Origeniana Duodecima: Origen's Legacy in the Holy Land - A Tale of Three Cities: Jerusalem, Caesarea and Bethlehem. Proceedings of the 12th ... Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium) 9789042939479, 9789042939486, 9042939478

Citation preview

ORIGENIANA DUODECIMA ORIGEN’S LEGACY IN THE HOLY LAND – A TALE OF THREE CITIES: JERUSALEM, CAESAREA AND BETHLEHEM BROURIA BITTON-ASHKELONY – ODED IRSHAI ARYEH KOFSKY – HILLEL NEWMAN – LORENZO PERRONE

ORIGENIANA DUODECIMA ORIGEN’S LEGACY IN THE HOLY LAND – A TALE OF THREE CITIES: JERUSALEM, CAESAREA AND BETHLEHEM

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

EDITED BY THE BOARD OF EPHEMERIDES THEOLOGICAE LOVANIENSES

L.-L. Christians, J. Famerée, É. Gaziaux, J. Geldhof, A. Join-Lambert, M. Lamberigts, J. Leemans, D. Luciani, A.C. Mayer, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EXECUTIVE EDITORS

J. Famerée, M. Lamberigts, D. Luciani, O. Riaudel, J. Verheyden

EDITORIAL STAFF

R. Corstjens – C. Timmermans

UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE

KU LEUVEN LEUVEN

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM CCCII

ORIGENIANA DUODECIMA ORIGEN’S LEGACY IN THE HOLY LAND – A TALE OF THREE CITIES: JERUSALEM, CAESAREA AND BETHLEHEM Proceedings of the 12th International Origen Congress, Jerusalem, 25-29 June, 2017

EDITED BY

BROURIA BITTON-ASHKELONY – ODED IRSHAI ARYEH KOFSKY – HILLEL NEWMAN – LORENZO PERRONE

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2019

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-3947-9 eISBN 978-90-429-3948-6 D/2019/0602/70 Allrightsreserved.Exceptinthosecasesexpresslydeterminedbylaw, nopartofthispublicationmaybemultiplied,savedinanautomateddatafile ormadepublicinanywaywhatsoever withouttheexpresspriorwrittenconsentofthepublishers. © 2019 – Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII

PROLEGOMENON

Lorenzo PERRONE (Bologna) Origen and His Legacy in the “Holy Land”: Fortune and Misfortune of a Literary and Theological Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

I. JERUSALEM AND THE HOLY LAND: HISTORICAL AND MYSTICAL GEOGRAPHY

Agnès ALIAU-MILHAUD (Paris) Bethabara and Gergesa (Origen, CommentaryonJohnVI,204211): Geographical Digression or Exegesis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

Marie-Odile BOULNOIS (Paris) Mambré: Du chêne de la vision au lieu de pèlerinage . . . . . . . .

41

Harald BUCHINGER (Regensburg) Pascha in Third-Century Palestine: Origen’s Newly Identified HomiliesonthePsalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

Antonio CACCIARI (Bologna) The Fall of Jerusalem in Origen’s Newly Discovered Homilies onthePsalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

Lavinia CERIONI (Roma) “Mother of Souls”: The Holy City of Jerusalem in Origen’s Commentary and HomiliesontheSongofSongs . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Giovanni HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD (Roma) From Capernaum to Jerusalem: Noetic History and Historical Occurrences in Origen’s Sacred Geography of the Holy Land . 123 Tommaso INTERI (Torino) “A Place to Worship the Lord Our God”: Origen’s Exegesis of the Holy Land in His Homilies on the Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Nikolai LIPATOV-CHICHERIN (Nottingham) Early Christian Tradition about Adam’s Burial on Golgotha and Origen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Valentina MARCHETTO (Bologna) “Jerusalem … Is the Divine Soul” (FrLam VIII): The Holy Land in Origen’s Early Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Christoph MARKSCHIES (Berlin) Local Knowledge vs. Religious Imaging: Origen and the Holy Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Emanuela PRINZIVALLI (Roma) The City of God and the Cities of Men according to Origen . . 221 Franz Xaver RISCH (Berlin) Die Stufen des Tempels: Zur Auslegung der Gradualpsalmen bei Origenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

II. THE SCHOOL OF CAESAREA AND EUSEBIUS

Pier Franco BEATRICE (Padova) Porphyry at Origen’s School at Caesarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Francesco CELIA (Jerusalem) Studying the Scriptures at the School of Caesarea: The Testimony of Gregory of Neocaesarea’s OratioPanegyrica . . . . . . . 285 Mark DELCOGLIANO (St. Paul, MN) Eusebius of Caesarea’s Defense of Origen in ContraMarcellum I,4,1-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Pedro Daniel FERNÁNDEZ (San Juan) Alexandrie et Césarée: La continuité de l’itinéraire pédagogique d’Origène . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Marc HIRSHMAN (Jerusalem) Origen, Copyists, and Books of Aggada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Aaron P. JOHNSON (Cleveland, TN) Cities Divine and Demonic in Eusebius of Caesarea . . . . . . . . . 325 Adele MONACI CASTAGNO (Torino) Eusèbe de Césarée, Jérusalem et la Palestine: Une question controversée . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

Sébastien MORLET (Paris) Συμφωνία: Symphonic Exegesis from Origen to Eusebius of Caesarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 Joseph PATRICH (Jerusalem) Caesarea Maritima in the Time of Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

III. ORIGEN’S LATIN LEGACY: RUFINUS AND JEROME

Andrew CAIN (Boulder, CO) Origen, Jerome’s Pauline Prefaces, and the Architecture of Exegetical Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 Maurizio GIROLAMI (Pordenone) Bible and/or Tradition in the Works of Origen, Rufinus, and Jerome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 Justin J. LEE (Durham) “Seek and Ye Shall Find”: Rufinus and the Search for Origen’s Trinitarian Orthodoxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 Katarina PÅLSSON (Lund) Likeness to the Angels: Origen, Jerome, and the Question of the Resurrection Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461

IV. TRADITION, INNOVATION, AND HERITAGE: ORIGEN’S EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

Cordula BANDT (Berlin) Psalms as Part of the Worship in Early Christian Exegesis . . . . 477 Carl Johan BERGLUND (Uppsala) Discerning Quotations from Heracleon in Origen’s Commentary ontheGospelofJohn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 Andrew BLASKI (Champaign, IL) Jews, Christians, and the Conditions of Christological Interpretation in Origen’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 Gerald BOSTOCK (Perth) Origen’s Unique Doctrine of the Trinity: Its Jewish and Egyptian Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Stephen C. CARLSON (Fitzroy) Origen’s Use of Papias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 Elizabeth Ann DIVELY LAURO (Los Angeles, CA) History and Context of Origen’s Relation of the Two Seraphim to the Son and Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547 Samuel FERNÁNDEZ (Santiago) “That Man Who Appeared in Judaea”(Prin II,6,2): The Soteriological Function of the Humanity of the Son of God according to Origen’s Deprincipiis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563 Alfons FÜRST (Münster) Matter and Body in Origen’s Christian Platonism . . . . . . . . . . . 573 Anders-Christian JACOBSEN (Aarhus) Origen on Body and Soul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589 Samuel JOHNSON (Notre Dame, IN) The Sacrifice of the Law in Origen’s HomiliesonLeviticus . . . 603 Jussi Pentti JUNNI (Helsinki) Being and Becoming in Celsus and Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Lenka KARFÍKOVÁ (Prague) Is Romans 9,11 Proof for or against the Pre-Existence of the Soul? Origen and Augustine in Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Vito LIMONE (Milano) Ousia in Origen: The Use of the Term in Light of the Homilies onthePsalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 Francesca MINONNE (Milano) Origen and the Grammatical Process of Interpretation: Ὑπερβατά as Solutions to Solecisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 Domenico PAZZINI (Verucchio) Le lieu de Jésus et la voie négative de l’épinoia dans le CommentairesurSaintJeand’Origène . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671 Gianluca PISCINI (Tours) Trois versions de Phinees: Nb 25,7-8 dans la tradition alexandrine (Philon, Origène, Cyrille) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681 Anna ZHYRKOVA (Kraków) The Philosophical Premises of Origen’s Teachings on the Subject of Christ as an Ontological Unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XI

V. THE ORIGENIST LEGACY: FROM EVAGRIUS TO BALTHASAR

Vladimir A. BARANOV (Novosibirsk) The First Responses to Iconoclasm in Byzantium and Origen’s Tradition: The Cases of Constantinople and Palestine . . . . . . . . 711 Maria FALLICA (Roma) Origen and the Glorified Body: Bullinger, Sozzini and Calvin in Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 Cornelis HOOGERWERF (Leiden) Origen, “Destroyer of the Holy Scriptures”? Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia on Ephesians 5,31-32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741 Raffaele TONDINI (Padova) Photius as Origen’s Reader (and Editor). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753 Robin Darling YOUNG (Washington, DC) Evagrius and the Christian Interpretation of the Psalms: Proposals for Further Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771 John ZALESKI (Cambridge, MA) The Nous Is the Head of the Soul: Remaking Origen’s and Evagrius’s Anthropology for the Church of the East . . . . . . . . . 789 Elisa ZOCCHI (Münster) “Where the Human Senses Become Spiritual, Faith Becomes Sensory”: Corporeality and Spiritual Senses in Balthasar’s Reading of Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805

INDICES

ABBREVIATIONES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 SACRA SCRIPTURA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 ORIGENIS OPERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 AUCTORES MODERNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The editors of this volume wish to express their gratitude to their colleagues from Israel and the world round for participating in the OrigenianaXII, which took place on 25-29 June 2017 at the Center for the Study of Christianity, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The conference was organized by Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony, former director of the Center (2010-2017), and Daniel Salem, who has served as the secretary of the Center for the past decade. We are forever indebted to Mrs. Aldegonde Brenninkmeijer-Werhahn and Mr. Martin Brenninkmeijer for their unstinting support of the Center for the Study of Christianity. Their generosity enabled this significant gathering of scholars to take place in Jerusalem, thus advancing our knowledge and understanding of Origen and his presence and impact in the Holy Land. The conference theme was Origen’sLegacyintheHolyLand–ATale ofThreeCities:Jerusalem,CaesareaandBethlehem. This volume offers a wide selection from the papers that were delivered at the conference. Many of the essays present new perspectives on Origen’s career and legacy in the Holy Land in the broad sense. As was the case in previous conferences, diverse aspects of current Origen research were welcomed as well. The volume contains five sections: Jerusalem and the Holy Land: Historical and Mystical Geography; The School of Caesarea and Eusebius; Origen’s Latin Legacy: Rufinus and Jerome; Tradition, Innovation, and Heritage: Origen’s Exegesis and Theology; and The Origenist Legacy: From Evagrius to Balthasar. The extensive range of the topics covered in this book called for a number of experts to handle the complicated editorial task. The present work thus reflects deep collaboration and amity between the editors and their institutions: Aryeh Kofsky and Hillel Newman from the University of Haifa, Oded Irshai and Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony from the Hebrew University, and Lorenzo Perrone from the University of Bologna. We are grateful to the anonymous readers, whose wise suggestions significantly improved the essays. In this extended editorial process, it was Daniel Salem who coordinated the work. On behalf of the authors and the editors, we wish to thank him not only for his editorial efforts, but also for his boundless devotion to the Center. We are indebted to Dr. Francesco Celia for performing the massive project of indexing the

XIV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

entire volume, and we also thank him warmly for his helpful corrections. Special thanks are due to Sara Tropper for her rigorous English editing; we very much appreciate her important contribution to the quality of the essays. We gratefully acknowledge the unfailing cooperation of Rita Corstjens from BETLand the highly professional work of Peeters Publishers.

PROLEGOMENON

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND” FORTUNE AND MISFORTUNE OF A LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

IngratefulmemoryofYoramTsafrir

I. ORIGEN IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL / PALESTINE: A “SECOND LIFE” AND A FUTURE HERITAGE “We are close to the ancient Jerusalem, we know that it has no river”1. For the first time since its beginning in 1973, the International Origen Conference takes place in a city with which the Alexandrian was well acquainted. He pointed it out when he was preaching in Caesarea on Psalm 77 by recalling again – as in the sixth book of the Commentaryon John – Ps 45,5a (“The river’s strong currents make glad the city of God”)2. However, this time he stressed the proximity of his actual location to the old capital of Israel. It would be tempting now to depict “Jerusalem as Origen knew it”, and to repeat for Jerusalem what John McGuckin brilliantly did for Caesarea in a contribution to the Boston Conference of 19893. On that occasion, he compensated for the missing evidence in the writings of Origen with other literary sources, and especially with the archaeological materials available for the history of Roman Caesarea. Though we may rely on the remains of Aelia Capitolina in the second and third centuries CE, Origen himself provides us with more information on traditions and places of the contemporary Jerusalem than he did for his new residence after leaving Alexandria. He knows, for 1. H77PsVII,2: γείτονες γάρ ἐσμεν τῆς πάλαι Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἴσμεν ὅτι ποταμὸν οὐκ ἔχει; Die neuen Psalmenhomilien: Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314, ed. L. PERRONE with M. MOLIN PRADEL – E. PRINZIVALLI – A. CACCIARI (GCS, NF 19; Origenes Werke, 13), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015, p. 437,7-8. The translations from the Greek OT (LXX) are taken from ANewEnglishTranslationoftheSeptuagint, ed. A. PIETERSMA – B.G. WRIGHT, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2007. 2. CIo VI,42,219: Τὴν πόλιν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ‹οὐ› τὴν αἰσϑητὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ (οὐ γὰρ ἔχει παρακείμενον ποταμόν); Der Johanneskommentar, ed. E. PREUSCHEN (GCS, 10; Origenes Werke, 4), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903, p. 151,24-25. 3. J.A. MCGUCKIN, CaesareaMaritimaasOrigenKnewIt, in R. DALY (ed.), Origeniana Quinta:Historica–TextandMethod–Biblica–Philosophica–Theologica–Origenism andLaterDevelopments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 3-25.

4

L. PERRONE

instance, a local tradition of presumably Judaeo-Christian origins, according to which the burial of Adam, previously located by the Jews in the area of the Temple, had been placed under the Calvary, anticipating in this way the situation that we still face nowadays in the complex of the Holy Sepulchre4. Moreover, not only does he mention the statues of the emperors standing on the esplanade of the ruined Temple5, he also reports that Mount Sion was occupied by “quadrupeds and pagans”, while declaring that this same area (through the association with the Temple Mount) continued to be dear to the Jews because of the alleged divine presence there6. These and other similar details of historical and topographical nature make Origen an interesting witness for archaeologists and historians, not only of pagan and early Christian Jerusalem, but also of Roman Palestine before Constantine and the shaping of a “Holy Land” for the Christians7. Bearing in mind the many places that he must have visited in his journeys through the country before he finally moved to Caesarea, we could retrace a first “biblical tour” through the Land of the Old and the New Testaments8. At the very beginning of his sojourn in Palestine, when he recommenced to dictate the VIth book of the Commentary on John, he states that he had gone “on the tracks of Jesus, his disciples and the prophets”9. Thanks to this sort of “pilgrimage”, instead of reading in 4. CMtS 126: Περὶ τοῦ κρανίου τόπου ἦλϑεν εἰς ἐμέ, ὅτι Ἑβραῖοι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἐκεῖ τετάφϑαι; Matthäuserklärung. II: DielateinischeÜbersetzungderCommentariorumSeries, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN (GCS, 38; Origenes Werke, 11), Berlin, Hinrichs, 1933, p. 265. See G. BARDY, Les traditions juives dans l’œuvre d’Origène, in RB 34 (1925) 221-226, pp. 244-245; A. LE BOULLUEC, RegardsantiquessurAdamauGolgotha, in M. LOUBET – D. PRALON (eds.),Εὔκαρπα:ÉtudessurlaBibleetsesexégètesenhommageàGillesDorival, Paris, Cerf, 2011, 355-363. 5. FrMt 469 IV; Matthäuserklärung. III: Fragmente und Indices, 1. Hälfte, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN (GCS, 41; Origenes Werke, 12), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1941, p. 194; Y. TSAFRIR, 70-638: The Temple-less Mountain, in O. GRABAR – B.Z. KEDAR (eds.), WhereHeavenandEarthMeet:Jerusalem’sSacredEsplanade, Jerusalem, Yad Ben Zvi Press; Austin, TX, University of Texas Press, 2009, 43-99, pp. 77-83. 6. H73PsI,6 (GCS NF 19, 232,6-7 PERRONE): Καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ ὄρει κατεσκήνωσεν ὁ ϑεὸς κατ’ ἐκείνους, ὅπου κατασκηνοῦσι τετράποδα καὶ ἐϑνικοί. For the identification of the Temple Mount with Mount Sion see also CIo XIII,12,78 (GCS 10, 237,6-10 PREUSCHEN). 7. See especially R.L. WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly:PalestineinChristianHistory andThought, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 65-78. 8. L. PERRONE, Origeneela‘TerraSanta’, in O. ANDREI (ed.), CaesareaMaritimae lascuolaorigeniana:Multiculturalità,formedicompetizioneculturaleeidentitàcristiana. Atti dell’XI Convegno del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina(22-23settembre2011)(Supplementi di Adamantius, 3), Brescia, Morcelliana, 2013, 139-160, pp. 158-159. 9. CIo VI,40,204 (GCS 10, 149,15-17 PREUSCHEN): γενόμενοι ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐπὶ ἱστορίαν τῶν ἰχνῶν Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν μαϑητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν προφητῶν.

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

5

Jn 1,28: “Bethany beyond the Jordan” (ἐν Βηϑανίᾳ … πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου), he opted for the toponym of Bethabara, on the eastern shore of the river, as the site where John baptized. Conforming with local reports, he was able to check personally the alternative indication thanks to an inspection of the spot10. It is not my aim here to take Origen as our guide through the city of Jerusalem or the Land of Israel / Palestine in his time11. What I would like to do, in response to the invitation of the organizers and in light of the general theme of the conference, is rather to try to understand why this region, from a historical, religious and cultural viewpoint, became so decisive for Origen’s work and his legacy, for good or ill, much more than Egypt, his home country, or other more important areas of ancient Christendom. Certainly, the familiarity of the Alexandrian with his second home and its surroundings helps us, first of all, to recognise that Origen’s coming to Palestine around 233 was far from being an accidental event, an extemporaneous way out in the midst of a critical situation, or even merely a period, though relevant, in his biography. More than that, it was like a “second life” for him, as I will attempt to show. On the other hand, it was precisely the move from Alexandria to Caesarea that laid the foundations for the future survival of his literary and theological heritage. If the reception of Origen throughout history, like perhaps no other author of Late Antiquity, has been marked by contrasting pictures of fortune and misfortune, such a process first and foremost stems from the characteristics of the Alexandrian’s legacy and the vicissitudes it experienced originally in the Holy Land. After discussing the consequences of the move to Caesarea on Origen’s profile and activity, particularly in regard to his contacts with the Jewish milieu, I shall deal briefly with the destiny of his legacy in the Holy Land. II. THE MOVE FROM ALEXANDRIA TO CAESAREA: ITS CONSEQUENCES ON ORIGEN’S PROFILE AND ACTIVITY Origen’s contacts with the future “Holy Land” most probably go back to the second decade of the third century CE, more than fifteen years before he settled in Caesarea, which is when he was at the beginning of his thirties. Nowadays, it is largely accepted that Nautin’s masterbook on the life and writings of the Alexandrian requires revision, among other 10. CIo VI,40,204-205 (GCS 10, 149,12-23 PREUSCHEN); J.M. HUTTON, “Bethany beyondtheJordan”inText,Tradition,andHistoricalGeography, in Biblica 89 (2008) 305-328. 11. As I did partially in PERRONE, Origeneela‘TerraSanta’ (n. 8), pp. 156-159.

6

L. PERRONE

aspects, insofar as the chronology is concerned12. Contrary to the temporal frame proposed by the French scholar, by going back to Eusebius’ dating of the first journey to Palestine in the reign of Emperor Caracalla (ca. 215 CE), we detect an early network of relations that involved not only Alexander and Theoctistus, the bishops respectively of Jerusalem and Caesarea, but also the neighbouring churches of Arabia. Origen visited the province on the eastern border of Palestine three or four times to participate in doctrinal disputes, often convened in the form of a synod, as witnessed in the first instance by the Dialogue with Heraclides13. If we consider the Alexandrian orbit into which the churches of Palestine tendentially positioned themselves at the turn of the third century CE, as attested by Eusebius’ narrative of the Paschal controversy under Pope Victor, Origen’s connection with the Christian communities of this region becomes not at all unexpected14. It is even less so if we remember that Clement of Alexandria preceded him in Jerusalem thanks to his relations with Alexander, to whom he dedicated a work entitled EcclesiasticalCanon, or AgainstJudaizers15. Thus, the irradiation of the “school of Alexandria” with its first masters Pantaenus and Clement, both deeply revered by the Jerusalem bishop, must have reached the Palestinian Church quite early, even if not to the detriment of other influences, as demonstrated by the Cappadocian provenance of Alexander. Though Origen’s relation to Clement leaves some room for incertitude, inasmuch as he never mentions him, we might suppose that he followed in the

12. P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977; E. NORELLI, Origene(Vitaeopere), in A. MONACI CASTAGNO(ed.), Origene.Dizionario:Lacultura,ilpensiero,leopere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 293-302; A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), LabiografiadiOrigenefrastoriaeagiografia.AttidelVI ConvegnodiStudidelGruppoItalianodiRicercasuOrigeneelaTradizioneAlessandrina (Biblioteca di Adamantius, 1), Villa Verucchio – Rimini, Pazzini, 2004. 13. See G. KRETSCHMAR, OrigenesunddieAraber, in ZTK 50 (1953) 258-279; and, most recently, M. RIZZI, LasecondapartedelDialogo con Eraclide:L’animaèilsangue?, in Adamantius 21 (2015) 269-283. 14. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.V,25,1; O. IRSHAI, FromObliviontoFame:TheHistoryof the Palestinian Church (135-303 CE), in O. LIMOR – G.G. STROUMSA (eds.), Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land: From the Origins to the Latin Kingdoms (Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 5), Turnhout, Brepols, 2006, 91-139, p. 115. 15. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI,12,3. See A. LE BOULLUEC, Aux origines, encore, de l’“École” d’Alexandrie, in ID., Alexandrie antique et chrétienne: Clément et Origène, édition établie par G. CONTICELLO, Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2006, 29-60, pp. 41-42, who places in Jerusalem the composition of another work of Clement OnEaster, where he “mentioned Melito and Irenaeus and some others”.

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

7

footsteps of his predecessor in the Christian school of Alexandria, even if he preferred Caesarea to Jerusalem16. I insist on these premises, both historical and biographical, to better appreciate the extent to which the transfer to Caesarea represented a turn in Origen’s life and activity. Scholars generally agree that the two decades he spent in Palestine, apart from being for us the best-known period of his life, should be regarded also as the most productive ones. In the words of the great Adolf von Harnack, thanks to Origen’s presence “Caesarea became a second Alexandria” for the promotion of Christian scholarship17. Did Origen then go on as usual with his work, in the new home, after the stormy circumstances which led him to leave the Alexandrian Church, as it seems, in the wake of a personal decision more than under external pressure18? Or was he obliged to modify his literary agenda, in some way adjusting it to his new milieu and its needs? According to Ronald Heine, who carefully analysed the transition from Alexandria to Caesarea, there was certainly a change – in the end also an important one – but it consisted of a gradual shift in theological and apologetic interests due to the different religious landscape of Roman Palestine19. We might, nonetheless, expect more thoroughgoing consequences. As we know, the Origen who came to live in Palestine was a renowned theologian, whom Julia Mamaea, the mother of Emperor Alexander Severus, had invited to the court in Antioch for a personal interview shortly before he arrived in Caesarea (231-232)20. He was also a controversial figure 16. On the relations of Jerusalem with Alexandria see O. IRSHAI, The Jerusalem  ishopricandtheJewsintheFourthCentury:HistoryandEschatology, in L.I. LEVINE, B Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, Continuum, 1999, 204-220, p. 206. 17. A. VON HARNACK, DieMissionundAusbreitungdesChristentumsindenerstendrei Jahrhunderten, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 41924, p. 640: “… Als Sitz theologischer Gelehrsamkeit und Arbeit wurde Cäsarea durch Origenes ein zweites Alexandria”. J. VERHEYDEN, Origen in the Making: Reading Between (and Behind) the Lines of Eusebius’ ‘Life of Origen’ (HE 6), in S. KACZMAREK – H. PIETRAS (eds.), Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer (BETL, 244), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, 713-725, pp. 724-725 shares this opinion: “it is Origen who made Caesarea the most brilliant centre of Christian culture”. 18. L.R. HOLLIDAY, Excommunicatum: The Mono-Episcopate, the Third-Century Church, and Origen, in Acta Patristica et Byzantina: A Journal for Early Christian andByzantine Studies 21/1 (2010) 47-60; PERRONE, Origene e la ‘Terra Santa’ (n. 8), pp. 150-151. 19. R.E. HEINE, Origen:ScholarshipintheServiceoftheChurch, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 158. 20. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI,21,3-4. Pace A. GRAFTON – M. WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea, Cambridge, MA – London, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006, p. 123,

8

L. PERRONE

for the ecclesiastical establishment of Alexandria; not only his bishop Demetrius, but also Heraclas, a former pupil and his assistant in the Alexandrian didaskaleion, had problems with him, presumably because of his overly independent and creative spirit. Moreover, the birthplace of Origen was characterized by the intense flourishing of schools both Christian and pagan. Thus, for a while, both he and Heraclas enjoyed the teaching of a philosopher. His Alexandrian audience, numbering among them heretics and philosophically interested heathens, nourished high expectations of him21. He could also interact in Alexandria with lifelong friends, to whom he addressed one of his most interesting “autobiographical” letters22, not to speak of his ties with Dionysius, the successor of Heraclas as the head of the didaskaleion23. Compared to the complex cultural background of Alexandria, the intellectual atmosphere of Caesarea would seem to have created a condition of isolation. Was Origen then condemned to be a lonely Christian teacher on the stage of a provincial capital? Not at all. That this was not the case was partially due to important factors connected with the new environment, to which we shall soon turn. Primarily, however, it had to do with the transformation of Origen’s profile or, put better, of his professional status: by now he was no longer a “teacher” (διδάσκαλος), albeit in the context of an ecclesiastical community, as in Alexandria. In Caesarea, he also acted as a “priest” (πρεσβύτερος) of the local church, enacting this new role through his activity as preacher. In my opinion, this was the most remarkable novelty in the new stage of Origen’s life, despite the fact that he never ceased to write and to teach in a school. However, he became more than ever a “man of the Church” (uir ecclesiasticus), as he often wished himself to be qualified24. Yet this heightened institutional identification did nothing to blunt Origen’s acute awareness of the Origen was not one who “lived and worked as an embattled representative of a tiny, obscure sect”. 21. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,19,12-13. 22. It is precisely the LettertoSomeAlexandrianFriends:Epistulaadquosdamcaros suosAlexandriam, in P. NAUTIN, LettresetécrivainschrétiensdesIIeetIIIesiècles, Paris, Cerf, Paris 1961, pp. 250-251. 23. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,46,2; E. PRINZIVALLI, Magister Ecclesiae:Ildibattitosu OrigenefraIIIeIVsecolo(SEA, 82), Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2002, pp. 43-44. 24. See, for example, H77Ps V,7 (GCS NF 19, 416,9-10 PERRONE): οἱ εὐχόμενοι εἶναι ἐκκλησιαστικοί; HLc XVI,6: Ego uero, qui opto esse ecclesiasticus et non ab haeresiarchaealiquo,sedaChristivocabulonuncupariethaberenomen; DieHomilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars, ed. M. RAUER (GCS, 49; Origenes Werke, 9), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1959, pp. 97,28–98,2.

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

9

deficiencies in the churches around the middle of the third century CE, specifically with regard to the priestly and episcopal hierarchy, as attested by the CommentaryonMatthew, the last commentary he wrote, with its evangelical “anticlericalism”25. Moreover, despite his insertion into the ecclesiastical ranks, he exploited to the fullest the unique chances offered by the new environment of Caesarea, especially with its Jewish milieu. In the third century CE, the foundation of Herod the Great was not simply a provincial capital but the thriving metropolis of Roman Palestine, one of the major harbours of the Eastern Mediterranean, and a lively multicultural and multireligious centre26. In some respects, the religious competition in Caesarea was not so far from that of Alexandria, but the city presented additional challenges: mainly inhabited by a pagan population, it was also home to a large Jewish community as well as to a Samaritan minority27. Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew were the languages in use, either as spoken idioms or as reference languages for public administration, for cult and for study. As for the little Christian community, Caesarea was historically the place in which the primitive Church opened itself for the first time to the world of the Gentiles, thanks to the conversion of the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10)28. In spite of such a title of nobility, together with the other stories reported by the Acts of the Apostles, the spread of Christianity had remained relatively modest when Origen settled there. As he confesses in the FirstHomilyonPsalm 36, reflecting on the composite visage of the local church, the faithful were a rather tiny group: “We are not a folk, but a few people have believed from this city and others from another city”29. Nevertheless, occasions for converting individuals to Christianity were not lacking, if 25. V. PERI, Coram hominibus, apud Deum:Accentid’anticlericalismoevangelicoin Origene, in Paradoxos Politeia: Studi Patristici in onore di Giuseppe Lazzati, Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1979, 209-232. 26. L.I. LEVINE, Caesarea under Roman Rule, Leiden, Brill, 1975; A. RABAN – K.G. HOLUM (eds.), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, Leiden, Brill, 1996; O. ANDREI, RipensareCaesareaMaritima, in ID. (ed.), CaesareaMaritimae la scuola origeniana (n. 8), 9-23; G. RINALDI, Pagani e cristiani a Cesarea Marittima, ibid., 25-94, p. 44. 27. T.L. DONALDSON (ed.), Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima (Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 8), Waterloo, Ont., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000. 28. R. ASCOUGH, Christianity in Caesarea Maritima, in DONALDSON (ed.), Religious Rivalries (n. 27), 153-179, p. 154: “This culturally diverse city was a fitting place for the unofficial opening of Christianity – originally a sectarian Jewish group – to the Gentiles”. 29. H36PsI,1 (GCS NF 19, 115,18-19 PERRONE): Ἡμεῖς γὰρ οὐκ ἔϑνος, ὀλίγοι ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς πόλεως πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἄλλοι ἀπὸ ἄλλης.

10

L. PERRONE

in another sermon Origen could allude to those listeners who were pagans just “a few days before”30. At any rate, the Christian presence was not monolithic, but included “heterodox” variants, to judge from Origen’s constant struggle against Gnostics, Marcionites and Judaeo-Christians. Given the multireligious characteristics of the city, some interaction among the various groups was likely to develop: often enough polemically, but to some extent also in a “dialogical”, if not in a properly “eirenic” way. As we shall see, the new situation encouraged Origen to look for interreligious contacts that were not completely devoid of moments of dialogue. The Alexandrian, then, far from feeling “exiled” in Caesarea and longing for his lost homeland, which he never visited again, preferring other destinations over it, seems to have taken advantage of the Palestinian capital as a political observatory, as shown last but not least by Against Celsus31. He knew quite well that sport, theatre and politics were among the most popular topics of conversation for the people of the city, including the members of the Christian community32. Actually, he pays some attention to the critical situation of the Empire in the first half of the third century CE; in the FirstHomilyonPsalm36, he betrays a keen perception of the weakness of the imperial power and its ephemeral character33. This passage, which in the Latin translation by Rufinus has attracted much speculation on the exact chronology meant by the preacher, does not number a series of sovereigns, but simply points colloquially to those emperors “who have reigned thirty years before us”, and “were celebrated”, though their glory vanished like a flower. Here, Origen might be referring either to Septimius Severus (d. 211) or to one of the emperors who followed him34. However, from the political point of view, 30. H76Ps II,7 (GCS NF 19, 324,4-5 PERRONE): εἰς τὰ εἰδωλεῖά τινες ἡμῶν ἦσαν τάχα πρὸ ὀλίγων ἡμερῶν, πρὸ ὀλίγων μηνῶν, νῦν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ. The examples of conversions of Jews to Christianity given by ASCOUGH, Christianity in CaesareaMaritima (n. 28), p. 178 with references to Origen’s preaching are not in point. 31. M. RIZZI, ProblematichepoliticheneldibattitotraCelsoeOrigene, in Discorsidi verità:Paganesimo,giudaismoecristianesimoaconfrontonelContro Celso diOrigene, Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1998, 171-206. 32. H76Ps II,4 (GCS NF 19, 319,8-10 PERRONE): Ἡ ὁμιλία σου μὴ ἔστω κοσμική, μὴ τί οἱ ἵπποι πεποιήκασι, μὴ τί ὁ ἡνίοχος πεποίηκεν ἢ κατώρϑωσεν, μὴ τί ἐν ϑεάτρῳ γεγένηται, μὴ τί ὁ ἡγούμενος τοῦ ἔϑνους ἐδίκασε. 33. H36PsI,2 (GCS NF 19, 118,16-17 PERRONE): ἐβασίλευσαν πρὸ ἡμῶν πρὸ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ἐδοξάσϑησαν, οἱονεὶ ἄνϑος ἡ δόξα αὐτῶν, ἀλλ’ ἐσβέσϑη, ἐμαράνϑη. 34. For the previous discussion on H36Ps (Latin) I,2 see V. PERI, Omelie origeniane sui Salmi: Contributo all’identificazione del testo latino (Studi e Testi, 289), Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1980, pp. 128-129; A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Origene predicatoreeilsuopubblico(Dipartimento di storia dell’Università di Torino, 3), Milano, Franco Angeli, 1987, pp. 63-64. The new evidence is examined by EAD., Contestoliturgico

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

11

the period of Caesarea is framed, at the beginning and at the end, by the two persecutions of Maximinus Thrax (235) and Decius (249-250), the latter ultimately forcing the vexed Alexandrian to relocate in Tyre, his place of death. Origen apparently enjoyed a state of relative tranquillity, so that the memories of martyrdom occurring in his sermons often radiate a nostalgic aura and even a yearning for the previous trials and the past ardour of the Christian community35. Leading roles of Christians in the civic or the imperial administration, and more generally in society, thanks to their wealth, first under the Severans and, later on, under the reign of Philip the Arab, were perhaps not so exceptional, if Origen in the TwelfthHomilyonJeremiah reprimands those faithful who boast of their position and even of their power of life and death36. The favourable conditions for a stay in Caesarea, from the political and cultural perspectives, are best exemplified by the role played in this period by Julius Africanus, a colleague and friend of Palestinian origin who shared some of Origen’s interests. His rich curriculum and varied literary profile distinguish him as an eminent intellectual figure during the Severan dynasty. Born most probably in Aelia Capitolina, he worked for the imperial administration and travelled far away in the Mediterranean and the Near East, going from Palestine to Edessa, Rome and Alexandria37. We do not know when and where Origen made his e cronologia della predicazione origeniana alla luce delle nuove Omelie sui Salmi, in Adamantius 20 (2014) 238-253. 35. H73Ps III,6 (GCS NF 19, 261,19-21 PERRONE): οἶδα ἐγὼ κατὰ τοὺς ἐμοὺς χρόνους μακαρίους καὶ ἱεροὺς ἄνδρας ὑπὸ ϑηρίων διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν βεβρωμένους καὶ ὑπομείναντας. Μεϑ’ ὧν εἴη μέν μοι τὴν μερίδα ἔχειν! See also HEz IV,7 and HIerIV,3 (HomilienzuSamuelI,zumHoheliedundzudenPropheten.KommentarzumHohelied in Rufins und Hieronymus’ Übersetzungen, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS [GCS, 33; Origenes Werke, 8], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1925, p. 368,13-15 and Jeremiahomilien,Klageliedkommentar, ErklärungderSamuel-undKönigsbücher, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN, 2. Aufl. ed. P. NAUTIN [GCS, 6; Origenes Werke, 3], Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1983, p. 25,18-25). 36. HIerXII,8 (GCS 6, 94,17-23 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): εἰσί τινες ἐπαιρόμενοι, ὅτι εἰσὶν υἱοὶ ἡγεμόνων καὶ ὅτι γένους εἰσὶ τῶν ἀπὸ κοσμικῶν ἀξιωμάτων μεγάλων… εἰσὶν ἐπαιρόμενοι, ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν ἀναιρεῖν ἀνϑρώπους, καὶ ἐπαιρόμενοι, ὅτι εἰλήφασι τὴν παρ᾿αὐτοῖς καλουμένην προκοπὴν τοιαύτην ὥστε ἀποτεμεῖν ἀνϑρώπων κεφαλάς. On this passage cf. RINALDI, Pagani e cristiani a Cesarea Marittima (n. 26), p. 49. 37. U. ROBERTO, LeChronographiae diSestoGiulioAfricano:Storiografia,politicae cristianesimonell’etàdeiSeveri, Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino, 2011; J. SECORD, Julius Africanus, Origen, and the Politics of Intellectual Life under the Severans, in Classical World 110 (2017) 211-235. For the alternative between Jerusalem or Nicopolis (Emmaus) as the birthplace of Africanus see Chronographiae, xv (IuliusAfricanus.Chronographiae. TheExtantFragments, ed. M. WALLRAFF, with U. ROBERTO and, for the Oriental Sources, K. PINGGÉRA, transl. W. ADLER [GCSNF, 15], Berlin – New York, 2007) and C. GUIGNARD, LalettredeJuliusAfricanusàAristidesurlagénéalogieduChrist:Analysedelatradition textuelle, édition, traduction et étude critique, Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2011, p. 4.

12

L. PERRONE

acquaintance with him. In any case, Africanus was in touch with the Alexandrian didaskaleion, since he went to visit Heraclas38. Though the fragments of his two main works – the miscellaneous Kestoiand the Chronographiae – exhibit an erudite curiosity and versatility that do not much resemble the more typical tenor of Origen’s studies, Africanus was also an excellent biblical scholar, as shown by his discussion of the Gospel genealogies in the LettertoAristides as well as by the letter that he addressed to Origen on the story of Susannah. Africanus’ critique of the Alexandrian, because in a discussion with an “ignorant” he had assumed it to be authentic instead of recognizing the forgery39, betrays a climate of scholarly investigation and debate in which both authors were involved together with other learned people, Christians and Jews. Interestingly, Africanus addresses his final greetings not only to Origen but also to the “company” (συνοδία) around him40. In his turn, the Alexandrian sends to Africanus regards from his sponsor, “his lord and holy friend Ambrosius” together with his wife Marcella, their sons and another person called Anicet, while he begs him to extend them also “to our good papa Apollinary”41. We would like to know more about these two “companies”, but we have at least clear evidence of groups, if not of schools or communities, which seem to have devoted themselves to the study of Scripture. The presence of a papa in the circle of Africanus invites us to appreciate the nature of his Christianity more positively within an ecclesiastical horizon, but it also reminds us of the other occasions of debate in which Origen was surrounded by “bishops”, including his preaching activity. We are thus entitled to reject the impression that the Alexandrian would have felt somehow isolated in the absence of like-minded persons in his new location. It is true that the epistolary exchange does not necessarily point to Palestine as its place, inasmuch as Origen answered to Africanus from Nicomedia during a short trip there. Nevertheless, the Alexandrian so insists on his longstanding sojourn in the Land of Israel, and particularly on his contacts with Jewish scholars, in order to solve the problems raised by Africanus, that we might be permitted to take this as a testimony reflecting the intellectual atmosphere that surrounded him in Palestine42. 38. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,31. 39. Africanus, Letter to Origen 2 (Origène. Philocalie, 1-20: Sur les Écritures, ed. M. HARL;etLaLettreàAfricanussurl’histoiredeSuzanne, ed. N. DE LANGE [SC, 302], Paris, Cerf, 1983, p. 514): Ὅτε τὸν ἱερὸν ἐποιοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἀγνώμονα διάλογον. 40. Africanus, LettertoOrigen 10 (SC 302,520 DE LANGE): Ἐρρῶσϑαί σε ἅμα τῇ συνοδίᾳ. 41. Origen, LettertoAfricanus24 (SC 302,520 DE LANGE). 42. Origen, LettertoAfricanus11-12 (SC 302, 538-540 DE LANGE).

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

13

Moreover, in view of the network suggested by the LettertoAfricanus as well as by the Scriptural occupation implied by the debate, one is led to question the simplistic identification of Origen as the Christian version of a “sophist”, similar to the contemporary sophists described by Philostratus43. We come closer to recognizing the distinctive profile of the Alexandrian during his Caesarean epoch, as long as we are able to unite in him the Church and the school, the two stages on which he acted not so much as a “histrionic” speaker than as a “preacher” and a “teacher”. Certainly, in his preaching activity, the two roles merged in that of a priestly didaskalos. We cannot establish precisely at what time Origen started to preach, though we know that bishops Theoctistus of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem invited him to do so already around 215 CE, on his first visit to the country – even though he was still a layman. Eusebius tells us that Origen authorized the transcription of his sermons only when he was sixty years old, that is in ca.245 CE, because until that moment he was not yet sure he had achieved a sufficient “ability”44. In spite of the possibly late transcription of the homilies, their long list in Jerome’s Letter33to Paula proves the frequency of Origen’s preaching, which was not limited to Caesarea but occasionally reached Jerusalem and other churches. Nautin’s reconstruction of a three-year-cycle for the preaching on the Bible, which was already subject to doubt, is no longer acceptable in light of the new HomiliesonthePsalms. They demonstrate that Origen continued to preach even after he wrote such late works as his commentary on the Twelve Prophets and the Against Celsus45. One gets the impression that homiletic activity became more and more important for him (as implicitly hinted at by the allegedly delayed transcription of the sermons) when compared with his other writings. For instance, in the XXXIInd book of the CommentaryonJohn, the last preserved, Origen does not refrain from quoting his Homilies on Luke on the distinction between “lunch” (ἄριστον) and “dinner” (δεῖπνον)46. The Commentary on the Song goes even further in referring to the homilies for a more circumstantial treatment of some passages (unless these self-quotations 43. SECORD, Julius Africanus, Origen, and the Politics of Intellectual Life under the Severans (n. 37), p. 214: “Origen, meanwhile, was a capable extemporaneous speaker with a histrionic manner and fascinating stage presence, much like many contemporary sophists”. 44. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,36,1. 45. MONACI CASTAGNO, Contestoliturgicoecronologiadellapredicazioneorigeniana (n. 34) and L. PERRONE, The Dating of the New Homilies on the Psalms in the Munich Codex:TheUltimateOrigen?, in Proche-OrientChrétien67 (2017) 243-251. 46. CIo XXXII,2,5 (GCS 10, 426,9-10 PREUSCHEN): Ἐν ταῖς εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν ὁμιλίαις συνεκρίναμεν ἀλλήλαις τὰς παραβολάς, καὶ ἐζητήσαμεν τί μὲν σημαίνει τὸ κατὰ τὰς ϑείας γραφὰς ἄριστον, τί δὲ παρίστησιν τὸ κατ’ αὐτὰς δεῖπνον.

14

L. PERRONE

were added by Rufinus)47. Finally, reading the long series of the nine homilies on Psalm 77, which were among the last sermons that Origen delivered, one wonders what the assumed distinction between commentaries and homilies could still signify. If the homiletic activity, so to speak, “democratizes” Origen’s more elitist occupation with biblical exegesis in his school to the advantage of the Christian community by extending his public from the disciples more generally to the faithful, both the “sympathizers” and the “non-sympathizers”, notwithstanding that he also continues to teach48. Once more, we do not know what characterized the school in Caesarea when compared with the Alexandrian one, although we possess a unique document about it in the DiscourseofThanksgiving pronounced by one of his pupils as a farewell from the master. This, however, is a problematic source, starting with the question concerning the author49. For all the charming atmosphere evoked by its picture, it is disappointing to find therein a so-scanty reflection of what must have been the main scholarly activity of the Alexandrian: his work on the Bible, at least in view of the extant writings with their school outlook as, for instance, the Commentary on Matthew50. Surprisingly, no mention is made of the great enterprise of the Hexapla, while the Palestinian environment proved particularly favourable to its completion. Already in his first stay, under Emperor Caracalla, Origen went hunting for manuscripts of the Greek Bible and discovered “at Jericho in a jar” another translation of the Psalms, which he used as an additional column for the enlarged Hexapla of this biblical book51. Even more important was the search conducted by Origen in Caesarea on the Hebrew Bible. Leaving aside the disputable idea that he added the two columns with the Hebrew text and its transliteration only after he settled in Palestine52, he himself attests to his painstaking work on the Hebrew manuscripts in the Letter to Africanus as well as in the 47. L. PERRONE, Origenes pro domo sua:Self-Quotationsandthe(Re-)Constructionofa LiteraryŒuvre, in KACZMAREK – PIETRAS (eds.), OrigenianaDecima(n. 17), 3-38, pp. 21-22. 48. On the “limitations” of Origen’s sermons see MONACI CASTAGNO, Origenepredicatoreeilsuopubblico(n. 34), pp. 223-256. 49. For a critical examination see Gregorio il Taumaturgo (?), Encomio di Origene. Introd., trad. e note di M. RIZZI, Milano, Paoline, 2002, pp. 9-37. 50. H. LAPIN, JewishandChristianAcademiesinRomanPalestine:SomePreliminary Observations, in RABAN – HOLUM (eds.), CaesareaMaritima (n. 26), 496-512, p. 503. For the school context, exemplified in the light of CMt, cf. G. BENDINELLI, Il Commentario aMatteo di Origene: L’ambito della metodologia scolastica nell’antichità (SEA, 60), Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1997. 51. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,16,3. 52. R.A. CLEMENTS, Origen’sHexapla andChristian-JewishEncounterintheSecond and Third Centuries, in DONALDSON (ed.), Religious Rivalries (n. 27), 303-329;

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

15

FirstHomilyonPsalm7753. As expressly declared by this sermon, it was a work that accompanied him until his last years, either to complete the synopsis of the Greek Old Testament or eventually to produce a distinct hexaplaric text of the Septuagint on that basis54. In all likelihood, the image of Origen’s school in the Discourse of Thanksgiving draws upon the apologetic agenda of its author. As an exponent of the culture of the Second Sophistics, he is interested in philosophical discourse more than in the Bible itself, not least because of his efforts to present to the Greco-Roman elite an acceptable version of Christianity. It is indeed a document that points to the larger cultural resonance of the Alexandrian and to his singular fascination as a teacher capable of reaching an audience that was not exclusively Christian. The anecdote on the young Porphyry listening to the lectures of Origen might confirm this impression, at least if we are allowed to situate this experience in Caesarea55. In any case, the author of the Discourse of Thanksgiving, in spite of his predominantly philosophical concerns, does not wholly conceal the place of the Bible in the school as a matter of theology at its final level, whereby he shows himself aware of the scriptural hermeneutics typical of the Alexandrian56. As for Origen himself, in the LettertoGregory, a younger disciple who was about to leave for Egypt and there complete his education, he is cautious concerning the study of philosophy57. Apparently in line with such reservations, Origen clearly differentiates his own profile as a “teacher” (διδάσκαλος) inspired by the model of the Logos of God from the way of teaching of grammarians and philosophers. In the HomilyonPsalm74, he contrasts F. SCHIRONI, P. Grenf. 1.5, Origen and the Scriptorium of Caesarea, in Bulletin of theAmericanSocietyofPapyrologists 52 (2015) 181-223, pp. 214-216. 53. H77PsI,1 (GCS NF 19, 351,24–352,2 PERRONE): Καὶ ὅσα μὲν διὰ τὸν ϑεὸν καὶ τὴν χάριν αὐτοῦ ἐκάμομεν, συνεξετάζοντες καὶ τὰ Ἑβραϊκὰ καὶ τὰς ἐκδόσεις ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἰδεῖν τὴν διόρϑωσιν τῶν σφαλμάτων, οἶδεν· ὅσα δὲ ϑέλομεν καὶ περὶ τὰ λείποντα ποιῆσαι, αὐτὸς εὐοδώσει. Cf. also Origen, Letter to Africanus 3 (SC 302, 524,19-21 DE LANGE). 54. SCHIRONI, P. Grenf. 1.5, Origen and the Scriptorium of Caesarea (n. 52), p. 216 suggests the completion of the Hexapla around 245 and the work on a “hexaplaric Septuagint” in the following years. 55. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,19,5. 56. See e.g.PanOratXV,174.179; GrégoireleThaumaturge. RemerciementàOrigène suivi de la lettre d’Origène à Grégoire, ed. H. CROUZEL (SC, 148), Paris, Cerf, 1969, pp. 168.170. 57. Letter to Gregory (SC 148 CROUZEL); L. PERRONE, Origene a sua immagine: Frammentidiautobiografiadallelettere, in G.C. BOTTINI – L.D. CHRUPCAŁA – J. PATRICH (eds.), Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essays in Honour of LeahDi Segni (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Maior; 54), Milano, Terra Santa, 2014, 311-327, pp. 325-326.

16

L. PERRONE

both professions with the perennial instruction assured by the Logos: whereas the Logos imparts his teaching “for the eternity”, a grammarian after a while has nothing new to teach and a philosopher only condemns himself to repeat the traditional doctrines of his school58. Ultimately, it is reasonable to presume that Origen’s school at Caesarea stood in some continuity with that of Alexandria. Eusebius’ report of an organisation of the Alexandrian didaskaleion on two levels might correspond to the cursus studiorum described in the Discourse of Thanksgiving, the enkyklios paideia essentially serving here, as in the Letter to Gregory, as an ensemble of auxiliary disciplines for the study of the Bible59. The Discourse nonetheless ignores both the new ecclesiastical context of Origen’s teaching in Caesarea, including his activity as preacher, and his interaction with rabbis and their schools. III. A “GIFT” OF CAESAREA: ORIGEN, THE RABBIS AND THEIR SCHOOLS The perspective of the school prompts a transition to another major subject connected with Origen’s move to Caesarea and its effects: his relations with Judaism, the rabbis and their schools. These relations have often been invoked to support the view of a substantial change, if not a more or less “revolutionary” modification, in the Alexandrian’s agenda and outlook60. Now, the Jewish environment of Caesarea and Palestine obviously contributed to Origen’s new familiarity with contemporary Judaism and its sages. One ought to bear in mind, however, that already in Alexandria, he had been confronted with Judaism and its exegetical traditions, first and foremost by way of Philo and Hellenistic Judaism61. Besides, little attention has been paid to the fact that among his early 58. H74Ps VI (GCS NF 19, 279,11-15 PERRONE): Ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ κύριος ἡμῶν τοσαῦτα ἔχει μαϑήματα ὡς ἀπαγγέλλειν οὐκ ἐπὶ δέκα ἔτη, ὡς ἀπαγγέλλει γραμματικὸς καὶ οὐκ ἔχει τί διδάξει οὐδὲ ὡς φιλόσοφος ἀπαγγέλλει παραδιδοὺς καὶ οὐκέτι ἔχει καινότερόν τι εἴπῃ, ἀλλὰ τοσαῦτά ἐστι τὰ μαϑήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὥστε αὐτὸν ἀπαγγέλλειν εἰς ὅλον τὸν αἰῶνα. 59. For the difference with Plotinus’ school in view of this aspect, see M. RIZZI, LascuoladiOrigenetralescuolediCesareaedelmondotardoantico, in ANDREI (ed.), CaesareaMaritimaelascuolaorigeniana (n. 8), 105-119, p. 118. 60. See lately M. NIEHOFF, Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a Key to Genesis Rabbah, in S. KATTAN GRIBETZ – D.M. GROSBERG – M. HIMMELFARB – P. SCHÄFER (eds.), Genesis RabbahinTextandContext(Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 166), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 129-153, p. 133: “Origen’s move to Caesarea had dramatic implications for his relationship with contemporary Jews”. 61. A. VAN DEN HOEK, AssessingPhilo’sInfluenceinChristianAlexandria:TheCase ofOrigen, in J.L. KUGEL (ed.), ShemintheTentsofJaphet:EssaysontheEncounterof JudaismandHellenism, Leiden, Brill, 2002, 223-239.

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

17

writings there is a CommentaryonLamentations62. The extant fragments of this work in five books show that Origen had been concerned since then about the catastrophe of Jerusalem’s destruction and the fate of the Jewish people. Though he elaborates an allegorical interpretation of the tragic events by referring them either to the soul or to the Church63, he nonetheless seems to engage with Jewish exegetical traditions on the destruction of the Temple64. Perhaps the choice to comment on this book of the Old Testament goes back to the influence of “the Hebrew” (ὁ Ἑβραῖος), a Jewish-Christian master whose importance for Origen’s approach to the Bible cannot be underestimated65. Several reminiscences of his teaching, significantly presented as “traditions” (παραδόσεις), a term expressing for the Alexandrian an interpretive authority, accompanied him from Alexandria to Caesarea66. In particular, he seems to rely on him for his typological and allegorical interpretation, which exhibit some echoes of rabbinic exegesis67. However, during the Alexandrian period, apart from the Christian master of Jewish origin and a JudaeoChristian group to which he may have belonged (i.e., οἱ Ἑβραῖοι), we have no evidence of direct contacts with Judaism and Jewish sages68. In this respect, things really changed when Origen settled in Palestine and directly faced a Jewish community. This was the moment in which rabbinic academies were beginning to flourish in Caesarea, as in the Galilee, thanks to influential masters like Rabbi Hoshaya Rabbah and others69. We possess several traces of significant interaction between 62. HEINE, Origen:ScholarshipintheServiceoftheChurch (n. 19), pp. 123-126. 63. On the symbolic interpretation of Jerusalem see D. STOLTMANN, Jerusalem–Mutter – Stadt: Zur Theologiegeschichte der Heiligen Stadt (Münsteraner theologische Abhandlungen), Altenberge, Oros, 1999, pp. 165-208. 64. V. MARCHETTO, “Unavocedinotte”:PresenzeangelichenelTempiodiGerusalemmedalCommento alle Lamentazioni diOrigene, in Adamantius 21 (2015) 244-268. 65. NAUTIN, Origène:Savieetsonœuvre (n. 12), p. 417. 66. G. DORIVAL – R. NAIWELD, Les interlocuteurs hébreux et juifs d’Origène à AlexandrieetàCésarée, in ANDREI (ed.), CaesareaMaritimaelascuolaorigeniana (n. 8), 121-138, p. 127 proposes a problematic distinction between an Alexandrian and a Caesarean Jewish-Christian master on the basis of HIerXX,2. 67. Ibid., p. 122. 68. See ibid., pp. 125, 136. G. SGHERRI, Chiesa e Sinagoga nell’opera di Origene (Studia patristica mediolanensia, 13), Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1982, p. 47 does not exclude it. 69. N. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-CenturyPalestine(University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976; SGHERRI, Chiesa e Sinagoga (n. 68), pp. 42-55; P. BLOWERS, Origen,theRabbis,andtheBible:TowardaPictureofJudaism and Christianity in Third-Century Caesarea, in C. KANNENGIESSER – X.L. PETERSEN (eds.), OrigenofAlexandria:HisWorldandHisLegacy, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1988, 96-116, p. 98; DORIVAL – NAIWELD, Lesinterlocuteurshébreux etjuifs(n. 66), p. 135.

18

L. PERRONE

Origen and the rabbis, but the scholarly debate concerning the importance and depth of these contacts is far from settled. While the discussion continues to give rise to speculative hypotheses, it does not always help to understand more precisely in what terms Origen envisaged the relations between Judaism and Christianity70. Who can prove, for instance, that the Church of Caesarea perhaps supported the creation of a Christian school to counterbalance the growing influence of Jewish schools in the city71? Despite their parallels, we should not forget the distinct profile of the teaching and learning experiences on both sides. Among other things, this is demonstrated by the different linguistic, cultural and institutional horizons of the rabbinic academies as compared to Origen’s school, dominated by the personality of the master and by the use of books and their production72. Furthermore, leaving aside that Origen apparently ignores the work going on in rabbinic schools on the Mishnah, we may still have doubts about the extent of the affinities between the midrashic interpretation of the rabbis and the homiletics of the Alexandrian73. Having said that, we observe that Origen engaged now and then in conversation with the Jewish sages, both for his personal instruction in biblical matters and for the polemical purposes of the controversy between Christians and Jews74. For instance, we hear from him that he consulted the so-called “patriarch Ioullos” (presumably a mistaken indication for the brother of patriarch Yehuda II)75 for expertise on the psalms without titles and the number of the “Psalms of Moses”76. In this circumstance, the exchange with the Jewish interlocutor mirrors a scholarly interest, shared by both partners, rather than polemical concerns. Origen’s correct numbering of the “Psalms of Moses” (Psalms 89–99) was even approved by another sage, whom somebody would like to

70. R. BROOKS, Straw Dogs and Scholarly Ecumenism: The Appropriate Jewish  ackground for the Study of Origen, in KANNENGIESSER – PETERSEN (eds.), Origen of B Alexandria:HisWorldandHisLegacy (n. 69), 63-95. 71. ANDREI, RipensareCaesareaMaritima (n. 26), p. 13. 72. LAPIN, JewishandChristianAcademiesinRomanPalestine (n. 50), pp. 504-505, 511. 73. M. HIRSHMAN, Origen and the Rabbis on Leviticus, in Adamantius 11 (2005) 93-100, p. 95 stresses, for instance, the diversities in genre, due to the recourse to stories and parables in midrash. 74. See CC I,45.55.56; II,31; HIs IX,1; HEz IV,8; CMt XI,9; Selecta in Psalmos (PG 12, 1056B). 75. DORIVAL – NAIWELD, Lesinterlocuteurshébreuxetjuifs(n. 66), p. 132. 76. Selecta in Psalmos (PG 12, 1056B-1057C). See HEINE, Origen: Scholarship in theServiceoftheChurch (n. 19), pp. 148-149.

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

19

identify with Rabbi Hoshaya77. On another occasion, recalled in the first book of the AgainstCelsus, we witness a public dispute with one sage, in the presence of people who acted as judges of the debate. Its object was a comparison between Moses and Jesus, whereby the Alexandrian contested the lack of faith in the latter, among the Jews, to the exclusive privilege of the former78. Other mentions of “disputes” (διαλέξεις or ζητήσεις) with Jewish sages seem likewise to imply the context of public debates, in a place accessible to a larger interreligious audience. Such disputes might have taken place in the odeion79, but we should not rule out more informal meetings. As shown by a discussion on the interpretation of the “suffering servant” in Isa 52,13–53,8, these dialectical confrontations allowed for the expression of different opinions. In this case, Origen opposed his Christological interpretation of the prophetic passage to the identification with the Jewish people and its dispersion among the nations for missionary purposes80. As stated by the Letterto Africanus, the collation of the Greek versions of the Bible over against its Hebrew text, for which the Alexandrian created the Hexapla, enabled Origen to overcome the mocking reactions of the Jews towards gentile Christians when they relied on a Greek text that differed from the Hebrew81. In spite of the apologetic intent that may have dictated the creation of the biblical synopsis, the inner-Christian debate with Africanus proves that Origen had no scruples in consulting quite a lot of Jewish 77. For instance, HEINE, Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church (n. 19), p. 151. He mentions two further discussions: on 1 Reigns 2,30 (PG 13, 781D-784A; and on Ps 44,3-8 (CC I,56). For DORIVAL – NAIWELD, Les interlocuteurs hébreux et juifs (n. 66), pp. 134-135, the identification with r. Hoshaya is likely but not irrefutably proven. See also BLOWERS, Origen,theRabbis,andtheBible (n. 69), pp. 99-100. 78. CCI,45: Μέμνημαι δέ ποτε ἔν τινι πρὸς Ἰουδαίων λεγομένους σοφοὺς διαλέξει χρησάμενος τοιούτῳ λόγῳ, πλειόνων κρινόντων τὸ λεγόμενον; Die Schrift vom M  artyrium. Buch I-IV Gegen Celsus, ed. P. KOETSCHAU (GCS, 2; Origenes Werke, 1), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1899, p. 95,3-5. 79. DORIVAL – NAIWELD, Lesinterlocuteurshébreuxetjuifs(n. 66), p. 130. 80. CC I,55 (GCS 2, 106,3-6 KOETSCHAU): Μέμνημαι δέ ποτε ἔν τινι πρὸς τοὺς λεγομένους σοφοὺς συζητήσει ταῖς προφητείαις ταύταις χρησάμενος, ἐφ’ οἷς ἔλεγεν ὁ Ἰουδαῖος ταῦτα πεπροφητεῦσϑαι ὡς περὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ ὅλου λαοῦ. See E.E. URBACH, TheSages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1979, pp. 547, 934, n. 83, for whom “although Rav Hoshaia spoke in favour of proselytization and approved it … yet this does not prove that he was the interlocutor of Origen”. 81. Origen, Letter to Africanus 9 (SC 302, 534,11-15 DE LANGE): Ἀσκοῦμεν δὲ μὴ ἀγνοεῖν καὶ τὰς παρ’ ἐκείνοις, ἵνα πρὸς Ἰουδαίους διαλεγόμενοι μὴ προφέρωμεν αὐτοῖς τὰ μὴ κείμενα ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις αὐτῶν, καὶ ἵνα συγχρησώμεϑα τοῖς φερομένοις παρ’ ἐκείνοις εἰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἡμετέροις οὐ κεῖται βιβλίοις. According to SCHIRONI, P. Grenf. 1.5,OrigenandtheScriptoriumofCaesarea (n. 52), p. 215, P.Grenf. 1.5 offers a “revised” LXX edition enabling one to know exactly what the Hebrew text included and thus being useful for the disputes with Jews.

20

L. PERRONE

sages on the story of Susannah82, in particular one “who was called ‘son of a sage’ and was educated to succeed his father”83. Perhaps also the consultation of the Hebrew manuscripts went through personal contacts with rabbis more than by the way of public structures, like archives or libraries84, or with the supposed assistance of Jewish collaborators85. It is altogether a kind of work that seems to rest on a knowledge of Hebrew less rudimental than is normally supposed in Origen, as he refers to Hebrew “exemplars” (ἀντίγραφα) and not to the second column of the Hexapla with the transliterated Hebrew text86. On the other hand, it has been supposed that even Jews used Origen’s synopsis to revise the Septuagint text of Philonic manuscripts87. Or, more probably, Philo’s use by the Alexandrian did not escape the attention of the rabbis88. As a result of these contacts – which ought to be considered within the larger framework of the dialogues and disputations going on among Christians, both orthodox and heterodox, and between Christians or Jews and pagans89 – Origen has become in the eyes of some scholars, as it were, a mediator of rabbinic traditions. Accordingly, he is seen as a source, probably not yet fully exploited, for retracing the transmission of haggadic materials attested in a later period by rabbinic literature90. Among the alleged similarities, the Alexandrian seems, in particular, 82. Origen, LettertoAfricanus10 (SC 302, 536,11 DE LANGE): οὐκ ὀλίγοις Ἑβραῖοις ἀνεϑέμην πυνϑανόμενος. 83. Origen, LettertoAfricanus11 (SC 302, 538,1-3 DE LANGE): Μέμνημαι μέντοιγε φιλομαϑεῖ Ἑβραίῳ, καὶ χρηματίζοντι παρ’ αὐτοῖς σοφοῦ υἱῷ, ἀνατραφέντι ἐπὶ τῷ διαδέξασϑαι τὸν πατέρα, συμμίξας περὶ πλειόνων. Cf. LEVINE, CaesareaunderRoman Rule (n. 26), pp. 94-95. 84. MCGUCKIN, Caesarea Maritima as Origen Knew It (n. 3), p. 6 thinks that the Augustus Temple complex in Caesarea possibly served as an archive for the consultation of the Hebrew copies. 85. GRAFTON – WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book (n. 20), pp. 82, 112. 86. SGHERRI, Chiesa e Sinagoga (n. 68), p. 43, n. 145. See, e.g., H77Ps I,1 (supra, n. 53). 87. D. BARTHÉLEMY, Est-ceHoshayaRabbaquicensuraleCommentaire allégorique? Àpartirdesrecherchesfaitesauxcitationsbibliques,étudesurlatraditiontextuelledu CommentaireallégoriquedePhilon, in Philond’Alexandrie(colloquedeLyonseptembre 1966), Paris, CNRS, 1967, 45-78; = ID., Étudesd’histoiredutextedel’AncienTestament, Fribourg, Éditions Universitaires, 1978, 140-173; D. RUNIA, CaesareaMaritimaandthe SurvivalofHellenistic-JewishLiterature, in RABAN – HOLUM (eds.), CaesareaMaritima (n. 26), 476-495, p. 493. 88. RUNIA, Caesarea Maritima and the Survival of Hellenistic-Jewish Literature (n. 87), p. 493. 89. RINALDI, PaganiecristianiaCesareaMarittima (n. 26), p. 63. 90. A. TZVETKOVA-GLASER, PentateuchauslegungbeiOrigenesunddenfrühenRabbinen, Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang, 2010, p. 431: “Die Benutzung aggadischen Materials seitens des Origenes steht seit den Studien von Bardy, De Lange und Bietenhard außer Zweifel”. For further bibliography, see SGHERRI, ChiesaeSinagoga(n. 68), pp. 43-44.

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

21

to display affinities with a contemporary figure like R. Yohanan bar Nappaha, a former pupil of R. Hoshaya and a teacher at Tiberias, regarding the exegesis of the Song of Songs91. The two scholars might have been aware of each other, as R. Yohanan would react against Origen’s Christologization of the Song’s allegory92. Other interpretive influences in both directions are likely to be detected with regard to the interpretation of the Pentateuch and other biblical books, especially the Psalms and the prophets93. However, depending on the comparative materials at hand, we also encounter in the scholarship more reserved, if not sceptical evaluations, according to which the existence of parallels between Origen and the rabbis does not necessarily demand a direct dialogue among them for their explanation94. Nor is it possible to rule out the influence of a Judaeo-Christian milieu, as suggested by the Alexandrian’s relation with his Jewish-Christian master. Judging from Origen’s polemical concerns about Ebionism and the Judaizing Christians in his preaching at Caesarea, we may even infer that there were in Palestine Judaeo-Christian masters and schools promoting their version of Christianity for the Gentiles95. In spite of some incertitudes, the final impression we get about Origen’s contacts with the rabbis is, after all, that Caesarea and the Land 91. E.E. URBACH, TheHomileticalInterpretationsoftheSagesandtheExpositionsof Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian Disputation, in Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971) 247-275; R. KIMELMAN, Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: AThird-century Jewish-Christian Disputation, in HTR 73 (1980) 567-595; BLOWERS, Origen,theRabbis,andtheBible (n. 69), pp. 112-113; WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly (n. 7), p. 6. 92. KIMELMAN, RabbiYohananandOrigenontheSongofSongs (n. 91), p. 569. 93. R. WILKEN, Origen’sHomilies on LeviticusandtheVayikra Rabbah, in G. DORIVAL – A. LE BOULLUEC (eds.), OrigenianaSexta:OrigèneetlaBible/OrigenandtheBible (BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 81-91; HIRSHMAN, OrigenandtheRabbisonLeviticus (n. 73); HEINE, Origen:ScholarshipintheServiceoftheChurch (n. 19), pp. 149-151; TZVETKOVA-GLASER, PentateuchauslegungbeiOrigenesunddenfrühenRabbinen (n. 90) and EAD., L’interprétation origénienne de Gen 2,8 et ses arrière-plans rabbiniques, in KACZMAREK – PIETRAS (eds.), OrigenianaDecima (n. 17), 63-73. 94. See the opinion of G. STEMBERGER, EbraismoaCaesareaMaritima:Personalità rabbinicheetemiesegeticialtempodiOrigeneedEusebio, in ANDREI (ed.), Caesarea Maritima e la scuola origeniana (n. 8), 95-104, pp. 96-97 concerning the parallels in the interpretation of the Song. Also M. HIRSHMAN, ReflectionsontheAggadaofCaesarea, in RABAN – HOLUM (eds.), CaesareaMaritima (n. 26), 469-475, p. 475 is far from seeing too direct connections between Rabbi Hoshaya and Origen on the interpretation of Genesis. 95. H76PsII,1 (GCS NF 19, 313,15-17 PERRONE) evokes the possibility of converting to Ebionism: Οἷον ἠϑέλησέ τις Χριστιανίζειν ἀπὸ ἐϑνικοῦ βίου, ἐμπέπτωκε δὲ Ἐβιωναίῳ διδάσκοντι αὐτὸν τηρεῖν τὰ ῥητὰ τοῦ νόμου· οὗτος χρόνον βεβίωκεν ἐν τῷ Ἐβιωνισμῷ Ἰουδαΐζων μετὰ τοῦ νομίζειν Χριστιανίζειν. See A. FÜRST, Judentum, Judenchristentum und Antijudaismus in den neu entdeckten Psalmenhomilien, in Adamantius 20 (2014) 275-287. See also the polemics against Elkesaites in H82Ps (= Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,38).

22

L. PERRONE

of Israel were, so to speak, a unique “gift” for developing his biblical interpretation. In fact, leaving aside Jerome (who at all events was certainly inspired by the example of Origen), for no other author of Christian Antiquity do we possess evidence of an analogous familiarity with Jewish sages and their exegetical traditions. This does not imply that Origen substantially modified his theological approach to Judaism, just as the rabbis, in their turn, did not necessarily do so with regard to Christianity. Conforming with the views generally shared by the Church Fathers, in principle, the Alexandrian supported a supersessionist vision. Moreover, having come to stay in Palestine, he added to the recurring motives of his anti-Judaism (essentially based on the antithesis between the literal and the spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament with the subsequent rejection of the Jewish ritual observances) the impossibility of celebrating the Jewish festivals in Jerusalem, a city no longer inhabited by Jews. As suggested by the 17thHomilyonJoshua, Origen probably witnessed the mourning of the Jews facing the ruined city. In this sermon, instead of insisting on a polemical note, he invites them to turn their face from the earthly Jerusalem “a city destroyed and reduced to ashes and dust” and to direct their gaze towards the “heavenly Jerusalem which is the mother of all” (Gal 4,26)96. All that notwithstanding, the hint to an important motive derived from Paul can help us to regard more positively Origen’s relation with Judaism, last but not least as a result of his stay in Caesarea and the Land of Israel. For him, the Apostle is the authority on the issue of Judaism, especially with the 11th chapter of the Letter to the Romans, which the Alexandrian commented on during the Palestinian period97. Moreover, Origen unveils in several writings a thought that is no less concerned about the fate of the Jews and their salvation, by which I mean the interpretation of the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemani (Mt 26,36-46 par.) given by Origen in the Exhortation to Martyrdom, the Against Celsus and the Commentary on Matthew98. One of the explanations advanced on 96. HIosXVII,1: SiergoveniensadHierusalemciuitatemterrenam,oIudaee,invenieseamsubversametincineresacfavillasredactam,noliflere,sicutnuncfacitistamquam “pueri sensibus” (1 Cor 14,20); noli lamentari, sed pro terrena require coelestem. Sursum respice et ibi invenies “Hierusalem coelestem, quae est omnium mater” (Gal 4,26); Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung. II. Teil: Die Homilien zu Numeri,JosuaundJudices,ed. W.A. BAEHRENS (GCS, 30; Origenes Werke, 7), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1921, pp. 401,21–402,2. 97. Origene. Commento alla Lettera ai Romani. Libri VII-X, a cura di F. COCCHINI, Casale Monferrato, Marietti, 1986, pp. XXV-XXVI. 98. L. PERRONE, L’esempio di Gesù orante: La preghiera al Getsemani nell’interpretazionediOrigene, in LaSapienzadellaCroce 31 (2016) 257-279.

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

23

Jesus’ demand for the passing of the cup points to his desire to assure a more universal kind of redemption through his death. If the Exhortation thus alludes to the Jews only implicitly99, the reference to them becomes explicit in the AgainstCelsusand in the CommentaryonMatthew: Jesus prays to the Father that the catastrophe of the Jewish people and the destruction of Jerusalem be avoided100. This interpretation did not yet figure in the writings of the Alexandrian period, so that Origen probably came to discover it in his new Palestinian milieu. IV. BY WAY OF CONCLUSION: FORTUNE AND MISFORTUNE OF ORIGEN’S LEGACY IN THE HOLY LAND Thus far, I have tried to illustrate the ways in which Caesarea and Palestine may have sparked new directions for Origen’s work and thought. As a consequence of this period, to be regarded as particularly fruitful for the Alexandrian, he bequeathed to the incoming “Holy Land” of the Christians, of which he was in a sense a “forerunner”101, a rich literary and theological legacy. By way of conclusion, I shall deal briefly with this legacy, merely to stress again for further research the decisiveness of the Palestinian setting with its vicissitudes, both fortunate and unfortunate. In fact, the echoes of the great Alexandrian resounded in Christian Palestine more or less directly until the end of the Byzantine period, not least because of the intermittent crises that his doctrines generated. Yet, first of all, we have to deal with a literary heritage, consisting not simply of Origen’s writings, but also of the authors of the Judeo-Hellenistic and Christian tradition of Alexandria, primarily Philo, together with works of Greek philosophers and historians, which he carried with him to Caesarea102. With his own books, the Alexandrian created the premises for the Christian library of Caesarea, the most important one at the beginnings of Christianity. It was the merit of Pamphilus that Origen’s personal library was not dispersed after his death103. Thanks to the work done, as librarians and 99. EMXXIX (GCS 2, 25,24–26,13 KOETSCHAU). 100. CCII,25 (GCS 2, 155,6-15 KOETSCHAU); CMtS92 (GCS 38, 209 KLOSTERMANN). 101. WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly (n. 7), p. 77: “Origen planted the seed of a new Christian conception of the holy land”. See also STOLTMANN, Jerusalem–Mutter–Stadt (n. 63), p. 208. 102. RUNIA, Caesarea Maritima and the Survival of Hellenistic-Jewish Literature (n. 87); A.J. CARRIKER, TheLibraryofEusebiusofCaesarea (SupplVigChr, 67), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2003, pp. 8-9. 103. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,32,3.

