Regent College

ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON JOHN: SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION, POLEMICS,

AND TRANSFORMATION

BY

TOMAS AXELAND B.A. Columbia Bible College

t.axeland@gmail.com

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

12 Credit hours

. Supervisor: Prof. Hans Boersma . Second Reader: Dr. Peter Martens

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis has not only been the product of my own labour, and I would like to show some gratitude to those who have helped me so much during the course of writing and research. First, I would like to thank the leaders in the field of Origen studies for their helpful replies to my various questions over email, especially Mark Edwards, Lorenzo Perrone, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Peter Martens, who also graciously agreed to be a second reader. Second, I would like to thank those who donated their time to reading this over at various stages in its development, especially Kathy Brouwer, Dave Warkentin, Justin Napier, and Matt Thomas. Third, I would like to show some gratitude to the teachers who helped form my thinking over the years, especially Kevin Kennedy and Erv Klassen, who not only gave me a love for theology, but also showed me the real value of teaching. This thesis would not have been possible without the gracious and thorough guidance of my supervisor, Hans Boersma. Hans’ astute theology with an eye to the Church gives me an example for the kind of work I would like to do one day, and I hope to emulate his pastoral pedagogy in my own teaching. Most of all I would like to thank my wife, Heather, whose grace and patience have held me up and given me the drive to be the best that I can be. Not only has she supported all my schooling financially, she has also given me a model of virtue to aspire to, always putting others before herself. This, and everything I do, is dedicated to her.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...4 Thesis Overview 1. ORIGEN’S POLEMICAL CONTEXT.………………………………………………11

Origen’s Early Life and Alexandrian Provenance Origen’s Disputes within the Church Origen’s Caesarean Period The Character of Origen’s Caesarean School Conclusion

2. ORIGEN AND THE SO-CALLED GNOSTICS………………………………….....34

Origen’s Response to ‘Gnosticism’ in General Heracleon Conclusion

3. ORIGEN’S AUDIENCE AND PURPOSE IN HIS COMMENTARY ON JOHN……60

Origen’s Audience Origen’s Purpose Comparison with Book 4 of Origen’s First Principles Conclusion

4. ORIGEN’S TWO MAIN PROBLEMS WITH HERACLEON………………………78

The Unity of the Old Testament with the New The Problem of the ‘Natures’ Conclusion

5. SPIRITUAL INTERPERTATION FOR TRANSFORMATION IN ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON JOHN…………………………………………………………108

Jesus’ Sandal Cleansing the Temple and the Triumphal Entry Conclusion

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………...126

4

INTRODUCTION

Origen’s Commentary on John in some ways reads like an apology for Origen’s own

interpretive method. Again and again Origen’s interpretation of John’s Gospel points to

the need to understand Scripture ‘spiritually’, to the point where one will roll one’s eyes

to the discovery that, yet again, Origen’s interpretation points to the need to interpret this

passage itself and the rest of Scripture, in a ‘spiritual’ way. Origen’s way of reading is

deeply connected to his overall theology of the Logos, where earthly things, such as

Christ’s body or the ‘body’ of the text of Scripture, point to their theological meaning

which is grounded on the Logos revealed in Jesus. This revelation of the Logos can be

seen in Origen’s exegesis of John’s Gospel, as it is directed towards this one main end:

that his readers be drawn to a spiritual understanding of the gospel and the theological

realities of Christ’s coming and the revelation of the Logos that this Gospel directs the

reader to.1 Origen calls this interpretation Spirit-ual because it is only by God’s Holy

Spirit that the reader is able to interpret in this way. Origen believes that through this

interpretation the reader will then be transformed by this interpretation into God’s

likeness as the reader participates with the Holy Spirit.2

To Origen, the Commentary is a powerful tool to bring the Logos of God to his

readers, something the writer of the fourth Gospel seems to desire as well as he

1 Here, and elsewhere in the thesis, when I say ‘theological realities’ I am referring to what Origen

might call ‘deeper truths’ or the ‘spiritual gospel’, which, as I understand it, is technical speech about God. Origen was concerned as a theologian to break down and develop the words about God in the Scriptures, and present this God as coherent as possible with the data provided. His ‘spiritual interpretation’ was both a means of discerning this scriptural data about God, and a product of his received theology, derivative of his understanding of the rule of faith.

2 This thesis develops the now-popular understanding of Origen’s purpose and method for his spiritual interpretation first argued by Karen Jo Torjesen, in her excellent little book Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen’s Exegesis (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986).

5

highlights the theological realities of Jesus’ action more than the other accounts. As a

commentary is a sophisticated type of writing, where intellectual issues of hermeneutics

can be discussed for an erudite audience, Origen could use his elaborate interpretation in

the Commentary to promote the need for his readers to engage in the type of

interpretation he himself also was involved in, encouraging them to follow in his

footsteps to avoid error and be drawn to God. Simply because interpretation was a

spiritual discipline to Origen did not mean that it should not be hard work; in fact, it is

just the opposite.

This emphasis on reading spiritually becomes all the more pertinent when Origen

introduces his exegetical opponent within the Commentary, the ‘Gnostic’ Heracleon.

Origen uses Heracleon, whose exegetical style looks strikingly like Origen’s own, as a

warning of what can go wrong if one does not heed his hermeneutical advice. I will

argue throughout this thesis that, while still exploring the theological implications of

John’s Gospel, Origen also uses his Commentary on John as an example and lesson for

his readers on how to interpret Scripture, and by doing this within the Church can give

them the ability to open up the Scriptures fully for them and transform them more into

God’s likeness all the way along.3

3 This thesis develops that of John A. McGuckin in his “Structural Design and Apologetic Intent

in Origen’s Commentary on John,” in Origeniana Sexta: Origéne et la Bible, eds. Giles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995), 441-57. McGuckin highlighted for me the need to see the Commentary as primarily directed to a Christian audience, and how Origen’s use of Heracleon’s own commentary can function in this paradigm: “This double pairing that Origen makes between the gnostic exegetes and the literalists is a brilliant and ironic apologetic. On the one hand he casts back at the Gnostics, in the person of Heracleon, the charge they had long laid as the door of the church, the accusation of being too “sarkikal” and literalist. On the other hand but using the orthodox principle of fidelity to the text to critique what he pictures as the uncontrolled and undisciplined gnostic method of exegesis, he is actually firing an arrow into the camp of his enemies within the church, and implicitly accusing them of being as faithless to the text in their literalist reading, as ever the Gnostics were in their extravagances” (McGuckin, “Structural Design,” p.456).

6

It is reasonable to conjecture that the readers of Origen’s Commentary were

Church authorities who would interpret Scripture for their own congregations.4

Therefore, it would be especially important for Origen to demonstrate how to read

Scripture spiritually, so these Church leaders could find the theological heart of the

passage, while also avoiding heresy. Here, Origen could use Heracleon as a reoccurring

example of what not to do, while helping to clarify the meaning of Scripture and leading

his readers toward holy lives.

Origen’s Commentary on John is one of his crowning achievements as a writer

and exegete of Scripture. Origen reveals his desire to use his theology and philology for

pastoral purposes, directing God’s accommodating truth in Scripture to the lives and

issues of his readers. We do not find Origen to be overly occupied with the mundane

details of textual analysis or historical triviality. Instead, he carries a conversational tone,

most often in the second person (not ‘I’ or ‘one’, but ‘you’), throughout his exposition.5

He rarely shows his textual work,6 generally focusing his prose on whatever theological

aspect of the text he finds most pertinent. This may be the result of Origen dictating his

work, and as it is possible that he had his students in the room while the stenographers

were transposing, this could have given Origen a constant reminder of the pastoral

implications of his office.7 Whatever the case, the commentary is highly pastoral, as

Origen always desires to find a connection with the moral implications of his reader’s

4 McGuckin, “Structural Design,” 444. 5 Jeffrey A Trumbower, “Origen’s Exegesis of John 8:19-53: The Struggle with Heracleon over

the Idea of Fixed Natures,” Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989): 141. 6 Origen’s passion for textual criticism can be seen in his Hexapla, a six columned textual analysis

of the Old Testament. 7 Ronald E. Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 13-32, trans.

Ronald E. Heine (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 18. Heine finds a section in Gregory Thaumatugus’ Panegyric where he notes that he has listened to something that is found in Origen’s commentary on John. One might also conjecture that he felt a pastoral impetus towards the stenographers themselves.

7

life. I find this pastoral tone to be the direct result of how Origen understood God to

relate to his creation, breaking revelatory truth down to a size that is manageable for the

recipients, but leaving room for them to grasp further, so in that stretching to grasp they

might grow towards further understanding.8

While it is unknown exactly how long the Commentary originally was, we know

of at least 32 books that cover up to John 13:33. Of these 32 we still have all of books 1,

2, 6 (except for the very beginning and end), 10, 13, 20, 28, and 32, a good chunk of 19,

and possibly a couple pages of 4 and 5, all in the original Greek. It is generally thought

that the commentary spanned most of Origen’s writing career, as he started the work for

it in Alexandria around the year 230, moving to Caesarea around the writing of Book 6

around 234,9 and finishing Book 32 around 238-48.10 This means that Origen started

writing when he was around 47, and finished sometime in his sixties. The Commentary is

thus quite important in the general corpus of Origen, giving us his mature thought over a

good span of time. There is a notable difference in the amount of space that Origen gives

the first chapter of John, which includes the all-important prologue on the Logos, in

comparison to the remaining twelve chapters. By the end of book 2 we reach John 1:7,

and by the end of book 6, only John 1:29. Between books 13 and 32 we begin to pick up

some pace, and go from John 4:13 to 13:33. This pacing seems to be due to the weight

Origen, his opponents, and his predecessors, place on Logos theology.11

8 For more on this topic see Hal Koch’s masterful Pronoia und Paideusis: Studien über Origenes

und sein Verhältnis zum Platonismus (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1932). My thanks to Peter Martens for pointing this out to me.

9 Origen makes note of his leaving Alexandria in the preface to his sixth book in the Commentary, likening the tumultuous and salvific nature of it to the exodus.

10 Ronald E. Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10, trans. Ronald E. Heine (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 4–5.

11 In focusing on the Logos as a central aspect of understanding Christ, Origen is following in the footsteps of his Alexandrian predecessors. Here Origen finds the Logos as the rationality of the whole

8

Origen was aware of others who had commented on John previously. These

commentators were often deemed by him to be ‘heterodox’ (eJterovdoxoV), and could have

given the whole genre of Gospel commentary at this time a heretical association. It is

commentaries like these that added incentive for Origen to do the same work, and show

how it could be done in an orthodox way that was fruitful for growth in Christ. Origen,

as an orthodox theologian participating in the same kind of commentary writing, is, by

the very act, showing that the production of commentaries is not simply the job of an

outsider who wants to bring an alien book into his own line of thought.12 It is a labour

that can be fruitful for all Christians; disciplining the interpreter to think deeply about his

faith and being transformed by the pages he reads.

Thesis Overview

This Thesis has five chapters. In the first chapter it is necessary to begin by outlining

Origen’s context throughout his life, highlighting the various polemical dialogues that he

would have participated in, and the implications these have on our understanding of

Origen as a polemicist, as his polemical dialogue with Heracleon is often misunderstood.

Here, I will give a few examples of how Origen participated in polemical dialogues, and

show his character as one who is primarily concerned with the development of the

Church, thus giving weight to the hypothesis that Origen’s Commentary on John was

world, tying John’s use of Logos to the multifarious meaning that it had in the Greek language. While we do not have space here to go over Origen’s Logos theology, see Mark Edwards, Image, Word and God in the Early Christian Centuries (Surrey: Ashgate, 2013), 100-114.

12 I should note that many later theologians after the fifth century, and some before that, considered Origen heterodox. This is due to both a misunderstanding of his teaching due to the dogmatic stance that many of his later monastic followers took, and the polemics between these monks and the political state of Justinian. For more see Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). Whatever the case Origen considered himself Orthodox, and many others of his day would have agreed, as seen in his Dialogue with Heraclides.

9

directed to this Churchly end. In the second chapter, I will outline Origen’s general

response to and attitude toward to the so-called ‘Gnostics’ in writings other than his

Commentary on John. Here, I will show how Origen typically uses heretical teaching for

examples, present the kinds of theological problems that these heterodox bring up, and

indicate how Origen typically responds to them. I will also explain in this chapter how

Origen treats Heracleon specifically in light of Origen’s general response to heresy

outlined previously, exposing some of the difficulties in understanding Heracleon and

the category of ‘Gnosticism’ along the way. I argue that Origen, though often charged

with misunderstanding Heracleon and those associated with him in Origen’s mind, did

not misunderstand Heracleon, but wanted to use him as an example of what can go

wrong if one does not heed the tenets of Origen’s spiritual interpretation, thus making

clear exposition of Heracleon’s thought superfluous to his ultimate goal.

In the third chapter, I will explore Origen’s motives in writing the Commentary

on John, and what pedagogical effect he wanted to have on his target audience. I will,

therefore, look at how Heracleon functions as a recurring opponent in this overarching

goal of leading people toward spiritual interpretation. Here, I will argue that, much like

in Origen’s other writings, his goal for this Commentary was to help his audience ascend

to God; showing them how to read spiritually in hopes that they would become spiritual

themselves. In the fourth chapter, I will outline how Origen and Heracleon argued over

the interpretation of various passages, highlighting in two sections the two main

problems that Origen found with Heracleon’s work: 1) the separation of the Old

Testament from the New, and 2) a doctrine of determinism, argued for by insisting on

different inherent ‘natures’ of people (where a person is predisposed to either rejecting or

10

accepting Christ based on his nature, not his choice). Origen could not accept these

interpretations because he found that they went against the Church’s rule of faith and

were contrary to God’s desire to develop all humanity into his likeness, not simply those

who had a predisposition towards accepting him. In the fifth chapter, I will go over some

of the more spiritual/allegorical interpretations found in Origen’s Commentary, and will

show how they function within the dialogue with Origen’s audience. It will become clear

that Origen uses these allegories as a means to draw the reader up to God by showing

how spiritual interpretation allows the reader to participate with the Spirit. Origen finds

that Scripture, as a sacrament, must guide the reader to sanctification by the grace of

God.13

13 Though Origen does not explicitly call Scripture a ‘sacrament’, he certainly does note the

mystical character that Scripture has, and that this mystical character participates with God. See Hans Boersma, “Joshua as Sacrament: Spiritual Interpretation in Origen” (forthcoming in Crux).

11

1. THE POLEMICAL CONTEXT OF ORIGEN’S LIFE

Origen (c.185-c.254) lived during a critical time of Christianity’s growth. As the Church

grew, so grew the need to define her beliefs. The Church, at this time, was also gaining

some renown among the elites of society; however, as the political situation was

precarious, and Christianity was still considered a novel peculiarity of Judaism to many

Romans, the Church experienced waves of persecution and praise as it fell in and out of

favour with whoever was in power at the time. While Eusebius tells us that the Emperor

Alexander Severus’ mother, Julia Mamaea (180–235), requested an audience with

Origen to learn about Christianity,14 Porphyry (c.234-c.305) could refer to Christians as

not “law abiding,”15 and the Diocletian persecution would not end until 313. Thus

Origen’s life was not always one of prestige in front of royalty; in fact, it is almost the

opposite. Since the beginning of his life, Origen was faced with the pressure of

persecution, and his life is bookended with such tragic stories. Eusebius tells us Origen

witnessed his father’s martyrdom as a teen, even encouraging his father to give up his

life at great expense to Origen’s family and himself.16 Throughout Origen’s life there

would be other trials that he would have to endure, and eventually he would die as a

result of injury inflicted during the tortures of the Decian persecution.

Besides these political harassments, Origen also had to deal with a variety of

other polemics with other groups, especially the groups who threatened Church unity and

teaching. In spite of this context, Origen has sometimes been characterized as a

‘theologian of culture’, that is, a theologian whose primary aim is to integrate the insight

14 Eusebius, Eusebius: The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Kregel, 2007), 202. 15 Ibid., 204. Eusebius provides the quote of Porphyry. 16 Ibid., 189.

12

of secular culture with his Christian faith. Sometimes this type is placed in contrast to

other theologians who are seen as ‘theologians of crisis’; i.e., those who merely answer

to charges against the faith to the best of their ability, not seeking outside cultural help.17

I find that Origen is no less a ‘theologian of crisis’ than other Church Fathers, as

Origen’s polemics with heresy and his hard-fought desire to bring Christianity into a

more self-aware doctrine came with many quarrels. These various polemical contexts

shed light on Origen’s interaction with the world around him, as he was never free of this

over-arching polemical environment while attempting to bring the light of the gospel to

the Empire. By examining Origen’s other polemical dialogues, and their contexts, we are

able to get a feel for his character in these situations, which will ultimately help us in

understanding him in his dialogue with Heracleon in his Commentary on John. Origen,

in these dialogues, presents himself as a teacher for the Church, seeking to guide all

strata of believers to God through his transformative pedagogy.

17 This simplistic typology can be seen explicitly in Colin Gunton, Revelation and Reason:

Prolegomena to Systematic Theology (London: Continuum, 2008), 31. “You could say that Irenaeus’ agenda seemed to be solely to deal with the Gnostics. If that is true it is because he was a theologian of crisis. Irenaeus is like Barth, a theologian of crisis. This is the Barth model, in other words you answer the questions thrown to the faith: you answer the crisis of belief. Origen and Tillich are by contrast theologians of culture who are concerned with how the gospel integrates with the best insights of the culture of their day.” It seems that the main difference between Origen and Irenaeus is in the particular aspects they took from their culture, and possibly the extent of their education, as both seem to be trained in and critical of pagan culture. It is misleading to find Origen as one who simply wanted to bring the best of Greco-Roman culture to Christian thought. Rather, he seems to clarify Christian thought, as he received it, with technical language that was of the Greco-Roman milieu. For a more nuanced view of Irenaeus’ relation to Greek philosophy, see Robert M. Grant, “Irenaeus and Hellenistic Culture” Harvard Theological Review 42 (1949): 41-52, and more recently Anthony Briggman, “Revisiting Irenaeus’ Philosophical Acumen” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011): 115-24.

13

Origen’s Early Life and Alexandrian Provenance

Eusebius, our main source on Origen’s life,18 tells us that Origen grew up in a Christian

household in Alexandria, and that his father, Leonides, who was most likely a teacher of

grammar and literature by trade, taught Origen the Scriptures from an early age.19 Origen

was the eldest of seven boys, and he grew up in a relatively wealthy household in

Alexandria. Origen is depicted in Eusebius’ Church History as a child prodigy, quickly

discerning and wanting to delve deeper into scriptural mystery at an early age.20 Origen’s

father was likely a Roman citizen, though his mother was not, so it is not probable that

Origen himself had citizenship.21 Due to his father’s profession, Origen had the ability to

be trained well academically and eventually take on the family business after his father’s

martyrdom.22 This helps explain Origen’s keen eye for hermeneutics, and, when

controversy over biblical interpretation arose, he went to his philological background to

18 There is controversy on whether or not to trust Eusebius, who devoted all of book 6 of his

Church History to Origen, as a source on Origen’s life, as he is thought to embellish when it proved advantageous for edification. As Eusebius studied in Origen’s Caesarean library and was a student of the Origenist Pamphilus, he would have had unlimited access to many primary sources on Origen’s life, putting him at a great advantage to any modern scholar. At the same time, there was much controversy concerning Origen even then, and Eusebius would have been under pressure to provide a defense for the man that he was so influenced by. Though Eusebius is probably accurate in most cases concerning Origen’s life, he is also responsible for writing an apology for Origen’s theology, and we can be sure that this apologetic concern motivated him in writing Origen’s history. It seems to me that we are on shaky ground questioning Eusebius unless there is an obvious contradiction present.

19 Eusebius, Church History, 189. 20 Ibid. “His father insisted that he not devote time to the usual curriculum until he had mastered

sacred studies each day through memorization and repetition. Not at all disinclined, the boy studied excessively and was not satisfied to read the sacred words (tw:n iJerw:n lovgwn) in a simple and literal sense but sought something more, and even at that age looked for deeper interpretations (qewrivaV), worrying his father with questions regarding the inner meaning (bouvlhma) of inspired scripture.” This quote is usually given as proof of Eusebius’ hagiographical tendency concerning Origen.

21 Henri Crouzel, Origen, trans. A.S. Worrall (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 5. Crouzel notes that because Leonides was beheaded it shows that he was likely a citizen. However, because Origen himself did not face the same persecution, as it was directed only towards the upper-class, it is not likely that he himself had citizenship. This is probably because his mother was not a citizen and both parents needed to be citizens in order for it to transfer.

22 Ibid., 6.

14

seek answers.23 Besides this training, one can only imagine the effect that his father’s

martyrdom would have on Origen’s perception of the Empire’s culture and on the cult

that permeated it.24

Eusebius tells us that after Origen’s father’s martyrdom he was forced to take up

residence with a woman who also housed some heretics, though, even at this early age,

Origen would not engage in prayer with them.25 It is at this time that Origen began

teaching in the line of his father to provide for his family, while also teaching

catechumens for the local church.26 It is hard to imagine Origen teaching these

catechumens the foundations of the Christian faith without also feeling the desire to

counter the heretical arguments of his housemates, as they gave Origen the problems that

he would have to deal with while he developed his theology. As time passed, Origen

grew in popularity with the Alexandrian church, and his responsibilities in the church

eclipsed his normal work of tutoring in the classics of Greco-Roman literature. At this

time, Eusebius tells us Origen sold his pagan books, and took up a “philosophical life” of

asceticism and devoted his life to “sacred studies.”27

Alexandria, during the life of Origen, was the second largest city in the Roman

Empire, with a population of around 400,000.28 Though the city is technically in Egypt,

23 For Origen and his philological background, see Bernhard Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe

(Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, 1987). 24 For the use of philology in the religion and philosophy of the Empire, see Robert Lamberton,

Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).

25 Eusebius, Church History, 189. 26 Ibid., 191. 27 Ibid. Peter Martens reminds us that though he sold his pagan philosophy books, this did not

mean that he forgot what they taught or considered their teaching useless, as he is still seen utilizing their teaching in his own school in Caesarea, and does not seem to have forgotten too much of it even by the end of his career when writing Contra Celsum, Peter Martens, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of Exegetical Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 39.

28 Ronald E. Heine, Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 2–3.

15

it would be a mistake to consider it an Egyptian city, as Alexander the Great founded it

for the exploitation of Egyptian goods.29 Alexandria had never existed under Egyptian

control, and the Egyptian religion practiced there was an intentionally syncretistic blend

of traditional Egyptian mythology with the polytheism of the Empire.30 As a port city, it

would have a large variety of cultures, though, unlike modern cities, thinking that this

cultural diversity created a melting pot would be a mistake, as, especially among the

leadership, ancient people groups tended to ghettoize.31 Philo tells us that a century prior

to Origen there had been a prominent Jewish community in Alexandria, so that two of

five of the main areas of the city were chiefly Jewish.32 Though this population was

greatly diminished after many returned home to fight in the great Jewish war, we can

imagine that they had a pervasive influence on the burgeoning Christian community.33

Origen’s interest in the variety of practices and cultures in Alexandria, especially the

Jewish and Philosophical ones, thus proves the exception to the rule.34

Alexandria was famed for being a centre of learning, as it housed a great and

famous library. Though it is unlikely that Origen would have been able to enter this

library, as it functioned as a shrine to Serapis for pagan elites only, its presence in the

29 Ibid., 8. Heine notes that this exploitation came with much resentment from the native

Egyptians. 30 Ibid., 10. 31 Guy G. Stroumsa, “Alexandria and the Myth of Multiculturalism,” in Origeniana Octava:

Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, ed. Lorenzo Perrone (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), 24. Stroumsa notes that while the leadership tended to stay staunchly within their traditions, laypeople were more likely to syncretize. He notes that especially among the Egyptian elites there was xenophobia, seen in anti-Semitism and opposition to Roman rule. Once the Church gains power, this tendency is unfortunately seen in the leadership of Cyril of Alexandria.

32 Heine, Origen, 3. Philo was quoted by Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 14.117. 33 It is often assumed, through the pervasive influence of Walter Bauer, that Alexandrian

Christianity grew out of Gnostic beginnings. This is now challenged by many as being nothing more than conjecture, as the group seems to have a strong connection to Palestinian Jewish Christians, seen in their early manuscript evidence (think of the earliest biblical manuscripts, such as P45, and Sinaiticus). See, David Brakke, “The East (2): Egypt and Palestine,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, eds. Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 347.

34 Ibid., 29.

16

city made it an attraction for intellectuals all over.35 It is because of this intellectual

attraction to the library that Origen would have been able to access numerous

philosophical works.36 It also meant that Origen would be able to converse with

philosophers such as Ammonius Saccas, the teacher of Plotinus.37 This situation would

also mean that philosophers would be able to come hear Origen, so we might assume that

he strove to show how Christian doctrine could meet their logical standards, if not

surpass them.38 Despite this context, Origen does not tend to reveal his philosophical

acumen, even in his more obviously philosophical works, such as De Principiis. If it

were not for his Contra Celsum, where he shows both appreciation and disdain for pagan

thought, we would not know of his vast reading in the area.39

One especially important aspect of Origen’s Alexandrian provenance is the

precedent of Jewish and Christian teaching that he received. Probably the most important

Alexandrian predecessor to Origen was the Jewish theologian, Philo (c.20 BC-c.50 AD).

35 Heine, Origen, 22. 36 Eusebius, Church History, 201-2. Porphyry, quoted by Eusebius, notes that Origen was familiar

with the work of Plato, Numenius, Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinius, Moderatus, Nicomachus, and the Stoic allegorical method of Chaeremon and Cornutus. Eusebius also notes that there are some difficulties with the quote, especially Origen’s relation to Ammonius Saccas, who Eusebius thinks was Origen’s teacher. Porphyry seems to think that Origen was brought up in a pagan household and converted, while Ammonius was brought up in a Christian household an apostatized. Eusebius believes that both were Christians their whole lives, and names some Christian works of Ammonius, including one by the title, The Harmony of Moses and Jesus. I follow Mark Edwards who feels that Eusebius and Porphyry were speaking of different people, as both names were common at this time (we already know of another Origen writing philosophy contemporaneously). See Mark Edwards, “Ammonius, Teacher of Origen,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History (1993): 169-81.

37 Mark Edwards, Origen against Plato, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 54–5. 38 Eusebius, Church History, 201. Eusebius tells that various philosophers would come to hear

Origen speak, lending more reason for him to create a logically consistent theology. 39 The influence of pagan philosophy on Origen’s theology has been a matter of debate since his

own day. I find it hard to believe that he was uncritical of the philosophy around him, as he constantly argues that it was unable to even drag the most intelligent out of idolatry. Note, for instance, how he explains his use of pagan philosophy in this quote from his Contra Celsum: “See then the difference between Plato’s fine utterance about the highest good and what the prophets said about the light of the blessed. And notice that, though what Plato said was true, it did not help his readers towards a pure religion at all, nor even Plato himself, in spite of the fact that he taught such profound philosophy about the highest good” (CC 6.5). For a good overview of Origen’s use of Greco-Roman philosophy, see Mark Edwards, Origen against Plato (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002).

17

Philo was a member of the Jewish aristocracy, was trained in Greek philosophy, and

desired to use that philosophical training to support his people.40 Though Origen can be

quite negative concerning Jewish interpretations in his homilies, often branding it

‘literalistic’, he does not have this attitude towards Philo. Origen mentions Philo by name

three times in his writing,41 quotes his exegesis around twenty times without naming

him, and there are around four-hundred instances where Origen presents the same

interpretation as Philo.42 It seems that Origen understood Philo to be a kind of proto-

Christian, and thus he was willing to draw so much from him.43 For Origen, especially in

his polemical dialogues, Philo was a useful example to show that applying his

philological principles to Scripture was not a novel creation.44 Origen is also seen to use

much of the same terminology for his interpretation as Philo.45 However, there are

significant differences between the two; especially since Origen’s Old Testament types

40 David Runia, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Westminster Handbook to Origen, ed. John A.

McGuckin (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 169. 41 Origen mentions Philo twice in Contra Celsum, in 4.51, where he notes the persuasive quality

of his work, saying “I think that in many places they are so successful that even Greek philosophers would have been won over by what they say,” and in 6.21, where he mentions Philo’s On Dreams as “worthy of intelligent and wise study by those who wish to find the truth.” The other case where Origen notes Philo is in his Commentary on Matthew 15.3 (it should be noted that this commentary is a highly interpolated document), where Origen mentions Philo in noting that it is better to be a eunuch than to “rage after sexual intercourse,” which is especially interesting when one cross-references this with Eusebius’ story of Origen’s castration (Church History, 6.8).

42 David Runia notes that in these instances Origen refers to Philo as a “predecessor,” or speaks of “some (exegetes) before us,” which shows that Origen understood himself to be in the same tradition as Philo (Runia, “Philo of Alexandria,” 170).

43 N. R. M. De Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 16.

44 Lorenzo Perrone, “Origenes Pro Domo Sua: Self-Quotations and the (Re)Construction of a Literary Œuvre,” in Origeniania Decima: Origen as a Writer, ed. Sylwia Kaczmarek, Henryk Pietras (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 12.

45 P. Tzamalikos, Origen Philosophy of History & Eschatology (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 26–37. Origen uses much of the same philological language as Philo, including uJpovnoia, a Platonic term that was used to revive the Stoic exegetical practice that Plato himself was not fond of; shmainovmanon; tuvpoV, in Philo this term refers to a ‘seal’, Tzamalikos notes that the usage here does not seem to show signs of Platonic idealism, and in Origen it mainly shows the relation between Old Testament and the New; suvmbolon, which tells of the symbolic nature of someone’s action, generally referencing the names of people and places.

18

are usually pointing to the theological realities of the New Testament.46 Though we do

not have space to go over all the influence of Philo in Origen’s thought, it is clear that

Philo gave Origen an important precedent in how to interpret Scripture and how to draw

out themes that would be instrumental in the formulation of his theology amidst many

detractors.47

Eusebius, who is fond of successions,48 tells us that Origen’s most notable

Christian predecessors from Alexandria are Pantaenus (d. c.200) and Clement of

Alexandria (c.150-c.215), as all three theologians taught successively in the same

catechetical school.49 Although it is unlikely that there was such a physical ‘school’ that

each of these teachers consecutively taught at, it is probable that they would have shared

the same tradition of learning and pedagogy, which was adverse to the various groups

around them. This tradition can be seen in the way Origen seeks to ground his theology

on a received rule of faith.50 From the little that we know of Pantaenus, he seems to have

been a Stoic-leaning philosopher from Sicily, whose principal interest was biblical

interpretation.51 Although Eusebius speaks of Origen being taught by Clement

personally, Origen never mentions him by name, and he was around seventeen when

46 Robert L. Wilken, “Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus and Vayikra Rabbah,” in Origeniana Sexta:

Origen and the Bible, ed. Giles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995), 83.

47 David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 179. For an example of Philo in polemical dialogue, see Graziano Ranocchia, “Moses against the Egyptian: The Anti-Epicurean Polemic in Philo,” in Studies in Philo of Alexandria : Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy, ed. F. Alesse (Boston: Brill, 2008), 75-102.

48 See Robert M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 45-59. 49 Eusebius, Church History, 193. “Pantaenus was succeeded by Clement, who directed the

school at Alexandria long enough to have Origen as a pupil.” 50 Heine, Origen, 49. 51 J.N.B. Carleton Paget, “The Christian Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Alexandrian

Tradition,” in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1, ed. Magne Saebø, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 482. Clement refers to being taught by Pantaenus, and refers to him as the “Sicilian bee” in Stromateis 1.11.2. Origen, contrary to popular belief, tends to show more influence from Stoicism than Platonism, showing a link to Pantaenus. See P. Tzamalikos, “Origen and the Stoic View of Time,” Journal of the History of Ideas 52 (1991): 535–61.

19

Clement left Alexandria for good.52 Even if Clement did not directly teach Origen, it is

undeniable that Clement’s theology was influential for Origen.53 As Clement was around

twenty-five years older than Origen, his thought could have served as a precedent for

Origen’s own project of defending Christianity and clarifying its thought. Though it

seems that Clement was much more inclined to involve the teaching of the pagan

philosophers in his work than Origen, this does not mean that Origen and Clement

valued this philosophy differently.54 One sign of Origen’s movement away from Clement

is seen in Origen’s refusal to use the term ‘gnwstikovV’ for his advanced Christian,

though this might be due to the term gaining a stigma that Origen was not comfortable

with not present at the time of Clement. Whatever their exact relation, it is clear that

these three Alexandrian predecessors—Philo, Pantaenus, and Clement—would have

provided Origen with a standard for his thought, giving him a tradition of biblical

interpretation and philosophical speculation to draw upon.

Origen’s Disputes within the Church

This tradition of biblical interpretation would be important for Origen as he met various

adversaries throughout his life. Besides the polemics with the heterodox, the Jews, and

the political persecutors noted earlier, Origen’s main focus was on disputes within the

Church. The main ecclesial adversary that Eusebius points to during the life of Origen

52 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 157. Runia notes how Origen especially utilized

Philo's conceptions of sacrifice, sin, and forgiveness. 53 R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s

Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1959), 249. It is notable that Origen wrote a book under the same title as Clement (Stromateis) while still in his early writing career. It would be strange for Origen to do this unknowingly.

54 Edwards notes that Clement’s most philosophical work, the Stromateis, does not necessarily capitulate to Platonism as readily as many might think. “The work [Stromateis] is generally counted as an apology, but if apologetic is the means whereby a minority ‘comes to terms’ with its hostile milieu, the author of the Protrepticus was patently no artist in the form” (Edwards, Origen Against Plato, 21).

20

was his own bishop in Alexandria, Demetrius.55 Eusebius locates the chief cause of the

animosity between Origen and Demetrius in Origen’s ordination as presbyter while

visiting Caesarea-Maritima without the knowledge or approval of Demetrius, who

argued that Origen was under his jurisdiction.56 This dispute seems to have left an

impression on Origen with regard to the functioning of leadership in the Church, since,

when Origen mentions bishops, he can be critical of their quest for power or fame.57

Joseph Trigg understands Demetrius to have begun an attempt to establish a kind

of uniformity in the Alexandrian church, as he believes that before Demetrius there was a

lack of centralized power.58 Trigg finds Demetrius to deal more strictly with ‘Gnostic’

esoteric teachers (which to Trigg included Origen), holding his whole constituency to a

developing rule of faith from the top down.59 This picture, however, does not seem to

match Origen’s understanding of Church teaching found in the preface to his De

55 Heine, Origen, 32. Heine also notes that no other monarchical Bishops are noted from

Alexandria before Demetrius, though there are some signs of a tradition of leadership by a body of presbyters. Demetrius could then be seen as bringing the Alexandrian church into the larger ecclesial structure common in other cities.

56 Eusebius, Church History, 194. There is also the matter of Origen’s self-castration (after supposedly taking Matt. 19:12 too literally), which Eusebius tells us was not a big deal in Demetrius’ eyes until Origen was ordained, when it became a very big deal. The veracity of Origen’s castration is widely debated in the field, as the ‘mad-allegorist’ would supposedly not be so naïve as to do this.

