
philosophes, après leurs sublimes raisonnements philosophiques
s'abaissent jusqu'aux idoles et aux démons, tandis que même le dernier
des Juifs attache son regard au seul Dieu suprême» 76. On peut se deman-
der si une telle insistance sur la supériorité de la loi juive n'est pas à
l'origine des remarques sarcastiques de Julien contre la loi prétendument
admirable du Décalogue, alors que la plupart de ses préceptes ne relèvent
selon lui que du sens commun77 •
Cette élection particulière a cependant subi un drame qui est à l'origine
de la réintégration des nations 78 . Origène articule étroitement le SOli du
peuple juif et celui des nations et relit le texte du Dt 32,8-9 à la lumière
de l'analyse paulinienne de l'épître aux Romains 9-11, comme pn le voit
dans son Commentaire SUI' l'épître aux Romains ou ses Homélies sur
Jérémie79 • Cette clé herméneutique, bien qu'elle ne soit pas citée dans le
Contre Celse, est pourtant à l'arrière-plan de toute son analyse du chassé-
croisé entre l'élection du premier peuple et l'appel des seconds. S'étant
74. Hlos 23.3 (SC 71, 459).
75. CC VA2 (p. 125).
76. CC VA3 (p. 127).
77. Fr. 29 (Cl V.2: 733AB): «Elle est admirable la loi de Moïse, ce fameux Déca-
logue: 'Tu ne voleras pas, tu ne tueras pas, tu ne porteras pas de faux témoignage'. ( ... )
Quelle est la nation, au nom des dieux, qui, - mis à part le 'tu n'adoreras pas d'autres
dieux' et le 'fais mémoire du Sabbat'- n'estime pas qu'il faut garder les autres comman-
dements?».
78. M. FÉDou, Le drame d'Israël et des nations: Un mystère caché. Lecture de Rm
9-11 par Origène, dans L'exégèse patristique de Romains 9-11: Grâce et liberté. Israël
et nations. Le mystère du Christ, Paris, Médiasèvres, 2007, 13-28.
79. CRm Vrn.8 et HIer V.2 qui cite Rm 11,25 et Dt 32,8-9.
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 819
mis à pécher, leS Juifs ont d'abord subi des châtiments éducateurs, puis
«en proportion des péchés qu'ils commettaient ils ont été abandonnés
aux puissances maîtresses des autres contrées»80. Il y a chez Origène une
articulation subtile entre la part de la liberté humaine d'un côté et le rôle
des chefs des autres nations qui, par jalousie, cherchent à écarter le
peuple choisi de Dieu, puis reçoivent même de Dieu la pelmission de
démembrer cette nation. Une telle inversion par rapport à la situation
initiale a pelmis du même coup que les nations soient arrachées par Dieu
à leurs princes 81 .
La mise en évidence de ces lignes de force dans l'argumentation ori-
génienne peut maintenant nous aider à voir ce que Julien a pu en retenir.
III. JULIEN
Chez Julien la place accordée au rôle des dieux ethnarques dans le
Contre les Galiléens est beaucoup plus importante que la rapide mention
qu'en fait Celse. On peut y voir trois raisons: un intérêt ethnologique,
une nécessité d'ordre théologique et une volonté polémique.
1. Un intérêt ethnologique
Julien est d'abord un passionné d'ethnologie, curiosité qu'il a pu se
forger au cours des nombreux voyages qu'il a effectués du fait de ses
fonctions politiques 82 . Les remarques sur les traits psychologiques natio-
naux foisonnent dans son œuvre83 et, dans le Contre les Galiléens, Julien
en appelle à l'expérience de cette diversité pour conclure qu'elle ne peut
s'expliquer que par la confOlmité de chaque nation à l'essence du dieu
qui l'administre. Puisque le Créateur et Père commun de tous se carac-
térise par la perfection et l'unité, la diversité ne peut lui être imputée:
elle doit nécessairement provenir du caractère spécialisé et partiel des
divinités inférieures chargées de veiller sur les nations 84 . Or autant cette
théorie de la répartition des régions entre des dieux tutélaires a une
longue antériorité chez Platon, Celse et même, plus proche de Julien,
80. CC V.31 (p. 93).
81. Voir aussi HGn IX.3 (SC 7bis, 249-251).
82. BOUFFARTIGUE, L'empereur lulien et la culture de son temps (n. 2), pp. 464sq. ID.,
L'empereur lulien et les barbares: réalisme et illusion, dans Haut Moyen-Age. Culture,
éducation et société. Mélanges Pierre Riché, Nanterre, Éditions Publidix, 1990, 49-58.
83. Voir par exemple Misopogon 18.348bd; 30.359bc.
84. Fr. 21 (CIIV.2: 677C).
820 M.-O. BOULNOIS
chez son maître Jamblique, autant l'insistance sur la correspondance
entre le caractère de la nation et celui du dieu est caractéristique de
Julien. Certes le Critias suggérait, sans la développer, l'idée que les dieux
gouvernent selon leur mentalité propre; quant à Jamblique il s'intéresse
moins à l'explication de la diversité des caractères nationaux qu'à la
justification des différentes procédures sacrificielles suivant le dieu pro-
tecteur de chaque sanctuaire85 . En revanche chez Julien, chaque dieu
semble en quelque sorte imprimer ses traits de caractère sur la nation
dont il a la charge. «Arès administre les nations guerrières, Athéna celles
qui sont guerrières avec sagesse, Hermès celles qui ont plus d'intelli-
gence que d'audace, et dans chaque cas l'essence des dieux qui leur sont
propres détermine le comportement des nations qu'ils administrent. Si
donc ce que nous disons n'est pas confirmé par l'expérience, que notre
doctrine soit tenue pour une fiction à laquelle il est hors de propos de
croire, et félicitations pour la vôtrel Mais si en revanche l'expérience
séculaire confirme ce que nous disons et que rien nulle part ne semble
s'accorder avec vos propos, pourquoi vous obstinez-vous dans une telle
querelle? Que l'on me dise pourquoi les Celtes et les Gelmains sont
hardis, alors que les Grecs et les Romains sont dans l'ensemble doués
pour l'organisation politique et pleins d'humanité mais en même temps
tenaces et bons guerriers, pourquoi les Égyptiens sont fort intelligents et
ingénieux, et les Syriens peu combatifs et jouisseurs mais intelligents,
ardents, légers et sachant apprendre»86. La différence entre les nations
est plus fondamentale que l'unité. Ainsi dans sa lettre 89 où il fixe les
règles de la théologie et du culte telles qu'il entend les faire appliquer par
le clergé païen, il justifie la nécessité de pratiquer l'hospitalité par le fait
que tous les hommes ont une origine commune et sont don<1 parents
(crUyyEVEtÇ). Mais de manière très symptomatique, il glisse aussitôt de
la démonstration de l'unité de la nature humaine vers une description de
la diversité des ethnies. Il soutient ainsi, sans doute contre le modèle
biblique du premier couple, qu'au même moment des hommes sont nés
en différents endroits de la terre et ont formé des lots assignés aux dieux
qui président aux différentes races. «Car si nous provenions d'un seul et
85. Jamblique, Mystères d'Égypte, V.24.234.15-235.5 (CUF E. DES PLACES, 1996):
«Le même enseignement ressort aussi de la division en régions et de l'autorité, particulière
pour chacun des êtres, qui a réparti ces lots plus ou moins grands selon des ordres dif-
férents; évidemment, n'est-ce pas? il est particulièrement indiqué d'offrir en sacrifice aux
dieux qui règnent sur certaines régions les produits de ces terres et aux administrateurs les
biens de leurs administrés; toujours, en effet, les auteurs se complaisent éminemment dans
leurs œuvres, et à ceux qui produisent certaines choses à titre premier, celles-là sont de
même chères au premier chef... ».
86. Fr. 21 (Cl N.2: 677BC).
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 821
même couple, nos lois ne présenteraient vraisemblablement pas une aussi
grande diversité»87. Cette anthropogonie rend ainsi compte du caractère
foncièrement divers des ethnies et leur assure une pérennité immuable88 .
Néanmoins, à côté de l'influence des dieux ethnarques, Julien donne
une deuxième raison concurrente à cette diversité: l'existence de natures
différentes. Par exemple des natures philanthropiques établissent des lois
policées, alors que les natures opposées ont des lois sauvages 89 . On
constate que de manière symptomatique, Julien utilise le même terme,
sous forme adjective et adverbiale OiKsiouç et OlKsiffiÇ d'abord pour
parler de l'apparentement des caractères nationaux au dieu qui adIninistre
la région d'une manière qui lui est propre (OiKsiffiÇ Éam4'», puis pour
décrire des lois que la nature a établies de manière à ce qu'elles lui soient
apparentées (OlKdouç ÉŒmfj)90. Cyrille a d'ailleurs bien senti cette bipo-
larité des causes puisqu'il a distingué ces deux passages dans le décou-
page du texte de Julien. Or ces natures sont tellement contraignantes que
les législateurs ne peuvent que très peu les modifier par leurs lois 91 .
Quant au créateur lui-même, il ne les institue pas sur simple ordonnance,
par hasard, mais en accord avec le climat du pays.
Ce n'est donc pas au hasard qu'il a décrété que les gouvernements des
nations tombent dans la confusion et la disharmonie tout comme il l'avait
fait pour les langues. Ce n'est pas sur simple ordonnance qu'il les a faits,
mais il a aussi constitué notre nature dans la perspective de ce désaccord.
Il fallait en effet que préexiste un fonds de nature différent chez les êtres
qui seraient différents d'une nation à l'autre. En tout cas on observe cela
87. Lettre 89b, 292c, BIDEZ, p. 160,8-12.
88. J. SIRINELLI, lulien et l'histoire de l'humanité, dans Mélanges E. Delebecque, Aix-
en-Provence, Publications de l'Université de Provence, 1983, 363-377, en particulier
p. 368: «Rien ne semble pouvoir modifier la donne originelle de la divinité».
89. Fr. 22 (Cl N.24: 701C). Deux exemples sont donnés de la domination de la
nature: les Scythes connus pour leur inhospitalité (Julien, Lettre 89.291b et Hérodote,
Histoires N.IV.76) ont mal accueilli Anacharsis, alors même qu'il était connu pour l'un
des sept Sages; dans les nations d'Occident on trouve peu de gens aptes aux études,
comme le souligne déjà Aristote, Politique VII.7.1.1327 qui suit la théorie de l'influence
des climats sur les caractères des peuples développée par Hippocrate, Airs, eaux, lieux, 24.
90. Fr. 21: «Chacun des dieux tutélaires administre son lot d'une manière qui lui est
propre 01K6lffiç SUUtiji» et fr. 22: «Pour ce qui est des lois, il est bien évident que la
nature des hommes les a établies en conformité avec elle-même OiKElOUÇ ÉUUtn».
91. Fr. 22 (Cl IV.24: 701C): «Les législateurs ont en effet ajouté peu de choses aux
traits naturels et culturels par leur action éducative. Les Scythes, on le sait, n'ont pas bien
accueilli Anacharsis qui célébrait des rites mystiques; et dans les nations d'Occident on
ne saurait trouver des gens, ou alors en très petit nombre, qui aient été rendus aptes à la
philosophie ou à la géométrie ou à quelque autre étude de ce genre, alors que la domina-
tion de Rome s'y exerce déjà depuis si longtemps. Les individus supérieurement doués
peuvent tout au plus trouver leur bien dans les discours pour le grand public et les presta-
tions rhétoriques, et ils n'ont part à aucune autre science. Tant la nature semble chose
puissante! ».
822 M.-O. BOULNOIS
même dans le physique si l'on prête attention à la grande différence qu'il y
a entre les Germains et les Scythes d'une pait et les Lybiens et les Éthio-
piens d'autre pait: s'agit-il ici d'une simple ordonnance? Le clinlat et le
pays, selon la manière dont il est positionné par rapport aux objets célestes
n'y sont-ils pour rien?92.
De manière plus générale, le créateur n'utilise pas sa toute puissance
pour plier la nature à sa volonté, mais se confOlme plutôt à elle. Il ne
décrète pas au hasard que le feu doit se diriger vers le haut et la terre vers
le bas, mais il existe un accord entre la nature des choses et les comman-
dements divins. Julien reprend ici une critique fréquente des philosophes
contre la doctrine biblique de la toute-puissance divine. «Car il ne suffit
pas de dire: 'Dieu dit et cela fut' (Gn 1,3.6), encore faut-il que les natures
des choses qui viennent à l'existence s'accordent avec les décrets de
Dieu»93. On reconnaît là une objection déjà présente chez Galien contre
la doctrine de Moïse94 et maintes fois développée par Celse ou l'adver-
saire de Macarios de Magnésie à propos de la résurrection des corps: le
créateur ne peut agir contre la nature ni de manière capricieuse, par
simple décret95 .
92. Fr. 26 (CJIV.40: nOD).
93. Fr. 26 (CJIV.40: noC).
94. Galien, De usu partium XI.14: «En effet, il ne suffisait pas seulement de vouloir
que les poils soient tels, et de fait s'il voulait d'une pierre à l'instant faire un homme, cela
ne lui serait pas possible. Et c'est en cela que diffèrent de l'opinion de Moïse notre opin-
ion et celle de Platon et des autres philosophes grecs qui ont abordé correctement les
discours sur la nature. Pour lui (s.e. Moïse), il suffit que le dieu ait voulu omer la matière
et soudain la matière est ornée. Car il pense que tout est possible au dieu, voulût-il de la
cendre faire un cheval ou un bœuf. Pour nous, nous ne jugeons pas ainsi, mai s,nous pré-
tendons que certaines choses sont impossibles à la nature et que dieu loin de pouvoir y
mettre la main, choisit palmi les choses possibles que le meilleur vienne à l'existence».
95. CC V.14 (p. 49): Celse pose des limites à la toute puissance divine en déclarant
que «Dieu ne peut rien faire de honteux et ne veut rien de contraire à la nature». Macarios
de Magnésie, Le Monogénès IV.24a.5-6 et N.2.4 (Richard Goulet, Paris, 2003, ;245):
«Car ce n'est pas en fonction de ce qu'il (le Verbe divin) peut qu'il veut quelque chose
et le réalise; mais, en fonction de la suite ordonnée que conservent les êtres, il garde la
loi du bon ordre. En tout cas, il ne fait pas naviguer sur la terre, même si bien sûr il le
peut, ni à l'inverse labourer et cultiver la mer; il ne fait pas davantage de la vertu un vice,
comme il le peut, ni à l'inverse du vice une vertu, et il ne fera pas que l'homme ait des
ailes ni que les astres soient en bas et la terre en haut». Ce texte est très proche du fr. 26
de Julien (C!IV.40: noC): «Car il ne suffit pas de dire: 'Dieu dit et cela fllt' (Gn 1,3.6),
encore faut-il que les natures des choses qui viennent à l'existence s'accordent avec les
décrets de Dieu. Je vais dire cela plus clairement: est-ce au hasard que Dieu a ordonné
que le feu se dirige vers le haut et la terre vers le bas? Pour que le décret de Dieu
s'accomplisse, ne fallait-il pas que le premier soit léger et la seconde pesante? Ainsi en
va-t-il pareillement pour les autres choses». Voir J. PÉPIN, Celse, Origène, POIphyre sur
la theia dunalllis, dans Dllnamis Ilel platollislllo. Affi dei II Colloqllio Illtel'llaziollale dei
centro di Ricerca sllllleoplatollislIlO, Firenze, Gonnelli, 1996, 33-61.
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 823
Si l'on essaie maintenant de comprendre quel est le rôle des dieux
ethnarques par rapport à l'établissement de ces natures par le créateur, on
se trouve bien embarrassé, comme l'a justement souligné Jean Bouffal'-
tigue96 , car Julien n'articule pas véritablement ces deux causes, physique
et théologique. Mais peut-être que la subsistance de cette cause mythico-
religieuse répond à une nécessité d'ordre théologique et à une visée polé-
mique.
2. Une nécessité d'ordre théologique
Parmi les fragments conservés du Contre les Galiléens, le premier, où
Julien évoque la fonction des dieux ethnarques, cherche immédiatement
à montrer que cette théorie, confirmée par l'expérience, est la seule
capable, non seulement d'expliquer la diversité des nations, mais de lui
trouver une cause providentielle. L'enjeu est même dramatisé pal' Julien:
Si l'on ne trouve aucune raison à cette diversité entre les nations, ou mieux
encore si on attribue cela au hasard, comment croire encore qu'une provi-
dence administre le monde?97.
Ce thème de la providence opposée au hasard revient ensuite comme
un leitmotiv dans les fragments 24 et 26. Il en va finalement du fonde-
ment même du culte divin.
Si ces différences ( ... ) se sont produites sans l'intervention d'une provi-
dence ( ... ), à quoi bon se donner vainement du mal et vouer un culte à celui
qui ne pourvoit à rien? S'il ne se soucie ni des conditions de vie, ni des
caractères ni des manières d'être, ni de la bonne observation des lois, ni du
régime politique, convient-il encore que nous lui rendions honneur? Nulle-
ment98 .
Autrement dit sans l'existence de dieux ethnarques qui expliquent cette
diversité des manières d'être et des lois, il n'y aurait pas de providence
divine, et les hommes n'auraient aucune raison de rendre un culte à Dieu.
Julien s'oppose sur ce point à Strabon qui, critiquant la position provi-
dentialiste de Posidonius, soutient que les caractères particuliers de
chaque race «ne sont pas l'effet de la providence, mais sont plutôt dus
au hasard et à un coup de chance »99. Il est vrai que la profession de foi
96. BOUFFARTIGUE, La diversité des natiolls (n. 12), pp. 119-121.
97. Fr. 21 (C! N.2: 677C).
98. Fr. 24 (C! N.33: 712D).
99. Strabon, Géographie II.3.7 (CUF G. AUJAC, 1969): «Au reste, les distributions
dans ce domaine ne sont pas l'effet d'une providence (BK 1tpovoîac;), pas plus d'ailleurs
que les caractères particuliers à chaque race (at Ka"Cà "Cà Ël}Vl1 oW<popaî), ou les langues
 824 M.-O. BOULNOIS
dans la providence divine est un des éléments importants de la religion
de Julien comme en témoigne sa lettre 89 où il déclare qu'il faut «ensei-
gner au sujet des dieux tout d'abord qu'ils existent, ensuite que leur
providence s'occupe des choses d'ici-bas» 100. Mais on peut aussi se
demander si son insistance à défendre la providence divine n'est pas,
dans le cadre précis de cette argumentation sur les dieux ethnarques, une
réponse au Contre Celse d'Origène. La comparaison laisse app~raître au
moins une grande similitude101. Rappelons qu'Origène avait mis Celse
devant une altemative: soit Zeus est à l'origine de la répartition, soit il
faut attribuer ce partage au hasard, ce qui revient à nier la providence
divine 102. Julien aurait donc pu vouloir retoumer cet argument en mon-
trant que c'est la doctrine mosaïque qui, en ne donnant aucune raison à
cette diversité, conduit précisément à mettre la providence en péril. Outre
la proximité de cet argument sur la providence on peut encore citer l'uti-
lisation polémique de deux passages bibliques qu'Origène avait précisé-
ment cités sur la question du rôle des puissances tutélaires.
3. Visée polémique
Le premier texte est celui de Dt 4,19. Origène l'invoque pour montrer
que le soleil, la lune et les étoiles ont été donnés par Dieu en partage à
toutes les nations qui sont sous le cie1103, alors que le peuple des Hébreux
est la «part choisie» (ÈKÀEK"t6v) de Dieu. Julien y fait une allusion sar-
castique quand il reproche à la doctrine de Moïse de ne parler que du
Dieu qui a élu (ÈKÀÉsua3at) la nation des Hébreux, sans mentionner
aucunement par quels dieux les autres nations sont gouvemées «à moins,
dit Julien, qu'on ne concède ce passage: 'il leur a attribué en partage le
soleil et la lune' (Dt 4,19)>>104. Mais encore une fois, il faut être prudent
car Julien pouvait là encore avoir eu l'idée par lui-même de citer ce pas-
sage.
Mais le rapprochement le plus frappant conceme l'épisode de Babel
auquel Julien consacre un très long exposé polémique pour rejeter l'idée
que la Bible donne dans ce récit une explication satisfaisante de la diver-
sité des nations. Or, comme nous l'avons vu, c'est précisément ce qu'Ori-
diverses; elles sont plutôt dues au hasard et à un coup de chance (Ku1:à È1tl1t1:COcnv KUt
auvwxiuv)>>.
100. Lettre 89b.301a.
101. Cette ressemblance est aussi notée par RrnDWEG, Will! Sioicism and Rlatonism
(n. 3), p. 90.
102. CC V.26 (pp. 79-81).
103. CC V.lO (pp. 35-37).
104. Fr. 19 (Cf III. 37 : 652D).
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECfION D'ISRAËL 825
gène avait longuement proposé dans sa réfutation de Celse. Après avoir
reproché à son adversaire de mettre en péril la providence divine, il avait
prouvé que sa théorie des puissances tutélaires ne rendait pas compte des
raisons mystérieuses de la dispersion, à savoir les mérites et démérites
consécutifs à l'épisode de Babel. Pour Julien, ce récit recèle au contraire
une double tare. li se signale par son caractère mythologique, puisqu'à
des impossibilités physiques comme le nombre incalculable de briques
qu'il faudrait pour atteindre ne serait-ce que les cercles de la lune, il
ajoute encore une conception d'un Dieu bien peu divin, cédant à la peur
et impuissant au point d'être contraint de devoir descendre du ciel pour
se défendre contre les hommes 105. Et surtout il est insatisfaisant comme
récit étiologique puisqu'il ne donne tout au plus qu'une explication de la
diversité des langues et non des caractères des nations, ce qui est beau-
coup plus fondamental aux yeux de Julien. «Moïse a dit comment Dieu
a confondu les langages: la raison d'abord de cette intervention, c'est
qu'il a craint qu'ils ne mènent quelque action contre lui après s'être rendu
le ciel accessible par leur communauté de langue et de sentiment; quant
à la manière dont il a fait cela c'est en descendant du ciel: il ne pouvait
pas, semble-t-il, le faire depuis là-haut s'il ne descendait pas sur la telTe.
Maintenant pour ce qui est des différences de coutumes et d'usages, ni
Moïse ni quelque autre n'a éclairci la question. Pourtant les différences
d'usages et de coutumes politiques qui existent entre les hommes sont
infiniment plus grandes que les différences entre les langages»106.
En réalité, l'existence des dieux ethnarques est même, selon Julien,
inscrite dans le texte biblique. Car, si on lit attentivement Moïse, on
s'aperçoit que lui-même a laissé entendre une partie de la vérité et sait
qu'il existe des divinités multiples à peu près semblables au créateur et
auxquelles ce dernier s'adresse en disant: « Venez, descendons»
(Gn 11,7)107. Ce passage, comme bien d'autres où l'Ancien Testament
105. Fr. 23 (Cf IV.29) et 24 (Cf IV.33). Celse avait lui aussi raillé le caractère
mythologique du récit de Babel mais pour montrer que Moïse avait plagié la légende
grecque, alors que Julien tire de la comparaison des deux mythes la preuve de l'incohérence
des chrétiens qui acceptent l'un des deux et rejettent l'autre alors qu'ils sont semblables.
106. Fr. 24 (Cf IV.33: 712C).
107. Fr. 27 (Cf IVA3: 724C). Notons qu'Origène lui-même, non pas dans le Contre
Celse, mais dans son Homélie sur les Nombres XIA et dans son Commentaire sur fean,
laisse entendre cette interprétation du pluriel biblique, en prenant la précaution de préciser
qu'il s'agit d'une hypothèse en un domaine fort mystérieux. Origène distingue le cas
d'Israël, part de Dieu selon Dt 32,8-9, qui est directement façonné par Dieu, et les autres
nations. Commentaire sur l'évangile de fean XIII.331-333 (SC 222, 217): «Cette théorie
expliquera en détaille texte: 'Faisons l'homme à notre image et à notre ressemblance':
c'est Dieu qui dit cela de tous les hommes et en prenant l'initiative du travail; ce travail
est ensuite effectué, selon les appartenances particulières, par les autres, ceux à qui
826 M.-O. BOULNOIS
parle de la pluralité des dieux, prouve donc, selon Julien, que Moïse était
favorable au polythéisme et que ce sont les chrétiens qui ont falsifié cette
doctrine première J08 . Julien conclut ce long excursus consacré à Babel en
dévoilant la raison pour laquelle il s'est tant étendu sur cette question.
Son but est toujours de mettre en évidence l'infériorité de la doctrine des
Hébreux, mais ici dans le cas précis de l'élection du peuple juif et de son
corollaire, son attachement au monothéisme exclusif. Or là encore c'est
un des points centraux de l'argumentation d'Origène. Étant donné qu'il
y a chez Julien unité entre foi et culture, religion et nation, il était prêt à
accepter toute religion nationale qui puisse s'intégrer au polythéisme.
Vis-à-vis des Juifs, Julien a donc une double attitude. li admire ce peuple
qui adore un dieu national et qui préserve ses traditions. Mais il ne sup-
pOlie pas sa prétention à s'ériger en religion unique, en voulant imposer
que son dieu national soit reconnu comme le Dieu suprême unique. Pour
Julien, le créateur est bien le maître commun de tous, mais il a sous ses
ordres des dieux ethnarques qu'il compare aux lieutenants d'un roi J09 •
s'adressait cet ordre; car c'est à eux que Dieu dit: 'Faisons l'homme', c'est à eux qu'il
dit également, au moment de la confusion des idiomes: 'Allons, descendons, pour con-
fondre là leurs langues' .Mais nous ne prétendons pas prouver ce que nous avançons là,
car de telles théories demandent une vérification approfondie, pour découvrir si elles sont
ou ne sont pas conformes à la réalité. Cependant il ne faut pas non plus mépriser
l'explication que voici: chacun des hommes est la part de quelqu'un d'après le texte:
'Lorsque les Très-Haut répartit les peuples et dispersa les fils d'Adam, il fixa les limites
des peuples d'après le nombre des anges de Dieu; la part du Seigneur, son peuple, ce fut
Jacob, le lot de son héritage Israël' (Dt 32,8-9). Si absolument tout homme est la part de
quelqu'un depuis le jour où Dieu a dispersé les fils d'Adam, chacun des anges peine pour
sa propre part, en administrant ce qui la concerne».
108. Julien fr. 67 (Cl IX: 945C): «Moïse enseignait qu'il y avait un seul et unique
Dieu, mais qu'il avait de nombreux fils qui s'étaient répartis les nations (ëva KCd ~IOVOV
è&iùuO'KE BEOV, ulOùC; &il m'HOU 7WÀÀOÙC; WÙC; KU'tUVElf!Uf!BVOUC; 'tà ëBvr])>>. Julien
trouve dans les Ecritures (Gn 6,2) la preuve que Moïse appelle les anges «des dieux».
Voir aussi fr. 58 (CJ VII.28: 864C) où Julien cite Ex 22,27: «Tu ne maudiras pas les
dieux» pour montrer que Moïse n'était pas hostile au polythéisme. On trouve la même
utilisation d'Ex 22,27 et l'identification des dieux de l'Ancien Testament avec les 'dieux
de l'hellénisme chez l'adversaire de Macarios de Magnésie, Le Monogénès IV.23.1 (Gou-
LET, p. 315) (= HARNACK, p. 78): «Je pourrais te montrer que même la Loi mentionne le
nom très révéré des dieux dans le fait que c'est en manifestant à leur endroit un grand
respect qu'elle interpelle et admoneste celui qui l'écoute: 'Tu n'outrageras pas les dieux
et tu ne diras pas de mal contre le chef de ton peuple' (Ex 22,27)>>.
109. Fr. 28 (Cl IV.46: 728B): «À supposer que le créateur proche du monde soit le
Dieu proclamé par Moïse, nous avons, nous, de meilleures croyances à son sujet, nous qui
le concevons comme le maître commun à tous - tandis que d'autres ethnarques sont au-
dessous de lui comme les lieutenants d'un roi». R. SMITII, lulian's Gods: Religion and
Pldlosophy in the Thought and Action of lulian the Apostate, London - New York, Rout-
ledge, 1995 montre qu'une telle comparaison permet implicitement de justifier théologique-
ment la hiérarchisation de l'empire romain, ce dernier se présentant comme une image du
cosmos strictement hiér[jrchisé des néoplatoniciens. On peut rapprocher cette conception
de la monarchie divine, qui suppose une pluralité de dieux, de l'argument de l'adversaire
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 827
Les dieux ethnarques n'apparaissent plus tant ici comme la source des
différences que comme les garants de cette diversité voulue par le créa-
teur. Une telle hiérarchie permet d'articuler le polythéisme à l'héno-
théisme et interdit toute attitude de jalousie de la part du Dieu suprême,
pour qui l'existence d'autres dieux ne constitue pas un sujet de rivalité,
ce que précisément ne fait pas le Dieu des Hébreux 1JO •
Julien s'oppose ainsi sur plusieurs points à Origène: il refuse de voir
dans Babel une explication satisfaisante de la diversité, il substitue une
conception où les natures différentes priment à une théologie qui fait la
part belle au libre arbitre, enfin il réduit à néant la prétention des Hébreux
à l'élection divine et l'identification de leur Dieu protecteur avec le Dieu
suprême.
IV. CYRILLE D'ALEXANDRIE
Seuls les deux derniers points feront à leur tour l'objet de la réfutation
de Cyrille. li serait ici trop long d'entrer dans le détail de son argumen-
tation, mais nous relèverons SUliout que Cyrille abandonne l'idée d'une
répartition des nations par Dieu entre des puissances tutélaires. À la dif-
férence d'Origène et contrairement à de nombreux Pères des IVe et Ve
siècles 111 , Cyrille ne cite jamais, ni dans le Contre Julien ni dans le reste
de son œuvre, le texte de Dt 32,8 pour évoquer le partage de la terre et
le sort des nations que Dieu aurait confiées à des anges; il ne recoUli qu'à
Dt 32,9 pour évoquer l'élection d'Israël. Par conséquent, l'épisode de
Babel n'est pas non plus mis par lui en relation avec ce partage. Cyrille
est donc loin de reprendre tous les arguments d'Origène. Comment expli-
quer ce choix?
de Macarios de Magnésie, Le Monogénès IV.20.2 (R. GOULET, p. 309). Voir la riche note
de R. Goulet pp. 422-424 sur l'histoire de ce thème.
110. Julien fustige donc l'intolérance judéo-chrétienne qui nie le droit à adorer d'autres
dieux et qui se manifeste de manière paradigmatique dans la formule d'Ex 20,5: «Je suis
un Dieu jaloux» citée et critiquée dans le fr. 20 (Cl III.46: 664B) et de nouveau dans le
fr. 30 (Cl V.6: 737C). Voir M.-O. BoULNOIs, Dieu peut-il être jaloux? Un débat suries
attributs divins entre l'empereur lulien et Cyrille d'Alexandrie, dans Culture classique et
christianisme. Mélanges offerts à lean Bouffartigue (Textes, Histoire et Monuments de
l'Antiquité au Moyen Âge, 8), Paris, Picard, 2008, 13-25.
111. Eusèbe de Césarée reste très proche d'Origène sur l'utilisation de Dt 32,8-9, par
exemple en PE XI.26; DE IV.7-8. Ce cantique du Deutéronome sera ensuite utilisé, tou-
jours en assumant la théorie des anges ethnarques, dans divers contextes théologiques
comme argument pour prouver la divinité de l'Esprit Saint chez Basile de Césarée, Contre
El/nome III.1.657A (SC 305,149); Athanase d'Alexandrie, Lettre à Sérapion 1.26.592 et
Théodoret de Cyr, Questions sur la Genèse, III.6-7.
828 M.-O. BOULNOIS
La doctrine des anges des nations pouvait laisser penser que Dieu se
décharge d'une de ses fonctions sur d'autres êtres. Or, dans le Contre
Julien sa ligne de réfutation consiste à écarter la théorie des intermé-
diaires néoplatoniciens pour soutenir que Dieu agit lui-même directe-
ment. L'essentiel est, pour Cyrille, de prouver, contre la conception poly-
théiste hiérarchisée de Julien, que si Dieu est vraiment bon, il ne peut
avoir confié à d'autres êtres imparfaits le soin de veiller sur ses créatures.
«Puisque dans le Père tout est parfait et que dans les dieux particuliers,
en revanche, ne se trouve que la connaissance d'une chose quelconque
et d'une seule, ne serait-il pas préférable et plus utile pour les nations
d'agir sous la direction de Dieu et de se laisser instruire par lui seul, lui
en qui tout bien atteint sa petfection, plutôt que par d'autres qui ne sont
pas bons en tout, et qui sont compétents pour une chose et une seule, tout
comme ceux qui exercent les métiers artisanaux, disons le forgeron et le
potier?»112. Déjà au moment de la création des hommes, Dieu n'a pas
refusé, par dédain, à ses créatures ce qu'il y a de meilleur, c'est-à-dire le
privilège d'avoir été créées par lui-même (aû"Coupyia)l13. À plus forte
raison, Dieu quia créé lui-même les hommes, ne confie pas à d'autres
inférieurs la charge de les administrer. C'est lui-même qui s'occupe de
tous les hommes et s'il y a bien élection du peuple d'Israël, cela ne signi-
fie pas que pendant cette période spécifique de l'économie, Dieu aban-
donne les autres nations 114 • La diversité des nations n'est donc pas due à
une volonté du créateur, qu'elle ait consisté à confier l'administration de
certaines régions à des divinités imparfaites, ou à créer des natures
humaines différentes, mais cette diversité s'explique uniquement par
112. CIN.7: 685A. Voir M.-O. BOULNOIs,Le Dieu suprême peut-il entrer en contact
avec le monde? Un débat entre païens et chrétiens sur la transcendance divine à partir
du Contre Julien de Cyrille d'Alexandrie, dans La transcendance dans la philosophie
grecque tardive et dans la pensée chrétienne. Actes du VIe congrès de philosophie grecque,
Athènes 22-26 sept. 2004, Paris, Vrin, 2006,177-196.
113. Cl II.37: 593BC. TI est notable que cette critique d'une conception hiérarchisée
de la création dans le Contre lulien soit très proche d'un passage des Dial. Trin. IV.536-
538 où Cyrille réfute la position arienne qui attribue la création au Fils, décrit comme un
instrument, pour préserver la transcendance du Père de toute besogne infâmante.
L'insistance de Cyrille sur l'action directe de Dieu, sans intermédiaire, rejoint UI?- thème
très présent chez Irénée de Lyon qui présente le Fils et l'Esprit comme les mains de Dieu.
Voir par exemple AH N.7.4: «Le Père n'avait pa~, besoin d'anges pour faire le monde,
et il n'était pas davantage dépourvu d'aide pour l'ordonnance des créatures et l' «économie»
des affaires humaines, mais il possédait au contraire un ministère d'une richesse inexpri-
mable, assisté qu'il est pour toutes choses par ceux qui sont tout à la fois sa progépiture
et ses Mains, à savoir le Fils et l'Esprit».
114. M.-O. BOULNOIS, L'élection d'Israël et la grâce offerte à tous: L'exégèse de
Romains 9-Il selon Cyrille d'Alexandrie, dans Adamantius 14 (2008) 266-285.
LA DIVERSITÉ DES NATIONS ET L'ÉLECTION D'ISRAËL 829
l'usage de la liberté 115 • Pour Cyrille, c'est l'unicité qui est première, uni-
cité de la nature humaine et unicité du Dieu créateur et provident.
CONCLUSION
La question de savoir si Julien a pu s'inspirer du Contre Celse d'Ori-
gène pour y puiser des références ou répondre à certains arguments est
difficilement soluble de manière définitive. Néanmoins, nous avons mon-
tré qu'il existe un certain nombre de coïncidences précises sur diverses
citations bibliques présentes dans le texte d'Origène, mais non dans celui
de Celse, et tout particulièrement sur la question de la diversité des
nations. Même si l'argumentation de Julien a des points communs avec
celle de Celse, l'accent est mis non sur la nécessité pour chaque nation
d'être fidèle à ses lois ancestrales, mais sur l'infériorité de la doctrine
mosaïque par rapport à la doctrine grecque. Moïse ne donne aucune
explication de la diversité des caractères nationaux, puisque l'épisode de
Babel ne concerne qu'un aspect secondaire pour Julien, les langues.
Seule la théorie de la répartition des régions entre des divinités tutélaires
permet de prouver que la diversité n'est pas le fruit du hasard et donc de
sauvegarder la providence divine. Enfin Moïse a le tort de confondre le
dieu particulier des Hébreux avec le dieu universel, sans comprendre que
le dieu suprême ne peut s'ilTiter que chaque nation vénère aussi ses
propres divinités tutélaires. Or la défense de la providence, l'explication
par Babel et l'articulation entre le sort des nations et l'élection d'Israël
sont précisément au cœur du passage du Contre Celse qu'Origène
consacre à la diversité des nations.
Indépendamment de cette question des influences, nous touchons là
des points de débat majeurs entre le paganisme et le christianisme: à
l'intérêt ethnographique et empirique pour la diversité s'oppose l'affir-
mation d'une nature humaine unique et d'une loi universelle, voire trans-
cendante; à la valorisation et l'immuabilité des différences s'oppose la
115. CIIV.36: 716BC: «Puisque nous n'avons pas tenu compte de la manière de vivre
qui convient à des hommes et que nous avons renoncé à la forme de gouvernement qui
est la meilleure, la plus conforme aux lois et qui plaît à Dieu, pour les changer bêtement
contre la voie mauvaise et corporelle, -'l'or contre le bronze', pour reprendre l'expression
d'Homère (Wade Z.236) -, puisque, dominés par des plaisirs multiformes nous échouons
à atteindre ce qu'il y a pour nous de plus avantageux, faisant passer l'agrément du moment
avant ce qui est utile, pour cette raison nous avons divergé dans nos caractères et nos
manières d'être, adoptant les uns des manières qui ne sont pas totalement blâmables, les
autres des manières passibles de la pire condamnation».
830 M.-O. BOULNOIS

construction d'une histoire de l'humanité qui va de l'unité petdue à

l'unité retrouvée. Au sein de cette histoire, le statut d'Israël soulève le
problème de l'intégration de la singularité dans l'universel: alors que les THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE APOKATASTASIS IN
païens nivellent cette pruticularité en la considérant comme une parmi DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE 1
d'autres, le christianisme en fait le ressort de l'histoire du salut:

École Pratique des Hautes Études Marie-Odile BOULNOIS It is weIl known that the C01pUS dionysiacum is not so much con-
46 rue de Lille cemed with eschatological items, but rather about the establishment of
F-75007 Paris an ordered kosmos noetos in which evely being holds the place that it has
boulnois.marieodile@gmail.com received according to its "analogy", i. e. the proportion of his capacity
of God2 •
But sometimes, in a few crucial passages, Dionysius introduces sorne
important statements about our future condition. These are DN l, 4, DN
N, 35, and EH VII. But it is also important to take into account what
Dionysius has to say about sorne Divine Names as "redemption" and
"salvation". Moreover, we must not forget that only DN l, 4 (with sorne
hints in few other passages) is a proper eschatological passage, that is,
explicitly making statements on our condition in the eschaton.
The second and the third passage, i. e. the ones which are not directly
concemed about our future condition, are the first to be taken into
account, as they speak of punishment.

1. Two DIONYSIAN PASSAGES ON PuNISHMENT,

AND A COMPARISON WITII ORIGEN

1) In EH VII, III, 6-7 Dionysius writes:

Following the Oracles, l know that each one will receive what he deserves:
'the Lord', it is said, 'has shut the door on him' (2Kings 4,4 and 21,33/Lk
13,25) and 'everyone will receive good or evil, according to what he has
done with the body' (2Cor 5,10) ... The hierarch, who is the interpreter of
the thearchic judgement, would never ask for what ... is not most dear to

1. Dionysius' works will he quoted after Suchla, Ritter and Heil's edition: B.R. SUCHLA-
G. HElL - A.M. RITTER, Corpus DionysiaculIl l (Patristische Texte und Studien, 33),
Berlin - New York, 1990; G. HElL - A.M. Rl'ITER, Corpus DionysiaculIl II (patristisehe
Texte und Studien, 36), Berlin - New York, 1991. The Syriae text is quoted from the
only manuseript whieh preserves it, Sinai St. Catherine syr. 52 (=Sinaitieus syriaeus 52).
Legenda: DN = Divine Names; MT = Mystieal Theology; CH = Celestial Hierarehy;
EH = Eeclesiastical Hierarehy.
2. The most authoritative studies on the topies of order and analogy in Dionysius
remain those of V. LOSSKY, La notion des 'analogies' chez Denys le pseudo-Aréopagite,
in Archives d'Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen-Âge 5 (1931) 279-309, and R.
ROQUES, L'univers dionysien, Paris, 1954.
 832 E.FIORI
God ... Therefore he does not pronounce this prayer for the wicked
because he would not obtain the aim of the impure prayer3 •
It is very meaningful that Dionysius is interpreting here 2Cor 5,10 by
means of a reference, or rather an allusion, to two much more radical
verses, 2Kings 4,4 or 21,33/Lk 13,25. The "propOltion" alluded to by
Paul seems to be understood as a complete exclusion from salvation in
the case of not repentant sinners. In Origen, just to quote an exemplary
case, Paul's verse is quoted in the Commentmy on Matthew, at the
moment of commenting upon Mt 16,27 "he will give everyone according
to his actions". Discussing the time in which Jesus will come in the glory
of the Father with his angels, Origen states that this will happen when
what is written in Paul's verse will be accomplished, that is, when "we
aIl appear before Christ's tribunal, so that everyone will receive the cor-
respondent of what he has done with the body, either good or bad".
Origen interprets these words as conceming the impossibility for men in
general to present themselves perfect before the tribunal of Christ. It is
obvious then that evelyone will receive according not only to his good
actions, but also to the bad ones 4 • This does not mean the complete escha-
tological exclusion of anyone; it rather seems to mean the opposite: on
one hand, eVeIyone must be judged, no one is already beyond the closed
door; on the other, no one is wholly condemnable in every respect. The
same idea is expressed for instance in the second H omily on Luke, which
comments upon Lk 1,65 • But we tum now to DN IV, 35, which will aIlow
3. EH VII, II!, 6;),126.5-128.11: 'Eyro of:, o'tt Ilf:V àllot~utuv ESEt 'ti]v àreoKÂllpCO-
O'lV EKU<HOC;, EÔ oiou 'tOtc; ÂoytolC; àKOÂouB&v. "AreÉKÂEl('E yup, <P11O'tv, 6 KUPtoC;
KU't' UÔ'tou" Kut "KolltO'E'tut EKUO''tOC; 'tà olà 'tou O'roIlU'toC; repoc; li ËrepuSEv, EhE
àyuBOv EhE KUKÔV" ... Oô yàp av 6 lEpUPXTIC; 6 'tilc; BsaPXtKilc; OtKutroO'ECOC;
ùreo<Pll't11C; ÈSn'tEt reo'tf: 'tà Ili] 'tep BEcp repoO'<ptÂÉO''ta'ta ... Llto 'totc; àV1ÉpotC; OÙK
ÈreEuXE'tat 'tau'tU ... o'tt Kat 'tilc; Èvayouc; Eùxilc; àreo'tEuSE'tat.
4. Origen, CMt XII, 30 (GCS XL, p. 135): 'to àreoO''toÂtKov ÈKEtVo reÂ11Pou'tat
Mytov 'to ÂÉyov' "'tOÙC; yàp reuv'tUc; TtIlUC; reapaO''tilvat OEt ËllrepoO'BEV 'tou ~lllla'toc;
wu XptO''tou, ïva Ko~liO'TI'tat EKaO'wc; 'tà otà 'tou O'rollawc; repoc; li ËrepaSEv, EhE
àyaBov EhE <pauÂov"; El of: <BKUO''tCJ) Ka'tà 'ti]v repustv àreooroO'Et>, où 'ttlV àO"tdav
Il ÔV TIV <XCOptc; 'tilc; <PauÂ11C;> àÂÂ' OÙÙf: 'ttlV <PauÂ11V xcopîC; 'tf\c; àO''tdac;, oilÂov o'tt
<BKUO''tCJ) àreooroO'Et Ka'tà> reuO'av <PaUÂ11V Kat <Ka'tà reucrav> àO''tdav <repustv>.
5. Origen, HLc II, 12 (GCS XLIX, p, 12): "~HO'av ÙÈ OtKatot'" <P11O'tv, "àJ.l<PÔ'tEPOt".
Ol BÉÂOV'tEC; O'~vayopEUEtv Bau't&v 'tatc; ullap'ttatc; o'(ov'tUt àouva'tov sIvat reuv'tn
àvalluP'tTI'tov sivat 'ttva, Kat xp&v'tat 'tà wu 'Iro~' "OùoEiC; KaBapoc; àreo pureou".
To of: àvaIlUP'tll'toV OtO'O'&C; vOEÏ'tat' :0 Ilf:V Èv 'tep ll11oÉreo'tE Ttllap'tTIKÉvat, 'to of: Èv
'tep Il11KÉ'tt ullap'tuvEtv. 'EK Ilf:V OÔV 'tou IlTIoÉreo'tE ullap'tilO'at oÙOstc; av E'(l1
àvalluP't11WC;' reuv'tEC; yàp IivBpcoreot reo'tE iîllUpwv, Kat <av> ÜO"tEpOV "'OtKatot"
yÉvcov'tat.
On Origen's esehatology, an essential bibliography must include A. MÉHAT, 'Apoca-
tastase': Origène, Clément d'Alexandrie, Act 3,21, in Vigiliae Christianae 10 (1956)
196-214; H. CORNÉLIS, Les fondements cosmologiques de l'eschatologie d'Origène, in
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE APOKATASTASIS IN DIONYSIUS 833
us to focus our attention on the question of the merits, by means of a
comparison with Origen' s Prin Ill, the section dealing with free will.
Here we willleave aside for a while the question of eschatological pun-
ishment, to make a necessary excursus on protology, because the pres-
ence (in Origen, very likely) or the absence (in Dionysius) of a notion of
ontological pre-existence is strictly related to, and proves decisive for,
the presence or the absence of an apokatastasis too.
2) In DN IV, 35, at the end of his long digression on the metaphysical
insubstantiality of evil, the Areopagite writes:
One could say: 'weakness must not be punished; on the contrary, it must
be forgiven'. If it was impossible to have in oneself the faculty [ofrefusing
evil], this argument would be good; but as the faculty derives from the
Good because It gives to everyone in abundance, according to the Scripture,
what everyone needs, lack, depravity, 10ss and corruption of the particular
goods coming from the Good cannot be approved6 .
This question, and Dionysius' reply, is in fact the same as that which
can be read in Origen, Prin Ill, 1, 21. The starting point of Dionysius'
strong statements against forgiveness in DN IV, 35 is in fact the same
question as Origen asked, though on the base of different premises, in
this passage of Prin, which is the cmcial one for the discussion of the
topic of free will. There the author, having discussed the Pauline state-
ment on our being created as good or bad vases (2Tm 2,20f) introduces
a Pauline quotation from Rm 9,18-20, where an imaginalY interlocutor
asks: "God has mercy of whom he wants, and haI'dens whom he wants.
What should we blame then? Who resists to His (God's) will? 0 man,
who are thou to dispute with God?". As is weIl known, Origen under-
lines pel' absurdum an apparent contradiction in Paul, as he immediately
recalls other passages in which the Apostle blames the bad actions and
Revue de Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 43 (1959) 32-80 and 201-247; the
fundamental volume eolleeting Henri Crouzel's articles on the topie, Les fins demières
selon Origène, Aldershot, 1990; J. Rrus CAMPS, La hipôtesis origeniana sobre el fin ultimo
(peri te/ous), in U. BIANCHI - H. CROUZEL (eds.), Arclzé e Telos: L'antropologia di
Origene e di Gregorio di Nissa. Analisi storico-religiosa. Affi deI colloquio di Milano,
17-19 maggio 1979, Milano, 1981, 58-121; C.E. RABINOWITZ, Personal and Cosmic
Salvation in Origen, in Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984) 313-329. More reeently, see
P. TZAMALIKos, Origen: Philosophy of History and ESc/latology (Supplements to Vigiliae
Christianae, 85), Leiden - Boston, MA, 2007.
6. DN IV, 35, 179.14-18: Kahot <put11 'tiC;' Où 'tIIlCOP11'toV Tt àO'SÉVEta, 'toùvav'ttov
of: O'uyyvcoO''tôv. Et Ilf:V OÙK Èsilv 'to ouvaO'But, KaÂ&c; av stXEV 6 ÂÔyoc;. Et of: ÈK
'tàyuBou 'to ouvaO'Bat 'tou OtÙÔv'tOC; KU'tà 'tà ÂÔyta 'tà repoO'~KoV'tU reuO'tV ureÂ&c;, OÙK
ÈreUtvE'tov Tt 'tilc; ÈK 'tàyaBou 't&v OiKslCOV àyaB&v ESECOC; ullap'tta Kat reapa'tporetl
Kat ànoqmytl Kat àreôre'tcoO'tc;.
834 E.FIORI
praises the good ones? In fact, to solve this contradiction Origen makes
reference to the controversial doctrine of the previous merits of the souls.
It is the existence of these previous merits which allows Origen in Prin
to hold together the Pauline statements about the good or bad v~ses, and
those affirming a free will: that is, in general, to keep together God's
justice and the difference in status between the beings in this world,
against the Gnostics. It is the famous question of the soul' s pre-existence:
1 willlimit myself to recall sorne elements, which will prove important
for the following developments of this paper. In a famous contribution,
Marguerite HarI admitted that in his Prin Origen was actually referring
to sorne sort of pre-existenceS; but she focused her attention on the way
this pre-existence is to be understood, and reminded that in fact Origen's
main concern in Prin III was to refute the Gnostic statement of an onto-
logical determinism, according to which it is by nature that every being
is as it is, either good or bad: every being is fixed to its original condi-
tion. Although Origen accepts the Gnostic classification of the cosmic
differences, he rejects the thesis of an absence of free will in rational
beings: theh' different conditions are the result of a previous free move-
ment of the souls, who were equal at the beginning; and this movement
was previous to theiI' birth. But this raises another more impOltant ques-
tion: these previous merits, what are they previous to? What does "pre-
vious to bhth" mean, since Origen repels the concept of metempsycho-
sis9 ? Is this previousness to be understood as an ontological one? ln the
particular case of Prin, the topic seems to be faced in a way leading to
results more similar to the later anti-Origenistic literature's charges (and
in effect HarI stated that this literature read Origen's treatise in'too uni-
lateral a way): God created a people of equal contemplating souls, made
from the same physis; but they fell from this condition, and were respon-
sible for that because of theiI' free will; in consequence of their "different
faIls" 10, a re-education of the souls was demanded by me ans of a second
bodily creation. For Marguerite HarI, we must consider the palticular
7. Origen, Pril/ ru, 1,21.22 (GCS XXII, pp. 237-240).
8. M. HARL, La préexistel/ce des âmes dal/s l'œuvre d'Origèl/e, in L. LIES (ed.),
Origel/ial/a Quarta (hmsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck, 1987,238-258.
9. Cf. P. NEMESHEGYI, La patemité de Dieu chez Origèl/e (Bibliothèque de théologie.
Série IV: Histoire de la théologie, 2), Paris - Tournai, 1960; G. BosTOcK,Origel/ al/d
Reil/camatiol/, in The Christial/ Parapsychologist 4 (1981) 113-115; C. SCHONBORN,
Quelques I/otes sllr l'attitude de la théologie paléochrétiel/I/e face à la Réil/ca;'l/atiol/, in
C.A. KELLER (ed.), La Réil/camatiol/: Théories, raisonl/emel/ts et appréciations. UI/ sym-
posium, Bern, 1986, 159-180; U. BIANCHI, Origen 's Treatmel/t of the Soul al/d the Debate
over Metensomatosis, in LIES (ed.); Origel/ial/a Quarta (n. 4), 270-281.
10. Cf. Pril/ Il,3, 1 (GCS XXII, p. 114): "lapsus ... varius intellectualium naturarum".
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE APOKATASTASIS IN DIONYSmS 835
context in which Origen sets his explanation: since in Prin he aims at a
refutation of a form of ontological determinism, this would be why he
faced the question with a metaphysicallanguage; but in other contexts,
it would be evident that he does not conceive his pre-existence as an
ontological doctrine: quite the opposite, the latter would not be found
anywhere else in Origen. With the only exception of Prin, pre-existence
would actually and simply be nothing more than the divine pre-science
of a being's existence; having found that in other treatises Origen con-
ceives the pre-existence as divine pre-science, HarI wants to impose the
latter solution on Prin, by stating that here Origen had maintained the
doctrine of the previous merits in a wholly theoretical and allusive way,
just to reply to the Gnostics: had he put forward a theory of divine pre-
science in more explicit a way, he would have offered to his enemies an
argument which could have been declinable in a detelministic sense ll .
The opposite point of view can be weIl represented for instance by
three entries written for the Italian Dizionario Origene by Emanuela Prin-
zivaIli and Giulia Sfameni Gaspall'o; the latter resumes sorne conclusions
drawn in her previous articles on these topics 12 • She tackles the question
by reassessing the doctrine of a metaphysical pre-existence. She is sure
that "it does not seem possible to assent to these [sci!. HarI's] conclu-
sions without altering the meaning of Origen's grand interpretative
scheme" 13. In her entry on pre-existence then, as weIl as in the one on
creation, she asserts that in Origen creation would have actually been
accomplished in two metaphysically distinct moments. Pre-existence
would not be a contingent question of language, limited to Prin: it would
be the underlying metaphysical stmcture of Origen's thought.
These contrasting perspectives somehow anticipate the contrast we are
going to study between 6th century "Origenism" and Dionysius: if we
were to read Origen's pre-existence as HarI does, Origen would be much
11. HARL, La préexistellce (n. 8), p. 251: "Dans le Traité des principes, Origène ne
pouvait insister sur l'élection divine, car cela offrait un argument aux gnostiques pour
soutenir le déterminisme des natures ... ; il ébauche alors le thème de fautes commises
antérieurement à la naissance, de façon qui reste allusive et théorique".
12. A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origelle. Diziol/ario: La cultura, il pel/siero, le opere,
Roma, 2000, entries Apocatastasi (PRINZIVALLI), 24-29; Creazione and Preesistellza
(SFAMENI GASPARRO), 98-102 and 359-363. Sfameni's previous articles are G. SFAMENI
GASPARRO, Doppia creazione e peccato di Adamo lIel 'Peri Archon': FOl/damel/ti biblici
e presllpposti platollici dell'esegesi origellialla, in H. CROUZEL (ed.), Origellial/a Seclillda
(Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum, 15), Roma, 1980,57-67; and G. SFAMENI GASPARRO,
Restauraziolle dell'immagl/e dei celeste e abbal/dol/o dell'immagine dei terrestre I/ella
prospettiva origel/ial/a della doppia creaziol/e, in BIANCIll- CROUZEL (eds.), Arché e Telos
(n. 5), 231-273.
13. SFAMENI GASPARRO, Preesistel/za (n. 12), p. 360.
 836 E.FIORl
more similar to Dionysius than the so-called "Origenism" was; if things
go as Gaspano states, Origen would actually be the author of the doctrine
whose developments were laid to the Origenists' charge.
II. THE POLEMICAL GOAL: STEPHEN BAR SUDAILI AND
THE BOOK OF THE HOLY HIEROTHEUS
As to Origen himself, solving this question remains beyond our facul-
ties. We can orny suggest that he cannot be compelled by modem scholars
to maintain a consistent theoretical position; rather, he likely experimented,
as Hemi Crouzel already stated l 4, different ways and philosophical lan-
guages to solve the problems he tackled, and particularly a thomy one like
the question of free will. Crouzel suggested that Origen's theology would
be "théologie 'en exeroice', gymnastike ... qui lance des hypothèses, dis-
cute entre plusieurs solutions, souvent sans conc1ure"15. But his adversaries
in the 4 th and 6th centuries read him with the filter, on the one hand, of a
"notion monolithique de l'orthodoxie ... sans aucune idée de développe-
ment du dogme"16 and on the other hand, of a contemporary "Origenism"
which' had actually brought to their extreme consequences what in Origen
would have been simply heuristic hypothesis. It is rather Origen's succes-
sors, then, who in the following centuries would take orny one of these
different ways, and remain more dogmatically consistent with that. This is
probably why both Dionysius and the 6th centuly "Origenism", as we have
just seen, seem somehow to be indebted to Origen.
The idea of a metaphysical pre-existence, be it actually already present
in Origen or not, is surely present in the doctrine represented by a later
Origenist text, the Book of the Holy Hierotheus; this text, less known
than it would deserve to be, probably written in the second quarter of the
6 th century, has always been attributed to the Origenist monk Stephen bar
Sudaili by a long Western Syrian tradition 1? It cannot be stated with
abs6lute certainty whether the whole body of the Book was actually writ-
ten by him; it is true that the doctrines which are expressed in it are
'14. H. CROUZEL, L'apocatastase chez Origène, in LIES (ed.), Origeniana Quarta (n. 4),
282-290, repr. in H. CROUZEL, Les fins demières (n. 5), as number XII.
; 15. Ibid., p. 283.
16. Ibid.
·17. See A. FROTIllNGHAM, Stephen bar Sudhaili the Syriac Mystic (c.500 A.D.) and the
JBook of Hierotheos on the Hidden Treasllre of Divinity, Leiden, 1886, 63-68; the oruy
:'ôther monograph devoted to the Book of Hierotheos is the recent and excellent K. PlNGGÉRA,
/A:lI-ErlOsung und All-Einheit. Studiell zum ,Buch des Heiligell Hierotlzeos' ulld seiller
FRezeption ill der syrisch-ortlzodoxen Theologie, Wiesbaden, 2002.
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THEAPOKATASTASIS IN DIONYSIUS 837
coherent with the charges Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523) laid against
Stephen 18 . These doctrines were contemporary to Dionysius and of
extreme importance for understanding his agenda.
Ontological pre-existence is c1early exc1uded by Dionysius: he too
maintains of course the existence of free will in man (we can mention
one of the c1earest passages, CH 9: "our life was not imposed on us by
necessity, nor are the divine lights of the providential illumination
obscured by free will"); nevertheless, he does not so by explaining it
within the frame of any SOIt of pre-existence nor, far from it, by me ans
of a double-deck structure of creation; he do es so by drawing a system
in which everyone is created free, but most of alt is created good at the
beginning, once and definitely, in the only creation that Gad seems ta
have everproduced. Now, we will see that, on the contrary, in Hierotheus
a creature is created free and good since the beginning, too, but the
"bereshit" is not the beginning of our world: or, to put it better, it is the
beginning of our world, but not of our present condition, for something
has intervened in the meantime, a sort of sharp cut because of which
a creature is not necessarily good in the present age. Dionysius, on the
basis of his Proc1usian (and in general Neoplatonic) metaphysical con-
ception of the ontological insubstantiality of evil, conceives any creature
as necessarily good from an ontological standpoint, at the beginning as
weIl as now: it is impossible, then, to forgive the creature' s eventual
depravity. The deep difference between these two doctrines depends on
different protological models; and the latter difference is due to the pecu-
liarity of the ontological foundations of Dionysius' system. The peculiar
choice of explaining the problem of evil in the fOUlth book of DN by
means of a sort of loan-treatise taken from Proclus, in order to answer
the question on pUl-ely ontological grounds, is then not to be understood
as directly addressed against Origen himself, but rather against the doc-
trine which is represented in "Hierotheus" (of course not against the
Book of Hierotheus, which is posterior to Dionysius). Here we read about
the pre-existence to the present age of a unique, good ousia of aIl, which
has decayed from its perfection but will be reconstituted at the end .of
time precisely by virtue of the ontologie al affinity which unites every
being; differences have not been ereated by the Good and will be abol-
ished by the reconstitution of the Absolute Good. Let us read the expla-
nation given by "Hierotheus" in I, 5-9 passim:
18. Philoxenus' letter against Stephen is edited and translated in FRoTHINGHAM,
Stephell (n. 7), pp. 28-48. For philological and translation remarks, see T. JANSMA, Phllo-
xellus' Letter ta Abraham and Orestes cOllcerning Stephen bar Sudaili, in Le Muséon87
(1974) 79-86.

838 E. FIORI
the W ord conceming the Good has shown that the Good is in no wise con-
senting to make anything not the same ... ; but that distinction exists, we
may know from the distinct orders of the divine Beings 19 •
What is introduced here is precisely the concept of hierarchy in the
Dionysian sense, for it is evident that, on this point as well as for other
aspects, Hierotheos depends on Dionysius; everything wasthe same at
the beginning, so that "one essence of rational Beings there was found,
which, straightaway, when it had received knowledge, kept not its order,
nor remained in its measure,,20. There was a fall from the original same-
ness, in which every being was part of the univers al essence;
[this al/sia] has been cailed univers al because it exists after the division
from the Good and before the ordered Distinction ... ail Minds were con-
tained in it, and when they had acquired the knowledge of distinction did
they an come fOlih from it21 •
And furtheron he adds "when all Minds were in the Univers al Essence,
they were without distinction"22. What we can deduce from these lines
is that the state of union with the Good actually coincides with the sub-
sistence of a univers al ousia, in which there is no distinction at all: the
distinction qua distinction is the product of a fall from a more perfect
ontological status, which coincides with the Good, it is not the original
condition of the beings. In Dionysius, on the contrary, and this is the
clUcial point, the Good and the distinctions are ontologically complemen-
tary: "Good" is the name in which God's providence manifests itself in
the most appropriate way; but the operation proper to providence is pre-
cisely to order the world. Evil is then the product of the fact that beings
do not respect the distinct position which has been allotted to them in the
hierarchy of being and, most of all, of the Church: everywhere in the
cmpus, it is clear that God's good providence acts as distributor of pro-
pOIiioned lots of goods: we must not forget that in DN IV, 35, evil is
defined in synthe sis as the loss of these lots, that is, of the specific rank
determined by them. One could not enumerate all the passages in which
the Areopagite states this basic belief. Just to make two examples,
one of the first things to be said of the divine name "Good" is. that (DN
IV,2) "it is from [the Good] that the supra-mundane orders, their unions,
19. The Book which is Called the Book of the Holy Hierotheos, with Extractsfrolll the
Prolegomena and Comlllenta/)' ofTheodosios of Antioch andfrom the "Book of Ercerpts"
and Other Works of GregO/)' Bar-Hebraeus, edited and tr'anslated by Fred Shipley MARSH,
London, 1927,9/8*.
20. Hierotheos I, 7, p. 15/12*.
21. Hierotheos I, 8, p. 16/13*.
22. Hierotheos I, 9, p. 17/14*.
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE APOKATASTASIS IN DIONYSIUS 839
their reciprocal relations and unconfused distinctions derive "23: the first
operation of the Good is then to carry out the cosmic ordering, beginning
from the angels. And as a more lively example, we can mention the
famous eighth epistle, in which the rebel monk Demophilus is severely
blamed for not having respected his hierarchical position, because the
latter is a manifestation of God's providence24 .
All this leads us to think that it is not possible to maintain, as some
scholars have done25 , that the exclusion of an ontological substance of
evil means an implicit reference to the apokatastasis, because in Diony-
sius' opinion the fact of not being originally bad, far from being the cause
of the irnpossibility of damnation, is an even more severe charge against
those who have deftected from their original nature: the intellect' s aim
for Dionysius is not to recover a status in which it is not distinct from
the other beings, but, in exactly the opposite sense, its aim is not to lose
its distinct position.
Now, it is evident that there is nothing so explicit in Dionysius which
authorizes us to think that his theOI'y of evil and punishment has been
conceived in polemic against the fifth-sixth century "Origenist" Stephen
bar Sudaili. In order to confirm this hypothesis, we must consider the two
Dionysian passages which have been the object of our analysis in the
broader context of Dionysius' global eschatological vision: in order to
understand the latter, our most important reference remains DN l, 4, the
main passage for Dionysian eschatology, which we have aIready studied
23. DNN, 2,144.18-19: 'EKe'\,gev aùtrûe; al lmepKOal-ltot tu/;ete;, al 1tpàe; Éautàe;
Évroaete;, ai Èv ànijÂate; xropijaete;, al àauyxutot OlaKptaetc;.
24. Ep. VIII, 3, 7-9: Èv 1tuat taie; O\'iat otà nDv 1tprotrov toie; oeutÉpote; à1toVÉf.letat
tà Kat' à/;tav lmà tite; 1tUVtrov eÙtUKtOU Kat otKaWtutlle; 1tpovotae;.
25. See C. STEEL, Proc/us et Denys: Sur l'existence du mal, in Y: DE ANDIA (ed.),
Denys l'Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident. Actes du colloque intema-
tional, Paris, 21-24 septembre 1994 (Collections des Études Augustiniennes. Série Anti-
quité, 151), Paris, 1997, 89-116, and PERCZEL, A Philosophical My th in the Service of
Christian Apologetics? Manichees and Origenists in the Sixth Centlll)', in Y. SCHWARTZ-
V. KRECH (eds.), Religiolls Apologetics-Philosophical Argumentation, Tübingen, 2004,
205-236; the intuition initially originated from Perczel. Though not referring to the spe-
cifie topie of evil, llaria Ramelli has recently tried to reassert the presence of the doctrine
of the apokatastasis in Dionysius: see 1. RAMELLI, Note pel' un'indagine della mistica
siro-orientale dell'VIlI secolo: Giovanni di Dalyatha e la tradizione origeniana, in '1Iu
12 (2007) 147-179, especially pp. 149-152. Besides somehow contradieting herself by
affirming (p. 149) that in Dionysius salvation does not actually seem to be universal,
Ramelli repeats Perczel's misunderstanding of the apparent similarity between Dionysius'
use of the terms 'monad' and 'henad' in DN I, 4 and the 14'h anti-Origenist anathema
of 553. For Perczel's discussion of this subject, see I. PERczEL, Pseudo-Dionysius and
Palestinian Origenism, in J. PATRICH (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Ortlwdox Church
from the Fifth Centlll}' to the Present (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 98), Leuven, 1998,
261-282.
 840 E. FIORI
on two other occasions 26 • In the eschaton, we are toId here, we will par-
ticipate in God's light by vutue of an ÎInpassible and ÎInmaterial nous,
and in a union which transcends every intellect by vÎIiue of the effusion
of more-than-bright beams. Sergius of Res'ayna's Syriac translation is
quite different from the Greek text on this pruticular topic. That ih which
we will pruticipate is not simply an ineffable union, but a commingling
which will transcend aIl intellects; and this will happen by means of a
so-called "spiritual condition" of our mind (madd'o), which is compared
to the angelic intellect (hawno). But in this commingling we will not
become angels tout court, as Evagrius says in his Kephalaia Gnostika
(VI, 24)27; we will just be, as the Gospel of Luke puts it (20,36), "equal
unto the angels", that is: though we will have acquired a condition equal
to the angelic one, we will remain human beings. We have aIready tried
28
to argue that Sergius here is applying an editing technique to the origi-
nal Greek text, in order to make the latter's polemical goal more explicit.
Under Dionysius' text we can discover an underlying polemic against the
Evagrian concept of eschatological mixture of aIl intellects in God (we
think of his Letter to Melania 29 ), as a result of the end of distinctions
between the rational beings. It would be aIready enough to say that the
commingling Sergius speaks of transcends the intellects, and does not
coincide with them. But there is more.
Mter having studied Sergius' translation more in depth, we can affirm
that the term chosen here by our translator to mean commingling, müz-
zogo, is a revealing one. In a great number of cases, this word stands for
the Greek KpacrtS or crUYKPUcrtS, being in Dionysius' use a synonym of
26. E. FIORI, Elementi evagriani nella traduzione siriaca di Dionigi l'Areopagita:
La strategia di Sergio di Rd'aynlÏ, in Annali di Storia dell'Esegesi 27 (2010) 323-332;
E. FIORI, Mélange eschatologique et 'condition spirituelle' de l'intellect dans le co/pus
dionysiacum syriaque, in Parole de l'Orient 35 (2010) 261-276.
27. We refer of course to the version S2' i.e. the not expurgated one; the SI version
restores the exact reference to Lk 20,36. The Greek original of this kephalaioll is not
preserved. SeeLes six centuries des "Kephalaia Gnostica" d'Évagre le Politique. Édition
critique de la version syriaque commune et édition d'une nouvelle version syllaque, inté-
grale, avec une double traduction française par A. GUILLAUMONT (Patrologia Orientalis,
28/1), Paris, Firmin Didot 1958, pp. 226-227.
28. FIORI, Elementi evagriani (n. 26).
29. The first part of the Letter is edited in W. FRANKENBERG, Euagrius Ponticus
(Abhandlungen der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Phil.-Hist.
Klasse, Neue Folge, XIII/2), Berlin, 1912, 612-619. The second part in G. VrrESTAM,
Seconde partie du traité qui passe sous le nom de «La Grande Lettre d'Évagre le Pontique
à Mélanie l'Ancienne!>, publiée et traduite d'après le manuscrit du British Muselll/f'Add.
17192 (Scripta minora regiae societatis humaniorum litterarum lundensis, 3), Lund, 1963-
1964. The best available translation into a modem language is the Italian one: Evagrio
Pontico, La scrigno della sapienza, intr., trad. dal siriaco e note a cura di Paolo BETTIOLO
(Testi dei Padri della Chiesa, 30), Bose, 1997.
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THEAPOKATASTASIS IN DIONYSIUS 841
8VrocrtÇ (Syriac ~doyûto) to mean the ordered condition of the kosmos
noetos as opposed to a bad kind of mixture, which is equal to confusion:
when things are united in the form of the good mixture-mûzzogo, in
which they do not lose their determined identity, the kosmos noetos fuIly
corresponds to God's providential operation: in other words, a good form
of mixture exists, because it preserves those distinctions which, as we
have aIready seen, are themselves the manifestation of the Good in the
world. We can recaIl sorne particularly meaningful recurrences of the
terms: in DN XI, 2, for instance, it is evident that the two couples of
union-good mixture and confusion-bad mixture are reciprocally defined
(we quote from the Syriac version): "the unifying Peace unites aIl beings
to Itself, to themselves and to each other, and preserves aIl of them in an
alI-comprehensive embrace, which is not confused precisely for theyru'e
not mixed nor confusedly mingled (a verb which in Syriac is rendered by
the same root as that of mûzzogo)"30. Aiso in DN VIII, many passages
are found in which the concept of union as good mixture of the compos-
ing elements clearly refers to the present ontological status of the world.
With regard to this, it is very meaningful that in this chapter the divine
names "salvation" and redemption", as we said at the beginning of our
paper, are not related to the eschaton but to the present. The main exam-
pIe is to be read in DN VIII, 5 (Syriac version): "This unceasing power's
movements extend to human beings, animaIs, plants and to an the uni-
verse's nature; and this power gives power to those who are united, so
that they remain in a state of harmony and reciprocal participation; [it
gives power also to] those who are distinct so that each of them persists
in its place and its definition without confusion (bûl12olo) and mixture
(~ûltono, the bad mixture); moreover, it saves and preserves aIl the
'ta~8ts and the ÙtuKocrllYtcr8tS of the universe according to the good
which is proper to each of them and it saves and preserves without stain
also the immortallives of the angels' perfect ranks "31; and in VIII, 7 we
read: "even if something inclines toward confusion and disorder and
suffers a [condition] of inferiority with regru'd to the fullness of its goods,
[God as Redemption] redeems it as weIl from the passion, from the weak-
ness and from the deprivation, by ... overlooking the weakness as a
30. DN Xl, 2, 219.4-5: svoùcrav éi1tav'ta sctlnn Kat sau'tois Kat ùÂ-Â-i]Â-ots Kat ota-
crroçoucrav ltét.v'ta Èv ùcrurx\l'tCp ltét.v'trov cruvoxn Kat ùj.lt'Y~ Kat cru'YKBKpaj.lÉva.
31. DN VIII, 5, 202.6-11: IIpoBtcrt oÈ 'tà 't~S clVBKÂ-dlt'tou ouvét.j.lBroS Kat BtS
ùvaproltOUS Kat Ç~a Kat <j>U'tà Kat 'tijv OÂ-TjV 'tOù ltav'tos <j>ucrtV Kat ouvaj.loi 'tà
ftvroj.lÉva ltpOS 'tijv ùÂ-Â-i]Â-rov <j>tÂ-lav Kat Kotvrovlav Kat 'tà otaKBKptj.lÉva ltpOS 'to
stvat Ka'tà 'tov OtKBiov 8Kacr'ta M'Y0v Kat opov clcru'YXu'ta Kat clcrUj.l<j>up'ta Kat 'tàs~
'toù ltav'tos 'tét.çBtS Kat BMTjj.locruvas BtS 'to otKBtOV cl'YaaOv otacrroÇBt, Kat 'tàS'
claavét.'tous 'trov cl'Y'YBÂ-tKroV svét.Orov çroàS clÂ.ro~i]'touS ota<j>UÂ-ét.'t'tBt.
 842 E.FIORI
father and raising up from evil; quite the opposite, by establishing in
beauty also the good which was lost and filling, ordering and disposing
the disorder of that one"32.
In conclusion, the polarity of two different fOlms of commingling to
define the present state of creation is also very useful to better'grasp the
meaning of Sergius' translation choice in DN I, 4: it is true that Diony-
sius rarely approaches eschatological issues, but when he does, he clearly
states that in the eschaton it will be the union which will survive, i. e.
what in the l'est of the treatise he defines as a not confused form of com-
mingling; and, as we have already pointed out, Sergius simply makes this
doctrine more explicit by directly mentioning the müzzogo together with
the ~ldoyü!.o, that is the Ëvco<nç, mentioned by Dionysius. Now, it
becomes even clearer that, if the present world' s definite distinctions, that
is its hierarchical ordering, will not pass away at the end of time, the
lower grades of being, those who have deliberately excluded themselves
from the hierarchical distinctions and then from the ordered Ëvco<nç of
their members, won't enter the eschatological condition of sharing in the
divine light33 .
FINAL REMARKS
Univers al redemption and salvation, union and commingling: all these
concepts are not interpreted as eschatological, but as cosmological con-
cepts, by means of the Neoplatonic structures of Dionysius' thought. But
in the end, their cosmological sense also leads to deny the eschatological
universality of redemption and salvation. It is thus in this very peculiar
perspective that the doctrine of apokatastasis is sometimes echoed in the
Areopagitica: for instance, one could recall one particular circumstance
in which a quotation of 1Cor 15,28 recurs inside the corpus. The usage
of tbis Pauline verse (DN IX, 5) is extremely significant, for it is placed
32. DNVIII, 9, 206.12-19: et Kat 'n npoç 'to nÀlll1l1sÀi:Ç Kat a'taKWv ànoO'<j> aÀst ll
Kat flsiroO'iv 'tlva nallol 't~ç 'trov otKstroV àyallrov 'tSÀSIO'tllWÇ, Kat WD'tO 'tOD nallouç
Kat r~ç àapavstaç Kat 't~ç O''tsPYtO'sroç ànoÀU'tpoDml '" na'tplKroç 't~và'toviav
unspsiaouO'a Kat àVlO''troO'a WD KaKoD, l1iiÀÀov ai: tO"troO'a sv r<Ji KaÀ<Ji Kat 'to uns-
Kpui:V àyallov àvanÀllpoDO'a Kat 'ta't'touO'a Kat KoO'l1oDO'a 't~v àmçtav m'noD.
33. If it is true that for Origen as weil there will be different' orders of the bIessed souIs
in the eschatol/, it remains very difficuIt to find in Origen a strict conception of forgi~~ness
as that which is found in Dionysius. See H. CROUZEL, Différel/ces el/tre les ressuscités
selol/ Origèl/e, in Jel/seits-vorstellul/gel/ il/ AI/tike ul/d Christel/tulIl. Gedel/kschrift fiir
Albert Stuiber (Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum, Erganzungsband 9), Münster, 1982,
107-116. Repr. in CROUZEL, Les fil/s dernières (n. 5), as number IX.
THE IMPOSSIBILTIY OF THE APOKATASTASIS IN DIONYSIUS 843
in the context of the illustration of the divine name "Other": "[we calI
God] 'Other' because in His providence God is near to everything and
becomes 'all in all' on account of the salvation of all"34. This simply
means that the same and whole God is present in the distinct beings,
insofar as their individuality and then their reciprocal otherness is con-
cerned: it is a concept that Dionysius had already explained in DN II, 5
by means of the metaphor of the seal, which is always wholly commu-
nicated to every imprint35 . In the same passage of DN IX, Dionysius goes
on saying that God's becoming all in all is due to the univers al salvation,
8tà 'tf)v rcuv'tcov O'co'tllptav. But if we take into account what O'co'tllpta
means in Dionysius, remembering the formerly quoted passage of DN
VIII, 2, we will easily conclude that the escha ton is by no means the
point at issue here.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the apokatastasis is thereby
deliberately recalled, because 1Cor 15,28 was the typical Pauline verse
which Origen and Evagrius relied on to state the univers al reconstitution
of all souls/intellects in God. But it is recalled in the context of such a
radical reinterpretation, that it loses the subversive purport which it had
assumed in the doctrines stemming from the monastic milieux of the
beginning of the 6th century which Dionysius aimed to neutralize.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Emiliano FIORI
Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid
Rembrandtstraat 24 - Leiden
embfiori@gmail.com
34. DN IX, 5, 210.7-8: To ai: ihspov, SnSla~ niiO'I npoVoll'nKroÇ ô llsoç napsO''t1
Kat "navra sv niicrt" alà r~v navrrov O'ro'tllptav yiyvs'tal.
35. DN II, 5, 129.7-9: roO'nsp O'<j>pœytaoç sK'tunrofla'ta noÀÀà I1S'tÉXSI r~ç àpxs-
r(mou O'<j>payiOoç Kat sv ÉKaO''tql 'trov SK'tU1!rofla'trov OÀllÇ Kat 'taùt~ç o(5O'l1Ç Kat sv
oùasvt Kat' oùai:v flÉpoÇ.
 L'EXÉGÈSE VÉTÉROTESTAMENTAIRE D'ORIGÈNE ET
DE CYRILLE D'ALEXANDRIE: CONTINUITÉ OU DIVERGENCE?
À PROPOS DE LA TYPOLOGIE DES
PERSONNAGES BIBLIQUES

