Greek Orthodox Theological Review 60:3-4 2015

Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism in Origen’s Commentary on John

Stephen E. Waers

The Monarchian controversy is an important lens for un­derstanding the development of Origen’s early Trinitarian theology.1 Briefly stated, Monarchianism held to a strict in­terpretation of the oneness of God that resulted in a stark identification of the Father and the Son.2 After a brief narra­tion of the major contours of scholarly accounts of Origen’s Trinitarian theology, I discuss the chronology of Origen’s Commentary on John in relation to his travel to Rome in the early third century. Finally, I demonstrate that the Monarchian controversy caused Origen to de-emphasize “Logos” as the preeminent title of Christ in books 1-2 of the Commentary on John (henceforth ComJn) and emphasize “Wisdom” as a primary title for Christ in order to ensure the proper distinc­tion of the Son.

The State of the Question in Brief

Interpretations of Origen’s Trinitarian theology have be­come the centerpiece of some major contemporary narratives about Nicene and post-Nicene Trinitarian theology.3 Origen is pushed and pulled by his interpreters to fund whatever trajectory they are seeking to narrate. This debate has, for some time, revolved around the question of whether or not Origen was a “subordinationist.” The bulk of scholars in the

93

94 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

nineteenth and twentieth centuries have had no doubt that Origen’s Trinitarian theology was a prime example o f “sub­ordinationism.”4 Some of these scholars, like Lebreton,5 lack nuance in their discussion of Origen’s so-called subordina­tion, while others, like Jean Danielou, have very detailed ac­counts that nonetheless employ the language of subordina­tion.6 Within the past twenty years, however, a few scholars have argued that Origen was actually an antisubordinationist and that the scholarly consensus was misguided. There were a few scholars in the twentieth century, notably Crouzel and Kannengiesser, who championed this position prior to its recent resurgence.7 The scholars who have recently argued against Origen’s alleged subordinationism have insisted that he actually taught the equality of the Father and the Son.8

Although terms denoting subordination have frequently driven the narrations of Origen’s Trinitarian theology, schol­ars seldom take the time to actually define what they mean by “subordination.”9 In a statement not explicitly about Origen, R. P. C. Hanson affirms in the introduction to In Search o f the Christian Doctrine o f God that virtually every theologian, excepting Athanasius, held some form of subordinationism before the denouement of the Arian controversy sometime after 355.10 Indeed, Hanson suggests that some type of sub­ordination would have been accepted as orthodox Trinitarian theology in the pre-Nicene era.

Hanson’s statement about subordination is sufficient to demonstrate the way in which scholars use the term. To say that someone was a subordinationist by Hanson’s definition is to say little more than that that person was a pre-Nicene theologian. There is little use in a designation this broad, and the introduction of such freighted subordination into the analysis of a pre-Nicene theologian brings with it the evalu­ative freight of post-Nicene theology. Arguing that Origen was or was not a subordinationist often means that scholars have, wittingly or not, allowed post-Nicene categories to be

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 95

determine their readings of Origen.There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with read­

ing Origen through the lens of later post-Nicene develop­ments. The problem, however, is that post-Nicene categories are often given priority. Scholars start with an understand­ing of these later developments and read Origen to see how he fits within that framework. In an attempt to understand Origen on these terms, these treatments often pay far too little attention to the exegetical and polemical contexts in which Origen’s theology was forged. By reading Origen with a view to Nicea and its aftermath, many fail to narrate adequately what Origen was actually doing when he wrote.

This tendency in contemporary scholarship to read Origen in terms of the post-Nicene debate is nothing new. Rowan Williams notes that as early as Marcellus of Ancyra, Arius was said to have derived his theology from Origen." Centuries later, Thomas Aquinas can echo the sentiment of earlier her- esiologists that Origen was the source of Arius’s heresy.12 Origen was and is the battlefield on which theologians and scholars have argued about pro- and anti-Nicene trajectories.

The imposition of anachronistic categories on Origen’s Trinitarian theology results in a skewed picture and is often accompanied by the implicit assumption that Origen should have been concerned with the same things as those whom he antedated by over one hundred years. By reading Origen with reference to these later controversies, these same schol­ars expect Origen to answer questions that neither he nor his contemporaries were yet asking. Danielou’s conclusion that Origen’s Christology “is obviously tainted with subordina- tionism” is a clear example of this.13 Origen’s Christology can accurately be described as subordinationist, but Danielou’s usage pushes beyond this. To say that Origen’s theology is “tainted with subordinationism” is to imply that Origen’s subordinationism deviated from some pure orthodoxy, the likes of which did not yet exist at the beginning of the third

96 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

century. Danielou’s usage goes beyond simple description and is laden with the (negative) evaluative freight of post- Nicene orthodoxy.14

In what follows, I consider the impact of Monarchianism on Origen’s ComJn in order to add texture and detail to ac­counts of Origen’s Trinitarian theology that are too often broad and summary in nature. A careful consideration of Origen’s theology in relation to Monarchianism also aids in reconstructing the questions Origen was trying to answer when he wrote— not the questions that rose to the surface one hundred years later.