57 “Do you think that they who fill the priestly office and boast of their priestly rank ‘advance according to their order’ and do all that is worthy of this order?...Why then do we often hear people blaspheme and say: Behold, what a fine bishop! Or, What a fine priest! Or, what a fine deacon!” (Origen, Homilies on Numbers, ed. Christopher A. Hall, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009), 7 (2.1.4)). Origen’s criticism of the Church hierarchy is often overstated, or misinterpreted [see Gunnar af Hällström, Charismatic Succession: A Study on Origen’s Concept of Prophecy (Helsinki: Toimittanut Anne-Marit Enroth, 1985)]. Just because Origen was critical of some bishops and encouraged all Christians to a ‘priestly’ sanctification, does not mean that he despised the formal structure of the Church, see Henri De Lubac, History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture according to Origen, trans. Anne Englund Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007), 60-76.

58 Trigg, Origen, 130. 59 Ibid., 131. There is a large gap in our understanding of Alexandrian Christianity before the third

century. Trigg seems to be picking up on the understanding of Walter Bauer that Alexandria originated from Gnostic beginnings, as, if they were similar to later orthodoxy, why be silent about them? This conjecture does not adequately take into consideration the manuscript evidence we have, which shows a Jewish influence that likely faded after the revolt, leaving behind Gentile Christians who did not feel the need to leave their homes to fight in the Jewish war. See Birger Pearson, "Cracking a Conundrum: Christian Origins in Egypt." Studia Theologica 57 (2003): 61-75.

21

Principiis, where he states that there is a stable deposit of faith handed down in

accordance with Biblical teaching that he attempts to exposit,60 far from the “unmediated

divine inspiration” that Trigg finds in Origen’s doctrine.61 While Origen does not

generally prioritize ecclesial authority over the Christian character of humility and

morality,62 this does not dissipate his ecclesiology.63 It does seem that Origen was more

concerned with keeping the Bible central than with apostolic succession. However,

Origen also recognized that he was dealing with a Bible that, though interpreted through

itself, was made up of a collection of writings received on apostolic authority, by

interpreting these works through the traditional rule of faith that he received. Even

though Origen’s Bible study was learned, it was for the sake of the Church; this is in

contrast to some of his opponents (especially the ‘Gnostics’), who seek to interpret in

opposition to the general believer.

We are lucky enough to have a first-hand account of one of Origen’s formal

disputations from his Caesarean period in his Dialogue with Heraclides, and, even

60 “Many of those, however, who profess to believe in Christ, hold conflicting opinions not only

on small and trivial questions but also some that are great and important; on the nature, for instance, of God or of the Lord Jesus Christ or of the Holy Spirit…it seems necessary first to lay down a definite line and unmistakable rule in regard to each of these…the teaching of the church, handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles, is still preserved and continues to exist in the churches up to the present day, we maintain that that only is to be believed as the truth which in no way conflicts with the tradition of the church and the apostles” (Origen, On First Principles, ed. G. W Butterworth and Paul Koetschau [New York: Harper & Row, 1966], 1-2). Origen notes here that because the apostles gave their doctrine in the “plainest terms” others, gifted by the Holy Spirit, would come later to make their teaching more precise (see also CJn 32.186-93, CC 1.7 for Origen’s understanding of the rule of faith).

61 Trigg later calls Origen’s views on the sacraments, in comparison to those in the West, “dangerously, perhaps even heretically, subjectivist: they made the soul’s immediate relation to God through the Logos, not that relation as mediated through the church as an institution, the criterion of its spiritual status” (Trigg, Origen, 141). I feel that this is the heart of his misunderstanding of Origen and his exegesis, not recognizing his desire to be a traditional member of the Church. It is more likely that Origen took for granted the corporate reality of the long-instituted Sacramental liturgy in his congregation, and wished to develop the subjective reailty in this context.

62 Heine, Origen, 231–2. Heine points to his interpretation of Matt. 16:16-19 (CMt 12.11), where Jesus refers to Peter as the ‘rock’ who holds the ‘keys’ as being applicable to all who become morally pure, not giving the priesthood supremacy just because of their title.

63 For an excruciatingly thorough treatment of Origen’s ecclesiology see Freddy Ledegang, Mysterium Ecclesiae: Images of the Church and Its Members in Origen (Leuven: Peeters, 2001).

22

though it is heavily edited, it gives us a good picture of Origen as a theologian for the

Church.64 The Dialogue is likely a summarized version of a longer debate, as Origen’s

question-and-answer period with Bishop Heraclides takes up only a couple pages, before

Origen begins to explain how the conclusion that Origen leads Heraclides to ought not

offend the ‘simple’ Christians in attendance.65 In the short dialogue, Origen leads

Heraclides through a series of leading questions to the paradoxical conclusion of the

Father and Son being both two gods and one God at the same time. Origen does not find

doctrinal differences in the Church acceptable, and notes that the issue of the unity and

diversity of the Godhead has caused much trouble in the past.66 He thinks that Christian

teaching should fall neither into the heresy of “unicity” (monarcivaV), where there is no

separation of the Father and the Son, or into that of denying the divinity of Christ, as the

Church consistently prays to God as both two and one.67

After clarifying the relation of the two Persons of the Godhead, Origen deals with

two other issues relating to the human soul brought up with him by other bishops. Based

on some Old Testament passages that seem to indicate that the soul is blood (cf. Gen.

9:4; Lev. 17:11; Deut. 12:33), Bishop Dionysius asks whether it is right to think this.

Origen, in fine philological form, replies that one ought to be careful with homonyms in

64 Origen, Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and His Fellow

Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul, ed. Robert J. Daly (Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 1992), 21. Here, Daly, in his introduction, also notes several other formal debates that Origen had; around 215 with the governor of Arabia; around 229 with the Valentinian Candidus; with Bassius in the winter of 231-32 before Julia Mamea; at the Synod of Bostra (238-44) with Bishop Beryllus; and another with the bishops of Arabia at an unknown date.

65 Ibid., 59. 66 Ibid., 60. 67 Ibid., 60: “In some of our prayers we maintain the duality and in others we introduce the unity

[note the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi], and thus we do not fall in the opinion of those who, cut off from the Church, have fallen prey to the illusory notion of unicity (monarcivaV), abrogating the Son as distinct from the Father and also, in effect, abrogating the Father; nor do we fall into the other impious doctrine which denies the divinity of Christ.”

23

Scripture.68 Origen gives a request to his audience to hear these things not as dogs or pigs

(cf. Matt. 7:6), but as human beings “shaped by the Word,”69 who will be receptive to

this Word in Scripture as presented by Origen.70 Origen notes that he gave a homiletic

preamble in order “to treat the matter in a way that heals the souls of my hearers,”71 as,

for Origen, speaking about the human soul is not a matter of detached theological

anthropology, but an opportunity to lead his audience to holiness. Origen goes on to

describe one of his favourite doctrines, that of the spiritual senses, and explains how a

real sanctified human lives in the world.72

Origen also answers a question from Bishop Demetrius on whether the soul is

immortal or not, to which Origen replies that, depending on how one understands

‘death’, in some ways it is, and some it is not.73 Origen concludes that the soul needs to

live on to face judgement, but needs to be attached to God to truly live.74 Besides the

interesting responses that Origen gives in these three question-and-answer sections, for

our purposes, the Dialogue is especially interesting in the way that it portrays Origen as

the master theologian of the Church, called upon even by bishops to clarify their

difficulties. It is in light of his ecclesial interaction portrayed in the Dialogue that I

suggest we ought to also see Origen’s exegetical work, especially his commentaries, as

they seek to guide the preachers of the Church to deeper understandings of Scripture.

68 Ibid., 66. 69 Ibid., 68. 70 For an interesting, though difficult, treatment of this progression in the Logos see Mihai

Niculescu, The Spell of the Logos: Origen’s Exegetic Pedagogy in the Contemporary Debate Regarding Logocentrism (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009), 43–120.

71 Origen, Dialogue, 69. 72 Ibid., 69–76. Origen notes the necessity of study within the Christian life: “For when someone

has neglected the cultivation of his intellectual life, and after too much idleness his thinking capacity has dried up, he has lost his heart” (Origen, Dialogue, 74).

73 Ibid., 76. 74 Ibid., 77.

24

During his struggle with Demetrius in Alexandria, Origen gained the patronage

of a wealthy ex-Valentinian, Ambrose, who, out of his enthusiasm for Origen’s teaching,

provided him with all that he needed to write. Through this providential relationship it

seems that Origen was able to grow in prominence throughout the whole Church, and

became called on for theological disputations all over the Empire. As we saw in his

Dialogue with Heraclides, Origen could use his teaching position to guide the Church’s

formal leadership to a more nuanced delineation. It is clear how this position affected

Origen’s work, as before he seemed to be only concerned with the production of the

Hexapla, his extremely large text-critical tool for finding a precise Septuagint,75 while

afterward he seems preoccupied with texts that were known to have been commented on

by the ‘Gnostics’ a generation previous to him (i.e., those who Ambrose would have

followed). This included commentaries on the first books of Genesis and the Gospel of

John, which he would work on for much of his life. Origen also wrote several topical

books in Alexandria, including the famous and controversial De Principiis, which

focuses on how to read Scripture in light of the rule of faith, and which some consider

the first systematic Christian theology.76 Origen seems to have been a reluctant writer,77

75 I should note that the nature of the Hexapla is a heavily discussed topic. For an interesting

discussion on the ground-breaking nature of Origen’s Hexapla, see Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 86-132. Origen likely continued to work on the Hexapla for most of his life.

76 See Charles Kannengiesser, “Divine Trinity and the structure of Peri Archon,” in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy, eds. Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen (Nortre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 1988), complemented by Brian E Daley, "Origen's De Principiis: A Guide to the Principles of Christian Scriptural Interpretation," in Nova et Vetera: Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton, ed. John Petruccione (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 3–21.

77 Origen, in the preface to Contra Celsum, notes Jesus’ reluctance to speak, finding his actions to speak better than his words; Origen in turn uses this to exhort his audience to do likewise: “He [Jesus] is still silent in face of this and does not answer with his voice; but he makes his defense in the lives of his genuine disciples, for their lives cry out the real facts (o[nti) and defeat all false charges, refuting and overthrowing the slanders and accusations. I would therefore go so far as to say that the defense which you

25

as he did not begin until he was around 37, and throughout his life he constantly

measured his vast output against the meagre New Testament, hoping his work was not in

vain.78 Origen seems intent in all his written works both to refute errors from those he

deemed ‘heterodox’, and to propose interpretations that fit with what he understood the

Church’s teaching to be.

Origen’s Caesarean Period

After writing and teaching for some time in Alexandria, Origen was forced to move to

Caesarea-Maritima for unknown reasons. Caesarea, like Alexandria, was a large port

city. Herod the Great built the city in order to compete with the port of Alexandria, and

though it never really compared in size, the city became quite prosperous because of this

port.79 During the Jewish War, Caesarea remained loyal to Rome and thus fell into

disrepute amongst Jewish leaders for a while, though it seems to have been deemed

‘clean’ by the Jewish leaders by Origen’s time.80 Caesarea also had jurisdiction over

Jerusalem, as it was the seat of Roman power in the area, and its official religion tended

towards syncretism, much like Alexandria.81

By Origen’s day, Caesarea had become a center of Rabbinic thought, and it is

likely that Origen would have been in dialogue with noted Rabbis such as Rabbi

[Ambrose] ask me to compose will weaken the force of the defense that is in the mere facts (toi:V pravgmasin), and detract form the power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not quite stupid” (CC praef.2-3). Origen here seems to show his followers that they ought to emulate the Lord in his defense, making their actions speak rather than their words.

78 Perrone, “Origenes Pro Domo Sua,” 4. 79 Heine, Origen, 146. 80 Ibid., 147. 81 De Lange, Origen and the Jews, 11.

26

Hoshaya,82 and also with those responsible for the ideas in the Mishnah and the

Tosefta.83 Origen seems to be familiar with the Mishnah, Mekilta, and other Tannaitic

literature available,84 and he also had knowledge of certain Jewish “esoteric traditions”

(tinaV paradovseiV ajporrhvtouV), as he calls them.85 It is hard to quantify what affect

this community had on Origen’s interpretation, not to mention what effect he had on

theirs, but the fact that he was conversant with Jewish scholars shows an important

aspect of his character in polemical dialogue.86 Though Robert Wilken notes that the

general patristic hostility to the Jews “borders on the irrational,”87 Origen does not seem

to share this antipathy, and in many ways he can be seen to defend the common way of

life that he and the Jews participated in in opposition to the Empire cult.88 Nicholas de

Lange, who has given us the most thorough treatment of Origen’s relation to the Jewish

people of his day, notes, “It is no exaggeration to say that, for Origen, the whole of the

debate between the Church and the Synagogue can be reduced to the one question of the

interpretation of Scripture.”89

In his polemics with the Jews over scriptural interpretation, Origen most often

charges them with a choking literalism. As we noted that Origen took so much from the

interpretation of Philo, this may seem confusing. It seems that this charge of literalism

82 For an overview of this possibility see W. Bacher, “The Church Father, Origen, and Rabbi

Hoshaya,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 3 (1891): 357–360. 83 Heine, Origen, 147–50. 84 De Lange, Origen and the Jews, 8–9. 85 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 188–90 (19.91–8). 86 There has been some research by Maren Niehoff on the relation of the Rabbis to the Church

fathers, where she notes a symbiotic relationship, even picturing Origen leading R. Hoshaya to Philo. See “Creatio Ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian Exegesis,” Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006): 37–64.

87 Robert L. Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis and Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), x.

88 This is especially seen in Contra Celsum, where Origen often defends the Jews against Celsus’ attacks.

89 De Lange, Origen and the Jews, 82.

27

was focused on two main issues: the Jewish interpretation of ceremonial law and the

messianic prophecy.90 Peter Martens notes that these issues do not stem from Origen

having a problem with Jewish philology per se, as Origen’s problems are more

derivative of his desire to provide a place for Christian identity within Jewish Scripture.91

In other words, Origen looks at how Christ fulfilled the Old Testament cult and Jewish

messianic expectation. We must remember that in Origen’s time, the Jews were still the

more socially powerful group, and, in contrast to the Christians, the one officially

recognized by the Empire. It is thus possible to see Origen’s interaction with this group

as a lesser power subversively emulating the greater, taking Jewish exegesis and showing

how it functions better in Christian doctrine.92 This may be why Origen takes so much, is

so critical, and yet have his ideas so similar to aspects of Jewish interpretation around

him, even calling on their precedent when he needed to.93

Even though Origen can be seen as wanting to correct Jewish interpretation for

the sake of the Jews themselves, as he often refers to them losing the correct

interpretation of their own Scriptures, it was his own Church that he was afraid would

suffer if he did not correct this ‘literalism’. This polemic between Origen and his Jewish

counterparts can best be seen in Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus, where Origen, much

90 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 142–4. 91 Ibid., 147. 92 Andrew S. Jacobs, “The Lion and the Lamb: Reconsidering Jewish-Christian Relations in

Antiquity,” in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, eds. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 111.

93 De Lange points out the similar way that Origen and the Rabbis interpret the meaning of words: “In particular, the Rabbis tend to see in certain recurrent key-words in the Bible a reference to something else–usually to Torah, which we should perhaps translate not as ‘Law’ but as ‘God’s teaching’. Thus for the Rabbis ‘tree’, ‘water’, ‘life’, ‘strength’, ‘truth’, ‘good’, ‘earth’, ‘fire’, ‘apples’ and many other words stand allegorically for Torah. Similarly in Origen’s homilies ‘tree’, ‘water’, ‘bread’ and many other words stand for the word of God or Christ, the incarnate Logos. Of course, such symbolism is found in other Christian writings before Origen, and even in the New Testament, but Origen carries it to remarkable lengths, and time and again we find parallels with rabbinic homilies.” N.R.M. De Lange, “Jewish Influence on Origen,” in Origeniana: Premier colloque international des etudes origéniennes, ed. Henri Crouzel, Gennaro Lomiento, and Josep Ruis-Camps (Bari: Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum, 1975), 237.

28

like the post-war Jews, had to reinterpret the law of Leviticus for it to be applicable to his

congregation as they had to adapt to the loss of the Temple.94 It appears that Origen’s

task of showing the Jewish interpretation to be faulty was made especially pertinent

when some of his congregation were attending a Jewish service on Saturdays and his

own on Sundays.95 Origen, like Paul (cf. Gal. 5:3), stresses to these Church members that

one cannot be a partial Jew and a partial Christian, and that the ceremonial observance of

the Law is not something that Christians are permitted to participate in.96 It seems that

these Christians were also giving Origen some resistance to his interpretation, finding

him to “take the Law of God in a preconceived sense and pervert it violently”; Origen,

however, thinks that he is simply following Paul’s example.97 Origen does not seem very

impressed by the Levitical Law in its literal sense, finding Greco-Roman laws to be more

useful, while in the spiritual sense, the Levitical Law “surpasses all human laws and is

believed to be truly the Law of God.”98 Throughout the Homilies Origen repeatedly

points to the need for Christians to take the Law spiritually as spiritual Jews, noting that

all the sacrifices in the Old Testament were a foreshadowing of Christ’s ultimate

94 Robert Wilken has noted the similarities between Origen’s treatment of Leviticus and the

Vayikra Rabbah in his, “Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus and Vayikra Rabbah,” in Origeniana Sexta: Origen and the Bible, ed. Giles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995), 81-91.

95 Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, trans. Gary Wayne Barkley (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1990), 105 (5.8.3).

96 Ibid., 204 (10.2.1). 97 Ibid., 178 (9.2.1). There is a similar quote in 16.2.3. 98 Ibid., 147 (7.5.7). “If, according to this understanding, we say that the supreme God has

proclaimed the laws to human beings, I think that the legislation will seem worthy of the divine majesty. But if we stand by the letter and according to that we accept what is seen by the Jews or the multitude as the written law, I would be ashamed to say and to confess that God gave such laws. For human laws, for instance, either of the Romans, or the Athenians, or the Lacedemonians, seem more elegant and reasonable. But if the Law of God is received according to this understanding that the Church teaches, then clearly it surpasses all human laws and is believed to be truly the Law of God.”

29

sacrifice.99 Here Origen’s polemic with the Jewish reading of Scripture is directly related

to the practices of his congregation, since in other cases he seems content to borrow from

Jewish interpretation as it suited him.

The Character of Origen’s Caesarean School

When Origen settled in Caesarea, he founded another school like the one he left in

Alexandria. We have a vivid description of this school from one of Origen’s pupils,

traditionally considered to be St. Gregory Thaumaturgus,100 upon his departure from the

school, in The Panegyric to Origen (or, Address to Origen).101 The nature of the

Panegyric’s language has caused some controversy as the writer does not use any

uniquely Christian terminology, nor does he reference any Christian doctrines. This has

lead some critics to think that Origen’s school was not a specifically ‘Christian’

institution and that the author was not a Christian either.102 This hypothesis, however,

seems to be the result of a problematic attempt to read between the lines of the

Panegyric, as it would be strange for the author to speak about Origen the way he does

without having Christian commitment. It is possible to consider the school as

99 Ibid., 146 (7.5.4). For example: “But you, if you are sons of the Church, if you are instructed in

the evangelical mysteries, if ‘the Word made flesh lives in you’, know that what we say is of the Lord, lest ‘he who knows does not know may be unknown’. Know that they are figures written in the divine volumes and, for that reason, examine and understand what is said as spiritual and not as carnal. For if you receive those things as carnal, they wound you and do not sustain you.”

100 Eusebius, Church History, 209. Eusebius relates that Origen taught both Gregory and his brother Theodore, replacing their previous passion, which seemed to be practicing law, with a desire for theological study.

101 Joseph Wilson Trigg, “God’s Marvelous Oikonomia: Reflections on Origen’s Understanding of Divine and Human Pedagogy in the Address Ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 27–8. Trigg notes that this is the only surviving remnant of a rhetorical genre, of a panegyric upon departure of a school.

102 Ibid., 30–1. Trigg references the work of Adolf Knaubler, who concluded that because of this lack of Christian terminology Gregory must have been a pagan and that thus the school was intended to teach both Christians and non-Christians. I agree with Trigg in noting that Gregory’s identity as a Christian does not seem suspect, and we might more reasonably assume that there could be non-Christians in the audience of his panegyric.

30

demonstrating a zeal for mission, thus making it desirable to outsiders.103 Though much

of the curriculum noted by the author is Greek philosophy and arithmetic, it still seems

that Origen’s ultimate purpose here was to guide believers to perfection by means of

biblical exposition. The Panegyric is a good indicator as to Origen’s overall goal of

leading people to godly lives, which he believes is impossible without Christianity.

To Gregory, Origen is the ‘holy man’ (tw:/ ajndri; tw:/ iJerw),104 who through his

toil has become ready for union with the divine.105 It is this toil that Origen wishes to put

his pupils through as well, and it is through his ‘true philosophy’ (th;n kalh;n

filosofivan) that this transformation will come about. Gregory notes that Origen is not

very concerned with giving them good diction and rhetorical style, but with teaching

them to be concerned with the ‘facts’ (ta; pravgmata), and their accurate investigation.106

This searching for ‘the facts’ contained much ‘philosophizing’ (filosofei:n), implying a

life of poverty and discipline;107 this lifestyle is likely in accordance with what Eusebius

tells us of Origen’s commitment to Christian teaching when he gave up teaching Greco-

Roman literature.108 Gregory, alluding to Jesus’ parable of the seeds (Mt. 13:1-23),

103 Crouzel, Origen, 27. Gregory does seem to have been drawn to Origen’s public teaching, as it

seems that he met Origen in public discourse, and notes the open nature of Origen. This gives us some light as to Origen’s public presence, as the acquaintance of Gregory and Origen would not be very likely considering difference of race, religion, or family, in a time where many were xenophobic.

104 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory Thaumaturgus Address to Origen, trans. W. Metcalfe (London: S.P.C.K., 1920), 51.

105 Ibid., 44–5. 106 Ibid., 42–3. 107 G. W. H Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 1481. 108 Eusebius describes Origen’s proto-monastic ‘philosophic’ life as, “dismissing all stimuli to

youthful lusts and disciplining himself with arduous tasks by day but spending most of the night studying the divine Scriptures. Sometimes he fasted, at other times he restricted time for sleep, which he took on the floor–never in bed. Above all, he felt that he had to keep the Saviour’s sayings urging us not to own two coats or wear shoes or worry about the future…. By demonstrating the philosophic life in this manner, he inspired a large number of his students to similar enthusiasm, so that he even won over some unbelieving pagans, scholars, and philosophers, who believed the divine Word, were conspicuous in the present persecution, and were even arrested and fulfilled in martyrdom” (Eusebius, Church History, 190–1; italics added).

31

compared Origen’s teaching to a farmer preparing the ground for planting by turning it

over, thus making him receptive to the message.109 At the end of his time with Origen,

Gregory looks back in reverence to the great man, noting his unique ability to interpret

Scripture, and noting Origen’s ability to interpret was based on his disciplined way of

life. It is Origen’s discipline that creates receptivity to the Logos, and Gregory even

speaks of the Logos himself as being Origen’s guardian angel.110 Origen, through his

commentaries, attempted to engrain this type of ‘philosophical’ discipline and godliness

in his readers as he did with his personal students.

It was important for Origen to emphasize this ascetic way of life at this time. For

Origen, persecution was impending, and the more a person became detached from

worldly pleasures, the stronger they would be when the time came to leave them

altogether. Eusebius notes that during the reign of Philip the Arab, the Church

experienced great favour and that it is possible that the Emperor even converted to

Christianity.111 At this time Origen also began to allow his sermons to be recorded (such

as the Homilies on Leviticus that I mentioned earlier), wanting to wait until he was sixty,

possibly to allow for maturation.112 In these sermons, there seems to be an increased

emphasis on moral living and a denunciation of the laxity that he was witnessing in his

then not-persecuted church. It appears that the lull in persecution at this time allowed

Christians in Origen’s congregation to lower their moral standards, to at least below the

stringent ideals that Origen expected.113 When persecution began again, this time under

109 Thaumaturgus, Address to Origen, 63. 110 Trigg, “God’s Marvelous Oikonomia,” 40. 111 Eusebius, Church History, 210–1. 112 Ibid., 211. 113 Crouzel, Origen, 4.

32

the reign of Decius, Origen’s call to discipline and holiness was more necessary than

ever, especially to himself.

Conclusion

Eusebius indicates that Origen, after being tortured as an old man, died in a remote

location. Due to his status, his charismatic writing, and his beliefs at a time when

doctrine did not have a written creed to reference, Origen has remained both a popular

and controversial figure. It seems that many of the issues concerned the way in which the

Church understood the place of the Bible and the way it ought to be understood.114 As

Origen spent his life in diverse urban situations, meeting people with a different outlook

was common. While Origen began his theologising amidst many controversies, he also

had important predecessors from his home city, who showed him how he might continue

the work of guiding the thought and action of the Church. Whether it was the political

persecution that Origen was often threatened by, a growing Church that was figuring out

how their hierarchy might function, or the various doctrinal problems that he was later

called upon to clarify, Origen always found it was necessary to show how a proper

interpretation of Scripture can lead to a life worthy of God,115 and how a life worthy of

God allows for correct interpretation.116 By looking at Origen’s context we are able to

see how he kept the Church and the spiritual development of its members as primary,

114 Hanson, Allegory and Event, 135. Here, I agree with Hanson, “[w]e cannot read Origen’s

works for long without realising that as he expounds Scripture he has constantly in mind several different schools of rival expositors of the text.”

115 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 112. Martens notes that it is because most of the issues that Origen was facing revolved around biblical interpretation that he focused so much on homilies and commentaries.

116 Ibid., 62–4. Martens here shows that those who are morally deficient will attempt to use Scripture to excuse their behaviour, or conform the teachings of Scripture to their lives.

33

amidst the various controversies around him. It is this picture that will guide us to

appreciate how Origen used his Commentary on John for his pastoral pedagogy.

34

2. ORIGEN AND THE SO-CALLED GNOSTICS

Some of Origen’s fiercest opponents in biblical interpretation were what we loosely call

today the ‘Gnostics’. These ‘Gnostics’ were a constant reminder to Origen of what can

go wrong when one departs from the rule of faith and from the scriptural basis as a

ground for his theology. As, throughout all his writing, Origen is concerned with the

pastoral pedagogy of the Church, he used heretical teaching for examples, presenting the

kinds of theological problems that these heterodox thinkers bring up and how one might

get past them. Specifically, these ‘Gnostic’ thinkers present Origen with two main

problems: the separation of the Old Testament from the New, and a doctrine of

determinism, according to which God predetermines the salvation of each particular

person, and thus created each one with a nature corresponding to his or her

predetermined outcome.117 While Origen may have been well versed in the different

types of ‘Gnostic’ thinking, the particular nuances of each heretical party do not seem to

concern him too much in his writing and preaching, as he generally groups them all

together for the pedagogical purpose of warning against what can go wrong if one strays

from the Church’s teaching.

In this chapter, after outlining Origen’s general treatment of ‘Gnostic’ heresy, I

will show how Origen treats Heracleon specifically in his Commentary on John, and

expose some of the difficulties in understanding Heracleon and the ‘Gnostics’ along the

way. I will argue that Origen, though often charged with misunderstanding Heracleon

and those associated with him in Origen’s mind, did not misunderstand Heracleon, but

used him as a pedagogical example of what can go wrong if one does not heed the tenets

117 Here, Peter Martens has helped me substantially; see Origen and Scripture, 107-31.

35

of Origen’s spiritual interpretation, thus making a precise exposition of Heracleon’s

thought superfluous to his ultimate goal. It does not seem to me that Origen referenced

these heresiarchs in order to distance himself from other thinkers who had similar

doctrines and were then rejected by the Church, but as someone who understood the

cause for concern that these heretical doctrines brought, and how one might remedy

them.

Before we look into the so-called ‘Gnostics’, it is important to remember that it

was the same overgeneralisation and lack of nuance of the heresiology that

misunderstood Origen throughout the centuries, which also helped define the ‘Gnostics’

for posterity. The problem with the label of ‘Gnostic’ is that it is a broad-spectrum

attribution to a group with a wide variety of doctrines.118 This generalisation breeds a

misunderstanding of technical language, and a retroactive conformation to later

developments in orthodoxy to those who cannot defend themselves. This becomes

especially problematic when the later orthodox agreement might not even have taken

place if it was not for the speculation of the theologians later charged with heresy. We

should note that, while philosophers are usually generous in the interpretation of their

own work, they are often miserly in the interpretation of others.119 This miserly

interpretation can be seen in Origen’s interpretation of the ‘Gnostics’, so we ought to

keep in mind that it was not Origen’s goal to give us an accurate delineation of heretical

belief. However, this does not mean that Origen did not understand their teaching. It only

118 For a more nuanced definition see Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 2003); and Michael A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996). While I recognize the difficulty with the terms ‘Gnostic’ and ‘Gnosticism’, I will use them as shorthand for those who hold the similar beliefs of the separation of the Old Testament and the New, and who hold to a doctrine of determinism, as Origen found it.

119 M. J. Edwards, “Gnostics, Greeks, and Origen: The Interpretation of Interpretation,” Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993): 70.

36

means that for the purposes of Origen’s work, which was most often preaching (at least

that which we have), a nuanced presentation of ‘Gnostic’ thought was not in his scope.

It should be noted that, even though in modern usage the term ‘Gnostic’

problematically covers a wide spectrum of belief, ancient heresiologists were often

reluctant to use the term. While Origen at times does reference the Gnwstikoiv,120 he is

likely, in the same way as Irenaeus, simply making reference to what this group had

called themselves.121 The title was not one that a churchly theologian such as Origen

would want to give to his opponent, as, even in the pejorative sense, it implied careful

thinking. Origen, as well as other Church Fathers engaged in polemics with these

‘Gnostics’, such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, refer to them with the words of

Paul from 1 Timothy 6:20, as “th:V yeudwnuvmou gnwvsewV (the so-called knowledge).”

In fact, Origen, like other Church Fathers, generally mentions heretical groups by the

name of the leader unless he does not have that option.122 Writers such as Clement

deplored the way that the so-called ‘Gnostics’ referred to themselves with this title,

pointing to the positive connotations that the title would have had, at least in Alexandria.

120 Origen, Homilies on Judges, trans. Elizabeth Ann Dively Lauro (Washington, D.C.: Catholic

University of America Press, 2009), 43 (1.1). 121 M. J. Edwards, “Gnostics and Valentinians in the Church Fathers,” Journal of Theological

Studies 40 (1989): 30. 122 Edwards notes that the problem with overgeneralised labelling is more due to a modern desire

to categorize than a problem in the categorization of the Fathers: “When the subject of Gnosticism is opened, the names of Basilides and Valentinus are the ones that occur most readily to the minds of modern authors. If Hippolytus does not associate the word 'Gnostic' with either of these, we cannot suppose him ignorant of what is now so universally known, and it would surely be a fatuous duplicity, exceeding even the 'characteristic' deceptions of Irenaeus, to withhold the invidious epithet from those sects which, since they are flourishing, known and contemporary, could be maligned with the greatest effect” (Ibid., 32). It is unlikely that a person would refer to themselves with such terms such as ‘Valentinian’, and these were likely given pejoratively by churchmen to those who followed in their heretical master’s teaching.

37

By Origen’s day the term seems to have already gained the stigma of heresy, so Origen

refrained from using it of himself in the way that Clement had done.123

Origen’s intellectual relation to these ‘Gnostic’ thinkers has been constantly

under speculation. Some, such as Jean Daniélou, argue that Origen takes far too much

from these ‘Gnostic’ predecessors, finding in them a common penchant for theological

speculation and allegorism as departing from the tradition.124 It is important to note that

in Origen’s era there was no clear-cut ‘orthodoxy’ in a creedal sense; in a world before

mass communication, that kind of standard of thought and practice could not possibly be

upheld, even if we can see a general consensus on many central topics amongst ante-

Nicene theologians.125 Whatever the character of the teaching of these ‘Gnostics’, it

123 This can be seen in the way that Origen references the groups in his Contra Celsum; “We may

admit also that a third kind exists, and they call some natural and others spiritual–I think he means the Valentinians. What has this to do with us who belong to the Church, who find fault with those who maintain that natures are saved or lost in consequence of the way they are made? Let us admit that there are some too who profess to be Gnostics, like the Epicureans who call themselves philosophers. But neither can those who abolish providence really be philosophers, nor can those be Christians who introduce strange new ideas which do not harmonize with the traditional doctrines of Jesus” (Origen, Contra Celsum, 311 [5.61]; italics are Origen’s quotation of Celsus). It should be noted that even here the Valentinians are distinct from those “who profess to be Gnostics.”

124 Jean Daniélou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture vol.2, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea, trans. John Austin Baker (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973), 286-8. Daniélou argues that Origen’s doctrine of the soul was highly dependent on ‘Gnostic’ speculation, claiming the doctrines of pre-existence and apokatastasis to be the result (Daniélou, Gospel Message, 477-8).

125 M. J Edwards, Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009), 7. While I must admit that I do not see the possibility of an Orthodox standard in the ante-Nicene period, Origen clearly did not think that this was the case, as he routinely referred to people who had rejected a standard ‘rule of faith’, even giving a definition of a heretic in his Commentary on Titus: “Now let us explain to the best of our ability what is meant by a heretic, in accordance with our intellectual capabilities. Everyone who professes to believe in Christ, and yet says that there is one God of the law and the prophets, and another God of the Gospels, and who says that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not he who is proclaimed by the law and the prophets, but is some other, whom no one knows and no one has ever heard of, men of this type we designate as heretics, however various, however different, however fantastic be the fictions they concoct. There are, for example, sects of Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides and those who call themselves the Sethians. Moreover, there is Apelles. Though he does not wholly deny that the law and the prophets are of God, yet he himself is designated as a heretic, since he declares that the God who created this world constructed it for the glory of another unbegotten and good God, and that this unbegotten God at the consummation of the age sent Jesus Christ to amend the world” (Origen’s quotation is saved in St.Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, trans. Thomas P. Scheck [Washington, DC: The Caltholic University of America Press, 2010], 55-6).

38

would be understood as provisional, and if Origen took something from his dialogue with

these speculative thinkers, it was because it was not deemed dangerous at this time (at

least in some areas), whereas in the generation after him, such dialogue would no longer

be possible. While it is clear that many of Origen’s problems, such as his concerns of

theodicy and his linking of the Old Testament with the New, were derivative of the so-

called ‘Gnostics’, his conclusions were aimed against theirs.

Origen’s Response to ‘Gnosticism’ in General

When noting heresy, Origen most often references three names—Basilides, Valentinus,

and Marcion—and he generally references them together, and in that order.126 It is often

questioned how well Origen knew their work, as he does not generally distinguish

between the three, and rarely cites them. However, he does claim to have spent a lot of

time reading through the various branches of Christian heresy.127 As Origen did not write

a treatise exploring their work, like Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, we should not expect to

find his research in works that did not include this scope. Considering how Origen

interacted with other groups with which he was engaged in polemics, such as Greek

philosophy and Judaism (outlined in the previous chapter), it would be odd and out of

character for him not to look into ‘Gnostic’ thought; especially as Eusebius notes several

encounters of Origen with these heterodox thinkers.128

126 It ought to be noted that when Origen names these heresiarchs, it is generally mid-sermon, and

for the purposes of a warning from some notorious names, hardly the place to start breaking down the intricacies of Basilides’ cosmology or Marcion’s ecclesiology.