Entreprendre une comparaison de l'exégèse vétérotestamentaire

d'Origène et de Cyrille d'Alexandrie n'est guère facile. Aucun commen-
taire d'un même livre de l'AT par les deux auteurs ne nous est parvenu.
Les commentaires d'Origène sur Isaïe et sur les Douze prophètes, que
nous pourrions par ex. comparer avec ceux de Cyrille, ont été perdus.
Toutefois, outre l'état des sources, les siècles qui séparent les deux
exégètes ne favorisent pas non plus une telle comparaison. Entre la pre-
mière moitié du Ille s. et celle du ve s., nous assistons à la production
d'une riche littérature patristico-exégétique sur l'AT mais aussi à la réac-
tion antiochienne contre l'excès de l'allégorisme alexandrin, au déclen-
chement de la crise origéniste et aux palinodies de Théophile d'Alexan-
drie. C'est peut-être la raison pour laquelle les études, comparatives ou
non, consacrées à l'interprétation cyrillienne de 1' AT ont été jusqu'à
présent orientées soit vers Jérôme!, soit vers Théodoret de Cyr2 • La
confrontation des exégèses d'Origène et de Cyrille est cependant indis-
pensable pour mieux percevoir l'évolution de la tradition alexandrine. La
recherche menée par E. Prinzivalli sur le Commentaire sur les Psaumes
de Didyme l'Aveugle, découvert à Toura, va plutôt dans le sens de la
«transfOlmation de l'héritage origénien»3. Qu'en est-il de Cyrille? Conti-
nuité, modification ou distanciation? La question du rapport entre le
grand maître et le neveu de Théophile mérite sans doute d'être posée.
Dans le cadre de la présente communication, nous allons réfléchir sur la
démarche «symétriquement contraire» des deux Alexandrins à propos de
la valeur typologique des personnages bibliques, tels que le prophète

1. F.M. ABEL, Parallélisme exégétique entre St. Jérôme et St. Cyrille d'Alexandrie,
dans Vivre et Penser 1 (1941) 94-119 et 212-230; A. KERRIGAN, St Cyril Cyril of Alexan-
dria, Interpreter of the Old Testament (Analecta Biblica, 2), Roma, 1952.
2. J.J. O'KEEFE, Interpreting the Angel: Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus:
COllllllentators on the Book of Malachi (dissertation, Catholic University of America),
Washington, DC, 1993; J.-N. GUJNOT, L'exégèse de Cyrille d'Alexandrie et de Théodoret
de Cyr: Un lieu de conflit ou de convergence?, dans Cassiodorus 4 (1998) 47-82;
A.H.A. FERNANDEZ LOIS, La cristolog{a en los cOlllentarios a Isa{as de Cirilo de Alejandrfa
y Teodoreto de Ciro, Roma, 1998.
3. Cf. son article dans ce volume, pp. 779-789.
846 D.ZAGANAS
Jérémie et le grand prêtre Jésus. Nous serons ainsi en mesure de com-
prendre les raisons de leurs choix exégétiques mais aussi de percevoir les
«mutations» au sein de la tradition alexandrine.
I. ORIGÈNE: À PROPOS DE LA VOCATION DE JÉRÉMIE
Dans sa première Homélie sur Jérémie4, Origène discute longuement
de l'application de JI' 1,4-10 au prophète ou au Christ, ou aux deux. Tout
en admettant que la plus grande partie de ce passage conceme le Christ
et peut lui être appliquée sans problème, il reconnaît pleinement la diffi-
culté de rappOlter au Christ la résistance de Jérémie:
'Et j'ai dit: Seigneur, qui es un maître exigeant, voici que je ne sais pas
parler' (JI' 1, 6). Lui qui est 'sagesse', lui qui est 'puissance de Dieu' (cf.
1 Co 1, 24), qui nous a appOlté 'la plénitude de la divinité résidant en lui
corporellement' (cf. Col 2, 9): comment la parole 'je ne sais pas parler'
(JI' 1, 6) peut-elle donc s'appliquer au Sauveur? En outre il est interdit
d'appliquer les mots 'je suis trop jeune' (JI' 1, 6) au Sauveur, qui dirait là
une chose qui n'est pas juste; car si le Seigneur répond: 'Ne dis pas cela'
(JI' 1,7), il est évident qu'il interdit cette parole parce qu'elle ne serait pas
justes.
Conclure que l'indocilité de Jérémie ne peut pas s'appliquer au Christ
et en déduire que celtaines paroles se rappOltent à Jérémie et d'autres au
Christ, cela ne lui semble pourtant pas une solution satisfaisante:
il serait aisé de dire que les unes (= paroles) se rappOltent à Jérémie et les
autres au Sauveur. Tout homme de bon sens sera cependant très gêné dans
ce passage, en estimant qu'il faut être insensé pour opérer dan~ un texte
aussi lié une coupure entre des paroles adressées à Jérémie et des paroles
adressées au Sauveur, et pour dire que les unes ne s'appliquent pas au Christ
mais à Jérémie, et que les autres, qui dépassent Jérémie, ne s'appliquent pas
à Jérémie mais au Christ6 .
Soucieux de la cohérence (sip)loS) sémantique du texte, Origène opte
finalement pour une double explication de l'ensemble du passage, c'est-
à-dire rapporter tout le texte et à Jérémie et au Christ. Pour ce qui est de
l'objection très embanassante de Jérémie (<<Je ne sais pas parler parce
que je suis trop jeune»), il cherche malgré tout à l'appliquer a~ Christ
4. Origène, Homélies slir Jérémie (= HomJer) I, 6s., SC 232, p. 204s. Voir M.SlMONETTI,
Omelia 1: elezione dei profeta, dans E. DAL COVOLO - M. MARITANO (éds.), Omelie su
Geremia: Lettura origeniana (Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose, 165), Roma, 2001,11-22.
5. Origène, HomJel' I, 6, SC 232, p. 206. La traduction est de P. HUSSON et P. NAUTlN.
6. Origène, HomJer I, 6, SC 232, p. 206.
L'EXÉGÈSE VÉTÉROTESTAMENTAIRE D'ORIGÈNE ET DE CYRILLE D'ALEXANDRIE 847
«d'une manière digne du Verbe et conforme à la vérité». C'est pourquoi
il entame une longue démonstration: 1) il invoque d'abord le témoignage
de l'AT (rapprochement d'ls 7,16 et 7,14) et du NT (Lc 2,52) afin d'as-
similer l'ignorance et la jeunesse du prophète à celles de Jésus enfant; 2)
il propose ensuite de reconnaître dans l'ignorance de Jérémie le Sauveur
qui ne (re)connaît pas comme siens ceux qui commettent l'iniquité; 3) il
amène, enfin, ses auditeurs à entendre, à travers l'objection jérémienne,
le Verbe de Dieu, non encore incamé, qui ne sait pas parler le langage
des hommes et qui, lors de son incarnation, ne maîtrise évidemment pas
d'emblée le langage humain.
II. CYRILLE D'ALEXANDRIE: À PROPOS DE LA VISION DE LA
VÊTURE DU GRAND PRÊTRE JÉSUS
La problématique d'Origène dans sa première Homélie sur Jérémie
présente, nous semble-t-il, un parallèle intéressant avec le Commentaire
sur Zacharie de Cyrille. À propos de la vision de la vêture du grand
prêtre Jésus (Za 3,1-9)7 , l'évêque d'Alexandrie évite systématiquement
d'assimiler Jésus le grand prêtre à Jésus-Christ, en dépit de l'homonymie.
En Za 3,1-2, ce n'est pas Jésus le grand prêtre qui préfigure le Christ
mais c'est le messager du Seigneur. Le grand prêtre y représente simple-
ment le peuple juif, et ses vêtements sales symbolisent l'impureté de ce
peuple (Za 3,2-5). En Za 3,6-7, Cyrille se trouve dans l'impossibilité de
rapporter au Christ les paroles que le messager du Seigneur adresse à
Jésus, fils de Josédec:
Nous avons accepté Jésus le grand prêtre en tant qu'esquisse du Christ
Sauveur de nous tous. Au début, en effet, Aaron a été également admis
(= comme esquisse du Christ). Mais à propos de ce passage, nous pensons
que c'est au fils de Josédec que sont adressées les paroles: 'Voici ce que
dit le Seigneur tout-puissant: Si tu marches dans mes chemins et si tu pré-
serves mes commandements, alors, toi, tu jugeras pour ma maison' et la
suite (Za 3, 6-7). Ces paroles ne pouvaient pas en fait être adressées au
Christ, ce dernier étant lui-même la voie, les règles du droit de Dieu le Père,
et c'est lui-même qui jugeait pour sa maison en exerçant son autorité comme
Fils. Le bienheureux 'Moïse était par exemple accrédité dans toute la mai-
son de Dieu comme serviteur, mais le Christ l'est comme Fils sur sa maison.
Sa maison, c'est nous' (He 3, 5-6). Admettons donc que ces paroles
s'adressent au fils de Josédec et non plus au Christ8 •
7. Cyrille d'Alexandrie, In Zachariam I, PUSEY II, p. 313ss. (= PG 72, 41ss.).
8. Ibid., PUSEY II, p. 317.23-318.13 (= PG 72, 48BC): «BtS \)not()TtCOOW JlÈv l'OU
mlvTcov Ttl.u'bv LCOTf)pOS XptO'tou nupêoêsaJlê3u tàv 'Il1<Jouv tàv têpÉU tàv JlÉYuv'
848 D.ZAGANAS
Optant dès le début pour une «typologie» de type historique 9, Cyrille
reconnaît ainsi dans la vision de la vêture du grand prêtre Jésus: 1) Dieu
qui ordonne d'enlever l'impureté du peuple juif afin qu'il reçoive les
habits sacerdotaux; 2) Dieu qui, sous celtaines conditions précises, pro-
met la restitution du pouvoir au sacerdoce juif pendant la période post-
exilique; 3) Dieu qui ne tarde guère à annoncer l'avènement du Christ
(<<serviteur AnatolèjSurgeon»), car peu après le retour d'exil, Dieu lui-
même allait juger pour sa propre maison à travers son Fils, roi juste et
véritable grand prêtre.
III. LE PROBLÈME DE L'EXÉGÈSE CHRISTOLOGIQUE DE L'AT
Dans les exemples que nous venons de citer, on constate que les deux
auteurs sont confrontés au problème de l'exégèse christologique de l'AT
et, plus précisément, au problème de l'extension de la valeur typologique
des personnages bibliques. Dans quelle mesure, de quelle façon et d'après
quels critères Jérémie et Jésus le grand prêtre préfigurent-ils le Christ?
Le fait que ces personnages sont pris comme figures du Christ n'implique
pas nécessairement que chacun de leurs actes et chacune de leurs paroles
puissent, aisément ou non, s'appliquer au Christ. En l'occurrence, c'est
surtout l'objection de Jérémie qui cause de la gêne à Origène, puisque la
plus grande partie de Jr 1,4-10 (élection, mission du prophète) se prête à
une interprétation christologique. De même, ce sont notamment les
conditions énoncées en Za 3,6-7 qui embarrassent Cyrille, étant donné
que Jésus le grand prêtre est précédemment lO admis comme symbole du
sacerdoce du Christ. Dans les deux cas, nos exégètes sont contraints
d' «avouer» qu'il est extrêmement difficile, voire impossible, de rappor-
ter au Christ ce qui, selon toute probabilité, ne lui convient pas. En effet,
'tÉSBt'tO yàp Biç 'tou'tO KUt 'Auprov' av àpxatç' rrÂT)v EV yB 'tOtç rrpoKBtllÉvotÇ rrpoç
uÎnov dpfjO"Sui <j>uIlEV 'tov 'tOU 'IroO"EOÈK 'to "TuoE ÎoÉyEt Kuptoç rruV'tOKpu'trop·
'Eàv av 'tUtç Motç 1l0U rropEuO"TI Kut av 'tOtç rrpoO"'tuYIlUO"t 1l0U <j>uÎoUO"O"TI, Kui o"ù
OtUKptVElÇ 'tov OiKOV Ilou", Kui 'tà 'tou'totç ÉrrollEvu. OÎl yàp av EtPTl'tO 'tà 'tOtUOE
XptO"'tqr uÎl'toç yap ÈO"'ttV 11 Moç, uÎl'toç 'tà OtKuUDllu'tu 'tOu 0êOU KUt Il<npoç, uÎl,oç
OtÉKptVE 'tov OiKOV uÎl'tOu, KU'tEÇOUO"tUSrov ffiç UtOç. ~Hv IlÈv yàp 0 SsO"rrÉO"toç
"MrouO"fjç 1ttO"'toç ffiç SEparrrov "av oÂcp 'té!> otKCP 'tOù 0EOÙ' XptO"'toç oÈ ffiç utoç Èrrt
'tOV "OiKOV uÎl'tOù' oiS otKoÇ ÈO"IlEV TJIlElÇ". OÎlKoÙV BipijO"Sro IlÈv 'tà 'tOtUOE rrpoç 'tov
'tOù '1roO"BoÈK, rrpoç ÙÉ yE Xpto"'tov oÎlKÉn».
9. Ibid., PuSEY n, p. 313.14-16 (= PG 72, 44A): «"Opumç IlÈv 'to OtijYTlIlU, rrÂi]v
EXBt ÂOyov tO"'tOptKOV, utvtYllu'trooroç êÎO"puÂÂov'tu, Kut ffiç Èv dKoVt rruÂtv 'té!>
'1TlO"Où rrpootuYPu<j>oIlEVov».
10. Cyrille d'Alexandrie, ln Aggœllm 1, 5-6, PUSEY II, p. 250.15-251.18 (= PG 71,
1032B-1033A). Cf. Glaphyrorllm in Genesim n, PG 69, 96B-97A.
L'EXÉGÈSE VÉTÉROTESTAMENTAIRE D'ORIGÈNE ET DE CYRILLE D'ALEXANDRIE 849
ni l'insuffisance du prophète ni les conditions dictées à Jésus le grand
prêtre, ne sont compatibles avec la supériorité du Christ qui est lui-même
«la sagesse» et «la voie».
IV. DEUX SOLUTIONS DIAMÉTRALEMENT OPPOSEES
Bien que les deux Alexandrins soient confrontés à la même difficulté
exégétique, leurs attitudes à l'égard du texte biblique semblent cependant
ne rien avoir en commun. Origène opte pour une double explication de
l'ensemble du passage, en favorisant l'extension de la valeur typologique
de Jérémie. Comme s'il y avait un défi à relever, il s'efforce donc de
montrer que l'objection du prophète peut, en quelque sorte, s'appliquer
au Christ. À travers le recours à de nombreux passages parallèles et le
rapprochement des «mots semblables», il parvient - nous l'avons vu - à
détourner le sens du texte et à faire entendre le Verbe de Dieu, avant et
après son Incarnation. Il n'en va pas de même chez Cyrille. Ce dernier
préfère, au contraire, s'en tenir à l' historia, en évitant de mettre en rap-
port Jésus le grand prêtre et le Christ. Restant en contact avec le sens
littéral, il se contente de reconnaître dans la scène de la vêture du grand
prêtre Jésus une sorte de «typologie» liée à l'histoire post-exilique du
peuple juif. Bref, on voit ainsi que le problème commun de l'exégèse
christologique de l'AT suscite des réactions antithétiques et donne lieu à
des interprétations différentes, voire diamétralement opposées, à l'inté-
rieur de la même tradition exégétique.
V. LES RAISONS DE CETTE DIVERGENCE
Il n'y a pas à s'en étonner. Leur dessein exégétique n'est pas le même.
C'est pour des raisons méthodologiques qu'Origène «reconnaît» la dif-
ficulté et non pas l'impossibilité d'appliquer au Christ l'objection de
Jérémie. Il se propose en réalité de critiquer l'opinion de ceux qui jugent
une telle application impossible et sont, de ce fait, conduits à rapporter
certaines paroles à Jérémie et d'autres au Christ. C'est pourquoi il ne
tarde pas - nous l'avons vu - à repousser cette solution «commode» (où
xaÂ,snov) et «insensée» ('trov à:yVffiJ.lOVffiV), et à composer un long déve-
loppement (l'équivalent de quatre pages dans l'édition des Sources Chré-
tiennes) pour montrer que même «la phrase qui semble blasphématoire,
quand on l'applique au Sauveur» ('to 80KOOV MO"<PllJ.loV roS npos 'tov
O"ffi'tllpa) peut être prononcée par le Christ. Quant à Cyrille, ce n'est pas
 850 D.ZAGANAS
par hasard qu'au beau milieu de sa lecture historico-littérale de la vision
zacharienne, il évoque l'impossibilité et non pas la difficulté d'appliquer
au Christ les conditions énoncées en Za 3,6-7: 1) il en tire évidemment
argument en faveur de la non-assimilation de Jésus le grand prêtre avec
le Christ; 2) il exprime son désaccord avec ceux qui semblaiçnt ne pas
hésiter à rapporter au Christ les paroles adressées au fils de Josédec;
3) il laisse pal' la même occasion supposer qu'en restant fidèle à la portée
vétérotestamentaire de cette vision, il évite une typologie trop poussée.
Leurs principes d'interprétation et leurs préoccupations ne sont pas
non plus les mêmes. ConfOlmément à sa théorie de l'inspiration divine
de l'Écriture, Origène prend avant tout soin de conserver et de faire appa-
raître à travers son explication la «cohérence» (stp!loe;) du texte biblique.
li s'oppose donc à la «répartition» des paroles entre Jérémie et le Clu'Ïst,
en optant pour l'application de l'ensemble du passage tant à Jérémie
qu'au Christ, comme une solution de bon sens (SÙYVcO!lffiV). En ce qui
concerne l' «impossibilité» de rapporter au Christ l'objection du pro-
phète, elle est plus apparente que réelle. Chez Origène, le sens spirituel
de l'Écriture peut toujours être dévoilé; en revanche, cettains passages
sont «impossibles» (à06vœcu) selon le sens littéral. Pour Ot'Ïgène, l'im-
possibilité d'attribuer au Christ l'objection du prophète ne constitue
qu'une «difficulté exégétique». Contre ses prédécesseurs, Origène prend
donc le pari de résoudre ce problème au nom de la cohérence du texte et
de son interprétation. Deux siècles plus tard, le neveu de Théophile
d'Alexandrie ne semble pas partager le même point de vue ni avoir les
mêmes visées exégétiques. Alors qu'il reconnaît en général la fonction
typologique de Jésus le grand prêtre - en tant que préfiguration du sacer-
doce du Christ -, il se garde manifestement de reconnaître le Christ dans
la vision de la vêture du grand prêtre. li confirme ainsi ses déclarations
de principe à propos de la typologie des personnages bibliques dans la
préface de son Commentaire sur Jonas:
Tout dans la lettre et les figures n'est pas profitable aux contemplations
spirituelles, mais si un personnage est introduit qui en lui-même préfigure
pour nous le Christ, nous passerons à bon droit les traits humains et nous
nous en tiendrons au nécessaire, en faisant converger de toutes parts ce qui
est réellement utile vers le but présentll .
11. Cyrille d'~exandrie, In lonam, pn.efatio, PuSEY l, p. 563.23-29 (= PG 71, 601A):
«Où nuvm oi] oùv 'Cà roç Èv ypuf.lf.laO'{ 'CE Kat 'Cunotç 'Caî'ç nVEUf.lanKaî'ç SECOptatç
xpiIO'l~a, ù.ÀÀ' Ei npoO'conov EimpÉpot'Co nvoç ù.vU'"CIlnoGv'tOç llf.lî'v 6<p' Éau'C<{l 'Cov
XptO''Cov, naptnnEuO'of.lEV EiKO'CCOÇ 'Cà ù.vSpromva, f.lovotç oè 'Coî'ç ù.vaYKa(otç
È<ptSiIO'Of.lEV, nav'Caxiï nEpnpÉnov'CEç 'Co dJ<pEÀEî'v nE<puKOÇ Elç 'Cov 'tOG npoKEt~IÉVOU
O'Konov».
L'EXÉGÈSE VÉTÉROTESTAMENTAIRE D'ORiGÈNE ET DE CYRiLLE D'ALEXANDRIE 851
En l'occurrence, les conditions dictées à Jésus le grand prêtre ne
conviennent qu'à un homme, serviteur de Dieu, qui s'est écarté de la voie
de Dieu et n'a pas respecté les commandements divins. C'est peut-être
la raison pour laquelle Cyrille exclut de son Commentaire sur Zacharie
une typologie traditionnelle (depuis Justin jusqu'à Théodoret de Cyr, en
passant par Origène et Didyme l'Aveugle)12 assimilant les deux Jésus:
Jésus, fils de Josédec, revêtu de vêtements sales puis investi comme
grand prêtre et Jésus-Christ qui a revêtu la condition humaine déchue
pour la libérer du péché. Comme pour Jonas, l'évêque d'Alexandrie
prend donc soin de fixer les limites de la valeur typologique de Jésus le
grand prêtre, en évitant une interprétation qui lui semble contestable ou
qui a été déjà contestée.
VI. UNE DÉMARCHE «SYMÉTRIQUEMENT CONTRAIRE»
Selon toute vraisemblance, nous avons affaire à une démarche «symé-
triquement contraire»: 1) les deux Alexandrins sont confrontés - nous
l'avons vu - au même problème, le problème de l'exégèse christologique
de l'AT; 2) les positions de l'un comme de l'autre se forgent par opposi-
tion à une interprétation établie. Origène nous informe que les exégètes
attribuaient naturellement au Christ JI' 1,5 (élection de Jérémie) - puisque
ces paroles dépassent Jérémie -, mais non pas l'objection du prophète
(JI' 1,6-7) qui, selon l'opinion courante (me; npàe; 't'oDe; noÎcÎcoue;), ne pou-
vait pas s'appliquer au Christ. Cyrille évoque une typologie de Jésus le
grand prêtre assez répandue. li s'agit probablement de l'assirnilation tra-
ditionnelle des deux Jésus, qui, à notre connaissance, n'allait pas jusqu'à
rapporter au Christ lui-même les conditions posées au fils de Josédec (Za
3,6-7), à moins qu'il ne s'agisse d'une interprétation christologique scru-
puleuse de la vision zacharienne. 3) Face au problème commun de l'exé-
gèse christologique, les deux exégètes s'opposent, semble-t-il, à des inter-
prétations établies, en vue de préserver la cohérence du sens du texte et
de son interprétation. Origène critique ouvertement - nous l'avons vu -
ceux qui opéraient «dans un texte aussi lié une coupure entre des paroles
12. Pour un aperçu de l'interprétation patristique de la figure de Jésus le grand prêtre,
voir l'article de J. LÉCUYER, Jésus,fils de Josédec, et le sacerdoce du Christ, dans Reeller-
ches de Sciel/ce Religieuse 43 (1955) 82-103, et l'exposé de M. HARL dans La Bible
d'Alexandrie 23, Les douze prophètes. 10-11 (Aggée, Zacharie), Paris, 2007, pp. 187-191.
Sur Eusèbe de Césarée, voir S. MORLET, La Démonstration évangélique d'Eusèbe de
Césarée: Étude sur l'apologétique chrétienne à l'époque de Constantil/, Paris, 2009,
pp. 576-580.
852 D.ZAGANAS L'EXÉGÈSE VÉTÉROTESTAMENTAIRE D'ORIGÈNE ET DE CYRILLE D'ALEXANDRIE 853

adressées à Jérémie et des paroles adressées au Sauveur». Cyrille s'oppose comme figure du Christ n'est évidemment pas susceptible d'avoir une
discrètement à l'assimilation traditionnelle des deux Jésus. En évoquant dimension messianique (où nuv'tu). Pour cette raison, dans la préface de
l'impossibilité d'attribuer au Christ les conditions énoncées en Za 3,6-7, son Commentaire sur Jonas 16 , il pose - comme le ferait un exégète antio-
il dénonce de manière implicite l'incohérence de cette interprétation typo- chien - des règles limitatives précises à l'interprétation typologique de
logique. Reconnaître Jésus le grand prêtre en tant que figury du Christ en l'AT. Au-delà de l'opposition des exégèses d'Alexandrie et d'Antioche,
Za 3,1-5 sans pouvoir évidemment le faire en Za 3,6-7, lui semble peu l'interprétation vétérotestamentaire de Cyrille manifeste ainsi une véri-
cohérent. Considérer que deux personnages mis en scène dans la même table prise de conscience de l'excès de l'allégorisme traditionnel de
vision - Jésus le grand prêtre et le serviteur Anatolè, dont la venue est même qu'une volonté ferme de se démarquer, voire de se libérer, de
annoncée au grand prêtre en Za 3,8 - sont des préfigurations du Christ, l'emprise de l'héritage du grand maître.
ne serait pas, par ailleurs, une preuve de cohérence. 4) La réaction des
deux auteurs a laissé sa marque dans l'histoire de l'interprétation patris- 41, bd Soult Dimitrios ZAGANAS
tique. Origène est le premier à avoir attribué au Christ l'objection de F-75012 Paris
Jérémie. Cyrille est, à notre connaissance, le seul commentateur - avec dimitrios.zaganas@gmail.com
Théodore de Mopsueste 13 - à ne pas reconnaître en Jésus investi comme
grand prêtre un typos de Jésus-Christ.
Malgré la ressemblance de leur démarche, leurs prises de position sont
visiblement antithétiques. Origène étend la valeur typologique de Jéré-
mie l 4, alors que Cyrille restreint celle de Jésus le grand prêtre. L'obstacle
qui sert de tremplin à Origène, constitue une «impossibilité» exégétique
pour Cyrille. Ainsi, ce qui était généralement considéré comme impos-
sible à appliquer au Christ, devient - à travers l'allegoria - possible chez
Origène et redevient - en faveur de l' historia - impossible pour Cyrille.
Ce changement radical et de perspective et de finalité à l'intérieur de la
même tradition est sans doute l'aboutissement d'une évolution exégé-
tique qui va de la transformation (Didyme l' Aveugle) à la libération de
l'emprise (Cyrille d'Alexandrie) de l'héritage d'Origène. Plusieurs fac-
teurs ont favorisé, voire accéléré, cette évolution: la réaction antiochienne
contre l'allégorisme alexandrin, la première querelle origéniste, les revi-
rements de Théophile d'Alexandrie, mais peut-être aussi la nécessité
d'équilibrer deux tendances extrêmes (origénisme, anthropomorphisme)
dans les milieux monastiques en Égypte. Quoi qu'il en soit, Cyrille, suc-
cédant à son oncle Théophile sur le siège d'Alexandrie, veille à éviter
l'origénisme dans ses écrits exégétiques. À propos de la signification
christologique de l'AT, il s'oppose ouvertement à la propension allégo-
ris ante de ses prédécesseurs alexandrins, qui a beaucoup prêté le flan à
la critique 15. Toute parole et tout acte d'un personnage biblique pris

13. Cf. Théodore de Mopsueste, III Zachariam, PG 66, 524As.

14. Cf. aussi Origène, HomJer XIV, 5; XIV, 14; XV, 2-3; XV, 5 etc.
15. Cf. l'accusation principale d'Eustathe d'Antioche (De engastrimytho COl/tra Orige-
nem, PG 1~, 656A; 660A) à l'égard de l'exégèse d'Origène (à savoir, l'allégorisation 16. Cyrille d'Alexandrie, In IOl/am, pnefatio, PUSEY I, p. 561.22-565.2 (= PG 71,
totale de l'Ecriture). 600A-601C).
 THE PRIMITY OF THE FATHER IN ORIGEN OF
ALEXANDRIA AND AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
BEYOND EAST AND WEST*

The tradition al portrayal of Greek and Latin trinitarian theology

between the second and fourth centuries - as grounded in the work of the
French Jesuit Theodore de Régnon 1 - argued that the fourth-century
Greek speaking theologians understood God's unity to be grounded in
the Father as the source of the divine Trinity, whereas the fourth-century
Latin speaking theologians tended to emphasize the divine essence as the
source of God's unity2. And, according to this somewhat reductive read-
ing of de Régnon, the Greek theologians placed greater emphasis on the

* 1 would like to thank Stephen Brown, Paul Kolbet and J. Warren Smith for discuss-
ing various aspects of this paper and offering helpful comments and suggestions.
1. T. DE RÉGNON, Études de théologie positive sur la Sainte Trinité, 4 vols., Paris,
1892-1898, l, 429-430. "Le Latin fonde sa théorie sur l'unité de la substance divine. TI y
ajoute la Trinité de personnes, par manière de telmes d'actes divins. L'unité de Dieu,
l'identité d'opération créatrice, l'opposition entre l'ordre naturel et l'ordre supel11aturel se
manifest clairement. Mais les difficulties suivent: apparence d'une subsistence absolue
précédant logiquement les personnes, embarrass pour distinguer entre les actes essentiels
et les actes notionnels, reduction des vestiges de la Trinité à des appropriations, c'est-à-
dire, à des rapprochements ingénieux entre des concepts qui se réveillent mutuellement.
Le Grec fonde sa théorie sur le dogme des trois hypostases divines. TI passé heureusement,
et même sans qu'il s'en doute, auprès des difficultés latines. Mais il recontre le mystère,
lorsqu'il faut réduire les trois subsistences à une substance unique". Régnon is not speak-
ing nalTowly here about patristic authors, but the larger theological traditions.
2. It has been held that Augustine, and the subsequent "westel11 tradition", is either
essentialist or modalist. On the former see: J. ZIzrOULAS, Being as Communion: Stl/dies
in Personhood and the Chl/rch, Crestwood, NY, 1997; on the latter see: A. VON HARNACK,
who argued that "Augustine only gets beyond modalism by the mere assertion that he does
not wish to be a modalist", The History of Dogma, 8 vols., New York, 1960, vol. N,
p. 131, fn. 1; C. GUNTON, Augustine, The Trinil)' and the Theological Crisis of the West,
in Scottish JOl/mal ofTheology 43 (1990) 33-58; C. PLANTINGA, Jr., The ThreenesslOne-
ness Problem of the Trinity, in Calvin Theological JOl/mal 23 (1988) 37-53; J. MOLT-
MANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom, trans. M. Kohl, Minneapolis, MN, 1993, p. 199.
Moltmann argues that "two different categ0l1es of analogy have always been used for the
etel11allife of the Trinity: the category of the individu al person, and the category of com-
munity. Ever since Augustine's development of the psychological doctrine of the Trinity,
the first has taken precedence in the West; whereas the Cappadocian Fathers and the
Olthodox theologians, down to the present day, employ the second category. They incline
towards an emphatically social doctrine of the Trinity and criticize the modalistic tenden-
cies in the 'personal' trinitarian doctrine of the Westel11 church". It is worth noting in
particular the emphasis placed on the dichotomy between Augustine and the Cappado-
cians, and the claim that the Westel11 Church is "modalistic".
 856 J.T. SLOTEMAKER
distinction of persons, while Latin theologians obfuscated the distinction
of persons and overemphasized the role of the divine essence. Michel
René Bames3 and Basil Studer4 critiqued this basic dichotomy just over
a decade ago, and along with Lewis Ayres and numerous other scholars
initiated a profound and ongoing revision of fourth-century trinitarian
theology5, The present revision, perhaps most substantially defended in
3. M.R. BARNES, De Régnon Reconsidered, in Augustinian Studies 26 (1995) 51-79,
esp. p. 55. Barnes notes the following works as relying on de Régnon's narrative: "Fred-
erick Crowe's 1966 Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, James Mackey's 1983 The Christian
Experience of Gad as Trinity, John O'Donnell's 1985 Trinity and Temporality, David
Brown's 1985 The Divine Trinity and Catherine LaCugna's 1991 Gad For Us". For a
recent critique of Barnes, see K. HENNESSY, An Answer ta de Régnon's Accusers: Why We
S/lOuld Not Speak of "His" Paradigm, in Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007) 179-
197.
4. B. STUDER, in his 1996 Saint Augustine Lecture, argued that he questioned the work
of de Régnon simultaneously to Barnes in a paper given at Rome, La teologia trinitaria
in Agostino d'Ippona: Continuità della tradizione occidentale, in Cristianesimo e speci-
ficità regionali nel Mediterraneo Latina (sec. IV-VI) (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum,
46), Roma, 1994, 161-177. B. STUDER, Histo/y and Faith in Augustine's De Trinitate _
The 1996 Augustine Lecture, in Augustinianum 28 (1997) 7-50.
5. L. AYRES, 'Remember that you are Catholic' (serm. 52.2): Augustine on the Unity
of the Triune Gad, in Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 (2000) 39-82; ID., The Funda-
mental Grammar of Augustine's Trinitarian Theology, in R. DODARO - G. LAWLESS (eds.),
Augustine and His Critics, London, 2000, 51-71; ID., On Not T/II'ee People: The Funda-
mental Themes of GregO/y of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology as Seen in To Ablabius: On
Not Three Gods, in Modern Theology 18 (2002) 445-474; ID., Nicaea and Its Legacy:
An Approach ta Fourth Centllly Trinitarian Theology, Oxford, 2004; ID., Nicaea and
Its Legacy: An Introduction, in Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007) 141-144;
M.R. BARNES, The Arians of Book V, and the Genre of De Trinitate, in Journal of Theo-
logical Studies 44 (1993) 185-195; ID., The Fourth Centllly as Trinitariall Canon, in
Christian Origins, Lohdon, 1998,47-67; ID., Rereading Augustine's Theology of the Trin-
it)', in S.T. DAVIS - D. KENDALL, S.J. - G. O'COLLINS, S.J. (eds.), The Trinity: An Inter-
disciplinary Symposium on the Trinil)', Oxford, 2000, 145-176; ID., The Power of Gad:
Llvvafllç in GregO/y of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology, Washington, DC, 2001; ID., The
Visible Christ and the Invisible Trinity: Mt. 5:8 in Augustine's Trinitarian Theology of
400, in Modern Theology 19 (2003) 329-355. Regarding pneumatology see: L. AYRES,
~empiterne Spiritus Donum: Augustine's Pneumatology and the Metaphysics of the Spirit,
ln G.E. DEMACOPOULOS - A. PAPANlKIOLAOU (eds.), Orthodox Readings of Augustine,
Crestwood, NY, 2008, 127-152; ID., Innovation and Ressourcement in Pro-Nicene Pneu-
matology, in Augustinian Studies 39 (2008) 207-221; ID., Spiritus Amborum: Augustine
and Pro-Nicene Pneumatology, in Augustinian Studies 39 (2008) 223-234; M.R. BARNES,
The Beginning and End of Early Christian Pneumatology, in Augustinian Studies 39
(2008) 169-186; ID., Augustine's Last Pneumatology, in Augustinian Studies 39 (2008)
187-206.
Beyond the recent work of Barnes and Ayres, see: K. ANATOLIOS, Yes and N(J: Reflec-
tians on Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, in Harvard Theological RevieH;100 (2007)
153-158; ID., Discourse on the Trinity, in A. CASIDAY - F.W. NORRls (eds.), The Cam-
bridge History of Christianity: Constantine ta c. 600, Cambridge, 2007, 431-459;
C. BECKWITH, Hilmy of Poitiers on the Trinity: From De Fide ta De Trinitate, Oxford,
2009; C. BEELEY, GregO/y of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of Gad: In
Your Light We Shall See Light, Oxford, 2008; L. GIOIA, The Theological Epistemology of
THE PRIMITY OF THE FATHER IN ORIGEN AND AUGUSTINE 857
Ayres' Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach ta Foul'th Centwy Tl'inital'-
ian Theology, has emphasized, among other things, the similarities in
trinitarian doctrine between the Greek speaking theologians of the East
and the Latin speaking theologians of the West. But, one subject that has
not received adequate attention is the question of the primacy, or primity,
of the Father as articulated in the East and the West6 ,
The doctrine of the primity (or monarchy) of the Father states that the
Father takes logical and causal priority, though not temporal priority,
among the Father, Son and Roly Spirit?, This doctrine is perhaps best
elucidated theologically in the procession of the Son and the Roly Spirit
from the Father (leaving aside, for the moment, the Western understand-
ing of the procession of the Roly Spirit a Filio)8. In this respect - id est,
when one focuses on the divine processions - the primity of the Father
is an essential aspect of trinitarian doctrine: East and West, Greek and
Latin9, But, while this general daim may seem somewhat transparent, it
Augustine's De Trinitate, Oxford, 2008; S.M. HILDEBRAND, The Trinitarian Theology of
Basil ofCaesarea: The Synthesis of Greek Thought and Biblical Faith, Washington, DC,
2009; B. STUDER, Augustins 'De Trinitate', Eine Einführung, Paderborn, 2005;
L. TuRCESCU, Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persans, Oxford, 2005;
M. WEEDMAN, The Trinitarian Theology of Hilmy of Poitiers, Leiden, 2007; R. WILLIAMS,
Sapientia and the Trinity: Reflections on De trinitate, in B. BRUNING - M. LAMBERIGTS -
J. VAN HOUTEM (eds.), Collectanea Augustiniana: Mélanges T.J. van Bavel (BETL, 92A),
Louvain, 1990,317-332.
6. l prefer the term primity to primacy (or monarchy) because what is connoted by
primacy is not only logical priority (or firstness) but priority with respect to rank or impor-
tance, whereas primity simply means being first. In the case of the TrinitY the primity of
the Father is one of logical and causal priority, not temporal priority. Further, prirnacy,
and particularly monarchy, connote a sense of firstness or priority of rank and importance.
7. P. WIDDICOMBE, The Fatherhood of Gad from Origen ta Athanasius, Oxford, 2001.
For Widdicombe's more recent work see: ID., Justin Martyr and the Fatherhood of Gad,
in Laval Théologique et Philosophique 54 (1998) 109-126; ID., Fatherhood and the Con-
ception of Gad in Early Greek Christian Litterature, in Anglican Theological Review 83
(2000) 519-536; ID., The Fathers on the Father in the Gospel of John, in Semeia 85 (1999)
105-125.
8. l bracket the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and the Son (jilioque),
throughout tbis article. The point of convergence between Greek and Latin trinitarian
theology being the procession of both the Son and the Holy Spirit from the Father, despite
the later divergence regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit a filio, as held by the Latin!
Roman Church. But, it should be noted that Lewis Ayres argues that for Augustine the
procession of the Holy Spirit afilio is "at ils core a restatement of the Father's principium
within the Trinit y". AYRES, Sempiterne Spiritus Donum (n. 5), p. 147. On thefilioque
see: H. CHADWICK, East and West: From Apostolic Times Until the Council of Florence,
Oxford, 2003. B. DALEY, Revisiting the 'Filioque'. Part One: Roots and Branches of ml
Old Debate, in Pro Ecclesia 10 (2001) 31-62; ID., Revisiting the 'Filioque'. Part Two:
Contempormy Cat/lOlic Approaches, in Pro Ecclesia 10 (2001) 195-212.
9. For a discussion of the prirnity of the Father in the first decades of the Arian crisis,
see: S. PARVIS, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy: 325-
345, Oxford, 2006; R. WILLIAMS, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, Grand Rapids, Ml, 2002;
 858 J.T. SLOTEMAKER
must be noted that the primity of the Father is a doctrine that is often
associated nanowly with the Greek tradition 1o• Here l will argue briefly
that a careful reading of Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo
on the primity of the Father will demonstrate that it is a doctrine central
to both early Church theologians ll . l have focused on Origen and Augus-
tine because they are arguably the most significant theologians for the
development of Greek and Latin trinitarian theology respectively. Textu-
aIly l will focus on Origen's De principiis and his Commentary on the
Gospel according to John l2 , as weIl as Augustine's De Trinitate and bis
Homilies on the Gospel of John 13 • Thus, l will proceed with a short dis-
M.R BARNES - D.H. WILLIAMS (eds.) Arianism After Arius: Essays on the Development
of the Fourth-Centllly Trinitarian Conflicts, Edinburgh, 1994.
10. Aside from the more problematic readings of the primity of the Father in the Greek
and Latin traditions noted in footnote 1, the recent work of John Behr has continued to
locate a distinction between the Greek East and Latin West on the primity of the Father.
See, J. BEHR, The Way to Nicaea, Crestwood, NY, 2001; ID., The Nicene Faith: Forma-
tion of Christian Theology (2 vols.), Crestwood, NY, 2004; ID., Calling upon God as
Father: Augustine and the Legacy of Nicaea, in DEMACOPOULOS - PAPANIKIOLAOU (eds.),
Orthodox Readings (n. 5), 153-165. In response to the position of John Behr, and to sorne
degree J.A. McGuCKIN, see, D.B. HART, The Hidden and the Mani/est: Metaphysics after
Nicaea, in DEMACOPOULOS - PAPANIKIOLAOU (eds.), Orthodox Readings, 191-226, pp. 195-
198; D.B. HART, Responsefrom David Bentley Hart to McGuckin and Murphy, in Scottish
Journal of Theology 60 (2007) 95-101. Perhaps the most elaborate defense of the simi-
larities between the East and West is developed in D.B. HART, The Mirrar of the Infinite:
Grego/)' of Nyssa on the Vestigia Trinitatis, in Modern Theology (2002) 541-561.
11. The primity of the Father is a doctrine that has its roots in the New Testament
understanding of God as Father and the implied correlative relation: Jesus, the Christ, as
Son. This topic has recently received significant attention within New Testament scholar-
ship: D.G. CHEN, God as Father in Luke-Acts, PhD Thesis, Pasadena, CA, 2004, pp. 200-
312;. M.C. FISHER, God the Father in the Fourth Gospel: A Biblical Patrology, PhD
Thesls, Wake Forest, NC, 2003, pp. 270-333; A.J. KOSTENBERGER - S.R. SWAlN, Father,
Son and Holy Spirit: The Trinit), and John's Gospel, Downers Grove, IL, 2008, pp. 61-92;
M.M. THOMPSON, The God of the Gospel of John, Grand Rapids, MI, 2001; B.L. VAN ERDEN,
John's Depiction of God the Father: Ali Analysis of the God Language in the Fourth
Gospel, PhD Thesis, Dallas, TX, 2003, pp. 117-157. More broadly see: K.C. ROWE,
Biblical Pressure and Trinitariall Hermeneutics, in Pro Ecclesia 11 (2002) 295-313;
K.C. ROWE, Luke and the Trillity: Ali Essay ill Ecclesial Biblical Theology, in Scottish
Journal of Theology 56 (2003) 1-26.
12. P. KOETSCHAU (ed.), Origenes Werke: De Principiis (GCS, 5), 'Leipzig, 1913;
H. GORGEMANNS - H. KARPp (eds.), Origenes Vier Biicher 1'011 dell Prillzipiell, Darmstadt,
1976; Origen, On First Prillciples, tr. G.W. BUTTERWORTH, Gloucester, MA, 1973;
C. BLANC (ed.), Origène: cOlllmelltaire sur saillt Jeall (SC, 120/157), Paris; 1966/1970;
E. PREUSCHEN (ed.), Origenes Werke: Der Johalllleskommentar (GCS, 4), Leipzig, 1903;
Commentmy 011 the Gospel Accordillg to Johll: Books 1-10, trans. R. HEINE, Washington,
DC, 1989. For De Prillcipiis 1 follow the text of Giirgemanns and Karpp and the transla-
tion of Butterworth, for the Commelltary on Johll 1 follow the text of Preuschen and the
translation of Heine.
13. W.J. MOUNTAIN (ed.), De Trillitate (CCSL, 50-50a), Turnholti, 1968. E. HILL
(trans.), J.E. ROTELLE (ed.), The Trillity, New York, 2009. R WILLEMS (ed.), Sallcti Aurelii
Augustini In Ioallllis evallgelium tractatus CXX1V (CCSL, 36), Tumholti, 1954. E. HILL
THE PRIMITY OF THE FATHER IN ORIGEN AND AUGUSTINE 859
cussion of Origen's understanding of the primity of the Father followed
by a similar analysis of Augustine on the primity of the Fathel" Finally,
in the conclusion l will defend the thesis that for Origen and Augustine
the doctrine of the primity of the Father entails a set of almost identical
theological claims regarding the relationsbip between the Father and Son.
I. ORIGEN: THE PRIMACY OF THE FATHER
The trinitarian theology of Origen of Alexandria has been the subject
of much debate since the fourth centuryl4. The ongoing controversy SUl'-
rounding Origen's trinitarian thought has meant that there have been few
positive comparisons between the trinitarian theology of Origen and the
western Latin tradition of Ambrose of Milan l5 , Hilary of Poitiers l6 or
Augustine of Hippo. This situation, l would argue, has its roots not only
in various hesitations regarding the "Olthodoxy" of Origen's trinitarian
theology, but more significantly in the meta-nanative histories of the
development of trinitarian theology in the patristic period: narratives that
have, oftentimes, pitted the eastern and western Fathers against each
other. Here l will proceed by considering briefly Origen's account of the
primity of the Father - in bis language, the Father as the ùpxi] of aIl that
is - through an analysis of De principiis and his Commentmy on John.
The intent here is not to reconstmct a comprehensive account of Origen's
understanding of the primity of the Father, but to establish its basic out-
line with the intent of placing it in dialogue with Augustine 17 •
(trans.), A. FITZGERALD (ed.), HOl/lÎlies on the Gospel of Johll: 1-40, New York, 2009.
1 will follow the translations of Hill, for both works, with minor modifications.
14. E. CLARK, The Origenist Contraversy: The Cultural Constructioll of ail Early
Christian Debate, Princeton, NJ, 1992.
15. O. FALLER (ed.), De Spiritu sallcto (CSEL, 79), Prague, 1962.
16. P. SMULDERS (ed.), Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi De Trinitate (CCSL,
52/62a), Turnholti, 1979-1980.
17. The literature on Origen's trinitarian theology is vast. 1 have benefitted from the
following works: H. CROUZEL, Les personnes de la Trillité sont-elles de puissance inégale
selon Origèlle, Peri Archoll 1.3. 5-8?, in Gregorianum 57 (1976) 109-125; J. DILLON,
Logos alld Trillity: Patterns of Plato/lÎst IlIfluellce on Early Christianit)', in G. VESEY (ed.),
The Philosoph)' in Christiallity, Cambridge, 1989, 1-13; J. DILLON, Origen's Doctrille of
the Trillity and Son: Later Neo-Platollic Theories, in D. O'MEARA (ed.), Neoplatonism
and Christiall Tlwught, Albany, NY, 1982, 19-56; R.P.C. HANsoN, Did Origen Appl)' the
Word Homoousios to the SOli?, in J. FONTAINE - C. KANNENGIESSER (eds.), Epektasis:
Mélallges patristiques offerts au cardinal Jean Daniélou, Paris, 1972; RP.C. HANSON,
The Sem'ch for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controvers)' 318-381, Edin-
burgh, 1988; R. WILLIAMS, The SOIl'S Kllowledge of the Father ill Origell, in L. LIES (ed.),
Origeniana Quarta (Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck, 1987, 146-153.
860 J.T. SLOTEMAKER
Origen's most systematic, and arguably most developed, account of
the primity of the Father is found in book lof De principiis. It is instruc-
tive that in the first sentences of chapter 1, dedicated to the Father, Origen
begins with a discussion of light (lux). The Scriptures tell us in 1 John
1,5, he notes, that God is light (Deus lux est); and, this passage of scrip-
ture is immediately conjoined with Psalm 35,10: "In your light we will
see light" (In lumine tuo videbimus lumen)18. The conjunction of 1 John
1,5 and Psalm 35,10 is used, by Origen, to articulate the relationship
between the Father and the Son. Origen argues that taken in conjunction
these two passages imply that: "in your word [the Father's word] and
your wisdom [the Father's wisdom], which is your Son, in him shall we
see you, the Father"19. And, having argued previously that this particular
light analogy does not imply any material characteristics in the divine
nature20 , Origen expands the analogy by arguing that in the same way we
know the Sun by the way it sheds light on the world, we also know Gad
through the beauty of his works 21 .
The language of light, in particular how it relates to the relation of the
Father and the Son, infonns Origen's analysis of the Father. For Origen
the light analogy, as related to the Father and the Son, entails two distinct
daims. Fust, the light analogy implies that the Father, as the source and
font of aIl of creation, is the source of the Son, who is the light that shines
in the world. This is a basic daim about the divine nature and about how
the Father and the Son are eternally related to each other. Thus the prim-
ity of the Father is mticulated, and maintained, throughout the analogy.
Second, the light analogy supports the epistemic daim that the Father is
made known through the light of the Son. Thus, in the same way that the
sun is known through its rays, the Father is known through the Son: In
18. Origen, Prin 11.1; GORGEMANNs-KAR!'P, 17,4-9; BUTIERWORTH, 7. "Quosinter-
rogare volo, quid dieant de eo quod scriptum est, quia 'deus lux est', sieut lohannes in
epistola sua dicit: 'Deus lux est, et tenebrae non sunt in eo'. Ista nempe lux est, quae
inluminat omnem sensum eorum, qui possunt capere veritatem, sieut in trieesimo quinto
psalmo dicitur: 'In lumine tuo videbimus lumen"'.
19. Origen, Prin 1.1.1; GORGEMANNS - KAR!'P, 17.12-14; BU1TERWORTH, 7. "Tale est
ergo quod dicitur: 'In lumine tuo videbimus lumen', hoc est, in verbo tuo .et sapientia tua,
qui est filius tuus, in ipso te videbimus patrem".
20. Origen, Prin 11.2-4; BUTTERWORTH, 7-9. , ergo semel recte receptum est, unigenitum filium dei sapientiam dus esse substantialiter
21. Origen, Prin 11.6; GORGEMANNS - KAR!'P, 21.1-9; BU1TERWORTH, 10. "Interdum
oculi nostri ipsam naturam lucis, id est substantiam solis, intueri non possunt; splendorem
vero dus vel radios fenestris forte vel quibuslibet luminum brevibus receptaculis infuses
intuentes, considerare ex his possumus, fomes ipse ac fons quantus sit cOiporei luminis.
lta ergo quasi radii quidam sunt dei naturae opera divinae providentiae et ars universitatis
huius ad comparationem ipsius substantiae dus ac naturae. Quia ergo mens nostra ipsum
per se ipsum deum sicut est non potest intueri, ex pulchritudine operum et decore crea-
turarum parentem universitatis intellegit".
THE PRlMITY OF THE FATHER IN ORlGEN AND AUGUSTINE 861
him we will see you, the Father (in ipso te videbimus patrem)Z2. These
two daims inform Origen's understanding of the Father in relationship
to the Son.
Finally, it should he noted that by focusing on the analogy of light the
Father is always discussed in relationship to the Son. Origen do es not
attempt ta articulate an understanding of the Father that is independent
of the Son, but only discusses the nature of the Father as he relates to the
Son. Thus the inherently relational understanding of the Father and Son
- articulated in the language of light and light from light - unequivocally
establishes the primity of the Father. The processional nature of the
Father and Son, and the analogue of light coming from its source, implies
that the Father is the origin, or ùpxi], of the Son.
Origen's discussion of the Son, found in chapter II of book 1 of De
principiis, is similarly focused not oruy on the Son, but on the relation-
ship between the Father and the Son. Origen considers the central Scrip-
tural terms for the Son (Firstborn, Wisdom, Power of God and Wisdom
of GOd)23 but directs the majority' of his attention to the eternal genera-
tion of the Son evident in the telms unbegotten (Father) and begotten
(Son)24. Thus, Origen's first and primary goal is to explicate "what the
only begotten Son of God is?" (quid sil unigenitus filius dei)Z5. He
condudes that the Son hypostatically exists 26 , as the wisdom of God,
and that he is the eternal Son of God: that is, the Father is eternally
Father, and eternally begets his only begotten Son27 . Further, the Son is
22. See ibid., fn. 19.
23. Origen, Prin 12.1; BUTIERWORTH, 15.
24. Perhaps Origen's clearest statement of the etemality of the Son and Spirit is found
in: Origen, Prin IVA.l, GORGEMANNS - KAR!'P, 350.18-26; BUTTERWORTH, 316. "Hoc
autem ipsum quod dicimus, quia numquam fuit quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum
est. Nam et haec ipsa nomina temporalis vocabuli signifieantiam gerunt, id est 'quando'
vel 'numquam'; supra omne autem tempus et supra omnia saecula et supra omnem aeter-
nitatem intellegenda sunt ea, quae de patre et filio et spiritu sancto dieuntur. Haec enim
sola trinitas est, quae omnem sensum intellegentiae non solum temporalis, verum etiam
aetemalis excedit. Cetera vero quae sunt extra trinitatem, in saeculis et in temporibus
metienda sunt".
25. Origen, Prin 1.2.1; BUTIERWORTH, 15.
26. Origen, Prin 12.2; GORGEMANNS - KARpP, 28.17-29.1; BUTTERWORTH, 15. "Si
subsistentem, nescio si iam ultra evagari sensus nos ter debeat ad suspieandum, ne forte
ipsa \mocl"wO'lS (id est subsistentia) eius corporeum aliquid habeat, cum omne, quod
corporeum est, vel habitu vel colore vel magnitudine designetur".
27. Origen, Prin 1.2.3; GORGEMANNS - KAR!'P, 30.19-31.4; BU1TERWORTH, 17. "Qui
autem initium dat verbo dei vel sapientiae dei, intuere ne magis in ipsum ingenitum patrem
impietatem suam iactet, cum eum neget semper patrem fuisse et genuisse verbum et
habuisse sapientiam in omnibus anterioribus vel temporibus vel saeculis, vel si quid illud
est quod nominari potest".
862 J.T. SLOTEMAKER
Son by nature 28 - returning here to the light imagery - and is begotten
from light (generatur ex luce) as the eternallight of the Father29 • Rowan
Williams is correct to note that fol' Origen the Father and Son relation-
ship is such that:
The only 'beginning' the Word has is God, 'from whom he is, of whom he
is bom' - a characteristic playon the many senses of &pxit: the Word does
not have an &pxit , a point of origin, in time, only an &pxit, an origin and
'rationale of existence in the being of God 30 •
The origin of the Word from the Father, the àpXi), is such that the
Word eternally proceeds from the Father.
The upshot of Origen's discussion of the Father and Son in book lof
De principiis is that both Father and Son are always discussed in relation
to each other. Throughout the first book Origen emphasizes: (1) the rela-
tionallanguage of Father and Son, (2) the eternal begetting of the Son,
(3) and the analogy of light from light used to mticulate the procession
of the Son from the Father. This basic trinitarian grammar establishes
Origen's understanding of the primity of the Father and articulates the
relationship between the Father and the Son in De principiis. But, for a
further account of the primity of the Father, it is useful to consider
Origen's discussion of John 1,1 in his Commentary on John.
In his Commentary on John, unlike De principiis, Origen develops the
distinction between the articulate and inmticulate fonus of God in Greek:
o ®EOS and BEOS 31 • In his Commentmy Origen argues that the tenu 0
®EOS is used in Scripture when the uncreated cause of the universe is
designated and that BEOS is used when the W ord, or the Son, is referred
to as God32 • After explicating this basic distinction Origen anticipates two
potential rnisreadings of this passage and its corresponding distinction:
(1) either one could daim that the Son is not distinct from the Father,
28. OIigen, Prin 1.2.4; GÔRGEMANNS - KARPP, 33.2-4; BUTTERWORTH, 18. "Est
narnque ita aeterna ac sernpiterna generatio, sieut splendor generatur ex luce. Non enim
pel' adoptionern spiritus filius fit extrinsecus, sed natura filius est".
29. Origen, Prin 1.2.7; GÔRGEMANNS - KARpP, 37.7-9; BUTTERWORTH, 20. "Splendor
ergo huius lucis est unigenitus filius, ex ipso inseparabiliter velut splendor ex luce proce-
dens et inlurninans universarn creaturarn".
30. WILLIAMS, Arius (n. 9), p. 138. For the sake of consistency 1 replacedWilliarn's
transliterations with the Greek.
31. For a general introduction to Origen's exegesis, see H.J. VOGT, Origen of Alexan-
dria (185-253 J, in C. KANNENGIESSER (ed.), Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, Lelden, 2004,
536-574.
32. Origen, CIo II.2.14; PREUSCHEN, 54.15-19; HEINE, 98. "-rWllcrIV /.lÈv yit.p -ro
lip~pov, o-rs il «~soe;» ôvo/.lacrta Ènt tOÙ àysv~wu -racrcrs-ral -rrov oÂ,cov ahiou,
crlC07t{i oÈ aùto, o-rs 0 Â.6yoe; <<~soe;> > ôvo/.laSs-ral, roe; oÈ Ota<j>éPSl Ka-rit. tOu'tOue; tOÙe;
-r07tOUe; «0 ~soe;» Ka\ «~soe;» OÜtCOe; ~1i]nOtS ota<j>épU «0 Â,oyoe;» Ka\ «Â,oyoe;»".
THE PRIMITY OF THE FATHER IN ORIGEN AND AUGUSTINE 863
(2) or one col1ld daim that the Son is not divine33 • These two potential
misreadings are addressed because of the ambiguities inherent in articu-
lating the distinction between 0 ®EOS and BEOS. In response to these
anticipated objections Origen argues that the Father alone is 0 ®EOS.
Further, evelything other than the Father that qualifies as BEOS is made
BEOS through participation in the divinity of the Father34 • Thus, returning
to Origen's two problems just noted, he interprets this passage in a way
that avoids both the daim that the Father and Son are not distinct and the
daim that the Son is not divine.
Origen's analysis of John 1,1 - as designed to counter the two poten-
tial misreadings of this passage - warrants greater attention. Thus, as
noted, Origen's analysis of the distinction between 0 ®EOS and BEOS
indicates both: (1) the dear distinction between the Father and the Son,
and (2) the deity of the Son. That is, because the Son originates from the
Father as the archetypal image of the Father, the Son is both distinct from
the Father and BEOS. Fmther, by being "with the GodJo ®EOS" from the
beginning, the Son always has been, and always will be, BEOS. Under-
stood in this light, Origen's exegesis of the Father as 0 ®EOS - as the
àpxi) of the eternally generated Son - is not an mticulation of the sub-
ordination of the Son to the Father, but is an expression of the divine
nature of the Son and of the Son's distinction from the Father. These two
daims, it must be insisted, m'e perhaps the most important theological
points that Origen developed in reaction to disputes regarding the divin-
ity of Christ and the distinction between the Father and Son35 •
33. Origen, CIo II.2.l6; PREUSCHEN, 54.23-29; HEINE, 98. "Kat -ro nOÂ,Â,oùe;
<j>tÂ.olMoue; dvat sÙXo/.lévoue; -rapacrcrov, sÙÂ,a~ou/.lévoue; 060 àvayopsùcrat ~60Ùe;
Kat na pit. -roù'tO nsptntn-rovme; 'l'suoécrt Kat àcrs~écrt ù6Y/.lacrtv, ftwt àpvou/.lévoue;
toto-rl1-ra ulOù hépav napit. -rl'jv -roù na-rpoe;, O/.loÂ,oyoùvme; ~sov dvat -rov /.léxpt
ôvo/.lawe; nap' aù-roie; «UlI'>v» npocrayopsuo/.lSVOV, 11 àpvoU/.lévoue; -rl'jv ~so-rl1-ra
-roù UlOù -rt~év-rae; oÈ aù'tOù -rl'jv tOtOtl1ta Kat -rl'jv oùcrtav Ka-rit. nsptypa<j>l'jv -rurx a -
voucrav É-répav -roù na-rpoe;, ÈVtsÙ~sv Â,uscr~at 06va-rat".
34. Origen, CIo II.2.17; PREUSCHEN, 54.29-55.2; HEINE, 99. "Â,sK-réov yit.p aùwie;,
on -ro-rs /.lÈv aù-rO~60e; 0 ~soe; Ècrn, olonsp Kat 0 crffit~p <j>l1crtv Èv -rTI npoe; -rov
na-répa SÙXTI' «"Iva ytVrocrKCOcrt crÈ -rov /.lOVOV «àÂ,l1~tvov ~sov·» nàv oÈ tO napit.
-ro aÙtO~60e; /.lswXTI -r~e; ÈKsîvou ~SOtll-roe; ~60notoU/.lsvoV OÙX <<0 ~soe;> > àÂ,Â,it.
«~soe;» KUptrotSpov av Â,éyoIW, oÔ navtCOe; «0 npCOto-rOKOe; nacrlle; K-rîcrscoe;», a-rs
npéi'noe; -ri!> npoe; -rov ~sov dvat c:nacrae; -r~e; ~SOtl1we; ste; Éautov, Ècr-rt n/.llrotSpOe;,
toie; Â,otnoie; nap' aù-rov ~60ie; (mv 0 ~soe; ~soe; Ècrn Ka-rit. -ro Â,sy0/.lsvov· «0soe;
~srov KUptoe; ÈÂ,aÂ,llcrs, Kat ÈKaÂ,scrs -rl'jv y~v> » OtaKov~crae; -ro ysvécr~at~60ie;, àno
WùS60Ù àpucra</.lsVoe;> ste; -ro ~60notl1~~val aù'tOue;, à<j>~ovoe; KàKslvote; Ka-rit. tl'jv
aù-roù XPl1cr-ro-rl1-ra /.ls-raolOOUe;".
35. Origen's work, Contra CelsulIl, is in sorne sense an extended defense of: (1) the
divinity of Christ, and (2) the unity of Christ with the Father, and the simultaneous distinc-
tion between the Father and Son.
 864 J.T. SLOTEMAKER
To read Origen's explication of John 1,1 as indicating a fOlm of sub-
ordination between the Father and Son is to read it against the grain of
Origen's stated intention. He clearly indicates that through this distinc-
tion he Îs seeking to maintain both the: (1) distinction of the Father and
the Son, and (2) the divinity of the Son. Origen's latter claim, regarding
the divinity of the Son, could be understood through the distinction 6
8EOC; and SEOC; as implying a form of subordination, although one must
insist that the previous discussion of the phrase "in the beginning"
strongly mitigates against such a reading. Further, read in the context of
the discussion of the eternal generation of the Son in De prÎncipiis, the
distinction between 6 8EOC; and SEOC; retains the primity of the Father
through Scriptural language, but also emphasizes the distinction between
the Father and the Son and the true divinity of the Son36 . That is, the
primity of the Father is central to: (1) the distinction of Father and Son,
(2) the divinity of the Son, (3) and the eternal generation of the Son.
These themes, intricately connected to the Father as the ùpxi] of aIl of
reality, are also central to the trinitarian theology of Augustine of Hippo,
and his understanding of the principium of the Father.
n. AUGUSTINE: 'THE FATHER AND THE ORIGIN (PRINCIPIUM) OF THE
DIVINE TRINrTY
Origen of Alexandria, as discussed above, maintained the primity of
the Father in his textual analysis of John 1,1 and throughOl.Jt De Prin-
cipiis. But, for the Latin speaking West, the translation of John 1,1 was
not a direct paraUe1 with the Greek text: in principio erat Verbum et
Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum. The lack of definite or
indefinite articles, either for the term Word (verbum) or Gad (Deus),
means that a direct theological or tex tuai comparison on this point is not
possible. Nonethe1ess, a close reading of Augustine's De TrÎnitate and
Homilies on the Gospel of John reveal a strong emphasis on the primity
of the Father. And here 1 will follow the recent work by Luigi Gioia, The
\ tion" in, Augustine, Homélies sur l'Évangile de saint Jean XVII-XXXIII (Bibliothèque
36. David Hart reminds scholars that "neither scripture nor the Byzantine litm'gy
reserves the name of 0 esoÇ exclusively for the Father, and that to a grea~extent it was
too pronounced an emphasis upon the distinction between 0 esoÇ and geoç that made the
Arian and Eunomian positions so perdurable in the East; il may be that, on this matter,
Latin enjoyed a certain advantage over Greek in expressing the coequality of the divine
persons". HART, The Hidden and the Manifest (n. 10), p. 196, fn. 6. On the theology of
Aetius, and in particular Eunomius, see, BARNES, The Power of God (n. 5), pp. 173-219;
R.P. VAGGIONE, Ellnomills of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution, Oxford, 2000.
THE PRIMITY OF THE FATHER IN ORIGEN AND AUGUSTINE 865
Theological Epistemology of Augustine 's De Trinitate37 , in considering
select homilies of Augustine on John, followed by a discussion of rele-
vant sections of De Trinitate, that establish the principium of the Father38 •
Gioia, following Berrouard, argues that throughout Augustine' s cor-
pus Homilies 20-22 on John, interpreted alongside De Trinitate n, estab-
lish the primity of the Father in relationship to the Son39 • Homily 22,
covering John 5,24-30, offers a particularly clear statement of Augus-
tine's understanding of the primity of the Father. For Augustine, John
5,30 - "As 1 hear, Ijudge; and my judgment is just, because 1 seek not
my own will but the will of him who sent me" (non possum ego a me
ipso facere quicquam sicut audio iudico et iudicium meum iustum est
quia non quaero voluntatem meam sed voluntatem eius qui misit me) -
offers an explication of the nature of the Son and the Son's eternal
generation from the Fathel". Thus, Augustine's explication of this verse
is of particular impOltance for his analysis of the re1ationship between
the Father and the Son: Gad from Gad (Deus de Deo), light from light
(lumen de lumine).
John 5,30 is significant for Augustine because of Christ's claim that
he seeks ta do "the will of him who sent me / voluntatem eius qui misit
me". The "sending" of the Son, ruticulated here by Christ, establishes
the relationship between the Father and the Son. Augustine writes in
Homily 22.14, "what else does the Son ever draw our attention to, but
that he is from the Father? If he is from the Father, he is not from him-
37. GroIA, The Theological Epistemology (n. 5), pp. 24-30, 144-146.
38. It is difficult to be precise about whether or not select Homilies on John ante-date
various books of De Trinitate, but for the dating of these sources see: M.F. BERROUARD,
La date des Tractatus I-LIV i/l [ohallIzis Evangelium de Saint Augustin, in Recherches
Augustiniennes 7 (1971) 105-168; E. HENDRlKX, La date de composition du De Trinitate,
in L'année théologique augustinienne, II, Paris, 1952, 305-316; H.A.G. HOUGHTON,
Augustine's Text of John: Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts, Oxford,
2008; A.M. LA BONNARDIÈRE, Recherches de chronologie augustinienne, Paris, 1965; and
D.F. WRIGHT, The Manuscripts of St. Augustine's Tractatus in Evangelium Iohannis:
A PreliminalY Survey and Check-List, in Recherches Augustiniennes 8 (1972) 57-104.
39. GIOIA, The Theological Epistemology (n. 5), p. 27, fn. 14. The text of Berrouard is
not directly arguing for the primity of the Father in Augustine's thought, but is analyzing
various hermeneutical rules established by Augustine. See, M.F. BERROUARD, "Introduc-
Augustinienne, 72), Paris, 1977. Gioia, following Berrouard, argues that "Augustine
worked out his rule 'God from God' after 419 in his c. s. Ar. [Contra sermonem Ariano-
/'lI/il] and that whereas the set of Jo. eu. tr. 1-19 (CCL 36, 1-202); 23-35 (CCL 36, 232-
323) was written in 414, the set of Jo. eu. tr. 20-22 (CCL 36, 202-232) was written after
419, implying that the same should apply to book 2 of De Trinitate (p. 45)". GroIA, p. 27,
fn. 14. The upshot is that Homilies 20-22 should be read in conjunction with De Trinitate
II, particularly on the question of the primity of the Father and the deve10pment of Augus-
tine's God from God (Deus de Deo) theology.
866 J.T. SLOTEMAKER
self. If the Son were from himself, he would not be Son; it is from the
Father that he is. The Father, in order to be, is not from the, Son; the Son,
in order to be, is from the Father. Equal to the Father; but still, this one
from that one, not that one from this one"40. This line of argument is
continued in 22.15, where Augustine remarks again that "this Trinity has
one will, one power, one majestic greatness", but "Christ is not from
himself, but from his Father"41. The point here, theologically, is that in
the sending of the Son - the eternal generation of the Son from the Father -
the primity, or firstness, of the Father is established. The Son is not
subordinated to the Father, or second in order of rank or temporality, but
is from the Father causaIly; the Son originates, in his very being and
substance, from the Father42 .
These passages from Homily 22 are the culmination of an argument
that IUns from Homily 20 through 22. These three Homilies, preached in
succession, are dedicated to the relationship between the Father and the
Son, and unequivocally establish the primity of the Father, while simul-
taneously arguing for the unity of works and action of the divine per-
sons 43 . The argument for the primity of the Father, as articulated in Hom-
ily 22, is grounded in the daim that the Son receives his being and power
from the Father, as he eternally generates from the FathetM . Further,
Augustine argues that because the Son is born of the Father, and eternally
40. Augustine, Jo. eu. tr. 22.14 (CCL 36, 231; 21-25), HILL 404. "Sed quid commen-
dat Filius, nisi quia de Pah'e est? Qui est de Patre, non est de se. Si de se Filius esset, non
es set Filius; de Patre est. Pater ut sit non est de Filio, Filius ut sit de Patre est. Aequalis
Patri; sed tamen iste de illo, non ille de isto".
41. Augustine, Jo. eu. tr. 22.15 (CCL 36, 232; 6-12), Hn..L 404. "Faciamus ergo
uoluntatem Patris, uoluntatem Filii, uoluntatem Spiritus sancti; quia Trinitatis huius una
voluntas, una potestas, una maiestas est. Ideo tamen dicit Filius: Non veni facere vo!z/ll-
tatem meam, sed volzllltatem eius qui misit me, quia Christus non est de se, sed de Patre
suo est. Quod autem habuit ut homo appareret, de creatura assumsit quam ipse formauit".
The italics, introduced by the editors, indieate Scriptural citations.
42. Augustine, Jo. eu. tl'. 20.4 (CCL 36, 205; 31-38), Hn..L 361. "Quia ergo potentia
Filii de Patre est, ideo et substantia Filii de Patre est; et quia substantia Filii de Patre, ideo
potentia Filii de Patre est. Non alia potentia est in FiIio, et alia substantia; sed ipsa est
potentia quae et substantia; substantia ut sit, potentia ut possit. Ergo quia Filius de Patre
est, ideo dixit: Filius non potest a sefacere quidquam. Quia non est Filius a se, ideo non
potest a se". On the claim that the Father generates the Son's essence, see AYRES, The
Fundamental Grammar of Augustine's Trinitarian Theology (n. 5), p. 65.
43. Here 1 am not considering the unit y of works and action of the Fatherand the Son,
but this general claim is established in Jo. eu. tr., 20.3.7 and 9-10; 21.2.10; 22.9.14.
44. Augustine,Jo. eu. tr. 20.4 (CCL 36, 205; 11-17), HILL 360-361. "Hoc enim intel-
legitur in his uerbis: Non potest Filius a se facel'e quidquam, nisi quod uiderit Patrem
facientem. Hoc est, quidquid Filius habet ut faciat, a Patre habet ut faciat. Quare habet a
Patre ut faciat? Quia a Patre habet ut Filius sit. Quare a Patre habet ut Filius sit? Quia a
Patre habet ut possit, quia a Patre habet ut sit. Filio enirn hoc est esse quod posse".
THE PRIMITY OF THE FATHER IN ORIGEN AND AUGUSTINE 867
begotten, it implies that the Father was not incomplete in time45 . That is,
the Father did not decided to beget the Son after existing for sorne period
of time "alone"46. Instead, the eternal generation of the Son states that
the Father did not come to "need" anything; the Father is complete, for
aIl etemity, with the Son and Holy Spirit. Thus the eternal generation of
the Son both supports the primity of the Father and the equality of the
Father and the Son. Illustrating this point, in response to an anticipated
objection, Augustine writes in Homily 21.17, "why do you still want to
go on making a fuss, because one did the sending, the other was sent?
The sun sends out rays without separating them from itself; the moon
sends out its brilliance without separating it; a lamp sheds its light with-
out separating it. l see sending in these instances, and l do not see any
separating"47. The upshot is that throughout Homilies 20-22 Augustine
offers a theological intelpretation of the relationship between the Father
and the Son that follows the IUle: Deus de Dea. This theological daim,
as grounded in book II of Augustine's De Trinitate, is worth considering
in more detail.
It has been demonstrated by Berrouard that Augustine explicated his
IUle 'God from God' in book II of De Trinitate after he preached Contra
sernlOnem Arianorum sometime after 419 48 . Further, based on this dating,
Berrouard argues that homilies 20-22 are dosely related to book II of De
Trinitate. And, for a theological explication of the primity of the Father,
45. Here Augustine relies on the helpful analogy of fire and light: the flame begets the
Iight, and produces the light, but the two are coeval. Jo. eu. tr. 20.8 (CCL 36, 207-8;
12-18), HILL 365. "Quomodo, inquit aliquis, aetemus aetemum? Quomodo flamma tem-
poraIis generat lucem temporalem. Coaeua est autem flamma generans luci quam generat,
nec praecedit tempore flamma generans lucem generatam; sed ex quo incipit flamma, ex
iIIo incipit lux. Da mihi flammam sine luce, et do tibi Deum Patrem sine FiIio".
46. Augustine, Jo. eu. tl'. 20.8 (CCL 36, 207; 6-12), HILL 364-365. "Non enim defuit
aliquid generanti, aut tempus quaesiuit ut generaret, qui genuit coaetemum; aut matrem
quaesiuit ut generaret, qui de se protulit Verbum; aut Pater generans aetate praecesserat
Filium, ut minorem Filium generaret. Et forte dicit aliquis quia post multa saecula in
senecta sua Deus suscepit Filium. Sieut Pater sine senectute, sie et Filius sine incremento;
nec ille senuit nec iIIe creuit; sed aequaIis aequalem genuit, aetemus aetemum".
47. Augustine, Jo. eu. tl'. 21.17 (CCL 36, 222; 6-12), HILL 388. "Quid ergo iam calum-
niam uis facere, quia iIIe misit, iIIe missus est? Sol radium rnittit, et non separat; luna
splendorem mittit, et non separat; lucema lumen fundit, et non separat; uideo ibi mis-
sionem, et nullam uideo separationem".
48. On Contra sermonem Arianor/lm see: M.R. BARNES, Ser/llonem Arianoru/ll,
Contra, in A.D. FITZGERALD (ed.), Augustine Thl'ough the Ages: An Encyclopedia,
Grand Rapids, MI, 1999, 772-773; B. DALEY, The Giant's Twin Substance: Ambrose
and the Christology of Augustine's 'Contra Sel'monem Aliano1'llm', in J.T. LIENHARD-
E.C. MULLER - R.J. TESKE (eds.), Collectanea Augustiniana, New York, 1993,477-495;
W.A. SUMRULD, Augustine and the Arians, Selinsgrove, PA, 1994. The text is found in:
Patl'ologia Latina 42: 677-708; Arianism and Othel' Heresies, ed. R. TESKE, New York,
1995, 118-171.
868 J.T. SLOTEMAKER
in relationship to the generation of the Son and the procession of Holy
Spirit, it is helpful to read homilies 20-22 alongside book II of De Tl'i-
nitate. One of the questions that Augustine attempts to answer in book II
is regarding the meaning of the sending of the Son and Holy Spirit: "If
then both Son and Holy Spirit are sent to where they aIready are, the
question arises what can reaIly be meant by this sending of the Son or of
the Holy Spirit?"49. In an attempt to answer this question, and others
related to it, Augustine develops the basic rule: Jesus Christ is Deus de
Deo, lumen de lumine (God from God, light from light)50. This basic rule,
as Augustine understands it, demonstrates that one person of the Trinity
is not lesser than another, but only that one is from the other5 1• This rule
- the fonn-of-God rule (HiIl's translation of Dei fOl'mam) - establishes
that the being of the Son is equal to that of the Father, while yet being
from the Father.
The God from God rule, as established in book II of De Trinitate, is
developed in reaction to the subordinationism that Augustine witnessed
in the Homoian strand of "Anti-Nicene" theology that he encountered in
North Africa52 . Thus, Augustine develops his mature position in response
to how various passages of Scripture were being exegeted by Anti-Nicene
49. Augustine, De Trin. Il.2.8 (CCL 50, 89; 31-34), HILL 102. "Quocirca si et filius
et spiritus sanctus illuc mittitur ubi erat, quaerendum est quomodo intellegatur ista missio
siue filii siue spiritus sancti. Pater enim solus nusquam legitur missus".
50. Augustine, De Trin. Il.1.2 (CCL 50, 81-2; 1-22), HILL 98. "Quamobrem qua-
mquam firmissime teneamus de domino nostro Iesu Christo et per scripturas diSseminatam
et a doctis catholicis earundem scripturarum tractatoribus demonstratam tamquam canon-
ieam regulam quomodo intellegatur dei filius et aequalis patri secundum dei formam in
qua est et minor patre secundum semi formam quam accepit, in qua fonna non solum
patre sed etiam spiritu sancto, neque hoc tantum sed etiam se ipso minor inuentus est, non
se ipso qui fuit sed se ipso qui est quia forma senti acceptaformam dei nonamisit, sieut
scripturarum quae in superiore libro commemorauimus testimonia docuerunt; sunt tamen
quaedam in diuinis eloquiis ita posita ut ambiguum sit ad quam potius regulam referantur,
utrum ad eam qua intellegimus minorem filium in assumpta creatura, an ad eam qua intel-
legimus non quidem minorem esse filium sed aequalem patri, tamen ab illo hunc esse
deum de deo, lumen de lumine. Filium quippe dicimus del/m de deo; patrem autem deulll
tantum, non 'de deo'. Unde manifestum est quod filius habeat alium de qUQ sit et cui filius
sit; pater autem non filium de quo sit habeat sed tantum cui pater sit. Omnis enim filius
de patre est quod est et patri filius est; nullus autem pater de filio est quod est sed filio
pater est".
51. Augustine, De Trin. Il.1.3 (CCL 50,84; 59-68), HILL 99. "Ex hac ergo regula qua
ita loquuntur scripturae ut non alium alio minorem sed tantum uelint ostendere quis de
quo sit, nonnulli eum sensum conceperunt tamquam minor filius diceretur. Quidam autem
nostri indoctiores et in his minime eruditi, dum haec secundum formam sem; conantur
accipere et eos rectus intellectus non sequitur, perturbantur. Quod ne accidat, tenenda est
et haec regula qua non minor filius sed quod de patre sit intimatur, quibus uerbis non
inaequalitas sed natiuitas eius ostenditur".
52. BARNES, The Arians of Book V (n. 5).
THE PRIMITY OF THE FATHER IN ORIGEN AND AUGUSTINE 869
theologians in the early fifth century53. The rule Augustine develops,
"governs many scriptural texts, [and is] intended to show not that one
pers on is less than the other, but orny that one is from the other"54. But,
Augustine continues by noting that sorne have interpreted the rule - that
the Son, and his workings, cornes from the Father - to imply that the Son
is less than the Father (minorfilius)55. Augustine's response is simply to
reassert the basic theological daim of this rule: The rule does not imply
a lack of equality, but the Son~s birth de Patre from eternity56.
III. ORIGEN AND AUGUSTINE: CHRIST AS 0Em: AND DEUS DE DEO:
THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
The primity of the Father, as established by Origen and Augustine,
entails certain philosophical and theological daims that can be consid-
ered briefly. First, one can note that the primity of the Father - in Origen' s
terms the Father as the ùpxi) of aIl ofreality - entails that there is an
eternal relationship between the first principle and the l'est of reality. This
foIlows because being an ùpxi), or font; entails that there is something
(in this case aIl of reality) that proceeds from the given ùpxi). Second,
to be the ùpxi) of aIl of reality, by one's nature, entails that this is an
eternal state of being. Simply put, to be the ground of aIl of reality, from
eternity, is to be eternally producing sometmng or someone (lest there be
a time before the being in question began to produce, or be the ùpxi),
e.g. AriuS)57. If this basic argument is "translatéd" into specifically theo-
logical tenns, given the Scriptural language of:Father and Son, one can
note that the Father cannot be eternally Father without an eternally exist-
53. Augustine, De Trin. Il.1.3 (CCL 50, 82-83; 23-44), HILL 98-99:
54. Augustine, De Trin. Il.1.3 (CCL 50,84; 59-61), HILL 99. "Ex hilc ergp regula qua
ita loquuntur scripturae ut non alium alio minorem sed tantum uelint :ostendere quis de
quo sit".
55. Augustine, De Trin. Il.1.3 (CCL 50,84; 61.;62), HILL 99. " ... nonnullileum sensum
conceperunt tamquam minor filius diceretur".
56. Augustine, De Trin. H.1.3 (CCL 50, 84;' 65-68), HILL 99. "Quod';ne accidat,
tenenda est et heac regula qua non minor filius sed quod de patre sit intimatur, quibus
uerbis non inaequalitas sed natiuitas eius ostenditur".
57. On the distinction between Arius and Origen see: WILLIAMS, Arius (n: '9), pp. 143-
144. "It is just as plain that Arius and Origen are fundamentally at odds over the eternity
of the Son and the quasi-necessity of the Son to the Father. Origen, as we,hilVe noted,
anticipates developed fourth-century orthodoxy in this at least, that he cornes close to
saying that the Father-Son relationship is intrinsic to the divine life as such'.;-. and also in
that he has sorne notion of this relation as existing for its own sake, notas' a me ans for
connecting the One and the Many".
 870 J.T. SLOTEMAKER
ing generated being58 : in the case of God the Father, the etemally gener-
ated being is the Son59 . And, it follows from this daim that the generation
of the Son is etemal6o • Thus, both authors, in their comments on John 1,1
(EV àpxn ~v 6 ')..oyoc, / in principium erat verbum) argue that the refer-
ence to "beginning" is not a temporal referencé 1 because the Son is the
etemallogos or verbum of the Father. Finally, the etemality of the Father
and Son necessitates the etemality of the Father and Son relationship: the
Father etemally generates the Son, the Son is etemally generated, and the
trinitarian relation of Father and Son is therefore etemal62 .
If we step back for a moment, and focus more acutely on the primity
of the Father, the logic of the discussion can be analyzed in greater detail.
The primity of the Father, the first-ness of the Father, entails that there
is another, a Son, who is etemally connected to the Father. Thus, while
the Father remains first, as Father, he is also etemally generating, as one
cannot be etemally Father without having an etemal Son. The correlative
logic of the etemal Father and etemal Son is therefore built into the con-
cept of the primity, or first-ness, of the Father. FUliher, this correlativity
of the divine relation has significant implications for how Origen and
Augustine speak about the Son.
Theologically the rule Deus de Deo is important for Augustine because
it maintains the Scriptural witness to the Son, Jesus Christ, being from
the Father. Thus, Augustine maintains the Scriptural distinction between
God (Deus) and God from God (Deus de Deo): a daim that is theologi-
58. WIDDICOMBE, The Fatherhood of God (n. 7), pp. 63-92, esp. 67. "The concept
[etemal generation] is crucial ta his understanding of the fatherhood of Gad: it is essential
ta his argument for the etemity of the divine fatherhood, ta his belief that the Father-Son
relation is distinct from and metaphysically prior ta the relation between Gad and creation,
and ta his affirmation of the etemity of Gad' s goodness and creative power".
59. Ibid., pp. 66-68. The position here should be contrasted ta that of Arius, and in
particular his daim that "there was a time when he [the Son] was not". See WILLIAMS,
Arius (n. 9), pp. 143-157.
60. Origen, Prin 1.2.2.
61. Origen, CIo 1.17.102; Origen, Prin 1.2.10; Augustine, De Trin. II.2.9. (CCL 50,
90-93). Widdicombe cOITectly notes that, "The assertion of the eternity of the Son's gen-
eration leads Origen directly on ta the implications of this for the nature of God, and in
particular the nature of Gad as Father. 'Can anyone', he asks, 'who has leamed ta regard
God with feelings of reverence suppose or believe that God the Father ever existai, even
for a single moment, without begetting this Wisdom?', and he makes dear the disastrous
consequences for the divine fatherhood entailed in the denial of the Son's etemal exis-
tence: 'Let him who assigns a beginning to the Word of Gad or the Wisdom of God
beware lest he utters impiety against the unbegotten Father himself, in denying that he was
always a Father'. Fatherhood is part of God's etemal nature" (WIDDICOMBE, The Father-
lwod of God [no 7], p. 69).
62. On the cOlTelativity of the divine relation between Father and Son see, WIDDI-
COMBE, The Fatherhood ofGod (n. 7), p. 69, fn. 21.
THE PRIMITY OF THE FATHER IN ORIGEN AND AUGUSTINE 871
cally equivalent to the distinction inherent in the Greek text of John 1,1
between The God (6 0EOC,) and God (SEOC,). These two distinctions,
1 would argue, function similarly for Augustine and Origen and are
grounded in their theological commitment to the primity of the Father.
For Augustine, as for Origen, Scripture unequivocally maintains the dis-
tinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ, who is God from God
the Father. Thus, both theologians find in Scripture (John 1,1) an empha-
sis on the primity of the Father, and it is this theological insight that
functions to ground their discussion of the etemal generation of the Son.
Retuming to the introduction of this paper, and the narrative of Theo-
dore de Régnon, one can observe in the writings of Origen and Augustine
a similar logic, or grammar, of trinitarian theology. There are not two
contradictory, or opposed, trinitarian logics at work in Origen and Augus-
tine - say, between a "personalist" or an "essentialist" strain of trinitar-
ian theology - but a similar daim regarding the primity of the Father in
the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. Further,
it should be noted in conclusion that the language employed by Origen
and Augustine is remarkably similar. First, both theologians focus acutely
on the relational, and Scriptural, language of Father and Son. This lan-
guage is foundational to the theological development of the primity of
the Father. Second, both theologians employ the analogy of light, and
light from light, to articulate the etemal relationship between the Father
and the Son. This analogy, like the language of Father and Son, implies
the primity of the Father and articulates the correlative nature of the
etemal relation. As Augustine states: Da mihi flammam sine luce, et do
tibi Deum Patrem sine Filio 63 • Therefore, on the primity of the Father, a
doctrine often assumed to be a distinct emphasis within the Greek theo-
logical tradition64 , one finds remarkable similarity between the Fathers
of the Church: East and West.
Boston College John T. SLOTEMAKER
Theology Department
140 Commonwealth Avenue
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
USA
slotemak@bc.edu
63. See ibid., fn. 45 above.
64. On this point one can note the discussion in ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion
(n. 2), pp. 88f. As a response ta Zizioulas, see AYREs, Nicaea and Its Legacy (n. 5),
pp. 364-383.
 " ... FOR THE FASHION OF THIS WORLD PASSETH AWAY"
THE APOKRITIKOS BY MAKARIOS MAGNES - AN ORIGENIST'S
DEFENSE OF CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY?