Dating ComJn and Origen’s Roman Travels

As the preceding summary of scholarship indicates, schol­ars often read Origen without sufficient reference to his contemporary context. In order to counteract this trend, the dating of Origen’s works becomes much more important. Indeed, more specificity regarding the date of ComJn will allow for a greater understanding of the details surrounding its composition. Although scholars agree that Origen began his ComJn while he was still in Alexandria, it is much more difficult to pinpoint precisely when this work was written during the Alexandrian phase of his career. There are two key pieces of evidence used in the dating of the beginning o f ComJn. First, Origen mentions the fittingness of begin­ning ComJn immediately following a “physical separation” (Kara to acopa) and return to Alexandria.15 Second, scholars connect Origen’s physical separation with Eusebius’s rather laconic, enigmatic, and imprecise description of “no small warfare breaking out in the city.”16 Working from the scanty evidence in ComJn and Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, scholars typically divide into two main camps regarding the dating.17 On the one hand, the majority of scholars during the second half of the twentieth century dated the beginning

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 97

of ComJn somewhere between 226 and 231 CE. Proponents o f this position include Nautin, Quasten, McGuckin, and Thummel. Nautin identifies the “warfare” mentioned by Eusebius with Origen’s conflict with his bishop, Demetrius: “The war which forced him to depart Alexandria was prob­ably nothing other than the hostility that was declared against him in the entourage of the bishop.”18 Eusebius re­counts amicable relations between Origen and Demetrius earlier in Origen’s career, even claiming that Demetrius in­stalled Origen alone as the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria.19 Nautin’s interpretation of the “warfare” would push Origen’s work on ComJn toward the end of his Alexandrian period, when his relationship with Demetrius seems to have markedly deteriorated.20

The alternative understanding of Eusebius’s statement is modeled by Heine and Preuschen. Because Heine sums up Preuschen’s work so well, I will treat Heine’s argument as representative of this view.21 Heine finds it quite unlikely that Eusebius’s statement about warfare breaking out in the city refers to the disagreement between Origen and Demetrius. If Eusebius is recounting the disagreement between Origen and Demetrius, he seems to be suggesting that the whole city was embroiled in the controversy. This is highly unlikely.22 Instead, Heine under­stands Eusebius’s statement to be referring to Origen’s stealthy departure from Alexandria on the heels of Caracalla’s massacre in 215.23 This understanding of Eusebius’s statement makes his claim that warfare broke out in the city much more intelligible. The upshot of this dating is that the date of composition of the first books of ComJn is moved back to sometime around 217, after Caracalla had left the city and Origen had time to return— thereby making it one of Origen’s earliest works.24 This dat­ing schema makes better sense of the “warfare” mentioned by Eusebius, and it accounts for Origen’s anti-Monarchian polemic in the first two books of ComJn.

Although Nautin places the start o f Origen’s commentary

98 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

later than Preuschen and Heine, he still has Origen traveling to Rome beginning in 215.25 Origen’s journey to Rome in 215 would have put him there during the last few years of the episcopate of Zephyrinus.26 The author of the Refutatio omnium haeresium notes that Monarchian teaching gained a strong foothold in Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, and this author portrays Zephyrinus as a man easily swayed by the influence of others— notably Callistus.27 In Adversus Praxean, Tertullian complains that when Praxeas journeyed to Rome, “he drove out prophecy and introduced heresy: he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father.”28 Although the identity of Praxeas is murky, Tertullian’s state­ment suggests that Monarchian teaching had gained consid­erable traction in Rome before 213—the probable date of composition for Adversus Praxean.29

When all of this data is taken together, we are left with a fairly clear picture of the Roman church at the beginning of the third century, when Origen visited. Zephyrinus, it seems, had fallen under the influence of Monarchian teach­ing— either by means of Praxeas or one of the followers of Noetus. Furthermore, the Monarchians were apparently able to sway Zephyrinus to formally reject Montanist teaching. So, when Origen visited Rome during the latter years of Zephyrinus’s episcopate, he would have undoubtedly found a church in which Monarchianism had a powerful presence. When Callistus succeeded Zephyrinus in 217, the position of Monarchianism in the Roman church remained strong. It is little surprise, then, that Origen focused on Monarchian teaching in the early books of ComJn, which he began com­posing shortly after returning from Rome.30

Monarchianism in Book 1 of ComJn

At multiple points in ComJn, Origen bemoans the fact that many people have unduly fixated on the title “Logos” for

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 99

Christ. He wishes that they would consider it as one title among many. He states,

But let us consider more carefully what the Word is which is in the beginning. I frequently marvel when I consider the things said about the Christ by some who wish to believe in him. Why in the world, when countless names are applied to the Savior, do they pass by most of them in silence? Even if they should perhaps remember them, they do not inter­pret them in their proper sense, but say that these name him figuratively. On the other hand, they stop in the case of the title “Word” alone, as if they say that the Christ of God is “Word” alone; and they do not investigate, consistent with the rest of the names, the meaning of what is indicated by the term “Word.”31

After surveying the many titles ascribed to Christ, he fur­ther specifies what troubles him about his opponents’ fixa­tion on the title “Logos”:

It is worthwhile to consider those who disregard so many names and treat this one as special. And again they look for an explanation in the case of the other names, if someone brings them to their attention, but in the case of this one they believe they have a clear answer to what the Son of God is, when he is named Word. This is especially obvious since they continually use this verse, “My heart uttered a good word” [Ps. 44:2, LXX], as though they think the Son of God is an expression of the Father occurring in syllables. And in accordance with this view, if we inquire of them carefully, they do not give him UTtooxaoiv, neither do they make clear his oooiav. 1 do not yet mean that it is this or that, but in what manner he has ouoiav. For it is impossible for anyone to understand a proclaimed word to be a son.Let them declare to us that God the Word is such a word, having life in himself, and either is not separated from the Father and, in accordance with this position, does not sub­sist (pf| ixpeoiavai) nor is he a son, or is both separated and invested with ousia?2

100 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

Scholars have suggested multiple possibilities for Origen’s opponents in this passage. Some, often drawing on a pas­sage from Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 2.28.5, have argued that Origen is addressing Valentinian positions here.33 Others have suggested that Origen is addressing a Monarchian reading of Psalm 44:2 (LXX).34 The latter group of scholars often notes that Origen appears to be addressing both the position of the Monarchians and the teaching of someone like Tertullian. Perhaps part of the difficulty of determin­ing the identity of Origen’s opponents in this passage is that Origen’s interpretation takes place within a crowded polemi­cal landscape. We know that the Monarchians relied heav­ily on passages from the Gospel of John, especially John 10:30 and 14:8-10.35 At the beginning of Origen’s Dialogue with Heraclides, Heraclides quotes John 1:1-3 as a state­ment of his belief—thus demonstrating that the Johannine prologue was also a focal point for someone who subscribed to Monarchian views.36 We also know that the Johannine prologue was a focal point of Valentinian theology37 and that it was central in the proto-orthodox refutation of both Valentinianism and Monarchianism.38 In short, the Gospel of John was central to the theology of almost all of the major Christians groups at the beginning of the third century.39 In what follows, I focus on one side of the polemical context (anti-Monarchian) of books 1-2 of Origen’s ComJn, which treat on the opening verses of John’s Gospel.40

After the passage quoted above, Origen repeats that these opponents interpret the title “Logos” literally despite the fact that they understand many of the other titles of Christ figu­ratively.41 Later, after another lengthy excursus on the names of Christ, Origen again punctuates his discussion by coun­tering the claims of his opponents, saying, “We have said all these things wishing to show the random and unexamined procedure followed by many interpreters. Although so many names are applied to Christ, they stop with the term ‘Word’

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 101

alone, and do not investigate why ‘the Son o f God’ has been recorded to be the Word, God, who was in the beginning with the Father, through whom all things came into being.”42

At the end o f book 1 o f ComJn, Origen returns to interpre­tation o f Psalm 44:2; and he says that his opponents cite it frequently as if they understood it.43 Origen does not give us more detail about his opponents’ interpretation o f this verse— only complaining that they interpret it literally as an expression occurring in syllables. Tertullian, however, dis­cusses Psalm 44:2 at multiple points in Adversus Praxean. He him self uses this verse to describe the generation o f the Son and summarizes his opponents’ position, writing, “For what, you will say, is a word except voice and oral sound and (as the grammarians’ tradition has it) smitten air intel­ligible in the hearing, for the rest an empty something, void and incorporal?”44 Later, when Tertullian takes up this psalm again, he clarifies the Monarchian position. He writes,

Just as I allege as spoken by God, My heart hath disgorged a good Word, against this do you object that God some­where said, My heart hath disgorged myself as a good word, so that he himself may be both he who disgorged and what he disgorged, himself both he who brought forth and he who was brought forth, if he himself is Word and God.45

Heine ably treats these passages in his article on Callistus’s Christology, detailing the philosophical underpinnings o f Callistus’s teaching on the Logos.46 He notes that the Monarchian position was underwritten by Stoic concep­tions o f the Logos. Particularly o f note here was the Stoic distinction between Xoyoq svSidGsxo^ (reason) and Loyoq JipocpopiKoq (speech).47 For the Monarchians, Psalm 44:2 was a clear example o f A,oyo<; Jipocpopucoq— a spoken word.48 It is most likely to this interpretation o f Psalm 44:2 that Origen is referring when he speaks o f those who think the Son is an expression o f the Father occurring in syllables. Heine notes that the Stoic understanding o f “Logos” used by

102 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

the Monarchians was unpalatable to Origen, Tertullian, and the author of the Refutatio because it treated “Logos” as a category of speech, not a category of ontology.49 Tertullian complains that his opponents’ understanding of the word makes it “void and incorporeal (inane et incorporate)” and counters that what proceeds from substance must have sub­stance.50 Origen’s characterization of his opponents’ error fits well with Tertullian’s testimony. Origen criticizes his op­ponents for denying ousia to the prophora—the Logos.