127 Origen, Contra Celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 312 (5.62).

128 Eusebius, Eusebius: The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 200–1.

39

Origen does claim to have read some of the gospels of the heretics, and notes

their dubious character; certainly not attaining to the greatness of the “received” four,

remarking that “the Church has four gospels, the heretics have many.”129 Origen’s most

thorough dialogue with a ‘Gnostic’ is in his Commentary on John, where he does show

his first-hand knowledge of the writing, even if his polemic with the work is penultimate

to his overall purpose. Along with the two main heresies that Origen attributes to them,

that is, the belief in predetermined natures of people’s souls and a disavowal of the Old

Testament, Origen also notes a denial of the resurrection of the body,130 Trinitarian

heresy,131 and a refusal to note the primacy of Mary or her perpetual virginity.132

Origen seems careful to note that these heretics base their doctrine on their own

thoughts rather than on the inherited teaching of the Church, and that this is the cause of

their error. He believes that they have been led away from the Church’s teaching by the

“golden tongues” of the philosophers and rhetoricians, unlike he himself, who “follow[s]

the example of the fathers going before us,” and is thus able to discern what is useful.133

129 Origen, Origen: Homilies on Luke, Fragments on Luke, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard

(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 1.2 (5-6). 130 Origen, Origen: Homilies on Jeremiah and 1 Kings 28, trans. John C. Smith (Washington,

D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 20–1 (1.16.2). Origen also upholds the resurrection of the body in a fragment (242) from his Homilies on Luke, noting that both Valentinus and Marcion deny it. In his Commentary on Romans (5.9.5) he almost sounds like Athanasius in the way he notes that if Christ were not truly human, nor truly died as a human, then we would not be raised like he has been.

131 Origen, Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 6-10, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2002), 147–8 (8.5.9). Origen makes a note of some Trinitarian heresy, where some believe in either three gods or three names for one God (modalism), Origen believes that “whoever announces the good news well will bestow upon each one, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, his own unique characteristics; but he will not confess that there is any difference in essence or nature.” Though some consider all Trinitarian language in Origen’s works to be interpolations of his translator Rufinus, I do not think this is appropriate; see Illaria Ramelli, “Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line,” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011): 21–49, for a more erudite treatment of Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity.

132 Origen, Homilies on Luke, 30–1 (7.4–6). Origen, at this early stage, considered it heretical to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, showing the prominence of Mariology from the beginning of Christian thought.

133 Origen, Homilies on Joshua, ed. Cynthia White, trans. Barbara J. Bruce (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2002), 83 (7.7).

40

To Origen, because the heretical opinions about God are different from the Church’s

teaching, their imaginings are tantamount to the idolatry of the Greek philosophers.134

Thus, Origen understands their interpretation of the Bible as adulterous, as they are

uniting the Word of God to a foreign bride, namely, their individual fabrications, which

they prefer to the communal depiction of the Church carried in Scripture.135 Origen thus

refers to his triad of Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion as something of a warning to his

readers; if they are not careful in their interpretation of the Scriptures, they could make

the same mistakes as these famous heresiarchs. Pointing out the intricate differences in

their doctrine is, therefore, distant to Origen’s scope, especially in a sermon, where he

most often references them.

Basilides is generally known as an early Alexandrian commentator of Scripture,

who taught around the beginning of the second century and traced the lineage of his

teaching through one ‘Glaukias’.136 Most of what we know of him comes from

Hippolytus of Rome, who notes the Aristotelian character of his theology.137 This

134 “Not only do men make gods for themselves from statues, but you will also find men making

gods for themselves from their imaginations. For such people can imagine another god and creator of the world other than the divine plan of the world recorded by the Spirit, other than the true world. These all have ‘made gods for themselves’, and they have ‘worshipped the works of the hands’. So, too, I believe is the case either among the Greeks who generate opinions, so to speak, of this philosophy or that, or among the heretics, the first who generate opinions. These have ‘made idols for themselves’ and figments of the soul, and by turning to them ‘they worship the works of their hands’, since they accept as truth their own fabrications” (Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah, 177 [16.9.1]).

135 Origen, Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Books 1-5, trans. Thomas P Scheck (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 2.11.11 (140).

136 Birger A. Pearson, “Basilides the Gnostic,” in, A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”, eds. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 4.

137 For a complete treatment of Aristotle in Basilides, see Abraham P. Bos, “Basilides as an Aristotelianizing Gnostic,” Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000): 44–60. Bos notes that Basilides shows the Aristotelian character of his theology in three ways, first, in the way he holds to a strict separation between creation and creator, where creation grows out of its own ‘world-seed’; second, in his desire to move past myth to doctrine; and third, in his belief that providence functions only in the celestial spheres. When referencing Peripatetic philosophy, Origen will often mention the strict separation between God and man, noting not only man’s inability to get to God, but also God’s inability to get to humanity. Origen understood this aspect of God’s providential care of humanity to be crucial to the study of theology (for example CC 3.75).

41

Aristotelian tinge is marked by the notion of the complete transcendence of God,138

leading to his denial of the Old Testament God, who he believed was inferior,139 and also

to a general anti-Semitism.140 It seems that he held to the Platonic/Pythagorean doctrine

of the transmigration of souls,141 and to reincarnation,142 which Origen himself notes in

his Commentary on Romans.143 Origen also reports that Basilides authored his own

gospel, and that the Church did not accept it.144 Basilides does show some typically

Alexandrian thought patterns, such as the educational value of suffering; however, it was

his docetic Christology that left him outside of orthodox thought, even in the second

century.145 His most lasting legacy seems to be his desire to comment on what would

become the New Testament. It was his commentary on these pre-canonized books that

would later drive others, including Origen, to author their own commentaries.146

Valentinus, in comparison to Basilides, had become quite prominent in the

Church.147 The man himself is historically enigmatic, and most of what we know of

Valentinus comes from Irenaeus, who seems to be more concerned with Valentinus’

138 Joseph W. Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church (John Knox

Pr, 1983), 39. 139 Ibid., 41. 140 Guy G. Stroumsa, “Alexandria and the Myth of Multiculturalism,” in Origeniana Octava, ed.

L. Perrone (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003), 27. 141 M J. Edwards, Origen Against Plato, Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late

Antiquity (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 28. 142 Pearson, “Basilides the Gnostic,” 18. 143 Origen, Commentary on Romans 1-5, 5.1.27 (318–9). “Now Basilides, failing to observe that

these things ought to be understood of natural law, drags the Apostle’s discourse down into senseless and godless fables and attempts to build out of this utterance of the Apostle the doctrine called metenswmavtwsiV, i.e., that souls are transferred into one body after another… But let Basilides and those who share his perceptions be left to their own impiety. Let us, however, turn to the sense of the Apostle in accordance with pious reverence toward ecclesiastical doctrine.”

144 Origen, Homilies on Luke, 1.2 (6). 145 Pearson, “Basilides the Gnostic,” 27. 146 Of course, this was not the only reason that Origen would be led to write commentaries, as he

had experience with both the philosophical commentaries in Alexandria, and the Jewish Midrash. It is interesting to note that we do not know of Basilides commenting on other, more traditionally ‘Gnostic’ gospels, such as that of Judas or Thomas.

147 Alan B. Scott, “Opposition and Concession: Origen’s Relationship to Valentinianism,” in Origeniana Quinta, ed. Robert J. Daly (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 79.

42

followers than with the man himself.148 Irenaeus’ main argument concerning him

revolved around the two issues of the rejection of the creator-god of the Old Testament

and the belief that there is a hierarchy within the Church that separates the ‘psychic’,

ordinary Christians from the ‘pneumatic’, enlightened Christians.149 Irenaeus notes that

many of Valentinus’ followers were licentious, and that those who were not, were

arrogant towards other believers.150 Though many modern scholars might be wary of the

heresiology of Irenaeus (especially in the depiction of Valentinus’ followers), he seems

to have been accurate in the retelling of their elaborate mythology, as comparison of his

work to what we might consider to be Valentinian primary sources shows consistency.151

Valentinus and his followers seem to have attempted to move the more esoteric

theology of the earlier ‘Gnostics’, that is, those who used a similar mythology as a

vehicle for their theology, closer to the center of Christian thought. This can be seen in

the way they focused on interpretation of what would become the New Testament, and in

the way that Valentinus softened some of the more polemic Gnostic doctrines. It also

makes sense of why Valentinus himself could have attempted to attain the Bishopric of

Rome. It seems that, in Valentinian theology, though the god of the Old Testament is still

separate from and subordinate to the most high, he is not the malevolent god that earlier

‘Gnostics’ had held to (such as the Nassenes). Valentinus’ Demiurge was a more

148 There is debate over how ‘orthodox’ Valentinus was, and how must later response to his work

was a response to the speculation of his followers. See Christoph Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus?: Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins. (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), and Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the "Valentinians" (Leiden: Brill, 2006).

149 Ismo Dunderberg, “The School of Valentinus,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics,” eds. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 66.

150 Ibid., 69-70. 151 Ibid., 71.

43

middling kind of god that resembled the simpler ‘psychic’ or ‘soulish’ Christians.152

Thus, the Valentinians were able to sing hymns to him, and not find the material world in

absolute apostasy, but capable of some goodness, however limited.153

Mark Edwards points to the Platonism of Valentinus as the key to this

development, noting that Valentinus follows Plato closely in his doctrine of the falling of

souls, in his presentation of the creator as demiurge, and in the way he replaces the

pernicious creator of earlier Gnostics with the ‘world-soul’; all portraying a more

benevolent creator.154 Edwards notes: “The Fathers, who congratulate themselves on the

discovery that Valentinus was a Platonist, should not have been unaware that the

adoption of Plato’s tenets might have made him as much an enemy to the Gnostics as

themselves.”155 This then shows that Valentinus would not be directly associated with

so-called ‘Gnostic’ thought, and why he might have made an attempt at the see of Rome,

making his, and his followers’, interpretation of the New Testament much more

dangerous than that of other more strictly sectarian groups.156

Marcion comes to us as the most prominent heretic that Origen mentions, and this

likely because of his vast influence.157 Unlike the previous two heretics that I have

discussed, Marcion was not philosophically inclined, and does not seem to have written

152 Edwards, “Gnostics and Valentinians in the Church Fathers,” 40. 153 Ibid., 41. 154 Ibid., 42–5. 155 Ibid., 45. Edwards also notes that “Plotinus would, however, have been pleased to note the

systematic correction of their thought by Valentinus, who seems to anticipate his own assumptions: (a) that the divine is by nature infallible, while Soul, the lowest hypothesis, has, strictly speaking, nowhere to fall; (b) that the stars at least cannot be a work of evil; and that (c) the heavens must therefore be exempted from any charge against the world.”

156 Ibid., 46: “Valentinus became the greatest enemy of the Fathers because he used Plato, not to repudiate the Gnostics (as both Plotinus and Clement do) but to entice their intractable doctrines into the service of a teaching which claimed the support of St John and St Paul. He was thus the one man who could draw his creed simultaneously from Plato and from the 'so-called Gnostic heresy', yet aspire to the see of Rome.”

157 For instance, Origen notes that even Celsus, who confused Valentinians with Christians, was able to note the Marcionites as a divergent group within Christianity (Origen, Contra Celsum, 312, [5.62]).

44

elaborate mythologies.158 Marcion appears to have rejected the Old Testament based on

what he learned of it from anti-Christian Jewish polemics.159 He was contemporaneous

with Aquila, who was a gentile convert to Judaism and translator of the Hebrew

Scriptures. His translation was specifically rooted in rabbinic teaching and would be

almost impossible to understand outside a rabbinic community. This is in distinction

from the older Septuagint, which by that time had been adopted by Christians as the

authoritative translation of Scripture.160 Aquila’s new translation likely arose out of

Jewish desires to separate their Greek version of Scripture from this now-Christian

Septuagint, and as both Aquila and Marcion were from Sinope, Marcion would have

adopted the deep antagonism that had led Aquila to the re-translation. Marcion and his

community emphasized the themes of grace and election of Christians in Paul, over the

judgmental ‘righteous’ god of the Old Testament.161 Marcion’s teaching was later

radicalized by the work of Apelles, who taught that the Old Testament was the work of a

sadistic Satan-like demon, who constructed the history of the Old Testament for

158 “If [Marcion] is none the less considered by many to be more orthodox than Valentinus or

Basilides, that is no doubt because he adopted a purely didactic mode of exposition, in which nothing is said ambiguously or hidden under fantastic narrative. And while he parted company with the majority of Christians, then as now, in what he denied, he is often praised today for having affirmed, more clearly than any reader of Paul before him, the incompatibility of faith in Christ with the doctrine that salvation depends on sedulous obedience to the law” (Edwards, Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church, 30).

159 Heikki Räisänen, “Marcion,” in, A Companion to Second-Century Christian Heretics,” eds. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 116.

160 N. R. M. De Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 51.

161 Origen, Commentary on Romans 1-5, 2.5.7 (111–2). “Now we need to ask about the righteous judgment of God in which he will pay back to each one according to his own works. In the first place let the heretics who claim that the natures of human souls are either good or evil be shut out. Let them hear that God pays back to each one not on account of his nature but on account of his works. In the second place let believers be edified so as to not entertain the thought that, because they believe, this alone can suffice for them.” Thomas Sheck, in his wonderful book, Origen and the History of Justification, argues that Marcion was the first to separate faith and works: “Marcion evidently taught his followers that since the God of Jesus is good but not just, he will not take into consideration the merit and worth of their works in the judgment. Faith alone will be the sole criterion of salvation for the Marcionites” (Thomas P. Scheck, Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen's Commentary on Romans [Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008], 25).

45

malicious purposes.162 It was Apelles’s desire to see the history of the Old Testament

proven false, whereas Marcion understood it to be generally historical, just not

praiseworthy.

In Origen, Marcion, like other examples of heretics that Origen gives, mainly

functions as a cautionary tale of what can go wrong if one does not participate in

spiritual interpretation of Scripture and keeps to a literalist reading. It is interesting that

Origen most often mentions this literalism in relation to Jewish interpretation, showing

again Marcion’s relation to the Jewish interpretation that caused him to abandon the Old

Testament. For if Marcion had rejected the Old Testament on the basis of the Jewish

arguments against Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, and thus, in a

roundabout way accepted this polemical rabbinic Jewish interpretation of the Old

Testament over a Christian spiritual interpretation (if this was available to him), then

Origen is right to find their literalism having the same root.

Origen understands that it is Marcion’s aversion to allegory that leads him to

heresy,163 and that it is his misunderstanding of Paul’s use of ‘Law’ that brings him

there.164 When Marcion denies the Old Testament on account of the ‘impurities’ that he

finds in it, Origen is forced to conclude that he is not reading it correctly.165 As Origen

bases his work of interpretation on what he understands to be the rule of faith and the

example of the Apostles, a denial of the Old Testament was impossible. This, in part,

leads Origen to seek out how it could be possible to unite the seemingly different gods

162 Räisänen, “Marcion” 120. 163 Origen, Commentary on Romans 1-5, 2.13.27 (159). 164 Ibid., 4.4.3; 5.6.2. 165 Origen, Commentary on Romans 1-5, 1.18.2–3 (93).

46

presented in the Old and New Testaments, not accepting an antagonistic Jewish

interpretation of the Old Testament, as Marcion had.166

Above all, there are two main issues that Origen connects with the teaching of

Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion: their doctrines of determinism, that is, believing that

there are different ‘natures’ of people within the Church and outside it which underlies

their decision to accept Christ or not, and their desire to malign the Old Testament and

consider the creator-god presented there as inferior to the god presented in the New

Testament. The doctrine of determinism is a particularly prominent issue in Origen’s

work, as during his day theodicy captured much theological attention.167 For Origen,

whose most prominent goal was to lead the people in his congregation and school to holy

lives, it is clear that a doctrine that some are determined by God beforehand through the

nature of their created constitution to salvation or condemnation would be completely

opposite to his intentions as a pastor. In fact, Origen’s doctrine of universal salvation has

often been seen as a counter to this ‘Gnostic’ teaching, noting that all will eventually be

saved, despite appearances and various levels of reception to the gospel on earth.168

166 Joseph Trigg notes, “Marcion’s forceful indictment of conventional Christian beliefs was vital

to Origen’s intellectual development. Marcion denied that the Creator of our world would be both benevolent and all-powerful. Origen sought throughout his life to reconcile the power and benevolence of God to the sufferings we undergo in the world. Marcion denied that a benevolent God would punish, even if that punishment were just. Origen sought to show that God is both just and benevolent in dealing with us and always seeks our good. Marcion threw out the Old Testament on account of the unworthiness of the God it depicted. Origen retained the Old Testament and sought to interpret it in such a way as to exclude from its depiction of God the qualities Marcion condemned” (Trigg, Origen, 50). Though this is true, it seems that Trigg is forgetting that Paul, before Marcion, also sought to bring together the seemingly divergent depictions of God in Jesus and the Old Testament. To put Origen’s interpretation of God through the light of Jesus is not simply a reaction to Marcionite polemics.

167 E. Osborne, “The Apologist Origen and the Fourth Century from Theodicy to Christology,” Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts eds. W. A. Bienert and U. Kühneweg (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 58.

168 It should be noted that it is not specifically determinism that Origen argued against, as he believed that God was providentially guiding of all creation back to himself, but the notion that only some were predestined to this end, whether they chose God or not. We might suppose, anachronistically, that Origen was an opponent of double-predestination, as in his doctrine all creation had one destiny, unity with God—even if this preordained destiny required all to choose God in the end. Origen wanted to highlight

47

For Origen, a person moves up the various degrees of personhood that were

proposed in the ‘Gnostic’ thought, from the initial ‘hylic’, or what Origen would call, in

a Pauline way, ‘swmatikovV’, through the ‘psychic’, and up to the ‘pneumatic’, in the

likeness of God.169 As for the heresiarch’s desire to be rid of the Old Testament, along

with the God revealed within it, Origen attempted to show how the Old Testament is

properly understood through the lens of the New Testament, and that they are not in

opposition to one another. For Origen, the Old Testament was received on the authority

of the churchmen that came before him, and his interpretation of it was based on the

inherited rule of faith.170

Heracleon

Origen’s Commentary on John is not only generally significant within the overall corpus

of Origen, but it also is the main source of knowledge of Heracleon, who was a

prominent teacher from a generation prior to Origen. While Irenaeus, Clement of

Alexandria,171 Tertullian, Hippolytus, Pseudo-Tertullian, and Epiphanius all mention

the need for all to ascend to God, and to state that some naturally are ‘spiritual’ would be totally opposite to his pedagogical theology. Unfortunately, we do not have space to discuss Origen’s universalism as a response to the heresy of determinism in full. See Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, “Origen, Bardaisan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation.” Harvard Theological Review 102 (2009): 135–68.

169 Henri de Lubac argues that Origen, like Irenaeus, uses Gnostic categories to undermine their thought: “He takes from the heresy this idea of three categories of men in order to make of it, no longer three fixed natures without any communication between them, but three degrees in the formation of the Christian” (de Lubac, History and Spirit, 173). This is intended to be a response to Daniélou’s claim that Origen’s doctrine was dangerously similar to Gnostic thought. It is still disconcerting to note that Origen accepted the categories of personhood from the Gnostics, despite his emphasis on transformation.

170 Origen, On First Principles, ed. Paul Koetschau, trans. G.W. Butterworth (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), Pref. 8 (5): “Then there is the doctrine that the scriptures were composed through the Spirit of God and that they have not only that meaning which is obvious, but also another which is hidden from the majority of readers. For the contents of scripture are the outward forms of certain mysteries and the images of divine things. On this point the entire Church is unanimous, that while the whole law is spiritual, the inspired meaning is not recognized by all, but only by those who are gifted with the grace of the Holy Spirit in the word of wisdom and knowledge.”

171 Clement provides us with the only other possible fragment of Heracleon in Stromateis 6.71-3, though it is even more fragmentary than what we find in Origen’s commentary.

48

Heracleon, little is stated other than that he has some connection to Valentinus.172 One of

the reasons that Origen wrote the commentary was to counter an earlier commentary

written by Heracleon. Within his commentary, Origen includes 48 different fragments of

Heracleon’s commentary so as to refute them. This shows that Origen had a copy of

Heracleon’s commentary, and consulted it during the dictation of his own. The fragments

are brief, and laden with Origen’s own interpretation and redaction. They are not clearly

marked out, and though there have been attempts to extricate them from Origen’s own

words, these works are on precarious footing, as it is unclear how close Origen follows

Heracleon’s text or keeps its order and style.173

Origen’s refutation does not seem to be motivated by a particular prominence of

Heracleon or his commentary, as he is rarely mentioned elsewhere (even by Origen

himself), and we would not even know about Heracleon’s commentary if it was not for

Origen’s quotation of it. It also appears that Origen was in contact with some of

Heracleon’s followers,174 though it still seems that Origen directed his refutation of

Heracleon to his fellow churchmen, not to these followers of Heracleon. In distinction to

Origen’s Contra Celsum, where he heads each section with a quotation from Celsus,

which shows Origen directing his comments to Celsus’ line of thought, in most cases the

refutation of Heracleon comes at the end of a section, and therefore seems secondary to

Origen’s primary work of expositing the gospel. Whereas Origen’s Contra Celsum might

function as an apologetic handbook for those feeling the pressure of pagan attacks on

172 Michael Kaler and Marie-Pierre Bussières, “Was Heracleon a Valentinian? A New Look at Old

Sources,” Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006): 277–8. 173 In Heine’s version he either reduces the font size, or places in italics the possible wording of

Heracleon. For reconstructions of Heracleon’s commentary see, A. E. Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891).

174 Origen, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13-32, trans. Ronald E. Heine (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 241 (20.170).

49

Christian teaching, Origen’s Commentary on John does not seem to make the ‘Gnostic’

interpretation the focus of the argument.

The more likely reason for Origen to include a thorough refutation of another

commentator in his own commentary is the insistence of his patron, and primary

addressee, Ambrose.175 Eusebius tells us that Origen himself previously converted

Ambrose from Valentinianism,176 and Heracleon’s commentary, travelling in those

‘Gnostic’ circles, must have been convincing enough to drive Ambrose to request Origen

to refute it. That being said, the refutation does at times steer Origen’s thought regarding

the text, leading him to develop or clarify some passages more than others. The

refutation, though secondary to his cause of promoting the practice of spiritual

interpretation, should not lead us to believe that Origen did not take time to read and

understand his opponent, as the refutation, though penultimate, plays prominently into

Origen’s primary motive.

In Origen’s Commentary, Heracleon is presented as a less-than-adequate

interpreter. Origen refers to his work as “random” (ajpoklhrotiko;n), “unexamined”

(ajbasavniston),177 and not “investigated scientifically” (bebasanismevna).178 In some

175 McGuckin, “Structural Design,” 444. 176 Eusebius, Church History, 201. 177 Origen, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1-10, trans. Ronald E.

Heine (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 88 (1.266). 178 Ibid., 194 (6.92). Origen notes that Heracleon is not able even to recognize the significance of

a definite article: “The distinction, however, between ‘the prophet’ and ‘a prophet’ eludes most people, as it also eludes Heracleon, who says in these very words: ‘So, therefore, John confessed that he was not the Christ, but neither was he a prophet nor Elias.’ Since he took the words in this way, he should have examined them in relation to their contexts, whether John tells the truth or not when he says he is neither a prophet nor Elias. But Heracleon did not give attention to the contexts. In the books which he has left he passed over such important things without examination, having said very few things and those not investigated scientifically in their sequences.” Bart Ehrman argues that these types of textual disagreements are due to Origen and Heracleon having different manuscripts, Heracleon’s being an earlier version, and Origen’s being a later Orthodox-modified version—if Origen had not modified it himself as Ehrman postulates, see Bart D. Ehrman, “Heracleon, Origen, and the text of the Fourth Gospel,” Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993): 105-118. I do not find his argument convincing, as it seems to be derivative of his

50

cases, Origen finds Heracleon’s interpretation so lacking that he feels it does not deserve

a response,179 though in other sections, he takes Heracleon very seriously and dissects his

arguments carefully. There are even points where Origen incorporates something that

Heracleon proposes,180 or where he notes an “ingenious” interpretation.181 More often

than not, Origen finds Heracleon to interpret “frivolously and feebly, with no proof

beyond himself,” dealing inappropriately with what he considers to be “such great

themes.”182 Though Origen states this, it still seems that he takes more offense at the

doctrines that Heracleon presupposes than at the way he reads the Scriptures (at least in

respect to the New Testament), as their interpretive practices appear similar, even if

Origen believes his own to be more erudite.183

It is likely that Origen and Heracleon had a similar goal of bringing Christian

teaching to a more scholarly level, but while Heracleon did this in opposition to the

majority of Christians, Origen, like his predecessor Clement, attempted to develop the

belief of the majority within his burgeoning system.184 Origen must have understood that

over-arching thesis that the proto-Orthodox intentionally corrupted Scripture according to their doctrine (see Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.). This does not adequately take into consideration Origen’s obsession with finding the earliest text seen in his Hexapla and his preoccupation with the minute details of wording in his hermeneutics, something he seems to have inherited from his Alexandrian context, not out of a conspiracy to cover up the supposed heretical foundations of Christian theology.

179 Ibid., 200 (6.111). 180 Ibid., Cf. 201 (6.115), 313 (10.261–2), or in 13.64 where he says, “We too would agree, then,

if he were admitting that she [the Samaritan woman at the well] had free choice and not hinting that her nature was more excellent. But if he is referring the cause of her consent to her natural state, as something not present in all people, his argument must be refuted.”

181 Ibid., 223 (6.199). Origen refers to Heracleon’s interpretation of the sandal that John is unworthy to untie as a symbol of the world as ‘powerful and ingenious’ (aJndrovteron de; kai; megalofuevsteron), though Origen notes that he quickly changes it to something impious.

182 Ibid., 280–1 (10.117–8). 183 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 117. 184 Elaine H. Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on

John (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), 58. Pagels notes that this can be seen in the way Heracleon attacked the common notion of the sacraments, while Origen attempted to show that the sacraments are useful but also point to something greater (Pagels, Johannine Gospel, 61).

51

the use of allegory within pagan literature was common before his own time, and the

time of the Christian interpreters that he was emulating, even though he presents it in

Christian terms and grounds it in Christian practice.185 Both Origen and Heracleon

certainly agreed that anthropomorphic understandings of God needed to be corrected.186

Both Origen and Heracleon also compared the Gospel of John to the other Gospels,

though it cannot be deciphered whether or not Heracleon had edited versions of these

Gospels as Marcion had done, or if his intention was malicious in the comparisons. As

Origen felt it necessary to defend the use of all four Gospels in interpreting John against

Heracleon, it is possible to see this malicious comparison of the Gospels in Heracleon’s

work, as if his opponent held a Marcionite view of the New Testament.187 It is also

possible that both Origen and Heracleon had given their assent to a literal reading of

Scripture and to the historical basis for allegory. While this assent is certainly true in

Origen’s interpretation,188 it is not clear whether Heracleon held this, because of the

fragmentary nature of his quotations.189

185 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 86. 186 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 92 (1.282). 187 Einar Thomassen, "Heracleon," in The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the

Fourth Gospel, ed Tuomas Rasimus (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 194. Thomassen wants to show how the comparison points to the Heracleon doing the same thing as Origen in his interpretation. However, the quotations are far too small to show this, and the reaction of Origen certainly points away from this conclusion. Origen could be overstating the case to show how Heracleon’s interpretation could lead to Marcion’s conclusion of total disavowal of the Old Testament, but this is purely hypothetical.

188 For a clear defence of Origen’s understanding of history see Peter W. Martens, “Origen Against History?: Reconsidering the Critique of Allegory,” Modern Theology 28 (2012): 635–56. Martens notes that the misunderstanding of Origen’s allegory is not a new phenomenon, as the defences of Origen’s view of history in regards to his allegory are almost as old as the attacks themselves.

189 There is a disagreement amongst scholars; Elaine Pagels finds that Heracleon, and others like him, do not find history to be of any concern (Pagels, The Johannine Gospel, 66-7), whereas Thomassen finds no difference in the way that Origen and Heracleon understand the importance of the literal meaning (Thomassen, “Heracleon,” 199). I find the data to be inconclusive, and since it does not seem to be of prime importance for Origen to depict Heracleon in either way, this issue should not factor largely into the argument. It seems that Pagels is concerned to show that Heracleon was a precursor to modern ‘demythologization’ (even using this term on p.77), while Thomassen wants to show how Origen and Heracleon are similar so to emphasize Origen’s ‘Gnostic’ leanings, and Heracleon’s connection to other Christian interpreters.

52

Origen also argues that Heracleon’s doctrine is simply personal speculation—in a

similar way to how he responded to Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion—and thus

Origen insists that his interpretations are done “presumptuously and impiously.”190

Origen argues this because Heracleon’s interpretations presuppose a theology other than

what Origen would understand to be the Church’s rule of faith.191 Origen puts forth three

main propositions of the rule of faith in Book 32 of the Commentary, which shows

similarity to the more complete list in the preface to his First Principles. He states first,

that God is one, and that he created all things out of nothing; second, that Jesus is Lord,

and that one must accept “all truth about him in relation to his divinity and humanity”;

and third, that the Holy Spirit, who, due to our free will, chastises us for sin, and rewards

for good actions.192 Origen seems to find Heracleon deficient in all three aspects, and he

uses this as the primary ground for his attack on Heracleon’s exegesis.

First, while Heracleon might believe that the world was created from nothing at

some point, Origen does not find that Heracleon’s demiurge is the one directly

responsible for all creative action. This typical move in the mythology of the ‘Gnostics’

was intended to create space for their theodicy, moving the problem of evil to the

ignorance of a demiurge instead of a malicious intent in the highest God, as they limited

human free will and did not want the highest God to be accountable for evil. Heracleon’s

Savior is also given a higher rank than the demiurge,193 who seems to be given an even

190 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 159 (13.427). 191 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 113. 192 Ibid., 378 (32.187–90). He also notes that that if one is deficient in any, he is deficient in the

faith, but the most central problem is in the heterodox conception of God the Father: “For instance, then, if someone, hypothetically, should seem to believe in Jesus, but should not believe that the God of the law and of the gospel is one, whose glory the heavens declare, since they were made by him, and the work of whose hands the firmament proclaims, since it is their work, this person would be deficient in the greatest article of faith.”

193 Ibid., 158 (13.422).

53

lower rank than some of the angels, thereby showing his ignorance of higher things,

something thoroughly offensive to Origen.194 This heretical depiction of the Creator

would obviously compromise much of the teaching of the Old Testament and the New,

as they explain the creation of the world and the relation of Jesus to the Godhead.

Second, in relation to Christ’s divinity, Origen has a problem with the way Heracleon

subordinates the demiurge to the Savior, as Origen’s doctrine has it the other way

around.195 Third, while Origen does not mention Heracleon’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit

in his essence, he certainly takes him to task over his denial of free will, which is

intimately tied to Origen’s doctrine of the Spirit, as Origen understands human free will

is guaranteed by the Spirit’s holding people accountable for their actions.

These three doctrinal problems that Origen had with Heracleon develop from two

presuppositional differences, which also link back to the common problems that Origen

had with the more infamous heretical triad of Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion. First,

Heracleon has adopted an unscriptural and traditionally suspect mythology where the

God of the Old Testament is subordinated to the Savior, and the Savior is thus superior to

the creator of the world, which also affects the rank of those who worship the creator and

the Scripture that attests to him. Second, Origen finds Heracleon’s doctrine of

preordained ‘natures’ to be false and dangerous. These ‘natures’, as Origen understood

them, were essentially aspects of one’s person that dictated how the person would

respond to God.196 This is especially problematic to Origen as if God is the creator of

these differing natures, he is also then the creator of evil, as God had created the Devil’s

194 Ibid., 160 (13.432–3). 195 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 223–4 (6.200). Origen refers to this as “the greatest of all

impieties.” 196 Thomassen, "Heracleon," 183.

54

nature the way it is. Free will, as is noted in Origen’s rule of faith, makes people

themselves responsible for what they do, not God.

Even though little is known about Heracleon apart from the fragments found in

Origen’s commentary, this has not stopped scholars from positing conjectural

reconfigurations of the historical Heracleon. One of the most prominent depictions of

him, at least in English, is the now dated and initial work of the popular scholar of

Gnosticism, Elaine Pagels.197 Pagels wishes to show that Origen in fact misunderstood

Heracleon, calling Origen’s interpretation of Heracleon’s commentary a “deft

caricature.”198 By utilizing the 48 fragments that Origen selected himself in his

Commentary, she attempts to show how Origen misunderstood Heracleon. Her main

means of doing this is by comparing the fragments in Origen’s Commentary to both the

Nag Hammadi corpus and to what Irenaeus says about other ‘Valentinians’ in his Against

Heresies. By doing this, she deciphers that Origen’s depiction of Heracleon’s

determinism is incorrect, as is Irenaeus’, from which Origen supposedly inherited his

interpretation. Pagels proposes that the technical language of Heracleon confused

Origen, not understanding what Heracleon meant by ‘fuvsiV’,199 as he read it in light of

Irenaeus and Clement. Her conclusion regarding Heracleon’s supposed doctrine of

natures finds that Heracleon simply wanted to highlight the Pauline doctrines of grace

and election, understood by him to be mysteries, and that Origen forced Heracleon’s

197 Pagels, The Johannine Gospel. 198 Ibid., 49. 199 “Origen’s view that Heracleon’s use of generation language ‘proves’ determinism is far

oversimplified. He bases it on his own deterministic interpretation of the term physis, and then selects from Heracleon primarily those passages that refer to the hylics and pneumatics. He refuses to acknowledge that Heracleon describes their ‘generation’ in language synonymous with the language of election” (Ibid., 109).

55

mystical speculation into philosophical categories of free will and determinism.200 If

Origen had misunderstood Heracleon, it would mean that his use of him as an example

of what can go wrong if one does not follow his principles of interpretation would be

faulty.

I am not convinced that modern scholarship has the ability to critique Origen’s

interpretation of Heracleon, and find several problems with Pagels’ reconstruction of

him. First, we only have access to the very short quotations of Heracleon’s work which

Origen gives us himself, and in these quotations’ wider context, the doctrines that Origen

attributes to Heracleon might be much easier to identify. In Pagels there seems to be a

heavy bias against the orthodoxy that the Fathers enforce in favour of those whom they

deem heretical, desperately attempting to find Heracleon’s interpretation more congruous

to John’s Gospel than Origen’s.201 Origen does not appear to be a hasty heresiologist,

and it is a huge assertion to judge that he misunderstood Heracleon’s interpretation when

we only have the fragments from which Origen quoted to judge him. This is made even

more problematic by the likelihood that Origen’s patron, a former Valentinian, who

likely commissioned Origen to refute the text, deemed Origen so capable to critique

Heracleon that he would spend vast amounts of money to both support him and give him

a team of scribes to do so. We thus have no reason to assume that Origen was reading

200 Ibid., 104. Pagels unfortunately does not explain how these philosophical categories differ

from the so-called Pauline doctrines of election and grace that she finds in Heracleon. She also admits that Heracleon likely did hold to the three natures that Origen accuses him of, but argues that he oversimplified the middle state of the ‘psychics’, as they seem to be able to choose to either become ‘hylics’ or ‘pneumatics’, while those born to either of the other two states do not have said choice. It seems to me that even if Origen had noticed this qualification, he would still have come to the same conclusion about the issue of free will, as for him, even the Devil needs to have chosen his state for God to not be responsible for his actions.