I. INTRODUCTION

Origen's Contra Celsum is easily the most famous Christian response

to the criticism of Christianity by a pagan intellectual. However, it is
not the only one l . One of the most comprehensive alternatives is the
Apokl'itikos or "Monogenes" by Makarios Magnes. It consists of a
series of pagan questions to or, rather, criticisms of Christianity, and
Christian responses. The criticism of the New Testament contained
therein is the most extensive by a pagan author which has survived2 • It
may be considered part of the genre known as "Erotapokriseis"3,
although the exact intention fol' its publication is still a matter of sorne
debate4 and so is its relation to Origen and Origenism which l shalllook
into in this paper.
In retrospect, one may discern two different generations of modem
research in Makarios Magnes: A first one set off after Charles Blondel' s
sensational discovery of the Codex Atheniensis in 1867, a manuscript
which contained a large portion of the Apokritikos and was, unfortunately,
later lost again. However, when Blondel's transcription was published after
his death5 , a number of notable scholars including Louis Duchesné, Adolf

1. Cf. especially Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Contra Iulianum, which is directed against

emperor Julian's Contra Ga/ilaeos.
2. Cf. the assessment by J.G. COOK, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-
Roman Paganism (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 3), Tübingen, 2000,
pp. 168-249.
3. Cf. H. DORRIE - H. DOERRIES, Erotapokriseis, in RAC 6 (1966) cc. 342-370. For
recent research on this genre cf. A. VOLGERS - C. ZAMAGNI (eds.), Erotapokriseis: Eady
Christian Question-alld-Allswer Literature in COlltext (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis
and Theology 37), Leuven - Paris - Dudley, MA, 2004.
4. Cf. U. VOLP, Makarios Magnes, in RAC 23 (2009) cc. 1223-1234.
5. C. BLONDEL (ed.), Makariou Magnetos Apokritikos e monogelles: Macarii
Magnetis quae supersunt, Paris, 1876. Blondel died at the age of 37 in 1873 and the
edition was finished by his friend Paul Foucart, director of the École française
d'Athènes in 1878-90.
6. L. DUCHESNE, De Macario Magnete et scriptis eius, Paris, 1877. Abbé Louis Marie
Olivier Duchesne (1843-1922) was a French priest, philologist and historian. In 1876 he
became a member, later the director, of the École française in Rome, and published on the
Liber Pontificalis and other sources.
874 U. VOLP
von Harnack?, Georg Schalkhausser8 (one of Harnack's pupils), and
T.W. Crafer took on the challenge9. One result of this first phase was
Harnack's edition and translation of the pagan Quaestiones to which
Macarius was responding. Harnack was convinced that the important
philosopher Porphyry was their author (albeit by way of an epitome of
his works), which guaranteed his work immediate wide attention. POl'-
phyry was, after aIl, not only one of the most impOltant philosophers of
the third century, venerated not least by Christian intellectuals, but also
the one most vigorously attacked by Christian Fathers such as Methodius
and Eusebius lO • More than half the fragments in Harnack's Porphyry
edition are from the Apokritikos". Harnack, however, did not have much
time for Makarios himself whom he believed to be an otherwise insig-
nificant bishop writing towards the end of the fourth centuryl2. The com-
plex nature of Makarios' elaborate "asianic" style also hindered its
popularity until today13. Not sUlprisingly, during the flourishing Porphyry
research of the 1970s, a new interest in the Apokritikos led to a number
of interesting contributions, some of which took the Solution es more
seriously (esp. the works of Robert Waelkens and Richard Goulet) 14.
However, interest in the Porphyrian passages prevailed, and publications
7. A. VON HARNACK, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen
des 3. Jahrhllnderts: Die im Apocriticus des Macarills Magnes enthaltene Streitsclmjt
(Texte und Untersuchungen, 37/3f), Leipzig, 1911, pp. 1-144.
8. G. SCHALKHAUSSER, Zu den Schriften des Makarius Magnes (Texte und Untersu-
chungen, 31/4), Leipzig, 1907, pp. 1-218.
9. T.W. CRAFER, A Neglected Apologist, in Journal of Theological Studies 8 (1907)
401-426,546-571; The Apocriticus of Makarius Magnes (Translations of Christian Lit-
erature. Series I: Greek Texts), London - New York, 1919.
10. Cf. the overview by COOK, Intelpretation (n. 2), pp. 103-167.
11. A. VON HARNACK, PO/phyrius, Gegen die Christen. 15 Biicher. Zeugnisse, Frag-
mente u. Referate (Abhandlungen der Koniglichen PreuBischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Berlin. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse), Berlin, 1916. Cf. also A. VON
HARNACK, Neue Fragmente des Werks des PO/phyrius gegen die Christen: Die Ps.-Poly-
Ca/piana und die Schrift des Rhetors Pacatus gegen PO/phyrius, in Sitzungsberichte der
preussiscllen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1921, pp. 266-284.834f, and the English trans-
lation by R.I. HOFFMANN, Against the Christians: The Extracts of Macarius Magnes,
Amhurst, 1994. A. SMITH (ed.), Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta (Bibliotheca Scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Stuttgart - Leipzig, 1993, hOWt1VeIl, omits the
Makarios fragments from his Porphyry edition.
12. "Übrigens ist es ziemlich gleichgiltig, ob unser Verrasser jener Macarius war oder
nicht". HARNACK, Kritik (n. 7), p. 16.
13. The best analysis of his rhetoric so far is provided by R. GOULET, Macarios Magnès.
Apocriticus 1 (Textes et traditions, 7), Paris, 2003, pp. 150-176.
14. R. WAELKENS, L'Économie, thème apologetique et principe hermeneutique dans
l'Apocritique de Macarios Magnes, Louvain, 1974; GOULET, Macarios (as in n. 13;
includes a comprehensive overview of the history of research in vol. 1, pp. 14-40); La
Théologie de Macarios Magnès, in Mélanges de Science Religieuse 34 (1977) 45-69.145-
180.
" ... FOR THE FASHION OF THIS WORLD PASSETH AWAY" 875
focussing on the pagan criticism still greatly outnumber those concemed
with the Christian response l5 . Whereas Porphyrian scholars have often
been a bit sceptical about Harnack's daim, Hamack's identification of
Makarios with the bishop may have been even more fatal for any schol-
arly WOl'k on Makarios himself than the focus on Porphyry. Hamack
followed the 18th century scholar Le Quien 16 who had identified Maka-
rios Magnes as a bishop who, accOl'ding to Photios 1?, was the accuser of
the bishop of Ephesus, Herakleides, at the synod ad Quercum in 403 18 •
Since the synod dealt with the fight against true or alleged "Origenists",
Makarios' stance on Origen is a vital question not least with regard to
Makarios' identity. It is also, needless to say, fundamental to the under-
standing of the Apokritikos, its originality and its intention, over which
there still remains a lot of uncertainty.
II. ORIGENISM IN MAKARIOS MAGNES
Let us first consider the external evidence. According to Socrates'
church hist01y, the "Synod of the Oak", the synod ad Quercum, was a
sequel to the anti-Origenist synod of Cyprus l9 . Socrates portrays it as a
mainly politically motivated attempt to dispose of John Chrysostom by
15. Such as T.D. BARNEs, Porphyry against the Christians: Date and Attribution of
Fragments, in Joumal of Theological Studies NS 24 (1973) 424-442; F. CORSARO,
L'Apocritico di Macario di Magnesia e le sacre Scritture, inNllovo Didaskaleion 7 (1957)
1-24, and La reazione pagane nel il' secolo e l'Apocritico di Macario di Magnesia, in
Quademi Catal/esi di studi classici e medievali 6 (1984) 173-195; E. DEPALMA DIGESER,
Porphyry, Julian, or Hierokles? The Anonymolls HeUene in Makarius Magnes' Apokri-
tikos, in Journal of Theological Studies 53 (2002) 466-502.
16. M. LE QUIEN, Oriens Christian us in quatuor patriarclzatus digestus I, Paris, 1740,
cc. 698f.
17. Photios, Bibliotheke 59.
18. "Eigenname, Heimat oder Wohnsitz, bischofliche Würde und Zeit treffen so schon
ZUSanIffien, dass jeder Zweifel müssig erscheint". T. ZAHN, Zu Makarios von Magnesia,
in Zeitschrift fiir Kircllengeschichte 2 (1878) 450-459, p. 450. Other voices for such an
identification cau be found in SCHALKHAUSSER, Zu den Schriften des Makarios (n. 8),
p. 21, who provides sorne sound arguments against it, ibid., p. 2. WAELKENS, L'Économie
(n. 14), p. 9, also advises caution given the popularity of the name "Makarios" in late
antiquity. In arder to facilitate an identification of the real adversary with Hierocles
CRAFER, A Neglected Apologist (n. 9), pp. 553-556, distinguishes between two Macarii.
GOULET, however, cautiously votes in favor of Le Quien's identification, because he
believes the arguments for Makarios' coming from Asia Minor to be convincing, but has
to admit that no direct link can be established between Makarios Magnes and the tes ti-
mony of Photius (GOULET, Macarios [no 3], pp. 48-51; as in n. 13).
19. Organized by the pious, but, in Socrates' opinion, not particularly bright bishop of
Coustantia (Salamis), Epiphanius. Socrates, H.e. 6.10.
 876 U. VOLP
accusing him and bis followers of Origenism and other offences2o • These
followers included a certain Rerakleides who had been installed by Clnys-
ostom as bishop of Ephesus after he had disposed of the corrupt simonist
predecessor there. Theophilus of Alexandria21 was presiding at the synod
who had for sorne time been the key figure in the attack on Origenism
(after having been somewhat of an Origenist himself, according to
Socrates22), accompanied by his nephew Cyril. According to Photius,
Makarios Magnes was party to aIl of tbis and took on the task of accusing
Rerakleides of Ephesus of Origenism during the 13th session of the synod,
after the fIrst 12 sessions had dealt with John Chrysostom's wrong-doings23
wbich included the accusation that Chrysostom had taken a hot bath alone,
and that after he had finished, someone emptied the bath, so that no one
else could use it - an offense that seems to have been similarly severe to
being an Origenist. If these otherwise non-conflicting reports are true and
the said Makarios is identical with the author of the Apokritikos, then
Makarios must have been an anti-Origenist at least by the year 403.
This conflicts with a different tradition preserved by the Patriarch of
Constantinople, Nikephoros 1. (806-815, b. about 758; d. 829) who
quotes from an otherwise unknown passage of the Apocriticus during a
longer accusation of Makarios. Nikephorus says that Makarios had fol-
lowed the heresies of
not only Manichean atheists and disreputable Arians, but also' the thought
and insult of the impious and senseless Origen24 •
Renee, according to Nikephorus, Makarios was an Origenist; accord-
ing to Photius, Makarios was not, but rather persecuted the Origenists. In
the light of these conflicting accounts it cornes as no surprise that opin-
ions have been divided over Makarios' Origenism amongst modem
scholars, too. T.W. Crafer, inhis "Journal of Theological Studies" article
of 1907, was convinced that
[wJe may safely challenge the production of any other author who has drunk
more deeply of the spirit of Origen25 •
20. Socrates, H.e. 6.11. Cf. 6.15.13.
21. The presidents were Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, Acacius of Beroea, Antio-
chus of Ptolemais, Severian of Gabala, and Cyrinus of Chalcedon, who were bitterly
hostile to Chrysostom, and constituted themselves judges, accusers, and witnesses. Photius,
Bibliotheke 59.
22. Socrates, H.e. 6.17.
23. Photius, Bibliotheke 59.
24. "J.lÎl J.lovov 'trov dlH:cov MavtX(ücoV, Kat OIlO'COVUJ.lCOV 'ApEtavrov, d'A'Aà Kat 'tOÙ
OIlO'O'EPOÙÇ Kat d1t01t'A1lK'tOll 'nptyÉVOllÇ 'tà <jlpoVllJ.la Kat 'tÎlv 'AroPllV ... ", Nikephoros,
Epikrisis 12.19-21 <!lX'!'.
25. CRAFER, A Neg/ected Ap%gist (n. 9), p. 405.
..... FOR THEFASHIONOFTHIS WORLD PASSETH AWAY" 877
Other scholars such as Michael Featherstone strongly rejected this
opinion26 • This is, to a lesser extent, also true of Richard Goulet whose
revised doctoral thesis of 197427 was published, including a new edition
of Blondel's text and a mildly "un-Origenist" French translation, in
2003 28 • One may safely say that Goulet prefers to consider Makarios'
theology as an example for a "pre-Constantinopelian" and "popular"
theological outlook, as a theology "que vivaient les Églises de ce temps"
without committing himself to any definite evaluation of its relation to
Origenist thought29 •
There are two main arguments for opposing the Nikephoros-tradition
of an Origenist Makarios. The first is based on the defectiveness of Nike-
phorus' knowledge of Makarios' position. Nikephorus says:
It is not in order to use the author as an advocate that we present this, but
to demonstrate the foolishness of those who stray from the truth and know
not what they say or affll'm. Here again, as in aU other things, they have
erred, theu' minds deranged, and they everywhere miss the mark. For they
proposed this Makarios as a witness and advocate of their own error and,
receiving and embracing his arguments to suit their thinking, they have of
necessity pierced themselves through with other evils. For they should
sooner have chosen the arguments at variance with the holy doctrines of the
Church which he professes to embrace and hold most particularly, perhaps
by old custom and disposition, in order that they might readily accept not
only the arguments of the godless Manichaeans and Mans of odious name,
but also the way of thillking and perdition of the impious and senseless
Origen, and might undertake to fOffimlate doctrines sllnilar to his that the
punishment announced and prepared by God for ilnpious men in the coming
age will have an end. This, too, will be easily understood by whoever
searches toward the end of the fourth book [of the ApocriticusJ, from which
the citations in question have been taken. For the present we pass over the
fact that he has also been supposed by some to hold the views of Jewish-
minded Nestorius 30 •
26. J.M. FEATHERsTONE, Opening Scenes of the Second Iconoclasm: Nicephorus's
Critique of the Citations from Macarius Magnes, in Revue des Études Byzantines 60
(2002) 65-112, p. 69.
27. R. GOULET, Macarios Magnès, Monogénès (Apocriticus). Thèse de troisième cycle
en Histoire de la philosophie, Université de Paris 1, 1974, pp. 71-80.
28. As GOULET, Macarios (n. 13).
29. Ibid., pp. 177-231.
30. "Taù'w oi; ~J.lEtÇ, oùx roç O'IlVllYOP<:P 'té!> kll'Y'Ypa<jld XproJ.lEVot, 1taPllyuyoJ.lEv,
d'A'A' roO'1;E odsat 'tÎlv J.la'tato<jlpoO'INllV 'trov 1tEpt 'tàv d'Alll}l) Aoyov d1toO'<jla'A'AoJ.lÉvcov,
Kat J.l1l'tE li 'AÉyOllO'tv Ei06'tcov, J.l1l'tE 1tEpt 'tivcov OtapEpatoùv'tat. "ROll yàp Kat
~vra@a Kal}à Kat sv a1tacrt 'tOtç (i'A'Aotç, 'tàv voùv 1tapa<jlEpOJ.lEVOt 1tE1t'Auvllvrat, Kat
1tavraxOÙ 'trov OEOV'tCOV sSaJ.lap'tUVOllO'W· Aùwt yàp J.lUp'tllpa Kat O'IlV~yOpov 'tOll-
'tOVt 'tàv MaKuptov 'tl)ç Éau'trov 1t'AUVllÇ 1tPOïcrXOJ.lEVOt, Kat 'tOÙC; MyOllÇ aù'tou Ka'tà
'tà OOKOUV ~KOEXOJ.lEVOt Kat 1tEpt1t'tllO'O'OJ.lEVot, 1tUV'tcoç 1tOll Kat (i'A'Aotç KaKotç 1tEptE-
1tUPllcrav. Eï'Aov'tO yàp av 1tpO'tEpOV Kat a1tEp Èvav'ticoç 'totç {EPOtÇ 'tl)ç 'EKK'AllO'iaç
 878 U. VOLP
Michael Featherstone dismissed this accusation of Makarios following
Origen as ill-informe d, since it was, in his view, as ridiculous as accusing
Makarios of Nestorianism:
This accusation of Origenism ... need not be taken any more seriously than
the other imputations of heresy, of Manicheism, Arianism and, as 'sorne
suppose', Nestorianism. One can only express surprise that Nicephorus,
who had never heard of Macarius, now pretends to know of his supposed
Nestorianism31 •
The allegation of Nestorianism, however, might be explained quite
simply: Socrates, in his church history, knows of one Makarios, presby-
ter in the Novatian church of Constantinople in the 380S32 • This Makarios
was close, he says, to a group of clergy full of "Jewish prejudices" :
Marcian accordingly having been constituted bishop of the Novatians, a
division arose in theu' church also, from this cause. Marcian: had promoted
to the rank of presbyter a converted Jew named Sabbatius, who nevertheless
continued to retain many of his Jewish prejudices; and moreover he was
very ambitious of being made a bishop. Having therefore confidentially
attached to his interest two presbyters, Theoctistus and Macarius, who were
cognizant of his designs, he resolved to defend that innovation (sc. by the
Novatians) in the time of Valens, at Pazum a village of Phrygia, concerning
the festival of Easter3 3 •
Photius, writing 400 years after the events, portrays "Nestorianism"
in a similar fashion: The Nestorians are "Jewish-minded", and he even
ù6YJ.lucrtv, l(J'COS Ill}Et 1tuÂut0 ICpœwUJ.lEVoS nE pt UIYl:à, ICUt OtaICatJ.lEVOS,. OOSUÇEt
dcrnuÇEcrl}ut on J.luÂtcr'tu ICut nEptÉXEcrl}ut t'vu J.l1') J.lôvov 'trov dl}Érov Muvtxuirov, ICUt
oucrroVUJ.lrov 'ApEtaVroV, dÂÂà ICUt 'tou OUcrcrEPOUS ICut dnonÂT)lCwu 'QptyÉVOUS 'to
<!>PÔVIlJ.l~ ICUt 'ti]v Âmp~v dcrnucriros nupuoÉsroV'tUl, ICUl 'tà ulYl:à ÈICatVep 00YJ.lU'tiÇE1V
6nlXEtPllcrrocrtv' ms 'tEÂOS ËSEt fj ICu'tà 'tov J.lÉÂÂov'tU Xpôvov 'tots dcrEpÉcrtv
d~l}pmnC:1S f]~E1ÂllJ.lÉVIl ,ICui ~'tot~acrJ.lÉvllnupà Gaou ICÔÂucrtS' Kut wU'to npoS 't0
't~ÂEt wu 'tE'tUpWU PlpÂlOU, ES ou ui npoICaiJ.lEVut Xpi]crEtS dVEÂi]<!>l}llcruv, EÙXEproS
'tep OtEpauVroJ.lÉvep ICU'tUÂll<!>l}i]crE'tUl. 'EroJ.lEV ÂÉyEtv 'tà vuv, on ICUl 'tà Nacr'topiou
'tou 'Iououtô<!>povoS nup' Èviots <!>poVatV lmEvoi]l}ll", Nicephorus, Epikrisis 12 (ed.
PITRA J, p. 302-335, 333.15-334.29; tr. FEATHERSTONE, Opening Semes (n. 26), p. 108;
cf. GOULET,fi·gm. 1,8t).
31. FEATHERSTONE, Opening Semes (n. 26), p. 108, n. 23.
32. This incident occurs shortly after the death of Agelius (ca. 385 CE).
33. "MupICtavou wivuv È1ttcrICônou 'trov Nuuunuvrov ICUl}Ecr'troWS OlTIpÉl}1l ICul
fj uù'trov ÈICICÂllcriu ÈS uhiuS 'toluu'tIlS. LUPPU'tlOS dno 'Iououirov Xptcr'tluvicruS, lmo
MupICtavou npos 'ti]v wu npacrpun;pou npopÂlll}aiS dSiuv oùotv ~'t'tov 'tfj 10uouïICfj
npoMI'VEt OOUÂEUEIV ÈcrnououÇEv, crùv ot 'tou'tep ICul 'tils 61ttcrIConils cOpÉyE'tO
opuSucrl}Ul. IIpocrÂupcbv oi'iv 'tils È1ttl}UJ.liuS suuwu cruvicr'topuS OUO npEcrpu'tÉpouS
GEôICncr'tov ICul MUICUplOV 'ti]v ICutvowJ.llll}atcruv Ènl 'tils pucrlÂaiUS OÙÛÂEVtOS wu
nucrxu SOpti]v Èv IIuÇep ICmJ.lTI 'tils cI>puyius, ms J.lot ICul npô'tEpoV Eïpll'tut, OtEIC01ICEtV
ÈpOUÂEUE'tO", Socrates, H.e. 5.21.5-7 (ed. G.C. HANSEN, GCS.NF 1, p. 295, 15-23; tr.
A.C. ZENOS, NPNF 2/2, p. 239).
" ... FOR TIlE FASHION OF THIS WORLD PASSETHAWAY" 879
identifies the heresy of Nestorius with the pelagian thinking of Coeles-
tius 34 . lndeed, Photius' usage of "Nestorianism" covers quite a large
range of heresies, so that it seems quite possible that he or rather his
source, which he is only quoting with sorne hesitation anyhow, had
mixed up the accusation of "Jewish-minded Nestorianism" on the one
hand with the "Jewish prejudices of the Novatian church" on the other.
The accusations of Makarios' "Manicheism" and his alleged "Arian-
ism", however, have an altogether different substance to it - but this
wouid justify a whole different paper in itself. Instead, let us concentrate
on Makarios' "Origenism".
There is a second and more compelling reason to oppose Nike-
phoros' conviction of Makarios' Origenism which can be discovered
when comparing Origen's Contra Celsum with Makarios' Apocriticus.
On the one hand, it is quite obvious that the pagan objections by Celsus
and the anonymous opponent of Makarios are not too different 35 • Both
are Platonists in a wide sense, and sorne of the anti-Christian argu-
ments are really quite similar. lndeed, four of their accusations are
almost identical: Christ's conduct in Gethsemane36 , Christ's refusaI to
provide evidence of his divinity during his passion37 , Christ's refusaI
to show himself alter the resurrection to his judges and to present
himself to respectable and credible witnesses 38 , and the absurdity of
the resurrection of human bodies 39 • On the other hand, however,
Makarios' response to these questions differs significantly from that of
Origen, both in style and in content. Origen is usually fairly straight-
fm'Ward with his refutation of the pagan arguments, and indeed, in CC
2.37 rejects allegoricai interpretation as unnecessary, if not useless, for
apologetic pUl-poses. Makarios, on the other hand, likes to marvel at
the different intel-pretations possible for a single piece of scripture, and
the variation provided by an allegorical approach. However, he some-
times ignores good points Origen makes in favour of a line of argu-
ment less convincing for many, albeit without any apparent inclination
to oppose Origen's ideas as such. Origen, for example, criticizes
Celsus for only quoting Mt 26,39a ("0 my Father, if it be possible, let
this cup pass from me ") and ignoring or rather suppressing Mt 26,39b
34. Both are accused of teaching man's free will and a rigorous moral asceticism which
they believed to be required of Christians by God. Cf. Photius, Bibliatheke 54.
35. Cf., however, the different view by DUCHESNE, De Maearia (n. 6), p. 22.
36. Cf. Orig., CC 2.24 and Macarius Magnes, Apaer. 3.2.
37. Cf. Olig., CC 2.63 and Macarius Magnes, Apaer. 3.1.
38. Cf. Olig., CC 2.63 and Macarius Magnes, Apaer. 2.14.
39. Cf. Orig., CC 5.14 and Macarius Magnes, Apaer. 4.24, both with reference to
Mt 19,26.
 880 U.VOLP
("not as 1 will, but as thou wilt") and the context of these verses40.
Makarios' pagan opponent is guilty of the same offence, but Makarios
fails to spot this weakness in his argument, and focuses on God's plan
of salvation instead41 . For those who deem Makarios' apptoach inferior
to Origen, this must praye that Makarios could not possibly have
known the Contra Celsum. It seems likely that Makarios himself had
never seen a copy of Origen's Contra Celsum, whereas the anonymous
pagan critic from the Apokritikos may have indeed read Celsus. Crafer,
who already saw this problem, took to distinguishing not only two, but
three different authors of the work: one pagan writer of the anti-Chris-
tian quaestiones (Crafer settled for Hierocles, proconsul and alleged
instigator of the fierce persecution of the Christians under Galerius in
303), one otherwise unknown Christian contemporary who wrate the
responses against Hierocles, and a third Christian redactor, the bishop
Makarios, who found the book a century later and added sorne ortho-
dox, largely non-Origenist, remarks.
However, one does not need to have read aIl of Origen's works in
order to be justifiably labelled an Origenist. As far as 1 can see, three
arguments have been brought forward for Makarios' Origenism to date:
The first considers a peculiar idea found in Makarios, Gregory of
Nyssa, and Origen: the idea of the deception of the devil by Christ Incar-
nate. According to Apocr. 3.9, Christ deceived the deceiver" the devil, by
covering his Godhead with his humanity. Makarios describes how Jesus'
miracles may have made the devil afraid to make the final attack, and
how Gad thus had ta think of something to entice Satan to do so. Hence
Jesus "feigned fear", pretending ta be afraid of suffering and dying,
epitomising weakness 42. Christ's humble humanity is the bait which
makes Satan gulp down the hook of his divinity 43.
Christ likewise wanted to pull up at his throat the cunning and deceitful
dragon who is hidden in the sea of the world, and is the source of all
mischief. He put the body like a worm round the hook of the Godhead, and,
speaking through it, he deceived the noetic and pneumatk serpent"".
40. Orig., CC 2.24.
41. Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 3.9.
42. Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 3.9.
43. Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 4.14.
44. "Oihro "tov Èv "tfi BUÀunTI "tou pi ou !CPU1t"toIlEVOV àpXÉ!Cu!Cov !Cui. 1tuvoupyov
!Cui. 06Àwv opu!Cov"tu BÉÀrov 0 Xpt(HOÇ àvucr1tücrat Otù "tou Q>upuyyoç, oi!CllV cr!Cro-
Àll!CoÇ "té!> "t~ç BE0111"tOÇ àyJCicrlPCP 1tEptpaÀÀEt "to crrollu, !Cui. Ot' uù"tOu Q>BEyyollEvoÇ
06À6US6t "tov vOT)"tov !Cui. 1tV6\lllu"tt!COV oQ>w", Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 3.9 (ed.
BLONDEL, p. 72,17-20).
" ... FOR THE FASHION OF THIS WORLD PASSETH AWAY" 881
A similar thought can be found in Gregory of Nyssa45 and Amphilochius
of Iconium46 , but also in Rufinus 47 who develops the theme even further:
Satan is drawn from the depths in order to become food for others like
the fish. The general idea is already present in Ignatius 48 , but Origen, in
his De principiis, is the only one who describes the simile as part of .a
great cosmological design. The dragon is said to reign in the sea, and 1t
is certain that the dragon is the devil himself.
As God, then, is a fire, and the angels a flame of fire, and all the saints are
fervent in spirit, so, on the contrary, those who ~ave f~Uen a~ay from ~he
love of God are undoubtedly said to have cooled m theu affectlOn for Hun,
and to have become cold. For the Lord also says, that, 'because iniquity has
abounded, the love of many will grow cold' (Mt 24: 12). N~y, aU thin~s,
whatever they are, which in holy Scripture are compared wlth th~ hostile
power, the devil is said to be perpetuaUy finding cold. Fo.r he IS called
'serpent' and 'dragon'; and what is found to be colder than hi~ ~ In the sea
also the dragon is said to reign. For the prophet (Ezek 22:2) mtunate~ that
the serpent and dragon, whkh certainly is referred t~ on~ of the wlc~ed
spirits, is also in the sea ... In the book of Job also, he IS sald to be the king
of aIl things in the waters (Job 41 :34 L~). The prophet (J~r 1: 1~) tmeatens
that evils will be kindled by the north wmd upon aIl who inhabrt the earth.
Now the north wind is described in holy Scripture as cold, according to the
statement in the book of Wisdom, 'That cold north wind' (Eccl. ~93:20)
which same thing also must undoubtedly be understood of the devil .
In this manner then did that being once exist as light before he went astray,
and fell to this'plac~, and had his glory tumed into dust, which is peculiarly
45. Greg. Nyss. Or. cat. 24.
46. Amphilochius,j1·g. ed. HOLL p. 91. CRAFER, A H.egle~ted Apologist (n. 9), pp. 551f,
believes that Amphilochius borrowed this from MakarIOS drrectly.
47. Rufinus, Comment. in Symb. Apost. 14. .
48. "The virginity of Mary and her giving bitih escaped the notice of the roler o~ thts
age' so too did the death of the Lord - three mysteries of a cry which were accomplished
in the silence of God. Kui. IlÀUB6V "tov IiPXOV1U "tou uto:voç :ou"tou ,ft 1tapB~via
Mapiuç !Cai. 0 "tO!C6"tOÇ aÙl~ç, olloiroç !Cai. 0 Buva"toç "tou !Cupwu' "tpta l!ucrTllpta
!Cpauyf\ç, ünva Èv ftcruXiQ- B60U È1tpuXBT)", IgnEph 19.1 (ed. tr. B.D. EHRMAN, LCL
24, pp. 238,1-4/239). ., " , . . , ..
49. "Sicut ergo deus 'ignis' est, et angeh 'fla~lIm~ 19ms '. et.sanctl 1wqlle. ~pm~u
ferventes': ita e contrario hi, qui d~cide~'U1lt a d~lect~one deI, ~lIle dU~lO, refnxlsse III
caritate eius ac j1'igidi effecti esse dlcendl sunt. AIt elllm et domlllus ,qUia Pro eo quod
multiplicata est iniquitas, rej1'igescet caritas multorum'. Sed et O~'~l/a ea, qlla~cum~lIe
sunt quae adversae potestati in scripturi~ sanctis conpar~lltu~', !,:,g,~a se~,p~r lIlVellle~.
'Serpens' namque et 'draco' diabolus dicltur: quorum qllldj1'lgldlus lIlVemtlll? Sed et 11I
aquis regnare dicitur draco, ql/od utique ad aliqu~m de ,~.alignis spiritibus .retorquetu:,
et 'ill mari' eum propheta esse desigllat '" Sed et III lob lpse rex ess.e om~llIlln, quae '~'
aquis sI/nt', dicitur. 'A borea' vero 'accendi mala sl/per omnes, qll/ habl~ant ter~'am ,
propheta demmtiat. Boreas autem ventus :n scriptur~s j1'igi~us desi~lIatur, .s,cut sCrlp~um
est in Sapientia: 'Frigidus ventus Boreas , quod et lpsum Sille dublO de diabolo sentlen-
dum est", Orig., Prin 2,8.3 (ed, KOETSCHAU/GORGEMANNs/KARl'P, GCS 22, pp. 156,22-
157,12; tr. following F. CROMBIE, ANF 4, p. 288).
 882 U. VOLP
the mark of the wicked, as the prophet also says; whence, too, he was called
the prince of this worId, Le., of an earthly habitation: Makarios Magnes for
he exercised power over those who were obedient to his wickedness, since
"the whole of this world" - for 1 tenn this place of earth, worId - "lieth in
the wicked one" (1 Joh 5: 19), and in this apostate. That he is an apostate,
i.e., a fugitive, even the Lord in the book of Job says, "Thou wilt take with
a hook the apostate dragon", i.e., a fugitive (Job 40:25)50. Now it is certain
that by the dragon is understood the devil himself51.
Makarios clearly refers to this elaborate reasoning by Origen when he
identifies "the prince of this world" (a reference to John 12,31 which
Makarios discusses in sorne detail in Apocriticus 2.20) with the dragon
and subsequently with the nVEUllunKos O<l>lS, the fallen spirit who reigns
in the sea. And thus Christ deceives the dragon in the sea, and he takes
the bait and is hooked. Given the references to the same texts of scripture
(esp. Job 40,25) and the apparent intention to make Use of this in a cos-
mological perspective, Origen and Makarios show closer paraUels than
any of the other writers using this idea. One may put this even more
strongly: Without knowledge of the place of the devil in Origen's cos-
mological design, Apocriticus 3.9 (and 2.20) cannot be properly under-
stood. Makarios may not have read Contra Celsum, but he certainly was
familiar with the ide as found in De principiis.
However, if one were to make a case for such an "Origenist" adaption
of this idea, one would have to explain one major difference in their
respective eschatological outlook at which we shaU look more closely,
but let us study Makarios' cosmology as such fust. Makarios believes not
only in an hierarchicaUy structured kosmos, similar to many Christian
"Platonists", but frequently refers to ÀOy1Kot as a 4istinctgroup of
beings, just as Origen did5la . More importantly, he also shows an under-
standing of the word ûnocHuO'lS, which Makarios uses nine times in the
extant text52 , similar to that of Origen: ûnoO'''CuO'lS is used to denote
50. Cf. Orig., Prin 3.2.1 where Origen also refers to Job 40,25.
51. "Hoc ergo modo erat etiam iste lu.x aliquando, antequam praevaricaretur et caderet
in hunc locum et 'gloria eius converteretur in pulverem', quod est proprie impiorwll, sicllt
et propheta dixit. Ex quo et 'princeps huius mundi', id est terrenae lIabitationis, appel-
latus est: principatum namque egit in eos, qui eius malitiae obsecuti sunt, quoniam quidem
'totus hic mundus' (mulldlllil autem II/IIIC terrelllllll istum appello locum) 'inmaligno posi-
tliS est', in hoc scilicet apostata. Quod autem apostata sit iste (id est refuga), etiam dom-
inus ill lob ira dicit. 'Adduces autoll in hamo draconem apostatam' (id est refugam).
Certum est autem quia draco ipse diabolus intellegitur", Orig., Prin 1.5.5 (ed. KOETSCHAU/
GORGEMANNs/KARI'P, GCS 22, p. 77,8-18; tr. F. CROMBIE, ANF 4, p. 259).
51a. The telm is used over 500 times in Origen's extant Greek words alone.
52. Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 2.8 (ed. BLONDEL p. 11,3); 2.9 (ed. B~ONDEL p. 12,16);
3.11 (ed. BLONDEL p. 76,10 and 20); 4.16 (ed. BLONDEL p. 186,32; p. 188,1; p. 189,29;
p. 190,12); 4.18 (ed. BLONDEL p. 194,6); 4.26 (ed. BLONDEL p. 211,21).
"". FOR THE FASillON OF TillS WORLD PASSETH AWAY" 883
either "existence" or, more characteristicaUy "being" or "substantive
reality" (not "person" !) and is not distinguished in meaning from OÙO'tu
("essence")53. They both employ the term in order to express the objec-
tive and inner reality of a thing as opposed to a name (ovollu), an outer
fOlm or an illusion. As in Origen, Makarios' use of ûnoO'''CuO'tS presup-
poses the idea of hierarchical steps in God's KOO'Il0S. God has ûnoO'''Cu-
mots and represents the principle of conveying the essence of "being".
This, of course, is never far from the - in the late fourth century - heret-
ical view of a hierarchicaUy structured godhead. Similarly to Origen,
Makarios clearly believed that God's divinity and God's spirit convey
itself to aU the creatures below, but in graduaUy decreasing intensity.
Angels, including the "deceiving angel", the devil 54 , thus patticipated
more in God's divinity than the ÀOy1Kot who are nevertheless still much
superior to unreasonable animaIs such as pigs 55 . However, Makarios
never seems to have the trinity in view, with one exception, namely,
when he describes his thoughts about baptism:
For the Spirit sanctified the man whom Christ has washed. And the Father
justifies him whom the Spirit has sanctified. This is not because Christ in
washing him cannot sanctify, nor that the Spirit in sanctifying has not power
to justify, nor that the Father in justifying is tao weak ta wash or sanctify
whomsoever Re wilIs. For the Father is sufficient both ta wash and ta
sanctify and ta justify aIl things, and the Son and the Roly Spirit likewise.
But it is fitting that the Son, as Son, should adopt men as sons, and that the
Roly Spirit, as Spirit, should sanctify them, and that the Father should jus-
tifY him that receives sanctification, in arder that the name of the three
Persans may be known in one essence (ûn6<nacnç). The Apostle was
instmcted in this opinion by the Gospel, where it says, 'Go and make dis-
ciples of aIl the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Roly Ghost' (Matt 28: 19), and sa he welcomes at the laver
of baptism the name of the Trinity, saying, 'But ye were washed, but ye
were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
and in the Spirit of our God,56.
53. Cf. Heb 1,3: "Who being the brightness ofhis glory, and the express image ofhis
ImoO''Cucnc;, and upholding aH things by the word of his power, when he had by himself
purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. aC; rov Ù1tuuyuO'j.lU
'Cftc; 86S11C; Kut XUpUK'ti)p 'tftc; U1toO''tuO'sroC; uùwu, <!>Éprov 'ts 'tà 1tuvm 't0 Pllj.lun 'tfic;
Ù\)vuj.lsroC; uùtoU, KUSuptO'j.loV trov aj.lupnrov 1tot11O'Uj.lsVoC; EKUS10'SV EV ùsstÇ'i tfiC;
j.lsyuÂ.roO'UV11C; EV u'!'l1Â.oî'C;".
54. Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 2.21.
55. Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 3.11.
56. "av yàp ËÂ.O\)O'sv 0 XptO'toc;, 'tOUtOV f]ytuO's tO IIvsuj.lU· av ù' f]ytuO's 'to
IIvsuj.lu, touwv ÈÙtKutroO'SV 0 IIu'tllP' KUt OÙX on Â.ourov 0 XptO'tOC; aylusstV où
ù6vu'tut, oùù' aytusov 'to IIvsuj.lu ÙtKUtoUV OÙK iO'xust, oùù' 0 IIuti)p ÙtKutroV
ùO'Ssvsî' nvu Â.oustV il aytusstV av ~ouÂ.Stut· iKUVOC; yàp oj.lotroc; Kut 0 IIuti)p KUt
o Yioc; KUt 'to Aytov IIvsuj.lu KUt Â.oustV Kut aytUSstV KUt ÙtKutoUV 'tà nuv'tU, ùÂ.Â.'
U
 884 U. VOLP
The wording here is so alien in the context, however, that Crafer
thought it to be a later interpolation. It seems obvious, at least, that
Makarios' text reflects baptismal practice and probably uses parts of a
credal formulae from his liturgical experience. The one other instance in
which Makarios distinguishes between ollcrla and ûnocr'Lacrtç deals with
a literary synecdoche, not with Trinitarian theology, as sorne have
believed57 • St. Matthew, in the story of the two demon-possessed men Mt
8,28, Makarios says, really means one man with two demons, and thus
distinguishes ollcrla and tmocr'tacrtç.
Makarios' understanding of God' s divinity is otherwise negàtively
defined, in discrimination from human beings, angels, or pagan gods over
which God rules as monarch58 . The ontological difference between
angels, demons, and human beings, on the other hand, is comparatively
small. This also serves as a philosophical argument against polytheism:
Anthropomorphic gods or angels may be illuminated by God's rays of
reason, but they will never be capable of creating divine grace by them-
selves. However, nature and the entire Kocr~oÇ are testimony to God's
reason and the uniqueness of the creator. The sensible world reflects the
world of intelligible order, the "higher" world, as it were, which in turn
is regulated by the 'Aoyoç and the Wisdom of God. Thus, there are two
levels of patticipation in God's 'Aoyoç. Individual spiritual beings,
'AoytKol, take part in the life of the divine Myoç, andmaterial beings
take part in the life of the rational, unifying structure, which brings order
into theit· world. Christ's incarnation as a humble human being - a main
point of pagan criticism - is in this view ontologically rather unproblem-
atic. Given the vast difference between God and man, God's divinity
simply cannot be stained by fleshly corruption. When taking aIl this into
consideration, Makarios' concept of the kosmos is very.similar indeed to
that of Origen's design as sketched out in De principiis. However, the
,
on ,?tPÉ1tIlt 'tov Yi6v, roc; ui6v, UiOSE'tstV 1I:ut 'to IIvEl3J.lu 'to "Aytov aytuÇEtv, roc;
1tVEUJ.lU, Kut 'tov IIu'tÉpu OtKUtoUV 'tov aywÇ6J.lEVOV, ïvu 'tptrov U7tO(J"tUcrEroV Èv oùcriu
J.lt~ yvroptcrSij 'to ovoJ.lu. TU(Yrllv yùp 'tljV yvroJ.lllV ô 'A7t6cr'toÂoc; 1tUtOEUSEtc; Èv 't~
EÙUYYEÂiq>, ËvSu <pl]cri' «IIopEuSÉv'tEc; J.luSll'tE6cru'tE 1tUV'tu 'tù ËSVll, pU1t'tiÇOV'tEC;
UÙ'tOÙC; Etc; 1:0 OVOJ.lu 'tOU IIu'tpoc; KUt 'tou Yiou KUt 'tou 'Ayiou IIVEUJ.lu1:0C;», È1tt 'tou
ÂOU1:pOU 1tUpuÂUJ.lPUVEt 'to OVOJ.lu 'tfic; TptuooC; ÂÉyrov' «'AÂÂù à1tEÂOUcrUcrSE, àÂÂ'
~ytUcrSl]'tE, àÂÂù SOtKatroSl]'tE Èv 'tif> ov6J.lun 'tou Kupiou ~J.lrov '!llcrou Xptcr'tou Kut
sv 'tif> IIvauJ.lun 'tou 0wu ~J.lrov»", Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 4.25 (ed. BLONDEL
pp. 209,15-210,3; tr. mainly follows CRAFER, Apocriticus [no 9], p. 142).
57. Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 3.11. "Es zeigt sich auch schon die viillige Kliirung der
Begriffe oùcriu und u1t6cr'tucrtC;, welche bei Athanasius noch nicht erreicht ist". T. 'ZAHN,
Zu Makarios von Magnesia, in Zeitschriftfiir Kirchengeschichte 2 (1878) 450-459, p. 453.
Cf., however, CRAFER, A Neglected Apologist (n. 9), pp. 555f.
58. Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 4.26-29.
..... FOR THE FASIDONOFTIDS WORLDPASSETHAWAY" 885
differences become notice able when looking at the eschatological out-
look of such a world.
This leads us to the third argument for Makarios' Origenism which
takes seriously Nikephoros' remark according to whom Makarios was a
follower "of the impious and senseless Origen"59, because his eschatol-
ogy is presumed to be Origenist in nature. It is this thil'd argument, that
1 should like to investigate in more detail at last.
m. ESCHATOLOGY IN MAKARIOS MAGNES
Both Celsus and the anonymous pagan of the Apocriticus accuse
Christianity of an irrational eschatology, because St. Paul teaches that
"the fashion (crxij~a) of this world passeth away" (l Cor 7,31). Accord-
ing to Origen, Celsus presumes that the kosmos was not created, had no
beginning and shall have no end60 • It is a view that was not uncommon
among Platonists61 • Origen, on the other hand, strongly believed in God' s
creation, although he had, one should say, a rather un-historic view
thereof. Methodius of Olympus, for example, criticized Origen for what
he perceived to be an unbiblical concept of an eternal creation, the pre-
existence of the soul, and the possibility of an ever-repeating circle of
creation62• It may be justified to say that Origen was so concerned with
the ontological implications of his design, that De principiis at least can
be read as allowing fol' more than one creation and more than one end of
the world. If the kosmos was the result of emanations from the Godhead,
this could happen again, even after this world had come to an end.
Similarly, the pagan from the Apocriticus vehemently attacked Chris-
tianity for its belief in the "passing away of the fashion of this world"
(1 Cor 7,31):
What does Paul mean by saying that the fashion of the world passes away?
Aud how is it possible for them that have to be as though they had uot, and
they that rejoice as though they rejoiced not, and how can the other old-wives'
talk be credible? For how is it possible for him that has to become as though
59. Nicephorus, Epikrisis 12.37-51.
60. Orig., CC 1.19, and 4.65.
61. TIus is true despite the conviction that human history is full of catastrophic expe-
riences which, however, only serve to create new societies and new cultures, but never the
end of the world (discussed for example by Platon, Leg. 3.676a-677a). Cf. A. KEHL,
Geschichtsphilosophie. A. Nichtchristlich, in RAC 10 (1978) 703-752, cc. 707-714.
62. E.g. in Methodius, Adversus Origel/em de Pythollissa. Cf. K. BRACHT, Vollkom-
mel/heit ulld Vollendullg: Zur Anthropologie des Methodius VOII Olympus (Studies and
Texts in Antiquity and Christianity, 2), Tübingen, 1999.
886 U.VOLP
he had not? And how is it credible that he who rejoices should be as though
he rejoiced not? Or how can the fashion of this world pass away? What is it
that passes away, and why does it do so? For if the Creator were to make it
pass away He would incur the charge of moving and altering that which was
securely founded. Even if He were to change the fashion into something bet-
ter, in this again He stands condenmed, as not having realised at the time of
creation a fitting and suitable fashion for the world, but having created it
incomplete, and lacking the better anangement. ID any case, how is one to
know that it is into what is good that the world would change if it came to an
end late in time? And what benefit is there in the order of phenomena being
changed? And if the condition of the visible world is gloomy and a cause for
grief, in this, too, the Creator hears the sound of protest, being reduced to
silence by the sound of reasonable charges against Him, in that He contrived
the parts of the earih in grievous fashion, and in violation of the reasonable-
ness of nature, and afterwards repented, and decided to change the whole. Pel'
chance Paul by this saying teaches him that has, to be minded as though he
had not, in the sense that the Creator, having the world, makes the fashion of
it pass away, as though He had it not. And he says that he that rejoices does
not rejoice, in the sense that the Creator is not pleased when He looks upon
the fair and beautiful thing He has created, but, as being much grieved over
it, He fOImed the plan of transfening and altering it. So thèn let us pass over
this trivial saying with mild laughter63 •
Makarios panies this criticism by bringing fOl'Ward two thoughts:
Fust, he provides an epistemological argument for Paul's concept. Both
vagueness and obscurity, Makarios says, are the result of the createdness
and limitations of human beings and aIl other ÀoytKoî (rational beings)
in the current phase of the divine plan of salvation:
63. "lIroç 1tUpâyEtV 6 lIuuÂ,oç Â,SyEt 'ta crxf]llu 'tOU KocrIlO\J; KUt 1troç o\Jvu'tav 'tOllÇ
EXOV'tUÇ roç Ill'] EXOV'tUÇ EtVat KUt 'tOllÇ xuipovraç roç Ill'] xuiPOV'tuç, Kut'tàç Â,ot1tàç
'to(n;otç ypuoÂ,oyiuç dvat mSuvâç; lIroç yàp o\Jvu'tav tav EXOVtU IlÈV roç Ill'] EXOV'tU
yEVscrSUt; 1troç oÈ mSuvav 'tav xuiPOVtU roç Illl xuiPOVtU; Tl ?troç 'ta crXf]IlU 'tOU
KocrllO\J 'tOUto\J 1tupEÂ,Sdv o\Jvu'tov; Tiç 0' 6 1tupâyrov EcrtUt Kut tivoç XâptV; Et IlÈV
yàp 6 Olww\Jpyaç 'tOu'tO 1tUpâÇ,EtE, otu~Â,TJSi]crE'tUt, roç 'ta KEillEVOV àcr<jluÂ,roç KtVroV
KUt IlEtU<jlSProv' et 0' È1tt 'ta Kpdt'tov 1tUpâÇ,Et 'ta crXf]llu, KUtTJYOPEhut Ka" 'tOU'tCfl
1tâÂ,tV, roç où cr\JVtorov Èv 'tfl 0TJIlW\JpyÎÇt 'ta aplloÇov Kut 1tpS1tOV crXf]llu 'tC!> KocrllCfl,
àÂ,Â,à 'tOU Kpett'tOVOç Â.6yO\J Â,Et1tOIlEVOV EKncrEv uùtav Wcr1tEp à'tEÂ,fl. lIOSEV youv
tcr'tsov roç Elç 'ta KuÂ,av 1') 'tOU KocrllO\J <jlucrtç D\jIÈ 'trov xpovrov àÂ.Â.ut'tOllsvll Â,TJÇ,Ets
1tO'tE; Ti oÈ ta cr\Jll<jlspov 'tl']v 'trov <jlutVollsvrov tâç,tV àÂ.Â.uyf]vut;'Ei IlÈV yàp KU'tll<jlf]
Kut Â,U1tTJç a'(nu 'tà trov oProllsvrov fmâpXEt 1tpuYllu'tu, KU'tU\jlUÂ,Â,E'tUt KUt 'tOUtotç 6
0TJIlW\JPyoÇ, Ku'tU\JÂ,oÛIlEVOÇ EÙÂ.6YOtÇ uhiutç, on Â,\J1tTJpà Kut 'tupât'tovtu 'tl']v
Â,oytKl']V <jlûcrtV È'tEKti]VU'tO tOU Kocrllo\J tà IlsPTJ, KUt IlEtUyvollÇ EKptVEV àÂ,Â.âç,ut
'ta 1tiiv. Mi] 'tt youv 0 lIuuÂ,oç tC!> MyCfl tOÛ'tCfl roç Ill'] EXOVtŒ OtOâcrKEt 'tav EXOVtU
<jlpovdv, È1tEt 'tav KocrlloV EXroV 6 K-dcrUÇ, roç Ill'] EXroV, toÛto\J 1tUpâyEt 'ta crxf]llu,
KUt tav xuiPOVtŒ MyEt Ill'] XUiPEtV, È1tel 'ta xâptEV Kut Â,ull1tpav K'ticrllu 0 0llllt-
o\Jpyaç ~Â,S1trov, où 'tSp1tEtUt, KUSU1tEp 0' È1t' uùtC!> 1toÂ,Â,à Â,\J1tOÛIlEVOÇ, IlE'tâyEtV
'tou'tO Kut IlE'tU<jlSpEtV OtE~O\JÂ,EÛcrU'tO. ME'tpÎCfl IlÈV oi')v ysÂ,ron 'tOUto 'ta Â,Eç,iowv
1tUpuXropi]crroIlEV", Macarius Magnes, Apoer. 4.1 (ed. BLONDEL p. i58,1-21; tr. CRAFER,
Apocritiells ln. 9], pp. 118f).
" ... FOR THE FASIDON OF TIDS WORLD PASSETH AWAY" 887
Let us explain, then, in how many ways the fashion of this world is per-
ceived because the fashion of the cosmos is nothing but this transient and
miserable life. The 'fashion of the world' comprises the various ages, from
infants to the adolescent, then again from the young to the mature man, and
finally to old age. Because the fashion is none other than the appearance of
the thing. For as the shadow of a man who accompanies him is but a shape
of the man and his silhouette - and it passes away faster, because it disap-
pears at the end of the day and flees the light, and it has no permanence - so
the appearance of physically existing things is but fashion of the world and
its shadow and has no permanent and secure state, but perishes in the fast
circulation of times 64 •
Makarios employs genuine Platonic theOl'y of knowledge here 6s • The
nupayEtV 'LO O'Xl1llU 'LOU KOO'Il0U 'LOU'LOU, the passing away of the fash-
ion of this world (l Cor 7,31), is nothing more than a confitmation of
Plato' s theory of ideas which possess the highest and most fundamental
kind of reality - not the materiai world of change known to us through
sensation.
Makarios' second point is a theologicai one. The belief in the "passing
away of the fashion of this world" solves the problem of theodicy, the
question of how a good, perfect, and almighty creator couid possibly
have created such an imperfect and evil worid in which ignorance and
tyranny mIe:
You know, as sorne say, the piece of tragedy which happened there, you
know the play of the many-voiced deception. You know ... how the pro-
genitor of human existence who put up with the slander of the snake with-
out questioning it, was thrown out from that divine shelter ... , because he
had become alien to that divine plantation. From then on, the sinister trag-
edy ridiculed the human race, from then on the Logos-scion was broken ...
from then on an army of tyrants has sprouted, from then on murderous and
66
inhuman disposition existed ... and the cloud of disorder spread •
64. "Et1troIlEV oi')v roç 1toÂ.Â.uXroç VOEl'tUt 'ta crXf]IlU 'tOU Kocrj.lO\J 'tOÛ'tO\J' 06vutut
yàp crxf]j.lu 'tOu Kocrj.lO\J 't\JYXâVE1V Kut 1') 1tpocrKutpOÇ U1ltll çro~ Kut 1tO~\Jcr'tS,VU,KtoÇ~
crxf]j.lu 'tOU Kocrj.lO\J Â,â~E KUt 'tl),v àvoj.lowv 1')Â,tKiuv 't0\J crroj.lU'toç, TJnç U1tO 't0\J
~ps<jlo\Jç etç j.letpUKU 1tUpâyEt, uùStç dç avopu KUt 1tâÂ,tV dç 1tPECï~ÛtllV KUt tsÂ,oç
dç yspoVtu' crxf]j.lU yàp oùoÈv Ë'tEpOV Ècrnv Tl <jluvtŒcriu 1tpâyj.lu'tOç· roç yàp àvopaç
crKtà 1tUpE1toj.lsVll t\JyxâVEt j.lÈv crXf]j.lâ n Kut àvopaç u<jli]ncrtç, 1tUpâyEt oÈ
Sii't'tOv È1tt 'tSÂ,Et toU <jlrotaç àvuÂ,o\Jj.lsVll Kut <jlEÛyO\JcrU Kut 'tl']v 'tf]ç àK'tlVOÇ ~oÂ,l']v
OÙX U1toj.lsvo\Jcru, OÜtroç ~ <jluvtucriu 'trov crroj.lUnKroç U1tUpXOVtrov ÈVSûOE, crxf]j.l~
Kocrj.lO\J Kut crKtà 't\JYXâvo\Jcru, OÙK EX Et j.lOVtj.lOV Kut àcr<jlUÂ,f] 'tl']v crtâcrtV, 'tuxtVn
oÈ 1tEpioOCfl 'trov xpovrov 1tUpUyEl", Macarius Magnes, Apoer. 4.11 (ed. BLONDEL
p. 169,4-14).
65. Cf. Platon, Polit. 514a-520.
66. "Ëyvroç, nvrov Â,EYOVtroV, ta ÈKdcrE opuj.lu'tOÛPYllj.lU· Ëyvroç 'ta 1toÂ.Û<jlrovov
ÈKEl 'tilç à1tâ'tllÇ 'tpuy<POTJj.lu· EyVroÇ ... 1troç 'tf]ç àvSpro1tivllÇ oùc:iuç ,0 àpXTJYa~ 'tl']v
Otu~oÂ,l']v àVEÇ,E'tâcr'troç àcrj.lEVicruç toU Ü<jlEroÇ EÇ,ro ~UÂ,Â,EtUl 'tO\J S~LO\J 1tEpt~OÂ,O_\J,
... àÂ,Â,o'tpwç 'tf]ç 1tuvoÂ,~io\J <jl\Jtetuç yEVOj.lEVOÇ. 'EKEiSEV tCfl ySVEl 'ta 'tTJç
888 U. VOLP "". FOR THE FASmON OF TmS WORLD PASSETH AWAY" 889

God's graee is going to mIe from the day of judgment, not before. This
will end the rule of demons and the differenee between creator and cre-
ated beings. Until then, humans live in a slime pit (-.à nllÀ6s) of imper-
manence, darkness, and ignorance, and also with ethical misconduct. At
the end of aH times, when Christ rises again, permanence, absolute
knowledge, and perfection will be restored. Makarios pOltrays aH this
using theatrical language. It is a unique drama conducted by God. This
also explains the obscureness and ambiguity of the revelation (for exam-
pIe the "messianic secret" in Mark) which Makarios sees in parallel to
the dramaturgical tricks and elements of suspense constituent to any good
drama. Christ' s incarnation is part of this drama. It anticipates the end of
the world when God's grace rules completely67, but it also emphasizes
the uniqueness of the events leading up to it. When justifying Christian
teachings on creation and incarnation, Makarios refers to God's salvation
plan over and over again. If this were universally understood, the pagan
criticism would loose its appeal and everything would become clear to
anybody open to rational arguments. When looking at the whole of the
extant text, it is indeed striking how God's salvation plan dominates
Makarios' argument68 • The issues of ÇJod's divinity, creation and mean-
ing of sin, ethics and eschatology are all subordinated to Makarios' teach-
ing of this unique, single plan of salvation.
IV. CONCLUSION
was ONE incarnation, there only ever will be ONE ùnoKU-.ucrw,crtS at the
end of aH times. Thus, Makarios' eschatology should be regarded as
something of a modification, if not contradiction or even protest against
Origen: Origen had tried to overcome the complex Gnostic systems by
answering with an ontological system of his own accord. In the course
of this, Makarios might have felt that Origen somehow neglected the
biblical notion of salvation history which became so important during the
controversies in connection with the Athanasian interpretation of ortho-
doxy. This theological profile of an otherwise quite Origenist Makarios
corresponds well with a dating around the year 380, before the witchhunt
of Origenists by Theophilus and the like had begun, but after the Trinitar-
ian controversies had revealed the difficulties caused by Origen's ontol-
ogy-centered approach. Moreover, 1 think this thought may serve to make
Makarios more accessible and better understood theologically for what
he was: an Origenist striving for additional answers when faced with
pagan criticism of Christian creation theology.
Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz Ulrich VOLP
Evangelisch-Theologische FakuWit
Saarstr.21
55099 Mainz
Germany
volp@patristik.de

Any investigation of Makarios' "Origenism" seems to produce ques-

tions rather than answers. On the one hand, he clearly is an Origenist,
sinee he not only often adopts Origen's vocabulary, but also his cosmol-
ogy and ontological world view. 1 hope to have shown conclusively how
close Makarios is to Origen's thinking and terminology,especially to that
of De principiis, even if Makarios obviously had not read the Contra
Celsum. On the other hand, there is a pronounced theological disagree-
ment between Makarios and Origen which so far has been . overlooked,
1 believe, and this is Makarios' emphasis on the uniqueness of God's
salvation plan. For him, there only ever was ONE creation, there only ever

cruf,I<popiiS È1tEKeDf,lacrE opiif,la' ÈKEiSEV ~ ÂoytK~ pÂacrTrj Ota1tÉ1t1XOKEV' ". BKEiSEV

~f,lrv -cupaVVtKov B1tE<pÛlj cr-cpa'rEuf,la' ÈKEiSEV <p6vtot SUf,lot Kat d1tavSpco1tot· ".
ÈKE1SEV Û> VÉ<poS -c1\s d'rastas 1taxuvE'ral", Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 2.21 (ed.
BLONDEL, pp. 43,13-44,5).
67. Macatius Magnes, Apocr. 4.13.
68. Cf. WAELKENS, L'Écol/omie (n. 14).
 REVERBERATIONS OF ORIGEN'S EXEGESIS
OF THE PSALMS IN THE WORK OF
EUSEBIUS AND DIDYMUS 1

Among an biblical books, the Psalter was probably the one most
extensively studied and interpreted by Origen throughout his career as
teacher and preacher. His special concern for the Psalms is perhaps best
illustrated by the fact that for the Psalter he supplemented the four
standard translations of the Hexapla with a fifth and sixth Greek trans-
lation. The extent of his own written work on Psalms - homilies, com-
mentaries and the Enchiridion - was indicative of his deep interest in
this subject, filling around 170 "books" in the library of Pamphilus 2 •
Unfortunately, like so many of Origen's works, most of these writings
have perished in their original form, with only small parts, extracts and
fragments being passed down to us in the Philocalia, in works of other
Church fathers, in Latin translation and, most notably, in the catenae
on Psalms. A critical edition of these fragments is currently being pre-
pared at the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften by
a te am of three editors including myself; l have been a member of this
team for about three years.
One of the major pl'Oblems in exploiting the catenae material is the
attribution of fragments to Origen. Stemmatic considerations as weIl as
analyses of style and content can help to determine their authenticity. In
the following, l will show how investigations into the reception history
of Origen's work can provide additional arguments for attributing certain
fragments to him.