24

L. PERRONE

copyists, by Pamphilus himself and his disciple Eusebius, an exceptionally learned scholar, the most precious stock of the library was further enriched with other texts. Later on, the bishops of Caesarea took care of the library, as we hear from Jerome who recalls the restoration work undertaken by Acacius and Euzoios with the transcription of the volumes from rolls into codices104. The history of the tradition of Origen’s writings, including the area of the Holy Land, awaits thorough investigation105. It goes without saying that the process of transmission originated in the collection at the library of Caesarea. In spite of some losses already attested by Eusebius from the start, due to the difficulty of putting together the remains of such a huge corpus106, Caesarea was the place where the works of the Alexandrian were preserved and transmitted to posterity. At the turn of the fourth and the fifth centuries, both Jerome and Rufinus witness the persistence of this heritage and its accessibility, the Hexapla included. Subsequently, we are able to follow the traces of the reading of Origen in Christian Palestine until the eve of the Arab Conquest. In the first half of the sixth century, the monks in the coenobium of Seridus near Gaza have in their hands works that later were lost to us, such as the Commentary onTitus107. More important is the fact that the compilers of catenae, like Procopius of Gaza or the monastic milieu which was responsible for the so-called Palestinian CatenaonthePsalms, still largely drew from the extant commentaries and homilies of Origen108. Further study on the 104. Jerome, De viris illustribus 113; RUNIA, Caesarea Maritima and the Survival ofHellenistic-Jewish Literature (n. 87), p. 494. According to CARRIKER, The Library of EusebiusofCaesarea (n. 102), p. 24, since the “library likely contained both papyrus rolls and papyrus codices, the renewal will have entailed the replacement of both kinds of books with parchment codices”. 105. For a good overview see A. FÜRST, KlassikerundKetzer:OrigenesimSpiegel der Überlieferung seiner Werke, in ID., Von Origenes und Hieronymus zu Augustinus: Studien zur antiken Theologiegeschichte (AKG, 115), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2011, 209-236. 106. L. BOSSINA, RéduireOrigène:Extraits,résumés,réélaborationsd’unauteurqui a trop écrit, in S. MORLET (ed.), Lire en extraits: Lecture et production des textes de l’Antiquité à la fin du Moyen Âge, Paris, Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2015, 199-216. 107. L. PERRONE, PalestinianMonasticism,theBible,andTheologyintheWakeofthe SecondOrigenistControversy, in J. PATRICH(ed.), TheSabaiteHeritageintheOrthodox ChurchfromtheFifthCenturytothePresent(OLA, 98), Leuven, Peeters – Departement Oosterse Studies, 2001, 245-259. For the Latin fragments extant in Pamphilus’ Apol.see PamphileetEusèbedeCésarée.ApologiepourOrigène, texte critique, traduction et notes par R. AMACKER – É. JUNOD (SC, 464), Paris, Cerf, 2002. 108. See FrPs 118; La chaîne palestinienne sur le Psaume 118 (Origène, Eusèbe, Didyme,Apollinaire,Athanase,Théodoret). Introduction, texte grec critique et traduction par M. HARL, I-II (SC, 189-190), Paris, Cerf, 1972; PERRONE, PalestinianMonasticism, theBible,andTheologyintheWakeoftheSecondOrigenistControversy (n. 107).

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

25

rich theological and spiritual literature of the sixth and seventh centuries will perhaps convey new evidence for an acquaintance with the writings of the Alexandrian, despite the change in theological discourse with the emergence of a “scholastic theology” and the disappearance of a creative exegesis, apart from a few exceptions109. We could then ask whether this literary heritage, which for a while was widely read, assured first of all a continuity to Origen’s school of Caesarea, while also promoting exegetical and theological interests of a corresponding nature. With regard to that, we may notice a shift in emphasis already starting with the “school” of Pamphilus. The picture that we have through Eusebius’ description of the life of the martyr and the circle of his disciples juxtaposes, as it were, the scriptoriumto the school, and confers to this a decidedly more philological profile, though putting it, as for Origen, once more at the service of the Bible110. Some manuscripts witness the admirable philological work that Pamphilus and Eusebius were able to conduct, together with other members of the “school”, thus continuing the Alexandrian’s work on the Hexapla111. This philological task apparently provided the scholarly frame for an exegetical activity in what remained of the previous “school”. Both Eusebius and his successor Acacius (d. 365) seem to have pursued it in conformity with Origen’s “zetetic” method, when we consider, for instance, Eusebius’ QuestionsandAnswersontheGospels or Acacius’ Miscellaneous Questions112. Moreover, Origen’s philological ascendancy plays an essential part as a model for Jerome’s remarkable accom109. See, for example, V. CVETKOVIĆ (Maximus the Confessor’s Reading of Origen betweenOrigenismandAnti-Origenism, in A.-C. JACOBSEN [ed.], OrigenianaUndecima: OrigenandOrigenismintheHistoryofWesternThought [BETL, 279], Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 747-757) on Maximus the Confessor, if we can locate him in a Palestinian environment. 110. A. LE BOULLUEC, D’OrigèneàEusèbe:BibliothèqueetenseignementàCésarée dePalestine, in H. HUGONNARD-ROCHE (ed.), L’enseignementsupérieurdanslesmondes antiquesetmédiévaux:Aspectsinstitutionnels,juridiquesetpédagogiques.Colloqueinternational de l’Institut des traditions textuelles, 6-7-8 Octobre 2005 (Textes et traditions, 16), Paris, Vrin, 2009, 239-261, p. 259; S. MORLET, Laformationd’uneidentitéintellectuelleetsoncadrescolaire:EusèbedeCésaréeàl’“école”dePamphile, in Adamantius 17 (2011) 208-219. 111. See, for instance, the subscription in CodexMarchalianusreported bySCHIRONI, P. Grenf. 1.5,OrigenandtheScriptoriumofCaesarea (n. 52), p. 198: “It was copied from the Hexapla according to the editions and was corrected from Origen’s own Tetrapla, which had been corrected and annotated by his hand. I, Eusebius, have added the scholia from this source. Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected”. 112. L. PERRONE, IlgeneredelleQuaestiones et responsionesnellaletteraturacristianaanticafinoadAgostino, in “Dediversisquaestionibusoctogintatribus”,“Dediversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum” di Agostino d’Ippona, Roma, Città Nuova, 1996, 11-44.

26

L. PERRONE

plishment as translator and interpreter of the Scriptures for western Christianity113. In some respects, Jerome even appears to be more faithful to Origen than Eusebius himself, who otherwise is not primarily an exegete114. Whereas we can speak of the monk of Bethlehem, at least from the exegetical point of view, not only as a mediator but as a true “imitator” of the Alexandrian (as shown by his large reuse and adaptation of Origenian materials in commentaries and homilies)115, Eusebius differentiates himself thanks to a hermeneutical approach more attentive to the literal and historical meanings of the Scriptures116. As such, the bishop of Caesarea, in spite of his declared Origenist affiliation117, anticipates affinities with the Antiochene school of exegesis. However, it was Eusebius who, together with Pamphilus, assured the defense of the exegetical and doctrinal heritage of Origen, when he was attacked by Methodius of Olympus and others towards the end of the third century. The Apologyby Pamphilus and Eusebius, together with the Philokalia, is a major document for examining the changing perception of Origen in the course of the dogmatic conflicts between the fourth and the seventh centuries. Its positive appreciation of the searching attitude developed by the Alexandrian will find only a pale reflection in the later period, as shown by the correspondence of Barsanuphius and John of Gaza, where the claim for a similar approach is now put under the authority of Gregory of Nazianzus118. For a while, the church of Palestine seems to have been influenced by Origen and his thought, as shown by Himeneus of Jerusalem in the process of Paul of Samosata119, or even by John of Jerusalem around 113. V. CAPELLI, Segni diacritici ed eredità filologica origeniana in Gerolamo, in Adamantius 13 (2007) 82-102. 114. L. PERRONE, Eusebius of Caesarea as a Christian Writer, in RABAN – HOLUM (eds.), CaesareaMaritima (n. 26), 515-530. 115. The most revealing case are perhaps his TractatusinPsalmos, on which see PERI, OmelieorigenianesuiSalmi (n. 34) and A. CAPONE, “Foliaveroinverbissunt”:Parola divinaelinguaumananeiTractatus in psalmos attribuitiaGerolamo, in Adamantius 19 (2013) 437-456. 116. S. MORLET, La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée: Étude sur l’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 187), Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2009. 117. C. KANNENGIESSER, Eusebius of Caesarea, Origenist, in H.W. ATTRIDGE – G. HATA (eds.),Eusebius,ChristianityandJudaism, Leiden, Brill, 1992, 435-466. 118. PERRONE, Palestinian Monasticism, the Bible, and Theology in the Wake of the SecondOrigenistControversy (n. 107), pp. 251-255. 119. As first signatory of the “Letter of six bishops” addressed to the bishop of Antioch. See P. DE NAVASCUÉS, PablodeSamosataysusadversarios:Estudiohistórico- teológicodelcristianismoantioquenoenels.III, Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2004, pp. 66-70.

ORIGEN AND HIS LEGACY IN THE “HOLY LAND”

27

the turn of the fifth century, when the first Origenist crisis broke out120. John, together with Rufinus and Melania the Elder, opposed the condemnation of Origen by Epiphanius of Salamis in the wake of his preaching at the Anastasis and supported by Jerome and Theophilus of Alexandria121. Perhaps reminiscences of Origen might be retraced in Hesychius of Jerusalem, the most important exegete of Palestine after Eusebius and a sympathizer of the Alexandrian theology, whose office as “teacher of the Church” (διδάσκαλος τῆς ἐκκλησίας) of the Holy City might still reverberate an Origenian imprint122. However, both the first and the second Origenist crises concurred to undermine the doctrinal authority of the Alexandrian. The second of these controversies finally led to the condemnation of Origen together with Evagrius and Didymus the Blind on the occasion of the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553). As shown by the two names joined to Origen, the new crisis had a major difference as compared with the preceding one, which determined a struggle between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. In the sixth century, the matter of dispute was no longer the classical Origenism, with the most controversial doctrines of the Alexandrian, but its creative reshaping by Evagrius for a monastic audience in Egypt123. The spread of Evagrianism reached Palestine, becoming particularly alive here, especially in the monasteries of the Judaean desert. Our picture of the conflict is essentially determined by hostile witnesses, such as Cyril of Scythopolis, but we can reasonably presume that some of Origen’s writings joined those of Evagrius124. Unfortunately, the adversaries of the Origenist monks, who relied on the confutation of the Apologyof Pamphilus and Eusebius written by Antipater of Bostra in the fifth century, won Emperor Justinian for their cause. Thus, in the end, the remarkable “fortune” enjoyed by Origen in the Holy Land turned into a “misfortune” lasting for centuries in the Byzantine world and, beyond it, in Eastern as well as in Western Christianity. Happily, to compensate in advance for the losses that largely derived from the condemnation of 553 for the Greek Origen in Byzantium and the Christian East, 120. E.A. CLARK, TheOrigenistControversy:TheCulturalConstructionofanEarly ChristianDebate, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992. 121. J.F. DECHOW, From Methodius to Epiphanius in Anti-Origenist Polemic, in Adamantius 19 (2013) 10-29. 122. H. BUCHINGER, OrigenesunddieQuadragesimainJerusalem:EinDiskussionsbeitrag, in Adamantius 13 (2007) 174-215, p. 210. 123. A. GUILLAUMONT, Les Kephalaia Gnostica d’Évagre le Pontique et l’histoire de l’origénismechezlesGrecsetchezlesSyriens (Patristica Sorbonensia, 5), Paris, Seuil, 1962. 124. D. HOMBERGEN, TheSecondOrigenistControversy:ANewPerspectiveonCyril ofScythopolis’MonasticBiographiesasHistoricalSourcesforSixth-CenturyOrigenism, Roma, Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 2001.

28

L. PERRONE

Westerners like Jerome and Rufinus, overcoming in different ways their doctrinal hesitations after the dogmatic developments since Nicea, partially contributed to the survival of Origen’s literary heritage, last but not least thanks precisely to the familiarity that they had gained with his works in the Holy Land. To conclude in a good Origenian manner, let us go back from the end to the beginning. In the Panarion, Epiphanius of Salamis has a different story about Origen and Jerusalem. Once the Alexandrian, asked by the church authorities to preach, chose to read only one verse of Psalm 49, skipping over the rest: “But to the sinner God said: ‘Why do you recite my statutes and take my covenant on your lips?’” (Ps 49,16). After that, he closed the book, gave it back and sat down, crying125. With his malevolent anecdote, Origen’s arch-enemy unwillingly pays him homage in line with the monastic spirituality of his own time by presenting the Alexandrian in the mood of a repentant sinner. It is a proof, among many others, of the appeal that Origen has always exerted also on his adversaries, while providing indirectly a case for hope to all those who are the object of rejection and exclusion. Of course, there is no need nowadays to rehabilitate Origen before Epiphanius and his other accusers. At all events, may we believe or not in the providential course of history (as I do, still hoping against hope), in this volume we shall hear again the voice of Origen in Jerusalem through so many contributions turning around him and his legacy to the Holy Land. If I may add a personal impression, this legacy is more than ever a living heritage, since it points to a spiritual horizon worthy of the religious traditions of this Holy City of Jerusalem which is indeed “the mother of us all”, also as the historical anticipation of the “heavenly” one (Gal 4,26). Thus, the fact of being assembled in Jerusalem in the shade of Origen is not the least merit for which I would like to thank most warmly Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and the Israeli colleagues who have organised this marvellous conference. Dipartimento di Filologia Classica e Italianistica Università di Bologna Via Zamboni 32 IT-40126 Bologna Italy [email protected] 125. Epiphanius, Panarion64,2,8-9.

Lorenzo PERRONE

I. JERUSALEM AND THE HOLY LAND: HISTORICAL AND MYSTICAL GEOGRAPHY

BETHABARA AND GERGESA (ORIGEN, COMMENTARYONJOHN VI,204-211) GEOGRAPHICAL DIGRESSION OR EXEGESIS?

This paper deals with a particular aspect of Origen’s legacy in the Holy Land: his discussion about some biblical place-names. Indeed, in a passage of his Commentary on the Gospel of John (CIo), he claimed that there were mistakes in the manuscripts of the Bible and suggested replacing the names of some places with others. The verse that Origen interprets runs as follows: Ταῦτα ἐν Βηϑαβαρᾷ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ὅπου ἦν Ἰωαννης βαπτίζων. These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan River, where John was baptizing (Jn 1,28 cited in CIo VI,204).

First, Origen claims that “Bethabara” should be read instead of “Bethania”. The main reason seems to be geographical, since there is no Bethania in the neighbourhood of the Jordan River, and Bethabara seems to be chosen because of its etymology, “house of preparation” (§§ 204 to 207). Next, he corrects what he considers an error in the Synoptic Gospels, where Gerasa or Gadara should be read Gergesa, for similar reasons (§§ 208 to 211). After this, he briefly mentions other mistakes about proper names which he finds in the Septuagint (§§ 212 to 216). Origen is quite aware that this long discussion about biblical names appears to be a digression, because he says at the end of it: Οὐκ εὔκαιρον δὲ νύν τὸν περὶ τῆς ϑεωρίας τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐξετάσαι λόγον, ἀφέμενον τῶν προκειμένων. This, however, is not the time to abandon what lies before us and investigate the science of the study of names (CIo VI,216)1.

1. For the Greek text, I use the edition Origène. Commentaire sur Saint Jean, ed. C. BLANC (SC, 120bis, 157, 222, 290, 385), Paris, Cerf, 1970-1996. It is based on the edition Der Johanneskommentar, ed. E. PREUSCHEN (GCS, 10; Origenes Werke, 4), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903. The English translation is based on Origen.Commentaryonthe Gospel according to John, Books 1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989, and Origen.Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 13-32, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 89), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1993.

32

A. ALIAU-MILHAUD

As far as Bethabara and Gergesa are concerned, his arguments seemed so convincing at the time that, after him, many manuscripts of the New Testament were changed2. Besides, his arguments helped to locate Al-Maghtas, the place where John the Baptist is supposed to have baptized, and also Kursi, on the Golan Heights, where Jesus saved a man from demons (the demons went into a herd of pigs and the pigs drowned in the Sea of Galilee). At this point, several questions arise: 1) In these two examples, what is the real function of geography? 2) Why does Origen also use etymology to justify his revisions? And since only Bethabara is mentioned in the relevant verse, what role does Gergesa play? 3) Finally, is this discussion a digression at all, or if not, what role does it play in the whole interpretation of the verse of John?

I. THE GEOGRAPHICAL ARGUMENT: DOES ORIGEN REALLY WANT RE-ESTABLISH THE GEOGRAPHICAL TRUTH?

TO

At first sight, the geographical argument is rather strong: neither Bethania nor Gerasa or even Gadara are situated near water, so it is impossible that John baptized in the Jordan River at Bethania, and that the pigs drowned in the sea at Gerasa or Gadara. Indeed, Origen says with some precision that “Bethania is 15 stades far from Jerusalem”, which is “180 stades far from the Jordan River” (§ 205). He seems to be 2. Indeed, after Origen, the name Bethabara may be found in many biblical manuscripts, and also, among others, in the Onomastica of Eusebius of Cesarea and his translator Jerome (F.X. WUTZ, Onomasticasacra:UntersuchungenzumLiberinterpretationis nominumHebraicorumdeshl.Hieronymus [TU, 41], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1914-15, pp. 39, 214, 653). See B. MEUNIER, Le début de l’évangile de Jean: Approche critique selon Cyrille d’Alexandrie et quelques auteurs anciens, in L. MELLERIN (ed.), Le livre scellé (Cahiers de Biblindex, 2),Turnhout, Brepols, 2017, 129-151, pp. 131-134. Quite oddly, in the Monacensis 191, the main manuscript of the CIo, the name “Bethabara” occurs only once (in CIo VI,204); we can also find one time “Betharaba” (CIo VI,221), while “Bethara” occurs four times (in the verse, and in CIo VI,205.237, and XIII,455). L.J. DORFBAUER thinks that “Bethara” is “a very old error, going back already to the manuscript transmission of the Commentary on John in the late third century” (Bethania,Bethara,orBethabara:FortunatianusofAquileiaandOrigen’sCommentary onJohn,withParticularReferencetoJohn1:28, in H.A.G. HOUGHTON [ed.], Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition [Text and Studies, 13], Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2016, 177-197, p. 186). Origen’s etymology may be based on the reading “Betharaba” (‫ערובא‬: cf. WUTZ, Onomasticasacra [n. 2], p. 39), but I read “Bethabara” (‫)ברא‬, following the indirect tradition of the text.

BETHABARA AND GERGESA

33

aware of the geographical distances. Similarly, he claims that “Gerasa is a town of Arabia, that has near it neither sea nor lake” (§ 209), which is also true for Gadara. Indeed, both examples seem to be built in parallel, and the proximity of water is their common feature. But what is more striking is that Origen uses eyewitnesses to justify these geographical remarks. He himself is the eyewitness for the first case, as he says: Ἐπείσϑημεν δὲ μὴ δεῖν “Βηϑανίᾳ” ἀναγινώσκειν, ἀλλὰ “Βηϑαβαρᾷ”, γενόμενοι ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐπὶ ἱστορίαν τῶν ἰχνῶν Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν μαϑητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. We have been convinced that we ought not to read “Bethania” but “Bethabara”, since we were in the right places to inquire about the footsteps of Jesus and his disciples and the prophets (CIo VI,204).

Indeed, we know that at this moment, Origen lived in the very same land where Jesus lived: in the prologue of book VI of the Commentary onJohn, he explained how he had to leave Egypt, and we know that he then settled in Caesarea3. So, he puts forward his own experience. As for Gerasa, he adduces the evidence of the evangelists themselves. It was obvious for them that there was no water in the neighbourhood of Gerasa: Οὐκ ἄν οὕτως προφανὲς ψεῦδος καὶ εὐέλεγκτον οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ εἰρήκεισαν, ἄνδρες ἐπιμελῶς γινώσκοντες τὰ περὶ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν. The Evangelists would not have said something so clearly false and easy to refute since they were men who knew the regions around Judea thoroughly (CIo VI,209).

Apparently, then, Origen has powerful geographical reasons to put aside Bethania and Gerasa that he finds in the manuscripts. But is he so convincing in insisting on Bethabara and Gergesa instead? As far as geography is concerned, his arguments are much weaker. Indeed, he has no direct witness, as we can infer from his words: Ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ὁμώνυμος τῇ Βηϑανίᾳ τόπος ἐστὶν περὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην· δείκνυσϑαι δὲ λέγουσι παρὰ τῇ ὄχϑῃ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου τὰ Βηϑαβαρᾶ, ἔνϑα ἱστοροῦσιν τὸν Ἰωάννην βεβαπτικέναι. Nor is there any other place of the same name Bethania in the neighbourhood of the Jordan River. However, they say (λέγουσι) that Bethabara is pointed out (δείκνυσϑαι) on the bank of the Jordan River. There the story goes (ἱστοροῦσιν) John baptized (CIo VI,205). 3. Cf. P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, p. 234.

34

A. ALIAU-MILHAUD

And for Gergesa: Ἀλλὰ Γέργεσα, […] περὶ ἥν κρημνὸς παρακείμενος τῇ λίμνῇ, ἀφ᾽ οὗ δείκνυται τοὺς χοίρους ὑπὸ τῶν δαιμόνων καταβεβλῆσϑαι … But near Gergesa […] is a cliff lying beside the lake, from which it is pointed out that the pigs were cast down by the demons… (CIo VI,211).

In these two quotations, the use of both speech verbs λέγουσι/ ἱστοροῦσιν and the passive voice δείκνυσϑαι/δείκνυται seems to attest that Origen never went to either Bethabara or Gergesa. He has no direct knowledge of these places and knows them only by hearsay: he may have been referring to local Palestinian traditions. II. THE ETYMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: WHAT ROLE IS GIVEN TO ETYMOLOGY? Indeed, Origen puts forward the etymology of Bethabara and Gergesa so as to impose these readings. Therefore, it is quite surprising that he should insist on Gergesa, which has nothing to do with the verse of John he is commenting on. I suggest that Origen constructs the examples in parallel because he needs both etymologies in his exegesis. He wants to build a symbolical diptych. Indeed, the names of Bethabara and Bethania do convey the idea of welcoming the Christ, while Gergesa means the contrary, according to Origen: Ἔστιν τε ἡ ἑρμηνεία τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀκόλουϑος τῷ βαπτίσματι τοῦ “ἑτοιμάζοντος κυρίῳ λαὸν κατεσκευασμένον”· μεταλαμβάνεται γὰρ εἰς “οἶκον κατασκευῆς”, ἡ δὲ Βηϑανία εἰς “οἶκον ὑπακοῆς”. In addition, the meaning of the name (Bethabara) is appropriate for the baptism of the one who “makes ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him” (Lk 1,17), for it is translated “House of preparation”, while Bethania (is translated) “House of obedience” (CIo VI,206).

In this extract Origen presents Bethabara as the “house of preparation”, because of the role of John the Baptist, who “made (people) ready for the Lord” through baptism4. This etymology suits Bethania, which translates to “house of obedience”, where Martha, Mary and Lazarus used to live and obey Jesus. Jesus himself called Lazarus his “friend”,

4. Actually, this etymology must be forced, since “Bethabara” means “house of the ford, of the passage”. The etymology of “Betharaba” suits better: “house of eve” (i.e. Friday, the preparation of the Sabbat).

BETHABARA AND GERGESA

35

as Origen reminds us in § 207. Hence, in both places, God is welcome, and in both places, people do what Jesus instructed. Quite to the contrary, Origen says about Gergesa5: Ἑρμηνεύεται δὲ ἡ Γέργεσα “παροικία ἐκβεβληκότων”, ἐπώνυμος οὖσα τάχα προφητικῶς οὗ περὶ τὸν σωτῆρα πεποιήκασιν παρακαλέσαντες αὐτὸν “μεταβῆναι ἐκ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν” οἱ τῶν χοίρων πολῖται. Gergesa means “lodging of those who have cast out”, which is perhaps a name prophetically significant of what the fellow citizens of the pigs did in regard to the Savior, when they “urged him to depart from their borders” (Mt 8,34) (CIo VI,211).

In the case of Gergesa, then, it is the other way around: the inhabitants do not welcome Jesus; rather, they cast him out. In Gergesa, there are no “friends”, but “fellow citizens of the pigs”: this harsh expression highlights the contrast between Bethabara and Gergesa. Let us note that the two developments are symmetrical. They both rely on the word ἑρμηνεία/Ἑρμηνεύεται, which means at once “translation” and “interpretation”. They present Bethabara and Gergesa as two opposite places before God: the “way in” is Bethabara, which “prepares the way before the Christ”; the “way out” is Gergesa, where the Christ was told to go out. Besides, Bethabara, οἶκος κατασκευῆς (house of preparation) or Bethania, οἶκος ὑπακοῆς (house of obedience) must be opposed to Gergesa, παροικία ἐκβεβληκότων (lodging of those who have cast out). Indeed the Hebraic root “Beth” (οἶκος in Greek) means a place where one lives, whereas the root “Ger” of Gergesa (παροικία) means a place where you stay only for a while; this difference also highlights the contrast between the places where Jesus could or could not stay. Therefore, Bethabara and Gergesa are chosen by the exegete to build a kind of diptych. But why these names? These places may have existed at the time of Origen, since he says he heard mention of them, but the point is that these names can be found in the Old Testament6. Bethabara, if it is the right reading, may come from the word Beth Bara, which appears once in the Bible, in the Book of Judges 7,24, and seems to discuss a ford or watering place near the Jordan River. If, alternatively, we read it as Betharaba, this name can also be found in the Old Testament, in the book of Joshua7. 5. Cf. WUTZ, Onomasticasacra (n. 2), pp. 545-546. 6. Indeed, in these places, all archeological remains are later than Origen and we have no mention of Bethabara nor Gergesa before him. 7. Josh 15,6.61; 18,21-22.

36

A. ALIAU-MILHAUD

More interesting is Gergesa, because it seems clear that Origen is thinking about the Old Testament at this time: when presenting Gergesa, he first speaks about the biblical tribe of the Gergesenes, and only then of the town of his time, as we can see in his sentence: Ἀλλὰ Γέργεσα, ἀφ ̓ ἧςοἱΓεργεσαῖοι, πόλις ἀρχαία περὶ τὴν νῦν καλουμένην Τιβερίαδα λίμνην … But Gergesa, fromwhichcomesthenameGergesenes, is an ancient city in the neighbourhood of the lake which is now called Tiberias … (CIo VI,211).

The Gergesenes are descendants of Canaan and one of the peoples that lived in the Promised Land before the Hebrews came in. They appear sixteen times in the Septuagint: in the Pentateuch8, they are one of the peoples that God promised Abraham to cast out, so that he could settle there; in the book of Joshua9, the promise comes true and they are driven away. Therefore, we can see the relation between the biblical Gergesa and the story of the pigs in the New Testament. Like Joshua who cast out the Gergesenes, Jesus drove the demons out of the man. The names of Bethabara and Gergesa thus convey symbolical significations which are useful for the exegesis of the verse. III. GEOGRAPHICAL AND SYMBOLICAL ARGUMENTS: THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE INTERPRETATION In fact, these developments about Bethabara and Gergesa provide Origen with tools for his exegesis of the verse of John. Indeed, the verse that he comments on is Jn 1,28: “These things were done in Bethabara beyond the Jordan River, where John was baptizing”. Immediately after quoting the verse, the exegete speaks about the word Bethabara and other mistakes in the manuscripts of the Bible, then he dwells on the word “Jordan” and its signification, and finally on the relation between the Jordan River and baptism. The first tool that Origen uses when discussing the word “Jordan” is etymology10. After the digression about names, he says: 8. Gen 10,16; 15,21; Ex 3,8.17; 13,5; 23,23; Dt 7,1; 20,17. 9. Josh 3,10; 9,1; 24,11. 10. We saw it for Bethabara and Gergesa, but it is also the case of names that he found in the Septuagint: Gerson and Onan (§§ 213 and 214). Besides, Gerson has the same root as Gergesa, so we can guess that there are other relations between the names of the list of mistakes.

BETHABARA AND GERGESA

37

Ἴδωμεν τοίνυν τὰ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς λέξεως. Ἰορδάνης μὲν ἑρμηνεύεται “κατάβασις αὐτῶν”. Let us, therefore, look at the words of the Gospel. “Jordan” means “their descent” (CIo VI,217).

The word ἑρμηνεύεται is used, as above about Bethabara and Gergesa. More broadly, however, the whole interpretation of the verse is based on themes that appeared in the study of names. a) Indeed, the proximity of water, which was the geographical argument to put aside Bethania, Gerasa and Gadara is used again by Origen about Jerusalem. “Τούτου” δὴ τοῦ καταβεβηκότος “ποταμοῦ τὰ ὁρμήματα εὐφραίνουσιν”, ὡς ἐν ψαλμοῖς εὕρομεν, “τὴν πόλιν τοῦ ϑεοῦ”, οὐ τὴν αἰσϑητὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ–οὐγὰρἔχειπαρακείμενονποταμόν–, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἄμωμον τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐκκλησίαν, οἰκοδομουμένην “ἐπὶ τῷ ϑεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν”. “The strong currents of this river” which has descended “make glad the city of God” (Ps 45,5), as we have found in the Psalms. This is not the Jerusalem perceptible to the senses – for it does not have a river lying besideit – but the blameless Church of God, which is built “upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus our Lord being the chief corner-stone” (Eph 2,20) (CIo VI,219).

Hence, the proximity of water was first a geographical argument to correct the text of the Gospel; it becomes here an exegetical argument to justify allegory: Jerusalem should not be read as the Jewish city, but as the symbol of the Christian church. b) Besides this, thethemeofdescentorgoingdownandpurification is a central point of the interpretation of the verse of John: Τίς ἂν εἴη ποταμὸς “κατάβασις αὐτῶν”, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἐρχόμενον καϑαίρεσϑαι δεῖ οὐκ ἰδίαν κατάβασιν καταβεβηκότα, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνϑρώπων, ἢ ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν; What river would be “their descent”, to which one must come to be purified, which has not descended with its own descent, but that of men, if not our Saviour? (CIo VI,218).

Therefore, the descent meant by the name Jordan is the one of men who are unclean. They need a purification by the Saviour who is represented by the Jordan River itself. This reminds us of the pigs of Gergesa which threw themselves down the cliff into the water. The pigs are unclean animals, especially when the demons went into them. And the

38

A. ALIAU-MILHAUD

idea of going down did appear regarding Gergesa thanks to the prefix κατά: the words κατάβασις, κατάβασιν, καταβεβηκότα that we find here do echo κατακρημνιζόμενοι and καταβεβλῆσϑαι that we found in §§ 208 and 211. In addition, the Saviour purifies men, just as he purified the man of Gergesa from the demons. Then, in what follows, Origen develops the idea of purification of Naaman the Syrian (CIo VI,242-245). c) Last but not least, this idea of purification is connected with the theme of baptism, which appears in the verse of John. Indeed, the apparent digression about biblical names foreshadows the typology of Joshua as Jesus. This typology of Joshua has been well-known since Justin Martyr. It is permitted by the Septuagint because Joshua is called Jesus in the Greek Bible. I said above that Jesus-Joshua was the one who had driven away the Gergesenes after crossing the Jordan River. In addition to Gergesa, in § 215, Origen talked explicitly about the book of Joshua and the mistakes that can be found in it. As a matter of fact, Jesus-Joshua is the main character in what follows, because the crossing of the Jordan River is seen as an image of baptism. Τύπος δὲ ὁ διαδεξάμενος ἦν Μωσῆν Ἰησοῦς τοῦ διαδεξαμένου τὴν διὰ τοῦ νόμου οἰκονομίαν τῷ εὐαγγελικῷ κηρύγματι Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Jesus-Joshua, who succeeded Moses, was a type of Jesus the Christ who succeeded the dispensation through the law with the Gospel proclamation (CIo VI,229).

So, through the word τύπος, Origen claims the typology and then presents the crossing of the Jordan River as an image of the true baptism. Afterwards, Origen presents the crossing of the Jordan River as a purification. Indeed, in § 230, he quotes Joshua saying: “Purify yourselves (ἁγνίσασϑε) for tomorrow; the Lord will do wonders among us” (Josh 3,5). Later, when he speaks about the circumcision of the sons of Israel by Jesus-Joshua, he says that he “purified (περιεκάϑαιρεν)” them (CIo VI,233). Therefore, the themes of baptism and purification are vital to the interpretation of the verse of John. But we see that they were foreshadowed since the beginning, in this study of biblical names that sounded like a digression.

BETHABARA AND GERGESA

39

IV. CONCLUSION In spite of the strength of his arguments about Bethabara and Gergesa, it seems that Origen is not aiming to re-establish a geographical truth, but would rather create a symbolical geography. He also superimposes the Old Testament map on the New Testament one, so that we can read the second through the first one. Accordingly, we ought not to read this extract of the Commentary onJohn as firstly, a digression about mistakes on biblical names and secondly, the actual interpretation on the verse of John. Instead, we see that the study of names, and especially the one about Gergesa, provides methods, themes and biblical references to build the interpretation that follows11. Moreover, these remarks do raise a paradox: according to Origen, it is not mainly the geographical facts that should correct the text, but the names of the places have to be coherent with what happened there (the word ἀκόλουϑος is used in CIo VI,206). And finally, it is not only the biblical text that inspires exegesis, but exegesis is used to justify and even to correct the biblical text. 26 Rue de Bruxelles FR-78 500 Sartrouville France [email protected]

Agnès ALIAU-MILHAUD Université Paris-Sorbonne UMR 8167 “Orient et Méditerranée”

11. About digressions by Origen, see: A. CACCIARI, Origen’s Language: Some ResearchPerspectives, in A. FÜRST (ed.), OrigenesundseinErbeinOrientundOkzident (Adamantiana, 1), Münster, Aschendorff, 2011, 129-148. However, the author does not mention our passage.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

Quand on entend parler de Mambré, on pense immédiatement à son chêne près duquel Dieu se fit voir à Abraham selon le récit de Genèse 18. C’est d’ailleurs le chêne qui est représenté avec une inscription en tesselles rouges ἡ δρ(υς) Μαμ(βρη)1 («Le chêne de Mambré») sur la mosaïque de Madaba, la plus ancienne carte de Palestine, remontant au VIe siècle2 (fig. 1). Chez les auteurs chrétiens des premiers siècles, en dehors des cas où Gn 18,1 est cité expressément, la mention du chêne de Mambré sert le plus souvent de simple repère textuel pour évoquer cette théophanie, ce qui se traduit par sa représentation quasi systématique dans l’iconographie3. Mais loin d’être un simple marqueur topographique, ce chêne a progressivement cristallisé plusieurs types d’intérêts en raison de l’importance fondatrice de cette apparition divine. Nous commencerons par examiner les auteurs qui donnent à ce chêne un sens en rapport avec leur exégèse4, ce qui est le cas d’Origène à la suite de Philon, avant d’étudier le témoignage des historiens juifs et chrétiens sur le culte païen dont cet arbre était l’objet et sur les différentes stratégies adoptées pour en effacer la mémoire dans le texte ou sur le site; nous verrons enfin comment le développement des pèlerinages et de diverses légendes chrétiennes ont contribué à rendre à cet arbre une visibilité et un rôle de témoin. 1. H. LECLERCQ, Madaba, dans Dictionnaired’archéologiechrétienneetdeliturgie, X, 1931, col. 852. Le lieu est indiqué avec une inscription en tesselles noires: H KAI (TER) EBINΘOC et en tesselles rouges: H DR(UC) MAM(BRH). À gauche du chêne, est figurée la basilique construite par Constantin avec un portique à deux étages. À droite du chêne, une maison représentant Hébron. H. DONNER, TheMosaicMapofMadaba:AnIntroductory Guide, Kampen, Kok Pharos, 1992, 21995, p. 61 propose de rétablir l’inscription [ΑΡΒΩ] H KAI (TER)EBINΘOC. Pour lui, la maison à droite du chêne est l’église byzantine des tombes des patriarches. 2. R.L. WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly:PalestineinChristianHistoryandThought, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 174sq. Cette représentation de la terre sainte date du règne de l’empereur Justinien et le mosaïste devait avoir en main non seulement l’Onomasticon d’Eusèbe, mais aussi une carte de pèlerin.. 3. Dès la plus ancienne représentation de cet épisode biblique dans la catacombe de la Via Latina à Rome, l’arbre est représenté derrière Abraham. 4. D. JERICKE, Abraham in Mamre: Historische und exegetische Studien zur Region von Hebron unhistorische und exegetische Studien zur Religion von Hebron und zu Genesis11,27–19,38, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2003 ne consacre qu’une demi page au début du christianisme et ne s’appuie que sur H.M. VON ERFFA, IkonologiederGenesis: DiechristlichenBildthemenausdemAltenTestamentundihreQuelle, Bd 2, München – Berlin, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1995, pp. 91-102.

42

M.-O. BOULNOIS

Fig. 1. Détail de la carte de Madaba. Photo: Marie-Odile Boulnois.

I. LE CHÊNE DE LA VISION 1. Origèneetsapostérité Dans son homélie sur l’apparition de Dieu à Abraham en Genèse 18 Origène consacre un développement à cet arbre5. Comme dans l’homélie précédente, il recourt à l’allégorie des oreilles circoncises pour signifier que l’auditeur doit avoir les oreilles pures s’il veut comprendre le sens du verset 8: «Abraham se tenait sousl’arbre»6. En effet, dit Origène, «il ne faut pas croire que l’Esprit saint a porté une extrême attention à écrire dans les livres de la Loi à quel endroit se tenait Abraham. En effet, à quoi cela me sert-il, à moi qui suis venu écouter ce que l’Esprit saint enseigne au genre humain, d’entendre raconter qu’‘Abraham se tenait sous un arbre’ (Gn 18,8)?»7. 5. Origène, HoméliesurlaGenèse IV,3, trad. L. DOUTRELEAU (SC, 7bis), Paris, Cerf, 1985, p. 153. 6. Origène, HoméliesurlaGenèse III,5. Selon M. SIMONETTI (Origene,Omeliesulla Genesi, Roma, Città Nuova, 2002, p. 9) ces homélies donnent l’impression d’avoir été prêchées dans un laps de temps restreint. L’allusion aux oreilles circoncises est un signe de la continuité entre les homélies III et IV (p. 155). 7. Le texte latin est déconcertant au premier abord: Nequeenimsummamsollicitudinem Spiritui sancto fuisse credendum est, ut scriberet in libris legis ubi staret Abraham. On 2

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

43

Si cet élément peut sembler anecdotique et insignifiant pris au sens littéral, il est nécessaire d’en scruter le sens selon le principe que tout détail de l’Écriture doit être profitable au lecteur8. Pour prouver l’utilité de cette précision topographique, «sous l’arbre», Origène cite le verset 1 qu’il n’avait pas encore commenté et qui lui donne un nom propre en le désignant comme «l’arbre de Mambré»9. Et c’est l’étymologie de ce terme hébreu qui lui donne la clé de lecture. «Mambré, dans notre langue, signifie ‘vision’ ou ‘pénétration’ (visiosiueperspicacia)10. Comprends-tu alors en quelle sorte de lieu le Seigneur peut faire un repas? La vision et la pénétration d’Abraham l’ont charmé. C’est qu’Abraham était pur de cœur, capable de voir Dieu (cf. Mt 5,8). Dans un tel lieu, dans un tel cœur, le Seigneur peut venir faire un repas avec ses anges. Et puis, autrefois, les prophètes étaient appelés des voyants (cf. 1 Règnes 9,9)»11. L’arbre disparaît ici au profit de la seule interprétation du nom «Mambré» qui est en quelque sorte transféré sur Abraham. C’est parce que sa pureté de cœur le rend apte à la vision et à la clairvoyance que Dieu, charmé par cette capacité, s’est rendu visible en ce lieu. Il y a là une confirmation du début de l’homélie qui a insisté sur la supériorité d’Abraham sur Lot: le premier, «capable de recevoir le plein éclat de la lumière»12, a vu le Seigneur accompagné de deux anges, alors que Lot n’a reçu que s’attendrait à lire que l’Esprit saint a pris soin de préciser où se tenait Abraham. C’est ce qu’on lit dans le manuscrit F (Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana s. Marco 607) qui a sans doute une lectiofacilior:sinesollicitudinespiritussancti. Mais si l’on suit le texte édité par Peter Habermehl suivant Baehrens, il faut comprendre que l’Esprit saint ne pouvait se soucier de donner ce détail topographique à moins de lui donner un sens allégorique. Une confirmation de cette interprétation se trouve dans le Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques II,4,24, éd. L. BRÉSARD – H. CROUZEL – M. BORRET (SC, 375), Paris, Cerf, 1991, p. 343 où Origène explique la notation «à midi» de Ct 1,7 en la rapprochant de Genèse 18. «Si nous croyons ce texte écrit par l’Esprit Saint, ce n’est pas en vain, je pense, qu’il a plu au divin Esprit de confier aux pages de l’Écriture même le temps et l’heure de la vision (QuodsicredimushaecperSpiritumsanctumscripta,nonputofrustraplacuisse divino Spiritui, ut etiam tempus et hora visionis Scripturae paginis mandaretur), si la signification de cette heure et de ce temps n’apportait quelque chose à la science des ‘fils d’Abraham’». Et Origène poursuit en proposant la même interprétation de «Mambré, mot qui veut dire: venant de la vision (avisione)». 8. Origène, Homélie sur la Genèse VIII,1 (SC 7bis, 213 DOUTRELEAU): «Observe chaque détail de l’Écriture; car, en chacun, pour qui sait creuser profond il y a un trésor; et peut-être même que c’est là où l’on n’y pense pas que se cachent les joyaux précieux des mystères». 9. Il faut noter qu’Origène (ou son traducteur Rufin) ne parle jamais de chêne dans cette homélie. 10. Ce terme «perspicacia» semble être propre à Rufin dans ses traductions d’Origène (HoméliessurlesNombres II,3; X,3; HoméliesurleLévitique III,8). Il est repris par Césaire d’Arles et Aelred qui dépendent de ce passage. On le trouve ensuite chez des auteurs plus tardifs au Moyen Âge. 11. Origène, HoméliesurlaGenèse IV,3 (SC 7bis, 153 DOUTRELEAU). 12. Origène, HoméliesurlaGenèse IV,1 (SC 7bis, 147 DOUTRELEAU).

44

M.-O. BOULNOIS

les deux anges. Origène hérite de Philon13 et annonce Eusèbe de Césarée en soutenant que les théophanies manifestent la qualité du voyant et récompensent son avancement spirituel14. Disons un mot de la postérité de l’exégèse origénienne avant d’en voir les sources. Curieusement, elle ne semble s’être transmise que chez les auteurs latins, par l’intermédiaire de la traduction de Rufin. On la rencontre dans un sermon de Césaire d’Arles qui utilise abondamment et parfois littéralement la traduction de Rufin. «Mais où s’est passé cet épisode? ‘Au chêne de Mambré’ (ad ilicem Mambre Gn 18,1), ce qui se traduit dans la langue latine par ‘vision’ ou ‘pénétration’ (visiosiue perspicacia). Vois-tu quel est l’endroit où le Seigneur peut prendre un repas? Oui, ce qui l’a attiré, ce fut la ‘vision’ et la ‘pénétration’ d’Abraham; oui, il avait un cœur pur qui lui permettait de voir Dieu. C’est donc en un tel endroit et en un tel cœur que le Seigneur peut prendre son repas»15. Il est notable cependant que Césaire modifie ensuite la lecture origénienne en y voyant une manifestation de la Trinité, ce qu’il reprend vraisemblablement à Ambroise de Milan comme le montrent d’autres parallèles avec cet auteur16. Plus tard, on retrouvera encore l’exégèse origénienne dans un sermon sur la Trinité d’Aelred de Rievaulx qui ajoute à la notion de vision celle d’humilité: ce n’est plus seulement la pureté de cœur d’Abraham mais son humilité qui lui permettent de voir Dieu. De fait, à la différence de Césaire d’Arles qui conserve la mention du «chêne de Mambré», Aelred, s’appuyant sur la traduction de la Vulgate, parle de «la vallée de Mambré» et, à la suite de Bède le Vénérable, interprète la vallée comme le symbole de l’humilité du cœur17. «Mambré se traduit par ‘vision’ et ‘pénétration’. Vois en 13. Philon, Quaestiones in Genesim IV,30, trad. Ch. MERCIER, Paris, Cerf, 1984, p. 203. 14. Voir S. MORLET, LaDémonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée:Étudesur l’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 187), Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2009, pp. 452-453. 15. Césaire d’Arles, Sermons sur l’Écriture I (81-105), 83,5, éd. G. MORIN, trad. J. COUREAU très légèrement modifiée (SC, 447), Paris, Cerf, 2000,p. 121. Césaire simplifie en ne parlant pas du v. 8 sur lequel Origène prend appui, mais renvoie directement au v. 1 où l’on trouve le nom de Mambré. Précisons qu’il ne suit ni Rufin (sub arbore Mambre) ni la Vulgate (inconvalleMambre), mais une ancienne latine: adilicemMambre. 16. Par exemple l’utilisation de Mt 25,35 (Sermon83,4) et Jn 8,56 (83,5) en rapport avec Genèse 18, ou la lecture trinitaire fondée sur les trois mesures de farine (83,3). 17. Bède le Vénérable, In principium Genesis usque ad natiuitatem Isaac 4,18: Mambre namque, ut supra legimus, genere quidem amorreus, sed cum fratribus suis foederatuseratabrahae. «Vndeapteconuallismambrenostramdesignathumilitatem», qui de gentibus originem carnis habentes, patrem in spiritu ac fide habemus abraham, quibus dicit apostolus trahens ex abraham et carnis et uirtutis originem, annuntiamus uobisuitamaeternam,quaeeratapudpatremetapparuitnobis.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

45

quel genre de lieu apparaît le Seigneur, où il peut faire un repas. Dans la vallée de Mambré: dans l’humilité, là où sont la vision et la pénétration. La vision et la pénétration d’Abraham ont charmé Dieu. C’est qu’il était doux et humble (cf. Mt 11,29), et pur de cœur, capable de voir Dieu (cf. Mt 5,8). Dans un tel lieu, dans un tel cœur, le Seigneur peut venir faire un repas avec les anges. Après tout, les prophètes étaient appelés des voyants (1 Règnes 9,9)»18. Où Origène a-t-il trouvé cette étymologie19? Il peut l’avoir tirée d’un ouvrage qu’il utilise ailleurs sous le titre ἑρμηνεία τῶν ὀνομάτων («interprétation des noms»)20 et qui nous est conservé dans une traduction latine révisée de Jérôme21. L’explication de Mambré est la suivante: mamre diuisiosiueperspicuum22. On reconnaît dans ce doublet ce qu’on lit chez Origène: uisiosiueperspicacia. Il est aussi possible qu’Origène ait pour source directe Philon23, ce dernier dépendant sans doute lui-même d’un 18. Aelred de Rievaulx, Sermo132insolemnitatesanctaeTrinitatis 4, CM2C, p. 300, traduit par G. RACITI dans Sermons.LacollectiondeReading, vol. 1 (Corpus Christianorum in Translation), sermon 132 pour la solennité de la sainte Trinité, 4, Turnhout, Brepols, 2015, p. 428. 19. Selon N.G. COHEN, Philo’sScriptures:CitationsfromtheProphetsandWritings: EvidenceforaHaftarahCycleinSecondTempleJudaism,Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2007, pp. 14-16, ces étymologies midrashiques n’ont pas pour but la recherche de l’origine philologique, mais la vérité spirituelle. De fait, ce n’est pas l’étymologie que donnent les linguistes. Selon L. NIESIOLOWSKI-SPANO,TheOriginMyths andHolyPlaces intheOld Testament: A Study of Aetiological Narratives, London – New York, Routledge, 2011, p. 124, le nom «Mamre» est usuellement associé à une racine «to be fruitful», «plump», «full». Je remercie Charles-Antoine Fogielmann de m’avoir signalé que TheHebrewand AramaicLexiconoftheOldTestament, Leiden, Brill, 1994, p. 596 renvoie à la racine ‫מרא‬ (M-R-’) (p. 630), rare en hébreu mais bien attestée par des cognats en akkadien et en arabe, et qui signifie «être gras, gavé». Voir aussi E. MADER, Mambre: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im heiligen Bezirk Râmet El-Halîl in Südpalästina, Freiburg i.Br., Erich Wewel, 1957, p. 186. 20. CommentairesurS.Jean II,33 et HoméliesurlesNombres XX,3,1 (SC 461, 32 DOUTRELEAU): InterpretatioHebraicorumnominum. 21. N. DE LANGE, OrigenandtheJews:StudiesinJewish-ChristianRelationsinThird- CenturyPalestine(University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976, pp. 16-17. Jérôme, LiberinterpretationisHebraicorumnominum, éd. P. DE LAGARDE (CCSL, 72), Turnhout, Brepols, 1959,préface, attribue ce texte à Philon et assure qu’Origène le connaissait. Néanmoins, l’attribution de cette œuvre à Philon est contestée. Voir F.X. WUTZ, Onomasticasacra:Untersuchungenzum LiberinterpretationisnominumHebraicorumdeshl.Hieronymus (TU, 41), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1914-1915 et A. KAMESAR, Jerome,GreekScholarship,andtheHebrewBible: AStudy oftheQuaestionesHebraicaeinGenesim,Oxford, Clarendon, 1993, p. 104. 22. Jérôme, LiberinterpretationisHebraicorumnominum (CCSL 72, 8, 16 DE LAGARDE. WUTZ, Onomasticasacra (n. 21), p. 264: Mamredivisio[=devisione]siveperspicuum. 23. Philon est cité quelques fois par Origène (CC IV,51; VI,21; CMt XV,3) qui attribue aussi certaines exégèses à «l’un de nos prédécesseurs» (CC V,55). Même s’il n’y a pas d’autre lien entre Origène et Philon concernant l’exégèse de l’arbre, sur d’autres points, comme la comparaison entre Abraham et Lot et l’insistance sur l’empressement

46

M.-O. BOULNOIS

recueil onomastique24. On constate par ailleurs que cette étymologie est également adoptée par le Targum Neofiti qui traduit par «plaine de la vision»25. 2. Philond’Alexandrie Philon propose cette étymologie dans son DeMigratione pour commenter Gn 14,24: «Parmi les hommes qui sont venus avec moi, Eshkol, Aunan recevront Mambré en partage (τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν συμπορευϑέντων μετ’ ἐμοῦ, Εσχωλ, Αυναν, Μαμβρη, οὗτοι λήμψονται μερίδα)». Pour Philon, il ne s’agit pas d’énumérer trois noms d’hommes, mais Mambré est compris comme une apposition au terme «partage» (μερίδα). Ainsi, Eshkol qui symbolise le bon naturel et Aunan l’amour des contemplations, «tous deux réunis, héritent la vie contemplative désignée sous le nom de Mambré, qui veut dire mot-à-mot ‘venant de la vision’ (ἀπὸ ὁράσεως): le phénomène de la vision n’est-il pas lié à la contemplation comme sa fonction propre?»26. Ce texte, bien qu’il ne porte pas sur le chêne, nous permet d’avoir une attestation en grec de cette étymologie de Mambré, qui est davantage développée dans les QuaestionesinGenesim malheureusement conservées uniquement dans une traduction arménienne. Il s’agit d’un très long passage qui répond à la question suivante: «Pourquoi l’Écriture ditelle: ‘Et le Seigneur Dieu apparut à Abraham au chêne de Mambré, quand il était assis à la porte de sa tente à la chaleur du jour et il leva les yeux’ (ἀναβλέψας)?»27. Philon découpe ce verset sans tenir compte de la construction grammaticale, de manière à rattacher le participe ἀναβλέψας au verset 1 et non au verset 2, ce qui lui permet de donner à la vision un rôle central dans cette question. Dans ce but, il commence par s’appuyer sur l’utilisation du nom hébreu «Mambré» en recourant à son étymologie puisque, comme l’exprime l’aphorisme d’Héraclite cité par Philon, «l’arbre – notre nature – aime à se cacher»28. L’étymologie est donc le point de de l’hospitalité, l’influence est nette. Il y a même la reprise d’une expression. Philon (DeAbrahamo 109) déclare qu’il n’y a «pas de fainéant dans la maison du sage», ce qu’on retrouve chez Origène (HGn IV,1 [SC 7bis, 149 DOUTRELEAU]): «Car personne n’est lent à aimer les hommes dans la maison du sage». 24. L.L. GRABBE, EtymologyinEarlyJewishInterpretation:HebrewNamesinPhilo, Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1988. Dans la recension de cet ouvrage, R. GOULET (StudiaPhilonica Annual 2 [1990] 193) juge plus probable que Philon ait emprunté ses étymologies à un commentaire allégorique de l’Écriture plutôt qu’à une liste onomastique. 25. TargumduPentateuque.IGenèse, trad. R. LE DÉAUT (SC, 245), Paris, Cerf, 2008, p. 184: «La Parole de Yahvé apparut à Abraham dans la plaine de la vision» (Neofiti). 26. Philon, DeMigratione 164-165, trad. J. CAZEAUX, Paris, Cerf, 1965, p. 201. 27. Philon, QuaestionesinGenesim IV,1 (n. 13), p. 145. 28. H. DIELS – W. KRANZ, DieFragmentedesVorsokratiker, Berlin, Weidmann, 1906, fr. B123.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

47

départ d’une lecture allégorique: «Mambré est interprété ‘(qui provient) de la vue’», et le problème posé dans cette question est celui de la possibilité de voir Dieu dans le monde sensible. Or de manière remarquable Philon prend soin d’expliquer que la vision au chêne de Mambré joue à un double niveau: Abraham a, de manière conjointe, une vision sensible de trois hommes à l’égard desquels il manifeste son hospitalité et une vision intellective de Dieu entouré de ses puissances à l’égard duquel il fait preuve de piété. Même si Abraham est un intellect vertueux qui possède «une vue aiguë, sans sommeil, voyant non seulement le monde créé (…), mais aussi son Père et Créateur, le Dieu incréé, inengendré»29, il saisit aussi l’autre apparition sensible d’hommes étrangers, ce qui lui permet d’exercer ses deux vertus: la piété et l’hospitalité30. Au centre de ce développement se trouve un long et curieux excursus sur le chêne que l’on peut décomposer en trois explications. La première est d’ordre symbolique. «L’Écriture a disposé entre les deux (s.e. celui qui est vu et celui qui voit) de façon très symbolique un chêne, le plus puissant et le plus grand en autorité, en tant que c’est un arbre très familier parmi les (arbres) sauvages, qui laisse deviner le sage devenu œil (tout entier)»31. Jérôme Moreau32 propose de voir là un jeu de mot sur le double sens du mot ὀφϑαλμός qui signifie aussi bien l’organe de la vision que, dans un contexte agricole, les yeux d’un arbre. Philon poursuit en distinguant deux parties du chêne: le tronc épais et sauvage, et les fruits, la noix domestique. Le texte est malheureusement très obscur, mais il semble laisser entendre que, de même que le mouvement du regard partant du bas de l’arbre se porte vers le haut en passant du tronc épais à la lumière, de même le sage «commence à voir celui qui est vraiment le guide bon, puissant de tous les êtres», puis devient œil tout entier et atteint les fruits de la contemplation de Dieu lui-même33. La deuxième explication semble proposer une relecture de la mythologie grecque: Philon commence par affirmer l’antériorité et la prééminence du fruit du chêne par rapport au don du blé, une allusion au mythe de Déméter, puis 29. Philon, QuaestionesinGenesim IV,1 (n. 13), pp. 145-147. 30. Philon, QuaestionesinGenesim IV,2 (n. 13), p. 155. 31. Philon, QuaestionesinGenesim IV,1 (n. 13), p. 147. 32. J. MOREAU, Abraham dans l’exégèse de Philon d’Alexandrie: Enjeux herméneutiques de la démarche allégorique, thèse soutenue à l’Université Lyon II, 2010, vol. 2, p. 255. 33. Philon, QuaestionesinGenesim IV,1 (n. 13), p. 147: «Quand il a commencé à voir celui qui est vraiment le guide bon, puissant de tous les êtres, il voit, saisi par l’épaisseur, (l’arbre) sauvage qui ne connaît ni obstacle ni entrave, et il (voit) la limite où il n’y a plus d’obstacles, les rayons qui luttent jusqu’à ce qu’ils s’accommodent à la vue. En effet, la partie du tronc est sauvage, mais son fruit est une noix domestique, qui a été donnée en nourriture aux hommes avant le blé».

48

M.-O. BOULNOIS

présente le chêne comme «le temple et l’autel de l’unique Dieu», ce qui pourrait être une manière de se réapproprier le culte de Zeus au chêne de Dodone. La mention du «laurier du soleil» et de «l’olivier toujours vierge» dont l’huile est la matière de la lumière sont encore un rappel d’Apollon et d’Athéna, tous partageant ce rapport à la lumière qui caractérise le chêne de Mambré. La troisième justification de la prééminence du chêne est lexicologique. De nombreux termes techniques sont des composés formés avec le mot δρύς alors que leur signification ne se limite pas au chêne, comme δρυηκόπος qui désigne toute personne coupant des arbres, ou δρύφακτος qui nomme une barrière en bois. Cette longue digression vise à faire de cet arbre le signe visible de la suréminence de la contemplation divine à laquelle l’intellect humain n’accède que de manière limitée, le cœur de la démonstration portant sur la question de l’articulation entre vision sensible et vision intelligible. Que ce soit pour Philon ou pour Origène, le chêne symbolise donc par son nom la capacité d’Abraham à accueillir la vision de Dieu. Tous deux déplacent ainsi sur Abraham l’aptitude à la rencontre du divin, qui était peut-être antérieurement attribuée au chêne en tant qu’arbre sacré lié à une activité oraculaire. Voyons donc comment ce chêne, loin d’être un simple marqueur textuel signalant la nécessité d’une interprétation allégorique34, a été l’objet d’un culte païen que juifs et chrétiens ont tenté de transformer. II. LA

TRANSFORMATION D’UN LIEU DE CULTE PAÏEN

1. Attestationducultepaïen a) Lestextes Flavius Josèphe évoque le chêne de Mambré dans deux de ses œuvres. Dans la GuerredesJuifs,il signale qu’on montre à Hébron les tombeaux des patriarches. «On montre aussi à six stades de la ville un térébinthe géant et l’on dit que cet arbre est là depuis la création jusqu’à maintenant»35. Deux éléments sont à noter. D’une part, le flottement entre 34. On pourrait aussi développer l’interprétation typologique que l’on rencontre chez quelques auteurs: Justin,DialogueavecTryphon 86; Grégoire d’Elvire, Tractatus Origenis II,7; Chromace d’Aquilée, Sermons 15,21; Évagre, Altercatio legis inter SimonemIudaeumetTheophilumChristianum I,50 qui voient dans ce chêne une figure de la croix. 35. Flavius Josèphe, GuerredesJuifs IV,530-533, trad. A. PELLETIER (très légèrement modifiée) (Collection des Universités de France, 3), Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1982, p. 87:

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

49

le chêne et le térébinthe est très fréquent. Il repose sur une vocalisation différente en hébreu, de sorte que la répartition des traductions de la Septante entre δρῦς et τερέβινϑος ne recouvre souvent pas ce qu’on trouve dans le texte massorétique36. Il en résulte que l’arbre ou le lieu même de Mambré sont souvent appelés «térébinthe» dans différentes sources. Eusèbe désigne l’arbre comme un térébinthe dans la Démonstrationévangélique37 et dans l’Onomasticon il parle indifféremment du chêne et du térébinthe38. Sozomène à propos du chêne de Mambré signale qu’on nomme aujourd’hui ce lieu Térébinthe39, ce qui est confirmé par Jérôme qui évoque le marché du Térébinthe40 et par la carte de Madaba qui, à δείκνυται δ’ ἀπὸ σταδίων ἓξ τοῦ ἄστεος τερέβινϑος μεγίστη, καὶ φασὶ τὸ δένδρον ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως μέχρι νῦν διαμένειν. 36. Sur cette ambivalence entre «chêne» et «térébinthe», voir MADER, Mambre (n. 19), p. 186. «Alon» (chêne) et «elon» (térébinthe) s’écrivent de la même façon quand ils ne sont pas ponctués: ‫אלון‬. Je remercie Charles-Antoine Fogielmann de m’avoir signalé que dans le HebrewandAramaicLexiconoftheOldTestament, ces articles se renvoient mutuellement, l’entrée principale étant à «elon», p. 54. 37. Eusèbe, Démonstration évangélique V,9,7,8; Die Demonstratio Evangelica, éd. I.A. HEIKEL(GCS, 23; Eusebius Werke, 4), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1913. 38. Eusèbe, Onomasticon; Das Onomastikon der biblischen Orstnamen. Kritische Neuausgabe des griechischen Textes mit der lateinischen Fassung des Hieronymus, éd. S. TIMM (GCS NF, 24; Eusebius Werke, 3/1), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2017, aux entrées Ἀρβώ (p. 6) et δρῦς (p. 92). Il est suivi par Jérôme. Cette équivalence est explicitement proposée par Eusèbe, CommentairesurIsaïeI,42,92 (à propos d’Is 6,13), éd. J. ZIEGLER: ὡς τερέβινϑον ἢ κατὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἑρμηνευτὰς ὡς δρῦν, «comme le térébinthe ou selon les autres traducteurs comme le chêne». Voir aussi Basile (?), Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam I,63,11-13, éd. P. TREVISAN, Torino, Società Editrice Internazionale, 1939 (à propos d’Is 1,30): «Les autres ont traduit térébinthe, puisque nous avons appris aussi dans la Genèse que chêne et térébinthe sont la même chose. Ils seront donc semblables au térébinthe ou au chêne» (Οὕτω γὰρ οἱ ἄλλοι τὴν τερέβινϑον ἐκδεδώκασιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν τῇ Γενέσει τὴν αὐτὴν καὶ δρῦν καὶ τερέβινϑον μεμαϑήκαμεν. ῎Εσονται οὖν ὅμοιοι τερεβίνϑῳ, ἤτοι δρυΐ). 39. Sozomène, Histoire Ecclésiastique II,4, trad. A.-J. FESTUGIÈRE (SC, 306), Paris, Cerf, 2005, pp. 244-245: ὃν νῦν Τερέβινϑον προσαγορεύουσιν. Voir Égérie, Journal deVoyage, trad. P. MARAVAL (SC, 296), Paris, Cerf, 1982, p. 102: «À l’endroit appelé Térébinthe». Et Théodosius,Desituterraesanctae, trad. P. MARAVAL, Récitsdespremiers pèlerins chrétiens au Proche-Orient, IV-VIIesiècle, Paris, Cerf, 1996, p. 189: «De là à Térébinthe, qu’on appelle le chêne de Mambré». 40. Jérôme, In Hieremiam VI,18,6, éd. S. REITER (CCSL, 74), Turnhout, Brepols, 1961, p. 307: En Jr 31,15 Rachel pleure les enfants morts dans la région. Certains juifs expliquent qu’après la prise de Jérusalem, sous Vespasien, d’innombrables captifs furent dirigés sur Rome par cette voie, «d’autres le rapportent à la dernière captivité, sous Hadrien, quand la ville de Jérusalem fut anéantie, une foule innombrable de tout âge et des deux sexes fut vendue sur le marché du Térébinthe; et pour cette raison ce marché très célèbre paraît être en exécration auprès des juifs». Le Talmud de Jérusalem (Aboda Zara 1,4,39d) au début du IIIe siècle nomme le grand marché «Botnah», ce qui est dans les sources rabbiniques l’équivalent du grec «térébinthe», et ajoute que ce marché qui comptait parmi les plus importants à côté de ceux de Gaza et d’Acre était considéré comme le plus avili.

50

M.-O. BOULNOIS

côté de la mention H DR(UC) MAM(BRH), écrit H KAI (TER)EBINΘOC. Les différents pèlerins dont nous reparlerons désignent souvent l’arbre comme un térébinthe41. Le deuxième élément signalé par Flavius Josèphe confère à cet arbre un caractère surnaturel: il est géant, il remonte à la création et il perdure jusqu’à son époque puisqu’on peut même le montrer. On retrouvera comme un leitmotiv à travers les siècles l’insistance sur la longévité miraculeuse de cet arbre toujours visible. Mais arrêtons-nous sur le caractère fondateur de cet arbre qui plonge ses racines dans la nuit des temps. Même si l’archéologue Evaristus Mader considère que Flavius Josèphe ne voulait pas parler de la création du monde mais de la fondation de la ville d’Hébron42, c’est pourtant ainsi que ce texte fut compris et repris par la postérité43. Or dans ses AntiquitésJuives Flavius Josèphe donne une autre information extrêmement intéressante en désignant cet arbre par un nom propre: «Abraham habitait près du chêne appelé Ogygè»44. Comme le relève André Pelletier, cette appellation montre que les Grecs ont cherché à donner à cet arbre un nom qui reflète sa légendaire antiquité45, l’adjectif ὠγύγιος signifiant primordial, antédiluvien46. Un lecteur 41. ItinerariumBurdigalense [599],éd. P. GEYER – O. CUNTZ (CCSL, 175), Turnhout, Brepols, 1965, p. 20: subarboreterebintho. 42. MADER, Mambre (n. 19), p. 111 note 1 pense que κτίσις ne désigne pas la création du monde mais la fondation de la ville d’Hébron. Flavius Josèphe vient en effet de parler de cette ville plus vieille que Memphis et qui remonterait à 2300 ans. 43. C’est ainsi que le comprennent Arculfe (vers 680) quand il raconte son pèlerinage à Adomnan et l’attribue par erreur au récit de Jérôme, et Sir John Mandeville, Voyages. Voir notes infra. 44. Flavius Josèphe, Antiquités juives I,186, éd. E. NODET, Paris, Cerf, 1990, p. 31: ῞Αβραμος δὲ κατῴκει μὲν περὶ τὴν ’Ωγύγην καλουμένην δρῦν. La note 3 indique que Ogygos, héros grec (ou premier roi), est associé dans la légende attique à un récit de déluge (cf. Hésiode, Théogonie 806), et que le dérivé employé par Flavius Josèphe est un hypocoristique «l’antédiluvien». 45. A. PELLETIER, Unarbrevieuxcommelemonde:LechêneOgygès.JosèpheA.J.I, 186, dans Journal des savants (1980), no. 3, 211-215, p. 214: Comme Flavius Josèphe n’en a rien dit dans la GuerredesJuifs en 75 on peut penser qu’il n’a connu ce nom que par les rapports que des officiers romains de la guerre de 66-70 avaient déposés aux Archives du palais impérial et qu’il pouvait consulter lorsqu’il rédigea ses Antiquités juives. 46. Selon C. GROTTENALLI, TheOgygianOakatMamreandtheHolyTownofHebron, dans VicinoOriente 2 (1979) 39-63 Ogygos est le nom du premier roi de Thèbes qui, dans les mythologies attiques, aurait survécu au déluge qui a détruit le reste de l’humanité. Or même si dans l’histoire d’Abraham il n’y a pas eu de déluge, la destruction de Sodome et Gomorrhe peut sembler être une destruction de l’humanité à l’exception de Lot et de ses filles. C. Grottenalli rapporte aussi la légende selon laquelle Adam a été créé à partir de la terre rouge d’Hébron. Sir John Mandeville se fait l’écho de cette légende dans son Voyage IX. Pour finir il compare ce récit biblique à d’autres mythes de fondation de ville comme Tyr où un grand arbre aussi vieux que le monde révèle ses qualités surnaturelles par un feu qui ne le consume pas.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

51

helléniste pouvait ainsi soupçonner que ce chêne remontait à la nuit des temps. Puisqu’il est ensuite présenté comme le chêne d’Abraham47, cela permettait de prouver l’antériorité des traditions juives sur les grecques. Il n’est pas non plus impossible que ce nom signale que l’arbre était lié à un culte mystérique, dans la mesure où Ogygès est le père d’Éleusis48. Les historiens chrétiens témoignent de l’existence d’un culte païen sur le lieu de Mambré et particulièrement autour de l’arbre49. Commençons par Eusèbe de Césarée qui consacre deux entrées50 à l’évocation de l’arbre dans son Onomasticon51. À propos d’ἀρβόκ (Gn 23,2), il déclare: «On voit à cet endroit le chêne d’Abraham et le mausolée, et le térébinthe est manifestement l’objet d’un culte de la part des païens (ϑρησκεύεται ἐπιφανῶς πρὸς τῶν ἐϑνῶν) ainsi que les anges reçus par Abraham»52. Une description assez proche se retrouve à l’entrée δρύς: «Chêne de Mambré. On montre encore aujourd’hui du côté du Chebron le térébinthe, où habitait Abraham, térébinthe qui est l’objet d’un culte de la part des païens (ὑπὸ τῶν ἐϑνῶν ϑρησκεύεται)»53. On constate que l’arbre est appelé indifféremment chêne ou térébinthe et surtout qu’il est l’objet 47. Flavius Josèphe, Antiquités juives I,196, éd. NODET, p. 54. Lorsqu’il rapporte la visite des trois anges, il lui garde bien son nom biblique «chêne de Mambré». 48. Pausanias, DescriptiondelaGrèce. Tome I: L’Attique, 38,7, éd. M. CASEVITZ, trad. J. POUILLOUX, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1992, p. 116: «Quant au héros Éleusis, de qui la ville tire son nom, les uns disent qu’il est fils d’Hermès et de Daeira, fille d’Océan, mais selon d’autres poètes, c’est Ogygos le père d’Éleusis». 49. Sur le type de culte païen, les avis divergent. Selon E. FRIEDHEIM, Rabbinismeet paganismeenPalestineromaine:Étudehistoriquedesrealiatalmudiques(Ier-IVesiècles), Leiden – Boston, MA, 2006, p. 242: «À Eloné-Mamré un autel fut probablement consacré à Qos (ancienne divinité édomite)». Mais A. KOFSKY,Mamre:ACaseofRegionalCult?, dansID. – G. STROUMSA (éds),SharingtheSacred:ReligiousContactsandConflictsin theHolyLand.First-FifteenthCenturies, Jerusalem, Carta, 1998, 19-30, p. 22 considère cette hypothèse comme problématique et N. BELAYCHE, Iudaea-Palaestina: The Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth Century), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, p. 99 ne croit pas à un culte à cette divinité en ce lieu dans la mesure où aucun reste de culte Iduméen n’a été retrouvé. 50. Sous l’entrée Μαμβρή (DasOnomastikon [n. 38], p. 158), il n’est pas question du chêne mais seulement des tombeaux, et le nom est expliqué comme étant celui d’un des compagnons d’Abraham. 51. Selon T.D. BARNES, The Composition of Eusebius’ Onomasticon, dans JTS 26 (1975) 412-415, l’œuvre serait à dater pas plus tard que 300. MORLET, LaDémonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée (n. 14), p. 510 n. 303 rappelle le débat sur la datation: la datation haute de Barnes et basse de D.S. Wallace-Hadrill (1960) qui propose entre 326-330. 52. DasOnomastikon (n. 38),p. 6: ἡ δρῦς Ἁβραὰμ καὶ τὸ μνῆμα αὐτόϑι ϑεωρεῖται καὶ ϑρησκεύεται ἐπιφανῶς πρὸς τῶν ἐϑνῶν ἡ τερέμινϑος καὶ οἱ τῷ Ἁβραὰμ ἐπιξενωϑέντες ἄγγελοι. 53. Das Onomastikon (n. 38), pp. 92-93: Δρῦς Μαμβρῆ (Gen 13,18). ἡ πρὸς τῇ Χεβρὼν εἰς ἔτι νῦν δεικνυμένη τερέμινϑος, ἔνϑα ἐσκήνου ’Αβραάμ, ἣ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐϑνῶν ϑρησκεύεται.