201 It is this bias against the understanding of the Fathers, putting Pagels in the line of Walter Bauer, that I find to be the root of her misreading. It seems that Pagels is overly concerned to find an ally in Heracleon, that she ignores the fragmentary state of her data.

56

Heracleon through the lens of Irenaeus, as Pagels supposes, or, even if he did read

Irenaeus, that they could not have come to the same conclusion independently of each

other.

Second, there are problems with assuming one can read Heracleon’s fragments in

the light of other so-called ‘Valentinians’. It is not certain that Heracleon was a

‘Valentinian’, or what, in Heracleon’s day, one might have to believe in order to be

considered a ‘Valentinian’.202 Kaler and Bussières note that the only clear attestation that

Heracleon was a disciple of Valentinus (rather than simply being associated with him to

varying degrees), is from Clement, who generally refers to one’s party adherence by his

teacher, and not his doctrine.203 Origen, on the other hand, generally refers to heretical

groups by their doctrine, thus grouping Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion together

based on their united rejection of the Old Testament (to varying degrees), even if they

differed significantly in other respects. Kaler and Bussières show that when Origen refers

to Heracleon as to;n Oujalentivnou legovmenon eijvnai gnwvrimon (the one who is said to

be a disciple of Valentinus) in his Commentary,204 the legovmenon gives the impression

that Origen has only heard this to be the case,205 and he never brings it up again, nor

does he interpret Heracleon in light of Valentinian teaching, which, due to our

knowledge of his patron Ambrose’s former adherence, he could have done.206 Even if

Heracleon had some kind of affiliation with Valentinus, to correct Origen’s interpretation

202 Kaler and Bussières, “Was Heracleon a Valentinian?” Their thesis, though speculative, shows

the precarious nature of studying Heracleon, something the dogmatic statements of Pagels do not portray. One must also take into consideration the seeming divergence of the ‘Valentinians’, as it does not seem that they held a united view.

203 Ibid., 279. 204 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 120 (2.100). 205 Kaler and Bussières, “Was Heracleon a Valentinian?,” 280. They note similar usages from

Origen in his Commentary on John 2.23, and Contra Celsum 7.7, 8.5. 206 Ibid., 284.

57

of him by means of a comparison to works that he is not clearly associated with is rash.

The meager points in Origen’s quotations that seem to converge with other ‘Valentinian’

writings could very well be the only convergence, or our perception of them could be

distorted due to their fragmentary nature.207

Third, even if we wanted to compare the Nag Hammadi texts to Heracleon’s

fragments as both being examples of the same larger group, it is not totally clear that the

Nag Hammadi codices represent the primary sources of ‘Valentinian’ authors.208 Michel

Desjardins notes that the Nag Hammadi texts are recognized as ‘Valentinian’ only by

comparison to the definition of the Church Fathers, as there are no authorial attributions

in the copies themselves. Desjardins notes, “There is something of the chicken and egg

mentality at play here: some of the Nag Hammadi works are designated Valentinian on

the strength of the patristic accounts, so in effect the ‘primary sources’ are only primary

insofar as one accepts the claims made in the ‘secondary sources’.”209 There is then no

way to be certain that these works, translated into Coptic, on codices dating almost two

centuries after the some of the Fathers wrote their refutations of heresy, portray more

accurately than Origen the thoughts of the ‘Valentinians’, to say nothing of Heracleon.210

207 One of the main problems in understanding Heracleon as a Valentinian is why he did not refer

back to the mythology of Valentinus or others like him within the quotations that Origen gives. It seems that if there were clearer references to these myths in Origen’s Commentary, then he would have made use of them in his critique of Heracleon. Pagels argues that it is because Heracleon’s commentary was intended to be an “exoteric” treatise intended to cull outsiders to their exclusive group, whereas the esoteric mythology of the Valentinians was intended for their inner circle only (Pagels, Johannine Gospel, 18). Thomassen thinks it is possible to see the Valentinian mythology in the quotations of Heracleon in Origen’s Commentary, and does not think Pagels’ esoteric/exoteric thesis is necessary (Thomassen, “Heracleon,” 207). It seems to me impossible to tell whether Heracleon held a mythology similar to the ‘Valentinians’. Due to Origen’s distaste for mythology, he could have simply ignored it in Heracleon’s commentary, opting for his clearer examples of his doctrine, or have not quoted it because it was not there.

208 Michel Desjardins, “The Sources for Valentinian Gnosticism: A Question of Methodology,” Vigiliae Christianae 40 (1986): 342–47.

209 Ibid., 343. 210 Ibid., 344: “What we are probably dealing with, then, are Valentinian works still selected (and

perhaps even altered) by non-Valentinians, and roughly two centuries after their floruit. In addition, we

58

The age and language of the codices is especially pertinent, as groups such as these have

shown a willingness to freely edit documents as authoritative as the Scriptures

themselves.211

The assertion that Heracleon could possibly be the author of a Nag Hammadi

document such as the Tripartite Tractate, which is often cautiously attributed to him, is

thus problematic (though not impossible, as there are some links between his quotations

in Origen’s commentary and the Tractate).212 Supposing that one could correct Origen’s

reading with these writings is wishful thinking, as the only reason to make the link is

based on Origen’s editorial work in the first place.213 Origen, however, does make

several references to the heterodox penchant for mythology in his Commentary on John,

including that of Heracleon,214 which in all likelihood looked much like that of the

Valentinians as Irenaeus depicted them. This possibility does not grant license to critique

Origen’s reading, and ought to be proposed cautiously.

We are on much safer ground sticking to Origen’s understanding of Heracleon’s

commentary, as his knowledge of Heracleon’s commentary was much more complete have no way of knowing for certain when these works were actually composed or where, and how much modification had crept in over the years (even disregarding the important process of translation from Greek into Coptic which took place). There is also no reason to assume that these works accurately represent second century Valentinianism. The emphasis on asceticism which we find throughout the entire Nag Hammadi corpus, for instance, could tell us as much about the predilections of fourth century monks as it does about second century Gnosticism.”

211 Edwards, Origen Against Plato, 29. Edwards notes with regard to the three fourth-century Coptic versions of the Apocryphon of John that they “differ widely,” but that one can still tell they come from the same source.

212 This attribution is made by H.-Ch Puech, and G. Quispel, “Le Quatrième Écrit gnostique du Codex Jung,” Vigiliae Christianae 9 (1955): 65-102.

213 It should also be noted that it is not clear that the Tripartite Tractate does not teach the determinism that Origen attributes to Heracleon, so, even if Heracleon did write it, it still does not prove Origen to be wrong.

214 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32. This mythology mentioned explicitly in 83 (13.74), and 93 (13.122). One of the most obvious occurrences is Origen’s reference to the mythological ‘pairs’: “It is not pointless, however, to raise these difficulties in reply to those who have invented the mythology concerning aeons in pairs, and who think Word and Life have been produced by Intellect and Truth” (Ibid., 135 [2.155]). However, it is not clear that Origen is applying this to Heracleon, as his name is not mentioned.

59

than ours, and we have no viable basis from which to critique Origen’s reading. To

clarify, I do not mean that Origen understood his opponent completely, or was charitable

to Heracleon’s reading of John, as, especially with regard to the debate over free will and

determinism, rivals tend to resort to hyperbole in explaining the other’s position. It is

impossible, however, to reach a definitive understanding of Heracleon based on what we

know about him, especially if we oppose Origen’s depiction. Therefore, I will refrain

from drawing parallels to ‘Valentinian’ works, and instead rely on Origen’s

understanding of Heracleon, recognizing it for what it is, an attempt to warn Origen’s

readers of the dangers of straying from the rule of faith when interpreting Scripture.

Conclusion

Origen, unlike Irenaeus or Tertullian, shows his polemics with the ‘Gnostics’ not in a

treatise where he outlines their thought carefully, but in his exegesis. This should not

lead us to consider him unknowledgeable concerning their doctrine, as though his

polemics with them are based on faulty suppositions. To reiterate, it seems clear that

Origen wants to use Heracleon as an example of what can go wrong if one does not keep

to the principles of spiritual interpretation outlined in the rule of faith and the writings of

the Apostles. I am convinced that Origen understood well the consequences of departure

from the rule of faith in one’s interpretation, as seen in Heracleon. Origen is concerned

that if one follows Heracleon in his understanding of ‘natural’ determinism, the

interpreter will negate responsibility from his congregations and ultimately make God

60

the creator of evil. If one separates the New Testament from the Old, he will

misunderstand the New and will also misunderstand the Creator. For Origen, the

Commentary is intended to enable the soul to ascend to God, showing the reader the

spiritual realties of God’s Word so he may also become spiritual himself. Origen

recognized that if one follows Heracleon, he is not actually ascending to God, as his

understanding of God is not from God himself, but from heretical idolatry.

61

3. ORIGEN’S AUDIENCE AND PURPOSE IN THE COMMENTARY ON JOHN

Aside from Origen’s desire to fulfil the wish of Ambrose to refute Heracleon, Origen had

a greater purpose for his Commentary in mind. To find this purpose, we need to look at

the kind of audience that the Commentary assumes. Once we have a general idea of the

audience, we can begin to specify the ultimate purpose of Origen’s Commentary on

John. In the first chapter I proposed that Origen thought himself a theologian for the

Church, and that a project like his Commentary on John could then be understood as a

means for him to demonstrate the necessity of his spiritual interpretation for those who

themselves will be interpreting, namely, church leaders like those being addressed in

Origen’s Dialogue with Heraclides. In the second chapter I then noted the kind of

interpreters with whom Origen might be in competition, the so-called ‘Gnostics’,

proposing that Origen did understand them, even if he lumped them together in their

similar aims, in order to give a clear warning to his readers of what can go wrong in

interpretation.

In this chapter I will show that the overall purpose of Origen’s Commentary is to

attempt to transform his reader into his conception of the ideal interpreter so that his

interpretation of Scripture might contribute to the progression of his salvation. Through

this purpose we gain a clearer picture what Origen is attempting to do in his polemic

with Heracleon. Origen is also seeking to show the necessity for spiritual interpretation

in his Commentary, as he finds the act of scriptural interpretation to be necessary for

growth towards God, and thus central to the sanctification of the believer. While Origen

recognizes that Heracleon’s interpretation may look similar to his own to an outsider, He

62

is able to differentiate himself from Heracleon by using him as an example of what can

go wrong in this style of interpretation when one is separated from the Church’s rule of

faith. Through the interpretation of John’s Gospel, Origen constantly points to how the

Gospel sanctifies and raises the believer to God through his interpretation, and this is

why God revealed himself in Holy Scripture. I will begin this chapter by briefly outlining

the assumed audience of the Commentary. Then, in light of that audience, I will outline

Origen’s purpose. As the purpose for the Commentary is predicated on the merits of

spiritual interpretation, I will compare aspects of Origen’s Commentary on John with his

most calculated treatise on hermeneutics, Book 4 of his First Principles. I will then

conclude by introducing how Heracleon functions in this paradigm, which will be taken

up in the final chapters.

Origen’s Audience

The Commentary on John, which is full of technical language and lofty theological

propositions, presupposes a relatively high level of learning from its audience. Origen

sometimes references private readings of Scripture that would not be accessible to most,

even if they could read.215 Due to this style of Origen’s Commentary, it is clear that he

wished to produce a serious study of John’s Gospel for a serious audience. Ronald Heine

notes that, in the introduction of Origen’s Commentary, Origen emulates the style of

introductions to commentaries that is seen in the contemporaneous Alexandrian

philosophical commentaries of Aristotle.216 Origen, by using the terminology and style of

215 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 25. 216 R.E. Heine, “The Introduction to Origen’s Commentary on John Compared with the

Introductions to the Ancient Philosophical Commentaries on Aristotle,” in Origeniana Sexta, eds. Giles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995), 3-12.

63

these elite Peripatetic commentaries, could show that Christian Scripture was no less

worthy of serious study than the old Greek masters, especially to the Christian leaders

that held their Scripture in high regard. As the constant references for the need to

interpret spiritually indicate that the reader is someone who is actually interpreting, it is

probable that Origen wanted the book to be most useful for ecclesial authorities. People

in this role could be expected by Origen to be able to read his Commentary with the

required level of sophistication.217

Origen’s direction of his Commentary towards these ecclesial interpreters is most

obvious in Book 32,218 where Origen is commenting on John 13:2-17, the story of Jesus

washing the feet of the disciples and then commanding them to do likewise. While

Origen does take the story anagogically,219 he also exhorts leaders to model the literal

humility of Jesus by washing the feet of those below them in a ceremonial way.220 In fact,

he complains that the literal practice of foot washing is “exceedingly rare” and

217 McGuckin, “Structural Design,” 454. McGuckin notes that while the ‘Gnostic’ interlocutors

had become dated and dismissed by Origen’s time, their stigma on the practice of allegory had not. It seems plausible then that Origen is reinforcing the need for spiritual interpretation because the practice had come to be associated with ‘Gnostic’ interpreters like Heracleon. The theory that the Commentary was directed at ecclesial authorities ought not be surprising, as almost all biblical commentaries are.

218 I should note that it is possible that the ecclesial audience assumed in Book 32 could have changed over time. As Origen’s Commentary is thought to have spanned a couple of decades, it is possible that he changed his posturing to reflect this changing audience.

219 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 363–5 (32.111–23). In this passage Origen seeks to connect Jesus’ action of washing the feet with his disciples calling him ‘teacher’, noting that foot-washing represents Jesus’ final cleansing of the disciples, removing the last of their adherence to worldly bondage, before they can serve others as their Lord served them. We might suppose that Origen liked the practice of foot washing because it caused strong leaders to take a humble position, thus sanctifying them of their pride.

220 Ibid., 368 (32.137): “But if someone should object and say that even if this is interpreted allegorically, none the less it also occurred literally, we must also listen, with a view to spiritual interpretation, to the text that declares, ‘If, then, I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, you also ought to do.’ We must say to such a person, Since, then, the words, ‘If I shall not wash you, you have no part with me,’ which were spoken to Peter, who had said, ‘You shall never wash my feet,’ occurred literally, we too, in accordance with the literal sense, will address those who do not reverently present their feet to us that we may wash them, and dare to say to such people, ‘If I shall not wash you, you have no part with me.’”

64

acknowledges that it is often only the “simple and rustic” that still keep this practice.221

Origen, then, notes that it is especially important to understand the foot washing

anagogically through the disciple’s reference to Jesus as teacher during this ceremony, as

“the dust from the earth and from worldly things is cleared away by teaching, since it

reaches nothing else than the extremities and lower parts of the disciples.”222 The teachers

of the Church are thus exhorted to teach in a way like their teacher, Jesus, who lowers

himself to clear away the dirt of worldly things from the lives of those entrusted to him.

Origen, then, is following his own advice and ‘washing the feet’ of those who read his

Commentary, though they might be hesitant in reading the Scriptures spiritually.

Origen’s Purpose

The most basic purpose of Origen’s Commentary, in light of this audience, is to attempt

to transform these churchmen into his conception of the ideal interpreter so that their

interpretation of Scripture might be a work of salvation for them and their

congregation.223 For Origen, this means emphasizing that spiritual interpretation is

absolutely necessary, and not something that should be avoided because of possible

heretical associations. In utilizing the Gospel of John, Origen is able to tap into the more

obviously mystical character of the book, which lends itself particularly well to Origen’s

brand of spiritual interpretation. Origen considers the Gospel of John to be the foremost

221 Ibid., 367 (32.132–3). This is probably the only time Origen refers to this group of uneducated

Christians in glowing terms. For a distinctively Protestant survey on Origen’s view of the layman, see Gunnar af Hällström, Fides Simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1984). Hällström’s work is helpful for an organization of Origen’s references to laypeople, though it casts Origen in a far too elitist light, ignoring his ecclesial involvement.

222 Ibid., 364 (32.116). 223 Heine also notes that the purpose of the Peripatetic commentaries was to morally transform

the reader into the ideal interpreter as well, showing further similarity (Heine, “Origen’s Commentary Compared,” 10).

65

among the books of the Scriptures, as it displays the Logos more clearly than any other,

even though he believes they all display him in some way. He famously says, “We might

dare say, then, that the Gospels are the firstfuits [ajparch;n] of all Scriptures, but that the

firstfruits of the Gospels is according to John, whose meaning no one can understand

who has not leaned on Jesus’ breast nor received Mary from Jesus to be his mother

also.”224 For Origen, as for the Gospel of John, to become the ideal interpreter means to

emulate the beloved disciple, leaning on Jesus’ breast, which Origen describes as

contemplating the mystery of the Logos,225 and taking Mary as one’s mother,226 which he

understands in relationship to Galatians 2:20, where Paul mentions that as disciples of

Christ we become transformed into Christ.227

For Origen, if we emulate the beloved disciple, who in turn emulates Christ, then

we can also participate in Christ, which, in turn, allows us to understand the Gospel

properly. In Origen’s First Principles he notes that the interpretation of the Gospel “is an

interpretation of the mind of Christ,” and it “demands that grace that was given to him

who said, ‘We have the mind of Christ, that we may know the things that were freely

given to us by God [1Cor. 2:16].”228 Origen defines ‘gospel’ in the first Book of his

Commentary as

224 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 38 (1.23). cf. Jn. 19:26-7 225 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 391 (32.263). 226 Possibly, Origen means one should keep one’s interpretation within ecclesial confines when he

notes that one cannot understand John without having “received Mary from Jesus to be his mother also,” as Origen did take Mary as a type of the Church (see Ledegang, Mysterium Ecclesiae, 464), and he does refer to having Jesus within oneself as implying that Jesus' mother is now the Church's mother directly after the quote above: "For indeed everyone who has been perfected 'no longer lives, but Christ lives in him', and since 'Christ lives' in him, it is said of him to Mary, 'Behold your son', the Christ" (Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 38 [1.23]).

227 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 38 (1.23). 228 Origen, On First Principles, ed. Paul Koetschau, trans. G. W Butterworth (New York: Harper

& Row, 1966), 274 (4.2.3).

66

[a] discourse (logovV) containing a report (ajpeggelivan) of things which, with good reason, due to their beneficial character, make the hearer glad whenever he accepts what is reported (to; ajpaggelovmenon). Such a discourse is no less gospel should it also be examined with reference to the hearer’s attitude. The gospel is either a discourse (logovV) which contains the presence (parousivan) of a good (ajgaqou:) for the believer, or a discourse (logovV) which announces (ejpaggelovmenoV) an awaited good is present.229

Origen goes on to say that this gospel will transform the rest of Scripture into gospel for

the believer.230 The person who has understood the gospel is thus able to look to the

stories of the Old Testament and see how they point to Christ. This then leads to the

question of how the gospel leads to the actual presence (parousiva) of the good

(ajgaqovn) in the believer’s life (i.e. sanctification).

Michael Vlad Niculescu outlines how Origen integrates his conceptions of

biblical exegesis and the gospel, showing that the two are inseparable for Origen.231

Niculescu looks at the quote above (of the Commentary on John 1.27), and notes how

Origen uses two words, ajpaggeliva, translated (by Heine) as ‘report’, and,

ejpaggelovmenoV, translated ‘annunciation’, to describe the way the gospel impacts the

believer.232 The ‘report’, for Niculescu, is the good news as it is first proclaimed to the

believer in the Scripture, suited to his rational condition as a beginner, so that he can

understand it. The ‘report’ is thus, in a sense, the good news of Jesus’ life history and the

229 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 39 (1.27). 230 “One might reply to this [saying that the Law and prophets are also ‘gospel’], however, that

before the coming of Christ, the Law and the prophets did not contain the proclamation which belongs to the definition of the gospel since he who explained the mysteries in them had not yet come. But since the Savior has come, and has caused the gospel to be embodied in the gospel, he has made all things gospel, as it were” (Ibid., 40 [1.33], the square brackets are mine).

231 Michael Vlad Niculescu, “Spiritual Leavening: The Communication and Reception of the Good News in Origen’s Biblical Exegesis and Transformative Pedagogy,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 15 (2007): 447–481.

232 “By the interplay of report (news-from) and annunciation (news-to), Origen delineates a communicational medium within which is displayed the beneficial character of the news (the euj in eujaggevlion). In brief, for Origen the receiver of the gospel is referred to a discourse that contains good news from a sender (report) and as news directed to a hearer (annunciation)” (Ibid., 449).

67

theological implications of his actions as they are first heard and understood by the

believer.233 This ‘report’ cannot stay ‘report’ forever, as it must eventually become an

‘annunciation’ of the transformed believer himself (a parousiva of the ajgaqovn), that the

good news has made the believer into what it proclaimed about him in the first place. In

this understanding, the Logos descends to the place of the believer and guides him

towards the Logos himself, based on the believer’s receptivity.234 Here, Niculescu finds

that Origen understands biblical study as essential for the believer to move from the

gospel being a ‘report’ to it being reported of them as an ‘annunciation’.235 The believer

ascends from the ease of the literal sense, which entertains all with interesting stories and

helpful guidelines, towards the spiritual sense, which corresponds to unity with God and

the shaping one’s logikovV to the ultimate logovV; ultimately progressing them to God’s

likeness once again.236 Niculescu gives an important explanation of how the gospel

actualizes goodness in the sanctification of the believer according to Origen: it is

salvation from God through Jesus in which we must participate, even though it is

announced to have been accomplished already. In this scheme, the scriptural

233 “As a report (ajpaggeliva) the news has been designed to be something beneficial for the

hearer. In so far as it benefits the hearer and in so far as Origen’s understanding of the condition of the human hearer is that of a logos-endowed creature (logikovV), it looks like the discourse (logovV) comes to us as ‘to its own.’ In other words, the discourse (logovV) is well suited to humanity’s ‘logic-al,’ i.e., rational, receptivity” (Ibid., 450–1).

234 Ibid., 452. 235 “It is one of Origen’s great insights that in the hermeneutic process the receiver has to work out

his/her way gradually from a familiarization with the news as annunciation to a deeper familiarization with the news as report; from the conspicuous to the inconspicuous; from the present letter of the discourse to the absence which makes the letter possible and it beyond the reach of a literal reading” (Ibid., 452).

236 “The spiritually accomplished good news is the paternal presence of God in the resurrected and ascended human soul who shares in the sonship of the heavenly pedagogue or the Logos-Son. This is no longer a communication at a distance and in the absence of the addressor, but rather a communication by way of unison and presence, an assimilatory ‘face-to-face’ vision [CJn 1.4.23]. Thus, the annunciation (news-to) becomes the report (news-from) because the one to whom the news is announced becomes spiritually one with the one from whom the news comes. The reported news passes from the sign of an absence into the reality of a presence, which, once internalized, leavens the soul of the receiver turning him/her into a son like the Son” (Ibid., 476).

68

interpretation is responsible for the transformation of our minds, and thus absolutely

crucial for salvation to take place, bringing us from ‘report’ to ‘annunciation’.

In Origen’s theology, it is important that all are able to hear the Word of God, as

he understands that all will eventually be led to Christ, and he wants to participate in that

work. The idea that God accommodated himself to our abilities is essential to Origen’s

view of spiritual interpretation, as Origen attempts to climb the ladder that God has

prepared, from the bottom rung of anthropomorphism to the top of theosis. Just as God

gives the Scriptures to us in an accommodating way, and then leads us to a deeper

understanding, the churchly interpreter must begin with the literal meaning and then lead

his congregation to a deeper meaning, mirroring the accommodation of the Logos:

This is why we must live as a Christian in a spiritual and in a physical manner. And wherever it is necessary to preach the literal (swmatiko;n) gospel declaring among the carnal that we “know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” [1Cor. 2:2] we must do this. But whenever we find those who are established in the Spirit and are bearing fruit in him and desiring the heavenly wisdom, we ought to share with them the Word who was restored from being made flesh to what “he was in the beginning with God.” We do not think our discussion was in vain when we examined these matters about the gospel, distinguishing in concept, as it were, the gospel which is perceptible by the senses from the intelligible (nohtou:) and spiritual gospel.237

Origen argues that the reason God gave the Scriptures in the simple way that he did was

to avoid intellectual rhetoric that might simply manipulate a response from the upper

echelons of society, and make it possible for all to be able to understand eventually.238

The danger, however, is that Christians will hold to the simplistic message and not be

able to move to deeper things, or to counter the critiques of outsiders who were not

willing to look deeper either. That is why it is the interpreter’s job to “translate the

237 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 43 (1.43–4), square brackets mine. 238 Ibid., 158–9 (4.1–2).

69

gospel perceptible to the senses into the spiritual gospel,” that is, to bring the theological

truths out of the Scriptures for all to understand.239

This translation of theological concepts leads to one of Origen’s chief concerns as

a theologian, namely, aiding “inquisitive souls” away from heretical interpretation to

truth:

But even now the heterodox, with a pretense of knowledge (gnwvsewV), are rising up against the holy Church of Christ and are bringing compositions in many books, announcing an interpretation of the texts both of the Gospels and of the apostles. If we are silent and do not set the true and sound teachings down in opposition to them, they will prevail over inquisitive souls which, in the lack of saving nourishment, hasten to foods that are forbidden and are truly unclean and abominable. For this reason it seems necessary to me that one who is able intercede in a genuine manner on behalf of the teaching (lovgon) of the Church and reprove those who pursue the knowledge falsely so-called (th;n yeudwvnumon gnw:sin). He must take a stand against the heretical fabrications by adducing in opposition the sublimity of the gospel message, which has been fulfilled in the agreements of the common doctrines in that is called the Old Testament and that which is named the New.240

Origen was well aware that there were issues in the text that were not easy to resolve,

and many of these had to do with contradictions among the four Gospels, especially

between John and the Synoptics.241 Origen fears that if we are not prepared for these

contradictions, we may easily be led into the heresy of abandoning the inspiration of

239 Ibid., 43 (1.45). There is quite a lot that could be said about the ‘spiritual gospel’ in Origen’s

theology. I follow Henri de Lubac’s understanding: “This eternal gospel alone is to reveal clearly to perspicacious minds all that concerns the person of the Son of God, the mysteries that are proposed to us be his discourses as well as the realities of which his actions were the figure. Thus, just as each object from the Old Testament was a sign of the New, so each object of the New is in its turn a sign whose reality is found ‘in the ages to come’” (de Lubac, History and Spirit, 248). This then can add some nuance to what I understand the purpose of the Commentary to be, namely, to bring out the ‘reality found in the ages to come’.

240 Ibid., 166 (5.8). 241 Ibid., 257 (10.14): “On the basis of numerous other passages also, if someone should examine

the Gospels carefully to check the disagreement so far as the historical sense (iJstorivan) is concerned–we shall attempt to show this disagreement in individual cases, insofar as we are able–, he would grow dizzy, and would either shrink from really confirming the Gospels, and would agree with one of them at random because he would not dare reject completely the faith related to our Lord, or, he would admit that there are four [and would say] that their truth is not in their literal features (toi:V swmatikoi:V carakth:rsin ‘bodily characterization’).” I will deal more fully with inter-Gospel incongruities in the last chapter.

70

Scripture. Origen admits that many of these inconsistencies can be explained as simply

arising from different points of view, where God is attempting to get across different

aspects of the event.242 However, where we recognize an issue that cannot be harmonized

in this way, we ought to take it as a marker that the Spirit is pointing to something

greater.243 Origen demonstrates that we cannot simply dismiss these problems, or edit

them out like Marcion does; we need to take them as they are, as the Spirit put them

there for our salvation.244

God’s desire to accommodate to our abilities is central to Origen’s understanding

of spiritual interpretation and to the allegories that ensue. For Origen, all Scripture is

given to us as a means for our ascent to God, and thus he often calls his spiritual

interpretation ‘anagogical’ (ajnagwghv). The Gospel is thus given in stories that all can

enjoy and learn morals, but there are deeper truths throughout, which all must seek out.

This accommodating nature of God is also seen in Origen’s Christology, where he

highlights the different “aspects of Christ” (ejpivnoiai Cristou:), noting that Christ’s

different titles in Scripture correspond to the different ways he relates to us. He begins by

coming to us as a “rod” to give us direction, even though it is painful, but he will end as

a “flower,” as that is the goal of the rod (cf. Is. 11:1).245 More importantly, “he is called

‘Word’ (lovgoV), because he removes everything irrational (a[logon) from us and makes

us truly rational (ajlhvqeian logikou;V) beings who do all things for the glory of God,

even to eating and drinking, so that we perform both the more common and the more

242 Ibid., 258 (10.15–7). Origen notes that God has a lot to say in a short amount of time, so he has to have four points of view that are able to give different aspects of the same story.

243 “For their intention was to speak the truth spiritually and materially at the same time where that was possible but, where it was not possible in both ways, to prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth is often preserved in the material falsehood, so to speak” (Ibid., 259 [10.20]).

244 Ibid., 261 (10.25). 245 Ibid., 87 (1.261–4). Similarly, Christ comes as ‘shepherd’ and ‘teacher’, appearing to us in the

manner that we need for our sanctification.

71

perfect works of life to the glory of God because of reason (to;n lovgon).”246 Thus, for

Origen, Jesus is ‘Word’ as a description of something both in his essence and in his

economic action towards us; a description of what true rationality is, as it is found in

him. If Jesus is the picture of our true rationality aligned to God, a revelation of the true

‘Word’, then it only makes sense to approach God’s Scriptures with a rationality

transformed by this Word.

Comparison with Book 4 of Origen’s First Principles

In Book 4 of Origen’s First Principles, where he gives his most thorough discussion of

his hermeneutical method, he gives a description of the purpose of interpretation very

similar to the one outlined above. In line with Brian Daley, I understand the whole of

Origen’s First Principles as “a cohesive survey of the ontological principles of the

world’s being, as Christian faith perceives them,” which “also brings together, for him,

the logical principles for an understanding of the content of revelation that is both the

anchor and starting point of authentic and creative biblical interpretation.”247 It seems that

throughout the various ‘creative’ interpretations in the First Principles, Origen was

attempting to give the educated believer a coherent doctrinal system, including elements

of physics and causality, built upon a biblical and ecclesial foundation, so that they might

246 Ibid., 88–9 (1.267). 247 Brian E. Daley, "Origen's De Principiis: A Guide to the Principles of Christian Scriptural

Interpretation," in Nova et Vetera: Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton, ed. John Petruccione (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 6. Daley argues that this understanding of First Principles is in opposition to earlier understandings of it as a systematic treatise of Greek philosophy (Harnack), an experimental theology (Crouzel), or a loose set of catechetical lectures (Kannengieser). Daley notes that these earlier readings either did not know what to do with the last book, which largely focuses on scriptural interpretation, explaining it as something like an appendix to the ‘unbiblical’ philosophy that Origen proposes in the first three books (Harnack), or just considering the whole to be scattered ideas, as Clement’s Stromateis. Daley’s reading of Origen’s section on Scripture as the climax of the work, and of the earlier more philosophical aspects as working up to his theology of Scripture, is much more cohesive and convincing, not creating false walls of so-called ‘biblical’ and ‘systematic’ theology.

72

make sense of Scripture and reality while staying within the confines of the rule of faith

(as outlined in his preface).248

In Book 4 of Origen’s First Principles, he shows that one must keep to the rule of

faith if he wishes to interpret the Scripture properly, otherwise he will be mislead in his

study of it, and it will not lead him to union with God but to heretical schism with the

tradition that birthed the Scripture in the first place. Origen is convinced that abandoning

the rule of faith as a guide will ultimately mean foregoing the salvific method of

Scriptural interpretation that God had intended from the beginning of the salvation

history. As this ecclesial aspect of scriptural interpretation is not clearly noted in

Origen’s Commentary, going over the argument for its necessity in Book 4 of First

Principles will be helpful in understanding how Origen critiques Heracleon.

Origen begins by emphasizing that his understanding of scriptural interpretation

is based on his theology of God’s providence, which was a big part of what he was

outlining in the first three books of the treatise. Origen states: “For in regard to the works

of that providence which controls the whole world, while some show themselves most

plainly to be works of providence, others are so obscure as to appear to afford grounds

for disbelief in the God who with unspeakable skill and power superintends the

universe.”249 Though the ‘works of providence’ are hard to see from our vantage point—

even if Origen notes that they are obvious in the strict order of the stars—it will become

clear to us when we ascend to God’s. The same is all the more true of the Scripture,

which Origen regards as a superb picture of God’s guiding providential care. If we

cannot see this providence, it is because of our own weakness, not the weakness of the

248 Ibid., 21. 249 Origen, On First Principles, 266 (4.1.7).

73

inspired Scripture. It is here that Origen brings the reader from the ‘physics’ outlined in

the previous three books, to the ‘perfection’ of studying Scripture.250

Origen argues that if one desires to interpret the Scripture, the first thing he needs

to recognize is that it is hard, and that many have made awful mistakes because of their

ignorance of the difficulty of the text. Origen finds that “many mistakes (pleivstwn

aJmarthmavtwn) have been made in consequence of the method by which the holy

documents ought to be interpreted (para; to; th;n oJdon tou: pw:V dei: ejfodeuvein ta; a{gia

ajnagnwvsmata) not having been discovered by the multitude (toi:V polloi:V).”251 While

Origen admits that the ‘multitude’ have not taken to a kind of interpretation that he

thinks is necessary, he immediately notes three other specific groups that are far more

troubling. First, he notes Jewish interpretations, which have rejected Jesus as Christ

because of some literalistic interpretations of Old Testament prophecy that have not

come to earthly fruition as they expected.252 Second, he notes the “members of the

heretical sects,” who, due to some trouble with the God presented in the Old Testament,

reject him in favour of their own “mythical hypotheses,” which are “the fancies of their

own minds.”253 Last, Origen mentions the “simpler” (ajkeraiovteroi, meaning ‘pure’ or

‘guileless’,254 drawing a comparison to the schismatic motives of the heretical sects)

members of his own Church, or who at least “claim to” to be members. These, because

250 Ibid., 268 (4.1.7). 251 Ibid., 269 (4.2.1). 252 Ibid., 269–70 (4.2.1). 253 “Consequently they think that since the Creator is imperfect and not good, the Saviour came

here to proclaim a more perfect God who they say is not the Creator, and about whom they entertain diverse opinions. Then having once fallen away from the Creator, who is the sole unbegotten God, they have given themselves up to fictions, fashioning mythical hypotheses according to which they suppose that there are some things that are seen and others that are not seen, all of which are the fancies of their own minds” (Ibid., 270–1 [4.2.1]). Origen’s brief outline of this type of interpreter fits well with the way he speaks of Heracleon in his Commentary on John.