1. THE CATENAE TRADITION ON Ps 51-76

My editorial work is at present concentrated on Origen's exegesis of

Ps 51-76. This section of the Psalter has a patiicularly difficult catenae
tradition, because the most reliable witness in respect of content and
attribution of fragments is lacking; l am speaking of the Palestinian

1. l would like to express my gratitude ta my colleagues at the BBAW as well as to

Andrea Villani for theu' helpful comments on this paper.
2. Cf. P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son Œuvre (Christianisme Antique, 1), Paris,
Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 225-260; 280-292.
892 C.BANDT
Catena - chafne palestinienne, as Marcel Richard3 called it. The only
surviving manuscript of the Palestinian Catena for this section, which has
been passed down to modern times, was housed in the National Library
of Torin0 4 where it was severe1y damaged when fire broke out in the
library in 1904. There is little hope that the remaining parts of this manu-
script will be able to provide a substantial contribution to establishing the
text, even though they have been restored lavishly5. Therefore, the edition
for this part of the Psalter will rely mainly on material from other catenae.
To a certain degree the original Palestinian Catena, or First Palestinian
Catena, as Gilles Doriva16 names it, can be reconstructed from its second-
ary traditions, the chafnes filles? - "Catenae daughters" - to once more
use the terminology of Dorival - and their "daughters". Moreover, Gio-
vanni Mercati made a list of fragments on some Psalms in the Torino
manuscript before fire damaged it8 • From these sources, it is possible to
gain the rather small number of 15 fragments on verses of Ps 51-76,
which can be attributed with confidence to Origen9•
Further fragments are found in one catena only. This catena was
classified by Georg Karo and Hans Lietzmann as type VII lO and is
3. M. RICHARD, Les premières chaînes sur le psautier, in Bulletin d'information de
l'Institut de recherche et d'histoire des textes 5 (1956) 87-98, p. 88.
4. Ms. Taur. C II 6 (Pasini 221) from the 10Ih century, containing t.he Palestinian
Catena on Ps 51-100. For the section between Ps 51 and Ps 76 this manuscript has been
the single witness of the Palestinian Catena, because this catena apparently existed in two
different editions: one in three volumes (Ps 1-50; 51-100; 101-150), of which the Tau-
riensis fOlmed the second volume and another edition in two volumes with only the second
part (from Ps 77 onwards) extant in two manuscripts.
5. Previous to the burning this manuscript contained 323 folia, cf. G. KARO -
J. LIETZMANN, Catenarum Graecarum Catalogus (Nachrichten von der Koniglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse,
1902/1.3.5), Gottllgen, 1902, pp. 64-65. Out of these, 195 fragments have been rescued.
One by one, they have been carefully inserted into blank parchment pages and bound as
a new volume. However, in most cases only parts of one of the original two columns are
remaining. Moreover, due to the heat, the parchment shrunk and became diaphanous.
111erefore, the writÎng is only partially decipherable. Despite these difficulties l take into
account the remaining parts as far as possible.
6. For a detailed analysis of the First Palestinian Catena see G. DORIVAl;, Les chaînes
exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes: Contribution à l'étude d'un~ forme littéraire,
Vol. 1 (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 43), Leuven, Peeters, 1986, pp. 115-232.
7. Concerning the chaînes filles of the First Palestinian Catena on Ps 51-76 see ibid.,
p.163.
8. Mercati's notes were studied and exploited by R. DEVREESSE, Les Anciennes Com-
mentateurs Grecs des Psaumes (Studi e Testi, 264), Città deI Vaticano, BAV, 1970.
9. Cf. E. MÜHLENBERG, Zur Überlieferwzg des Psalmenkommentars von Origenes, in
J. DUMMER (ed.), Texte und Textkritik: Eine Aufsatzsammlwzg (Texte und Untersuchun-
gen, 133), Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1987,441-451, pp. 444-445.
10. See KARO - LIETZMANN, Catalogus (n. 5), p. 31. However, for sorne psalms
the tradition of extra fragments ascribed to Origen in type VII is partly shared with the
ORIGEN'S EXEGESIS OF THE PSALMS IN EUSEBruS AND DIDYMUS 893
preserved in a 13 th -century manuscript from Vienna ll and a 15 th -cen-
tury manuscript from Paris 12 • Apart from a few ascriptions to John
Chrysostom in the section between Ps 51 and Ps 76, this catena names
only two authors: Theodoret and Origen 13 • The fragments attributed
to Origen can be divided into three groups: (a) very few fragments,
which are ascribed to Origen in the secondary tradition of the Palestin-
ian Catena as weIl, (b) fragments which were certainly not written
by Origen, but belong to other authors of the Palestinian Catena. Of
special interest is the third and largest group of (c) fragments that
cannot be verified as being by Origen, but neither for any other Church
father, because they only appear in type VII and in no other catena
at aIl.
Considering content and style, and not least for pragmatic reasons, 1
am tending towards inc1uding these fragments in my edition. On the other
hand, 1 am constantly looking for additional arguments that could he1p
justify such a decision. lt was precisely this objective which prompted
the analysis 1 present in the following.
II. THE USE OF ORIGEN'S WORK BY HIs SUCCESSORS
We know that Origen's commentaries and homilies on Psalms were
greatly appreciated and had a significant impact on successive Greek as
weIl as Latin authors. However, in their own exegesis of the Psalms they
did not necessarily adopt Origen's theologoumena, but rather in many
cases inc1uded celtain catchy images and motives taken from Origen's
works.
second catena of Ms. Vindob. theol. gr. 8 (type V Karo-Lietzmann). These fragments in
the type V catena are likewise neither mentioned in Mercati's notes on the Torino manu-
script nor are they to be found in the secondary tradition of the Palestinian Catena.
Nevertheless, they have been considered as authentic Ori~enian texts and were partly
edited by R. CADIOU, Commentaires inédits des Psaumes: Etude sur les textes d'Origène
contenus dans le manuscrit Vindobollensis 8, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1936. Their
absence in the witnesses for the content of the Palestiman Catena would be explained by
the theory that they might actually be traced .?ack to a different source than the material
of the Palestinian Catena (cf. MÜHLENBERG, Uberliefenmg [no 9], p. 446).
11. Ms. Vindob. theol. gr. 59.
12. Ms. Paris. Coisl. gr. 189.
13. ConcernÎng trus catena see also E. MÜHLENBERG, Psalmenkommentare aus der
Katenelllïberlieferullg. Band III: Untersuchwzgen zu den Psalmenkatenen (patr~stische
Texte und Studien, 19), Berlin, de Gruyter, 1978, p. 27 as weIl as MÜHLENBERG, Uberlie-
ferullg (n. 9), pp. 445-446.
894 C.BANDT
l want to illustrate this process with an ex ample : In a passage of the
Philocalia l 4, which was part of his Commentaly on Psalm 115 , Origen is
reporting a Jewish tradition, which compares the Holy Scriptures to a
huge house containing many rooms. In every single room there is a key
lying next to the door - but the key does not match the lock of the door
it is next to. COlTespondingly scriptures are locked, while the key to
unravelling theu' hidden meaning is to be found in another scripture. It is
an extremely challenging task for the interpreter to find the proper key
for every single verse he is investigating. This means Origen is present-
ing a metaphor to explain his exegetical method of interpreting Scripture
by means of Scripture 16 •
Hilarius, in the prologus of his commentmy on Psalms l7 , alters this
metaphor by enlarging and simplifying it at the same time: The Psalter,
he explains, resembles a beautifullarge town - the Psalms are like build-
ings within it. They m'e locked, but the keys are mixed up at a certain
14. Phil II.3.1-17 (ed. M. HARL, SC 302, 244): MÉÀÀovn:e; of; IiPXEcr~at 1:~e;
ÉPf.lllvdae; 1:rov 'l'aÀf.lrov, xaptEcr1:Û1:l]V napûoocrlV (mo 1:0U 'Eppaiou rlf.llv Ka~oÀtKroe;
nE pt nûcrl]e; ~dae; ypa<!>~e; napaOEOof.lÉVl]V npOtÛSCOf.lEV. "E<jlacrKE yùp ÈKElVOe; Èot-
KÉVat 1:llV OÀllV ~EonvEucrwv ypa<jlllV, otÙ 1:llV Èv aùtfi àcrû<jlEtav, noÀÀole; o'iKote;
Èv oiKiçr f.ltÇi KEKÀEtO"f.lÉVote;· ÉKûcr1:C? of; o'iKC? napU1œlcr~at KÀEiV où 1:llV Ka1:ûÀ-
Àl]ÀOV aùtip· Kat OÜtCO otEcrKEoûcr~at 1:Ùe; KÀEie; nEpt wùe; o'iKoue;, oùxapf.loSoucrae;
Ka~' ÉKûcr1:l]V ÈKdvote; ote; napûKEIVtat Ëpyov of; dvat f.lÉylcr1:0V EupicrKElV 1:E 1:Ùe;
KÀEle; Kat È<jlapf.losElV aùtÙe; Wle; o'iKote;, olle; àvolsat ouvaVtat· voEicr~at wivuv Kat
1:Ùe; ypa<jlàe; oücrae; àcra<jlEie;, OÙK IiÀÀO~EV 1:àe; à<jl0pf.làe; wu voslcr~at Àaf.lpavoucrae;
Tl nap' àÀÀijÀcov ÈXoucrrov Èv aÙ1:ale; otEcrnapf.lÉvov 1:0 ÈSllYl]1:tKOV. 'HyoUf.lat youv
Kat 1:0V ànocrwÀov 1:llV WWUtl]V 6<jlooOV wu cruVtÉVat 1:0Ùe; ~Eioue; Àoyoue; unopûÀ-
ÀOVta ÀÉyElV' nA /(a! ÂaÂovpsv OV/( Av o/()maozç àv9pwnÎWlÇ O"orjJÎaç Â6yolç, àÂÀ' Av
olomaozç nVSVjlQ1;OÇ, nvsvpatl1cozç nVBVpat1/(à O"vyKpfvov!sç (ICo 2,13).
15. Cf. Phil II.1.1-2: uO n KÉKÀstcrtat Kat Ècr<jlpûytcr1:at f) ~da ypa<jlij. àno wu Ete;
1:0V a' 'l'aÀf.l0v 1:of.lou. See also NAUTIN, Origène (n. 2), pp. 262-275 and M. HARL,
Origène et les inte/prétations patristiques grecques de l'" oscurité" biblique, in Vigiliae
Christianae 36 (1986) 334-371, pp. 350-351.
16. Conceming Origen's use of this exegetical technique ("immanente Exegese") cf.
B. NEUSCHÂFER, Origenes ais Philologe (Schweizerische Beitrage zur Altertumswissen-
schaft, 18/1-2), Basel, Reinhardt, 1987, pp. 276-285. , Commentaires patristiques du Psautier (Ille - V' siècles), Vol. 1 (Orientalia Christiana
17. Hilarius, lnstructio Psalmorwn 24 (ed. A. ZINGERLE, CSEL XXII, 18.18-19.5): Est
autem diligens pe/pensumque iudiciwll expositioni psalmi uniuscuiusque praestandum, ut
cognoscatur, qua unusquisque eorum claue intellegentiae aperiendus sit. nam liber omnis
similis est urbi pulchrae atque magnae, cui phll'es aedes diuersaeque sint, qua/1/m fores
propriis clauibus diuersisque claudantur: quae cum Ulllim in loczlln congestae permixtae-
que sunt, uolenti llllamquamque aedem aperire maximam ignaro adferant difficultatem, ut
clauem uniuscuiusque aedis inueniat; sitque aut familiaris scientiae, cognitam clauem cito
ex copia il/a congestae inwlum uarietatis eligere, aut ingentis laboris, aptam et cong/1/am
clauem aperiendi uniuscuiusque aditus inuenire, quia ratio et qualitas non sinat, non suas
claues claustris disparibus coaptare. itaque seclmdum domini misericordiam aperiendi
lllliuscuiusque psalmi clauem reperturi huius ipsius primi psalmi aditum propria sua et
congrua claue pandamus.
ORIGEN' S EXEGESIS OF THE PSALMS IN EUSEBIUS AND DIDYMUS 895
location. Now the difficult task is to find, with God's assistance, the right
key that matches the particular building one wants to enter.
l now want to turn to a passage from Jerome's fU'st homily on Ps 118 •
Even though Jerome's homilies on Psalms were claimed to be mere trans-
lations of Origen's homilies by Vittorio Peri and others l9 , this obviously
cannot be the case for the opening of Jerome's homily on Ps 1, because
it in fact combines the images from Origen and Hilarius 20 • Jerome likens
the Psalter (as Hilarius) to a large house (as Origen) - the Psalms are
represented as the rooms in this building. But the focus in Jerome's sim-
ile shifts in another direction: His special concern is rather the main
entrance door of the Psalter - Psalm 1 - and its key - the Holy Spu·it.
Obviously, the images in Jerome and Hilarius trace back to the meta-
phor in Origen's work, which we saw first. However, in a way the Latin
authors adopted this motif only partially. Theu' similes concentrate
mainly on the difficulty of finding the right key of interpretation to
unlock the Psalms, yet they lose sight of the most intrinsic detail of their
model. That is to say that in Origen's simile the keys for understanding
scripture are not mixed up in a single location somewhere, but rather each
door - that is, each and every scripture - provides a key itself. But, of
course, this key does not unlock its own scripture but another one. This
superbly memorable explanation and justification for interpreting Scrip-
ture by means of Scripture, neither Hilarius nor Jerome included in their
18. Hieronymus, Tractatus in Librum Psalmorum, Ps 1 (ed. D.G. MORIN, CCSL 78,
3.1-10): Psalterium ita est quasi magna dOIlIllS, quae Imam quidem habet exteriorem
clauem in porta, in diuersis uero intrinsecus cubiculis proprias claues habet. Licet amplior
lma claztis sit grandis portae Spiritus sanctus, tamen ul/llmquodque cubiculum !zabet pro-
prias clauiculas suas. Si quis igitur claues confusas de domo proiciat, si uoluerit aperire
cubicululll, non potest nisi clauelll inuenerit: sic singuli psalmi quasi singulae cellulae
sun t, l/abentes proprie claues suas. Grandis itaque porta istius dO/IllIS primus psalmus est,
qui ita incipit: "Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impio/1/lll" (Ps 1,1).
19. V. PERI, Omelie Origeniane sui Salmi: Contributo ail' identificazione dei testo
latino (Studi e Testi, 289), Città deI Vaticano, BAV, 1980. See also M.-J. RONDEAU, Les
Analecta, 219), Roma, Pon!. fus!. Stud. Orien!., 1982, pp. 48-50. Giovanni Coppa qualifies
this thesis, presenting the homilies as a kind of teamwork ("accopiata") of both authors.
Cf. G. CaPPA, Origene - Gerolamo: 74 omelie sullibro dei salmi. lntrod., trad. e note di
G. Coppa (Letture cristiane deI primo millennio, 15), Milano, Paoline, 1993, p. 12.
20. Jerome apparently was aware of differences between the two commentaries; he
even praises Hilarius' commentary for exactly this characteristic - as an ad sensum inter-
pretation: Sufficit in praesenti nomil/asse Hilarium cOl/fessorem, qui Iwmilias in lob et il/
psalmos tractatus plurimos in Latil/llm vertit e Graeco nec adsedit litterae dormitanti et
putida rusticorwll il/telpretatione se torsit, sed quasi captivos sensus in suam linguam
victoris iure transposuit (Ep. 57.1.3). See also a.J.M. BARTELINK, Hierol/ymus. Liber de
Optimo gel/ere in te/pre taI/di (Epistula 57). Eil/ Kommel/tar (Mnemosyne. Supplement,
61), Leiden, Brill, 1980, p. 67.
 896 C.BANDT
21
conception . This is why theu' ilnages are without doubt edifying; none-
theless, they are rather shallow when compared with "the original" ...
In this case of reverberations of Origen's Commentary on Psalms in
the wode of later authors we can be sure about the authenticity of their
source, because in the Philocalia all information on it is given22 . The
authenticity of the texts, which 1 will examine in the following, is less
well documented. Still, perhaps the Origenian authorship of them can - if
not be proofed - at least be made more likely, if we can find similar
reverberations of them by successive authors.
m. ORIGEN, EUSEBIUS AND DIDYMUS ON Ps 54
\ pmticular scenes of Christ's history. The fragment 1 shall tum to now
In order to discover such echoes l "eavesdropped" on two Christian
exegetes who are ra~ed among the most faithful followers of Origen23;
as well as both belllg standard authors of the Palestinian Catena on
Psalms: Eusebius of Caesarea and Didymus the Blind of Alexandria. It
is :~ry likely that they were acquainted with substantial parts of Origen's
wntlllgs on Psalms and that each drew inspiration from the master's
work. However, is there any possibility to track reflections from this
occupation inside their own works?
1 chose interpretations on two verses from Ps 54 (m: 55), because of
the favourable commentary tradition for this psalm: Eusebius' commen-
tary ~xists as f~ll text (independent from the catenae) and all fragments
on thls psalm III the manuscript of the Palestinian Catena from Torino
were registered by Mercati. Thus, We can trust in their attribution to both
Eusebius as well as Didymus. On the other hand, Mercati's notes mak~
~t clear that both fragments, which 1 will clailn for Origen, were absent
III the TOl1nO manuscript, or at least have not been attributed to hiln24.
2.1. Co~pari~g th~ passages from Orig~n and. Hil~us, Émile Goffinet is neglecting
pr.ecI~el~ this ~aJor dlfference: becaus~ he IS readmg Ongen only from tlie pefSpective of
Hilan~s adoptIOn of the motIf. See E. GOFFINET, L'utilisation d'Origène. dans le com-
mentmre. desU' psaumes" de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers (Studia Hellenistica, 14) , L u'
0 vam,
Publi cations mversltalres, 1965, pp. 33-36.
22. See above, note 15.
~3. Cf., e.g., M. SIMONETTI, Origene esegeta e la sua tradizione (Letteratura cristiana
antIca, N.S. 2), Brescia, Morcelliana, 2004, pp. 313-356; 357-412.
24. Since Mercati did not register anonymous fragments, we cannot completely
exc1u~e that these fragments were part of the Palestinian Catena without being attributed
to Onge~, even tho~gh this seems rather unlikely. Nevertheless, Ekkehard Mühlenberg
detect:d ID the re~ams of the Torino manuscript pieces of a fragment, which can certainly
be attnbu~ed to Dld~mus bec~use of the secondary tradition of the Palestinian Catena. This
fragment IS absent ID Mercatl's notes. Mühlenberg assumes that in the Torino manuscript
ORIGEN'S EXEGESIS OF THE PSALMS IN EUSEBIUS AND DIDYMUS 897
Ps 54 is a fairly long Psalm of lament and imprecation from the second
David Psalter. The person praying perceives hilnself as surrounded by
enemies - even his dearest friend has tumed against hiln. He curses the
besiegers and emphasises his confidence in God's assistance.
1. Origen on Ps 54,4
The fragments on this psalm attributed to Origen follow, roughly
speaking, two different Hnes. Sorne analyse key words in the verses
or give statements on general human conditions without asking for the
prosopon who utters the words. In contrast, others connect the psalm with
the history of passion and salvation of Jesus by settling the verses in
belongs to the latter of the two. In the type VII catena (and only in this
catena) this fragment is attributed to Origen and related to Ps 54,4bc (for
they brought iniquity against me, and were wratlifully angry with me):
When Christ was rescuing the humans from the adversaly powers, the voice
of the sinner (cf. Ps 54,4a), <that is> the devil, who urged the forces sub-
ordinated ta him against the Saviour, became the cause that these forces
brought iniquity against him and were wrathfully angly with him, sa that
Jesus' heart was troubled within himself and the fear of death fellupon him
whenfear and trembling came upon him and darkness covered him (cf. ibid.
4b-6b), sa that he prayed to be able ta fly away (cf. ibid. 7)25.
Thus, verse 4 as weIl as the following verses up to verse 7 are regarded
as a kind of "field repOlt" of Christ himself during his anastasis. The
evil forces of the devil, who aims to keep the humans in hell, stand up
against the Saviour with such vehemence that he experiences what is
recorded in the psalm. It catches the eye that first the fragment speaks of
Christ's redeeming deed, before switching to the name Jesus when it
cornes to emotions of worry and fear. This use of the emthly name of the
Redeemer might deliberately indicate that the emotions reported in the
psalm are to be attributed to his earthly nature only of course26 .
the attribution after a new lemma was eliminated if the catena continued with the same
author as before. Cf. MÜHLENBERG, Überlieferllllg (n. 9), p. 446. However, such a case
would not occur for the "Origenian" fragments, which 1 will examine in the following.
25. CPs in Ps 54,4bc (cf. PG 12, 1464C-D): Xpto"wi5 à1tocmfuvwç àvSpomollç à1tà
-rfuv àV-rlKstJ.lSVCOV Èvspystfuv, f] <j>covi) -roi5 uJ.lup-rcoÂ.oi5 8tu~6Â.oll 1tupoPJ.lfuvwç -ràç
lm' UIYtàv 8llvuJ.lstç Ku-rà -roi5 O'co,fjpoç uhiu Èyivs-ro -roi5 ÈKBtVUÇ bCKÀfvBlv ère' av,ov
n)v âvollÎav, Kal èv opyfi èYKO'(;e1V avrij'J, roç -roi5 'lljO'oi5 rapa7:7:B(J'[)al n)v Kapofav èv
avrij'J, Kal OeIÀfav [)avawu èftrefretBlV avrij'J, ifJofJov Kal rpoltoU èpxoftévwv ère' avrov, Kaz
(J'/(owu KuÀvrewvwç avrov, roç SÜxsO'Sat uù,àv rerÎjva/.
26. However, in the relevant passages from Origen, esp. CIo 1.9.23-24, there is no hint
that Origen would have generally used or understood, the names 'lljO'oi5ç and XptO',6ç
 898 C.BANDT
2. Eusebius on Ps 54,4
The question about the speaking prosopon is addressed by Eusebius
right at the beginning of his commentary on Ps 54. He states that the
psaim is spoken by the prophet David. However, David is not describing
his own situation, Eusebius informs us, but rather the anguish he suffers
because by prophetie sight he can see the woes that will happen to the
Saviour. Eusebius consistently sticks to this idea about speaker and his-
toricai setting of the psaim throughout his commentary, except for two
Sh01t digressions. One cornes at the very end of the commentary in a play
on words 27 ; the other occurs at the beginning of Eusebius' analysis of
verse 4: "By the prosopon of the Saviour can be spoken the l'est and
especially the verse: for they brought iniquity against me, and were
wrathfully angly with me .. . ". But as soon as he finishes the biblical
quotation, Eusebius rectifies his own bold attribution: "AlI these
anguishes the prophet reports to have suffered ... "28. Thus, Eusebius goes
back to his original concept - the prophet David, not the Saviour himself
suffers from the iniquities against the latter. And, he continues, the
prophet is troubled by fear of death, as said in verse 5 of the psalm,
because in his human condition (ù'vSpmntvep À-oytcr)!Q> KtvoU)!8VOÇ) he
fears the death of the Saviour (crm'tijptoç Savct'toç)29. Eusebius under-
Hnes his equation of the speaking prosopon with the prophet two more
in this sense. Concerning names in Origen cf. J. DANIÉLOU, Origène, Paris, Table ronde,
1948, pp. 254-257 as weIl as M. OHATI'AS, Die ênÎvOIa-Lelzre hei Origenes und Didymos
dem Blinden von Alexandria, in W.A. BIENERT - U. KUHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana
Septima: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. JalzrlzzllIderts (BElL, 137), Leuven,
Peeters, 1999, 525-530, pp. 527-528.
27. Eusebius in Ps 54,24d (PO 23, 492A): 'Eyèo oè êÀmw ên) eni' (Ps 54,24d) 11 wt 0
"ÇaÎl-ta SEO'niÇrov npo<PlÎH1C;, ~ Kat aÙ"ÇOC; 0 npo<Pll"ÇEIlO/-lEVOC;. This deliberation bears
similarities to a passage in Origen's 14th homily on Jeremiah, where Origen likewise
considers either the prophet or the Saviour as speaker of the verses 1er 15,15-16: ... Kat 0
np o <PlÎ"ÇllC; ÂEyÉ"Çro "Çaum OtroKO/-lEVOC; ... "Çaù"Çà oè Kat 0 O'ro"Ç~p ~/-Io)v ÂEYÉ"Çro, oO'"Çtc;
Kat BOtroXSll ... (HIer XIV. 13 , ed. E. KLOSTERMANN - P. NAUTIN OCS 62 , 118,7-11).
28. Eusebius in Ps 54,2-6 (PO 23, 476C): Kat BK npoO'ronoll 01; wu~ro"Ç~pOC; ouva-
"Çat ÂÉYEO'Sat"Ça"ÇE aÂÂa Kat "ÇO' "On èÇ'éKÀlvav ên' è~è âvo~fav, Ka) èv opyfl èVBKOroVV
~OI·(Ps 54,4bc) ~ Ka"Çà "Çov ~u/-I/-Iaxov' "On BnÉypa1j1av Ka"Ç' B/-IOU &O'ÉBEtav, Kat /-IE"Ç'
ôpy~C; i]vavnroSllO'av /-lot. 'H Kapofa ~ov èr:apaXfJ11 èv èPOT, Ka) OelÀia fJavarov ènénB-
aBV ên' èpè (ps 54,5), Kat "Çà Âotna. IIavm "Çaum nEnovSÉvat 0 npo<PlÎ"ÇllC; O/-loÂoYE1,
otà "ÇO npoEropaKÉvat "Ç<P nVEU/-Ian "Ç<P npo<PllnK<P "Ç~v ts~c; 0llÂoll/-lÉVllV noÂtv
&vo/-liac; nÂllpoll/-lÉVllV Kat &vnÂoyiac;, Kat Konoll, Kat novoll, Kat &otKiac;' Kat "Çov
tO'O\jlllXOV Kat yvroO'"ÇOV "ÇOU ~ro"Çfjpoc; ~/-Io)v "Çà BXSpillv aÙ"Çov Kat nOÂE/-lirov
otanSÉvm.
29. Ibid. (PO 23, 476D): 'AÂÂà Kat oEtÂia Savawll ElO'ÉnEO'Ev Bn' aÙ"Çov' 11"ÇOI
wu ~ro"Çllpioll Sava"Çoll, B<p' cj) oEtÂiac; 0 npo<PlÎ"ÇllC; snÂllPOUw, &vSpronivep ÂoytO'/-l<p
KtvoU/-IEVOC;, ~ "Çou "Çillv \jIllXillv Sava"Çoll "Çillv &noÂÂIlO'Sat /-IEÂÂ6V"ÇroV otà "Çà "Çolaum
"ÇoÂ/-IlÎ/-Ia"Ça.
ORIGEN' S EXEGESIS OF THE PSALMS IN EUSEBWS AND DIDYMUS 899
times immediately afterwards 3o • In my view, his aim in doing so is a
categorical deniai that any human sentiment like fear or perplexity might
have affected the Saviour himseif.
Now is Eusebius influenced by the text attributed to Origen which we
saw before? At least the fact that he ascribes Ps 54,4 to the Saviour, in
contradiction to his conviction throughout his commentary, is quite pecu-
liaI'. This sh01t, ahnost involuntary, change of mind would be plausibly
explained if we assume that this particular verse has been emphatica~ly
put into Christ's mouth by Origen. Eusebius might not have agreed with
his master in this matter, but still, he could not help but pay respect to
his position.
3. Didymus on Ps 54,3
In Didymus' fragments on Ps 54 there is no guiding principle discem-
ible. In fact, each verse is interpreted separate1y - be it ethically or phil-
osophically, be it as allusion to the history of Salvati.on. ~rom Ekkehard
Mühlenberg's edition 1 want to examine fI'. 572, which IS not reIate~ to
the verses 4bc of Ps 54, but rather to the preceding verses 3b-4a. Fust,
Didymus explains different words from these verses and l~~s them ~ot
to the history of Christ, but to a aytoç, that is to say a ChrIstian on splr-
itually high level. Of special interest for our theme is the last argument
in Didymus' fragment, which has been separated by Mühlenberg by a
line break: "Certain people announce that this psalm was spoken by the
prosopon of Christ in his human condition (K(X'"L"Ù 'to ù'vSpmntvov),
.
whom it suits to gneve for those wh0 were 1ed as t ray "31 .
Thus, Didymus infonns us clearly about an earlier tradition, which
identifies Christ as speaker of the psaim. Considering not oruy the frag-
ment we saw fU'st, but the quite special, technical tenn 1t:pocrm1t:ov as
well, isn't it alluring to presume he is talking of Origen?
Admittedly, the reverberations of Origen's exegesis in the comme~tar­
ies of Eusebius and Didymus are rather flimsy in this case. This ll11ght
be due to the hesitation (or maybe embarrassment?) of the later authors
to attach such very human feelings as fear or helplessness to the person
of the Saviour32 •
30. Ibid. (476D; 477A). ,
31 Didymus in Ps 543b-4a (ed. E. MÜHLENBERG, PTS 16, fr. 572,20-21): Kat yap
"Çàv ~aÂ/-Iàv "Çouwv BK ;poO'ronoll ~OU_ XptO'wu K~"Çà "Ço àvSpronlVov &nayyÉÂÂollO'i
"rlVEC; EipfjO'Sat cj) Kat UPJ10ÇEt nEpt "Çrov BÂan"Ço/-lEvrov ÂllnEtO'Sat. . . ..
32. Interestingly, Hilarius in his commentary on Ps 54 does not restram himself ~n this
way; he rather uses it to elevate Christ's Passion even more, esp. verses 3b (contnstatus
900 , C.BANDT
4. Origen on,Rs 54;16
1 will now turn to a slightly longer fragment, which gives an unex-
pected but; truly ingenious explanation of verse 16 from Ps 54 - an impre-
cation that troubles Christian interpreters up to the present day: 'E),J).érw
.9avaroq ên' avror5ç, lCallCarafJ~rwaav eîç "Azoov (wvreç, on nov'1pial
êv ralq napOl1dalç avrwv êvpéaC{J avrwv (Let death come upon them,
and let them go down alive into Hades, for iniquity is in their dwellings
(or better: "places of sojourn"), in the midst ofthem). This cruel cursing
is explained by a fragment, again inc1uded and attributed to Origen only
in the type VII catena:
Those who go down alive into Rades are the ones who have been instructed
in the divine teachings. Because: dead is he who has not tasted the words
of life (tf. Uo 1,1). For it is impossible to go down into Hades as a living
one in the common sense of the word "life" ('~T]V KOlVT]V ÇÜ>11v), Now,
since Judas and the nation of the Jews had been instructed in the Law and
Prophets, when death befell them dght after their sin, they went down alive
into Rades. Accordingly, the following verse states that iniquity is in their
places of sojourn (1tUpolKtulS), in the midst of them. Because despite their
knowledge of the Scdptures which cause etemallife (Çm01tOlrov 'Ypu<jJrov)
they did not settle down but only sojoum (où KU'tc!>KllcrUV ùÂ,Â,ù
1tUPc!>Kllcruv) inside of them. The clause iniquity in the midst of th;em is
related to the hegemonikon, for it is said to be in the middle of the whole
creature33 •
So, this fragment contains a compact but still coherent reasoning. At
first glance, it seems to be something positive to go down into Hades
alive, since this is on1y possible for those who have received a portion of
the divine teachings. But unexpectedly, this idea is turned into polemics
sum in exercitatiol/e mea et cOl/turbatus sum) and 5a (cor meum conturbatum est il/
me): ... sed haec il/ domil/o Ie,su Christo exercitatio I/ostrae salufis operatio est, quam
diuersarulll sal/atiol/lIm, dehil/c passiol/is ipsius exercitatio provehebat. [ ... ] Sed il/ter
haec, habel/s potestatem dllodecim milia legiol/lIl1l caelestillm euocare, 1/01/ ad ir({,m com-
mouetur neque ad ultionem exacerbatur. sequitur el/im: cor meum cOI/turbat/ml est il/
me. pati oml/ia in se ipso cOl/stituit, dllmmodo humal/ae salutatis sacramel/ta perficeret
(Hilarius, Tractatus il/ Ps. UV, 5-6, ed. A. ZINGERLE, CSEL XXII, 150.14-151). See also
GOFFINET, L'utilisation (n. 21), p. 83.
33. CPs in Ps 54,16abc (cf. PG 12, 1468C-D): 'EKEtVot elç "Al<50v (mvreç KU1:Ép-
XOV1:Ut oô KU1:~Xllo'tV 1:éOv Ss{cov 1tUtOEU/-U1.1:COV ËXOVTES 6 yàp liyEUcrWS 1:mv 1:~ç (w~ç
À6ywv (cf. Ho 1,1) VEKpOS scr1:tv· oô yàp olov 1:E ÇéOv,u ttvu ,1)v Kotv1)V çco1)v Eis
"AtOllV KU'ÉpXEcrSUt. S1tEt oiiv 'louous KUt 6 Àuoç 'lououtcoV KU1:~XllcrtV dxov wù
vO)1ou KUt ,éOv 1tpo<j>ll1:éOv, .9awiwv è1t' auroùç èpxof-lél'ov wù É1to)1Évou 'TI a)1up,tg.
Çmvreç eiç "Ar0'lV Ka7:épxol'rar. àxoÀouScos Kut 6 S1tt<j>EpO)1EVOS ÀÉyE1:Ut cr1:tXoS ott
1wv'lpia èl' raî'ç napOlKiarç aurmv èv f-léuq> aurml'. El yàp KUt 1tEtpUV Ëcrxov 1:éOv
Çcoo1totéOv ypu<j>éOv, oô KU1:q,Kllcruv &'ÀÀà 1tUPq,Kllcruv sv UÔtats. 1:0 nOl'llpfa èv fléuq>
aurmv 1:OU,Écru 1:0 1')yE)10VtK0' sv )1Écrcp yàp Etvut ÀÉyE1:Ut 1:oG oÀou çq,ou.
ORIGEN'S EXEGESIS OF THE PSALMS IN EUSEBIUS AND DIDYMUS 901
against Judas and the Jewish nation: They have indeed had their pOltion
of the divine teachings and therefore their portion of eternal life, we
learn, but then they died covered in sin and thus - though in fact they
were alive - they had to go down into Hades. Their destiny, to go down
into Hades alive, turns out as a most clUel punishment. The following
argument plays with the expression nupotKiu - sojourn - from verse
16c: It states that Judas as well as the Jewish nation have not been indig-
enous inhabitants, but rather nothing more than sojourners in their own
Scriptures. Then the phrase Èv ~lÉcrCfl is explained as a hint to the hege-
monikon.
5. Eusebius on Ps 54,16
How does Eusebius comment on the very same verse34 ? He starts with
a short explanation of the use of modes and tenses in the language of the
Septuagint and goes on with sorne remarks on a differing translation of
the verse by Aquila. Then he carefully examines the meaning of this
verse. In his opinion, since it threatens the faithless, it cannot speak of
normal death (Bavatoc; ... 6 KOWOC;) - because this death meets the
righteous alike. Rather, it is speaking of the death of souls (,!,ox,illv ...
Bavu-roc;), which occurs to the sinners because their souls are immortal
and cannot simply vanish when they die. For the soul this death means:
"separation from life with God and final settlement (Ku-roiKllcrtC;) in
Hades"35.
At this point l seem to detect indeed veritable and clear reverberations
of the exegesis we saw before. In the phrase Bavu'tOC; 6 KOWOC; (and
Kotvàc; Bavu'tOC; shortly afterwards respectively) 1 recognize a response
to the phrase KoWi) Çffiil in Origen's (at least presumably Origen's)
fragment. Just as Origen states that the expression Çillv-rsC; from Ps 54,16b
cannot be taken as KoWi) Çffiil - life in the everyday sense of the word -
in the sa~e way Eusebius tells us here that the expression Bavu-roc; from
34. For the following cf. Eusebius in Ps 54,,16 (pG 23, 481C-484B).
35. Ibid. (48ID-484A): 0avuws of: ,OÛS &'crEPdS )1E1:EPXO)1EVOÇ OÔX ô KOtVos av
ÀÉyotw' oÔ,OS yàp KUt 1:0ÛS OtKutoUÇ U1tUV1:US )1EûiÀSEV' oï Kut )1E1:à 1:0V KOtVoV
SUVUWV ÇéOO't 1tupà 1:0 0E0' [ ... ] 'l'uXéOv of: Suvuws Kut 1tupà 1:0 'EÇEKt~À OEOij-
Àco,ut <j>UcrKoVU' lJfvx~ opapravovua, avr'l tÎno.9avehal (Eze. 18,4). 'E1tEt wtVUV ÈUu-
,OÛS 1:flS Çcofls ot 0llÀoU)1Evot KEXCOptKucrtV, ~v of: 6 LCO,1)p 1'))100V 1') Ç~~) ... ]
EtK01:COS, &'1t01:)111SÉV,ES UÔ,OÙ, 1:0 ,fls 'l'uxfls SUVU1:cp 1tUPEo6l}llcru~: oux ~cr1:E
<j>Supflvat uô,1)v Kut &'<j>uvtcrSflvut EtS 1:0 )11) OV xcop~cracruv, &'ÀÀ' COcr1:E çcocruv
uô,1)v Kut &'Suvu,ov 1:1)v oôcrtUV KEK1:11)1ÉVllV sv 1:0 ÀEXSÉvn S~VU1:CP O:UYEtV., ~to
ÀÉÀEK1:at' Kal KarafJ~rwuav eiç {looD (ml'reç. oô 1:0V &'<j>uvtcr)1ov 'l'~XCOV sOllÀoU
ÀÉycov' 'EÀ.9érw .9avaroç èn' auroùç, &'ÀÀà 1:0V &'1tO 1:lis KU1:à 0EOV ÇCOllS XCO ptcr)10V,
Kut 1:1)v Eiç ,ov {iollv KU1:0lKllcrtV.
902 C.BANDT
verse 16a cannot be taken as Kotvàç SuvU'coç - death in the everyday
sense of the word. This parallel is all the more astonishing and meaning-
fuI as the conjunction Kotvàç Suvu-roç usually does not refer to a so-to-
say "ordinary" death, but rather a collective death of, e.g., two people,
body and soul etc.
Aiso astonishing is Eusebius' description of the fate of the faithless
souls - -riJv dç -ràv {iollV Ku-roiKllcrtv: Isn't this concept of a KU-roiKll-
crtç in Hades a direct continuation of what Origen established for Judas
and the Jewish nation in the fragment we saw before: où KU-rcpKllcrUV
àJ",,,,ù nUPCPKllcruv - "they did not settle down but only sojoum" inside
their own divine Scriptures. No wonder, Eusebius seems to answer, since
they should in fact find their KuwiKll<JtÇ in Hades.
Also the continuation of Eusebius' interpretation of Ps 54,16 contains
possible references to Origen's fragment 36 • Eusebius points out that there
are no other grounds for the verdict but they were f-V yVcO<J!>t âJ.1up-
-ruvov'tsç - fully conscious they committed sin, for they knew Christ was
the Messiah but denied this to be true. Here Eusebius brings in an elegant
parallel from the Old Testament: The revoIt of Korah, Dathan and
Abu'am in Numbers 16, which is in fact exactly the episode which our
verse of Ps 54 is probably refelTing t0 37 • With just the same attitude as
Origen, who accuses Judas and the Jewish nation of sin because despite
their knowledge in Scriptures they denied the Messiah, Eusebius hints
at this episode in Numbers 16: Vnder the lead of Korah, Dathan and
Abiram the revoIt was not one of ignorant or untaught peasants, but of
men from the priesthood - the ones who should know it best, are ques-
tioning that Moses was chosen by God himself. Therefore the ground
opened and swallowed them up (Num 16,32) and they went down alive
into Sheo! - Ç&V'rsç dç {ioou (Num 16,33, cf. Num 16,30) - as an
unmistakable pro of that Moses is leader of the Israelites not by his own
choice and declaration, but by God' s etemal will.
36. Ibid. (484 A-B): Mi]1wn: oÈ Kut uÀÀCOC; ÇCOVtEC; Etc; {loou KU'tllEO'UV, Èv YVroO'Et
uf.\up'tavov'tEC;, KUt Et06'tEC; f.\Èv 'tov Lco'tilpu roc; UÙ'tOC; d 0 Xptcr'toc; 'tou 0EOU,
npoO'notoUf.\EVOt of; f.\it dvut; tno Kut of.\oîcoC; 'tOtc; nEpt AuSàv Kut 'APllprov
Ku'tunoSTJO'EO'Sut Kut UÙWÙC;, Etc; {loou 'tE çcov'tUC; KU'tUPTJO'EO'SUt npouyopEUEt. 'Av'tt
of; 'tou, IIoVllPiQl Ill' 'WIÇ napoudQlç au,ml' Ill' lléŒC(J au,ml" 'tcov yàp Ku'tà wu Lco'tilpoc;
YEVOf.\ÉVCOV ui O'UO''taO'Etc; Kut ut KU'tà 'to uÙ'to O'uvooot nOVllput yEyÔVUcrt, Oto Kut 0
'AKUÀUC; <j>llO'iv' "On nOl'fJpÎQl Ill' ŒVŒ,porjJfl au,ml'. 'End 'toîvuv OÙK Ènt KUÀé!>
O'UVTJPXov'to, O'uO''tpo<j>aC; 'tE KUt O'UO''taO'Etc; novllpàc; Ènotouv'tO, EtKÔ'tCOC; ÈSSO'1ttO'EV
onotov uù'tOÙC; OWÀTJ1jIE'tut 'tÉÀOC;.
37. Cf. F.-L. HOSSFELD - E. ZENGER, Psalmell 51-100 (Herders Theologischer Kom-
mentar zum Alten Testament), Freiburg, Herder, 2000, p. 100.
ORIGEN'S EXEGESIS OF THE PSALMS IN EUSEBIUS AND DIDYMUS 903
6. Didymus on Ps 54,16
Last, fr. 575 from Mühlenberg's edition of Didymus' Commentmy on
Psalms shall be examined. From Mercati's notes it is clear that this frag-
ment was ascribed to Didymus in the Torino manuscript and it is also
included in most of the secondary traditions of the Palestinian Catena.
Didymus' interpretation of Ps 54,16 is truly remarkable, it starts: "For
one of the old (nç -r&v nUlvut&v) said only those would go down alive
into Hades who have been instructed in the divine teachings". It follows
- with slight modifications - the whole argument, which we saw before,
ascribed to Origen in the type VII catena. In order to highlight the dif-
ferences between the two fragments, l have constructed a hypothetical
correction of Origen's fragment by Didymus. Of course, Didymus as a
blind man would never have worked like that - l created this text merely
for the sake of clarity (shared text; only Origen, only Didymus):
'EleBtVo, Ûç "At.§orJ çrovreç !elttÉpxov'w;t oi "EÂ-eye yup "Ctç ,rov
rcaÂ-atrov çrovtaç eiç "Atoou Ka,sPXWSal f.10VOUç ,Oùç Ka-:i]X11.0w t~V
SeiffiV rcatoeu/-lUtffiV iixovtllC; ëxovtaç· 6 yàp ayeuatoç tffiV tT]Ç SffillÇ
MyffiV veKpoç -ffimt. ot oÜtffi çrovteç eiç "Atonv KatSpXOvtat. où yàp
oiov te srovta ttVIt tfj y !eot yl'j y S(ml y çrovtaç ,à Kotvàv çuv e~ç " Atollv
KatSpxeaSat tro f.1Ù rce<j>~KSVal ytvwSat aroga èKet f.1~S' o\)_ "Ct;; t~V
KOtvÙV çffiÙV exet. èrcd oùv Q 'Iouoaç Kaî 0 ÀItOC; 'IouSlttfflV rcaç tffiV °
'Iouoatffiv Â-aàç Kati]XllalV dxov tOU vO/-lou Kaî trov rcPoCPlltrov,.9awhov
èn' avroùç èpxoJlévov tOU érco/-lsvou tn u/-laptlg. (wvreç eÎç "Au)/7V Kat-
sPXOVtat. àXOÂ-OUSffiÇ oà Kaî 6 èrctcpep0/-levoç Â-syetat attxoç ou nol'-
I1pfa èv tafç napoudmç avrwv èv JléO'C(J avtwv. ei yà,p Kaî rcetpav eaxov
trov SffiorcotroV ypacprov, où Katc!>Kllaav ùÂ-Â-à rcapc!>Kllaav èv aùtatç;--t&
TrOl'llPilx tro rcovnptaç exetv èv JléO'C(J avrwv toUtscrtt té{>1]ye/-lovtKé{>' èv
/-lsaCfl yàp dvat Â-syetat tOU oÂ-ou Sc!>ou.
Analysing the differences in detail, it works fahly well if they are aIl
understood as alternations and additions in the original- Origenian - text
by Didymus. They either render the idea more precisely - like the addi-
tion of J.10VOUç in the first sentence - or try to elucidate the conception
- like the statement 01 oü'tco Ç&v'tsç siç {iollV KU'tÉpxov'rUt after the
second sentence or, a little later, the addition .é[> J.1iJ ns<puKÉvUl yivscrSut
cr&/-tu f-Kst J.1sS' oÔ 'ttç .iJv KotviJV çcoiJv Ëxst: One cannot go down
into Hades alive in the plain sense of "life" because inherently down
there it is impossible to have a body which is a prerequisite for living in
the plain sense of the word - undoubtedly that is true, but actually the
idea is petfectly understandable without this ample explanation38 •
38. Cf. e.g. Sir 14,16: ... OÙK ËO''ttv Èv {loou Çll'tilO'ut 'tpu<j>TJv.
904 C.BANDT
But still, perhaps the texts are akin to each other the other way round:
Maybe it is not that the fragment of Origen was altered and replenished
by Didymus, but rather that the fragment of Didymus was shortened by
an editor and only later ascribed to Origen in the type VII catena. This
possibility indeed exists, at least theoretically. The attribution to Origen
in type VII is not as certain, as in the Palestinian Catena and her second-
ary traditions, and there are fragments attributed to Origen, which the
Palestinian Catena ascribes to Didymus39 • Not least, different versions of
the same text are by no means rarities in the catenae tradition. Rowever,
such differences are mostly products of abridgement at the beginning 01'
end of a fragment 01' in quotations from the Bible, whereas such interven-
tions into the sentence structure as we would need to assume here, in
patticular the elimination of the opening clause "EÂEyE yap
nç "Cilly
nuÂutilly linked with a switch from reported speech to direct speech, -
such altemations are rather uncommon. In addition, according to my
experiences so far, the catenist of type VII works quite faithfully towards
the text. Sometimes he eliminates words, phrases 01' even paragraphs, but
he never changes the grammar of the remaining text.
But even if we neglect these formaI considerations and simply assume
that the fragment of Didymus is the original one: Who might, be the
remarkable nç "Cilly nuÂutilly? This question arises out of the fact that
here again Didymus informs us that he is adopting the idea of a predeces-
sor. Re caUs him a nuÂutoç which may apply either to somebody who
lived a long time ago, 01' to an especially venerable person40 • Remarka-
bly, the concept of this nuÂutoç includes Myot "Cftç çroftç and çroonowt
ypucpuL The idea that leaming (KU"C1)XllOlç) of Words or Scripturecan
guarantee etemallife is certainly not developed before 01' outside a Chris-
tian context. Even within Christian imagery this ide a appears strange
enough, because resurrection was interlinked not so much with the
knowledge of Scriptures but rather with a righteous moral conduct,
whereas the immortality of evely sou1 was generally accepted41 • Rence
we can assume that the exp1anation for "being alive" (ÇillY"CEÇ) as «being
instructed in the divine teachings" is coined just fol' this pmticular verse
39. For instance fr. 573 in Mühlenberg's edition (on Ps 54,5) is surely to be attributed
to Didymus because of Mercati's notes and the secondaI')' traditions of the Palestinian
Catena, but the type VII catena attributes it to Origen.
40. Didymus uses the phrase ne; 'trov ltaÀUlrov once more in his Commentary 011
Zechariah II.139 - speaking of Aristotle's Nicomachean Etllics.
41. See e.g. A.F. SEGAL, Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in Religions of the
West, New York, Doubleday, 2004, pp. 532-534; G. VERMES, The Resurrection, London,
Penguin, 2008, pp. 17-18; 40-45.
ORIGEN' S EXEGESIS OF THE PSALMS IN EUSEBIUS AND DIDYMUS 905
of Psalm 5442 • To sum it up: Didymus is quoting fromitlle.exegesis on
Ps 54 of a quite innovative and original Christian ;writerj .whom he vener-
ates .,. whom would one think of but Origen?,;
IV. CONCLUSIONS
So both interpretations of our verse- the one of Eusebius as well as
the one of Didymus - can be perceived asreverberations of an originally
truly Origenian exegesis. Eusebius wou1d haveused Origen's text as a
kind of foil to draw his own, slightly more' serious and 1ess thrilling (if
one may say this) interpretation upon it. In contrast; Didymus adopts and
replenishes the idea, which he came across in Origen's writings. The fact
that he did not name his source might pl'O of his cautiousness in the face
of the upcoming strugg1es about the orthodoxy of Origen43 • That he calls
him instead a nuÂutoç shows how high1y he venerated his master.
l am aware that the connections, which l suggest, are not sufficient
evidence to pl'O of the authorship of Origen in the two cases we looked
into. Nevertheless, in such a highly complicated field as the catenae tra-
dition on Ps 51-76, they should at least count as weighty indications.
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie Cordu1a BANDT
der Wissenschaften
Jtigerstr. 22/23
D-10117 Berlin
bandt@bbaw.de
42. Interestingly, this understanding of Ka'tijx'llcrts in the Hebrew Bible as key to
etemal life is implied in Didymus' interpretation on Ps 51,7 (spoken by David against
Doeg the Edomite: J/à 7:015ro 0 geôr; Ka9eÀe7 ue elr; 'téÀor;, èKÛÀa/ ue Kal /-œravaurevua/
ue àltô uKl1vroj.la7:0r;, Kal rô Pf(Wj.lo. UOD èK rflr; (rovrwv). Here Didymus' interpretation
thankfully elucidates the very short fragment on this verse from Origen (again, not in the
Palestinian Catena, but in the type V and type VII catenae). Origen: Et ùÈ 'to piÇcoJ.la
'IùouJ.laiou ACOT]K ÈK'tlÀÀE'tat ÈK y~S çrov'tcov, ÈKEt 1tE<j>(J'tEU'tO (CPs in Ps 51,7; cf.
PG 12, 1457D). Didymus: Et yùp Kat 'IùoUJ.latoS ~v àÀÀÙ ltpOO'l1À6'tEuO'as 'ti\J 'IO'paT]À
Ùtù 't~S 'tOU VOJ.lOU Ka't'llxijO'ECOS, Èv 'ti\J O'Kl1vroJ.lan Kat 'tTI 'trov çrov'tCOV YTI ltE<j>(J'tEU'tO
(in Ps 51,7; fr. 555 ed. MÜHLENBERG).
43. In addition, Emanuela Prinzivalli points out that Didymus seldom names his
sources, regardless of whether pagan or Christian. See E. PRINZIVALLI, Didimo il Cieco. Il
commento ai Salmi scoperto a Tura. Introd., trad. e Ilote (Letture cristiane deI primo mil-
lennio, 37), Milano, Paoline, 2005, pp. 28-29.
 L'BJ~O}'; E L'OXHMA
LA CRITICA AL CONCETTO ORIGENIANO DI RISURREZIONE NEL
CONTESTO DELL'ESCATOLOGIA INTERMEDIA NEL DE
RESURRECTIONE DI METODIO DI OLIMPO

J. JNTRODUZIONE

L'obiettivo di quest'indagine consiste nel presentare 10 svolgersi della

polemica con Origene sull'escatologia intermedia condotta da Metodio
di Olimpo nel De resurrectione. La peculiarità di quest'opera consiste
nel fatto che l'autore, per primo, ha intrapreso in modo approfondito la
critica ad alcune tesi di Origene che, dalla prospettiva della tradizione
asiatica deI cristianesimo 1, dovevano sembrare troppo vieine aIle solu-
zioni eterodosse. Si tratta innanzitutto dei famoso, ma forse non tanto
felice, concetto di d80s (J'ffiJ.tunKov che, secondo Metodio, non salva-
gUal'da il principio dell'identità tra il corpo terreno e quello risorto, né sul
piano della materia né su quello della fOlma.
L'importanza dell'argomentazione riguardante l'escatologia intelme-
dia non è stata finora suffieientemente rilevata, sebbene essa sia elaborata
da Metodio sostanzialmente allo scopo di difendere il dogma della risur-
rezione della carne. Ma è proprio su questo campo che Metodio trova
alcuni argomenti utili per mostrare incongruenze e impreeisioni dei con-
cetti origeniani relativi ai due termini: d80s e 0XllJ.tU.

II. BIAm;

Il termine stesso d80s è segnato da una notevole ambiguità seman-

tica2 • Nel senso popolare esso significa "forma estema" 0 "apparenza",
e pereia pua essere, e infatti 10 era spesso assimilato ad altri termini
come (J'XllJ.tu 0 J.toP<PiJ 3 . Non a casa quindi questo concetto dell'Ales-

1. Con "tradizione asiatica" intendiamo una categoria storiografica che designa un

esteso ambito deI cristianesimo antico basato sui principi filosofici diversi da quelli della
tradizione alessandrina, cf. M. SIMONETTI, Modelli cultumli nella cristianità orientale dei
II-III secolo, in De Tertullien arC( Mozarabes. 1: Antiquité tardive et Christianisme ancien
(Ille-VIe siècles). Mélanges offerts à Jacques Fontaine, Paris, 1992, 381-392.
2. Cf. G.W.H. LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Le,-dcon, Oxford, 51978, pp. 407-408.
3. La confusione concettuale presente nell'originale greco deI De resurrectione di
 908 M.MEJZNER
sandrin0 4 ha costituito un terreno di dibattito, di cui il primo e più
importante testimone è il De l'esul'l'ectione di Metodi0 5 •
Un'ampia esposizione di Origene sull'dooe; crO)!.w:nKov, contenutanel
suo Commenta al SaII,5 è stata messa da Metodio in bocca a Prodo, uno
dei personaggi dei dialogo (De l'es. 1.20-24). La scelta di questa citazione
da pru.te di Metodio, che conosceva anche altri testi di Origene concernenti
la risurrezione6 , è dunque il risultato di un'accurata cernita. Egli la ritiene
la più significativa e "siamo cosl sicuri che la dottrina origeniana non
doveva avere in essa ulteriori sviluppi considerati scabrosi oltre quelli già
segnalati da Metodio"? Tuttavia, rimane aperta la questione dei motivi di
tale scelta8 , prendendo soprattutto in considerazione che, in alcuni altri
passi, Origene si è espresso in modo molto più radicale9 •
Il concetto origeniano di dooe; crO)J.tunKov è stato già profondamente
analizzato in varie sedi. Esso non designa per Origene la forma 0 l'assetto
esterno deI corpo umano, sebbene sembri esercitare su di essa qualche
in~efinito riverbero lO • Contrariamente alla comprensione popolare,
l'dooe; origeniano significa un principio di individuazione di ciascun
essere, corporeo, ma anche "disincarnato" al punto tale da potersi impri-
mere in un sostrato spirituale. Filosoficamente, questo concetto si basa
.,
Metodio, si evidenzia maggionnente nella traduzione paleoslava, in quanta ~tti e tre i
termini sono resi con la stessa parola \VBpd3'h.
4. il tennine etôoç, che sembra un prestito da Aristotele, riceve da Origene un signi-
ficato totalmente opposto, in quanto per 10 Stagirita è la materia ad individualizzare la
fonna nel singolo rappresentante della specie; cf. Aristoteles, Metaphysica VI. 1034 (nota
16). La concezione di Origene, che distingue il sostrato dalle qualità, pua invece assomi-
gliare, nonostante la tenninologia divers a, all'idea dello stoico Crisippo, anche se l'Ales-
sandrino forza troppo la dualità degli elementi rispetto alla prospettiva stoica, cf. A. LE
BOULLUEC, De la croissance selon le stoïciens à la résurrection selon Origène in Revue
des études grecques 88 (1975) 143-155. . ,
5. È significativa una celta incongruenza tra l'evoluzione deI pensiero di Origene, che
nelle sue opere. tarde dà una preferenza al concel!0 deI À6yoç <Y1tEp).tU'tlK6ç, e i percorsi
della sua nceZlOne, concentl'ata su quello dell'dôoç, cf. H. CROUZEL, La doctrine ori-
génielme du COlpS ressuscité, in Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 81 (1980) 247-250.
6. Per bocca di Proc1o è menzionata l'esistenza di moIti libri di Origene che l1'attavano
il tema della risurrezione (cf. De l'es. Ll9.1). Inoltre, nel De creatis ILl, Metodio cita un
passo deI De principiis.
7. E. PRlNZIVALLI, Magister Ecclesiae. Il dibattito su Origene Ira III e IV secolo (Stu-
dia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 82), Roma, 2002, p. 89.
8. _PRINZIVALLI avanza l'intel'essante ipotesi che questo brano, in cui la dottrina
dell' dôoç viene esposta con la maggiore accuratezza possibile, circolasse negli ambienti
origenisti dell' epoca, essendo un frutto della crescente esigenza definitoria, finalizzata a
precis are che cos a ris orge, cf. Magister (n. 7), pp. 90 e 100.
9. Cf. per esempio Prin II.3.2; II.1O.2; CMt XVII.29-33.
10. Cf. De l'es. 1.23.3: "Forse ci sarà inton:o al santo qualcosa che si conserva di quello
che una volta dava i caratterÏ alla came con l'dôoç ,non più la came, ma cio che una volta
era caratterizzato nella came, sarà caratterizzato nel corpo spirituale", tr. PRINZIVALLI,
Magister (n. 7), p. 94.
L'EIAO~ E L'OXHMA 909
sull'ipotesi di matrice stoica, integrata con una platonica visione di fondo
di due oùcrtut, e cioè della sostanza materiale intesa come sostrato
amorro detenninato dalle qualità che possono essere diversamente modi-
ficate ll . Origene ipotizza le radicali trasfonnazioni dell'assetto esterno
deI corpo che è sempre un risultato dell'adattamento dell'anima alla vita
in un celto ambiente 12 • Percio nel regno dei cieli avverrà un cambiamento
qualitativo, di incomparabile superiorità, come è mostrato nella trasfigu-
razione di Gesù, di Mosè e di Elia 13, SI che l'anima acquisti un corpo
spirituale (créOJ.tu nV8uJ.tunKov), fonnato tuttavia attraverso il medesimo
dooe; risuscitato 14•
Il concetto pare affascinante, soprattutto se lasciato su un piano elevato
di astrazione. 1 problemi emergevano, pel' Origene stesso, quando si ten-
deva a concretizzare ed esemplificare la natura e le manifestazioni
dell' dooe;. Nel De l'esul'l'ectione tali difficoltà risaltano innanzitutto dal
discorso deI personaggio di Proc1o (1.25.1-26.2) che esprime l'intenzione
di chiru.1re le idee di Origene. Già nel suo riassunto della posizione ori-
geniana (1.25.2-7) si riscontrano significative divergenze concettuali e
terminologiche che accrescono, anziché attenuare, le difficoltà. Si
osserva, innanzitutto, un irrigidimento manifestatosi nell'insistere sull'as-
senza della carne nel corpo spirituale. Inoltre, intendendo l' dooe; come
forma esteriore (J.topCPi]) e tralasciando l'accenno origeniano aIle possi-
bili trasfonnazioni dell'assetto nel corpo risorto, Prodo minava di con-
traddizione il concetto stesso.
In effetti, Metodio trova difficoltà a interpretru.·e l'dooe;, secondo l'in-
tenzione deI suo ideatore e, mostrando in questo casa una forma mentis
aristotelica, tende ad assimilarlo a una qualità della materia15 • Egli nega
11. Cf. Origenes, Prin III.6.7: "( ... ) la natUl'a corporea riceve mutamenti nella
sostanza: percio qualsiasi cos a vorrà cre are 0 modificare Dio creatore di tutto, si serve di
questa materia pronta a tutto, SI da trasformare la natura corporea in qualsiasi fonna e
aspetto vorrà, secondo quanto richiedono meriti e demeliti", tr. SIMONETII, 1 Principi,
Torino, 1968, p. 477. L'Alessandrino toma spesso su questa definizione di materia come
sostrato amorfo, cui si aggiungono le qualità, e soggetta a variare in relazione al variare
di quelle, cf. Prin II.1.4; IVA.5; CC III A 1 ; IV.57; CIo XIII.21.61.
12. Cf. CC VII.32.
13. Cf. Mt 17,2-3; De l'es. 1.22.5. L'esempio della trasfigurazione come illustrazione
della permanenza dell'Etôoç nel corpo risorto è rievocata da Origene anche nel FrLc 140,
in GCS IX, 283. Egli, pero, solitamente non situa il mistero della trasfigurazione nel
contesto della risurrezione. Esso è per lui piuttosto un sirnbolo della più elevata contem-
plazione che l'uomo è in grado di raggiungere in questa vita, quando percepisce la divinità
che si manifesta attraverso il corpo terreno di Gesù, cf. H. CROUZEL, Les critiques adres-
sées par Méthode d'Olympe et ses contemporains à la doctrine origénienne du COlpS
ressuscité, in Gregorianum 53 (1972) 697-698.
14. Cf. De l'es. 1.22.5.
15. Cf. De l'es. III.6.1.
 910 M.MEJZNER
la possibilità dell' esistenza reale della fonna indipendentemente dalla
materia che costituisce - contrariamente aIl' opinione origeniana - il prin-
cipium individuationis della fonna nel singolo rappresentante della spe-
16
cie • Pel' lui, cioè, la fonna è una qualità deI corpo e come tale non pua
essere disgiunta da esso e data aIl'anima 17 • Inoltre, è molto probabile che
molti seguaci di Origene, di cui Proclo pua rappresentare un prototipo 18,
abbiano compreso il telmine dùoS proprio secondo quel significato vol-
gare, slittato verso l'equivalenza semantica con il termine ~oP<l>it. Questa
soluzione tendeva a moderare la controversa idea origeniana della totale
sottomissione della corporeità ai cambiamenti della condizione spirituale
degli esseri razionali e, ammettendo l'identità di assetto tra il corpo spi-
rituale e quello terreno, eliminava le contraddizioni derivanti dall'appli-
cazione dell' esempio della trasfigurazione di Cristo alla continuità
dell'dùos nella risunezione. Allo stesso tempo, pero, questa semplifica-
zione privava il concetto di dùoS deI suo senso originale, rendendolo
contraddittorio ed esponendolo aIle critiche successive 19 •
III.OXHMA
Il concetto di dùoS è stato elaborato da Origene pel' spiegare 'l'identità
tra il corpo teneno e quello risorto. Metodio, nel De res. III.17-18, intra-
prende la critica di tale concetto pel' quanto riguarda l'escatologia inter-
media. Infatti, la nozione dell'immOltalità dell'anima e gli episodi biblici
delle apparizioni delle persone dopo la mOlte richiedevano delle spiega-
zioni adeguate e coerenti ai principi filosofici e antropologici. Qui si
tenterà, pel' quanta possibile, di ricostruire il ragionamento di Metodio
16. Aristoteles, Metaphysica VI.1034a: "n tutto che ne risulta, infine, è una forma di
una data specie realizzata in queste cami ed ossa: per esempio Callia e Socrate; e, questi,
sono diversi per la materia (essa è, infatti, divers a nei diversi individui), ma &0110 identici
per la forma (la forma, infatti, è indivisibile)", tr. G. REALE, Collana: Tellli ~netafisici e
problellli dei pensiero antico (23-25), vol. II, Milano, 1993, p. 321.
1:. Cf. De l'es. m.6.1O: "Infatti, le qualità (KdKQIH,C'J'Bd) derivano dai corpi, ma non i
corpi dalle qualità" (se non indicato diversamente, i passi del De l'es. sono citati secondo
la traduzione curata dall' autore dell' articolo in collaborazione con B. Zorzi e pubblicata
nella Collana di Testi Patristici, 216, Roma, Città Nuova Editrice, 2010).
18. L'ipotesi suggerita da G. DORIVAL, Origène et la résurrection de la chair, in
L. LIES (ed.), Origeniana Quarta (Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck, 1987,
291-321, pp. 3l7-318, e so~tenuta anche da PRrNZIVALLl, Magister (n. 7), p. 113.
19. Metodio intende l'EÏooç nel significato volgare attribuitogli da Proclo, e cioè come
l'assetto delle membra oppUIe la forma esteriore. A partire da tale comprensione sviluppa
l~ sue critiche a un'idea origeniana, e cioè quella della mancanza delle membra nel COIpO
nsorto, cf. De l'es. m.7-8.
L'BIAO}:; EL'OXHMA 911
nella sua confutazione deI concetto origeniano di oXll~a che gli serve,
inoltre, a controbattere quello più controverso di dùoS.
Una ricerca impOltante sulla nozione dell'oXll~a è stata compiuta da
Dodds nel suo studio sulla teologia deI neoplatonico Proclo 20 • Lo stu-
dioso ravvisa l'origine deI termine negli scritti di Platone, anche se esso
non possedeva ancora un senso preciso. l neoplatonici, legandolo al
concetto stoico dell'anima corporea, sono giunti all'idea di veicolo
dell'anima, molto affine a quella origeniana di oXll~a. Si tratta di un
corpo sottile, luminoso, di cui l'anima incorporea è sempre rivestita e
di cui si serve dopo il suo distacco dal corpo carnale. Infatti, i filosofi
hanno utilizzato questo concetto anche pel' spiegare le apparizioni dei
morti21 •
Metodio sicuramente conosce il concetto di oXll~a, perché utilizza il
tennine, attribuendogli, pero, un significato totalmente diverso, e cioè
quello di corpo teneno 22 • Il confronto esplicito con Origene avviene nel
capitolo 18 del terzo libro deI De resurrectione, nel quale Metodio offre
la propria interpretazione delle apparizioni delle anime separate dai corpi
dopo la mOlte e respinge quella dell'avversario. Infatti, nel capitolo pre-
cedente (De res. III.17), Metodio riporta la spiegazione di Origene che
ha avanzato l'idea di oXll~a, cioè di veicolo corporeo attraverso cui l'a-
nima incorporea si pua manifestare nell'interim. Si tratta dell'intetpreta-
zione di due episodi biblici: l'evocazione di Samuele ad opera della
strega di Endor (1 Sam 28) e la parabola di Lazzaro e deI ricco epulone
(Lc 16,19-31). A questi due, pero, Metodio sembra aggiungere intenzio-
nalmente un terzo racconto che sta al centro della polemica: quello della
visione di Mosè ed Elia, apparsi insieme a Cristo trasfigurato (Mt 17,1-
8?3. Nella sua ottica questo ampliamento è giustificato a causa dell'affi-
nità sul piano deI contenuto e percio, già nel De res. l,52.3, egli lega la
parabola lucana e il racconto della trasfigurazione, indicando questi
esempi scritturistici come prove dell'immortalità dell'anima.
Quali argomenti sono usati da Metodio pel' controbattere l'idea di oXll~a?
Innanzitutto il principio dell'incorporeità quale prerogativa appartenente
20. E.R. DODDS, Proklou Diadochou Stoicheiosis theologikë - The Elements of Theo-
[ogy, Oxford, 1963 (Appendix II: The Astral Body in Neoplatonislll), pp. 313-321. .
21. Cf. H. CROUZEL, Le thème platonicien du "véhicule de l'âme chez Origène, f i
Didascalia 7 (1977) 225-237, pp. 225-228.
22. Cf. De l'es. II.22.1: "Se il COlpO (O'rol1u) umano è più prezioso di quelli degli altri
esseri viventi, perché, come si dice, è stato plasmato dalle mani di Dio e costituito veicolo
(oXlll1u) della più preziosa anima, come mai vive cosl poco, mentre moIti altri animali
vivono molto più a lungo?". Nel De l'es. II.1O.5 il termine oXlll1u indica il mondo, com-
posto da quattro elementi e guidato da Dio, come una quadriga.
23. Cf. De l'es. m.5.

912 M.MEJZNER
esclusivamente a Di0 24 . Inoltre egli ritiene insostenibile il concetto di veicolo
dal punto di vista filosofico, perché l'anima non puo, allo stesso tempo,
muovere due corpi che hamlO movimenti contrari, e cioè quello carnale che
inclina giù e quello sottile che tira SU25 . In effetti, la prima differenza fra
Origene e Metodio èche quest'ultimo considera l'anima COIporea (natural-
mente sottile), simile ai vOëpà Cl'cOj.tU''L'Œ degli angeli26. Inoltre, l'opposizione
al concetto di OX'llj.tu poteva provenire dall'esistenza di un celto legame tra
esso e l'interpretazione allegorica delle tuniche di pelle (Gen 3,21) come
corpi pesanti. Infatti, l'idea di veicolo dell'anima presuppone un implicito
disprezzo deI corpo carnale27 . Tuttavia, il motivo principale della critica è
che Metodio ritiene l'idea di oX'llj.tu intrinsecamente legata a quella di Elooç,
la cui confutazione costituisce il vero scopo deI De resurrectione.
Secondo l'opinione di Metodio, Origene avrebbe spiegato la condi-
zione postmortale dell'uomo nel senso che la forma disgiunta dal corpo
è conferita aIl' anima:
E questo per dare spazio ad Origene quando dice che, dopo la morte, l'dooS
disgiunto dal corpo sarà riconsegnato all'anima, cosa che è tra tutte assolu-
24. Cf. De l'es. III.18.4.
25. Cf. De l'es. III.2.8. 1 neoplatonici intendevano il veicolo come un tel'tium,quid che,
nei rapporti tra l'anima ed il corpo pesante, agisce come laccio ed ammortizz'atore. È un
rivestimento dell'anima, di materialità sottile, che l'accompagna sempre, cf. DODDS, Proklou
Diadochou (n. 20), pp. 300-303. Origene si riferiva probabilmente a questo concetto neopla-
tonico che spiegava il rappOlio tra il veicolo ed il corpo pesante con il principio della pene-
trazione dei due cOlpi, cf. A. VITORES, Identidad entre el cue/po mllel'to y resuscitado en
Origenes seglin el "De Resll/'rectione" de Metodio de Olimpo (Studium Biblicum Francis-
canum. Analecta, 18), Jerusalem, 1981, pp. 112-114. La questione, pero, non è chiara.
SlMONETTI, ricostruendo l'esegesi origeniana di Gen 3,21, parla della "trasfol'mazione del
primitivo corpo sottile e luminoso in un corpo spesso e pesante, il passaggio deI corpo dallo
stato di incorruttibilità a quello di corruttibilità", cf. Alclme osservazioni slill'inte/p/'etazione
origeniana di Gn 2,7 e 3,21, in Aevll/ll 36 (1962) 370-382, p. 380. La stessa opinione che
postula una "mutation de qualité" e non "une nuovelle création d'ordre substantiel" è soste-
nuta da CROUZEL che osserva, inoltre, che l'idea deI corpo sottile "qui a revêtu les tuniques
de peau se retrouve chez Origène selon le processus inverse de la résurrection quand il
intelprète 2 Co 5,4" (si tratta di CC V.19; VII.32-33), cf. Le thème (n. 21), pp. _~32-233. Il
carattere deI rappOlto tra il corpo sottile e quello pesante causa, in realtà, non 'poche diffi-
coltà. Se si tratta di un rivestimento deI corpo pesante sopra altro sottile, ne risulta che l'a-
nima dovrebbe muovere due corpi (obiezione di Metodio in De l'es. III.2.8; l'autore critica
in un altro lu~go (De l'es. 1.62.1) coloro che distinguono tra il corpo (= qualcosa di invisibile,
una specie dl anima stessa) e la came (= cosa visibile ed estema), alludendo alla teoria deI
corpo sottile che riveste il corpo pesante, cioè la came); se invece si tratta di un mutamento,
viene minato l'evento della risurrezione, perché l'anima possiede tale corpo subito dopo la
morte e non si capisce in che cosa consisterebbe la risurrezione.
26. Cf. De l'es. III. 15. 1.
27. Procopius Gazaeus (CGen 3.21, in PG 87/1, 221a) testimonia, in qualche maniera,
una contrapposizione tra l' OXl1f.lU e il corpo, affermando che gli allegorizzanti sostenevano
che 1'~a, prima di essere rivestita con il corpo terreno, simboleggiato dalle tuniche di pelle,
era velcolata (ènoiXEt<:rSut) dal corpo sottile ('rû Àê1t't'OJ-lêpÈÇ crooJ-lu) 0 luminoso (uùyotûéç).
913
L'EIAOl: E L'OXHMA
tamente impossibile perché l'Etoos si perde prima delle cami nelle altera-
zioni; come anche l'aspetto (O'Xl)l.W) di u~a statua che vien.e, abbattuta
si perde prima della distruzione deI rame, l? quant~ la quahta secondo
l'ipostasi non puo essere separata dalla matena. Infattl, dalla statua abba~­
tuta viene separata la forma (llopq>1l) scomparsa dal bronzo, non sus Sl-
stendo più secondo sostanza28 •
Dato che pel' Metodio i termini Elooç, Cl'Xllj.tu e j.toPCP1l sono equiva-
lenti e che l'anima è corporea, egli afferma addirittura che essa è:
uniforme alla came (olloEtoYtS BO''t't "Cft O'upKi), essendo formata delle
29
stesse membra, cosicché abbia lingua e dito e restanti membra •
Metodio si chiede perché il corpo risorto non dovrebbe essere da essa
riorganizzato nello stesso Elooç, visto che l'anima dominante è stata
creata in quella forma? Egli pone altrove una domanda ironica riguardo alla
forma dei corpo risorto, e cioè se essa sarà "rotonda 0 poligonale 0 cubica
31
o piramidale? "30, testimoniando la circolazione di tali idee nella sua epoca .
La comprensione metodiana delle teorie di Origene non è esatta, perché,
secondo quest'uItimo, nelle apparizioni dei morti non si vede
32
l'anima stessa, ma il suo oX'llj.tu simile (Ôj.tOlOëlÛÉÇ) al corpo terren0 .
L'anima separata, in quanto incorporea, ha bisogno di tale veicolo corporeo
pel' manifestarsP3. Nonostante l'incomprensione dovut~ aIle diverse visio~
antropologiche è importante notare come Origene abbla sostenuto la SOtnl-
glianza della fonna esteriore tra il corpo terreno e l'0XYJj.ta, perché altri-
menti i personaggi che sono apparsi dopo la morte non potrebbero essere
riconosciuti dai viventi (il casa di Samuele è pmticolarmente rilevante). A
queste conclusioni ci conducono non solo le deduzioni log~che degli .esempi
addotti, ma anche l'affermazione esplicita dell'Alessandrino che dlce:
E forse il veicolo (oXllllu)34 dell'anima nel tempo della sepa:azione, .che è
den' eidos simile (ollotOEtoÉS) al corpo pesante e terreno, puo essere lllteso
in questa maniera. Se si racconta, dunque, che qua1cuno sarebbe apparso
28. De res. III.6.1.
29. De l'es. III.18.8.
30. De res. III.15.1.
31. Cf. l'ipotesi di DORlVAL, Origène (n. 18), p. 318.
32. Cf. De res. III.17.3.
33. Cf. De res. III.17.4-5. .
34. G.N. BONWETSCH (GCS 27, 414, 7) lascia la parola crxiiJ-lU, tr~~data da ~oz.~o.
Sembra tuttavia che, in questo caso, la versione paleoslava che parl~ ?l ~el~~lo (nose~~)
cOlTisponda meglio al pensiero di Or!gene, cf. I?e res. ~.18.1. Infattl, e dlfflclle co~ce~lle
che Origene, sostenendo l'incorporeltà dell'aru~a, abbla ~arlato del .s~o asp:tto. L, en ore
di trascrizione è inoltre facilmente spiegabile ln quanto l due teTffilill: crXllJ-lu e oXllJ-lu
si somigliano m'olto. A~che CROUZEL, dopo una breve esitazione (Les critiques [no 13],
p. 704), sceglie il termine OXllJ.lu, approvando la correzione secondo il testo paleoslavo,
cf. Le thème (n. 21), pp. 226-228.
 914 M.MEJZNER
dopo la morte, questo è stato visto simile (of.lOWC;) alla figura (crxfjf.lun) di
quando aveva la came35 •
, Cio che .desidero mettere in risalto è il fatto che il telmine ôllowstOÉç
e usat,? qUI nel senso popolare (forma simile) e non nel senso filosofico
dell:sfooç (principio d'identità). Origene 10 poteva sostenere perché non
ascnveva questa somiglianza all' anima incorporea, ma al suo veicolo
co~oreo. rn.0l~re 1~ Aless~ndrino sottolinea che non si tratta deI. corpo
spmtuale deI nsortl, ma dl un altro corpo che accompagna l'anima
in un~ condi~~one precedente alla pamsia deI Salvatore e al compimento dei
secoli e perclO precedente alla risunezione36•
~ell'ottica di Origene, l'dooç risorto differisce dall'oXllllU e percio
egh, senza cadere in contraddizione, poteva sostenere una tesi in cui
escludeva la presenza delle membra umane nel corpo l'iSOIt0 37 .
Metodio, assimilando questi concetti, ha sempIicemente rovesciato le
idee deI suo avvel'sario? Non deI tutto. Probabilmente egli ha di nuovo
g~ocato con i divel'si usi deI tennine 0Xllllu in Origene stesso. Infatti,
~lsogna notare che l'Alessandrino, nel Commento a Matteo XVI,19,
lllt~~retando alleg?ricamente l' entrata di Gesù a Gerusalemme sopra
un ~sllla, ha usato il tennine 0Xllllu pel' designare il corpo glorioso di
Gesu che, accompagnato da esso, penetra i cieli, la vera Gerusalemme,
provocando 10 stupore dei suoi abitanti pel' "il nuovo spettacolo deI suo
v.eic?~o corporeo"38. In questo passo il tennine 0Xllll u assume quindi il
slgmf1ca~o d~l corpo ris orto di Gesù, affine a quello dell'dooç, deI com-
mento ongemano a Sai 1,5. Metodio, che costruisce la critica dei concetti
deI s.uo a:vers~io assimilando i due tennini, rispecchia quindi in qualche
mamera 11 penSlero generale dell' Alessandl'ino.
IV. CONSEGUENZE DOITRINALI
Il vero 3entro della polemica nel De resurrectione è costituit~ dal con-
cetto di siooç, in quanto escogitato dal maestro alessandrino pel' presen-
tare una nuova visione della l'isurrezione. Metodio ritoma spesso (ill.5-
7 .1?-14) sulla cl'itica dell' esempio della trasfigurazione, utilizzato da
Ongene pel' spiegal'e la continuità e glorificazione dell' dooç nella l'isur-
35. De l'es. m.17.3 = m.18.8.
36. De l'es. m.17.5.
3:. Cf. De r~s. 1.24.1; 111.7.6; la citazione origeniana assomiglia molto a un passo
degh Stromata ncordato da Hieronymus, CID Hier. 26.
38. GCS 10/2,539.23-25: bd 'tcp KatVcp 'tou O'roJlU'tlKOU UÙwu ôxi]Jluwç 0eâJlu'tl.
L'EIilOk E L'OXHMA 915
rezione 39 ; esempio ripl'eso anche da Procl0 4o pur con delle significative
modifiche terminologiche e concettuali. Infatti pel' molteplici motivi l'e-
sempio non corrisponde al senso dell'esposizione origeniana, e Metodio
tenterà di portare alla luce queste incongruenze41 •
Il primo rimprovero è di natura cristologica42 • Metodio l'imarca che
Origene, riservando la risurrezione al solo dooç, potrebbe far pensare
che Mosè ed Elia, apparsi insieme a Gesù trasfigurato, fossero risorti
prima di Lui che, in questo modo, non sarebbe più il "Primogenito dai
mOIti" (Col 1,18; Ap 1,5). Poiché cio non è possibile, e Metodio è ben
consapevole che Origene non vuole negare la preminenza deI Cristo nel
mondo dei risOIti43 , risulta che l' dooç in cui le anime si sono manifestate
non è stato da loro mai deposto:
Infatti, sarebbe assurdo limitare la risurrezione al solo eiooc;, perché le
anime, anche dopo aver lasciato la came, evidentemente non sembra che
depongano mai l' dooc; che tu dici che risorge. Se, dunque, esso rimane
inseparabile da esse, come nel casa delle anime di Mosè e di Elia, e
secondo te non si conompe, né perisce, ma si ritrova ovunque sempre
insieme ad esse, non è dunque l'dooc; a risorgere visto che non era mai
sparito44 •
Metodio concorda con l'opinione che le anime dei morti si manife-
stano nello stesso dooç, cioè - secondo la sua comprensione - nella
stessa fOlma esteriore. Di conseguenza, la risurrezione non spetta 101'0,
né alla 101'0 fonna, ma alla carne che muore:
se nessuno è ris orto prima di lui, e dunque Mosè ed Elia non apparvero agli
Apostoli avendo la came, ma soltanto l'eiooc;, allora è dimostrata chiara-
mente la risunezione della carne45 •
39. Cf. De l'es. 1.22.5 = III,4.5: "E come nel caso in cui dovessimo vivere nel mare,
diventati esseri acquatici, sarebbe necessario avere le branchie e gli altri requisiti dei
pesci, COS!, dovendo ereditare il regno dei cieli ed essere in luoghi differenti, sarà neces-
sario usare di corpi spirituali: ma non perché scompare l'etooç precedente, anche se
subisce un mutamento in qua1cosa di più glorioso, al modo in cui l'dooç di Gesù di
Mosè e di Elia non era diverso nella trasfigurazione da quello che era".
40. Cf. De l'es. 1.25.7: "Come dunque adesso, pur non essendo il corpo [sempre] 10
stesso, tuttavia mantiene ugualmente l'impronta che rimane la stessa secondo la stessa
fOlma (Jlopcpi]), COS! anche allora, pur non essendo il corpo 10 stesso, l'Etooç accresciutosi
di maggior gloria, si mostrerà non più in un corpo cOlTuttibile, ma in uno impassibile e
spirituale, come era quello di Gesù nella trasfigurazione, quando san sul monte con Pietro,
e gli si mostrarono Mosè ed Elia".
41. Anche CROUZEL ammette che l'evocazione della trasfigurazione è stata una scelta
ma/heureuse da parte di Origene, cf. Les critiques (n. 13), p. 698.
42. Cf. De l'es. m.5.l-5.
43. Cf. De l'es. m.22.
44. De l'es. m.5.6-7.
45. De l'es. m.5.5.
 916 M.MEJZNER L'EI~m; E L'OXHMA 917

Il commento di Origene a SaI 1,5 mota attomo al tema deI corpo
spirituale dei risorti. La nozione di 0Xll/lu, che potrebbe essere applicata
facilmente al casa di Mosè ed Elia, non viene da lui menzionata. Metodio
l'aveva pero in mente, quando rifletteva sull'esempio della trasfigura-
zione, essendo 10 stato post mortem di Mosè ed Elia uguale a quello di
Samuele. Percio egli collega i casi di apparizioni dei morti46 e trae da es si
una conseguenza fondamentale di natura linguistica che giustificherà
tutte le sue critiche successive.
Come è stato già mostrato, nel casa dell'apparizione di Samuele,
l'Alessandrino ha usato il termine o/lowlnoÉC; nel senso popolare, appli-
candolo all'oXll/lU e percio il morto poteva apparire simile nell'aspetto
(O/lOWC; ÉcOpU'tut 't<$ crX1l/lun)47. Metodio ritiene dunque legittima la
sua comprensione dell' dooc; come forma esteriore, essendo uguale la
radice di ambedue i termini, e la applica ovunque al concetto di Origene.
Intendendo l' dooc; come forma esteriore, le affermazioni origeniane
circa la mancanza delle membra umane 0 il totale cambiamento dell'a-
spetto esteriore nel corpo risOlt0 48 , risultano contraddittorie ed insosteni-
bili. Metodio ritoma spesso a sottolineare che 10 stesso dooc; significa 10
stesso assetto delle membra49 , perché intrapresa da lui la difesa deI dogma
della risurrezione consiste non solo nell'assicurare l'identità materiale,
ma anche quella della forma.
Metodio trova gli argomenti pel' confutare il concetto di dooc; anche
nel campo dell'escatologia intermedia. Intetpretando le apparizioni dei
morti, Origene, nel brano riportato da MetodioS!, ha usato l'espressione
0Xll/lu O/lOWEtÙÉC;S2, da cui risulta il senso popolare, cioè quello della
fonna esteriore, deI termine dooc;. L'approssimazione dei due tetmini,
che mette in ulteriori difficoltà le teorie origeniane, non è solo un'opera-
zione di Metodio. L' Alessandrino stesso applica in un passoS3 il concetto
di 0Xll/lu al corpo glorioso di Gesù, assimilandolo, in questo caso, a
quello di dooc;. È vero che l'accostamento dei due passi tratti da opere
diverse, scritte con scopi diversi, non è un'operazione che offra risultati
sempre validi, ma il merito di Metodio consiste almeno nel fatto di pro-
vare l'ambiguità dei concetti e relativi termini: dooc; e 0Xll/lu.
UKSW Warszawa Miroslaw MEJZNER, SAC
ul. Skaryszewska 12
03-802 Warszawa
Poland
mmejznet@ecclesia.org.pl

V. CONCLUSIONI

Circ a i malintesi metodiani sul concetto di dooc;, avanzato da Origene

nel commento a SaI 1,5, si è già detto a sufficienza. Cio che tentavo di
evidenziare è che Metodio non polemizza con "un fantôme qu'il aura
lui-même créé"so, ma trova nell'opera dell'Alessandrino degli elementi
che si prestano alle sue critiche, e che inoltre potevano aver di mira i reali
ambienti origeniani che cercavano una soluzione semplificata per l' ardita
intuizione delloro maestro. Riassumendo si puo dire che l'autor\'( deI De
resurrectione rimprovera al concetto di dooc; introdotto dal suo avver-
sario tre inesattezze: 1) insufficienza, in quanto viene esclusa l'identità
materiale; 2) imprecisione, in quanto la forma, persistendo nell'interim,
non perisce mai; 3) incongruenza, in quanto viene negata l'integrità
dell' assetto umano.