52

M.-O. BOULNOIS

d’un culte païen en lien avec les anges apparus à Abraham54. L’accent est aussi mis sur le fait que cet arbre est toujours visible (ϑεωρεῖται, δεικνυμένη) à son époque. La traduction qu’en a donnée Jérôme entre 387 et 390 actualise les données et ajoute des précisions55. La longévité de cet arbre est prouvée par sa taille gigantesque et Jérôme précise qu’il était toujours visible à l’époque du règne de Constance56. Comme Eusèbe, il souligne le culte païen dont le chêne fait toujours l’objet en l’expliquant par la réception des anges, et surtout il relève son étonnante coexistence avec la christianisation du lieu, puisque qu’entre temps une église a été construite. De manière plus générale, la théophanie de Mambré joue un rôle central dans la théologie d’Eusèbe qui y voit l’apparition du Verbe préexistant accompagné de deux anges, qu’il s’agisse de prouver face aux juifs l’existence d’un second Seigneur à côté du Père57, ou contre les païens l’antiquité du christianisme du fait de la préexistence du Christ58. 54. Sur le culte des anges chez les païens, voir A.R. SHEPPARD, PaganCultsofAngels inRomanAsiaMinor, dans Talanta12-13 (1980-81) 77-101. Et surtout R. CLINE, Ancient Angels:ConceptualizingAngeloiintheRomanEmpire, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, pp. 47-76 sur des inscriptions attestant le culte des angeloi et pp. 105-118 sur Mamre. 55. Voir la traduction de Jérôme, dans Das Onomastikon (n. 38), p. 6*: Et quercus Abraam,quaeetMambre,usqueadConstantiiregisimperiummonstrabatur,etmausoleumeiusinpraesentiarumcernitur,cumqueanostrisibidemecclesiaiamexstructasit, acunctisincircuitugentibusterebinthilocussuperstitiosecolitur,eoquodsubeaAbraam angelos quondam hospitio susceperit. «On voit le chêne d’Abraham qui était montré à Mambré jusqu’au règne de l’empereur Constance, et son mausolée, et alors qu’une église a désormais été construite à cet endroit même par les nôtres, le lieu du térébinthe est l’objet d’un culte superstitieux de la part de tous les païens des alentours du fait que sous cet arbre Abraham a autrefois reçu des anges en hospitalité». Das Onomastikon, pp. 92*-93*: Drys, id est quercus, Mambre iuxta Chebron, quae usqueadaetateminfantiaemeaeetConstantii,regisimperiumterebinthusmonstrabatur peruetusetannosmagnitudineindicans,subquahabitauitAbraam.Miroautemcultuab ethnicis habita est et ueluti quodam insigni nomine consecrata. «Drys, c’est-à-dire le chêne, à Mambré près de Chebron, térébinthe très ancien dont la taille indiquait les ans, que l’on montrait jusqu’à l’époque de mon enfance et du règne de l’empereur Constance, sous lequel Abraham a habité. En outre il a été l’objet d’un culte étonnant de la part des païens et en quelque sorte consacré par un renom remarquable». 56. Sur la longévité de l’arbre en dépendance de Jérôme voir Isidore de Séville, Etymologiarum sive Originum 17,7,37: Quercus, siue quernus, quod ea soliti erant dii gentiumquaerentibusresponsapraecanere,arbormultumannosa;sicutlegiturdequercu Mambre,subquahabitauitAbraham,quaeferturusqueadConstantisregisimperiumper multasaeculaperdurasse. 57. Eusèbe, Extraits prophétiques I,3, éd. T. GAISFORD, Oxford, Typographeo Academico, 1842, p. 8; Démonstrationévangélique V,9. Voir M.-O. BOULNOIS, Lerôlede l’exégèsepourlaformationdudogmechrétiendanslapolémiqueanti-juive:Lecasdela théophaniedeMambré(Gn18), dans Ph. HOFFMANN – A. LE BOULLUEC – L.G. SOARES – A. TIMOTIN (éds), Exégèse,révélationetformationdesdogmesdansl’Antiquitétardive, Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, à paraître. 58. Eusèbe, HistoireEcclésiastique I,2 contre le grief de nouveauté.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

53

Or, de manière remarquable, dans la Démonstrationévangélique59, après avoir établi par l’exégèse que celui qui apparaît à Abraham ne peut être ni un ange ni le Père, mais seulement le Verbe de Dieu, Eusèbe ajoute plusieurs preuves externes. «De ce fait, aujourd’hui encore (εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν), chez les habitants des alentours, ce lieu, considéré comme divin, fait l’objet d’un culte en l’honneur de ceux qui y apparurent à Abraham; d’ailleurs, on contemple le térébinthe qui a survécu jusqu’à présent (εἰς δεῦρο). Les hôtes d’Abraham sont représentés sur un tableau (ἐπὶ γραφῆς ἀνακείμενοι): deux sur les côtés et, au milieu, leur supérieur, qui les dépasse par l’honneur. Il pourrait s’agir du Seigneur lui-même que nous avons mis en évidence, notre Sauveur, que vénèrent même ceux qui ne le connaissent pas, apportant une confirmation aux oracles divins»60. La véracité de l’apparition divine est confirmée par trois éléments: le fait que le lieu soit encore honoré, sans qu’Eusèbe précise ici comme dans l’Onomasticon s’il s’agit d’un culte païen, la présence du térébinthe comme témoin de la scène, et l’existence d’une image représentant les trois hôtes d’Abraham61. Même si Eusèbe en donne une interprétation chrétienne en y voyant le Seigneur dépassant par l’honneur les deux anges, il n’est pas du tout certain que cette figuration soit d’origine chrétienne62, car Eusèbe cherche surtout à confirmer la démonstration de la divinité du Christ par l’existence avérée d’une vénération de la part de «ceux 59. Sur la datation de cette œuvre voir MORLET, La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée (n. 14), pp. 80-94. La seule certitude est qu’elle a été rédigée après 313. 60. Eusèbe, Démonstrationévangélique V,9: ὅϑεν εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν παρὰ τοῖς πλησιοχώροις ὡς ἂν ϑεῖος ὁ τόπος εἰς τιμὴν τῶν αὐτόϑι τῷ ’Αβραὰμ ἐπιφανέντων ϑρησκεύεται, καὶ ϑεωρεῖταί γε εἰς δεῦρο διαμένουσα ἡ τερέβινϑος. οἱ γὰρ τῷ ’Αβραὰμ ἐπιξενωϑέντες ἐπὶ γραφῆς ἀνακείμενοι, δύο μὲν ἑκατέρωϑεν, μέσος δὲ ὁ κρείττων ὑπερέχων τῇ τιμῇ. εἴη δ’ ἂν ὁ δεδηλωμένος ἡμῖν κύριος αὐτός, ὁ ἡμέτερος σωτήρ, ὃν καὶ οἱ ἀγνῶτες σέβουσιν, τὰ ϑεῖα λόγια πιστούμενοι. 61. Comme le soutiennent MADER, Mambre (n. 19), p. 244 et MORLET, LaDémonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée (n. 14), p. 90, γραφή désigne bien une image et non l’Écriture. Cette interprétation est confirmée par Jean Damascène (Traité des images III,67, éd. B. KOTTER, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1975) qui cite sans le commenter ce passage d’Eusèbe dans son florilège sur la défense des images, ce qui atteste qu’il le comprenait bien comme décrivant une image. J’ajouterai qu’on trouve un emploi parallèle de l’expression ἀνακείμενον ἐπὶ γραφῆς dans un fragment du livre XV de la Démonstrationévangélique I,19 (éd. HEIKEL) où il est question de quelqu’un qui admire la beauté des couleurs sensibles représentée sur un tableau (τὴν τῶν αἰσϑητῶν οἷα χρωμάτων ὡραιότητα ἐπὶ γραφῆς ἀνακειμένην ϑαυμάζοντι). 62. E.D. HUNT, Holy LandPilgrimageintheLaterRomanEmpireAD312-460,Oxford, Clarendon, 1984, p. 104 suppose que cette représentation se trouvait à l’intérieur de la basilique. En revanche, MORLET, La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée (n. 14), pp. 90-91 pense que cette image devait se situer près du chêne et donc, si la basilique était déjà construite, à l’extérieur de celle-ci dans l’enclos du sanctuaire. Il émet l’hypothèse que l’image pouvait ne pas être chrétienne, mais juive (p. 91).

54

M.-O. BOULNOIS

qui ne le connaissaient même pas», pour reprendre son expression. De même que dans la Préparationévangélique les textes païens viennent confirmer la vérité du christianisme, de même ici la vénération païenne sert de démonstration évangélique. Le fait que cette image puisse être d’origine juive ou païenne est tout à fait possible étant donné la diffusion du culte des anges63 et trouve peut-être une confirmation dans le fait qu’aucun des pèlerins ou historiens postérieurs à Eusèbe ne l’ait jamais mentionnée64. Par ailleurs, on peut comparer cette image avec un moule double face65 (13,8 cm de diamètre) trouvé dans les environs de Jérusalem et conservé à l’Université de Toronto (Malcove Collection M82.271), qui représente, au recto (fig. 2), la scène des trois anges assis frontalement derrière une table à trois pieds, sous l’arbre, avec l’inscription: «que les anges me soient propices»66, et au verso (fig. 3) une déesse assise, surmontée d’un calathos, couverte d’un voile étoilé67, avec l’inscription: «je reçois dans la joie la céleste (Ourania)»68. Il serait trop long de rapporter les différentes hypothèses proposées par Margaret English Frazer, R.C Gregg et Rangar H. Cline69, et je me limiterai à quelques remarques qui éclairent 63. BELAYCHE, Iudaea-Palaestina (n. 49),pp. 96-104. 64. On peut aussi émettre l’hypothèse que cette représentation a été détruite avec les idoles sur l’ordre de Constantin. 65. Voir M.E. FRAZER, A Syncretistic Pilgrim’s Mould from Mamre (?), dans Gesta 18/1 (PapersRelatedtoObjectsintheExhibition“AgeofSpirituality”,TheMetropolitan MuseumofArt,November1977-February1978) (1979) 137-145. R. GREGG, APaganand Christian5th-6thCenturyBreadMould?AnArtifact Reconsidered, dans G. KALANTZIS – Th.F. MARTIN (éds), StudiesonPatristicTextsandArchaeology:«IfTheseStonesCould Speak».EssaysinHonorofDennisEdwardGroh, Lewiston, NY, Mellen, 2009, 111-162. R.H. CLINE, A Two-sided Mold and the Entrepreneurial Spirit of Pilgrimage Souvenir Production in Late Antique Syria-Palestine, dans Journal of Late Antiquity 7/1 (2014) 28-48. 66. ΕΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΟΙ ΟΙ ΑΝΓΕΛΟΙ. Sur la table sont posés trois pains en forme d’étoile. 67. M.E. Frazer propose plusieurs hypothèses: cette déesse aurait pu faire partie des idoles dressées près du puits selon la description qu’en fait Sozomène; il pourrait aussi s’agir de la Vierge assimilée à Aphrodite-Ourania. Selon R.H. Cline, il s’agirait de l’Aphrodite en deuil d’Aphaca dont le sanctuaire se trouve sur le mont Lebanon. 68. ΔΕΧΟΜΕ ΧΑΙΡΩΝ ΤΗΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΙΑΝ. 69. M.E. Frazer date le moule du Ve-VIe siècles et suppose qu’il servait à fabriquer des pains jetés en offrande dans le puits. La datation tardive confirme pour elle la persistance du culte païen à Mambré. R.C. Gregg garde la même datation et considère qu’il servait à fabriquer des objets de culte marial (une face rappelant la promesse à Sara qui était stérile d’une descendance aussi nombreuse que les étoiles, d’où la présence d’étoiles sur les pains et sur la robe, et l’autre face célébrant la virginité de Marie), une interprétation qui ne semble pas convaincante. R.H. Cline le date du IVe siècle en le rapprochant de monnaies représentant Constantin et ses fils et datant des années 337-340. Il souligne qu’il n’y a pas de symbole chrétien sur le moule et considère qu’il servait à fabriquer des souvenirs de pèlerinages pour deux lieux de culte distincts: Mambré et Aphaca.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

Fig. 2. Moule double-face, Ve-VIe siècles, calcaire, 13,8 cm de diamètre. Malcove Collection M82.271. Don du Dr. Lillian Malcove, 1982. Avec l’autorisation du Musée des Beaux arts de l’Université de Toronto. Photo: Toni Hafkenscheid. Recto.

Fig. 3. Moule double-face, Ve-VIe siècles, calcaire, 13,8 cm de diamètre. Malcove Collection M82.271. Don du Dr. Lillian Malcove, 1982. Avec l’autorisation du Musée des Beaux arts de l’Université de Toronto. Photo: Toni Hafkenscheid. Verso.

55

56

M.-O. BOULNOIS

notre propos. Tout d’abord, comme dans l’image décrite par Eusèbe, le personnage central est légèrement supérieur aux deux autres70. D’autre part, la présence du puits, pointé par le bâton d’un des anges, est tout à fait remarquable71. Il n’est à ma connaissance jamais représenté dans l’iconographie chrétienne de la scène du fait même qu’il est absent du récit biblique, alors qu’on sait par le récit de Sozomène et de plusieurs pèlerins qu’il jouait un rôle important dans les fêtes sacrées qui se déroulaient en ce lieu. Enfin, la déesse représentée sur l’autre face semble bénir des pains, qui recevaient peut-être l’empreinte de ce moule avant d’être jetés avec d’autres offrandes sacrificielles dans le puits, conformément au récit de Sozomène72. Néanmoins, beaucoup de zones d’ombre entourent cet objet, sa provenance, son utilisation, sa datation et la signification de ces deux images. Pour M.E. Frazer, elles relèvent de religions différentes, ce qui pourrait confirmer matériellement la coexistence décrite par les historiens d’une pluralité de cultes sur ce site de Mambré; R.H. Cline souligne que les scènes n’intègrent aucune marque religieuse particulière et pouvaient convenir à tous types de visiteurs; R.C Gregg y voit deux figurations chrétiennes. Il est donc difficile d’en tirer des preuves, sinon le fait que cet objet est nécessairement lié à un culte célébré à Mambré. Il faut encore citer une troisième œuvre d’Eusèbe, la ViedeConstantin, qui énumère toutes les marques de piété de l’empereur parmi lesquelles l’ordre de construire des basiliques sur les lieux saints. Or le cas de Mambré est spécifique. C’est à la suite du témoignage visuel de sa belle-mère, Eutropia, qu’il fut informé des pratiques païennes qui s’y déroulaient comme en témoigne sa lettre (datée des années 326-33073) adressée au Comte Acace et aux évêques de Palestine, au nombre desquels se trouvait Eusèbe qui la retranscrit. «Le lieu dit du chêne de Mambré, où nous savons qu’Abraham avait son foyer, est, nous dit-elle, complètement souillé (μιαίνεσϑαι) par des adeptes de la superstition. Elle nous a relaté que près de l’arbre se dressent des idoles méritant d’être détruites, qu’un 70. Il lève la main droite, soit pour parler, soit pour indiquer l’arbre. Au-dessus de lui se trouve un objet qui a suscité des discussions. Selon Frazer, il s’agit d’une cage à oiseau symbolisant l’incapacité d’Abraham et de Sara à comprendre l’importance de ce qui se passe. Selon Cline, il s’agit du même puits que celui représenté dans l’exergue. 71. Une autre spécificité de cette représentation est la figuration d’Abraham et de Sara dans un exergue, séparé de la scène du repas par une ligne. Dans cet exergue figurent aussi le puits et le veau, l’un et l’autre indiqués par le bâton d’un des anges. 72. C’est l’interprétation donnée par M.E. Frazer et contestée par R.H. Cline qui ne donne cependant pas d’explication pour le geste de la déesse. 73. MORLET, LaDémonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée (n. 14), p. 89 renvoie en note à A.H.M. JONES – J.R. MARTINDALE – J. MORRIS, TheProsopographyofthe LaterRomanEmpire, I, Cambridge – New Yok – New Rochelle, Cambridge University Press, 1971, p. 6.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

57

autel s’élève à côté, et qu’on y pratique continuellement des sacrifices impurs»74. Outre les sacrifices continuels pratiqués sur l’autel, ce témoignage confirme l’importance de l’arbre puisque c’est près de lui que des idoles étaient érigées. Socrate, qui s’inspire d’Eusèbe, ne nous donne pas d’information supplémentaire75, en revanche Sozomène nous livre une description particulièrement détaillée des panégyries qui se déroulaient en ce lieu. «Aujourd’hui encore (εἰσέτι νῦν) il se célèbre là chaque année en été une panégyrie brillante des gens du lieu et d’autres venus de plus loin, Palestiniens, Phéniciens et Arabes. Beaucoup s’y réunissent aussi en vue du marché, pour vendre et acheter. La fête est recherchée de tous avec empressement, des Juifs en tant qu’ils se vantent d’avoir Abraham comme patriarche, des païens à cause de la visitation des anges, des chrétiens à leur tour parce qu’est apparu alors à cet homme pieux celui qui plus tard s’est manifesté pour le salut du genre humain en naissant de la Vierge»76. Ces fêtes religieuses réunissaient donc juifs, païens et chrétiens, chacun honorant le lieu en raison de l’apparition qui s’y était déroulée et selon l’interprétation qu’il lui donnait. Sozomène précise non seulement que chacun a une raison religieuse distincte, mais aussi que les modes de vénération diffèrent, les uns priant Dieu, les autres invoquant les anges, leur offrant des sacrifices d’animaux. On ne peut donc pas parler de religion syncrétiste77, mais plutôt d’une cohabitation de plusieurs cultes. Sozomène souligne aussi le grand respect porté à ce lieu qui n’est le théâtre d’aucune conduite licencieuse, malgré la promiscuité des logements. D’autres précisions sont intéressantes: la mention du puits dans lequel on ne peut puiser d’eau car elle est souillée par tous les objets votifs qui y sont jetés: lampes, vin, gâteaux et pièces de monnaie. Quelle 74. Eusèbe, Vie de Constantin ΙΙΙ,53,1, trad. M.-J. RONDEAU (SC, 559), Paris, Cerf, 2013, p. 419: τὸ χωρίον, ὅπερ παρὰ τὴν δρῦν τὴν Μαμβρῆ προσαγορεύεται, ἐν ᾧ τὸν ’Αβραὰμ τὴν ἑστίαν ἐσχηκέναι μανϑάνομεν, παντοίως ὑπό τινων δεισιδαιμόνων μιαίνεσϑαί φησιν· εἴδωλά τε γὰρ πάσης ἐξωλείας ἄξια παρ’ αὐτὴν ἱδρῦσϑαι καὶ βωμὸν ἐδήλωσεν πλησίον ἑστάναι καὶ ϑυσίας ἀκαϑάρτους συνεχῶς ἐπιτελεῖσϑαι. 75. Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire Ecclésiastique I,18,5-6, trad. P. PÉRICHON – P. MARAVAL (SC, 477), Paris, Cerf, 2004, p. 185: «Il faisait encore d’autres églises: il en fit construire une à l’endroit qu’on appelle le chêne de Mambré, sous lequel les anges furent reçus par Abraham comme le racontent les textes sacrés. Ayant appris qu’un autel se dressait sous le chêne et que des sacrifices païens étaient célébrés sur lui, l’empereur en fait le reproche par lettre à Eusèbe, l’évêque de Césarée, et il ordonne que l’autel soit renversé et qu’une maison de prière (οἶκον εὐκτήριον) soit construite près du chêne». L’expression οἶκον εὐκτήριον est reprise à l’introduction d’Eusèbe précédant la citation de la lettre de Constantin (ViedeConstantinIII,51,1). 76. Sozomène, HistoireEcclésiastique II,4,1-5 (SC 306, 244-249 FESTUGIÈRE). 77. BELAYCHE, Iudaea-Palaestina (n. 49), p. 104 refuse l’expression de P. MARAVAL, Lieuxsaintsetpèlerinagesd’Orient:Histoireetgéographie.Desoriginesàlaconquête arabe, Paris, Cerf, 1985, p. 275 qui parle d’un «lieu de culte syncrétiste».

58

M.-O. BOULNOIS

est la source de Sozomène? Il semble avoir comme Socrate la lettre de Constantin sous les yeux car il en reproduit plusieurs expressions, mais il dispose aussi d’une autre source qui ajoute des détails. Le problème est de la dater. Quand il déclare «Aujourd’huiencore il se célèbre là chaque année en été une panégyrie brillante», recopie-t-il une source antérieure ou témoigne-t-il de ce qui se passe à son époque? Il est difficile de le savoir dans la mesure où son récit brouille les époques, parlant d’abord du marché et des panégyries toujours actuelles, ce que semblent confirmer les pièces de monnaie retrouvées sur le lieu, nombreuses à l’époque de Constantin, Constance et Constant, mais aussi datant des Ve-VIe siècles78. Sozomène présente ensuite une sorte de flash-back sur les mesures prises par Constantin pour éradiquer toute idolâtrie. La description des panégyries qu’il a précédemment données comme actuelles laisse penser que la christianisation n’a pas supplanté les autres types de vénération. Mais de manière étonnante aussi, il évoque le fait qu’il n’y a pas de constructions «sauf celles qu’on a bâties jadis près du chêne», sans plus de détail, sans décrire la basilique si ce n’est comme un projet de l’empereur. Aussi riche soit-il, ce texte reste donc assez énigmatique79. b) Lesfouilles Il serait trop long et hors de nos compétences de revenir en détail sur les fouilles réalisées sur ce site maintenant appelé Ramat el-Khalil80. Je me contenterai de rappeler qu’ont été découverts les restes d’une enceinte, dont certaines parties remontent à Hérode81, d’autres à Hadrien, 78. E. MADER, LesfouillesarchéologiquesallemandesauRametElKhalil:LaMambré bibliquedelatraditionprimitive, dans RB 39 (1930) 84-117, p. 109. 79. KOFSKY, Mamre:ACaseofaRegionalCult? (n. 49), p. 25 évoque les deux hypothèses d’une source pré-constantinienne et d’une description contemporaine du début du Ve siècle et penche pour cette dernière, en insistant sur l’idée qu’il s’agit d’un culte régional. Il est cependant étonnant qu’aucun des premiers pèlerins n’ait mentionné la subsistance d’un culte païen. 80. MADER, Lesfouilles (n. 78), pp. 82-117 et 199-225. MADER, Mambre (n. 19). Les thèses de Mader sont discutées par Y. MAGEN, Mamre: A Cultic Site from the Reign of Herod, dans G.C. BOTTINI – L. DI SEGNI – L.D. CHRUPCAŁA (éds), One Land – Many Cultures.ArchaeologicalStudiesinHonourofStanislaoLoffreda, Jerusalem, Franciscan Printing Press, 2003, pp. 245-257 et KOFSKY, Mamre:ACaseofaRegionalCult? (n. 49), pp. 20-21. De 2016 à 2019 une mission franco-palestinienne a fouillé à nouveau le site de Mambré sous la direction de Vincent Michel. 81. MAGEN, Mamre (n. 80) relève que ce type de construction utilisé aussi pour le temple de Jérusalem et le tombeau des patriarches à Hébron témoigne que Mambré était bien un lieu de culte pour les juifs. Néanmoins, contrairement à ce que font de nombreuses études sur le sujet, je ne pense pas qu’on puisse utiliser le témoignage du Pèlerin de Plaisance (560-570) en faveur de la coexistence d’un culte juif et chrétien au même endroit. Ce pèlerin parle en effet d’un atrium «traversé en son milieu par une grille: les chrétiens entrent d’un côté et les Juifs de l’autre» (Itinéraire 30, trad. P. MARAVAL, Récits

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

59

délimitant un espace sacré au centre duquel se trouvait un autel. On a également exhumé diverses traces du sanctuaire païen comme une stèle d’Hermès, une tête de Bacchus, une tête de lion, de nombreux ossements d’animaux, particulièrement des pattes de coq. Dans les dépôts retirés du puits on a aussi retrouvé de nombreuses monnaies, bijoux, fragments de lampes des IVe-Ve siècles82, certaines portant une croix. Le puits se situait dans l’angle sud-ouest du temenos. Il n’existe plus aucune trace de l’arbre, mais selon l’archéologue Mader on peut en localiser l’emplacement car le dallage est interrompu par une brèche ovale. Ces témoignages donnent tous une place centrale au chêne qui avait donc en quelque sorte un caractère sacré. 2. Stratégiesd’effacement Face à ces pratiques cultuelles autour du chêne, on constate, tant dans les textes bibliques que dans le paysage, des tentatives d’effacement de la mémoire de l’arbre sacré ou de christianisation du lieu, de manière à ce que le chêne ne soit plus que le marqueur topographique d’une manifestation divine et non un arbre fétiche. a) Danslestextes Dans les textes, il faut noter que si la Septante et la Peshitta parlent du chêne de Mambré au singulier, le texte massorétique utilise un pluriel qui pourrait être un moyen de prendre ses distances par rapport au culte idolâtrique d’un arbre sacré83. De fait, les textes polémiques contre les [n. 39], p. 224), mais il décrit le tombeau des patriarches («En cet endroit reposent Abraham, Isaac, Jacob et Sara») et non le lieu de la théophanie de Mambré. 82. Sur les rituels liant puits et lampes voir BELAYCHE, Iudaea-Palaestina (n. 49), pp. 97-98. 83. R. DE VAUX, Mambré, dans Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément t. V, 1957, p. 753: «Le pluriel de la Massore paraît être une correction tendancieuse pour écarter du texte un arbre sacré devenu l’objet d’une vénération superstitieuse» et ID., LesInstitutions del’AncienTestament, t. II, Paris, Cerf, 21967, p. 120. Il est suivi mot à mot par A. DELCOR, La portée chronologique de quelques interprétations du Targoum Néophyti contenues dans le cycle d’Abraham, dans JSJ 1 (1970) 105-119, p. 111. A. Delcor (p. 108) relève qu’en Gn 12,6 le «chêne de Moreh» est aussi traduit par «plaine de la vision», afin là aussi d’effacer les pratiques superstitieuses qui devaient se pratiquer autour de ce chêne du devin. Voir aussi Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together with anEnglish Translation of the Text, éd. M. ABERBACH – B. GROSSFELD, Denver, CO, University Center for Judaic Studies, 1982, p. 78 sur Gn 12,6 où le «chêne de Moreh» est traduit par «the plain of Moreh», et la note 5 qui explique ce choix par la volonté d’éviter à Abraham d’être soupçonné de culte des arbres. Voir aussi J. HUTZLI, Interventions présumées des scribes concernant le motif de l’arbre sacré dans le Pentateuque, dans Semitica 56 (2014) 313-331.

60

M.-O. BOULNOIS

arbres sacrés sont fréquents dans la Bible et les prophètes condamnent à plusieurs reprises les sacrifices pratiqués sous l’ombre de certains arbres84. Cet effacement est encore plus net dans les Targums qui traduisent tous par «plaine», qu’il s’agisse de l’Onkelos85, du Neofiti ou du PseudoJonathan86. Cette traduction est aussi attestée par le Midrach Rabba87. C’est sans doute sous cette influence que Jérôme traduit dans la Vulgate par inconvalleMambre, ce qui ne l’empêche pas, comme nous l’avons vu, de consacrer une entrée à quercus dans la traduction qu’il donne de l’Onomasticon d’Eusèbe. Il est aussi possible qu’il suive Aquila qui traduit en Dt 11,30 le «chêne de Moré» par αὐλών (vallée) καταφανής88, suivant le principe cher aux traducteurs anciens de l’homophonie89, tout en considérant qu’il s’agit là d’un terme hébreu et non grec90. Selon Roland de Vaux, l’ostracisme qui frappa ce culte pratiqué à Mambré expliquerait que ce nom n’apparaisse dans aucun autre livre biblique que la Genèse91.

84. Os 4,13: «Sur les sommets des montagnes ils offraient des sacrifices et sur les collines ils sacrifiaient, sous le chêne et le peuplier et l’arbre qui fait de l’ombre car un abri est une belle chose». Voir aussi 3 Règnes 14,23; 4 Règnes 17,10; Is 57,5 ou Ez 6,13. 85. TheTargumOnqelostoGenesis,TranslatedwithaCriticalIntroduction,Apparatus, and Notes, trad. B. GROSSFELD, vol. 6: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 6), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1988, p. 75: «Now the Lord revealed Himself to him in the plains of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent as the day was growing hot». 86. TargumduPentateuque(SC 245, 184 LE DÉAUT): «La Parole de Yahvé apparut à Abraham dans la plaine de la vision» (Neofiti) et SC 245, 185: «La Gloire de Yahvé lui apparut dans la plaine de Mambré» (Pseudo-Jonathan Add. 27031). 87. MidrachRabba.T. 1:GenèseRabba42,8, trad. B. MARUANI – A. COHEN-ARAZI, Verdier, Lagrasse, 1987, p. 440: à propos de Gn 14,13 («Qui demeurait à Eloné»): «Rabbi Yehouda: ElonésignifiedanslaplainedeMambré. Rabbi Néhéia: Eloné signifie: dans le palais de Mamré. Selon Rabbi Yehouda il s’agit d’une localité, et selon Rabbi Néhémia, d’un personnage». 88. F. FIELD, OrigenisHexaplorumquaesupersunt:siveveteruminterpretumGraecorumintotumVetusTestamentumfragmenta, Oxford, Clarendon, 1875, vol. 1, p. 290. 89. F. STUMMER, ConvallisMambreundVerwandtes:EinBeitragzurErklärungder Vulgata, dans Journal of Palestine Oriental Society 12 (1932) 6-21. Sur l’influence d’Aquila et des sources rabbiniques sur Jérôme, voir S. WEIGERT, Hebraicaveritas:ÜbersetzungsprinzipienundQuellenderDeuteronomiumübersetzungdesHieronymus, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2016, pp. 114-116 à propos de Dt 11,30, Gn 12,6 et Gn 18. 90. Jérôme, Liber quaestionum Hebraicarum in Genesim, éd. LAGARDE 18,9: elon quercussiueαὐλών,dequoinlibrolocorumpleniusdiximus. Dans son Onomasticon 38 à propos de Dt 1,1, là où Eusèbe désigne la vallée du Jourdain jusqu’au désert de Pharan par le mot αὐλών, Jérôme traduit et commente: «Aulon»,nonGraecum,utquidamputant, sed Hebraeum vocabulum est. appellatur autem «vallis grandis atque campestris» in immensamlongitudinemseextendens (DasOnomastikon [n. 38], pp. 16-16*). Sur l’équivalence quercus/aulon, voir aussi Jérôme, Liber quaestionum Hebraicarum in Genesim 33,5 (sur Gn 21,50): notandum(…)quodisaacnonsitnatus«adquercummambresiue inaulonemamre»,utinhebraeohabetur,sedingeraris. 91. DE VAUX, LesInstitutionsdel’AncienTestament (n. 83), p. 120. Il suggère aussi qu’on a voulu enlever son autonomie au sanctuaire en égarant le lecteur sur la localisation par l’identification de Mambré et d’Hébron en Gn 13,18.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

61

b) Surlesite Une autre manière d’effacer le culte païen fut de le christianiser, ce que tenta de réaliser l’empereur Constantin qui demanda expressément que l’on abatte l’autel, qu’on brûle les idoles pour éradiquer toute trace de l’ancien culte et que soit construite à la place une basilique. «Nous avons donné ordre par écrit au très illustre Akakios, notre comte et ami, de livrer sans délai au feu toutes les idoles qu’il trouvera dans le lieu susdit, de renverser jusqu’aux fondations l’autel, bref, de s’employer de toutes ses forces et de toutes les façons, une fois radicalement disparues toutes les choses de ce genre, à purifier la zone tout entière, puis de faire édifier sur le même emplacement, selon vos propres directives, une basilique digne de l’Église catholique et apostolique»92. Constantin poursuit en stipulant que les personnes commettant des actes impies sur ce lieu ne devaient pas avoir le droit de s’en approcher et que toute personne contrevenant à cet édit serait punie93. Il s’agit de garder ce lieu pur de toute souillure et de le «rétablir dans son antique sainteté», selon l’expression de l’empereur94. Néanmoins, comme on le voit chez Sozomène et dans les récits de pèlerins, les éléments centraux de ce lieu de culte subsisteront: l’autel, le puits et le chêne. Il est d’ailleurs intéressant de voir que les fouilles montrent que les dimensions réduites de la basilique, construite à l’est, s’expliquent sans doute par la volonté de ne pas empiéter sur l’autel qui était situé devant l’église95 (fig. 4). Comment 92. Eusèbe, Vie de Constantin ΙΙΙ,53,1-2 (SC 559, 419 RONDEAU). Cette lettre est également utilisée par Sozomène qui en reprend certaines expressions: HistoireEcclésiastique II,4 (SC 306, 249 FESTUGIÈRE): «Ses pieux reproches sont attestés par la lettre qu’il écrivit à ce sujet à Macaire, évêque de Jérusalem, à Eusèbe de Pamphile et aux autres évêques de Palestine. Il leur ordonna de se réunir avec les évêques de Phénicie, de telle sorte que, une fois détruit de fond en comble l’autel qui se trouvait là et livrées au feu les idoles de bois, on traçât à cet endroit le plan d’une église digne de l’antiquité et de la majesté du lieu, on veillât à ce qu’il fût désormais libre de libations et de sacrifices, en sorte qu’on n’y fît rien d’autre que d’adorer Dieu selon les rites de l’Église. Si quelqu’un était pris sur le fait de tenter les usages d’autrefois les évêques devaient le dénoncer, en sorte qu’on lui infligeât le châtiment le plus grave. En vertu de cette lettre impériale, les gouverneurs et les évêques du Christ mirent à exécution les ordres reçus». 93. G. FOWDEN, BishopsandTemplesintheEasternRomanEmpireA.D.320-435, dans JTS NS 29 (1978) 53-78, p. 58 souligne que Constantin ne confère pas ici d’autorité spéciale aux évêques pour faire respecter cette loi contre le culte païen. 94. Eusèbe, Vie de Constantin ΙΙΙ,53,4 (SC 559, 421 RONDEAU): πρὸς τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἁγιότητα ἀνακαλέσασϑαι. L’utilisation du vocabulaire de la restauration par Constantin ne signifie pas que le site était vénéré par les chrétiens avant le IVe siècle, mais que l’éradication du culte païen, loin d’être un acte d’appropriation chrétienne, est en fait un acte de restauration. Voir J.E. TAYLOR, Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-ChristianOrigins, Oxford, Clarendon, 1993, pp. 92-93. 95. Sur l’église voir A. OVADIAH, CorpusoftheByzantineChurchesintheHolyLand, Bonn, Hanstein, 1970, pp. 131-132. G. KRETSCHMAR, Mambre:Vonder“Basilika”zum “Martyrium”, dans Mélanges liturgiques offerts au R.P. Dom Bernard Botte, Louvain, Abbaye du Mont César, 1972, 273-293.

62

M.-O. BOULNOIS

Fig. 4. Plan du site de Mambré. G. KRETSCHMAR, Mambre: vonder“Basilika”zum“Martyrium”, dans Mélangesliturgiquesoffertsau R.P.DomBernardBotte, Louvain, Abbaye du Mont Cesar, 1972, p. 278.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

63

expliquer l’importance de ce lieu de l’Ancien Testament qui est le seul où Constantin ait construit une basilique? Il faut sans doute y voir l’influence de la théologie d’Eusèbe de Césarée pour lequel Mambré représente un lieu fondateur96. C’est en effet une justification théologique que fournit l’empereur. Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’éradiquer un culte païen antérieur, mais de fournir une preuve de la véracité et de l’ancienneté du christianisme en montrant le signe tangible de la manifestation du Fils à Abraham. «Car vous ne l’ignorez pas: c’est là que pour la première fois (ἐκεῖ πρῶτον) Dieu, le maître de l’univers, est apparu à Abraham et s’est entretenu avec lui. C’est donc là que, pour la première fois (ἐκεῖ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον), l’observance de la loi sainte a pris son origine, là que, pour la première fois (ἐκεῖ πρῶτον), le Sauveur lui-même accompagné de deux anges se manifesta généreusement à Abraham, là que Dieu commença à apparaître aux hommes, là qu’il prédit à Abraham qu’il aurait descendance et qu’il accomplit sur-le-champ sa promesse, là qu’il lui annonça qu’il serait le père d’une multitude de nations»97. On peut comparer les mots de l’empereur à la manière dont Eusèbe introduit cette lettre. L’incarnation du Christ est en parfaite continuité avec sa manifestation aux Hébreux considérés comme des proto-chrétiens par delà la parenthèse juive. «Ayant appris que le même et unique Sauveur récemment manifesté au monde avait jadis montré plusieurs fois sa divine présence (ϑεοφανείας πεποιῆσϑαι) à des hommes de Palestine chers à Dieu près du chêne dit de Mambré, il ordonna d’ériger là aussi une maison de prière (οἶκον εὐκτήριον) en l’honneur de Dieu qui s’y est fait voir»98. Le chêne de Mambré est donc le premier lieu de la manifestation visible du Verbe préexistant qui annonce ainsi son incarnation future. III. DÉVELOPPEMENT DES PÈLERINAGES ET DES LÉGENDES AUTOUR DE L’ARBRE Bien loin de la conception spirituelle de Philon et d’Origène qui avaient, par le biais de l’allégorie, complètement transformé cet arbre en un simple marqueur symbolique de la vision, et malgré la volonté d’effacer les pratiques païennes qui avaient pour centre l’autel et le chêne, on constate une persistance, sous d’autres formes, de l’intérêt pour cet arbre et même le développement de récits miraculeux. 96. HUNT, HolyLandPilgrimage (n. 62),p. 102. 97. Eusèbe, ViedeConstantin III,53,3 (SC 559, 421 RONDEAU). 98. Eusèbe, ViedeConstantin III,51,1 (SC 559, 417 RONDEAU).

64

M.-O. BOULNOIS

1. Pèlerinages Voir les lieux saints est la raison même des pèlerinages qui se développèrent à partir du IVe siècle. Il s’agit de saisir le sacré en voyant et en touchant ces centres de hiérophanie99. Déjà chez Origène, le témoignage visuel apparaît comme une preuve de la vérité des récits bibliques. Il souligne ainsi contre Celse que «même parmi les étrangers de la foi» la grotte où était né Jésus était célèbre et qu’on pouvait la montrer100. L’important est donc de pouvoir montrer, ce qui se traduit par la récurrence du verbe δεικνύειν. En dehors des récits de pèlerinages, quelques auteurs font appel à cette preuve par la subsistance de l’arbre pour attester la réalité de cette théophanie divine. On le voit chez Épiphane qui évoque le fait que les lieux de miracle, comme le chêne de Mambré, attestent ce qu’on lit dans les Écritures101 ou chez Astérius d’Amasée qui, dans son éloge de Phocas, compare la dévotion envers le tombeau du martyr à celle des pèlerins qui, grâce à la vue du chêne de Mambré, ont l’occasion de se représenter mentalement toute l’histoire du patriarche102. Voir le 99. B. BITTON-ASHKELONY, Encountering the Sacred: The Debate on Christian  ilgrimageinLateAntiquity(The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 38), Berkeley, P CA – Los Angeles, CA – London, University of California Press, 2005, p. 6 cite M. MESLIN, L’expériencehumainedudivin:Fondementsd’uneanthropologiereligieuse, Paris, Cerf, 1988, p. 181: «le lieu du pèlerinage permet une rencontre concrète du divin par la médiation des sens». 100. Origène, ContreCelse I,51; Origène.ContreCelseI, éd. M. BORRET (SC, 132), Paris, Cerf, 1967, p. 215: «Or, que Jésus soit né à Bethléem, si, après la prophétie de Michée et après le récit consigné dans les évangiles par les disciples de Jésus, on désire être convaincu par d’autres preuves (ἄλλοϑεν πεισϑῆναι), on montre (δείκνυται), sachons-le, conformément à l’histoire évangélique de sa naissance, à Bethléem la grotte où il est né, et dans la grotte la crèche où il fut enveloppé de langes. Et ce qu’on montre est célèbre dans la contrée, même parmi les étrangers à la foi (τὸ δεικνύμενον τοῦτο διαβόητόν ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς τόποις καὶ παρὰ τοῖς τῆς πίστεως ἀλλοτρίοις), puisqu’en effet dans cette grotte est né ce Jésus que les chrétiens adorent et admirent». 101. Épiphane, Panarion18,2 (contre les Nazaréens), éd. K. HOLL, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1915, t. 1, p. 216: ἄχρι τῆς δεῦρο οὐ μόνον τὰ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ᾄδεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ τόποι τῶν παραδοξοποιιῶν σῴζονται· πρῶτον ὅπου τὸ πρόβατον ’Αβραὰμ προσέφερε τῷ ϑεῷ, ὄρος Σιὼν ἄχρι τῆς δεῦρο οὕτω καλούμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅπου ἡ δρῦς τῆς Μαμβρῆ, ἔνϑα τοῖς ἀγγέλοις παρετέϑη ὁ μόσχος. «Jusqu’à aujourd’hui, non seulement le contenu des Écritures le chante, mais les lieux des miracles sont aussi conservés: d’abord l’endroit où Abraham sacrifiait à Dieu la brebis, la montagne de Sion qui est encore nommée ainsi jusqu’à aujourd’hui, mais aussi le chêne de Mambré, là où le veau fut offert aux anges». 102. Astérius d’Amasée, Homélie 9 (Panégyrique de Phocas), 2, éd. C. DATEMA, Leiden, Brill, 1970:῞ΩσπερδὲοἱπλησιάζοντεςτῇδρυῒτῇΜαμβρῇ (…), εὐϑέως μετὰ τῆς ϑέας τῶν τόπων ἐν τοῖς λογισμοῖς ἀνανεοῦνται τὴν φαντασίαν καὶ βλέπουσι τῇ διανοίᾳ τὸν πιστὸν πατριάρχην, τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τῆς εὐσεβείας, τὴν ἐν ἐκείνῳ περιτομήν· λογίζονται δὲ καὶ τοὺς τῆς ἐκείνου ῥίζης ἀποβλαστήσαντας, τὸν ’Ισαάκ, τὸν ’Ιακώβ, καὶ μετὰ τῆς μνήμης τῶν ἀνδρῶν ὅλης τῆς ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἱστορίας γίνονται ϑεαταί. «De même ceux qui s’approchent du chêne de Mambré (…) aussitôt, avec la vue

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

65

chêne a dans ce dernier cas une visée non pas seulement apologétique, mais mémorielle103. Le plus ancien récit de pèlerinage en Terre sainte, celui du pèlerin anonyme de Bordeaux en 333, est aussi le premier à attester l’existence de la basilique construite par Constantin à Mambré, tout en indiquant que le puits creusé par Abraham se trouve sous l’arbre térébinthe104. Cet emplacement serait, on l’a vu, également attesté par les fouilles. Quelques années plus tard entre 381 et 384, Égérie nous donne des informations supplémentaires dans son journal de voyage dont on a une trace, pour cette partie perdue, dans l’ouvrage de Pierre le Diacre. Il signale que le lieu s’appelle le térébinthe, mentionne le puits d’Abraham et l’autel placé en face de l’église105. Dans les années 385-386, une grande dame romaine, Paula, fit un pèlerinage avec sa fille Eustochium sous la houlette de Jérôme, leur accompagnateur spirituel qui en rapporte le récit dans sa lettre 108, l’oraison funèbre de Paula106. Il est notable qu’il évoque les «vestiges du chêne d’Abraham», laissant entendre qu’il n’est plus en grande forme. De plus, alors que les deux précédents récits ne mentionnaient que des anges, Jérôme fait ici œuvre de théologien en interprétant cette apparition non plus seulement comme angélique, mais comme divine à la lumière de ce que déclare Jésus aux pharisiens: «Abraham a vu mon jour et s’est réjoui» (Jn 8,56). des lieux, renouvellent la représentation dans leurs esprits et voient en pensée le patriarche croyant, les prémices de la piété, sa circoncision; ils pensent aussi à ceux qui sont issus de cette racine, Isaac et Jacob, et avec le souvenir de ces hommes ils deviennent spectateurs de toute leur histoire». Voir HUNT, HolyLandPilgrimage (n. 62),p. 103. 103. Voir MARAVAL, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient (n. 77), p. 140 sur la réactualisation des scènes bibliques au contact de la vue des lieux. 104. ItinerariumBurdigalense [599] (CCSL 175, 20GEYER – CUNTZ): Inde(afonte Philipii)TerebinthomiliaVIII,ubiAbrahamhabitavitetputeumfoditsubarboreterebinthoetcumangelislocutusestetcibumsumpsit;ibibasilicafactaestiussuConstantini mirae pulchritudinis; MARAVAL, Récits (n. 39), p. 35 (trad. très légèrement modifiée): «De là (de la fontaine de Philippe) au Térébinthe, 8 milles: c’est là qu’Abraham habita et creusa un puits sous l’arbre térébinthe; il s’y entretint avec les anges et prit de la nourriture. Là une basilique a été construite sur l’ordre de Constantin, d’une admirable beauté». 105. Égérie, Journal de voyage (SC 296, 102 MARAVAL): «À l’endroit appelé Térébinthe, là où trois anges apparurent à Abraham, se trouve le puits d’Abraham, un puits excellent, et les deux grottes très belles dans lesquelles il a vécu. Un autel y a été placé, avec l’église en face». In loco vero, qui appellatur Terebinthus, ubi apparuerunt tres angeliAbrahae,estputeusAbrahaeoptimusetspeluncaeduaelucidissimae,ubihabitavit: nam et altarium ibi positum est et ante se ecclesiam habet. Sur cet ouvrage, voir P. LANFRANCHI, Remarquessurlasacralisationdel’espacedansl’Itinéraire d’Égérie, dans D. TOLLET (éd.), Étudessurlesterressaintesetlespèlerinagesdanslesreligionsmonothéistes, Paris, Champion, 2012, 45-54. 106. Jérôme, Lettre 108,11, trad. J. LABOURT, Lettres t. V, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1955, pp. 170-171: «Un peu plus loin, elle entra dans les cellules de Sara, vit le berceau d’Isaac et les vestiges du chêne d’Abraham, sous lequel il ‘vit le jour du Christ et s’en réjouit’ (Jn 8,56)».

66

M.-O. BOULNOIS

Le récit le plus détaillé nous est rapporté par Adomnan, abbé du monastère de l’île Iona (Hébrides) au large de la côte occidentale de l’Écosse qui recueillit le récit d’Arculfe, un évêque gaulois dont le bateau avait échoué sur cette île au retour de son pèlerinage en Terre sainte vers 680. Il mentionne une grande basilique et propose surtout un long développement sur la persistance du chêne qu’il présente comme une «chose admirable» (mirumdictu)107. Il s’appuie sur l’Onomasticon de Jérôme pour attester qu’il s’agit bien toujours du chêne d’Abraham, tout en reconnaissant, comme l’avait déjà souligné Jérôme dans son éloge funèbre de Paula, que l’arbre n’est plus entier. Ce récit présente cependant quelques inexactitudes. Il attribue à Jérôme d’avoir dit que cet arbre remonte au commencement du monde, ce qui à notre connaissance ne se trouve pas chez Jérôme, mais chez Flavius Josèphe, et il confond la référence de Jérôme au règne de Constance avec celui de Constantin108. De manière étonnante, il déclare aussi que l’arbre est encore protégé par le toit de l’église, ce qui ne correspond pas avec le plan du sanctuaire que les fouilles ont permis 107. Adomnan, Des lieux saints livre II, XI, 1, trad. MARAVAL, Récits (n. 39), p. 265 (trad. très légèrement modifiée): «Au sommet de ce monticule qu’on appelle Mambré s’étend un plateau: au sud de ce sommet a été édifiée une grande église de pierre. Dans sa partie droite, entre deux murs de cette grande basilique, se trouve – chose admirable à dire – le chêne de Mambré, enraciné en terre. On dit que c’est le chêne d’Abraham, parce que c’est sous ce chêne qu’il a autrefois reçu les anges comme des hôtes. Saint Jérôme raconte ailleurs qu’il est resté là depuis le commencement du monde jusqu’au règne du roi Constantin, et peut-être ne dit-il pas qu’il ait alors totalement disparu, car bien qu’à cette époque on ne montrât pas ce très grand chêne tout entier, tel qu’il était autrefois, une partie du moins en était restée en place». Adamnanidelocissanctislibritres, éd. L. BIELER (CCSL, 175), Turnhout, Brepols, 1965, pp. 183-234: Idemitaquemonticellusmambrenominatushabetin cacumine campestrem planitiem ubi ad aquilonalem eiusdem cacuminis partem lapidea magna fundata est eclesia; in cuius dextrali parte inter duos grandis eiusdem basilicae parietes,mirumdictu,quercusmambreexstatinterraradicata,quaeetquercusabraham dicitureoquodsubeaquondamangeloshospitioreciperit.Quamsanctushieronimusalibi narratabexordiomundiusqueadconstantiniregisimperiumpermansisse,etfortassisideo nondixitpenitusdefecissequiaeademaetatequamuisnontotaillasicutpriusfueratgrandissimaquercusmonstrabaturtamenaliquaparseiuspermansitinsuostabilitaloco. Bède le Vénérable, qui a abrégé le récit d’Adomnan précise que le chêne se trouve au nord de l’église. De locis sanctis VIII,2, éd. I. FRAIPONT (CCSL, 175), Turnhout, Brepols, 1965, p. 266: Mambrecollismillepassibusamonumentishisadboream,herbosusvaldeetfloridus,campestremhabensinverticeplanitiem,«incujusaquilonaliparte»quercusAbrahae, duorumhominumaltitudinistruncus,ecclesiacircumdataest. 108. MARAVAL, Récits (n. 39), p. 265, renvoie à l’Onomasticon (GCS 11/1, 77,1-5 KLOSTERMANN), sans relever que Jérôme parle non de Constantin mais de Constance. Iohannes Wirziburgensis (vers 1170), Peregrinatio (CCCM 139, 515) parle quant à lui à propos de Jérôme du règne de Théodose (lexpredictaextunc«usqueadtempusTheodosii imperatoristestanteIheronimo»suumessedilatavit). Il faut noter la grande proximité de la description d’Adomnan avec une scholie du Parisinus graecus 3, f. 14: ταύτην τὴν δρῦν φασί τινες εἶναι ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κόσμου καὶ φϑάσαι μέχρι κωνσταντίνου τοῦ μεγάλου. «Certains disent que ce chêne existe depuis le commencement du monde et a perduré jusqu’à Constantin le grand». Il y a là une rencontre qui mériterait d’être étudiée.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

67

de mettre au jour. Selon Georg Kretschmar, il se pourrait qu’un édifice octogonal ait été bâti, à l’emplacement de l’ancienne abside, après la destruction de la basilique, pour recueillir les restes de l’arbre qui aurait été déplacé là109. Sur le devenir de ce chêne, la fin de la description est particulièrement intéressante. «De ce chêne, comme le rapporte saint Arculfe, qui l’a vu de ses propres yeux, il reste encore une sorte de tronc élagué et enraciné en terre, protégé par le toit de l’église; sa hauteur est celle de deux hommes environ. Des copeaux de ce tronc, qui a été érodé et taillé de toutes parts par des haches, ont été envoyés dans les diverses provinces de l’univers pour vénérer ce chêne et en faire mémoire; c’est sous celui-ci, comme on l’a rappelé plus haut, que fut accordée au patriarche Abraham cette rencontre fameuse et insigne avec les anges»110. Le chêne devient une sorte de relique dont on prélevait des morceaux pour les disséminer dans toutes les provinces en mémoire de la visite des anges à Abraham – une pratique qui n’est sans doute pas étrangère à l’état de dégradation du chêne. On voit donc que cet arbre, de signe mémoriel, passe progressivement au statut de relique111: il est en quelque sorte contaminé par la sainteté de la rencontre divine qui avait eu lieu à proximité. La vénération doit maintenant passer par un contact physique. 109. KRETSCHMAR, Mambre:Vonder“Basilika”zum“Martyrium” (n. 95), p. 281. L’arbre serait devenu un objet de vénération, une «relique», conservé dans une construction typique des marturia. 110. Adomnan, Deslieuxsaints II,11,4-5, trad. MARAVAL, Récits (n. 39),p. 265 (trad. très légèrement modifiée). BIELER, Adamnani de locis sanctis (n. 107), pp. 183-234: Exqua, ut sanctus refert arculfus, qui eam propriis conspexit oculis, adhuc quoddam truncatumremanetspuriumradicatuminterrasubeclesiaeprotectumtegmine,mensuram quasiduumlongitudinisuirorumhabens;dequouidelicetconrosospurioetexomniparte securibuscircumcisoastellarumaddiuersasorbisprouinciasparticulaeasportanturob eiusdemquercusuenerationemetrecordationem,subqua,utsuperiuscommemoratumest, angelorum quondam conuentio ad abraham patriarcham famosa et praedicabilis fuerat condonata. 111. Des reliques de ce chêne sont conservées dans différentes abbayes. De manière remarquable, dans les listes de reliques celles du chêne de Mambré sont les seules qui soient liées à un événement de l’Ancien Testament. Je remercie Barthélémy Enfrein de m’avoir signalé plusieurs inventaires, parmi lesquels ceux des abbayes d’Altavaux et de Charroux. Inventaire des reliques du prieuré d’Altavaux. Seconde moitié du XIIe et XIIIesiècles, dans BulletindelasociétéarchéologiqueethistoriqueduLimousin, Limoges, Société archéologique et historique du Limousin, 1882, p. 205: De Petrosa habuimus relliquias…deiliceMambre. Le Liberdeconstitutione:Institutione,consecratione,reliquiis ornamentis et privilegiis Karoffensis Coenobii, Pictaviensis Diocesesis, éd. Dom P. DE MONSABERT (Archives historiques du Poitou, 39), Poitiers, Société des archives historiques du Poitou, 1910 donne le premier récit de la fondation de l’abbaye de Charroux: en 799 Charlemagne reçut du patriarche de Jérusalem des reliques qu’il remit au Comte Roger, gouverneur de Limoges. Ce dernier les offrit au monastère de Charroux dont il était le fondateur. La première relique nommée (p. 5) est celle issue de la racine du chêne de Mambré: DeradiceillicisManbreubiDominusinfiguraTrinitatislocutusestAbrahe.

68

M.-O. BOULNOIS

Dans des récits plus tardifs à partir du XIIe siècle, on en vient même à attribuer à cet arbre des vertus médicinales. Ainsi en 1137, Rorgo Fretellus, chapelain de l’église de Nazareth, souligne que le chêne, bien que fendu et sec, a des vertus de guérison: aussi longtemps qu’un cavalier en possède une petite partie sur lui, son cheval ne trébuchera pas112. Il n’est pas impossible que les traditions aient divergé sur l’identité de cet arbre, car peu de temps auparavant (1113-1115), l’higoumène russe Daniel racontant son pèlerinage en terre sainte décrit l’arbre comme superbe et intact113. Je terminerai ce tour d’horizon des récits de pèlerinages par la relation de Greffin Affagart, un chevalier français du saint sépulcre, qui fit deux fois le voyage en Terre sainte en 1533-1534. Il en tira un guide du pèlerin destiné à prouver aux chrétiens qui désireraient voir les lieux saints que, malgré les difficultés, ce voyage est réalisable. Ce récit assez pittoresque n’est cependant pas dénué de tout esprit critique et à propos du chêne de Mambré qu’il dit avoir vu, il exprime quelques doutes sur le fait qu’il s’agirait toujours bien de celui sous lequel se tenait Abraham quand il vit passer trois anges qu’il adora en unité représentant la sainte Trinité114. De fait, tout en renvoyant au témoignage de Jérôme et aux autres pèlerins qui assurent l’avoir vu, il émet l’hypothèse que depuis l’époque d’Abraham, 112. Rorgo Fretellus, LiberlocorumsanctorumterraeJerusalem (PL 155, 1040); éd. P.C. BOEREN, RorgoFretellusdeNazarethetladescriptiondelaTerresainte:Histoireet éditiondutexte, Amsterdam – Oxford – New York, North Holland Publishing Company, 1980. Voir aussi Iohannes Wirziburgensis, Peregrinatio (CCCM 139, 523): Quae, licet arida, «medicabilis tamen esse probatur in hoc», quod si equitans quis de ea aliquid quamdiusecumdetulerit,animalsuumnoninfunditur. 113. Pèlerinage en terre sainte de l’igoumène russe Daniel au commencement du XIIesiècle (1113-1115), traduit du russe en français par A. DE NOROFF, Petersbourg, Académie Impériale des Sciences, 1864, pp. 76-80: «De là (ville nommée Ascalon) jusqu’au bon puits d’Abraham on compte 10 verstes. De ce puits jusqu’au chêne de Mambré, on compte 6 verstes. Ce chêne sacré se trouve sur une montagne qui est près du chemin à main droite; son aspect est superbe. Le sol tout autour est composé d’une pierre blanche qui forme un pavé naturel, comme si c’était des dalles de marbre. L’endroit même où s’élève le chêne est pavé comme une église, et il est merveilleux de voir cet arbre sacré sortir du milieu de ce pavé; c’est une plateforme qui ressemble à une grande cour au milieu de blocs de pierre. C’est que fut jadis placée près du chêne, la tente d’Abraham tournée vers l’orient. La hauteur de ce chêne sacré n’est pas fort grande, mais il est très noueux, très branchu et chargé de glands. Les branches penchent vers la terre, de sorte qu’un homme qui se tient debout, peut les atteindre de la main. Il a deux sagènes en circonférence et je l’ai mesuré avec mes bras. La hauteur du tronc jusqu’aux branches est d’une sagène et demi. On ne peut pas ne pas s’émerveiller de ce que ce chêne, qui croît depuis tant de siècles, exposé sur une haute montagne, reste aussi intact, sans aucune décomposition. Béni de Dieu, il apparaît comme s’il était de ce temps. C’est sous les rameaux de ce chêne séculaire que la très sainte Trinité apparut aux yeux d’Abraham et accepta son hospitalité». 114. Du point de vue de l’interprétation de la scène, on a dans ce texte l’attestation de la troisième interprétation: après l’apparition d’anges, ou du Seigneur et de deux anges, une représentation de la Trinité. Sur cette troisième interprétation, voir M.-O. BOULNOIS, TroishommesetunSeigneur:InterprétationspatristiqueseticonographiquesdelathéophaniedeMambré,dans StudiaPatristica 39 (2006)193-202.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

69

Fig. 5. Chêne d’Abraham, Hébron 1897. Photo: Bonfils. Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1899, p. 40.

cet arbre a pu sécher, mais que de sa racine il en a toujours repoussé un nouveau. Et il conclut par un appel à aller voir par soi-même. «Qui ne vouldroict croire sainct Hiérosme ny aux autres pèlerins qui ont esté, je conseille que y aille luy mesme veoirs, car ainsi ay-je faict»115. Un autre élément remarquable est qu’il déclare en avoir rapporté du bois, ce qui est à mettre en relation avec les récits précédents, en particulier celui d’Arculfe qui est le premier à signaler que les pèlerins prélevaient une partie de l’arbre pour l’emporter. Cette pratique est encore attestée au XIXe siècle par Conrad Schick qui raconte qu’après avoir vu le chêne en bonne forme en 1847, il le vit comme une ruine en 1897 (fig. 5). De fait, 115. GREFFIN AFFAGART, RelationdeTerresainte(1533-1534),publié par J. CHAVANON, Paris, Victor Lecoffre, 1902, p. 141:«Auprès de là, contre une petite montaigne, est l’arbre nommé ilex soubz lequel estoyt Abraham quand il veyt passer troys anges, lesquelz il adora en unité représentant la saincte Trinité comme il est escript en Genèse 14 (sic). L’arbre porte glan comme ung chesne et est espandu et spacieux, et, combien que l’aye veu et en ay apporté du boys, je n’oserays dire qu’il fust encores en l’estat depuys le temps de Abraham jusques a présent, et si les autres qui ont esté en Hiérusalem ne l’avoient veu comme moy et spéciallement monsieur sainct Hiérosme, lequel en ses épistres testifie l’avoir veu en son temps; je ne vueil pas acertener que c’estoyt le vroy arbre soubz lequel estoyt Abraham, car il est possible qu’il est seiché, mays de la racine en est toujours repullulé ung nouveau, et qui ne vouldroict croire sainct Hiérosme ny aux autres pèlerins qui ont esté, je conseille que y aille luy mesme veoirs, car ainsi ay-je faict».

70

M.-O. BOULNOIS

comme chaque visiteur de la Terre sainte voulait prélever une parcelle de ce vieil arbre, une branche cassée fut emportée à Jérusalem pour fabriquer de petits articles vendus aux voyageurs116. On voit donc se développer un nouveau fétichisme autour de cet arbre dont je voudrais pour finir relever quelques traits légendaires. 2. Légendes a) Originemagique Certaines légendes portent sur son origine. Selon un passage des Chronographies de Julius Africanus connu par le Pseudo-Eustathe et par Georges le Syncelle, le chêne de Mambré dériverait du bâton d’un hôte d’Abraham117. Les deux auteurs mentionnent d’abord le fait que le térébinthe est encore maintenant l’objet d’un culte en l’honneur des patriarches de la part des gens du voisinage118. La formulation est extrêmement proche de celle qu’on a lue chez Eusèbe dans la Démonstration évangélique119. Il est cependant difficile de savoir si Eusèbe dépend ici de Julius Africanus ou si le Pseudo-Eustathe et Georges le Syncelle ont Eusèbe pour source dans ce début d’extrait qui, du coup, ne serait pas à attribuer à Julius Africanus. De fait, le nom de Julius Africanus n’intervient dans le texte de Georges le Syncelle que pour parler ensuite de l’autel sur lequel les habitants apportaient leurs offrandes120. Et c’est seulement dans un troisième temps qu’est mentionnée l’origine de l’arbre. Comme cette légende est introduite par τινές φασι, il n’est pas non plus certain qu’elle provienne de Julius Africanus. Nous la citons sous la forme la plus longue transmise par le Pseudo-Eusthate avec l’ajout des 116. C. SCHICK, Reports, dans Palestine Exploration Fund. Quarterly Statement, London, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1899, p. 39. Il donne deux photos de cet arbre, une de 1853 encore en bon état et une de 1897 où l’arbre est en très piteux état. Actuellement encore, dans l’enceinte du monastère russe orthodoxe de la sainte Trinité, le gardien propose aux visiteurs des «reliques» du chêne, comme le montre un morceau d’écorce conservé au MUCEM à la suite d’une collecte en 2014. 117. IuliusAfricanus.Chronographiae. TheExtantFragments, éd. M. WALLRAFF, with U. ROBERTO and, for the Oriental Sources, K. PINGGÉRA, transl. W. ADLER [GCS NF, 15), Berlin – New York, 2007, F 30, pp. 66-67. 118. Julius Africanus,Chronographiae,F 30a (Georges Syncelle): ϑερέβινϑον ἥτις μέχρι νῦνεἰςτιμὴν τῶν πατριαρχῶν ὑπὸ τῶν πλησιοχώρων τιμᾶται. F 30b (Ps.-Eustathe, Comm.inHexaemeron;PG 18, 780A): ἥτις ἔτι καὶ νῦνεἰςτιμὴν τῶν προγόνων ὑπὸ τῶν πλησιοχώρων ϑρησκεύεται. 119. Eusèbe, Démonstrationévangélique V,9: εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν παρὰ τοῖς πλησιοχώροις ὡς ἂν ϑεῖος ὁ τόπος εἰςτιμὴν τῶν αὐτόϑι τῷ ’Αβραὰμ ἐπιφανέντων ϑρησκεύεται. 120. Ces deux hypothèses sont présentées par MORLET, LaDémonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée (n. 14), p. 88, n. 153 qui ne tranche pas entre les deux.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

71

vertus miraculeuses du chêne qui l’apparentent au buisson ardent. «On dit que (ce térébinthe) est le bâton d’un des anges reçus en hospitalité par Abraham, bâton qu’il a planté en ce lieu quand il y était alors présent, et c’est à partir de lui que le magnifique térébinthe a poussé. Car quand il est enflammé il se transforme entièrement en feu et tous croient qu’il est réduit en cendre par la flamme, pourtant dès que le feu est éteint, il se montre entièrement indemne et intact»121. Certains apocryphes arméniens fournissent une variante de cette origine. Mambré est un esclave noir d’Abraham parti faire paître le troupeau avec trois morceaux de pain qu’il a généreusement distribués en route à des hommes mourant de faim. Blessé par le dernier, cet esclave tomba endormi après avoir planté son bâton de chêne dans le sol. À son réveil, le bâton était devenu un grand chêne et lui était devenu blanc, de même que son troupeau. Quand il revint vers Abraham, ce dernier reconnut la nature miraculeuse de l’événement et jura ne plus jamais manger sans avoir un hôte à sa table122. Il s’agit là d’un récit étiologique à la fois de l’hospitalité d’Abraham et de la présence du chêne. b) Propriétésmiraculeuses Outre sa longévité exceptionnelle dont les différents auteurs se font tous les témoins admiratifs, ce chêne se voit aussi attribuer d’autres propriétés miraculeuses, non seulement médicinales, mais de conversion. Selon le Zohar, Abraham pouvait grâce à cet arbre reconnaître la foi de ses visiteurs: alors que les branches s’étendaient pour faire de l’ombre sur ceux qui adhéraient à Dieu, elles se dressaient verticalement quand il s’agissait d’idolâtres qui étaient alors sermonnés par Abraham jusqu’à leur conversion123. L’arbre est également lié à la conversion des juifs et 121. Julius Africanus, Chronographiae, F 30b (Ps Eusthate): Εἶναὶ τε φάσι ῥάβδον αὐτὴν ἑνὸς τῶν ἐπιξενωϑέντων ἀγγέλων τῷ Ἀβραάμ, ἥνπερ τῷ τόπῳ τότε παρὼν ἐνεφύτευσε, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἡ ἀξιάγαστος ἐνεφύη τερέβινϑος. ὑπαφϑεῖσα γὰρ ὅλη πῦρ γίνεται, καὶ νομίζεται τοῖς πᾶσιν εἰς κόνιν ἐκ τῆς φλογὸς ἀναλύεσϑαι, καίτοι σβεσϑεῖσα μέντοι ἀσινὴς ὅλη καὶ ἀκέραιος δείκνυται. F 30a (Georges Syncelle): Φασὶ δέ τινες ῥάβδον εἶναί τινος τῶν ἐπιξενωϑέντων ἀγγέλων τῷ Ἀβραὰμ φυτευϑεῖσαν αὐτόϑι. 122. M.E. STONE, ArmenianApocryphaRelatingtoAbraham, Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Il faut noter que contrairement à ce que dit M. Stone, p. 13, Julius Africanus ne dit pas que l’arbre provient du bâton d’un serviteur d’Abraham, mais du bâton d’un des anges. Voir aussi M.E. STONE, TheReceptionandReworkingofAbrahamTraditionsinArmenian, dans M. KISTER – H. NEWMAN – M. SEGAL (éds), Tradition, TransmissionandTransformationfromSecondTempleLiterature, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2015, 343-359. La date de ces textes n’est pas facile à déterminer, entre le Ve et le Xe siècle. 123. Zohar I,102b «Viens et vois: partout où Abraham séjournait il plantait un arbre, mais celui-ci ne poussa convenablement nulle part ailleurs que sur la terre de Canaan où il vint à résider. Il reconnaissait, grâce audit arbre, qui adhérait au Saint, béni soit-Il, et

72

M.-O. BOULNOIS

des sarrasins selon le récit de Sir John Mandeville qui en 1360 reprend différentes traditions antérieures sur l’ancienneté du chêne et ses vertus médicinales, mais rapporte aussi une autre légende124. Ce chêne devenu sec à la mort du Christ sur la croix reverdira lorsqu’un prince d’Occident fera la conquête de la Terre promise et qu’une messe sera chantée sous cet arbre. Devant ce miracle, juifs et sarrasins se convertiront au christianisme. IV. CONCLUSION Lorsqu’Origène posait la question de l’utilité de la mention du chêne de Mambré dans cet épisode biblique, il était loin de pouvoir imaginer la richesse de son histoire. L’Alexandrin y voit un signe textuel permettant, par le biais de l’étymologie, de centrer cet épisode sur la capacité visionnaire d’Abraham qui rend possible la théophanie. À l’opposé de cette lecture, c’est bien le chêne en tant que tel, peut-être pour ses vertus oraculaires, qui semble avoir été vénéré par les païens obligeant juifs et chrétiens à trouver différentes stratégies pour échapper à des pratiques idolâtriques. Avec le développement des pèlerinages chrétiens, il devient un marqueur topographique permettant de reconnaître le lieu de la théophanie, d’en prouver la véracité, voire un témoignage tangible donnant accès à une rencontre avec le divin. De marqueur physique, témoin concret et visible d’une manifestation divine, le chêne s’est à nouveau progressivement qui adhérait à l’idolâtrie. Qui adhérait au saint bénit soit-Il, voyait l’arbre étendre ses branches et lui abriter la tête, faisant sur lui une belle ombre. En revanche, qui adhérait à l’idolâtrie voyait l’arbre se raidir et ses branches se dresser verticalement. Abraham comprenait aussitôt, le sermonnait et ne le quittait pas avant qu’il adopte la foi dans le Saint, béni soit-Il». 124. Jean de Mandeville, Voyage autour de la terre, ch. 9, traduit et commenté par C. DELUZ, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1993, pp. 51-52: «Assez près d’Hébron, est le mont de Mambré qui donne son nom à la vallée. Là, il y a un chêne que les sarrasins appellent dirp, qui date d’Abraham. On l’appelle aussi l’arbre sec. On dit que cet arbre a existé dès le commencement du monde. Il était toujours vert et feuillu jusqu’à la mort de Notre Seigneur en croix. Il commença alors à sécher et ainsi firent tous les arbres qui étaient alors dans le monde entier. Ils se desséchèrent ou leur cœur se fendit et pourrit, et ils demeurèrent vides et creux à l’intérieur. Il en reste encore beaucoup dans le monde. Certaines prophéties disent qu’un prince d’Occident fera la conquête de la Terre promise avec l’aide des chrétiens et fera chanter la messe sous cet arbre sec, alors cet arbre reverdira, portera des branches, des feuilles et des fruits et, devant ce miracle, nombre de Sarrasins et de Juifs trouveront la foi et se convertiront à la religion chrétienne. C’est pourquoi, on révère grandement cet arbre et on le garde jalousement et avec un grand soin. Bien qu’il soit sec et sans branches, il a cependant de grandes vertus. Qui en porte sur lui est préservé de l’épilepsie et ses chevaux ne peuvent trébucher. Il a plusieurs autres vertus qui le font considérer comme très précieux». Dans le Cotton manuscript, British Museum, une image est donnée de cet arbre sec.

MAMBRÉ: DU CHÊNE DE LA VISION AU LIEU DE PÈLERINAGE

73

transformé en objet sacré, en relique, recevant en quelque sorte le pouvoir miraculeux de la scène qui s’était déroulée à proximité, comme en témoignent pratiques de vénération et légendes textuelles. Du point de vue de l’histoire de l’exégèse, le fait d’attacher une manifestation divine à un lieu a conduit les chrétiens des trois premiers siècles jusqu’à Eusèbe encore, à la suite de Justin, à y voir la manifestation non du Père, mais du Logos qui lui est inférieur. La localisation dans un petit coin de terre, près de l’arbre, est indissolublement liée à une théologie subordinatienne. Mais c’est aussi parce que l’exégèse chrétienne a vu dans cet épisode non pas seulement la manifestation d’anges, mais celle du Verbe, voire à partir de la fin du IVe siècle, celle de la Trinité, que ce chêne a conservé une prééminence toute particulière. L’exégèse a donc eu un rôle majeur dans le développement de ce culte, mais ceci serait l’objet d’une autre communication. École Pratique des Hautes Études EPHE, PSL, LEM (UMR 8584) [email protected]

Marie-Odile BOULNOIS

PASCHA IN THIRD-CENTURY PALESTINE ORIGEN’S NEWLY IDENTIFIED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS

Before Marina Molin Pradel and Lorenzo Perrone discovered, identified, and edited the twenty-nine anonymous homilies of Codex Monacensis graecus 314 on the Psalms as a lost original of Origen1, the two volumetreatise OnPascha, found in 1941 among the Toura papyri and edited in its entirety in 19792, constituted the last large addition to his extant Greek œuvre. Since I aimed at completeness in my investigation of Paschabei Origenes in my two-volume study of 20053, this short contribution limits itself to integrating the new evidence into the larger picture, proceeding from (1) questions about the celebration of the Christian Pascha to (2) aspects of the interpretation of the biblical Pascha4. I. THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN PASCHA OVER SEVERAL DAYS IN ORIGEN’S CAESAREA 1. Origen’sOnlyStatements:CCVIII,22andH77PsVI,4 Although Pascha is the only biblical topic to which Origen addressed himself monographically beyond his commentaries and homilies and in spite of the highly differentiated paschal theology which can be found throughout the vast œuvre of his Caesarean period, his hints at the paschal celebration itself are extremely rare and, in most cases, ambiguous. The only fact beyond dispute is that Christians in third-century Caesarea did celebrate Easter as an annual feast, with Pentecost as a subsequent period. In the cult-critical argumentation of his apology Contra 1. Die neuen Psalmenhomilien: Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314, ed. L. PERRONE with M. MOLIN PRADEL – E. PRINZIVALLI – A. CACCIARI (GCS NF, 19; Origenes Werke, 13), Berlin, De Gruyter – Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015; on these homilies, cf., among others, the monographic section of Adamantius 20 (2014). 2. O. GUÉRAUD – P. NAUTIN, Origène,SurlaPâque.Traitéinéditpubliéd’aprèsun papyrusdeToura (Christianisme antique, 2), Paris, Beauchesne, 1979. 3. H. BUCHINGER, Pascha bei Origenes (Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 64), Innsbruck, Tyrolia, 2005. 4. I wish to thank Christopher J. Sprecher (Regensburg) for his careful revision of the English of this contribution.