254 G. W. H Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford; New York: Clarendon, 1961), 61.

74

of their own grounding in the literal sense, “believe such things about him [God] as

would not be believed of the most savage and unjust of men.”255 We might assume

Origen is referring to some who believe in an anthropomorphite God, that is, those who

attribute literal human characteristics to God, as they are described in some Old

Testament passages.256

Origen believes that the answer to these three types of error is, or at least ought to

be, simple:

Now the reason why all those we have mentioned hold false opinions and make impious or ignorant assertions about God appears to be nothing else but this, that scripture is not understood in its spiritual sense (ta; pneumatika;), but is interpreted according to the bare letter (to; yilo;n gravmma). On this account we must explain to those who believe that the sacred books are not the works of men, but that they were composed and have come down to us as a result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father of the universe through Jesus Christ, what are the methods of interpretation that appear right to us, who keep to the rule (tou: kanovnoV) of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ through the succession from the Apostles.257

The Jewish, heretical, and ‘simple’ expositors all seem to miss the context of Scripture

that Origen finds to be essential, namely, the kanovn of the Church. Origen, in this quote,

finds his approach to interpretation to be guaranteed by the doctrine of the Trinity, “a

result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father of the universe

through Jesus Christ.”258 Origen presents his hermeneutical method as one that was

255 Origen, On First Principles, 271 (4.2.1). 256 This kind of anthropomorphism seems to have been common among the Desert Fathers. See

Mark DelCogliano, “Situating Sarapion’s Sorrow: The Anthropomorphite Controversy as the Historical and Theological Context of Cassian’s Tenth Conference on Pure Prayer,” Cistercian Studies Quarterly 38 (2003): 377–421.

257 Ibid., 271–2 (4.2.2). 258 For a discussion of this passage see Peter Martens, “Why Does Origen Refer to the Trinitarian

Authorship of Scripture in Book 4 of Peri Archon?,” Vigiliae Christianae 60 (2006): 1–8. Martens points out that there is some disagreement over what Origen means by kanovnoV, some understanding it to be a reference to his interpretation, and others seeing a reference to the rule of faith. It seems to me that Origen

75

handed down to him from the Church, in the same way that he calls upon the doctrine of

the Trinity.

Throughout Origen’s recitation of the rule of faith in the preface to his First

Principles he draws attention to the elevated nature of Scripture. In the eighth point of

this preface Origen explicitly states that “the Scriptures were composed through the

Spirit of God and that they have not only that meaning which is obvious, but also another

which is hidden from the majority of readers. For the contents of Scripture are the

outward forms of certain mysteries (sacramentorum) and the images of divine things.”259

Origen also justifies the tradition of his style of interpretation by appealing to Paul, the

Shepherd of Hermas, and even Solomon, quoting Proverbs 22:20-1.260 Origen detests the

thought that the whole meaning of the Scriptures could be easily understood, since they

contain the “mind of Christ,” which provides “a narrow opening to multitudes of the

deepest thoughts.”261 For Origen, spiritual interpretation, as a traditional guide to

understanding the Scripture, opens up the Scriptures in such a way that it is read as a

sacrament, and creates the image of God in the person interpreting. Guiding them from

the “flesh of Scripture,” to the “soul,” up to “the man who is perfect (teleivoiV),”

mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor. 2:6-7: “for just as man consists of body, soul and spirit, so

in the same way does the Scripture, which has been prepared by God to be given for

did not see a difference between the two, finding his interpretation to be based on tradition. Rufinus’ translation can be seen as bringing both elements out of Origen’s kanovnoV, “who keep to that rule and discipline (regulam disciplinamque) delivered by Jesus Christ to the apostles and handed down by them in succession to their posterity, the teachers of the heavenly Church.” I think that the regula can be seen in the Trinitarian formula and the teaching that surrounds it, and the disciplina can be seen as the traditional approach to interpretation. It could also be simply an hendiadys, which the ‘-que’ suffix often implies.

259 Origen, On First Principles, 5 (praef.8). 260 Ibid., 275 (4.2.4). Origen’s thesis is further substantiated if one takes a work such as the Epistle

of Barnabas as having Alexandrine provenance, as the early Christian work shows many of the same interpretive elements that Origen employs.

261 Ibid., 274 (4.2.3).

76

man’s salvation.”262 Salvation, for Origen, cannot be thought of without eventually

attaining to the Pauline tevloV noted in 1 Cor. 2:6-7.

This is where Origen introduces his famous ‘stumbling blocks’, which are only

an option for someone who has already accepted the divine authorship of Scripture on

the basis of ecclesial authority.263 For Origen, Scripture is given by God for the salvation

of humanity, so if there are historical errors, or impossibilities, in the text then these are

part of God’s aim of perfecting his creatures. This conversely means that if one does not

accept the Church’s teaching on the authority of Scripture or of its inspired nature, then

one cannot attain to salvation as God intended. While it is clear that Origen had been led

to this argument through his encounters with those who would denounce the Old

Testament, such as Marcion, it is Origen’s desire to follow Church teaching on the nature

of Scripture that leads him to these conclusions. It is, then, through the struggle of

interpretation, by constantly looking for the Spirit’s hand in the history of salvation, that

the person is sanctified through his reading of the text, and the sacrament of Scripture

leads to the salvation of humanity.

Conclusion

Origen’s analysis of his doctrine of Scripture in his Frist Principles is helpful for

understanding what he is doing in his Commentary on John, as his First Principles

262 Ibid., 276 (4.2.4). 263 Ibid., 285 [4.2.9): “But if the usefulness of the law and the sequence and ease of the narrative

were at first sight clearly discernible throughout, we should be unaware that there was anything beyond the obvious meaning for us to understand in the scriptures. Consequently the Word of God has arranged for certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and hindrances and impossibilities to be inserted in the midst of the law and the history, in order that we may not be completely drawn away by the sheer attractiveness of the languages and so either reject the true doctrines absolutely, on the ground that we learn from the scriptures nothing worthy of God, or else by never moving away from the letter fail to learn anything of the more divine element.”

77

highlights how important the ecclesial sphere was for him, whereas this is not as

explicitly stated in his Commentary. Throughout both his Commentary on John and his

First Principles, Origen emphasizes the sanctifying nature of scriptural interpretation,

guiding one from a literal ‘flesh’ to the spiritual understanding that comes with growing

closer to God. Origen maintains that Christ and the Apostles were simplifying their

message so that all can understand it, while through Origen’s interpretation they are then

able to grow from this basic starting point. In both works the heretical interpreters are

brought in as a warning of what can go wrong in interpretation, and because the

importance of the rule of faith is made obvious in Origen’s First Principles, we can see

from what grounds Origen was able to critique Heracleon.

In order to demonstrate that Christians cannot ignore the necessity of spiritual

interpretation Origen uses Heracleon as an example. John A. McGuckin has pointed out

that Heracleon functions in two ways for Origen in his Commentary: first, as someone

who proposes interpretations that Origen feels are inappropriate, both because they go

against Church teaching and because they are foreign to John’s intention and wording;

second, as an example of someone who has gone off track because he has not followed

the text accurately, thus showing the need to read as Origen prescribes.264 It is important

to remember how Heracleon is presented in the Commentary (outlined in the previous

chapter), as Origen wants to keep him as an example illustrating the need to look at the

Scriptures closely, so that we will not be lead astray. It is also important to realize that

264 McGuckin, “Structural Design,” 456: “This double pairing that Origen makes between the

gnostic exegetes and the literalists is a brilliant and ironic apologetic. On the one hand he casts back at the gnostics, in the person of Heracleon, the charge they had long laid at the door of the church, the accusation of being too ‘sarkikal’ and literalist. On the other hand but using the orthodox principle of fidelity to the text to critique what he pictures as the uncontrolled and undisciplined gnostic method of exegesis, he is actually firing an arrow into the camp of his enemies within the church, and implicitly accusing them of being as faithless to the text in their literalist reading, as ever the gnostics were in their extravagances.”

78

though Heracleon may not have been a major player in the interpretation of John, Origen

might still want to connect certain doctrines to Heracleon, since they could become

problems in one’s interpretation of John if one were not careful. This is why Origen

often leads Heracleon to his logical conclusions, and at times even uses him as a

punching bag. This is also why Origen groups together various heretics despite their

individual particularities: for Origen, they presented similar intrinsic difficulties and

provided him with great examples for his own promotion of spiritual interpretation.

79

4. ORIGEN’S TWO MAIN PROBLEMS WITH HERACLEON

As noted in the second chapter, Origen’s main issues with Heracleon do not seem to be

philological, but doctrinal, even if Origen considers Heracleon to have relatively less

skill in interpretation. As Origen’s own interpretation looked rather similar to

Heracleon’s, a heretical interpreter such as Heracleon provided Origen with a hurdle in

convincing his fellow churchmen of the merits of spiritual interpretation, as he

understood it. It is even possible that the practice of Gospel commentary had a heretical

tinge to it at this time, as the only Gospel commentaries we know of were deemed

heretical by later Orthodoxy. Origen writes his Commentary to show that it can serve as

an orthodox practice that fits the theology of the Church. In Origen’s First Principles he

proposes that the practice of spiritual interpretation is traditional, as Origen includes it

within the rule of faith. From Origen’s perspective, we can see Heracleon as someone

who is adulterating this traditional practice from the presuppositions of his own sectarian

theology, and this is how Origen charges him.

In Origen’s polemical dialogue with Heracleon and others Origen associates with

him, Origen consistently charges him with two doctrinal problems: (1) separating the Old

Testament from the New, and degrading the God of the Old Testament to a lesser being

than the Saviour; and (2) a doctrine of determinism, according to which one will or will

not respond to God based on his spiritual disposition (or lack thereof). Origen

consistently fights against these notions by noting their arbitrary standpoint from outside

the Church’s teaching and the many theological problems to which they lead. One such

theological problem is how one then encounters Scripture. If, as I have proposed in the

80

previous chapter, Origen regards the ultimate purpose of Scripture as salvation, then the

doctrinal problems of Heracleon ultimately undermine this purpose. In this chapter, I will

argue that Origen, through the debate over these two issues, maintains this understanding

of Scripture as a salvific document, and shows that Heracleon’s position does not allow

for Scripture to do what it is intended by God to do.

The Unity of the Old Testament with the New

Origen repeatedly refers to Heracleon’s deficient understanding of the Old Testament

and shows that it underlies many of his interpretive errors. Origen believed that God was

working through the prophets and that they thus had a message that was extraordinarily

valuable, namely, corroborating Jesus’ and his Apostle’s message from antiquity. When

Origen confronted some who wanted to get rid of the Old Testament or to diminish its

value by means of implementing a foreign mythology in its place, Origen became

defensive. This alien mythology, unlike the traditional history of the Old Testament,

challenged the unity of God that was heralded by the Jewish prophets, and it gave the

Old Testament a middling value at best. In comparison, Origen recognizes that if one

degrades the Old Testament, he will misunderstand the New also, and ultimately will

construe impious thoughts about God and about what it means to be human. After

introducing Heracleon’s beliefs about the Old Testament, I will show that because

Origen linked the unity of God with the unity of Old and New Testaments, he regarded

the heretical turn to foreign mythology (rather than the Old Testament) as a basis of

understanding Jesus’ salvific work as the root of the heretics’ theological error and

misinterpretation of Jesus and John’s Gospel.

81

Though Heracleon does make reference to the Old Testament,265 Origen’s

response to his view of the Old Testament shows that it was far from adequate by

Origen’s high standards. It is possible that Heracleon held to a similar view of the Old

Testament as his contemporary, Ptolemy, who is also traditionally associated, to some

extent, with the ‘Italian School’ of Valentinus.266 Ptolemy divided the Law into three

parts: divine, partly divine and partly Mosaic, and fully Mosaic.267 It is probable that

Marcion had influenced Ptolemy, though it does not seem that Ptolemy found the lesser

Old Testament God evil as Marcion did, just more concerned with ‘righteousness’ than

with the grace seen in Christ.268 Origen seems to corroborate this collusion of Ptolemy’s

and Heracleon’s views of Scripture, as Origen writes as if the Scriptures that he himself

received in the Old Testament are at risk of being downgraded to the work of some lesser

deity who was not in full control. Origen even mentions those influenced by Marcion in

what is possibly a fragment of Book 5 of Origen’s Commentary on John, just after noting

those who do not see “that the sacred works are one book,” or who find all four Gospels

to be needed in tandem, but select one above the others.269

In the face of this, Origen himself presents a high view of the Old Testament in

his Commentary on John. He believes that God has been directing the writers of the

Scriptures since the beginning in “the spiritual economy of Jesus” (to;n jIhsou:n

265 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 159 (13.426). Einar Thomassen notes that Heracleon would have though that it was the Demiurge who was speaking through the prophets, thus they only had a middling authority (Thomassen, “Heracleon,” 194). From the singular and brief quotation that Thomassen refers to, it is far from clear what Heracleon believed about the Old Testament.

266 Heracleon is associated with Ptolemy by Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2.4.1), noting that they hold similar views of the Aeons as Valentinus. Most of what we know of Ptolemy comes from his Letter to Flora, which presents his tripartite understanding of Torah. There have been some doubts about our ability to categorize one ‘Valentinian’ school against another, see Joel Kalvesmaki, "Italian versus Eastern Valentinianism?" Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008): 79-89.

267 Dunderberg, “The School of Valentinus,” 78. 268 Ibid., 79. 269 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 164-5 (5.7). Origen compares the singular focus of the

“sacred works” with the inconsistency of the “non-sacred” that will be “blotted out” (cf. Ps. 68:29).

82

pneumatikh; oijkonomiva).270 He speaks of a clear connection between the prophets and

God, and insists that the Prophets were aware of the spiritual meanings he found to lie

beneath their literal phrases. They were “being lead by the Spirit,” and “arrived at the

vision of truth (th:V ajlhqeivaV qevan) after they were initiated in types (toi:V tuvpoiV).”271

This is as true of Isaiah, whose words are tantamount to the words of Jesus,272 as it is for

Moses, who “saw in his mind the truth of the Law and the allegorical meanings related to

the anagogical sense (kata; ajnagwgh;n ajllhgorivaV) of the stories (iJstoriw:n) he

recorded.”273 Even Joshua—who Origen calls “Son of Nun” to differentiate him from the

Lord—knew that his conquest had an underlying meaning, being able to “see better than

us that the things accomplished through himself were shadows of certain realities.”274 It

is clear that Origen’s understanding of spiritual interpretation is reliant on the prophetic

nature of the whole Old Testament, as he believed the prophets to have a special

connection to God. If someone diminished this prophecy as being related to that of a

lesser deity, subordinated to a higher Savior to come, he would effectually destroy the

whole project of spiritual interpretation, which is based on the providential arrangement

of God drawing all back to himself.

For Origen, the unity of the Scriptures and the unity of the Godhead are linked,

and their common disunity is seen in the ‘Gnostic’ theology. This is depicted in one

particularly troubling passage for Origen, John 8:19. Jesus proclaims here that the Jews

he is disputing do not know the God from whom he comes, stating, “if you knew me you

would know my Father also.” Origen notes that the heterodox assume that this text gives

270 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 226 (20.94). 271 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 172 (6.15–6). 272 Ibid., 80 (1.232). 273 Ibid., 174 (6.22). 274 Ibid.

83

them license to postulate that the God of the Jews is not the true Father of the Saviour.

Origen contends that they can only believe this if they “have not read the divine

Scriptures, nor observed the usage of language in them,” as everywhere around this

passage the Gospel writer shows a deep connection between Jesus and the God of the

Old Testament.275

Origen then notes that this heretical reading is inappropriate to the ultimate end of

Scripture, and this has lead the heterodox to misunderstand what Jesus meant by one’s

ability to ‘know’ God in John 8:19, which is the whole point of the passage. Origen

states, “Although one may be able to give a full account of matters concerning God,

having learned from the fathers that he alone is to be worshipped, if one does not live

rightly, they say that this person does not possess knowledge of God.”276 One

immediately recognizes Origen’s desire to remain within a traditional understanding,

since it is “from the fathers” that we learn that we must live rightly in order to know

God. What is interesting is that Origen includes the Jewish Patriarchs and Prophets from

the Old Testament as his “fathers” as well, as they, through their righteous lives, showed

how one can come to know God. Origen thus leads the reader a few verses forward,

where Jesus states, “If you continue in my word, you will know the truth.”277 Origen thus

opposes the notion that knowledge has to do only with assent to right propositions;

though these propositions are important, they must lead to a right life, as knowledge of

God leads to union with God.278 While knowledge of propositions about Scripture and

275 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 169 (19.12). It should be noted that Origen does not

mention Heracleon by name in this section, but that does not mean that he is not included in this indictment, as he is charged with a similar interpretive crime in other places.

276 Ibid., 169 (19.13). 277 Ibid., 171 (19.19). 278 Ibid., 173 (19.25). Origen draws the connection between one’s choice and union with God,

which is denied by the heterodox position of determinism: “For, in our view, the Lord has known those

84

God comes on apostolic authority for Origen, true knowledge, to which Jesus is referring

in this passage, comes from living rightly. Thus, while the Jews addressed in the passage

may have had correct propositions about God derived from the Old Testament, they did

not live according to the spirit of those propositions, so Jesus could say that they did not

truly know him or the Father. The heretical desire to split the Old Testament from the

New has caused them to miss this crucial point in Christian epistemology.

Origen argues that one must move from knowledge of Jesus to knowledge of the

Father, even if the Old Testament was given first. While still holding a high view of the

Old Testament, Origen does concede that the Father is not known to the Jews as ‘Father’,

for the Son had not been fully revealed yet, and he cannot think of a place in the

Scriptures where he is referred to in this way prior to Jesus.279 Thus the Son is essential

for our understanding of the Father and of the earlier Scriptures that attested to him. It

does not seem that the heterodox would have denied that it is essential to know the

Saviour in order to know the Father; they simply deny that the Father of the Saviour is

the same person as the creator from the Old Testament. Origen here points to Stephen’s

sermon in Acts 7 as corroboration of the facts that the Father of Jesus is the God of the

Old Testament and that all the events of Jewish history culminate in him.280 If the Son is

the key to understanding the Father, then, in some sense, the Jews did not understand

who are his because he has been made one with them and has given them a share of his own divinity and has taken them up, as the language of the Gospel says, into his own hand, since those who have believed in the Savior are in the Father’s hand. For this reason also, unless they fall from his hand, thereby removing themselves from the hand of God, they will not be snatched away, for no one snatches anyone from the Father’s hand.”

279 It seems that Origen forgot about Psalm 89:26 (LXX 88:27), and others like it, “aujtoV ejpikalevsetaiv me Pathvr mou eij suv, qeovV mou kai; ajntilhvmptwr th:V swthrivaV mou.” One could argue that Origen was speaking about God’s essence as Father in the Trinity, and the Psalm was only speaking about how God is a Father to us in the economy of salvation, much as he is also presented as ‘shepherd’ elsewhere.

280 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 174 (19.29–30).

85

who God is, as “[i]t is impossible … to behold God apart from the Word.”281 This is why

one can move upwards in a hermeneutical spiral beginning with the Old Testament,

understanding the historical sense first to gain context, then move to the culmination in

Christ, and go back to the Old to attempt to find the mystery of the Father presented there

in the light of Christ.282

This mystical ascent from Christ to the Father did not come without its problems

for Origen, as it is here that he often gets charged with holding to a subordination of the

Son, which, if misunderstood, could lead to Arian theology.283 Though we do not have

space to go through the complex arguments of Origen’s Christology, which do not

always seem to be consistent, the subordination of the Son is a prominent feature of the

Commentary, especially with regard to how Origen interprets in polemical dialogue with

Heracleon.284 Origen seems to attempt to find a middle ground between Modalism and

the Polytheism that is found in the plethora of deities in ‘Gnostic’ mythology,285 by

positing that though the Old and New Testaments present one God, there must be some

differentiation in the Persons presented in this Godhead.286 It needs to be remembered

281 Ibid., 175 (19.35). 282 Ibid., 176 (19.36–7). “And he who beholds Wisdom (sofivan), which God created before the

ages for his works, ascends from knowing Wisdom to Wisdom’s Father. It is impossible, however, for the god of Wisdom to be apprehended apart from the leading of Wisdom. And you will say the same thing also about the truth. For one does not apprehend God or contemplate him, and afterwards apprehend the truth. First one apprehends the truth, so that in this way he may come to behold (nohqh:nai) the essence, or the power and nature of God beyond the essence.”

283 See R. P. C. Hanson, “The Influence of Origen on the Arian Controversy,” in Origeniana Quarta, ed. L. Lies (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1987), 410–23.

284 See, Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 115 (13.228) for a clear example. 285 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 309 (10.246). Origen references the modalist interpretation

of the Son here by using surprisingly Nicene language, even though he predated the Council by almost a hundred years: “They think that these statements prove that the Son does not differ from the Father in number, but that both being one, not only in essence (oujsiva/), but also in substance (uJpokeimevnw), they are said to be Father and Son in relation to certain differing aspects (ejpinoivaV), not in relation to their reality (uJpovstasin).”

286 Heine, "Introduction," in, Commentary on John 13-32, 21-2. Heine maintains that Origen took this doctrine from Hermas.

86

that, while Origen does seem to hold to a subordination of the Son, he is still responsible

for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son287 and is most likely responsible for

the beginnings of the Cappadocian formula, miva oujsiva, trei:V uJpostavseiV.288 Origen

recognizes the precarious place he is in when speaking of the personal relations of the

Trinity, noting that his speculation is not directly related to Church dogma but is his own

opinion based as far as possible on teaching that he received.289 It is most likely, then,

that Origen’s subordination of the Son to the Father in the Commentary is in response to

Heracleon’s desire to show the creator to be subject to the Savior.290

The root of most of Origen’s issues with Heracleon, and those like him, seems to

be their proclivity to a kind of mythology over against the Old Testament Scriptures.

Origen is annoyed by the confused and arbitrary nature of this kind of teaching, noting

that “the making of fables is their undoing”291 and that “they are not even able to explain

their own story.”292 More than anything, “[t]he heterodox … do not know what they

worship because it is something they have made up, and not truth; it is a myth and not a

mystery.”293 Origen notes a deliberate muddling in the teaching of the Gnostics, and

287 Pamphilus, Apology for Origen, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Washington, D.C.: Catholic

University of America Press, 2010), 66. This doctrine is also seen in FP 1.2.2, and HJer 9.4. 288 Ilaria Ramelli, “Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of

Hypostasis,” Harvard Theological Review 105 (2012): 302–350. 289 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 403–4 (32.329–30). Heine points out that Origen uses

elements of technical Stoic logic in this section (and others before it), likely because he recognized the need to make careful statements about this sensitive topic.

290 Ibid., 158–60 (13.422–32). 291 Ibid., 83 (13.74): “It is clear that the making of fables is their undoing. But if it is impossible

for a good tree to bear evil fruit, and the Samaritan woman was a good tree because she happened to be spiritual, it is fitting to say to him that their her fornication was not sin or she did not commit fornication.”

292 Ibid., 93 (13.122): “But since those who share his view fashion myths and present nothing I can make out with clarity about the lost spiritual nature, and teach us nothing clear about the times and aeons before its loss (for they are note even able to explain their own story), we will intentionally disregard them, since we have raised so great a problem.”

293 Ibid., 89 (13.103): “Now, can it be said to the Samaritan woman, ‘You Jews,’ or to a Samaritan woman, ‘You Gentiles’? The heterodox, however, do not know what they worship because it is something they have made up, and not truth; it is a myth and not a mystery. But he who worships the Creator, especially in accordance with the inward Jew and the spiritual Jewish words, worships what he knows.”

87

since one of the central roles of Christ is to be a teacher, this muddling is unacceptable

for Christian interpretation.294 If God had providentially ordered the events and the

writing of the Old Testament, then they are the Scriptures that ought to aid the

sanctification of believers, not foreign myths with a foreign authority. Much of what

Origen was attempting to do with his spiritual interpretation was to explain to the whole

Church the mysteries of the Scriptures as far as he was able, out of recognition that God

had providentially provided Scripture for Christians to grow in God. I am persuaded that

Origen understood the creation of myths to come from an arrogant place, as to create

myths was to create an arbitrary hierarchy of those who know and those who do not,295

whereas to simply explain the myth that was inspired by God by bringing together the

various strands of what the Church teaches, is an ecclesial process directed towards the

growth of all Christians.296 From this, we can see that it is not only the contents of the

‘Gnostic’ myths that Origen found objectionable, but the practice of mythmaking as well.

According to Origen, Heracleon, and those like him, propose an inherently elitist

theology, and he regards the myths that they use to explain their theology as elitist in

nature. Those who create myths have a privilege over those who do not, and, to Origen,

this privilege was arbitrary and unacceptable for a Christian teacher.297 For Origen, all

294 M. J. Edwards, “Gnostics, Greeks, and Origen: The Interpretation of Interpretation,” Journal of

Theological Studies 44 (1993): 86-7. Edwards puts it well: “Origen has no ear for myths and mysteries, which will fabricate a substance or an event from empty syllables as a charter for some act or way of speaking. The exposition of the hidden truth must be as bare as the exterior, or barer if the exterior is itself ornately figured. If there are times for keeping secrets, there is never any cause to multiply them, and even on the most elevated subjects speculation may be hesitant but never double-tongued.”

295 Ibid., 74–5. Edwards draws a link between later Neo-Platonist mythology and the mythology created by the Gnostics, maintaining that the ability to create a myth says something about the authority of the creator: “For Platonists the result of this dark precedent is that authority for writing myths is greater than the authority for explaining them, and when they take in hand the myths of Plato, their elucidations, barely less poetical, are tentative and claim no perfect or exclusive truth.”

296 Ibid., 85. 297Ibid., 83: “The claim to Gnosis is a claim to privilege. Since it was the convention in both

mystery and philosophy to address an untutored audience, we may guess that Valentinus and the Gnostics

88

can be transformed by the Spirit, and thus Christian teaching must be geared towards

taking away hindrances, not adding them. In the Contra Celsum Origen states that even

“the most insignificant of us Christians had been delivered from this lack of education

and ignorance [referring to idolatry], whereas the most intelligent understand and

comprehend the divine hope.”298 It is not that the intelligentsia have no place in the

Church, for, as it is noted above, Origen was attempting to bring Christian teaching up to

this level of erudition (and surpass it); it is simply that he was attempting to provide

means for all to get there, drawing from tradition to escape cycles of idolatry derivative

of human postulation apart from its true Logos.

It seems that this clarification of the theology of Scripture is what Origen was

attempting in his allegorizing of history and poetry. Some have argued that Origen had a

problem understanding poetry in the Old Testament, not being able to decipher a simple

metaphor, and thus expanding it into extravagant allegory when this is not appropriately

signified in the text.299 In actual fact, Origen attempts to explain the poetry that he is

reading, even if it appears as though he misunderstands simple metaphorical

couched their principles in terms of choice obscurity, reasoning like the early Neoplatonists that words acquire a grandeur from duplicity which conceals their sense from all but the elect. The Fathers who transcribed the Gnostic libraries were incapable of divulging what they had neither the information nor the will to comprehend.”

298 Origen, Contra Celsum, 327 (6.14): “Celsus describes as very uneducated and as slaves and as quite ignorant those who do not understand what he has to say and have not been educated in the learning of the Greeks. But the people who we call very uneducated are those who are not ashamed to address lifeless objects, who invoke what is diseased that it may grant them good health, who ask what is dead to give life, and who beseech what is quite helpless for succor…. So we say that the most insignificant of us Christians had been delivered from this lack of education and ignorance, whereas the most intelligent understand and comprehend the divine hope. But we also maintain that it is not possible for a man who has not been trained in human wisdom to receive the more divine, and hold that all human wisdom is foolishness in comparison with divine wisdom.”

299 This is most clearly seen in R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1959), 247: “Origen is no poet and allegory is more often than not the enemy of poetry.” Hanson states this because he believes Origen to mistakenly read what was intended to be metaphor as pointing towards allegory, and thus confuses the two literary genres.

89

constructions, in order to expose the truth for the masses, not hiding it with vague

expressions that laypeople will not understand. This might seem counter-intuitive, as

spiritual interpretation is often viewed as an esoteric practice, but Origen uses his

allegorical interpretation most prominently in his homilies, which we would expect to

have the broadest audience (even if this congregational audience included his students).

Therefore, when Origen moves beyond John’s prologue, which is straightforwardly

theological, to the historical narrative, he must begin to allegorize in order to show how

the story can connect to the reader or to his congregation. Origen, in fact, does this

immediately, contrasting the ‘literal meaning’ (iJstorivan), with the ‘deeper meaning’

(baquvteron lovgon), as soon as there is iJstoriva to develop.300

It would be strange for an interpreter such as Origen not to be able to understand

the meaning of history according to its proper genre. It is much more likely that Origen

found the vague meaning of a historical account troubling because is open to so many

interpretations, including those of the heterodox. He then saw it wise to use “the literal

sense (th/: iJstoriva/) as a ladder, as it were, and seeking the traces of the truth (to;n tovpon

ajlhqeivaV) in the letters in this passage.”301 Far from having any desire to clear up

embarrassing passages for a philosophical elite—as he often admits the Gospel is

foolishness to the Gentiles anyway—he desires to keep interpretations clear, bringing out

the theology within when he finds it.302 As noted before, the creation of myth introduces

300 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 142 (2.175). 301 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 208 (20.10). 302 Heine, in the introduction to his edition of Origen’s Commentary, argues that Origen’s

“allegorization of narratives arises from his assumption that all the biblical texts must offer spiritual lessons. Historical statements, as we pointed out above, lack religious value in his judgment. They are, therefore, given religious value by allegorization. Some have suggested that he allegorized metaphors because he lacked poetic sensitivity. It seems more likely to me that he saw poetic statements, like historical statements, to be devoid of religious value in themselves. While a metaphor is not an historical statement, it shares with historical statement the fact that it involves the physical world. There is a sense,

90

an arbitrary hierarchy, as not all are privy to the meaning, but the explanation of myth

creates equality, as all are now able to share understanding, or at least grow towards this

understanding. Even though Origen might seem elitist in the way he promotes the

intellectual activity of scriptural interpretation as essential for growth amongst a people

group with a low literacy rate, he interprets for them as a ‘churchman’

(ejkklhsiastiko;V), for the Church.303

Origen’s issue with the diminution of the Old Testament in Heracleon can be best

seen in the way he confronts Heracleon’s interpretation of John 1:23 (which is a

quotation of Isaiah 40:3): “He [John the Baptist] said: ‘I am the voice of one crying in

the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord,’ just as Isaias the Prophet said.”304

This section of the Commentary provides a prolonged dialogue between Origen and

Heracleon. In their dialogue, Origen even makes some concessions to Heracleon, finding

his understanding of the Jew’s inquisitiveness “not bad” (ouj kakw:V).305 However,

Origen does seem to be confused by many of Heracleon’s statements, noting that he does

not bring “any kind of plausible argument” to establish his points.306 Origen feels that he

is pushing a foreign doctrine, where he does not have the authority to do so. He

concludes that Heracleon’s interpretation is ultimately flawed because “he truly disdains

indeed, in which it is correct to say that Origen saw the whole physical world as a metaphor for spiritual realities” (Heine, "Introduction," in Commentary on John 1-10, 17). I do not think that Origen saw biblical poetry as “devoid of religious value,” as Origen puts great value on its explanation. It seems to me that Origen is led to allegorize history and poetry because he wants to make clear what the meaning is, rather than create more problems by leaving it vague.

303 Ibid., 186–91 (6.66–82). In this section Origen shows that any who believe in a transmigration of the soul to be outside of the Church. He uses the word ejkklhsiastiko;V to refer to the one who holds a correct interpretation on this point, obviously applying the term to himself.

304 The translation is taken from Heine’s translation of Origen’s Commentary. 305 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 200 (6.115). 306 Ibid., 200 (6.111).

91

what is called the Old Testament.”307 Therefore, Heracleon’s interpretation is

“slanderous” (dusfhmovteron), as he considers the whole prophetic order a ‘noise’ in

comparison to the ‘voice’ of the Baptist, and the ‘Word’ of Jesus.308

Origen begins his own interpretation of this verse with a homiletic tone,309

weaving a variety of Old Testament witnesses together in a way that shows that the Old

Testament witness is not a ‘noise’ at all, as Heracleon had supposed. Origen argues that

the Baptist referring to himself as ‘voice’ must be understood in relationship to Jesus as

the Word, and so the Baptist is the voice corresponding to that Word. Analogously,

Origen maintains that just as Moses is said to have been a ‘god’ to Pharaoh, because he

represented God to Pharaoh,310 John analogously proclaims a message as the voice of

God to the Jews.311 Origen wants to be explicit in drawing out the way the whole

prophetic order of the Old Testament was speaking the words of the Father, showing that

we only understand the role of the Baptist as a prophet by comparing him to those who

came before him. Origen then goes on to explain the ‘cry’ of the Baptist in the

‘wilderness’ as being for the purpose of reaching those who have strayed; however,

Origen assures the reader, God is able to hear all, even in their minds.312 Origen

interprets the ‘way of the Lord’ that the Baptist proclaims as referring to the straight path

of the Lord, curbed on the one side by contemplation of the truth and on the other side by

the activity that follows. This is a golden mean that Origen believes is taught in the

307 Ibid., 201 (6.117). 308 Ibid., 199 (6.108). 309 Ibid., 197 (6.102). Note the tone in this passage: “Now the necessity of the voice of the one

crying in the wilderness is that the soul which is devoid of God and destitute of truth (for what other wilderness is harder to deal with than a soul that is bereft of God and all virtue?) because it is still going in a crooked manner and is still in need of teaching, might be exhorted to make straight the way of the Lord.”

310 Exodus 7:1. 311 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 195 (6.96). 312 Ibid., 196–7 (6.100–101).

92

Proverbs: “Decline not to the right had nor to the left.”313 The way is good that leads to

the Good, namely to God, and the prophets are the ones who show us this.

It is notable that before Origen accuses Heracleon of slandering the Old

Testament he demonstrates how knowledge of these Scriptures enlightens John’s Gospel.

He takes examples from all the major sections of the Old Testament, namely the

Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets. First, from the Pentateuch, as

noted above, he interprets the Baptist’s relationship to Jesus as analogous to the

relationship of Moses to God. Second, from the Psalms, Origen derives the meaning of

‘straight’ with reference to Psalm 10:7 (LXX): “For the Lord is just, and he loved justice,

his countenance has beheld straightness.”314 Third, from the Proverbs, as noted above,

Origen sees the straight path as formed by not straying to the left or the right. Last, from

the Prophets he notes that Jeremiah 6:16 shows what the purpose of the ‘way’ is: “This is

what the Lord says: Stand at the roads, and see, and ask for the ancient paths of the Lord,

and see what the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find purification for your

souls.”315 Though this sort of verse-weaving is common for Origen, it is interesting that

he brings to the fore such a variety right before his accusation that Heracleon

inappropriately uses the Old Testament. He thus shows how, when one uses the Old

Testament in this manner, it will guide the believer to salvific interpretation.

Origen presents Heracleon’s interpretation of John 1:23 in a somewhat confusing

manner. He begins by noting that Heracleon’s interpretation is ‘slanderous’ because of

its inappropriate view of John and the prophets. Origen quotes Heracleon as saying, “The

313 Ibid., 198 (6.103). Cf. Prov. 4:27. 314 Ibid. This translation is from Heine’s translation of Origen. The NETS translate it as, “Because

the Lord is righteous and he loved righteous deeds, his face beheld uprightness.” 315 Ibid., 198 (6.104). Origen does not give the verse in full; the translation is from the NETS.