46. Cf. De res. 1.52.

47. Cf. De res. III.17.3.
48. Cf. De res. 1.22.5; 1.24.1-2; III.7.6. 51. De res. III.17.
49. Cf. De res. III.7-8; 14.7; 15; 16.1-2; 18.4-8. 52. Cf. De res. III.17.3; 18.1.
50. Un'accusa di CROUZEL, Les critiques (n. 13), p. 694. 53. CMt XVI.19.
 "CONDENSING AND SHAPING THE FLESH. .. "
THE INCARNATION AND THE INSTRUMENTAL FUNCTION
OF THE SOUL OF CHRIST IN THE ICONOCLASTIC CHRISTOLOGY

Religious polemics during the Iconoclastic age always operated on

several levels and were aimed at various target audiences. The main
theological arguments on both sides, as it always happened, most likely
were elaborated by a narrow circle of educated theologians, from whom
ideas "seeped down" into the wide masses, losing theu' depth and becom-
ing more and more abbreviated, eventually being transformed into a set
of slogans and catch-phrases. This can be clearly se en in the Letters of
Theodore the Studite relating to the second Iconoclastic period, where
Theodore condenses his own very sophisticated anti-Iconoclastie theol-
ogyl into a couple of brief arguments focusing on Christ, accepting His
tme human nature along with the possibility and, indeed, necessity for it
to be depieted, and on the doctrine of homonymy of the image and model
along with an allusion to several short phrases of Basil the Great2 and
Dionysius the Areopagite 3 •
To be sure, in the case of the Iconoclasts we have only traces of the
lower genré and fragments of the higher theological genres. The devel-
oped and detailed polemical treatises, which must have existed on the
Iconoclastic side, did not survive, except for a few fragments, and our
main theological source, the Definition of the Iconoclastic Council of
Hiereia (754) is only an end-product of Iconoclastic court theologians
and the Emperor himself, inevitably skipping the intermediary steps and

1. The best example of which are the tlu'ee Refutations of Iconoclastie arguments in
the form of Iconoclastie statements and Iconodulic answers: PG 99, 327-436. English
translation is: St. Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Jcons, trans. C.P. ROTH, Crestwood,
NY, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1981.
2. For example, Epist. 57.26-30, G. FATOUROS (ed.), Theodori Studitae Epistulae,
Berlin - New York, de Gruyter, 1992, p. 165; Epist. 301.104-08, FATOUROS, p. 442;
Epist. 305.35-36, FATOUROS, p. 448; Epist. 380.152, FATOUROS, p. 516; Epist. 416.26-28,
FATOUROS, p. 581; Epist. 427.18-27, FATOUROS, p. 598.
3. For example, Epist. 57.19-20, FATOUROS, p. 164; Epist. 315.30, FATOUROS, p. 459;
Epist. 380.148, 156, 166ff., FATOUROS, pp. 516-517; 29-30; Epist. 524.36-41, FATOUROS,
p. 782; Epist. 528.48-53, FATOUROS, p. 789; Epist. 532.110-11, FATOUROS, p. 799.
4. S. GERO, The Resu/'gence of Byzantine Iconoclasm ill the Ninth Centlll)', acco/'ding
to a Syriac Source, in Speculum 51 (1976) 1-5, pp. 4-5.
5. J. GOUllLARD, Fragments inédits d'un antir/'étique de Jean le Grammarien, in Revue
des études byzantines 24 (1966) 171-181.
 920 V.BARANOV
arguments that a historian of ideas is thus forced to reconstruct. This
article will further explore the Christology of Byzantine Iconoclasts,
which followed the Christian Platonist paradigm created by Origen.
In the Definition of Hiereia, two passages speak about the role of the
soul of Christ as mediator between the flesh and the divinity of the
Word:
He made His dwelling in the virginal womb, He assumed flesh consubstan-
tial with us into his own existence or hypostasis from her holy and blame-
less flesh, and condensed and shaped it through the mediation of the rational
and in,telligent so~l (otà J.!s<H1S \j!Dxfls Âoyt1<fls "Cf: KUt VOf:paS O'DJ.!1tijSuS
"Cf: Kat oWJ.!op<j>mO'uS) ... 6.
While the divinity of the Son has assumed in his own hypostasis the nature
of the flesh, the soul mediated between the divinity and the coarseness of
the flesh (1tpoO'Âu~OUO'llS yàp "Cfls "COD DioD 3f:6"Cll"CoS èv "Cn tOto. Ù1tO-
O'''Cu<;f:t "Ci]v "C fls O'upKOS <j>uO'tv, .~ \j!DXi] èJ.!witwO'f: 3f:6"Cll"Ct Kut O"uPKOS
7 who is in the bosom of the etemal Father is disclosed in the womb of his
1tuXD"Clln) ....
A remarkable feature of both passages is that, according to them, only
the flesh of Clu'ist is assumed in Christ's hypostasis and the assumption
of Christ's soul, or at least the consubstantiality of Christ with us accord-
ing to human nature as a whole (body and soul) is not mentioned. To be
precise, there is nothing wrong with the doctrine of Clu'ist's soul-media-
tOI' provided that it does not imply pre-existence of the soul or a special
status of Christ's soul, different from aIl other ordinary human souls.
However, by the eighth century, with aIl the doctrinal formulas devel-
oped in the Christological Controversies, such imprecision of language
would be with little excuse, since such a definition is in contradiction
with the Definition of Chalcedon, according to which Christ is consub-
stantial with us according to his entire humanity, "of a rational soul and
body"8. Thus, the Iconodule champion John of Damascus also uses the
. 6. MANS! 13, 213D. The immediate source of the passage is Gregory Nazianzen, Ora-
tlon 38.13, see: V.A. BARANOV - B. LouRIÉ, The Role of Christ's SOlll-Mediator in the
IcO/!o.clastic Ch~istology: in .G. HEIDL - R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nonà:Origen and
RellglOlIs Practlce of HIS Tlme. Papers of the 9'" Intemational Origen Congress, Pécs,
HlIngary, 29 ~lIgllst - 2.September 2005 (BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 403-411,
n. 3, p. 404; In that article the doctrine of Christ's soul-mediator is examined from a
general Christological perspective.
7. MANs! 13, 257AB.
8. "In agreement, therefore, with the holy fathers, we aIl unanimously teach that we
should confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the same perfect in
Go.dhead, and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same of a
ratIOnal soul and body, consubstantial wilh the Father in Godhead and the same consub-
stantial wilh us in manhood, that is like us in aIl things but sin; b~gotten from the Father
befor~ a.1I ages as regards his Godhead, and in these last days, the same one begotten from
the vlrgm Mary, the Theotokos, as regards his manhood" (St. Cyril of Alexandria: The
"CONDENSING AND SHAPING TIlE FLESH" 921
same doctrine on the soul-mediator for his polemics with Apollinarism,
to prove that in the Incarnation the Son has to assume the intellect as the
highest anthropological principle. Yet JOlul of Damascus carefully qual-
ifies his statement: immediately after the passage on the soul-mediator,
he reiterates the Incarnation doctrine with customary qualification: Christ
assumes a body (and not just flesh) "animated with rational and intel-
lectual soul"9. The passage from the Synodical Lette/' of Patriarch
Sophronius of Jerusalem (634-638) may serve as a benchmark of post-
Chalcedonian Clu'istological language, where the consubstantiality with
us of the entire human nature of Clu'ist is strongly emphasized:
The fleshless one becomes flesh; the one who is in conformity with the
divine essence is without shape as far as form and frame are concemed
takes on our shape; and the bodiless one is embodied as we are; and the
one revealed as always God in truth becomes a human being; and the one
mother's belly; and the timeless one receives a beginning in time ( ... ), he
assumed our human substance (<j>upuJ.!u) completely, l mean flesh consub-
stantial with ours and an intellectual soul of the same stock as our souls,
and a mind comparable to our mind (O'UpKU <j>llJ.!t "Ci]v l]J.!Ïv oJ.!oouO'wv
KUt \j!DXi]V ÂoytKijV, "Ci]v \j!DxutS "Cuts l]J.!f:"CsputS OJ.!6<j>DÂOV, KUt vODv
"C<p v<p "C<p l]J.!&v 1tUpU1tÂijO'tov). In these things he is and is recognized as
a human being, and he became in truth a human being from the very point
of his conception in the all-holy Virgin lO•
The phrasing of the Iconoclasts from the Definition of Hiereia is strik-
ingly different. Is it possible that the two phrases from the Iconoclastic
Definition imply a certain doctrine behind the singling out of the assumed
flesh from general human nature in the Incarnation?
Christological Cont/'ove/'sy, trans. J. McGuCKIN, Leiden - New York - Cologne, Brill,
1994, p. 237 of ACO II, 1, 2, p. 129, 12-30).
9. John of Damascus, Expositio fidei, HI.l8, B. KOTTER (ed.), Die Schriften des
Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 2 (patristische Texte und Studien, 12), Berlin - New York,
de Gruyter, 1973, p. 158, 30-32. Maximus the Confessor in Expositio in Psalmum UX
(CPG 7690), while using the quote from Gregory Nazianzen's Theological Discourse 29
that the Logos "communicated with flesh through the mediation of mind (otà IlÉcrol) vooç
6lltÂ:llcraç crapKt)" (P. GALLAY [ed.], Gregory Nazianzen, Discours 27-31. Discours
Théologiqlles (SC, 250), Paris, Cerf, 1978, 19,7, p. 218), excludes the "mediation" prin-
ciple and writes that Christ "communicated with us through flesh (otà crapKoç TtlltV
6IltÂ-ftcraç)" (pG 90, 857C3). See also: Ambiglla 33 (PG 1285C-1288A) which is dedi-
cated to the use by Gregory Nazianzen of the term "thickening" as a metaphor for the
Incarnation, and which aims at removing suspicion of an Origenist trend (A. LoUTH,
Maximus the Confessor, London - New York, Routledge, 1996, n. 43, p. 207).
10. Sophronius of Jerusalem, Synodical Letter, 2.3.1 (P. ALLEN [ed. and trans.], Soph-
ronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Centllly Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Other Docu-
ments, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 86 for the Greek text, p. 87 for the
English translation).
 922 V.BARANOV
The soul 01', more precisely, the World Soul plays a paramount role in
Plato's Timaeus, one of the main sources for the anthropology of Chris-
tian Platonism. Without a soul it is impossible for any intellect to be
joined to a bodyll. The Platonic Demiurge creates the world in such a
way that the intellect joined to the material cosmos by mediation of the
World SouJ12; the World Soul is set in the middleof the created world
as its organizing and operating principle 13 , and structured on the basis of
mathematieal principles 14 • The entire Soul mediates between the ideal
eternal Forms and changeable sensible world. In the Christological para-
digm of Christian Platonists, the soul of Christ also mediates between the
divinity of the W ord, joined to it with its highest part, the intellect, and
between the coarse material body that it animates and moves around. If
the Christological scheme of the Iconoclasts is a remote version of the
Timaeus myth, perhaps, we can find more indications of the soul's par-
tieular functioning in the Definition of Hiereia?
A fragment on the Iconoclastic doctrine of the Eucharist as a true
image of Cill'ist's flesh 15 contains a passage on the Incarnation that allows
us to clarify the doctrine on the soul-mediator of Cillist and find out its
precise function:
... In the same way as that which He assumed from us is a mere'matter of
human substance (on rocrrcsp a ès T]IHOV àvsÀapsto, {)Àl] Ilovl'] ècrtiv
àvSpcorclVl]S oùcrlUS), pelfect in every respect, which, however, is not char-
acterized as a person with a hypostasis of its own - in this way no addition
of a person may occur in the Godhead - so did He command that the icon
[the Eucharist - Y.B.] also be matter as such; that is, He commanded that
the substance of bread be offered which does not yield the shape of man's
fOlID, so that idolatry may not be introduced indirectly. Therefore, as the
natural body of Christ is holy, as it had been deified, so, obviously, is the
one which is in its place [by convention]; that is, the icon is also holy as
11. Cf. Timaeus 30ab; cf. Phaedrus 247bf.
12. Neoplatonic philosophers modified Plato's cosmological scheme: Plotinus identi-
fies the Demiurge with the divine Intellect, and Porphyry with the World-Soul (R. SORABIT,
The Philosophy of the Commentators 200-600 AD: A Sourcebook, voL, i;Ithaca, NY,
Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 170-173).
13. Timaells 34c, 36de.
14. L. BRISSON - F.W. MEYERSTElN, Inventing the Universe: Plato's Timaells, the Big
Bang, and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge, Albany, NY, State University of New
York Press, 1995, pp. 28-29.
15. In more detail on this doctrine, see: M.-O. BOULNOIS, L'Eucharistie: Figure ou
réalité? Une controverse théologique, d'Origène à la querelle iconoclaste, in N. BÉRIou-
B. CASEAU - D. RIGAUX (eds.), Les p!,atiqu~s de l'Eucharistie dans les Églises d'Orient
et d'Occident (Antiquité et Moyen Age) (Etudes augustiniennes. Série Moyen Âge et
Temps modernes, 45-46), Paris, Institut d'études augustiniennes, 2009, 273-289. See also:
V.A. BARANOV, The Doctrine of the Icon-Eucharist for the Byzantine Iconoclasts, in Stu-
dia Patristica 44, Leuven, Peeters, 2010,41-48.
"CONDENSING AND SHAPING TIIE FLESH" 923
one which becomes deified by grace, through an act of consecration. For
this is what the Lord Christ specified, as we have said; so that, in the same
way, that He deified the flesh which He assumed by the union of it with the
sanctity of his own nature, so did He the bread of the Eucharist16 •
This passage is dedicated to the Eucharist as a true non-antill'opomor-
pbic icon of Cillist, and the parallel between the Eucharistic matter and
Christ's material body is very important for the purpose of our investiga-
tion. This text confirms and specifies the doctrine contained in the pas-
sages on the mediating function of the soul. The phrases on the W ord
accepting only the flesh or rather the elements for the flesh from the
Virgin as representative of aIl of humanity is not an imprecision of lan-
guage but a clearly expressed Iconoclastie Christologieal doctrine.
According to this doctrine, the Word assumes from the Theotokos only
the general matter of human nature, that is, the material elements fol' His
body wbich "are condensed and shaped" by Him using bis soul as an
instrument, in the way a smith uses bis hammer to give a pmticular shape
to a piece of iron. Describing the Incarnation, the Iconoclasts cm'efully
avoid any customary statements about the soul as a component of the
human nature of soul and body, or of the ensouled body 01' flesh: it is
always "the matter of human nature," the flesh 01' the body that the Word
assumes. This flesh is deified not by belonging to God the Word in virtue
of the hypostatic union, by being His own flesh, but it is deified till'ough
the union with Cill'ist's natural sanctity ('tTJV crapKu, i)v àVÉÀups, 'tél'>
oiKsiél'> Ku'tà cpoaw &'ytacr!lél'> ÈS m'nfjç Évmcrscoç È,sÉcocrsv), that is,
through the union of flesh with the soul of Cill'ist through which the flesh
is connected to the divinity of the Word.
Yet, given aIl tbis, why is this flesh undepietable, fol' according to the
Iconoclasts themselves, it is "shaped" by the soul and thus does possess
a celtain shape? In other words, what is the difference between Cillist's
soul and flesh and our souls that produce a body with individu al and
recognizable features, 01' from the souls and bodies of the Iconoclastie
Emperors, the faces of whom were reproduced on their coins? 1 suggest
that this difference lies in the partieular state of Cillist's soul in the con-
text of Late Antique embryology. We should pay special attention to
those aspects, whieh are tied to the adoption of a particular shape of
facial features on a human being in relation to his 01' her ensoulment.
16. MANS! 13, 264AB, trans. D. SAHAS, Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Centlll}'
Iconoclasm (Toronto Medieval Texts and Translations, 4), Toronto - Buffalo - London,
University of Toronto Press, 1986, p. 93.
924 V.BARANOV
The subject of the human embryo in terms of its human soul was
treated in ancient sources from different viewpoints and for different
pUlposes. From a Roman and Jewish legal perspective the problem as to
whether and when an emblyo becomes a living creature was relevant for
the cases of haIm afflicted to a pregnant woman or abortion 17 , and, in
Byzantine canon law, primarily, for the issue of abOltion and baptism of
a pregnant woman 18 . Philosophers studied it from a natural scientific and
medical perspective, and in their commentaries on the classical philo-
sophical works 19 . Theologians debated the issue of ensoulment of an
embryo in a wider cosmological and Christological framework20 , because
the creation of Adam, the conception and animation of the rest of the
human beings, and the Incarnation of the Word were ultimately and nat-
urally interrelated. The moment when the soul was created and the
ensoulment were debated in the Origenist Controversy of the late fourth-
early fifth century within a wider framework of Origen's doctrine of
preexistence of souls 21 , and in a later development of the Origenist
17. On Roman practices, see: D.A. JoNES, The Soul of the EmblYo: An EllquÎly into
the Status of the Human EmblYo in the Christian Tradition, London, Continuum, 2007,
pp. 33-42.
18. For an overview of the problem, see: S. ThOIANOS, The Embl)'o in Byzantine Canon
Law, in A. VLAVlANOS-ARvANITIS (ed.), Fourth B.l.O Conference. Athens, Jamtal)' 1991,
Biopolitics: The 1nte1'1lational University for the Bio-Environment, vol. 3, Athens, B.I.O.,
1991, 179-194; accessed at http://www.biopolitics.gr/HTML/PUBS/VOL3/ha-trx.htm
on May 15,2011. A recent collection of articles is dedicated to the doctrines of the embryo
in different traditions: J.-L. SOLÈRE - M.-H. CONGOURDEAU - L. BRISSON (eds.),
L'emblyon: Formation et animation: Antiquité grecque et latine, traditions hébraïque,
chrétienne et islamique (Histoire des dochines de l'Antiquité classique, 38), Paris, Vrin,
2008.
19. Primarily, their interest was focused on the works ofPlato. Thus, Proclus, after citing
the Chaldean Oracles: "1 soul reside after the paternal conceptions, hot, and animating aIl
things", goes on: "Plato likewise, bears testimony to the Oracles, when he caIls the Demi-
urgus father, and represents him generating souls, and sending them into the generation of
men according to the fust life" (trans. T. TAYLOR, The Commentmy of Procl/lS on the
Timaeus of Plato, vol. 1, London, 1820, p. 344). Neo-Platonist commentators of Aristotle
underplayed his hylemorphic implications of the ensoulment and naturaIly concenh'ated on
the divisions in the soul, its separability from the body, its inherent striving tow'ards the upper
realities, and its instrumental use of the body (H,J. BLUMEN1HAL, Aristotle al/d Neoplatol/ism
il/ Late Antiquity: Interpretations of the De Anima, London, Duckworth, 1996, pp. 101-110,
113). In the commentaries the embryo was considered in the general context of potentiality
vs. actuality (F.A.J. DE HAAs, Recollectiol/ and Potentiality in Phi/opol/uS, in M. KARDAUN
- J. SPRuYT [eds.], The Winged Chariot: Collected Essays on Plato and Platonism ill honour
of L.M. de Rijk, Leiden, Brill, 2000, 165-184, p. 180).
20. M.-H. CONGOURDEAU, L'animation de l'embryon humain chez Maxim le Confes-
seur, in Nouvelle revue théologique 111 (1989) 693-709, p. 695; ID., L'Emblyon et son
âme dans les sources grecques (VIe siècle av. J.-C. - ve siècle apI'. J.-C., Paris, Association
des amis du Centre d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 2007, pp. 325-330.
21. E. CLARK, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Const1'llction of an Early
Christian Debate, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992, pp. 91,95; General
"CONDENSING AND SHAPING TIIE FLESH" 925
debate22 . The issue of ensoulment was also relevant in polemics with
Appolinarism, Monophysitism or Monothelitism23 .
In spite of the disagreements concerning the nature of the soul and
its status in relation to its body, the majority of theologians shared the
view that the soul was joined to the body at the moment of conception.
An interesting example can be seen in Clement of Alexandria, who says
that an angel introduces the soul into the semen of the male and incites
the female to coition so the conception and ensoulment happen simul-
taneously24. Another view can be found in places, that the soul enters
the embryo the moment it acquires a human form and begins to move,
not at the moment of conception. This view is reflected in the Septua-
gint as opposed to the Hebrew Bible. Speaking about unintentional
haIm to a pregnant woman (Ex 21,22-23), the Septuagint version
emphasizes the human form of an embryo as a cntenon . . f or penalty 25 .
The form of an emblyo also played a crucial role in Aristotle's embry-
ology, which saw the soul as the form or the entelecheia of the body.
Aristotle claims that the semen from the male gives the fonn and the
principle of movement to the matter, provided by the female 26 ; and the
soul acquired with the male seed gradually reveals itself in actuality
overview of the debate on the preexistence, see CONGOURDEAU, L'Emblyol/ (n. 20),
pp. 100-130.
22. CONGOURDEAU, L'animation (n. 20), pp. 696-705.
23. Ibid., pp. 706-709.
24. Eclogae propheticae, 50, PG 9, 719D-721A; see: JONES, Soul (n. 17), p. 112. In
the Paedagogus I.VI.48 (J. DONALDSON - A. ROBERTS, Clement of Alexandria, 1nst1'llctor,
in Fathers of the Second Centllly: Hermas, Tatial/, Theophilus, Athenagoras, and Clement
of Alexandria [Anti-Nicene Fathers], vol. 2, Buffalo, NY, 1885, repr. 2007, p. 221), Clem-
ent of Alexandria thus describes the process of an embryo's generation and growth:
" ... the process of formation of the seed in conception ensues when it has mingled with
the pure residue of the menses, which remains. For the force that is in the seed coagulat-
ing the substances of the blood, as the rennet curdles milk, effects the essential part of the
fOlmative pro cess".
25. Cf. the Septuagint version: "And if two men strive and smite a woman with child,
and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shaH be forced to paya penalty: as the
woman's husband may lay upon him, he shaIl pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly
fOlmed, he shaIl give life for life ... ". And the Hebrew version: "And if men strive
together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no h~ follow,
he shaH be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shalllay upon him; and he
shall payas the judges determine. But if any haIm follow, then though shalt give life for
life ... " (CONGURDEAU, L'animation [no 20], p. 702), on the passage, see: JONES, Soul
(n. 17), pp. 46-50.
26. Aristotle, De generatione animalium 1.2.716a4-717 [GA]; GA 1.20.728a; On
Aristotle's embryology, see: R. MAYHEW, The Female in Aristotle's Biology: Reason or
Rationalisation, Chicago, IL - London, University of Chicago Press, 2004, pp. 38-41,
CONGOURDEAU, L'Emblyon (n. 20), pp. 184-185; JONES, Soul (n. 17), pp. 22-32.
926 V.BARANOV
with the formation of each relevant organ, itself as a fonn participating
in the formation of a body27.
In the Christian tradition, a radical proponent of the doctrine that con-
nected the soul and the shape of the body was Theodoret of Cyrrus. In
Question 48 of his Questions on Exodus, he thus explains the Septuagint
regulation on the fonn of the fetus:
What is the meaning of "with human features"? It is the general opinion
that lite is communicated to the fetus when its body is fully fOlmed in the
womb. Thus, right after fOlming Adam's body, the Creator breathed life
into him. So, in the case of a pregnant woman who suffers miscarriage in
the course of a fight, the lawgiver ordains that if the infant cornes out with
human features - that is, fully formed - the case is to be considered murder
and the guilty party must pay with his own life. But if it come~ out befor~
it is fully formed, the case is not to be considered murder, since the miscar-
riage occurred before the animation of the child28 •
Theodoret clearly connects the ensoulment of an embryo with its shape
and thus concludes that the ensoulment must happen later than the con-
ception, at the point when the fetus receives human features. Yet the
automatic transfer of the doctrine of late ensoulment into the Christo-
logical paradigm causes great problems, leaving Christ without Pis human
soul in the fU'st days after the Incarnation and thus leading to the Apol-
linarian heresy. The only way to avoid the problem is to postulate a
special quality to Christ's human soul and its shnultaneous ensoulment
in the Incarnation.
We can find evidence on the natural scientific doctrine deriving the
shape of body from male semen, in other authors who indeed'believed in
simultaneous ensoulment and conception, like St. Maximus the Confes-
sor. Since Christ's conception is seedless, and his human soul does not
join his body through male semen, but through the activity of the Holy
Spu'Ït, the theologian is forced to find a place for Christ's soul in the
Incarnation. In Questiones et dubia Maxhnus the Confessor thus explains
the phrase of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, "and "{as incarnate
by the Holy Spu·it and the VÙ'gin Mary" (Question 50): "Sorne among
27. GA 2.1.734b, see also GA 2.3.736b, GA 2.5.741a, JoNES, Soul (n. 17), p. 26. See
also: J.F. FINAMORE, Soul, Intellect and Biology in Aristotle's De Generatione Animalium,
paper given at the 105th Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of the Middle West
and South, Minneapolis, MN, April 1-4, 2009.
28. J.F. PETRUCCIONE (ed.) - R.C. HILL (trans.), Questions on the Octateucll: On
Genesis and Exodus, vol. 1, Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press,
2007, p. 301. Cf. Theodoret of Cyrrus, Graecarum affectionum curatio, V.50, P. CANIVET
(ed.), Théodoret de Cyr. Thérapeutique des maladies helléniques. Tome 1: Livres I-VI
[SC, 57], Paris, Cerf, 1958, p. 243), CONGOURDEAU, L'Emblyon (n. 20), p. 171.
"CONDENSING AND SHAPING THE FLESH" 927
the saints say that the soul is sown by the Holy SpÙ'it in the manner of a
man's parent, and the flesh is formed from the vÙ'ginal blood"29.
Obviously, St. Maximus was agreeing with this opinion, yet it is likely
that the Iconoclasts agreed with it too, deriving those conclusions, which
fit theu' polemical purposes: the impossibility of rendering any facial
features of Christ on a picture, since He possesses a unique soul and
unique fonn, different from aIl other human beings, whose souls-fOlms,
including theu' depictable facial features were generated through the seed
of theÙ' fathers. The coroIlary of this Christology was the denigration of
the role of Mary and refusaI to acknowledge her as the Theotokos or "the
One who gave birth to God", since in this Christology her role was
largely auxiliary, similar to that of an incubator which provided material
substance and nourished Christ while He was still inside her womb.
For those who did not know the subtleties of the Iconoclastic Christo-
logical doctrine of undepictab1e Christ, it must indeed have sounded like
open Nestorianism, although, in fact, it hnplied the one subject and one
person of Clu'Ïst. The sources tell us about the reluctance of Constantine
V to uphold the doctrine that the VÙ'gin Mary gave bÙ'th to God, includ-
ing a ban on the term "Theotokos"30. Thus the Vita of Nicetas of
Medikion tells us that Constantine V took a sack with gold and demon-
strated its worth to everybody; then he threw out the gold and presented
the empty and worthless sack, saying that the Theotokos as weIl was
worthy of honor oilly while Christ was in her womb31 . Other sources also
32
repOlt a shnilar position of Constantine V concerning the Theotokos .
29. "<Daal 'ttVES 'tcOv aylrov on ÈK 1tVEUIlU'toS Iliw ayiou olKllV yov~S avopos 'tilv
'l'uxi]v Ku'tu~ÎvllSilvut, 'tilv of: crUpKu OtŒ1tÎvucrSilvut ÈK 'tcOv 1tUpSEVtKcOV UtIlU'trov"
(J. DECLERCK [ed.], Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones et dl/bia [CCSG, 10], Turnhout,
Brepols, 1982, p. 43), cf. Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula teologica et polemica 4,
PG 91, 60A. See: M.-H. CONGOURDEAU, Sang féminin et génération chez les auteurs
byzantins, in M. FAURE (ed.), Le sang au Moyen Âge. Actes du quatrième colloqu~ inter-
national de Montpellier Université Paul Valéry, 27-29 novembre 1997 (Les cahiers du
CRlSMA, 4), Montpellier, Presses Universitaires de la Méditerranée, 1999, 19-23.1 would
like to express my gratitude to Marie-Hélène Congourdeau for sending me the text of this
article.
30. Nicephorus, Antirrheticus lIA, PG 100, 341C.
31. Acta Sanctorum, April 1, Appendix. p. XxvmCD, H. HENNEPHOF, Textus byzantinos
ad /conomachiam pertinentes in US/lln academicum, Leiden, Brill, 1969, p. 29; cf. S. GERO,
Byzantine /conoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V with Particular Attention to the
Oriental Sources (CS CO, Sub. 52), Louvain, Peeters, 1977, pp. 144-146.
32. Cf. Theophanes' Chronicle in the entry of a.d. 740/41: "As for the false patriarch
Anastasius, he swore to the people while holding the venerable and life-giving Cross, 'By
Him who was nailed to this, thus did the emperor Constantine say to me, namely, 'Do not
regard Mary's offspring, who is called Christ, as the Son of God, but as a mere man. For
Mary gave biIih to Him just as my mother Mary gave biIih to me'. When the people heard
this, they cursed Constantine" (C. MANGO - R. SCOTT, The Chronicle of Theophanes
 928 V.BARANOV
Patriarch Nieephorus in Antirrheticus 1.26, while reconstructing the the-
ology of Constantine V makes a logical conclusion that the Iconoclasts
must admit that the Word has come down from above through the Virgin
"as through a tube"33. Yet, it is likely that our Iconodulic sources, even
if we allow for their "unfriendly" distortions, testify not to Constantine
V's classical two-subject Nestorianism, but the Christology described
above. This doctrine opposed the Iconodulic doctrine of the Theotokos
who provided for the Word the entire human nature of soul and body:
subsisting in the hypostasis of the W ord and deified by the hypostatical
union.
Yet one important remark has to be made: it would be unrealistic to
think that the Iconoclasts believed in a shapeless and face1ess Christ,
contrary to the Gospels' account. They used this doctrine in an epistemo-
logical and not in an ontological sense for polemical pm'poses against the
claim of the Iconodules that Christ can and should be depicted. Essen-
tially, the Iconoclastie argument can be reduced to the point that what-
ever image the Iconodules represented under the name "Christ" on the
icon, cannot be a bue image since we simply cannot know what Christ
looked like. Thus the Iconoclasts concluded that any material representa-
tion of Christ is false by definition and the Iconodules who venerate it
commit idolatry. '
What happened further with this Christology? Did it die with the final
condemnation of Iconoclasm in 843? Indeed not. The Christology of the
Iconoclasts as such was not explicitly condemned in 787. The Council
primarily acted as a defensive institution whose aim was to prevent the
Confessor, Oxford, Clarendon, 1997, p. 576 of Theophanes, p. 415 [ed. DE :BOOR)). The
emperor summoned the patriarch [Constantine] and said to him: 'What harm is there if
we calI the Mother of God Mother of Christ?' The other embraced him and said: 'Have
mercy,.a l?rd! May not this s~atement come even to your mind. Don't you sée how much
NestoflUs IS. held up to pubhc scorn and anathematised by the whole Church?' The
emperor rephed:. '1 have asked you for my own information. Keep it to yourself' (MANoo
- SeoTI, Chromcle, p. 601 of Theophanes, p. 435 [ed. DE BOOR], GERO, Constantine V
[no 31], pp. 144-145). In a late eighth- or early ninth-century sermon attribu'ted to the
1conodule writer <:onstantine of Tios, the homilist complains referring to the iconoclast
Emperor. Constantme V: "Not only did he (the emperor) extend his wickedness against
the holy Icons, but also ... he set at naught the hagiasmata that flowed on account of God's
provide~ce towards men, and he called those who made use of them worshippers of water,
thus .taking t~e glory away from the intercessions of the saints, even renouncing the help
and mterceSSlOn of Mary, the all-holy Mother of God" (F. lIALKIN [ed.], Euphemie de
Chalced~in.e: Legende.s Byzantines, Brussels, 1965, p. 96; cited in H. MAOUIRE, Magic
and Christian Image, m ID. [ed.], Byzantine Magic, Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, 1995,51-71, p. 66).
33. "otà moÀfjvoc;", Antirrheticus I.26, PG 100, 269C. This may be an allusion to
Ireneus of Lyons' similar charges against the Gnostic doctrine of the Incarnation (KuSéme p
uocop otà crcoÀfjvoc;; Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, I.7.2).
"CONDENSING AND SHAPING THE FLESH" 929
right practices .and doctrines from slipping into heterodoxy by establish-
ing the "borders" of Orthodoxy, and at the Second Council of Nicaea,
the veneration of icons was justified on the basis of Christ's true depict-
able humanity, antiquity of icon veneration, and the icon's equal honol'
with the Gospels and the sign of the Cross 34 . The Iconoclastic Christol-
ogy or rather its version existed for another 300 years and was only
condemned in the e1eventh century. The set of anathemas against Nil, the
monk of Calabria, whose teaching was condemned around 1087, contain
several anathemas against the doctrine that is strikingly close to the Icon-
oclastic Christological doctrine 35 :
Anatherna 2: aH hurnan hypostases are contained in the flesh, assurned by
the Lord;
Anatherna 3: deification of the body of Christ only after the resurrection36 ;
Anatherna 5: the errOIS of Nestorius;
Anatherna 7: the Theotokos is not the Mother of God in a proper sense
(Kup1roS)·
According to the Christological doctrine of Nil, the deification of
human nature was possible not by vutue of the hypostatic union with
God the Word, but by adoption (SÉcrêt), which precisely seems to be the
case with the Iconoclastic Christology37.
34. Cf. the Definition of Nicaea II: "We preserve aIl the traditions of the Church,
which for our sake have been decreed in written or unwritten fonn, without introducing
an innovation. One of these traditions is the making of iconographic representations
- being in accordance with the narrative of the proclamation of the Gospel - for the pur-
pose of ascertaining the incarnation of God the Word, which was real, not imaginary, and
for being an equal benefit to us as the gospel narrative ... We de clare that, next to the sign
of the precious and life-giving cross, venerable and holy icons - made of colours, pebbles,
or any other material that is fit - may be set in the holy churches of God, on holy utensils
and vestments, on walls and boards, in houses and streets" (trans. SAHAS, Icon, 178-79 of
MANs! 13, 377BD).
35. J. GOUILLARD, Le Synodicon de l'Orthodoxie: Édition et commentaire, in Travaux
et Mémoires 2 (1967) 299-303.
36. On this position of the 1conoclasts, see: V.A. BARANOV, The Vita Tarasii as a
Source for Reconstruction of the Iconoclastic Theology, in A.V. MOURAVIEV - B. LoURIÉ
(eds.), Universum Hagiographicum. Mémorial R.P. Michel van Esbroeck, sj. (1934-2003)
(Scrinium, 2), St. Petersburg, Byzantinorossica, 2006, 331-339; ID. The Theological Back-
grolllld of the Iconoclastic Church Programmes, in F. YOUNG - M. EDWARDS - P. PARVIS
(eds.), Studia Patristica, vol. 40, Leuven, Peeters, 2006, 165-175, pp. 169-175.
37. Basil Lourié traces back this Christology to Eutychius, the Patriarch of Constan-
tinople (552-565, 577-582), and Byzantine Iconoclasts (B. LouRIÉ, Michel Psellos contre
Maxime le Confesseur: L'origine de l'" hérésie des physéthésites", in V.A. BARANOV -
B. LOURIÉ [eds.], Patrologia Pacifica. Selected Papers Presented to the Western Pacific
Rim Patristics Society 3rd Annual Conference (Nagoya, Japan, September 29 - October
1,2006) and Other Patristic Stlldies [Scrinium, 4], St. Petersburg, Axioma, 2008, 201-227,
p.206).

930 V.BARANOV
Pinally, we should ask an important question: is there any Christology
that would look similar to the Iconoclastic Christology? Indeed, we know
of another theology with a special status of Christ's soul-mediator38 , and
secondaty state of His material flesh transfonned to a subtle state after
the Resunection, the theology that calls to contemplate an immaterial
divinity in intellectual contemplation39 - it is sorne kind of later develop-
ment of Origenism. Yet, due to the absence of additionallconoclastic
Christological sources it is, however, difficult to tell, whether Iconoclas-
tic Origenism did contain such crucial elements of Origen' s doctrine as
the pre-existence of souls and apokatastasis, or in its long way it has lost
its "mythical" Timaeus 1'Oots, retaining the basic Platonic structure of its
Christol ogy. This process might have started with Origen himself 40
although it is highly unlikely that Origen would endorse the doctrine of
a radical difference of the Soul of Christ and ordinaly human souls, since
in his system the Soul of Jesus is more pelfect in love yet shares the same
nature as other human SOUlS 41 • It is clear, however, that at sorne point
sorne distinctive Aristotelian elements were added to the doctrine of
ensoulment that the Iconoclasts used for theu' polemics with the Icono-
dules. This doctrine that appeared as a result of this fusion, in fact,
diverges both from the Biblical account of Adam's creation, since God
blows the soul of Adam into an already made body, and from the account
of the Timaeus myth, when the demiurge creates the material cosmos and
"wraps" it into the preexisting World-Soul.
Before finishing this study, it is both interesting and informative to see
what response was given to the Christological argument of the Icono-
clasts by the other party. The Iconodules chose not to enter the shadowy
area of Byzantine embryology which did not belong to the area of doc-
trine, clearly defined by the Councils and thus did not offer solid grounds
for accusing the opponents of heresy. Rather, the Iconodules prefened to
38. On the mediating function of the Soul of Jesus in Origen, see: Prin II, 6, 3; 5-6;
see also: R. WILLIAMS, Origen on the Soul of Jesus, in R. HANSON - H. aWDZEL (eds.),
Origeniana Tertia, Roma, Ateneo, 1985, 131-137. ' dulic views of Andrew (A. KAZHDAN, Istoriya vizantijskoj literatury (650-850 gg.)
39. V.A. BARANOV, Origen and the Iconoclastic COllfroversy, in L. PERRONE (ed.),
Origeniana Octal'a: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters,
2003, 1043-1052, pp. 1043-1049.
40. Gerald BOSTOCK argues that Origen took his doctrine of preexistence of souls
and ensoulment not from the Timaeus directly but through the intermediary of Philo
(G. BOSTOCK, The Sources ofOrigen's Doctrine of Pre-existence, in L. LIES [ed.], Orige-
niana Quarta [Irmsbrucker theologische Studien, 19], Innsbruck, Tyrolia, 1987, 259-264,
pp. 259-260).
41. Origen, Prin II, 6, 5, H. GORGEMANNS - H. KARPP (eds.), Origenes viel' Bûcher
von den Prinzipien (Texte zur Forschung, 24), Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft, 1976, p. 366, 21-24; see: BOSTOCK, SOl/l'ces (n. 40), p. 259.
"CONDENSING AND SHAPING THE FLESH" 931
attack the arguments of the Iconoclasts on the lower level of popular
polemics with less sophistication but, perhaps, more power. The Iconod-
ulic exceI-pt ascribed to Andrew of Crete in sharp contrast to the Icono-
clastic doctrine on indistinctiveness of personal traits in Christ' s general
human nature, vividly describes the bodily features of the historical
Christ:
But also Joseph the Jew in such a way describes the appearance of the Lord:
with meeting eyebrows, with beautiful eyes, long face, bent down, of good
2
stature, with which qualities he appeared to live among the peoplé •
At a later stages of the polemics, in the Epistula ad Theophilum and
in the Letter of the Patriarchs, the description receives a vely elaborate
fOlm:
... who molded man with His undefiled hands, who Himself became man,
born of Mary, the holy Virgin and Mother of God, He shared in our flesh
and blood without change or mutation, in so far as he became man, a
3
rational animal, mortal, receptive of thought and knowledgé , three cubits
taH, identical to us, circumscribed within a body and the thickness ~f flesh
in a fOlID se en by US, displaying the characteristics of His mother' s likeness
and exhibiting the shape of the race of Adam. For this reason He was fea-
tured in the way that the ancient writers describe his appearance, of good
stature with meeting eyebrows, beautiful eyes, a prominent nose, curly hair,
slightly bent, with a healthy complexion, black beard, His skii1 the colour
of ripe corn like His mother's, long fingers, a melodious voi~e, pleasa~tly
spoken, very gentle, calm, patient, forbearing and endowed wüh other Slffi~
ilar prope11ies pertaining to virtue44 •
42. PG 96, 1304C, PG 95, 349C. The mention of Christ's description by "Joseph t?e
Jew" most probably alludes to the much debated Testimoniul1l Flavianul1l on Jesus Chnst
from Josephus Flavius' Jewish Antiqllities, b. XVIII, 63 (L. FELDM~ [tr~s.], Josephus
in Nine VolulI/es IX: Jewish Antiqllities, Books XVIII-XX [Loeb Classlcal Llbrar~],. Ca~­
bridge _ London, Harvard University Press, 1969, pp. 48-51) where t?e descnptIOn .1S,
however, absent. On the description see: B. BALDWIN, Images of Chnst and ~yzantllle
Beliefs, in Ae~u/ll 58 (1984) 145-148. On Andrew of Crete, ,see: S. VAlL~É, S~lIIt AI~dre
de Crète, in Echos d'Orient 5 (1902) 378-387; M.-F. AUZEPY, La carnere d Andre de
Crète, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 88 (1995) 1-12. Alexander Kazhdan doubts the Icono-
[The History of Byzantine literature (650-850)], Mo.scow, Aleteja, 20,02,.,pp. 62~64); ~he
problem of Andrew's Iconodulic views is discussed ln B. LAOURDAS, 0 A)IlOÇ AvJpeaç
o èv rfl KpiO'81 Kalll Kpllul bd BÎ/(ovoflaxiaç, in Kp1lw(a Xpovlldi 5 (19~1) 44-49.
43. Cf. Aristotle's original definition of man in Topica 128b.35-36, TOplca 112a.14-21.
44. Epistlila ad Theophillllll, 3e; J.A. MUNITIZ - J. CHRYSOSTOMIDES - E. HARVAl;IA-
CROOK _ Ch. DENDRlNOS (eds.), The Letter of the Three Patriarchs to ElIlperor Theophrlos
and Related Texts, Camberley, SUITey, Porphyrogenitis Ltd, 1997, 146-49; cf. Letter of
the Three Patriarchs, in ibid., 28-30. The fragment with the description of Jesus' appear-
ance is also attached to the chapter on icons (book IV, ch. 16) of John of Damascus'
Expositio fidei in six manuscripts among those used for the critical edition; see: KOTTER,
Die Schriften (n. 9), p. 208, apparatlls criticlls to line 61.
932 V.BARANOV
If the first fragment just claims to cite the ancient, contemporaneous,
and thus genuine testimony on Christ' s appearance, the authors of the
expanded version of the fragment seem to argue exactly with the above
Iconoclastie doctrine on a seedless conception of Christ and his ~pecial
Soul that does not confer the human form upon his flesh. The Iconodules
accept that, indeed, the incarnated Christ cannot look like the divine and
shapeless Father. However, sometimes people look like their fathers, and
sometimes they look like their mothers. Thus, stressing Christ's connec-
tion with the humanity of his Mother, not only in terms of material sub-
stance, but also of bis true human appearance, in the Iconodulic passage,
Jesus displays "the characteristics of His mother's likeness" and exhibits
"the shape of the race of Adam", and His skin has "the coloitr of ripe
corn like His mother's". He is a true man and looks just like us in his
bodily appearance, but being sinless God heperfects every featme and
member of His human body45. The Iconodules managed to defeat the
argument of the Iconoclasts not on the sophistieated theoretieal level of
science and theology, but on a more compelling level of everyday human
experience.
630090 Novosibirsk, Russia, Vladimir BARANOV
Dl. Tereshkovoj 36A-46
baranovv@academ.org
45. fi spite of sorne ambiguity of the notion of male beauty in the Biblical tradition,
one of the perceptions of male beauty in the Hebrew Bible was to interpret it is as a sign
of divine favour and good will (S. MACWILLIAM, Ideologies of Male Beauty and the
Hebrew Bible, in Biblical Interpretation 17 [2009] 265-287, p. 285).
GRIECHISCH ODER ALTAGYPTISCH?
ZUR FRAGE NACH DEN WURZELN DER THEOLOGISCHEN
SPEKULATIONEN DES ORIGENES
... man sollte VOl' allem nicht vergessen, daj3 die
Vorstellungen der Gnostiker in Agypten sehr
gepj7egt und entwickelt worden sind, und deshalb
fragen, ob nicht auch aus agyptisch theologi-
schem Denken Merzu Beitrage geliefert worden
sein konnen, [berechtigt ist}. Ich mOchte diese
Frage entschieden bejahen. Die lange Tradition,
welche die agyptischen religiOsen Texte hinter
sich haben, notigen zu Umdeutungen.
Alexander BÔHLIG*
Wir aIle sind uns bewuBt, daB einer der gr6Bten "griechischen"
Kirchenviiter in Alexandria geboren wurde. Wahrscheinlieh war seine
Mutter eine Agypterin 1, auf deren Veranlassung man dem Sohn den
Namen Origenes (= Horusgeborenel.2) gab. Ohne ihr die gleiehe Bedeu-
tung wie Monika, der Mutter des gr6Bten lateinischen Kirchenvaters
Aurelius Augustinus (354-430) zuzuschreiben, liiBt sich nieht übersehen,
daB der Vater des Origenes, Leonidas, sehr früh den Miirtyrertod erlitten
hatte (202) und u.a. einen erst 17jiihrigen Sohn hinterliess; daher spielte
die Mutter - die mit sieben Kindern alleine blieb - eine nicht unwiehtige
Rolle rur ibn, was sieh schon der Legende entnehmen liiBt. Aus ihr wird
deutlich, daB sie auf ihn EinfluB ausübte, nicht nur weil sie den Miilty-
rertod ihres Sohnes - durch das Verstecken seiner Kleider - verbinderte,
sondern auch weil sie noch lange danach das Haus der Familie, in dem
auch Origenes lebte, führte. Die besondere Wertschiitzung der Frauen in
der alexandrinischen Gesellschaft ist vielerorts belegt, nicht nur durch
das Beispiel der spiiter auftretenden Hypatia3 (370-415), sondern auch
* Alexander BOHLIG, Mysterion und Wahrheit, LeideI.J:' BriII, 1968, S. 133 ..
1. Die Versuche auf der Basis der undeutlichen Uberlieferung von Hleronymus
(ep. 39.22.9) in ihr eine Jüdin zu sehen, erscheinen mehr ais pr~blematisc~; sie hiitte u.a.
aIs Jüdin dem heIIenistisch-iigyptischen Namen ihres Sohnes rucht zugestlmmt.
2. A. BOECKH, CO/pus inscriptiollUIIl Graecarllm, BerIini'1828-1877; ND Hildesheim-
New York, Olms 1977, 6189b.
3. M. ALEXANDRE, Frauen im friihel/ Christel/tum, in G. DUBY - M. FERRoT (Hgg.),
Geschichte der Frauen. Antike, hg. v. P. SCHMITT-PANTEL, Frankfurt{M. - New York,
Campus, 1993,451-490; s. auch H. DôRRIE - M. BALTES (Hgg,), Der Platonismlls i1l der
934 P.O.SCHOLZ
durch die Tatsache, daB in Alexandria sowohl Frauen aIs auch Manner
die unterschiedlichen Bildungsstatten besuchten4 , so unterrichtete auch
Origenes beide Geschlechter, die seine Schule besuchten. Das Pagane
und Christliche konkurrierte mindestens auf dem Boden des Platonischen
besser neuplatonischen Diskurses noch lange miteinander5 •
Unabhangig von diesem alexandrinischen Hintergrund - der von agyp-
tischem Synkretismus und Mysterien durchzogen war, was schon Anders
Th.S. Nygren (1890-1978) in seinen Untersuchungen (1937)6 bemerkte-
laBt sich der Hinweis von POlphyrios (Euseb., hist. eccl. VI.19.97f.) über
Origenes, daB er die platonischen Gedanken "den fremden Mythen unter-
schob", anders verstehen, aIs das noch mein verehrter Heidelberger
Lehrer, Hans Frhr. von Campenhausen (1903-1989), taC. Porphyrios
(234- vor 305) meinte wahrscheinlich nicht nur die religiosen Aussagen
des judeo-christlichen, sondern auch die des Âgyptischen (man denke
z.B. an die Wirkungsstatte der Serapis-Priester, iht'e Schule und an die
Isis Vereht'er8 in der "multikulturellen" Stadt Alexandrien9) und darnit
Antike, Stuttgart - Bad Cannstatt, Frommann-Holzboog, 1993, ID, S. 275 und dort zit.
Lit.; s. auch A. MAEGER, Hypatia: Die Dreigestaltige, Hamburg, Reuter & Kléickner,
1 9 9 2 . '
4. Diese Tatsache betonte schon ausdrücklich E. PREUSCHEN (Realencyclopadie fiir
protestantische Theologie und Kirche 14 [31904] 467-488, S. 472) in seinem immer noch
lesenswerten Beitrag.
5. K. KREMER, Alexandrien - Wiege der neuplatonischen Philosophie, in N. HINSKE
(Hg), Alexandrien: Kuiturbegeg/lllllgen dreier Jahrtausende i/ll Schmelztiegel einer
mediterranen Groj3stadt (Aegyptiaca Treverensia, 1), Mainz, Philipp von Zabem, 1981,
37-52, bes. S. 39ff.; R. VAN DEN BROEK, Jewish and Platonic SpeCl/lations in Early
Alexandrian Theology: Eugnostlls, Philo, Valentin us, and Origen, in B.A. PEARSON -
J.E. GOEHRING (Hgg.), The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and Chris-
tianity), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1986, 190-203, bes. S. 20lff.; und immer noch zu
beachten Ch. BIGG, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1886
[ND: Hildesheim, Olms, 1981], bes. S. 152-234.
6. Th.S. NYGREN, Eros und Agape (schwed. 1930/dt. 1937), Gütersloh, Beltelsmann,
21954, S. 282-297.
7. H. VON CAMPENHAUSEN, Griechische Kirchenvater (Uni-Taschenbücher, 14), ~tutt­
gaIt, Kohlhammer, 1955; 61981, S. 4 6 . '
8. S. MORENZ, Agyptische Religion (Die Religionen der Menschheit, 8), StuttgaIt,
Kohlhammer, 1960; 21977, S. 260-265; J. BERGMAN, Ich bin Isis: Studien zum memphi-
tischen Hintergrund der griechischen Isis-Aretalogien (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Historia Religionum, 3), Uppsala, Almquist & Wiksell, 1968; R. MERKELBACH, Isis regina
- Zeus Sarapis, Stuttgart - Leipzig, Teubner, 1995, bes. S. 311-318.
9. ZWaI' stellte G. STROUMSA die Multikultirizitat AlexandIiens in Frage (Alexandria
and the My th of Mliiticulturaiism, in L. PERRONE [Hg.], Origeniana Octava: Origeil and
the Alexandrian Tradition [BETL, 164], Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 23-29), dennoch kann man
die Augen nicht davor verschliessen, daB trotz eines gewissen Isolationismus, manches
durchlassig war. Das zeigen zahlreiche Beobachtungen, sowohl im Bereich der schrift-
lichen aIs auch der bildlichen Quellen (M. CLAUSS, Alexandria, Stuttgart, KIett-Cotta,
2003, bes. S. 246-258).
GRIECmSCH ODER ALTÂGYPTISCH? 935
auch des Gnostischen Kreises. Dazu gehoren in erster Linie die Valenti-
nianer, mit denen sich Origenes bewuBt konfrontieli sah (Euseb., hist.
eccl. VI.19.12ff.)1O.
Die Bedeutung des agyptischen Hintergrundes scheint für das Früh-
christentum immer weniger in Zweifel gezogen zu werden ll , besonders
wenn man den Ursprung, aber auch die Auseinandersetzung des Origenes
mit den Gnostikern bedenkt (H. Jonas, H. Dembowski, E. v. Ivanka).
Hans Jonas dessen Popularitat und Aktualitat noch immer erkennbar
ist, stellt in die sem Zusammenhang fest 12 :
Origenes, des sen Verwandtschaft mit dem gnostischen Denken in seinem
System ersichtlich ist (und mit kirchlichem Bann vergolten wurde), inter-
pretierte die Gesamtbewegung des Seins in Kategorien des Verlustes und
der Wiedergewinnung metaphysischer Einheit.
Er bestatigt damit die philosophische Dimension des Origeneischen
Systems und macht deutlich, daB im Abendland eine Trennung zwischen
Theologie und Philosophie lange Zeit nicht moglich war.
Zwar war Alexandria eine hellenistische Stadt, aber von ihrem
ursprünglichen Âgyptischen Gedankengut nicht soweit entfernt bzw.
isolieli, wie einige Forscher annehmen, um dann bei Origenes ausschlieB-
lich die griechisch-platonischen Stromungen zu erkennen. Die jüdisch-
biblischen werden sowieso aIs selbstverstandlich angenommen13 , dabei
datf aber nicht verkannt werden, daB die ausgezeichneten Kenntnisse des
AT und seine Hexapla 14 bei Origenes die Frage offen lassen, ob es ihm
selber bewuBt war, wieviel altagyptischen theologischen Spekulationen
sich auch in der Bibel finden lassen 15 • Leider ist sein Kommentar zur
10. Ch. MARKSCHlES, Valentinianische Gnosis in Alexandrienund Agypten, in PERRONE
(Hg.), Origenialla Octava (Anm. 9), 331-346; M. llARL, Les «mythes» Valentiniens de la
création et de l'eschatologie dans le langage d'Origène: Le /Ilot hypothesis, in B. LAYTON
(Hg.), The Rediscovel)' of Gnosticism: The School of Valentinus, Leiden, Brill, 1980,
417-425; H. STRUTWOLF, Gnosis ais System: Zur Rezeption der valentinianischen Gnosis
bei Origenes, Géittingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
11. C.W. GRlGGS, Early Egyptian Christianity from Its Origins to 451 C.E., Leiden,
Brill, 1991, bes. S. 79-116.
12. H. JONAS, Gnosis: Die Botschaft des ft'emden Gottes CI970), FrankfurtjM., Vlg der
Weltreligionen, 2008, S. 89; zusammenfassend über die Auseinandersetzungen Origenes
mit der Gnosis, siehe U. BERNER, Origenes (Ertrage der Forschung, 147), Darmstadt, Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981, S. 48-54.
13. A.F.J. KUJN, Jewish Christianity in Egypt, in PEARSON - GOEHRING (Hgg.), The
Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Anm. 5), 161-175; H,J. VOGT, Origen of Alexandria, in
Ch. KANNENGIESSER (Hg.), Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, Leiden, Brill, 2006, 536-574.
14. E. WÜRTHWEIN, Der Text des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesell-
schaft, 1952,51988, S. 67ff.; s. auch M. TILLY, Einftïh/'l/llg in die Septllaginta, Darmstadt,
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2005, S, 84-92.
15. MORENZ, Agyptische Religion (Anm. 8), S. 266-273; S. MORENZ, Agyptische
Splll'en in der Septllaginta, in Ml/Ill/S. FS Theodor Klallser (Jahrbuch für Antike und
936 P.O.SCHOLZ
Gen., der uns dmüber wahrscheinlich unterrichtet batte, nicht vollstandig
erhalten gebliebenl6 • Immerhin hat schon S. Morenz 1964 zusammenfas-
send darauf hingewiesen l7 , daB in der Septuaginta (= LXX) starke Spuren
des Altagyptischen zu finden sind, was m.E. in der Origenes-Forschung
immer noch nicht ausreichend berücksichtig wird. Es ist nicht ausge-
schlossen, daB die immer enger werdende Spezialisierung blind macht
für ErscheinungsfOlmen, die früher zu einer begründeten Betrachtung des
Sitzes im Leben (H. Gunkel) gehorten.
Zwar wird bei Origenes - eben so wie im jüdischen18 und gnosti-
schen 19 Denken - Âgypten zum Merkmal der Schlechtigkeit20 überhaupt,
dennoch nahm er zur Kenntnis, daB es Âgypter gegeben hatte, die zusam-
men mit Moses aus ihrem Lande ausgezogen waren (Ex 12,37f.). Damit
reflektierte er, daB "Âgypter und ldumaer" zwar aIs Unglaubige gelten
(Prin Ill. 1.231 241.25)21, daB in Âgypten ein Drache wohnte (Prin Ill.2.11
246.1)22, daB die Âgypter auch eine "Geheimphilosophie" trieben (Prin
Christentum. Ergiinzungsband, 1), Münster, Aschendorff, 1964,250-258; s. auch M. GORG,
Die Bezielll/llgen z\Vischen dem altell Israel und Agypten, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1997, bes. S. 151ff.
16. K. METZLER (Hg.), Origenes: Werke, Die Kommentierung des Buches Genesis,
Bd. 1/1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009 [trotz Ankündigung lag mir die Ausgabe im April 2010
noch nicht vor; die Erscheinung erfolgte ein Jahr spiiter].
17. MORENZ, Agyptische Religion (Anm. 8); demgegenüber scheint die Lxx-Forschung,
das Problem der altiigyptischen Denkmuster immer noch zu übersehen bzw. zu mif3achten,
vgl. z.B. die Beitrage in D. FRAENKEL - U. QUAST - J.W. WEVERS (Hgg.), Studien zur
Septuaginta - Robert Hal/hart zu Ell/'en [Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3/190], Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1990.
18. H. R1NGGREN, in TWATN (1984) 1099-1111, bes. Sp. 1109ff. (s. auch die negative
Haltung gegenüber Âgypten in der Qurnran-Literatur, dazu H.-J. FABRY, ibid., Sp. 1111).
19. Ein vorzügliches Beispiel ist das Perlenlied (=PL/ThAc 108-113) aus den Thomas-
Akten (H.J.W. DRIJVERS, Thomasakten, in W. SCHNEEMELCHER [Hg.], Neutestamentliche
Apokryphen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 51989, II, 289-367, bes. S. 344-348; s. dazu
P.-H. POIRIER, L'hymne de la perle des Actes de Thomas (Homo Religiosus, 8), Louvain-
la-Neuve, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1981, S. 416f.; JONAS, Gnosis (Anm. 12),
S. 144-163, bes. 150.
20. Beispiele finden sich in den Homilien zum Buch Exodus: T. HEITHER, P/'edigten
des Origenes zum Buch Exodus (Lat.-dt.), Münster, Aschendorff, 2008, bes. S. 14, 3H.
21. Hier wird auf die Edition von H. GORGEMANNS - H. KARpp (Origenes vier Bücher
VOIl den Prinzipien, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976/1985) verwie-
sen, die im Text mit (Prin) angegeben wird um die Anmerkungszahl zu reduzieren. Eine
Diskussion um die Wertung des Werkes 1tEpi àpXrov und der Übersetzung durch Rufinus
ins Lat. wird hier - trotz einiger Bedenken von Ch. MARKSCHIES (RGG4 VI [2003] 657-
659) - auf3eracht gelassen, schon deshalb, weil auch Markschies in seiner Darstellung der
Theologie des Origenes die "Plinzipien" aIs essentiell bedeutsam zitiert!
22. Man erkennt die gleiche Vorstellung, wie im PL (DRIJVERS, Thomasaktell
[Anm. 19], ThAc 30-33: S. 315-317); s. dazu JONAS, Gnosis (Anm. 19), S. 148f. und
bes. R. MERKELBACH, Drache, in RAC 4 (1959) 226-250. Man kann nicht ausschliessen,
daf3 Origenes an die in seinerzeit popularen Gemmen dachte in denen der Sieg über das
GRIECmSCH ODER ALTÂGYPTISCH? 937
Ill.2.21 257.25ff), dennoch aber auch fiihig gewesen sind sich zu bekeh-
ren. Âgypten war ihm nicht fremd, auch wenn das, was wir in seinen
noch erhaltenen Schriften datüber finden, in erster Linie den Blick aus
der Position des biblischen Wissens wiederspiegelt23 .
Inzwischen ist man ohne weiters geneigt, die aJtagyptische Theologie
_ ohne die der hellenistische Synkretismus undenkbar gewesen wiire - in
Betrachtungen über ihren EinfluB auf die frühchristlichen und gnosti-
schen Ansichten, die auch die Magie und Geheimlehren beinhalten, zu
berücksichtigen, auch wenn man dabei mit vielen kontroversen Darstel-
lungen konfrontiert wird24 . Von einer altagyptischen Theologie kann
mindestens seit den systematisierenden Untersuchungen von Siegfried
Morenz (1914-1970) und des sen Nachfolgem, von denen gegenwartig
bes. Jan Assmann mit seinen zahlreichen Veroffentlichungen zu nennen
ist25 , gesprochen werden. Man solI sie mit der agyptischen "Geheim-
philosophie" gleichsetzen, die von Kommentatoren des Peri afchan
BosejDrache durch Michael, aIs Psychopompos, sichtbar gemacht wurde (S. MICHEL, hg.v.
P.-H. ZAZOFF, Die magischen Gemmen im Britischen Museum, London, British Museum
Press, 2001, Nr. 47, 273 (l., S. 30f., 168); s. femer P.O. SCHOLZ, Wer \Val' Merkurios, der
"Bez\Vinger des Bosen" in der Wandmalerei aus FaraslPachoras? Ikonizitiit des
Drachentoters im Niltal, in Bulletin du Musée National de Varsovie 42 2001(2006) 164-
209.
23. Das auf3erordentliche biblische Wissen von Origenes steht nicht zu Debatte, dafÜ-
ber sind aile Forscher einig, obwohl man seine Hebraisch-Kenntnisse in Frage stellt
(VOGT, Origen of Alexandria [Anm. 13], S. 539) und darnit die Bedeutung der LXX her-
vorhebt.
24. Âgypten wird hiiufig aIs die Heimat der Magie und der Mysterien betrachtet
(G. LUCK, Magie ul/d andere Geheimlehrell in der Antike, Stuttgart, Kroner, 1990, S. 49f.),
was grof3e Auswirkung auf die griechischen, bes. die hellenistischen Vorstellungen hatte
(hierzu liegt eine umfangreiche Lit. vor; ich weise nur hin auf W. BURKERT, Mysterien der
Agypter in griechischer Sicllf: Projektion illl Kulturkontakt, in J. ASSMANN - M. BOMMAS
(Hgg.), Agyptische Mysterien?, München, Fink, 2002, 9-26 hin). Mit diesen Problem~n
setzte sich auch Origenes auseinander (dafÜber kontrovers z.B. M. SMITH, Jesus der Magler
[engl. Org. 1978], dt. München, List, 1983, S. 104-108, 145-161 mit entsprechenden
Belegstellen; s. auch A.M. RrITER, Magie illlfrühen ChristelltulIl, in APULEIUs, De Magia
[Sapere, 5], Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002, 315-330, bes. 316-321).
25. S. MORENZ, Die Agyptologie im Kosmos der Wissel/schaften, in Saeculum 12
(1961) 345-357 [= Religion und Geschichte des alten Agypten, Koln - .. Wien, Bohlau,
1975, 619-635, bes. S. 632f.]; S. MORENZ, Gott ul/d Mel/sch im alten Agypten (1964),
Zürich - München, Artemis, 1984, S. 116. Seine Ansiitze wurden u.a. von seinem Nach-
foger am Basler Lehrstuhl für Âgyptologie, Erik HORNUNG, wahrgenommen; hierzu ist
bes. auf seine Darstellung der altagyptischen Religion, die in einer vollstandig über-
arbeiteten und erweiterten 6. Auflage vorliegt (Der Eine und die Vielen: Altiigyptische
Gotte/welt, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2005) hinzuweisen, sie wirq.
de facto zu einer systematischen Theologie Altagyptens, wofür auch seine Einführung.
spricht (ibid., S. 9-27). J. ASSMANN, Agypten - Theologie ulld Fromllligkeit eillerjrü.'zere n
Hochkultur (Uni-Taschenbücher, 366), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1984; In., Theologie ulld
Weisheit im alten Agypten, München, Fink, 2005, bes. S. 9f.
938 P.O.SCHOLZ
(H. Gorgemanns und H. Karpp) mit Hermes Trismegistos in Verbindung
gebracht wird26 •
Diese und iihnliche EinflüBe der altiigyptischen religiOsen V orsteIlun-
gen, die schon Theodor Klauser (1894-1984)27, Manfred Gorg28 und der
Vortragende 29 behandelt haben, las sen sich z.B. auch in der Clu'istologie
erkennen, was Alois Grillmeier (1910-1998) und seine Mitarbeiterin,
Theresia Hainthaler, in ilu'em monumentalen Werk: "Jesus, der Clu'istus
im Glauben der Kirche" aufgenommen haben30 •
26. M.E. besteht in diesem Zusammenhang ein groBer NachbolbedaIf was Origenes
und sein Verhaltnis zum agyptischen religiosphilosophischen Hintergrund anbeiangt. Er
kaon zwar von keiner Theologie - hier denkt er nur an die cm'istliche - ais solcher spre-
chen, aber el' meint sie, wenn er eine ag. "Geheimphilosophie" erwahnt. Olme jetzt in
medias l'es gehen zu konnen - hier bietet sich eine umfassende Studie an - kann nur
festgehalten werden, daB die Relation Theologie-Philosophie in der Spatantike bes. Regeln
unterzogen war, indem die Unterschiede sem' flieBend waren. Für Origenes besaB nur das
Christentum eine wam'e Theologie (CID 11.1; CC II.71) und deshalb darf man anne1nnen,
daB el' gewisse geistige Stromungen in der Stadt der Serapis-Priester ais "Geiheim-
philosophie" betrachtete und moglicherweise auch mit Mysterien in Verbindung brachte,
was für einen platonisch Denkenden auch moglich war. Hier aber wirken immer noch die
negativen Beurteilungen von W. OTTO, Priester ul/d Tempel im hellel/istischel/ Agyptel/,
Leipzig - Berlin, Teubner, 1908, II, S. 222ff., obwohl auch i1nn der geheimnisvoller
ChaI·akter (Zauberei) der ag. Priesterschaft nicht entgangen ist. Man kaon einige Ansichten,
die vom Hermetismus aufgenommen worden sind, mit der Theologie von Origenes ver-
gleichen. DaB es dabei zu vielen Überschneidungen mit gnostischen Vorstellungen kom-
men muBte, versteht sich von selbst. Vgl. F. EBELING, Das Geheiml/is des Hennes Tris-
megistos: Geschicllte des Hermetismus, München, Beck, 2005, bes, S. 29-42. Es ist in
diesem Kontext von Bedeutung auf die Verbindung von Thot und Hermes hinzuweisen
und zur Diskussion zu stellen, was seinerzeit G. LANCZKOWSKI [Thot ul/d Michael, in Mit-
teilullgen des Deutschel/ Archiiologischen Instituts (K) 14 (1956) 117-127] erwogen hat
[dazu schon C.D.G. MÜLLER (Anm. 39), S. 89 673], narnlich den EinfluB der aItiigyptischen
Religion auf die Herausbildung der Angelologie, insbesondere die Überna1nne der
Thot'schen"Merkmale durch den Erzengel Michael (s. auch o. Anm. 22).
27. Zusammenfassend Th. KLAUSER, Gottesgebarerin, inRAC 11 (1981) 1071-1103.
.. 28. Manfred GORG, ist aIs Theologe (kath. Alttestamentler an der UniMünchen) und
Agyptologe seit Jahrzehnten bemüht die Relation Altiigypten - Judentum - Cmistentum zu
erforschen und sogar popular darzustellen, z.B. in Mythos, Glaube und Geschichte: Die
Bilder des christlichen Credo und ihre Wurzeln im Alten Agypten, DüsseldOlf, Pa~os, 1992.
29. P.O. SCHOLZ, Bemerkungel/ zllr Ikol/ologie der Theotokos, in T.' ()RLANDI -
F. WrSSE (eds.), Acts of the Secol/d II/tematiol/al COl/gress of Coptic Studies Roma 1980,
Roma, C.I.M., 1985, 323-338; und trotz zaIllreichen Druckfehlern (seitens der Herausge-
ber wurden keine Druckfahnen vorgelegt) siehe: P.O. SCHOLZ, Die KOl/til/uitat des Alta-
gyptischel/ in der Ikol/izitat ul/d Theologie des orientalischel/ Christel/tum, in Affi deI sesto
COl/gresso II/temaziol/ale di Egiffologia, Tor'ino, Società ltaliana per il Gas, 1993, II,
471-477; P.O. SCHOLZ, Geburt der koptischel/ Ikol/izitat aus dem Geiste altagyptischer
Mel/talitat, in Hallesche Beitrage zur Oriel/twissel/schaft 44 (2007) 147-171.
30. Es handelt sich um den ersten Band des Werkes: VOl/ der apostolischel/ Zeit bis
zum KOl/zil il/ Chalcedol/ (451), Freiburg/Br., Herder, 1979-1982, S. 266-280, s. auch
296-299. Zwar spricht GRILLMEIER nicht expressis verbis von agyptischer Theologie, den-
noch sind die Bezüge zum gnostischen Denken deutlich geworden und las sen weitgehende
Konsequenzen bzgl. des agyptischen Hintergrundes zu.
GRIECHISCH ODER ALTÂGYPTISCH? 939
Wenn man sich die Frage stellt: in welchen Bereichen ist es zu gewissen
Überschneidungen des Origeneischen Systems mit altagyptischer Theologie
gekommen, dann eroffnen sich einige, man mochte beinahe sagen, Haupt-
zugange zu seinem Werk, die zu Denken geben.
Origenes spricht z.B. in seinen Prinzipien über seine Vorstellungen
von Gott:
Wenn wir uns namlich überhaupt eine Vorstellung und einen Begriff
von Gott machen konnen, so müssen wir notwendig annehmen, daB
Gott in vieler Hinsicht weit erhabener ist aIs unsere Vorstellung [Prin
1.5.3f.].
... Gott sei Licht, wie Joh. in seinem Brief sagt (l Joh 1,5): Gatt ist
Lieht, und Finstemis ist nicht in ihm. Dies ist doch wohl das Licht,
das allen Sinn derer erleuchtet, die Wahrheit fassen konnen, wie es im 35.
Ps (35/36,10): In deinem Liehte werden wir das Lieht sehell. Denn was
kann man sonst Lieht Gattes, in dem man das Lie/If sieht nennen, aIs
Kraft Gottes, durch welche erleuchtet man die Wahrheit aller Dinge
durchschaut und Gott selbst erkennt, der die Wahrheit genannt wird
(Joh 14,6)1 [Prin 1.1.5-12].
Unsere Augen konnen zunachst die Natur des Lichtes selbst, d.h. die Sub-
stanz der Sonne, nicht anschauen; wir konnen aber ihren Glanz oder die
Strahlen betrachten, die etwa durch Fenster oder irgendwelche kleinen
LichtOffnungen fallen, und daraus schlieBen, wie groB die glühende Masse
sei, der das korperliche Licht entstromt [Prin 1.6.2].
In den altiigyptischen Klageliedem liiutet die Aussage des Johannes
Worts nicht minder überzeugend: Der du Licht liebst, / sollst nicht zur
Finsternis gehen 31 •
Eine Untersuchung der quasi Licht-Theologie bei Origenes im Ver-
gleich zu der Altiigyptischen konnte zu einer umfangreichen Abhandlung
anwachsen32 ; in diesem Rahmen bleibt es nUl' bei Andeutungen. Dennoch
kann nicht verkannt werden, daB hier auch eine praktische Folge diesel'
Sicht erkennbar wird, in dem der groBe Alexandriner die Gebetsrichtung
de facto iigyptisch auffasste: man bete in die Richtung des Sonnenauf-
31. J. ASSMANN, Tod ulld JellSeits illl A/tell Agyptell, München, Beck, 2001, S. 192.
32. Man wird sich des Umfanges diesel' Problematik bewuBt werden, wenn man die
Altikel von O. BOCHER, Licht ulld Feuer, in TRE 21 (1991) 83-119 zur Kenntnis nirnmt
und dazu die Licht-Problematik in der altagyptischen religiOsen (= theologischen) Litera-
tur berücksichtigt; vgl. J. ASSMANN, Agyptische Hyml/el/ ul/d Gebete, Zürich -:: Münchell,
Artemis, 1975, S. 56f. Wenn man dazu noch das gnostische Schrifttum und AuBemngen
von Origenes bedenkt (M. WALLRAFF, Christus Verlls Sol: SOl/l/el/vereh/'llllg ul/d Chris-
tel/tl/m in der Spatantike [Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Erganzungsband 32],
Münster, Aschendorff, 2001, S. 42f.) so wird deutlich, daB es hier viel Raum für noch
ausstehende Untersuchungen gibt.
940 P.O.SCHOLZ
ganges, um der "See!e das hinschauen zu dem >Aufgang des wahren
Lichtes<" (Oral 32) zu ermoglichen33 .
Diese Ausführungen beabsichtigen etwas anderes: es solI gezeigt wer-
den, daB der altagyptische Hintergrund, der über den Pythagoraismus und
den Platonismus 34 zu einer Synthese - bes. charakteristisch für die
"Achsenzeit"35 - geführt hatte, auch für das Wirken vonOrigenes
pragend gewesen war. Man kann daführ m.E. ohne weiters bei dem tra-
ditionsreichen Begriff "Synkretismus" bleiben, der die geistigen und
religiosen V orstellungen zu denen auch die astrologischen gehorten zu
einem System subsummierte, an dem sowohl noch die heidnische Philo-
sophie platonischer Art, aIs auch die sich konstituierende christliche
Theologie partizipiette36 . Der groBe Alexandriner ist dafür ein vortreffli-
ches Beispiel.
Die Gottesvorstellungen, die das Licht hervorheben und ihn zum LICHT
werden lassen, weisen auf des sen Korperlosigkeit und Transzendenz hin.
33. Dazu ausfiihrlieh L. PERRONE, "Goldene Sehalen vol/ von Riiuche/werk" (APC.
5,8): Das Bild vom Gebet bei Origenes, in Jahrbuch fi'ir Antike und Christentulll 50
(2007[2009]) 51-71, S. 66f.
34. G. BOSTOCK, Origen and the Pythagoreanism, in PERRONE (Hg.), 'Origeniana
Octava (AnJ?? 9), 465-478; s. aueh E. HORNUNG, Das esoterische Aegypten: Das geheime
Wissen der Agypter und sein Einflufi azif das..Abendland, Münehen, Beek, 1999, S. 28-30;
S. MORENZ, Die Begegmmg Europas mit Agypten, Zürieh - Stuttgart, Artemis, 21969,
S. 44ff.; U. BIANCHI, Presupposti platonici e dualistici di Origene, in H. CROUZEL (Hg.),
Origeniana Secllnda (Quademi di Vetera Clu'istianorum, 15), Roma, Ateneo, 1980,33-56;
H. ZIEBRITZKI, Heiliger Geist und Weltseele: Das Problem der dritten Hypostase bei
Origenes, Plotin und ihren Vorliizifem (Beitriige zur historisehen Theologie, 84), Tübin-
gen, Mohr Siebeek, 1994; HORNUNG, Das esoterische (Anrn. 34), S. 27ff.
35. K. JASPERS, Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte, Münehen, Piper, 1955,
S. 14-31; hi~.rzu verdienen die Ausfiihrungen von G.G. STROUMSA, Alter Wein und neue
Schliiuche: Uber patristische Soteriologie und rabbinisches Judentulll, in S.N. EISENSTADT
(Hg.), Kulturen der Achsenzeit: Ihre Ursprünge und ihre Vielfalt (Suhrkamp-Tasehenbueh
Wissensehaft, 653), Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp, 1987,38-51, S. 45ff.
36. Grundlegend die Artikel von F. STOLZ, H. VON LIPs, D. GEORGI und Ch. MARKsCHIES,
in TRE 32 (2001) 527-552 (bes. S. 540-543) mit einer umfangreichen Lit.; U. BERNER,
M. HÛTTER, CH. AUFFARTH, R. LEICHT und J. ROXBOROGH, in RGG4 7 (2Q114) 1959-66;
U. BERNER, Untersucllllllgen zur VerwendzlIlg des Synkretislllus-BegNffes (GOttinger
Orientforsehungen, 2), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1982.
. Was die Astrologie betrifft, die in ~.er Spiitantike als sehr gutes Beispiel des synkretis-
tisehen Vorstellungen gilt, spielte in Agypten wiehtige Rolle (Die Zodiakbilder in Den-
dera-Tempel, in zah1reichen Griibem, so z.B. in Denkmiilern der Oase Dachla, aus dem
Nachlass von Ahmed FAKHRY, bearbeitet von J. OSING u.a., Mainz, Ph.v.Zabem, 1982,
Tf. 36-44, dazu die Kommentare von O. NEUGEBAUER u.a., ibid., S. 96-101), so konnte sie
bei Origenes nieht unbeaehtet bleiben (K. VON STUCKRAD, Das Ringen um die Astrologie:
Jüdische und christliche Beitriige ZUIll antiken Zeitverstiindnis (Religionsgesehiehtliche
Versuehe und Vorarbeiten, 49), Berlin, de Gruyter, 2000, S. 772f.; s. aueh Cl. SCHOLTEN,
Astrologisches bei den Valentinianem, in H. GRIESER - A. MERKT (Hgg.), Volksglaube im
antiken Christentum, Darmstadt, Wissensehaftliche Buehgesellsehaft, 2009, 379-392,
S.386.
GRIECHISCH ODER ALTÂGYPTISCH? 941
Sie sind m.E. sehr eng mit altagyptischen Spekulationen verbunden, die
nicht nur den Einen untel' den Vie/en kennen37 , sondem auch Enge!, die
in Âgypten ihre Urheimat haben38 , was mein Lehrer C. Detlef G. Müller
(1926-2003) in seiner Engellehre 39 ausgeführt hat. Sie bringen uns damit
in die Nahe von Seelen-, Geistwesen- und Hl. Geist-Vorstellungen, die
bei Origenes einen groBen Raum einnehmen40 .
Die Ansichten von Origenes über Seele, Geist und Enge! in diesem
Kreise zu referieren, hieBe Eulen nach Athen tragen. Deshalb solI nul' der
Versuch untemommen werden, die altagyptischen Vorstellungen über
diese Phanomena zu prasentieren, die man dann den Origeneischen
gegenüber stellen kann. Assmann schreibt:
... die Begriffe Ba und Ka gehoren in den Bereich jener Vorstellungen, die
wh nùt unserem Begriff "Seele" in Verbindung bringen .. ,41
was zwar auch von E. Homung geteilt wird; bei ibm liegt aber das
Schwergewicht auf der Hervorhebung der (gottlichen) "Macht", die
diese Begriffe beinhalten42 . !ch mochte in diesem Zusammenhang von
geistigen Energieen sprechen, was sich moglicherweise mit der platoni-
schen Sichtweise deckt (Phaedr., 246a 6f.).
Daraus ergeben sich weitreichende Konsequenzen für die Beurteilung
der Origeneischen Auffassung, und veranlasst uns zu fragen: wie verhielt
37. So der Titel einer der besten Darstellungen der iigyptisehen Religion von E. HORNUNG
die in 1. Aufl. 1971 in Darmstadt, Wissensehaftliche Buehgesellsehaft ersehienen ist (s.o.
Anm. 25), S. 201-208. So entstand eine aufflammende und nieht zu Ende gehende Diskus-
sion um den Monotheismus (J. ASSMANN, Moses der Agypter, Münehen, Hanser, 1998;
ID., MOllotheismus und die Spraclze der Gewalt [2004] [Wiener Vorlesungen, 116], Wien,
Pieus, 42007), die zwar sehr eng mit dem Origeneisehen Verstiindnis von Gott zusam-
menhiingt (Ch. MARKSCHIES, Gatt und Mensch nach Origenes, in A. RAFFELT [Hg.], Weg
und Weite. FS fiir Karl Lehmann, Freiburg/Br., Herder, 2001, 97-111, bes. S. 98-104;
A. FÜRST, Paganer und christlicher "Monotheismus": Zur Hermeneutik eines antiken
Diskurses, in Jahrbuch fiïr Antike und Christentum 51 [(2008)2010] 5-24, bes. S. 11-16),
der aber hier nieht wei ter ausgeführt werden kann.
38:. P.O. SCHOLZ, Engel/ehre der koptischen Kirche im Spiegel ihrer Ikonizitiit aufier-
halb Agyptens, in Hal/esche Beitriige zur Orientwissenschaft 36 (2003) 169-180.
39. Engellehre der koptischen Kirche, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1959, bes. S. 88-102.
40. Sehon eindeutig herauskristalisiert bei M. WERNER, Die EntstehzlIlg des christli-
chen Dogmas, Bem, Haupt; Tübingen, Katzmann, 21941, S. 582ff. hl diesem Zusammen-
hang ist auf das Problem der Praexistenz der Seele, das sehon Augustinus (De civita te Dei
XI.23) angesproehen hat, hinzuweisen. Augustinus war bewuBt, daB der Alexandriner
unbibliseh, d.h. nicht nur platoniseh, beeinfluBt war. Man vergleiche hier einige Ausfiih-
rungen von L. SCHEFFCZYK, Der Reinkal'llationsgedanke in der altchristlichen Literatur
(Sitzungsberichte Bayerisehe Akademie der Wissensehaften. Philosophiseh-Historisehe
Klasse, 1985/4), Münehen, Beek, 1985, S. 28-35 um sich bewuBt zu maehen, daB das
Thema eine neue Diskussion eroffnet, der hier nicht naehgegangen werden kann.
41. ASSMANN, Tod (Anm. 31), S. 116.
42. HORNUNG, Der Eine und die Vielen (Anrn. 25/37), S. 55ff.
942 P.O.SCHOLZ GRIECmSCH ODER ALT ÂGYPTISCH? 943

es sich im Alten Âgypten mit diesen Vorstellungen, sind sie tatsachlich

bei dem groBen Alexandriner wieder zu finden?
Die Antwort kannte Iauten: ahnlich, wenn man sich auf vergleichbare
Bedeutungen der drei altagypischen Bezeichnungen von den angenom-
menen Erscheinungsformen ACH, BA, KA einigen kannte. Das allerdings
scheint angesichts der Schwierigkeit bei der Elfassbarkeit des altagypti-
schen Denkens die sich in der umfangreichen Literatur niederschlagt
nicht einfach zu sein43 •
BA und KA scheinen nul' dann wenig Probleme zu verursachen, wenn
man bereit ist anzunehmen, daB die unausweichliche Verbindung zwi-
schen BA und KA der Totalitat der 'l'OXYJ - die mehr ist aIs eine homogene
Einheit - entsprichtM.
Jetzt faBt man den dem Menschen verliehenen Ka aIs ide ale "Gestalt" auf,
die bei seiner Geburt zugleich mit dem irdischen Leibe geschaffen wird. Sa
stellt man den Schopfer geradezu aIs Bildhauer dar, der die Gestalt des zu
schaffenden Menschen zweifach auf der Drehscheibe formt (Abb. 1)45.