This background for the interpretation of Psalm 44:2 eluci­dates why Origen and Tertullian are concerned with it. When substance is denied to the Logos, it is much easier to claim that the Logos is not distinct from the Father. An indistinct Logos easily allows for the assertion that the Father and the Son are “one and the same.”51 This is especially clear when Tertullian accuses his opponents of saying, “My heart hath disgorged myself as a good word.”52 Tertullian’s opponents do not allow for any distinction between the one speak­ing and the thing being spoken; they are one and the same. Origen appears to be addressing a similar problem when he writes, “Let them declare to us that God the Word is such a word, having life in himself, and either is not separated from the Father and, in accordance with this position, does not subsist (pifi ucpsaxavat) nor is he a son, or is both separated and invested with ousia.”53 For Origen, if the Logos is not separated (on Kcycopiopevov) or distinct from the Father, he does not subsist (pfi iKpeoxdvai) and, therefore, cannot be a son. Conversely, if the Logos is separate from the Father, he has ousia . 54 The problem is precisely that in the Monarchian exegesis, the 7ipo(popdv is merely syllables and is denied wtoaxaaiv—the Son does not have distinct existence along­side the Father.

Origen returns to this psalm repeatedly in the first book of ComJn precisely because it was an integral piece of the Monarchian contention that the Word was, in fact, the

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 103

same as the Father. This prominent exegetical trend of his Monarchian opponents is one of the reasons Origen down­plays the significance of “Word” as a title for Christ in book 1 of ComJn.55 This also explains why Origen spends so much time discussing every title of Christ except “Logos” in his commentary on the opening verse of John’s Gospel, which is the locus classicus for Logos Christology. Origen was certainly not allergic to Logos Christology, but he de- emphasized it in this instance to counter the Monarchian us­age of the term.

Where we would expect to find lengthy meditations on Christ as Logos, we see Origen suggest that “Wisdom” is perhaps the most proper name for the Son.56 When Origen does discuss the Son as Logos in book 1 of ComJn, he lo­cates Logos in Wisdom. He states, “And if we should care­fully consider all the concepts applied to him, he is the be­ginning only insofar as he is wisdom. He is not even the beginning insofar as he is the Word, since ‘the Word’ was ‘in the beginning,’ so that someone might say boldly that wisdom is older than all the concepts in the names of the firstborn of creation.”57

Origen’s de-emphasis of “Logos” is not confined to ComJn. In his discussion of Christ in De Principiis (henceforth De Prin.) 1.2, Origen begins with a discussion of the names of applied to Christ. Instead of Logos, Origen focuses on Christ as Wisdom.58 He then quickly adds, “Let no one think, however, that when we give him the name ‘wisdom of God’ we mean anything without substance (aliquid insubstanti- vum).”59 It appears that Origen made this comment to guard against the same problem he saw in Monarchian exegesis of Psalm 44:2— namely that they denied the Son substantiality and distinction from the Father. Only after Origen has con­sidered Christ as Wisdom in De Prin. does he discuss Christ as Logos. Although Origen locates Logos within Wisdom in book 1 of ComJn, Origen viewed both “Wisdom” and

104 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

“Logos” as proper titles for the Son—titles that would have been appropriate even if humans had not fallen.60

In both ComJn and De Prin., Origen interprets “apxf|” in John 1:1 as a reference to the apxn in Proverbs 8:221L, where Wisdom is said to have been with God before cre­ation. With his reference to Proverbs 8:22, Origen explic­itly links Wisdom with demiurgic functions, even claiming that Wisdom contains within itself all of the forms of what would be created.61 In De Prin. he asks if any pious per­son could consider the Father to have ever existed without Wisdom by his side.62 In book 1 of ComJn, Origen stresses that the Wisdom of God “precedes all creation (xr)v uncp naoav Kxtaiv corpiav ton 0eou).”63 Not only has Origen ar­gued that Wisdom is not something insubstantial, he has also argued that Wisdom has been alongside of and distinct from the Father from all eternity.64

At the beginning of book 2, Origen explicitly addresses views that are surely Monarchian. He writes,

Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods (8uo avayopeboou Beouc) and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature (iSiornia) of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as “Son” in name at least, or they deny the divinity of the Son and make his individual nature (i8iorr|Ta) and essence as an in­dividual (xr|v ouoiuv Kara 7i£prypa(pf|v) to be different from the Father.65

In this passage he uses two terms, “iSioxriq” and “7isprypaq>fi,” to describe the individuality of the Son.66 Although not overtly directed at Monarchians, Origen had earlier used “7rspvypoupf)” to speak about the individuality of the Son.67 There, he speaks of “Logos ... having wroaxacnv ‘in the beginning’— in Wisdom (Xoyoq. . .sv apxfj, xfj aocpia, xfiv lOToaxamv sxcov).”68 Even when Origen is focusing on

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 105

the title “Logos,” he employs Wisdom as the basis for articu­lating the distinct wroaTaoic; of the Son.