93

Word is the Savior, the voice in the wilderness is that signified by John, and the whole

prophetic order is a noise (hjcoV).”316 Origen immediately contrasts what Heracleon calls

a ‘noise’ with the Pauline understanding from 1 Corinthians 13:1-2, where he describes

that which is without love to be a ‘clanging symbol’.317 This definition, Origen finds, is

totally inappropriate to apply to witnesses that both Paul and Jesus utilized in their own

teaching.318 However, after this, Origen notes that Heracleon teaches that there is some

kind of development from the ‘noise’ to the ‘voice’, and then even to the ‘Word’:

I do not know how, without any explanation, he asserts that the voice which belongs to the Word becomes the Word, as also the woman is changed into a man. And, as though he has the authority to lay down a doctrine and to be believed and to advance, he says that the sound will change into voice, giving the position of a disciple to the voice which changed into the Word, and that of servant to the change from noise to voice. If he had brought any kind of plausible argument to bear to establish these points, we would have struggled to refute them, but as it is, an unsupported denial is sufficient for their refutation.319

Origen does not seem to know what to make of the statements of Heracleon on the

development of the noise to the Word, though Origen does refer to it as an idea outside

of Heracleon’s authority to make, and because it is without plausible argument, it may be

ignored. It is possible that Origen feels that an “unsupported denial” is suitable by way of

response, as he is alluding to Heracleon’s use of myth, which he refutes similarly in other

places, since he recognizes that whether or not one regards these kinds of things to be

authoritative or not depends on what tradition one wishes to follow.320 It also seems that

Origen is offended by Heracleon’s presupposition that some will develop into (or are

already) the actual nature of the Word, and not into his ‘likeness’, as he mentions this as

316 Ibid., 199 (6.108). 317 Ibid., 199 (6.109). 318 Ibid., 199 (6.110). 319 Ibid., 199–200 (6.111). 320 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 93 (13.122).

94

blasphemous later on.321

After dismissing this noise/voice/Word development, Origen focuses on

Heracleon’s resolution of the problem of whether the Baptist is a prophet, or Elijah, or

neither, as it is not clear as to who Jesus claims the Baptist is,322 and the Baptist denies

that he is Elijah or the Prophet.323 Origen explains that Heracleon resolves this issue by

suggesting that the Baptist is Elijah in his ‘attributes’ but not in his person.324 Heracleon

seems to have derived this from the Baptist’s appearance, which resembles that of Elijah.

Origen does not seem to have a problem with this per se, as he does not mention any

fault with the interpretation other than it being unexplained (especially as he compares it

to the chapters he himself has written on the subject). However, Origen does note that

Heracleon is wrong not to find fault with the Jewish teaching of the transmigration of the

soul of Elijah, which Origen has discussed at length previously.325

What Origen is offended by is the way in which Heracleon wants to promote the

Baptist above the other prophets. This promotion, Origen notes, is common among “all

the heterodox, because they have not been able to distinguish a simple ambiguity.”326

This ‘simple ambiguity’ seems to be the inability of the heterodox to understand what

Jesus meant by “among these born of women, no one is greater than John.”327 Origen

feels that the heterodox, Heracleon included, highlight this verse to show that the Old

321 Ibid., 99 (13.148-50). 322 Matthew 11.11; Luke 7:28. 323 John 1:19-21. Raymond Brown finds it most likely that while the Baptist did not think of

himself as Elijah, he took on the role of Elijah, who was expected to christen the Messiah in Jewish thought, without knowing it. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii), The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) 48-9.

324 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 200 (6.112). 325 Ibid., 142–57 (2.175–229), 185–93 (6.62–87). Origen finds, with reservation, that it is most

logical to think that John is a pre-existent angel, who followed Jesus in his incarnation. He proposes this because of John’s response to Jesus in the womb (Lk. 1:41) and because of Jesus’ statements about John’s prominence among the prophets.

326 Ibid., 201 (6.116). 327 Luke 7:28.

95

Testament can be degraded: as revelation of the true Father of the Saviour comes with

Jesus, so the prophet of Jesus is above those in the Old Testament. Heracleon gives

evidence to the prominence of the Baptist by explaining that he is the only prophet who

is in turn prophesied about, noting the quotation of Isaiah in the Gospel. Origen, who

seems to have a stronger grasp of the Old Testament than his opponent, notes that not

only is this not true, citing several examples of prophets who were prophesied about by

other prophets, but that even Elijah, the very prophet that the Baptist is emulating in

dress and style, was prophesied about by other prophets.328

Origen, on the other hand, while agreeing that the Old is made clear by the

New,329 does not see the Old Testament as being of any less value, nor the witness being

of any less worth. Origen magnifies this seemingly small disagreement in order to show

his audience of interpreters the importance of reading Scripture carefully and spiritually,

reinforcing the danger of a heretical interpretation that degrades the Old Testament.

Origen argues that his interpretation of this passage is superior because it uses God’s

whole revelation to understand the part, and thus the passage is able to lead the believer

to salvation, unlike Heracleon, who leads to division from the Church by maligning God.

The Problem of the Natures

The other main problem that Origen sees in the approach of Heracleon and others like

him, is the way he reads the text with a doctrine of determinism in mind. It seems that in

Heracleon’s system different people will respond to Jesus in different ways depending on

328 Ibid., 201 (6.116–8). Cf. Mal. 3.22-3 (LXX). 329 Ibid., 40 (1.33): “[B]efore the coming of Christ, the Law and the prophets did not contain the

proclamation which belongs to the definition of the gospel since he who explained the mysteries in them had not yet come. But since the Saviour had come, and has caused the gospel to be embodied in the gospel, he has made all things gospel, as it were.”

96

the nature of their soul, not, as Origen insists, on the basis of a common free will.330 This

seems to be problematic in a way that the previous problem of the separation of the Old

Testament from the New was not, as John’s Gospel itself seems to portray a kind of

determinism, at least by means of a doctrine of election, which interpreters such as

Heracleon could develop.331 While Origen does not have a problem with election per se,

as he holds a doctrine of grace and is firm on the doctrine of God’s providence,332 he

argues that God’s providence must make room for our free will. Origen recognizes that if

an interpreter negates the place of free will, he creates an inexhaustible excuse for sin in

his congregation and ultimately makes God the creator of evil. As theodicy is Origen’s

primary theological problem, allowing God to be the creator of evil is not acceptable. For

Origen, equality is, therefore, essential; if some are elected to grace, then all are, and God

will eventually direct our wills to this end.

Origen describes the doctrine of determinism in Heracleon, and those like him, as

denying the person free will (aujtexouvsioV) in favor of a doctrine of ‘natures’ (fuvseiV),

where the person acts in correspondence to his pre-ordained internal disposition. It seems

that, for Heracleon, these natures are revealed when people respond to Jesus’ call. If they

respond negatively, in an unchangeable way, they are of an earthly ‘hylic’ nature. 333 If

they need no convincing, but recognize the Savior right away, then they are of the

330 Thomassen, “Heracleon,” 182. Thomassen notes that nothing, in regards to Heracleon, is debated more than his doctrine of determinism. See my discussion of Pagels above for my pessimistic understanding of this discussion.

331 Cf. John 17:6-9. 332 Throughout the Contra Celsum Origen reprimands Celsus, as a supposed Epicurean, for not

believing in God’s providential care, a heresy he believes ought to rotate their positions as persecutor and persecuted, as for Origen, the providence of God acts as a guarantor of political stability, something an Epicurean could not provide.

333 Thomassen, “Heracleon,” 183. Thomassen notes some fluidity between the psychic and the pneumatic, as is seen in the way the Baptist is presented in Book 6. This seems possible, but is not clearly stated by any means, and Origen does not seem to discern such fluidity in Heracleon’s categories. Origen would maintain his criticism regardless of whether or not there were certain levels of receptivity not based on any merit from free choice.

97

‘pneumatic’ nature.334 And if they need some convincing, from the spirituals, who

perceive right away, then they are of the ‘psychic’ nature. To this, Origen asks of what

nature Paul was, as he clearly did not respond to Christ right away, and needed some

fairly heavy convincing.335 Paul seems to be a common authority for Heracleon and

Origen, or at least for Origen and his readers, as Origen seems to assume that calling

upon Paul’s story is an instant refutation of Heracleon’s views. Origen notes that

Heracleon teaches that those who reject the Savior share the same nature as the devil,

while those who accept the Savior immediately, do so because they share the same

nature as God.336 Those in-between, the psychics, seem to be able to choose either way

and develop in either direction; this is also unacceptable to Origen, as, even if all

humanity is in this state of flux, this would negate the common Christian teaching that

we are under some kind of control of Satan and need to be freed by Christus Victor.337

In opposition to this doctrine Origen proposes that all are able to change by

moving towards God, and this is God’s will:

But whenever the fetter responsible for the deafness is destroyed, then one will be able to hear Jesus, at which time he can also know his speech. Or, let those who think that the teaching concerning the natures is also confirmed through these words tell us whether those whom he later healed were able to hear when they were still deaf, or were unable. Now, since it is clear that “they were unable,” it is evident that it is possible to change from not being able to hear Jesus’ words to hearing them, and that the inability to hear is not the result of a nature which is incurable. We must

334 Ibid., 186. Thomassen notes that the theme of ‘immediate recognition’ for the pneumatics can

also be seen in the Tripartite Tractate. 335 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 160 (13.431). 336 Ibid., 241 (20.170): “But now it is clear that he means that some men are of the same essence

(oJmoousivoV) as the devil, being of a different essence than those whom they call psychics or pneumatics, as his followers maintain.”

337 Origen responds to Heracleon’s statement that some are children of the Devil by nature and some by works, by asking, “[H]ow much better it is to declare of all the children of the devil, that they become like him by doing his works, and that they are not called children of the devil because of their essence (th;n oujsivan) and their constitution (th;n kataskeuh;n) independent of their works?” (Ibid., 250–1 [20.213–19]).

98

apply these words especially to the heterodox who rejoice in allegories and refer the story about the healings anagogically to the healings of the soul, when every sickness and every weakness is relieved by Jesus.338

In this quotation, Origen notes three things pertinent to our discussion. First, it is Christ’s

work that destroys our inability to hear God, not anything inherent in ourselves.339

Second, no matter what one’s disposition is, Christ is able to heal it. Last, the ‘heterodox’

are unwilling to accept this, showing that they believe that those who respond to Christ

do so out of an internal disposition. Origen holds that the way the Apostles call for

repentance cannot possibly allow for a doctrine where some are unable to repent.340

There is equality in that we are all children of the Devil to some extent. It is not that

some do not choose to be so, while others are not so by nature. Rather, all are children of

the Devil by their sin, and all need Christ to save them.

Origen also argues that Heracleon’s doctrine of determinism does not make sense

from our physical experience:

To say, therefore, that the same types of imaginations, agreements, thoughts, and memories have occurred in different essences is irrational. But it is foolish to say that some things are partly of the same essence, as though over and above one essence there is also another essence in them… So, then, let them show us the distinctive feature of the one who has received an impression that is better, or worse, or inferior, and let them also attempt to describe the essence that differs from those who have received the mark of the imprints in a similar manner. For since they have not shown it, they will assert it, but they will not prove it.341

338 Ibid., 240–1 (20.165–6). This quotation is commenting on John 8:43: “Why do you not know

my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.” Origen is attempting to show that the ‘cannot’ does not mean that it is impossible to be healed, but simply a matter-of-fact situation for those in his audience.

339 Origen is often charged with being a forerunner to a kind of moralizing ‘Pelagianism’, while some of what Origen writes may lead to this, it seems that God’s grace is the starting point of all salvation, even if we work together with God. Finding Origen as a precursor to a so-called ‘Pelagianism’ is only possible if one holds to a Lutheran strict antagonism of ‘faith’ and ‘works’ (defined in a Lutheran way). See Thomas P. Scheck, Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen's Commentary on Romans (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 13-62.

340 “Their words make it very clear that one is not a son of the devil as a result of creation, nor is any man said to be a son of God because he was so created. It is also clear that one who was previously a son of the devil can become a son of God” (Ibid., 228 [20.106]).

341 Ibid., 249-50 (20.206-10).

99

Origen insists on the basis of human experience that it is impossible for all humans to be

so similar and yet have such drastically different compositions. One must ask: who are

the truly hopeless ones, and why are they this way? Origen even finds some good in

Judas, who was still able to recognize his action for what it was, even if Satan

manipulated his guilt into suicide.342 In distinction from this doctrine of predestined

nature, good or evil, Origen proposes that a human being can choose to attach himself

either to God through a long and thorough cleansing by participation in God, carried

through in the afterlife, or to the opposite, where one can always still choose

differently.343 As Origen maintains that all humans are sinful and liars by their very

nature, they must change their nature and be made ‘gods’ to truly break free.344

This is likely why Origen is offended by the ‘Gnostic’ doctrine that some are by

nature of the same essence as God, as for Origen, even becoming god-like takes training

and discipline, something he wanted to build in his congregation. Origen holds that God

is of a wholly other nature than humans, and to consider ourselves oJmoousivoV with him

342 Ibid., 387 (32.241–2). 343 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 248–9 (6.295–8): “For he who has admitted evil into the

depth of his own soul to such an extent that he has become thorn-producing earth has to be cut down by the living and effectual word of God which is more piercing than any two-edged sword and more capable of burning than any fire. That fire which discovers thorns, and which, because of its own divinity, will stop them and not in addition set the threshing floors or fields of grain on fire, will need to be sent to such a soul.”

344 Ibid., 261 (20.266-7): “Now, we have presented these comments that we may flee being men with all our strength, and hasten to become ‘gods’ [Ps. 81:6 LXX] since, indeed, insofar as we are men, we are liars, just as also the father of the lie is a liar. Now, it is in the same way that we participate in one and the same name and in the reality indicated by the name. I am referring to us, so long as we continue to be men, and to the devil, who is said to be a liar.” Unfortunately, we do not have space to go over Origen’s doctrines of theosis and apokatastasis. For a good overview, see Illaria Ramelli, “Origen’s Doctrine of Apokatastasis,” in Origeniana Decima, ed. Sylwia Kaczmarek and Henryk Pietras (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2011), 645-70.

100

is blasphemous.345 Origen notes that Heracleon even attributes this homoousion title of

‘spiritual’ to the Samaritan woman of John 4:7-26, who, though accepting Jesus, was full

of sin, and to consider that God is of the same nature as she, is to consider God capable

of her fornication, which is unacceptable. Origen states: “And if the spiritual nature,

which is of the same substance with the divine nature, was capable of committing

fornication, it is dangerous to even imagine how many unholy, godless, and impious

things follow of the doctrine of God so far as they are concerned.”346

This danger is compounded for Origen when one realizes that Heracleon believes

that divine kinship gives him, and those like him, the unique ability to interpret the

Scriptures, a discipline that Origen himself was attempting to develop in his readers

through his Commentary. Origen rejects “those who introduce the fable (muqopoiivan)

concerning different natures (fuvsei) and say that there are sons of God by nature who

also, by their original constitution (prwvthV kataskeuh:V), are uniquely capable of

receiving the words of God because of their kinship with God….”347 Origen recognizes

that if people do not cleanse themselves, they cannot truly interpret, as they will read

their own sin into Scripture looking for excuse.348 Origen indicates that this is especially

dangerous for “those who are uncritical and incapable of replying to their [i.e. those who

introduce the fable concerning different natures] persuasive use of the text.”349 Origen

wants to make clear that it is not by the power of persons themselves that they are saved,

or even able to read, for

345 M.J. Edwards, “Christ or Plato? Origen on Revelation and Anthropology,” in Christian

Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Community, ed. Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (London: Routledge, 1998), 17.

346 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 99–100 (13.150). 347 Ibid., 265 (13.287). 348 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 163. 349 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 265 (20.288).

101

[t]hose who are not of God do not have any power at all to become children of God before they have received the true light. Moreover, once they receive the true light they do not yet become children of God, but they receive power to become children of God because they have received the light. Then, when they have come to be of God, they also hear his words, and no longer only simply believe, but now also perceive the realities of religion in a more discerning manner.350

Origen maintains that the ‘Gnostics’ remain in ignorance of the truth, as they are content

to stay in their ways. He points to Paul in Ephesians 2:3, where he says that we are all

“by nature children of wrath,” noting that the only way we can escape this is to “love

your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may become sons of your

Father who is in heaven.”351

For Origen, the doctrine of free will is essential to his understanding of salvation,

and thus to theodicy. He regards it as part of his received rule of faith, and thus as

unquestionable.352 To Origen, Heracleon’s doctrine of natures undermines this freedom,

and thus gives an excuse for evil and makes God its creator.353 We must be able to

choose whether or not to follow God, or else we cannot be held responsible for our

actions. If interpreting Scripture is intended to lead us to salvation, how might reading it

350 Ibid., 265–6 (20.288). 351 Ibid., 266 (20.290). Cf. Matt. 5:44-5 352 Origen, On First Principles, 4 (praef 5). “This is also laid down in the Church’s teaching, that

every rational soul is possessed of free will and choice; and also, that it is engaged in a struggle against the devil and his angels and the opposing powers.” Origen proposes this doctrine against the common astral determinism of his day, but it is just as applicable in this situation. This is also seen in Origen’s outline of the rule of faith given in Book 32, where it is connected with the Holy Spirit who chastises sin and rewards good (32.189).

353 Elaine Pagels argues that Origen creates his doctrine of aujtexouvsia in order to counter Heracleon’s biblical doctrine of grace and election, thus introducing foreign philosophical concepts that stand against Heracleon’s biblical exposition (Pagels, Johannine Gospel, 104). However, Origen states that he takes the doctrine on the authority of tradition, even if it is something of a pet doctrine for him. I do not see a problem in Origen leading Heracleon to his logical conclusions, especially as his goal is not to note what Heracleon believes, but to show his readers the dangers of his interpretation. Some may consider Origen to bring this doctrine in the back door because of his own fondness for it, placing it in his list of received doctrine because he likes it so much. This conspiratorial argument does not seem to take Origen’s understanding of the purpose of first principles adequately, and if there is divergence between Origen’s list of received doctrine and other Father’s, this is more likely due to the geographic isolation and rudimentary communication that goes along with being a persecuted group in an ancient time.

102

with the presupposition that one is already of the nature of God change his response to its

message? To Origen, even the Devil must be responsible for his actions and have the

same kind of will as we do, or else God would be responsible for what the Devil does.354

When discussing John 1:3, which states that through the Word ‘all things’ were

created, Origen is led to some ontological speculation where he postulates that evil does

not have any existence in and of itself; it is not really a ‘thing’.355 Evil is

“ajnupovstaton,”356 without substance or essence, “neither from the beginning nor will it

be forever,” as God only creates good things.357 Origen states:

According to us who boast that we belong to the Church [i.e., not Heracleon], it is the good God who speaks these words [referring to Esther C 4:22 LXX].358 This is the same God the Savior honors when he says, “No one is good except God, the Father.” The one who is good, therefore, is the same as the one who is. But evil or wickedness is opposite to the good, and “not being” is opposite to “being.” It follows that wickedness and evil are “not being.”359

It seems that Origen needs to reinforce this ontological speculation in the face of those

who degrade the Old Testament creator, depicting him as making something over which

he had no control, or as creating evil out of ignorance. Thus, Origen states that “all,

therefore, who share (metevconteV) in ‘being’—and the saints share in it—would properly

be called ‘those who are’ (o[ntoV). But those who have turned away from sharing in

354 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 241 (20.171). 355 Origen also deals with this issue in Contra Celsum 6.55, where he affirms the same thing.

Chadwick notes a similar theory was expounded by Maximus Tyrius, Marcus Aurelius, and Sextus Empiricus; giving it a certain Stoic flare. For a more thorough treatment see Mark S. M. Scott, Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 27-32.

356 See Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, 164. 357 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 118 (2.93). 358 Esther C 4:22 “O Lord, do not surrender your scepter to those who don’t exist (mh; o’nta tou;V

ejcqrou;V), and do not let them laugh at our downfall, but turn their plan against them, and make a public example of him who began this against us.” It seems that Origen has to reach for this one a bit, not finding a clear biblical example for this typically Stoic doctrine that fits especially well in Christian doctrine which holds that God created everything good from nothing, holds all things together, and is not responsible for the evil that ensues.

359 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 119 (2.96).

103

‘being’ have, by having deprived themselves of ‘being,’ become ‘those who are not (oujk

o[nteV)’.”360 Only that which God creates has real being and can exist in God’s eventual

restoration, while that which is ‘not’ will be burned away by the refining fire.

When Origen reads in Heracleon that he understands John 1:3 as teaching that the

Word created “the cosmos and what is in it,” but not “the aeon nor the things in the

aeon,” he is convinced he has located a serious problem in Heracleon’s exegesis, because

such teaching is beyond the scope of the Church’s doctrine.361 Origen states that

Heracleon believes that the “aeons” were created before the Word, and thus cannot have

been created by him,362 and that the Word created the cosmos through the creator, not the

other way around, as the Church teaches.363 He notes that if John had wanted to say what

Heracleon holds, he would not have written what he had, but would have noted the

subordination of the Creator to the Savior, and not the other way around. Origen finds

this a seriously distorted reading, which is “without warrant from Scripture” and “a

private understanding [to;n kaq j eJauto;n nou:n].”364 Origen, un-privately, holds to the

doctrine that God the Father created all on the basis of the authority of the Church (much

in the way that he defends free will),365 and he insists that if Heracleon wants to teach

otherwise, he wrongly considers “himself worthy to be believed like the prophets or

360 Ibid., 120 (2.98). 361 Ibid., 120 (2.100). 362 Ibid. 363 Ibid., 121 (2.102). 364 Ibid., 120 (2.101). 365 Origen, On First Principles, 2 (pref.4), 4–5 (pref.7). “First, that God is one, who created and

set in order all things, and who, when nothing existed, caused the universe to be…. The Church teaching also includes the doctrine that this world was made and began to exist at a definite time and that by reason of its corruptible nature it must suffer dissolution.” This inclusion of God as creator is also in the summary of the rule of faith in Book 32 (CJn 32.187).

104

apostles who, in an authoritative manner and beyond criticism, left writings of salvation

for their contemporaries and those who would come after themselves.”366

In Origen’s understanding, since God cannot be responsible for creating evil, as it

does not have real existence, then whatever the Devil is, he is a result of his own

falling.367 It follows that one cannot be created in the nature of the devil, as he is the way

he is as the result of his own will, not as the result of his created nature. Origen deals

with this problem when he interprets John 8:43-44, “Why do you not know my speech?

Because you cannot hear my word. You are from your father the devil, and you choose

to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in

the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own

nature (ejk tw:n ijdivwn), for he is a liar and the father of lies.” It is clear why Origen is

concerned to outline precisely what is meant in this passage, as it seems that John is

saying that the Jews to whom he is speaking have no choice but to be the way they are,

that is, like the devil. Origen notes that “the text is ambiguous (ajmfivboloV),” and thus he

feels the need to clarify it so as to eliminate dangerous interpretations.368

This problem with the text becomes multiplied when Heracleon takes the text in

the direction that Origen does not want, emphasizing the lies that are said to be according

to the nature of the devil are his oujsiva, and that those that are like him in action are

oJmoousivoi.369 Heracleon maintains that the Jews who reject Jesus in this scene are

366 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 121 (2.101). 367 Ibid., 119 (2.97): “For insofar as he is the devil, he is not a creation of God, but to the extent

that it falls to the devil ‘to be,’ being made since there is no creator except our God, he is a creation of God.”

368 Origen, Commentary on John 13-32, 241–2 (20.171–2). To be clear, the ajmfivboloV nature of the text is more related to the grammar than the meaning. However, Origen also finds the meaning to be dependent on the way the grammar is understood.

369 Ibid., 241 (20.168): “Heracleon however, assumes that the reason for their inability to hear Jesus’ word and to know his speech is explained in the statement, ‘you are of your father the devil.’ He

105

representative of those who are of the lowest nature, that of the devil. These hylics are

known to be of this nature by their hatred of Christ, as they do not display the

indecisiveness of the psychics, or the immediate acceptance of the pneumatics.

Heracleon states, “some men are of the same essence (oJmoousivouV) as the devil, being of

a different essence than those whom they call psychics or pneumatics.”370 Heracleon also

believes that “the devil does not have a will, but has desires,” and that others can also

become this way by doing the evil desires of the devil.371 As these desires point towards

“error and ignorance (plavnhV kai; ajgnoivaV),” Heracleon finds the devil to be more

“unfortunate rather than blameworthy.”372 Heracleon understands that this specific text is

“not addressed to the earthly people who are sons of the devil by nature, but the psychics

who become sons of the devil by adoption.”373 As was noted above, Heracleon believed

the psychic state to be one of flux, while he considered the other two as static.

Origen will not have any of this, and he presents the doctrine of Heracleon in an

antagonistic manner. He argues that those who cannot hear, cannot hear because of their

sin, and that this deafness can be relieved by Jesus if the person is willing.374 We make

the devil our father when we participate in his actions, and in turn then participate in the

lowly nature into which he has fallen.375 Origen notes that all humans are made in the

says, at any rate, in his own words, ‘and why can you not hear my word, other than that you are of your father the devil?’ This means, ‘of the essence (oujsivaV) of the devil,’ and further makes their nature (fuvsin) clear to them. He had rebuked them previously because they were neither children of Abraham, otherwise they would not have hated him, nor of God, because they did not love him.” In the original quote from John, there is no mention of oujsiva, even though it is implied in the phrase tw:n ijdivwn.

370 Ibid. 371 Ibid., 250 (20.211–14). 372 Ibid., 259 (20.254). 373 Ibid., 250 (20.213). 374 Ibid., 240 (20.165–6). 375 Ibid., 244 (20.181).

106

image of God, even though we have been moulded into something else due to sin.376

Origen notes that we can choose to develop what is true in ourselves, that is, our spiritual

nature, or what we have been moulded into, that is, the earthly nature. The word ‘desire’

(ejpiqumiva), from verse 44, sticks out to Origen, as pointing to the way in which one

comes to have the Devil as his father. He notes that ejpiqumiva does not have either a

negative or a positive connotation in Scripture, even if it does with the Greeks, as

Scripture reveals that both God and the devil have desires.377 Origen finds it a mystery

why some follow God and others reject him, though he assures his readers that all have

been given adequate powers of reason to make their own decisions.378

Origen then rejects Heracleon’s idea that the reason some respond to Christ and

others do not because of their nature as “the most absurd thing conceivable,” since it

“will construct a defense for him that removes him from all responsibility for his

wickedness, and will lay the blame on the one who invested him with being and created

him.”379 Origen holds that if someone is so different from another that he is of a totally

different essence, then such a person will have a totally different way of functioning;

376 Ibid., 244–5 (20.182): “Because, therefore, the first man fell away from the superior things and desired a life different from the superior life, he desired to be a beginning neither of something created nor made, but ‘of something molded by the Lord, made to be mocked by his angels.’ [Jb. 40.19 LXX] Now, our true substance (hJ prohgoumevnh uJpostasivV) too is in our being according to the image of the Creator, by the substance resulting from guilt is in the thing molded, which was received from the dust of the earth.” It is interesting to note here that Origen says only the first man fell away, not all humanity, pointing away from the commonly held supposition that Origen believed in a doctrine of the pre-existence of human souls.

377 Ibid., 245–7 (20.184–93). Origen here contrasts ejpiqumiva with bouvlhma, noting that the ‘Greeks’ find the latter rational and the former not. Heine footnotes a similar usage of ‘desire’ in the third-century Stoic Diogenes Laertius. Origen does not seem to have a problem disagreeing with Diogenes as long as he is being true to Scripture, as for Origen, the true nature of ejpiqumiva is revealed in Scripture not the Stoics, even if they are helpful in other areas.

378 Ibid., 248 (20.200–1): “For just as in these matters the essence is not different, but some reason for misunderstanding and overlooking supervenes, so since everything has been disposed by nature to follow reason, the essence, as a consequence, is the same whether it accepts reason or refuses it. For we could not say, in the case of us humans, in what respect that which follows reason differs from that which does not, although after understanding what is said, one makes a decision and assents to what is said, and another rejects it.”

379 Ibid., 249 (20.202).

107

however, all humans seem to remember, think, and imagine the same way; so, how could

Heracleon’s supposition be accurate?380 Origen insists that the devil is the ‘father of lies’

not due to his essence, but because “he creates his own deception himself,” and he was

the first to do so.381 Humans, who Origen notes from Psalm 115:2 are also all liars,382 can

only participate in truth if they participate in Christ.383 Origen maintains this because he

believes that it would be impossible for any rational being not to be able to think

anything true.384 Thus, it is immoral to take away the choice of the Devil (and those who

act like him) to be the way he is, for it takes away his blame.385

Conclusion

As Origen seeks to counter the teachings of Heracleon on the two issues of the separation

of the Old Testament and the New and the problem of the natures, the question of how

Scripture ought to be interpreted is always present. According to Origen, Heracleon has

departed from the rule of faith, as Origen understands it to be handed down to him, and

thus Heracleon is not able to read Scripture according to God’s intended end, the

salvation of humanity. Heracleon, by demoting the God of the Old Testament to an

ignorant creator, has not only misunderstood the Old Testament, but the New as well.

Heracleon cannot even understand who the Baptist is, as it is necessary to have the Old

380 Ibid., 249–50 (20.203–10). 381 Ibid., 257 (20.244): “And the reason why truth is not in him is that he has been deceived and

accepts lies, and he has himself been deceived by himself. On this basis he is reckoned to be worse that the rest of these who are deceived, since they are deceived by him, but he creates his own deception himself.”

382 Ibid., 257 (20.241). 383 Ibid., 257 (20.245–6). When looking at the phrase, ‘truth is not in him’, Origen questions, “[i]s

it, for example, that he never has a true opinion, but that everything he ever thinks is false? Or is it that he does not participate (metevcei) in Christ, since those who participate in Christ participate in the one who said, ‘I am the truth’?”

384 Ibid., 258 (20.247–51). 385 Ibid., 259 (20.254).

108

Testament contextualize what a prophet is before one can understand the role of the

Baptist as the one preparing Israel for Jesus. Though Origen’s countering Heracleon may

have led him to a subordination of the Son to the Father, Origen acknowledges that in

order to fully understand the Father of the Old Testament, one needs Jesus to begin his

ascent. In this ascent from Jesus to the Father, one enters a hermeneutic spiral upwards,

as the Logos guides the reader through the Old Testament Scriptures and the New alike.

To Origen, Heracleon’s adoption of foreign mythology leads him away from this

salvific reading, as it tells the reader that he is saved by his own created nature. This

understanding of reality, according to Origen, will lead the reader to read his own

sinfulness into the Scriptures, and to downplay the hard, salvific, work that is involved in

interpretation. As Origen sought to guide the Church to holiness through spiritual

interpretation in his Commentary, a doctrine that stated that people are by nature

‘spiritual’ or not, could not do, especially as it went against the rule of faith. Origen was

convinced that this teaching would breed immorality and effectually place all blame for

evil on God. To Origen, even the Devil must be responsible for his sin, as evil cannot

have real existence in a world sustained and created by a good God.

109

5. SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION FOR TRANSFORMATION IN ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON JOHN

One thing that is immediately noticeable from reading Origen’s Commentary on John,

especially if one is familiar with his other biblical exegesis, is how little allegory there is

on its pages.386 In fact, if someone had read only the first two Books of the Commentary,

he would not see much allegory at all; the only thing coming close would be Origen’s

explanation of John the Baptist. This lack of allegory seems to be due to the fact that the

genre of the prologue to John’s Gospel is more blatantly theological than the historical

narrative of the rest of the Gospel, even if this historical narrative is theologically

structured. The theological nature of the prologue gives Origen the impetus to speak

theologically without needing to look for a “deeper meaning” (baquvteron lovgon), as he

does when commenting on the more historical aspects.387 The move to allegory ought not

lead us to think that Origen prized the narrative of the Gospel any less than its prologue,

simply because the former required allegorical interpretation to raise it to a higher level.

For Origen, God revealing himself as Logos, light, and life, gave him much to speak on

theologically—and also much to correct in Heracleon. While it is true that the prologue

gave Origen much to think about, he understands that Scriptural history, opened up by

386 Defining the term ‘allegory’ can be difficult, especially as it relates to Origen’s own term,

‘spiritual interpretation’. I take the classic definition of allegory, where A stands for B; for example, Origen always interprets Jerusalem to stand for the Church. While some have sought to make a distinction between ‘typology’ and ‘allegory’, arguing a greater and lesser degree of relation between the type and it’s signifier, this is hard to do with Origen, as the terms seem somewhat interchangeable. For Origen, the verbal signifiers that cause one to note an allegory are part of his theology of spiritual interpretation, called ‘spiritual’ because the interpreter is guided by the Spirit of God to recognize where a providential arrangement in the text has occurred. The best breakdown I have read on Origen’s interpretive terminology is in P. Tzamalikos, Origen: Philosophy of History and Eschatology (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 26-36.

387 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 142 (2.175). This juxtaposition of historical narrative over against theological treatise can also help us understand why the whole Commentary is less allegorical than Origen’s other exegesis, as John’s Gospel is overall more theologically explicit about the truths that were revealed in Christ’s actions.

110

spiritual interpretation, has the unique ability to raise the reader to God, aiding in the

hard work of sanctification.

In this chapter, I will explore two different allegories that Origen investigates in

his Commentary on John. I will begin with looking into his understanding of the sandal

of Jesus that the Baptist was unworthy to untie (cf. Jn. 1:26-27). Subsequently, I will turn

to the scene of the cleansing of the Temple (cf. Jn. 2:15), where Origen explores the

meaning of the cleansing of the Temple and the ass and the colt that are used in the

triumphal entry (cf. Mt. 21:2). Though these are not all the allegories in the Commentary,

they give us a good sample of how Origen understood the purpose of allegory with

regard to the spiritual interpretation of the Gospel. While in the previous chapter we

focused on specific doctrinal problems Origen found in Heracleon’s exegesis, and how

these problems disrupted the salvific function of Scripture, here we are able to focus on

Origen’s spiritual interpretation, only referring to Heracleon as he comes up in Origen’s

argument. We will find that Origen uses these allegories as a means to build up the

spiritual development of his readers; as he guides them through the ascent of spiritual

interpretation, he hopes they will be purified. To Origen, Scripture has a special way of

sanctifying the believer, not simply through its moral messages, but the act of

interpreting causes the reader to participate in the Spirit of God sacramentally.388

388 In Origen’s On Prayer, a work seeking to develop a Christian doctrine of prayer in opposition

to the fatalism of Origen’s patron Ambrose’s former Valentinianism, Origen develops a link between prayer and spiritual interpretation which is helpful in clarifying what he believes his is doing. He states, “For I wish to turn those who yearn for the spiritual life in Christ away from praying for little and earthly things and to urge those who read this treatise on to the mysteries of which what I said before were types. For every prayer for the spiritual mysteries reserved beforehand for us is always perfected by the person fighting not according to the flesh [cf. 2 Cor. 10:3] but putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit [cf. Rom. 8:13], since those who seek for the spiritual meaning by careful examination are preferred above those who set before their minds on the basis of the obvious and literal meaning the benefits that will come to those who pray. And we must train ourselves to not be childless or barren when we hear the spiritual Law as spiritual people….” (Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, and Selected Works, trans.