Zwar formt die altag. Gortheit Chnum bei der Erschaffung des Men-
schen gleichzeitig seinen KA, d.h. es wird damit dem materiellen Karper Abb. 1: Gatt Chnum formt auf der Topferscheibe sowohl dem Menschen,
die Lebensenergie gespendet, ohne die el' nicht existent, d.h.auch nicht aIs auch seinen KA aIs "ide ale Gestalt" . Eine Umzeichnung.
individualisiert sein kann; in die Sprache von Origenes umgesetzt entsteht

43. Davon zeugen die entsprechenden Beitrage im Lexikon der Agyptologie: E. OTTO,
Ac/l, I, 1975, 49/52; L.V. ZABKAR, Ba, I 588/590; P. KApLONY, Ka, ID, 1980, 275/282.
44. Es kann hier keine Eindeutigkeit geben, obwohl es sich um Zentralbegriffe der
altiigyptischen Gottesidee handelt, die verstiindlicherweise im Laufe des fast 5000 jiihrigen
Ringens um eine theistisch gepragte Weltanschauung, einer Wandlung unterzogen war. Hierzu
verdienen, m.E. die etwas in Vergessenheit geratenen Ausführungen von J. SPIEGEL (Das
Werden der altiigyptischen Hochkultur: Agyptische Geistesgesc/zichte im 3. Jahrtausend
vChr., Heidelberg, Kerle, 1953) Beachtung, der u.a. feststellt: Der Ba-Begriff bezeichnet
also stets nul' die Immanenz einer Wesenheit in einer anderen, die ZH:eisc/lic/ltigkeit des
Wesens, olme über die besondere Eigenart der in einem solchen Verhiiltnis zueinander
stehenden beiden Wesenheiten irgend etwas auszusagen (S. 224); und weiter: Die Vorstel-
lung vom Ba aIs" TI'iiger" einer anderen Wesenheit dagegen riickt den Begriff der
Imlllanenz ins Bewufitsein. AIs beide Begriffe in der Folgezeit azif die Îlnmer klarer e/fafite
Geistigkeit des Menschen angewendet werden, bezeic/met daher Kadeli "Objektiven
Geist", Ba hingegen den "subjektiven Geist" (S. 228).
45. SPIEGEL, Das Werden der altiigyptischen Hochkultur (Anm. 44), S. 303 liefert in
dieser Hinsicht ausreichende Erkliirung, die man noch mit einem Zusatzt versehen kann:
Der Ka ist also lI/ehr aIs der lebende Mensch: Demi die irdische Persanlichkeit entfaltet
ja ail die Einzelziige, die im Ka zu einer idealen "Formeinheit der Gestalt" verschmolzen
sind, erst nach und nac/I im VerlauJe des Lebens (S. 305).
Das Bild, das man spater auch in der gnostisch-apokalyptischen Lit. findet, wenn yom
Tiipferorakel die Rede ist (zusamenfassend K.-Th. ZAUZICH, in Lexikon der Agyptologie
VI [1986] 621-623), gewinnt an Bedeutung wenn man den Inhalt des Werkes bedenkt
(H. GRESSMANN [Hg.], Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament, Berlin - Leipzig, de
Gruyter, 21926, ND 1970, S. 48ff.); s. auch J. ASSMANN, Stein und Zeit: Mensch und
Gesellschaft im Alten Agypten, München, Fink, 1991, S. 276-278.
die Seele also schon mit der Zeugung. Das von Gort gewollte kalperlose
Individuum wird damit schon in der pranatalen Phase von AuBen her kon-
stituiert46 , sein BA wird mit der Geburt bestimmt. Damit laBt sich eine
binare Struktur in den V Ol'stellungen vom Seienden erkennen, in dem die
Zeugungskraft des Ka, die von geistiger Natur ist, alles bewirkt"7. Deshalb
kann man der altagyptischen Auffassung zustimmen: Der Ka hat mit dem
Leichnam nichts zu tun. Er gehort nicht zur "Leib-Sphiire" des Menschen.
denn
Du mfst deinem k3 zu, er kommt zu dir,! daB er dich schütze var allem
Übel./ Dein b3 vereinigt sich mit dir und entfernt sich nicht von dir./ Er
gesellt sich zu dir, damit du nicht allein bist48 •
46. Bei Origenes heiBt das (Prin 1.7.4): Weml die Seele des Menschen, die ja aIs
menschliche niedriger steht, nicht aIs mit dem Ka/pel' zusammen gebildet, sondern aIs
eigens l'on aufien eingesetzt sich erweist, dann I/ln so mehr die Seele jener beseelten
Wesen, die himmlisch heij3en. Was 111111 den Menschen betrifft: / .. .1 wie kami die Seele
dessen mit delll Ka/pel' zusalllmen gebildet sein, der noch "illl Mutterleib l'om heiligen
Geist elfiillt wl/rde"? Ich lIleine Johannes der" im Leibe seiner Mutter hiipfte" und l'or
Jubel auJsprang, aIs der Grufi Mariens ZUlIl Ohr seiner Mutter Elisabeth drang (vgl.
Lk 1,41.44).
47. SPIEGEL, Das Werden der altiigyptischen Hochkultur (Anm. 44), S. 218.
48. ASSMANN, Tod (Anm. 31), S. 131, 132.

944 P.O.SCHOLZ
Dennoch sind in der Auffassung von menschlichem Sein sowohl in
den Kategorien, die übrigens nicht allzu ait sind, - des BewuBten und
UnbewuBten - auch die aWig. Aspekte anzusiedeln. DaB sie nicht ein-
heitlich beurteilt werden, scheint auch angesicht der modemen Psycho-
logie erkHirlich zu sein. So definierte z.B. der schwedische Âgyptologe
Jan BERGMAN, den BA wie folgt49 :
Der Ba, den wir mit "Seele" traditionell wiedergeben, wie auch Horapollon
(1 7) ihn mit ,!,uxiI übersetzt, stellt eigentlich nicht die Seele, sondem die
Totalitiit des gottlichen Wesens in seiner Wandelbarkeit dar. Die Schrei-
bung mit dem sog. BA- Vogel erinnert an seine Beweglichkeit, aber auch an
seine Heimat im Himmel.
Damit wird dem BA Wesen eine Gestaltungsfahigkeit zugesprochen,
die das K6rperliche, das Geschaffene bedingt, aber zugleich vom "him-
melstiinnenden" Aufstieg des individuellen Menschen kündet (Spr. 245)50.
Mit diesen drei Aspekten ACH, BA und KA, sind noch weitere Manifes-
tationen - besser bildhafte, somit auch fassbare Vorstellungen - eng ver-
bunden, namlich: Herz, Schatten und Name. Sie kann man auch bei
Origenes aIs Blut: die Seele eines jeden Fleisches ist sein Blut
(Prin li.4.21 265.5), aIs K6rperlosigkeit (Prin 1.7.1) und aIs das Men-
schenwesen finden.
Zwar bietet sich hier eine Betrachtung über die Relation O'cOl!u 1
K6rper-O'upç /Fleisch an, die m6glicherweise dem Verstiindnis von àO'cO-
l!U't'OS gedient hatte und zu den Eigenschaften der Seele bei Origenes
führen k6nnte; das hatte dann einen neuen Ansatz zur Folge, den ~an in
diesem Rahmen nicht nachkommen kann. Ich gebe nul' zu bedenken, daB
man unbedingt sowohl zwischen Leib und Fleisch, aIs auch zwischen
Seele und Geist unterscheiden muB51 und dies nicht nur im Sinne der
Gegenüberstellung Fleisch mit Geist (so Origenes, Prin 266.27; 268.231
li.4.2-3) was u.a. aus dem antithetischen Verstiindnis der LXX resultiert52 .
49. J. BERGMAN, Isis-Seele und Osiris-Ei: Zwei iigyptologische Studien z~_Diodorus
Siculus, Uppsala, University Press, 1970, S. 34.
50. SPIEGEL, Das Werden der altiigyptischen Hochkultur (Anm. 44), S. 500.
51. Es ist bezeichnend, daB in TRE kein Art. diesem Sachverhalt gewidmet ist, dafür
aber wird man in LTK ID e1993) 1317/19 (v. Th. SEIDL - A. SAND) fündig. Demgegenüber
unterscheidet man im RAC "Fleisch" ais Nahrung und meint, das Thema bei "Leib"
behandeln zu konnen (das war im Bd. 7/1969). Dort findet sich aber nach 40 Jahren
(Bd. 22/2008) ein weiterer Verweis auf "Mensch" und "Sarks" (sic!). Bei dem'Âgyptolo-
gen ASSMANN (Tod [Annl. 31], S. 118) scheint die Differenzierung nicht immer klar zu
sein, wenn er feststellt: "Für unser Verstandnis des Menschen verlauft eine entscheidende
Demarkationslinie zwischen Leib und Seele bzw. Korper und Geist". Der Gleichsetzung
Leib==Korper, Seele==Geist kann man nicht zustimmen.
52. So auch in RGG ID (42000) 155/58 (v. Ch. FREVEL - E. REINMUTH - W. KRoTKE)
im vollen BewuBtsein der Bedeutung dieser Gegenüberstellung. Hierzu bes. laBt sich den
945
GRIECmSCH ODER ALTÂGYPTISCH?
KA laBt sich im agyptischen Sinne aIs geistiges Spiegelbild des Leibes
verstehen, k6rperlos und nul' scheinbar sichtbar, so daB der Mensch "zu
seinem Ka gehen", d.h. sich im Tode mit seinem Wesen (mit seinem
geistigen Sein) vereinigen kann. Man wird hier an die Fonnulierung von
Thomas Mann erinnert, der in seinem groBen Josef Roman feststellt: " ...
der Ka ist der geistige Leib der Dinge, der neben dem Leibe ist"53S olange
das Korperliche des Menschen lebt, gibt es Schatten (so erkliirt sich mog-
licherweise die Verbindung zum BA). Deshalb meint Assmann daB: Der
Schatten gehort mit dem Ba zusammen,folgt ihm aber nicht an den Him-
mel54, was Schatten zum Bild des Lebens, d.h. zur sichtbaren Manifesta-
tion dessen macht was es ist, so wie man das einigen Texten, die Beate
George gesammeIt hat, entnehmen k6nnte55 und was dO" em ngenelschen
Denken sehr nah zu stehen scheint:
LaBt uns also das ewige Leben [in uns] aufnehmen ... Dieses Leben in
Christus, der sagte: "lch bin das Leben". Diese~ Leben ist jet~t z;;rar
[n~r]
im Schatten gegenwiirtig, dann aber "von Angeslchts zu A~gesICht . "Gel~t
von unserem Angesicht ist Christus der Herr, von dem Wlf sagten: In sel-
nem Schatten werden wir leben, werm wir nicht mehr im Schatten des
Lebens leben, sondern in das Leben selbst (Èv at'l'tfl 'tfl Çmfl) gelangt
sind" !56
BA wird aIs Vogel mit Menschenhaupt visualisiert (Abb. 2) was ihrn
die Fahigkeit der "Konnektivitat" (Assmann) aIs Merkmal seiner Wesen-
heit verleiht. Anders ausgedrückt: der Mensch sol1 in seinem irdischen
Leben dem "horenden Herz" - wie das die altagyptische Texte bezeich-
nen5? _ folgen, d.h. el' sol1 das W ort, Gottes Wort, wahmehmen und
Ausführungen von U. VOLP (Die Würde des Mellschen: Ein Beit,:ag zur ~Ilthl'opologie in
der Alten Kirche [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 81], Lelden, Brill, 2006) folgen
(s. Indices).
53. Josef und seine Brüder, Stockholm, Fischer, 1948, I, S. 680.
54. ASSMANN, Tod (Anm. 31), S. 155.
55. B. GEORGE, Zu dell altiigyptischen Vorstellullgell von Schatten ais See/~, Bonn,
Habelt, 1970, S. 92-117. Hier verdienen die Ausführungen von E. HORNUNG (F/sch und
Vogel: Zur altiigyptischell Sicht des Menschen, in Erallos-Jahrbu~h 52 [1983] 455-496,
hier S. 471-496) besondere Aufmerksanlkeit, weil sie die Relation zWIschen Ka-Ba-Schatten
sehr gut versinnbildlichen.
56. Zitiert nach G. GRUBER, ZQH: Wesen, Stufen ulld Mitteihmg des wahren Lebens
bei Origelles (Münchener Theologische Studien, ll/23), M~nc~en, ~ax .Hueber, 1962,
S. 60. Hier lassen sich die Erlosungsgedanken anzusiedeln, dIe eIDerselt ~mt dem De~cen­
sus Christi (G.Q. REIlNERS, Das Wort VOl/l Kreuz [Bonner Beitrage zur Kirchengesc~lChte,
13] Koln _ Wien, Bohlau, 1983, S. 70f.) andererseits mit dem altagyptischen Jenseltsvor-
steIiungen (ASSMANN, Tod [Anm. 31], S .. 435ff.) sic~ verb~den. .
57. H. BRUNNER Das hOrende Herz, ID Theolog/sche Llteratllrzelfung 79 (1954) 697-
700; H. BRUNNER, Das Herz ais Sitz des Lebensgeheilllllisses, in Archiv fü.r Orientfor-
sclllmg 17 (1956) 140f.; H. BRUNNER, Das Herz illl iigyptischen Glaubell, ID Das Herz
illl UlIlkreis des Glallbells (Dr. Karl Thomae GmbH, Biberach) 1 (1965) 81-106 [aile
946 P.O.SCHOLZ GRIECmSCH ODER ALT ÂGYPTISCH? 947

Gutes tun, um damit seinem BA zu ermoglichen, der einst vor dem Ietzten
Gericht rur ihn Zeugnis abzulegen (Sprüche 488-500):
o mein Ba, mein Ach, mein Schatten, / Mfnet die Uiden an den Himmels-
fenstern des Lichtlandes58

Damit kann man BA aIs die Kraft verstehen, die sich mit Gott, "in der
immerwtihrenden Bewegung allen Lebens" verbinden kann59 • Die Bild-
sprache - den Geist aIs V ogel zu betrachten - kommt der von Origenes
getriebenen Allegorese sehr nah. Man kann sie aIs Reflexion über die
alttigyptische Art zu denken begreifen, weil sie schliesslich erlaubt, der
Umwandiung des menschenkopfigen BA-Vogels zum Bngei (eine im
Niltal sehr popuitire und sehr verbreitete Vorstellung), d.h. zum Boten
Gottes, zuzustimmen (Prin 1.8: Von den Engeln), so heiBt es bei Origenes
(Prin II.lO.7/ 181.20ff.):
Jedem GHiubigen, mag el' auch der "Kleinste" sein in der Kirche (Mt 11,11),
steht, wie es heiBt, ein Engel zur Seite, der, wie der Erloser sagt, "allzeit
das Angesicht Gott Yaters sieht" (Mt 18,10).

Origenes erkennt in seinen weiteren Ausführungen die enge Verbin-

dung zwischen der KA-und der BA-Seele, nicht nul' weil er zwischen
einem psychischen (seelischen) und einem pneumatischen (geistigen)
"Leib" zu unterscheiden wuBte (Prin Il.8.2/ 154. 8) sondern auch weil
er meinte:
... und doch scheint, wie auch immer das zu verstehen ist, zuweilen von
der Seele Gottes die Rede zu sein. / .. ./ Deshalb scheint es mir auch nicht
abwegig, Âhnliches auch von den heiligen Engeln und den übrigen himm-
lischen Machten zu sagen und anzunehmen, insofern die vorhin angeführte
Definition der Seele auch auf sie zuzutreffen scheint.

(ebenda) d.h. nach Origenes:

... daB die Seele eigene Substanz und eigenes Leben hat, und daB ihr nach
ihren Yerdiensten vel'golten werden wird, wenn sie aus diesel' Welt geschie-
den ist (Prin 1 Praef. 5/ 12.1ff.)

Abb. 2: BA und Schatten am Grabeneingang - Malerei im Grab deS Irinefer
(Theben Nr. 290), um 1250 vehr. nach ASSMANN,
Tod (Anm. 31), S. 119, Abb. 9.
Die Betrachtungen von Origenes über die Seele, die im II. Buch seines
"Peri archôn" (Kap. 8) zusammengefaBt sind, machen deutlich, daB man
die biblischen Bezüge, die er herstellt, in einigen Ftillen mit den altagyp-
Aufsatze noeh einmal im Sammelband hg.v. W. RbLLIG, Das hOrel/de Herz (Orbis Bibli-
eus et Orientalis, 80), Fribourg, Universitatsverlag; Gottingen, Vandenhoeek & Rupreeht,
1988, 3-41].
58. ASSMANN, Tod (Anm. 31), S. 127.
59. SPIEGEL, Das Werdel/ der altiigyptischel/ Hochkllltllr (Anm. 44), S. 223.
 948 P.O.SCHOLZ
tischen Sprüchen beinahe austauschen konntéO, so lesen wir zB. bei Hiob
(8,8f.):
Frage doch das frühere Geschlecht,/ merke du:, was Vorfahren erforschten;/
Denn wir sind von gestem und wissen nichts,/ wie Schatten sind unsere
Tage auf Erden.
Das hiingt aber, wie bereits bemerkt worden ist, mit dem Sitz im Leben
des AT zusammen, das eng mit altiigyptischem Denken und daraus sich
ergebenden theologischen Spekulationen verbunden ist, was heute nicht
mehr in Frage gestellt wird61 . Man darf aber fragen inwieweit war sich
Origenes dessen selber bewuBt?
AIs Lehrer an der Katechetenschule untel' dem alexandrinischen
Bischof Demetrios war der junge Origenes nicht nul' mit Christen, son-
dem auch mit Heiden und Ketzem konfrontiert. Br verkaufte die Biblio-
thek seines Vaters, die viele Schriften heidnischer Autoren beinhaltete.
DaB el' von dem Brlos leben konnte, sagt viel über deren Umfang. Br
kannte Klemens (140/150-220), der erst 202/03 Alexandria verlassen hat,
und war wahrscheinlich über fünf Jahre Schüler bei Ammonios Sakkas62 ,
dem Meister von Plotin, wie Hans Frhr. v. Campenhausen meinte63 , so
daB man annehmen kann, daB wir es bei Origenes mit einem hoch und
allgemein sehr gebildeten Gelehrten zu tun haben, der sich auch mit
Nicht-Christen messen und der auch in der platonischen Tradition die
Begeisterung für Altiigypten geteilt haben konnte 64 • Schon H. Frhr.v.
Campenhausen bemerkté5 :
Blickt man beispielsweise auf die Engel und Damonenlehre, die Origenes
lebhaft beschliftigt und auch die Neoplatoniker aIs ein wichtiges Stück ihrer
Theologie und Welterkliirung zu behandeln pflegen, so ist es ganz unmog-
lich, die Herkünfte und EinfluBlinien mit BestinImtheit zu sondem. (
60. Ch. KAYATZ, Studien Zli Proverbien 1-9: Eine form- und motivgeschichtliche
UntersucJllmg untel' Einbeziehung iigyptischen Vergleichsmaterial (Wissenschaftliche
Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 22), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener,
1966, S. 1ff.
61. Unter diesen Vorzeichen ist das neue Bi~~llexikon von M. GÔRG - B. LANG (Hgg.),
Neue Bibellexikon I-III (1991-2001), bes. Art. Agypten (36-49) von GÔRG) entstanden.
62. Wahrscheinlich bis 242 in Alexandrien (RGG4 I, 415); ausführlicher H. DÔRRIE,
Ammonios Sakkas, in TRE 2 (19?,7) 463-471; M. BALTES, Ammonios Sakas (1979), RAC
Suppl. 1 (2001) 323-332; ein Uberblick über den Sachverhalt der Schülerschaft des
Origenes bietet U. NEYMEYER (Die christlichen Lehrer im zweiten Jahrlllllldert [Supple-
ments to Vigiliae Christianae, 4], Leiden, Brill, 1989, S. 98ff.) an.
63. CAMPENHAUSEN, Griechische Kirchenviiter (Anm. 7), S. 45; s. auch oben, Anm. 62.
64. Man muB die Tradition der Reise Platons nach Âgypten, zu den Quelleh der Weis-
heit bedenken (dazu H. DÔRRIE - M. BALTES [Hgg.], Der Platonismus in der Antike,
Stuttgart, Fromann; Bad Cannstatt, Holzboog, 1990, Bd. 2, S. 62-65, 427-453).
65. VON CAMPENHAUSEN, Griechische Kirchenviiter (Anm. 7), S. 47.
GRIECmSCH ODER ALTÂGYPTISCH? 949
Heute, nach über 50 Jahren seit der ersten Auflage des Klassikers:
Griechische Kirchenviiter (hier zit. nach 1981 6), hat sich nicht nul' vieles
in der Origenes-Forschung weiter entwickelt, sondem auch in der Âgyp-
tologie, ganz zu schweigen von der Brforschung der koptischen gnosti-
schen Texté6, die uns vie1e RiitsellOsen konnen, insbesondere bei der
Frage nach den Quellen mancher Gedanken und theologischer Spekula-
tionen des Origenes. So findet sich zB. in Prin 1.8 der Hinweis auf die
"Lehre des Petrus", die wir heute mit groBer Wahrscheinlichkeit mit den
Apokryphon des Petrusevangeliums, das spiitestens um 190 in Âgypten
entstanden ist, identifizieren konnen67 .
Bbenso verhiilt es sich mit den Brkenntnissen über die spiitiigyptische
Religion, ihre Mysterien und über Hermes Trismegistos. Schon S. Morenz,
H. Brunner, in letzter Zeit bes. auch B. Homung und J. Assmann haben in
diesel' Hinsicht neue Wege gewiesen, die man auch in der Kirchenge-
schichte und Patristik zu berücksichtigen sucht68 .
Deshalb wollen wir uns schon aus Zeitglünden dem dritten und noch
mehr unzugiinglichen Begriff, dem des ACH (= von leuchten, gtanzen
abgeleitet, B. Otto spricht vom "Lichtglanz"69) zuwenden. Man kann
m.B. auch von Aura, wenn nicht sogar von ô6~a sprechen70 um sich so
der Auffassung von J. Assmann zu niihem71:
... der Begriff "Ach" (befindet sich) auf einer anderen Ebene aIs die übrigen
Begriffe: Er bezeichnet kein Element, etwas was man "hat" sondem einen
Status, etwas, was man "ist".
Bine solche Formulierung führt uns unmittelbar in den philosophischen
Diskurs "Sein oder Nicht Sein", in dem Gott aIs das unkorperlich
66. H.-M. SCHENKE - H.-G. BETHGE - U.D. KAISER (Hgg.), Nag Hammadi. Deutsch,
Berlin, de Gruyter, 2010. Die Lit. Gnosis betreffend ist inzwischen uferlos geworden, sie
lliBt Origenes Schrifttum und Wirkung in neuem Licht erscheinen.
67. SCHNEEMELCHER, Nelltestamentliche Apoklyphen (Anm. 19), I, S. 185.
68. Zwar ist man sich seit Adolf VON HARNACK (Die Mission und Ausbreitung des
Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1924, S. 705ff.) der
Bedeutung des ligyptischen Hintergrundes für das sich konstituierendes Christentum
bewuBt (K. KOCH, Geschichte der iigyptischen Religion, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1993,
S. 623-643); dennoch wird in der Forschung mehr Aufmerksamkeit der griechischen
(RM. GRANT, Theological Education at Alexandria, in PEARSON - GOEHR1NG [Hgg.], The
Roots of Egyptian Christial/ity [Anm. 5], 178-189) und jüdischen (KLUN, Jewish Christian-
ity [Anrn. 13]) Hemisphlire geschenkt aIs der ligyptischen. Bin Sachverhalt der nur sehr
langsam - bes. unter dem Druck der Gnosisforschung (s. dazu Chr. MARKSCHIES, RGG III
[42000] 1049-1053) - sich zu lindern beginnt.
69. OTTO, Ach (Anm. 43), S. 49: Lichtglanz = j3hw; ob die Nlihe zu Jahwe nur zuflil-
lig ist muB noch untersucht werden.
70. Der Hinweis auf den Art. von H. HEGERMANN (EWNT 1, 832-41) kann in diesem
Zusammenhang angesichts seiner sehr urnfangreichen Lit. ausreichen.
71. ASSMANN, Tod (Anm. 31), S. 116f.
950 P.O.SCHOLZ
SEIENDE verstanden wird, das in der Trinitat seine symbolisch sichtbare
Elfüllung findet1 z.
Wenn aber J. Assmann ACH aIs "Ahnengeist" bezeichnet13, dann muB
ihm widersprochen werden, weil die quasi genetische Idee, von der hier
die Rede ist, eigentlich zum Wesen des KA und nicht des ACH gehi:ht74 .
Die angesprochenen Emanationen des ACH scheinen seine Wesenheit
auszudrücken, die aIs "lichterer Daseinzustand"75 sich sehr nah der
numinosen Vorstellung vom Geist Gottes sich befindet, die man mogli-
cherweise mit dem Vergleich Origenes, der nicht weit von dem Âgypti-
schen liegt, erklaren kann (Prin l,1.4f./ 20.lff.):
Gott ist Geist (Joh 4,2lff.) J.. ./ Wenn wir uns namlich überhaupt eine Vor-
stellung und einen Begriff von Gott machen konnen, so müssen wir notwen-
dig annehmen, daB Gott in vie1er Hinsicht weit erhabener ist aIs unsere
Vorstellung. J.. ./ der Glanz der Sonne ist unsaglich und unermeBlich groBer
und erhabener aIs alles Licht, das du siehst. / .. ./ Was ist aber unter allen
geistigen, d.h. unkorperlichen Dingen so erhaben über alles, so unsagbar
und unelmeBlich übenagend wie Gott?
Aus dieser Unkorperlichkeit resultierte also die kreative Kraft Gottes,
die in der und durch die Schopfung erkennbar ist, sie manifestiett sich
auch in dem Odem/Ruach76 der in den Leib, in die Materie, hineinfloB
(Gen 2,7) und den Menschen entstehen lieB, der deshalb auch aIs "Eben-
bild" Gottes bezeichnet wird77 •
Diese Ansicht kommt der von Origenes nahe wenn man Hieronymus
folgt, der sagte:
Die geistige und vemüftige Natur wird von Gott, seinem einziggeborenen
Sohn und dem heiligen Geist erkannt; sie erkennen die Bngel, Gewalten
und anderen Machte, erkennt "der innere Mensch, der nach Gottes Bbenbild
und Gleichheit geschaffen ist Daraus folgt, daB Gott und sie gewissermaBen
von einer Substanz sind [Prin IVA.9Jvgl. s. 815 69]
Diese Dreiheit, wird durch den "Sohn Gottes" erfüllt. Er ist damit der
Gezeugte; seine Zeugung findet eine gewisse Parallele in dem làltagypti-
72. N. SCHOLL, Das Geheimnis der Drei: Kleine KlIltllrgeschichte der Trinitiit, Drum-
stadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006, S. 65-106.
73. ASSMANN, Tod (Anm. 31), S. nf.
74. KAPLONY, LA III (Anm. 43), S. 275f.
75. H. BONNET (Hg.), Reallexikon der iigyptischen Religionsgeschichte, Berlin, de
Gruyter, 1952, 4.
76. M. GORG, Nilgans und Heiliger Geist, Düsseldorf, Patmos, 1997, S. 56-60.
77. O. LORETZ, Die Gottebellbildlichkeit des Menschen, mit einem Beitrag von
E. HORNUNG, Del' Mensch ais "Bild Gottes" in Agypten, München, Kiisel, 1967,
S. 123-156.
GRIECHISCH ODER ALTÂGYPTISCH? 951
schen Geburtsmythos des Gottkonig78 , was m.W'. zum ersten mal von
Emma Brunner-Traut untersucht1 9 und spater sowohl von mir ikonolo-
gischSO , aIs auch von Joachim Kügler christologischSl und von J. Ass-
mann im Sirme des agyptologischen Diskurses sz , vettieft worden ist.
Origenes stellte diesbezüglich fest (Prin l,2.6/137):
Unser Brloser ist also das Bild des unsichtbaren Gottvaters; / .. ./ Anderer-
seits sind auch wir nach einem Bilde geworden und haben den Sohn aIs
Urbild, gewissermaBen aIs Wahrheit, der schonen Bilder in uns. Und das
gleiche, was wir im Verhaltnis zum Sohn sind, ist er se1bst im Verhaltnis
zum Vater, der die (eigentliche) Wahrheit ist. / .. ./ Der eingeborene Sohn ist
also Glanz dieses Lichtes; er geht aus ibm ohne Trennung hervor, wie der
Glanz aus dem Licht und erleuchtet die ganze SchOpfung (vgl. Joh 1,9)83.
So partizipierte Origenes an der Erbschaft des altagyptischen Bildver-
standnisses, das man aIs sich standig vertiefende Bildtheologie begreifen
kannS4 . Hier muB ausreichen festzuhalten, daB die Âgypter von einer
78. H. BRUNNER, Die Geburt des Gottkanigs: Studien zur ÜberliefeJ'llng eines altiigyp-
tischen Mythos (Âgyptologische Abhandlungen, 10), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 21986.
79. E. BRUNNER-TRAUT, Die Geburtslegende der Evangeliell im Lichte iigyptologischer
ForscJUl/Igen, in Zeitschrift fiir Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 12 (1960) 97-111;
E. BRUNNER-TRAuT, Pharao und Jesus ais SaIllie Gottes, in Antaios 2 (1961) 266-284.
80. P.O. SCHOLZ, "Geburt Christi" aus Faras/Pachoras: Ein ikonologischer Ver-
gleich mit delll altiigyptischen Geburtslllythos des Gott-Kanigs, Habilitationsschrift MSS
1985/1995 (Universitiit Innsbruck).
81. J. KÜGLER, Pharao und Christus? Religionsgeschichtliche UntersucJ/lIng zur Frage
einer Verbindung zwischell altiigyptischer Konigstheologie und neutestamentlicher Chris-
tologie illl LlIkasevangeliulll (Bonner Biblische Beitrage, 113), Bodenheim, Philo, 1997.
82. J. ASSMANN, Die Zeugung des Sohnes: Bi/d, Spiel, Erziihlung I/nd das Problem des
iigyptischen Mythos, in ID. - W. BURKERT - F. STOLZ, FI/Ilktiollell ulld Leistl/ngell des
Mythos (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 48), Fribourg/Schw., Universitiitsverlag; Giittingen,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982, 13-62.
83. Das Bild bei Origenes (Prin III.6.l) stellt einen beachtenswertes Konzept dar, der
schon H. CROUZEL (Théologie de l'image de Diel/ chez Origèlle, Paris, Aubier, 1956) behan-
delt ohne aber das altiigyptische Bildverstiindnis heranzuziehen. Zwar hat auch H. VON
CA~ENHAUSEN (Die Bildfrage ais theologisches Problem der altell Kirche, in Das Gottesbild
im Abelldlalld, Witten - Berlin, Eckrut-Verlag, 1957,77-108, bes. S. 78f.) das Thema ange-
schnitten, ohne aber erschiipfende Antwort zu geben. In letzter Zeit hat VOLP (Die WlÏrde
[Anm. 52]) versucht sich dem Thema zu niihern und dabei ein Material zusammengestellt,
das man rur eine beabsichtigte Studie "El.KWV bei Origenes" (in Vorbereitung) heranziehen
kann (VOLP, ibid., bes. S. 77-80, 136-141, s. auch Index). Ferner muS hi~r auch das gnos~­
isches Bildverstiindnis Berücksichtigung finden (p.O. SCHOLZ, Gnosflsche Elemellte 111
Ill/bischell Walldmalereiell: Das Christl/sbild, in Nubica I/Il (1987/88 [1990] 565-584».
84. Immer noch ist der Versuch von H. SCHÂFER (VOII iigyptischer KI/Ilst: Eille Grl/Il-
dlage, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 31932) beachtenswert, so auch die engl. Editi~n Prill~iples .of
Egyptiall Art, Oxford, Clarendon, 1974. Siehe auch H. BRUNNER, Illl/stnerte BI/cher 1111
Altell Agyptell (1979), in RbLLIG (Hg.), Das horellde Herz (Anm. 57), 363-384; E. HOR-
NUNG, Die Tragweite der Bi/der: Altiigyptische Bildaussagell, in Erallos-Jahrbl/ch 48
(1979) 183-237. Siehe auch die Diskussion um das Christus-Bild (M. BÜCHSEL, Die Ellt-
stehllllg des Christusportriits, Mainz, Ph.v.Zabern, 2003, bes. S. 90ff.).
 GRIECmSCH ODER ALTÂGYPTISCH7 953
952 P.O.SCHOLZ

Lebendigkeit des Bildes85 ausgingen, was bei der Auffassung von Orige- Hellenismus ausgewirkt haben. Die lange Zeit im theologischen Diskurs
nes zu spüren ist. Er dütfte in seinem leider nicht erhaltenen Kommentar vernachlassigte Ikonizitat muB ihren respektablen Zuspruch f~de~, ~er
zur Genesis das Thema der Erschaffung des Menschen aIs Ebenbild Got- auch für das Verstandnis von Origenes und seiner Allegorese wlchtlg lSt.
tes, auch die agyptische Sicht rezipiert haben, wenn er behauptet (Prin Das W ort und das Bild sind nur zwei Gesichter des Gleichen.
II.1l.3/186.lOff.):
P.S. Das Thema eventueller Beziehungen zwischen dem iigyptis.chen
Von dieser Speise der Weisheit geniihrt, kehrt der Geist zur Unberührtheit religionskulturellen Hintergmnd und dem Denken von Origenes wurde bel den
und Vollkommenheit zurück, so wie der Mensch von Anfang nach dem bisherigen Origeniana Kongressen bereits drei mal behandelt (vgl. G. BOSTOCK,
"Bilde und Gleichnis" Gottes gemacht ist (Gen 1,26) The Origen Conferences 1973-2005: ~ Themati~ List of the P~fe~'s, P~rth, 20?9,
S. 28) zuletzt in Pécs (G. BOSTOCK, Ongen, the Son of H~rus ,~n.Hls Egypt~an
So wie der Lehmleib des Adam erst durch den Odem-Gottes zum Milieu: The Influence on Origen ofComtemporary Egyptzan.RelzglOus Pr~c~lce,
Menschen geworden ist, in G. HEIDL - R. SOMOS (Hgg.), Origeniana Nona: Ongen and. Rel~glOus
Practice of His Time (BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 61-80. Lelder.lst der
so konnten die auf den Leichnam gerichteten Riten der Verkliirung und Band erst nach dem Krakauer-Colloquium erschienen, was zu bedauern lSt.
Beseelung zum Inbegriff aller rituellen Handlungen einer belebenden Die schriftliche Überarbeitung meiner Untersuchung ist durch Anrnerkungen
Erneuemng werden, wie man sie auch den Gottern und ihren Bildern gegen- erweitert worden um die Vortragsform nicht einzubÜssen. Die Literaturangaben
über rur angemessen befand86 • sind auf das Minimum reduziert worden, in vollem BewuBtsein, daB es sich
um eine weitreichende Problematik handelt, die demniichst an anderen Stelle
Die Gottesebenbildlichkeit der Menschen wurde schon von Erik behandelt und ausgearbeitet werden solI.
Homung angesprochen87 , sie ging aber zurück auf die ÂuBerungen von
Siegfried Morenz, den man aIs Pionier in der Erforschung der Vergleiche Rheingauer Str. Il Piotr O. SCHOLZ
zwischen der Theologie des Christentums mit der des Altert Âgyptens D-65 388 Schlangenbad
betrachten kann. zphs@vp.pl
Der skizzenhaft gehaltene Überblick über die Moglichkeit, die beide
Theologien, die altagyptische und die Origeneische, zu vergleichen, sollte
einer weiteren Diskussion über die Quellen und den Charakter des
Denkens des alexandrinischen Meisters des Wortes dienen um .Fragen
anzuregen, die noch lange nicht beantwortet werden konnen, obwohl die
Vergleiche zwischen theologischen Begriffen der Alten Âgypter und der
Frühchristenheit aktuell von dem Münchner katholischen Theologen und
Âgyptologen Manfred Gorg behandelt werden, allerdings o~e spürbare
Berücksichtigung der Patristik.
Zusammenfassend kann konstatiert werden, daB es niche reicht bei
Untersuchungen des frühen Christentums und der Alten Kirche~sich nur
auf den judeo-hellenistischen Hintergrund zu konzentrieren. Mit den
Entdeckungen der Nag Hammadi Texte und der Erforschung der Gnosis
ist deutlich geworden, daB das multikulturelle Klima Alexandriens in
besonderer Weise berücksichtig werden muB. Es zeigt sich, daB auch die
griechischen, jüdischen Quellen, von koptischen ganz zu schweigen, an
der geistigen Welt der alten Âgypter partizipiert haben und sich im
85. C. ALDRED, LA l, 793/95.
86. ASSMANN, Tod (Anm. 31), S. 150.
87. HORNUNG, Der Mel/sch aIs "Bild Gottes" ;1/ Agypten (Anm. 77), bes. S. 128f.,
149-156.
 PSEUDO-JEROME'S ANTI-ORIGENIST ANATHEMAS
(ACO 1.5:4-5)

lNmoDuCTION

In research on early Christanity, sometimes a piece of material gets

left, so to speak, on the cutting room floor. Such is the case with the
12 anti-Origenist anathemas in the present study, provisionally dated in
400 C.E. and alleged to be by Jerome, but more likely of unknown author-
shipl. This less-known list attributed to Jerome, buried with a letter of
Anastasius 1 of Rome to John of Jerusalem ("super nomine Rufini") and
included in fifth-century Nestorian controversy materials in the Acts of
the Ecumenical Councils (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum 1.5 :4-5),
was highlighted in the early 20th century, in 1937, by Eduard Schwaltz2 •
Following long-established editorial practice, Schwartz had put the anti-
Origenist letter and the associated anathemas at the head of his 1924-
1926 edition of the Collectio Palatina Primaria, titled with allusion to the
hills of Rome and serving as the base collection of Council of Ephesus
(431 C.E.) materials.
But although Origen's condemnation has long been associated with the
synods around 400 and the sixth-centUlY councils in 543 and 553 under
Emperor Justinian, little has been said about the anti-Origenist implica-
tions of the Council of Ephesus, and thereby anti-Origenism's explicit
association with the four major ecumenical councils of Christendom.
These 12 anathemas "On the faith (De fide)" seem intended to serve as
a kind of touchstone of Olthodoxy and as background for the 431 C.E.
conflict between Cyril and Nestorius 3 • The anathemas, in continuity with
the synods around 400, provide an anti-Oligenist underpinning to the
ecumenical Council of Ephesus, over a century prior to the sixth-century
councils specifically condemning Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius.
Related to the anathemas' inclusion in the Ephesus materials is the influ-

1. The cutting room floor is that of my Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity:
Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen (DM), Macon, GA, Mercer University
Press, 1988. In that work the letter introducing the anathemas was footnoted (p. 406 n. 97;
see also 407 nn. 98-99), but these anathemas were not treated. The study here was first
proposed for Colloquium Origenianum Septimum in Marburg 1997, but was delayed.
2. Palladiana, in ZNW 36 (1937), pp. 171-172,173 n. 17.
3. These 12 are not to be confused with Cyril's 12 anathemas against Nestorius in the
immediate context of the Council of Ephesus.

956 J.F.DECHOW
ence there of "Epiphanius' protégés," the Cyprus bishops. "The vote of
this holy synod [on adopting no other creed than that of Nicea]," that
council decreed, "is given on the appeal made to it by the bishops of
Cyprus" (DM 469).
The 400 C.E. date of the anathemas proposed here, as we shall see, is
plausibly associated with Theophilus' ousting of the Origenists from Ce1-
lia, the monastic site near Alexandria, Egypt, and with their subsequent
flight to and through Palestine. The chronology of these events is fairly
complicated, but Schwartz's chronology cued by Palladius' activities,
J.N.D. Kelly's superb study of Jerome4, and mine centered on Epipha-
nius, but comprehending also Palladius (DM 408 c.n. 113) and Jerome,
basically agree. Probably spring of 400 is a lilœly time, sincê pilgrims
would most likely visit the holy sites of Jerusalem and Bethlehem then
to remember Jesus' passion, and the anathemas would test their admis-
sion to Jerome's monastery. Fall (September) 400 is less likely, when
Theophilus sent his synodical letter to the Palestine bishops assembled
in Jerusalem for the Dedication Festival of 14-21 September 4005 • The
Origenists were compelled to leave Palestine "a few months later"
(DM 408), say "October 400" (Kelly 260).
Regarding the authorship of the letter and the anathemas, the letter
seems well attested in the editorial tradition built upon by Schwartz, and
is found in separate collections, those of the letters of the Roman popes
and of the works of Jerome and of Rufinus 6 • The anathemas, in contrast,
while attested in traditional editions, are anonymous, and thus the title
here assigning them to Pseudo-Jerome. Schwartz linked the anathemas
to Jerome's attempt to test all pilgrims entering his monastery at Bethle-
hem, to avoid inc1uding any refugees from Nitria, described in Theophi-
lus' words as "the hypocrites who dig" secretly against the truth7 • Kelly,
however, writes that Theophilus' "immediate objective was to make life
impossible for the refugees from Nitria, while at the same time convinc-
ing the world that the actions he had taken against them wer~'entirely
justified. Jerome did everything in his power to ensure that none of them
was given hospitality, and even seems to have required visitors to Beth-
lehem to sign a list of anathemas condemning characteristically Origen-
istic propositions" (259). Kelly footnotes Schwartz for these comments
(259 n. 2) and cites Schwartz's footnote reference in ACQ 1.5:4 to a
traditional title given the anathemas, calling them "an abbreviation of the
4. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies, New York, Harper & Row, 1975.
5. Thphl. Al./Jer. Ep. 92. See KELLY, 259.
6. ACa 1.5:3 n. to line 1.
7. Jer. Ep. 89. SCHWAR1Z 1937, 172.
957
PSEUDO-illROME'S ANTI-ORIGENIST ANATHEMAS
catholic faith expounded by Saint Jerome (abbreviatio fidei catholicae
exposita a sancto Hieronymo) "8. But Kelly did not notice, or did not
heed Schwartz' s other editorial comments in the same note, namely,
"Who may have professed this faith is not known (quis hanc fid~m pro-
fessus sit, nescitur)" ; and, " ... so [the abbreviation] can be true, m order
that [the] profession of this faith maintained by Jerome may not be ~up~
posed to be articulated by him (... sic vera e~se potest, ut ha~,c fldel
professio Hieronymo praestita, non ab eo exposlta esse putetur).
I. SUMMARY OF CHARGES AGAINST ORIGEN FROM THE
'fHIRD TO THE SIXTH CENTURY
Charges against Origen are compiled by Methodius, Pamphilus/Euse-
bius (in rebuttal), an anonymous author (possibly Didymus) whose rebut-
tal is cited by Photius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Rufinus (in rebuttal), T~eo­
philus, Justinian (543), and the monks (especially Con~n) respons~ble
for the 15 anathemas associated with the Fifth Ecumemcal Councll at
Constantinople (553). . .
As for Jerome's charges, those cited in his controversy wlth Rufmus
have received the most scholarly attention. Jerome's polemic has its
start in his Latin translation of Epiphanius' Letter ta John of J erusalem
(394 C.E.) and go es on with various c1usterings, which may be summa-
rized as follows 9 :
1. repetition of Epiphanius' summary of eight charges
2. four charges
a. denial of bodily resurrection
b. preexistent condition of the soul
c. possible repentance of the devil
d. identification of Son and Spirit as seraphim
3. one charge: denial of bodily resurrection
4. four charges
a. subordination of Son and Spirit
b. faH of souls
c. denial of fleshly resurrection
d. salvation of the devil and aH sinners
5. four charges
a. subordination of Son and Spirit
b. origin, nature, faH, and rise of rational beings and so~ls
c. restoration of aH things, including the devil and aH smners
d. denial of bodily resurrection
8. Title continues: "in order that sorne who have lapsed into heresy rnight be corrected
(ut quidam in haeresim lapsi corrigerentur)."
9. DM 244-246, with details and notes.
 958 J.F.DECHOW
6. summaly of charges related to the four just mentioned
a. subordination of Son and Spirit
b. succession of worlds
c. tuming of angels into souls
d. preexistence of Christ's soul before incarnation
e. resurrection of bodies without identical members and with complete
dissolution in prospect
f. restitution of aIl things, incIuding the devil, demons, and souls of evil
people
7. summary of charges against Origen's On First Princip les, with quotations
Rufinus' clustering is in dialogue and debate with Jerome and may be
boiled down to about eight subjects:
1. God's incorporeality
2. God as invisible
3. Son and Spirit as seraphim
4. original condition, faU, rise, and restoration of rational creatures and souls
5. loss of God's image
6. body as prison and punishment
7. possible restitution and unity of aU things, incIuding the devil
8. resulTection of the flesh, with consideration of future bodily nature and of
resulTection as mode of restitution '-'
In the controversy between Jerome and Rufinus and in the various
renderings of charges against Origen from the third to the sixth century,
Epiphanius' charges are basic. They summarize the main thrust ofprevi-
ous anti-Origenist polemic and provide the foundational structure for
subsequent accusation. Epiphanius summarizes seven charges against
Origen in Panarion 64. They treat the following:
1. internaI relations of the Trinity
2. nature, faU, and rise of rational beings and souls, with the related issue of
the body as bond and punishment
3. Adam's aUeged loss of God's image
4. exegesis of "galTllents of skins" (Gen 3,21) as bodies
5. resurrection of the dead
6. allegoricai interpretation of scripture, especially of paradise andits waters
7. aUegorizing of the waters above the he avens and the waters under the eat1h
The charges are grounded largely in Methodius' polemic against
Origen and his followers. In his anti-Origenist writings, Methodius con-
centrates on the problem of the Father's relationship to the Son and to
the creation and, especially, the problem of the body/soul relation in the
human being as determining human nature in the resurrection. Epipha-
nius' charge 1, although alluding to Origen's On First Princip/es, seems
inspired by Methodius' On Created Things. Charges 2 through 7,
although ostensibly focusing on a direct quotation from Origen's Com-
mentary on Psalm 1, receive their rationale from Methodius' On the
PSEUDO-JEROME'S ANTI-ORIGENIST ANATHEMAS 959
Resurrection and are partly formulated in reflection of Epiphanius' own
study and distillation of the latter work.
A prior stage of dependence on Methodius is aIready evident in the
Ancoratus, where Epiphanius covers all seven of the charges he sum-
marizes in Panarion 64. Thus while he seems to have written bothAnco-
ratus and Panarion 64 with some of Origen's writings at hand, his under-
standing of Origen is shaped to a great extent by Methodius. Although
Epiphanius does develop some of the Methodian themes, e.g., charges 1,
4, and 5, the substance of Panal'ion 64 is basically Methodian. The
heresiologist' s primary contribution is in accentuating the acerbity of the
anti-Origenist polemic along Eustathian lines (DM 114-124) and in pro-
viding a popularized summary of anti-Origenist tenets. Epiphanius' com-
pilation is still of central importance in the systematization of corporeal
aspects of the earlier disputes and in the exemplification of basic
elements from which the later argumentations of Jerome, Rufinus, Theo-
philus, Justinian, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council develop.
The two pro-Origen apologies of the fourth century, however, have
minimal relationship to Epiphanius' treatment, and they are "woefully
weak" defenses in any case (DM 243; see 249-271, esp.lists on 249-250,
256-257). The first of these, Pamphilus '/Eusebius , Defense of Origen,
defends Origen against the assertion that he taught:
1. Sonship by creation or adoption;
2. Sonship by emanation (prolatio), like the Valentinians;
3. the pure humanity of Christ, like Artemas and Paul of Samosata;
4. the apparent humanity of Christ, in relation to the allegorizing of scripture;
5. the existence of two Christs, from failure to grasp the divinefhuman union;
6. the denial of the literaI and corporeal histories of the saints in scripture;
7. the denial of the resurrection and of eternal punishment for sinners;
8. erroneous opinions about the condition and disposition of the soul;
9. the doctrine of reincarnation (metensômatôsis), i.e., the transmigration of
souls (transmutatio animarum), specifically, their repeated embodiment
(incorporation) or reembodiment (transcorporation).
The anonymous apologist says Origen was unfairly charged with
teaching the following:
1. Not to pray to the Son.
2. He [the Son] is not absolutely (haplôs) good (agathon).
3. [He (The Son)] does not know the Father as he [the Father] knows him-
self.
4. Rational (logikas) natures (physeis) enter the bodies (sômata) of [the]
ilTational (alogôn; = animaIs).
5. Transcorporation (metensômatôsin) takes place (einai).
6. The Savior's soul was Adam's.
7. There is no eternal punishment (kolasis).
8. [There is] no resurrection of flesh (sa/·kos).
 960 J.F.DECHOW
9. Magic ris] not an evil.
10. A~trology (astronomia) ris] causative (poiëtikë) of events (ton prattome-
non).
11. T~e Only-begotten (ho monogenës) cornes to an end (pal/etai) of [his]
reign (tës basileias).
12. ~he ~oly (hagioi) [angels] ca~e into the world (kosmon) by a faU (katap-
toseos), but not for [the] servIce (therapeian) of others.
13. The Father is invisible (aorafos) to the Son.
14. The ~herubim are the Son's thoughts (epinoiai).
15. !he I~age (eik?n) of <;rod, with respect to (os pros) that One of whom it
IS ~n I~ag~ (e/kon), Silice (katho) rit is] an image (eikOn), is not truth
(aletheta) [Itself].
II. EGYPTIAN AND IMPERIAL DEVELOPMENTS AROUND 400 C.E. AS
CONTEXT FOR THE PSEUDO-JEROME ANATHEMAS
Jerusalem Origenist controversy in 393-396 C.E. had pitted Epiphanius
and Jerome .against Bisho~ John of Jerusalem and Rufinus (DM 397-401).
But ?OW BIShop Theophilus of Alexandria appeared on the scene. He
provlded the political dout necessary to crush Origenism atthe end of
the century. When he turned against the Nitrian monks in 399-400
~onastic Orig~nism w~s officially cut off at the roots. Epiphanius go~
~volve~, tO?, ~ Egyptlan and Constantinopolitan church politics in a
fmal antl-On?emst effo~ before his death in 403. In the wake of pressure
from ~heop~us and Eplphanius, open Origenism was severely curtailed
as a lIve optIOn for the expression of orthodox Christian faith and in
many quarters was thoroughly discreditedlO.
The la~e-fourth-century polarization of Origenist and anti-Origenist
concerns IS suggested by Jerome's posture during the middle years of the
d~cade af~er 380. On the one hand, Jerome could listen to the Origenist
Dldymus m Alexandria at this time ll and consider Origen's name "highly
esteemed in the world"I2. But on the other hand, Jerome could refer in
38~ to "~he rabid hounds who pursue" Origen 13 • That Jerome co~sidered
Epiphanms one of them is not out of the question regardless of the
f~endly relations. be~ween the two men. It may be ~ssumed, then, that
this sort of ecdeslastlcal and monastic situation prevailed up t0399-400.
Alt~ough the ~mbivalency was heightened by efforts such as Epiphanius'
ag~mst. John m 393-396, the observation is still apt, particularly for
Ongemsm's monastic center at Nitria, that "until the storm was on the
10. For further detail and pIimary sources, see DM 402-408
11. Ruf. Apol. ~.12 (pL 21:594C). See F. CAVALLERA, Sai;U Jérôme: Sa vie et son
Œuvre, 2 vols., Pans, 1922, 2: 127-130.
12. Jer. Ruf 1.22 (pL 23:435A).
13. Ep. 33.4.
PSEUDO-JEROME'S ANTI-ORlGENIST ANATHEMAS 961
point of breaking [in 400], the so-called Origenists were regarded with
the deepest veneration and respect by the body of the monks"I4.
Theophilus' involvement in the Origenist problem intensified in 396
with his attempt to influence the outcome of the Jerusalem controversy
in process since 393. Whether or not John wrote him after Epiphanius'
letter in 394, a dear impression remains of the sympathy expected from
him by the Jerusalem see. Theophilus sent the Origenist Isidore to Jeru-
salem with a letter to John and tried to discredit Epiphanius before Pope
Siricius of Rome (served December 384 to November 399). Isidore
returned to Alexandria with John's Defense as if it were a useful tool for
confuting anti-Origenists. In these events Theophilus appears as an
Origenist sympathizer, and Isidore is his deputy. The relations between
the two are still friendly in 398, when Theophilus uses Isidore as his
envoy to Rome and also proposes him for bishop of Constantinople, the
position that finally went to John Chrysostom. "Up to 398, then," Evelyn
White says, "Theophilus was as much an Origenist as Isidore, or at least
found nothing reprehensible in the Origenism of the latter" (1932, 130).
Theophilus maintains this posture into 399.
In the course of the year 399, pressure from various quarters caused
Theophilus to adopt a different approach to the Origenist controversy. He
was still the old Theophilus when he wrote his paschalletter of 399 and
devoted considerable attention to the subject of God's incorporeality and
the refutation of the Anthropomorphite heresy. The letter is no longer
extant, but Cassian, who was at Scetis when it arrived there, tells about
the great furor it caused among the simple monks over the interpretation
of God's image in the human being according to Genesis 1,26 15 • The
simple monks, who greatly outnumbered the Origenists, stormed to
Alexandria, rioted against the bishop, and threatened his life. Theophilus
recanted, told the monks, "In seeing you, l behold the face of God," and
renounced the works of Origenl6 • A Coptic document is still extant that,
in a more docile manner, exemplifies the type of pressure brought against
the patriarch by the simple mon1es after his Origenist paschal letter l7 •
Also in this year occurred the break that had been in the offing between
Theophilus and Isidore. Criticized for his Origenism already by Jerome
in 396, Isidore was excommunicated in a series of grotesque encounters
14. H. G. Evelyn WHITE, The Monasteries of the Wddi'n NatrlÎn, 2: The Histo/y of the
MOllasteries of Nitria and of Scetis, ed. W. lIANSER, New York, 1932, repr. 1973, p. 128
(on the basis of Soc. H.e. 6.7).
15. Coll. 10.2-3.
16. Soc. H.e. 6.7; Soz. H.e. 8.11.3-5.
17. E. DRlOTON, La discussion d'ull moine anthropomO/phite audien avec la patriarche
Théophile d'Alexandrie en l'année 399, in ROC 20 (1915-1917) 92-100, 113-128, esp.
118-122.
962 J.F.DECHOW
with his onetime friend Theophilus. In a letter to Theophilus, Jerome
contributes to the break by subtly chiding the archbishop for continuing
to be lenient toward the Origenists.
With the actions against Isidore, Theophilus also tumed against the
Origenist cause. Late in 399 or early in 400, suppOlted by neighboring
bishops, he ordered "sorne of the principal monks, the heads of the mon-
asteries, to be expelled from the mount [Nitria] and theinner desert
[Cellia]"lS. Probably three of the Tall brothers, Ammonius, Eusebius, and
Euthymius, were included, for Ammonius is mentioned by Palladius
among those who came to Alexandria with theu' supporters to protest the
proceedings against Isidore and themselves. Rioting and chaos ensued.
Either during or after these occunences, but apparently still early in 400,
Theophilus called one or more synods in Alexandria that condernned the
reading and possession of Origen's books. The process of condernnation
was next extended in its official enactment to the ascetic communities
themselves and transplanted to Nitria. There another synod, attended by
local bishops and by monastic leaders "from aImost aIl Egypt"19, con-
dernned the three Tall brothers without a defense, as weIl as the reading of
Origen's books. Palladius says Theophilus "was afraid to pass sentence on
the whole body [of monks] at once,,20. This was the synod whose repercus-
sions were felt the strongest throughout Egyptian monasticism.
Then Theophilus urged appeal to the secular authority in order to oust
the Origenists from Nitria, "concocting the terms of the trumped-up
charge (sykophantias) himself"21. Presumably the decree from Emperors
Arcadius and Honorius condemning Origen's books and theirreaders was
issued subsequently22, for if it had aIready been in existence, as Evelyn
White believed (1932, 140), Theophilus would most likely have been
able to specify a citation of it. About the same time as the decree (prob-
ably spring of 400) and possibly as part of the pressure exerted to secure
it, Theophilus requested SUppOlt from Pope Anastasius 1 of Rome (served
27 November 399 to 401)23, who likewise passed condemnation on
Origen's writings and urged others to do the same24 . Having left Nitria
18. Pail. V. CIl/yS. 6.
19. Thphl. Al./Jer. Ep. 92.1.4 (CUFr 4: 150.3).
20. V. Chl)'s. 7.
21. Pail. V. CIl/yS. 7.
22. Anast. l Ep.Veneriumfr. (in his Ep. Joan. H. 5; PL 21:63IA; ACa 1.5:4.3-5,
10-13; the letter here introducing the anathemas); Jer. Ru! 1.12, 3.18 (PL 23:425B,
492A); Sulp. Sev. Dial. 1.7. Similarly in 398 the emperors had fOl'bidden the reading of
Montanist and Eunomian books and ordered their destruction (Cod. Thds. 16.5.34.)
23. Anast. IIJer. Ep. 95.2.
24. Anast. IIJer. Ep. 95.2-3.
PSEUDO-JEROME'S ANTI-ORIGENIST ANATHEMAS 963
to consolidate his attack by aid of the secular arm, Theophilus now
retumed almed with imperial authority, bumed the Origenists' cells and
books at Cellia, especially Ammonius' library, and forced them to leave
the countly. About 300 monks left together, and they and others of their
associates were scattered in aIl directions. Sulpicius Severus says that
certain edicts forbade them from settling in any single place25 , possibly
referring to the emperors' decree and influencing the anathemas under
consideration here.
The leaders of the fleeing monks, according to Palladius26 , were
Isidore, the Tan brothers, Cronius, the eIder and the younger Hierax, and
the elder and the younger Isaac. Cassian seems to have been among them.
He may have been among the pilgrirns visiting Egypt whom Theophilus
mentions in 400. Palladius may have been in the exiled group too. He
supposedly left Egypt about 400. They wandered to Jerusalem, and 80
went on to Scythopolis. A few months later about 50 of them, including
Isidore and the Tan brothers with the other leaders, went on to Constan-
tinople and appealed to John Chrysostom and the imperial authority for
adjudication of their case.
III. THE PSEUDO-JERoME ANATHEMAS
(LATIN/ENGLISH; ACQ 1.5 PAGE 4 LINE 23 TO PAGE 5 LINE 26)
Propter venerationem sanctomm locomm Hierosolymam et Bethleem venimus
et intelleximus plurimos fratres in nobis scandalizari, eo quod audierint nos multa
haeretica et quae contra fidem ecclesiae veniunt, profiteri.
To venerate [the] holy places at Jemsalem and Bethlehem we came, and we
found that many brothers among us were scandalized because they may have
heard that we professed many things [that are] heretical and that go against [the]
faith of [the] church.
itaque deo praesente testamur quae infra scripta sunt, nos ex parte sensisse per
euorem et praesenti tempore condemnare, alla autem in quibus falso infamamur, nec
dixisse nec dicere et e contrario quae in aliis suspicamur, posuisse atque damnasse.
So in the presence of God we testify neither to have said nor to say what is
written below - [and] we for [our] pmi have perceived [the] euor and at [the]
present time condemn yet other things about which we are falsely defa.med - and
on [the] contraI)' to have put away and condemned what we suspect l i others.
1. Qui dicunt diabolo et daemonibus et impiis, hoc est gentilibus Iudaeis
Samaritanis omnibus que haereticis, exceptis ChristiatIis qui rectam fidem sequ-
untur et sunt peccatores, poenas eomm non esse perpetuas, anathema sint.
25. Dial. 1.7. See also DM 406 n. 97 (= n. 22 above).
26. V. Chrys. 7, 17.
964 J.F.DECHOW
1. Those who say [that] for [the] devil and demons and [the] impious, i.e., Gen-
tiles, Jews, Samaritans and ail heretics-Christians excepted who foIlow [the] correct
faith and are sinners-their punishments are not perpetuaI, let them be anathema.
2. Qui dicunt ,quemuis sanctum virum et profetalem et apostolicum sine dei
auxilio posse esse perfectum, anathema sint.
2. Those who say [that] any holy and prophetie and apostolic man can be
perfect without [the] help of God, let them be anathema.
3. Qui dicunt Christum filium dei, deum verbum, in hominem esse mutatum
ita ut deus verbum esse desierit, aut hominem purum natum ex Maria secundum
Paulum Samosatenum et Fotinum et merito atque virtutibus in dei vocabulum
profecisse, anathema sint.
3. Thosewho say [that] Christ [the] Son of God, [the] Word of God, was
changed into man so that God has abandoned [him] as Word, or [that as] pure
man born of Mary according to Paul of Samosata and Fotinus, with merit too
and also virtues, progressed into designation [as] God, let them be anathema.
4. Qui dicunt illud quod scribtum est: "de die autem et hora nesciunt (page
5) neque angeli neque filius" (Mc. 3:32), iuxta blasfemiam Arrianorum et non
propter dil'pensationem carnis adsumptae, anathema sint.
4. Those who say that what is written, "But of [that] day and hour neither
angels nor [the] Son knows" (Mc. 3 :32), like [the] blasphemy of Arians and not
on account of flesh assumed, let them be anathema.
5. Qui dicunt patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, hoc est sanctam trinitatem
diversae inter se esse substantiae et non unius potestatis atque naturae, anathema
sint.
5. Those who say Father and Son and Roly Spirit, i.e., [the] Roly Trinity, is
of different substance among themselves and not of one power and nature, let
them be anathema.
6. Qui 'dieunt quolibet modo et quolibet sensu filium patrem non vidére, anath-
ema sint.
6. Those who say that in whatever manner and sense [he] pleases, [the] Son
do es not.see [the] Father, let them be anathema.
7. Qui 'dicunt animas nostras ex angelorum fastigio in haec corpora corruisse
propter quaedam antiqua peccata et in isto mundo agere paenitentiam, adsu-
mentes illa testimonia: priusquam humiliarer, "ego peccavi" (Ps. 118:67 LXX)
et "educ de carcere animam meam" (ps. 141:8 LXX) et cetera his similia, anath-
ema sint.
7. Those who say our souls have fallen from the rank of angels into these
bodies on account of certain old sins and in that universe underwent penitence,
accepting those testimonies, "Before 1 was humbled, 1 sinned" (Ps. 118:67
LXX), and "Lead my soul out of prison" (ps. 141:8 LXX), and other similar
things, let them be anathema.
PSEUDO-JEROME'S ANTI-ORIGENIST ANATHEMAS 965
8. Qui dieunt dominum et salvatorem nostrum non in nostra venisse, sed
diversae sublimiorisque fuisse substantiae sive caelestis et non totum sumpsisse
quod de Maria est, vel animam hominis non habuisse vel mentem absque pec-
cato, anathema sint.
8. Those who say our Lord and Savior has not come into our [existence], but
was of different and more exalted substance, or if of heavenly [substance], has
also not completely assumed what is from Mary, or did not have [the] soul or
mind of man, and [was] from sin, let them be anathema.
9. Qui dieunt post multa saecula et tempora quae non possumus humana
cogitatione conprehendere, restitutionem fieri omnium in antiquum statum et
univers a ad sua redire principia, anathema sint.
9. Those who say that after many ages and times, which we could not
undertand by human thought, restoration is to be made of all things into an
ancient state, and universes retum to their own beginnings, let them be anathema.
10. Qui dicunt post resurrectionem non eadem habere nos corpora sed aeria
quaedam et spiritalia et non eiusdem naturae cuius in sepulcro conditi sumus,
licet incorruptae atque immortalis, anathema sint.
10. Those who say [that] after resurrection we do not have [the] same bodies
but certain aerial and spiritual [ones], and not of [the] same nature of which we
are constituted in [the] grave, although unconupted and immortal, let them be
anathema.
Il. Qui dicunt post resurrectionis finem et post multa tempora aboliri corpora
et reverti in usum, ut sine corporibus tantum animae simus, quod prius fuimus,
anathema sint.
11. Those who say [that] after [the] end of resurrection and after many times
bodies are abolished and revert in usage, so that without bodies we are merely
souls as weforrnerly were, let them be anathema.
12. Qui dicunt animas prius fuisse quam natae sunt, et non cum corpora secun-
dum exemplum primi hominis a deo cottidie fieri, anathema sint.
12. Those who say that souls were prior than [when] they were born, and were
not made daily by God according to [the] example of [the] first human, let them
be anathema.
Jon F.
21 Vista Verde Way DECHOW
Portola Valley, CA 94028
D.S.A.
jfdechow@sbcgloba1.net
INDICES
 SACRASCRIPTURA

A. VETOS TESTAMENTUM

GenesÎs 152 153 161 386 525 4,8 411'

804810 4,18 41ft.
1 414 5 33'
1,1-5,1 409 5,1 33'169
1,1-2 410 414 5,3-49,9 160
1,1 195409 5,3-5 414
1,2-6 409 5,3 161
1,2 20414 6 110112113
1,3 822 6,2 15804826
1,6 822 8,1 761
1,9 411 9,6 753
1,11 4445411 412 9,24 177
1,14-18 415 9,25 177
1,14 411 412415 11 814
1,16 411 11,7 814825
1,26-27 185412413 12,1-2 766
1,26 35 183 188 195 206 12,1 737
412-414 525 752 754 15,15 366368
756 757 952 961 16,1-2 414
1,27 63 184 185 195 386 17 410
1,28 412 17,3-6 410
2 70 18,11 368
2,1-2 800 25,8 366-368
2,2 797 25,22-26 553
2,4 411 28,12 709
2,7 195 206410 756 758 32,31 547
950 35,29 368
2,8-15 539 37,2 593
2,8-14 66 37,36 170173
2,8 63-73 39,1 170
2,24 386462737 41,45 170172 173
3 111 115 41,50 170172
3,7-8 785 46,20 170172
3,12 415 49,9 161
3,16 67737 49,10 35804
3,21 195415417674785
912958 Exodus 43 143 150 152 161
3,22 132 162238
3,23 672 674 3,2 298
3,24 539 3,6 285298
4,2 414 3,14 117118206
 970 SACRASCRIPTURA SACRA SCRIPTURA 971

8,19 41 16,33 902 15,11 514 2,3 494495

9,33 35 22,4 14 19,10 453 2,4 340494495
10,2 762 23,19 379380 19,18 453 2,5 23 496 498 499
11,2 236 24,17 804 2,6 493498
12,1-6 598 25,8-12 556 Il Regum (IV Regum) 2,7-8 505
12,35 236 27 214 4,4 831832 2,7 493 501 503 505
12,37-38 936 21,33 831 832 2,8 493505 811 812
15,7 760 Deuteronomium 2,9 495498
19,4 769 2030152817 1 Paralipomenon 2,10 495
20,3 285 1,31 379-383 23,1 368 2,11 496
20,5 810827 4,16-17 30 2,12 498
21,22-23 925 4,19 816824 Il Paralipomenon 5,11 760
22,27 826 4,24 202207 36 6,2 497760
24,12 210 8,5 379-383 6,7-10 738
29,45 20 9,3 20719,15 520 Tobit 8 484
31,3 238 22,23-24 255 12,7 450814 8,3LXX 359-362 364 373 378
31,6 238 22,24 514 9 134136
33,13 710711 23,14 21 lob 312529785 9,14 134
33,20-23 757 24,1 395399 3,8 115 10,4 757
36,1 238 27,26 132 7,1 119 14,1 121
36,2 238 30,12-14 295 8,8-9 948 15,11 758
36,8 238 30,15 115 10,3 416 16,6 757
32,8-9 811 812 814 818 826 10,8 758 16,7-8 758
Leviticus 43 143 152521-523 827 10,17 760 16,8 414756
2 335 32,8 815817827 14,4-5 202514 19,8 299300
6,8-13 729 32,9 814818 827 15,25 667 20 786
23,39-43 800 19,25-26 416 20,8 762
24,14 514 losue 26,7 508 21 28
26,4 522 9,27 205 40-41 114 21,3 788
26,12 21 47 13,1-2 217 40,8 366 21(22,13-15) 28
26,21 521-523 13,1 368 40,11 29 21,19 785
26,23-24 521-523 40,14 550 21,28-30 651
26,24 523533538 ludices 40,19 115 28,5 437
26,27-28 522523 6,37-40 14 40,25 882 28,30 651
41,34LXX 881 29 492
Numeri 66152 1 Samuelis (1 Regum) 42,17 368 30 492
2 212 1 Sam 28 911 30,6 759
5,18-19 172 Psalmi 30,16 784
5,18 171 173 Il Samuelis (II Regum) 152 153 162 163475- 31 23
11,4-6 634 24,1 761 489 32,6 297304
11,10 634 1-50 492 32,17 299300
11,16 368 1 Regum (III Regum) 1-25(26) 28 149500602 33 783
11,18-20 634 36514 1 130 528 894 895 33,16 758
11,19-20 634 3,16-28 29 1,5 914916 35(36),10 47860939
12,8 710 11,26 438 2 23 130491-506 36,4 64
16 902 12,16 440 2,1-4 493 36,7 665
16,30 902 12,20 438 2,1 494 36,13 762
16,32 902 12,28 242438 2,2 120 342 494 495 36,23 320
972 SACRA SCRIPTURA SACRA SCRIPTURA 973

36,25LXX 365366370371 100[101],8 30 1,4 317705706 Sapientia 525

36,35 437 102,9 l31 1,5 309567 1,13-14 524
37,11 213 103,24 292 1,6 372 706 1,13 525
38,12 485 109,1 667 1,7 191 1,14 525
43,24 761 109,3 502 5q3 505 758 1,8 706 2,24 112524
44 80 1l3,25 534 1,9 300 4,9 366
44,2 285 289 297 302 303 115,4 213 1,10 705 7,25 465
758 118(119) 30487731 1,11 374 7,26 465468
44,11-12 737 118,22 363 1,15 570 10,1-4 110
44,12 709-711 118,28 772 2,1 706709 12,10 521
45 37 118,67Lxx 964 2,2 706707
45(46),1-3 601 122 572 2,3 706
EccIesiasticus
45,4LXX 770 126,1 131 2,5 190
14,16 903
45(46),5 543 l34 27 2,9 705
43,4 465
47 37 134,7 27 2,1O-l3 706
43,20 881
47, 1LXX 770 l36 535 2,14 706
47,2LXX 770 l36,4 535 2,15 312 703 705 706
47,8LXX 770 l36,8-9 740 5,6 191 Isaias 79 152 153 516 526
51-100 892 l39,3 772 5,14 311-313 326 651677 733
51-76 891-893905 l39,14 759 6-8 310 1 528529
51,7 905 140 27 6,1-8,14 311 1,6-7 526-528530
54(MT) 55 773 777 896-905 140,2 27 6,1 311 2,1 469
54,2-6 898 141,8Lxx 964 6,5 313 318 326 4 528529691
54,3-4 899 6,8 311 4,1 690-692
54,3 899 Proverbia 180312 6,9 311323-326 4,4 527529
54,4-6 773897 1,6 410 6,10 311 313 326 4,22 547
54,4 897-899 2,3 49 7,2-4 313 318 320326 6 693695
54,5 904 4,26 l31 7,2 313319326 6,1-7 690691
54,7 768897 8,22 290292293 7,3-4 326 6,1 690-692
54,8 775776 8,25 505 7,~ 320326 6,2-7 690
54,10-12 774 9,9 375 7,5 313 316 318 327 6,2 692
54,12-14 774 17,27 199 7,6 313 327 6,3 569570699
54,16 900-905 19,11 401 7,8 313 327 6,5-6 690692
54,24 898 19,14 403 7,9 313327 6,5 692
57 36 23,5 769 7,12-13 313 328 6,8-11 694
57,4 36 30,15 598 8,1-2 314328 6,8-10 690691
61,13 31 31,4 198 199 8,1 314318328 6,8 676691
73,1 131 760 8,3 314328 6,9-10 694
77,1-78,3 492 EccIesiastes 107152180312326 8,4 314328 6,10 691
80 484 785 8,5 325 7 691
81,7 l32 7,8 785 8,6 314317329 7,1-9 437-444
83 484 12,12 107 8,8-11 329 7,1 438441
83,4-150,6 492 8,8 314329 7,2LXX 437443
86,3LXX 770 Canticum Canticorum 8,9-10 314329 7,6 438444
87,17 761 179180307-329 8,11-12 329 7,9 438443444
89-99 484 1,1-2,15 307308 8,12-l3 314325 329 7,10-16 252
90,4 413 414 1,1 711 8,12 315 7,11-15 690
100 30 1,2 709-711 8,14 324 7,11 691
 SACRASCRIPTURA 975
974 SACRASCRIPTURA

379 44 539540543
7,14 251-257691 692 696 1,4-10 846848 18,7
370 18,10 379514 44,1-3 540
847 1,5-7
370513 851 624 47 540542543
7,15 696 1,5 18,11
1,6-7 851 20,7 46 47,1-12 542
7,16 847
1,6 370 20,8 131 47,12 651
8 691
8,5-8 441 1,7 366371 23,18 295
8,18-20 690696 1,10 371508510 24,1-3 210 Daniel 733
8,18 375-378 382 564 691 1,14 881 33-36 746 7,13 286
9,5-6 650 1,20 523 45,4-5 210 9 21
9,5 297298 2 528 10,12 495
10 691 2,21 508525 Lamentationes 75 733 10,20 495
10,10-13 690696 2,22 526527 1,1-22 741 13 21
10,10 691 3 519 1,4 187 188
10,13 691 3,1-4 736 1,7 744 Oseas 143738743
11,1-3 692 3,2 747 1,19 746 1,1 469
11,1 531 3,6-11 618 3,31 131 2,4-9 736
11,6-8 651 3,6-8 620645 4,22 747
14 113 114 3,6 508 Amos
14,12 110219 3,8-10 621 645 ' Baruch 532535733 5,18 219
30,15 738 3,8 620645 3 536
30,19-20 738 3,9 508 3,9-15 533 Michaeas
33,16 262 3,10-11 621 3,9-13 532536 2,7-8 288
35 651 3,22 517 3,10 533534538 5,1-2 251 258-263 265
35,10 301 4,4 514 3,12 534 5,1 262
40,10 31 4,5 508 3,14 534538 5,2 263264
40,31 769 5,3 509 3,15 534535
41,2 690-692 5,4 508 3,19 534 Habacuc 569
42,1 554 5,18 521522533 3,32-38 534 3,2LXX Lat. 569570
43,2 202 5,19 214531-534536538 3,36-38 285295
43,18-19 391 6,13 746 Haggaeus 851
44,6 285 10,14 132 Ezechiel 733 737 738 743
45,11-13 286 11 516 1 539 Zacharias 851
45,13 286770 11,6-9 508 13-17 539 847
3,1-9
45,14-15 286 287 289 295 11,19 516 16,23-26 736 852
3,1-5
45,14 286 11,20-23 523 16,26 748 847
3,1-2
48,16 565 571 575 576 11,20 524 18,4 120901 847
3,2-5
49,2LXX 190 13,16-17 219 22,2 881 199758
743746 3,2LXX
53 516 13,16 114208219 23,23 847 848 850-852
539 3,6-7
53,7 516 14,1 469 26 852
15,10 511 539 3,8
53,9 549 28-29 568570
15,15-16 898 113 495 4,3
55 651 28 133413414756
15,19 653 219 4,10
58,10 340341 28,11-19 760
16,9LXX 50 113205 7,12
60 651 28,12
62,5 709-711 16,16 210 28,13 113 205 539
16,18 510 217 Malachias
66,1 414 28,19
1,2-3 553
17,13 53451
540543 3,1 300552681
leremias 79 309 310 516 522 18 207623 29
18,3-4 509 651 3,20 337
733 734738 743 37,1-14
 SACRASCRIPTURA
977
976 SACRA SCRlPTURA