C o n c l u s i o n

Origen’s use o f Wisdom as a means of establishing the individual identity of the Son suggests that Origen’s con­tact with Monarchianism in Rome shaped the way he ar­ticulated his Christology in at least two ways. First, Origen de-emphasized “Logos” as the preeminent title of Christ in response to the controversy that the Monarchian interpre­tation of the term had caused.69 Second, Origen prioritized “Wisdom” in his understanding of the Son in such a way as to counteract the Monarchian position. Specifically, he argued that Wisdom had substance and was distinct from God from all eternity. He then located the Logos in Wisdom to guard against Monarchian understandings of Logos. The Monarchians baldly identified the Father and the Son, and their Stoicized understanding of the Logos helped under­write this identification. Accordingly, Origen de-emphasized a Logos Christology and developed his Wisdom Christology to counter his Monarchian opponents.

N o t e s

1 This is by no means to claim that it is the only lens for properly un­derstanding Origen’s early Trinitarian theology. He is clearly concerned with Valentinianism and the teachings of Marcion, among others, in his early works.2 The primary attestation to Monarchianism comes from the hostile works o f their opponents. See Hippolytus, Contra Noetum; Tertullian, Adversus Praxean\ the Refutatio omnium haeresium (often attributed to Hippolytus); and Novatian, De Trinitate.3 See especially in this regard Christopher A. Beeley, The Unity o f Christ: Continuity and Conflict in Patristic Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012). Beeley’s reading of Origen forms the substrate on which the rest o f his argument is built.

106 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

41 will no longer use quotation marks around subordination language. Good examples of this position include the following: Eugene de Faye, Origen and His Work (Folcroft, PA: Folcroft Library Editions, 1978); Jean Danielou, Origen, trans. Walter Mitchell (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955); Adolf von Hamack, History o f Dogma, vol. 3, trans. Neil Buchanan (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1907); J. Nigel Rowe, Origen s Doctrine o f Subordination: A Study in Origen's Christology, vol. 272 of European University Studies, series 23 (Bern and New York: P. Lang, 1987); idem, “Origen’s Subordinationism as Illustrated in His Commentary on St John’s Gospel,” in Studio Patristica, vol. 11, pt. 2 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1972), 222-28; T. E. Pollard, “Logos and Son in Origen. Arius and Athanasius,” in Studia Patristica: Papers Present­ed to the Second International Conference on Patristic Studies Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1955, vol. 2 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957), 282-87; Williamina M. Macaulay, “Nature of Christ in Origen’s Com­mentary on John,” Scottish Journal o f Theology 19, no. 2 (June 1966): 176-87; A. H. B. Logan, “Origen and Alexandrian Wisdom Christol­ogy,” in Origeniana Tertia: The Third International Colloquium for Ori­gen Studies, University o f Manchester, September 7th-IIth, 1981, ed. Richard Hanson and Henri Crouzel (Roma: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1985), 123-29; Jules Lebreton, The History o f the Primitive Church (New York: Macmillan, 1949).5 Lebreton, History o f the Primitive Church, 940-41. He states, “The vital truth that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit transcend all oth­er beings was always affirmed by Origen, and we find it already in the treatise De Principiis. But we must allow that there is in this treatise a hierarchical conception of the divine persons which endangers their equality and their consubstantiality. This idea appears in the treatise De Principiis, in spite of all the corrections made by Rufinus; it is also very marked in the Commentary on St. John; it will dominate the whole theo­logical work of Origen, and he will even regard it as the rule governing Christian worship.”6 See especially his discussion of Origen’s Christology: Danielou, Ori­gen, 251-75. There he gives a very nuanced account of Origen’s Chris­tology before noting that “it is obviously tainted with subordinationism” (255).7 Henri Crouzel, Origen, trans. A. S. Worrall (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 181-91; Charles Kannengiesser, “Christology,” in The Westminster Handbook to Origen, ed. John Anthony McGuckin, West­minster Handbooks to Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 73-78.8Christopher Beeley writes, “Although he has been accused for centuries

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 107

of subordinationism (or making Christ to be less divine than God the Father), Origen asserted the divinity of Christ in stronger terms than any Christian theologian to date ... Origen argues that Christ is equal to God the Father in both divinity and eternity” (Beeley, Unity o f Christ, 17-18). See also Ilaria Ramelli, “Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis,” Harvard Theological Review 105, no. 3 (2012): 302-50; idem, “Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line,” Vigiliae Christianae 65, no. 1 (January 2011): 21^19; and idem, “Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism: Re-Thinking the Christianization of Helle­nism,” Vigiliae Christianae 63, no. 3 (January 2009): 217-63.9 Beeley is one of the few who actually defines the term. His two defini­tions of subordinationism are (1) “making Christ to be less divine than God the Father,” and (2) “those who deny the full divinity of Christ” (Beeley, Unity o f Christ, 17-18, 10).10 R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine o f God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), xix." Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, rev. ed (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 2002), 131.12 Aquinas, Super Boetium de Trinitate, 2, Q. 3, A. 4.13Danielou, Origen, 255.14 To be clear about the preceding comments regarding “subordination” language, 1 am not opposed to the term itself. In fact, it is often fitting to describe a pre-Nicene’s theologian as subordinationist, and, contra Beeley and Ramelli, I think that one can accurately say that the Son is ontological ly subordinate to the Father in Origen’s theology. The prob­lem I am addressing here is the negative evaluative freight that the term often carries.15Origen, ComJn 1.12-13.16 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.19.16, Greek text and trans. from Loeb Classical Library 265:62-63: “on opiKpou Kara if|v JtoLiv avappunaGsvioc; jio7e|iou .”17 There are quite a few other suggestions for dating ComJn, but I have only included in the body of the essay a discussion of the two which I find most plausible. In his 1994 article McGuckin dates the first books of ComJn to 230/231 (John A. McGuckin, “Structural Design and Apol­ogetic Intent in Origen’s Commentary on John,” in Origeniana Sexta [Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1995], 444n9). Later, he changes his position and dates them to between 226 and 229 (McGuckin, ed., West­minster Handbook to Origen, 29). Quasten dates books 1-4 to between 226 and 229 (Johannes Quasten, Patrology [Utrecht: Spectrum, 1950], 2.49). Thiimmel dates the work to the late 220s or by 230 (Hans Georg