111

Jesus’ Sandal

The first element we will explore is Origen’s treatment of John 1:26-7: “John answered

them, ‘I baptize with water. Among you stands one (e{sthken) whom you do not

know, the one who is coming after me; I am not worthy (a[xioV) to untie the thong of his

sandal.’” The Baptist, in this passage, is answering the last of a series of questions from

some Pharisees concerning his identity and the meaning of his practice of baptizing.

Throughout this question-and-answer period recorded in John’s Gospel, the Baptist had

been cryptic with the Pharisees, and, in his final response, he notes his allegiance to one

who is still coming and yet somehow is ‘among’ them. In Origen’s exegesis of this

passage, three main things stuck out to him: (1) the meaning of John’s baptism of

repentance against Jesus’ baptism of the Spirit, (2) how it is that Jesus was ‘among’ the

Pharisees while clearly not being there when John replied, and (3) what can be meant by

John saying that he was not worthy to untie Jesus’ sandal. After comparing John’s

version of the story to the Synoptic accounts, Origen draws out the peculiarities of each,

showing how the Baptist was able to divulge a variety of truths through similar

encounters with the Jewish leaders. In this section of Origen’s Commentary, he seeks to

show the readers how their spiritual interpretation of Jesus’ sandal can guide them to Rowan A. Greer [Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988.], 107). Just previous to this, Origen demonstrates how this prayer of spiritual interpretation transforms the reader into the likeness of God, so he might see him as he is: “What David says is, ‘To you have I lifted up my eyes, you who dwell in heaven’ (Ps. 123:1) and ‘To you, O God, have I lifted my soul’ (Ps. 25:1). For the eyes of the mind are lifted up from their preoccupation with earthly things and from their being filled with the impression of material things. And they are so exalted that they peer beyond the created order and arrive at the sheer contemplation of God and at conversing with him reverently and suitably as He listens. How would things so great fail to profit those eyes that gaze at the glory of the Lord with unveiled face and that are being changed into His likeness from glory to glory (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18)? For then they partake of some divine and intelligible radiance. This is demonstrated by the verse ‘The light of your countenance, O Lord, has been signed upon us’ (Ps. 4:6). And the soul is lifted up and following the Spirit is separated from the body. Not only does it follow the Spirit, it even comes to be in Him” (ibid., 99). These passages demonstrate well how Origen connected the divine pedagogy of spiritual interpretation with his doctrine of theosis.

112

purity and insight into the greatness of God, humanity’s comparatively humble state, and

humanity’s need to ascend to God.

Unlike other sections of exposition, Origen both begins and ends with mentioning

Heracleon’s exegesis. As the Baptist had been elusive during the question-and-answer

period recoded in the Gospel, Heracleon argues that he ignored the Pharisee’s question

and answered “what he himself wished.”389 Origen does not find this to be appropriate,

as he understands the Baptist to have answered ingeniously, and he finds that Heracleon

“is accusing the prophet of stupidity.”390 To Origen, the Baptist stood as an example of

righteousness for us, and as he was respected by Jesus, he could not be so ignorant as to

not know how to answer the question, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the

Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” Instead, the Baptist gives an enigmatic response,

so that his words might be pregnant with meaning for those coming later, who might

look deeper into them. In fact, Origen postulates that several of these encounters between

the Baptist and the Pharisees had happened, and each time the Baptist gave a slightly

different response depending on the enigma that he was concealing in his words; thus

accounting for the various versions found in the gospels.391

To Origen, the Baptist wanted to show the superiority of Christ, and so, in

answering why he was baptizing even though he is not the messiah, he says that he

389 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 212 (6.153). 390 Ibid. 391 Here, Origen almost sounds like an ancient Josh McDowell in the way he notes that the

variances in recordings are a result of similar events, not error in the part of the Evangelist: “Consequently, since no one of these evangelists errs or lies, as those who believe would say, the Baptist have made both statements, but at different times, moved in his understanding now in one way, now in another. For those whose records differ have not, as some think, reported about the same things, as if they remembered inaccurately each of the things which were said or happened” (CJn., 217 [6.171–2]). It can then be seen that Origen would not hastily jump to the conclusion that the Spirit had placed a ‘stumbling-block’ in the history, as he notes in other places where gospel accounts do not align (see Origen, On First Principles, 285-7 [4.2.9]).

113

baptizes with “water,” noting the corporeal nature of his baptism, while Christ baptizes

with “Spirit.” In order then to further glorify Christ, the Baptist points to “the preeminent

essence of Christ, whose power is such that although he is invisible in his deity, he is

present with every man and is coextensive with [sumparekteinovmenoV; literally,

‘stretched out side by side with’] everything, including the whole universe. This is

revealed by the words, ‘He has stood in your midst.’”392 Here the Baptist relates just how

far above him Jesus is, as he is not even “worthy to untie the thong of his sandal.” Origen

understands that John is relaying something great here, as “He is hinting that that he is

not sufficient to loose and explain the word about his incarnation which has been bound,

as it were, and hidden to those who do not understand, so as to say anything worthy of so

great a sojourn which was compressed into so short a time.”393 Origen, taking the sandal

of Jesus as a symbol of the incarnation, and its ‘latched’ character as a symbol of the

mystery that surrounds it, directs the readers to their own inability to understand the

incarnation, as they are not above the Baptist.

Origen then compares this understanding of the Baptist’s general message to that

of the Synoptic Gospels.394 Beginning with Matthew 3:11,395 a Gospel that Origen notes

was intended for the Hebrew believers,396 Origen focuses his attention on the baptism of

the Baptist, as he finds Matthew to add that the baptism was “for repentance” (ejn

392 Ibid., 212 (6.154), square brackets mine. P. Tzamalikos notes that the word sumparekteinovmenoV is a good example of how Origen adapted a Stoic term, which related to the immanence of God, while avoiding Stoic pantheism, and also accounting for God’s transcendence, accompanying Origen’s use of the term ‘diavsthma’ (P. Tzamalikos, “Origen and the Stoic View of Time,” Journal of the History of Ideas 52 [1991]: 545-48).

393 Ibid., 213 (6.157). 394 It is possible that Origen was utilizing all the ‘received’ Gospels in opposition to some heretics,

who may have chosen one specific Gospel against the others, as Marcion had chosen an edited version of Luke. By doing this, Origen is presenting how useful it is to keep to the received Scriptures, and how bringing them together does not compound problems, but opens up the real meaning of each text.

395 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy (iJkano;V) to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

396 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 214 (6.162).

114

metavnoian). Origen notes here that through this baptism of repentance the Baptist was

intending to prepare the Jews for the message of Jesus, and for his spiritual baptism that

will give them rebirth. Unlike the Baptist’s baptism, Jesus baptism is “a symbol

(suvmbolon) of the soul’s purification as it washes from itself all the filth which comes

from evil, is no less also in itself the beginning and source of divine gifts to the one who

hands himself over to the divinity of the power of the invocation of the venerable Trinity,

‘For there are diversities of gifts [1Cor. 12:4].’”397 Origen focuses on the regenerative

aspect of Christian baptism, adding to John’s baptism of repentance; it is a ‘symbol’ like

Jesus’ miraculous physical healings, though the symbol of baptism heals spiritual

ailments, ultimately aiding one’s progression to God.

Origen then moves to a treatment of Mark 1:7-8,398 where he focuses on the

meaning of the sandal of Jesus as his incarnation. Origen notes that, unlike any other

Gospel account, Mark records that the Baptist is not worthy to ‘stoop down’ (kuvyaV),

and so Origen looks into why he might include this. As Origen assumes Jesus had two

sandals, he attempts to understand what two descents each sandal is representing.399 As

he found the first to be Jesus’ incarnation, the second ought to be the Descensus ad

inferos.400 Origen postulates that for us to ‘stoop down’ is to seek to understand the

purpose of Christ’s descents. Origen himself quotes Paul in Romans 14:9, which notes

397 Ibid., 216 (6.166). 398 “He proclaimed, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy

(iJkano;V) to stoop down (kuvyaV) and untie the thong of his sandals (tw:n uJpodhmavtwn). I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit’.”

399 In the Synoptic account ‘sandal’ is in the plural (tw:n uJpodhmavtwn), while in John it is singular (tou: uJpodhvmatoV). Origen notes this later on, when explaining John’s passage, that when John originally said that he was not able to loose the ‘sandal’ (in the singular), he was not yet aware that it was Jesus who would meet him after his beheading (Origen finds Matthew to note this in the Baptist’s question to Jesus on whether they ought to wait for another in Mt. 11:3), later on he realizes this and refers to not being able to loose the ‘sandals’ in the plural, as recorded in the Synoptics (CJn 6.184-7).

400 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 218 (6.174). Origen cites 1Peter 3:18-20 and Pslam 15:10 (LXX) for scriptural proof of this.

115

that Jesus died and arose to become Lord of all, dead or alive. However meaningful

asking this question of the purpose of the incarnation might be, Origen notes that neither

Luke nor John mention the ‘stooping down’, and thus it might not be necessary to start

with ‘stooping down’ to understand Christ’s work on earth. Origen notes that the goal of

Christ is to make us able to “behold the Word as he actually is, without the shoes,

stripped of inferior things, the son of God.”401 To Origen, the incarnation’s ultimate end

is to guide the believer to a clear vision of God “as he actually is,” which, in turn, is also

Origen’s final goal in guiding the reader through the allegory of the shoe of Jesus.

Not seeming to find anything of interest in Luke 3:16,402 Origen begins to fill out

the initial understanding of John 1:26-27 as it relates to the Synoptic versions he has

expounded. Origen focuses on two aspects of these vereses in this section. First, the deals

with difference between being ‘worthy’ (a[xioV) to loose the sandal, as is recorded in

John’s account, and being ‘sufficient’ (iJkano;V), as is recorded in the Synoptic tradition.

Origen holds that “it is possible for one to be sufficient although he is not worthy, and it

is possible for one who is worthy not yet to be sufficient,” as God gives gifts to those

who are not worthy in hopes that they will become so, and also does not give gifts to

those who are already sufficient providentially, so they do not become conceited when

the gift is given.403 Origen, quoting Sirach 18:5, notes that no matter how our moral

nature might strive to become worthy of loosing the strap of Jesus’ incarnation, “[w]hen

401 Ibid., 219 (6.179). 402 “John answered all of them by saying, ‘I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful

than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire’.”

403 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 219 (6.180–1). Origen separates himself from what might become a ‘Pelagian’ moralism, noting that “it is a proper quality of the goodness of God to conquer the one who is being benefitted while he is benefitting him, taking in advance the one who will be worthy and, before he becomes worthy, adorning him with sufficiency that, after the sufficiency he might reach the point of being worthy” (Ibid., 219 [6.181]).

116

a man has finished, then he begins, and when he has ceased, then he shall be at a loss.”404

It seems that, at least from our vantage point, we will strive forever to understand these

mysteries.

Second, Origen explores the statement, “He whom you do not know has stood

(e[sthken) in your midst,” where he expands upon his introductory statement made in the

beginning of the section that these words refer to the sustaining nature of the Word.

Origen notes that, not only has the Word created all things (cf. Jn. 1:3), but he also “has

permeated (pefoivthken) all creation,” which Origen finds most evident in the spiritual

nature of the “ruling principle.”405 Origen argues that the Word is present in all, as he is

true rationality, despite us not knowing it. It is because of this participation of our

rationality in the Word that we are able to wash ourselves, following the Baptist’s call to

repentance, and thus to allow Christ to sojourn into us.406 Origen seems to emphasize this

characteristic of the Logos in the face of Heracleon, who takes the phrase, “He stands in

your midst,” as meaning he has simply just arrived, insinuating that he was not

previously present with the Jewish people.407 To Origen, it is impossible to say that the

Logos has just come, as he is eternally present, and it would be anathema to think that he

was not inspiring the prophecy of Isaiah or David.408

404 Ibid., 220 (6.183). Origen seems to be pointing towards Gregory of Nyssa’s doctrine of infinite

epektasis, more readily seen in Origen’s First Principles: “We must not think, however, that it [being united with God] will happen all of a sudden, but gradually and by degrees, during the lapse of infinite and immeasurable ages…” (Origen, On First Principles, 251 [3.6.6]).

405 Ibid., 221 (6.188–9). 406 Ibid., 222 (6.191–2). 407 Ibid., 222 (6.194). Heracleon does not seem to take into consideration the perfect tense of the

verb i{sthmi as it stands in John’s Gospel (e[sthken) as Origen had done. 408 Ibid., 223 (6.195–7). Origen notes after this that Heracleon takes the shoe of Jesus to be the

whole world, and the Baptist to be representative of the Creator. Besides Origen finding the Creator to be subject to the Word to be “the greatest of all impieties,” Origen seems to be impressed with some aspects of Heracleon’s interpretation. Origen, however, does not agree with it because it does not seem to align with Is. 66:1, where God states that heaven and earth are his footstool, which is referred to in Mt. 5:34-5 also. Origen finds it much more reasonable to account for “the ceaseless movement of so great a heaven

117

As it is Origen’s goal with this passage to guide believers to develop their

receptivity to the Logos who permeates all things, readings such as the one he proposes

in reference to the Jesus’ sandal are intended to help the reader gain this receptivity.

Origen reminds the reader that not even the Baptist was worthy of understanding the

incarnation, while the incarnation is precisely our key to becoming like God. If we are to

look to the Baptist as an example of witness, then we ought to take up his humility.

Origen wants his reader to seek the mystery of Christ’s incarnation, while recognizing

their humble place in front of the one who permeates all things and yet became like us to

lead us back to God.

Cleansing the Temple and the Triumphal Entry

The next allegory of Origen that we will look at is in reference to Jesus’ triumphal entry

and cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem. Origen begins by recounting the story in John’s

Gospel of Jesus going up to Jerusalem for the Passover after changing water into wine in

Cana. Upon arriving at the Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus is filled with anger over the

market-like atmosphere and decides to clean house with a makeshift whip.409 As with

regard to the previous story of the Baptist, so here Origen has the Synoptics to compare.

However, while it is easy for Origen to imagine the Baptist answering the questions of

which brings so great a multitude of stars around with itself from east to west” from “the Father and the Son,” not from an ignorant creator in the beginning and a saviour who has just come (Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 224 [6.201-3]).

409 John 2:13-17: “The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, ‘Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!’ His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for your house will consume me.’”

118

the Pharisees on several occasions, it is much harder to think that Jesus cleared the

temple more than once, if he in fact did it at all.

Origen finds the most glaring inconsistency to be in the variety of chronologies in

which the event took place; while in John it is the second major act of Jesus, in the

Synoptics it is the event that directly leads to his passion.410 What is more, Origen notes

that John records the triumphal entry into Jerusalem in a different sequence of events:

John splitting Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem into two visits and the Synoptics uniting them.

For these reasons, not to mention the discrepancies between the Synoptic accounts

themselves, Origen finds that the readers must be led beyond the “literal meaning” if

they are to keep the Gospel accounts as authoritative.411

This instance of Gospel inconsistency gives a clear example of Origen’s famous

“stumbling-blocks” from his First Principles, where the Spirit inspires certain errors for

the interpreter to stumble over, so that they are led to look for deeper meanings; as

Scripture is taken to be inspired on tradition, these errors must be on purpose.412 At the

beginning of Book 10 of Origen’s Commentary, he notes that the problems of the

discrepancies between the Gospels can cause some to reject Christian teaching,413 such

410 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 281 (10.119). 411 Ibid., 285 (10.129–30): “The Synoptics relate what most people assume to be the same things

that are written also in John, to have occurred in one and the same visit of the Lord to Jerusalem. But John reports that the things related occurred in two ascents to Jerusalem separated by many acts revealed between them, and by visits of the Lord to different places. I, therefore, assume that it is impossible for those who understand nothing beyond the historical meaning in these passages to show that the apparent disagreement is an agreement. And if anyone thinks that we have not understood it correctly, let him intelligently write a rebuttal to such a view as ours.”

412 These ‘stumbling-blocks’ were mentioned in the third chapter. Origen notes in the First Principles that they are in the Gospels as well: “And not only did the Spirit supervise the writings which were previous to the coming of Christ, but because he is the same Spirit and proceeds form the one God he ahs dealt in like manner with the gospels and the writings of the apostles. For the history even of these is not everywhere pure, events being woven together in the bodily sense without having actually happened…” (Origen, First Principles, 287 [4.2.9]).

413 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 257 (10.14): “On the basis of numerous other passages also, if someone should examine the Gospels carefully to check the disagreement so far as the historical

119

as the docetic Marcionites, who arbitrarily choose a Gospel and edit it as they please.414

While Origen is concerned to find a “harmony” (twn sumfwnivan) in the various

accounts of Jesus’ actions, including cleansing the temple and the triumphal entry, taking

all the accounts as inspired for their purpose, he does not seem to think that this is

possible in the historical sense for our particular story.415 As I argued previously,

abandoning the Scripture that he received on apostolic authority was not an option for

Origen, so there must be another answer.

Along with the comparisons that cause difficulties for Origen’s reading of John’s

account of this event, the event itself seems to be confounding for Origen. Origen finds

that it was out of character for Jesus to storm a temple with a whip, which seems more

like the action of a “rash and undisciplined” person.416 Origen also considers that if Jesus

had done this, it ought to be considered one of the more miraculous actions of his life, as

to clear thousands of people and animals from a temple with a simple whip and peasant’s

sense (iJstorivan) is concerned–we shall attempt to show this disagreement in individual cases, insofar as we are able–, he would grow dizzy, and would either shrink from really confirming the Gospels, and would agree with one of them at random because he would not dare reject completely the faith related to our Lord, or, he would admit that there are four [and would say] that their truth is not in their literal features (toi:V swmatikoi:V carakth:rsin ‘bodily characterization’).”

414 Origen notes that the Marcionites edited out the Virgin birth, leading to their Docetism. Origen, anticipating Athanasius’ soteriology, notes that “we cannot be saved through that being of theirs,” as Christ lacked full humanity in their Christology (Ibid., 260–1 [10.24–5]). I should note that Origen does not include Heracleon in this judgment, and only deals with Heracleon’s interpretation of these verses at the very end of the section. This has led me to consider that it was not especially important or persuasive to Origen, as Origen’s treatment of his interpretation appears as an appendix-like addition. He recounts that Heracleon takes the temple, with its many courts, as a symbol of the salvation of the various ‘natures’; the psychics being in the main temple courts, while the pneumatics are in the holy of holies (Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 302 [10.210-15]). By referring to the psychic Christians in the main temple courts, Heracleon appears to be reprimanding the formal Church of its money dealings, noting that Jesus clears them because they are involved in religious practice out of greed. Origen then notes that Heracleon arbitrarily gives an allegory of Jesus’ whip, and, even though it is not mentioned in Scripture, of the wooden handle, taken as an image of the cross. Origen considers this interpretation “babbling” (fluarw:n), and attributes this arbitrariness to Heracleon’s rejection of the Old Testament, which has caused him to misunderstand all of the prophecies referenced in the passage (Ibid., 302-4 [10.216-24]). Even though Heracleon had not rejected John’s Gospel, nor edited the Gospels at will as Marcion, according to Origen he is guilty of the same interpretive error of maligning the Old Testament.

415 Ibid., 285 (10.131). 416 Ibid., 289–90 (10.147–9).

120

authority is more than impressive; Origen argues that this miraculous action was

probably aimed at the salvation of some present. Origen also notices strange aspects

concerning the triumphal entry. He somewhat humorously notes that “the fact that they

cut branches from the trees to scatter in the way of the asses passing by would seem

more a hindrance of him who is being crowded than a planned reception.”417 Not to

mention the Son of God telling his disciples to steal some poor bystander’s animals!418

In light of some of these difficulties, Origen, seeming to anticipate even modern

exegetes, notes that one must take into consideration the particular motives and vantage

point of each Evangelist.419 As God had much to reveal in a short period of time, the

events of Jesus’ life needed to be pregnant with a variety of meanings (as the words of

the Baptist were in the previous case), and thus a few different authors are called to

portray them slightly differently for the Church to tease out later on through their own

sanctifying struggle.420 It seems that each Gospel author was portraying “different

activities of the Word” to “souls with different dispositions.”421 Just as Origen noted how

Jesus reached down to humanity at their various levels through his ‘aspects’ (ejpivnoiai),

the Gospel writers reach down to various levels of readers, meeting them where they

are.422 Origen notes that if the Evangelists manipulated a particular story to fit a higher

goal, it was because “their intention was to speak the truth spiritually and materially at

the same time where that was possible but, where it was not possible in both ways, to

417 Ibid., 293 (10.166). 418 Ibid., 293 (10.165). 419 Ibid., 258 (10.15). 420 Ibid., 258 (10.17). 421 Ibid., 299 (10.199). 422 Niculescu, “Spiritual Leavening,” 456–8.

121

prefer the spiritual to the material. The spiritual truth is often preserved in the material

falsehood, so to speak.”423

As Origen notes that Scripture is difficult to interpret and mysterious in nature, he

takes a prayerful posture, “as we have asked him who gives to everyone who asks and

struggles intensely to seek, and we are knocking, that the hidden things of Scripture may

be opened to us by the keys of knowledge.”424 He finds that the stumbling block of

divergences in the Gospels ought to lead the interpreter to “struggle intensely,” not

forgetting that the “keys of knowledge” are only grasped by those sanctified to do so.

Origen displays the need for this sanctification in his exposition of Jesus’ cleansing of

the temple and triumphal entry, using the differences between John and the Synoptics to

guide his thought. By showing how Jesus’ ascent to Jerusalem is an image of the ascent

of the soul, so that the cleansing of the Temple reveals the cleansing that needs to take

place in the believer’s soul, Origen is able to harmonize all the accounts of Jesus’

triumphal entry and relate them to the various chronologies that differ from one another.

Origen begins his treatment of the cleansing of the temple by noting that Jesus

was foreshadowing the temple’s destruction, and that the “corporeal Jews” would no

longer be able to practice there.425 Thus, Jesus pushes everyone out of the Temple as a

symbol that the new temple is within him. Origen notes that in order to progress from the

physical temple to the spiritual, Jesus must ascend to Jerusalem, which is a type of the

soul of one in the Church. Origen finds that in John’s Gospel Jesus ascends to the temple

from the lower cities of Cepharnaum and Cana, which, as lower cities, represent the

423 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 259 (10.20). Right after this, Origen notes how each

Evangelist could say opposite things, and both of them be right; for instance, how Jesus was at the same time born of David, but was also not (Ibid., 260 [10.21]).

424 Ibid., 285 (10.131). 425 Ibid., 287 (10.138).

122

person’s emotions that are “earthly, senseless and harmful, are things which are

supposed to be good but are not, are found in this soul prior to the discipline which

comes from Jesus.”426 When Jesus has reached Jerusalem, which Origen takes for the

soul of the converted person, the convert must deal with the leftover excesses after his

conversion, and Origen takes the various animals being sold as different excesses that

one might still have.427 “Jesus drives these out with his word which has been plaited of

demonstrative and reproving doctrines, that no longer might his Father’s house be a

house of merchandise, but that it might receive the worship of God performed according

to the laws which are heavenly and spiritual, for its own salvation and that of many

people.”428 This cleared temple is the one that is prepared for spiritual worship, depicted

especially well in Origen’s spiritual interpretation.

As far as the triumphal entry is concerned, Origen proposes two interpretations.

First, he finds that the ass and colt are representatives of the Old and New Testaments:

Jesus, therefore, is the Word of God who enters the soul, which is called Jerusalem, riding on an ass which has been loosed from its bonds by the disciples. Now by the ass I mean the artless (ajfelevsi) letters of the Old Testament which are clarified by the two disciples who loose them. One of these disciples is the person who refers to the things which have been written anagogically (ajnavgontoV) to the service of the soul and who interprets them allegorically (ajllhgorou:ntoV) for it, and the other is the one who presents the good and true things which are to be through those things which are found in the shadow. Now he is also riding the young colt, which is the New Testament. For it is possible to find in both Testaments the word of truth which cleanses us and drives out all the arguments which are buying and selling in us.429

426 Ibid., 288 (10.141). 427 Ibid., 288 (10.142). Origen notes that there might be a difficulty with this interpretation, as

Jewish animals for sacrifice are said to be ‘clean’, though Origen finds that they might be simply for commerce, as he finds this to be common at Jewish feasts. It is interesting to find this in Origen, since even though he has already admitted the story to be wrought with historical difficulties, he desires his spiritual interpretation to be appropriate according to its historical referent.

428 Ibid., 288 (10.141). 429 Ibid., 295 (10.174–5).

123

In this paradigm, Origen finds the Old Testament to be the ass, as it is the animal that

bears the heavier burden of interpretation, while the colt bears what is easier.430 These

Testaments are understood through the lens of the two Apostles—Origen is most likely

referring to Paul and the author of Hebrews—who loosen the interpretation of the two

Testaments for the believers so as to cleanse them. Origen underlines that Jesus rode on

these Testaments, that is, he is present in them, and the disciples have ‘loosed’ them, that

is, they have shown us how to interpret them. This is for the purpose of cleansing us and

freeing us from the arguments of the heretics that are buying and selling in us, that is,

swaying our opinion of the Church’s doctrine.

Second, Origen notes that he has heard that others have taken the ass and the colt

to be a representation of Jews and Gentiles. Here, the ‘ass’ is the Jewish person who has

been bound and burdened by the law, and the ‘colt’ is the Gentile who runs wild and

free, with an eye only for “rebelliousness and delight in pleasure.”431 Origen notes that

these animals are set free “by those who have been instructed by the Word in a truly

spiritual manner,” setting them free by bringing them under the lordship of Christ.432

Origen does not seem to have anything against the interpretation, though he does not

mention it after this, showing that he prefers the interpretation that promotes the need for

spiritual interpretation as it fits the scope of his Commentary better. It seems that he

simply heard it from someone, and thought it wise to include it, to show that there is a

variety of interpretations available.

430 Ibid., 296 (10.179). 431 Ibid., 296 (10.180). 432 Ibid.

124

One of the major problems that Origen notes in the story of the triumphal entry is

the quotation of Zechariah 9:9-10.433 Origen reports that the Gospel authors quote only

the first half of the prophecy, which Origen has caused some Jewish interpreters to mock

the Gospel.434 In Zechariah, the prophecy speaks of one who will enter Jerusalem

victorious after defeating the nations, particularly noting the chariots of Ephraim. In the

Gospels, Jesus simply rides into Jerusalem on a donkey, or a colt, or both, seemingly

defeating nobody. In the paradigm that Origen proposes, of Jesus ascending to Jerusalem

as a symbol of him cleansing the soul, Jesus does overcome the chariots of Ephraim,

which is taken to be the “captious arguments” of the heterodox, pulled by the horses that

signify a “mad desire for women.”435 Jesus is our champion in spiritual warfare, and he

accomplishes this through his peace.

Throughout his interpretation of Jesus’ triumphal entry, Origen emphasizes how

spiritual reading is able to both clear away the arguments of the heterodox, and also lead

one to allow the Scriptures to sanctify them. It is in this light that Origen shows how

Jesus’ cleansing of the temple symbolizes the cleansing of our souls through his

teaching. This perspective allows Origen to show how the triumphal entry is truly a

fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy, which was unclear to many readers. By showing

how Jesus was cleansing the temple of the heterodox arguments, which Origen explains

“are buying and selling in us,” Origen is able to keep the Christian from swaying in their

433 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to

you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war-horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

434 Origen, Commentary on John 1-10, 292 (10.163). 435 Ibid., 300 (10.204).

125

faith, and show the interpreter who is digging deeper how not to fall into heresy

himself.436

Conclusion

Origen’s spiritual interpretation, and the allegories that he uncovers, are the product of

his theology, which has its goal in deification. It is not, as some might assume, an

attempt to clean up some of the messy parts of Scripture that might offend the Hellenistic

mind, or an attempt to bring a disparate text into Origen’s own rationalist synchronism of

Christian and pagan thought. Origen’s practice of spiritual interpretation is an attempt to

come to terms with the rational world that is presented in the Scriptures. In this world,

true rationality is depicted in Christ, and despite all appearances, he has been preparing

the world for his coming since the beginning. Much of this preparation can be seen in the

Old Testament, and though many have missed it, Jesus and his Apostles have set the

Church on the path of figuring this out and becoming who they were designed to be from

the beginning. Ingeniously, God had planned that, by the very act of interpreting this

history, the believer would be sanctified through his exegetical work, as it is only

through the Spirit that one can come to find God’s intention. It is truly Spirit-ual

interpretation, that is, not only is it not ‘bodily’ (think of Paul’s dualism), but it

participates in the Spirit of God. As God is mystery, we should not be surprised at the

oft-mystical character of this interpretation, nor should we be surprised when we cannot

quite figure out what God is up to in a certain passage. What we need to take seriously in

order to move towards true understanding is our faith that God has given us these

436 Ibid., 295 (10.175).

126

Scriptures for our salvation, and has ordained certain Apostles and other churchmen as

our guides in their interpretation (seen in Origen’s reliance on the rule of faith).

To ignore the parameters of this Scripture, or to separate oneself from God’s

ordained guides, is to take Scripture out of its proper context. This is the mistake of

Heracleon, to which Origen pointed again and again in his Commentary. It is this

ecclesial structure, not the creation of a ‘Gnostic’ mythology, that sets the theologian

free. The latter simply builds false walls of division, rooted in human pride. Origen

demonstrates the value of remaining within these ecclesial parameters, and shows how

creative one can be while doing so. To the ordinary reader of John’s Gospel, it would be

unthinkable that something like Jesus’ sandal could be a reference to his incarnation, or

that Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple to be a symbol of the cleansing of our soul, but

through Origen’s spiritual interpretation of these passages he is able to reveal these

hidden gems for our prayerful contemplation. Where the Christian might feel the need to

abandon the traditional belief in the inspiration of Scripture due to the inconsistencies

found on its pages, Origen provides a means to overcome this, and to become more

godlike along the way.

127

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources Brooke, A.E. The Fragments of Heracleon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1891. Elowsky, Joel C. ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: John 1-10. Downers

Grove, Ill: IVP, 2006. . Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: John 11-21. Downers Grove, Ill:

IVP, 2007. Eusebius, The Church History. Translation and commentary by Paul L. Maier. Grand

Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007. Pamphilus. Apology for Origen. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Washington, DC: The

Caltholic University of America Press, 2010. Origen. An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, and Selected Works. Translated by

Rowan A. Greer. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988. . Contra Celse. Vol. 1. Sources chrétiennes 132. Edited by M. Borret. Paris:

Editions du Cerf, 1967. . Contra Celse. Vol. 2. Sources chrétiennes 136. Edited by M. Borret. Paris:

Editions du Cerf, 1968. . Contra Celse. Vol. 3. Sources chrétiennes 147. Edited by M. Borret. Paris:

Editions du Cerf, 1969. . Contra Celse. Vol. 4. Sources chrétiennes 150. Edited by M. Borret. Paris:

Editions du Cerf, 1969. . Contra Celse. Vol. 5. Sources chrétiennes 227. Edited by M. Borret. Paris:

Editions du Cerf, 1976. ———. Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1953. . Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Vol.1. Sources chrétiennes 120. Edited by C.

Blanc. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1966. . Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Vol.1. Sources chrétiennes 157. Edited by C.

Blanc. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1970.

128

. Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Vol.3. Sources chrétiennes 222. Edited by C.

Blanc. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1975. . Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Vol.4. Sources chrétiennes 290. Edited by C.

Blanc. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1982. . Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Vol.5. Sources chrétiennes 385. Edited by C.

Blanc. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1992. ———. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 1-5. Translated by Thomas P.

Scheck. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001. ———. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 6-10. Translated by Thomas P.

Scheck. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002. ———. Commentary on the Gospel According to John Books 1-10. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press,

1989. ———. Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13-32. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press,

1993. . De Principiis. Edited by P. Koetschau. Origenes Werke 5. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich,

1913. ———. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. Washington,

DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982. ———. Homilies on Jeremiah and 1 Kings 28. Translated by John C. Smith.

Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998. ———. Homilies on Joshua. Edited by Cynthia White. Translated by Barbara J. Bruce.

Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002. ———. Homilies on Leviticus 1-16. Translated by Gary Wayne Barkley. Washington,

DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990. ———. Homilies on Luke: Fragments on Luke. Translated by Joseph T. Lienhard.

Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996. . Homilies on Numbers. Edited by Christopher A. Hall. Translated by Thomas P.

Sheck. IVP Academic, 2009.

129

———. On First Principles: Being Koetschau's Text of the De Principiis. Edited and Translated by G. W. Butterworth with Introduction by Henri de Lubac. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966.

———. The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies. Translated and annotated by R.

P. Lawson. Westminster, ML: The Newman Press, 1957., 1990. ———. Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen With Heraclides and His

Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul. Translated and Annotated by Robert J. Daly. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992.

Thaumaturgous, Gregory. Address to Origen. Translation and introduction by W.

Metcalfe. London: SPCK, 1920. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translation and

introduction by Marco Conti, Edited by Joel C. Elowsky. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2010.

Secondary Sources Antonova, S.E. “The Many Faces of Truth: Origenian Platonism or Platonic Origenism?”

In Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, 431-6. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

Bacher, W. “The Church Father, Origen, and Rabbi Hoshaya.” The Jewish Quarterly

Review 3 (1891): 357–360. Bauckham, Richard. “The Origin of the Ebionites.” In The Image of the Judaeo-

Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature, edited by Peter J. Tomson and Doris Lambers-Petry. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. With added appendices by

Georg Strecker. Translated by the Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Barnes, T. D. “Origen, Aquila, and Eusebius.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 74

(1970): 313–316. Becker, Adam H, and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds. The Ways that Never Parted: Jews

and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Bergjan, Silke-Petra. "Celsus the Epicurean? The Interpretation of an Argument in

Origen, Contra Celsum." The Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 179-204.

130

Bigg, Charles. The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886. Blosser, Benjamin P. Become Like the Angels: Origen’s Doctrine of the Soul.

Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2012. Blowers, P. M. Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press, 1997. . “The Regula Fidei and the Narrative Character of Early Christian Faith.” Pro

Ecclesia 6 (1997): 199–228. Bockmuehl, Markus. “Creatio ex Nihilo in Palestinian Judaism and Early Christianity.”

Scottish Journal of Theology 65 (2012): 253–270. ———. “Natural Law in Second Temple Judaism.” Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995): 17–

44. ———. “The Son of David and his Mother.” The Journal of Theological Studies 62

(2011): 476–493. Bos, Abraham P. “Basilides as an Aristotelianizing Gnostic.” Vigiliae Christianae 54

(2000): 44-60. Bostock, G. “Origen and the Pythagoreanism of Alexandria.” In Origeniana Octava:

Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, edited by L. Perrone, 465-78. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

. “Origen’s Doctrine of Creation.” Expository Times 118 (2007): 222–227. . “Origen, The ‘Son of Horus’, in his Egyptian Milieu: The Influence on Origen

of Contemporary Egyptian Religious Practice.” In Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious Practice of his Time, edited by G. Heidl and R. Somos, 61-79. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009.

Bouteneff, Peter. Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation

Narratives. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia, PA:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. . “By Way of Apology: Dawson, Edwards, Origen.” Studia Philonica Annual:

Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 16 (2004): 188-217. ———. “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John.”

Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 243–284.