3,16 202531
B. 22,13 215
NOVUM ThSTAMENTUM
3,22 503
22,23-33 385
4,4 731
Evangelium secundum Matthaeum 13,22 708 23,37-40 133
4,16-27 727
179 180 13,31-32 573 24,12 881
6,21 131
2,1-12 264 13,43 206212 24,16 739
6,25 131 132
2,4 263 13,44-52 209 25,27 693
7,28 556
2,6 261-263 14,25 597 25,30 215
9,14 555
2,23 253254258 16,6 335 25,34 210
9,46-48 35910,13 497
3,2 209 16,12 335 25,41 202
202216 10,16 590
4,7 209 16,18 335365375 25,46 110
180 10,18
4,16 340341 16,21 338 26,1-3 566
26,3-5 180 11,2
5,1 210 16,27 832 186
26,3 180 11,9
5,3 210 213 17,1-8 911 11,24 211
5,4 737 17,1 210 26,4 351
13,18-19 573
5,5 205213 17,2-3 909 26,29 207
13,21 572 573
5,6 737 17,2 336337 26,39 636879
13,25 831832
5,7 737 17,11 650 26,41 21 775
13,28 215
5,10 210 17,22-23 338 26,48 351
14,26 737
5,14 47 17,22 338339 26,50 351
16,9 532
5,32 395 17,23 340 26,55 351
16,12 532533538
6 31 18,1-5 359362 26,57 351
16,19-31 911
6,4 31 18,1-4 563569-571 577 26,59-63 108
108 16,19 2988
6,6 31 18,2-5 361363364 27,12-14 210-212
362363 17,21
6,10 210 566 18,2 564 27,12 359
883 18,15-17
6,13 119 18,6 363 28,19 566
18,17
6,22 49 18,10 60 361-363 370 373 19,17-19 206
6,24 532 374947 Evangelium secundum Marcum
19,20 693
6,28-30 707 18,17 365 179180
19,23 693
7,6 103 18,19 133 142337341403 3,32 964
20,36 840
7,7 186 18,23-34 333 4,30-32 573
21,1-4 573
7,21 210 362 18,23 104333 9,33-37 359
21,20 523524
8,12 215 19,1-9 385 10,13-16 359
22,40 775
8,14-15 134 19,8 392 12,41-44 573
22,46 775
8,28 884 19,9 400 14,38 775
23,10 362363
9,12 655 19,13-15 359 15,3 362363
23,12 442
10,5 440 19,13 377 15,17 775
23,42-43 204
10,32 362 19,14-15 373 24,27 191 727
11,4-5 35 19,14 373 Evangelium secundum Lucam
99179180523 24,31 191
11,7-14 552 19,26 879 24,32 189-191
11,10 681 19,28 205 1,6 832
11,11 375947 19,29 769 1,15 678
Evangelium secundum Ioannem
11,14 678679 20,1-16 104 1,26-27 678 152 153 179 180425
11,21 497 20,17-19 134 1,41 943
426429
11,25-26 364 21,12-16 360 1,44 678943
1,1-18 284 285 288 289 291
11,25 364 21,14 362 1,55 651
292304
11,27 40297298 21,15 361-363 1,70 651
1,1-7 409419
Il,29 121 21,16 361-364 1,72-73 651
1,1-3 79289290
12,50 571 21,24-27 674 2,7 264265
366 370 374 847 1,1-2 292
13,11 210 21,42 361363 2,52
 978 SACRASCRIPTURA SACRA SCRIPTURA 979
1,1 40 281 287 290 292 9,4 208 Epistula ad Romanos 11 789
293296409419469 9,39 24 333 336 337 339 446 11,1 453
862-864870871 10,3 186244 450 11,2 453
1,2 300 10,8 296 1,9 456 11,3-4 453454
1,3 20304 10,30 181462 1,18 23869 11,5-6 453
1,4 291628 11,25 120 1,20 218 11,13-14 456
1,6 552672 678 11,39-57 409 1,24 767 Il,22 199
1,9 4748 183951 12,31 120882 2,9 215 11,25 557 818
1,12 502 12,39-41 694 2,10 215 11,30-34 788
1,14 296 706 707 709 13 628 2,20 362 11,36 39
1,19-29 409674 13,2-33 409 3,10-11 449 12,1 456
1,21 679 13,2 590 3,22-23 41 12,3 456
1,23 300 13,3 133 136667 4,9 766 12,11 363
1,26 84354 13,8 632 4,17 118 13,1-2 3233
1,27 441 553 13,21 132136 4,22 766 13,12-13 336
1,29 353541 13,26 590
1,33 5,4-5 657 13,12 336
676677 13,27 590 337
1,36 5,8-9 499 13,13
355 14,6 115298939 336
5,18-19 667 14,2
2,11 159 14,9 361363462 5,18 665 15,2 456
2,12-25 409 14,16 568 6,4 340341 15,15-16 454
2,14-16 348 14,28 473 6,5 340341 15,16 454
2,21 347 15,1 183 6,6 333 16,18 438444
3,13 286 15,22 295296
4,13-45 6,12 337
409 17 655 Ad Corinthios 1
4,13-14 6,22 657
543 17,3 469 136 333 339 342 374
4,13 6,23 669
628645 17,24 759 378525737
4,14 7,2 394
628645 19,1 352 30
4,2lff 7,3 393397 1,2
950 19,2 775
4,23 7,9 296 1,20 132
183 19,33-34 542 846
4,34 7,14-25 451 1,24
541 544555 557 7,14-24 451 1,27 591
4,36 31 Actus Apostolorum 7,14 30452 1,30 48183
4,45 348350 1,6 652 7,22 366 2,2 338
4,46 557 2,19-20 650 7,24 452 2,6-8 494
5,19 468 3,20-21 651657 7,25 452 2,8 120342495
5,22 296 3,20 650653 8,3-4 288 2,13 529893
5,24-30 865 3,21 650-654 8,3 333 3,1-3 427
5,30 865 3,24 651 8,11 286337 3,1-2 376
6,32 183 3,25 651 8,13 337 3,1 359 373 375-378
6,44 737 4,25-27 494 8,20 552 3,2 336 364 374-376
7,37-38 543 4,32 181 462 8,32 338-340 378
8,12 465 8,32 516 9-11 818 3,12-15 202
8,19-24 409 13,10 200 9,11-13 683 3,15 202
8,20 346351 13,18 381 9,14 684 5 335
8,37-53 409 13,32-33 503 9,18-20 833 5,9-10 737743
8,42 633 15,20 737 10-11 454 6,9-10 198211
8,44 121200217 15,29 737 10,6-8 295 6,10 198 199202
8,46 549 28,25-27 694 10,10 341 6,16-17 519
8,58 547 28,25-26 694 10,12 41 6,17 462
 980 SACRA SCRIPTURA SACRASCRIPTURA 981

6,18 743744 748 15,49 210 413 414 525 4,30 18 6,18 366
6,19-20 744 15,52 23336 5,25 402 6,20 120437443
7,1-5 393 15,54-55 216 6,11 373
7,1-2 393 15,55-56 655 6,12 338 634 737 766 Ad Timotheum II
7,3 393 6,15 320 2,12 205
7,5 403 Ad Corinthios II 6,16 207 2,20f 833
7,6 393 3,6 110 4,7-8 766
7,7 402 3,18 184 Ad Philippenses
7,31 885887 4,4 121468 335 Ad Hebraeos 158 159 332 339
7,39 393394 4,10 775 2,5-8 182183 1,3 298 465 757 883
8,3 737 4,18 218 2,6-7 183335 2,9 663664
9,22 452 5,4 336912 2,6 334 2,13 375382
9,24 766 5,10 831832 2,7 334706709 2,14 120339340
9,27 447 5,21 333 2,10 665 3,5-6 847
10,4 335 6,16 20 2,20 216 3,14 245
10,13 633 634 10,5 437443 3,11 447 4,12 769
10,20-22 111 11,3 111 3,14 766 4,15 549786
11,3 737 11,6 363 3,15 447 5,12 375-378
11,7 414 11,14 113114121 3,19 532 5,13-14 336
12,8 343 11,29 342 3,21 334335341 7,19 707
12,12 336 12,2-4 705 8,2 183
12,28 784 12,2 64375426 Ad Colossenses 9-10 664
12,31 393 12,4 64375 1,15 183 184 298 303 414 9,5 199
13,7 317 13,4 352 468 469 547 553 683 9,12 664
13,9-12 211377 757 9,24 183
13,9 375376450 Ad Galatas 152 153 334 337 374 1,18 915 9,26 662669
13,10 706707709 3,6 766 1,19 215 10,1 183
13,11 360 366 367 369 370 3,10 132 2,3 209 10,26-27 202
376377 4,1-3 360 2,8 46 12,11 497
13,12 375450 4,1 373 2,9 846 12,18-23 212
14,7-8 43 4,2 373374 2,15 339 12,22-23 205213
14,7 43 4,19 414 3,9 767 12,29 202207
15 218 4,26 205 3,10 414
15,10 447 5,17 334337 Epistula lacobi
15,20-28 19 6,7 211 Ad Thessalonicenses 1 2,23 766
15,22 122667 6,16 440 2,7 377 378
15,23-24 218 2,16 497498 Epistula Petri 1
15,24-28 649 650 651 657 667 Ad Ephesios 386 2,2 364366370
15,24-26 654667 1,1 20 Ad Thessalonicenses II 3,19-21 652
15,24 206216 1,7-9 42 2,1-3 100 3,21 529
15,25-28 665 1,8 42 2,3 679 4,11 693
15,25-27 205 2,7 662669 2,11-12 679
15,25 133 2,14-15 669 Epistula Petri II
15,26-27 216 3,13-14 137 Ad Timotheum 1 2,4 112
15,26 115 133 218 336 339 3,16 366 2,4-6 655
340665 4,6 519 2,14 111 Epistula loannis 1
15,28 203 206 655 664 667 4,13-15 376 3,6 121 761
670842843 4,13 367377 4,3 402 1,1 709-711 900
15,44 70 4,14 367376377 6,11 426 1,5 465 466 860 939
982 SACRASCRIPTURA

2,1 568 9,11-13 28810,4 104

2,13 367 12,3-4 36
2,14 366 367 369 12,9 115 ORIGENIS OPERA
2,19 708 13,18 599
3,10 112200 14,5 165
4,7-8 190 16,13 597
4,8 190 19,11-16 300301 A. COMMENTARII ET EXEGETICA
5,19 882 19,11-14 300
19,11-13 301302 Commentarii in Genesim Prolo 2.7 367
Epistula Iudae 19,11 297299300 18 20 21 31-35 Prolo 2.8 367
6 112 19,12 302 39 160 161 169 Prol.2.26 190462
8-9 199 19,13 301 545658719 Prolo 2.32 192
8 199 19,14 301 1-V,1 409 Prol.3 187
9 199 20,7 216 III 546 Prolo 3.2 187
20,9 216 IX 70 Prolo 4.2 22
Apocalypsis Ioannis 21-22 541 Xll.89 3942 Prolo 4.7 2122
152654 21,5 391 Prolo 4.8 22
1,5 915 21,19 540 Commentarii in Deuteronomium Prol. 4.18 183
3,20 541 22 540542543 36 l 70655
5 540 22,1-2 542 1.1.7 710
5,5 540 22,2 540 Commentarii in Iosuam 1.2-3 426
5,6-7 541 22,12 31 14 595 1.2.3-5 426
5,6 133540541 22,13 290291 627 1.2.5 22
7,14 543 22,14 543 Commentarii in Psalmos 104-5 705
32 96 491-493 1.5.1 705
762 II.1.15 11
Prolo 475 II. 1.25 23
1-25 428 3491 93 95 II.3.15-16 371-374
719 IIA 191
1-25 Prolo 592102 II.5,21-29 681
1 959 II.6.8-9 300
1,5 908 II.8.31 22
2,5 496 II.8.34 371-374
2,7 502 II.8.37 373
51,7 905 III 113 208 567 568
54,4 897 I1I.Lll 595
54,16 900 I1IA.3-7 708
118,1-2 487 I1I.8.14 190
I1I.9A 707
Commentarii in Proverbia III. 13046 462
597
Commentarii in Isaiam
Commentarii in Canticum 26147719
Canticorum 721222495 190
307 372 385 426 Commentarii in Lamentationes
569703-712719 187719733-749
Prolo 187439 1,1 739 741 742 745
Prolo 1.7 187 748
Prolo 2.7-8 367 1,16 745
 ORIGENIS OPERA 985
984 ORIGENIS OPERA

XVII. 19 653 1.9 426

1,19 743748 XIIA1 342 897
XVII. 26 138 1.9.23-24
2,9 746 XIII. 1 138391 8284
XVII.27 458 1.9.55
3,6 739 XIII.8 fin 339 655
XVII.29-33 908 1.16
4,1 740 XIII.8-9 338 412
XVII.30 576 1.16.90-19.118
4,3 740 XIII. 8 119338 649
XVII.32 25666 1.16.91
4,4 745 XIII.9 fin 340 85
XVII. 33 386-388391 1.16.92
4,10 739 XIII.9 120340495 114115
XVII. 36 368 1.17
4,19 739 XIII. 15 556 78870
1.17.102
XIII. 18 378563 79
Cornrnentariorurn Series in 1.17.104
Cornrnentarii in Ezechielern XIII.18.3-4 564 627
Matthaeurn 425 1.19.109-39.292
719 XIII. 18.7-24 564 7981
8 19 1.19.111
XIII. 18.29-56 565 81
24 122 1.19.115
Cornrnentarii in Prophetas Minores XIII.19.94-99 566 655
27 180185 1.20.22
719 XIII.28 373 7885
33 122 1.20.119
XIII.29 24136138 292
40 21 1.21-24
Cornrnentarii in Matthaeurn XIV. 1 142403 292
42 744 1.22
21 26 32 36 104 XIV. 2 14403 425
44 744 1.23
129 133 142 332 XIV.3 337341 35
49 36165 1.23.143
360 385-406 556 XIVA 133 554
74-76 180 I.23.144
567 597 615 672 XIV.6 342 429
76 180 1.24
679719832 XIV.7 333 86
77 25 1.25.163
X.2 655 XIV.9-1O 336 47
92 18 1.26.167
X.3 206212 XIV. 12 104 85
125 120 1.27.104
XA-15 209 XIV. 15 205 83
133 25 1.27.187
XA.24ss 51446 XIV.16 386401402 82
134 18 1.28.192
X.5 185 XIV.17 386 699
135 184626 1.28.200
X.14-15 210 XIV. 19-20 392 627
138 36 1.31.209
X.14 381 XIV.21 392 627
1.31.223
X.17 11 XIV.23 392-394 86
Cornrnentarii in Lucarn 1.31.225
X.18 27 XIV.24 395-398 665
25 1.32
X.20 679 XV.3 13 94 718 82
1.33.241
X.22 15 XV.6 374-378 81
Cornrnentarii in Ioannern 1.34.244
XI.5 119 XV.11 628 \ 18663
3 10 11 17 1924 1.35.255
XI.6 597 XV.14 129602614 554
25 26 32 35 96 1.35.260
XL 8 392 XV.15 406 79
104 107 130 159 1.36.266
XII.1 fin 342 XV.25 368 427755
215 281-304 1.38
XII. 1 133 XV.30 104 80303
345-355 357 1.38.283
XII. 2 121 138 XVI.1 134138 8082
419-435 440 464 1.39.289
XII. 3 342 XVI. 8 25120121 432
550 552 557 575 1043
XII. 13-14 338 XVI.9 25 291
615 627-633 699 1.52-57
XII. 14 333 XVI. 19 25914917 291
719 858 859 862 1.57
XII.17 sq. 338 XV1.20-25 360 188
I-II 75-87 1.68-72
XII.20 597 XVI.25 360-365 370 376 215
1 35 184409 1.83
XII.23 342343 378 281
1.3.14 75 1.90.124
XII. 29 334 XVIIA.6 381 671
104.21 75 1.90.118
XII.30 832 XVII.6-7 188 298433
104.22-23 75 1.92
XII. 36 596 XVII.14 460 298
104.23 75434 1.93
XII.37 337 XVII. 17 15380-381
 986 ORIGENIS OPERA ORIGENIS OPERA 987

I.102 293 I.267-288 290 II.19.130 82 VI.l4.85 35

1.103 184 I.267-276 293294 IIA9 183 184 VI.21.116 556
I.l04-105 181 184 185 I.267-268 294 II. 104 682 VI.24.127 357
I.104 184 I.267 292294 II.105-111 296 VI.34.173 441
I.l08 293 I.268-276 294 II. 105-110 296 VI.36 119
I.lll 291 303430 I.268 294 II. 109 432 VI.37.184-187 553
I.112 291 I.269 294295 II. 114 297 VIAl 602
I.l13-115 292 303 I.270 294295 II.125 186 VIA2 183
I.l13 431 I.271 295 II. 129 433 VIA2.217 15
I.114 587 I.273-276 296 II. 131 431 VIA3-45 270
I.115 431 I.273 294 II. 137-157 295 VIA3.224 138
I.l16 290-292 I.276 296 II. 144-148 672 VI.53.273-285 19
I.117-118 290 I.277-288 293 II. 149 461465 VI.53.273-274 541
I.l18 291 I.277-279 297 II.175-192 671-686 VI.57.295-296 19
Ll25-157 284 I.277 297 II.175 672 VI.58 119
I.l25 284 285 289 290 I.278 298299 II. 176 672 VI.59.301 86
303 I.279 299 II. 177 676 VI.60.306 53
I.126-150 281 284 290 291 I.280-287 297302 II. 178 676 VI.62-87 679
584 I.280 302 II.179 676 VI.73-75 679
I.l26-131 284 I.281-283 302 II.180 677 682 VI. 85 681
I.l26 291292 I.281 303 II.181 678 VI. 86 681
I.l32 284 I.282 303 II.l82 679 VI. 127 135
I.l33-135 284 I.283 185 ILl83 679 VI.251 353
I.136-137 284 I.284-287 302 II. 184 680 VI.252 183353
I.l38-141 284 I.286-287 584 II.185 680 VI.257 354
I.l40-141 682 I.288 297304 II.186 681 VI.258 355
I.l42-150 284 II 409 II.187 681 X 136409
Ll50 284291 II.1-35 671 II.188 682 X.12.61 134138
1.151-152 285302 ILl 938 II.189 683 X.14.79 41
Ll51 281 285302303 II. 1.5 84 II. 190 683 X.18.11O 138
I.l52 302303 II. 1.9 80 II.191 683 X.18.11OA-6 577
1.153 285 11.6049 51 .! II.192 683 X.21 18
Ll54-157 285 II. 10 469\ II.194 300 X.28.173 568
I.l55-156 281 II. 10.70-72 20430 II.195 300 X.28.174-175 595
I.l56 281 II. 10.76.2-7 576 IILlO.3 661 X.30.191 35
I.l58-266 281290 II.11-12 469 IV 353 X.37 654
1.158-180 291 II. 12.75 575 V 5106107 X.38.261 596
1.165 425 II. 12.76 575 V, prolo l 107 X.39 661
I.l72 428 II.12.87.1-88.8 571 V.1 701 XAO 682
I.l73 428 II. 13 117118121654 V.2-3 6 XA2.291 654
I.l88 291 II. 14. 102-104 430 V.5 6 X.61 135
I.200 431 II.15.109 84 VI 3 8 135 409 679 X.64 584
I.201 432 II.16-19 428 VI. 1.1-2 3 X.75 461
I.204 504 II.16 460461469 VI.2.6 4 X.83 210
I.218 298 II.17 469682 VI.2.9 97 X.246 460461464
I.229-240 190 II.18 185470 VI. 9.55 35 XI. 110 584
I.241-258 682 II.18.126 81 VI.l4.84 557 XII.6.33 104
I.266 284290 II.18.129 85 VI.14.85-86 557 XIII 348 409 429 643
988 ORIGENIS OPERA ORIGENIS OPERA 989

XIII. 3 661 662 XX.17.139 Commentarii in Epistulam ad VA.6-8 665

XIII.3.13-17 645 XX.21.174 5:h Romanos 25 26 32 238 332 V.5 447448
X1II.3.13 628 XX.22.182 550 402 445-456 597 V.6.1ff 659
Xill.3.15-16 628640 XX.24.211-212 53 685818 V.7 448450455
XIII.5.30 554 XX.24.216 41 Praefatio 446447 V.8 26597
XIII.5.31 554 XX.25 121 1 36462 V.lO 447448
XIII. 6.37 554 XX.26 121 I.1 447 V.1O.187-195 664
XIII.9.51 594 XX.39 115 I.18 115 VI. 6 219
XIII. 13.81 187442 XX.50 584 II.4.5 666 VI. 7.100-103 668
XIII.16 587 XX.152-159 182 IIA.138-140 660 VI. 8 447448
X1II.21.61 909 XX. 174 217 II.7 215 VI.9 447 448 451-453
XIII.23 110 XX.284 584 II.9(12-13)A60ff 659 456
XIII.34.220-221 555 XX.294 584 II.12-13 32 VI.12.64 669
XIII.34.223 70 XXII. 35 667 II. 13 120 VI.12.67 669
XIII.36.230-231 555 XXXII 409 III.2 447-450456 VI.12.70-76 669
XIII.36.231 555 XXXII.2.5 24 III. 3 447 VII.2(4 ).182-184 664
XIII.37.241 557 XXXlI.2.16-17 632 IIIA(7) .163-166 663 VII. 3 448
XXXII.3.31-32 133 III.5(8).10-11 663 VII. 8 447685
XIII.45.298 31
XXXII.3.32 136138 VII.8.14-19 669
XIII.52.343 440 III.7 119
36 VII.8AO-42 669
XIII.55 27 XXXII.5.63 III. 8 595
VII.9 447
XIII.57.391-392 558 XXXII. 18.222 36 III.8(11).10-19 659
VII. 13 460463
X1II.57.393 558 XXXII. 18.233 132136 138 III. 9 448
VII. 16 26447 450 451
Xill.228 462468 XXXII.24.305 138 III.23.1 41
VII.18 448
XIII.240 584 XXXII.24.311 94 IV.1 23447448
VIII.5 460
XIII.280 184 XXXII.26-39 667 IV.5 117 118 447 448 453 456
VIII.7
X1II.293 672 XXXII.26-27 667 IV.6 447 659
VIII. 7 .85-89
XIII.330-331 814 XXXII.29-31 218 IV.7.3 666 VIII. 8 818
X1II.331-333 825 XXXII.29.359 468 IV.7.29-32 666 IX 23
Xill.382 348 XXXII.30-31 667 IV.7Al-43 668 IX.1 23
XIII.385 349 XXXII.30.368 373 IV.7A9-51 659 IX.26 33
XIII.387 349350 XXXII. 32-34 667 IV.8 447 IX.39 447448
XIII.389 350 XXXII.33 218 ' IV.8AO-44 669 IXA1 217
XIIIA11 584 XXXII.79 202 \ IV.8.74-75 669 IXA1.8 668
XIIIA36 585 XXXII. 87 202 IV. 11 19 23 119 120 X.5 121
XIX 409 XXXII. 115-116 202 499500 X.8 26447448
XIX.28 588 XXXII.285-289 590 IV.11.73-75 668 X.9.12-14 664
XIX.34-39 186 XXXII.285 590591 IV.12 447 X.11 454-456
XIXAO-63 346 XXXlI.286 590 IV.12.6-8 659 X.12 447
XIXAO 346351 XXXII.289 590591 IV.12.55-78 664 X.12.1 41
XIX A 1 347 XXXII.353 467 V.1 94 447 448 450 X.14 448
XIX.44 347 XXXII.357 184 V.1.77-82 665 XA3.7-13 660
XIX.53 347 XXXII.359 185468 V.1.501-505 665 XVI.22-25 41
XIX.60 351 XXXII.395-396 204 V.1.560-572 665
XIX.61 352 XXVIII 409 V.2 447 Commentarii in Epistulam ad
XIX.88 215 XXVIII. 1. 1-6 597 V.2A7-48 665 Galatos 36
XIX.153 586 XXVIII.6 654 V.2.54-55 665
XX 409 XXVIII.19.162-163 19 V.3 122 Commentarii in Epistulam ad
XX. 10.79 368 XXVIII. 22. 190 24 V.3.65-70 668 Ephesos 786
XX. 11 654
 ORIGENIS OPERA 991
990 ORIGENIS OPERA

186.37-46 49 Fragmenta in Apocalypsin

Commentarii in Epistulam ad 134.7 27
223 52 28 133 135
1 Thessalonicenses 135.4 51
2432 215 410
Fragmenta in loannem Scholia in Deuteronomium
6 188 132
Commentarii in Epistulam ad Fragmenta in Proverbia
Hebraeos 461466 131 138410 6.4-13 48
12 138 Scholia in Canticum Canticorum
30 598 191
Commentarii in Epistulam ad 13 297
14 297 1 709
Titum 460 Fragmenta in Canticum
35 26 1.8 191
Canticorum 6 709-711
Commentarii in Apocalypsin 3 367 51 761
79 595597 18 706
36 3 App. 367
108 467 20 705
83 373
27 706
Fragmenta in Genesim 30 712
138 169410-412 Fragmenta in leremiam Fragmenta in Epistulam ad
Romanos 35 706712
1 464 2 208
8 403 45 704706
23 595 22 210
22.11 669 50 705
191 411 25 216-218
30 447 78 706
236 68169 28 655
35 447 83 706
509 411 36 210
41 618 116 705
592 169 39 132138
120 706
779 177 48 219
Fragmenta in Epistulam ad 125 706712
1023 169 57.5-7 440
Corinthios 19 128 706
1812 173 61 121
6.6 120 199 704
1934 169 63 210 216
31 744 243 704
1940 170 107 119
2079 169 32 744
Fragmenta in Lamentationes 33 405 Scholia in Apocalypsin
10 187 34 403-405 151
Fragmenta in Numeros
24.7 22 14 185 187 188 35 389 24 137
78 131 135 138 38 14 28 137
Fragmenta in Deuteronomium il 39 405
138595 Fragmenta in Ezechielem ' 56.1.4.7 43 Selecta in Genesim
7.14 23 58.4 43 44
Fragmenta in 1 Regum 63.8 43
9.1ss. 49 Fragmenta in Matthaeum 73 5 Selecta in Numeros
421 188 67
Fragmenta in lob 520 180 Fragmenta in Epistulam ad Ephesos
1,11 759 538 595 1.1 20
Selecta in Psalmos 51 665
387.14 664 565 593597 L15 14
23 667
II.39 377
36 665
Fragmenta in Psalmos Fragmenta in Lucam II1.41 18
41 665
28 51 134-138 34 138 II1.50 18
56 654
744 84 595 II1.53 18 60 661662
Pral. 701 92 202 V.16 42
122 572
3 16 125 270 V1.16 208
24 366 140 909 XII 138
XIV 138 Selecta in Canticum Canticorum
106 410 185 211 191
118.11 94 186 191 XIV. 22-27 137
 ORIGENIS OPERA 993
992 ORIGENIS OPERA

744 III.8.13 190

B. HOMILIAE VllI.6
X.1 205
X.3 596 HomiIiae in Isaiam
Homiliae in Genesim IX. 11 115217 689-701
XIII.3 29
407408 X.l 183 I-IV 691
XV.5 551 596
1.1 114412 XIII.2 1930185 1 690691693
XV.6 30
I.1O 119 XIIIA 461 1.2 689697
XVI. 1 368
1.12f. 413 XIV.3 413 lA 698
XVI.3 217219
1.13 182 183 462 656 II 690-692696
XVI.5 14
752755 Homiliae in Numeros III 690-692 696
XVII. 1 183
nA 67 22 27
19 III.3 698
n1.3 368 1.1 367 XX.3-6
818 IV 690-693
III.8.13.14-15 188 I.3 212593 XXllI.3
212 IV. 1 689698
NA 368 III. 3 212 XXIII.4
IV.3 692
vn.3 744 N.3.1 94 V-IX 691
IX.3 495812819 V.3 119 Homiliae in ludices
22 V 690-693
XIIIA 185 188656 VII.2 23 V.2 693
I.1 114122
XN.3 439 IX. 1 119 VI 690691
ILl 188
XV.7 191 IX.7 728 VII 690691 696
1lI.3 19658
IX.9 367 VII. 1 374-378698
V.5 120
Homiliae in Exodum XIA 206551 825 VIII 690691696
VIllA 14
22440 XIA.3 816 IX 690691
1.5 121122 XIAA 814817
IV.6 121440 XII.2 21 HomiIiae in 1 Regum
I.1 14 Homiliae in leremiam
V.2 19 XII.3 217 29 507-538 615
V.5 747 Xll.3A 67 618-627 692 695
VI.3 216597 XllA 114 HomiIiae in 1 Samuelem
5 28 697698818
VI.13 661662 XIII.7 119 1 29 510 625 846
VIII.2 812 XIV. 1.1 24 28.6 28
28.6.6-7 28 1.3 219
VIII. 5 394 XIV. 2 118 119 1.6-7 846
IXA 1429 XV.l 114 I.6 137846
XI.5 440 XVII.5 222q;; Homiliae in lob 29
I.7 370520
XI. 6 205 XX. 1 214 1.8 383
188 Homiliae in Psalmos
XII.2 693 XXIII 1.13 27367
XXIII.2 188 H36Ps
214 I.16.33 508
Homiliae in Leviticum XXIII. 6 185 lIA
III. 1 202 n 524525538
2223729 XXV.3 595 n.1 508524628
IV.3 365-371
1 185 XXVII. 9 19 II.2 202
V.5 117 118
1.1 180785 II.2.36-37 529
IIl.l 185 Homiliae in losuam H37Ps
21 n.3 202208
III.7 594595 29595817 1.2
II.3.1-7 531
IV.6 29729 lA 270 H38Ps
118 n.3.1 531
VI.2 416 IlIA 29 I.l0
183 N 618
VII.2 186 188 IV. 1 270 II.2
IV.1 619644
VII.3 22 V.6 744 N.1A2 508
Homiliae in Canticum Canticorum
VIII. 1 655 VnA 658
307705706 IV. 1.63 508
VIII.11 598 VIII.3 120 V 508517
Prol. 307
IX.2 29 VIIIA-6 216 V.1 519
I.7-1O 191
IX.5 215 VIllA 122217 V.2 517-519 816 818
II.8 190
IX.6 188 VIII.5 654
 994 ORIGENIS OPERA ORIGENIS OPERA 995

V.3 187 XVI.1-2 209 XIV. 3 541 XII.4 816

V.6 218 XVIA 110 XVII 211
V.lO 618 XVl.5-6 202214 Homiliae in Lucam XVII. Il 30
V.14 514 XVI.5 211 510 511 24 29 672 816 XVIII. 1 182
V.15 508 XVI. 6 208511 832 XX. 6-7 367
VI 509 XVI.7 202 II.12 832 XX.7 367
VI. 3 508 XVI. 8 50 III. 1.16 355 XXVI 208
VII 521 524 535 538 XVII. 3 217 III. 1.18 355 XXVIA 119
VII.2.16-17 522 XVIII 509538623 VIA-5 121 XXX. 1 596
VII.3 214531532535 XVIII. 1 207509 VI.6 121 XXXIA 503
VIII 508 XVIII.2 210 212 515 VIII.2-4 185 XXXIII.3-4 27
VIII. 1 508 XVIII. 3 509 VIII. 2 413 XXXIV. 3-4 25
VIII. 2 210 XVIII.5-6 499 VIII. 3 30 XXXV. 6 816
VIII.3 27 XVIII. 5 623 VIII.5 121
IX 691 XVIII. 6 378-383 514 761
IX. 1 698 763
IX.3 214 XVIII.7 509642
IXA 466508 XVIII. 10 27
X 515523524538 XIX. 14 219 C. TRACTATUS ET OPERA DlVERSA
X, prologue 538 XIX. 15 138 202514763
XA-5 210 XX.1 514 Contra Celsum 379 10 12 17 18 1.53 804
X,4 523 XX.3 200211 21 32 33 36 39 1.57 813
X.7 182 XXA 211 67 96 104 105 1.58 804
XI.5 29 XX.6 132 108 136 151 215- 1.59 804
XII. 1 211 XX.8-9 208 ! ,\ 265 267-269 390 1.61 121
XII.2-3 213 615 636-639719 II. 11 656
XII.2 207 Homiliae in Lamentationes 803-830 873 879 II.20 269
XII.3 22 II. 1 218 . 880882888 II. 24-25 18
XII. 5 655 II.9 210 108 II.24 638879880
Pral. 1-3
XII.7 50 269 II.25 636638 641 643
Prol.3
XII.9-12 215219 Homiliae in Ezechielem Pral. 5 46 II.37 879
XII.9-1O 208 153 154 539-544 807 IIA6 269
I.1
XII. 12 114 695 805 IIA7 120
I.17
XIV 511-513 1 539 810 IIA8 269
I.18
XIV.2 512 1.2 655 810 885 II.51 121
I.19
XIV.3 511 1.11 594 811 II.63 32879
I.24-25
XIV. 5 512513 852 I.13 211 814 II.65 2425
1.24
XIV.6 512626 II-XII 539 19120 II.67 655
I.31
XIV.7 512 IV.6 692 I.34-37 252 II.68-69 191
XIV.12 211628 VI. 3 503 252254-257 II.69 136252255
I.34
XIV. 13 626643898 VIA 29 257 II.70 269
I.35
XIV.14 852 VI.6 188 381 938
1040 269270 II. 71
XIV.18 653 IX.2 114 lAI 270 II.72 355
XV 512 XI.5 29 241 III 232
I.42
XV.2-3 852 XII. 3 119 267269
1046 575 III. 1
XV.2 512 XIII-XIV 540 252255
1047 11 III. 2
XVA 512 XIII 539543 191 III. 5 806807
1048
XV.5 512852 Xm.2 205 258 259 261 263 III. 8 807
I.51
XVI 510 XIV 539540543 264265 III. 12 241
 996 ORIGENIS OPERA
ORIGENIS OPERA 997
IIIAO 413 458 VAO 816
IlIA 1 VIII.55 389 1 Praef. 6 110
909 VAl 807809
IIIA9 VIII. 65 32 1 860862
663 VA2 818
III. 62 VIII.69 809 1.1.1 462860
655 VA3 818
III.79 VIII.72 219 1.1.2-4 860
636 VA7 32
III.80 VIII.73-75 390 1.1.2 208
667 V.50 817
III. 81 VIII. 75 807 LlA-5 950
238 V.54-55 112
N Ll.5-12 939
811 814 V.55 15805
IV.3 De Oratione 9 31 96 151 615 1.1.6 458860
32686 V.56 136
NA 633·636 1.1.7 458
813 VI 231
IV.7 II.2 403 1.1.9 191
811 VI.7 272
IV.8 III. 3 35 1.2 861
811 VI.9 190
IV.12 VIA-5 633 I.2.1 292293861
661 VI.17 275
N.B XIV. 1 635643 1.2.2 292 464 861 870
208 VI.21 13 675
IV.21 XV.1 18 1.2.3 292297861
814815 VL23 212
IV.28 XVA 633 1.204 457 461 463 465
663 VI.26 104
IV.36 XXIII 20 862
815 VI.35 46
IV. 37 XXIII. 1-5 755 I.2.6 35 183 184 186
413 VI.36 655
IV.39 XXIIIA 20 298 299413 461
67 VL42 109
IV.51 XXV 203 467468951
1213 VIA3 115
IV.55 XXV. 1 205211 1.2.7 297466862
804 VL44 104
IV.57 XXV. 2 211 I.2.8 298
909 VIAS 117 121
IV.63 XXV.3 67 1.2.10 464 467 796 870
654 VIA9 33409
IV.65 XXVI. 1 210 1.2.11 466
109885 VI.51 33
J

N.67-68
1
XXVII. 13 666 I.2.13 35 457 463 468
661 663 VI.65 40
IV.71 XXVII. 15 202662 1.3.3 20
381 383763 VI.70 46458
IV.72 XXIX 633 1.304 14569
119761 VI.73 252
IV.83 XXIX. 1 634 I.3.5-6 294
656 VII 274
IV.99 XXIX. 2 634 I.3.5 293
666813 VIIA 117
V XXIX. 9 119 I.3.6-7 296
811 VII. 17 122655
VA XXIX.13-14 634 I.3.6 118206211 295
816 VII.20 14
V.5 XXIX. 14 633641646 I.3.8 2944571768
181 VII.22 740741
V.lO XXIX. 17 119 1.4.3-5 587
816824 VII.31 323747
V.14 XXIX. 19 634 1.4.5 587
822879 VII.32-33 912
V.19 XXX.3 208 1.5 550
912 VII.32 909
V.20 XXXIA 403 1.5.3-4 939
2632661 VII.34 191
V.25-32 XXXII 940 1.5.3 458
812 VII.36-37 617
V.25 1.504 113219
807-809 VII.55 18353
V.26 De Principiis 3 7 18 3235 66 1.5.5 114 115 457 768
812824 VIL68 813
V.27 75 216 283 284 882
813 VII.70 296817
V.28 292 293 295 299 1.5.7 660
813 814 VII. 72 654665
V.29 407 499 500 550 I.6.1 218
812814 VIII. 11 109
V.30 551 553 557 568 1.6.2-3 216
815 816 VIII. 12 181 461-463468
V.31 660 671 681 684 I.6.2 206 458 685 939
814817 819 VIII. 18 188
V.32 700 719 728 816 I.6.3 216-218551
812815817 VIII. 30 94
V.33 858-860 862 864 I.6A 6770206
807 VIII.31 816
V.34 881 882 884 885 I.7.1 944
807 VIII.34 816
V.35 888 937 958 959 I.7A 658943'
812 VIII.35 808
V.37 1 Praef. 4 574 I.7.5 654
813 VIII.53 681 1 Praef. 5 947 1.8 947949·
998 ORIGENIS OPERA ORIGENIS OPERA 999

1.8.1 551 III. 1.3 206 Dialogus cum Heraclide Philocalia 5 39 91 95 150
1.8.2 458554660 III. 1.12 669 103464 157 161-163245
1.8.3 457 III. 1.13 458 I-II 460 247 309 310 475
1.804 551 III. 1.15 655669 1.6-15 289 477 487 515 528
II 70 III. 1.17 669 1.7 963 537 705 794 795
II. 1.2 669 III. 1.21 833834 II-IV 461 812896
II. 1.4 909 III. 1.22 682834 II 682 1.16 241
II.2.1 117 III. 1.23 936 III 461462 1.28-29 244
II.2.2 67 III.2.1 882936 IV 460464 2-3 476
II.3.1 661 834 III.2.2 786937 VII 666 2 130
II.3.2 908 III. 2.3 634 IX.20-X.13 200 2.1 92
II.3A 661 III.2A 208634 X 211 2.1.1-2 893
II.3.5 653661 III.2.7 118 X.16 103 2.3 130528529
II.3.6 20 III.3.2 120494 XII 462 2.3.1-17 893
II.3.7 205 209 210 213 III.3.5 662684 XIIA-14 413 3 487
lIA 499 IIIA.2-3 944 XV.7-11 103 5 106130
IIAA 23499755 IIIA.2 944 XV.28-XVI.10 413 5.1 107
II.6 549 IIIA.3 118 XXIII.2-4 413 504 130
II.6.1-5 556 III.5A-5 458 XXIII.23-24 368 5.6 52
II.6.1-2 666 III.5.5 669 6 130134137
II.6.3 206 458 556 787 III.5.7 668 Epistulae 1697101 6.1 130
930 III.6.1 413951 6.2 130
II.6.5-6 930 III.6.2-3 655 Epistula ad quosdam caros suos 7 95
II.6.5 550930 III.6.3 66216 Alexandriam 100197-220 7.1 617
II.7.3 568655 III.6A 655 7.2 617
II.8 947 III.6.5 122 216 217 666 Epistula ad Africanum 13 235245
II.8.2 947 III.6.6 655660 52 14.2 411
II.8.3 115422424881 III.6.7 458909 9 602 14.2.5-14 39
II.8A 549 III.6.8 213 14 375 14.2.32 42
II.9.1-2 457 III.6.9 655 15 231
II.9.2 117 549 654 685 IV.2A 728 Epistula ad Gregorium 15.15 241
768 IV.2.5 367 188221-248 16.1 241
II.9.5-6 458 IV.2.7 458 4 186727730 17 811 814
II.9.6 684 IV.2.8 180 21.3 52
II.9.7 552 658 669 684 IV.3.1 66111 Exhortatio ad Martyrium 22 812
II. 10.1 2671 IV.3.8 205214 96719768 23 658
II. 10.2 908 IV.3.9-1O 214218 XIII 654 23.1-21 412415
II. 10.3 71213 IV.3.9 215 XIV.26 368 23.6 415
II. 10.5 202 IV.3.12 208 XV 769 23.15 545546
II. 10.6-7 655 IV.3.15 67 XVIII 114 23.19 546548
II.10.7 947 IVA.1 467699861 XXV 667 24 794
II.ll.2 206 IVA.5 909 XXVIII 205 2504 36
II.11.3 205206952 IVA.9 950 XXIX 18 26 163
II.11.6 71 204209675 IVA.9-1O 656 XXX 119 2604 52
II. 11.7 675 IVA.lO 191458 XXXVII 205 26.19 545
III 649 658-660 670 IV.9(16) 241 XLVII 458 27.10 Keph. 150 162
833
III. 1 2632 De Resurrectione 2631 32719 Hexapla 128 141 601-614 Stromateis 719
 AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Acta Thomae IIept Ôlwicoy Kat ùtacp6pcoy Âéçecoy

30-33 936 405.19 45
108-113 936
Ammonius Saccas 76 93 95 102 103
Adamantius 105 144 235 247
De recta in deum fide 424 752 962 948
793-795
Amphilochius of Iconium
Aetius 680 881

Alcinous 680 Anastasius 1 962

Alexander Aphrodisiensis Anatolius 421

140 142 143 156
De fato 142 Anaxagoras 140
In Aristotelis Metaphysica
140 Andreas Cretensis 931
In Aristotelis Topicorum libros octo
commentaria 140 142 Apocalypsis Abrahami
XXI 548
Alexander Hierosolymitanus
718 Apocalypsis Baruch
54.19 110
Ambrosius Mediolanensis 269 283
284 391 407 424 Apocalypsis Eliae 113,656
426 602 727-732 lA 114
859
De bono mortis Apocalypsis Petri 649 650 652 656
1,2 731
De Paradiso Apollonius Dyscolos
47 391 IIepi ày"CcovuJ!iaS 45
Exameron
IIA.15 59 Apollinarius Laodicenus
Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam 704784785-787
4,20 731
In Psalmum David cxvrn Espositio Apollodorus Atheniensis
33 731 609

Amelius 156157 Apollonius Rhodius

140
Ammonius Alexandrinus 611 613
Apollonius Sophista
Ammonius Grammaticus Lexicon Homericon 45
1002 AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES 1003

Apuleius 1404b.1-2 579 Augustinus Hipponensis Basilius Caesariensis

De magia 937 1408b.21-22 579 116245407727- 145 235 245-247
1410b.35 sq. 337 732 779 855-871 407 411 443 480
Aquila 134 257 410 411 III. 1411b.24-25 580 933 481 487 766 812
485 602 604 605 III. 1412a.1O 580 De civitate Dei 919
706 Topica XI.9 116 Adversus EunOlnium
101a.26-36 140 XI. 23 941 III. 1.657A 827
Aristarchus 129155 112a.14-21 931 Confessiones 700731 Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam
128b.35-36 931 6.3 731 437440441
Aristo de Pella 7.12 116 92 439
Dialogus inter Jasonem et Papiscum Arl'ianus 95 Contra selIDonem Arianorum 191-192 [192-193] 438442443
514 Epicteti dissertationes III 865 203 440
21,6 156 De opere monachorum 209 441
Aristobulus 12243 731 227 438440
Artapanus 229230 De Trinitate 858864 228 437
Aristonicus II 865867868 290 438
IIept 'Lilly alll.wimy 'LliS 'IÂta8os Kat Aspasius II. 1.2 868 Homiliae in hexaemeron
'08uaaeias 139 Commentarius in Ethicam II. 1.3 868869 5.1 412
Nicomacheam II.2.8 868 Homiliae super Psalmos
Aristophanes Byzantius 1; IV 156 II.2.9 870 1 479
Fr. 18,9 45 Enchiridion Ka'Là nuaay 8it o6y 'Lilly J.leÂt'L'Lillv
Athanasius Alexandrinus 1,6 163 'Lit y dKOya, 'Lilly Â.6ymy UJ.llY
Aristoteles 127 128 140 142- 323 569 576 783 3,11 116 J.leSeK'LÉOY 221 246
144476 784786 Epistulae
De generatione animalium Contra Arianos 20,3 731 Benedictus Nursius
1.2.716a4-717 925 I.39 682 In Ioannis Evangelium tractatus Regula
1.20.728a 925 II.62 682 858864 4,55 732
2.1.734b 926 Contra Gentes 1-19 865 48,1 732
2.3.736b 926 41 682 20-22 865866-868
2.5.741a 926 Epistola ad Amunem monachum 20.3.7 866 Bernardus 727
Ethica Nicomachea 156904 783 20.4 866
Metaphysica Epistula ad Serapionem 20.8 867 Beryllus 721
VI.l034 908910 I.26.592 827 20.9-10 866
Poetica Vita Antonii 21.2.10 866 Calcidius
1452a.16 340 47 766 21.17 867 In Timaeum Platonis
1456a.33.36-37 579 22 865866 276-278 410
1456b.19 579 Athenagoras 112 22.9.14 866 276 412
1456b.20-21 579 Legatio 22.14 865866
1456b.7-9 579 X.1-4 463 22.15 866 Candidus 201
1457b.7 579 X.4 465 Retractationes 8
1459a.7-8 579 XXlV.2 465 I.l2.3 231 Cassianus
Politica Supplicatio pro Christianis II.63.1 163 Conlationes
VII.7.1.1327 821 25 112 X.2-3 961
Protrepticus Bardai~an de Edessa X.2 753
fr. 106 421 Athenodorus de Ponto 422656 X.3 752
Rhetorica 720 Liber Legum Regionum X.5 752753
1356a.3-13 766 657
1401a.7-8 579 Atticus 800 Cassiodorus 245
1403b.1 579 Liber annalis 609 Basilides 16 Institutiones 1,5,4 318
1004 AUcroRES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES AUcroRES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES 1005

Celsus 11 1216 fr. V1.66-79 278 1.5.20 54 V.79.1 64

Alethes logos 10 267-280 803 fr. V1.74 278 1.6 119 V.93.4-94.1 64
807 fr. V1.80-VII.2 278 1.6.25.2 503 VI.6.45-47 656
fr.I.28-71 267 fr. VII.12-27 278 1.6.34 54 VI.10.82.1ss 55
fr. 1.28 271 fr. VII.18 276 I.6.35 54 VI.11.88.5 143
fr. I.34 271 fr. VII.28-34.40 278 1.6.48 925 VI.14.11O,4 816
fr.1.37 271 fr. VII.34 279 1.8.73 54 VI.15.123.3 137143
fr.I.39 270271 fr. VII.42 279 1.10.91.2 737 VI.16.140.3-4 594
fr. 1.41 271 fr. VII.45 279 II.1O.83.2 390 VI. 17.157.4-5 811
fr. 1.61 270 fr. VII.58 274-276 III.2 112 VII.2.6.4 811
fr.I.66 271 fr. VII.62 279 Protreptikos 278 VII.6.32.3 54
fr.1.67 271 fr. VII.68 279 I.6.2 656 VII.6.34.1-3 656
fr.1.69 271 fr. VIII.17 279 / IX.87.6 656 VIL 10.56.2-5 657
fr. II.1-79 267 fr. VIII.28-41 279 XI.1 65 VII. 10.57.1-4 657
fr. III.1-VIII.76 267 fr. VIII.68-76 272 Stromata 7 21 26 31 128 VII. 15.92.7 54
fr. III.1-8 272 389 VII. 16.102.1-3 656
fr. III.16 272 Chrysippus 1.4.27.2 54
VII.108.1 16
fr. III.38 272 De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis 1.13.5 131
fr. III.39 272 V.4.8 141 1.14.4 105
Clemens Romanus 100514737
fr. III.44 273 Fragmenta Moralia 1.14.65.1 143
fr. III.59-71 276 416 498 1.18.88.1 54
1.19.2 Pseudo-Clemens Romanus
fr. III.59 273276277 104
1.85.1-2 Homiliae 8.11-19 112
fr. III.62 273276 Cicero 155612 121
fr. III.70 276 Atticus XVI 7,3 156 II.15.69-71 656
II.15.71.2 143 Codex Theodosianus 16.5.34
fr. III.71 276 Brutus
II.22.134.4 657 962
fr. IV.2-23 278 III. 13-14 609
fr. IV.31-47 278 IV.15 609 II.23.137.1 390
II.23.140.1 390 Coelestius 879
fr. IV.48-52 278 XVII. 69 579
fr. IV.52 279 Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.45.59 II.23.147.2 143
446 II.51.4/5 64 Constitutiones apostolicae
fr. IV.73 279
III.3 422 VIII. 15.7 547
fr. V.6 279
fr. V.14 279 Clemens Alexandrinus III.3.8.2 143
fr. V.41 272 279 14 15 16 18 54 III.7.64-69 65 Cornutus 128
fr. V.65 272 274 275279 64-68 97 98 100 III.11.78.2 54
fr. VI.1-16 274276 111 112 115 119 III. 12.87.3 54 Cos mas Indicopleustes
fr. VI.1-11 272 143 144 230 245 III.14.95.2 416 Topographia
fr. VI.10 272 331 389404406 IV.6.37.7 656 V.209 651
fr. VI.12 272 414 514 581 594 IV.12.86 118 X.57-58 318
fr. VI.15 273 595 655 656 737 IV.22.144.3 143
fr. VI.16 273-276 783925948 V.1.2.2 137 Crantor 421
fr. V1.17-27 279 Eclogae propheticae V.4.26.1 54
fr. VI.18-VII.53 274 27,1 98 V.1O.65.1 101 Cyprianus 100
fr. VI.18 276 27,3 98 V.1O.65.3 102
fr. VI.27-29 278 50 925 V.11.75.1 143 Cyrillus Alexandrinus
fr. V1.30-38 279 Excerpta ex Theodoto V.12.79 64 145 311 314 323
fr. VI.42 279 51 64 V.14.97.6 143 327 328 594 595
fr. VI.47-65 278 Paedagogus 361 371 389 390 V.14.99.2 143 704 709 789 955
fr. VI.51-VII.18 274 1.5 371 V.14.129.5 143 803 805 806 821
fr. V1.66-VII.33 278 1.5.13.1 361 V.51-66 104 827-829845-853
1006 AUcrORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES AUcrORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES 1007

Commentarii in Aggreum Demetrius 497718721 106. 17f.24f. 416 18.27-19.1 757

1.5-6 848 118.24 414 19.13-20.7 762
Commentarii in Ionam Didymus Alexandrinus 119.2,19 414 20.7 761
850853 139 145323407- 122.2f. 412 20.10-21.4 759
850853 417487 492 569 139.12 414 20.10.1 410
prrefatio
594-596 599 704 147.17 414 20.10.9 410
Commentarii in Isaiam
751-763779-789 151.2f.,18f. 412 20.10.17 410
1.4 593
891-905955 165.7-9 412 20.21-22 757
Commentarii in Zachariam
Commentarii in EccIesiasten / 167.18-21 414 22.15 757
847851
Papyrus Turana 757780781 174.3 410 22.16-18 757
Contra Iulianum 803 827 828 873
7.34 783 177 595 22.19-20 757
II.9 807 754
89.19-20 757 ,Î 193.12,16 412 34.15
II. 11 805 762
103.15-19 758 194 761 35.9-14
II.18 810 76 787
153.16ff. 784 194.16 754
II.37 828 412 139.14-15; 18-19; 149.6
205.lOff. 785 195.2f.,27
m.33 804 197.17-18 412 759
m.37 809810 824 281.17-25 782
302.12-16 782 235.27 414 139.15-16 759
m.38 810 236.7 414 139.19-20; 148.30-31
809810 827 Commentarii in Genesin /
m.46 251.24-30 410 759
Papyrus Turana 408780785
IV 809 In Genesin / ex catenis 148 784
3A.1-3B.15 414
IV.2 819-821 823 3.9 754 149.15-16 757
6.3 596
IV.7 828 8.1 754 186 783
7A.6 754
IV.24 821 Commentarii in Hiob / 199.33 754
7A.7 754
IV.29 825 Papyrus Turana 760780781 199.34-200.1 754
23.15-19 412
IV.33 823825 55.16-60 785 200.1-7 756
36.18-37.6 415
IV.36 829 36.21 415 91.17-27 760 200.3-4 756
IV.38 810 37.26f. 412 273.25-26 756 200.8-16 757
IV.40 822 38.25-41.25 415 273.26-27 756 228.20 759
IV.43 825 49 756 273.28-33 756 228.26-27 762
IV.46 826 54.13-64.27 413 274.6-11 758 247.9-14 762
V.2 818 55.5f. 412 274.11-14 758 247.11-12 754
V.6 827 56-57 756 280.1 782 247.11 754
V.12 807 56 756 286.2-16 760 295.30 410
VI.25 807 56.14-16 414 286.2-8 760 301.26-28 757
VI.32 807 56.15-58.2 413 344.7-20 759 308.9-10 754
VI.37 809817 56.18-57.2 414 345.11-14 760 309.15-19 759
VII.28 826 57 756 309.16-17 759
VIII.15 804 57.3-9 414 Commentarii in Psalmos / 309.19 759
VIlI.2 804 58-59 756 Papyrus Turana 415 780781 787 309.23-26 759
IX.2 805826 58 756 845 310.11-14 759
XI 804 58.3-59.24 413 1.8-9 754 310.20-25 759
De S. Trinitate Dialogus 59 756 1.9 755 310.23-25 757759
4.536-538 828 60 756 1.11-12 755 310.14-23 759
Glaphyra in Exodum 61 756 1.12-15 753 333.14-19 758
598 68.27 412 1.12 754 333.25-26 758
2 598 103.5f. 412 1.17 754 333.27-334.4 758
594 106.8-108.15 416 1.18 755 In Psalmos / ex catenis
6
106.11f. 416 1.19-22 754 479
Glaphyra in Genesim
106.12-17 416 3 786 fr.28 755760761
2 848
1008 AUcrORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES AUcrORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES 1009

fI'. 32 760 In 1 Epistulam loalmis Dionysius Thrax 154 64.6.1-7.4 476

fr.39 754 2,3-4 761 Ars gIammatica 2 41 64.7 92102
fI. 44 759761 Commentaria in Dionysii Thracis 64.7.1 475
fr.75 754757 Pseudo-Didymus m·tem grammaticam (Scholia 64.7.2 701
fI'. 98 759 De Trinitate Mm'ciana) 44 64.63.1-5 417
fI'. 104 754758 1.19,1.31; II.11; II.23 Commentaria in Dionysii Thracis
fI'. 105 759 694 artem grammaticam (Scholia Epiphanius Scholasticus
fI'. 153 758 Vaticana) 45 318
fI'. 275 759 Diodorus Tarsensis 784 Supplementa artis Dionysianae
fI'. 641a 759 vetusta 1.1.114.4 42 Epistula Andreae 309310
fr.773A 760 Diogenes Laërtius
fI'. 850 760 m, 6 67 1 Enoch 547 Epistula Apostolorum
fI'. 878 759761 6-10 112 656
fI'. 914 754 Dionysius Alexandrinus 9,1 547
fI'. 1002 757 100718 9,9 112 Epistula Barnabae
fI'. 1040 758 19,1 112 8-10 112
fI'. 1227 754757759 Dionysius Areopagita 20,2 547
Commentarii in Zachariam / 583 831-843 919 72-82 548 Epistula Patriarchorum ad
Papyrus Turana 410 754 780 781 De Coe1esti Hierarchia 72,1 548 Theophilum imperatorem
1.198 754758 9 837 931
1.284-286 595 De Divinis Nominibus 2 Enoch
1.286 569 1,4 831 839842 26,3 117 Epistula ad Theophilum
II.139 904 II, 5 843 29,4 114 931
II.195-196 755760 II, 5, 129.7-9 843 42,1 114
II. 199-200 760 N,2 838 Eratosthenes
m.62-63 594 IV, 2, 144.18-19 839 Epictetus Chronica 609
m.68 754 IV, 35 831-833 838 Dissertationes 95
V.32 754 N, 35,179.14-18 833 2.1.23 421 Eunomius 56-59
V.34 754 IX 843 2.16.42 421
V.35 754755 IX, 5 842 2.20.32 421 Eusebius Caesariensis
V.36 754755 IX, 5, 210.7-8 843 5 7 92496 142
V.39 754 vm 841 Epiphanius episcopus Salaminis 145 148-152 158
V.69 754 Vm,2 843 66 91 152 417 167 282 307 309
V.79-90 595 Vm,5 841 477 792 956 957 312314318320-
44. 1If. 410 vm, 5, 202.6-11 841 960961 326 328 329 413
81.12f. 410 Vm,7 841 Ancoratus 959 443 477 502 601
100. 12f. 410 vm, 9, 206.12-19 842 62.3 417 609 650 779 851
341.13-15 410 XI, 2 841 Contra Ioannem Hierosolymitanum 874 891-905 957
341.17 410 Xl, 2, 219.4-5 841 67957 962
Contra Arium 783 De Ecc1esiastica Hierarchia De mensuris et ponderibus Canones decem harmoniae
Contra Eunomium 783 VII 831 5 479 evangeliorum 611
Contra Manichaeos 782 VII, m, 6-7 831 Panarion 476 Chronici canones 608-610
De Spirito Sancto 694 VII, m, 6-7,126.5-128.11 64 791958 Contra Marcellum
129-130 694 832 64.3 37 1.4.22 464
230 787 Epistulae vm, 3, 7-9 64.3.9 152 De martyribus Palaestinae 723
In Acta Apostolorum / ex catenis 839 64.4 424 Demonstratio evangelica
2,22 754 64.4.9 417 m 144
2,25-26 759 Dionysius ep. Corinthensis 64.5-7 5 m.2.65 505
17,23 754 99 64.6 92 IV.7-8 812816827
1010 AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES AUCTORES ANTIQUl ET MEDIAEVALES 1011

IV.7.1 814 VI.30 720 6.38 772 Capita cie auetoribus discipulis
IV. 10.9 505 VI.31 720 De malignis cogitationibus 2, 4, 8, 9, Evagrii 177.1-2 772
IV.16 505 VI.32 719 19,25,28,34,37 777
VI. 2. 1 505 VI. 32.1 719 38 775 Evangelium Iudae 747
Epistola ad Calpianum VI.32.2 722719 6.28-29 767
144 611 VI.32.3 149719 De oratione 765 Evangelium Petri 652
Historia ecclesiastica VI.33 720 66-67; 114; 116 752
8144476 VI.35 718 Epistula 27,6 773 Ferecides 421
ill.8 141 VI.36 719 Epistula fidei 55
IV.18 251 VI.36.1 5108720 2,14-15 55 Firmilianus Caesariensis
IV.23.12 99 VI.36.2 267385 \ 55 718
2,31
IV.26.3 413 VI.36.3-4 719 2,38-39 55
V.16.2 6 VI.3604 716 3,11-12 55 Flavius Iosephus 11 14174739
V.27.1 793 VI.37 720721 55 Antiquitates Iudaicae
3,24-25
V.28 462 VI.38 720 xvm 11
3,33 55
VI 4 713-725 779 VI.39.5 724 Xvm,63 931
Epistula ad Melaniam
VI.2.1 715716 VIo4O-42 721 752840
VI.2.9-11 717 VII 723 Galenus 89599141
Gnosticus 765
VI. 2. 15 141 VII. 1 723 De libris propriis 896
Kephalaia gnostica 752765774 96
VI.3.8 167 VII.32.5.12 722 prol.
1.49 768
VI.3.11-12 717 VII.32.6 721 prol.5 99
3.28 768 De ordine librorum suorum
VI. 8 717 VII.32.30-31 722 3.32 767
VI. 8 04-5 717 VII.32.30 721 896
4.73 774 l 96
VI. 14.10 282 In Isaiam I.85 651 840
6.24 De usu pa11ium XI.l4
VI.15 187718 In Psalmos 479 767
6.73 822
VI.1604 602 Praeparatio evangelica 765
Practicus In Hippocratis librum de officina
VI.l9.1O 144 128 142793794 775
Prol. 6 medici commentarii iii
VI.l9.12-14 16716935 I.2.1-4 807 768
2 156
VI.19.16 720 VI.9 142
12.1 771 In Hippocratis librum vi epidemiarum
VI. 19.97f. 934 VI.l1 545
12.9-12 771 II.981.12 141
VI.21.3-4 719 VII.21 793
12.14-15 771
VI.22 610 IX.14.12 815
12.18-24 771 Gennadius Massiliensis
VI.23.2 96 XI.20.2 101
27 772 773 776 De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis
VI.2304 716 XI.26 827
XI.26.8 815 27.1-3 773 33 752753
VI. 24 719
Scholia 709-711 27.3-7 776
VI.24 8
VI.24.1-4 283 Vita Pamphili 8719 28 772 Gnostica - Nag Hammadi
VI.24.1 24 43,50,51 777 Exegesis de anima 733-749
VI.24.2 149409 Ps.-Eusebius 321 322 324 325 48 770 127.19-128.26 741
VI.25.1-2 476 98 767 127.27-29 744
VI.25.7-1O 106 Eustathius Antiochenus Scholia 772 12804-10 742
VI.25.9 425 66 Scholia in Proverbia 128.13-17 743744
VI.25.11-14 332 De engastrimytho contra Origenem 308 128.16-18 742
VI.25.11-13 375 852 Sententiae ad monachos 128.19-20 745
VI.25.13 158 21 67 31 768 128.29-31 743
VI.26 718 Tractatus ad Eulogios 2 128.29-30 744
718720 Evagrius Ponticus 167 751 752 779 765-778 129.8-22 736
VI. 27
782955 De vitiis quae opposita sunt vlltutibus 129.16-7 747
VI.28 719
Antirrheticus 765 Prol.(l); 6(4) 772 129.23-130.11 736
VI.2904 718
 1012 AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES 1013

130.11-20 736 III,4,3ff. 57 Hel'acleon 10 Il 16 52-54 1.22 960

130.30 737 III,5,35 58 284419424 594 2.11 407
131.3-8 737 III,6,54 58 Hypomnèmata 11 2.16 407
131.4-5 743 III,9,30-31 58 2.18 198
131.9-13 737 III,1O,51 58 Heraclitus 143 2.19 110201
131.16--134.11 742 III, 10,52 58 2.22 719
133.3 737 De anima Hermeneumata Pseudodositheana 3.18 962
133.9-10 737 104-105 655 612 11.466 792
133.16-20 737 148 654 Commentarii in Epistolam Beati Pauli
134.27 736 De anima et resurreetione Hermetica ad Galatas 150
135.1-4 735737 669791 Hermes Trismegistos ProI. 153
135.4 736 17 AIl; 76 B 9 938949 Commentarii in Isaiam
582
135.16-19 737 De hominis opificio 791 Kore Kosmou 24 422 1 proI. 1 147
135.20-21 737 Poimandres 422 680 I.1 690696
17.2 654
135.22-24 736 III. 11 442
In Cantieum Cantieomm
135.29-31 737 Hermogenes 414 Commentarii in Malaehiam
311 568 580
135.31-136.4 737 672
1 711
136.4-8 738 Herodotus 807 Commentarii in Matthaeum
In Eeclesiasten 654
136.9-15 738 Historiae II.912-916 573
371,4 56
136.27-35 738 III.38 (pindare fr. 49) IIl,486-492 566
426,17 56
136.35-137.11 738 807 Commentarii in Prophetas Minores
137.16-22 In Illud: Tune et Ipse Filius IV.87 607 In Osee II.8.164-168
738
649669670 IV.IV.76 821 573
Gregorius Nazianzenus 17 654 Commentarii in Psalmos
235 245-247 695 In inseriptiones Psalmomm II 3 Herophilus 143476 498
696812 479 Contra Ioannem Hierosolymitanum
Ad Seleeum 1.61 246 ln Proverbia 1 48 Hesiodus 140755 8.415 792
De vita sua 246 De mortuis oratio 654 v.116 141 26 914
Orationes Oratio Cateehetiea De seraphim 695699
29 921 23,15 56 Hesychius Hierosolymitanus De Spiritu Saneto 780
38.13 920 24 881 487 De viris illustribus
43.11 247 56,4 56 120 155 61 282
Oratio eonsolatoria in funere 83 791
Gregorius Nyssenus Pulcheriae 654 Hierocles Alexandrinus Epistulae
55-59 308 310- Oratio Dominiea 654 De providentia et fato 33 928 149 151 152
312 323 324407 Refutatio eonfessionis Eunomii 144 164719
487 566 568 649 12.4s. 59 33.2 151
650 654 656 662 192-193 695 Hieronymus 8 9 29 30 66 100 33.4 152 409 690 960
663 670 695 704 128 147-166 197 33.4.2-5.8 149
705 709 711 712 Gregorius Thaumaturgus 199-201 216 245 39.22.9 933
792 800 880 881 98 149 167 232 307 365 369 374 51.5.2-6 67
Adversus Maeedonianos 234 235 247 720 376 407 442 443 54.17 573
566 Oratio panegyriea 7 188235 486 604 608 672 57.1.3 895
Contra Eunomium 6 234 689-701 706 779 68.2 788
II 5654 8-11 236 788 845 895 950 70.4 128
II, 1,40-41 57 15,174 167 956 957 959-961 73.2 672
II,40-41 56 115,174 167 Apologia adversus Rufinum 84.10 98101
II,386 56 1.6 407 89 956
III,2,4 57 Hel'aclas 718720 1.12 962 92 955956
 1014 AUCTORES ANTIQill ET MEDIAEVALES AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES 1015

92.1.4 962 Contra Noetum 282 283 285 287 II 219-223 154 Expositio fidei 931
95.2-3 962 288 299 301 304 III.352c2 139 III. 18 921
95.2 962 2.1-2 285 XIA66a2 139
11204 788 2.3 285 XVII.361 776 loannes Drungarius
11204.3 150 2.5-6 295 Z.236 829 310 733
Excerpta de Psalterio Prolo 2.5 285 Odyssea
163 164 3-8 286 VII. 174 139 loannes Eriugena
Homiliae in Canticum Canticorum 3.2 286 XI.38 139 De divisione naturae V.27
706 3.6 287 XXIV.261ss 421 216
Homiliae in Ezechielem 4.1-13 287
Praefatio 147153 163 4.5 286 Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem loannes Philoponus
Homiliae in leremiam 4.7-8 286 52 407
6.1 698 4.11 286 I.17b1 139 De opificio mundi 404
Homiliae in Psalmorum 4.12 286 I.585a1 139 411
1 895 4.13 286287 I.585a2 139
Liber interpretationis hebraicorum 5-8 287 II.135c 139 loseph et Aseneth 174
nominum 613 9-18 286287 II.220b 139
Praef. 408 10-14 VII.330b1 139 Irenaeus 14 112 1196465
287288
Tractatus in Librum Psalmorum IX. 247 139 68 143 165 599
10.1-4 463
Ps 1 895 IXA72b1 139 Adversus Haereses
1004 297300
X.5 X.350a 140 1.1.1-2 463
757 11.1-2 463
XI.222a 140 1.5.5 416
Pseudo-Hieronymus 11.1 465
XI.826a 140 1.7.2 928
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum 11.2-3 299
XI1.49b 140 10424.11-15 573
1.5 :4-5 955-965 12.3 287
XVIA3 140 II.25.1-2 127 131
1.5: 4.3-5 .10-13 962 1204 304
XXI1.32b 140 II.28.5 128
1.5 963 13.1-2 295
XXIII.591-592 140 II.30.9 65
I.5:3 956 14 287 III.7.2 332
1.5:4 956 14.1 287 127
Hrabanus Maurus 245 III. 11.24
15.1 288289 III. 12.2 127
Hilarius Pictaviensis 15.2-7 288 III. 12.9 128
lamblichus 680
100 481-483 859 15.2 288 III. 13.3 128
De mysteriis Aegyptiorum
895 15.6-7 301 III. 17.3 14
In Psalmos, Prologus V.24.234.15-235.5 820
15.7 288 III.18.7 111
Theologumena arithmeticae
894 16.2 288 IV.7A 828
421
Instructio Psalmorum 16.3-7 288 IV.11.3 361
1-24 483 16.3 288 Ignatius Antiochenus IV.20.1 758
7 481 1604 299 331 IV.33 262
24 893 De Pas cha 610 Ad Ephesios XIX.1 121 881 IVA6 245
Tractatus super Psalmos Refutatio omnium haeresium Ad Magnesios VIIl.2 463 V.2.1 119
II.30 503 7.35-36 462 V.5.1 65
LIV.5-6 900 9.11-12 282 lohannes Chrysostomus V.6.1 758
10.1304 416 602 733 875 876 V.23.1 121
Hippocrates 141 10.27.3-4 282 893961 V.28A 758·
De aere, aquis, locis 24 10.33.1 463 V.30.1-2 599
821 Pseudo-Chrysostomus Demonstratio
Pseudo-Hippolytus 476 482 De Turture seu de Ecclesia 12 65
Hippolytus Romanus 308 63 262
14 165 282-292 Homerus 127 141 159 230
297 299 302 478 606755 loannes Damascenus Isidorus Hispalensis
479784 Ilias 139 920921 961962
 1016 AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES
AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES 1017
Isidorus Pelusiota 323704 88.8 503 Marcion 1633 99 283 422 II. 10.5 911
103.6 503
lulianus Apostata 659660 II.22.1 911
128.2-4 465
--;. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Contra m.2 654
12804 463
Iulianum Marcus Gnosticus 594 m.2.8 912
Contra Galilaeos mA.5 915
803-830873 luvenalis 612
Epistulae Martinus Turonensis m.5-7 914
89.291b 123 m.5 911
821 Laurentius Valla 579 m.5.1-5 915
89A53b 807 II, proemio 6 579 Maximus Confessor m.5.5 915
89b.292c 821 m.1 579 583800927 m.5.6-7 915
89b.301a 824 m.1.7 579 Ambigua 33 921 m.6.1 909913
Misopogon m.3.9 579 Expositio in Psalmum LIX m.6.10 910
18.348bd; 30.359bc 819 m.15,42 579 m.7.6 914916
921
Opuscula theologica et polemica 4 m.7-8 910 916
lulius Africanus 609610 720 Liber lubilaeorum 174 m.13-14 914
Chronographiae 609 927
Questiones et dubia 50 m.14.7 916
Lucanus 612 m.15 916
lulius Cassianus 416 926
III.l5.1 912913
Lucianus m.16.1-2 916
lustinianus 587957959 Melito episcopus Sardum
Vitarum auctio 23 156 m.17-18 910
16412413
m.17 911 917
lustinus Martyr 112215-265851 Lydus, loannes Laurentius m.17.3 913 914916 917
Apologia 1 251 253 260 Methodius 417 779 791-802
De mensibus 2.7 421 m.17A-5 913
33.1 252-254 874885957959
m.17.5 914
34.1 259260-262 Adversus Origenem de Pythonissa
Macarius Magnes 593873-889 m.18.1 913 917
Apologia II 251 885
2.8 882 m.18A-8 916
5 112 De creatis 791-793 795-801
2.9 882 m.18A 912
6.3 463 959 m.18.8 913 914
2.14 879
Dialogus cum Tryphone 2.1 908 m.22 915
2.20 882
251257260 2 796 Symposium 792793795
2.21 883888
43.8 256 9 799 9.1 800
3.1 879
56.11 463 12.10-11 798
3.2 879
61.1-2 463 De libero arbitrio 792-795798 Neophytus Reclusus
3.9 880882
62.2 463 De resurrectione 791-795800907- 309
3.11 882-884
66.2 252253 917
4.1 886
67.lff 255 lA 417 Nestorius 955
4.11 887
67.1 256 I.l5 800
4.13 888
68.6 252253 I.l9.1 908 Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus
4.14 880
68.7 256 1.20-24 908 876 877 879 885
4.16 882
71.1 256 1.22.5 909915916 Antinheticus
4.18 882
71.3 252 253 255 256 1.23.3 908 1.26 928
4.20.2 827
78.1-6 259 1.24.1-2 916 lIA 927
4.23.1 826
78.1 260-262 1.24.1 914 Chronographia 545
4.24 879
78.5 260264265 1.25.1-26.2 909 Epikrisis
4.24a.5-6 et IV.2A 822
79 110 1.25.2-7 909 12 878
4.25 884
84.1-3 252253 1.25.7 915 12.19-21 <I>X'I' 876
4.26-29 884
84.1-2 258 1.39.6 417 12.37-51 885
4.26 882
84.1 253254258 1.52 916
84.3 1.52.3 911 Nicetas Confessor
256 Mani 422 1.62.1 912 Vita 927
1018 AucrORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES AUcrORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES 1019

Nilus Ancyranus 308 309 704 708 Dialogus de vita Ioannis Chrysostomi 103 143 Philodemus
709929 6 962 De Decalogo Rhetorica I.341 421
7 962 156 242
Pseudo-Nilus Ancyranus 7,17 963 De ebrietate Philoxenus de Mabbug
Commentarius Canticum Canticorum Historia Lausiaca 15 243 837
308 404 783 De fuga et inventione
38.9 766 121 243 Photius 144 792 875 876
Noetus Smyrnaeus 282285-287 38.13 767 De gigantibus 15 878957
16 577 Bibliotheca
Novatianus Pamphilus Caesariensis De migratione Abrahami 54 879
De Trinitate XXX.175; XII.65 148-152779957 23 748 59 875876
462 Apologia 713 714779 959 De mutatione nominum 214 144
9 149 236-237 597 235 791
Numenius Apamensis 33 460 De opificio mundi 251 144
13 128 422 423 36 8 23.69-71 413
48 464 56 115 Pindarus 610 807
Olympiodorus diaconus 50 466 De plantatione Olympia I.1 141
Alexandrinus 733-749 89 462 36 64
In Lamentationes 738 99 461 38 64 Plato 95 127 128 140
1,1 739741 742748 106 467 138 143 143 144 242 446
1,2 742746749 127 791 158 243 924
1,3 743748 De posteritate Caini Cratylus 588589
1,7 744749 Pantaenus 1416 32 64 438ab 588
1,8 744 De sobrietate 439bc 588
1,11 745 Pastor Hermae 16 ss. 368 Critias 808820
1,16 745 Pl'. IVA.1 400 27 143 109bc 808
1,18 745 De somniis 13 Epistulae
1,19 746749 Paulus de Tella 603 I.133 675 II 101 102
1,21 746749 I.240 546 II.312-313 276
2,9 746 Philippus Sidetes 407784 II. 242 64 VII 105
2,10 747 Legum allegoriae 12 VII.341 272
2,12 [33] 740 Philo Iudaeus 11-13-151663-68 1045-46 63 VII.341b-345c 105
2,19 740 143144174229- II.18 115 Gorgias 525C2 666
2,20 [41] 739 231 233 239 240 III. 177 546555 Leges 808
3,52-54 739 242 243 368 380 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin III.676a-677a 885
3,55-57 739 380414 512 513 2.62 184 IV.713CD 808
4,1 740 528 547 555 569 Quis rerum divinarum heres V.12 273
4,3 740 577 593-595 597 230-232 184 X.895 a 421
4,22-5,22 747 711 751 755 762 Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat X.906a2-7 815
5,6 747 930 13 Parmenides 78
De Abrahamo Quod deus sit immutabilis 54 135d 3-5 140
Olympiodorus 421 243 243 380 Phaedo 37422
De confusione linguarum Quod omnis probus liber sit Phaedrus 105 106 277 422
In Alcibiadem 48.17 Cr.
421 2 815 98.141-143 243 230a 121
98 380 241 421
Oracula Sibyllina 656 144 815 Philo Carpasius 310311 313 314 246-247 675
146 546 318-329704709 246a 6f. 940
Palladius Helenopolitanus De congressu eruditionis gratia Commentarium in Canticum 247bf 922
15 243 Canticorum 318 247c 421
783 788 956 962
24--25.61 243 1 711 248c7 768
963
 AUcroRES ANTIQill ET MEDIAEVALES 1021
1020 AucrORES ANTIQill ET MEDIAEVALES

In Alcibidiadem 132.13 Cr. 6 197

274b-279c 105 Plutarchus 421800 100198
421 7
275d-e 105 Aquane an ignis sit utilior Historia Ecclesiastica
Politicus 141 2.7 783788
270a 109 955d-e 141 Procopius Gazaeus 308 310 323 407
411 710 7.32.30 784
514a-520 887 Consolatio ad Apollonium 11.7 407
Respublica 238 27.115b 421 Commentarü in Genesim
412 Prolo gus in hornilias Origenis super
379c 118 De E apud Delphos 141 Numeros 27 150
469 C 238 394C 141 3.21 912
29 545 Sententiae Sexti Praefatio
500b-c7 82 De Iside et Osiride 163
503b 421 2 121 Epitome in Canticum canticorum
40 122 308309312314-
533d 237 Sallustius 612
381 F 421 322 324 325 703-
617e 109686
Sophista 248e6-249c2 Fragmenta 712
Sententiae Sexti 5 13 93 163
82 128 141 22 92 94
Symposium 277 Graccho Prudentius 700
352 92 94
203b-c 67 Solon 15, 2 636
Timaeus 81 422 797 800 Solon 27, 1 609 Quintilianus 95
Sergius de Res'aynii
810 922 930 Themistoc1es 27, 1-2 Institutio oratoria 840
24 167 609 1.5.52ff. 45
30ab 922 Theseus 1,2 606 V.2 579 Socrates 95 105 143588
34c,36de 922 Vitae parallelae 606 Vm.6A 579 Historia ecc1esiastica
Cimon 2,2 606 IX.U7 579 875878
Pseudo-Plato 102 4.25.7 407
Epistula II.312d 101 Polybius Rabbinica 5.21.5-7 878
Historiae XII 11, 1 609 Genesis Rabbah 69174 6.7 751-753 961
Epistula II.314a-c 102
lA 69 6.10 875
Plinius Secundus Maior Polychronius Apamenus XII. 6 70 6.11 876
95563 309 312 318 325 XV.3 6972 6.15.13 876
703 Canticum Canticorum Rabbah I.1, 8 6.17 876
Plinius Caecilius Secundus Minor 450 7.7-13 789
95563 Porphyrius Tyrius 95 102 103 129 Samuel b.Nachman 69 72
157 782 874 875 SophocIes 140
7677 82 87 93 95 922934 Rufinus 21 24 26 27 29
Plotinus
Contra Christianos 806 807 66 163 197 199 Sophronius 921
102 103 105 156
200 308 312 365 Epistula synodica 2.3.1
157 247 422 423 BiS tÙ apJ!ovlKÙ IItoÀBJ!ŒtoU
368 372 374 411 921
922948 un6J!v~J!Π44
Quaestiones Homericae ad lliadem 445 587 660 689
Enneades 423
1.56 129 697 698 700 703- Sozomenus Salaminius
1.6 423
Vita Plotini 712 714 765 779 Historia Ecc1esiastica
II.9 422
3-4 783 784 788 794 8.11.3-5 961
m.9 157 93
3.24-35 102 881 936 956 957
N.3 422
3.32-4.18 103 959 Ps.-Sphrantzes, Georgius
IV.7 422
Apologia contra Hieronymum Chronicon 578.19 651
N.8 422 3A6f. 156
V.1 422 4,4f. 156 II.12 660 960
II.31 697 Strabo 823
V.2 422423 8 95
Commentarius in Symbolum Geographia II.3.7 823
V.3 467681
VI.7 424 Posidonius 823 Apostolorum 14 881
De adulteratione librorum Origenis Sulpicius Severus
VI.8 76424 Dialogi 1.7 962
ProcIus 87924 100197
VI. 9 86422 423
1022 AUcrORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES AUcroRES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES 1023

Symmachus 63 65 68 134 257 Theodoretus Cyrrhensis Tractatus contra Originem de vision Valentinus 16421
410 602 604 605 145 320416487 Isaiae 698 699
706740 704845 851 893 Varro 151
Graecarum affectionum curatio V.50 Theophilus Antiochenus
Tatianus 926 431 Vergilius 612613
Oratio ad Graecos 6 In Lamentationes 1 741 Ad Autolycum II.10
661 Intelpretatio in psalmos. In Ps 1 463 Vita Adae et Evae 113656
479 9.1 114
Terentius 612 Quaestiones in Exodum 48 Theophilus Caesariensis 15.3 114
926 De Pascha 753 16 115
Quaestiones in Genesim
Tertullianus 100111-113 680
III 416 Thomas Aquinas Wilhelmus Hirsaugiensis 245
Adversus Heilliogenem
III.6-7 827 De potentia quo 7 ali. 6ad 7
19.1 414
20.2 414 580 Xenophon 95
Theodorus Mopsuestenus
23.1 414 784852
Thucydides 609 Zenodotus 155
27.1 414 In Zachaliam 852
Adversus Iudaeos
9 258 Theodorus de Ponto
13 262 720
Adversus Marcionem
100 Theodorus Studites
1.1.1 100 Epistulae 919
2.10 113 57.19-20 919
3.13 258 57.26-30 919
4 400 301.104-08 919
Adversus Praxean 283431 305.35-36 919
5 463 315.30 919
6-7 289 380.148, 156, 166ff.
14-15 295 919
15.9 295 380.152 919
De anima 416.26-28 919
XVI.40 111 427.18-27 919
524.36-41 919
528.48-53 919
Testamentum Hiobi
532.110-11 919
113
43,5 114 Theodotion 257 410 602 604
605706
Testamentum Salomonis
113 Theon, Aelius
Proymnasmata 617
Testamenta XII patriarcharum
Testamentum Levi 18,5 Theophanes Confessor
199 Chronographia 927

Theocritus 140 Theophilus Alexandrinus

216 323 699 704
Theoctistus Caesariensis 850 876 955-957
718 . 959961 962
 AUCTORES MODERNI

AASGAARD, R. 373 32 AUFFARTH, CH. 94036

ABBATTISTA, E. 618 8 623 16 AUJAC, G. 823 99
ABEL, F.M. 845 1 AULÉN, G. 109 1
ACHELIS, H. 476 4 477 47816.18.19 AUSSEDAT, M. 712 22 733 2 734 5-7
479 21 480 48F3.26 482 483 35 48436-38 745 14
485 39.42.43 486 487 AUWERS, J.-M. 128 11 ' 308 5 3097.10
AnAMIK, T. 616 2 310 15* 31225* 31740* 31843 .46* 31947.49
ADLER, A. 155 29 32256.59* 323 62 .67 325 72.73 32677 327 82
AKlYAMA, M. 539-544 32885.87-90 329 92.95 703-712 703 4
ALAND, K. 15010 254 11 261 29 381 46 7045 706 12
ALBECK, CH. 69 29 .31 70 33 .34 17426 ' AuZÉPY, M.-F. 931 42
17641 AVERINCEV, S.S. 58221
ALBERTI, A. 15632* AYJ..N CALVO, IJ. 428 37
ALBL, M.C. 37229 AYRES, L. 856585788664287164
ALBRECHT, M. VON 659 27*
ALDRED, C. 951 85 BACHTIN, M. 583 21
ALETTI, J.-N. 3584 BADER, R. 267 6
ALEXANDRE, M. 31240774112556612 BAEHRENS, W.A. 29 86 150 11 307 3*
9333 5
308 * 30910* 694 17
ALEXOPoULOS, T. 5808 BAGET Bozzo, G. 268 6
ALIAU-MiLHAUD, A. 345-355 358 5 BAGNALL, R.S. 61226
ALIMONTI, T. 731 18' BALAS, D.L. 57637
ALLEN, P. 921 10- BALDWIN, B. 931 42
ALLENBACH, J. 307 2 BALTES, M. 933 3* 948 62 .64*
AMACKER, R. 1495 1974' 713 1* 7791' BALTHASAR, H.U. VON 48 33 600 32
ANATOLIOS, K. 8565 7296.7
ANDERSEN, 0. 579 2 BAMMEL, C. 411 23
ANDERSON, K.L. 6528 BANDT, C. 16256 169 1 172 173 21
ANDREoPoULOS, A. 583 22 17531 * 613 27 891-905
ANDRESEN, C. 251 1 275 26 BARANOV, V. 919-932 920 6 922 15
ANTONIONO, N. 5393 929 36.37* 93039
ARMITAGE ROBINSON, J. 39 1' BARBÀRA, M.A. 307 3 308 6* 3097.8*-
ARMOSTRONG, A. 424 10*.12.13* 310 15* 311 31225 * 313 314
ARNIM, H.F.A. VON 498 13 315 39 ' 31740* 318 41 * 31947 * 323 65
ARNOLD, l 267-2802686 269 11 27219 32468 325 72*.73 326 327 80-*82* 328
274 277 278 34.37 279 39
24 32 329 92*.94.95* 367 20 373 30* 7031.3 704
ARNOU, R. 81 32 705 706 13 709 16
AROZTEGill EsNAOLA, Mie 428 37 BARBARO, D. 502 27
ASHERI, D. 609 BARBEL, J. 69420
ASSAN-DHOTE, J. 53449 BARDENHEWER, O. 694 17
ASSMANN, l Q~724··~'Q1'fï3té32(Q41~7.4 BARDY, G. 7241 14270 72PO 72223
94245 94348 94451 94i~)~~~:ilj"94694~rji 7804 781
94971 95073 951 82 357-3845632
AUBÉ, B. 268
6 15632 661 30
 AUCTORES MODERN! 1027
1026 AUCTORES MODERN!