108 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

Thiimmel, ed., Origenes' Johanneskommentar, Buch l-V, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 63 [Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011], 4). Harl notes that Eusebius’s statement is “tr£s vague” and asserts that books 1-2 of ComJn were written either contemporaneously with or just before De Prin. (Marguerite Harl, Origene et La Fonction Revelatrice du Verbe Income, Patristica Sorbonensia 2 [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1958],121 n 1).18 Pierre Nautin, Origene: sa vie et son ceuvre, Christianisme antique 1 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), 366: “La ‘guerre’ qui l’a contraint a quit­ter Alexandrie n’etait probablement rien d’autre que cette hostilite qui s’etait declaree contre lui dans l’entourage de l’eveque.”19Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.3.8.20 At least one factor in the deterioration of Origen’s relationship with Demetrius was his ordination, not under the auspices of Demetrius, by the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.8.4). In Nautin’s dating schema, this event would give us an early time at which conflict between Origen and Demetrius was increasing. Even still, we cannot date Origen’s ordination with any precision and are thus no closer to a date for the works than before.21 For Preuschen’s argument, see Origen, Der Johanneskommentar, ed. Erwin Preuschen, Origenes Werke, vol. 4 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1903), lxxvi-lxxxi. Note also that Heine’s views on the dating of books 1-2 of ComJn have shifted during his career. In his introduction to ComJn in 1989, Heine follows Nautin’s proposal and dates the work as follows: “This would place the composition of the first four books in Alexan­dria in A.D. 230-231, and part, at least, of Book 5 in Antioch in A.D. 231-232” (Ronald E. Heine, “Introduction,” in Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Fathers of the Church 80 [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989], 4). Although he does not explicitly revise his dating of ComJn, Heine argues in 1993 that Ori­gen was responding to Monarchianism at the beginning of ComJn—a key point in his later reappraisal of the dating. See Ronald E. Heine, “Stoic Logic as Handmaid to Exegesis and Theology in Origen’s Com­mentary on the Gospel of John,” Journal o f Theological Studies 44, no. 1 (April 1993): 92-100. In his 1998 article Heine suggests that “the first two books [of ComJn] were written soon after Origen returned from Rome, and are largely structured by the modalist question” (Ronald E. Heine, “The Christology of Callistus,” Journal o f Theological Studies 49 [April 1998]: 58). This appears to mark the point where Heine’s views on the dating of the work definitively shifted to an early date, following Preuschen.22 Heine finds Nautin’s suggestion implausible on linguistic grounds,

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 109

among others. See Ronald E. Heine, Origen: Scholarship in the Service o f the Church, Christian Theology in Context (Oxford: Oxford Univer­sity Press, 2010), 87n20.23 Ibid., 87.24 Ibid., 88.25Nautin, Origene, 409, 418-19.26 Eusebius writes that Origen visited the church at Rome during the epis­copate ofZephyrinus because he desired “to see the most ancient church of the Romans” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.10).27 Refutatio omnium haeresium 9.2. The highly polemical nature of the Refutatio prompts caution when assessing its claim. While the depiction ofZephyrinus as a servile man might be tainted by the bias of the author, the basic chronology is probably accurate. Because there is no scholarly consensus on the authorship of this work at present, I have avoided its traditional attribution to Hippolytus. The whole complex of Hippolytan questions surrounding the authorship of the work is beyond the scope of this paper. I do agree with Simonetti that the Refutatio seems to have been written by a different author than the Contra Noetum, and this is one of the reasons I am hesitant to attribute it to Hippolytus. See Manlio Sim­onetti, “Monarchia e Trinita: alcune osservazioni su un libro recente,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 33, no. 3 (1997): 623—42; idem, “Una nuova proposta su Ippolito,” Augustinianum 36, no. 1 (1996): 13- 46; idem, “Aggiornamento su Ippolito,” in Nuove ricerche su Ippolito, Studia ephemeridis “Augustinianum” 30 (Roma: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum,” 1989), 75-130; idem, “Due note su Ippolito: Ippolito interprete di Genesi 49; Ippolito e Tertulliano,” in Ricerche su Ippolito, Studia ephemeridis “Augustinianum” 13 (Rome: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum,” 1977), 121-36.28 “Prophetiam expulit et haeresin intulit, Paracletum fugavit et Patrem crucifixit” (Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 1.5, trans. from Tertullian’s Treatise against Praxeas, ed. Ernest Evans [London: S.P.C.K., 1948], 131).29 Scholars have offered many possibilities for the identity of Praxeas. In his lengthy section “Wer war Praxeas,” Hagemann suggested that Prax­eas was a pseudonym for Callistus (Hermann Hagemann, Die romische Kirche und ihr Einfluss auf Disciplin und Dogma in den drei ersten Jah- rhunderten [Freiburg im Breisgau, 1864], 234-57). Harnack, La Piana, Bardy, and Moignt see no reason to doubt that Praxeas was a real person: Harnack, History o f Dogma, 3:59-60; George La Piana, “The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century: The Episcopate of Victor, the Latinization of the Roman Church, the Easter Controversy, Consolida­tion of Power and Doctrinal Development, the Catacomb of Callistus,”