131

. “Justin Martyr Invents Judaism.” Church History 70 (2001): 427–461. . "Origen as a Theorist of Allegory: Alexandrian Contexts." In The Cambridge

Companion to Allegory, edited by Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck, 39-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Brakke, David. “The Body as/at the Boundary of Gnosis.” Journal of Early Christian

Studies 17 (2009): 195–214. . "The Early Church in North America: Late Antiquity, Theory, and the History

of Christianity." Church History 71 (2002): 473-91. . The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge,

M.A.: Harvard University Press, 2010. . "The Seed of Seth at the Flood: Biblical Interpretation and Gnostic Theological

Reflection." In Reading in Christian Communities: Essays on Interpretation in the Early Church, edited by Charles A. Bobertz and David Brakke, 41-62. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002.

. "Self-Differentiation among Christian Groups: The Gnostics and their

Opponents." In Origins to Constantine. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Christianity, edited by Margret M. Mitchel and Frances M. Young, 245-60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Briggman, Anthony. "Revisiting Irenaeus’ Philosophical Acumen.” Vigiliae Christianae

65 (2011): 115-24. Brisson, Luc. How Philosophers Saved Myths: Allegorical Interpretation and Classical

Mythology, translated by Catherine Tihanyi. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Brown, P. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire.

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. ———. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early

Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John (i-xii). The Anchor Bible. Garden

City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. . The Gospel according to John (xiii-xxi). The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday, 1970. Buell, Denise Kimber. Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the Rhetoric of

Legitimacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

132

. “Race and Universalism in Early Christianity.” Journal of Early Christian

Studies 10 (2002): 429–468. . Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New York:

Columbia University Press, 2005. Burton-Christie, D. The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in

Early Christian Monasticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Cameron, A. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian

Discourse. Sather Classical Lectures 55. Oxford: University of California Press, 1991.

Carrier, Richard. “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus,

Jewish Antiquities 20.200.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20 (2012): 489–514.

Caspary, Gerard E. Politics and Exegesis: Origen and the Two Swords. Berkely:

University of California Press, 1979. Chadwick, Henry. Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and

Origen with Introductions and Notes. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954. . Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement,

and Origen. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. . “Origen, Celsus, and the Resurrection of the Human Body.” Harvard

Theological Review 41 (1948): 83–102. . “Origen, Cesus, and the Stoa.” The Journal of Theological Studies 189-190

(1947): 34–49. Childress, James F. “Moral Discourse about War in the Early Church.” Journal of

Religious Ethics 12 (1984): 2–18. Chin, Catherine M. “Origen and Christian Naming: Textual Exhaustion and the

Boundaries of Gentility in Commentary on John 1.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 14 (2006): 407–436.

. “Rufinus of Aquileia and Alexandrian Afterlives: Translation as Origenism.”

Journal of Early Christian Studies 18 (2010): 617–647. Clark, E. A. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

133

. “The Place of Jerome’s Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist Controversy: The Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals.” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987): 154–71.

Coakley, Sarah. “The Eschatological Body: Gender, Transformation, and God.” Modern

Theology 16 (2000): 61–73. Coulter, James A. The Literary Microcosm: Theories of Interpretation of the Later

Neoplatonists. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Congar, Yves M J. Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay. 2

Parts. London: Burns & Oates, 1965. Cox, Patricia. “Origen and the Bestial Soul: A Poetics of Nature.” Vigiliae Christianae

36 (1982): 115–140. Crouzel, Henri. Origen. Translated by A. S. Worrall. San Francisco: Harper & Row,

1989. Daley, Brian E. "Origen's De Principiis: A Guide to the Principles of Christian Scriptural

Interpretation." In Nova et Vetera: Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton, edited by John Petruccione, 3–21. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1998.

Daly, Robert J. “Origen Studies and Pierre Nautin’s Origène.” Theological Studies 39

(1978): 508–19. Daniélou, Jean. From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Typology of the Fathers.

Translated by Dom Wulstan Hibberd. Eugene, OR: Burns & Oates, 1959. . A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea. Vol.2 of

Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. Translated by John Austin Baker. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973.

———. The Lord of History: Reflections on the Inner Meaning of History. Translated by

Nigel Abercrombie. London; Chicago: Longmans; Henry Regnery, 1958, 1960. . The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Vol. 1 of Development of Christian

Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea. Translated by John A. Baker. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964.

. Origen. Translated by Walter Mitchell. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955. Dawson, D. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1992.

134

. “Allegorical Reading and the Embodiment of the Soul in Origen” In Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Community, edited by Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones. London: Routledge, 1998.

. Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity. Berkeley: University

of California Press, 2002. . “Soul and Body of Text: Philo and Origen.” In Interpretation and Allegory:

Antiquity to the Modern Period, edited by J. Whitman. Leiden: Brill, 2000. De Lange, N.R.M. “Jewish Influence on Origen.” In Origeniana: Premier colloque

international des etudes origéniennes, edited by Henri Crouzel, Gennaro Lomiento, and Josep Ruis-Camps. Bari: Unversità di Bari, 1975.

. Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-century

Palestine. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Demura, M. “Origen’s Allegorical Interpretation and the Philological Tradition of

Alexandria.” In Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious Practice of his Time, edited by G. Heidl and R. Somos, 149-58. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009.

DePalma Digeser, Elizabeth. "Origen on the Limes: Rhetoric and the Polarization of Identity in the Late Third Century." In Rhetoric of Power in Late Antiquity: Religion and Politics in Byzantium, Europe and the Early Islamic World, edited by Robert M. Frakes, Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, and Justin Stephens, 197-218. London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2010.

Desjardins, Michel. "Sources for Valentinian Gnosticism: A Question of Methodology." Vigiliae Christianae 40 (1986): 342-7.

Dillon, John M. The Golden Chain: Studies in the Development of Platonism and

Christianity. Aldershot: Variorum, 1990. Dively Lauro, Elizabeth Ann. “The Anthropological Context of Origen’s Two Higher

Senses of Scriptural Meaning.” In Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, edited by L. Perrone, 613-24. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

. The Soul and Spirit of Scripture within Origen’s Exegesis. Boston: Brill, 2005. Droge, Arthur J. Homer or Moses: Early Christian Interpretation of the History of

Culture. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen Zur Theologie. Tubingen: J C B Mohr, 1989.

135

Duncan, Michael. “The New Christian Rhetoric of Origen.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 46 (2013): 88–104.

Dunderberg, Ismo. “The School of Valentinus.” In A Companion to Second-Century

Christian “Heretics”, edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen, 64-99. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Dunn, M. W. I. “Origen Reconsidered as an Exegete of Scripture.” Toronto Journal of

Theology 21 (2005): 153-68. Edwards, M.J. Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1999. . Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009. . “Christ or Plato?: Origen on revelation and anthropology” In Christian Origins:

Theology, Rhetoric, and Community, edited by Lewis Ayres, and Gareth Jones. London: Routledge, 1998.

. "Christians and the Parmenides." In Plato's Parmenides and its Heritage Vol. 2,

Reception in Patristic, Gnostic, and Christian Neoplatonic Texts. Edited by John D. Turner and Kevin Corrigan. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010.

———. Culture and Philosophy in the Age of Plotinus. London: Duckworth, 2006. . "Did Origen Apply the Word Homoousios to the Son?" Journal of Theological

Studies 49 (1998): 658-70. . Image, Word and God in the Early Christian Centuries. Oxford: Ashgate, 2013. . “The Fate of the Devil in Origen.” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 86

(2010): 163. . “Further Reflections on the Platonism of Origen.” Adamantius 18 (2012): 317–

324. . “Gnostics, Greeks, and Origen: The Interpretation of Interpretation.” The

Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993): 70–89. . Origen against Plato. Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late

Antiquity. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. . “Origen No Gnostic; or, On the Corporeality of Man.” The Journal of

Theological Studies 43 (1992): 23–37. . “Origen’s Platonism. Questions and Caveats.” Zeitschrift für Antikes

136

Christentum 12 (2008): 20–38. ———. “Origen’s Two Resurrections.” The Journal of Theological Studies 46 (1995):

502–518. Ehrman, Bart D. "Heracleon, Origen, and the text of the Fourth Gospel." Vigiliae

Christianae 47 (1993): 105-118. Eyzaguirre, Samuel Fernandez. “‘Passio Caritatis’ According to Origen In Ezechielem

Homiliae VI in the Light of DT 1,31.” Vigiliae Christianae 60 (2006): 135–47. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions

from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1993. . “Origen’s Contra Celsum and Josephus’ Contra Apionem: The Issue of Jewish

Origins.” Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990): 105–35. Fernando, L.N. “Origen’s Use of Scripture in Contra Celsum.” In Origeniana Sexta:

Origéne et la Bible, edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec, 243-50. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995.

Frede, Michael. “Origen’s Treatise Against Celsus” In Apologetics in the Roman Empire:

Pagans, Jews, and Christians, edited by Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman and Simon Price, 143-155. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Gorday, Peter J. Principles of Patristic Exegesis: Romans 9-11 in Origen, John

Chrysostom, and Augustine. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1983. Grabbe, Lester L. Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in

Philo. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Grafton, Anthony and Megan Williams. Christianity and the Transformation of the

Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Grant, Robert McQueen. Earliest Lives of Jesus. London: Harper, 1961. . Eusebius as Church Historian. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. . “Irenaeus and Hellenistic Culture.” Harvard Theological Review 42 (1949): 41-

52. ———. The Letter and the Spirit. London: SPCK, 1957.

137

Greer, Rowan A. The Captain of Our Salvation: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews. Beiträge Zur Geschichte Der Biblischen Exegese. Tübingen: J C B Mohr, 1973.

Greggs, Tom. “Exclusivist or Universalist? Origen the ‘Wise Steward of the Word’

(CommRom. V.1.7) and the Issue of Genre.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9 (2007): 315–27.

Grosso, Matteo. “A New Link between Origen and the Gospel of Thomas: Commentary

on Matthew 14,14.” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011): 249–56. Gunton, Colin E. Revelation and Reason: Prolegomena to Systematic Theology,

foreword by Stephen R. Holmes. London: Continuum, 2008. Haenchen, Ernst. John 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6.

Hermeneia. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. . John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 7-21. Hermeneia.

Translated by Robert W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Häkkinen, Sakari. “Ebionites” In A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”,

edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Halperin, David J. “Origen, Ezekiel’s Merkabah, and the Ascension of Moses.” Church

History 50 (1981): 261–75. Hällström, Gunnar af. Charismatic Succession: A Study on Origen’s Concept of

Prophecy. Helsinki: Toimittanut Anne-Marit Enroth, 1985. ———. Fides Simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria. Helsinki: Societas

Scientiarum Fennica, 1984. Halton, Thomas. “The New Origen, Peri Pascha.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review

28 (1983): 73–80. Hammond Bammel, Caroline P. “Extracts from Origen in Vat Pal 204.” Journal of

Theological Studies 49 (1998): 129–35. Hanson, R. P. C. Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of

Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959. . “History and Allegory.” Theology 59 (1956): 498–503. . "The Influence of Origen on the Arian Controversy,” in Origeniana Quarta,

edited by L. Lies, 410–23. Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1987.

138

. “Interpretations of Hebrew Names in Origen.” Vigiliae Christianae 10 (1956): 103–23.

———. “Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition.” The Journal of Theological Studies 193-194

(1948): 17–27. . Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004. Hartog, Paul. “The ‘Rule of Faith’ and Patristic Biblical Exegesis.” Trinity Journal 28

(2007): 65–86. Harnack, Adolf von. What is Christianity? Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders.

Introduction by Rudolf Bultmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Hauck, Robert John. The More Divine Proof: Prophecy and Inspiration in Celsus and

Origen. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Heine, R. E. “The Introduction to Origen’s Commentary on John Compared with the

Introductions to The Ancient Philosophical Commentaries on Aristotle.” In Origeniana Sexta: Origéne et la Bible, edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec, 3-12. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995.

. “In Search of Origen’s Commentary on Philemon.” Harvard Theological

Review 93 (2000): 117–33. . “Origen and a Hermeneutic for Spirituality.” Stone-Campbell Journal 14 (2011):

67–79. . Origen: Scholarship in Service of the Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2010. . “Stoic Logic as Handmaid to Exegesis and Theology in Origen’s Commentary

on the Gospel of John.” Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993): 90–117. —— . The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Hengstermann, C. “The Neoplatonism of Origen in the First Two Books of his

Commentary on John.” In Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer, edited by Sylwia Kaczmarek and Henryk Pietras, 75-87. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2011.

Hill, Charles E. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Toronto: Oxford University

Press, 2004.

139

Hoek, A van den. “The ‘Catechetical’ School of Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage.” Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997): 59–87.

. “Etymologizing in a Christian Context: The Techniques of Clement and

Origen.” Studia Philonica Annual (2004), 122-68. . “Philo and Origen: A Descriptive Catalogue of their Relationship.” Studia

Philonica Annual (2000): 44-121. Holliday, Lisa R. “Will Satan be Saved?: Reconsidering Origen’s Theory of Volition in

Peri Archon.” Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009): 1–23. Holmes, Michael W. “Origen and the Inerrancy of Scripture.” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 24 (1981): 221–231. Jackson, B Darrell. “Sources of Origen’s Doctrine of Freedom.” Church History 35

(1966): 13–23. Andrew S. Jacobs, “The Lion and the Lamb: Reconsidering Jewish-Christian Relations

in Antiquity.” In The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, 95-118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. “Allegorical Interpretation of Geography in Origen’s

Homilies on the Book of Joshua.” Religion and Theology 17 (2010): 289–301. . “Apologetics in Origen.” In, Three Greek Apologists: Origen, Eusebius, and

Athanasius, edited by David Brakke, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and Jörg Ulrich. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2007.

———. “Conversion to Christian Philosophy-the Case of Origen’s School in Caesarea.”

Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 16 (2012): 145–157. . “Genesis 1-3 as Source for the Anthropology of Origen.” Vigiliae Christianae

62 (2008): 213–32. Kaler, Michael, and Marie-Pierre Bussières. "Was Heracleon a Valentinian? A New

Look at Old Sources." Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006): 275-89. Kalvesmaki, Joel. "Italian versus Eastern Valentinianism?" Vigiliae Christianae 62

(2008): 79-89. Kannengiesser, Charles. “Early Christian Bodies: Some Afterthoughts on Peter Brown’s

The Body and Society.” Religious Studies Review 19 (1993): 126–129.

140

———. “Early Christian Spirituality.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 45 (2003): 4–19.

. Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy. Christianity and Judaism in

Antiquity 1. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Kennedy, George A. ed. The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1989. Keough, S.W.J. “Divine Names in the Contra Celsum.” In Origeniana Nona: Origen and

the Religious Practice of his Time, edited by György Heidl and Róbert Somos, 205-15. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009.

Kimelman, Reuven. “Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century

Jewish-Christian Disputation.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 567–595. King, J. Christopher. Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The

Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. King, Karen L. What is Gnosticism? Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press, 2003. Koch, Hal. Pronoia und Paideusis: Studien über Origenes und sein Verhältnis zum

Platonismus. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932. Kolbet, Paul R. “Torture and Origen’s Hermeneutics of Nonviolence.” Journal of the

American Academy of Religion 76 (2008): 545–72. Kovacs, J.L. “Echoes of Valentinian Exegesis in Clement of Alexandria and Origen: The

Interpretation of 1Cor 3, 1-3.” In Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, edited by L. Perrone, 317-29. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

Lampe, G.W.H. Essays on Typology. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1957. . ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford; New York: Clarendon, 1961. Lamberton, Robert. Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the

Growth of the Epic Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. . "Plato's Soul and the Body of the Text in Philo and Origen" in Interpretation

and Allegory: Antiquity to the Modern Period, edited by Jon Whitman. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Lauterpach, Jacob Z. “The Ancient Jewish Allegorists in Talmud and Midrash.” The

Jewish Quarterly Review 1 (1911): 291–333.

141

Law, T. M. “Origen’s Parallel Bible: Textual Criticism, Apologetics, or Exegesis?” Journal of Theological Studies 59 (2008): 1–21.

Layton, Richard A. Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-antique Alexandria: Virtue

and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004.

———. “Propatheia: Origen and Didymus on the Origin of the Passions.” Vigiliae

Christianae 54 (2000): 262–282. Lienhard, J. T. “Origen and the Crisis of the Old Testament in the Early Church.” Pro

Ecclesia 9 (2000): 355–366. Lubac, Henri de. History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to

Origen. Translated by Anne Englund Nash. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2007. Lyman, J. Rebecca. Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in Origen,

Eusebius, and Athanasius. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Löhr, Winrich Alfried. "Gnostic Determinism Reconsidered." Viligiae Christianae 46

(1992): 381-90. Macleod, C. W. “Allegory and Mysticism in Origen and Gregory of Nyssa.” The Journal

of Theological Studies 22 (1971): 362–379. Markschies C. Between Two Worlds: Structures of Earliest Christianity. Translated by

John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1999. . “Does it Make Sense to Speak About a Hellenization of Christianity in

Antiquity?” Church History and Religious Culture 92 (2012): 5–34. . Gnosis: An Introduction. Translated by John Bowden. London: T&T Clark,

2003. . "Gnosticism." In The Westminster Handbook to Origen, edited by John A.

McGuckin. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

. Valentinus Gnosticus?: Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992.

Martens, Peter. “Origen against History?: Reconsidering the Critique of Allegory.” Modern Theology 28 (2012): 635–656.

. "On the Confusion of Tongues and Origen's Allegory of the Dispersion of

Nations." Studia Philonica Annual 24 (2012): 107-127.

142

. Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life. New York: Oxford

University Press, 2012. . "Origen's Doctrine of Pre-Existence and the Opening Chapters of Genesis."

Zietschrift für Antikes Christentum 16 (2013): 516-49. . “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen.” Journal of

Early Christian Studies 16 (2008): 283-317. .“Why Does Origen Refer to the Trinitarian Authorship of Scripture in Book 4 of

Peri Archon?” Vigiliae Christianae 60 (2006): 1–8. Martin, D. B. Inventing Superstition: From the Hippocratics to the Christians.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Martin, Matthew J. “Origen’s Theory of Language and the First Two Columns of the

Hexapla.” The Harvard Theological Review 97 (2004): 99–106. McCartney, Dan G. “Literal and Allegorical Interpretation in Origen’s Contra Celsum.”

Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986): 281–301. McGuckin, John Anthony. “Origen as a Literary Critic in the Alexandrian Tradition.”

Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, edited by L. Perrone, 121-35. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

. “Structural Design and Apologetic Intent in Origen’s Commentary on John.” In

Origeniana Sexta: Origéne et la Bible, edited by Giles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec, 441-57. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995.

. ed. The Westminster Handbook to Origen. Louisville KY: Westminster John

Knox Press, 2004. Misiarczyk, L. “The Influence of Justin Martyr on Origen’s Argumentation in Contra

Celsum.” In Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer, edited by Sylwia Kaczmarek and Henryk Pietras, 251-65. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2011.

Mitchell, Margaret M. "Patrisitic Rhetoric on Allegory: Origen and Eustathius Put 1

Samuel 28 on Trial." The Journal of Religion 85 (2005): 414-45. Nautin, Pierre. Oirgèn: Sa Vie et Son Oeuvre. Paris: Beauchesne, 1977. Neeb, J.H.C. “Origen’s Interpretation of Genesis 28:12 and the Rabbis.” In Origeniana

Sexta: Origéne et la Bible, edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec, 71-80. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995.

143

Neuschäfer, Bernhard. Origenes als Philologe. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verleg, 1987. Niculescu, Mihai. The Spell of the Logos Origen’s Exegetic Pedagogy in the

Contemporary Debate Regarding Logocentrism. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009.

. “Spiritual Leavening: The Communication and Reception of the Good News in

Origen’s Biblical Exegesis and Transformative Pedagogy.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 15 (2007): 447–481.

Niehoff, M. R. “Circumcision as a Marker of Identity: Philo, Origen and the Rabbis on

Gen 17: 1—14.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 10 (2003): 89–123. . “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian Exegesis.”

Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006): 37–64. O’Keefe, John J. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of

the Bible. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. O’Leary, J.S. “Knowedge of God: How Prayer Overcomes Platonism (Contra Celsum

VI-VII).” In Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious Practice of his Time, edited by György Heidl and Róbert Somos, 447-68. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009.

. “The Recuperation of Judaism.” In Origeniana Sexta: Origéne et la Bible,

edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec, 373-9. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995.

Osborne, E. “The Apologist Origen and the Fourth Century from Theodicy to

Christology.” Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den auseinandersetzungendes des 4. jahrhunderts, edited by Wolfgang A Bienert and Uwe Kühneweg, 51-9. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999.

. “Clement and Platonism.” In Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian

Tradition, edited by L. Perrone, 419-27. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003. Outler, Albert Cook. “Origen and the Regulae Fidei.” Church History 8 (1939): 212–

221. Pagels, Elaine H. "Christian Apologists and 'The Fall of Angels': An Attack on Roman

Imperial Power?" The Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 301-25. . "Conflicting Versions of Valentinian Eschatology: Irenaeus' Treatise vs. the

Excerpts from Theodotus." The Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974): 35-53. . "Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John." Journal of Biblical

144

Literature 118 (1999): 477-96. . "Irenaeus, the 'Cannon of Truth', and the 'Gospel of John': 'Making a Difference'

through Hermeneutics and Ritual." Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002): 339-71. . The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on John.

Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973. . "The Valentinian Claim to Esoteric Exegesis of Romans as Basis for

Anthropological Theory." Vigiliae Christianae 26 (1972): 241-258. . "A Valentinian Interpretation of Baptism and Eucharist: And its Critique of

'Orthodox' Sacramental Theology and Practice." The Harvard Theological Review 65 (1972): 153-69.

Paget, J.N.B. Carleton. "The Christian Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Alexandrian

Tradition." In From Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), Vol.1 of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Sæbø, 478-542. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996.

Painchaud, Louis. “The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature.” Journal of Early

Christian Studies 4 (1996): 129–146. Pearson, Birger A. “Basilides the Gnostic,” In A Companion to Second-Century

Christian “Heretics”, edited by Antti Marjanen, and Petri Luomanen, 1-31. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

. "Cracking a Conundrum: Christian Origins in Egypt." Studia Theologica 57

(2003): 61-75. . and James E. Goehring The Roots of Egyptian Christianity. Studies in Antiquity

and Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, Vol.1 of, The Christian

Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. University Of Chicago Press, 1975.

Perrone, Lorenzo. “‘The Bride at the Crossroads’: Origen’s Dramatic Interpretation of

the Song of Songs.” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 82 (2006): 69–102. . “Christianity as ‘Practice’ in Origen’s Contra Celsum.” In Origeniana Nona:

Origen and the Religious Practice of his Time, edited by György Heidl and Róbert Somos, 293-317. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009.

. “Die Verfassung der Juden: Das biblische Judentum als politisches Modell in

Origenes Contra Celsum.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 7 (2004): 310–328.

145

. “Origenes Pro Domo Sua: Self-Quotations and the (Re)Construction of a

Literary Œuvre” In, Origeniania Decima: Origen as a Writer, edited by Sylwia Kaczmarek and Henryk Pietras, 3-38. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.

. "Prayer and the Construction of Religious Identity in Early Christianity."

Proche-Orient Chrétien 53 (2003): 260-88. . “Prayer in Origen’s ‘Contra Celsum’: The Knowledge of God and the Truth of

Christianity.” Vigiliae Christianae 55 (2001): 1–19. . "Rediscovering Origen Today: First Impressions of the New Collection of

Homilies on the Psalms in the Codex Monacensis Graecus 314." Adamantius 18 (2012): 41-58.

Philippou, A J. “Origen and the Early Jewish-Christian Debate.” Greek Orthodox

Theological Review 15 (1970): 140–52. Possekel, Ute. “Bardaisan and Origen on Fate and the Power of the Stars.” Journal of

Early Christian Studies 20 (2012): 515–541. Procopé, J.F. "Greek Philosophy, Hermeneutics and Alexandrian Understanding of the

Old Testament." In From Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), Vol.1 of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Sæbø, 451-77. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996.

Puech, H.-Ch. and G. Quispel “Le Quatrième Écrit gnostique du Codex Jung,” Vigiliae

Christianae 9 (1955): 65-102. Quispel, G. "Origen and Valentinian Gnosis." Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974): 29-42. Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. “Origen, Bardaisan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation.”

Harvard Theological Review 102 (2009): 135–68. . “Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of

Hypostasis.” Harvard Theological Review 105 (2012): 302–50. . “Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism: Re-thinking the

Christianization of Hellenism.” Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009): 217–63. . “Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and

Cappadocian Line.” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011): 21–49. . “Origen’s Doctrine of Apokatastasis.” In Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer,

edited by Sylwia Kaczmarek and Henryk Pietras, 645-70. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2011.

146

———. “The Philosophical Stance of Allegory in Stoicism and Its Reception in

Platonism, Pagan and Christian: Origen in Dialogue with the Stoics and Plato.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 18 (2011): 335–71.

. “Spiritual Weakness, Illness, and Death in 1 Corinthians 11:30.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 130 (2011): 145–63. . and David Konstan. Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and

Christian Texts. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007. Ranocchia, Graziano. “Moses against the Egyptian: The Anti-Epicurean Polemic in

Philo.” In, Studies in Philo of Alexandria: Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy, edited by F. Alesse, 75-102. Boston: Brill, 2008.

Räisänen, Heikki. “Marcion” In A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”,

edited by Antti Marjanen, and Petri Luomanen, 100-124. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Rist, J.M. “The Importance of Stoic Logic in the Contra Celsum.” In Neoplatonism and

Early Christian Thought: Essays in Honour of A.H. Armstrong, edited by H.J. Blumenthal and R.A. Markus, 64-78. Variorum Publications: London, 198

Roberts, C. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. The Schweich

Lectures of the British Academy for 1977. London: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Roberts, Louis. “Origen and Stoic Logic.” Transactions and Proceedings of the

American Philological Association 101 (1970): 433–444. Rombs, Ronnie J. “A Note on the Status of Origen’s De Principiis in English.” Vigiliae

Christianae 61 (2007): 21–9. Runia, David T. “Clement of Alexandria and the Philonic Doctrine of the Divine

Power(s).” Vigiliae Christianae 58 (2004): 256–76. . “Etymology as an Allegorical Technique in Philo of Alexandria.” Studia

Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 16 (2004):101-121. . “Origen and Hellenism.” Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian

Tradition, edited by L.Perrone, 43-7. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003. . Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

1993. . "Philo of Alexandria." In, Westminster Handbook to Origen, edited by John A.

McGuckin, 169-71. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

147

———. “Was Philo a Middle Platonist? A Difficult Question Revisited.” In Studia

Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 112–40. Scheck, Thomas P. Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen's

Commentary on Romans. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Schott, Jeremy M. “‘Living Like a Christian, but Playing the Greek’: Accounts of

Apostasy and Conversion in Porphyry and Eusebius.” Journal of Late Antiquity 1, (2008): 258–277.

Scott, Alan. “Notes and Observations: Pseudo-Aristotle’s Historia Animalium 9 in

Origen.” Harvard Theological Review 85 (1992): 235–39. . "Opposition and Concession: Origen's Relationship to Valentinianism." In

Origeniana Quinta: Historica, Text and Method, Biblica, Philisophica, Theologica, Origenism and Later Developments, edited by Robert J. Daly. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.

. Origen and the Life of the Stars: A History of an Idea. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1991. Scott, Mark S. M. “Guarding the Mysteries of Salvation: The Pastoral Pedagogy of

Origen’s Universalism.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18 (2010): 347–68. . Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2012. . “Shades of Grace: Origen and Gregory of Nyssa’s Soteriological Exegesis of the

‘Black and Beautiful’ Bride in Song of Songs 1:5.” Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006): 65–83.

Simonetti, M., A. Bergquist, M. Bockmuehl, and J. A. Hughes. Biblical Interpretation in

the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. New York: T&T Clark, 2001.

Skarsaune, O. The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text

Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 56. Leiden: Brill, 1987.

Somos, R. “An Aristotelian Science-Methodological Principle in Origen’s Commentary

on John.” In Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, edited by L. Perrone, 547-52. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

Sorabji, Richard. Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian

Temptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

148

Spangler, S.J. “The Firstfruits of our Activities’: ‘Examination of the Gospel’ and the

Pedagogical Functions of Scripture in Origen’s Prologue to the Commentary of the Gospel According to John.” In Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious Practice of his Time, edited by György Heidl and Róbert Somos, 337-44. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009.

Sterling, G. E. “Platonizing Moses: Philo and Middle Platonism.” Studia Philonica

Annual 5 (1993): 96–111. Stroumsa, G.G. “Alexandria and the Myth of Multiculturalism.” In Origeniana Octava:

Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, edited by L. Perrone, 23-9. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

. “Clement, Origen, and Jewish Esoteric Traditions.” In Origeniana Sexta:

Origéne et la Bible, edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec, 53-70. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995.

Teskey, Gordon. Allegory and Violence. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996. Thomassen, Einar. "Heracleon." In The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of

the Fourth Gospel, edited by Tuomas Rasimus, 173-210. Leiden: Brill, 2010. . The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the "Valentinians." Leiden: Brill, 2006. Tomson, Peter J, and Doris Lambers-Petry, eds. The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in

Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature. Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Torjesen, Karen Jo. “The Alexandrian Tradition of the Inspired Interpreter.” In

Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, edited by L. Perrone, 287-99. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

. “‘Body,’ ‘Soul,’ and ‘Spirit’ in Origen’s Theory of Exegesis.” Anglican

Theological Review 67 (1985): 17–30. ———. Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen’s Exegesis.

Patristische Texte Und Studien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986. . “The Influence of Rhetoric on Origen’s Old Testament Homilies.” In

Origeniana Sexta: Origen and the Bible, edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec, 13-25. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995.

. “The Rhetoric of the Literal Sense: Changing Strategies of Persuasion from

Origen to Jerome.” In Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den auseinandersetzungendes des 4. Jahrhunderts, edited by Wolfgang A Bienert and Uwe Kühneweg, 633-44. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999.

149

Torrance, T. F. Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics. Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1995. Trigg, Joseph W. “Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius,

and the Library of Caesarea.” Church History 76 (2007): 397-99. . "God's Marvellous Oikonomia: Reflections on Origen's Understanding of

Divine and Human Pedagogy in the Address Ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus." Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 27-52.

———. Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church. Atlanta: John

Knox Press, 1983. . Origen. London: Routledge, 1998. Trumbower, Jeffery A. "Origen's Exegesis of John 8:19-53: The Struggle with Heracleon

over the Idea of Fixed Natures." Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989):138-54. Tzamalikos, P. Origen: Cosmology and Ontology of Time. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ———. Origen: Philosophy of History & Eschatology. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “Origen and the Stoic View of Time.” Journal of the History of Ideas 52 (1991):

535–61. ———. The Concept of Time in Origen. New York: Lang, 1991. Verheyden, J. “Origen in the Making: Reading Between (and Behind) the Lines of

Eusebius’ ‘Life of Origen’ (HE 6).” In Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer, edited by Sylwia Kaczmarek and Henryk Pietras, 713-25. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2011.

Widdicombe, P. “The Fathers on the Father in the Gospel of John.” Semeia 85 (1999):

105–25. Wiles, M.F. "Origen as a Biblical Scholar." In The Cambridge History of the Bible:

From the Beginnings to Jerome, edited by P.R. Ackroyd and C.E. Evans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1984. . “Creating a Context: ‘Anti-Judaism’ and Scholarship on Origen.” In Origeniana

Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, edited by L. Perrone, 55-9. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

150

. Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria’s

Exegesis and Theology. Yale Publications in Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.

. “Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus and Vayikra Rabbah.” In Origeniana Sexta:

Origen and the Bible, edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec, 81-91. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995.

. “Religious Pluralism and Early Christian Theology.” Journal of Bible and

Theology 40 (1986): 379–391. Williams, Michael A. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a

Dubious Category. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996. Willaims, Rowan. “Origen: Between Orthodoxy and Heresy.” In Origeniana Septima:

Origenes in den auseinandersetzungendes de 4. Jahrhunderts, edited by Wolfgang A Bienert and Uwe Kühneweg, 3-14. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999.

Wucherpfennig, Ansgar. Heracleon Philologus: Gnostische Johannesexegese im zwieten

Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Yeago, D. S. “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the

Recovery of Theological Exegesis.” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 152–64. Young, F. M. “Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegesis.” In The Ancient Period. Vol.1 of

History of Biblical Interpretation, edited by Alan J. Hauser & Duane F. Watson, 334–354. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

———. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 2002 ———. “The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis.” In Making

of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, edited by Rowan Williams, 182–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Dissertations Barrett-Johnson, Wallace David. “The Other Origen: Transcendence and the Knowledge

of God in Origen’s ‘Contra Celsum’.” PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1998. Blosser, Benjamin Philip. “Psyche in Origen of Alexandria: Origen’s Doctrine of the

Soul in Relation to the Middle Platonic Philosophical Tradition.” PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 2009.

151

Boles, Paul Christian. “Is There a Congregation in this Text?: The Making of Meaning

and Reader Orientation as Primacy of Scripture in Origen’s Exegesis.” PhD diss., Claremont Graduate University, 2012.

Brey, Steven P. “Origen’s ‘Commentary on John’: Seeing all of Creation as Gospel.”

PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2003. Castori, Michael Thomas Tupou. “‘Israel and the Nations’ in the Mekhilta of Rabbi

Ishmael and Origen’s Homilies on Exodus: A Study in Biblical Interpretation.” PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union, 2009.

Droge, Arthur J. “Homer or Moses: Early Christian Interpretations of the History of

Culture.” PhD diss., The University of Chicago, 1984. Ecklebarger, Kermit Allen. “Authorial Intention as a Guiding Principle in Origen’s

Matthew Commentary.” PhD diss., The University of Chicago, 1987. Heintz, Michael. “The Pedagogy of the Soul: Origen’s ‘Homilies on the Psalms’.” PhD

diss., University of Notre Dame, 2008. Hong, Samuel. “Origen’s Rhetoric as a Means to the Formation of the Christian Self.”

PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate University, 2004. Keough, Shawn W.J. “Exegesis Worthy of God: The Development of Biblical

Interpretation in Alexandria.” PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2007.

Martens, Peter William. “Origen on the Reading of Scripture.” PhD diss., University of

Notre Dame, 2004. Mason, James Lester. “Origen’s Rhetoric.” PhD diss., University of Southern California,

1970. Niculescu, Mihai-Vlad. “Origen’s Mystagogic Paideia.” PhD diss., Catholic University

of America, 2003. Oschwald, Jeffrey Alan. “The Self-Evident Truth: Scripture and Apology in the ‘Contra

Celsum’ of Origen.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 1993. Rabinowitz, Celia Ellen. “Apokatastasis and Sunteleia: Eschatological and Soteriological

Speculation in Origen.” PhD diss., Fordham University, 1989. Scott, Mark Stephen Murray. “Cosmic Theodicy: Origen on the Problem of Evil.” PhD

diss., Harvard University, 2008.

152

Smith, Jordan. “Testify: Origen, Martyria and the Christian life.” PhD diss., The Florida State University, 2008.

Valantasis, Richard. “Third-Century Spiritual Guides: A Semiotic Study of the Guide-

Disciple Relationship in Christianity, Neoplatonism, Hermetism, and Gnosticism.” Th.D., Harvard Divinity School, 1988.