95 19.20 10247 10663 15631 CAVALLERA, F. 23448 960 11

BARNES, M.R. 856 3-5 858 9* 86436 BIENERT, W.A. 123 124* 408 6.7 4~i29 BRISSON, L.
25
14 18 CAVALLO, G. 96
867 48 86852 669 672 * 75P* 753 11 * 779 2* 7809
51 3 922 924 *
CEREsA-GASTALDO, A 308 5 31845 *
BARNES, T.D. 609 22 794 17 875 15 898 26* BROCK, S. 572
19 32
BARRETT, C.K. 381 46 BIETENHARD, H. 7241 BROOKS, R 7241 228 29 CERETI, G. 394 400
3 CERIANI, AM. 603
5
BARTELINK, G.J.M. 895 20 BIETZ, W.K. 64 10 67 23 BROWN, D. 856
14 17
55 CEULEMANS, R. 307-329 310 .
BARTHÉLEMY, D. 13437 257 17 BIGG, C. 1094 685 27 934 5 BROWN, P. 776
31119.2231845 321 53 32470
BARTLETT, J.R 229 33 BIRLEY, A.R 31 BROWN, S. 855*
8
BRUNING, B. 8575* CHADWICK, H. 94 14 268 857
BASEVI, C. 503 33 BLANC, C. 281 1 297 67 353 12 373 33 8
CHANTRAINE, P. 349
BASTIT-KALINOWSKA, A. 53 45 331- 461 16 50436 547 628 26* 63235 633 36* BRUNNER, H. 945579499517895184
58
79 CHARLES, RH. 115
344 335 7 358 5 671 1 6768 677 12 .13 680 17 858 12* BRUNNER-TRAUT, E. 951 53
79 CHARLESWORTH, J.H. 113 39 * 114
BATAILLE, A 61226 BLANK, D.L. 42 10 BRUNS, J.E. 144
5
545 *
BATIFFOL, P. 163 60 BLASS, F. 3463 BRUNSCHWIG, J. 66po*
8 CHATZIÔANNOU, K. 318 44
BAUCKHAM, R 658 25 * 66233 ' BLONDEL, C. 873 5* 877 88044 88252 BRYAN, S.M. 651
18
84 85 CHAVOUTIER, L. 694
BAUERNFEIND, O. 41 8*.9* 88456 88663 * 88764* 888 66* BUCHINGER, H. 28 29
84 CHEN, D.G. 858 11
BAUN, J. 66648* 67054* BLOWERS, B.M. 781 17* BÜCHSEL, M. 951
14
24 CHÊNEVERT, J. 707
BEATRICE, P.-F. 415 51 780 10 BLOWERS, P.M. 7241 228 29 BÜRKE, G. 67 47
BUNGE, G. 5551.5277341 CHERLONNEIX, J.-L. 95 19 102
BECKWITH, C. 8565 BLUMENTHAL, H.J. 924 19 24
32 CHILTON, B. 203
BEDUHN, J. 78222* BOCHER, O. 939 32 BUNGE, M.J. 373 *
BURKERT, W. 937 24 951
82 CHRYSOSTOMIDES, J. 931 44*
BEELEY, C. 8565 BOECKH, A 933 2 3
11 CINER, PA 419-435 419
BEES, N.A 16568 BOHLIG, A. 933* BUSSANICH, J. 76 6 10
99 CLARK, E.A. 658 26 669 51 752 .
BEHR, J. 858 10 BOHM, TH. 78 19 BUTCHVAROV, P. 243
14 21
17 768 19 859 924
BEHRENDTS, A 165 69 BOGE, H. 97 26 BUTTERWORTH, G.W. 183
796 85812 858 860 - 861 23 -27
23 12 18 21 CLAUSS, M. 934 9
BEIERWALTES, W. 76 9.10 77 12 85 56 BOMMAS, M. 937 24*
86228 .29 CLEMENTS, R 605 12
87 65 BONA, E. 714 10
COCCHINl, F. 1941 267 6 3323 4451.2
BEKKER,I. 45 22 BONCOMPAGNI, N. 789 46 44610.15 449 50 45055.57.59 451 66
35
583 21 BONNET, H. 950 75 CACCIARI, A 17 39-60
BELYJ, A
CADIOU, R. 75 6 77 16 143
73 163 60 45267.69.70 452 71 453 78 454 85 463 23
BENDINELLI, G. 1942 129 18 385-406 BONWETSCH, G.N. 4764* 478 16*.18*
19
16466 497 13 505 38.39 681 685 29 50230 503 35 5632
627 25 629 30 913 34
COLLATZ, C.-F. 161
BENEDICTUS XIV 563 1 21 50 2254 147 1 153 22
10
BORRET, M. 893
BENEDICTUS XVI 420 5 163 59 275 27 3085* 37434 5392 637 42* CALATI, B. 73221 COMBEFIS, F. 68
CAMERON, A. 23244 580 8 666 *
48 CONGOURDEAU, M.-H. 924 18 *.20
BENIN, S.D. 381 49 638 43 * 729 10* 761 80* 21.22.25.26 926 28 927 29
54 925
BENJAMINS, H.S. 658 25 BORRIELLO, L. 727 1* 670 *
CAMPENHAUSEN, H. VON 934794863.65 CONTICELLO, C.G. 269 10*
BENNETT, B.J. 40867811678222 BORST, J. 581 14 582 17 616 2
951 83 COOK, J.G. 873 2 874
10
BENVÉNISTE, E. 607 16 Bos, E.P. 127 1* 17* 895 19
3 5 731
BOSTOCK, G. 109-123 113 42 115 59 CAMPOREALE, S. 579 - COPPA, G.
BENZ, E. 51 39* 3334*
CANIVET, P. 926 28* CORDIER, B. 53452
BERCHMAN, RM. 77 16 228 29 123 124 225 17 8349 93040.41 940 34 953
1 CORNÉLIS, H. 8325
BERGHAUS, M. 566 11 * BOTTIROLI, G. 58221 CANOPI, A.M. 727
11 16 CORSARO, F. 875 15
BERGMAN, J. 9348 94449 BOUDON-MILLOT, V. 814 96 22 CANTALAMESSA, R. 391 * 461
27 CORSINl, E. 281 1 292492934929765.66
BÉRIOU, N. 922 15* BOUFFARTIGUE, J. 803280612.1481982 783 *
4 29869 301 84.85 351 10 357 1 461 16.17
BERNER, U. 935 12 940 36 82396 CARLETON PAGET, J.N.B. 358
21 46426 46956-58 47059 545 547 616 2*
BERROUARD, M.F. 865 38 .39 867 744 13 803-830 CARLINl, A. 782
628 26 629 29.32 632 35 633 36 680 17
BOULNOIS, M.-O.
CARRIKER, AJ. 14269.7072224
BERTRAND, D. 3596 81031 827 110 828 112.114 922 15
15 COX, P. 7144
BETHGE, H.-G. 949 66* BOWMAN, A.K. 226 19 CASEAU, B. 922 *
25
5 CRAFER, T.W. 8749 875 18 876 880
BETTIOLO, P. 435 58 779'/.* 840 29 BOYS-STONES, G. 658 25 CASIDAY, A 856 *
12 8814688456.5788663
BEYER MOSER, M. 565 7 BRACHT, K. 885 62 CASSIN, M. 566 *
38 CRAMER, J.A. 75420*.26* 759 68*
BIANCHI, U. 415 51 * 458 6* 833 5* 8349 BRAKKE, D. 77237 CASTARTELLI, L.C. 113
CASTELLANO, A. 281-304 CRIBIORE, R 61226
835 12* 940 34 BRENTON, L.C.L. 50 37 28 33 CROGIER PÉTREQUIN, S. 806 12*
BRÉSARD, L. 308 5* 309 10* 37434 707 14 CATTANEO, E. 437-444 628 630
BIANCO, M.G. 3907*
783 27 CROKE, B. 608 18
BIDEZ, J. 821 87 BRIANT, P. 607 15
 1028 AUCTORES MODERNI AUCTORES MODERNI 1029

CROMBIE, F. 881 49 88251 DE MAGISTRIS, S. 478 DREWERY, B. 658 25 * FERGUS ON, E. 203 25 20428
CROUZEL, H. 79 24 93 13 96 23 98 32 DEMBOWSKI, H. 935 DREYER, O. 755 31 763 89 FERNÂNDEZ EYZAGUIRRE, S. 663 38
51 109 113 42* 123 123 181 12
103 DRINERS, H,J.W. 936 19 .22 66648
4
DEMILLAC, A. 734
183 14.15 185 23 18634 190 59 197 2.3 DE MONTFAUCON, B. 603 6 DRIOTON, E. 753 13 961 17 FERNANDEZ Lors, AH.A. 845 2
20018.1920429-31.362085321282217104 DE NAVASCUÉS, P. 428 37 DRISCOLL, J. 768 20 FERNÂNDEZ, S. 457-473
221 4 225 17* 23448 235 50 245 111 283 8.9 DENDRINOS, CH. 931 44* DROGE, Al 229 33 230 38.39 FESTUGIÈRE, A.-J. 422 681 18
293 52 296 64* 308 5* 30910* 374 34 DENIS, lJ. 221 4 DUBY, G. 933 3* FIELD, F. 173 20 485 41 603 7
39114395224003340338404454204.6 DENNIS, J.A 6528 DUCHESNE, L. 873 6 879 34 FrNAMoRE, lF. 92627
425 25 427 33 43042 45270 458 6 461 16 DEPALMA DIGESER, E. 875 15 DÜRING, I. 44 18* 421 FINE, J. 53449
465 36 468 48 .52 470 60 498 14 57637 * DE RÉGNON, T. 855 1 8563.4 871 DULING, D.C. 203 24.26 FlORE, B. 446 ll 453 81
582 19 658 25 685 28 707 14 727 2* 730 12 DESCARTES, R. 533 DUMMER, l 15221 8929* FroRI, E. 831-843 840 26.28
755 33* 833 5 835 12* 836 14 84233 859 17 DE SEGUR CAMERON, N.M. 197 2* DUNDERBERG, I. 659 27 FISCHER, E.A. 61226
908 5 909 13 911 21 91225 913 34 915 41 DES PLACES, E. 82085 DUNN, J. 725 31 FISHER, M.C. 858 ll
91650 93038* 940 34* 951 83 DE VOGUÉ, A 73221 * DUPONT, J. 493 8 503 32 FITZER, G. 421 7
CROWE, F. 8563 DEVREESSE, R 163 60 410 19 488 51 DUVAL, Y.-M. 6723 693 16* FITZGERALD, AD. 859 13' 867 48 *
CURTI, C. 323 65 703 1 50229 754 18 *.20* 8928 DYSINGER, L. 772 34 77444 FLORENSKI, P.A 583 21
CVETKOVIC, V. 791-802 DEWALD, E.T. 175 30 FLOROVSKY, G. 796 24
DiAz SANCHEZ-CID, R 14268 EBELING, F. 938 26 FONTAINE, J. 13437 * 598 27 * 859 17'
DAL COVOLO, E. 714 12 727-732 DI BERARDINO, A. 323 66* 659 27* EDWARDS, M,J. 77 16 221 4 225 17 .18 FORLIN-PATRUCCO, M. 5551
8464* 703 1* 228 *.29.31 233 . 653 14 66648 *
28 46 47 FORSYTH, N. 110 13 111 17 11224.29 .33
DALEY, B.E. 20435857886748 DICKEY, E. 13953 1484 669 51 67054* 675 7 68425 685 28 756 34* 121 106
DALY, RJ. 1634* 10561 * 38043 * 415 51 * DIEGO SANcHEz, E. 781 14 929 36* FOUCART, P. 873 5
52025* 658 25* 67F* DIHLE, A 658 25 EDWARDS, RA 94 14 FOURNET, J.-L. 61226
DANIELI, M.I. 1942 25 68 51 39 378 41 DILLON, J. 7145 859 17 EHRMAN, B.D. 78220 881 48 FRANKENBERG, W. 84029
385 1 387 3* DIOBOUNIOTIS, C. 151 15 EISENSTADT, S.N. 940 35 * FRANKFORT, H. 115 61 123 122
DANIÉLou, J. 1092 12097 14270 547 10 DI PILLA, A. 78222* ELLERSHAW, H. 7666 F'RANKFuRTER, D. 229 32
548 56920 68630 811 ll 898 26 DODARO, R 8565* EpSTEIN, I. 17427 FRAENKEL, D. 507 1' 936 17'
DAVIES, P.R 91* DODDS, E.R 421 9 422 423 20 42424 ERBSE, H. 5242* 1275 139 53 * 15426 F'REDOUILLE, J.-CL. 3 1
DAVIS, S.T. 8565' 911 20 912 25 EsCRIBANO-ALBERCA, I. 663 37 F'REEDMAN, H. 17427 *
DE ANDIA, Y. 583 22 839 25* DORRIE, H. 873 3 933 3* 948 62 .64' EsCUDERO, A 28F* F'RETHEIM, T.E. 373 32*
DE BOOR, C. 928 32 DOERRIES, H. 873 3 EsPER, M.N. 705 7 F'REVEL, CH. 94452
DEBRUNNER, A. 3463 DOGNIEZ, C. 38044 381 46 EVANS, E. 163 62 FRIcK, R 203 25 .26 20429
DECHOW, J.F. 415 51 779 2 955-965 DONALDSON, J. 2522*.3* 253 4*.5*255 12* EYNIKEL, E. 405 FRIEDRICH, G. 421 7'
DECLERCK, J. 927 29 256 13 *-16* 257 18 * 258 20* 259 21 * EYZAGUIRRE, S.F. 381 48 FROHNHOFEN, H. 381 48
DE FAYB, E. 1094 260 22*-24* 263 30* 26431 * 671 1* 925 24 FROTHINGHAM, A 836 17 837 18
DEFERRARI, RJ. 221 2 DONALDSON, T.L. 605 12* 6528 FABRICIUS, C. 581 17 FRÜCHTEL, E. 78 17
DE HAAS, F.AJ. 924 19 DORANDI, T. 95 18 .20 96 22 606 13 FABRY, H.-J. 936 18 FRÜCHTEL, L. 5448 *
DE LAGARDE, P.A 478 613 27 DORIVAL, G. 7 12 7240* 105 61 10664* FALLER, O. 859 15* FÜRST, A 8246 689-701 6891. 2 6905
DE LANGE, N.RM. 7241 225 17 228 29 128 ll 13437 13540* 141 66 1473* 16256 FARAGGIANA DI SARZANA, CH. 150 12 69196952269727 698 29 714 ll 941 37
613 27 163 57 16466 165 67 1708* 31740 3474* FARASCONI, R 17530' FULLER, M.E. 651 8
DE LA POTTERIE, I. 729 6 3596* 475 1 491 2 4923.4 501 26 507 1* FATOUROS, G. 919 2.3 FuNK, RW. 3463
DELARUE, C. 477 13* 745 601-614 603 4 604 10* 605 12 610 23 FAULHABER, M. 3087 3098.11 32259
DELARUE, C.-V. 477 13* 745 616 2* 720 19 780 10* 8926 910 18 913 31 32361 32468.69 7334 7345 GADAMER, H.G. 244 104
DELARUE, V. 19264 DOUGLASS, S. 5654* 581 13 FAURE, M. 927 29 ' GÂRTNER, H.A 16046*
D'ELIA, D. 789 47 DOUTRELEAU, L. 41020 7526* 753 16* FAVALE, A. 751 1 753 ll .
15 GALLAY, P. 921 9*
DEL TON, G. 633 38 635 40 75420* 758 55 * 7808 FEATHERSTONE, J.M. 877 878 .
30 31 GALLUCCIO, G.A 445 2 539 1
DE LUBAC, H. 420 445 2 455 91 58220 DOWNING, J.K. 655 FÉDOU, M. 79 24 83 188 353 12
50 50 GAMBLE, H.Y. 96 25
600 DRÂsKE, J. 23448 381 48 625 22 807 22 81244 81878 GARciA BAZAN, F. 423 21.22
DEMACOPOULOS, G.E. 8565* 858 10* DRECOLL, V.H. 566 ll * FELDMAN, L. 931 42 GASTER, T.H. 11224
1030 AUcrORES MODERNI AucrORES MODERNI 1031

GATTI, M.L. 76 7 GREGORY, C.R 150 10 807 20 826 108 855 2 8747.11.12 875 HORNUNG, E. 937 25 940 34 941 37.42
GAUDEMET, J .. 39829 GRESSMANN, H. 94245* 949 68 945 949 950 951 84 95287
55 77
GAUTHIER, J.D. 197 2 GRIBOMONT, J. 55 51 * HART, D.B. 858 10 864 36 HOSSFELD, F.-L. 90237
GEERARD, M. 3086 GRIESER, H. 94036* HARVALIA-CROOK, E. 931 44* HOUGHTON, H.A.G. 865 38
GEERLINGS, W. 16673 ' GRIFFITHS, J.G. 113 HARVEY, W.W. 573 32* HUET, P.-D. 684
GÉHIN, P. 16778 308 6 GRIGGS, C.W. 226 19 935 11 HAss, C. 226 19 HÜTTER, M. 940 36
GELZER, H. 609 19 GRILLMEIER, A. 283 13 938 30 HASTINGS, J. 113 38 HUGONNARD-ROCHE, H. 7 11 *
GEORGE, B. 945 55 GROH, J.E. 203 25 HAUSPIE, K. 41 5 HUSSON, P. 365 15 5073 514 14 535 52
GEORGI, D. 940 36 GRONEWALD, M. 753 16 ' 754 17 '.18' HAYDUCK, M. 14058 .60 616 2 8465
GERO, S. 919 4 927 31 928 32 75744* HECK, E. 3 1
GERSON, L.P. 76 7*.11* GRUBER, G. 945 56 HEGERMANN, H. 94970 INGE, W.R 11665
GESCHÉ, A. 753 16* 7807 GRYSON, R 1472 442 18* 69F HEIDEGGER, M. 18212 580 INGHOLT, H. 607 15
GESSEL, W. 616 2 GUDEMAN, A. 15425 15630 164 HEIDL, G. 335 7' 358 5* 55022* 616 2* INOWLOCKI, S. 1221
GHATTAS, M. 781 15 898 26 GUÉRARD, M.-G. 309 8* 703 4 3 6
689 * 920 * 953* IRIGOIN, J. 141 66 494 10
GUILLAUMONT, A. 751 1 7528 753 11 ISOLA, A. 78222*
GmSLERIUS, M. 733 734 745 HEIL, G. 831 1
GIACOMELLI, M.A. 31844' 779 2 840 27 HEINE, R.E. 20 44 .45 41 6 70 36 16046 IvANKA, E. v. 935
GIANOTTO, C. 7149 GUINOT, J.-N. 845 2 18421 216 99 407 1 409 14 6724 676 10
GIOIA, L. 8565 864 865 37 .39 JACHMANN, K.RB. 267 6
GULY, S. 123 123 197-220 677 11 680 17 858 12 86232 863 33 .34
JAEGER, W. 5655 *
GIRARDI, M. 4 2* 48 33 307 3' GUNKEL, H. 936 HEITHER, T. 4451.2 936 20
JAKAB, A. 717 16 721 21
GIULIANO, G. 583 21 GUNTON, C. 855 2 HELM, R. 608 17 *
JANSENIUS, C. 684
GLOCKNER, O. 267 6 GUYOT, P. 167 77 HENDRIKX, E. 865 38
JANSMA, T. 837 18
GNILKA, C. 367 20 HENGEL, M. 225 18 229 33 .34
JASPERS, K. 940 35
GOEHRING, J.E. 226 19 * 9345* 935 13' RADAS, M. 22621 227 26 229 33 .35 231 40 HENGSTERMANN, C. 75-878246 6891.2
JASTROW, M. 173 21
949 68 * RADoT, 1. 16673 6905 691 9 695 22 697 27 JAY, E.G. 2046 .47
GORG, M. 936 15 938 28 948 61 ' 95076 HADOT, P. 93 12 127 3 18742 512 HENNEPHOF, H. 927 31
JAY, P. 6049
952 HÂLLSTRoM, G. AF 439 5 HENNESSY, K. 8563
JENKINS, C. 43 15 3896*
GORGEMANNS, H. 16046* 495 11 499 18 HAGEDORN, D. 733 1 756 37* 759 66* HENRIcHs, A. 76076*
JORDENS, A. 16046*
659 27 * 858 12 86018.19.21 86124.26.27 HAGEDORN, U. 733 1 756 37* 759 66* HENRY, P. 15631
JOHNSON, A.E. 66648
86228 .29 881 49 * 88251 ' 93041 ' 936 21 HAGENDAHL, H. 97 26 HENRy, R 14481 JONAS, H. 935 12 936 19.22
938 HAINTHALER, T. 938 HERRICK, H.M. 203 25 .26 JONES, D.A. 9241792524-26 926 27
GOFFINET, E. 503 32 896 21 900 HALKIN, F. 928 32* HERRMANN, lJ. 3 1 JONES, H.S. 392
GOLTZ, E. VON DER 15010 161 50 HALL, S.G. 5654-56 HESTON, E.L. 780 5 JOUGUET, P. 606 14
GOODMAN, M. 228 28 * HAMMOND BAMMEL, C.P. 205 37 HEYLBUT, G. 15632 JUNG, C.G. 11667
GORCE, D. 7298 215 97 217 107 220 121 500 19 659 28 RICK, J. 11666.68 JUNGMANN, A. 19059*
GOUILLARD, J. 919 5 929 35 HANSEN, G.C. 309 12 751 3* 784 32 HILBERG, I. 1497 1509 15217 JUNOD, É. 36 1lO 7240 91-108 10036
GOULET, R 1448082295826108827109 878 33 HILDEBRAND, S.M. 8575 13540.41 13643 .45 1473 1495 1509.12.13
874 13 .14 875 18 877 27 .28 878 30 HANSER, W. 961 14* HILGARD, A. 44 19 45 21 151 15 15219 154 157 35 158 39.40 16048
GOULET-CAZÉ, M.-O. 91 2* 95 20 10247 HANS ON, RP.C. 230 36.38 231 41 23449 HILL, E. 858 13 86640-42.44 867 45 -47 161 49 .51.53 16254 163 57 1708 197 2.4*
10349 606 13* 238 69 23975 683 24 859 17 930 38' 868 49-51 869 53-56 235 50 357 2 408 10 5466.7 713 1* 7148
GOURINAT, J.-B. 661 30 HARL, M. 39 1 130 19 13F2 13437 HILL, R.C. 926 28 728 3 779 1*
GRABBE, L.L. 642 14268 23242 23658 .59 237 61 238 65 HINSKE, N. 9345* JUREWICZ, O. 445 3*
GRAFTON, A. 91 2 97 28 128 12 601 1 241 84.87 24289 244103.105 246 113 357 3 HrRscH-LUIPOLD, R 655 19* 659 27 '
6022 605 10 609 20.22 722 24 723 25 3584 371 28 38044 381464252543252 HOLDERLIN, F. 580 KACZMAREK, S. 445-456
GRANFIELD, P. 19059 * 441 14 476 7 5128 515 20 53754 603 4 HOFFMANN, R.J. 268 6 874 11 KAISER, U.u. 949 66*
GRANT, RM. 224162334671411 721 22 6189 8348 835 11 851 12 893 14.15 935 10 HOFSTADTER, A. 18212 KAMESAR, A. 38043 .45
949 68 HARMLESS, W. 765 1 HOLL, K. 152214122988146 KANrYAMPARAMPIL, E. 571 23
GRAPPONE, A. 24632882.8436823 BARMoN, S.R 669 53 HOLLIDAY, L.R 550 22 KANNENGIESSER, CH. 7241 * 13437 *
GREER, RA. 769 24 HARNACK, A. VON 21 49 29 88 37 114 HOLTZ, G. 6528 228 29 * 598 27 ' 717 16 859 17* 86231 *
GREGG, lA.F. 4212* 208 57 1497 15014 151 15 163 57 165 692 13 HORN, C.B. 359 8* 935 13*
 1032 AUCfORES MODERN! AUCTORES MODERNI 1033

KAPLONY, P. 94243 95074 KRAMER, B. 408 6 78433 LEIBNIZ, G.W. 671 MARlTANO, M. 727 1* 8464'
KARAMANOLIS, G.E. 1272 14481 KRAMER, l 612 26 LEICHT, R 940 36 MARKSCHIES, C. 135 40 147-167 1496
KARDAUN, M. 924 19* KRAus, W. 17218 * LEIPOLDT, J. 408 6.8 410 19 7803 781 16044 167 75 .76 1692 1708 48644 50022
KARFfKovA, L. 5654' KRECH, V. 839 25* LEKKAS, G. 14268 7147 725 31 935 10 93621 940 36 94p7
KARO, G. 163 57 164 309 11 476 478 KRELL, D.F. 18212 LEQUAN, M. 661 30* 949 68
481 4926 8925.10 KREMER, K. 9345 LEWIS, C.T. 445 4 MARRou, H.-I. 371 28 446 6
KARPP, H. 10665 495 11 499 18 858 12 KRETSCHMAR, G. 69420 LIDDELL, H.G. 392 446 12 776 MARsH, F.S. 838 19
86018.19.21 86124.26.27 86228 .29 881 49 * KRÔTKE, W. 94452 LIENHARD, J.cT. 671 2 867 48 * MARTIN SOSKICE, l 57225*
88251 * 93041 * 936 21 938 KÛGLER, J. 951 81 LIES, L. 67 22* 81 33* 217 104* 416 51 ' MARTIN, L.H. 228 30
KARRER, M. 17218* KÛHN, K.G. 141 64 15630 6746* 8348*.9* 836 14 859 17 * 910 18 * MASARACCHIA, E. 8045
KARST, J. 608 17* KUGEL, J.L. 1222* 93040* MAsINI, M. 727 2 7298
KAYATZ, CH. 948 60 , KUHNEWEG, U. 123 124* 6723* 751 2* LIETZMANN, J. 163 57 164 309 11 476 MASPERO, G. 563-578 566 11
KA.zHDAN, A 931 42 753 11 * 779 2* 898 26* 478 481 4926 8925.10 MAYHEW, R 925 26
KEHL, A 885 61 KurfERT, H.M. 755 33 763 89.90 LIPS, H. VON 940 36 MAzAL, O. 174291753417640
KEIM, TH. 2676 2686 LIVINGSTONE, E.A. 203 25 * 373 33 ' MAZZUCCO, C. 36 112 7149 723 28
KELLER, C.A 8349* LABATE, A 32674 381 48* 72430
KELLY, lF.T. 151 15 LA BONNARDIÈRE, A.M. 86538 LOMIENTO, G. 424621946427 MCDONOUGH, J. 479
KELLY, J.N.D. 111 21 1123~ 12096 956 LABOURT, J. 1497 1509 LOMMATZSCH, K.H.E. 477 12* McGINN, B. 7145* 717 17
9579565 LACUGNA, C. 8563 LONA, H. 2686.9 McGuCKIN, lA 247119.1237133 858 10
KENDALL, D. 8565* LAEUCHLI, S. 215 99 LONG, A 661 30 921 8
KENNEDY, G.A 582 18 583 23 LAKE, K. 15010 LORETZ, O. 95077 MCGUIRE, M.RP. 221 2
KERR, RM. 32255 LALLOT, l 41 10' LOSSKY, V. 831 2 McNAMEE, K. 155 27
KERRIGAN, A 845 1 LAMBERIGTS, M. 8575' LoURIÉ, B. 9206 929 36*.37 MEEKS, W.A 243 100
KING, K. 659 27 LAMBERZ, E. 16673 LOUTH, A 794 12* 921 9 MÉHAT, A 98 29.31 6505 8325
KINZIG, W. 582 18 LAMPE, G.W.H. 15736 203 25 .26 907 2 LucÀ, S. 308 6 MEDER, P.A 127 1*
KlTrEL, G. 421 7* LAMPROS, S.P. 311 21 LUCK, G. 937 24 MEILLET, P.J.A. 584
KLAUSER, TH. 938 27 LANATA, G. 268 6 LUDWICH, A 154 MEISSNER, H.M. 582 17
KLEIN, R 167 77 LANCZKOWSKI, G. 938 26 LUKASZEWICZ, A 59930 MEJZNER, M. 907-917
KLIJN, AF.J. 935 13 949 68 LANG, B. 948 61 * LUNDON, J.W.R 155 28 .29 15630 MENDELS, D. 724 30
KLOCK, CH. 582 17 LANGERBECK, H. 311 20* 711 20* LUST, J. 405 MENESTà, E. 78222*
KLOSTERMANN, E. 49 34* 50 36 51 39* LAOURDAS, B. 931 42 MERCATI, G. 4768 488 50.52 8928 893 10
143 73 1497.8 152 17 .18 333 4* 362 11 LATTIMORE, R 776 54 MACCULLOCH, J.A. 113 38 89624 903 904 39
499 16* 507 535 53 697 25 733 1 739742 LAUSBERG, H. 337 11 446 7.9 449 53 MACKAY, T.W. 7808 MERCIER, CH. 758 55*
743898 27* 45061 453 81 MACKEY, J. 8563 MEREDITH, A. 5654
KOBUSCH, TH. 77 14 LAWLESS, G. 8565* MAcLEOD, M.D. 15630 MÉRIDIER, L. 582 17
KOCH, H. 77 16 42941 LAWSON, RP. 19058 19264 MACWILLIAM, S. 93245 MERKEL, H. 1287
KOCH, K. 949 68 LAYTON, B. 935 10* MAEGER, A 9343 MERKELBACH, R 9348 936 22
KÔCKERT, C. 407-417 409 13 410 18 LAYTON, RA 78117.1878223 MAGUIRE, H. 928 32 MERKT, A 940 36*
41444 LE BOULLUEC, A 7 11 8 13 41 5 7240* MAHÉ, J.-P. 735 9 * MERTENS, P. 154
KOENEN, L. 756 37* 759 66* 10664* 13540* 1473* 15220 1708* 268 10 MAI, A 703 2' METCALFE, W. 232 45 233 47 23448
KÔSTENBERGER, AJ. 858 11 2823 283 10 3474* 3596* 507 1* 520 MArnR, P.L. 721 20 23657
KOETSCHAU, P. 404* 46 26*.27* 15219 537 604 10* 6162* 658 25 780 10* 908 4 MANGO, C. 927 32 METZLER, K. 68 27 70 36 7240 16046 -48
15424 217 102 23448 2686 275 25 587 29 LE DÉAUT, R 107 68 MANN, F. 5653 * 169-177 16924071408993616
63540* 755 33* 858 12* 881 49 * 88251 ' LE QUIEN, M. 875 16 MANN, T. 945 MEURsms, J. 321-323
KOHL, M. 855 2 LECHNER, T. 278 33 581 11 MANSI, J.D. 587 29 9206.7 923 16 929 34 MEYERSTEIN, F.W. 922 14
KOLBET, P. 855* LÉCUYER, J. 851 12 MARAsco, G. 308 5* MEYNET, R 446 10
KONSTAN, D. 66234 LEDEGANG, F. 42 753 11 MARCOVICH, M. 3295 .96 2547*.8* MICHEL, S. 937 22
KOTTER, B. 921 9* 931 44 LEEMANS, J. 581 9 723 29* 261 26*.27* MIGNE, J.-P. 216 102 477 703 734745
KRAMER, H.J. 77 15.16 LEIBERMAN, S. 225 18 MARIN, M. 4 2* 3073* 775 47 .48
 1034 AUCTORES MODERN! AUCTORES MODERN! 1035

MILANO, A. 461 16 107 66 10871 141 67 1497 1509.10 15219 OTIS, B. 663 37 PIETRAS, H. 545-559 6529 670 58
MILNE, J.G. 15426 161 163 60 16465 207 51 235 50 2825 OTTO, E. 94243 949 69 683 24
MIMOUNI, S.C. 571 24 365 15 385 1 407 3 409 11 41446 476 10 OTTO, W. 938 26 PmTRI, L. 2823* 283 7*
MIRECKI, P. 78222* 482 27 487 46 .49 488 53 491 2 499 16* PINGGÉRA, K. 836 17
5 50023501245073.4 513 12 514 14-16 515
MISIARCZYK, L. 215-265 650 PACK, R.A. 154 PINI, G. 3907*
MOLTMANN, J. 855 2 519 24 521 528385345253552.53 605 11 PAGELS, E. 11228 PISCITELLI CARPINO, T. 17 35* 615 1*
30 616 2 621 12 .13 623 17* 624 18 *.19*
MOMIGLIANO, A. 228 PANCERZ, R.M. 751-763781 19 783 27 *
MONACI CASTAGNO, A. 55 7 12* 1943 625 21 *.22* 626 23 * 692 11.13 693 16 694 18 PAPANIKIOLÂOU, A. 8565* 858 10* PISI, P. 6746
36 112 * 14268 * 15220* 358 4* 373 33 695 20 697 29 713 2 714 723 26 754 18* PARVIS, P. 756 34* 929 36* PITRA, J.B. 51 41 * 32255 479 878 30
385 1* 501 25* 551 27 568 15 * 57226* 761 83* 7808 8465 891 2 893 15 898 27* PARVIS, S. 857 9 PITRE, B. 651 8
605 12* 6173* 64245 *.46* 7146* 720 19* NEIMEN, D. 1972* PASCHOUD, F. 3 1 PIZZOLATO, L.F. 391 11 730 13 *.14
779 1* 817 71 835 12 NEMESHEGYI, P. 381 48 8349 PASINI, G. 8924 731 16* 783 27 *
MONTANARI, F. 157 36 NESTLE, E. 254 11 261 29 381 46 PATRICH, J. 839 25 * PLANTINGA, C., JR. 855 2
MOORE, W. 5654 NEUFVILLE, J. 73221 * PATRIDES, C.A. 216 99 PLESE, Z. 655 19 * 659 27
MORENZ, S. 114 9348 935 15 936 17 NEUGEBAUER, O. 940 36 PATTERSON, L.G. 791 1 792 6 793 9 POIRIER, P.-H. 735 9 936 19
937 25 940 34 949 952 NEUSCHÂFER, B. 45 22 *.23* 5243 129 17 794 15 795 18 798 25 799 27 80030 PORTER, S.E. 3321 34221 582 18*
MORESCHINI, C. 731 15 * 13951 150 10 15424 157 34.37.38 158 39 PAUTLER, A. 410 19 POUDERON, B. 733-749
MORGAN, T. 617 4 160 161 165 71 269 14 410 17 411 24 PAZZINI, D. 345 1 3487 579-592583 24 PRETTY, R.A. 793 10 794 16
MORIN, G. 757 48 * 895 18 41231 477 11 482 28 52026 581 15 625 20 5883359134616262828 PREUSCHEN, E. 21 49 47 30* 51 39* 97 26
MORLET, S. 127-145 128 10 13437 893 16 PEARSON, B.A. 226 19 233 47 242 88 755 33 * 858 12* 86232 863 33.34 9344
1447935728072085112 NEUSNER, J. 69 32 7242 5455* 9345* 935 13* 949 68* PRICE, S. 228 28*
MORTARI, L. 466 37 619 10 621 13 623 17 NEW, S. 15010 PELIKAN, J. 246 114 PRINZIVALLI, E. 813 * 129 18 * 13643 *
624 18 .19 625 21.22 626 23 NEYMEYER, U. 948 62 PELLEGRINO, M. 731 18* 345 1* 357 2* 365 17 407 3 408 6 41227
MOSSHAMMER, A.A. 608 18 NICKAU, K. 45 22 PÉPIN, J. 16673* 458 5.6 82295 415 47 417 62 501 25 57226 591 34 5947
MOSSMANN, J. 7145* NICOLINI, F. 5806 PERCZEL, 1. 839 25 616 2* 662 36* 669 51 7148 779-789
MOUNTAIN, W.J. 858 13 * NICULESCU, M.V. 179-193 1791.4 PERDRIZET, P. 606 14 779 2 781 13 782 24 784 33 835 12 845
MOURAVIEV, A.V. 929 36* 1807.11 1895219161.6364044 PEREIRA, M.J. 221-248 905 43 908 7.9.10 910 18
MOUTSOULAS, E. 669 53 * NIEHOFF, M.N. 225 18 229 33 242 93 PERI, V. 369 23 697 25 .29 783 27 895 19 PROSTMEIER, F.R. 278 33 * 581 11 *
MÜHLENBERG, E. 16466 408 10* 410 19 243 95 -97 PERRIN, M.-Y. 2827 714 11 *
475 1 479 480 22 481 24 491 2 50228 NIGG, W. 203 25 20427 PERRoNE, L. 3-38 31* 55* 2044* 2676* PSEPHTOGAS, B. 296
75420* 8929 893 10.13 896 24 89931 903 NIKIPROWETZKY, V. 529 5946 78 19 * 91 2 10664 14268 1473 161 52 PUSEY, A.M. 789 47
904 39 905 42 NOCE, C. 415 51 616 2* 225182324226810* 3474 381 48 407 1* PUSEY, P.E. 847 7*.8* 848 9.10 850 11
MÜLKE, M. 70037 NOCK, A.D. 422 499 17 513 13 616 2 6173 627 25 629 30 853 16
MÜLLER, C.D.G. 938 26 941 39 NORELLI, E. 658 25 714 11 642 45 658 25 * 663 38 * 669 51 * 728 5
MULLER, E.C. 86748* NORRIs, F.W. 197 2 246 118 8565* 930 39* 9349* 935 10* 940 33 .34* QUACQUARELLI, A. 593 1
MUNIER, C. 394 21 39726 398 29 40032 NYGREN, TH.S. 9346 PERROT, M. 933 3* QUAST, U. 17217* 507 1* 936 17*
MUNITIZ, J.A. 931 44* PETERSEN, W.L. 7241 * 228 29* 717 16
MUNNICH, O. 16045 3585 365 15 507- O'BRIEN, D. 10247 PETIT, F. 68 27 70 71 169 3-7 170 11.12 RABINOWITZ, C.E. 833 5
538 603 4 604 10 605 10 O'CLEIRIGH, P. 616 2 173 21.23 17744 38043 .44 RAmcE, R. 5469* 667 49 *
MUSURILLO, H. 793 8* O'COLLINS, G. 8565* PETRIE, W.M.F. 15426 RAFFELT, A. 941 37*
MUTH, J.F.S. 268 6 O'DONNELL, J. 8563 PETRuccIoNE, J.F. 926 28* RAHLFS, A. 254 10 * 261 28 * 315 39 *
MUTZENBECHER, A. 163 62 O'KEEFE, J.J. 845 2 PETSCHENIG, M. 731 16* 55
322 * 38146509511751416
O'LEARY, J.S. 671-686 671 1 PFEIFFER, R. 15424 RAHNER, K. 595 15
NAJOCK, D. 44 18 OLSZOWY-SCHLANGER, J. 613 27 PHENIX, R.R. 3598* RAMELLI, I.L.E. 553 34 649-670 6503.5
NAUCK, A. 45 21 * O'MEARA, D. 859 17* PHILIP, F. 651 8 652 10 653 11.14 656 22 658 25 659 27
NAUMOWICZ, J. 610 24 ORBE, A. 419 1 431 47 459 11 461 16 PICHERY, E. 7527* 660 29 661 30 662 33 663 38 670 54 .57
4 16 34 49 464 28 46638 468 48 .49
NAUTIN, P. 4 7 PIcHLER, K. 268 6.8 275 25 839 25
10
9 16 21 22
23 60 25 65 2672.73 2777.79.80 28 84 2988 ORLANDI, T. 938 29* PIERI, F. 56 1428 20 46 4212* 43 15 * RAMSBOTHAM, A. 41 7*
3091319437114755 9P 93 10 9625 98 32 OSING, J. 940 36 150 12 37739* 389 6* 714 10 786 37 RASPANTI, G. 1509 153 23
1036 AUcroRES MODERNl AUcrORES MODERNl 1037

RAUER, M. 49 35 * 5243* 68 28 270 17
REALE, G. 76744613.1491016
REDEPENNlNG, E.R. 152 18 15942 160
16672
REGOLIOSI, M. ,5795
REDNERS, G.Q. 945 56
REINMUTII, E. 94452
RENGSTORF, KH. 405
RESSA, P. ;3895* ,63742 638 43
REULING; H. 69 30
REVEL, E. i 17427 175 33 17637
REYNOLDS! L.D. 129161395214160
RICH, A.D. 776 57
RICHARD,M. 47514925.7,598278923
RICHARDSONI C.C. 215 99
RICKENMANN, A. 581 12 71224
RICŒUR, P.5807 581
RrnDWEG, 0H. 3 1 27733 8031.3 824 101
RrnTZ, G.476 3 477 14 482 48348437 .38
485 39 .40.42.43486-489
RIETZ, W. 475
RIGAUX, D. 922 15*
RINGGREN, H. 936 18
RIscH, EX. '162475-489
RISSE, S. ,163 58 .60 16463 ,498 15
RITSCHL; F.W. 1497.8
RITTER, AM. 16046 * 831 1 937 24
Rms CAMPS, J.J. 428 38 430 43 459 9
50331658258335
RIVAUD,\<\. 808 25
RIZZI, M.581 11 72019727273013*
RIzzo, S. 2686
ROBERTS.GAvENTA, B. ,373 32*
ROBERTS, ,-lA. 252 2*.3* 253 4*.5*255 12*' SCHNEIDER, R. 45 24*
256 13 *"16* 257 18 * 258 20 * 259 21 *' SCHOCKENHOFF, E. 75 3
26022*-24* 263 30* 26431 * 671 1* 925 24 SCHÔNBORN, C. 8349
ROBINSON, lA. 794 13
ROCHETTE, B. 61226
57 84
RÔLLIG, W.947 951 *
RÔMER, T. ,91*
RÔWEKAMP, G. 1495 16464
55 60
RONDEAU, M.-J. 162 ' <163 475
491 2 4927 494 9 625 20 77234 895 19
ROQUES, R. 831 2
ROSE, V. 421
ROTELLE, J.E. 858 13*
ROTH, C.P. 919 1
6 SCOTT, R. 392 446 12 776 927 32
ROUGIER, L. 268
ROUSSEAU; A. 758 55
ROUSSEAU, O. 307 3*.4* SEIDL, TH. 94451 STANULA, E. 45270
ROUSSEAU, P. 246 114 SELLARS, J. 770 25 STEEL, C. 839 25
ROWE, C.J. 768 18 SERRES, M. 221 1 2225-9 223 10 230 37 STEIGER, P.D. 756 34
ROWE, K.C. 858 11 237 62.63 24078 STEINER, G. 91 97 27
ROXBOROGH, J. 94036 SÉVRIN, J.-M. 735 8.9 749 15 STEMBERGER, G. 7243
RUBENSON, S. 751 2 SFAMENI GASPARRO, G. 835 12.13 836 STEPHANUS, H. 392
RUBINKIEWICZ, R. 548 16 SGHERRI, G. 788 45 STOLZ, F. 940 36 951 82
RUETIIER, R. 5808 SHARPLES, R.W. 15632* 658 25 ' STONE, M.E. 548 16'
RUNDLE CLARK, R.T. 11450.54 SHORT, C. 445 4 STRACK, H. 7243
RUNJA, D.T. 1222 15 32 16 33 231 42 SILANES, N. 4599' STRADA JANovn,,:, C. 583 21 '
233 47 38043 .45 41443 .46 SIMON, J. 77 15 * STROUMSA, G.G. 223 11 225 18 227 26
,RUSSELL, J.B. 110 10 111 19 11224.27.36 SIMONETTI, M. 5244 67 25 68 26 163 61 57124934994035
11449 11663 17427 * 23245 2824 285 16-18 286 19-26 STRUTWOLF, H. 935 10
. RUTIIERFORD, W.G. 42 10 287 27 -32 288 33 -39 292 45 .47 293 52 STUCKRAD, K. VON 940 36
295 57.58 297 68 298 70.72* 299 75 .77 30078 STUDER, B. 700 38 8564 8575
:S1EB0, M. 3584* 301863049035843733341551 459 8.10 SUCHLA, B.R. 831 1
'SAFFREY, H.D. 127 1 1289 461 16 46222 463 25 464 29 .30 465 32.35 SUDAILI, S. BAR 836-842
SAHAS, D. 923 16 929 34 46640 .41 467 43 .45 468 48 .50 553 39 565 8 SUMRULD, W.A. 867 48
SAND, A. 944 51 568 15 628 28 631 34 64246 685 28 728 4 SWAIN, S.R. 858 11
SANDBACH, F.H. 141 63 730 14 731 19* 755 33* 780 10 783 27 SWETE, H.B. 601 2
SATRAN, D. 38043 785 35 8464 89623 907 1 909 11 91225 SZMATULA, D. 691 7
SAVAGE, J.J. 6067 SINKEWICZ, R.E. 765 2.4 7667 SZRAM, M. 593-600 593 2
SCARPAT, G. 28941 29559.60 SIRINELLI, J. 821 88
SCHÂFER, H. 951 84 SKEB, M. 477 11 487 45 TARDIEU, M. 93 12'
SCHALKHAUSSER, G. 8748 875 18 SLOTEMAKER, J.T. 855-871 TAYLOR, T. 924 19
SCHATKIN, M.A. 197 2* SLUSSER, M. 235 50 TCHERNETSKA, N. 613 27
SCHEFFCZYK, L. 941 40 SLY, D.L 229 33 TENNANT, F.R. 110 15 11236 115 57
SCHEHR, L.R. 2211.6 SMITH,A. 874 11 * 11774
SCHENKE, H.-M. 94966* SMITH, J.W. 855* TESKE, RJ. 86748 '
SCHENKL, C. 5966 731 15 * SMITH, J.Z. 22J3 23243 545 5 5468 TE VELDE, H. 113 40 .43 11452 115 56
SCHMIDT, M. 155 29 547 11 548 15 .17 11879 121 106 122121
SCHMITT-PANTEL, P. 933 3 SMITH, M. 937 24 THEODOR, J. 69 29 .31 70 33 .34 17426 '
,SCHNEEMELCHER, W. 936 19* 949 67 SMITH, R. 826 109 17641
SMULDERS, P. 859 16* THOMPSON, M.M. 858 11
SODANO, A.R. 129 15 TIGCHELER, J.H. 408 6 781 12
SODEN, H. VON 15010 TILLICH, P. 11879
SCHOLL, N. 95072 SODI, M. 727 2* TILLY, M. 935 14
SCHOLTEN, C. 16776 94036 SOLAR!, P. 781 19 TlMBIE, J.A. 226 19'
SCHOLZ, P.O. 169 1 933-953 937 22
SOLÈRE, J.-L. 92418' TOBON, M. 765_7787671476819.20
938299413895180.83 SOMOS, R. 13 24 335 7* 358 5* 55055* TORJESEN, K.J. 180935843651640810
, 'SCHRÔDER, H.O. 267 6 616 2* 6893* 9206' 953' 6162 62215 64044
1 13
SCHÜTZ, W. 692 SORABTI, R. 658 25 * 786 37 922 12 T6TH, P. 6893
SCHULZE, CH. 16673 * SPIEGEL, J. 94244 .45 943 47 94450 947 59 TRACHTENBERG, J. 110 10
. SCHWARTZ, E. 158 16774 715 13* 9567 SPRUYT, J. 924 19 ' TREu, U. 5448 '
'SCHWARTZ, Y. 83925* STAAB, K. 403 37 761 82 TRIACCA, A.M. 727 2'
SCHWYZER, H.-R. 77 13 15631 STAEHLE, K. 5946 TRIGG, J.W. 75 5 1093 227 26
SCOGNAMIGLIO, R. 1942 37841 * 387 3* STAHLIN, O. 5448 ' TROIANOS, S. 924 18
STAIMER, E. 7806 TURCESCU, L. 801 31 857 5
SEGAL, A.F. 90441 STANTON, G.N. 225 18 * TURNER, C.H.: 151 15 161 53
1038 AucrORBS MODERNI
AUCTORBS MODERNI 1039

TZAMALIKOS, P. 77 16 587 26 653 14 WAELKENS, R 874148751888868 y ARNOLD, E.J. 381 48 * ZENOS, AC. 878 33
115 62 118 80 231 40 23244 ZEVINI, G. 727 1
662 663 666 669 51 833 5
35 38 48 M.J.H. 14059 14271 609 19
YOUNG, F.
WALLIES,
233 47 756 34* 929 36* ZIEBRITZKI, H. 94034
TZVETKoVA-GLAsER, A. 63-731691.4 939 32
ZIEGLER, J. 443 19* 507 509 511 7 512
17424.28 17641 WALTIIER, G. 20325.262042921174
ZABKAR, 94243 516517520530
651 8
L.V.
WARB, J.P.
4211* 45 24* ZACHHUBER, J. 5654*. ZIMMERMANN, B. 175 32 .35.36
UHLIG, G. WASZINK, J.H. 410 18 41232 * 41447
ZAGANAS, D. 845-853 ZINGERLE, A. 893 17 900 32 *
ULLMANN, W. 268 6 WATIS, E.J. 22619.20.22 227 24.25 235 52
ZAHN, T .. 32258.60 323 63 .65 32468 875 18 ZIPPEL, G. 579 3*
URiBARRI B., G. 283 11 247 122
88457 ZrzrOULAs, J. 855 2 871 64
WEEDMAN, M. 8575
ZAMAGNI, C. 714 11 873 3* ZOEPFL, F. 761 82 *
VAGGIONE, RP. 864 36 WEINANDY, T. 381 48
ZAUZICH, K.-TH. 94245 ZORODDU, D. 381 46
VAILHÉ, S. 931 42 WEITZMANN, K. 175 30.31 *
ZAZOFF, P.-H. 937 22 ZORZI, B. 910 17
VAILLANT, A 792 793 7 794 14 WÉNIN, A 128 11 *
ZENGER, E. 90237
V ALENTINI, N. 583 21 WERNER, M. 941 40
V ALVO, A 667 49* WEVERS, J.W. 63 1 12914 1709* 17217*
VAN DEN BROEK, R 9345 173 20 * 381 46 507 1* 936 17*
V ANDENBUSSCHE, E. 5654 WHITE, H.G.E. 961 14
VAN DEN HOEK, A 3 1 1222 1633 .34 WIDDICOMBE, P. 46431 857 7 87058.61.62
233 47 3609 38045 WIFSTRAND, A. 275 26
VAN DER WATI, J.G. 6528*
WIJNAND MARCHAL, G. 781 11
VAN DEUN, P. 308 5
WILD, RA 94 14
VAN ERDEN, B.L. 858 11
WILES, M.F. 381 48
VAN HOUTEM, J. 857 5*
WILKEN, R.L. 789 47
VAN OORT, J. 408 10*
WILLEMS, R 858 13*
15426 155 27 15943
WILLIAMS, D.H. 858 9*
VAN THIEL, H.
VAN ZYL, H.C. 6528
WILLIAMS, M. 91 2 97 28 1281222312-14
VEGA, AC. 32468
229 32 601 1 6022 605 10 609 20.22 72224
VELTRI, G. 257 17
723 25 725 31
VERHEYDEN, J. 713-725
110 12 111 18 .20 117 74
VERMES, G. 90441
WILLIAMS, N.P.
8 p3 8238 205 37* 77028
VESEY, G. 859 17*
WILLIAMS, R
857 5.9 859 17 86230 869 57 870 59
VESSEY, M. 917
VIANÈs-ABou SAMRA, L. 78433 930 38
VICO, G. 580 WILLIAMS ON, G.A. 715 13 721 20
12
794 *
VILLANI, A. 11 19 494 9 516 22 581 10
615-644 615 1 617 5.6 618 7 625 20 WILLIS, W.L. 203 25
626 24 63236 633 37 891 1 WILSON, H.A 5654
WILSON, N.G. 129161395214160
VILLANI (HANUS), B. 491-506
VINZENT, M. 66648* 670 54 * WINKELMANN, F. 715 13*
VISONÀ, G. 730 13 WISSE, F. 938 29 *
VITESTAM, G. 840 29 WISSEMANN, M. 694 18*
VITORES, A 912 25 WLOSOK, A. 3 1
VLAVIANOS-ARVANITIS, A. 924 18* WOHLENBERG, G. 151 15 165 69.70
VOLKER, W. 419 WOLFE, C. 221 6
VOOBUS, A 603 5 WOLFSON, A 461 16
VOGT, H.J. 67 22 362 11 415 51 416 56 WORRALL, A.S. 200 19
417 61 86231 935 13 937 23 WRIGHT, D.F. 865 38
VOLGERS, A 873 3* WUCHERPFENNIG, A. 5244
VOLP, U. 873-889 873 4 945 52 WÜRTHWEIN, E. 935 14
951 83 WUTZ, F. 17215
 BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM
LOVANIENSIUM

SERIES III

131. C.M. TucKETI (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, 1997. XXIv-721 p.
60€
132. J. VAN RmTEN & M. VERVENNE (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah.
Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken, 1997. xx-540 p. 75 €
133. M. VERVENNE & l LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature.
Festschrift CH.W. Brekelmans, 1997. XI-637 p. 75 €
134. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), Index Generalis ETL / BETL 1982-1997, 1999. IX-
337 p. 40 €
135. G. DE SCHRINER, Liberation Theologies on Shifting Grounds. A Clash of
Sodo-Economic and Cultural Paradigms, 1998. XI-453 p. 53 €
136. A. SCHOORS (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, 1998. XI-528 p.
60€
137. W.A. BIENERT & U.KÜHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima. Origenes in
den Ausein andersetzungen des 4. lahrhunderts, 1999. xxv-848 p. 95 €
138. É. GAZIAUX, L'autonomie en morale: au croisement de la philosophie et
de la théologie, 1998. xVI-760 p. 75 €
139. J. GROOTAERS, Actes et acteurs à Vatican II, 1998. XXIv-602 p. 75 €
140. F. NEIRYNCK, J. VERHEYDEN & R. CORSTJENS, The Gospel of Matthew and
the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1995, 1998.
2 vols., VII-I000-420* p. 95 €
141. E. BRITO, Heidegger et l'hymne du sacré, 1999. xv-800 p. 90 €
142. l VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Unity ofLuke-Acts, 1999. xxv-828 p. 60 €
143. N. CALDUCH-BENAGES & l VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom.
Studies in Ben Sira and the Book ofWisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert, 1999.
xxvII-463 p. 75 €
144. J.-M. AUWERS & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible.
Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, 1999. XLII-482 p. 75 €
145. C. BEGG, losephus' Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1-10,185),2000.
x-650 p. 75 €
146. lM. ASGEIRSSON, K. DE l'ROYER & M.W. MEYER (eds.), From Quest to
Q. Festschrift lames M. Robinson, 2000. XLIV-346 p. 60 €
147. T. RaMER (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 2000. XII-
265 p. 75 €
148. F.D. V ANSINA, Paul Ricœur: Bibliographie primaire et secondaire - Primmy
and Secondmy Bibliography 1935-2000, 2000. xxVI-544 p. 75 €
149. G.J. BROOKE & lD. KAEsTLl (eds.), Narrativity in Biblical and Related
Texts, 2000. XXI-307 p. 75 €
150. F. NEIRYNCK, Evangelica III: 1992-2000. Collected Essays, 2001. XVII-
666 p. 60€
[2] BETL BETL [3]

151. B. DOYLE, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking.A Study of 173. M.J.J. MENKEN, Matthew' s Bible: The OTd Testament Text of the Evangelist,
the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27, 2000. 2004. XII-336 p. 60 €
XII-453 p. 75 € 174. J.-P: DELVILLE, L'Europe de l'exégèse au xvI' siècle. Interprétations de
152. T.MERRIGAN & J.HAERS (eds.), The Myriad Christ.Plurality and the Quest la parabole des ouvriers à la vigne (Matthieu 20,1-16),2004. XLII-775 p.
for Unity inContempormy Christology, 2000.XIV-593 p. 75 € 70€
153. M.SIMON, Le catéchisme de Jean-Paul lI.Genèse et évaluation de son 175. E. BRITO, J.G. Fichte et la transformation du christianisme, 2004. XVI-
commentaire du Symbole des apôtres, 2000. xVI-688 p. 75 € 808 p. 90 €
154. J. VERMEYLEN, La loi du plus fort. Histoire de la rédaction des récits 176. J. SCHLOSSER (ed.), The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, 2004. XXIV-
davidiques de 1 Samuel 8 à 1 Rois 2,2000. XIII-746 p. 80 € 569 p. 60 €
155. A. WÉNIN (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and 177. R. FAESEN (ed.), Albert Deblaere, SJ. (1916-1994): Essays on Mystical
Histo/y, 2001. xxx-643 p. 60 € Literature - Essais sur la littérature mystique - Saggi sulla letteratura
156. F. LEDEGANG, Mysterium Ecclesiae. Images of the Church and its Members mistica, 2004. xx-473 p. 70 €
in Origen, 2001. xVII-848 p. 84 € 178. J. LUST, Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays. Edited by
157. J.S. BOSWELL, F.P. McHuGH & J. VERSTRAETEN (eds.), Catholic Social K. HAuSPIE, 2004. XIV-247 p. 60 €
Thought: Twilight of Renaissance, 2000. xXII-307 p. 60 € 179. H. GIESEN, Jesu Heilsbotschaft und die Kirche. Studien zur Eschatologie
158. A. LINDEMANN (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 2001. und Ekklesiologie bei den Synoptikernund im ersten Petrusbrief, 2004. xx-
XXII-776 p. 60 € 578 p. 70 €
159. C. HEMPEL, A. LANGE & H. LICHTENBERGER (eds.), The Wisdom Texts 180. H. LOMBAERTS & D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Hermeneutics and Religious
from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, 2002. XII-502 p. Education, 2004. xm-427 p. 70 €
80€ 181. D. DONNELLY, A. DENAUX & J. FAMERÉE (eds.), The Holy Spirit, the
160. L. BOEVE & L. LEUSSEN (eds.), Sacramental Presence in a Postmodern Church, and Christian Unity. Proceedings of the Consultation Held at the
Context, 2001. xVI-382 p. 60 € Monastely of Bose, ltaly (14-20 October 2002),2005. XII-417 p. 70 €
161. A. DENAUX (ed.), New Testament Textual Criticism andExegesis. F estschrift 182. R.BIERINGER,G. VANBELLE&J. VERHEYDEN (eds.),Luke andHisReaders.
J. Delobel, 2002. xvm-391 p. 60 € Festschrift A. Denaux, 2005. xxVIII-470 p. 65 €
162. U. BUSSE, Das Johannesevangelium. Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual. Mit 183. D.F. PILARIO, Back to the Rough Grounds of Praxis: Exploring Theological
einer Bibliographie über den Zeitraum 1986-1998, 2002. XIII-572 p. 70 € Method with Pierre Bourdieu, 2005. XXXII-584 p. 80 €
163. J.-M. AUWERS & H.J. DE JONGE (eds.), The Biblical Canons, 2003. 184. G. VAN BELLE, J.G. VAN DER WATT & P. MARI1Z (eds.), Theology and
LXXXVIII-718p. 60€ Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS
164. L. PERRoNE (ed.), Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian Johannine Writings Seminar, 2005. XII-561 p. 70 €
Tradition, 2003. xxv-x-1406 p. 180 € 185. D. LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon. Vol. 1: Structure littéraire du Lévitique.
165. R. BIERINGER, V. KOPERSKI & B. LATAIRE (eds.), Resurrection in the New Vol. 2: Guide technique, 2005. XIV-VII-656 p. 120 €
Testament. Festschrift J. Lambrecht, 2002. XXXI-551 p. 70 € 186. R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR.,Ancient Composition al Practices and the Synoptic
166. M. LAMBERIGTS & L. KENrs (eds.), Vatican II and Its Legacy, 2002. XII-512 p. Problem, 2005.XXVIII-290 p. 80 €
65€ 187. P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, 2005. x-308 p. 65 €
167. P. DIEUDoNNÉ,La Pm~'( clémentine. Défaite et victoire du premierjansénisme 188. L. BOEVE, Y. DEMAESENEER & S. VAN DEN BOSSCHE (eds.), Religious
français sous le pontificat de Clément IX (1667-1669), 2003. XXXIX- Experience and Contempormy Theological Epistemology, 2005. x-335 p.
302 p. 70€ 50€
168. F. GARdA MARTÎNEZ, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls 189. J.M. ROBINSON, The Sayings Gospel Q. Collected Essays, 2005. xvm-
and in the Biblical Tradition, 2003. xxXIv-491 p. 60 € 888 p. 90 €
169. D. OGLIARI, Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship between Grace and 190. C.W. STRÜDER, Paulus und die Gesinnung Christi. Identitiit und Entschei-
Free Will in the Discussion ofAugustine with the So-Called Semipelagians, dungsfindung aus der Mitte von 1Kor 1-4, 2005. LII-522 p. 80 €
2003. LVII-468 p. 75 € 191. C. FOCANT & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Analyse narrative et Bible. Deuxième
170. G. COOMAN, M. VAN STIPHOUT & B. WAUTERS (eds.), Zeger-Bernard Van colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril 2004, 2005.
Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, Histo/y, Theology and Church- xvI-593 p. 75 €
State Relations,2003. xx-530 p. 80 € 192. F. GARdA MARTÎNEZ & M. VERVENNE (eds.), in collaboration with B.
171. B. BOURGINE, L'herméneutique théologique de Karl Barth.Exégèse et DOYLE, Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in
dogmatique dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik, 2003. Honour of Johan Lust, 2005. xVI-464 p. 70 €
XXII-548 p. 75 € 193. F. MIEs, L'espérance de Job, 2006. XXIV-653 p. 87 €
172. J. HAERs & P. DE MEY (eds.), Theology and Conversation: Towards a 194. C. FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 2006. xv-402 p. 60 €
Relational Theology, 2003. XIII-923 p. 90 € 195. M.A. KNmB (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, 2006. XXXI-560 p. 60 €
[4] BETL
196. M. SIMON, La célébration du mystère chrétien dans le catéchisme de Jean-
Paul II, 2006. XIv-638 p. 85 €
197. A.Y. THOMAS SET, L'ecclésiologie de J.H. Newman Anglican, 2006. xxx-
748 p. 80€
198. M. LAMBERIGTS - A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), Lay Bibles in Europe 1450-
1800,2006. XI-360 p. 79 €
199. J.Z. SKIRA - M.S. ATTRIDGE, In God's Hands. Essays on the Church and
Ecumenism in Honour of Michael A. Fahey S.1., 2006. xxx-314 p. 90 €
200; G. VAN BELLE (ed.), The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, 2007. XXXI-
1003 p. 70 €
201. D. POLLEFEYT (ed.), Interreligious Learning, 2007. xxv-340 p. 80 €
202. M. LAMBERIGTS - L. BOEVE - T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with D. CLAES
(eds.), Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and Systematic-
Theological Studies, 2007. x-305 p. 55 €
203. T. RÔMER - K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque,
de l'Hexateuque et de l'Ennéateuque, 2007. x-276 p. 65 €
204. J.-M. VAN CANGH, Les sources judaïques du Nouveau Testament, 2008.
XIv-718p. 84€
205. B. DEHANDscHUTTER,Polycarpiana: Studies onMartyrdomandPersecution
in Early Christianity. Collected Essays. Edited by J. LEEMANS, 2007. XVI-
286p. 74€
206. É. GAZIAUX, Philosophie et Théologie. Festschrift Emilio Brito, 2007.
LVIII-588 p. 84 €
207. G.I. BROOKE - T. RÔMER (eds.), Ancient and Modern Scriptural Histo-
riography. L'historiographie biblique, ancienne et moderne, 2007. XXXVill-
372 p. 75 €
208. J. VERSTRAETEN, Scrutinizing the Signs of the Times in the Light of the
Gospel, 2007. x-334 p. 74 €
209. H. GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei experimentalis. A Theological Genealogy of
Christian Religious Experience, 2007. LIl-457 p. 80 €
210. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER, Virtuelle Vergangenheit: Die Textrekonstruktion
einer verlOl'enen mittelniederliindischen Evangelienharmonie. Die Hand-
schrift Utrecht Universitiitsbibliothek 1009,2007. XIl-168 p. 58 €
211. R. GRYSON, ScientiamSalutis: Quarante années de recherches sur l'Antiquité
Chrétienne. Recueil d'essais, 2008. XLVI-879 p. 88 €
212. T. VAN DEN DRIESSCHE, L 'altérité,fondement de la personne humaine dans
l'œuvre d'Edith Stein, 2008. XXII-626 p. 85 €
213. H. AUSLOOS-J. COOK - E GARcfAMARTiNEz- B. LEMMELUN-M. VERVENNE
(eds.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and its Modern Translations in
the Context of Early Judaism, 2008. x-317 p. 80 €
214. A.C. Osun, Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of
True and False Prophecy in Jer 26-29 (MT), 2010. xx-465 p. 76 €
215. T. RÔMER, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, 2008. xxvII-742 p. 85 €
216. D. DONNELLY - J. FAMERÉE - M. LAMBERIGTS - K. SCHELKENS (eds.),
The Belgian Contribution to the Second Vatican Council: International
Research Conference at Mechelen, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve
(September 12-16, 2005), 2008. XIl-716 p. 85 €
217. J. DE TAVERNIER - J.A. SELLING - J.VERSTRAETEN - P. SCHOTSMANS (eds.),
Responsibility, God and Society. Theological Ethics in Dialogue. Festschrift
Roger Burggraeve, 2008. XLVI-413 p. 75 €
BETL [5]
218. G. VAN BELLE - J.G. VAN DER WATT - J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Miracles and
Image/y in Luke and John. Festschrift Ulrich Busse, 2008. XVIII-287 p.
(
78€
219. L. BOEVE - M. LAMBERIGTS - M.WISSE (eds.), Augustine and Postmodern
Thought: A New Alliance against Modernity?, 2009. XVIII-277 p. 80 €
220. T. VICTORIA, Un livre de feu dans un siècle de fer: Les lectures de
l'Apocalypse dans la littérature française de la Renaissance, 2009. xxx-
609 p. 85 €
221. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER - W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Infant Milk or Hardy
Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early
Modern Period, 2009. XVIIl-488 p. 80 €
222. ED. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur. Bibliographie primaire et secondaire.
Prima/Y and Secunda/y Bibliography 1935-2008, Compiled and updated in
collaboration with P. VANDECASTEELE, 2008. xxx-621 p. 80 €
223. G. VAN BELLE - M. LABAHN - P. MARITZ (eds.), Repetitions and Variations
in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation, 2009. XIl-712 p. 85 €
224. H. AUSLOOS - B. LEMMELUN - M. VERVENNE (eds.), Florilegium Lovaniense:
Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino Garda
Martinez, 2008. xVI-564 p. 80 €
225. E. BRITo, Philosophie moderne et christianisme, 2010. 2 vols., vill-1514 p.
130€
226. U. SCHNELLE (ed.), The Letter to the Romans, 2009. XVIII-894 p. 85 €
227. M. LAMBERIGTS - L. BOEVE - T. MERRIGAN in collaboration with D. CLAES
- M. WISSE (eds.), Orthodoxy, Process and Product, 2009. x-416 p. 74 €
228. G. HEIDL - R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana nona: Origen and the Religious
Practice of His Time, 2009. XIv-752 p. 95 €
229. D. MARGUERAT (ed.), Reception of Pau/inism in Acts - Réception du
paulinisme dans les Actes des Apôtres, 2009. VIII-340 p. 74 €
230. A. DILLEN - D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Children's Voices: Children's Perspec-
tives in Ethics, Theology and Religious Education, 2010. x-450 p. 72 €
231. P. VAN HECKE - A. LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms, 2010. XXXIV-
363 p. 76€
232. G. AULD - E. EYNIKEL (eds.), For and Against David: Story and HistOly in
the Books of Samuel, 2010. x-397 p. 76 €
233. C. VIALLE, Une analyse comparée d'Esther TM et LXX: Regard sur deux
récits d'une même histoire, 2010. LVIII-406 p. 76 €
234. T. MERRIGAN - F. GLORIEUX (eds.), "Godhead Here in Hiding" : Incarna-
tion and the HistOly of Human Suffering, 2010. Forthcorning.
235. M. SIMON, La vie dans le Christ dans le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II, 2010.
xx-651 p. 84 €
236. G. DE SCHRDVER, The Political Ethics of Jean-François Lyotard and
Jacques Derrida, 2010. xxx-422 p. 80 €
237. A. PASQUIER - D. MARGUERAT - A. WÉNIN (eds), L'intrigue dans le récit
biblique. Quatrième colloque international du RRENAB, Université Laval,
Québec, 29 mai _1 er juin 2008,2010. xxx-479 p. 68 €
238. E. ZENGER (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms, 2010. XIl-826 p.
90€
239. P. FOSTER - A. GREGORY - J.S. KLOPPENBORG - J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), New
Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, 2011.
xXIV-828 p. 85 €
[6] BETL

240. J. VERHEYDEN - T.L. HETTEMA - P. V ANDECASTEELE (eds.), Paul Ricœur:

Poetics and Religion, 2011. xx-534 p. 79 €
241. J. LEEMANS (ed.), Martyrdom and Persecution in Late Ancient Christianity.
Festschrift BOlldewijn Dehandschlltter, 2010. XXXIY-430 p. 78 €
242. C. CLIYAZ - J. ZUMSTEIN (eds.), Reading New Testament Papyri in Con-
text - Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte, 2011.
XIV-446 p. 80 €
243. D. SENIOR (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early
Christianity, 2011. xxvllI-781 p. 88 €

DATE DUE

GAYlORD PRINTED IN U.SA

PRImlill ON PERMANENT PAPER • IMPRIME SUR PAPIER PERMANENT' GEDRUKT OP DUURZAAM PAPIER - ISO 9706
N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT 50, B-3020 HERENT