76

H. BUCHINGER

Celsum, where he notes that Christians indeed shunned institutions of late antique religions such as temples and public religious feasts because of their spiritual understanding, Origen retorts that “one could object what is happening at our Lord’s days or Fridays or Pascha or Pentecost for days”5, thus confirming the existence of these weekly and annual celebrations. His metaphorical explanation, however, does not give any indication of their shape and liturgical elements. He neither dwells on the “date of the Pascha”, which he calls a “problem which needs further elaboration” in his Commentary on Jn 2,13, the discussion of which he defers to a future “better occasion”, which apparently never came about in his career6; nor does he ever even mention the paschal fast and its breaking, which in his time constituted the characteristic principal act of the Christian celebration7. All the more noteworthy is the statement of H77Ps VI,23-25 about the manna that rained down as “bread of heaven” and “bread of angels”: notwithstanding the identification with Christ as “the living bread which came down from heaven” (Jn 6,51), Origen does not identify this bread straightforwardly with the Eucharist, but clearly understands it metaphorically as the “words (plural!), which we eat”8 – an interpretation perfectly in line not only with his general idea of partaking in Christ via the medium of scripture in the metaphor of eating, but also with his use of Ps 77(78),23-25 and Jn 6,519. After a lengthy comparison with an athlete’s food, Origen reproaches his listener for their lacking church attendance: 5. CCVIII,22: … τὰ περὶ τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν κυριακῶν ἢ παρασκευῶν ἢ τοῦ Πάσχα ἢ τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς δι’ ἡμέρων γινόμενα …; Origène.ContreCelseIV, ed. M. BORRET (SC, 150), Paris, Cerf, 1969, p. 222. 6. CIo X,19,116; Der Johanneskommentar, ed. E. PREUSCHEN (GCS, 10; Origenes Werke, 4), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903, p. 190. 7. H. BUCHINGER, BreakingtheFast:TheCentralMomentofthePaschalCelebration in Historical Context and Diachronic Perspective, in P. VAN GEEST – M. POORTHUIS – E. ROSE (eds.), SanctifyingTexts,TransformingRituals:EncountersinLiturgicalStudies. Essays in Honour of Gerard A.M. Rouwhorst (Brill’s Studies in Catholic Theology, 5), Leiden, Brill, 2017, 191-205. Origen’s failure to mention the paschal fast is particularly blatant in H77Ps I,4, where he ponders the spiritualised “Christian fast”; cf. below, II.2. 8. H77Ps IV,3 (GCS NF 19, 392 PERRONE). 9. Cf. BUCHINGER, Pascha bei Origenes (n. 3), pp. 838-867; 875, and other places referenced by the index pp. 960 and 967. On John 6, cf. M. MEES, Kapitel6desJohannesevangeliumsindenWerkendesOrigenes, in Lateranum 48 (1982) 179-208 [repr. in ID., DiefrüheRezeptionsgeschichtedesJohannesevangeliums:AmBeispielvonTextüberlieferungundVäterexegese (Forschung zur Bibel, 72), Würzburg, Echter, 1994, 259-295], on Ps 77(78), cf. G. MADEC, “Panis angelorum” (selon les Pères de l’Église, surtout S.Augustin), in FormaFuturi.StudiinonoredelCardinaleMichelePellegrino, Torino, Bottega d’Erasmo, 1975, 818-829, pp. 819-821.

PASCHA IN THIRD-CENTURY PALESTINE

77

You do not want to give yourself over to the athletic food; but often a day passes while you are unfed in soul. But why do I say one? Rather also a second and third and fourth; yet that is not enough! Often six and seven days pass you by, in order that you might be fed on one. When you therefore are able and come to the Lord’s (supper? house? εἰς κυριακόν), you take your spiritual food and turn to salvation, but not throughout seven days, but over the course of several Lord’s (days)! Yet some even despise and remain unfed the whole year; they come on the few so-called ‹days› “of the Pascha” and are fed on them. Do you think that these are able to fight …10?

While Origen’s preceding commentary was quite explicit about the identification of the manna with the “words which we eat”, the modern reader is not the only one who may be tempted to see the Eucharist, too, behind the “spiritual food” (τροφὴ πνευματική); Didache 10,3 proves the eucharistic use of this terminology11, and several passages in the texts of Clement of Alexandria show that the Alexandrian tradition was quite familiar with such a sacramental application12. Even if that was not Origen’s intention13, the passage illustrates what Lothar Lies has aptly 10. H77Ps IV,4 (GCS NF 19, 394 PERRONE): Οὐ ϑέλεις σαυτὸν ἐνδοῦναι τῇ τροφῇ τῇ ἀϑλητικῇ, ἀλλὰ πολλάκις παρέρχεται ἡμέρα μία ἀτρόφου σου ὄντος τῇ ψυχῇ. Καὶ τί λέγω μία; ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη καὶ τετάρτη· καὶ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ ἀλλὰ πολλάκις παρέρχονταί σοι ἡμέραι ἓξ καὶ ἑπτά, ἵνα μίαν τραφῇς. Ἐὰν ἄρα δυνηϑῇς ἐλϑὼν εἰς κυριακὸν, λαβών σου τὴν τροφὴν τὴν πνευματικήν, καὶ προτραπῆναι εἰς σωτηρίαν, ἀλλὰ οὐ δὲ διὰ ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν, ἀλλὰ διὰ πλειόνων κυριακῶν! Ἤδη μέν τινες καταφρονοῦσι καὶ ὅλῳ τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ ἄτροφοι μένουσιν· ἔρχονται δὲ ἐπ’ ὀλίγας τὰς τοῦ πάσχα λεγομένας ‹ἡμέρας› ἐν αὐταῖς τραφησόμενοι. Οἴεσϑε ὅτι ἐκεῖνοι δύνανται ἀϑλῆσαι. 11. Didache 10,3 (FC 1, 124 GEERLINGS). 12. The lengthy discourse of Clemens Alexandrinus, Paedagogus I,6,35,3; I,6,40,2; I,6,41,3; I,6,49,3; I,6,50,3 (GCS 123 = Clemens Alexandrinus 13, 111; 114; 115; 119; 120 STAEHLIN – 3TREU), on the Eucharist is, however, at least open for an analogous understanding; the terminology in Exc.Theod. XIII,1 (GCS 17 = Clemens Alexandrinus 3,111 STAEHLIN) and Paedagogus II,1,9,1 (GCS 123, 159) is clearly eucharistic, while in turn it explicitly refers to the word in Paedagogus III,11,76,2 (GCS 123,278). 13. Origen never applies the term πνευματικὴ τροφή unequivocally to the Eucharist, although the following paragraph H77Ps IV,7 (GCS NF 19, 398 PERRONE) cryptically states that “whoever has tasted the spiritual food, knows what is the pleasure of the soul” (Ὁ γὰρ γευσάμενος πνευματικῆς τροφῆς οἶδεν τίς ἡ τρυφὴ ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς), and the concluding section H77Ps IV,11 (GCS NF 19, 407) returns to the notion of the “spiritual food and the divine food”; on the contrary: HIer XIX,14 refers to the liturgy of the word, although Origen expounds on the Passover as Eucharist in the immediately preceding passage (Origène.HoméliessurJérémie.TomeII:HoméliesXII-XXethomélieslatines, traduction par P. HUSSON – P. NAUTIN, édition, introduction et notes par P. NAUTIN [SC, 238], Paris, Cerf, 1977, p. 230); also CIo XIII,33,211 (GCS 10, 258 PREUSCHEN) is not Eucharistic. Fragm. 12 in 1 Cor (JTS 9 [1908] 241 JENKINS) explicitly reflects on the metaphor of spiritual food. H36Ps III,10 (GCS NF 19, 152) relates the spiritual nourishment to the meditation on the Law of the Lord “by day and by night” (cf. Ps 1,2). The authenticity of the following references from the indirect tradition cannot be discussed in

78

H. BUCHINGER

called the “analogisation” of Origen’s Eucharistic theology14. Less clear is the reference to the κυριακόν, to which the addressee of the homily should come and take spiritual food. In light of 1 Cor 11,20, the context of which also speaks of “spiritual nourishment” (πνευματικὸν βρῶμα) (1 Cor 10,3), one may think of the “Lord’s supper” (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον). The editor’s reference to the fourth-century Latin translation of HEx XII,2, however, which uses the term “Lord’s house” for the church building15, suggests an understanding of the nominalised adjective κυριακόν as an elliptic expression for the church as “the Lord’s (house)” – a usage well attested in later Greek literature, but so far apparently not yet otherwise found in writings from the third century16. Complaints about sparse church attendance are at any rate a recurring topic of Origen’s homilies; HIs V,2 states that “now a multitude of people is present because it is Friday, and even more on the Lord’s day, which commemorates the Passion of Christ, since the resurrection of the Lord is not celebrated once a year and not always after eight days”17. the present context: SelectainLeviticum XI,3 (PG 12, 401B) explains the rumination of the spiritual food as permanent commemoration and meditation, obviously of the word; ExpositioinProverbia XVII (PG 17, 201B) likewise insinuates an analogous understanding of the “solid spiritual food” of the weaned children of the Church. The explanation of the “cheeks of Christ” in Scholion in Cantica Canticorum V,13 (PG 17, 276B) as “those who serve the Word of God and the spiritual food (Σιαγόνας Χριστοῦ τοὺς διακονουμένους λόγῳ Θεοῦ καὶ τροφῇ πνευματικῇ νοητέον)” is ambivalent: is the latter element of the parallelism identical with or complementary to the former? Scholion in Cant. VII,2 (PG 17, 281B) interprets the “mixed wine” and “heap of wheat” of the lemma to have been added “in order to signify the spiritual food (ἵνα τὴν πνευματικὴν τροφὴν σημάνῃ)”; in this context, the two elements of wine and wheat may imply a Eucharistic notion. FrMt 493 (Mt 24,45) (Matthäuserklärung. III: FragmenteundIndices, 1. Hälfte, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN [GCS, 41; Origenes Werke, 12], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1941, p. 202) applies the exhortation of the gospel to “give food in time” to the bishops and teachers who should “serve the spiritual food (the only occurrence in the plural!) in time of quantity and quality” (τὰς πνευματικὰς διατάσσειν τροφὰς καιρῷ ποσότητος, ποιότητος). Some dubious catena fragments on the Psalms, which can easily be checked in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, are not considered here. 14. L. LIES, Wort und Eucharistie bei Origenes: Zur Spiritualisierungstendenz des Eucharistieverständnisses (Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 1), Innsbruck, Tyrolia, 21982 [11978], pp. 218-258. 15. Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung. Erster Teil: Die Homilien zuGenesis, Exodus, und Leviticus, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS (GCS, 29; Origenes Werke, 6), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1920, p. 264: Alii… inremotioribusdominicaedomuslocissaecularibusfabulisoccupantur. I am grateful to Lorenzo Perrone for pointing out the implications of this parallel. 16. G.W.H. LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, Clarendon, 1961, pp. 785f., here p. 786 (4.c). 17. Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten. Kommentar zum Hohelied in Rufins und Hieronymus’ Übersetzungen, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS (GCS, 33; Origenes Werke, 8), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1925, p. 265; the syntax of nequeenimresurrectio

PASCHA IN THIRD-CENTURY PALESTINE

79

Along with ContraCelsum VIII,22, the newly identified H77PsVI,4 is the only instance in Origen’s extant works where he unequivocally applies the term “Pascha” to the Christian feast of Easter; moreover, it may be noted that he does not seize the opportunity to exploit the Pascha as an interpretation of the food of the Christians as he does in other instances, especially the famous passage in HGn X,3, the argument of which otherwise parallels our context, and adds to the polemics an anti-Jewish thrust: “It is Jewish to observe certain and rare holidays … The Christians eat the meat of the lamb every day, that is, they partake daily in the meat of the word; ‘for (as) our Passover Christ has been sacrificed’ (1 Cor 5,7)”18. 2. OpenQuestionsoftheLiturgico-historicalAssessment It seems clear that Origen addressed members of his congregation who only came to church on Sundays or even only once annually at Easter; at the same time, the latter occasion apparently comprised “several ‹days› called ‘of the Pascha’”19. Obviously, the liturgy of these days contained the reading of Scripture; a Eucharistic notion may be implied, but cannot be proven. Even if this is not the case, the passage does not fit without difficulty into the established picture of early liturgical history. a) TheHorizonofOtherSources Arguments from silence are always disputable. This is all the more so in the case of an author uninterested in the external shape of Christian institutions not because of indifference but in view of his Platonising mind-set, which transcends the sensible world in favour of the intelligible realm as the truly important reality. Furthermore, our knowledge of the early Christian paschal celebration relies on no more than literally a handful of references from the first three centuries along with some accounts in fourth-century sources, especially Eusebius of Caesarea20. Dominisemelinannoetnonsemperpostoctodiescelebraturis complicated and unusual, but clear; cf. BUCHINGER, PaschabeiOrigenes (n. 3), pp. 779f., n. 2119; 783f. 18. Iudaeorum est dies certos et raros observare sollemnes. … Christiani omni die carnesagnicomedunt,idestcarnesverbicotidiesumunt.“PaschaenimnostrumimmolatusestChristus”(GCS 29, 97 BAEHRENS). On the polemical construction of “Jewish” literalist hermeneutics of the Pascha and respective practice, cf. BUCHINGER, Paschabei Origenes (n. 3), pp. 695-702. 19. It should be noted that the addition of ἡμέραι is a – necessary – editorial conjecture. 20. Historical and literary data as well as the respective bibliography are summarised in H. BUCHINGER, Pascha, in RAC 26 (2015) 1033-1077.

80

H. BUCHINGER

Eusebius’s account of the paschal controversy does not provide any further detail beyond the varying length of the paschal fast and the contested date when it was broken21. We do not know when the congregation in Sardis read “the Hebrew Exodus” and heard Melito’s anti-Jewish sermon22; a vigil until cockcrow is presupposed by the apocryphal Epistula Apostolorum and Dionysius of Alexandria23. The Syriac Didascalia mandates gatherings with readings, psalmody, and prayer on the nights of Friday and/or Saturday, but apart from its uncertain historical classification (which is likely to include a complex successive evolution lasting well into the fourth century), it mentions a time as early as 9 p.m. as the moment when the fast was broken24 – a feature which would fit well with the concept of the quartodeciman Easter as “a kind of Anti-Pascha” (to use Gerard Rouwhorst’s terminology25). This, according to the Didascalia and Epiphanius of Salamis, was synchronised polemically as a counter-celebration against the Jewish Passover and consisted in fasting during the banquet of the Jews and breaking the fast after the latter’s termination26. The anecdote from Eusebius that Narcissus – the predecessor of Alexander, under whom Origen is known to have preached in Jerusalem – miraculously renewed the oil for the lamps “during the great full-night vigil of the Pascha” (κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην … τοῦ πάσχα διανυκτέρευσιν), appears to imply a nocturnal celebration, although it is not totally exempt from the suspicion of anachronistic retro-projection27. In any case, there is not the slightest hint at any concrete element of a Christian Easter liturgy in Origen, which leaves the content of the “‹days› called ‘of the Pascha’” quite enigmatic. 21. Hist.Eccl. V,23-25 (GCS 9/1; Eusebius Werke 2/1, 488-498 SCHWARTZ). 22. Melito, OnPascha 1 (Oxford Early Christian Texts 2 HALL). 23. Epist.Ap. 26 (PO 43 = 9/3, 198 [58] GUERRIER – GRÉBAUT, Ethiopic) / 8 (TU 3/13 = 42, 5*f. SCHMIDT, Coptic); Dionysius, Epist. 14,1 Ad Basiliden (Cambridge Patristic Texts 94 FELTOE). 24. Didascalia 21 (Syriac: CSCO 407 = Scriptores Syri 179, 214f. with variants nn. 210 and 212; 217f. / English: CSCO 408 = Scriptores Syri 180, 199 with variants nn. 230f.; 201f. VÖÖBUS). For a compelling analysis which differentiates historical strata in the text and its variants, see G.A.M. ROUWHORST, Leshymnespascalesd’Ephremde Nisibe:Analysethéologiqueetrecherchesurl’évolutiondelafêtepascalechrétienneà NisibeetàÉdesseetdansquelquesÉglisesvoisinesauquatrièmesiècle (SupplVigChr, 7/1-2), Leiden, Brill, 1989, vol. 1, pp. 157-190. 25. ROUWHORST, Leshymnes(n. 24), vol. 1, pp. 192¸197: “une sorte d’anti-Pâque”. 26. Didascalia 21 (Syriac: CSCO 407 = Scriptores Syri 179, 211; 218 / English: CSCO 408 = Scriptores Syri 180, 196; 202 VÖÖBUS); Epiphanius, Panarion 70,11,3 (GCS 37 = Epiphanius Werke 3, 244 HOLL – 2DUMMER); cf. BUCHINGER, BreakingtheFast(n. 7). 27. Hist.Eccl. VI,9,1-3 (GCS 9/2; Eusebius Werke 2/2, 538 SCHWARTZ). In the contemporary Latin West, Tertullian, AduxoremII,4,2 (CCSL 1, 388 KROYMANN), likewise supposes that the paschal celebration takes place at night.

PASCHA IN THIRD-CENTURY PALESTINE

81

b) The“DaysCalled‘ofthePascha’”:PaschalFastorPartofthe PentecostPeriod? Although the Pentecost as a period of fifty festive days is well attested in the third century – though by far not universally – and is even mentioned by Origen himself28, there is no other source known so far that documents the Christian Easter feast as such as a liturgical celebration of several days before the fourth century, when the paschal celebration was extended to both the days before and after Easter29. Neither period is attested at the time of Origen. (1) A mimetic celebration of Holy Week according to a harmonised Gospel chronology is attested in Jerusalem in the last quarter of the fourth century and soon spread to other places30. Of course, the paschal fast is known to have been expanded over several days as early as the later second century; but in the earliest sources, there is no hint that this purely ascetic practice was accompanied by special liturgical gatherings, which is also difficult to imagine in light of the emphasis laid by early witnesses on the diversity of practice, including a varying duration of the fast which could last between one or two days and 40 hours, according to Irenaeus as quoted by Eusebius31, or a whole 28. Cf. CC VIII,22 (as quoted in n. 5); for further sources, cf. H. BUCHINGER, Pentekoste. B. Christlich. II. Alte Kirche. III. Zusammenfassende Interpretation, in RAC 27 (2016) 94-108, epitomising ID., Pentekoste,PfingstenundHimmelfahrt.Grunddatenund FragenzurFrühgeschichte, in R.W. BISHOP – J. LEEMANS – H. TAMAS (eds.), Preaching after Easter: Mid-Pentecost, Ascension, and Pentecost in Late Antiquity (SupplVigChr, 136), Leiden, Brill, 2016, 15-84. The Pentecost period is never referred to as “days of the Pascha” in early Christian literature, and the 50 days can hardly be identified with the – obviously very few – “several days” on which negligent Christians appeared at Church. 29. The vigils on Friday which are attested by the Syriac Didascalia 21 (as in n. 24) and Aphrahat, Demonstrations XII,8.12 (Patrologia Syriaca 1/1, 521; 536 PARISOT), are more likely to be a remnant of the Quartodeciman past than a mimetic augmentation of the paschal celebration; cf. ROUWHORST, Leshymnes (n. 24), vol. 1, pp. 131-193, esp. 191193. 30. Egeria, Peregrinatio 30–37 (FC 20, 256-278 RÖWEKAMP). The historical value of Georgian homilies ascribed to Meletius of Antioch remains to be critically assessed. There is no reason to project a mimetic concept as it was operative in the development of Holy Week in later fourth-century Jerusalem back into the third century. Origen does, admittedly, develop the concept of a “triduum” in the exegesis of the “way of three days” of Ex 5,3 in light of Hos 6,2 in his HEx V,2: “For us, the first day is the Passion of the Redeemer, and the second the one on which he descended into the netherworld; the third, however, is the day of the resurrection” (GCS 29, 186 BAEHRENS: Prima dies nobis passio Salvatoris est et secunda, qua descendit in infernum, tertia autem resurrectionis estdies); but nothing insinuates that Origen thinks of liturgical celebrations of the Pascha in this merely exegetical context, although he may indirectly be the forefather of such a mimetic concept in later Latin authors. Cf. H. BUCHINGER, WasThereEveraLiturgical Triduum in Antiquity? Theological Idea and Liturgical Reality, in Ecclesia Orans 27 (2010) 257-270. 31. Hist.Eccl. V,24,12 (GCS 9/1, 494 SCHWARTZ).

82

H. BUCHINGER

week according to Dionysius of Alexandria32. A possible parallel, however, comes from the Syriac Didascalia, which mentions not only a full week of eased fasting in addition to the strict paschal fast of Friday and Saturday33, but also a “service during those days (sc. of the paschal fast), when you pray and intercede”34. It has to be noted, however, that if the early paschal fast is to be understood as a continuous period of fasting, a Eucharistic interpretation of Origen’s reference to the nourishment of the Christians with the “spiritual food” during the “several ‹days› called ‘of the Pascha’” would be virtually precluded35: although concluding the regular stational fast in the afternoon was a widespread practice, the full fast at the core of the paschal celebration would not allow any food36. (2) The second possibility is to understand these “several ‹days› called ‘of the Pascha’” not as a period preceding Pascha and coinciding with the paschal fast, but following its core celebration, whatever the latter’s appearance might have been. Yet the distinction of an Easter Octave within the festive period of Pentecost is also documented otherwise only from the later fourth century on37; furthermore, early Christian sources prior to that time always apply the term “Pascha” to the first phase of the Christian celebration, characterised by mourning and fasting, and never to the joyful second phase of Easter38. It is therefore more sensible to identify the “several ‹days› called ‘of the Pascha’” with the paschal fast and assume non-eucharistic services.

32. Dionysius, Epist. 14,1 Ad Basiliden (Cambridge Patristic Texts 101f. FELTOE). 33. Didascalia 21 (Syriac: CSCO 407 = Scriptores Syri 179, 208; 214f.; 217 / English: CSCO 408 = Scriptores Syri 180, 191; 198f.; 201 VÖÖBUS). 34. Didascalia 21 (Syriac: CSCO 407 = Scriptores Syri 179, 208f. / English: CSCO 408 = Scriptores Syri 180, 191 VÖÖBUS). 35. The analysis of the terminology of “spiritual food” in n. 11-13 neither insinuates nor excludes a Eucharistic understanding of that “spiritual food”. 36. Sources like Dionysius of Alexandria and the Syriac Didascalia (see nn. 32f.), which distinguish longer periods of less rigid abstinence from the core of the paschal fast, always maintain the strict character of the latter. This is also true of later documents; cf. J. SCHÜMMER, Die altkirchliche Fastenpraxis mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schriften Tertullians (Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen, 27), Münster, Aschendorff, 1933, and R. ARBESMANN, Fasten.Fastenspeisen.Fasttage, in RAC 7 (1969) 447-524. 37. Cf. BUCHINGER, Pentekoste(n. 28). 38. Cf. BUCHINGER, Pascha bei Origenes (n. 3), pp. 413-416, with reference to primary sources and secondary literature. The designation of the Easter Octave as “Pascha” is attested only in later sources of the developed Christian liturgies; cf. the references given in BUCHINGER, Grunddaten (n. 28), pp. 26 (Armenian Lectionary of Late Antique Jerusalem); 67 (Romano-Frankish tradition); 72f. (Merovingian Gaul); 83 (Codex Theodosianus).

PASCHA IN THIRD-CENTURY PALESTINE

83

At any rate, it is striking that, in ContraCelsum, Origen speaks about “what happens at our … Pascha or the Pentecost for days”39. One can therefore either identify the “several ‹days› called ‘of the Pascha’” from our homily with those mentioned by Origen in ContraCelsum “at Pascha or the Pentecost for days”, or assume that Origen’s congregation gathered during the days of the paschal fast, which in any case was a significant period wherever Easter was celebrated in early Christian times. In summary: Origen tells us little about the shape of Christian worship, and often his scant hints at best do not contradict what the few other available sources suggest40. Nonetheless, with this newly discovered homily, he remains the only explicit witness to a liturgical celebration of Easter over several days – if indeed the conjecture is correct – before the fourth century. What this celebration looked like and whether the “several ‹days› called ‘of the Pascha’” preceded or followed the feast cannot be determined with any certainty; analogous to the Syriac Didascalia, one may assume non-eucharistic celebrations during the period of the paschal fast. II. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLICAL PASCHA IN THE NEWLY IDENTIFIED HOMILIES ON THEPSALMS The interpretation of the biblical Pascha in the newly identified HomiliesonthePsalms is much simpler and quite unequivocal; one of them nevertheless stands in astonishing contrast with Origen’s arguments in other contexts. 1. JesusCrucifiedasPaschaandtheSupersessionoftheBiblicalFeasts Commenting on Ps 73(74),4, “Those who hate you boasted in the midst of your feast”, Origen asks his audience to “come to the time of that feast, when my Jesus, who is the Pascha, is delivered to be crucified”; polemically perverting the intention of the biblical text which 39. See reference above, n. 5. The extension “for days” refers to the Pentecost period in the first place and not necessarily also to Pascha. There is no indication in CC VIII,22 that Pascha also comprised several days. 40. Another problem can only be mentioned: the reference of HLv X,2 (GCS 29, 445 BAEHRENS) to quadragesimaediesieiuniisconsecratosis considered an intentional misinterpretation adapting the text to the developed liturgical situation of the later fourth century; cf. BUCHINGER, Pascha bei Origenes (n. 3), pp. 810-812, and ID., Origenes und die Quadragesima in Jerusalem: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag, in Adamantius 13 (2007) 174-217.

84

H. BUCHINGER

laments the profanation of the temple, he identifies the Jews, “the enemies of Christ”, as those “who boasted in the midst of the feast”: For it was a feast when he was delivered, and instead of a sheep they killed the Saviour, who “was led like a sheep to the slaughter and was silent like a lamb before his shearer” (Isa 53,7). And do I not hear the prophet very plainly say that “he was led like a sheep”: for the prophet spoke mystically, since he knew that he was “our Passover”; that “Christ was sacrificed” for us (cf. 1 Cor 5,7), because “he was led like a sheep to the slaughter”. As the sheep are led at Passover, so too at the true Passover is Christ led41.

This exposition stands in strong opposition to the repeated view of Origen that such a typological relation between the Passover and the Passion is impossible for logical reasons, as well as to his other use of the biblical prooftexts. Origen repeatedly argues elaborately against the common passion typology of the Passover for logical reasons. Both in his first systematic sketch on the question of the Pascha in his Commentary on John and in the first book of his tractate “On Passover”, he argues for several reasons that “the Passover is type of Christ, but not of his Passion”, including that, unlike Christ, the Passover was sacrificed according to the law (CIoX,16,93) or even by “holy people” (OnPassover 40 – a notion which is in blatant contrast to “those who hate” God in Ps 73[74],4), and that at Passover many sheep are slaughtered, while Christ was only one (while in H73Ps I,8 he simply equates the sheep of Passover with Christ)42. It is probably for these typological reasons that, throughout nearly his entire œuvre, Origen refuses to integrate Isa 53,7 into his paschal theology, which is all the more remarkable in view of the widespread use of the verse for that very purpose in earlier Christian literature43. Only in his second book “On Passover”, which for good 41. H73Ps I,8 (GCS NF 19, 234 PERRONE): Κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν ἐλϑέ μοι ἐπὶ τὸν χρόνον τῆς ἑορτῆς ἐκείνης, ὅτε ὁ Ἰησοῦς μου, πάσχα ὄντος, παραδίδοται εἰς τὸ σταυρωϑῆναι. Ἐνεκαυχήσαντο οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, οἱ πολέμιοι τῷ Χριστῷ, καὶ ἐνεργοῦντες τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἐν μέσῳ τῆς ἑορτῆς· ἑορτὴ γὰρ ἦν, ὅτε παρεδόϑη καὶ ἀντὶ προβάτου ἀπέκτειναν τὸν σωτῆρα, ὅστιςὡςπρόβατονἐπὶσφαγὴνἤχϑηκαὶὡςἀμνὸςἐνώπιοντοῦ κείροντοςαὐτὸνἄφωνος. Οὐκέτι οὖν ἀκούω τοῦ προφήτου ἁπλούστερον λέγοντος ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶσφαγὴνἤχϑη· μυστικῶς γὰρ εἶπεν ὁ προφήτης εἰδὼς ὅτι τὸπάσχαἦν,ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐτύϑη Χριστός, ὅτι ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχϑη. Ὡς ἐν τῷ πάσχα τὰ πρόβατα, οὕτως ἐν τῷ ἀληϑινῷ πάσχα ὁ Χριστὸς ἄγεται. 42. Especially Origen, On Pascha I,40f. = Papyrus pp. 12f. (176-178 GUÉRAUD – NAUTIN), resuming arguments already brought forward in CIo X,16,89–18,111, especially X,16,92f. (GCS 10, 186-189 PREUSCHEN); cf. BUCHINGER, Pascha bei Origenes (n. 3), pp. 63-72; 190-196; 654-657, summarising ID., 1Kor 5,7alsSchlüsselderPaschatheologiedesOrigenes:DasPaschaderJuden,dasOpferChristiunddasPaschaderChristen–eineAporie?, in ZNW 91 (2000) 238-264. 43. BUCHINGER, PaschabeiOrigenes (n. 3), pp. 746-752.

PASCHA IN THIRD-CENTURY PALESTINE

85

reasons of theology and terminology has been distanced from the first book on the topic44, does he use Isa 53,4-9 as one of the scriptural bases for his argument that the “sheep which was slain in Egypt” was a “type of Christ, the true sheep” in his redemptive work. Nevertheless, here too, he still refrains from explicitly and directly identifying the Passover with the Passion45. Lastly, it is to be observed that in no other instance does Origen apply 1 Cor 5,7 to the Passion46, and it is significant that in the present homily, he amends the quotation of “Christ our Passover” being sacrificed into his being sacrificed “for us”47. Such an unconcerned use of paschal typology for addressing the Passion and the inconsistency of the newly identified homily’s general argument and many details with much of the early writings of Origen may support dating these homilies to the last phase of his activity, when he loosened the strict concerns expressed in his earlier works; indeed, the late date for the Homilieson thePsalms proposed by their editor48 converges with the assumably late date of the second book “On Pascha”, precisely in view of the paschal typology. Consequently, Origen connects the polemical commonplace of the destruction of the temple, the supersession of the Jewish cult, and its transferral to the Christians on account of the crucifixion of Jesus on the biblical feasts49: 44. Cf. G. SGHERRI (ed.), Origene,SullaPasqua.IlpapirodiTura (Letture cristiane del primo millennio, 6), Torino, Paoline, 1989, pp. 33-42, to which further arguments can be added: BUCHINGER, PaschabeiOrigenes (n. 3), pp. 306-319. 45. Origen, On Pascha II,7f.34 = Papyrus pp. 41; 49; cf. BUCHINGER, Pascha bei Origenes (n. 3), pp. 268-270; 300f. 46. BUCHINGER, PaschabeiOrigenes (n. 3), pp. 725-729. 47. Origen repeatedly concludes that 1 Cor 5,7 implies that because the type of the Passover was not fulfilled in the Passion, Christ has to be sacrificed spiritually by the Christians (references above in n. 42 and in BUCHINGER, Pascha bei Origenes [n. 3], pp. 725-729). CMtS 10 (Matthäuserklärung. II: DielateinischeÜbersetzungderCommentariorumSeries, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN [GCS, 38; Origenes Werke, 11], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1933, pp. 19; 21) inserts pronobisinto the Pauline quotation without implying a relation to the Passion: Paschanostrumpro nobis immolatusestChristus. Rather, the Christians “eat Christ, the Passover sacrificed for us (manducantetiampaschaimmolatumChristum pro nobis)” – the insertion pro nobis may thus well be inspired by the ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν of the Eucharistic institution narratives in this context. 48. Psalmenhomilien, ed. PERRONE (n. 1), pp. 17-25. ID., The Dating of the New Homilies on the Psalms intheMunichCodex:TheUltimateOrigen?, in Proche-Orient Chrétien 67 (2017) 243-251. 49. A. FÜRST, Judentum,JudenchristentumundAntijudaismusindenneuentdeckten Psalmenhomilien, in Adamantius 20 (2014) 275-287. Both polemical commonplaces were well established in early Christian literature before Origen, who repeatedly returns to the anti-Jewish stereotypes: BUCHINGER, Pascha bei Origenes (n. 3), pp. 579-583; 702-707.

86

H. BUCHINGER

“And those who hate” him (sc. Christ, not “you” as in the Psalm) “boasted in the midst of the feast” (Ps 73[74],4). Therefore, after that feast (sc. at which Christ was crucified) they do not feast any more. They defiled the feast, they defiled the holy things. And even if they wanted to feast, they are no longer able to do so. For it is impossible to feast the Passover according to the Scripture only “at the place” commanded in the Law (cf. Dt 16), from which they are evicted. Thus they no longer keep that feast, nor the feast of the Pentecost, nor the feast of the Tabernacles. Rather, their feasts have been taken away from them and given to us, and for them is fulfilled what is said by Amos: “Your feasts will be turned into mourning and your songs into lamentations” (cf. Amos 8,10). Thus we have received the feasts, and in a different way than they had received them. For they received them by means of a type, until the truth should come; when the truth came, we say that we received the true Passover: “For our” true “Passover is sacrificed, Christ, and we feast not in the old leaven nor in the leaven of malice and evil, but in the unleavened breads of sincerity and truth” (cf. 1 Cor 5,7, with the subjunctive of “so that we may feast” changed to be indicative) …50.

2. FurtherCommonplacesofAnti-JewishPolemics a) H73PsII,2f. The following H73Ps II repeats the argument occasioned by v. 8, “Let us put an end to all the feasts of God from earth” (testifying to the variant reading καταπαύσωμεν instead of κατακαύσωμεν): “Because of the plotting against the Redeemer at the feast of Passover, ‘every feast’ has been removed from the people and their feasts have been ‘turned into mourning …’ (Amos 8,10)”51. In contrast: “You have also been called to holy feasts according to what has been said: ‘so that we may feast not in the old 50. H73Ps I,8 (GCS NF 19, 234f. PERRONE): Καὶἐνεκαυχήσαντοοἱμισοῦντεςαὐτὸν ἐν μέσῳ τῆς ἑορτῆς. Διὰ τοῦτο μετ’ ἐκείνην ἑορτὴν οὐκέτι ἑορτάζουσιν· ἐμόλυναν τὴν ἑορτήν, ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἅγια. Κἂν ϑέλωσιν ἑορτάζειν Ἰουδαῖοι, οὐκέτι δύνανται. Οὐ γὰρ ἔξεστιν, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ γραφῇ, ἑορτάζειν τὸ πάσχα, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ τῷ νομιζομένῳ ἁγίῳ, ὅϑεν ἐκβέβληνται. Οὐκέτι οὖν ἑορτάζουσιν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τὴν ἑορτὴν τὴν πεντηκοστήν, οὐδὲ τὴν ἑορτὴν τῆς σκηνοπηγίας. Ἀλλὰ αἱ ἑορταὶ αὐτῶν ἤρϑησαν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐδόϑησαν ἡμῖν καὶ πεπλήρωται ἐπ’ αὐτῶν τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀμῶς εἰρημένον· στραφέτωσαναἱἑορταὶὑμῶνεἰςπένϑοςκαὶαἱᾠδαὶὑμῶνεἰςϑρήνους. Ἡμεῖς οὖν ἐλάβομεν τὰς ἑορτὰς καὶ ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἐλάβον. Ἔλαβον γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τυπικῶς, ἕως ἔλϑῃ ἡ ἀλήϑεια· ἐλϑούσης δὲ τῆς ἀληϑείας, ἡμεῖς λέγομεν ὅτι ἐλάβομεν τὸ πάσχα τὸ ἀληϑινόν·τὸγὰρπάσχαἡμῶντὸ ἀληϑινὸνἐτύϑηΧριστόςκαὶ ἑορτάζομενοὐζύμῃπαλαιᾷ,οὐδὲζύμῃκακίαςκαὶπονηρίας,ἀλλ’ἐνἀζύμοιςεἰλικρινείαςκαὶ ἀληϑείας. The continuation similarly ascribes the spiritualised fulfilment of Pentecost and Tabernacles to the Christians: Οὕτω δὲ ἄγομεν καὶ πεντηκοστήν, καὶ ἔτι ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τῶν πνευματικῶν, οὕτως καὶ σκηνοπηγοῦμεν, οἰκίας ‹οὐ› κατοικοῦμεν, οὐκ ἐν οἰκίαις πάροικοικαὶπαρεπίδημοι(1 Pt 2,11) ὄντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 51. H73Ps II,2 (GCS NF 19, 239 PERRONE): Διὰ γὰρ τοῦ ἐν ἑορτῇ τοῦ πάσχα ἐπιβουλεύεσϑαι τὸν σωτῆρα, πᾶσα ἑορτὴ κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐστράφησαν αἱ ἑορταὶ αὐτῶν εἰςπένϑοςκαὶαἱᾠδαὶαὐτῶνεἰςϑρῆνον.

PASCHA IN THIRD-CENTURY PALESTINE

87

leaven nor in the leaven of malice and evil, but in the unleavened breads of sincerity and truth’ (1 Cor 5,8)”. In this context, Origen at least turns the Pauline exhortation and the application of the psalm verse under consideration into a noteworthy threat towards the Christians as well: “If you recognise ‘all the feasts’ (Ps 73[74],8) and the unleavened breads, watch lest enemies plot against you as well in order to ‘put an end to the feasts of God’ from you”52. Origen stresses not only the moral dimension provided by Paul’s allegory of the unleavened breads, but also, in turn, draws a negative consequence for the bodily observance of the Jewish feast as such, adding at the same time to the explicit pieces of evidence that especially women from Origen’s congregation were inclined to follow Jewish practices, especially in the observation of mazzot: Those who want to feast according to Christendom and the divine teachings that one ought to “feast in the unleavened breads of sincerity and truth”, (and) feast in unleavened breads of wheat and of sensible matters, which Christ destroyed when he “fulfilled the Law” (cf. Mt 5,17) in those who are spiritual, it is clear that they fall out of the grace of God and celebrate neither this nor that feast. For that one is no feast at all: if Christ is not in it (and) the Holy Spirit is not (present either), it cannot be a feast. Please, if there are “women laden with sins, driven by diverse desires” (2 Tim 3,6), who desire to walk on both feet and behave as Jews and as Christians: repent, convert, become either a Jew or a Christian. I tell you the word of Elijah the prophet, which he once spoke to those of two minds: “How long do you limp on both knees?” (1 Kgs 18,21)53.

52. H73Ps II,3 (GCS NF 19, 241 PERRONE): Καὶ σὺ γὰρ ἐκλήϑης ἐπὶ ἑορτὰς ἁγίας, καϑὰ λέλεκται· ὥστεἑορτάζωμενμὴἐνζύμῃπαλαιᾷ,μηδὲἐνζύμῃκακίαςκαὶπονηρίας, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀζύμοις εἰλικρινείας καὶ ἀληϑείας. Εἰ νοεῖς πάσας ἑορτὰς καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα, ὅρα μήποτε καὶ σὺ ἐπιβουλευϑῇς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐχϑρῶν πρὸς τὸ καταπαῦσαι τὰς ἑορτὰς τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀπὸ σοῦ. 53. H73Ps II,3 (GCS NF 19, 242 PERRONE): Οἱ δὲ ϑέλοντες μετὰ Χριστιανισμὸν καὶ τὰ ϑεῖα μαϑήματα, δέον ἑορτάζειν ἀζύμοις εἰλικρινείας καὶ ἀληϑείας, ἑορτάζουσιν ἀζύμοις τοῖς ἀπὸ σίτου καὶ ἀζύμοις τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσϑητῶν πραγμάτων, ἃ κατήργησε Χριστὸς πληρῶν τὸν νόμον ἐν τοῖς πνευματικοῖς, δηλονότι ἐκπεσόντες τῆς χάριτος τοῦ ϑεοῦ οὔτε ταύτην ἑορτάζουσι τὴν ἑορτὴν οὔτε ἐκείνην. Οὐκ ἔστι γὰρ ἐκείνη ἑορτή· Χριστοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἐν αὐτῇ, ἁγίου πνεύματος οὐκ ὄντος, οὐ δύναται εἶναι ἑορτή. Παρακαλῶ, εἴ τινά ἐστι γυναικάριασεσωρευμέναἁμαρτίαις,ἀγόμεναἐπιϑυμίαιςποικίλαις, ἐπιϑυμοῦντα ἐπ’ ἀμφότερα βαίνειν τοὺς πόδας, καὶ Ἰουδαΐζειν καὶ Χριστιανίζειν, μετανοήσατε, μεταβάλεσϑε· ἢ Ἰουδαία ἢ Χριστιανὴ γένεσϑε. Ἐρὼ γὰρ πρὸς ὑμᾶς λόγον Ἠλίου τοῦ προφήτου, ὃν ἐλάλησέ ποτε πρὸς τοὺς διψύχους· ἕως πότε ὑμεῖς χωλαίνετε ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέραις ταῖς ἰγνύαις ὑμῶν; Further references to feasting in a Jewish manner at mazzot in BUCHINGER, Pascha bei Origenes (n. 3), pp. 693-695, now to be complemented also with H77Ps I,4 (quoted below in n. 55f); cf. also FÜRST, Judentum (n. 49).

88

H. BUCHINGER

b) H77PsI,3f. H77Ps I,3f. returns to the polemical topos of the impossibility of performing the Passover according to Dt 16,6 “at the place that the Lord has chosen”54. In contrast, Origen develops the allegorical fulfilment of the Law by the Christians, again confirming the Judaising practices among his congregants as well as the disciplinary measures levied against them: “When the days of the unleavened breads are imminent, do not make the unleavened breads again, but make rather the unleavened breads of sincerity, the unleavened breads of truth (cf. 1 Cor 5,8)”55. It is quite remarkable that when Origen subsequently exhorts the Christians not to celebrate the Day of Atonement, he appears to oppose bodily fasting altogether: When you “attend to the Law” (cf. Ps 77[78],1), do not practice the Jewish fast, on account of which it is fine that those who do not understand the Day of Atonement are evicted from the Church of Christ. For the Day of Atonement of old, when one fasted, was the Day of Atonement by way of a type; the true one (was), when my Lord Christ Jesus was crucified for the world, “the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1,29). Thus, if the Day of Atonement has taken place in me, I no longer need to fast. “The sons of the bridal chamber cannot fast as long as the bridegroom is with them” (Mk 2,19). If you want to fast in a Jewish way, your bridegroom is taken away according to what is said: “When the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will fast in those days” (Mk 2,20). If you want to fast, fast a Christian fast. The lawgiver to the Gentiles taught and said: “If you fast, anoint your head and wash your face and pray to your father in secret, so that you may not appear fasting before the people” (Mt 6,17-18)56.

54. GCS NF 19, 357 PERRONE; cf. BUCHINGER, PaschabeiOrigenes (n. 3), pp. 579583. 55. GCS NF 19, 358 PERRONE: ὅταν μὲν ἐνστῶσιν αἱ ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων, ἀλλὰ ἄζυμα ποιήσατε εἰλικρινείας, ἄζυμα ποιήσατε ἀληϑείας. 56. H77Ps I,4 (GCS NF 19, 358f. PERRONE): Ἐὰν προσέχητε τῷ νόμῳ, οὐ πάλιν τὴν ̓Ιουδαϊκὴν νηστείαν ποιήσητε, δι’ ἧς καλῶς ἐκβάλλονται ἀπὸ τῆς Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίας οἱ μὴ νοήσαντες τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ. Ἡμέρα γὰρ ἱλασμοῦ πάλαι, ὅτε ἐνήστευον, ἡ τυπικὴ δὲ ἡμέρα τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ· ἡ ἀληϑινή, ὅτε ὁ κύριός μου Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ὑπὲρ τοῦ κόσμου ἐσταύρωται, ὁἀμνὸςτοῦϑεοῦ,ὁαἴρων τὴνἁμαρτίαντοῦκόσμου. Γέγονεν οὖν καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, οὐκέτι χρείαν ἔχω νηστείας· οὐδύνανταιοἱυἱοὶ τοῦνυμφῶνοςὅσονμετ’αὐτῶνἐστιὁνυμφίοςνηστεύειν. Εἰ ϑέλεις νηστεύειν Ἰουδαϊκῶς, ἦρταί σου ὁ νυμφίος κατὰ τὰ εἰρημένα· ὅτανἀρϑῇἀπ’αὐτῶνὁνυμφίος,τότενηστεύουσινἐνἐκείναιςταῖςἡμέραις.Εἰ ϑέλεις νηστεύειν, νήστευε νηστείαν Χριστιανήν. Ἐδίδαξεν ὁ νομοϑέτης τῶν ἐϑνῶν εἰπών· ὅταν νηστεύῃς, ἄλειψαί σου τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπόν σου νίψαι καὶ πρόσευξαι τῷ πατρί σου τῷ ἐν κρυπτῷ, ἵνα μὴ φανῇς νηστεύων τοῖςἀνϑρώποις.

PASCHA IN THIRD-CENTURY PALESTINE

89

The appeal to Mk 2,19f. in order to vindicate a Christian way of fasting adds to the evidence of other texts that Origen obviously was not aware of (or did not support) the tradition attested by Tertullian and the Syriac Didascalia to use this prooftext to motivate the paschal fast with the motif of the bridegroom being taken away57. If – what may be taken as granted in view of Eusebius’ account of the paschal controversy which attributes a pivotal role to the communities of Caesarea and Jerusalem58 – Origen’s congregation did perform the paschal fast (which he, however, never mentions), Origen’s refusal to acknowledge this constitutive Christian practice even when he exhorts his flock to “fast in a Christian way” is not only striking, but makes the anti-Jewish stance of his argument appear downright impudent. c) H73Ps III,5 For the sake of completeness, H73Ps III,5 must be mentioned. Reading v. 17, “You made summer and spring”, in a spiritualised way, Origen admonishes his audience: If you want to recognise the spring in the soul, cross over from the bodily Passover, when it happens in the springtime, and behold for me the Passover about which the Apostle says: “Our Passover has been sacrificed: Christ” (1 Cor 5,7). We know that according to this Passover spring has come about from God, such as when the bridegroom calls the soul (his) bride and says: “Winter is past and has gone away, the flowers have appeared on earth” (Cant 2,11f.)59.

III. SUMMARY The newly found Homilies on the Psalms partially confirm what is known from other works of Origen. Notably, their harsh anti-Jewish polemic is not new, and it is also attested otherwise that women of Origen’s congregation were particularly tempted to observe the Jewish feast of mazzot. The explicit application of 1 Cor 5,7 to the Passion, 57. BUCHINGER, PaschabeiOrigenes (n. 3), pp. 810f. with n. 2385. 58. Hist.Eccl. V,23,3; 25 (GCS 9/1, 488; 496 SCHWARTZ). 59. GCS NF 19, 259 PERRONE: Εἰ δὲ ϑέλεις νοῆσαι τὸ ἔαρ τὸ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, μετάβα μοι ἀπὸ τοῦ πάσχα τοῦ σωματικοῦ, ὅταν γίνηται τῷ καιρῷ τοῦ ἔαρος, καὶ ἴδε μοι τὸ πάσχα περὶ οὗ λέγει ὁ ἀπόστολος· τὸπάσχαἡμῶνἐτύϑηΧριστός. Οἴδαμεν κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα ἔαρ ὑπὸ ϑεοῦ γεγενημένον, οἷον ὅτε νυμφίος καλεῖ τὴν νύμφην ψυχὴν καὶ λέγει· ὁχειμὼνπαρῆλϑεν,ἐπορεύϑηἑαυτῷ,τὰἄνϑηὤφϑηἐντῇγῇ. On Cant 2,11f. and Passover in Origen, cf. BUCHINGER, PaschabeiOrigenes (n. 3), pp. 350f.; 461f., n. 453f.; 691; 758.

90

H. BUCHINGER

however, stands in stark contrast with Origen’s otherwise quite consequent reservation towards the Pascha-Passion typology. The hint at a celebration of Easter over several “‹days› called ‘of the Pascha’” is not only based on an – inevitable and reasonable – conjecture, but also remains erratic in the history of the Christian Easter liturgy of the first three centuries, either referring to liturgical gatherings in the period of the paschal fast or – hardly plausible in light of the use of “Pascha” in early Christian literature – to services in the days after Easter Sunday. Universität Regensburg Harald BUCHINGER Fakultät für Katholische Theologie DE-93040 Regensburg Germany [email protected]

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S NEWLY DISCOVERED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS I. THE “PSALMS OF ASAPH”: A COLLECTION IN THE COLLECTION A casual discovery has recently unearthed, on the shelves of an important European library, twenty-nine Homilies on Psalms, of which the attribution to Origen now seems almost certain: they are, in fact, the Alexandrian’s most abundant exegetical work on the Psalms which remains to us in its original language1. A first question that the reader cannot fail to ask when scrolling through these homiletical compositions, concerns the criterion by which this collection may have been formed. In particular relief is the presence of two homogeneous groups: firstly, that of H36Ps, H37Ps, H38Ps, of which we already had the Latin translations by Rufinus2, and which helped M. Molin Pradel to identify their author as Origen by comparing them with the list compiled by Jerome3; secondly, a consistent block of homilies that comment on the “Psalms of Asaph”4: H73Ps (three homilies), H74Ps (one homily), H75Ps(one homily), H76Ps(four homilies), H77Ps(nine homilies), H80Ps (two homilies), H81Ps (one homily). Thus, of twelve “Psalms of Asaph”, the “new homilies” comment on seven, and in depth. II. PSALM 73 The topic is the capture and destruction of Jerusalem by enemy forces; they burned the Sanctuary, broke its doors with axes and profaned it5.

1. The homilies are cited here as read in a recent critical edition, which is in fact the editioprinceps: DieneuenPsalmenhomilien:EinekritischeEditiondesCodex Monacensis Graecus314, ed. L. PERRONE with M. MOLIN PRADEL – E. PRINZIVALLI – A. CACCIARI (GCS NF, 19; Origenes Werke, 13), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015. For a complete account of the discovery of the “new homilies”, see the monographic section entirely dedicated to it in Adamantius 20 (2014) 6-58. 2. Already edited by E. Prinzivalli: Origene.OmeliesuiSalmi,HomiliaeinPsalmos XXXVI–XXXVII–XXXVIII, ed. E. PRINZIVALLI, Firenze, Nardini, 1991. 3. See Hieronymus, Epistula 33,4 (CSEL 54, 255 HILBERG). 4. The “Psalms of Asaph”, in the numbering of the LXX, are: Ps 49, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. 5. See in particular Ps 73,5-6.

92

A. CACCIARI

It remains to be seen which, of the episodes of this kind Jerusalem was dealt in the centuries of its history, the psalm means; while the majority of exegetes today lean towards the period of the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC, not a few, chiefly in the past, have read the psalm as being set in the Maccabean period (second century BC); others have traced it to various dates between 520 and 480 BC, and others still have deemed it a kind of literary artifact not meant to be dated with precision6. In the question that begins Psalm 73 (“Wherefore hast thou rejected us, O God, for ever?”), Origen recognizes the voice of Asaph who “prophesies”, in a period in which “the situation of Jerusalem was still stable, and says – according to the literal meaning – what happened to the people after their imprisonment”7. Here, Origen evidently means the Babylonian invasion and its consequences for Israel, which he mentions at several points in his work, such as in his commentaries on Jeremiah and Lamentations8, as well as in this very homily: “like … the Babylonians, when in their pride they won the people”9. Now, in his commentary on a Johannine passage concerning the Temple (Jn 2,21), Origen refers to various explanations of this building in the time of Jesus: But someone else will say that the temple indicated is not that built by Solomon, [for] that one was destroyed in the times of the captivity, but the one built in the time of Esdras, of which we cannot prove clearly that the statement about forty-six years is accurate10. 6. A wide and articulated discussion on the exegetic lines of the 19th century and of the first half of the 20th is in G. CASTELLINO, IllibrodeiSalmi, Torino, Marietti, 1955, pp. 305-307; however, the discoveries at Qumran compel scholars today to radically reconfigure our chronology: see G.W. BUCHANAN, TheFallofJerusalemandtheReconsideration of Some Dates, in Revue de Qumran 53 (1989) 31-48; M.E. TATE, Psalms 51–100, Dallas, TX, Word, 1990, pp. 246-247; M.D. GOULDER, The Psalms of Asaph andthePentateuch:StudiesinthePsalter, III (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 233), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1996, p. 61. On the peculiarities of the text of Psalm 73 in the LXX version, cf. A. CORDES, DieAsafpsalmeninderSeptuaginta, Freiburg i.Br. – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2004, pp. 73ff. 7. H73Ps I,1 (GCS NF 19, 225,9ss. PERRONE): Ὡς ἐπιγέγραπται δὲ ὁ ψαλμός, οὐκέτι τοῦ Δαυὶδ ἀλλὰ τοῦ Ἀσάφ, καὶ αὐτοῦ προφητεύσαντος ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγεγραμμένοις αὐτοῦ ψαλμοῖς· συνειστήκει τὰ τῆς Ἰερουσαλήμ, ὅτε ὁ Ἀσὰφ ταῦτα προεφήτευσε, καὶ λέγει, ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητόν, τὰ συμβεβηκότα τῷ λαῷ μετὰ τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν. 8. E.g. HIer I,3-4 (Jeremiahomilien, Klageliederkommentar, Erklärung der Samuel- undKönigbücher,ed. E. KLOSTERMANN. 2. Bearbeitete Aufl. herausgegeben von P. NAUTIN [GCS, 6; Origenes Werke, 3], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1901; Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 21983, pp. 2,2–3,24); FrIer49 (GCS 6, 223,8-18); FrLam I,1 (GCS 6, 235,6-9). 9. H73Ps I,6 (GCS NF 19, 232,23-24 PERRONE): οἷα…τοὺς Βαβυλωνίους ὅτε ἐνίκησαν τὸν λαὸν ὑπερηφανευομένους. 10. CIo X,38,259-260: Ἄλλος δέ τις ἐρεῖ τὸν δεικνύμενον μὴ τὸν ὑπὸ Σαλομῶντος ᾠκοδομημένον εἶναι, ἐκεῖνον ‹γὰρ› κατεστράφϑαι κατὰ τοὺς τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας χρόνους, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐπὶ Ἔσδρᾳ οἰκοδομηϑέντα, περὶ οὗ οὐκ ἔχομεν τρανῶς τὸν τῶν τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἐτῶν ἀποδεῖξαι ἀληϑευόμενον λόγον; DerJohanneskommentar,

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S NEWLY DISCOVERED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS

93

His doubts as to an accurate chronological placement of the events that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple are deep-rooted. As he says of the earlier quoted passage of Psalm 73, the historical context is not pertinent to the text latosensu, but rather strictly pertinent to its “literal meaning” (τὸ ῥητόν). Hence, … some might say that not only for those, but also for those who lived after the coming of our Saviour, a captivity occurred and happened what is written: “they cut down its doors at once with axes”, that is, of Jerusalem and of the people11.

As such, those who look … to a deeper meaning will say that the reason why the people was rejected is the fact that they have suppressed Christ Jesus12.

Thus, the real reason for the catastrophe is this: In fact, God has truly rejected the people for a long time after the coming of Christ and after what they dared to do against him. When have they ever suffered for such a long time? When has Jerusalem ever been so desolate? When has the Sanctuary ever been inactive for so long, without the victims and sacrifices being offered in it13?

Similar statements are found, for example, in some fragments on Lamentations: He also said earlier: “consume them; and thy word shall be to me for the joy and gladness of my heart” (Jer 15,16). These things happened after the snare against the Saviour, when they were dispersed everywhere: it fell on them, in fact, “all the righteous blood they have shed on earth”

ed. E. PREUSCHEN(GCS, 10; Origenes Werke, 4), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903, p. 214,24-29. English transl.: Origen.CommentaryontheGospelaccordingtoJohn,Books1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989, p. 312. 11. Ps 73,6b; H73Ps I,1 (GCS NF 19, 225,15-19 PERRONE): εἴποι δ’ ἄν τις ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἐκείνοις ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς μετὰ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐπιδημίαν, τοῦ αἵματος κατὰ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτῶν ἐλϑόντος ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν, γέγονε ἡ αἰχμαλωσία καὶ τὰ εἱρημένα συμβέβηκεν· ἐν πελέκει γὰρ καὶ λαξευτηρίῳ κατέῤῥαξε τὰς ϑύρας αὐτῶν, ἤγουν τῆς Ἰηρουσαλὴμ καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ. 12. H73Ps I,2 (GCS NF 19, 226,9-10 PERRONE): Ὁ δὲ ἤδη τι κἂν ἐπὶ ποσὸν βαϑύτερον ὁρῶν ἐρεῖ αἴτιον τοῦ ἀποσϑῆναι τὸν λαὸν τὸ τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀνηρῆσϑαι ὑπ’ αὐτῶν. 13. H73Ps I,2 (GCS NF 19, 226,9ss. PERRONE): Καὶ γὰρ ἀληϑῶς ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἀπώσατο ὁ ϑεὸς τὸν λαὸν μετὰ τὴν Χριστοῦ ἐπιδημίαν καὶ τὰ τετολμημένα κατ’ αὐτοῦ. Πότε γὰρ τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ πεπόνϑασι; Πότε οὕτως ἠρημώϑη Ἰερουσαλήμ; Πότε τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ τὸ ϑυσιαστήριον ἤργησε, τῆς ϑυσίας καὶ τῶν λατρειῶν οὐκέτι προσφερομένων ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ;

94

A. CACCIARI

(cf. Mt 23,35). Well, “destroy them” means to end the cult with them, and not to call them God’s people anymore14.

Thus, in reference to the atrocities during the Roman siege of Jerusalem as told by Josephus, Origen does not hesitate to conclude: “They cooked it” means to set fire and roast, which happened at the time of the siege by the Romans: therefore it calls “ruin” the complete destruction of the pagans. And in the second alphabetical series of Lamentations there is memory of the present suffering15.

It seems quite correct to conclude that, here, Origen has juxtaposed the ruin of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans with the ancient fall of Jerusalem roughly six hundred years earlier. This trompe l’œil is recognizable by Origen’s lexical proximity to a text by Josephus16. Now, the intertext of Origen and the Jewish historian has stimulated a great deal of secondary literature, and this is not the place to wrestle with the question17. It should be sufficient here to mention a passage from the ContraCelsum: 14. FrLamXC (GCS 6, 268,23-28 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): Ἔλεγε καὶ πρόσϑεν· “συντέλεσον αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσται σου ὁ λόγος ἐμοὶ εἰς εὐφροσύνην καὶ χαρὰν καρδίας μου” (Jer 15,16). ταῦτα γέγονε μετὰ τὴν κατὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐπιβουλήν, ὅτε πανταχοῦ διεσπάρησαν· ἦλϑε γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς “πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυϑέν” (cf. Mt 23,35). τὸ τοίνυν “συντελέσαι” δηλοῖ τὸ τέλος λαβεῖν τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς λατρείαν, καὶ τὸ μηκέτι χρηματίζειν ἔϑνος ϑεοῦ. 15. FrLam CV (GCS 6, 273,1-10 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): Ἵνα μὴ δόξωσιν αἱ γυναῖκες δι᾽ ὠμότητα βεβρωκέναι τὰ τέκνα, οἰκτίρμονας μὲν εἶναί φησιν· τῇ δὲ τῆς ἐνδείας ἀνάγκῃ προσάπτει τὸ πάϑος. τὸ δὲ ἧψαν τὸ ἀνάψαι καὶ ὀπτῆσαι δηλοῖ, ὃ δὴ γέγονεν ἐπὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων πολιορκίας· διὸ καὶ “σύντριμμα” καλεῖ τὴν παντελῆ τοῦ ἔϑνους ἀπώλειαν. καὶ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ δὲ τῶν Θρήνων στοιχειώσει τοῦ παρόντος μέμνηται πάϑους. καὶ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ τἄλλα πάϑη μετ᾽ ἀκριβείας Ἰώσηππος ἐν τοῖς περὶ ἁλώσεως παρέδωκεν. 16. Cf. FrLamCV (supra, n. 15): τὸ δὲ ἧψαν τὸ ἀνάψαι καὶ ὀπτῆσαι δηλοῖ, with ὀπτήσασα in Josephus, Bellum judaicum VI,208. See G. SGHERRI, Chiesa e Sinagoga nell’operadiOrigene(Studia patristica mediolanensia, 13), Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1982, p. 97 (“Anche in altri passi il parallelo tra il 587 e il 70 è spesso fatto da Origene”), who, here and elsewhere in support of this statement, mentions Selecta in Psalmos 73,5-6 (PG 12, 1529D), and attributes it with great acumen – later confirmed by the discovery of the “new homilies” on Psalms – to Origen himself (against the opinion of M.-J. RONDEAU, Le commentaire sur les Psaumes d’Évagre le Pontique, in OCP 26 [1960] 307-348, p. 339, who placed it among the Evagrian texts). 17. See E. BAMMEL, Zum Testimonium Flavianum, in O. BETZ – K. HAACKER – M. HENGEL (eds.), Josephus-Studien, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974, 9-22; D.S. WALLACE-HADRILL, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus,Antiquities, XVIII.63f.), in TheJournalofEcclesiasticalHistory 25 (1974) 353362; then, an important collection of studies: L.H. FELDMAN – G. HATA (eds.), Josephus,JudaismandChristianity, Detroit, MI, Wayne State University Press, 1987, in which, in addition to W. MIZUGAKI, OrigenandIosephus, ibid., 325-337, see Z. BARAS, The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James, ibid., 338-348, as well as

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S NEWLY DISCOVERED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS

95

… however, although unconscious of it, he is not far from the truth when he says that these disasters befell the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of “Jesus the so-called Christ”, since they had killed him who was a very righteous man18.

In truth, the text of Josephus to which Origen refers limits itself to mentioning the death of James, without saying anything about the consequences of it for the Jews19. It should also be noted that in both passages of the ContraCelsum, Origen maintains that these fatal events were provoked by the killing of Jesus. Let us return at last to the topic with which we began. It is Eusebius of Caesarea who, in his commentary on Psalm 73, attaches a chronological order to the possible references concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple within the Psalter: “And since he saw in fact two destructions, the first by the Babylonians, the second by the Romans, speaks of the first in Psalm79 and Psalm82; of the following one, however, speaks in this prophecy”20. And again, with some corrections: A.A. BELL, JosephusandPseudo-Hegesippus, ibid., 349-361; A. WHEALEY, TheTestimonium Flavianum, in H. HOWELL CHAPMAN – Z. RODGERS (eds.), A Companion to J osephus(Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World), Chichester, Wiley Blackwell, 2016, 345-355; A. GREGERMAN, BuildingontheRuinsoftheTemple(Text and Studies on the Ancient Judaism, 165), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, pp. 59-96. 18. CC I,47 (DieSchriftvomMartyrium.BuchI-IVGegenCelsus, ed. P. KOETSCHAU [GCS, 2; Origenes Werke, 1], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1899, p. 97,6ff.): ὁ δὲ καὶ ὥσπερ ἄκων οὐ μακρὰν τῆς ἀληϑείας γενόμενός φησι ταῦτα συμβεβηκέναι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κατ᾽ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς “Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ”; English transl.: Origen: Contra Celsum, transl. H. CHADWICK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 21965, p. 43. Similar statements are in CC II,13; see also CMt X,17: Ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον δὲ διέλαμψεν οὗτος ὁ Ἰάκωβος ἐν τῷ λαῷ ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνῃ ὡς Φλάβιον Ἰώσηπον ἀναγράψαντα ἐν εἴκοσι βιβλίοις τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν, τὴν αἰτίαν παραστῆσαι βουλόμενον τοῦ τὰ τοσαῦτα πεπονϑέναι τὸν λαὸν ὡς καὶ τὸν ναὸν κατασκαφῆναι, εἰρηκέναι κατὰ μῆνιν ϑεοῦ ταῦτα αὐτοῖς ἀπηντηκέναι διὰ τὰ εἰς Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τετολμημένα. Καὶ “τὸ ϑαυμαστόν ἐστιν” ὅτι, τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν οὐ καταδεξάμενος εἶναι Χριστόν, οὐδὲν ἧττον Ἰακώβῳ δικαιοσύνην ἐμαρτύρησε τοσαύτην. Λέγει δὲ ὅτι καὶ ὁ λαὸς ταῦτα ἐνόμιζε διὰ τὸν Ἰάκωβον πεπονϑέναι. Lastly, see the quote from Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. II,23,20 (who says to get the information from “Hegesippus”). A good summary of the complex issue is in R. GIROD, Origène. Commentairesurl’ÉvangileselonMatthieu, t. I (ll. X-XI) (SC, 162), Paris, Cerf, 1970, pp. 113-117. 19. Cf. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae XX,200-201: ὁ Ἄνανος […] καϑίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καί τινας ἑτέρους, ὡς παρανομησάντων κατηγορίαν ποιησάμενος παρέδωκε λευσϑησομένους. 20. Eusebius, Comm. in Ps. 73,1 (PG 23, 852AB): Ἐντυγχάνει γοῦν ὁ λόγος τῷ Θεῷ, προφητικῶς τὰ μέλλοντα ὡς παρῳχηκότα διεξιὼν, καὶ τὴν ἐσχάτην σημαίνων πολιορκίαν τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ τὴν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων γενομένην μετὰ τὴν σωτήριον Παρουσίαν. Καὶ ταῦτα μη δὲ συστάντος πω τοῦ τόπου προαναφωνεῖ. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἀσὰφ, δι᾽ οὗ ταῦτα προεφητεύετο, σύγχρονος γέγονε τῷ Δαυΐδ· Σολομὼν δὲ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ

96

A. CACCIARI

All of this is prophesied by Asaph, who lived in the time of David, before the building up of Jerusalem, by announcing to her what would have happened in the times of which we have said. With this Psalm[i.e.: Psalm 79], therefore, it seems to prophesy both the first siege by Babylon, as the second, by the Romans. With the previous Psalm, instead, he prophesied the events of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and, with Psalm 73, only the facts related to the last siege by the Romans21.

It is highly probable that Eusebius, who among the heirs of the Origenian tradition may, in general terms, be considered the most faithful interpreter of the Alexandrian’s exegesis on the Psalms, here as elsewhere has drawn from the master, with whose ideas he appears perfectly aligned, especially as regards Psalm73. III. WHICH JERUSALEM,

AND

WHICH ZION?

Origen’s insistence, noted earlier, that the reader must delve past the “literal meaning” (ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητόν: “as it is said”) of the history concerning the fall of Jerusalem, so as to access a deeper reading of it (utinfra, H73PsI,1 [26,2]: μυστικῶς: “in a mystical way”), is a known hallmark of his exegesis. Here, the absence of a “spiritual” reading of the Scriptures is worked into an anti-Jewish polemic: The Jews look to the Scripture down to earth, and drag it to the ground, since they believe that this Zion is where God, who created heaven and earth, has taken up residence. Even now, according to them, God has taken up residence on the mountain, where quadrupeds and pagans dwell. But we say that Mount Zion, where God has dwelled, is the soul of noble nature, the soul that reasons, the clairvoyant soul22. Δαυῒδ τελευτὴν οἰκοδομεῖ τὸν νεών. Δύο δὲ πορϑήσεις προϑεωρήσας τοῦ τόπου, τήν τε προτέραν τὴν ὑπὸ Βαβυλωνίων γενομένην, καὶ τὴν δευτέραν τὴν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων· τὴν μὲν πρώτην διὰ τοῦ οϑ´ ψαλμοῦ σημαίνει καὶ διὰ τοῦ πβ´, τὴν δὲ ὑστάτην διὰ τῆς μετὰ χεῖρας προφητείας. 21. Eusebius, Comm.inPs. 79,9-14 (PG 23, 964D-965A): Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα προφητεύει Ἀσὰφ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους γεγονὼς τοῦ Δαυῒδ, πρὸ τῆς οἰκοδομῆς τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ, ϑεσπίζων αὐτῇ τὰ συμβησόμενα κατὰ τοὺς δηλωϑέντας χρόνους. Διὰ μὲν οὖν τῶν μετὰ χεῖρας ἔοικεν ὁμοῦ καὶ τὴν πρώτην πολιορκίαν τὴν ὑπὸ Βαβυλωνίων γενομένην, καὶ τὴν δευτέραν τὴν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων προφητεύειν· διὰ δὲ τοῦ πρὸ τούτου τὰ κατὰ Ἀντίοχον τὸν Ἐπιφανῆ συμβάντα· διὰ δὲ τοῦ ο´ καὶ γ´ μόνα τὰ τῆς ὑστάτης πολιορκίας τῆς ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων γενομένης, ὡς ἀποδέδεικται ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν ογ´ εἰρημένοις. 22. H73Ps I,6 (GCS NF 19, 232,4-9 PERRONE): Ἰουδαῖοι χαμαὶ βλέπουσι τὴν γραφὴν καὶ ἕλκουσιν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, οἰόμενοι τοῦτο Σιὼν εἶναι, ὅπου ὁ κτίσας ϑεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν κατεσκήνωσε. Καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ ὄρει κατεσκήνωσεν ὁ ϑεὸς κατ’ ἐκείνους, ὅπου κατασκηνοῦσι τετράποδα καὶ ἐϑνικοί. Ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς ὄρος Σιών, ὅπου κατεσκήνωσεν ὁ ϑεός, λέγομεν εἶναι τὴν μεγαλοφυῆ ψυχήν, τὴν διανοητικήν,

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S NEWLY DISCOVERED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS

97

Hardly a generic scholastic polemic, the true concern here is the problem of what Zion signifies, which in Origen’s deeper reading is rather a spiritual than a physical place: it is the very soul of man, characterized by his higher qualities. The same topic is fleshed out in his Commentary onJohn23: And this city, to which none of those on earth ascends or enters, is also called Jerusalem. And every soul which has a natural exaltation and sees spiritual things clearly and sharply is a citizen of this city24.

And in a fragment on Lamentations: If then Jerusalem can be defined as such a soul, diligent, skilled and perspicacious in the discernment of “the peace of God, which passes all understanding”25, since it is possible that this too falls into sin for many reasons, it is revealed that his fall “into tribulation”26 turned her away from the virtues and made her turn to evil. It is correctly said, then, that every person who has moved away from virtue and has coexisted with evil has run into tribulation27.

But what merits particular attention, in H73Ps I, is what came immediately prior to the passage quoted earlier: Mount Zion ended up under the enemies. In fact, the place of solemn decisions, the place of visions, the place of observations – there are in fact many interpretations – has ended up under the enemies28.

τὴν διορατικήν. On the soul as “clairvoyant” see FrLc 186,1 (DieHomilienzuLukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas- Kommentars, ed. M. RAUER [GCS, 49; Origenes Werke, 9], Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1959, p. 305,2): τὸ διορατικὸν ἐν τῇ ὅλῃ ψυχῇ, ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ ἀνϑρώπῳ ὁ νοῦς ἐστιν. 23. On Jn 2,13 (καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ὁ Ἰησοῦς). 24. CIo X,23,132 (GCS 10, 195,1-4 PREUSCHEN): Καλεῖται δὲ καὶ ἡ πόλις αὕτη Ἱερουσαλήμ, εἰς ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἀναβαίνει οὐδὲ εἰσέρχεται· καὶ πᾶσά γε ἡ φυσικὸν ἔχουσα δίαρμα ψυχὴ καὶ ὀξύτητα νοητῶν διορατικὴν ταύτης τῆς πόλεως πολῖτις ὑπάρχει; transl. HEINE (n. 10), p. 286. 25. Cf. Phil 4,7. 26. Lam 1,8. 27. FrLam XXI (GCS 6, 244,26-30 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): Ἐὰν δὲ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἡ τοιάδε ψυχὴ λέγηται, ἐντρεχής τις καὶ διορατικὴ καὶ “τῆς τοῦ ϑεοῦ εἰρήνης τῆς ὑπερεχούσης πάντα νοῦν” κατανοητική, ἐπεὶ δυνατὸν παρὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας καὶ ταύτην ἁμαρτεῖν, δηλοῦται τὸ “εἰς σάλον” αὐτὴν μεταπεπτωκέναι ἀποστᾶσαν τῶν καλῶν καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείροσι γεγενημένην. πᾶς δὲ ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐκπεσὼν καὶ τῇ κακίᾳ συμβιοὺς ἐν σάλῳ τυγχάνειν ὑγιῶς λέγεται. 28. H73Ps I,6 (GCS NF 19, 231,20-23 PERRONE): γέγονεν ὑπὸ τοῖς πολεμίοις καὶ τὸ ὄρος Σιών. Τὸ γὰρ χρηματιστήριον καὶ τὸ ὁραματιστήριον καὶ τὸ σκοπευτήριον – πολλαχῶς γὰρ ἑρμηνευέται – γέγονεν ὑπὸ τοῖς πολεμίοις.