110 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

Harvard Theological Review 18, no. 3 (July 1925): 246—47; Gustave Bardy, “Monarchianisme,” in Dictiomaire de theologie catholique, con- tenant Texpose des doctrines de la theologie catholique, leurs preuves et leur histoire, ed. Alfred Vacant, E. Mangenot, and Emile Amann, vol. 10.2 (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1929), 2197; Joseph Moingt, Theologie Trinitaire de Tertullien, vol. 1, Theologie, Etudes Publiees sous la Direc­tion de la Faculte de Theologie S.J. de Lyon-Fourviere 68 (Paris: Aubier, 1966), 91n2. Heine argues for a hybrid position—namely that Praxeas actually existed, but that Tertullian also uses his anti-Praxean polemic to address the views of Callistus; see Heine, “Christology of Callistus,” 59-60.“ Heine notes that “the first two books ... are largely structured by the modalist question” (Heine, “Christology of Callistus,” 58).31 Origen, ComJn 1.125, trans. Fathers of the Church (henceforth FC) 80:59-60.32 Origen, ComJn 1.151-52 (FC 80:64-65, with modifications).33 Maria Ramelli, Christop Bruns, and Cecile Blanc argue that Origen is concerned with Valentinian teaching here. See Ramelli, “Origen, Greek Philosophy,” 313-14; Christoph Bruns, Trinitat und Kosmos: Zur Got- teslehre des Origenes, Adamantiana 3 (Munster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2013), 62-63; Origen, Commentaire sur Saint Jean, ed. Cecile Blanc, Sources chretiennes 120 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1966), 136. Blanc sug­gests that Irenaeus’s report in Adversus Haereses 2.28.5 elucidates Ori­gen ’s passage. Irenaeus writes, “But ye pretend to set forth His genera­tion from the Father, and ye transfer the production of the word of men which takes place by means of a tongue to the Word of God, and thus are righteously exposed by your own selves as knowing neither things human nor divine (“Vos autem generationem eius ex patre divinantes et verbi hominum per linguam factam prolatkionem transferentes in ver- bum Dei, iuste detegimini a vobis ipsis quod neque humana neque divina noveritis”; trans. from Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:400-l). Ronald Heine has recently supported this view and shown how Ptolemaus appears to have fixated on the term “logos” in Irenaeus’s report in Adversus Haereses 1.8.5. He argues that this fixation would make sense of Origen’s com­ments in ComJn 1.125. See Heine, Origen, 94-96.34 Antonio Orbe, in agreement with Eugenio Corsini, shows the paral­lels between Origen’s opponents and Monarchian exegesis before sug­gesting that Origen also “has his sights set on a domestic exegesis, like that of Tertullian” (Orbe, “Origenes y los Monarquianos,” Gregorianum 72, no. 1 [1991]: 54-56; Origen, Commento al Vangelo di Giovanni, ed. Eugenio Corsini [Torino: Unione Tipografico Editrice Torinese, 1968], 160-61n45). Thiimmel notes the similarity to Monarchianism (Thiim-