98

A. CACCIARI

Here, Origen defines Zion by three nomina loci29: χρηματιστήριον, ὁραματιστήριον, σκοπευτήριον. The first term (deverbative from χρηματίζω) is in 1 Esdr 3,14LXX, and means the royal “chamber of advice”30. The second term (so rare it is not in the LSJ)31, said of Zion by Aquila in Isa 33,3032, is a deverbative from ὁραματίζομαι (often used by Aquila in his versions of the Psalms), in turn a denominative from ὅραμα (“vision”). The third noun is attested only in Origen and in authors closely dependent on him, such as Eusebius33 and Didymus34, or otherwise related to him, such as Basilius35. Origen employs σκοπευτήριον in an interpretationominum (using, as always, the tradition of onomastica available to him)36 which he uses in numerous passages37, like this catena fragment: “In every soul that is Zion – which translates ‘place of observations’ –,

29. Cf. E. SCHWYZER, GriechischeGrammatik, I, München, Beck, 1939, p. 470. 30. “Royal seat of judgement” (L. BRENTON, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, London, S. Bagster & Sons, 1884); “council chamber” (A. PIETERSMA – B.G. WRIGHT, ANewEnglishTranslationoftheSeptuagintandtheOther GreekTranslationsTraditionallyIncludedunderthatTitle, New York – Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 396); “judgment hall” (P.B. HARVEY, JR., Darius’Courtand the Guardsmen’s Debate: Hellenistic Greek Elements in 1 Esdras, in L.S. FRIED [ed.], Was1EsdrasFirst?AnInvestigationintothePriorityandNatureof1Esdras[Ancient Israel ant Its Literature, 7], Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2011, 179-190, p. 180). The term is attested since the second-first century BC: cf. Posidonius, Fr. 80,8; Diodorus, Bibliotheca I,1,3; Strabo, Geographica VIIa,1,20, but Origen almost certainly drew it from the Greek Bible. 31. Cf. LIDDELL-SCOTT-JONES, s.v.; in the TLG, the sole attestation is at this point in the new HomiliesonthePsalms. 32. Cf. J. REIDER – N. TURNER, An Index to Aquila, Leiden, Brill, 1966, s.v. (as a parallel of ‫ ֲחזֵ ה‬TM). 33. See Eusebius, Dem. Evang. VI,24,7 (GCS 23; Eusebius Werke 6, 293,23 HEIKEL); Comm.inPs. 98,2 (PG 23, 1236). 34. See Didymus, CommentariusinZacchariam I,64; III,136. 35. See Basilius, InIsaiam II,72,92; V,152. 36. Cf. P. DE LAGARDE, Onomastica sacra, Gottingae, in Aedibus Adalberti Rende, 1870, pp. 39, 43, 198; F.X. WUTZ, Onomasticasacra:UntersuchungenzumLiberinterpretationisnominumHebraicorumdeshl.Hieronymus (TU, 41), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 191415, pp. 81, 96s., 120, 193s., 312, 409. 37. Nearly identical down to the letter is CIo XIII,13,81 (GCS 10, 237,25 PREUSCHEN): Σιών, ὅπερ ἐστὶν σκοπευτήριον; Selecta in Psalmos 9,12 (PG 12, 1189A13-15): Ἐν πάσῃ δὲ ψυχῇ οὔσῃ Σιών, ἥτις ἑρμηνεύεται “σκοπευτήριον”, τὰ ϑεῖα διηνεκῶς σκοποῦσα καὶ φανταζομένη, οἰκεῖ ὁ ϑεός. HIerV,16 (GCS 6, 46,3-5 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): “Ἀναλαβόντες φεύγετε εἰς Σιών”, ὅσοι ἐστὲ ἔξω τῆς Σιών, “ἀναλαβόντες φεύγετε εἰς Σιών· σπεύσατε, μὴ στῆτε”, οἱ ἐν τῇ προκοπῇ σπεύσατε ἐπὶ τὸ Σκοπευτήριον. FrLam XIX (GCS 6, 242,27-30): Πρὸς δὲ διάνοιαν ἡ τοιάδε ψυχὴ ϑυγάτηρ ἐστὶ Σιών· οἷον ὡς ϑυγάτηρ δικαιοσύνης ἡ δικαία καὶ τέκνον σοφίας ἡ σοφή, οὕτω δὲ (ἐπεὶ Σιών ἐστι τὸ σκοπευτήριον) ἡ σκοπευτικὴ καὶ ϑεωρητικῶς διεξοδικὴ ϑυγάτηρ Σιὼν ἂν λέγοιτο; Hieronymus, Tract. LXXV,3 (CCSL 78, 50,28-30 MORIN): Sion interpretatur specula: in quacumque ergo anima notitia scripturarum est atque doctrina,ibihabitatDeus.

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S NEWLY DISCOVERED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS

99

as it observes without interruption and contemplates the divine realities, inhabits God”38. Similar thoughts are in another of the “new homilies”: Therefore, we seek a place for the Lord in the authoritative part of our soul. In fact, regarding this place it is said: “In holy peace its place”39. If so, a place of God has been made in peace. What peace? What is written: “the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus”40. The heart that possesses the peace of God is not fought by passions, is not agitated by anger, is not troubled by sadness, does not suffer anything from what is contrary to peace, but is given to see peace and tranquility in the heart of the just, to the extent that he becomes a child of peace by the fact that peace is in him. In this way, as “in peace was made” the place of God, so also “his dwelling in Zion”41. We talked about Sion often. The house of God is not this, but the soul, which has become an observatory and a place of oracles of the Word of God, is this the dwelling place of God42.

The “true Zion” is thus an intellectual, as well as spiritual, place in what – in accordance with Stoic philosophy, which here Origen (judging by the terminology used) elects to follow – is the actual seat of human rationality, the ἡγεμονικόν. As for the calls to “peace”, they, in turn, refer back to Jerusalem, gathered in the name Zion by the quote, frequently found in Origen, of a passage from the Letter to the Hebrews, once again with an interpretatio nominum (12,22): “Jerusalem is interpreted as ‘vision of peace’”43. 38. Selecta in Psalmos 9,12 (PG 12, 1189A13-15): Ἐν πάσῃ δὲ ψυχῇ οὔσῃ Σιών, ἥτις ἑρμηνεύεται “σκοπευτήριον”, τὰ ϑεῖα διηνεκῶς σκοποῦσα καὶ φανταζομένη, οἰκεῖ ὁ ϑεός. 39. Ps 75,3 (LXX: ἐγενήϑη ἐν εἰρήνῃ ὁ τόπος αὐτοῦ). 40. Phil 4,7. 41. Ps 75,3. 42. H75Ps II (GCS NF 19, 283,1–284,2 PERRONE): Οὐκοῦν ἡμεῖς τόπον ζητοῦμεν τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ ἡμῶν. Περὶ τούτου γὰρ τοῦ τόπου λέγεται· ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἁγίᾳ ὁ τόπος αὐτοῦ. Ἐὰν ᾖ τοῦτο, τόπος ϑεοῦ γέγονεν ἐν εἰρήνῃ. Ποία εἰρήνη; Ἡ περὶ ἧς γέγραπται· ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Ἡ ἔχουσα καρδία τὴν εἰρήνην τοῦ ϑεοῦ οὐ πολεμεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν παϑῶν, οὐ κινεῖται ὑπὸ τοῦ ϑυμοῦ, οὐ ταράσσεται ὑπὸ λύπης, οὐκ ἄλλο τι πάσχει τῶν ἐναντίων τῇ εἰρήνῃ, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν εἰρήνην καὶ γαλήνην ἐν ψυχῇ τοῦ δικαίου, καϑὸ υἱὸς εἰρήνης γίνεται τῷ εἰρήνην εἶναι ἐν αὐτῷ. Οὕτως δὲ ὡς ἐγενήϑη ἐν εἰρήνῃ ὁ τόπος τοῦ ϑεοῦ, οὕτως τὸ κατοικητήριον αὐτοῦ ἐν Σιών. Πολλάκις δὲ εἰρήκαμεν περὶ τοῦ Σιών· οὐ γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ Σιὼν κατοικητήριόν ἐστι τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ἀλλὰ ψυχὴ γενομένη σκοπευτήριον καὶ χρηματιστήριον τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐστιν κατοικητήριον τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 43. See Heb 12,22: ἀλλὰ προσεληλύϑατε Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ, καὶ μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων κτλ.; cf. FrIo 80 (GCS 10, 547,19-20 PREUSCHEN): Ἱερουσαλὴμ δὲ (scil. ἑρμηνεύεται) “Ὅρασις εἰρήνης”; see also HIer IX,2 (GCS 6, 65,20-23 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); FrIer 11 (GCS 6, 202,21-22); FrLc 72,6 (GCS 49, 257,6 RAUER): Ἱερουσαλὴμ γὰρ ὅρασις ὑψίστου ἑρμηνεύεται.

100

A. CACCIARI

IV. VIRTUAL IMAGES This pericope of Hebrewsis crucial in Origen’s reflections on Jerusalem / Zion; indeed, he has it presage a Christian reality, a spiritual place distinct from the Jews’ earthly telos of a material place in the Promised Land44. In the Deprincipiis: Again, the Apostle teaches such things about Jerusalem, that, “The Jerusalem above is free, she is our mother” (Gal 4,26). And, in another epistle, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to a multitude of angels in festal gathering and the church of the firstborn who are enrolled in the heavens” (Heb 12,22-23). If, then, Israel consists in a race of souls, and Jerusalem in a city in heaven, it follows that the cities of Israel have for their mother-city the Jerusalem in the heavens and consequently so for all Judaea. Whatever, therefore, is prophesied of Jerusalem and said about her, if we hear from Paul as from God and as one speaking wisdom, one must understand that the Scriptures are reporting about the heavenly city and the whole territory included within the cities of the holy land45.

As here, this verse of Hebrews is often46 found together with Gal 4,2647, e.g. in some passages of HomiliesonExodus48 and Homilies 44. On this subject, see F.F. BRUCE, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1964 (21985), on Heb 12,22 (pp. 372-376), with numerous useful parallel texts. 45. PrinIV,3,8 (transl.: Origen.OnFirstPrinciples,II, ed. and transl. J. BEHR [Oxford Early Christian Texts], Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 538-541): πάλιν ὁ ἀπόστολος περὶ τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοιαῦτά τινα διδάσκει, ὅτι “ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐλευϑέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ ἡμῶν”. καὶ ἐν ἄλλῃ ἐπιστολῇ· “ἀλλὰ προσεληλύϑατε Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ, καὶ μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων, πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς”. εἰ τοίνυν ἐστὶν ἐν ψυχῶν γένει ὁ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ τις πόλις Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἀκολουϑεῖ τὰς πόλεις Ἰσραὴλ μητροπόλει χρῆσϑαι τῇ ἐν οὐρανοῖς Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἀκολούϑως τῇ πάσῃ Ἰουδαίᾳ. ὅσα τοιγαροῦν προφητεύεται περὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ λέγεται περὶ αὐτῆς, εἰ Παύλου ὡς ϑεοῦ ἀκούωμεν καὶ σοφίαν φϑεγγομένου, περὶ τῆς ἐπουρανίου πόλεως καὶ παντὸς τοῦ τόπου τοῦ περιεκτικοῦ τῶν πόλεων τῆς ἁγίας γῆς νοητέον τὰς γραφὰς ἀπαγγέλλειν. 46. Not, however, in the HPs, where the passage of Gal is not present, while Heb 12,22 is found in H77PsVIII,4 (GCS NF 19, 456,9-10 PERRONE); IX,6 (GCS NF 19, 476,2-3), and Heb 12,22-23 in H77PsVII,7 (GCS NF 19, 447,20-22). 47. Gal 4,26: ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευϑέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν. 48. HEx VIII,1 (Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung. Erster Teil: Die Homilien zu Genesis, Exodus, und Leviticus, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS [GCS, 29; Origenes Werke, 6], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1920, pp. 217,18–218,10): IudaeaueroetIerusalemdomus estlibertatis.AudietApostolumdehis“secundumsapientiam,quaeeiinministeriodata fuerat”, pronuntiantem: “quae autem sursum est”, inquit, “Ierusalem, libera est, quae est mater omnium nostrum”. Sicut ergo Aegyptus, ista terrena prouincia, filiis Israel “domus” dicitur “seruitutis” ad comparationem Iudaeae et Ierusalem, quae iis domus efficiturlibertatis,itaadcomparationemcoelestisIerusalem,quae,utitadicam,materest libertatis,totushicmundusetomnia,quaeinhocmundosunt,“domus”est“seruitutis”.

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S NEWLY DISCOVERED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS

101

onNumbers49. Both New Testament pericopes emphasize the symbolic and “metaphysical” reality of a Jerusalem placed above the world (Gal 4,26: ἡ ἄνω Ἰ.), in a “celestial” (Heb 12,22: ἐπουρανίῳ … ἐν οὐρανοῖς) and “angelic” dimension (ibid.: μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων). That it is not a real city, but a dimension of the spirit, clearly emerges in the HomiliesonJeremiah: I pass from the letter – since even it has taken a way which the Word has given – to each soul already made worthy to see peace. For after divine studies, you have become Jerusalem, the prior place being Jebus. History says that the name of that place had been Jebus, but afterwards the name changed and became Jerusalem. The Children of the Hebrews say that Jebus is interpreted as “what has been trampled”. Jebus then is the soul Et quoniam de paradiso libertatis pro poena peccati ad huius mundi uentum fuerat seruitutem,idcircoprimussermodecalogi,idestprimamandatorumDeiuoxdelibertate proferturdicens:“EgosumDominusDeustuus,quieduxitedeterraAegypti,dedomo seruitutis”. English transl.: Origen.HomiliesonGenesisandExodus, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 71), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2002, pp. 316-317: “But Judaea and Jerusalem are the house of freedom. Hear the Apostle also proclaim about these things ‘according to the wisdom which was given in ministry’ (cf. 2 Pet 3,15): ‘But the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of all us’ (Gal 4,26). As, therefore, Egypt, that earthly province, is called ‘the house of bondage’ for the sons of Israel in comparison to Judaea and Jerusalem which become the house of freedom for them, so in comparison to the heavenly Jerusalem which, so to speak, is the mother of freedom, this whole world and everything which is in this world is ‘the house of bondage’. And since man had come to the bondage of this world from the paradise of freedom for the punishment of sin, therefore the first word of the Decalogue, that is the first voice of the mandates of God, speaks of freedom saying: ‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage’ (cf. Ex 20,2)”. 49. HNm XXVI,7 (Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung. II. Teil: Die HomilienzuNumeri,JosuaundJudices,ed. W.A. BAEHRENS [GCS, 30; Origenes Werke, 7], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1921, pp. 254,7–255,7): QuiautempotuerittransireIordanenetad interiorapenetrare,ibiIesumDominumnostrumsequensinterficiettrigintaeteoamplius reges,illosfortassisdequibusdiciturquia:Adstiterunt reges terrae et principes congregati sunt in unum aduersus Dominum et aduersus Christum eius, depulsisque his regibus et prostatis,agnoscetsecretioramysteria,usquequoueniatetiamadillumlocumubisedes DeiestetHierusalem(Heb 12,22)ciuitas Dei uiuentis, nonistaquaeseruitcumfiliissuis in terris, sed illa caelestis, quae libera est et mater est omnium nostrum (Gal 4,26), adcuius nos hereditatem perducere dignetur dux et Dominus noster Iesus Christus, cui gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen. English transl.: Origen.HomiliesonNumbers, transl. Th.P. SCHECK (Ancient Christian Texts), Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2009, p. 167: “But the one who is able to cross the Jordan and to penetrate to the inner regions, by following our Lord Jesus there, he will kill more than thirty kings, possibly those of whom it is said that ‘The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ’. Once these kings have been expelled and laid out prostrate, one will recognize the more hidden mysteries, until one comes even to that place where the throne of God is, and Jerusalem, the city of the living God, not that Jerusalem which is ‘enslaved with her sons’ on the earth, but that heavenly one, ‘which is free and is the mother of us all’. May our commander and Lord Jesus Christ deign to bring us to this inheritance. ‘To him be the glory in the ages of ages. Amen’”.

102

A. CACCIARI

which is trampled by hostile powers, has been changed, and has become Jerusalem, Vision of Peace. If then you have sinned, when you have changed from Jebus to become Jerusalem, and you have trampleduponthe SonofGodand heldasprofanethebloodoftheNewCovenantas she had, and you have ended up in grievous sins, it will also be said concerning you, Who will spare you, Jerusalem? And who will feel sorry for you if you become someone who betrays Jesus? When each of us sins, and especially if he sins grievously, he sins against Jesus. But if he is also an apostate, he does spiritually even more to Jesus the things that Jerusalemdid to him bodily50.

Here Origen uses multiple exegetical methods. An interpretatio nominis glosses both toponyms in the history of Iebus, an ancient Canaanite city built on Mount Zion51 and sometimes identified with Jerusalem52 (Jebus = πεπατημένη, “what has been trampled”53; Jerusalem = ὅρασις 50. HIer XIII,2 (GCS 6, 103,17–104,3 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): μετὰ γὰρ τὰ μαϑήματα τὰ ϑεῖα γέγονας Ἱερουσαλήμ, τὸ πρότερον οὖσα Ἰεβούς. ‹ἡ ἱστορία λέγει, ὅτι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου ἦν Ἰεβούς›, δεύτερον δὲ μετέβαλε τὸ ὄνομα καὶ γέγονεν Ἱερουσαλήμ. Ἰεβούς φασιν Ἑβραίων παῖδες ὅτι ἑρμηνεύεται Πεπατημένη. Ἰεβοὺς οὖν, ἡ Πεπατημένη ὑπὸ δυνάμεων ἀντικειμένων ψυχή, μεταβέβληται καὶ γέγονεν Ἱερουσαλήμ, Ὅρασις εἰρήνης. εἰ οὖν, ὅτε μεταβέβληκας ἀπὸ Ἰεβοὺς εἰς τὸ γενέσϑαι Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἥμαρτες καὶ “τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ καταπεπάτηκας καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς καινῆς διαϑήκης κοινὸν (ὡς ἐκείνη καὶ σύ) ἡγήσω” καὶ ἐν ἁμαρτήμασι γέγονας χαλεποῖς, λεχϑήσεται καὶ περὶ σοῦ· “τίς φείσεται ἐπὶ σοί, Ἱερουσαλήμ”; “καὶ τίς σκυϑρωπάσει ἐπὶ σοί”, ἐὰν γένῃ τοιοῦτος ὡς προδοῦναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν; ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἁμαρτάνων, καὶ μάλιστα εἰ μείζονα, εἰς Ἰησοῦν ἁμαρτάνει. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀποστάτης ᾖ, ἔτι μάλιστα ταῦτα ποιεῖ τῷ Ἰησοῦ πνευματικῶς ἃ ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ Ἱερουσαλὴμ σωματικῶς. English transl.: Origen.HomiliesonJeremiah.Homilyon1Kings28, transl. J.C. SMITH (Fathers of the Church, 97), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1998, pp. 132-133. 51. Cf. Jos 15,8; 18,16; 18,28. Cf. HNm VII,5 (GCS 30, 47,9 BAEHRENS): Si uero uerbisPaulifidesadhibendaest,sicutcerteadhibendaest,et“Hierusalemcoelestem” essecredemusadtypumterrenaehuiuset,quaescriptavidenturdehacterrena,adillam coelestemrectiusspiritaliintelligentiaconferemus.“Accessimus”ergo,sicutPaulusdicit, “adcoelestemHierusalem”,sinedubioetadcoelestemIudaeam,etsicutillideterrestri IudaeaeieceruntChananaeosetPherezaeosetEuaeosreliquasquegentes,itaetnosqui “accessimus ad montem Dei” et ad regna coelestia, necesse est ut expellamus de eis contrarias potestates et “spiritalia nequitiae de coelestibus”, et sicut illi eiecerunt IebusaeumdeHierusalemet,quaepriusIebusuocitatafuerat,postmodumappellataest Hierusalem,itaetnosoportetexpellerepriusIebusaeumdeHierusalemetsichereditatem eiusconsequi.Sedilliquidemhaecfaciebantarmisuisibilibus,nosveroinuisibilibus. 52. Cf. Jud 19,10; or with the fortress, or the city of David, in 1 Chr 11,4-5. 53. Although the gloss Ἰεβούς = Πεπατημένη is not attested in the remaining lexica, it must still have been in those available to Origen; see Origène.HoméliessurJérémie. Tome I: Homélies I-XI; Tome II: Homélies XII-XX et Homélies latines, traduction par P. HUSSON – P. NAUTIN, édition, introduction et notes par P. NAUTIN (SC, 232.238), Paris, Cerf, 1976-1977, II, p. 57, n. 2; E. SCHADEL, Die griechischen erhaltenen Jeremiahomilien, Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1980, p. 297, n. 134, who consider anonymous lexicographic collections of scholastic origin. See however e.g. Hieronymus, Comm. in Is. VII,22,4 (CCSL 73, 301,21-22 ADRIAEN): diesenimiudiciietinterfectionisetconculcationis nequaquam erit Hierusalem, quae interpretatur uisio pacis, sed antiqui nominis Iebus,quaeinterpretaturconculcatio.

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S NEWLY DISCOVERED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS

103

εἰρήνης, “vision of peace”). An anagogy renders both Jebus and Jerusalem as stages of the soul, viz. the ignarus and the initiate with respect to Christianity. If the soul in its Jerusalem stage commits apostasy, it has done to Jesus’ spirit what Jerusalem the historical city did to Jesus’ body. Elsewhere, in H73Ps, a last aspect of what Jerusalem signifies emerges: But, before going on, let us see how much evil the Enemy has done in the Sanctuary. It is not my intention here to speak about how the Jews considered the Sanctuary: in fact, he [= the Enemy] has done wrong against the Holy, the Saviour, when he brought him on the mountain. Were fruit of evilness the words: “Command these stones to become loaves of bread” (Mt 4,3); “throw yourself down” (Mt 4,6); “all these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me” (Mt 4,9). You can see how much evil the Enemy has done in the Holy One. Then, he has done wrong again: as a matter of fact, as it is written in the Gospel of Luke, “he departed from him until an opportune time” (Lk 4,13). Finally, he approached him again for the temptation, to tempt him, to try him, to kill him. When? When the Devil entered into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray the Saviour, “and after the morsel, Satan entered into him” (Jn 13,27). But many other evil deeds the Devil has done against the Holy54.

This passage hinges on its use of τὸ ἱερόν (= “the Holy”, i.e. “the Temple”)55 / ὁ ἱερός (“the Holy”, as attribute of Christ). The two terms’ 54. H73Ps I,7 (GCS NF 19, 233,18–234,12 PERRONE): Ἔτι δὲ πρὶν ἠλϑεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ἴδωμεν ὅσα ἐπονηρεύσατο ὁ ἐχϑρὸς ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ. Περὶ τοῦ νομιζομένου παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ἁγίου οὐ πρόκειταί μοι λέγειν· ἐπονηρεύσατο δὲ κατὰ τοῦ ἁγίου, τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ὅτε εἰς τὸ ὄρος αὐτὸν ἀνεβίβασε. Πονηρίας γὰρ ἔργον αὐτοῦ ἦν τὸ εἰπὲἵνα οἱλίϑοιγένωνταιἄρτοι· βάλεσεαυτὸνἐντεῦϑενκάτω· ταῦτάσοιπάνταδώσω,ἐὰνπεσὼν προσκυνήσῃς μοι. Ὅρα ὅσα ἐπονηρεύσατο ὁ ἐχϑρὸς ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ. Μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν ἐπονηρεύσατο· ὡς γὰρ γέγραπται ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, ἀπέστη ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι καιροῦ. Ὕστερον πάλιν προσῆλϑεν ἐπὶ τὸν πειρασμόν, ἵνα αὐτὸν πειράσῃ, ἵνα αὐτὸν ἀποκτείνῃ. Πότε; Ὅτε τοῦ διαβόλου βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν Ἰουδα Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου, ἵνα παραδῷ τὸν Σωτῆρα καὶμετὰτὸψωμίονεἰσῆλϑενεἰςἐκεῖνονὁΣατανᾶς. Ἀλλὰ πολλὰ ἐπονηρεύσατο κατὰ τοῦ ἁγίου ὁ διάβολος […]. 55. Τὸ ἱερόν is the substantivized neuter from the adj. ἱερός, which is thus the original form. In biblical verses on the topic, ἱερός and corradicals are not typical in the LXX; rather, they are quite typical in such an “apocryphal” text as 1 Esdra: cf. E. HATCH – H.A. REDPATH, AConcordancetotheSeptuagintandtheOtherGreekVersionsoftheOld Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), Oxford, Clarendon, 1897, I, s.v.; R.H. CHARLES, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. I: Apocrypha, Oxford, Clarendon, 1913, p. 3; Z. TALSHIR, IEsdras:FromOrigintoTranslation, Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 1999, p. 251: “In sum, the translator of I Esd introduces into his work the term τὸ ἱερόν, which was probably part of his linguistic milieu. This term is rare in the canonical books, appearing some six times altogether, but is quite common in 1-4 Macc. In fact, the LXX to the canonical books refrains from employing ἱερός completely. Matters pertaining to sanctity, to God, and his Temple above all, are described by ἅγιος. I Esd, in contrast, abounds in ἱερο- […]”. Τὸ ἱερόν with the meaning of “Temple” is common in Origen, especially in the Commentary on John: see CIo VI,23,123; X,20,120.121.122; X,21,126(2); X,24,138; X,26,158; X,31,197(2); X,33,211.212.216; XIII,56,389; XIX,7,43; XIX,10,57; CMtXVI,20.21.22; XVII,1.19; HIer IV,4, etc.

104

A. CACCIARI

semantic contiguity and morphological ambivalence, which, in oblique cases, have the same written form, are employed by Origen to produce the same effect as does the history of the Jewish Sanctuary, as pale skin on a wrist in sunlight gently yields its hold on the mind to the blue veins, the Christ, visible past its surface. V. THE “OPPOSING POWERS” The “opposing Powers” are mentioned quite often in Origen56 as the cause of sundry ills and injuries, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, as in this catena fragment on Psalm 14757: These gates are of the daughter Sion, for they are attacked by Babylonians and by the opposing Powers, and have been ruined in Samaria, as it is said in the Lamentationsof Jeremiah: “all her gates are ruined, and she turned backward” (Lam 1,4.8).

And, even more explicitly, in the HomiliesonPsalms: “They have burnt thy Sanctuary with fire” (Ps 73,7). Each of us, as far as possible, builds a sanctuary to God and builds up an altar there. Then come the opposing Powers and set it on fire, as the Sanctuary of God burned with fire. Behold, I will prove by the Scriptures how they burn the Sanctuary of God with fire. Keep in mind what the Apostle says, in order to “quench all the flaming darts of the evil one” (Eph 6,6). In fact, if a fiery dart is thrown, what else does it work? It sets fire to the Sanctuary and, if I sin, a fiery dart penetrates this Sanctuary – in which once I used to pray, once I had Christ inside me, once God went away for a walk – and it happens in it: “They have burnt thy Sanctuary with fire” (Ps 73,7a)58. 56. Ἀντικείμεναι δυνάμεις, cf. e.g. CMt XIII,7; elsewhere, he writes ἀντικείμεναι ἐνέργειαι, cf. e.g. CMtXIII,8, with little substantial difference. The origin of the attributive participle is explained in CMt XII,21 (σατανᾶ, ὅπερ ἐστὶν Ἑβραικῶς ΑΝΤΙΚΕΙΜΕΝΟΣ). In general, on Origen’s demonology, see H. CROUZEL, DiableetdémonsdanslesHomélies d’Origène, in BLE 95 (1994) 303-331; A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Diavolo, in EAD. (ed.), Origene.Dizionario:Lacultura,ilpensiero,leopere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 114-118. 57. FrPs147,2 (J.-B. PITRA, AnalectasacraSpicilegioSolesmensiparata, II, Frascati, Typis Tusculanis, 1883, p. 359): Αὗται αἱ πύλαι τῆς ϑυγατρός εἰσιν Σιών, διὰ τὸ ἐπιβουλεύεσϑαι ὑπὸ Βαβυλωνίων καὶ τῶν ἀντικειμένων δυνάμεων ἠφανισμέναι ἐν τῇ Σαμαρίᾳ, ὡς γὰρ ἐν ϑρήνοις Ἱερεμίας φησί· Πᾶσαι αἱ πύλαι αὐτῆς ἠφανισμέναι, καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπεστράφη εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω. 58. H73PsI,10 (GCS NF 19, 236,17-26 PERRONE): Ἐνεπύρισανἐνπυρὶτὸἁγιαστήριόν σου. Ἕκαστος ἡμῶν κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἑαυτῷ οἰκοδομεῖ ἁγιαστήριον τῷ ϑεῷ καὶ οἰκοδομεῖ ϑυσιαστήριον ἔνδον. Εἶτα εἰσέρχονται αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ ἀντικείμεναι καὶ ἐμπυρίζουσιν αὐτό, ὡς τοῦ ϑεοῦ τὸ ἁγιαστήριον ἐπύρισαν ἐν πυρί. Φέρε ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς παραστήσω πῶς ἐμπυρίζουσιν ἐν πυρὶ τὸ ἁγιαστήριον τοῦ ϑεοῦ. Νόει μοι τὰ παρὰ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ λεγόμενα, ἵνα δύνησϑε πάντα τὰ βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σβέσαι. Ἐὰν γὰρ ἐξαποσταλῇ βέλος πεπυρωμένον, τί ἄλλο ποιεῖ; Ἐμπυρίζει τὸ ἁγίασμα καὶ

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S NEWLY DISCOVERED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS

105

The burnt sanctuary here is immediately extracted from its history, to which the Psalm in fact refers, and placed in an interior realm in every believer who intends to worship God; hence the aggression by the “opposing Powers” is set in the spiritual sphere of the individual: Then let us invoke God with one accord, so that no fire will touch this Sanctuary by the fiery darts of the evil one, an impure desire, a desire for money or a minor glory or some other thing, and never happen: “They have burnt thy sanctuary with fire to the ground; they have profaned the habitation of thy name” (Ps 73,7a-b). If you see a soul that now flies high, who imagines the celestial realities and who becomes prisoner and subjugated by sin, do not hesitate to say: the opposing Powers, in that one, “have profaned the habitation of thy name” (Ps 73,7b)59.

This last passage comes soon after an interpretation of the causes of such assaults: “And they that hate thee have boasted in the midst of thy feast; they have set up their standards for signs, ignorantly as it were in the entrance above” (Ps 73,4-5). Even the opposing Powers and those who have done evil against the Saviour have placed “signs”: they “have set up” and up to now lie the signs of their sin, the destruction of Israel. What are the signs of their sin? The passage of Christ: he turned away from them and came to us. They have cast out the Christ, he has come to those who do not drive him away, but welcome him60.

In an explicitly supersessionist exegesis, while the blame for the “destruction of Israel” is attributed both to the “opposing Powers” and to those who “acted evil against the Saviour” (hence, to Israel itself)61, γίνεται εἰς τοῦτο τὸ ἁγίασμα – ὅπου ποτὲ εὐξάμην, ὅπου ποτὲ Χριστὸν ἔσχον, ὅπου ποτὲ ϑεὸς περιεπάτησεν –, ἐὰν ἁμαρτήσω, πεπυρωμένον βέλος καὶ αὐτῷ γίνεται, τὸ ἐνεπυρίσανἐνπυρὶτὸἁγιαστήριόνσου. 59. H73Ps I,10 (GCS NF 19, 236,27–237,5 PERRONE): Παρακαλέσωμεν οὖν ὁμοϑυμαδὸν τὸν ϑεόν, ἵνα τούτου τοῦ ἁγιαστηρίου μηδέποτε ὑπὸ τῶν πεπυρωμένων βελῶν τοῦ πονηροῦ ἢ ἀκαϑάρτου ἐπιϑυμίας ἢ ἐπιϑυμίας ἀργυρίου ἢ ἐπιϑυμίας δοξαρίου ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς πύρωσις καϑίκηται μηδὲ γένηται τὸ ἐνεπυρίσαν ἐν πυρὶ τὸ ἁγιαστήριόν σου, ἐν πυρὶ ἐβεβήλωσαν τὸ σκήνωμα τοῦ ὀνόματός σου. Ἐὰν ἴδῃς ψυχὴν ἤδη μετεωροποροῦσαν, ἤδη φανταζομένην τὰ ἐπουράνια, αἰχμάλωτον γενομένην ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ πεσοῦσαν, μὴ ὄκνει λέγειν ὅτι ἐβεβήλωσαντὸσκήνωματοῦὀνόματος τοῦϑεοῦ αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ ἀντικείμεναι ἐπὶ τοιοῦτον. 60. H73PsI,9 (GCS NF 19, 235,9-16 PERRONE): Καὶἐνεκαυχήσαντοοἱμισοῦντέςμε ἐν μέσῳ τῆς ἑορτῆς σου. Ἔϑεντο τὰ σημεῖα αὐτῶν σημεῖα καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, ὡς εἰς τὴν εἴσοδονὑπεράνω. Ἔϑεντοσημεῖα καὶ ‹αἱ› δυνάμεις αἱ ἀντικείμεναι καὶ οἱ πονηρευσάμενοι κατὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος· ἔϑεντο καὶ μέχρι σήμερον κεῖνται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν, ἡ καϑαίρεσις Ἰσραήλ. Τίνα τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν; Ἡ Χριστοῦ μετάβασις· μετέβη ἀπ’ ἐκείνων, ἦλϑε πρὸς ἡμᾶς. Ἐξέβαλον ἐκεῖνοι τὸν Χριστόν, ἦλϑε πρὸς τοὺς μὴ ἐκβάλλοντας αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς παραδεχομένους αὐτόν. 61. On the “faults” of Jerusalem, see HIer XIII,1 (GCS 6, 102,19–103,4 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): Ἡ Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοίνυν αὕτη (οὕτω γὰρ λελέξεται διὰ τὸ γράμμα) ἡμαρτη-

106

A. CACCIARI

it is clearly stated that this fault consists in not having received Christ, indeed, in having “driven him”: and this has as a consequence his “passage” (μετάβασις) from the Jews to the Christians. The terms used in Psalm 73 to symbolize the ruin of the Temple, and thus of Israel itself, – the “feast” (ἑορτή), the “signs” (σημεῖα) – rise, by an anagogical reading, to an emblem of “sin” (ἁμαρτία)62. In a passage from the VitaConstantini, Eusebius, clearly inspired, in my opinion, by his master Origen, recalls the events of the reconstruction of the holy places by the Christian emperor, which he is praising; and, in doing so, he recalls how the cause of such destruction was the power of the devil: “Once upon a time wicked men – or rather the whole tribe of demons through them – had striven to consign to darkness and oblivion that divine monument to immortality…”63. κέτω μου εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν […]. καταλειπέσϑω αὕτη ἡ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ὡς καταλέλειπται. οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἀεὶ βοηϑοῦντες τῇ Ἱερουσαλήμ, δι᾽ ὧν διετάγη καὶ ὁ Μωσέως νόμος “διαταγεὶς δι᾽ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου” (Gal 3,19), καταλειπέτωσαν τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ λεγέτωσαν· τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῆς μεγάλα γέγονε, τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπέκτειναν, ἐπὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιβεβλήκασιν. ὅσον ἔτι μικρότερα ἦν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, ἐδυνάμεϑα ἔτι περὶ αὐτῶν ἀξιοῦν καὶ παρακαλεῖν, ἐδυνάμεϑα φείδεσϑαι τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ· τίς ἐπὶ τούτῳ φείσεται; “ἐὰν ἁμαρτάνων ἁμάρτῃ ἀνὴρ εἰς ἄνδρα, καὶ προσεύξονται περὶ αὐτοῦ· ἐὰν δὲ εἰς κύριον ἁμάρτῃ, τίς προσεύξεται περὶ αὐτοῦ”; (1 Regn 2,25). “ἁμαρτίαν ἥμαρτεν Ἱερουσαλήμ, διὰ τοῦτο εἰς σάλον ἐγένετο” (Lam 1,8). In one instance, the faults of Sodom itself are nearly held as “justice” next to those of Jerusalem (HIerVIII,7 [GCS 6, 61,21-24 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN]: Ἔστιν ἁμαρτήματα τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἁμαρτήματα καὶ Σοδόμων, ἀλλὰ συγκρίσει τῶν χειρόνων ἁμαρτημάτων τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ δικαιοσύνη ἐστὶν τὰ Σοδόμων ἁμαρτήματα). In general, on the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple according to Origen, a good synthesis is in C.P. BAMMEL, LawandTempleinOrigen, in W. HORBURY (ed.), Templum amicitiae. Essays ontheSecondTemplePresentedtoErnstBammel(The Library of New Testament Studies, 48), Sheffield, JSOT, 1991, 464-476. 62. This is clearly stated, for instance, in CMt XVI,16 (Matthäuserklärung. I: Die griechischerhaltenenTomoi, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN – E. BENZ [GCS, 40; Origenes Werke, 10], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1935, p. 560,26-29): εἰ δέ τινες ἠπείϑησαν οὐ τὰ τοῦ χαίρειν ποιήσαντες ἄξια οὐδὲ παραδεξάμενοι τὸ περὶ τοῦ κηρύσσειν πρόσταγμα, αὐτοὶ γεγόνασιν ἑαυτῶν αἴτιοι τοῦ παϑεῖν ἃ πεπόνϑασιν, ὥστε λεχϑῆναι αὐτοῖς· “ὑμῖν ἦν ἀναγκαῖον καταγγεῖλαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ ϑεοῦ· ἐπεὶ δὲ ἀναξίους κρίνετε ἑαυτούς, ἰδοὺ στρεφόμεϑα εἰς τὰ ἔϑνη”. English transl.: CommentaryontheGospelofMatthew, transl. J.M. GOHL, 2017: “…if certain ones were disobedient, neither doing the things worthy of rejoicing, nor receiving the command to proclaim, these one become for themselves the cause of the things that they suffer, so as to be said about them: ‘It was necessary that the word of God be announced to you, but since you judged yourselves unworthy, behold we have turned to the nations’ (Acts 13,46)”. 63. Eusebius, Vita Constantini III,26 (GCS 7/1 = Eusebius Werke 1/1 89,18-20 WINKELMANN): ἄνδρες μὲν γάρ ποτε δυσσεβεῖς, μᾶλλον δὲ πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνων διὰ τούτων γένος, σπουδὴν ἔϑεντο σκότῳ καὶ λήϑῃ παραδοῦναι τὸ ϑεσπέσιον ἐκεῖνο τῆς ἀϑανασίας μνῆμα […] (Life of Constantine, transl. A. CAMERON – S.G. HALL, Oxford, Clarendon, 1999, p. 132). On the role of the “opposing powers” in Eusebius, cf. now H. JOHANESSEN, TheDemonicinthePoliticalThoughtofEusebiusofCaesarea, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 70ff. and passim.

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S NEWLY DISCOVERED HOMILIESONTHEPSALMS

107

To conclude: although in Origen there is certainly an anti-Jewish and supersessionist vision, derived from the previous tradition, and – at least in part – dating back to New Testament texts, it cannot be said that this vision completely determines the explanation that our author gives of the fall of Jerusalem. While Origen often lays the blame for the destruction of Jerusalem on the Jews, he equally often states that the true cause of it is the “opposing Powers”. In fact, behind the destruction of the holy places, as well as behind the actions of the Jews towards Christ, lies the power of Evil. Dipartimento di Filologia Classica e Italianistica Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna Via Zamboni, 32 IT-40126 Bologna Italy [email protected]

Antonio CACCIARI

“MOTHER OF SOULS” THE HOLY CITY OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY AND HOMILIESONTHESONGOFSONGS

I. INTRODUCTION As one of the first centers of apostolic authority1 and a destination of pilgrimage in Late Antiquity, the city of Jerusalem has played a primary role within Christianity2. Alongside its historical importance, Jerusalem has also been highly instrumental in the construction of Christian identity: New Testament and Old Testament texts refer to it as the “Bride of God” and the “eschatological City of God”3. Christian exegetes, for their part, have long sought to establish the eschatological “identity” of Jerusalem4. Unsurprisingly, these first debates surrounding Jerusalem were colored by Jewish expectations concerning the role of this city in the history of the Hebrew people5. Due to the Jewish concern with the matter, Christian interpretations were often subject to being influenced by this. Some of the interpretations showed a preference for the Jewish thought, while

1. As proven by the disputes that took place in Jerusalem, see Acts 15,1-35. For more information, see W. HORBURY, BeginningofChristianityintheHolyLand, in O. LIMOR – G. STROUMSA (eds.), ChristiansandChristianityintheHolyLand:FromtheOriginsto the Latin Kingdoms (Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 5), Turnhout, Brepols, 2006, 7-90; R.A. MARKUS, HowonEarthCouldPlacesBecomeHoly? Origins of the Christian Idea of Holy Places, in Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 (1994) 257-271. 2. B. BITTON-ASHKELONY, The Attitudes of Church Fathers towards Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, in L.I. LEVINE (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, Continuum, 1999, 188-203 has highlighted the fourth-century competition between Jerusalem and other Christian sites of pilgrimage. See also, EAD., EncounteringtheSacred:TheDebateonChristianPilgrimageinLateAntiquity (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 38), Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – London, University of California Press, 2005. 3. For instance, Gal 4,21-26; Heb 12,22; Rev 21,1-27. These texts are also some of Origen’s most used Pauline sources. 4. For a good overview of the debate surrounding the eschatological Jerusalem, see G. STROUMSA, MysticalJerusalems, in LEVINE (ed.), Jerusalem:ItsSanctityandCentralitytoJudaism,Christianity,andIslam (n. 2), 349-370 and ID., AthensorJerusalem?From EschatologicalHopestoCulturalMemory, in J. DIJKSTRA – J. KROESEN – Y. KUIPER (eds.), Myths,Martyrs,andModernity (Numen Book Series, 127), Leiden, Brill, 2010, 501-514. 5. Such as the ones described in 2 Chr 2,1-2 and 6,7-10; Jer 3,15; Mic 4,1-5.

110

L. CERIONI

others sharply contrast with this influence. These early Christian exegeses of Jerusalem can be roughly grouped in two main hermeneutical categories. On the one hand, the Christian Chiliastic movements envisioned an eschatological restoration of an earthly Jerusalem as a center of Christian authority. On the other hand, other movements, such as Gnostic ones, envisioned the realization of a “heavenly Jerusalem” – that is, an eschatological return of the saved ones to the divine realm to which they belonged, as opposed to an “earthly Jerusalem” – that is, the present world ruled by an impostor, the Demiurge. A major contribution to this debate was made by Origen of Alexandria who, in his Commentary and HomiliesontheSongofSongs,made the interpretation of Jerusalem one of the core elements of his mystical theology6. In these works, he engaged with Jewish, Chiliastic and Gnostic exegeses of Jerusalem, repudiating the former two for their literalism and the latter for its dualism. Origen himself mainly focused on the interpretation of the heavenly Jerusalem, apparently with little or no concern for the earthly Jerusalem7. Starting from Pauline passages, Origen envisioned the heavenly Jerusalem as the permanent union of all perfected rational beings with God, while he employed the earthly Jerusalem as an embodiment of his polemical targets, representing respectively the Jewish people and the spiritually imperfect souls. In this essay, I investigate Origen’s exegeses of Jerusalem as polemical tools against Jewish, literalist and Gnostic exegetes. I will use his CCt and HCt as my primary textual reference, since these works display all the allegorical meanings offered by the theologian for the city of Jerusalem, providing also many examples of his polemic against the abovementioned alternative exegetical traditions. Furthermore, I will argue that

6. Origen’s Commentary and HomiliesontheSongsofSongs (hereafter CCt and HCt) have been bequeathed to us in the Latin translations respectively of Rufinus and Jerome. For the critical edition of Origen’s CommentaryontheSongofSongs see Commentaire surleCantiquedescantiques, ed. L. BRÉSARD – H. CROUZEL – M. BORRET (SC, 375-376), Paris, Cerf, 1991. For the critical edition of Origen’s HomiliesontheSongofSongs, see Homélies sur le Cantique des cantiques, ed. O. ROUSSEAU (SC, 37), Paris, Cerf, 1954. Translation is mine, unless specified otherwise. For a more detailed investigation of the erotic mystics of Origen, see J.C. KING, Origen on the Song of Songs as the Spirit of Scripture: The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2005. 7. Even considering other Origenian works, the occurrences of terrenaHierusalem are quite scarce. For instance, in Contra Celsum, Origen discussed the earthly Judea and Jerusalem as “shadow of the pure land”, but he did not expand further this concept. See Origen, Contra Celsum VII,29. For further information about Origen’s interpretation of the earthly Jerusalem, see the contribution to this volume, E. PRINZIVALLI, The City of GodandtheCitiesofMenaccordingtoOrigen.

THE HOLY CITY OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S CCT AND HCT

111

Origen presented the heavenly Jerusalem as the eschatological fulfilment of the earthly one, thus granting an eschatological reality to the heavenly city alone. Moreover, by identifying the earthly Jerusalem with Jewish, literalist and Gnostic interpreters, and by envisioning the earthly Jerusalem as a mere step toward the establishment of the only true eschatological city, Origen was demonstrating his doctrine of the universal conversion of all creation to God8. Furthermore, in tailoring his interpretation of Jerusalem to his polemical purposes, Origen shaped the Christian theological identity against internal and external opposing forces, and proposed a more mystical and spiritual interpretation of Christianity than that which had been previously envisioned. II. THE “KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM”: AGAINST THE JEWISH HOLY CITY By the first half of the third century CE, when Origen’s works were composed9, the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs10 as the nuptial union between God and a religious covenant – either Israel or the Church – had become common among both Jewish and Christian exegetes11. The relation between these commentators was characterized 8. The doctrine of the ἀποκατάστασις is the apex of Origen’s theology; see Origen, Deprincipiis I,6,1-4. For studies on Origen’s soteriology, see A.-C. JACOBSEN, Christ,the TeacherofSalvation:AStudyonOrigen’sChristologyandSoteriology (Adamantiana, 6), Münster, Aschendorff, 2015; I. RAMELLI, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: ACriticalAssessmentfromtheNewTestamenttoEriugena, Leiden, Brill, 2014, pp. 1-222; E. PRINZIVALLI, Apocatastasi, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origene. Dizionario: Lacultura,ilpensiero,leopere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 24-29. 9. Simonetti hypothesized that the CCt was written around 240 CE, whereas the HCt were written five year later in 245 CE; see M. SIMONETTI, CommentoalCanticodeicantici, Roma, Città Nuova, 1976, pp. 7-29. 10. The first Christian exegetes, namely Hippolytus of Rome and Origen of Alexandria, were in debt to Jewish interpreters of the Song of Songs, such as Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yohanan. 11. For a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the Song of Songs scattered throughout the tannaitic midrashim, see J. KAPLAN, MyPerfectOne:TypologyandEarlyRabbinic InterpretationofSongofSongs, New York, Oxford University Press, 2015. Concerning the Christian exegetes of the Song, it is worth mentioning the work of G. LETTIERI, Ilcorpo diDio:Lamisticaeroticadel‘CanticodeiCantici’dal‘VangelodiGiovanni’adAgostino, in R.E. GUGLIELMETTI (ed.), IlCanticodeicanticinelMedioevo.AttidelConvegno internazionaledell’UniversitàdeglistudidiMilanoedellaSocietàinternazionaleperlo studiodelMedioevolatino(Millennio Medievale, 76), Milano, Galluzzo, 2008, 3-90, who has investigated the reception and use of the SongofSongs in the early Christian texts, making the case for a pervasive and significant influence of the Song on early Christian texts, starting from the Gospel of John.

112

L. CERIONI

as much by interdependence as by opposition, so much so that the importance of Origen’s CCt for Jewish mystical tradition has received a great deal of scholarly attention12. Similarly, the influence of Jewish exegetes on Origen’s work has been largely acknowledged by modern scholarship13. In particular, Reuven Kimelman has proved that an ongoing polemic was taking place in Caesarea between Origen and Rabbi Yohanan regarding the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs14. Within this debate, the meaning attributed to the city of Jerusalem by Jewish and Christian exegetes figured as a major distinguishing element between the two traditions. In his CCt, Origen vehemently attacked Jewish interpreters by delegitimizing the importance of the “kingdom of Jerusalem” and of the Israelite nation in favor of a Hierusalemcaelestis15. Starting from the Pauline comparison between Hagar and Sarah16, Origen opposed the freedom of the New Covenant represented by Sarah to the enslavement of the Old Covenant symbolized by Hagar17. While the first woman symbolized the free “primitive church that is in heaven”18 (that is, the totality of rational creation that Origen identified with the heavenly Jerusalem), the second symbolized the Jewish people, whom Origen identified with the daughters of the “earthly Jerusalem” and whom he described as follows: “In truth, the daughters of Jerusalem for whom this discourse is given, are those souls who are dearest because of the election of the fathers, but enemies of the Gospel. Hence, they are daughters of this earthly Jerusalem”19. In this passage, Origen tried to delegitimize 12. For additional bibliography on this topic, see G. STROUMSA, Clement,Origenand JewishEsotericTraditions, in G. DORIVAL – A. LE BOULLUEC (eds.), OrigenianaSexta: OrigèneetlaBible/OrigenandtheBible(BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 53-69. 13. For a detailed analysis of the Jewish elite with which Origen was in contact see M.J. EDWARDS, OrigenagainstPlato(Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity), Aldershot, Ashgate 2002, pp. 11-45; G. STROUMSA, From Anti-Judaism to AntisemitisminEarlyChrstianity?, in O. LIMOR – G. STROUMSA (eds.),ContraIudaeos: AncientandMedievalPolemicsbetweenChristiansandJews(Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism, 10), Tübingen, JCB Mohr, 1996, 1-26; N. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976. 14. R. KIMELMAN, RabbiYohananandOrigenontheSongofSongs:AThird-century Jewish-ChristianDisputation, in HTR 73 (1980) 567-595. 15. CCt Prol. 4,23. For more details on Origen’s attack to the Jewish people because of their materiality see CCt II,1,1; II,1,25; II,2,5-8 and HCt I,6. 16. Gal 4,21-26. 17. CCt II,3,3-5. 18. CCt Prol. 4,19: ecclesiaprimitivorumquaeincaelisest. Origen is here borrowing once more Paul’s words, see Heb 12,23. 19. CCt II,1,3: filiae vero Hierusalem, ad quas ei sermo est, illae sunt animae quae carissimaequidemdicunturpropterelectionempatrum,inimicaeautempropterevangelium.

THE HOLY CITY OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S CCT AND HCT

113

the “kingdom of Jerusalem” in a twofold manner. On the one hand, he associated the Jewish nation with the earthly Jerusalem, thus depreciating them as an imperfect copy of the Christian Jerusalem. On the other hand, he here implied that Israelites were not the only ones to possess the “election of the fathers”, for Christians possessed this as well. Origen insisted on the idea that the entire rational creation shared the honor of election by God; for instance, in his exegeses of Solomon’s titles and Solomon’s encounter with the queen of Sheba, he claimed that everyone can be called “Israel by reason of faith”20. By denying the exclusivity of God’s election of the Israelite nation, Origen was de facto dismantling Jewish imagery regarding Jerusalem as the city above all nations. Origen’s attack on the Jewish Kingdom of Jerusalem and the exclusivity of their relationship to God was recognized by Rabbi Yohanan, who produced an alternative exegesis of the “daughters of Jerusalem”, identifying them with the children of the metropolis to which all nations and countries will pay their respects and submit21. Hence, while the daughters of Jerusalem represent the Jewish people, Origen interprets the perfect bride as a symbol of the Church of the Gentiles, which is not exclusive to a single elected community, but is open to all nations. This universal Church could be identified with the perfect bride who is worthy of entering the heavenly Jerusalem, since only “the Bride of the Song of Songs has already progressed to such extent that she becomes more perfect than

IstaeergosuntfiliaeHierusalemhuiusterrenae. For a similar use of Jerusalem, see Origen, CommentaryontheGospelofJohn XIII,13,84-85. 20. See CCt Prol. 4,19-20: “Solomon is called king of Israel – not in Jerusalem, as yet; because, although we be called Israel by reason of faith, we have not yet got so far as to reach the heavenly Jerusalem”. The text continues as follows: “When, however, we have made further progress, and have attained to fellowship with the Church of the firstborn that is in heaven and, having rid ourselves more thoroughly of our old natural concerns, have come to recognize the heavenly Jerusalem as our celestial Mother, then Christ becomes our Ecclesiast too, and is said to reign not in Israel only, but also in Jerusalem. And when the perfection of all things has been achieved and the Bride, who has been perfected – in other words, the whole rational creation – is united with Him, […] when all things have been pacified and subjected to the Father, and God is all in all, then He will be called Solomon and nothing else – that is, the Peaceable, only”. See also CCt II,1,28: “She came to Jerusalem, then, to the Vision of Peace, with a great following and in great array; for she came not with a single nation, as did the Synagogue before her that had the Hebrews only, but with the races of the whole world, offering moreover worthy gifts to Christ”. These translations are from Origen. The Song of Songs. Commentary and Homilies, transl. R.P. LAWSON (ACW, 26), Westminster, MD, The Newman Press; London, Longmans, 1957. 21. See also KIMELMAN, Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs (n. 14), pp. 585-588; R.L. WILKEN, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 67-76.

114

L. CERIONI

the Kingdom of Jerusalem”22. Therefore, just as the Bride is superior to the daughters of Jerusalem for she is already worthy of entering the heavenly Jerusalem while they are waiting outside23, so the universal Church is more perfect than the elected Kingdom of Jerusalem because it is open to all rational creatures rather than reserved for the select few. Against the Jewish interpretation of Jerusalem, Origen proposed the idea that the true heavenly Jerusalem is universal, whereas only the fleeting and earthly Jerusalem is reserved for the Jewish nation24. By polemically re-elaborating the Jewish exegesis of the daughters of Jerusalem and building on Pauline doctrines, Origen transformed the election of Israel into a universal election in which all nations partake, thus envisioning a heavenly Jerusalem open to all rational beings25. By opposing the notions of Christian universal election and Jewish exclusive election, then, Origen was shaping his doctrine of the eschatological ἀποκατάστασις of all rational creatures, thus defining the Christian identity for its universality. At the same time, he attributed an autonomous status to the heavenly Jerusalem, which has now severed all ties with the earthly one, neatly delineating the difference between Christian and Jewish exegesis on the matter26. III. THE “HEAVENLY JERUSALEM”: AGAINST LITERALIST EXPECTATIONS Origen’s polemic against those who interpreted the prophecies about the restoration of the city of Jerusalem as the literal reconstruction of the city was aimed not only at Jewish exegetes, but also at Christians who adopted a literal interpretation of Scripture. Among the latter, the most notorious group was probably the Chiliastic one, mentioned by Origen also in his Deprincipiis II,11,2 as those who “envision that they 22. CCt Prol. 4,23: inCanticoCanticorumsponsaiamintantumprofeceratutmaius aliquidessetquamestregnumHierusalem. 23. HCt I,5. 24. In this respect, see Perrone’s suggestion that Origen was not interested in the historical city of Jerusalem. Indeed, the actual sovereignty over the historical Jerusalem was not deemed by Origen to be of any importance. See L. PERRONE, Origeneela‘Terra Santa’, in O. ANDREI (ed.), CaesareaMaritimaelascuolaorigeniana:Multiculturalità, forme di competizione culturale e identità cristiana. Atti dell’XI Convegno del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina (22-23 settembre 2011) (Supplementi di Adamantius, 3), Brescia, Morcelliana, 2013, 139-160. 25. CCt Prol. 4,15-16. 26. This has also been noticed previously by STROUMSA, Clement,OrigenandJewish EsotericTraditions (n. 12), p. 16.

THE HOLY CITY OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S CCT AND HCT

115

will reconstruct an earthly Jerusalem”27. Wilken has shown that Origen also argued against these literalist views in other books, such as his Deprincipiis and Contra Celsum28; however, the problem is tackled from a different perspective in the HCt and CCt29. Rather than merely rejecting the literalist views as a case of poor understanding of the Scriptures, here Origen described both the spiritual path that souls undertake to enter the immaterial heavenly Jerusalem and what this city looks like. Firstly, Origen dismissed the idea that the Hierusalem caelestis is a historical city by describing it as the locumregni that will happen30: When the perfection of all things has been achieved and the Bride, who is perfect – insofar she is the whole rational creation – is united with Him, because He pacified through His blood not only what it is on earth, but also what it is in heaven […] Thus, having pacified everything that is subject to the Father, that is, when God will be all in all, then He will be called only Solomon, the Peaceable31.

In this passage, Origen provided numerous details concerning the characteristics of the heavenly Jerusalem, since he deemed this city to be the totality of rational creatures (λογικοί) – that is, the Church/Bride – who have reached the condition of spiritual perfection. Therefore, not only is this the highest possible stage of progression and proximity to God reached by the Church, but it is also a condition of unity and pacification 27. Origen, Deprincipiis II,11,2; similarly, Irenaeus, AdversusHaereses V,34,4. For more information on Christian chiliastic movements and the way in which they were viewed by the church fathers, see J.A. CERRATO, HippolytusbetweenEastandWest:The CommentariesandtheProvenanceoftheCorpus, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 236-249. 28. See particularly Deprincipiis IV,3,8; ContraCelsum VII,29. R.L. WILKEN, Early ChristianChiliasm,JewishMessianism,andtheIdeaoftheHolyLand, in HTR 79 (1986) 298-307. Although Wilken’s article discussed Christian chiliastic hopes extensively, he failed to mention the fact that some chiliastic communities envisioned a heavenly Jerusalem too; see J.A. DRAPER, The Twelve Apostles as Foundation Stones of the HeavenlyJerusalemandtheFoundationoftheQumranCommunity, in Neotestamentica 22 (1988) 41-63. 29. There are indeed many passages in which Origen criticized those who were attached to a literal understanding of the Scriptures. In this regard, one of the most significant passages is CCt III,14,21. 30. CCtProl. 4,15: “While there he mentioned only the people on which he reigned, here, he mentioned both the people and he designated Jerusalem as the place of the Kingdom”. 31. CCt Prol. 4,20: Cum vero ad perfectionem omnium ventum fuerit et sponsa ei perfecta, omnis dumtaxat rationalis creatura, iungetur, quia pacivicavit per sanguinem suumnonsolumquaeinterrissunt,sedetquaeincaelis,[…]Etitapacificatisomnibus Patrique subiectis, cum erit iam Deus omnia in omnibus, Solomon tantummodo, id est solumpacificus,nominabitur. This passage echoes the passaged mentioned previously, see CCt II,1,28.

116

L. CERIONI

of the rational beings with God, so that he will be “all in all”32. In Origen’s theology, this statement gains an additional meaning if one considers that he equated the protological and eschatological times 33. God will be “all in all” because this was the condition of the original noetic creation. After the protological creation, the intelligences distanced themselves from their creator, like the Bride of the Song of Songs from its beloved, and they prostituted themselves to idols. Using a sexual metaphor, Origen equated the daughters of Jerusalem to concubines, who lure the bridegroom’s friends even though they are unworthy of them34. Only when they will be the spiritually perfect Bride – or the perfect Church – will they enter the heavenly Jerusalem again. In this respect, I would agree with Panayiotis Tzamalikos that the heavenly Jerusalem should be identified with the eternal life for it is eternal itself, existing fully both protologically and eschatologically35. By contrast, in this instance, the earthly Jerusalem represents the status of those who have not yet re-acquired the perfection needed to be united with God, namely the adulescentulae – that is, the “daughters of Jerusalem”36 – who are bound to the literal understanding of the Scriptures and wait for the realization of an earthly Jerusalem37. Failing to understand the spiritual meanings of the Scriptures, the daughters of Jerusalem are still unworthy to understand the deeper spiritual realities and to enter the heavenly city. Nonetheless, since God has granted to each soul the capacity of understanding the word of God, albeit to different extents38, all daughters of Jerusalem have the possibility to progress towards the heavenly Jerusalem39. As long as they remain adulescentulae,

32. Interpreting Origen as a supporter of the pre-existence of the souls (see CCt II,8,4), I believe that it is worth specifying that it is a condition in which the souls re-achieve the original unity with the Logos. For bibliographical references on the pre-existence of the soul, see H. CROUZEL, Origèneetla“ConnaissanceMystique” (Museum Lessianum, 56), Paris, Desclée De Brouwer, 1961. 33. Origen, Deprincipiis I,4,5. The theory of the pre-existence of the souls in Origen has been recently challenged by EDWARDS, OrigenagainstPlato (n. 13), pp.87-122. For reasons of space, it is not possible to discuss this issue; however, it is worth mentioning that in the CCt and HCt, Origen makes implicit references to pre-existent souls. 34. CCt II,4,4-11. 35. See P. TZAMALIKOS, Origen: Philosophy of History and Eschatology (SupplVigChr, 85), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2007, pp. 186-188 and 425. 36. On the problems related to the identification of the adulescentulae with the filiae Hierusalem, see L. PERRONE, ‘The Bride at the Crossroads’: Origen’s Dramatic InterpretationoftheSongofSongs, in ETL82 (2006) 69-102. 37. CCt I,4,10. 38. CCt I,4,4 and HCt II,7. 39. Similarly, CCt I,6,3-4.

THE HOLY CITY OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S CCT AND HCT

117

these daughters will only achieve an incomplete salvation40, thus not partaking permanently in God’s unity. Nonetheless, the adulescentulae are destined to become Brides, for Origen was clear regarding the fact that the totality of rational beings will be united with God in the heavenly Jerusalem. In this regard, Origen’s explanation of the appellative of the adulescentulae as “daughters of Jerusalem” is striking since – despite their imperfections – he described them as daughters of the heavenly Jerusalem, and not of the earthly Jerusalem. As he put it: “Every soul, which is here called daughter of Jerusalem, knows that she has the heavenly Jerusalem as her mother”41. Hence, not only the perfect Bride, but also the spiritually imperfect souls are considered to be citizens of the Jerusalem above42. In other words, all souls are daughters of Jerusalem who, consequently, have the right to become citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, as long as they reach the required status of perfection. This is indeed the second feature described by Origen in the abovementioned passage: in the heavenly Jerusalem, all rational beings achieve – or even better, re-achieve – their original unity with the Logos so that God becomes “all in all”. From this description it appears that the heavenly Jerusalem is not a city of this world or time, but is rather the visiopacis43, to which all aspire and in which all rational creatures will eschatologically participate44. Becoming citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem require that all rational souls partake of semperetsineintermissione45 in contemplation of the Logos46. The permanence of this condition is opposed to the fleeting and temporary participation in the earthly Jerusalem, which Origen appears to have reduced to a mere step towards the only true “mother of souls”: If the mother of the souls is the heavenly Jerusalem and the angels are called nothing less than celestial (beings), it seems right that those who are celestial (beings), like her, are called sons of that mother. In particular, it 40. HCt I,1: “Those who, although they are not yet in the way that is described by the Word, appear to get somehow closer to a certain kind of salvation consider that they are like the souls of the believers and like young maidens who are with the Bride”. 41. CCt III,10,6: Unaquaeque anima, quae nunc filia Hierusalem appellatur, sciens quodmatremhabeatHierusalemcaelestem. 42. For a systematic comparison between the perfection of the Bride and the imperfection of the maidens, see HCt I,5-6. 43. CCt II,1,28. 44. This is confirmed by Origen, Contra Celsum VI,25-26, in which he affirmed that “the punishment that occur in Jerusalem are for those who are being refined”. 45. CCt II,1,37. 46. For a discussion regarding the modalities of the souls’ contemplation of the Logos, see M. SIMONETTI, La mistica di Origene, in ID., Origene esegeta e la sua tradizione (Letteratura cristiana antica, 2), Brescia, Morcelliana, 2004, 29-50.

118

L. CERIONI

seems appropriate and convenient that since there is only one Father, God, there is only one mother, that is, Jerusalem47.

To summarize, Origen did not attribute any material features of an earthly city to the eschatological Jerusalem, envisioning rather spiritual and immaterial Jerusalem48, in which all rational beings will eschatologically partake since even the imperfect creatures can rightfully be called daughters of the Jerusalem above. IV. THE OPPOSITION OF TWO CITIES IN GNOSTICISM AND ORIGEN Having established the complete spirituality of the heavenly Jerusalem and having characterized it as the union with God, Origen needed to address an additional issue, for he was not the only one to envision the heavenly Jerusalem as an eschatological re-union with God. In one of the remaining fragments of his Commentary on the Gospel of John, which can be found in Origen’s own CommentaryontheGospelofJohn, the Valentinian teacher Heracleon proposed an alternative interpretation of a spiritual eschatological Jerusalem. Like other Valentinian Gnostics, Heracleon held that the earthly Jerusalem coincides with the material world, ruled by the Demiurge and subject to his powers49, whereas the heavenly Jerusalem corresponds to the pneumatic world, the realm of the Ogdoad and of the spiritual natures50. Such an interpretation of the role of Jerusalem is confirmed also by the GospelofPhilip, which identified the city of Jerusalem as the place where the sacrament of the bridal chamber will eschatologically take place51. Therefore, Origen understood 47. CCt II,3,17: Si enim animarum mater Hierusalem caelestis est et angeli nihilo minuscaelestesnominantur,nihildissonansvidebitur,sihiquisimiliterutipsacaelestes suntfiliiabeamatrisappellantur.Superomniaautemcongruumvidebituretconveniens ut,quibusunusestDeusPater,unasitetHierusalemmater. 48. Due to brevity, it is here impossible to discuss the highly problematic issues of the status of bodies and materiality in Origen’s theology. It must therefore be sufficient to underline the complexity of this issue, for the discussion of which, see my forthcoming article L. CERIONI, “Fornowweseeinamirror,dimly,butthenwewillseefacetoface”: Pauline Reception in Origen’s Commentary on the Song of Songs, in Studia Patristica (forthcoming 2019). 49. Origen, CommentaryontheGospelofJohn X,33. 50. See Hippolytus, Refutatio V,7,39; VI,32,9; VI,34,3-4. Sometimes, Jerusalem is also used as one of Sophia’s names: see Irenaeus, AdversusHaereses I,5,3; Hippolytus, Refutatio VI,30,9; VI,34,4. 51. GospelofPhilip II,69,31. The sacrament of the marriage chamber is a distinctive feature of Valentinian Gnosticism. The modalities and rituals of this Valentinian practice are still debated by the scholarship; see E. THOMASSEN, TheSpiritualSeed:TheChurch

THE HOLY CITY OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S CCT AND HCT

119

Heracleon’s position about the two cities as representing two eschatological destinies: the pneumatics and the psychics will partake in one or the other city according to their nature and will52. In addition, similarly to Origen53, Heracleon also held that these two cities shared a typological resemblance, according to which the earthy Jerusalem is the τύπος, an imperfect copy of the heavenly Jerusalem54. Hence, Gnostics, especially Valentinians, seemed to consider the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem as two mutually exclusive eschatological destinies. Being aware of the gnostic interpretation of Jerusalem, Origen challenged it in his CCt and HCt by envisioning only one eschatological city, the heavenly Jerusalem, and reducing the earthly Jerusalem to a temporary condition of imperfection to which he did not grant an eschatological status. On closer examination, the texts of the HCt and CCt do not provide many details concerning the earthly Jerusalem. It would rather appear that Origen was attributing two meanings to it, for he used it to signify either the historical Jerusalem, as in the previously analyzed passages against the Jewish interpretations55, or the status of those Christian souls who are still bound to the literal senses of the Scriptures. However, neither of these definitions makes Jews or imperfect Christian citizens of the earthly Jerusalem at an eschatological level. On the contrary, the spiritually imperfect daughters of Jerusalem take their name from the heavenly Jerusalem rather than from the earthly one. Origen remarked on this topic by resorting to an agricultural example: Every soul, particularly those who are daughters of Jerusalem, has its own field, which has been assigned to her through Christ and because of her merits […] In addition, there is a common field which is shared among all daughters of Jerusalem, of which Paul has said: “You are the field of God”. We understand this common field, in which there are certainly celestial virtues and men of spiritual graces, as the practice of faith and conversation in the church. Each soul, that now is called daughter of Jerusalem, knows of the “Valentinians” (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 60), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2006, p. 405. 52. The eschatological status of the psychic ones is one of the open questions of Heracleon’s theology. Overall, I would be more inclined to agree with Thomassen’s hypothesis that Heracleon envisioned at least a partial salvation for the psychic ones. If so, Origen would have understood correctly Heracleon’s exegesis of Jerusalem. See THOMASSEN, TheSpiritualSeed (n. 51), pp. 103-119. Against this theory, see M. SIMONETTI, PsycheePsykikosnellagnosiValentiniana, in ID., OrtodossiaederesiatraIeIIsecolo (Armarium, 5), Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino, 1994, 141-243. 53. CCt III,13,9. 54. Heracleon in Origen, CommentaryontheGospelofJohn X,33. 55. This was indeed the case of the previously discussed occurrence of terrena H  ierusalem in CCt II,1,3, where Origen used the word “earthly Jerusalem” to indicate a geographical location.

120

L. CERIONI

that she has the heavenly Jerusalem as a mother, and it is necessary that she contributes to the cultivation of the field and wishes for it to become worthy of celestial ownership56.

The participation in the growth of the communisager, which is the Church, confirms the daughters of Jerusalem’s right to partake in the heavenly Jerusalem, their true mother. Just as the Bride, the maidens are destined to be eschatologically welcomed in the heavenly Jerusalem once they have reached the perfection of the Bride57. Consequently, in Origen’s opinion, while the heavenly Jerusalem seems to possess an ontological and eschatological existence, since all rational creatures are born with the right to become citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem and will achieve this eschatologically, citizenship in the earthly Jerusalem seems to exist only temporarily for those souls who are not yet worthy of the heavenly city. Hence, I believe that Origen’s consideration of the earthly Jerusalem suggests that this city does not have any eschatological citizens, since all people are citizens and children of the animarum mater Hierusalem caelestis58. This evidence suggests that Origen’s interpretation of Jerusalem is primarily built to contrast with the Gnostic idea concerning the relationship between the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem as two different eschatological destinies. While Gnostics believed that the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem could neither intertwine nor mingle, Origen considered the two cities as mutually dependent, with the heavenly Jerusalem representing the natural completion of the earthly one59. Hence, by denying the eschatological status of the earthly Jerusalem, Origen was directly fighting the Gnostic pretenses of a double eschatological destiny, affirming once more his idea of a final ἀποκατάστασις. 56. CCt III,10,4-6: Omnisanima,praecipuequaefiliaestHierusalem,habetaliquem agrumproprium,quieisacrataquadamperIesummeritorumsortedelatusest.[…]Est autem et omnium simul filiarum Hierusalem unus quidam et communis ager, de quo Paulusdicit:Deiagriculturaestis.Quemagrumcommuneexercitiumecclesiasticaefidei etconversationisaccipiamus,inquocertumestvirtutesinessecaelestesetviresspiritalium gratiarum. Unaquaeque anima, quae nunc filia Hierusalem appellatur, sciens quodmatremhabeatHierusalemcaelestem,conferataliquidnecesseestadagrumhunc excolendumetcaelestieumpossessionedignumcupiateffici. 57. CCt I,5,9. 58. CCt II,3,17. For more references of Jerusalem as “mother”, see Origen, Contra Celsum IV,44;Deprincipiis IV,3,8; CommentaryonMatthew XI,17; XIV,13 and XVI,15. 59. On Origen’s mystic as a normalization of Valentinian erotic theology, see LETTIERI, IlCorpodiDio (n. 11), pp. 50-69. On the contrary, Fürst (in the introduction to Origenes. Die Homilien und Fragmente zum Hohelied, ed. A. FÜRST – H. STRUTWOLF, Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2016) has understood Origen’s movement as dependent on Platonic movements.

THE HOLY CITY OF JERUSALEM IN ORIGEN’S CCT AND HCT

121

V. CONCLUSION This essay has attempted to show that in his HCt and CCt Origen cunningly used his exegesis of Jerusalem to oppose other contemporary interpretations. Firstly, his exegesis aimed at refuting the Jewish belief that the city of Jerusalem was destined exclusively for the glory of the Israelite nation. In this instance, he identified the daughters of Jerusalem with the Jewish people, who believed in the historical restoration of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. By contrast, he identified the heavenly Jerusalem with the Church of the Gentiles, which is universal and open to all nations. Secondly, Origen dissented with those Christians, mainly Chiliasts, who understood the Scriptural prophecies in a literal manner, thus waiting for the restoration of the city of Jerusalem on earth. In this regard, his description of the heavenly Jerusalem as visiopacis – that is, the permanent reunion of all rational beings with God – and the interpretation of the daughter of Jerusalem as daughters of the heavenly Jerusalem, proved to be crucial to the success of his argumentation. He argued for the complete spirituality of the heavenly city, thus depriving it any physical or material feature. Lastly, he needed to account for the differences between his interpretation of a spiritual and immaterial Jerusalem and the Gnostic one. By granting the status of eschatological reality exclusively to the heavenly Jerusalem and considering it to be the natural completion of the earthly Jerusalem, he countered the Valentinian view that the two cities represented mutually exclusive eschatological destinies. By refuting these alternative exegeses of the heavenly Jerusalem, Origen was shaping the self-perception of Christianity and of the Church, representing it primarily as a spiritual and immaterial covenant that lost its original perfection and needs to win it back. The Church of this world is the earthly Jerusalem that has the potentiality of becoming – and will become – the perfect heavenly Jerusalem. As with the Church, individual Christians are also called to achieve personal growth, abandoning the childish attitudes of the adulescentulae to become spiritual and worthy brides. In conclusion, despite Origen having proposed several possible interpretations of Jerusalem in the CCt and HCt, he also provided a coherent and systematic exegetical framework which fits within the overall theology of the Alexandrian theologian. Via Ottorino Gentiloni 67 IT-00139 Roma Italy [email protected]

Lavinia CERIONI University of Nottingham

FROM CAPERNAUM TO JERUSALEM NOETIC HISTORY AND HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES IN ORIGEN’S SACRED GEOGRAPHY OF THE HOLY LAND

I. INTRODUCTION Situated at the northwest shore of the Galilean Sea, the town of Capernaum stands in the four Gospels as a key place in Jesus’ journey1. In his CommentaryonJohn, Origen proposed a rich and interesting exegesis of the meaning of Capernaum2, based on the hermeneutical principles of the so-called “topography of the soul”3. Origen’s exegesis is focused on two episodes, namely John 2 and John 44. In the case of John 2, after the miraculous turning of the water into wine at Cana, Jesus is said to have gone down to Capernaum where he stayed for a few days (Jn 2,12) before continuing his journey to Jerusalem, where the Gospel narrates the episode of the casting out of the merchants from the temple. In the second occurrence (John 4), after having passed through Samaria, Jesus settled in Cana, from where he healed the son of a royal officer who was sick in Capernaum.

1. In the four Gospels Capernaum appears 16 times with reference to many words and acts performed by Jesus. See: Mt 4,13; 8,5; 11,23; 17,24; Mk 1,2; 2,1; 9,33; Lk 4,23; 4,31; 7,1; 10,15; Jn 2,12; 4,46; 6,17; 6,24; 6,59. Capernaum appears to be both a crossing point and a place of healing and preaching. The importance of Capernaum is both related to Jesus’ teaching and to his deeds. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Capernaum is the place from which Jesus started his predication about the kingdom of God (Mt 4,12-17). In the Gospels of Mark and John Jesus is said to teach in the local synagogue (Mk 1,21; Jn 6,59). 2. Regarding Origen’s exegesis of Capernaum in his CommentaryonJohn (hereafter CIo) see: P. DE NAVASCUÉS, LaciudaddeCafarnaún:Notasdetopografíateológicaen Heracleón y Orígenes, in E. PRINZIVALLI (ed.), Il Commento al Vangelo di Giovanni di Origene:Iltestoeisuoicontesti (Biblioteca di Adamantius, 3), Villa Verucchio, Pazzini, 2005, 519-535. The article is mainly focused on Origen’s struggle with the gnostic (particularly that of Heracleon) and the marcionite interpretation of the Scriptures. 3. On the “topography of the soul” see: E. SCHOCKENHOFF, Zum Fest der Freiheit: Theologie des christlichen Handelns bei Origenes, Mainz, Grünewald, 1990, pp. 79-80. See also D. STOLTMANN, Jerusalem – Mutter – Stadt: Zur Theologiegeschichte der HeiligenStadt(Münsteraner theologische Abhandlungen), Altenberge, Oros, 1999, p. 185. Both studies are based on Origen’s reflections in OnFirstPrinciples IV,3,8-10. 4. Unfortunately, we do not possess the comment on Jn 6,16-59, on the crossing of Galilean Sea and the speech on the bread of life.

124

G. HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD

By analysing the significance of Capernaum in Origen’s exegesis, the aim of this article is threefold. First of all, it will identify the exegetical rules employed in Origen’s work, with particular attention to the meaning of places, the route of the Saviour, and the characters who accompany him. Secondly, it seeks to investigate and detect Origen’s concept of “sacred geography”, by taking as a case study his interpretation of the small city of Capernaum in its relation to the other cities of the Holy Land, such as Cana and Jerusalem. Thirdly, using Capernaum as a case study, it offers some remarks on the relationship between noetic history and historical occurrence of past events in Origen’s exegesis of the Gospels5. TheFiveExegeticalRules From the beginning of Book X, Origen’s exegesis of Capernaum is connected with the issue of the historicity of the four Gospels’ accounts. Indeed, while Jesus’ acts and deeds in Capernaum are quite consistent across the four Gospels – namely the preaching in the synagogue and the healing of sick people – the timeline and company of Jesus’ travels differ among the accounts. Specifically, differences are found concerning the time of these travels, from whence Jesus was coming and where was he going. In the Gospel of John’s narrative, Capernaum appears three times, but only two of them are commented on by Origen6. In the second chapter, after the miraculous turning of water into wine at the wedding held in Cana, Jesus “went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days” (Jn 2,12). Later on, Jesus moved up to Jerusalem, where the Gospel narrates the episode of the casting out of the merchants from the temple, when “the Pascha of the Jews was at hand”. The second occurrence of Capernaum appears in the fourth chapter of the Gospel. After having passed through Samaria, Jesus is said to have settled in Cana, from where he is reported to have healed the son of a royal officer who was sick in Capernaum. First of all, at the beginning of the tenth book of his CommentaryonJohn, Origen states the necessity of gathering up all the occurrences of Jesus’ visit to Capernaum in the four Gospels: We think it is an honourable task […] to gather (συναγαγεῖν) from the four Gospels everything which has been recorded concerning Capernaum; the 5. On the concept of noetic exegesis in Origen and his tradition see: B. STEFANIW, Mind, Text, and Commentary: Noetic Exegesis in Origen of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind,andEvagriusPonticus (Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity, 6), Frankfurt a.M. – New York, Peter Lang, 2010. 6. See n. 4.

FROM CAPERNAUM TO JERUSALEM

125

words and the works of the Lord in it (ἐν αὐτῇ λόγους καὶ ἔργα τοῦ κυρίου), how often he resided in it, when he is said to have gone down into it (καταβεβηκέναι), when to have entered it (εἰσεληλυϑέναι), and from where. When these things have been compared with one another they will prevent us from making mistakes in our interpretation concerning Capernaum (CIo X,62)7.

In line with Origen’s exegetical principles, nothing written in the Scriptures lacks significance: places are no exception. By harmonising the different Gospels’ narratives regarding Capernaum, Origen proposes a coherent noetic interpretation of the story, thus also discarding the gnostic interpretation of the passage which, according to him, constitutes an improper use of spiritual interpretation8. While collecting the different passages concerning Capernaum, Origen establishes the hermeneutical principles according to which he reads the Gospel: We must earnestly endeavour to assemble (συναγαγεῖν) the places where those in need of healing were found, and we must note in what sort of places other signs (σημεῖα) occurred besides those which concern the sick. […] We must also observe where, why and in relation to what deeds Jesus’ words are spoken (ποῦ καὶ διὰ τί καὶ ἐπὶ τίσιν πεπραγμένοις λέγονται), for only by such observations and examinations will one find, piece by piece, the touchstones, the fruits of one’s labour (τοὺς καρποὺς τῶν πόνων) (CIo XIII,447-448).

These two quotations propose paying attention not only to Jesus’ words and deeds, but also to where and when words and deeds took place. It is possible, then, to deduce five exegetical rules employed by Origen to detect the correct spiritual meaning of places mentioned in the Gospels: 1) One should gather all instances where a place is named, and one should interpret their significance across all four Gospels9. 7. Translations of the CIo are broadly based on: Origen.CommentaryontheGospel accordingtoJohn,Books1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989, and Origen. Commentary on the GospelaccordingtoJohn,Books13-32, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 89), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1993. However, I frequently adjust or even change Heine’s translation in this article. These adjustments are not reported in the footnotes 8. In this regard, see Origen’s struggle against Heracleon, who states that Jesus’ visit of Capernaum was “in vain” CIo X,48-61. 9. On Origen’s systematic work of collecting up references from the Bible in order to give a correct spiritual interpretation see the interesting remarks of M. LUDLOW, Theology andAllegory:OrigenandGregoryofNyssaontheUnityandDiversityofScripture, in InternationalJournalforSystematicTheology 4 (2002) 45-66. Here, Ludlow shows how this gathering up is one of the most distinctive markers of Origen’s exegesis. On the

126

G. HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD

2) One should pay attention to the significance of the name of the place. 3) One should pay attention to the characters who accompany the Saviour. 4) One should pay attention to the moment when the Saviour visited a place and the route he took to arrive there. 5) Disagreements between the Gospels should be explained according to their noetic meaning rather than their narrative one. These five factors work together to give a correct noetic explanation of an episode of the Gospel. Therefore, it is worth noting that it is possible to provide such an interpretation of a sign or a wonder performed by Jesus only if this miracle is inserted in the more general noetic interpretation of Jesus’ journey. Hence, this is the set of rules on which Origen builds his “sacred geography” of the Holy Land. II. THE EXEGESIS OF CAPERNAUM 1. TheMeaningofPlaces:Capernaum,Cana,andJerusalem These five exegetical principles are duly applied by Origen in the exegesis of Capernaum. Regarding the first rule, Origen explains that each place found in the Gospel has a specific meaning (e.g., Capernaum, Cana, and Jerusalem). Both in the Commentary on John and in the CommentaryonMatthew, the name Capernaum means “field of exhortation” (παρακλήσεως ἀγρόν)10. Insofar as it is a field of exhortation, Capernaum is a symbol of an inferior place, where Jesus preached and performed miracles in order to exhort those souls which are more sinful and in particular need of his help11. Such inferiority is also confirmed by meaning of the body of the text in Origen see: EAD., Anatomy: Investigating the Body of the Text in Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, in EAD. – S. DOUGLASS (eds.), Reading theChurchFathers, London, T&T Clark, 2011, 132-153. 10. The meaning of the name of Capernaum as “field of exhortation” is attested three times in Origen. See: CIo X,37-38; XIII,409; CMt XIII,11. 11. This is how Origen interprets the fact that many people were sick and healed in Capernaum, particularly the royal officer’s son (Jn 4,46-53), the centurion’s son (Mt 8,5-13) and Peter’s mother in law (Mt 8,14-16). Origen proposes a different meaning for these episodes basing on the fact that the first was healed in the seventh hour, the second and third “before it was evening” (CIo XIII,445). Moreover, Origen points out to the fact that those who were possessed with demons (Mt 8,16) were healed in the evening, thus signifying their inferiority in comparison with those who were healed during the day (CIo XIII,446).

FROM CAPERNAUM TO JERUSALEM

127

the fact that, in the Gospel of Matthew, Capernaum represents the starting point of the conversion of many people12. By proposing this interpretation, Origen is polemicizing against Heracleon, who claims that Capernaum represents the most remote place of the Cosmos (τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ κόσμου), a material realm (τὰ ὑλικά) which is alien (ἀνοίκειον) to Jesus and in which he has done nothing (CIo X,48)13. Moreover, Origen advances a methodological critique against Heracleon: Heracleon’s mistake consists in interpreting a place in the Scriptures before having taken all the scriptural references into account, integrating them into a coherent interpretation14. By contrast with the inferiority of Capernaum, Origen proposes a much brighter interpretation of the city of Cana. Starting from the etymology of Cana as “possession” (κτῆμα), Origen interprets it as the possession of the Logos. In this respect, those who live there are symbols of all the creatures who rejoice with the Lord in this life (CIo XIII,437). This privileged status is attributed to Cana due to the wedding feast, which is cosmologically and psychologically interpreted by Origen as the spiritual rejoicing of Logos in the soul of those creatures who have accepted him during the present time (CIo X,66; XIII,393). To complete this sacred geography of the Holy Land, the city of Jerusalem is interpreted as both the highest place of the cosmos and the highest place of the soul15. Indeed, the temple – that is, the intelligence of the soul which constitutes the human being (ἱερὸν εἶναι ἡ εὐφυὴς ἐν λόγῳ ψυχή) (CIo X,141) – resides in the holiest city, where humans get

12. Origen also deduces the spiritual inferiority of Capernaum from the fact that in the Gospel of Matthew it is said to be the place where Jesus started his preaching (CIo X,63). In this regard, Origen states that some places in the Gospel are named after occurrences related to Jesus (CIoX,63). 13. Differently from what Heracleon says, Origen does not believe that Jesus’ visit to Capernaum was in vain (CIo X,60). Origen proves it through recollecting all passages from synoptic Gospels related to Capernaum. See: CIoX,48-61. 14. For instance, Origen interprets the temporal reference to the “few days” in which Jesus has been in Capernaum as a reference to the limited capacity of those who are in the field of exhortation, whose souls are able to bear only few teachings (CIo X,41-42). Origen’s insistence on the fruitfulness of Jesus’ visit to this “field of exhortation” is confirmed in the thirteenth book of CIo, where the sick son of the royal officer represents those who became weary but not completely devoid of fruits (γένος τι κεκμηκότων μὲν οὐ πάντη δὲ ἔξω καρπῶν γεγενημένων) and thus can still be rescued. See: CIo XIII,409. 15. A spiritual interpretation of Jerusalem has been already proposed by Philo. On the relation between Philo and Origen see: I. RAMELLI, PhiloasOrigen’sDeclaredModel: AllegoricalandHistoricalExegesisofScripture, in StudiesinChristian-JewishRelations 7 (2012) 1-17.

128

G. HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD

perfect knowledge of the noetic realm (νοητῶν) through a sharp and direct sight of the Logos (CIo X,132)16. 2. TheMeaningofCharacters:Jesus’CompanionsinCapernaum However, according to Origen, it is not possible to understand fully the spiritual meaning of those cities if one does not consider the characters who accompany Jesus in his travel. First, it is worth noting that Origen deems Jesus’ brothers to be inferior to his disciples, as confirmed by their absence at the wedding feast in Cana. Therefore, Origen takes the brothers to symbolise the powers (δυνάμεις) who come down to Capernaum with the Saviour and “are not invited to the wedding, but receive benefits more humbly and differently in places inferior to those called disciples of Christ” (CIo X,40). Similarly, the royal officer encountered by Jesus in the second descent in Capernaum in John 4 is interpreted as an image of some powers of the archons of this world (δυνάμεως τῶν ἀρχόντων) and his sick son is an image of those who are under his authority to differing degrees (CIo XIII,410)17. Moreover, according to Origen, the mother of the Saviour represents the fact that some of the people in Capernaum will bear fruits18. Only by uniting these three pieces of exegesis is it possible to comprehend Origen’s understanding of the descent of the brothers of Jesus in Capernaum. Indeed, this descent represents the cosmological history of the archons that, after the coming of Christ, converted themselves, for possibility of repentance is given also to the powers (δυνάμεις), just as to men (CIo XIII,411-413).

16. On the interpretation of Jerusalem in Origen’s thought see two contributions in this volume: E. PRINZIVALLI, TheCityofGodandtheCitiesofMenaccordingtoOrigen; and L. CERIONI:“MotherofSouls”:TheHolyCityofJerusaleminOrigen’sCommentaryand Homilies on the Song of Songs. 17. Origen proposes many possible interpretations of the character: first, the royal officer is said to represent Christians, insofar as he is called “officer of Christ” (CIo XIII,397-398). Then, the royal officer is identified with Abraham, and his sick son in Capernaum with the Israelite race (CIo XIII,402). Finally, Origen takes the servants of the royal officer to represent the humbler class of believers (CIo XIII,407). 18. Since Mary conceived Jesus with the Holy Spirit, she is symbol of every soul who, through the participation in the Holy Spirit, becomes united with the Logos. See CIo X,38-40.

FROM CAPERNAUM TO JERUSALEM

129

3. Jesus’ Routes: from Cana, down to Capernaum, up to Jerusalem: SinandUniversalSalvation Having explained the meaning of the names of the places that Jesus visited – with particular regard to Capernaum as “field of exhortation” – and the symbolism of the characters which accompany Jesus, Origen goes on to analyse the route that the Saviour covered to arrive there. First, Origen points out that the Saviour is said to “come down” (καταβαίνω) to Capernaum. The verb “coming down” (καταβαίνω) must be distinguished from “going into” (εἰσέρχομαι) and “going up to” (ἀναβαίνω). Indeed, while ἀναβαίνω indicates a cosmological ascent from a lower to a higher place, the verb καταβαίνω indicates a cosmological descent to a lower lever (CIo X,39). Hence, Jesus’ descent in Capernaum represents the incarnation of the Word (CIo X,38-40)19. After that, Jesus is said to “go up” (ἀναβαίνω) to Jerusalem. The act of “going up” implies, in Origen’s interpretation, both a psychological and a cosmological meaning20. According to the psychological interpretation, Origen explains the casting out of the merchants from the temple in Jerusalem as the casting out from the soul (that is, the temple) of the impure emotions21. Therefore, the act of “going up” to Jerusalem stands as a symbol of the soul’s purification and rediscovery of its ontological proximity with the Logos (CIo X,141-142)22. By contrast, according to 19. In this regard, Origen’s and Heracleon’s interpretations are the same. This has already been recognised by M. SIMONETTI, EracleoneeOrigene, in VetChr 3 (1966) 135137. See also DE NAVASCUÉS, LaciudaddeCafarnaún (n. 2), p. 520. 20. The act of “going up” to Jerusalem is well attested in the Bible as related to pilgrimage or seeking the advice of priests or judges (e.g., Dt 17,8; Isa 2,3; Jer 31,6; Mich 4,2). 21. In this interpretation, Capernaum has the same spiritual meaning of the animals which are casted out of the temple. Therefore, Jesus’ journey from Capernaum to Jerusalem represents the ascent of the soul from the lowliness and irrationality of the emotions to its own intelligence (λόγος) (CIo X,141-142). On the idea of the soul as the ontological temple of God see also: CMt XVI,23. On the interpretation of Jesus and the Church as the temple of God see: CIo X,264-286. See also: HomiliesonExodus IX,3-4. On Origen’s exegesis of the temple see: M. SIMONETTI, IMercantineltempio, in ID., Origeneesegeta elasuatradizione(Letteratura cristiana antica, 2), Brescia, Morcelliana, 2004, 147-156. For a general review of the temple as the allegory of the human person in the first centuries of Christianity see: G. LETTIERI, Notestorico-critichesulparallelismosacramentale tratempioe“persona”dalleoriginicristianealleteologiepatristiche, in F.V. TOMMASI (ed.), Tempioepersona:Dall’analogiaalsacramento(Filosofia della religione), Verona, Centro Studi Campostrini, 2013, 153-197. 22. Regarding the ascent to Jerusalem Origen notes that, while Mary, the disciples and the brothers are all said to come down in Capernaum, only Mary and the disciples are present in Cana, while Jesus is said to going up in Jerusalem alone. Origen explains this detail by stating that Jesus was going up to Jerusalemineachofthedisciples. Therefore, “going up” (ἀναβαίνω) is interpreted in this case as a “going into” (εἰσέρχομαι). As a

130

G. HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD

the cosmological interpretation, Jerusalem represents the natural place of the saints’ souls. In any event, this ascending path is not irreversible: the episode of the casting out of the merchants from the temple demonstrates that even the saints can be undermined by sin: And this city, to which none of those on earth ascends or enters (ἀναβαίνει οὐδὲ εἰσέρχεται), is also called Jerusalem. And every soul (πᾶσα ψυχή) which has a natural exaltation (φυσικὸν ἔχουσα δίαρμα) and sees noetic things (νοητῶν διορατικήν) clearly and sharply is a citizen of this city. It is possible even for a resident of Jerusalem to be in sin, for even the best natural dispositions can sin (δυνατὸν γὰρ καὶ τοὺς εὐφυεστάτους ἁμαρτάνειν), destroying their goodness of disposition and not only sojourning in one of the foreign cities of Judea, but also being enrolled as a citizen there, unless they turn back quickly after the sin. Jesus, therefore, goes up (ἀναβαίνει) to Jerusalem after he has helped those in Cana of Galilea, and after he has gone down (καταβεβηκέναι) to Capernaum, that he might perform the works which are recorded among those in Jerusalem (CIo X,132-133).

Jerusalem represents both the protological and eschatological condition of the soul, which contemplates in the Spirit the fullness of God. This condition is not achieved in this life but refers to the Fall that happened at the beginning of times and to the reunion that will happen in the future23. By contrast, the soul’s citizenship in cities of Judaea other than Jerusalem symbolically represents the wretched condition of sinful souls. Hence, Origen is proposing a detailed sacred geography of the Holy Land based on the merits of the souls that determine their cosmological condition24. Therefore, Capernaum and Cana are the cities where those who sin end up after having fallen down from Jerusalem. Having explained what “going up” (ἀναβαίνω) to Jerusalem means, Origen focuses himself on the relationship between Cana and Capernaum. In this regard, Origen points to the fact that, in both John 2 and John 4, the Lord is said to sojourn firstly in Cana and then in Capernaum. In addition, the Lord is said to have been in Cana twice. Origen takes the repetition as a symbol consequence, Jesus’ travel to Jerusalem is a symbol not only of the cosmological descent and ascent of the Saviour in the different degrees of the cosmos, but also of the ascent of the Logos in the interiority of each believer. This is why the disciples are not said to go up with him in Jerusalem, while they are said to go down in Capernaum (CIo X,141-142). 23. The passage refers to both future and past as it discusses the possibility of sin, which is the reason why people are now found in inferior places like Capernaum. 24. On the Origenian principle according to which ethical choices ultimately result in cosmological positions see: C. HENGSTERMANN, OrigenesundderUrsprungderFreiheitsmetaphysik (Adamantiana, 8), Münster, Aschendorff, 2016. On Origen’s sacred geography see: A.-C. JACOBSEN, Allegorical Interpretation of Geography in Origen’s Homilies on theBookofJoshua, in ReligionandTheology 17 (2010) 289-301.

FROM CAPERNAUM TO JERUSALEM

131

of the two comings of the Saviour25. During his first stay in Cana (the wedding), he gives the wine of his power to drink to those who understand his teachings (CIo XIII,438). For his part, Origen takes the second stay, when Jesus healed the son of the royal officer who was sick in Capernaum, to represent the time of judgement, when the Saviour will heal those who are sick in Capernaum – that is, the entire cosmos – releasing them from their sins (CIo XIII,439)26. As mentioned earlier, the royal officer is interpreted by Origen as the symbol of the rulers of this world, while his son is deemed to be the people under his command. Origen then adds a further clarification: These remarks are made according to the previous interpretation. But since we have to make mention of ourselves (μεμνῆσϑαι ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῶν δεῖ), we must say that it is possible for all his “possession” (πάσῃ τῇ κτήσει) to apprehend this twofold stay (τὴν διττὴν ταύτην νοεῖσϑαι ἐπιδημίαν) (CIo XIII,440).

The deeper interpretation of the healing of the royal officer’s son in Capernaum is therefore related to universal salvation. Indeed, only a few lines later, Origen adds that “even those who were unwilling previously to drink of his wine are released from every sickness and the fiery darts of the enemy in this second coming” (CIo XIII,441). All those who are in the possession of the Logos, that is, the entire creation, are eventually said to apprehend (νοεῖσϑαι) his twofold noetic coming. III. HISTORICAL EVENTS AND NOETIC REALITIES: NOETIC AND FACTUAL HISTORY Thus far, this article has shown how the aforementioned five rules of interpretation of the Gospel narration allow Origen to propose a systematic interpretation of the movement of Jesus in the Holy Land which recalls the noetic history of the Fall and the restoration of the souls who have sinned27. The last part of the article will therefore deal with 25. See also CIo XIII,393, where Origen states that: “Jesus, while performing many works for the salvation of people everywhere, of which the other places that are recorded are types, visits Cana twice to confirm for himself his possession (κτῆσιν) of those from this earth who believed in the Father through him”. 26. Therefore, Origen says that the first sojourn could be said to be more important than the second, for in the first the Logos enjoys the proximity with those who rejoice with him, while in the second the Lord heals by being in distant place (CIo XIII,441-443). 27. Indeed, while Origen allows for more meanings of a single episode, he shows a preference for some interpretations over others, for they better represent the noetic meaning of the text.

132

G. HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD

the problem of the relationship between the noetic history Origen builds in his exegesis and the historical occurrence of events narrated in the Gospel. Origen made no secret of his interpretation of historical events as deeply related to noetic realities: We must not suppose that historical events are types (τύπους) of other historical events (ἱστορικά) and corporeal things of corporeal things (σωματικά). On the contrary, corporeal things (σωματικά) are types of spiritual things (πνευματικῶν) and historical events (ἱστορικά) are types of noetic realities (νοητῶν) (CIoX,110).

This article has already shown how this principle is strictly applied by Origen to Jesus’ journey between Capernaum, Cana, and Jerusalem; but here Origen is stating explicitly that the exegetical importance of the historical facts narrated in the Gospel resides in their significance as symbols of noetic realities. Each journey narrated in the Gospels has a noetic interpretation, which is strictly connected to the noetic meaning of the entire episode. What I find most interesting to note here is that this passage works as a link between two very different discourses. Indeed, this passage is inserted at the end of a discussion on the deeper meaning of the Jewish Passover and at the beginning of the explanation of Jesus’ settling in Capernaum. Therefore, Origen is here clearly stating that the exegetical rules that govern the exegesis of the Old Testament are identical to those that govern the symbols of the New Testament. This hermeneutical principle is clearly affirmed by Origen at the beginning of the Commentary on John: “Since the Saviour has come, and has caused the Gospel to be embodied in the Gospel (ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ἐπιδημήσας καὶ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον σωματοποιηϑῆναι ποιήσας τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ), he has made all things Gospel, as it were (πάντα ὡσεὶ εὐαγγέλιον πεποίηκεν)” (CIo I,33). Origen then goes on by saying that even the very Gospel will finally be transcended by the “eternal Gospel” written in heaven. Therefore, the Gospel that human beings read now is only a narration, a mere collection of symbols, when compared to the noetic stability of the eternal Gospel: “And that which John calls an eternal Gospel (εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον), which would properly be called a spiritual Gospel (πνευματικόν), clearly presents both the mysteries presented by Christ’s words and things (καὶ τὰ παριστάμενα μυστήρια ὑπὸ τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ τά τε πράγματα) of which his acts were symbols” (CIo I,40)28.

28. On the eternal Gospel see also: Prin III,6,8 and IV,3,13; HLv IV,10,97-98.

FROM CAPERNAUM TO JERUSALEM

133

In addition, this research highlights two different kinds of noetic interpretations: the psychological and the cosmological29. On the one hand, the psychological interpretation is related to the single soul’s progressive acquisition of knowledge. In this case, the Logos is said to progressively “go up” inside the soul of the believer who gradually discovers his resemblance to the Logos, as in the case of the interpretation of Jerusalem and the temple30. On the other hand, the cosmological interpretation represents the noetic history of the journey of the Saviour who visits and heals the entirety of the cosmos, that is, the entirety of the existing souls, healing and rejoicing with the souls of those who find themselves in different states of disgrace according to their sin. However, it is worth noting that Origen does not separate these two interpretations; on the contrary, psychological and cosmological interpretations are constantly intertwined one with the other31. I find the relationship between this noetic rewriting of history and the overlapping of the psychological and cosmological interpretations most interesting. Indeed, the intertwining of cosmological and psychological interpretation, as well as the interpretation of historical events as symbols of noetic realities, pushes the scholar to ask a difficult question: what is the place of factual history in Origen’s exegesis? Scholarship has proposed different answers to this question over time. Some scholars have utterly denied the importance of factual history, to the point of accusing Origen of proposing an over-intellectualized and disembodied version of Christianity32. Others have defended Origen’s 29. On the significance of cosmological and psychological interpretations in Origen’s exegesis, and on their relation to Origen’s doctrine of history, see A. F ÜRST, Origenes als Theologe der Geschichte: Exegese und Philosophie in der Geschichtstheologie des Origenes, in ID., Von Origenes und Hieronymus zu Augustinus: Studien zur antiken Theologiegeschichte(AKG, 115), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2011, 125-162. 30. This is the case of the going up to Jerusalem in the disciples of CIo X,141-142. See also the episode of Cana: CIo X,299-300. For a study on Origen’s noetic interpretation of Jerusalem as opposed to the chiliastic and Jewish interpretation of the “holy city” see R.L. WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly:PalestineinChristianHistoryandThought, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 65-81. 31. A perfect example of the two types of interpretation can be found in CIo XIII,391392, where the two sojourns in Cana are interpreted both as “the two sojourns of the Saviour in the world” (δύο τοῦ σωτῆρος εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐπιδημίας) and as the “two visits of the Logos in the soul” (δύο τοῦ λόγου ἐπιδημίαι ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ). Although Origen treats the psychological and the cosmological interpretation as two separate interpretations, they both contribute to unfold the spiritual meaning of each episode. Regarding the double spiritual meaning in Origen’s exegesis see: E.A. DIVELY LAURO, The Soul and Spirit of Scripture within Origen’s Exegesis (The Bible in Ancient Christianity, 3), Boston, MA – Leiden, Brill, 2005. 32. See, among the many: R.P.C. HANSON, AllegoryandEvent:AStudyoftheSources andSignificanceofOrigen’sInterpretationofScripture, London, SCM, 1959, reprinted

134

G. HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD

exegesis, claiming that Origen actually succeeded in harmonising different levels of biblical exegesis without obliterating either the historical reality or the literal sense. One of the most renowned exponents of the latter scholarly trend is Dawson33. He insists on Origen’s capacity for reading the historical occurrence of past events “in a way that allows or enables that occurrence to happen again for the present-day reader”, without using a “de-historicizing mode of reading”34. According to Dawson, Origen’s concept of history relies on his anti-Gnostic attitude of considering past actions, even those of the Old Testament, not simply as “over and done”, but as remaining relevant and necessary in the present and in the future for the spiritual advancement of the interpreter35. This is interpreted by Dawson – contrary to Auerbach’s interpretation – as Origen’s distinctive way of preserving history36. While, I think, Dawson’s interpretation furnishes a fairly convincing account of Origen’s psychological interpretation of the Biblical text, it still does not answer the question regarding the relation between the story narrated in the Bible and the historicaloccurrence of that same story. Indeed, even if, according to Dawson’s interpretation, Origen considers the historicalreality of the types sufficiently preserved by the “present occurrence in the interpreter’s soul” of the events that are figuratively narrated in the Bible, this still does not solve the problem of the relationship between the historical reality and the historical occurrence of those events37. Indeed, even if the events narrated in the Bible are history insofar as their deepest meaning occurs in the interpreter’s soul – thus solving the problem of their historical reality – this does not mean that these events have had an historicaloccurrence. While this could be overlooked when interpreting the Old Testament, it still poses a serious problem when applied to the story of Jesus. with introduction by J.W. TRIGG, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2002. Against Hanson’s critique of Origen’s concept of history see: M.J. EDWARDS, OrigenagainstPlato (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity), Aldershot, Ashgate 2002; P. TZAMALIKOS, Origen: Philosophy of History and Eschatology (SupplVigChr, 85), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2007. 33. J.D. DAWSON, ChristianFiguralReadingandtheFashioningofIdentity,Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 2002. 34. Ibid., p. 137. 35. Ibid., p. 127. 36. For Auerbach’s critique of Origen see: E. AUERBACH, Figura, in Neue Dantestudien (Istanbul Schriften,5), Istanbul, Istanbul Universitesi, 1944, 11-72; English translation by R. MANHEIM, in E. AUERBACH, ScenesfromtheDramaofEuropeanLiterature (Theory and History of Literature, 9), Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1984, 11-76. See also Dawson’s polemic against D. BOYARIN, ARadicalJew:Pauland thePoliticsofIdentity, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1994. 37. DAWSON, ChristianFiguralReading (n. 33), p. 137.

FROM CAPERNAUM TO JERUSALEM

135

Being aware of the complexity of the matter at hand, this article seeks to build on previous scholarship by proposing some remarks based on the textual analysis of Origen’s sacred geography. In particular, it aims to show that Origen’s exegesis is entirely focused on the noeticsignificance of the historical events narrated in the Bible rather than on the historical occurrence of these events. First and foremost, one must be aware that the five exegetical rules detected have no use for a historical reconstruction of Jesus’ journey, since Origen has shown no interest in reconstructing the itinerary from a literal or an historical perspective (τῆς λέξεως or τῆς ἱστορίας) (CIo X,129-130). Indeed, Origen plainly admits the impossibility of such task38, specifying that the evangelists “made some minor changes in what happened so far as history is concerned (κατὰ τὴν ἱστορίαν), with a view to the usefulness of the mystical object (τοῦ μυστικοῦ σκοποῦ) [of those matters]. Consequently, […] they have composed what is reported in this manner with a certain degree of distortion (μετά τινος παραλλαγῆς)” (CIo X,19)39. Consequently, Origen’s fanatical care for every single detail in the Gospel does not refer in any way to the factual reality of what happened in history, but onlytothe narration of these events. Hence, Origen shows a moderate lack of care for what really happened in history in Jesus’ time, while all his attention is drawn by the narration – one could say, the story-telling – of Jesus’ words and deeds40. In this regard, it is worth noting the close connection, explicitly made by Origen, between the different epinoiai of the Son and the historical realities narrated in the Gospels. This connection is particularly interesting because the epinoiai are merely logical classifications of the different levels of understanding that the rational creature can gain of the Son, according to its degree of progress. Therefore, the epinoiai lack an ontological essence, being only different projections of the only true essence of the Son (CIo I,200). Indeed, by treating the historical events found in 38. “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” (CIo X,130). 39. Indeed, far from being an intellectual divertissement focused on the reconstruction of the historical journey of Jesus, Origen interprets scriptural exegesis as a way of life. In this regard see: P.W. MARTENS, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life(Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. 40. Origen shows no sign of interest for the physical existence in Palestine of the places where the events narrated in the Gospel took place (e.g., Capernaum). More than a century later, the same attitude can be found in Eusebius. In this regard, see: P.W.L. WALKER, Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 105.

136

G. HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD

the Gospel as if they were epinoiai of the Son, Origen is explicitly treating historical facts as noetic signifiers (CIo X,21-35). Just as the epinoiai lack an ontological essence, being only different projections – one could say, logical theophanies – of the only true essence of the Son (CIo I,200), so historical events are said to reveal noetic aspects of God’s mystery41. As a consequence, Jesus’ sayings and Jesus’ journey are both said to lack, sometimes, literal and factual meaning, while they always possess a noetic significance (CIo XIII,250-259). This connection between the epinoiai of the Son and the historical events further proves that, in Origen’s exegesis, the reality of what happened in history is not important, since only narration truly matters, for it points to the noetic significance of facts. Hence, historical events narrated in the Gospel are not important in their actual eventuality, but only as logical signifiers of a noetic significant, just as the epinoiai are of the essence of the Son. However, this attitude should not be understood to imply a radical denial of the historical occurrence of Jesus’ journey. Origen admits more than once that the evangelist may have used a historical event to deliver a deeper meaning (CIo X,144). In any case, the historical occurrence of the event is not important perse: “Consequently, the historical meaning of our passage (τὴν ἱστορίαν), if indeed it ever occurred (εἴ γε καὶ αὐτὴ γεγένηται), indicates that a miracle was executed” (CIo X,148). This passage shows that, according to Origen, the historicalmeaning does not depend on the historicaloccurrence of the event. In this way, “the spiritual truth is often preserved in the material falsehood, so to speak” (CIo X,20-21)42. Origen’s attitude towards the historical occurrence of past events should be interpreted as partial disinterest rather than clear denial. Ultimately, historical reconstructions are said to be a matter for the simpleminded (Ὁ μὲν οὖν ἀκεραιότερος), while the skilled interpreter is trained to acknowledge the symbols (σύμβολος) found in the narration (CIo XIII,397).

41. On the role of Christ and his epinoiai in Origen’s soteriology see: A.-C. JACOBSEN, Christ, the Teacher of Salvation: A Study on Origen’s Christology and Soteriology (Adamantiana, 6), Münster, Aschendorff, 2015. On the relation between epinoiai, particularity and universality see: T. GREGGS, Barth,Origen,andUniversalSalvation:Restoring Particularity, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 54-84. 42. The Greek text runs: σῳζομένου πολλάκις τοῦ ἀληϑοῦς πνευματικοῦ ἐν τῷ σωματικῷ, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, ψευδεῖ.

FROM CAPERNAUM TO JERUSALEM

137

IV. CONCLUSIONS It is now time to draw some conclusions. First, this article has shown that Origen’s exegesis of the Gospel follows five exegetical rules, according to which the meaning of Jesus’ acts and deeds varies in accordance with the significance of the place, time, and company in which the events took place. As a result of this methodology, Origen interprets the descent from Cana to Capernaum as a noetic reference to universal salvation, and Jerusalem as the protological and eschatological condition of the redeemed soul. Thus, Origen builds his sacred geography of the holy land on Jesus’ movements from one city to another, thus interpreting the cities and travels in accordance with the different cosmological levels in which each soul can be found according to its sins. Furthermore, the five evangelical rules that elevate the meaning of the Gospel narrative from its mere historical context to the higher noetic signification are also responsible for the shift of attention from the historical signifiers to the noetic significance. Consequently, the Gospel narrative of historical events remains as a symbol which is actually necessary to achieve knowledge of the noetic realities they symbolise. Nevertheless, the historical occurrence of the events narrated in the Gospel is disregarded in favour of an interpretation that identifies the theologically significant point only in the narrative of these events. While Origen allows for the possibility that historical events could have happened, he does not show any interest in understanding them in their historical occurrence. In this perspective, the Gospel’s narration of events works as the signifier out of which the interpreter ought to draw the noetic significance. In other words, in Origen’s exegesis, ultimately the story matters, history does not. Via Ottorino Gentiloni 67 IT-00139 Roma Italy [email protected]

Giovanni HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD University of Exeter

“A PLACE TO WORSHIP THE LORD OUR GOD” ORIGEN’S EXEGESIS OF THE HOLY LAND IN HIS HOMILIES ON THE PROPHETS

I. JERUSALEM AND JUDAH Many recent studies have rightly pointed out how Origen usually interprets allegorically the biblical references to Jerusalem or to the Holy Land1. On the one hand, this attitude is perfectly consistent with his desire to reveal the actual spiritual meaning lying beneath every word of Scripture. On the other hand, the spiritualization of place names is also an extremely refined technique to fight the ideas of those who expected a future reconstruction of the earthly Jerusalem: not only Montanists and Christians who believed in a millenarian eschatology, but also Jews influenced by rabbinic Judaism. In this respect, the same effort found in his doctrinal treatise De principiis and the apologetic Contra Celsum2 can be detected also in his HomiliesonJeremiah (HIer) and onEzekiel (HEz)3.

1. See L. PERRONE, Origeneela‘TerraSanta’, in O. ANDREI (ed.), CaesareaMaritima e la scuola origeniana: Multiculturalità, forme di competizione culturale e identità cristiana.Attidell’XIConvegnodelGruppoItalianodiRicercasuOrigeneelaTradizione Alessandrina(22-23settembre2011)(Supplementi di Adamantius, 3), Brescia, Morcelliana, 2013, 139-160, pp. 152-155; ID., “Sacramentum Iudaeae” (Gerolamo, Ep.46): GerusalemmeelaTerraSantanelpensierocristianodeiprimisecoli.Continuitàetrasformazioni, in A. MELLONI – D. MENOZZI – G. RUGGIERI – M. TOSCHI (eds.), Cristianesimo nella storia. Saggi in onore di Giuseppe Alberigo, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1996, 445-478. For an account of the evolution of the idea of Holy Land, eventually conceived as a place of pilgrimage, see R.L. WILKEN, Early Christian Chiliasm, Jewish Messianism, and the IdeaoftheHolyLand, in HTR 79 (1986) 298-307; ID., TheLandCalledHoly:Palestine in Christian History and Thought, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992; B. BITTON-ASHKELONY, EncounteringtheSacred:TheDebateonChristianPilgrimagein Late Antiquity (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 38), Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – London, University of California Press, 2005, pp. 1-29. 2. Prin I,1,4 (GCS 22, 19,18–20,4 KOETSCHAU); II,11,2-3 (GCS 22, 184,5–186,21); IV,3,9-10 (GCS 22, 335,7–339,17); CC VII,28-30 (GCS 3, 178,19–181,25 KOETSCHAU). 3. See also the related and analogous interpretations of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in the fragments from Origen’s lost CommentaryonLamentations: according to the Greek edition of the text (Lam 1) the Lamentations were composed by Jeremiah, and therefore Origen perceived them as related to the prophetic book; see V. MARCHETTO, “Unavocedinotte”:PresenzeangelichenelTempiodiGerusalemme dalCommento alle Lamentazioni diOrigene, in Adamantius 21 (2015) 244-268.

140

T. INTERI

I will now observe the significant occurrences of the interpretations of Jerusalem and the Holy Land presented by the Alexandrian in his homilies on the prophets, so as to synthetically retrace the main lines of his exegesis with regard to this theme4. Firstly, the city is mentioned several times in the prophetic pericopes analyzed by Origen. He often reiterates to his audience the etymology of the name Jerusalem, which translates as “vision of peace”5: with this well-known explanation the preacher equates Jerusalem to the Church on the historical level, and to the soul on the psychological-anthropological level, on the basis of the etymology of the name Zion, translated as “observatory”6. Let us look at some texts to better understand the textual and exegetical justifications for this twofold gloss, in which the two main lines of thought are not

4. The aim is to deeply analyze how Origen deals with a certain theme as he interprets different biblical books belonging to the same group. However, occasional references will also be made to similar passages from the recently discoveredHomilieson thePsalms (DieneuenPsalmenhomilien:EinekritischeEditiondesCodex Monacensis Graecus314, ed. L. PERRONE with M. MOLIN PRADEL – E. PRINZIVALLI – A. CACCIARI [GCS NF, 19; Origenes Werke, 13], Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015), so as to briefly point out how the same topic is dealt with in these new texts. It should be remembered, though, that Origen acknowledges a significant relationship between the prophetic books and the Psalter, given the fact that he often refers to the author of a Psalm as “the prophet”, to his activity as “prophesying”, and to his composition as a “prophecy” (see, among the numerous examples in HPs: H36Ps II,1 [GCS NF 19, 127,18]; II,6 [GCS NF 19, 135,9]; IV,3 [GCS NF 19, 166,24]; H73Ps I,1 [GCS NF 19, 225,9.11]). Even though he is still clearly aware of the difference between prophecies and psalms (see e.g. H77Ps I,2 [GCS NF 19, 353,25]), this significant correspondence is consistent with Origen’s charismatic conception of prophecy (see G. FILORAMO, Lostatutodella profezia in Origene, in Ad contemplandam sapientiam: Studi di filologia letteratura storia in memoria di Sandro Leanza, Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino, 2004, 239-251; G. AF HÄLLSTRÖM, CharismaticSuccession:AStudyonOrigen’sConceptofProphecy [Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 42], Helsinki, Toimittanut Anne-Marit Enroth, 1985). 5. See, with regards to the mentioned works only, HIer IX,2 (GCS 6, 65,19-23 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); XIII,2 (GCS 6, 103,21-22); HIerL I,2 (GCS 33, 309,9-10 BAEHRENS); II,1 (GCS 33, 291,8-9); HEz XII,2 (GCS 33, 435,17-19); but see also FrIer 11 (GCS 6, 202,21-22). On the role of etymology in Origen as a fundamental exegetical tool and a characteristic feature of both Jewish and Alexandrian exegesis, see K. METZLER, NamensetymologienzurHebräischenBibelbeiOrigenes, in S. KACZMAREK – H. PIETRAS (eds.), OrigenianaDecima: OrigenasWriter (BETL, 244), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, 169-177; A. TZVETKOVA-GLASER, Pentateuchauslegung bei Origenes und den frühen Rabbinen, Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2010, pp. 431-435; I.L.E. RAMELLI, Philosophical Allegoresis of Scripture in Philo and Its Legacy in Gregory of Nyssa, in Studia Philonica Annual 20 (2008) 55-99, pp. 77-82; A. VAN DEN HOEK, Etymologizing in a Christian Context: TheTechniquesofClementandOrigen, in StudiaPhilonicaAnnual 16 (2004) 122-168; R.P.C. HANSON, InterpretationsofHebrewNamesinOrigen, in VigChr10 (1956) 103-123. 6. See, e.g., HIer V,16 (GCS 6, 46,3-5 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); H75Ps 2 (GCS NF 19, 283,11–284,2 PERRONE); see PERRONE, Origeneela‘TerraSanta’ (n. 1), p. 154.

“A PLACE TO WORSHIP THE LORD OUR GOD”

141

mutually exclusive and, at times, even complement one another. One of the clearest texts is from HIer IX7: Hear the words of this covenant, and speak to the men of Judah and to thosewhodwellinJerusalem (Jer 11,2). We are themenofJudah due to Christ. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah (Heb 7,14) and the name Judah, if I present it according to the Scripture, refers to Christ. […] This [i.e. Jerusalem] is the Church. For the city of God (cf. Rev 3,12), the Vision of Peace, is the Church, the peace which he brought to us (cf. Jn 14,27) is in her, and is completed and beheld if we are children of peace8.

Here Origen explains the identification of the men of Judah with his fellow Christians as resting on Jesus’ descent from the tribe of Judah, as he has done twice already in two previous homilies on Jeremiah (using the same reference to Hebrews)9; then, he identifies the inhabitants of Jerusalem with the Church, which has received peace from God. But the fact that the prophetic text itself presents a difference between the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah is the strongest argument Origen has to link Judah and Jerusalem to the Christians of his time: in the fourth Homily onJeremiah, the Alexandrian comments a passage in which God regrets that the kingdom of Judah has sinned more than Israel (which has been sent away), even though he had instructed the prophet to warn the people 7. The critical edition of HIer is Jeremiahomilien,Klageliederkommentar,Erklärung derSamuel-undKönigbücher,ed. E. KLOSTERMANN. 2. Bearbeitete Aufl. herausgegeben von P. NAUTIN (GCS, 6; Origenes Werke, 3), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1901; Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 21983, pp. 1-194; for the two Latin homilies (HIerL) see HomilienzuSamuelI, zumHoheliedundzudenPropheten.KommentarzumHoheliedinRufinsundHieronymus Übersetzungen, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS (GCS, 33; Origenes Werke, 8), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1925, pp. 290-317. The fundamental commentary on these sermons remains Origène. Homélies sur Jérémie. Tome I: Homélies I-XI; Tome II: Homélies XII-XX et Homélies latines, traduction par P. HUSSON – P. NAUTIN, édition, introduction et notes par P. NAUTIN (SC, 232.238), Paris, Cerf, 1976-1977. The translation of HIer is taken, with few adjustments, from Origen. Homilies on Jeremiah. Homily on 1 King 28, transl. J.C. SMITH (Fathers of the Church, 97), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1998. 8. HIer IX,1-2 (GCS 6, 64,26–65,23 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN; transl. SMITH [n. 7], pp. 86-87): Ἀκούσατετοὺςλόγουςτῆςδιαϑήκηςταύτης,καὶλαλήσατεπρὸςἄνδραςἸούδα καὶπρὸςτοὺςκατοικοῦνταςἹερουσαλήμ (Jer 11,2). Ἄνδρες Ἰούδα ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν διὰ τὸν Χριστόν· πρόδηλονγὰρὅτιἐξἸούδαἀνατέταλκενὁκύριοςἡμῶν (Heb 7,14), καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἰούδα ἐὰν παραστήσω κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν ἐπὶ τὸν Χριστὸν ἀναφερόμενον […] Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐκκλησία· ἔστιν γὰρ “ἡ πόλις τοῦ ϑεοῦ” (cf. Rev 3,12) ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἡ Ὅρασις τῆς εἰρήνης, ἐν αὐτῇ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἣν ἤγαγεν ἡμῖν (cf. Jn 14,27), εἴγε ἐσμὲν τέκνα εἰρήνης, πληϑύνεται καὶ ὁρᾶται. 9. Cf. HIer IV,2 (GCS 6, 25,3-5 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); V,15 (GCS 6, 45,18-20); he will also repeat the same interpretation and verse in HIer XVI,10 (GCS 6, 141,23-25): ἀλλ’ ἐὰν ἴδῃς, ὡς πολλάκις ἐδείξαμεν, Ἰούδαν τροπικῶς λεγόμενον τὸν Χριστόν, μήποτε ἁμαρτίαἸούδα (Jer 17,1) ἡμῶν ἐστι τῶν πιστευόντων ἐπὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τὸν “ἐκ φυλῆς Ἰούδα” (Heb 7,14).

142

T. INTERI

of Judah not to make the same mistakes10. Origen then argues that Israel represents the Jews who have been abandoned and forsaken by God, while Judah represents the Christians coming from the pagan nations; however, they too ought to pay attention to the prophetic threats, which should be regarded as addressed to them: If you comprehend these two peoples, one from Israel, the other from the pagan nations, look with me at the exile of Israel also with respect to the people of Israel. Note with me that it is written concerning that people: IsentherawayandIgavetoherabillofdivorce (Jer 3,8). […] So, when he speaks first that “I sent away Israel due to her sins and I sent her into exile, but Judah did not turn back when she heard about what happened to Israel” (cf. Jer 3,7ff.), he speaks about our sins11.

In this context, we can notice that the opposition between Israel and Judah justifies and strengthens Origen’s interpretation of the two nations, which he highlights as the fundamental elements in the salvation history, following Paul’s view12. However, once the preacher recognizes a

10. Jer 3,8-11 (Septuaginta.IdestVetusTestamentumgraeceiutxaLXXinterpretes, ed. A. RAHLFS, I-II, Stuttgart, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 91935): καὶ εἶδον διότι περὶ πάντων ὧν κατελήμφϑη ἐν οἷς ἐμοιχᾶτο ἡ κατοικία τοῦ Ισραηλ, καὶ ἐξαπέστειλα αὐτὴν καὶ ἔδωκα αὐτῇ βιβλίον ἀποστασίου εἰς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῆς· καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήϑη ἡ ἀσύνϑετος Ιουδα καὶ ἐπορεύϑη καὶ ἐπόρνευσεν καὶ αὐτή. 9καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς οὐϑὲν ἡ πορνεία αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐμοίχευσεν τὸ ξύλον καὶ τὸν λίϑον. 10καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν τούτοις οὐκ ἐπεστράφη πρός με ἡ ἀσύνϑετος Ιουδα ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας αὐτῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ ψεύδει. 11 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρός με ᾿Εδικαίωσεν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀσυνϑέτου Ιουδα. 11. HIer IV,2-4 (GCS 6, 24,17–26,9 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN; transl. SMITH [n. 7], pp. 33-35): Εἰ νοεῖς τοὺς δύο τούτους λαούς, τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐϑνῶν, ἴδε μοι τὴν μετοικίαν τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ λαοῦ ἐκείνου τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ περὶ ἐκείνου νόει μοι γεγράφϑαι· Ἐξαπέσταλκα αὐτὴν καὶ ἔδωκα αὐτῇ βιβλίον ἀποστασίου (Jer 3,8). […] Ἐὰν οὖν λέγῃ ὡς πρῶτον ἐξαπέστειλα διὰ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐξαπέστειλα εἰς μετοικίαν αὐτόν, ὁ δὲ Ἰούδας ἀκούων τὰ γενόμενα τῷ Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἐπέστρεψε, λέγει περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων. 12. The same distinction can also be found in HIer V,2 (GCS 6, 31,18-28 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN), while in HIer V,4 (GCS 6, 34,30–35,17) Origen mentions the remnant of Israel (cf. Rom 11,5) which will be saved after the pagan nations. On Origen’s interpretation of the role of Judaism in salvation history, see G. SGHERRI, ChiesaeSinagoganell’opera di Origene (Studia patristica mediolanensia, 13), Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1982; ID., Giudaismo, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO(ed.), Origene.Dizionario:Lacultura,ilpensiero, leopere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 200-206. Significantly, a different interpretation of the relationship between Judah and Israel is given in HPs: the split of the kingdom of Israel from the kingdom of Judah is explained as a foretelling of the contemporary schismatic and heretical movements which departed from the main Church (symbolized by Jerusalem, as governed by the Davidic dynasty, David being a type of Christ); see H77Ps II,1-2 (GCS NF 19, 367,16–369,17 PERRONE); H77Ps IX,6 (GCS NF 19, 473,11-20); for a commentary on the “whole heresiological treatise” that Origen develops in H77Ps II, see L. PERRONE, TheFindoftheMunichCodex:ACollectionof29HomiliesofOrigenonthePsalms, in

“A PLACE TO WORSHIP THE LORD OUR GOD”

143

reference to the Church in the names Jerusalem and Judah13, it is both easy and useful for him to shift the interpretation from an ecclesiastical to a psychological-anthropological meaning: he does this by shifting from the image of the Church as a whole, to the single members who constitute it, laying the emphasis on personal responsibility, rather than on the role of the ecclesiastical community in history. In the sixth HomilyonEzekiel he says14: “Allegorically, this presents Jerusalem under the image of a newborn baby girl (cf. Ezekiel 16). But we should know that what is said about Jerusalem applies to all people in the Church. […] For God calls all of us Jerusalem, we who at first were sinners”15. Thus, the message of the Scripture is addressed not only to the Church as a community, but also to every single member of it. More specifically, the Jerusalem so often admonished by God is the soul of every Christian: History says that the name of that place had been Jebus, but afterwards the name changed and became Jerusalem (cf. Josh 18,28). The Children of the Hebrews say that Jebus is interpreted as “what has been trampled”. Jebus then, the soul which is trampled by hostile powers, has been changed, and has become Jerusalem, Vision of Peace16.

Thus, Jerusalem is considered in opposition not only with Israel and the Jews, but also with the countless evil forces of sin who strive to A.-C. JACOBSEN (ed.), Origeniana Undecima: Origen and Origenism in the History of WesternThought (BETL, 279), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 201-233, pp. 222-227. 13. One noteworthy exception seems to be in HIer XIII,3 (GCS 6, 104,22-24 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN; transl. SMITH [n. 7], p. 133), where he states: “And seeing that Jerusalem in Judea – by which, through synecdoche, it is possible to understand all of the Jews – turnedawayfrom Christ, because of this yougoback (Jer 15,6)” (Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἀπεστράφη ἡ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἡ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ τὸν Χριστόν, ἀφ’ ἧς συνεκδοχικῶς πάντας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους νοητέον, διὰ τοῦτο ὀπίσωπορεύσῃ [Jer 15,6]); however, in this case Origen is just highlighting and specifying the historical responsibility of the city for having rejected Christ, while God’s warnings are still valid for contemporary Christians. 14. The critical edition of HEz is GCS 33; Origenes Werke 8, ed. BAEHRENS (n. 7), pp. 318-454; see also the commented edition Origène.HoméliessurÉzéchiel, Introduction, traduction et notes par M. BORRET (SC, 352), Paris, Cerf, 1989. The translation of HEz is taken, with few adjustments, from Origen. Homilies1–14onEzekiel, translation and introduction by T.P. SCHECK, New York – Mahwah, NJ, The Newman Press, 2010. 15. HEz VI,4 (GCS 33, 381,15-20 BAEHRENS; transl. SCHECK [n. 14], p. 89): Allegorice inducit Hierusalem quasi puellam ab infantia genitam. Quae autem de Hierusalem dicuntur, sciamus ad omnes homines qui in Ecclesia sunt pertinere. Omnes enim, qui primumfuimuspeccatores,HierusalemvocamuraDeo. 16. HIer XIII,2 (GCS 6, 103,18-22 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN; transl. SMITH [n. 7], p. 132): Ἡ ἱστορία λέγει, ὅτι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου ἦν Ἰεβούς, δεύτερον δὲ μετέβαλε τὸ ὄνομα καὶ γέγονεν Ἱερουσαλήμ (cf. Josh 18,28). Ἰεβούς φασιν Ἑβραίων παῖδες ὅτι ἑρμηνεύεται Πεπατημένη. Ἰεβοὺς οὖν, ἡ Πεπατημένη ὑπὸ δυνάμεων ἀντικειμένων ψυχή, μεταβέβληται καὶ γέγονεν Ἱερουσαλήμ, Ὅρασις εἰρήνης. Another example can be found in HIer XIX,14 (GCS 6, 170,14–172,27 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN), along with the metaphor of the captivity.

144

T. INTERI

conquer the city of the Christian’s soul. Origen has plenty of room to play with the images of slavery and destruction in the prophetic books to depict the punishments which the sinners’ soul will endure: “This [Ezek 14,21] indicates that we are Jerusalem, since we, when we sin, are indeed the Jerusalem that is being destroyed, but when we abide in the commands, we are called the Jerusalem that is being saved”17; and “Do not think that these things are said only to Jerusalem, and do not apply to each of us who are slaves to sins”18. Moreover, such an interpretation gives the Alexandrian room to play with the metaphor: when Origen depicts Jerusalem as the Church or as the Christian fighting against sin, he exploits the opposition between the inside (Jerusalem or Judah) and the outside (Babylon or Egypt). Here the land, rather than to represent the soul itself, represents the state which the soul either finds itself in, moves to, or escapes from: “Thus, as we began to say, the soul is always in some place with a name relatable to a land: just as the soul of the sinner is in Babylon (Jer 28[51],6), so conversely the soul of the just man is in Judea”19. Origen often develops this spatial metaphor when he wants to effectively explain to his public that moving to a specific place means proceeding on a correspondent spiritual path: But if you sin, God’s visitation will abandon you, and you will be handed over as a captive to Nebuchadnezzar, and having been handed over, you will be led to Babylon. For since your soul has been thrown into confusion by vice and disturbances, you will be led off into Babylon. For Babylon means “confusion” (cf. Gen 11,9). But if you again do penance and procure mercy from God through the conversion of a true heart, Ezra is sent to you, who leads you back and makes you build Jerusalem (cf. 1 Ezra 7,1-10)20. 17. HEzV,3 (GCS 33, 374,7-11 BAEHRENS; transl. SCHECK [n. 14], p. 81): Si autem et quattuor vindictas meas pessimas, romphaeam et famem et bestias pessimas et mortem immisero in Hierusalem (Ezek 14,21),nosindicansHierusalem,quiapeccantesquidem nos Hierusalem sumus quae destruitur, in praeceptis vero permanentes Hierusalem dicimurquaesalvatur. 18. HEz X,1 (GCS 33, 416,14-16 BAEHRENS; transl. SCHECK [n. 14], p. 128): Neque putes ad Hierusalem tantum haec esse dicta et non ad singulos nostrum qui delictis tenemurobnoxii. 19. HIerL II,1 (GCS 33, 291,11-13 BAEHRENS; transl. SMITH [n. 7], p. 261):Igitur,ut dicere coeperamus, semper anima in aliquo connuncupativo terrae loco est; et sicut peccatorisin Babylone (Jer 28 [51],6),sicecontrarioiustiinIudaea. In this passage from Jeremiah (28[51],6; ed. RAHLFS) God urges his people to escape from Babylon in order to avoid the imminent destruction of the city: φεύγετε ἐκ μέσου Βαβυλῶνος καὶ ἀνασῴζετε ἕκαστος τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ μὴ ἀπορριφῆτε ἐν τῇ ἀδικίᾳ αὐτῆς, ὅτι καιρὸς ἐκδικήσεως αὐτῆς ἐστιν παρὰ κυρίου, ἀνταπόδομα αὐτὸς ἀνταποδίδωσιν αὐτῇ. 20. HEz I,3 (GCS 33, 325,18-24 BAEHRENS; transl. SCHECK [n. 14], p. 31): siautem peccaveris, derelinquet te visitatio Dei et traderis captivus Nabuchodonosor et traditus duceris in Babylonem. Cum enim confusa fuerit anima tua a vitiis et perturbationibus, abduceris in Babylonem, quoniam Babylon confusio interpretatur (cf. Gen 11,9). Et si

“A PLACE TO WORSHIP THE LORD OUR GOD”

145

This frequent remark is another significant element in Origen’s preaching, as it asserts his stance on free will in the ever-present potential for Christians to change, either by behaving or by misbehaving21. II. THE HOLY LAND The terms ἁγία γῆ and terra sancta rarely appear in the two collections here analyzed: it would be an anachronism to find them refer to a physical land considered worthy of pilgrimage, as already stated. In the few instances where the terms do appear, the explanations given for them are extremely interesting for our analysis. In the fourthHomilyonJeremiah, in a comment on the fact that the calling of the pagan nations has begun after Israel’s transgression, Origen asks: “Yet how does it happen that I who arose outside as a stranger to the so-called Holy Land now discourse concerning the promises (cf. Eph 2,12) of God, and believe in the God of the patriarchs Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and receive, by the grace of God, Jesus Christ who was foretold by the Prophets?”22. In naming the promised land the “so-called Holy Land”, Origen stresses the difference between the physical region God promised to give to Abraham and his descendants, and the spiritual realm which that promise actually symbolized23.

rursumpaenitentiamegerisetperconversionemvericordismisericordiamaDeoimpetraveris, mittitur tibi Esdras qui te reducat et aedificare faciat Hierusalem (cf. 1 Ezra 7,1-10). 21. Other examples of moving or being led to a symbolic place as a consequence of one’s own behavior can be found in HIer XIX,14 (GCS 6, 171,19-27 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); HIerL I,2 (GCS 33, 309,9-13 BAEHRENS); HEz XII,2 (GCS 33, 434,14–435,19); H77Ps IV,2 (GCS NF 19, 391,14-15 PERRONE). 22. HIer IV,2 (GCS 6, 24,13-17 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN; transl. SMITH [n. 7], p. 33): πόϑεν γὰρ ἐμοὶ τῷ ὁπουποτοῦν γενομένῳ ξένῳ τῆς λεγομένης ἁγίας γῆς, νῦν περὶ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν (cf. Eph 2,12) διαλέγεσϑαι τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ πιστεύειν εἰς τὸν ϑεὸν τῶν πατριαρχῶν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ, καὶ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν προκεκηρυγμένον ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν χάριτι ϑεοῦ παραδέχεσϑαι; 23. See also H75Ps1 (GCS NF 19, 280,1-9 PERRONE), where Origen refutes the Jews’ claim that, since they had inherited the land of Judea, the cult and worship of God only belonged to them: the absurdity of this allegation is proved by the very fact that even when Israel’s population was in exile from the Holy Land, they still managed to find a way to return to God (Ὅτι μὲν γνωστὸςἐντῇἸουδαίᾳὁϑεὸς [Ps 75,2a] γέγραπται, δῆλόν ἐστι· καὶ ὅτι Ἰουδαῖοι τὸν τόπον διηγοῦνται διὰ τὸ κεκληρῶσϑαι αὐτοὺς τὴν χώραν ταύτην καὶ οἴεσϑαι παρ’ αὐτοῖς μόνοις εἶναι τὴν ϑεοσέβειαν, φανερόν ἐστι. […] Τί δὲ ὁπότε ἐξεληλύϑησαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁγίας γῆς καὶ ὄντες ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ ἐπέστρεφον πρὸς ϑεόν, οὐκ ἦν ἆρα γνωστὸς αὐτοῖς ὁϑεός [Ps 75,2a];).

146

T. INTERI

However, the terms for “Holy Land” occur often in HEz XI and HIer VII. Commenting the allegory of two eagles from Ezekiel24, Origen observes: “And he gave it for a fertile field; he established it to be cared for near muchwater,anditsprangupandbecameaweakvine” (Ezek 17,5-6). The people of God were truly weak in Babylon. That is why they were unable to sing the Lord’s song, saying: “HowshallwesingtheLord’ssongina strangeland?” (Ps 136,4). In fact, what had been planted in Babylon could not fail to be weak. How could that which had begun to be a Babylonian vine preserve its original strength? For it had produced no fruit in the Holy Land, and therefore when it was transferred by the eagle and came to the land of Canaan, it became a weak vine and small in stature. As long as it was in the Holy Land, it was a huge vine; but when it was transferred to the boundaries of sinners, it became small and weak. And you, therefore, the vine who is listening to me, if you want to be great, do not leave the boundaries of the Church, remain in the Holy Land, Jerusalem25.

Origen later clarifies that God sometimes uses the devil, symbolized by Nebuchadnezzar, to punish sinners by transferring them to the land of the sinners26: again, we have the metaphor of movement to a symbolic negative place as a consequence of committing sin. Ps 136,4, which stresses how difficult it is to overcome sin and praise God to obtain salvation, illustrates this dreadful situation both here and in HIerL II: “It [our soul] is in Babylon (Jer 28 [51],6) when it is confounded, when it is disturbed, when devoid of peace it endures the war of the passions, when an uproar of malice rages around it […]. For as long as anyone is in Babylon he cannot be saved. Even if he has remembered (cf. Ps 136,1) Jerusalem there, he mourns and says, Howwillwesingthesongofthe Lordinastrangeland? (Ps 136,4)”27. 24. See Ezekiel 17. 25. HEz XI,4 (GCS 33, 430,8-20 BAEHRENS; transl. SCHECK [n. 14], p. 144): Et dedit illud in campum frondiferum, super aquam multam respiciendum constituit illud; et exortum est et factum est in vitem infirmam (Ezek 17,5-6). Infirmatus est vere populus Dei in Babylone et ideo neque canticum Domini cantare poterat dicens: Quomodo cantabimus canticum Domini in terra aliena? (Ps 136,4) Reveranonpoteratinfirmanon esse quae plantata fuerat in Babylone. Quo pacto vires pristinas reservaret quae vitis Babyloniaessecoepisset?Quaequiainsanctaterrafructusnonfecerat,ideotranslata abaquilaetpositainterraChanaanfactaestinviteminfirmametinpusillamstatura. Quamdiuinsanctaterrafuit,ingensvitiserat;quandoverotranslataestinfinespeccatorum,etinfirmaetparvaeffectaest.Ettuigiturvitisquaemeaudis,sivisessemagna, noliexiredeEcclesiaefinibus,permaneinterrasanctaHierusalem. 26. HEz XI,5 (GCS 33, 431,4-5 BAEHRENS): Iusserat enim Deus ut Istrahelitarum populussubNabuchodonosoriugumcollasubmitteret. 27. HIerL II,1 (GCS 33, 290,14–291,2 BAEHRENS; transl. SMITH [n. 7], p. 260): In Babylone (Jer 28[51],6) est,quandoconfunditur,quandoturbatur,quandopacedeserta bella sustinet passionum, quando tumultus malitiae circa eam fremit […]. Donec enim

“A PLACE TO WORSHIP THE LORD OUR GOD”

147

The only other quote of Ps 136,4 in Origen’s works is, in fact, in HIerVII. Here Origen explains God’s words, “As you have forsaken me and served other gods in your land, you shall serve in a land not your own”28, warning his public not to commit idolatry. After hinting at the fact that the passage may also refer to something deeper, namely, his doctrine of the souls’ fall, he wonders whether for us it is possible to worship God, who is stranger to sin, in our strange land: And yet when we wish to worship the god stranger to the things of evil in this land of affliction, let us see what we do. We do not say, Howshall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? (Ps 136,4) but, How do we sing the Lord’s song not being in a land strange to him? (Ps 136,4) We seek a place to sing the Lord’s song, a place to worship the Lord our God in a strange land. What then is this place? I have found this (cf. Bar 3,15). He came to this land bearing the body which saved, adopting thebodyofsin(Rom 6,6) inthelikenessofthefleshofsin (Rom 8,3), so that in this place, through Christ Jesus who sojourned and nullified (cf. 1 Cor 11,24) the rulerofthisage (cf. Jn 12,31) and nullified the sin, I can worship God here, and after this I will worship him in the Holy Land. For anyone who has worshipped idols in the Holy Land went to a strange land, anyone who has worshipped God in a strange land will go to the Holy Land in Christ Jesus, towhomisthegloryandthepowerfor theages.Amen (1 Pet 4,11)29.

quisinBabylone est,salvarinonpotest.Quietsiamsiibirecordatus fuerit (cf. Ps 136,1) Hierusalem,ingemiscitetdicit:Quomodo cantabimus canticum Domini in terra aliena? (Ps 136,4). 28. Jer 5,19 (ed. RAHLFS): ᾿Ανϑ᾽ ὧν ἐδουλεύσατε ϑεοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις ἐν τῇ γῇ ὑμῶν, οὕτως δουλεύσετε ἀλλοτρίοις ἐν γῇ οὐχ ὑμῶν. 29. HIer VII,3 (GCS 6, 54,20-35 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN; transl. SMITH [n. 7], p. 73): Καίτοιγε καὶ ϑέλοντες τὸν ἀλλότριον τῶν τῆς ἁμαρτίας πραγμάτων προσκυνεῖν ϑεὸν ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ τῆς κακώσεως, τί ποιοῦμεν ἴδωμεν. Οὐ λέγομεν· Πῶςᾄσωμεντὴνᾠδὴν κυρίουἐπὶγῆςἀλλοτρίας; (Ps 136,4) ἀλλά· πῶς ᾄσωμεν τὴν ᾠδὴν κυρίου οὐκ ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλοτρίας τούτου; (Ps 136,4) Τόπον ζητοῦμεν τοῦ ᾄδειν τὴν ᾠδὴν κυρίου, τόπον τοῦ προσκυνεῖν κύριον τὸν ϑεὸν ἡμῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλοτρίας. Τίς οὖν ὁ τόπος; Εὗρον τοῦτον (cf. Bar 3,15)· ἦλϑεν ἐπὶ ταύτην φορέσας σῶμα τὸ σῶσαν, ἀναλαβὼν τὸσῶματὸτῆς ἁμαρτίας (Rom 6,6) ἐνὁμοιώματισαρκὸςἁμαρτίας (Rom 8,3), ἵν’ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ διὰ τὸν ἐπιδημήσαντα Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ καταργήσαντα (cf. 1 Cor 11,24) τὸν ἄρχοντα τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (cf. Jn 12,31) καὶ καταργήσαντα τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, δυνηϑῶ προσκυνῆσαι τὸν ϑεὸν ἐνϑάδε καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο προσκυνήσω ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ ἁγίᾳ. Εἰ γὰρ προσκυνήσας τις τὰ εἴδωλα ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ ἁγίᾳ ἀπελήλυϑεν εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀλλοτρίαν, προσκυνήσας τις τὸν ϑεὸν ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ ἀπελεύσεται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν τὴν ἁγίαν ἐνγῇ τῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ ἀπελεύσεται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν τὴν ἁγίαν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν (1 Pet 4,11). I accept here the punctuation suggested by O. MUNNICH, Le rôle de la citation dans l’écriture d’Origène. Étude des Homélies sur Jérémie, in KACZMAREK – PIETRAS (eds.),OrigenianaDecima (n. 5), 507-538, p. 535: ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλοτρίας τούτου; Τόπον ζητοῦμεν, instead of ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλοτρίας; Τούτου τόπον ζητοῦμεν (published in GCS 6, 54 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN and SC 232, 350 NAUTIN).

148

T. INTERI

Olivier Munnich has thoroughly examined the refined technique used to propose this interpretation30. Leveraging on the double meaning of πῶς (from Ps 136,4), both “how” and “where”, Origen harmonizes the scriptural quotes and finds a way to let Christians worship God even in a place hostile to their inner spiritual nature. The image of Christ as a “place” to be planted in can be found in other homilies31, but the image evoked here is slightly different and more elaborate: even though Origen does not say that Christ is the Holy Land, he states that Jesus with his incarnation has actually defied sin and is thus the only way for mankind to escape from it. In this sense, the Alexandrian probably still has in mind the condition of the fallen souls, and his talk of finally reaching the Holy Land could be a reference to the theory of apokatastasis; but to those of his audience who did not understand such allusions, he still gave a valid and accessible exegesis able to strengthen faith and offer even sinners a solution32. III. CONCLUSIONS: ECHOES AND VARIATIONS In addition to the passages here analyzed, worthy of note are two different but equally meaningful echoes of the peculiar image of Christ as the Holy Land, both in the HomiliesonthePsalms. In H73Ps I, Origen argues that the destruction of Jerusalem and the consequent exile are punishments inflicted because of the sins the Jews committed; and that, in particular, the current dreary state of the abandoned city is the punishment for their rejection of Christ33. He then, rather originally, links this 30. MUNNICH, Lerôledelacitation(n. 29), pp. 531-536. 31. Cf. HIer XVIII,5 (GCS 6, 157,5-7 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); HEz III,8 (GCS 33, 358,7-10 BAEHRENS). 32. The fact that this distancing from God refers to the fall of the souls after their sin may be hinted at also in a passage from H67Ps II,2 (GCS NF 19, 203,3-14 PERRONE): Origen quotes Ps 136,1 to urge his audience to lament the “exile to Babylon” and their “being far from Jerusalem”, so as to comprehend that “while living in the body you are in exile from God” (ϑρηνῶν δὲ σεαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἄφιξιν λέγων· ἐπὶτῶν ποταμῶνΒαβυλῶνος,ἐκεῖἐκαϑίσαμενκαὶἐκλαύσαμεν [Ps 136,1] καὶ τὰ λοιπά. […] Ἐὰν οὖν ϑρηνήσῃς σου τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἀποδημίαν καὶ νοήσῃς ὅτι ἐνδημῶν τῷ σώματι ἐκδημεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (cf. 2 Cor 5,8), [καὶ] ποιωϑεὶς κατὰ ϑεὸν ἔσῃ λίϑος κρύσταλλος, λίϑος τῶν περιβόλων, λίϑος ἐκλεκτός, λίϑος σάπφειρος καὶ ὅσοι ἄλλοι λίϑοι τίμιοι εἶναι λέγονται, ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκεν ἡ ἐν οὐρανῷ Ἰερουσαλήμ [cf. Isa 54,1112; Rev 21,19]). 33. H73Ps I,2 (GCS NF 19, 226,9-14 PERRONE): Ὁ δὲ ἤδη τι κἂν ἐπὶ ποσὸν βαϑύτερον ὁρῶν ἐρεῖ αἴτιον τοῦ ἀποσϑῆναι τὸν λαὸν τὸ τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀνηρῆσϑαι ὑπ’ αὐτῶν. Καὶ γὰρ ἀληϑῶς ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἀπώσατο ὁ ϑεὸς τὸν λαὸν μετὰ τὴν Χριστοῦ ἐπιδημίαν καὶ τὰ τετολμημένα κατ’ αὐτοῦ. Πότε γὰρ τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ πεπόνϑασι;

“A PLACE TO WORSHIP THE LORD OUR GOD”

149

theme to Adam’s transgression and states that “as in Adam we all die and in Christ we are all made alive (1 Cor 15,22), so in Adam we all were cast out and in Christ God embraces us all”34. In this case, Christ is not explicitly presented metaphorically as a land to go back to or live in; rather, the image of God embracing mankind in his Son is developed in opposition to the two emblematic exiles of biblical history. Conversely, commenting on Ps 75,3 (“and his place was made in peace and his dwelling place in Zion”)35, Origen ironically invites the Jews to look for God’s place among the ruins of the earthly Jerusalem, while “we are instead seeking a place for the Lord, worthy of the Lord, a place regarding which has been written: and his place was made in peace (Ps 75,3)”36. He resolves the quaestio with a quote from Ps 131,4-5: “I say that the holy man does not doze and does not give sleep to his eyes, until he finds in himself a place for the Lord (cf. Ps 131,4-5). Since, as the sinner gives a place to the devil, so the beautiful and good man gives a place to God who seek to dwell in us, and gives a place to Christ. […] Therefore, we seek a place for the Lord in the hegemonic part of our soul”37. The insistence on the terms τόπον ζητεῖν in this passage is reminiscent of HIer VII and the problem of how to worship God even Πότε οὕτως ἠρημώϑη Ἰερουσαλήμ; Πότε τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ τὸ ϑυσιαστήριον ἤργησε, τῆς ϑυσίας καὶ τῶν λατρειῶν οὐκέτι προσφερομένων ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ; 34. H73Ps I,2 (GCS NF 19, 226,15–227,1 PERRONE): Ἄλλος δέ τις ἐρεῖ, νοήσας τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἀδάμ, ὅτι τὸν Ἀδὰμ ἀπώσατο διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ ἀπόλαυσιν καὶ ὥσπερἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποϑνῄσκομεν καὶ  τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζωοποιούμεϑα (1 Cor 15,22), οὕτως ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀπῳκίσϑημεν καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντας ἡμᾶς συλλαμβάνεται ὁ ϑεός. I have suggested my own translation for the passages from HPs here quoted; nonetheless, I want to thank professor Lorenzo Perrone for letting me consult his provisional Italian translation prepared for the publication of the work in Origen’s Opera Omnia series by Città Nuova Editrice. 35. Ps 75,3 (ed. RAHLFS): καὶ ἐγενήϑη ἐν εἰρήνῃ ὁ τόπος αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ κατοικητήριον αὐτοῦ ἐν Σιων. 36. H75Ps 2 (GCS NF 19, 281,14-17 PERRONE): Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν τόπον ζητείτωσαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, τὴν πεπτωκυίαν, τὴν κάτω Ἰερουσαλήμ, περὶ ἧς εἴρηκεν· ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκοςὑμῶν (Mt 23,38). Ἡμεῖς δὲ ζητοῦμεν τόπον τῷ κυρίῳ, ἄξιον τοῦ κυρίου, περὶ οὗ γέγραπται· καὶἐγενήϑηἐνεἰρήνῃὁτόποςαὐτοῦ (Ps 75,3). 37. H75Ps 2 (GCS NF 19, 282,2–283,1 PERRONE): Καί φημι ὅτι ὁ ἅγιος οὐ νυστάζει, οὐ δὲ δώσει ὕπνον τοῖς ὀφϑαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, ἕως οὗ εὕρῃ τόπον ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ κυρίῳ. Ὡς γὰρ ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς δίδωσι τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ, οὕτως ὁ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαϑὸς δίδωσι τόπον τῷ ϑεῷ ζητοῦντι ἐνοικῆσαι ἡμῖν καὶ δίδωσι τόπον τῷ Χριστῷ. […] Οὐκοῦν ἡμεῖς τόπον ζητοῦμεν τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ ἡμῶν. Origen also quotes Lev 26,12; Isa 1,2; Rom 8,9; Jn 14,23 in order to prove that God dwells in the righteous and just man’s soul. He also resorts to the etymology of Zion as “observatory” (see supra, n. 6). See also HEz XII,2 (GCS 33, 435,17-19 BAEHRENS), where Origen says that the “vision of peace” symbolized by Jerusalem dwells in the highest part of the soul (principalicordis) of those who are not confounded by sin: Si vero principali cordis tranquillitas, serenitas, pax fructumfecerit,sciamusquiaHierusalemverseturinea;visioquippepacisintrinsecusest.