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 111

mel, Origenes’ Johanneskommentar, 221-22). In his earlier article, Heine, following Orbe, argues that Origen appears to be addressing the positions of both the Monarchians and someone like Tertullian in this passage (Heine, “Christology of Callistus,” 65-66). Perhaps the various solutions are not mutually exclusive. On the one hand, Tertullian’s at­tribution of a similar interpretation of Ps. 44:2 to the Monarchians in Ad- versus Praxean is the closest parallel to Origen’s passage that we have. Because of this, it is probable that Origen was addressing the Monarchi­ans in this passage. On the other hand, the resonances with the passages from Adversus Haereses describing Valentinianism are evocative and should not be dismissed.35 See Hippolytus, Contra Noetum 4.7, 7.1, and 7.4-7.5; Tertullian, Ad­versus Praxean 20.1; Novatian, De Trinitate 27.1,28.1-5.36 Origen, Dialogue with Heraclides 1.37 As demonstrated, for example, in Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.8.5.38 See, for example, Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 20-25. In these chap­ters Tertullian relies heavily on the Gospel of John to articulate his posi­tion against that of the Praxeans.39Pollard writes, “I believe that it was St John’s Gospel, with its Logos- concept in the Prologue and its emphasis on the Father-Son relationship, that raised in a most acute way the problems which led the church to formulate her doctrines of the trinity and of the person of Christ” (T. E. Pollard, Johannine Christology and the Early Church, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 13 [Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­versity Press, 1970], xi).401 leave aside the discussion of Origen’s anti-Valentinian motive here in order to keep this essay focused and concise.41 Origen, ComJn 1.154.42Origen, ComJn 1.266 (FC 80:88).43 Origen, ComJn 1.280.44 Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 7.6, trans. Evans, 137-38: “Quid est enim, dices, sermo, nisi vox et sonus oris et, sicut grammatici tradunt, aer offensus intellegibilis auditu, ceterum vacuum nescio quid et inane et incorporale?”45Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 11.2, trans. Evans, 143.46 Heine also notes that the foregrounding of the Logos concept in Callis- tus’s theology is probably the work of the author of the Refutatio. Heine argues that spirit was probably a more important concept for Callistus’s theology. See Heine, “Christology of Callistus,” 64.47 Ibid., 66.48 Ibid.49 Ibid.

112 GOTR 60:3-4 2015

50Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 7.6.51 For the Monarchian contention that the Father and Son are one and the same, see especially Refutatio omnium haeresium 9.10.11-12; and Ter- tullian, Adversus Praxean 2.3: “maxime haec quae se existimat meram veritatem possidere dum unicum deum non alias putat credendum quam si ipsum eundemque et patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum dicat.” 52Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 11.2.53 Origen, ComJn 1.152 (FC 80:64-65, with modifications). “Kai^oyov xoiouxov Ka0’ auiov ^wvxu tcui rjxoi ou Ksycopiopevov xou ttaxpog Kai Kara xouxo xw pi) utpeaxavat oi)8s uiov xuy/dvovxa rj Kai Ksympiagevov Kai ouaiojpcvov ajiayysMixwaav qpTv 0eov ?t6yov” (Greek from Origen, Commentaire sur Saint Jean, 136-38).54 Origen gives us a rough summary of his opponents’ interpretation of Ps. 44:2, but he does not elaborate on their teaching. From Contra Noetum and Adversus Praxean, however, we know that the Monarchians denied that there was any distinction between the Father and the Son. Consider the saying Hippolytus attributes to the Noetians: “You see, brethren, how rash and reckless a doctrine they introduced in saying quite shamelessly, ‘The Father is himself Christ; he is himself the Son; he himself was bom, he himself suffered, he himself raised himself up!’” (Hippolytus, Contra Noetum 3.2, trans. into English as Hippolytus, Contra Noetum, ed. Rob­ert Butterworth, Heythrop Monographs 2 [London: Heythrop College, University of London, 1977], 48).55 As I noted above in my summary of scholarship, the Valentinian usage of “Logos” surely contributed to Origen’s de-emphasis of it as well.56 Origen, of course, does not completely pass up this opportunity to speak about the Word. In book 2 of ComJn, he argues that all rational creatures are rational insofar as they participate in the Logos. See espe­cially the section on participation starting in 2.16.57 Origen, ComJn 1.118 (FC 80:58). In the sections preceding this one, Origen discusses the role of Wisdom in creation. He also discusses the relationship between Logos and Wisdom, although his discussion is not terribly clear.58Origen, De Prin. 1.2.Iff.50 Origen, De Prin. 1.2.2, trans. Butterworth, 15, with modifications. Butterworth translates aliquid insubstantivum as “anything without hy­postatic existence.” This translation, however, seems to take too much license because we are not sure that “hypostasis” was in the original Greek.“ Origen, ComJn 1.124. Origen’s point here is that, in the absence of the fall, Christ would not have needed to be “physician” or “shepherd.” In the absence of the Fall, however, Christ would have still been Wisdom.

Waers: Wisdom Christology and Monarchianism 113

61 Origen, ComJn 1.111 ff.; De Prin. 1.2.3.620rigen, De Prin. 1.2.2.63 Origen. ComJn 1.244^16.64Note that Tertullian does something very similar to this in his reading of Prov. 8:22 in Adversus Praxean 6. There he speaks of Wisdom being “established as a second person (secundam personam)." For both Tertul­lian and Origen, the description of Wisdom as being with God in creation provides ample grounds to assert that there was another [person] with God at creation.65Origen, ComJn 2.16 (FC 80:98).66 For a good discussion of the use of “jreptYpoupri” by Origen and oth­ers, see Matthew R. Crawford, “The Triumph of Pro-Nicene Theology over Anti-Monarchian Exegesis: Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Heraclea on John 14:10-11,” Journal o f Early Christian Studies 21, no. 4(2013): 549-55.67Origen, ComJn 1.291-92.68 Ibid., 1.292.69 Again, see specifically ComJn 151-52 for Origen’s discussion of the reading of Ps. 44:2 that denies ousia to the Logos.

Copyright of Greek Orthodox Theological Review is the property of Holy Cross OrthodoxPress and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.