150

T. INTERI

among sinful behaviors: in this case, however, the place worthy of God is located in the Christian’s soul which accepts God and Christ in itself. Thus, Origen offers a specular image to the image of Christ as a land where one can properly honor the Lord, claiming that the only place worthy of God is to be found in one’s own soul. The two interpretations, far from being contradictory, complete each other and help to shed light on the main idea which nourishes these allegories: Christ is the Holy Land one can resort to when in need of a return to God, but the very place to accept God and Christ in one’s life must be found within oneself38. These variations show that, although Origen consistently allegorizes names of places and the Holy Land through the HomiliesonJeremiah and on Ezekiel, nonetheless he does so in an original way, exploiting all the possibilities offered by the spatial metaphor. His exegesis offers a rich outline of the relationship between God and Christians, and provides his audience with effective explanations, both attentive to the believers’ spiritual growth and founded on the preacher’s deep knowledge and analysis of the Bible. Università degli studi di Torino Dipartimento di Studi storici Via S. Ottavio 20 IT-10124 Torino Italy [email protected]

Tommaso INTERI

38. With regard to the theme of man as a place for the divine inhabitation, see C.L. ROSSETTI, “Sei diventato Tempio di Dio”: Il mistero del Tempio e dell’abitazione divinanegliscrittidiOrigene (Tesi Gregoriana: Teologia, 43), Roma, Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1998. The acceptance of the Logos in the soul of the believers is presented as the necessary premise for their final deification in H81Ps 1 (GCS NF 19, 509,1–513,3 PERRONE); see L. PERRONE, “Et l’homme tout entier devient dieu”: La déification selon Origène à la lumière des nouvelles Homélies sur les Psaumes, in TeologiayVida 58 (2017) 187-220.

EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION ABOUT ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

Medieval and Renaissance iconography of the crucifixion of Christ on Golgotha represents the skull of Adam underneath the cross, often with the blood of the Redeemer pouring on the remains of the first human1. This image sums up in graphic form the idea of reversal of the fall of the human race and the purpose of the incarnation. The tradition appeared in the first centuries of Christianity and Origen is usually named as its source2. This article examines Christian texts up to the middle of the fifth century as well as related Jewish writings and attempts to establish the earliest instance of connection between Adam and Golgotha; whether subsequent references to the topic can be traced to the same source or a variety of sources; whether oral tradition(s) coexisted with the recorded one(s); the relationship between the surviving written sources; the way the tradition was evolving over time; the role of Origen and his writings in the development and transmission of the tradition; the place of the tradition in the Origenist controversy at the end of the fourth century.

* I would like to express my gratitude to my wife Natalia Smelova for her support for my work on this article. 1. J. FLEMMING, Die Ikonographie von Adam und Eva in der Kunst vom 3. bis zum 13Jh., Diss. Universität Jena, 1953. A. MAZURE, AdameetÈve:LeThèmed’AdametÈve dansl’Art,Paris, Éditions d’art Lucien Mazenod, 1967. B. BAGATTI,Notesull’iconografia di“AdamosottoilCalvario”, in LiberAnnuus 27 (1977) 5-32; translated: Notesonthe Iconography of Adam under Calvary, in Essays SBF 17 (2007) 1-19. M. KING, Adam’s Skull, Christ and Golgotha in Pictish Art, in C. NEWMANN – M. MANNION – F. GAVIN (eds.), IslandsinaGlobalContext, Dublin, Four Courts Press, 2017, 130-137. 2. C.W. WILSON, Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre, London, The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1906, pp. 2-17; G. KLAMETH, Die Neutestamentlichen LokaltraditionenPalästinasinderZeitvordenKreuzzügen, Bd. I, Münster, Aschendorff, 1914, pp. 106-114; W.H. ROSCHER, Der Omphalosgedanke bei verschiedenen Völkern, besonders den semitischen, Leipzig, Teubner, 1918, pp. 25-48; J. JEREMIAS, Golgotha, Leipzig, Eduard Pfeiffer, 1926; T. O’LOUGHLIN, AdomnánandtheHolyPlaces, London – New York, T&T Clark, 2007, pp. 84-94; A. LE BOULLUEC, RegardsantiquessurAdam au Golgotha, in M. LOUBET – D. PRALON (eds.) Εὔκαρπα: Études sur la Bible et ses exégètes en hommage à Gilles Dorival, Paris, Cerf, 2011, 355-363; E. GRYPEOU – H. SPURLING, TheBookofGenesisinLateAntiquity:EncountersbetweentheJewishand Christian Exegesis (Jewish and Christian Perspectives, 24), Leiden, Brill, 2013, 71-79; M. MONTESANO, Adam’s Skull, in C. SANTING – B. BAERT – A. TRANINGER (eds.), DisembodiedHeadsinMedievalandEarlyModernCulture, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2013, 15-30.

152

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

I. EVIDENCE FROM

THE

NEW TESTAMENT

The earliest parallels between Christ and Adam are drawn by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians (Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15)3. In Romans Adam is described as the source of death for all subsequent humans and at the same time “the figure of him that was to come” (Rom 5,14), which is Christ, through whose obedience and righteousness in death on the cross life was brought again to all humans reversing Adam’s disobedience. In Corinthians the point is summed up “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15,22) and so the two are paired and juxtaposed as “the first Adam, the first man, earthly” and “the last Adam, the last man, heavenly” (15,45-49). Restoration is not just a return to the original condition but an ascent to the higher one. This theological reflection on the cosmic significance of the divine victory over death communicated to humanity and the cancellation of the original catastrophe puts the first victim of death and its conqueror side by side. In this vision the figure of Adam was from the beginning an anticipation of the figure of Christ, and Christ is the new, second, spiritual and heavenly Adam. Thus the death of Christ has abolished the death which Adam brought to all his descendants. The grand theological vision compares and links the two opposites as the two sides of the whole which presuppose and require each other: Adam with his disobedience at the tree of knowledge, fall and death separating humanity from God, and Christ with his obedience on the tree of the cross, resurrection and life, bringing humanity back to God. The first Adam made the second one necessary, the second Adam restored what the first one ruined. The point is central to Paul’s teaching about the significance of the resurrection. It is both crucial and complicated as it embraces the whole history of humankind and the ontological foundations of life in its cosmic breadth. It would have been highly advantageous and appropriate to illustrate the contemplative argument with an illustration of a physical link between the destructive death of Adam and the life-giving death of

3. M. KISTER, Romans5:12-21againsttheBackgroundofTannaiticTorah-Theology andHebrewUsage, in HTR 100 (2007) 391-424; ID., ‘InAdam’:1Cor15:21-22;12:27 inTheirJewishSetting, in A. HILHORST (ed.), FloresFlorentino: DeadSeaScrollsand OtherEarlyJewishStudiesinHonourofFlorentinoGarcíaMartínez (JSJS, 122), Leiden, Brill, 2007, 685-690; ID., ‘First Adam’ and ‘Second Adam’ in 1 Cor 15,45-49 in the LightofMidrashicExegesisandHebrewUsage, in R. BIERINGER etal. (eds.), TheNew Testament and Rabbinic Literature, Leiden – Boston, MA, 2010, 351-365; J. EADIE, ACommentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 31883, pp. 387-390.

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

153

Christ4. Yet Paul shows no awareness of the tradition about Adam’s burial on Golgotha and does not refer or even allude to it. The oral tradition of the apostolic preaching about the death and resurrection of Christ, which Paul mentions (“For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received”, 1 Cor 15,3) , was committed to writing, at least in the final redactions which have reached us, sometime after the letters of Paul. By that time we can notice some interesting and significant developments in the way the events of the crucifixion are narrated. The location of the execution and the place name are considered to be significant and referred to in the narratives which are focused and selective in choosing the details. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John (Mt 27,33-34; Mk 15,22-24; Jn 19,16-18) mention the place of the crucifixion of Christ in similar terms: it is called Golgotha (Γολγοϑᾶ), which they translate as “the Place of the Skull” (ὁ Κρανίου Τόπος). Luke stands apart as he does not quote the Aramaic word itself but translates its meaning more precisely as “the Skull” (Κρανίον, Lk 23,33-34). To obtain this name, the location (or at least some part of it) must have had some physical characteristics making it comparable to the skull: being bare of any covering, having a rounded outline or both. All this indicates that it is a kind of knoll. It is possible that Luke speaks in a narrow sense about a characteristic spot which got its name “the Skull” because of physical resemblance. “The Place of the Skull” in the other Gospels could refer to a broader area that included the knoll itself and the surrounding territory5. There are no references to Adam in connection with Golgotha or the crucifixion in any Gospel and the translation of the name is left without a comment, although it has significance in the narrative as the word “skull” serves as a premonition of the death of Christ to which the narrative is steadily moving. In all four Gospels different episodes which occurred during the crucifixion are connected to passages in the Old Testament which are understood as prophecies about these events and highlight their importance. They include the casting of lots for the clothing of Jesus (Ps 21(22),19 in Mt 27,35; Mk 15,24; Lk 23,34; Jn 19,24); a drink of vinegar (ὄξος Ps 68(69),22 in Mt 27,46; Mk 15,36; Jn 19,28-30) and the last words in Aramaic “My God, my God why have you abandoned me?” (Ps 21(22),2 4. Cf. J. TROMP, TheStoryofOurLives:Theqz-TextoftheLifeofAdamandEve,the Apostle Paul, and the Jewish-Christian Oral Tradition concerning Adam and Eve, in NTS 50 (2004) 205-223. 5. Cf. J.E. TAYLOR, Golgotha:AReconsiderationoftheEvidencefortheSitesofJesus’ CrucifixionandBurial, in NTS 44 (1998) 180-203; EAD., ChristiansandtheHolyPlaces: TheMythofJewish-ChristianOrigins, Oxford, Clarendon, 1993, pp. 113-142.

154

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

in Mt 27,46; Mk 15,34). Here, just as with the name Golgotha, preserving the Aramaic original and providing a translation (slightly different in Matthew and Mark) gives these words a special status. The cosmic scope of the event is emphasised by linking the death of Christ with the mystically significant spontaneous tearing of the veil in the Temple which was separating the Holy of Holies (Mt 27,51-53; Mk 15,38; Lk 23,45). This is further stressed in Mt 27,51-53, which speaks about the shaking of the ground, stones cracking, tombs opening and the bodies of saints rising and entering Jerusalem and being seen by many people there. The images and the wording correspond closely to the account of Ezekiel’s prophetic vision of resurrection of the dry bones (Ezek 37,1-14) and are perceived as its fulfilment: καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμός … καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἔστησαν … συναγωγὴ πολλὴ σφόδρα … Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀνοίγω ὑμῶν τὰ μνήματα καὶ ἀνάξω ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν μνημάτων ὑμῶν καὶ εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν γῆν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (Ezek 37,7.10.12)6. The passage in Matthew’s Gospel was likely to provoke a question in the minds of readers about the identity of the risen saints. This question provides a considerable scope for a search for answers, just like the questions what Jesus taught his disciples about the kingdom of God between the resurrection and the ascension (Acts 1,3) or what he was writing on the ground with his finger in the story of the woman taken in adultery (Jn 8,6). In subsequent centuries the desire to know the details which the sacred text has deliberately omitted would give rise to both private opinions of exegetes and theological folklore of the apocrypha. Adam, given his historical pre-eminence as well as attested theological pairing with Christ, would be one of the likely candidates. Another element which later contributed to development of the tradition about Adam’s skull or head placed on Golgotha was the designation of Christ as the head. Several factors combine to give it a special significance. Jesus applied it to himself with the words of Psalm 117(118),22 about the stone which is the head of the corner (λίϑος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας). The quotation is accompanied by a messianic interpretation of the parable of the wicked husbandmen: it is quoted by all three synoptic Gospels, in a speech of Peter in Acts and in 1 Peter and is also retold in Ephesians in the context of confessing Jesus as the Christ and spiritual Temple (Mt 21,42; Mk 12,10; Lk 20,17; Acts 4,11; 1 Pet 2,7; Eph 2,20). In a number of epistles the image of Christ as the head is given particular 6. J. TROMP, ‘Can These Bones Live?’ Ezekiel 37:1-14 and Eschatological Resurrection, in H.J. DE JONGE – J. TROMP (eds.), The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007, 61-78.

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

155

applications: “the head of the Church” (κεφαλὴ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Eph 5,23; Col 1,18; cf. Eph 1,22; 4,15), “the head of every power and authority” (ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας Col 2,10), “the head of every man” (παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλή 1 Cor 11,3), “in Christ everything is brought under one head” (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασϑαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ Eph 1,10), “the head of Christ is God” (κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός 1 Cor 11,3). It seems that they all may ultimately be derived from the well-attested tradition of self-designation as “the stone which is the head of the corner”. Combined with Paul’s understanding of Christ as the new or second Adam (Rom 5,12-21; 1 Cor 15,21-22.45-49) the image of Christ as the head could lead to reflection on the head of the first Adam, his pair. II. JULIUS AFRICANUS Thus the description and interpretation of the events of the passion in the Gospels and letters of Paul provide elements of the story of Adam’s burial on Golgotha attested in later tradition but they do not combine them in a single narrative. Subsequently these elements will be linked together: the reference to the skull in the place-name, the rising of unidentified ancient saints from the graves, the status of Christ as the head and his role in reversing the consequences of Adam’s disobedience. However, for a further century and a half (until Julius Africanus) the topic of Adam’s burial on Golgotha does not appear in surviving Christian literature. On this occasion the argument from silence is a strong one. Although many second-century works have not reached us, comparison of what has been preserved with Eusebius’ account in the Ecclesiastical History shows that we have representative samples for major writers, genres and theological issues. For apologists the depiction of Christ suffering at the very spot of Adam’s grave would have supported their point that Christianity was not a new religion but a fulfilment of ancient divine promises, and for anti-Gnostic writers it would have stressed the unity of the two Testaments. The fact that there are no references to this tradition in the homily OnEaster by Melito of Sardis, the DialoguewithTryphon theJew by Justin Martyr and the treatise AgainstHeresies by Irenaeus of Lyons suggests that these major second-century Christian authors in both Eastern and Western Mediterranean were not aware of it. The earliest surviving source, which explicitly speaks about Adam’s burial in Jerusalem, is the Chronographia of Julius Africanus: τοῦτον λέγεται πρῶτον εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἐλήφϑη, ταφῆναι, καὶ μνῆμα αὐτῷ

156

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

κατὰ τὴν Ἱεροσολύμων γεγονέναι γῆν, ἑβραϊκή τις ἱστορεῖ παράδοσις. “It is said that he (Adam) was the first to be buried in the earth, from which he had been taken, and a certain Hebrew tradition narrates that his tomb is in the land of Jerusalem”7. This first Christian outline of world history and chronology had an apologetic purpose of proving that Moses and the teachings of the Old Testament predated Greek philosophers and were used by them. Isolated but numerous passages of Africanus have been preserved in later Romaic (Byzantine) chronographies which made extensive use of his work8. The fragment on Adam’s burial is brief and it is not certain whether this reflects the extent of the author’s knowledge on the subject or the limited preservation of his text. Africanus provides two pieces of information about Adam. He is said to be the first to be buried in the earth from which he had been taken. This implies that Abel’s body had not been buried yet, although he had been killed earlier by Cain, which corresponds to the explicit statements in the Book of Jubilees and in the ApocalypseofMoses9. The reference of Africanus to the earth from which Adam had been taken can be understood either broadly as generic soil anywhere on the surface of the planet, or specifically as the very ground which had provided the dust for the creation. A source for this is indicated vaguely as λέγεται, “it is said”. The information, however, follows closely the BookofJubilees 4,29 (and cf. 3,32). The distinction in Jubilees between “the land of creation” as the place and “the earth” as the substance from which the first man had been fashioned suggests the same dichotomy in the account of Africanus. This understanding is supported by the repetition of the word γῆ in the Chronographia with specific reference to the land of Jerusalem, which implies that Adam had been created on the spot where later Jerusalem would be built. This second piece of information has a distinct and somewhat more specific reference to “a certain Hebrew tradition”. Rabbinic literature attests to a variety of opinions concerning the location of 7. Julius Africanus, Chronographiae, ed. M. WALLRAFF (GCS NF, 15), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2007, pp. 42-43, n. 1. Also in SymeonisMagistrietLogothetae Chronicon, recensuit S. WAHLGREN (Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2006, p. 24,4. A reference to the work of Africanus is found in Catena in Ioannem in codice Parisino gr. 209, f. 298v, in Iulius Africanus, Chronographiae, 42-43 (T17): Οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ περὶ τῆς ταφῆς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ εἰρηκότες, Ἀφρικανὸς καὶ ὁ ἅγιος Ἀϑανάσιος. “These are the ones who have spoken about the burial of Adam: Africanus and Saint Athanasius”. 8. H. GELZER, SextusJuliusAfricanusunddieByzantinischeChronographie, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1898. 9. Book of Jubilees 4,29, transl. O.S. WINTERMUTE, in J.H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1985, p. 63. ApocalypseofMoses 40,3-7, transl. M.D. JOHNSON, ibid., pp. 291-293.

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

157

Adam’s burial. Often it is identified as the same spot where he had been created. Reflection on the possible resting place of the first man and common ancestor of the human race tended to look for the most holy site regarded as the centre of the world10. The Temple in Jerusalem seemed to many Rabbinic authors to be an obvious place, if holiness in the world has a single or major focus rather than being dispersed across many areas11. Thus eventually the creation of Adam, his first altar for sacrifice, his grave, Noah’s altar, Abraham’s offering of Isaac to God (cf. 2 Chron 3,1) were believed to be located at the site of the future Temple, or, even more specifically, its altar12. An alternative tradition was centered on the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, understood to be the cave of Machpelah. It apparently owes its origin to attempts at explaining the etymology of the other name of the city: Kiryat Arba. The tradition of the Hebron cave was shared by the Samaritans and is reflected in the treatise Asatir13. However, there existed also a tradition which disregarded both the Temple Mount and the cave in Hebron. According to it, Adam was created and buried in Paradise. This interpretation transfers the focus of Adam’s story to the otherworldly realm and reflects the hope and expectations of its authors14. A detailed but ambivalent account of Adam’s burial is offered by Pirkei

10. L. GINZBERG, Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, PA, The Jewish Publication Society, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 96-98. ROSCHER, Der Omphalosgedanke (n. 2), pp. 34-48. A.J. WENSINCK, The Ideas of the Western Semites Concerning the Navel of the Earth, Amsterdam, Johannes Müller, 1916. 11. Useful bibliography in S. TERRIEN, TheOmphalosMythandHebrewReligion, in VetusTestamentum 20 (1970) 315-338, although the conjectures are very tentative. 12. Targum pseudo-Jonathan 2,7; 2,15; 3,23, in The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch. Genesis and Exodus, transl. J.W. ETHERIDGE, London, Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1862, pp. 162, 163, 168. Bereshit Rabbah 14,8; 34,9, in MidrashRabbah. Vol. 1: Genesis, transl. H. FREEDMAN, London, Soncino, 1939, pp. 115-116, 272. Jerusalem Talmud, Nazir 7,56b, in The Jerusalem T  almud. Third Order: Našim, Tractates Giṭṭin and Nazir, transl. H.W. GUGGENHEIMER, Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2007, p. 657. 13. BabylonianTalmud. Erubin 53a, in TheSoncinoTalmud. Moʻed. Vol. 1: Tractate Erubin, transl. I. EPSTEIN, London, Soncino, 1961. BabylonianTalmud. BabaBathra 58a, in The Soncino Talmud. Nezikin. Vol. 2: Tractate Baba Bathra, I, transl. I. EPSTEIN, London, Soncino, 1961. Asatir 3,3, in TheAsatir.TheSamaritanBookoftheSecretsof Moses, transl. M. GASTER, London, The Royal Asiatic Society, 1927, pp. 210, 212. 14. Apocalypse of Moses 40,6, transl. M.D. JOHNSON, in J.H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha, vol. 2, Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1985, p. 293. G. ANDERSON – M. STONE (eds.), ASynopsisoftheBooksofAdamandEve (Early Judaism and Its Literature, 17), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1999, pp. 83-90. E.J. TROMP, Literaryand ExegeticalIssuesintheStoryofAdam’sDeathandBurial(GLAE31-42), in J. FRISHMAN – L. VAN ROMPAY (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 5), Leuven, Peeters, 1997, 25-41.

158

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

de-RabbiEliezer15 which includes both versions: that of Mount Moriah (the site of the Temple) and of the cave of Machpelah (in Hebron) without resolving the apparent contradiction. In the extant passage about Adam’s burial Julius Africanus does not specify the location of the site in Jerusalem. Rabbinic tradition generally identified the place as Mount Moriah, that is the Temple Mount (although Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer speaks of a place “beyond/towards the Mount Moriah” (p 218 [109]). Subsequent Christian Greek tradition centered on Golgotha. It is most unlikely that Africanus’ source did not point to a particular place in Jerusalem. It would appear that the reference to “a certain Hebrew tradition” (ἑβραϊκή τις παράδοσις) favours the Temple site. At the same time, Golgotha cannot be completely discarded because of the specific character of the reference. It speaks not of the Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι), a religious designation, but of the Hebrews (Ἑβραῖοι), an ethnic one. The two are not used interchangeably in the New Testament. In 2 Cor 11,22 and in Phil 3,5 Paul clearly distinguishes between the two aspects. In Acts 6,1 and in the title of the Epistle to the Hebrews Christians of Jewish background and culture are meant. Both Ἑβραΐς and Ἑβραϊστί refer to the language (Acts 21,40; 22,2; 26,14; Jn 5,2; 19,13.17.20; 20,16; Rev 9,11; 16,16). All this suggests a group (they have a tradition) of Hebrew origin but not of Rabbinic faith. Hebrew Christians seem to be the only real possibility. Africanus’ informants could be referring to either the Temple or Golgotha as the place of Adam’s burial. Why would he choose to omit the reference (at least in the fragment which we have)? Presumably a more generalised reference to geographical location could be more suitable for a book of universal chronology. III. ORIGEN The first explicit connection between Adam and Golgotha was made by Origen. His testimony has survived in a shorter and a longer version in Greek catenae and in a Latin translation16. We shall start with the analysis 15. Pirke De-Rabbi Elieser, ed. and transl. D. BÖRNER-KLEIN, Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2004, ch. 12, p. 122 [61]. A. KADARI, InterreligiousAspectsintheNarrative oftheBurialofAdaminPirkeide-RabbiEliezer, in A. HOUTMAN (ed.), ReligiousStories inTransformation:Conflict,RevisionandReception, Leiden, Brill, 2016, 82-103. 16. Shorter Greek version: Matthäuserklärung. II: Die lateinische Übersetzung der CommentariorumSeries, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN (GCS, 38; Origenes Werke, 11), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1933, p. 265,1-8 = Fragmentum in catenis 551.II (Mt 27,33), Matthäuserklärung.

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

159

of the common element between all three versions, which essentially corresponds to the shorter Greek passage: Περὶ τοῦ Κρανίου τόπου ἦλϑεν εἰς ἐμέ, ὅτι Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἐκεῖ τετάφϑαι, ἵν᾿ ἐπεὶ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποϑνῄσκομεν, ἀναστῇ μὲν ὁ Ἀδάμ, ἐν Χριστῷ δὲ πάντες ζῳοποιηϑῶμεν (1 Cor 15,22). “[Information] has reached me about the place of the Skull, that the Hebrews have a tradition that the body of Adam has been buried there, so that, ‘since we all die in Adam, and Adam has risen, we all may be made alive in Christ’ (1 Cor 15,22)”. The other two reproduce it but supply additional theological explanations. Unlike Africanus, Origen focuses his account on Golgotha which provides a starting point. This is a witness to different concerns. A specific place name is provided, although not in its Aramaic form but in the translation adopted by Matthew, Mark and John: Κρανίου τόπος /locusCalvariae. Another difference is the reference to the “body of Adam” (τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἀδάμ / corpusAdae) rather than Adam himself. This creates a more physical attitude reminiscent of the cult of relics. The two Greek versions describe the source as “the Hebrews have a tradition” (Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασι) which is similar to “a certain Hebrew tradition” (ἑβραϊκή τις παράδοσις) of Africanus, but is more personal and creates at least a possibility of particular informants and oral rather than written tradition. The way of obtaining a knowledge of it is described by a rather passive “[information] has reached me” (ἦλϑεν εἰς ἐμέ / venit ad me), which makes an impression of hearing or reading about the tradition by chance rather than as the result of a deliberate enquiry. A new and significant development in comparison with the report of Africanus is the theological reflection on the purpose of the described phenomenon: the physical contact between Adam and Golgotha serves to highlight the belief that Christ’s passion had the purpose of reversing for all humanity the consequences of Adam’s fall. This understanding is reinforced by quoting 1 Cor 15,22 (the longer Greek version also uses Col 2,15). The Latin version has a feature which, probably, reflects the outlook of the fifth-century translator rather than the third-century author: it makes a somewhat rationalistic inference that the place of crucifixion had to be on Golgotha and not elsewhere to ensure that Adam, by virtue of his status as the father of humanity, might receive grace exceeding that given to his descendants. It also renders Calvaria as “the place of the III: FragmenteundIndices, 1. Hälfte, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN (GCS, 41; Origenes Werke, 12), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1941, p. 225. Longer Greek version: Origenes. Fragmentum in catenis 551.III (Mt 27,33), GCS 41, 225-226. Latin translation: CMtS 126, GCS 38, 264,31–265,14.

160

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

head” rather than “the skull”, as do the Greek versions, to draw parallels with Christ as the head of the human race: However, it is said that the place of the Skull has not an ordinary dispensation, as there died He, who was going to die for the people. A certain such tradition has reached me that the body of Adam, the first man, has been buried there, where Christ was crucified, in order that just as all die in Adam,soallshallbemadealiveinChrist (1 Cor 15,22). [It was done], so that in that place, which is called the place of the Skull, that is the place of the head, the head of the human race would find resurrection with the whole people through the resurrection of the Lord saviour, who suffered and rose there. For it would not have been proper that, when many, who had been born from him, were receiving the remission of sins and gaining the benefit of the resurrection, the father of all people himself should not gain even more grace of this kind.

IV. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA The three main features, which Origen’s rather brief account adds to the information available from the fragment of Africanus (the burial specifically at Golgotha rather than in Jerusalem, the emphasis on the body of Christ, the theological explanation of 1 Cor 15,22), by the end of the fourth century will become important elements of the tradition. However, somewhat surprisingly, they are not present in the writings of Origen’s dedicated follower Eusebius of Caesarea. In his Life of Constantine describing the holy places of Jerusalem, Eusebius chooses to concentrate on the place of burial and resurrection of Christ and does not make any reference to the tradition about Adam’s burial (with which he must have been acquainted through Origen’s CommentaryonMatthew): And he first of all decorated the sacred cave, as a head of everything. For it was a tomb full of agelong memory, containing the great Saviour’s trophies over death, a divine tomb, in front of which once an angel, radiating light, proclaimed to all the good news of the rebirth demonstrated by the Saviour. Therefore the emperor’s veneration embellished it first, like a head of everything, with choice columns and complete adornment, making the venerable cave bright with all sorts of beautiful decorations17.

Within a few lines he twice repeats three descriptions of the burial place of Christ: “a head of everything” (τοῦ παντὸς κεφαλή), “the sacred/venerable cave” (τὸ ἱερὸν/σεμνὸν ἄντρον) and “tomb” (μνῆμα). 17. Eusebius Caesariensis, VitaConstantini III,33,3-34, ed. F. WINKELMANN (GCS 7/1; Eusebius Werke 1/1), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1975, pp. 99,19–100,2.

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

161

This heavy emphasis raises the question whether the burial of Christ has perhaps been juxtaposed with some other unnamed burial so as to belittle it. It is out of the question that Eusebius, who studied the works of Origen preserved by his church of Caesarea, could not have been aware of the tradition of Adam’s burial on Golgotha. The only explanation is a deliberate choice to omit this tradition. It could be a result of Eusebius being a more thorough Origenist than Origen himself. For Eusebius, the story of Adam’s burial at Golgotha must have had a taste of a parable-like physical illustration of the spiritual truth that Christ by his death redeemed both Adam and his descendants. The metropolitan of Caesarea, following his theological hero, was primarily interested in the spiritual meaning and this tendency could lead him to undervalue the physical images. Why would Origen himself display less consistency in his approach than Eusebius in this instance? It is possible that Origen accepted the report of Adam’s burial on Golgotha, in spite of its materialising aspect, out of respect for the Hebrew traditions, in which he was interested18. In this respect Eusebius did not follow his theological master19, and so he was able to be more consistent in the preference for spiritualising tendency. Ecclesiastical rivalries could also have some impact, as in his Onomasticon Eusebius seems to demonstrate reserve towards Jerusalem by applying to her the official name of Aelia rather than the Biblical one and by being very brief in his entry on Golgotha: “Golgotha, the place of the skull, where Christ was crucified. It is shown in Aelia towards the north of the Mount Sion”20. V. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM Unlike Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem was naturally interested in promoting the ecclesiastical standing of his city. He was not marked by Origenism and must have been well informed of local traditions21. He preached his CatecheticalHomilies in the middle of the fourth 18. N. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-CenturyPalestine(University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976. 19. S. INOWLOCKI, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an ApologeticContext, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2006. 20. Eusebius Caesariensis, Onomasticon, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN (GCS, 11/1; Eusebius Werke 3/1), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1904, p. 74,20-22. 21. J.W. DRIJVERS, CyrilofJerusalem:BishopandCity, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2004, pp. 153-176.

162

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

century, so close to the rock of Golgotha that he was able to point at its cracks while speaking. It is important, therefore, that Cyril does not show any knowledge of the tradition about Adam’s burial at Golgotha. In the thirteenth homily Cyril uses etymology of the place-name Golgotha as the “place of the skull” in order to strongly emphasise a connection with what Paul says in his Epistles about Christ as the head of the Church, of every man and of every power and authority: Golgotha is translated the Place of the Skull (Mk 15,22; Jn 19,17). Who were they, who prophetically gave the name of Golgotha to this place, in which the true head – Christ accepted the cross? As the Apostle says: Who istheimageoftheinvisibleGod (Col 1,15); and a little later: AndHeisthe head of the body of the church (Col 1,18); and again: The head of every manisChrist (1 Cor 11,3); and again: Whoistheheadofeverypowerand authority (Col 2,10). The head has suffered in the Place of the Skull. What a great and prophetic name! The name itself almost reminds you, saying: “Donotconsiderthecrucifiedonetobejustaman.Heistheheadofevery powerandauthority” (Col 2,10). The head of every authority is crucified, having the Father as Hishead. The head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God22.

Cyril even calls the place-name prophetic because of this. In his case the argument from silence seems to be compelling. It indicates that around 351 the bishop of Jerusalem was not acquainted with the story which identified Adam’s resting place as the spot where Christ was crucified. VI. BASIL OF CAESAREA The most detailed reference to the story of Adam’s burial among the Greek and Latin Church Fathers is found not in a Palestinian author, but in the CommentaryontheProphetIsaiah by Basil the Great23: The following story has been preserved in the Church in an unwritten tradition, claiming that Judaea had Adam as its first inhabitant, and that after being expelled from Paradise he was settled in it as a consolation for what he had lost. Thus it was first to receive a dead man too, since Adam 22. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Catechesis 13: De Christo Crucifixo et Sepulto 23; CyrilliHierosolymorumArchiepiscopiOperaQuaeSupersuntOmnia, vol. 2, ed. J. RUPP, Monaci, Sumtibus Librariae Lentnerianae (E. Stahl), 1860, p. 82,4-17. 23. N. LIPATOV, TheProblemoftheAuthorshipofthe“CommentaryontheProphet Isaiah” Attributed to St.Basil the Great, in Studia Patristica 27 (1993) 42-48. Н.А. ЛИПАТОВ, Вопрособавторстве«ТолкованиянаПророкаИсайю»,сохранившегося под именем свт. Василия Великого, Вестник Православного Свято- Тихоновского гуманитарного университета, I: Богословие. Философия, 2011, Вып. 1 (33). сс. 69-84.

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

163

completed his condemnation there. The sight of the bone of the head, as the flesh fell away on all sides, seemed to be novel to the men of that time, and after depositing the skull in that place they named it Place of the Skull. It is probable that Noah, the ancestor of all men, was not unaware of the burial, so that after the flood the story was passed on by him. For this reason the Lord having fathomed the source of human death accepted death “in the place called the Place of the Skull” (Jn 19,17) in order that the life of the kingdom of heaven should originate from the same place in which the corruption of men took its origin, and just as death gained its strength in Adam, so it became powerless in the death of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15,22)24.

Interpreting a phrase from Isa 5,1 in the Septuagint “on a spur (lit.: horn), in a fertile place” (ἐν κέρατι ἐν τόπῳ πίονι), the exegete makes a diversion and proceeds from the horn to the head (location of the horn) and then to the skull (the inner structure of the head). This allows him to mention the story of Adam’s burial on Golgotha (in the form of the skull), which is not otherwise connected to the text of Isaiah. The account of Basil is much more extensive than that of Origen; however, the two are not so different as may appear at first glance. Origen identifies his source as “the Hebrews” (similar to “a certain Hebrew tradition” of Africanus), whereas Basil describes it as “a story preserved in the Church”. There is no contradiction in terms here, as we have seen above, since “the Hebrews”, being juxtaposed to “the Jews”, indicate people of Hebrew origin but not of Jewish faith, which in the context of Origen’s passage means Hebrew Christians. Basil’s immediate ecclesiastical informants themselves were not necessarily Christians of Hebrew origin, although this is a possibility. At the very least it must have been them who at some stage brought the Jewish tradition into the Church, which by then had largely lost its original Hebrew character. As we have already seen, the Rabbinical tradition, which connected Adam’s burial with Jerusalem, tended to identify the site of the tomb with the Temple, and often, more specifically, with the altar. The place of the burial of the first man was supposed to coincide with the place of his creation, as the earth to which he was returning was understood not only as substance but also as specific location. However, there was at least one exception. Pirkeide-RabbiEliezer (p 218 [109])) speaks of Adam building his tomb “beyond/towards (‫ )ל‬Mount Moriah”, which means near, but not on the Temple Mount itself. Those Rabbis who were locating the burial of Adam outside the Temple area were, probably, influenced by

24. Basilius Caesariensis, EnarratioinIsaiam V,141 (PG 30, 348C1-349A2).

164

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

the consideration of ritual impurity from the dead bodies25. Those who located Adam’s grave at the site of the Temple were following the logic that it must be in the most holy place in the world which served as a unified location for the most important events of religious history. The transfer in a Christian environment of the location of Adam’s tomb to Golgotha suggests a Christian reinterpretation of the Jewish tradition, which was guided by the same type of reasoning. Association of Adam’s burial with the Temple has been replaced by its association with the body of Christ. According to the Gospel of John this substitution of the body of Christ for the Temple, as the focus of holiness in the world, was already manifested in the words of Jesus that in three days he would raise again the destroyed temple. After the resurrection the saying was understood by his disciples as referring to his body rather than the house of worship (Jn 2,18-22). These words, taken in their literal sense, provided one of the main accusations against Jesus (Mt 26,61; Mk 14,57-58). A comparison of the main points of information provided by Origen and by Basil shows that they are essentially identical: Origen source transmission

object location action

purpose/ significance

source

Basil

Ἑβραῖοι ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἦλϑεν εἰς ἐμέ / παραδιδόασι Λόγος δέ τίς ἐστι καὶ τοιόσδε κατὰ τὴν ἄγραφον μνήμην … διασῳζόμενος τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἀδὰμ νεκρὸν … ἄνϑρωπον / τὸ κρανίον Περὶ τοῦ Κρανίου τόπου ἡ Ἰουδαία / εἰς τὸν λεγόμενον κρανίου τόπον ἐκεῖ τετάφϑαι Πρώτη … ἐδέξατο / ἀποϑέμενοι … ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, … ὠνόμασαν ἵν᾿ ἐπεὶ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἵνα ἐν ᾧ τόπῳ ἡ φϑορὰ τῶν ἀποϑνῄσκομεν, ἀναστῇ μὲν ὁ ἀνϑρώπων τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔλαβεν, Ἀδάμ, ἐν Χριστῷ δὲ πάντες ἐκεῖϑεν ἡ ζωὴ τῆς βασιλείας ζῳοποιηϑῶμεν ἄρξηται˙ καὶ ὥσπερ ἴσχυσεν ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ ὁ ϑάνατος, οὕτως ἀσϑενήσῃ ἐν τῷ ϑανάτῳ Χριστοῦ 1 Cor 15,22 1 Cor 15,22

25. JerusalemTalmud. Nazir 7,56b in TheJerusalemTalmud,transl.GUGGENHEIMER (n. 12), p. 656.

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

165

Basil gives some of the shared points a particular aspect: the informants are members of the Church, the tradition is passed on orally, the attention is focused on Adam’s skull (because of the etymology of the name Golgotha). He also adds some information that is not present in the surviving short passage of Origen: Adam was the first inhabitant of Judea, he was settled there after expulsion from Paradise, Adam was sent to Judea as a consolation for the loss of Paradise. After the death of Adam the skull was not buried and was lying exposed until it lost its flesh and then was placed on Golgotha and gave the place its name (whether the body received the same treatment or was buried separately is not discussed). The memory about Adam’s tomb was not lost in the general disruption caused by the Flood because the story (not the body, head or skull) was preserved by Noah. Some of these points, especially the last one, may be a result of Basil’s own attempts at interpreting the available information. However, the marked glorification of the land of Judea seems to be pointing to a local Hebrew source. The essence of Basil’s information corresponds to what Origen says; there are, however, no signs of direct borrowing. This, as well as insistence on the oral character of the tradition and echoes of local patriotism in his source, suggests that Basil here is independent from Origen. This means that the living tradition, to which Origen had access in the early third century, continued to exist in some circles within the Church in the late fourth century and retained its character of a Hebrew story. The influence of Basil’s account of Adam’s burial is attested by its Syriac translation with a full reference to the source: More on what Golgotha is, and about the cross, and that everyone dies at the end [of his life], of St. Basil from the Commentary on Isaiah the prophet. Hence a new spectacle was announced to those who were [there]: bones of the skull, when its flesh is pulled off. And when they placed the skull in that place, they called it the Place of the Skull. It is possible that this grave also did not deceive Noah, who was the forefather (lit.: the head) of the humankind, for after the Flood this story was passed on by him (lit.: from him). Therefore the Lord, investigating the origins of the human race, accepted suffering on that place called the Skull, so that from the very place, where the human corruption had its beginning, the life of the Kingdom [of God] could spring up, and thus, like a spear threatening the enemies, the cross of Christ was set up there26. 26. Translation of N. Smelova. Ms London British Library, Syriac 861 (Add.17193), ff.7v-8r (after it follow Syriac translations of passages under the names of Athanasius of Alexandria and Ephrem the Syrian). W. WRIGHT, CatalogueofSyriacManuscriptsinthe British Museum, Acquired since the Year 1838, vol. 2. London, Trustees of the British

166

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

The interpreter was not interested in the tradition about Adam as such, but in the significance of the crucifixion. Accordingly, he translated only a part of Basil’s passage. The translation has added some new features to the original information: Noah rather than Christ is described as the “head of the humankind” (due to his revival of the human race after the Flood); Luke’s more accurate translation of Golgotha as the “Skull” is used alongside the more common “the place of the skull” from the other Gospels; the word “horn/spur”, which is not intelligible outside the context of exegesis of Is 5,1, is replaced with the “spear” (a similarly sharp and pointed object, but the one that can be compared to the cross as a powerful weapon). Another indicator of dissemination of Basil’s version of the tradition is provided in one of the letters of Nilus of Ancyra27 which reproduces it closely but with some textual variants. The text of Nilus differs from that of Basil in several ways. Occasionally isolated words are omitted, some are replaced with synonyms, some words are added. In the majority of cases these variants do not alter the meaning of the text in any significant way. Only on two occasions the additions contain something new: one is the description of Adam as the “first-formed” (πρωτόπλαστος), the other is the designation of the area as Palestine (Παλαιστίνη) along with the usual name of Judea (Ἰουδαία). At least two of the verbal variants are due to mistakes of hearing in the process of dictation caused by itacism: ποίμνην (shepherd) instead of φήμην (story/report) and περιούσης (present on all sides) instead of περιρρυείσης (having fallen away on all sides). The changes clearly distort the sense and represent a corruption. They occurred at some stage in the textual transmission: either when Nilus was dictating the letter to a secretary, or later when the collection of letters was copied by dictation in a scriptorium. Nilus gives a vague reference to his source: “moreover, someone said before us” (εἴρηκε τοίνυν τις πρὸ ἡμῶν), which may suggest a form of oral tradition. However, “said” (εἴρηκε) can be used as a broad synonym for “wrote” (γέγραφε). More importantly, the close verbal correspondence between the two texts can only be a result of direct borrowing by Nilus from the written text of Basil.

Museum, 1871, pp. 989-1002. P.J. FEDWICK, BibliothecaBasilianaUniuersalis, Turnhout, Brepols, h4002, i1561. 27. Nilus Ancyranus, Epistula I,2: Ptolemaeosyncletico (PG 79, 84A2-B10) = Basilius Caesariensis, Enarratio in Isaiam V,141 (PG 30, 348C1-349A2). A. CAMERON, The AuthenticityofLettersofStNilusofAncyra, in Greek,RomanandByzantineStudies 17 (1976) 181-196.

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

167

VII. PS-ATHANASIUS’ ON THEPASSION ANDCROSS OF THELORD The next witness to the tradition about Adam’s burial on Golgotha is a fourth century homily OnthePassionandCrossoftheLord, which is preserved in manuscripts under the name of Athanasius of Alexandria but does not belong to him: Because of this He suffers not elsewhere, nor is He crucified in a place other than the Place of the Skull, about which the teachers of the Hebrews say that it is the tomb of Adam. For they definitely state that he was buried there after the curse [of the condemnation]. If this is so, I am amazed at the appropriateness of this place. For the Lord, when He wanted to renew the first Adam, had to suffer in that place, so that absolving his sin … and instead of: “You are earth, and you shall go into earth” (Gen 3,19), He said then: “Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon you” (Eph 5,14), and again: “Rise and come,follow me, so that you are no longer located on earth, but go up into heaven”. For it was necessary that, when the Saviour was woken up, together with Him also be woken up Adam and all those who originated from Adam. And just as, when Adam died, we also were remaining dead through him, so when the body of the Lord woke up, it was necessary for all others to be woken up with Him. This is the meaning [of the words] of Paul, for he writes to the Corinthians saying: “For just as all die in Adam, so all shall be made alive in Christ” (1 Cor 15,22)28.

Although the homily contains additional materials, in the main points it follows Origen: Origen source Ἑβραῖοι transmission ἦλϑεν εἰς ἐμέ / παραδιδόασι object τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἀδὰμ location Περὶ τοῦ Κρανίου τόπου action ἐκεῖ τετάφϑαι

Pseudo-Athanasius Ἑβραίων οἱ διδάσκαλοι φασι πρῶτον Ἀδὰμ εἰς τὸν Κρανίου τόπον Ἐκεῖ … τετάφϑαι

28. Athanasius Alexandrinus, Dubia, DePassioneetCruceDomini 12 (PG 28, 208A5B14). H.R. DROBNER, Einepseudo-athanasianischeOsterpredigt(CPGII.2247)überdie WahrheitGottesundihreErfüllung, in L.R. WICKHAM (ed.), ChristianFaithandGreek PhilosophyinLateAntiquity, Leiden, Brill, 1993, 43-51. Syriac translation of the homily DeCruceetPassione in AthanasianaSyriaca. Part III, ed. R.W. THOMSON (CSCO, 324; Scriptores Syri, 142), Louvain, Secrétariat du CSCO, 1972, pp. 105,19–106,10. English translation of the Syriac version of DeCruceetPassione in AthanasianaSyriaca. Part III, transl. R.W. THOMSON (CSCO, 325; Scriptores Syri, 143), Louvain, Secrétariat du CSCO, 1972, pp. 72,24–73,6.

168

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

Origen

Pseudo-Athanasius

purpose/ significance

ἵν᾿ ἐπεὶ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποϑνῄσκομεν, ἀναστῇ μὲν ὁ Ἀδάμ, ἐν Χριστῷ δὲ πάντες ζῳοποιηϑῶμεν

reference

1 Cor 15,22

Καὶ ὥσπερ, ἀποϑνήσκοντος τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἐμένομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτὸν νεκροί, οὕτως ἐγειρομένου τοῦ κυριακοῦ σώματος, ἀνάγκη λοιπὸν πάντας συνεγείρεσϑαι αὐτῷ. 1 Cor 15,22

These corresponding points concern essential information, the sequence of the narrative and the structure of the passage in the homily. Additions represent theological reflections on the information given by Origen accompanied by Biblical references and are woven into his passage extending but not fundamentally altering it. The most important of them are as follows: emphasis that the location of crucifixion had no alternative to Golgotha (Ὅϑεν οὐδὲ ἀλλαχοῦ πάσχει, οὐδὲ εἰς ἄλλον τόπον σταυροῦται, ἢ εἰς τὸν Κρανίου τόπον) and had special appropriateness (οἰκειότητα); identification of the source as “the teachers of the Hebrews” (Ἑβραίων οἱ διδάσκαλοι) who “definitely state” (διαβεβαιοῦνται) their information; introducing the issue of the curse (κατάρα); description of Adam as “the first” (πρῶτος) and thus implying juxtaposition with the second Adam; quoting Eph 5,14 in pair with Gen 3,19 and interpreting both as addressed to Adam; insistence that “it was necessary” (ἔδει, ἀνάγκη) for Christ to suffer on Golgotha and describing resurrection in specific theological language as “waking up of the body of the Lord” (ἐγειρομένου τοῦ κυριακοῦ σώματος). The speaker’s admiration for the appropriateness of the choice of this place for the suffering of Christ (ϑαυμάζω τοῦ τόπου τὴν οἰκειότητα) echoes the similar sentiment of Cyril of Jerusalem (Ὦ μεγάλης προφητικῆς ὀνομασίας). The homily of pseudo-Athanasius relies on information similar to that presented by Origen and the precise quote of 1 Cor 15,22 rather than a paraphrase, suggests a direct borrowing. VIII. JEROME AND EPIPHANIUS In the late fourth century several references to the tradition of Adam’s burial on Golgotha are provided by Jerome. In 386, full of enthusiasm after the recent arrival in the Holy Land, in a letter written on behalf of his patrons Paula and Eustochium to a mutual friend Marcella in Rome, Jerome uses the same expressions as pseudo-Athanasius and Basil:

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

169

They say that in this city (Jerusalem), indeed on this place then Adam lived and died. Hence the place, on which our Lord was crucified is called Calvary (the Skull), namely because there the skull of the ancient man (Adam) has been buried, so that the second Adam and the blood of Christ dripping from the cross might wash off the sins of the first Adam and our forefather lying there, so that then the saying of the Apostle might be fulfilled: “Wakeup,youwhosleep,andriseupfromthedeadandChristwill shineuponyou” (Eph 5,14)29. Pseudo-Athanasius

Jerome Ep. 46

Basil

Ἐκεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν (Ἀδάμ) in hoc tunc loco habitasse πρῶτον ἡ Ἰουδαία ἔσχεν μετὰ τὴν κατάραν τεϑά- dicitur et mortuus esse οἰκήτορα τὸν Ἀδὰμ … φϑαι Adam Πρώτη οὖν καὶ νεκρὸν ἐδέξατο ἄνϑρωπον ἐκεῖ unde et locus, in quo cru- κρανίουτόπονὠνόμασαν. cifixus est dominus noster, Caluariaappellatur scilicet quod ibidem sit ἀποϑέμενοι τὸ κρανίον antiqui hominis caluaria ἐν τῷ τόπῳ condita ἵνα, ἐκείνου λύων τὴν ut … iacentis propagatoἁμαρτίαν / ἵνα τὸν Ἀδὰμ ris peccata dilueret εὑρὼν ἐκεῖ, λύσῃ μὲν τὴν κατάραν λοιπὸν εἴπῃ˙ Ἔγειραι, ὁ Et tunc sermo ille aposκαϑεύδων, καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ toli compleretur: exciτῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐπιφαύ- tare, qui dormis, et surge σει σοι ὁ Χριστός (Eph a mortuis, et inluminabit 5,14)˙ … Αὕτη τοῦ Παύ- te Christus (Eph 5,14). λου ἡ διάνοια τυγχάνει˙ … (1 Cor 15,22)

The table shows that the report of Jerome is based on combination of two sources. Information on Adam’s dwelling in Judea and on placement of his skull at Golgotha, which was therefore named after it, comes from the tradition reflected in Basil. The combination of several instances of verbal agreement suggests that the Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah was consulted directly. The topic of physical washing away of Adam’s sins and especially the interpretation of Eph 5,14 as addressed to the first 29. Epistula Paulae et Eustochii ad Marcellam; Hieronymus Stridonensis, Epistula 46,3.2, HieronymiEpistulae I, ed. I. HILBERG (CSEL, 54), Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996, pp. 331,24–332,9.

170

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

man buried at Golgotha are derived from pseudo-Athanasius, as they appear for the first time in the homily OnthePassionandCrossofthe Lord and represent a characteristic strand of its version of the tradition. Very close in time to the letter of Jerome is the passage in the Panarion of Epiphanius of Cyprus which also relies on the same two sources, pseudo-Athanasius and Basil, with a considerable predominance of the former: And so one should be amazed at someone who knows [this], as we have also found in the books, that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on Golgotha. Not in any other place, but where Adam’s body was lying. For having gone out of the Paradise … he later came and in this place … having rendered what was due, he was buried there, on the place of Golgotha. … because of this it was called the Place of the Skull. Having been crucified on it our Lord Jesus Christ enigmatically showed our salvation, through the water and blood that flowed from him through his pierced side. “From the beginning of the lump” (Rom 11,16) beginning to sprinkle our forefather’s remains, to show us also the sprinkling of His blood … and to show, as an example of the leavening and cleansing of the filth of our sins, the water which was poured out on the one who lay buried beneath Him in that place, for his hope and the hope of us who originated from him. Thus here was fulfilled what was said: “Awake, you who sleep and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon you” (Eph 5,14)30. For when the newly dead, together with the most ancient “appeared to many in the city” (Mt 27,52-53) (I consider that He began to produce the resurrection with Adam), and the newly dead … their bodies … buried in the place of Golgotha above them … having been crucified and fulfilling what has been written: “Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ”, who was crucified above you, “shall shine upon you” (Eph 5,14). [When the recently dead appeared] at first they astonished those who saw them and with them other members of their families who recognized them31.

30. Epiphanius, Panarion 46,5,1-10; Panarion, ed. K. HOLL – J. DÜMMER (GCS, 31; Epiphanius Werke, 2), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1922; Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 21980, pp. 208,15–210,4. 31. Epiphanius, Panarion 64,71,19 (GCS 31, 521,6-12 HOLL – DÜMMER).

171

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

Pseudo-Athanasius

Epiphanius

Basil

Ὅϑεν οὐδὲ ἀλλαχοῦ πάσχει, οὐδὲ εἰς ἄλλον τόπον σταυροῦται, ἢ εἰς τὸν Κρανίου τόπον, ὃν … φασι τοῦ Ἀδὰμ εἶναι τάφον. Ἐκεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν μετὰ τὴν κατάραν τεϑάφϑαι διαβεβαιοῦνται. … ϑαυμάζω τοῦ τόπου τὴν οἰκειότητα.

Διὸ καὶ ϑαυμάσαι ἔστι τὸν εἰδότα … τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν τῷ Γολγοϑᾷ ἐσταυρῶσϑαι. οὐκ ἄλλῃ που ἀλλ’ ἢ ἔνϑα ἔκειτο τὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ σῶμα. ἐξελϑὼνγὰρἐκτοῦπαραδείσου … καὶ ἐντῷτόπῳ τούτῳ, … τὸχρεὼνἀποδεδωκὼς καὶ ἐκεῖσε ἐτάφη ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τῷ Γολγοϑᾷ. πόϑεν οὖν ἡ ἐπωνυμία τοῦΚρανίου, ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ τοῦ πρωτοπλάστου ἀνϑρώπου ἐκεῖ τὸ κρανίον ηὕρηται καὶ ἐκεῖ τὸ λείψανον ἐναπέκειτο, τούτου ἕνεκα Κρανίου τόπος ἐπεκέκλητο˙ … ἀπὸτῆςἀρχῆς τοῦ φυράματος (Rom 11,16) ἀρξάμενος ῥαντίζειν τὰ λείψανα τοῦ προπάτορος, ἵνα καὶ ἡμῖν ὑποδείξῃ τὸν ῥαντισμὸν τοῦ αὐτοῦ αἵματος, εἰς κάϑαρσιν τῆς ἡμῶν κοινώσεως … εἰς ἐλπίδα αὐτοῦ τε καὶ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένων. διὸ καὶ ἐνταῦϑα ἐπληροῦτο τὸ εἰρημένον Ἔγειρε ὁ καϑεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός (Eph 5,14).

ὡς ἄρα πρῶτον ἡ Ἰουδαία ἔσχεν οἰκήτορα τὸν Ἀδὰμ μετὰ τὸ ἐκβληϑῆναι τοῦ παραδείσου … Πρώτη οὖν καὶ νεκρὸν ἐδέξατο ἄνϑρωπον ἐκεῖ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τὴν καταδίκην πληρώσαντος. … καὶ ἀποϑέμενοι τὸ κρανίον ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, κρανίουτόπονὠνόμασαν.

Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν Κύριον, ἀνανεῶσαι ϑέλοντα τὸν πρῶτον Ἀδὰμ, ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ τόπῳ παϑεὶν, ἵνα, ἐκείνου λύων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἀπὸ παντὸς αὐτὴν ἄρῃ τοῦ γένους˙ καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἤκουσεν ὁ Ἀδάμ˙ Γῆ εἶ, καὶ εἰς γὴν ἀπελεύσῃ (Gen 3,19), διὰ τοῦτο πάλιν ἐκεῖ τέϑειται, ἵνα τὸν Ἀδὰμ εὑρὼν ἐκεῖ, λύσῃ μὲν τὴν κατάραν, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ˙ Γῆ εἶ, καὶ εἰς γὴν ἀπελεύσῃ, λοιπὸν εἴπῃ˙ Ἔγειραι, ὁ καϑεύδων, καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός (Eph 5,14).

Διόπερ ὁ Κύριος τὰς ἀρχὰς τοῦ ἀνϑρωπείου ϑανάτου ἐρευνήσας εἰς τὸν λεγόμενον κρανίου τόπον τὸ πάϑος ἐδέξατο, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ τόπῳ ἡ φϑορὰ τῶν ἀνϑρώπων τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔλαβεν, ἐκεῖϑεν ἡ ζωὴ τῆς βασιλείας ἄρξηται˙ καὶ ὥσπερ ἴσχυσεν ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ ὁ ϑάνατος, οὕτως ἀσϑενήσῃ ἐν τῷ ϑανάτῳ Χριστοῦ.

The close agreements with pseudo-Athanasius indicate that Epiphanius was using the homily directly rather than sharing common sources with it. A particular hall-mark of the whole group of texts relying on the

172

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

homily is the interpretation of Eph 5,14 as being addressed to Adam and speaking of his redemption by the suffering of Christ right above his grave. This feature is shared by Epiphanius and by the three main texts of Jerome dealing with the subject32. Epiphanius accepted this interpretation and Jerome initially reported it with enthusiasm in Letter 46. However, soon he drastically changed his opinion and dismissed the exegesis as “a theatrical miracle, a thing never previously seen”. Firstly, Jerome simply rejects the interpretation in the Commentary on the Ephesians: I know that I have heard a certain [preacher] arguing (disputantem) in the church about this passage (Eph 5,14), who, in a manner of a theatrical miracle, presented to the people in order to please them a thing never previously seen. He was saying that this [passage] is a testimony and is spoken about Adam, buried in the place of the Skull, where the Lord was crucified. It is called [the Place] of the Skull for the reason because there the head of the ancient man has been buried. Therefore at the time when the crucified Lord was hanging above his burial the prophecy was fulfilled, which says: RiseAdam,youwhosleep,andriseupfromthedead, and, [further] not as we read: ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός, that is Christwillshineuponyou, but ἐπιψαύσει, that is Christwilltouchyou (Eph 5,14). Because obviously by the touch of His (Christ’s) blood and the body hanging down he (Adam) is brought to life and rises with Him. … Whether these [statements] are true or not I leave to the judgement of the reader. Then, when [these words] were said to the people, they clearly pleased them and were received with a certain applause and stamping of the feet. I will say one thing which I know: that interpretation [of his] does not agree with the meaning and the context of this passage33.

Then he comes up with an adhoc alternative in the Commentaryon Matthew: I heard a certain person offering an explanation that the place of the Skull [is the place] in which Adam has been buried and called so because there the head of the ancient man has been buried, and that this is what the Apostle says: “Rise, you who sleep, and rise up from the dead and Christ will shine upon you” (Eph 5,14). A pleasant interpretation and delighting the ear of the people, yet not true. For outside the city and beyond the gate are places, in which heads of the condemned are cut off, and they receive the name of the Skull, that is of the beheaded. … But if someone would wish to argue that [it is called so] because the Lord was crucified there, so that His blood would drip on the tomb of Adam, we shall ask him … From this it becomes clear that [the place] of the Skull indicates not the burial of 32. EpistulaPaulaeetEustochiiadMarcellam (n. 29); CommentariiinEpistulamad Ephesios III,5.14; CommentariiinMattheum IV,27.33. 33. Hieronymus Stridonensis, CommentariiinEpistulamadEphesios III,5.14 (PL 26, 526A4-B10).

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

173

the first man but a place of the beheaded, so that where sin became abundant, grace would become even more abundant (Rom 5,20). We read in the book of Joshua son of Nun that in truth Adam has been buried near Chebron and Arbe34. Jerome Ep. 46

Jerome Comm. Eph.

Jerome Comm. Math.

unde et locus, in quo crucifixus est dominus noster, Caluaria appellatur, scilicet quod ibidem sit antiqui hominis caluaria condita, ut secundus Adam et sanguis Christi de cruce stillans primi Adam et iacentis propagatoris peccata dilueret et tunc sermo ille apostoli compleretur: excitare, qui dormis, et exsurge a mortuis, et inluminabit te Christus (Eph 5,14).

ad Adam dicitur in loco Calvariae sepultum, ubi crucifixus est Dominus. Qui Calvariae idcirco appellatus est, quod ibi antiqui hominis esset conditum caput: illo ergo tempore quo crucifixus Dominus, super eius pendebat sepulcrum, haec prophetia completa est dicens: Surge, Adam, qui dormis, et exsurge a mortuis: et non ut legimus ἐπιφαύσει σοι Χριστός, id est, orietur tibi Christus; sed ἐπιψαύσει, id est, continget te Christus (Eph 5,14). Quia videlicet tactu sanguinis ipsius …

Audiui quendam exposuisse Caluariae locum in quo sepultus est Adam et ideo sic appellatum quia ibi antiqui hominis sit conditum caput, et hoc esse quod Apostolus dicat: Surge qui dormis et exsurge a mortuis, et inluminabit te Christus (Eph 5,14). … Propterea autem ibi crucifixus est Dominus … Sin autem quispiam contendere uoluerit ideo ibi Dominum crucifixum ut sanguis ipsius super Adam tumulum distillaret …

All three texts of Jerome reproduce the same wording of the controversial exegesis of Eph 5,14. Jerome states that he heard it preached in the church (dicitur/sciomeaudissequemdaminEcclesiadisputantem/ audiuiquendamexposuisse). This happened after he arrived in Jerusalem and the topic suggests that preaching must have taken place near Golgotha itself (like the catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem). The preacher was likely to be the bishop of the city. Jerome’s sudden change of attitude to the exegesis perfectly matches his falling out with John of Jerusalem sometime after he settled in the Holy Land (issues of the dispute are described by Jerome in his pamphlet AgainstJohnofJerusalem). The conclusion that the preacher was bishop John is supported by several additional observations. Epiphanus of Salamis, who visited Jerome in Palestine 34. Hieronymus Stridonensis, Commentarii in Mattheum IV,27.33; S. Hieronymi  resbyteriOpera. Pars I: OperaExegetica 7, ed. D. HURST (CCSL, 77), Turnhout, Brepols, P 1969, p. 270,1666-1685.

174

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

and listened to John’s sermons in the Church of Resurrection, accepted both the tradition about Adam’s burial on Golgotha and the interpretation of Eph 5,14. Although he disagreed with John about Origenism, he probably accepted the story of Adam’s burial because it went back to a local tradition which was received rather than started by John (and Epiphanius himself was born in Palestine)35. John must have been the person who brought the tradition to prominence because the previous bishop of Jerusalem, Cyril, shows no awareness of it in his preaching. The homily of pseudo-Athanasius, which is the earliest witness to the idiosyncratic exegesis of Eph 5,14, contains the same point about the resurrection of the body (ἐγειρομένου τοῦ κυριακοῦ σώματος) for which Jerome was accusing bishop John of heresy. In fact, even Epiphanius speaks about resurrection of the body rather than of the flesh, whereas Jerome claimed that only the latter wording is properly Orthodox36. So, I suggest that the homily On the Passion and Cross of the Lord, preserved under the name of Athanasius of Alexandria, belongs either to John of Jerusalem or to one of his followers. It is probably not the very sermon heard by Jerome in the Church of Resurrection, but it is generically related to it. Jerome’s change of attitude to the tradition about Adam’s burial on Golgotha and exegesis of Eph 5,14 was due to the breakdown of his relations with the bishop who had brought them to prominence. Epiphanius, for all his opposition to Origenism and disagreements with John, accepted both the story of Adam’s grave and the exegesis because they reflected a local tradition. However, previously this tradition had not been widespread and was probably boosted by John II of Jerusalem who was fond of the teachings of Origen and Christian Hebrew traditions. The former brought him criticism from Epiphanius and Jerome, whereas the latter motivated one of his homilies, which was possibly pronounced at the dedication of the church on Mount Sion37. The Old Testament themes of the homily and the occasion for its delivery suggest John’s efforts for communion with Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem.

35. B. GOVETT, Epiphanius on Golgotha, in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 12 (1880) 109-110. 36. C. WALKER BYNUM, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 2001336, New York, Columbia University Press, 1995, pp. 86-94. E.A. CLARK, TheOrigenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992, pp. 135-137. 37. M. VAN ESBROECK, Une homélie sur l’Église attribuée à Jean de Jérusalem, in LeMuséon 86 (1973) 283-304.

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

175

IX. RECEPTION IN THE WEST Jerome’s rejection of the location of Adam’s tomb on Golgotha in favour of Hebron38, because the former was promoted by bishop John, had momentous consequences for Western theological tradition. From the fifth century onwards Latin theologians, largely deprived of contacts with the contemporary Greek tradition and relying on the judgement of the Bethlehem polymath, tended to reproduce his opinion39. However, at the end of the fourth century, before the barbarian invasions in the West reduced its contacts with the Christian East, Ambrose demonstrates familiarity with the discussion of Adam’s burial by both Jerome and the tradition coming from Origen: The actual place of the cross is either in the middle [of the earth], as visible to all, or above the grave of Adam, as the Hebrews argue (disputant). This makes sense, that the first fruits of our life were located there (ibi), where (ubi) the sources of death had been40.

The word disputant clearly comes from disputantem in Jerome’s CommentaryontheEphesians, whereas reference to the Hebrews, as the source of the tradition, and the use of 1 Cor 15 with the contrast between death in Adam and life in Christ (ibi … ubi) either come directly from Origen or through the homily of pseudo-Athanasius (the circle of John II of Jerusalem). This is not surprising as Ambrose was well read in Greek Christian literature and extensively relied on it in his theological works. Bishop Chromatius of Aquilea, who managed to maintain cordial relations with both Jerome and Rufinus even after the two learned friends had completely fallen out with each other, used the story of Adam’s burial in one of his sermons. However, his source was not Jerome but Ambrose who was frequently attacked by the Bethlehem scholar. The wording is close and suggests direct dependence: Chromatius: Non sine causa in loco hoc crucifixus est, ubi corpus Adae sepultum adseritur. Ibi ergo Christus crucifigitur, ubi Adam sepultus fuerat, ut illic uita operaretur, ubi primum mors fuerat operata (cf. 1 Cor 15,22), ut de morte uita resurgeret 41. Ambrose: quam suscepit in Golgotha Christus, ubi Adae sepulchrum, ut illum mortuum in sua cruce resuscitaret. Ubi ergo in Adam mors omnium, ibi in Christo omnium resurrectio (cf. 1 Cor 15,22). 38. P.W. VAN DER HORST, TheSiteofAdam’sTomb, in ID., StudiesinAncientJudaism andEarlyChristianity, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2014, pp. 1-5. 39. O’LOUGHLIN, AdomnánandtheHolyPlaces (n. 2), pp. 84-94. 40. Ambrosius Mediolanensis, ExpositioinLucam X,114 (PL 15, 1925C3-7). 41. Chromatius Aquileiensis, Sermo XIX,141; Chromatius Aquileiensis Opera, ed. R. ÉTAIX – J. LEMARIE (CCSL, 9A), Turnhout, Brepols, 1977.

176

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

X. THE EAST John Chrysostom mentions the tradition briefly in one of his homilies on the Gospel of John. The reference to the sources of information is in plural and may indicate either written or oral tradition (Τινές φασιν)42. Several structural and verbal parallels suggest influence of the CommentaryontheProphetIsaiah by Basil: Chrysostom, In Iohannem hom. 85.1

Basil, Enarratio in Isaiam

ἐκεῖ τὸν Ἀδὰμ τετελευτηκέναι καὶ κεῖσϑαι ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, ἔνϑα ὁ ϑάνατος ἐβασίλευσεν τρόπαιον … τὸν σταυρὸν κατὰ τῆς τοῦ ϑανάτου τυραννίδος

ἐκεῖ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τὴν καταδίκην πληρώσαντος ἴσχυσεν ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ ὁ ϑάνατος κατὰ τοῦ ἐχϑροῦ ἀμυντήριον ἔχοντι τὸν σταυρόν

Later authors are even more brief and do not develop the topic creatively. A fragment of the CommentaryonMatthew by Cyril of Alexandria reproduces with only minor variations the shorter Greek version of Origen’s passage on the burial of Adam on Golgotha43. Cyril could have borrowed the passage without a reference, but a misattribution in catenae also remains a possibility. Basil of Seleucia introduces a folklore motive of a child born with horns (a royal symbol) on the place of Golgotha and a prophecy connected to the event: … a certain place beyond the outer wall, which was called the Place of the Skull, in which a woman gave birth to a child who had horns. Because of this sign some said that a royal house shall be in the place, which also happened. For there, in the [place] called Golgotha, the Lord deemed worthy to be crucified and buried, and to rise again; there also the holy Church of God was established, giving her name to it, bearing the saving sufferings of the Lord until now; I am talking of the cross and the resurrection. According to the traditions of the Jews, as they say, the skull of Adam was found there, and Solomon discerned this because of his exceeding wisdom. For this reason, they say, that place was called the Place of the Skull44. 42. Iohannes Chrysostomus, InIohannemhomiliae LXXXV,1 (PG 59, 459). 43. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Commentarii in Matthaeum (in catenis) fr. 307,2-5, in Matthäus-KommentareausdergriechischenKirche, ed. J. REUSS (TU, 61), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1957. Cf. GCS 38, 265,1-8 KLOSTERMANN; GCS 41, 225 KLOSTERMANN. 44. Basilius Seleuciensis, Homilia 38,3: Contra Iudaeos de Salvatoris Adventu Demonstratio (PG 85, 409A2-B1). Cf. Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita I,55,5-6; V,54,7

ADAM’S BURIAL ON GOLGOTHA AND ORIGEN

177

He is also the first author to attribute the tradition about Adam’s grave to the Jews (Ἰουδαίοι) rather than Hebrews (Ἑβραίοι), probably due to the polemical context of the homily. In his emphasis on the skull rather than the head or the body of Adam, as other texts do, the bishop of Seleucia follows his famous name-sake of Caesarea: τὸ κρανίον τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἐκεῖσε εὑρεϑῆναι – ἀποϑέμενοι τὸ κρανίον ἐν τῷ τόπῳ. The reference to Solomon seems to be a re-interpretation of Basil the Great’s reflection on Noah as the transmitter of the story for generations after the Flood. The QuestionstoAntiochus, under the name of Athanasius of Alexandria, represent a resurgence of interest in the Hebrew traditions of speculation on the place of Adam’s burial in the context of discussion of the location of Paradise. Here the reference to the grave serves to refute the idea that Paradise might be in Jerusalem: Question 47. Where do we want to say the paradise is? For some say that it is in Jerusalem, others that it is in heaven. Answer. None of the two [opinions] is true. Adam lying in the [place called] Skull testifies that paradise is not in Jerusalem. It is very clear that he was not buried in paradise but was expelled45.

CONCLUSION The foundations from which the tradition would grow, are contained already as separate elements in the reports about Christ’s crucifixion in the Epistles and the Gospels, as reflections on significance of the redemption and on the vision of Ezekiel. These elements were gradually crystallizing into a narrative, which from the beginning had a reputation of a Hebrew rather than a Jewish story. In the second century Julius Africanus reported that Adam was buried in the area of Jerusalem. Origen developed the narrative by providing a theological explanation and confirmed its Hebrew origin. His acceptance discovery of a human head on the site of the Capitol leads to a prophecy that the place is going to be “caput rerum”. R.M. OGILVIE, A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5, Oxford, Clarendon, 1965, pp. 211-212, 183. 45. Athanasius Alexandrinus, Spuria, QuaestionesadAntiochum, Quaestio 47 (PG 28, 628B8-14). Cf. Targumpseudo-Jonathan 2,7, in TheTargums, transl. ETHERIDGE (n. 12), p. 162. BereshitRabbah 14,8, in MidrashRabbah1, transl. FREEDMAN (n. 12), pp. 115116. Jerusalem Talmud. Nazir 7,56b, in The Jerusalem Talmud, transl. GUGGENHEIMER (n. 12), p. 657. ApocalypseofMoses 40,6; LifeofAdamandEve, transl. M.D. JOHNSON, in J.H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1985, p. 293.

178

N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

of the story with its materialising and localising tendencies was probably due to respect for the Hebrew origins of the tradition. Eusebius, although he must have known the story from the pen of Origen, chose to avoid it and be a more consistent Origenist than his teacher. Even in Jerusalem itself the tradition was marginal enough for bishop Cyril to be unaware of it in the middle of the fourth century. In the second half of it what must have been a local Christian Hebrew tradition was accepted and promoted by an admirer of Origen and bishop of Jerusalem John II, who also applied the words of Eph 5,14 to Adam buried on Golgotha. This interpretation was heard and embraced by both Epiphanius (out of respect for the Palestinian origin of the story) and Jerome, but the Origenist controversy and the soring of relations with bishop John caused the latter to change his attitude. Jerome dismissed the exegesis of Eph 5,14 as fanciful and adopted an alternative Jewish tradition locating Adam’s grave in Hebron. In this he was following his usual method of building up claims to spiritual authority by developing his own traditions in place of established ones (the Vulgate to replace the Septuagint/Vetus Latina/Itala, Paul of Thebes to replace Anthony as the first monk, his own works to replace the writings of Origen, Bethlehem with the Basilica of the Nativity and his own monastery to replace the church of Resurrection in Jerusalem as the main site of pilgrimage). Jerome’s reputation for learning and the wide range of his literary output, which amounted to a complete Latin reference library for subsequent generations of Westerners with their diminished resources and reduced exposure to Greek Patristic heritage, ensured complete dominance for the Hebron tradition in Latin theological literature (although not in art and not in pilgrimage reports46). At the same time the Golgotha tradition remained fully established in the Greek East. Thus, the particular case of the story of Adam’s burial on Golgotha followed the general pattern of conceptual divergence between the Latin West and the Greek East created by the prodigious but idiosyncratic work of Jerome who succeeded in presenting himself as the Latin Origen. 37 Douglas Road Long Eaton Nottingham, NG10 4BH UK [email protected]

Nikolai LIPATOV-CHICHERIN

46. N. LIPATOV-CHICHERIN, The Burial of Adam as an Archetypal Case of Sacred  radition, in A. MELLONI (ed.), Naming the Sacred (FRLANT, 1), Göttingen, VandenT hoeck & Ruprecht, 2019, in print.

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII) THE HOLY LAND IN ORIGEN’S EARLY WORKS

INTRODUCTION: JERUSALEM IN FRLAM,

AND

BEYOND

In chapter 24 of book VI of his ChurchHistory, Eusebius of Caesarea mentions a first group of works which Origen wrote in Alexandria, before leaving for Caesarea Maritima: But to that information it is necessary to add that in the sixth of his Expositionsonthe[Gospel] accordingtoJohn he indicates that he composed the first five while he was still at Alexandria; but of this work on the whole of the selfsame Gospel only twenty-two tomes have come our way. And [we must also state] that in the ninth of those On Genesis (there are twelve in all) he shows that not only were those before the ninth written at Alexandria, but also [his commentary] on the first twenty-five Psalms, and, as well, those on Lamentations, of which there have come to us five tomes. In these he mentions also those OntheResurrection, of which there are two. Moreover he wrote his De Principiis before his removal from Alexandria, and he composed the [books] entitled Stromateis, ten in number, in the same city in the reign of Alexander, as is shown by the annotations in his own hand in front of the tomes1.

Together with Jerome2 and John of Scythopolis3, Eusebius is the main witness of the lost CommentaryonLamentations, now preserved in 118 catena fragments (= FrLam). He probably did not know anymore the exact dimension of the commentary; in fact, he writes “of which there have come to us five tomes”4. From Eusebius’ account, we can infer that Origen wrote it before his final move to Caesarea, right after the first eight books of the Commentary on Genesis and together with the first 1. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,24 (GCS 9/2, 570,18–572,10 SCHWARTZ); English transl.: Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History, II, transl. J.E.L. OULTON (LCL, 265), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1932, pp. 71.73. 2. Hieronymus, Epistula XXXIII,4 (CSEL 54, 256,17-18 HILBERG). 3. Sancti Maximi Scholia in epistolas S. Dionysii Areopagitae (PG 4, 549B1-6). English transl.: John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, transl. P. ROREM – J.C. LAMOREAUX, Oxford, Clarendon, 1998, p. 257:“Origen explicates this quite well in the tenth of his homilies on the Lamentations of Jeremiah”. This translation is mistaken, since the Greek text reads – πλατέως δὲ τοῦτο διαγυμνάζει Ὡριγένης ἐν τῷ ιʹ τῶν εἰς τοὺς Ἱερεμίου ϑρήνους – the word homilies is completely absent. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome mention “homilies”. 4. Eusebius,Hist.Eccl.VI,24,2 (GCS 9/2, 572,4-5 SCHWARTZ); transl. OULTON (n. 1), p. 71.

180

V. MARCHETTO

five of the CommentaryonJohn. After the loss of the first Commentary ontheSongofSongs, and of the CommentaryonPsalms1–25, the work on Lamentations, probably the third commentary of Origen, could be regarded as the first one which has come to us in a considerable number of fragments. This is only one of the many reasons why this paper, focussing on the treatment of Jerusalem in Origen’s early works, takes into account especially these fragments. This choice, unusual but necessary, draws on an insight of Lorenzo Perrone, according to whom the important role which Palestine played in Origen’s biography should not be measured only on the basis of the last decades of his life5. Already Giuseppe Sgherri expressed this view, stating: “Origene ha indubbiamente avuto contatti con Ebrei già ad Alessandria”6, and briefly observing some points of contact between Jewish tradition and Origen’s early works. In his classic study OrigenandtheJews, Nicholas de Lange did not solve the problem of the relationship between Origen and the Alexandrian Jewish community. On the one hand, he quotes some passages from Deprincipiis as evidence of Origen’s knowledge of the halakhah; on the other, he suspects that he re-arranged them later in Caesarea. Albeit some contacts with Judaism might be present in Origen’s Alexandrian phase, de Lange prefers to look for more concrete traces of dialogue in the later writings7. Even Adam Gregerman, in his Building on the Ruins of the Temple (2016), one of the most recent publications on the patristic and rabbinic interpretations of the destruction of the Temple, does not consider Origen’s fragments on Lamentations, relying instead on passages of ContraCelsum8.

5. Cf. L. PERRONE, Origeneela‘TerraSanta’, in O. ANDREI (ed.), CaesareaMaritima e la scuola origeniana: Multiculturalità, forme di competizione culturale e identità cristiana.Attidell’XIConvegnodelGruppoItalianodiRicercasuOrigeneelaTradizione Alessandrina(22-23settembre2011)(Supplementi di Adamantius, 3), Brescia, Morcelliana, 2013, 139-160, pp. 140, 152ss. 6. G. SGHERRI, Chiesa e Sinagoga nell’opera di Origene (Studia patristica mediolanensia, 13), Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1982, p. 44. 7. N. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-CenturyPalestine(University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976, pp. 8-9: “The present study naturally concentrates on the later Palestinian period of Origen’s life. It would be tempting to find references in his early works to Jews in Alexandria. We know hardly anything of Judaism in Alexandria at this time … If there were Jewish communities in Egypt in Origen’s time we might expect him to know something about them … So imperfect is our information, however, that it is safer to leave this question open”. 8. A. GREGERMAN, BuildingontheRuinsoftheTemple(Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 165), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, pp. 59-95.

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

181

Yet a more detailed study of the first phase of Origen’s life, in particular his exegesis on Lamentations, might better elucidate how some important topics – for example, the role of Jerusalem, or “the separation of Christianity from Judaism”9 – were already present in Origen’s thought in his first works. In my view, the early writings should be considered as part of a well-defined exegetical project, in which the interpretation of this book of the Old Testament shows how Christians tried to appropriate texts that were fundamental to the Jewish tradition and even to its liturgy10. As I tried to show on the basis of FrLam CIX, these fragments help us to enrich the image of the young Origen. He appears keen to debate not only with Gnostics and Marcionites, but also with the Jews of his city and their exegetical and liturgical legacy11. In fact, even if the evidence of the Alexandrian Judaism disappears through the second century, according to Bernard Pouderon “it seems to be certain that there were some survivors as well as some returned back after the end of the riots”12. It should not be overlooked that the mentions regarding the Hebrew teacher13 appear mostly in this early group of works. Shaye Cohen has recently studied the same passage of Deprincipiis about the Sabbath law which de Lange examined, and did not exclude the possibility of a contact between Origen and a certain “rabbinic informant” in

9. Ibid., p. 59. 10. Regarding the liturgical usage of the book of Lamentations, cf. 2 Chron 35,25; ConstitutionesApostolorum V,20,3 (ed. F.X. FUNK, 295,11-19): καὶ γὰρ καὶ νῦν δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Γορπιαίου συναϑροιζόμενοι τοὺς Θρήνους Ἱερεμίου ἀναγινώσκουσιν; Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace 21, transl. H. CONNOLY, Oxford, Clarendon, 1929, pp. 191-192: “on the ninth of the month of Ab (August) they come together and read the Lamentations of Jeremiah and wail and lament”. See D. COLOMBO, Laliturgiaebraicadel Tiš‘a be-Av, in La distruzione di Gerusalemme del 70 nei suoi riflessi storico letterari (Collectio Assisiensis, 8), Assisi, Studio Teologico Porziuncola, 1971, 43-56. See C.M.M. BRADY, Targum Lamentations’ Reading of the Book of Lamentations, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, in particular, pp. 245-247. 11. See V. MARCHETTO, “Una voce di notte”: Presenze angeliche nel Tempio di Gerusalemme dal Commento alle Lamentazioni di Origene, in Adamantius 21 (2015) 224-268. 12. B. POUDERON, “Jewish”,“Christian”and“Gnostic”GroupsinAlexandriaduringthe2ndCent.:BetweenApprovalandExpulsion, in L. ARCARI (ed.), BeyondConflicts: Cultural and Religious Cohabitations in Alexandria and Egypt between the 1st and the 6thCentury(STAC, 103), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 155-175, p. 157; cf. S.C. MIMOUNI, LejudaïsmeancienduVIesiècleavantnotreèreauIIIesiècledenotreère, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 2012, p. 836. 13. He appears in Origen’s works under different denominations; vd. Origenes, Prin I,3,4 (GCS 22, 52,17.53,4 KOETSCHAU): Ἔλεγε δὲ ὁ Ἑβραῖος/dicebatautemetHebraeus magister; IV,3,14 (GCS 22, 346,11): nam et hebraeus doctor ita tradebat; Phil II,3 (SC 302, 244,2-3 HARL): χαριεστάτην παράδοσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἑβραίου ἡμῖν καϑολικῶς περὶ πάσης ϑείας γραφῆς παραδεδομένην προτάξωμεν; CIo I,31,215 (GCS 10, 38,2223 PREUSCHEN): ὧν ἕν τι γένος ἐκάλει Σαβαὶ ὁ Ἑβραῖος.

182

V. MARCHETTO

Alexandria14. However, as recently stated by Gilles Dorival and Ron Naiweld, it is not clear whether “the Hebrew teacher” might be regarded as a real Jew, or a Jew recently converted to Christianity, or a member of a Jewish-Christian group. In this case, the traditions attributed to him would be still strongly attached to a Jewish background15. Within this framework, a gradual comparison between the Origenian FrLamand his other writings of this period may encourage the scholars to understand the importance of the dialogue with some earlier Jewish tradition, especially concerning the meaning of the Holy Land. Origen’s reading of the book of Lamentationsdisplays a deep awareness of its significance. As observed by Beril Albrektson, this biblical book, Not only contains a description of the calamities, but above all tries to understand and make sense of the catastrophe of 587. Especially true of the Book of Lamentations is H. Butterfield’s characterization of the Old Testament as ‘the search for an interpretation of history which would embrace catastrophe itself and transcend the immediate spectacle of tragedy’16.

A Christian exegesis of such a book had to uproot it from its Jewish setting and make it actual and meaningful for any Christian, regardless of its precise historical context. Origen decided to solve this issue with a strict separation of the two levels of the textual interpretation. The literal sense follows closely the account of the suffering of the inhabitants of Jerusalem during and after the capture of their city. In addition, Origen superimposes the events of 70 CE on those of 587 BCE, thus increasing the sense of grief, pain and loss already present in the biblical text. On the other hand, the allegorical reading shifts the different moments of the struggle between Israel and its enemies into the human soul, the true Jerusalem17. 14. S.J.D. COHEN, SabbathLawandMishnahShabbatinOrigenDe principiis, in JewishStudiesQuarterly 17 (2010) 160-189; in particular, p. 188: “The presence of a rabbinic Jew in Alexandria in the early decades of the third century should occasion no surprise. During the catastrophic uprising of the Jews of Alexandria and Egypt against the Romans in 115-117 CE, the Jewish population of Alexandria was annihilated; it virtually disappears from the historical record. The Jewish population that resurfaces in Alexandria in the course of the third and fourth centuries seems to have consisted largely of émigrés from Roman Palaestina. We cannot be sure when this repopulation began but there is no reason to think that it could not have started in the early decades of the third century. Consequently while it is possible that Origen met this rabbinic informant during his sojourn in Caesarea in 215/6 CE, it is just as likely, I think, that Origen met him in Alexandria”. 15. Vd. G. DORIVAL – R. NAIWELD, Les interlocuteurs hébreux et juifs d’Origène à Alexandrie et à Césarée, in ANDREI (ed.), Caesarea Maritima e la scuola origeniana (n. 5), 121-138, pp. 121-126. 16. B. ALBREKTSON, StudiesintheTextandTheologyoftheBookofLamentationswith aCriticalEditionofthePeshittaText, Lund, CWK Gleerup, 1963, p. 215. 17. For the soul as Jerusalem, see also CIo X,28,174.176 (GCS 10, 201,23.32 PREUSCHEN): Ἰησοῦς τοίνυν ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ ϑεοῦ λόγος, ὅστις εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὴν

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

I. JERUSALEM AS

THE

183

HUMAN SOUL

Origen himself offers the reader this higher meaning of the story of Jerusalem’s destruction from the very first fragments. In my opinion, the Fragments I to VI, which allude to the prologue of the LXX’s version of Lamentations, belong to the introduction to Origen’s work. In fact, in FrLamI and III we have the description of the book, namely the discussion on the authorship, the genre, the historical context, the inner division, the title, the different editions, and, in particular, the acrostic form and its meaning. These two very technical passages are separated by FrLam II, which presents the interpretive key of the book. If we see that the soul – which is contemplative by nature, able to survey and attend to things that exist – has become subject to the Devil or even his angels, and altogether subject to the hostile powers, we shall somehow understand both the captivity and the one taking captive18.

This interpretation does not have any link to the previous fragment: for example, there are no such formulae as πρὸς δὲ διάνοιαν… τροπικώτερον…, so common in the first part of the Commentary19. Therefore, it is the theme of captivity, which makes the link between Israel and the soul possible. This fragment, as others, does not present the theory of the two or three elements that constitute the soul; rather the soul is depicted as the hero of a long and complex journey towards God. In this sense, even the great antagonism between body and soul represents more often the inner contrast of two different ways of living than the very elements which form the human being. The main character of this Origenian work is

Ἱεροσόλυμα καλουμένην ψυχήν; μόνος δὲ εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ψυχὴν οὐκ ἔρχεται; HIos XI,5 (GCS 30, 365,26–366,1 BAEHRENS): tuncefficituranimaparteDei,tuncHierusalem regnumDeiefficiturettemplumineaDominoconstruitur; CC VII,22 (GCS 3, 173,26-28 KOETSCHAU): πόλιν δὲ “κυρίου” τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν, ἐν ᾗ ἦν “ναὸς ϑεοῦ”, χωρήσας δόξαν καὶ ὑπόληψιν ὀρϑὴν περὶ ϑεοῦ καὶ ϑαυμαζομένην ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ὁρώντων αὐτήν. 18. Origenes,FrLamII: ἐὰν ἴδωμεν ὑποχείριον γινομένην τὴν ψυχὴν τῷ διαβόλῳ ἢ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς ταῖς ἐχϑραῖς δυνάμεσι τὴν τῇ φύσει ϑεωρητικὴν καὶ συνορᾶν τὰ ὄντα ἐπιστῆσαι δυναμένην, νοήσομέν πως τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν καὶ τὸν αἰχμαλωτίσαντα; Jeremiahomilien, Klageliederkommentar, ErklärungderSamuel-undKönigbücher,ed. E. KLOSTERMANN. 2. Bearbeitete Aufl. herausgegeben von P. NAUTIN (GCS, 6; Origenes Werke, 3), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1901; Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 21983, pp. 235,15–236,1. English transl.: Origen, transl. J.W. TRIGG, London, Routledge, 1998, p. 74. 19. In this case, the reference to a reading κατὰ ϑεωρίαν is outside the text, as marked by the change of the shape of the font in Cod.Chis.R.VIII54 335r.

184

V. MARCHETTO

rather, in the words of Henri Crouzel, the “personnalité humaine”20: it is subject to two opposite entities, which drive it either toward God or toward the material world. Origen depicts the soul as “contemplative by nature, able to survey and attend to things that exist”21. With the gift of free will and the presence of higher faculties (as the νοῦς and the ἡγεμονικόν), it is able to follow the voice of the πνεῦμα, which acts as a teacher22 and urges it to come back to its first condition. The soul depicted here has forgotten its special status and has become “subject to the Devil or even his angels”23, whose ally is the lower part of the soul itself. In this very battle, Christ is the only one who can rescue and save the soul-Jerusalem: in fact, he proclaimed himself as the saviour of any prisoner. FrLam VII and VIII, both commenting on Lam 1,124, follow the prologue. Despite the simple structure of the transmitted text, this couple of fragments holds a rich series of expressions which divides them internally, and helps the reader to distinguish the various interpretive levels25. FrLam VII is a quite clear example of this procedure. It presents a mirror parallel between “the literal sense” – according to which the expressions “filled with people” and “filled with gentiles” refer respectively to the Israelites and the proselytes – and “the elevated sense”. According to the latter, since it is more natural and assured for theoretical matters rather than practical ones to refer to the soul, the multitude of people would symbolize the blessed Jerusalem’s wealth of theoretical insights, and the multitude of gentiles her large number of good works26. 20. H. CROUZEL, L’anthropologied’Origènedanslaperspectiveducombatspirituel, in Revued’ascétiqueetdemystique 31 (1955) 364-385, p. 365. 21. Origenes, FrLam II (GCS 6, 235,16-17 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): τὴν τῇ φύσει ϑεωρητικὴν καὶ συνορᾶν τὰ ὄντα ἐπιστῆσαι δυναμένην; transl. TRIGG (n. 18), p. 74. 22. CROUZEL, L’anthropologie d’Origène (n. 20), p. 367: “il est le pédagogue de l’âme”. 23. Origenes, FrLam II (GCS 6, 235,15-16 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ὑποχείριον γινομένην τὴν ψυχὴν τῷ διαβόλῳ ἢ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς ταῖς ἐχϑραῖς δυνάμεσι; transl. TRIGG (n. 18), p. 74. 24. Lam 1,1: πῶς ἐκάϑισε μόνη ἡ πόλις ἡ πεπλεϑυμμένη λαῶν, ἐγενήϑη ὡς χήρα πεπλεϑυμμένη ἐν ἔϑνεσιν, ἄρχουσα ἐν χώραις ἐγενήϑη εἰς φόρον. 25. Origenes, FrLam VII (GCS 6, 237,8.10 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ λέξει … εἰς δὲ ἀναγωγήν; FrLamVIII (GCS 6, 237,20.27): ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ λέξει … πρὸς τὸ ῥητόν … πρὸς δὲ διάνοιαν. 26. Origenes, FrLam VII (GCS 6, 237,8-14 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ἔοικε δὲ τὸ μὲν πλῆϑος τοῦ λαοῦ, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ λέξει, δηλοῦν τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας Ἰσραηλίτας, τὸ δὲ πλῆϑος τῶν ἐϑνῶν, ὡς προειρήκαμεν, τοὺς προσηλύτους. εἰς δὲ ἀναγωγὴν ἐπεὶ συγ-

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

185

From this very first fragment, some peculiarities of the soul-Jerusalem emerge: it stands out because of its virtues, not only from the theoretical point of view, but also from the practical one. According to the biblical text, as Jerusalem has become a widow, so has the soul. She was the bride of the Λόγος27, and in the following fragment, Origen explains in a more detailed way what the loss of its bridegroom causes. Still commenting on the same verse, FrLam VIII is divided in three parts, each of which correspond to a precise meaning of the text; but concerning the third part, I am still uncertain if I should define it as a “moral sense” or if it should be read as part of the literal one. The most productive way to analyse the fragment consists in splitting it as the author of the catenadid. As far as the letter is concerned, the tone of amazement in the reference to Jerusalem is fitting because of the sad change that had left her that was filled with people sitting solitary, so that her solitude is desertion. For she once had as her husband the presiding living Word, and when he was present to assist her, she attended on him, but she had since been widowed and abandoned by him because of her sin28.

This first section is clearly a kind of paraphrase of the biblical texts. Origen stresses the theme of the fall from power and the abandonment of Jerusalem, seen as a bride who now has lost her husband29. At the time he wrote this commentary, he had already published his youth Commentary, now lost, on the SongofSongs. Therefore, we cannot look at these references – and they are many – to Jerusalem/the soul as a bride without thinking that probably this topic was not very new to him.

γενέστερά ἐστι τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ ἀπερίστατα τὰ ϑεωρητικὰ μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ πρακτικά, τὸ μὲν πλῆϑος τοῦ λαοῦ σημαίνοι ἂν τῆς μακαριζομένης Ἱερουσαλὴμ τὸν πλοῦτον τῶν ϑεωρημάτων· τὸ δὲ πλῆϑος τῶν ἐϑνῶν τὸν πολὺν ἀριϑμὸν τῶν καλῶν πράξεων; transl. TRIGG (n. 18), p. 75. 27. See Origenes, CCt prol. (GCS 33, 61,8-9 BAEHRENS): adamavit enim eum … anima,quaeadimmagineeiusfactaest; HGnX,4 (GCS 29, 98,4 BAEHRENS): sicutChristusanimaevirdicitur,cuinubitanima. 28. Origenes, FrLam VIII (GCS 6, 237,20-25 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ λέξει ἁρμόζει τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ νοεῖσϑαι λέγεσϑαι μετὰ ϑαυμασμοῦ διὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ σκυϑρωπότερον μεταβολὴν μεμονῶσϑαι καϑίσασαν τήν ποτε πλήϑουσαν λαῷ, ἵν’ ἡ μόνωσις ἡ ἐρημία ᾖ αὐτῆς, ἐσχηκυίας μὲν ἄνδρα τὸν προστάτην ἔμψυχον λόγον, ὅτε αὐτῷ εἵπετο παρόντι καὶ βοηϑοῦντι, κεχηρευκυίας δὲ καὶ καταλελειμμένης ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ διὰ τὰ ἡμαρτημένα; transl. TRIGG (n. 18), p. 75. 29. Another common feature of the works of this period is the presence of the common theme of the “wounds of love”; cf. FrLam LV; LXXII; CIV; with CIoI,32,228-229 (GCS 10, 40,21–41,6 PREUSCHEN), and later with CCtIII (GCS 33, 194,3–195,20 BAEHRENS); HCtII,8 (GCS 33, 53,20–54,12).

186

V. MARCHETTO

This will sufficiently explain what is said; but, as to the meaning, Jerusalem flourishing and filled with people and with gentiles, and ruling over the land, is the divine soul. And it is not remarkable, if the perfect soul is not addressed as a house, a farmstead, or – better than this – as a village, nor even as a city, but is called Jerusalem, distinguished above all cities and honored by God, because she has been invested by wisdom and virtue with far greater renown than even the greatest city, with all its multitude of buildings30.

Now, the author of the catena presents the higher interpretive stage. In my opinion, Trigg’s translation does not sufficiently mark the shift between the two senses: “according to the literal sense, but according to the spiritual one” (πρὸς τὸ ῥητόν· πρὸς δὲ διάνοιαν). Jerusalem, as depicted in the fragment above, is described as “the divine soul… the perfect soul (ἡ ϑεία ἐστὶ ψυχή … ἡ τελεία ψυχή)”, and it is precisely Jerusalem, and no other kind of town, city or village, because it has been “honored by God”. The references to wisdom and virtue are further explained in another fragment – FrLam XIX31 – where Origen gives the etymological definition of the term “Zion”. Just as it is possible to see Jerusalem prospering, filled with people and with gentiles and ruling in the land, so, if virtue is liable to change, it is sometimes possible to see her made solitary, acting as a widow and a slave, so that she pays tribute to the enemy who exercises dominion over her, in the manner of a soul fallen away from the truth32.

Here the theme of the fall from power is even clearer. When Jerusalem, with all its virtues, still listened to the voice of God, it was powerful among other cities and nations. Now, instead, as “virtue is liable to change”, it has lost its special state, just as a soul, if it falls away from the truth, becomes subject to the Devil. 30. Origenes, FrLam VIII (GCS 6, 237,27–238,5 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ταῦτα μὲν οὖν πρὸς τὸ ῥητόν· πρὸς δὲ διάνοιαν, Ἱερουσαλὴμ εὐϑηνοῦσα καὶ λαῷ καὶ ἔϑνεσι πλήϑουσα καὶ χωρῶν ἄρχουσα ἡ ϑεία ἐστὶ ψυχή. καὶ οὐ ϑαυμαστόν, εἰ οὐ μόνον οἰκία οὐδὲ ἔπαυλις οὐδὲ ἡ ταύτης μείζων κώμη ἂν προσαγορευϑεῖσα οὐδὲ πόλις ἡ τυχοῦσα ἀλλὰ πασῶν πόλεων διαφέρουσα καὶ παρὰ ϑεῷ τετιμημένη Ἱερουσαλὴμ χρηματίζει ἡ τελεία ψυχή, μεγέϑους ἀξιολόγου πόλει τῇ μεγίστῃ περιβαλλομένου αὐτῇ ὑπὸ τῆς σοφίας καὶ πάσης ἀρετῆς † περιγινομένου πολλαπλάσια οἰκοδομήματα; transl. TRIGG (n. 18), p. 75. 31. Origenes, FrLam XIX (GCS 6, 242,27-30 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ἡ τοιάδε ψυχὴ ϑυγάτηρ ἐστὶ Σιών· οἷον ὡς ϑυγάτηρ δικαιοσύνης ἡ δικαία καὶ τέκνον σοφίας ἡ σοφή, οὕτω δὲ (ἐπεὶ Σιών ἐστι τὸ Σκοπευτήριον) ἡ σκοπευτικὴ καὶ ϑεωρητικῶς διεξοδικὴ ϑυγάτηρ Σιὼν ἂν λέγοιτο. 32. Origenes, FrLam VIII (GCS 6, 238,7-11 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ὥσπερ δὲ ἔνεστιν ἰδεῖν Ἱερουσαλὴμ εὐϑηνουμένην, πληϑύνουσαν λαῷ καὶ ἔϑνεσιν καὶ ἄρχουσαν ἐν χώραις, οὕτως, εἰ μεταπτωτή ἐστιν ἡ ἀρετή, μονουμένην ποτὲ αὐτὴν καὶ χηρεύουσαν καὶ δουλεύουσαν, ὥστε καὶ φόρους τῷ κρατήσαντι αὐτῆς ἐχϑρῷ τελεῖν, κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἐκπεπτωκότος τῆς ἀληϑείας; transl. TRIGG (n. 18), p. 75.

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

187

FrLam XIII and XIV, with their exegesis of the expression “ways of Zion”33, contribute to the identification of Jerusalem with the soul. FrLam XIII

FrLam XIV

The literal sense is this. The law says, “Three times a year each of your males shall appear before the Lord your God” (Dt. 16:16). The people were conscientious, after the building of the Temple in Zion at the time of Solomon, to fulfill this commandment. And around Jerusalem, where the cities of Judah are, roads lead from every direction toward Zion. These the prophet speaks of as lamenting sadly because of being in captivity and complete desolation. There was also great prosperity and gladness in them in the days when the inhabitants of Judah hastened from all directions to the festival on Mount Zion34.

The meaning is this: since the ability to look toward a goal and to contemplate is called “Zion”, the many ways are the various disciplines – mystical, physical, ethical, and logical – that lead to the apprehension and observation of what is set before us. All these ways, therefore, lament whenever someone has lost these disciplines and is confused, since they are no longer traveled, as they were when these “ways” were crowded, because they were by being examined, and, so to speak, traversed. They lament being deserted, nor being inquired of or passed through, because those who travel on them have disappeared and, taken into captivity by the passions, have been diverted to inferior pursuits35.

The main question, which connects these two passages, consists in the exact meaning of the phrase “the ways to Zion”. The expression “the literal sense is this (ὁ πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν νοῦς οὗτός ἐστιν)” clarifies the content of this text. Here we find the typical exegetical practice used by Origen in the cases of ἀσάφεια: Scripture explains Scripture. Only by referring to Moses’ prescription of the pilgrimage, which Israelites should accomplish three times a year, the text becomes more understandable and easier to read. In this case, however, the verse also says that the ways are lamenting. This happens because of the abandonment and the desolation of the whole country, and especially because nobody goes

33. FrLamXIII and XIV comment Lam 1,4: ὁδοὶ Σιων πενϑοῦσι παρὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἐρχομένους ἐν ἑορτῇ· πᾶσαι αἱ πύλαι αὐτῆς ἠφανισμέναι, οἱ ἱερεῖς ἀυτῆς ἀναστενάζουσιν, αἱ παρϑένοι αὐτῆς ἀγόμεναι, καὶ αὐτὴ πικραινομένη ἐν ἑαυτῇ. 34. Origenes, FrLam XIII (GCS 6, 240,12-21 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); transl. TRIGG (n. 18), p. 75. 35. Origenes, FrLam XIV (GCS 6, 241,2-11 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); transl. TRIGG (n. 18), pp. 77-78.

188

V. MARCHETTO

to Jerusalem to celebrate festivals. In addition, the gates of the city and the priests suffer the same fate. In FrLam XIV, Origen’s interpretation moves from the literal sense to another one. “The meaning is this (πρὸς δὲ διάνοιαν)”: if Zion could be “the ability to look toward a goal and to contemplate (τῆς σκοπευτικῆς καὶ ϑεωρητικῆς δυνάμεως Σιὼν καλουμένης)”, so “the ways to Zion” represent the “many disciplines” (πολλαὶ ὁδοί εἰσι τῶν ποικίλων δογμάτων, μυστικῶν τε καὶ φυσικῶν καὶ ἠϑικῶν, τάχα δὲ καὶ λογικῶν), τὰ Ἑλλήνων μαϑήματα according to Eusebius36, that lead the soul to a higher knowledge of the world, of itself, of God. Here the idea of knowledge is expressed through the images of progress, process, and path: so the roads represent the way to this knowledge. Later, Origen comes back to this theme in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, when, in the prologue, he relates the three biblical books written by Solomon to the various disciplines; and in both works, the disciplines are the same. FrLam XIV

CCtprol.

τῆς σκοπευτικῆς καὶ ϑεωρητικῆς δυνάμεως Σιὼν καλουμένης πολλαὶ ὁδοί εἰσι τῶν ποικίλων δογμάτων, μυστικῶν τε καὶ φυσικῶν καὶ ἠϑικῶν, τάχα δὲ καὶ λογικῶν, αἱ φέρουσαι ἐπὶ τὴν κατανόησιν καὶ ϑέαν τῶν προκειμένων37.

Generalesdisciplinae,quibusadrerum scientiam pervenitur, tres sunt, quas Graeci ethicam, physicam, enopticen appellarunt; has nos possumus dicere moralem,naturalem,inspectivam.NonnullisaneapudGraecosetiamlogicen, quamnosrationalempossumusdicere, quartoinnumeroposuere38.

However, if a human soul neglects these ways, namely, neglects to practice them, then Lam 1,4 is fully realised. This happens when the enemies of the soul, i.e. the passions, are able to imprison those who have abandoned the practice of virtues and knowledge.

36. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,19,11 (GCS 9/2, 562,5 SCHWARTZ). 37. Origenes, FrLam XIV (GCS 6, 241,2-5 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); transl. TRIGG (n. 18), pp. 77-78. 38. Origenes, CCt prol. (GCS 33, 75,6-11 BAEHRENS); Origen. The Song of Songs. CommentaryandHomilies, transl. R.P. LAWSON (ACW, 26), Westmister, MD, The Newman Press; London, Longmans, 1957, pp. 39-40: “The branches of learning by means of which men generally attain to knowledge of things are the three which the Greeks called Ethics, Physics and Enoptics; these we may call respectively moral, natural, and inspective. Some among the Greeks, of course, add a fourth branch, Logic, which we may describe as rational”.

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

189

II. HISTORICAL JERUSALEM Origen states in his Deprincipiis IV,3,4: It must be answered, therefore, that we are clearly resolved that the truth of history can and ought to be preserved in the majority of cases. For who can deny that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, together with Isaac and Jacob and each of their wives? Or who doubts that Shechem was in the portion given to Joseph? Or that Jerusalem is the chief city of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon, and countless other things? For there are many more passages which stand firm according to history than those which contain a purely spiritual sense39.

The Alexandrian exegete respects his own rule, and never denies the historical background of Lamentations40. Rather, one of the core issues of the Commentary is that Origen presents the first exile and destruction of the Holy City, in 587 BCE, and the second in 70 CE, as the same fact. In this view, he uses the mourning expressed by the biblical book for both the historical events. This procedure establishes a precise theological reading, according to which Jerusalem is always seen through the lens of Scripture and of Flavius Josephus. FrLam XXVI, and the first part of FrLam XXVII, explain this procedure well. Of course the “desirable things” of Jerusalem must be understood as the things in the Temple, both those suitably arranged for divine worship in the holy of holies and those otherwise believed divine because they were stored in the Temple, the golden lampstand and so on. Indeed the people were convinced that these were stored in the Temple for the glory of God, and esteemed them above all else, preferring to suffer hardship themselves from their enemies than to allow any of them to fall into the hands of enemies. It was customary for those in the circumcision to refer to the Temple as “holiness”. Jerusalem had suffered something most incredible during the time of captivity: for the gentiles, whom God commanded not to enter the congregation, were seen walking in the “holiness”, where it was not even permitted for Israelites to enter. Only priests (with purifications nor available to ordinary people) were considered worthy there. But enemies had penetrated into forbidden places, even entering the place where only the high priest entered, after many purifications, once a year41. 39. Origenes, Prin IV,3,4 (GCS 22, 329,6-13.21-29 KOETSCHAU); English transl.: Origen. On First Principles, II, transl. J. BEHR (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 529.531. 40. See FrLam I; LXV (Jeremiah is the author of the book); FrLam IX; XXVIII; XLIX (the siege of the city and its consequences); FrLam XIII; XXVI (traditions about the Law and the Temple); FrLam XXXVIII (Jerusalem and the murder of the prophets); FrLam CVI; CVII; CIX; CXV (references or explicit quotations of Flavius Josephus). 41. Origenes, FrLam XXVI (GCS 6, 247,8-15 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); XXVII (GCS 6, 247,17-24); transl. TRIGG (n. 18), p. 80.

190

V. MARCHETTO

Commenting on one of the most hard episodes of the destruction of the city42, it seems that Origen has before him the biblical narratives of 2 Kgs 23,14-15, 2 Chr 36,18; Ezra 1,7-11, and also Flavius Josephus43. As in FrLam XVI44, the scenery is absolutely concrete and real, and here the exegete does not add any theological interpretation to the facts, while in other fragments he goes beyond the simple historical account. The Jews are charged not only with transgressing the Law but, above all, with neglecting the words of the prophets and, worse still, of Jesus himself, as suggested in other fragments45. Josephus’ authority emerges especially when Origen tries to clarify some obscure passages of the text of Lamentations, as in the case of FrLam CIX46, or when the biblical account can be easily referred to certain events of the second siege of the city, as in FrLam CV. This is one of the darkest and most shocking passages of the book, i.e. the reference to some “women” who “boiled their children”47. Here and else42. Lam 1,10: χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐξεπέτασε ϑλίβων ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἐπιϑυμήματα αὐτῆς· εἶδε γὰρ ἔϑνη εἰσελϑόντα εἰς τὸ ἁγίασμα αὐτῆς, ἃ ἐνετείλω μὴ εἰσελϑεῖν αὐτὰ εἰς ἐκκλησίαν σου. 43. See Josephus, Bellum judaicum VI,4,260-266 (547,9–548,4 NIESE); V,278-280 (549,20–550,2); VI,316 (555,1-5); VII,5,148-150 (590,8-16). 44. Origenes, FrLam XVI (GCS 6, 241,17-24 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN) (the translation is mine): “According to the letter, they oppressed or tried to oppress Judaea before the captivity, but were not able to do this, because the Lord was the shield of the Jews, and they were worthy of his help. When the sons of Israel sinned, and not only did not they listen to the prophets, and above all they killed them, they were handed over to their persecutors, and felt into their hands. Thus, their enemies became their chief, namely, as Simmachus translated, their rulers”. 45. See Origenes, FrLam LXIX (GCS 6, 263,13-15 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): δύναιντο δὲ καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν οἱ δύο Θρῆνοι λαμβάνεσϑαι, οὗ τύπος ἦν Ἱερεμίας τοσαῦτα παρὰ Ἰουδαίων πεπονϑότος καὶ τέλος τάφῳ παραδοϑέντος; FrLam XC (GCS 6, 268,23-28): ἔλεγε καὶ πρόσϑεν· “συντέλεσον αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσται σου ὁ λόγος ἐμοὶ εἰς εὐφροσύνην καὶ χαρὰν καρδίας μου” (Jer 15,16). ταῦτα γέγονε μετὰ τὴν κατὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐπιβουλήν, ὅτε πανταχοῦ διεσπάρησαν· ἦλϑε γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς “πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυϑέν” (Mt 23,35). τὸ τοίνυν συντελέσαι δηλοῖ τὸ τέλος λαβεῖν τὴν κατ’ αὐτοὺς λατρείαν, καὶ τὸ μηκέτι χρηματίζειν ἔϑνος ϑεοῦ; FrLam XCIX (GCS 6, 271,3-4): οὐδὲ τοῦ σιτευτοῦ μεταλαμβάνουσι μόσχου καίπερ αὐτοὶ τεϑυκότες (Luke 15,23); FrLam CI (GCS 6, 271,17-20): κἀκεῖνοι μὲν ἥμαρτον εἰς ἀγγέλους καὶ τοὺς ὁμοίους ἀνϑρώπους· οὗτοι δὲ εἰς τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ λυτρωτὴν πάλαι μὲν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, νῦν δὲ δαιμόνων λατρείας, εἴπερ ἐδέξαντο τὸν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐλϑόντα προηγουμένως; FrLam CVIII (GCS 6, 274,2-4): αἷμα δίκαιον κυρίως τὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ, ὅπερ ἐκχέαντες τελέως ἀπώλοντο, ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν προφητῶν αἵμασι μετρίως σωφρονιζόμενοι; FrLam CX (GCS 6, 274,21-22): τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἐντέλλεται ἐκ μέσου τῶν Ἰουδαίων φυγεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ αἵματι μολυνϑέντων Χριστοῦ. 46. For an exhaustive analysis of this fragment, see MARCHETTO, “Unavocedinotte” (n. 11). 47. Lam 4,10: χεῖρες γυναικῶν οἰκτιρμόνων ἥψησαν τὰ παιδία αὐτῶν, ἐγενήϑησαν εἰς βρῶσιν αὐταῖς ἐν τῷ συντρίμματι ϑυγατρὸς λαοῦ μου.

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

191

where, Origen looks at Josephus as more than a simple source; as Sgherri pointed out, Josephus’ account is for him a clear proof of the fulfilment of Jesus’ prophecies about the end of times and the great tribulation48. In this specific case, it is important to note that Origen not only refers to Josephus, but also reads in parallel the biblical verse and the historical narrative, as seen in the following table. Origenes, FrLam CV49

Josephus, Bellumjudaicum VI 3,201-21350

ἐπὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων πολιορκίας

201: εἰς τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα καταφυγοῦσα συνεπολιορκεῖτο 205: μετὰ τῆς ἀνάγκης ἐπὶ τὴν φύσιν ἐχώρει 208: κτείνει τὸν υἱόν, ἔπειτ’ ὀπτήσασα 211: καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ βέβρωκα 212: ἕκαστος τὸ πάϑος λαμβάνων

τῇ δὲ τῆς ἐνδείας ἀνάγκῃ προσάπτει τὸ πάϑος τὸ δὲ ἧψαν τὸ ἀνάψαι καὶ ὀπτῆσαι δηλοῖ αἱ γυναῖκες … βεβρωκέναι τὰ τέκνα τοῦ παρόντος μέμνηται πάϑους

III. ORIGEN AND JUDAISM: BETWEEN ACCEPTANCE AND CONTRAST Another clear feature of this Commentary is the fact that it is a valuable testimony to Origen’s relationship with Judaism, “between acceptance and contrast”. On some points, and especially in his exegetical strategies, Origen confesses his debt to Jewish methodology, instruments, and attitudes, but as a Christian of his time, he must also acknowledge the division and split between the old and the new covenant.

48. SGHERRI, ChiesaeSinagoga(n. 6), p. 96: “La storia narrata da Giuseppe è come la controprova della ‘grande tribolazione’ profetizzata da Gesù: questa è stata così grande ‘come mai dall’inizio del mondo’ (Mt 24,21) fino al tempo di Cristo; ma nemmeno in seguito ce ne sarà una maggiore, ‘perché hanno osato porre le mani sul vero Cristo di Dio’ (Orig., CMtS41 [GCS 38, 82,3-19])”. 49. Origenes, FrLamCV (GCS 6, 273,7.5-6.7.4.9 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN) (the translation is mine): “… after the Roman siege… he attributes the horror to the force of need… The expression ‘set fire’ means to burn and roast… Women devoured their children… The present suffering is remembered…”. 50. Josephus, Bellum judaicum VI 3,201-213 (539,11.21; 540,6-7.14.20 NIESE); English transl.: Josephus. The Jewish War, Books IV-VII, transl. H.S.J. THACKERAY (LCL, 210), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1961, p. 435: “[Mary] … who had fled … to Jerusalem and there become involved in the siege”; “she proceeded to an act of outrage upon nature”; p. 437: “she slew her son, and then, having roasted the body…”; “for I too have eaten”; “and each, picturing the horror of it…”.

192

V. MARCHETTO

1. Etymologies A well-attested exegetical strategy consists in the use of etymologies. Both Origen and Clement51 commonly used this device, which aims at making Hebrew and Aramaic words understandable for Greek or Latin-speaking readers52. In addition, the etymology helps the exegete highlight the deeper meaning already included in the word itself; it is a sort of access key to the allegorical sense. This strategy is a constant in FrLam: in FrLam IX we find the etymology of the name “Nebuchadnezzar”53; in FrLam X and LII that of “Babylon”54; in FrLam XXIX, of “Edom”55; in FrLam CIV, of “Bethlehem”56. Other etymologies are present in the CommentaryontheGospel of John: in I,31,215 the etymology of “Sabaoth”; in II,1,4 that of “Hosea”. CIo II,33,27 is highly important not only because of the presence of two other etymologies – those of the names of “John” and “Zechariah” –, but also of the mention of a certain “explanation of names (ἐν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ τῶν ὀνομάτων)”. If these words should be interpreted as the very title of a work, this would prove Jerome’s statement that Origen used a catalogue written by Philo57. Preuschen identifies this anonymous title with Philo’s Onomasticon, while Runia thinks of an error of attribution58. Actually, Origen’s reference is too obscure

51. For example, see Clemens, Stromata I,31,1 (GCS 52, 20,5-6 FRÜCHTEL). See D.T. RUNIA, PhiloandtheEarlyChristianFathers, in A. KAMESAR (ed.), TheCambridge CompaniontoPhilo, New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 212; J.L. VAN DEN HOEK, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis: An Early Christian ReshapingofaJewishModel, Leiden, Brill, 1998; A. VAN DEN HOEK, Etymologizingina Christian Context: The Techniques of Clement and Origen, in Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004) 122-168. 52. See D.T. RUNIA, EtymologyasanAllegoricalTechniqueinPhiloofAlexandria, in StudiaPhilonicaAnnual 16 (2004) 101-121, p. 105. 53. Origenes, FrLam IX (GCS 6, 238,17-18 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): Ναβουχοδονόσορ, ὃς ἑρμηνεύεται Ἐγκαϑισμὸς καὶ ἐπίγνωσις συνοχῆς. 54. Origenes, FrLam X (GCS 6, 239,12 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ἐν Συγχύσει γενομένη; LII (GCS 6, 258,1-2): γίνεται Βαβυλὼν πλήρης οὖσα Συγχύσεως. 55. Origenes, FrLam XXIX (GCS 6, 249,2-5 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): Ἐδὼμ δὲ Ἐρυϑρὰ γῆ· καὶ γὰρ ἐγένετο γήϊνος, καταφρονήσας μὲν τῶν πρωτοτοκίων, προηγούμενα δὲ ποιήσας τὰ γήϊνα, ἅπερ Ἰακὼβ ὡς ἀναγκαῖα μετήρχετο δευτέρῳ λόγῳ διὰ τὸ τυγχάνειν ἐν σώματι. 56. Origenes, FrLam CIV (GCS 6, 272,28-29 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ὁ ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ γεννηϑείς, ὅπερ Οἶκος ἄρτου σημαίνεται. 57. Hieronymus, Liberinterpretationishebraicorumnominumpraef. (CCSL 72, 59,2-5 DE LAGARDE): Philo,virdisertissimusIudaeorum,Origenisquoquetestimonioconprobaturedidisselibrumhebraicorumnominumeorumqueetymologiasiuxtaordinemlitterarum elaterecopulasse. 58. See DerJohanneskommentar, ed. E. PREUSCHEN(GCS, 10; Origenes Werke, 4), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903, pp. LXXXII-LXXXIII.

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

193

to identify the ἑρμενεία τῶν ὀνομάτων with this or that work; nonetheless, his use of some instruments is indisputable59. FrLam XIX presents a very specific case, i.e. the etymology of the name “Zion”. While FrLam XVIII suggests a less extensive definition (“we assume that the Zion mount is mother of the synagogue, which is on it and is called daughter of Zion”60), here we find the interpretation of the expression “daughter of Zion”: According to the allegorical meaning, the daughter of Zion is a certain kind of soul. For example, as a daughter of justice is just, and a daughter of wisdom is wise, thus, as ‘Zion’ means ‘watch-tower’, we could call daughter of Zion that soul, which contemplates and walks down the way of knowledge61.

The comparison between FrLam XIX and the already quoted FrLam XIV shows that it is precisely the etymology of Zion which lies behind the Origen’s concept of soul. FrLam XIX

FrLamXIV

οὕτω δὲ (ἐπεὶ Σιών ἐστι τὸ Σκοπευτήριον) ἡ σκοπευτικὴ καὶ ϑεωρητικῶς διεξοδικὴ ϑυγάτηρ Σιὼν ἂν λέγοιτο.

τῆς σκοπευτικῆς καὶ ϑεωρητικῆς δυνάμεως Σιὼν καλουμένης

If the opinion of Annewies van den Hoek is correct, FrLamII should hold the etymology of the name “Jerusalem”, which, otherwise, is not present in this work. In fact, it seems that “Origen alludes to Jerusalem”62 when he defines the soul as “contemplative by nature, able to survey and attend to things that exist”63. This etymology is closely connected with the meaning of the name “Israel”, as interpreted by Philo64. The absence 59. See RUNIA, PhiloandtheEarlyChristianFathers(n. 51), p. 216: “Origen regards Philo as a distinguished predecessor in the task of expounding Scripture”; cf. A. VAN DEN HOEK, PhiloandOrigen:ADescriptiveCatalogueofTheirRelationship, in StudiaPhilonicaAnnual 12 (2000) 44-121, p. 46: here the author confesses it is possible to establish a precise connection between Origen’s etymologies and Philo only if they both present a reference to some allegorical interpretations. 60. Origenes, FrLam XVIII (GCS 6, 242,13-15 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): ἡγούμεϑα δὲ τὸ μὲν ὄρος Σιὼν εἶναι μητέρα τῆς ἐν αὐτῇ συναγωγῆς ϑυγατρὸς χρηματιζούσης τῆς Σιών. 61. Origenes, FrLam XIX (GCS 6, 242,27-30 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): πρὸς δὲ διάνοιαν ἡ τοιάδε ψυχὴ ϑυγάτηρ ἐστὶ Σιών· οἷον ὡς ϑυγάτηρ δικαιοσύνης ἡ δικαία καὶ τέκνον σοφίας ἡ σοφή, οὕτω δὲ (ἐπεὶ Σιών ἐστι τὸ Σκοπευτήριον) ἡ σκοπευτικὴ καὶ ϑεωρητικῶς διεξοδικὴ ϑυγάτηρ Σιὼν ἂν λέγοιτο. 62. VAN DEN HOEK, PhiloandOrigen (n. 59), p. 84. 63. Origenes, FrLam II (GCS 6, 235,16-17 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); transl. TRIGG (n. 18), p. 74. 64. Philo, Deebrietate 82 (185,14-15 COHN – WENDLAND): Ἰσραῆλ δὲ τελειότητος· ὅρασιν γὰρ ϑεοῦ μηνύει τοὔνομα; cf. Origenes, HGn XV,3 (SC 7bis, 130,1-2 BAEHRENS):

194

V. MARCHETTO

of the best known and attested etymology of Jerusalem, i.e. “vision of peace”65 led van den Hoek to conclude that “a conflation of etymologies may have occurred”66, and this fact supports the main interpretative lines of the work, which identifies Jerusalem with the perfect soul. 2. SharedExegeticalTrends The Jewish influence on Origen appears not only in the use of Philo’s rhetorical and exegetical techniques, but also in sharing common hermeneutical lines. Fragments I and III are a clear example of this. Jeremiah, while the people are captive in Babylon, makes his lamentations over the city, the country, and the people because of what had happened. He makes these laments in individual stanzas beginning with each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. After composing a lament beginning with each letter up to tau, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, he repeats the process beginning with aleph, going through the twenty-two letters four times. The Hebrews say that the books of the Old Testament have the same number as the letters of the alphabet because they are an introduction to all knowledge of God, just as the letters of the alphabet are an introduction to all wisdom for those who learn67.

“The Hebrews say”, Origen admits, reporting a tradition which links the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet to the number of books in the Old Testament. This match means that, as the alphabet is the introduction to human knowledge, so the ancient Scripture is the introduction to the knowledge of God. This concept is not new to the ears of scholars of Origen: it is the same Jewish tradition noted by Origen himself in a passage of the Philocalia68, in the PalestinianchainonPs.11869, and by Eusebius70. Eusebius mentions Origen’s catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, denoted both by their Hebrew title and by the titles given by the isteiamnonIacob,sedIstrahelscribitur,tamquamquimentevideatveramvitam,quiest verusDeusChristus. 65. Philo, Desomniis II,250 (298,21-22 COHN – WENDLAND): ἡ δὲ ϑεοῦ πόλις ὑπὸ Ἑβραίων Ἰερουσαλὴμ καλεῖται, ἧς μεταληφϑὲν τοὔνομα ὅρασις ἐστιν εἰρήνες; cf. Origenes, HIer IX,2 (GCS 6, 65,20-23 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐκκλησία· ἔστιν γὰρ ἡ πόλις τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἡ Ὅρασις τῆς εἰρήνης, ἐν αὐτῇ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἣν ἤγαγεν ἡμῖν, εἴγε ἐσμὲν τέκνα εἰρήνης, πληϑύνεται καὶ ὁρᾶται. 66. VAN DEN HOEK, PhiloandOrigen(n. 59), p. 84. 67. Origenes, FrLamI (GCS 6, 235,6-13 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); III (GCS 6, 236,812); transl. TRIGG (n. 18), pp. 74-75. Trigg erroneously translated “twenty-four letters” instead of “twenty-two letters” of the Hebrew alphabet. 68. Origenes, Phil III (SC 302, 260,1-13 HARL). 69. Origenes, FrPs.prol.118(119) (SC 189, 182-185 HARL). 70. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,25,1-2 (GCS 9/2, 572,13-15.17–576,2 SCHWARTZ).

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

195

LXX;

and he points out “it should be known that there are twenty-two canonical books, according to the Hebrew tradition; the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet”71. In addition to giving some information about Origen’s Bible, which actually is, so to say, a Jewish-Christian Bible72, the passage shows how this interest in the relationship of numbers, letters and biblical books was present in Origen’s mind as early as his first Commentary on the Psalms. In fact, the chapter III of the Philocalia, a fragment of the CommentaryonthePsalms1–25, explains that every number has its own value, a certain inherent power (δύναμίν τινα), which God used when he created both the universe and single entities. The following note in PhilIII reflects that in FrLam III. PhilIII οὐκ ἀγνοητέον ὅτι καὶ τὸ εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαϑήκους βίβλιους, ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασι, δύο καὶ εἴκοσι, οἷς ὁ ἴσος ἀριϑμὸς τῶν παρʼ αὐτοῖς στοιχείων ἐστίν, οὐκ ἄλογον τυγχάνει. ὡς γὰρ τὰ κβʹ στοιχεῖα εἰσαγωγὴ δοκεῖ εἶναι εἰς τὴν σοφίαν καὶ τὰ ϑεῖα διδάγματα τοῖς χαρακτῆρσι τούτοις ἐντυπούμενα τοῖς ἀνϑρώποις· οὕτω στοιχείωσίς ἐστιν εἰς τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὴν γνῶσιν τῶν ὄντων, τὰ κβʹ ϑεόπνευστα βιβλία73.

FrLam III Διὰ τοῦτό φασιν Ἑβραῖοι τῆς παλαιᾶς γραφῆς ἰσαρίϑμους τοῖς στοιχείοις εἶναι τὰς βίβλους, ὡς εἶναι πρὸς ϑεογνωσίαν πᾶσαν εἰσαγωγήν, καϑάπερ τὰ στοιχεῖα πρὸς πᾶσαν τοῖς μανϑάνουσι σοφίαν74.

71. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI,25,1 (GCS 9/2, 572,13-15 SCHWARTZ): οὐκ ἀγνοητέον δ’ εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαϑήκους βίβλους, ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, δύο καὶ εἴκοσι, ὅσος ἁριϑμὸς τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς στοιχείων ἐστίν; transl. OULTON (n. 1), p. 73. 72. In Origen’s Bible, in fact, the book of Lamentations counts as one together with the book of Jeremiah and the Epistle of Jeremiah: see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI,25,2 (GCS 9/2, 574,9-10 SCHWARTZ): Ἱερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ τῇ Ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί, Ιερεμια. According to Dorival and Naiweld, the group of writings testified by Origen should represent the “canon” of a Jewish-Christian group; see DORIVAL – NAIWELD, Lesinterlocuteurshébreuxetjuifsd’OrigèneàAlexandrieetàCésarée (n. 15), p. 125. 73. Origenes, Phil III (SC 302, 260,4-13 HARL); English transl.: The Philocalia of Origen, transl. G. LEWIS, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1911, p. 34: “Nor must we fail to observe that not without reason the canonical books are twenty-two, according to the Hebrew tradition, the same in number as the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. For as the twenty-two letters may be regarded as an introduction to the wisdom and the Divine doctrines given to men in those characters, so the twenty-two inspired books are an alphabet of the wisdom of God and an introduction to the knowledge of realities”. 74. Origenes, FrLam III (GCS 6, 236,8-12 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); transl. TRIGG (n. 18), pp. 74-75. See p. 194 and n. 67.

196

V. MARCHETTO

The terms στοιχεῖα and στοιχείωσις also occur in the introduction to Psalm 118(119). In particular, στοιχεῖα expresses simultaneously two of its meanings, i.e. the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, but also the first principles of the knowledge of God75. Marguerite Harl suggests that στοιχεῖα/στοιχείωσις could be defined as synonyms of εἰσαγωγή (another word present in FrLam III), as they evidence an idea of knowledge which is similar to a gradual path76. This passage is not the only reference to Jewish traditions either in FrLam or in other contemporary works. In FrLam Origen both quotes and alludes to Flavius Josephus’ JewishWar77; and both here and in the CommentaryontheGospelofJohn he makes explicit or allusive references to books of the Jewish-Hellenistic heritage whose canonical authority was subject to debate, such as 1Enoch, the PrayerofJoseph, and the AssumptionofMoses78. In addition, the same theological concept that linked the first destruction of the Temple with the second was a typical device of the Jewish apocalypses written after 70 AD, such as the ApocalypseofBaruchand FourthEzra79.

75. See the first quotation of the fragment, Heb 5,12: τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 76. LachaînepalestiniennesurlePsaume118, ed. M. HARL (SC, 190), Paris, Cerf, 1972, p. 546. 77. See Origenes, FrLam LXIV; CVI; CIX; CXV. 78. Cf. FrLam CIX with its mention of the ἐγρήγοροι, and the discussion about the authority of the book of Enoch in Prin I,3,3 (GCS 22, 51,8-9 KOETSCHAU); IV,4,8 (GCS 22, 358,26–359,8); cf. J. VANDERKAM – W. ADLER, TheJewishApocalypticHeritageinEarlyChristianity, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1996, p. 56: “The context in which Origen uses these verses from the Bookof the Watchers and the way in which he refers to Enoch document the fact that he considered the book inspired andauthoritative. It will be recalled that he introduces them in a paragraph in which he is adducing scriptural supportfor his philosophical point. In addition, he calls Enoch himself a prophet”. Its idea changes radically in CIoVI,42,217 (GCS 10, 151,10-18 PREUSCHEN). For ThePrayerofJoseph, see CIoII,31,118; for the AscensionofMoses, see PrinIII,2,1. 79. Cf. FrLam LI with 2 Bar 67,2-4 (the angels cry the fate of Jerusalem); FrLam LVIII with 2Bar 2,2 (God has played a unique role in the destruction of the city); 2Bar 1,2-5 (God chastises his people because of their impiety). See P.-M. BOGAERT, Jérusalem dans les apocalypses contemporaines de Baruch, d’Esdras et de Jean, in A. ABECASSIS etal., Jérusalemdanslestraditionsjuivesetchrétiennes, Leuven, Peeters, 1982, 15-23, p. 16: “IIBaruch et IVEsdras ont en commun de prendre comme point de départ de leur affabulation l’identification des deux destructions du Temple, celle de 587 et celle de 70”. Cf. FrLam LV (the pain and the evil are absolute) and IVEzra, as Bogaert pointed out: “Dans IVEsdras, le point de départ est identique, mais la destruction de Jérusalem est un fait acquis qu’il ne faut plus décrire”.

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

197

3. ShadesofConflict A certain trend can be discerned in the handling of the fragments’ content by the author of the catena. In the first part, which comprises almost half the work, he seems to have more care to preserve both the literal and the allegorical sense given to the text; and he seems to focus on the specificity and the novelty of Origen’s interpretation, namely the identification of Jerusalem with the soul. In the second part, his treatment of the text has distinctly shifted; he seems to be less and less interested in the allegorical sense, and much more interested in the debate on the meaning of the destruction in relation to Gnostic and Marcionite thought80, and to Jewish thought. In this last part, which might be called the “polemic section”, the respectful attitude towards Judaism is completely abandoned. This means a progressive increase in the harshness of the charges: Origen moves from a generic accusation against those who did not observe the commandments (FrLam XVII), or from the traditional theme of Jerusalem as guilty of having murdered the prophets (FrLam V; XXXVIII)81, to stronger charges. Jerusalem’s sins, which resulted in its being abandoned (FrLamCVII) even by its guardian angels (FrLam CIX), are greater than those of Sodom (FrLam CI); this because the Jews spilt the innocent blood first of the prophets, and especially of Christ82 (FrLam CVIII). 80. See in CIo I,35,253 ff. (GCS 10, 44,31–45,6 PREUSCHEN) the discussion about the “Right God” and the “Good God”, a theme which is particularly important in some sections of the commentary; cf. FrLam XLVI and Prin II,5,2 (GCS 22, 133,17–135,8 KOETSCHAU);II,5,4 (GCS 22, 138,10-21); cf. FrLam LXII and Prin III,2,3 (GCS 22, 248, 24-26; 249,5-8.16-19); cf. FrLam LXIII, LXXX, LXXXI, and Prin III,1,12 (GCS 22, 216,3-4). 81. Discussing the Pauline charges towards Judaism (1 Thess 2,14-16), J.M. BARCLAY, Hostility to Jews as a Cultural Construct: Egyptians, Hellenistic, and Early Christian Paradigms, in C. BÖTTRICH – J. HERZER (eds.), JosephusunddasNeueTestament(WUNT, 209), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, 365-385, p. 380: “It is commonly and rightly observed that several of the motifs contained in this text are derived from inner-Jewish polemics, a long rhetorical tradition among Jews/Judeans evidenced from biblical literature through to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The accusation of ‘killing the prophets’ is one we find elsewhere levelled by Jews against Jews … To accuse others of ‘filling up the measure of their sins’ and drawing down divine ‘wrath’ is classic Jewish language, usually directed against non-Jews, but sometimes turned against fellow Jews in the bitterness of sectarian disputes”. 82. See parallel passages in CIoI,11,69 (GCS 10, 17,2-5 PREUSCHEN). Engl. transl.: Origen. Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989, p. 48: “Judas’ betrayal, therefore, and the outcry of the impious people who said, ‘Away with such an one from the earth,’ and, ‘Crucify him, crucify him,’ and the mockery of those who crowned him with thorns, and the things like these have been included in the Gospels”.

198

V. MARCHETTO

Origen describes this crime with powerful and stark images: in FrLam C purple garments, which represent Christ’s blood, cover the Jews. The famine, which harasses the inhabitants of Jerusalem, is caused by the fact that they killed the fatted calf, i.e. Christ, but did not eat it, in the same way that they did not taste the bread of life, born in Bethlehem (FrLam CIV)83. Thus, the prophetic message of the book of Lamentations has been fulfilled with the passion of Christ (FrLam LXXXIX), as seen in FrLam XL. Here, the events of Lam 3,6484 and of Jer 15,1685 happened “after the plot against our Saviour”: the Jews were abandoned and destroyed, and were no longer defined as the people of God86. Their exile, FrLam CXI declares, will never end87. As in De principiis IV,3,888, Jerusalem is no longer the human soul involved in a battle against vices, passions, and demons. Now the horizon is another, as seen in FrLam CXVI. Some have said that among those who are prominent, [the prophet] specifically laments Josiah, for [the pious] were hoping through his piety to reestablish Jerusalem in glory in the midst of the nations, for Jerusalem is in the midst of the nations. [Josiah] is a type, [these interpreters] say, of Christ, because he was put to death because of the people’s lawlessness. And indeed [Josiah] was not involved in the people’s depraved activities, but he was taken away because, even though cautioned by a prophet, he met Pharaoh Neco in battle, even though Neco did not want to fight against him. Moreover, according to the divine Apostle, “a veil is placed on the face of the Jews when they read Moses, but if they were to return to 83. For the metaphor of the spiritual nourishment, see also FrLc60 (GCS 49, 252,1-2 RAUER). 84. Lam 3,64: “You shall render a repayment to them, O Lord, according to the works of their hands”. 85. Jer 15,16: “Make an end of them, and your word will be to me gladness and the joy of my heart”. 86. Cf. CIo I,1,1 (GCS 10, 3,1 PREUSCHEN); transl. Origen. Commentary on the Gospel, transl. HEINE(n. 80), p. 31: “Just as the people of old, who were called the people of God”. 87. Origenes, FrLam CXI (GCS 6, 275,3-4 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): τὸ δὲ οὐ μὴ προσϑῶσι τοῦ παροικεῖν ὅτι διηνεκῆ σχήσουσι παροικίαν, δευτέρας μηκέτι δεόμενοι; see G.W.H. LAMPE, A.D. 70 in Christian Reflection, in E. BAMMEL – C.F.D. MOULE (eds.), JesusandthePoliticsofHisDay, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984, 153-171, p. 155: “The event which evidently made an especially strong impression on Christian apologists was the exclusion of the Jews from the heart of their own land” (see Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.IV,6,4). 88. Origenes, Prin IV,3,8 (GCS 22, 334,31.335,16-21 KOETSCHAU); transl. BEHR (n. 39), p. 541: “Whatever, then, is either narrated or prophesied of Jerusalem we ought, if we hear the words of Paul as Christ speaking in him, to understand, in accordance with his mind, to have been said of that city, which he calls the heavenly Jerusalem, and of all those places or cities, which are said to be cities of the holy land, of which Jerusalem is the metropolis”.

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

199

the Lord, the veil would be removed, the Lord is spirit”89. But by prophetic utterance he calls the Lord “spirit”. Even though those who encounter the veil could not say “The spirit of our face, Christ the Lord”, those who are “beholding with unveiled face the glory of the Lord as in a mirror”90 could say so. These latter are those for whom the Lord is always present to the eyes of the mind. This makes it clear that the spirit working in the prophets was Christ, the same one who, when incarnate, said “I am present, the very one who is speaking”91, himself being spirit, Lord, and Christ. This is the one they took away when they were first destroying among themselves the seeds of piety. But after we have been taken away, we the prophets can conclude that the spirit of our face no longer has a place among them, so that we live under the shadow of Christ, no longer with the Jews, but among all the nations, seeing that “the kingdom of God – taken from them” because of the outrage against Christ – “has been given to the nations”92. Behold, indeed the prophets live in us, speaking about him and proclaiming, but no longer among them, those then and now implicating him in their own depraved activities and daily blaspheming him93.

Here Origen reports, without accepting it completely, a certain interpretation of Lam 4,2094, according to which “[the prophet] specifically laments Josiah”, one of the few righteous kings before the Babylonian

89. 2 Cor 3,15-17. 90. 2 Cor 3,18. 91. Isa 52,6. 92. Mt 21,43. 93. Origenes, FrLam CVI (GCS 6, 276,4-29 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): τινὲς ἔφασαν ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἐξαιρέτοις διαφανέστερον τὸν Ἰωσίαν ϑρηνεῖ· ἤλπιζον γὰρ διὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ ϑεοσεβείας ἀνασταϑῆναι τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐν μέσῳ ἐϑνῶν εἰς δόξαν, ἐν μέσῳ γὰρ ἐϑνῶν ἡ Ἱερουσαλήμ. τύπος δὲ οὗτος, φασί, Χριστοῦ, διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας τεϑνηκὼς τοῦ λαοῦ. καίτοι οὐκ ἐν ταῖς τοῦ λαοῦ συνελήφϑη διαφϑοραῖς, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἀπαγορεύσαντος τοῦ προφήτου συναντήσας Νεχαὼ Φαραώ, καίπερ πρὸς αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐϑέλοντι μαχέσασϑαι. κατὰ τοίνυν τὸν ϑεῖον ἀπόστολον “κάλυμμα τῷ προσώπῳ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐπίκειται Μωσέως ἀναγινωσκομένου· ἐὰν δὲ ἐπιστραφῇ πρὸς κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα· ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν”. διὰ δὲ τοῦ προφήτου ῥητὸν πνεῦμα λέγει τὸν κύριον. οἷς οὖν ἐπίκειται κάλυμμα, οὐκ ἂν εἴποιεν· πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν Χριστὸς κύριος, ἀλλ’ οἱ “ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι”, ὧν ἀεὶ πρὸ τῶν τῆς διανοίας ὀφϑαλμῶν ἐστιν ὁ κύριος· ὡς δῆλον ὅτι τὸ ἐνεργῆσαν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις πνεῦμα ἦν ὁ Χριστός, ὃς καὶ ἐνανϑρωπήσας φησίν· “αὐτὸς ὁ λαλῶν πάρειμι”, αὐτὸς ὢν πνεῦμα καὶ κύριος καὶ Χριστός. τοῦτον συνέλαβον οἱ διαφϑείραντες πρῶτον ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τῆς ϑεοσεβείας τὰ σπέρματα. ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς οἱ προφῆται οὐκ ἄλλον ἡγούμενοι τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ προσώπου ἡμῶν, μετὰ τὴν ἡμῶν σύλληψιν μηκέτι τόπον ἔχοντες ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὑπὸ τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ σκιᾷ ζησόμεϑα, οὐκέτι παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις, ἀλλ’ ἐν ὅλοις τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν, ὅτε “ἀρϑεῖσα ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν” διὰ τὸ κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τόλμημα “ἐδόϑη τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν”. ἰδοὺ γὰρ ζῶσιν ἐν ἡμῖν οἱ προφῆται, λαλοῦντες περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κηρύσσοντες, ἀλλ’ οὐκέτι παρ’ ἐκείνοις, τοῖς ἔτι καὶ νῦν αὐτὸν ταῖς ἑαυτῶν διαφϑοραῖς περιβάλλουσιν, ὁσημέραι βλασφημοῦντες αὐτόν; transl. TRIGG (n. 18), pp. 83-84. 94. Lam 4,20: πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν χριστὸς κυρίου συνελήμφϑη ἐν ταῖς διαφϑοραῖς αὐτῶν, οὗ εἴπαμεν Ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ αὐτοῦ ζησόμεϑα ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν.

200

V. MARCHETTO

captivity. Through the expression “[the pious] were hoping through his piety to reestablish Jerusalem in glory in the midst of the nations”, Origen reveals the expectations surrounding this character, and then their later disillusionment. This interpretation is a clear sign of the Jewish roots of Alexandrian Christianity. In fact, the identification of the “anointed of the Lord” with Josiah occurs in TargumofLamentations, even if Origen fails to mention it as a Jewish tradition95. On the other hand, according to these anonymous interpreters (τινές), the pious king should be associated with Christ, as his typus, who indeed suffered what the verse had announced96. The complicated exegesis on the very first words of the verse digs a deep trench between Israel (“those who encounter the veil could not say ‘The spirit of our face, Christ the Lord’”) and the Christians (“those who are ‘beholding with unveiled face the glory of the Lord as in a mirror’ could say so”). These themes of the veil, the shadow, the old and new prophecy97, will return repeatedly in Origen’s writings, starting from 95. Vd. Tg.Lam.4,20: “KingJosiah,whowasasdeartousasthebreathofthe spirit oflifewhichisin our nostrils, and[who]wasinstalledinofficewiththe anointing oil of the Lord, was entrapped in thesnareoftheir corruptions – he of whom we used to say: ‘In the shade ofhismerit we shall live among the nations’”; TheTargumofLamentations, ed. and. transl. P.S. ALEXANDER (Aramaic Bible, 17B), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2008, pp. 173-174. See n. 48 (p. 173) for its comment. 96. P.S. ALEXANDER, in the introduction to his translation, seems to imply that Origen was the first to establish the identification of Josiah with Christ (see pp. 69-70). FrLam CXVI shows, however, that some unnamed Christians known to Origen embraced a piece of Jewish exegesis which became the basis for a typological reading. 97. Lam 4,20 is the most used verse of the book of Lamentations in Origen’s work. Because of its versatility, it has a special place in Origen’s biblical dossier. The image of the shadow is particularly meaningful, both from a positive and a negative point of view. On the one hand, being under the shadow indicates a sense of confidence and divine protection; and also, being free from the burning heat of temptations. On the other hand, it signifies the Law, and the literal reading of the Scripture: and by extension, being under the shadow represents living a carnal existence. See CIo II,6,49-50 (GCS 10, 60,13-23 PREUSCHEN); CMt XV,12 (GCS 40, 380,27 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ); CRm VI,3 (Vetus Latina 33, 467,90–468,119 HAMMOND BAMMEL); Prin II,6,7 (GCS 22, 146,10–147,19 KOETSCHAU); IV,3,13 (GCS 22, 343,17–344,7); Dial XXVI-XXVII (SC 67, 106,10– 107,15 SCHERER); HCt II,6 (GCS 33, 50,25–51,14 BAEHRENS); HIos VIII,4 (GCS 30, 339,4–340,16 BAEHRENS); HNm XXVII,12 (GCS 30, 277,14); CCtIII (GCS 33, 182,1012ss). For a survey of the patristic use of Lam 4,20, see J. DANIÉLOU, Christos Kyrios: UnecitationdesLamentationsdeJérémiedanslesTestimonia, in RSR 39 (1951) 338-352. According to Daniélou, “le texte fasait partie des Testimonia extraits de l’Ancien Testament par la communauté dès les premiers temps du christianisme, en vue de l’usage liturgique, polémique ou catéchétique” (p. 344). For general studies about the images of the shadow and the veil, see C.P. BAMMEL, LawandTempleinOrigen, in W. HORBURY (ed.), Templum amicitiae. EssaysontheSecondTemplePresentedtoErnstBammel(The Library of New Testament Studies, 48), Sheffield, JSOT, 1991, 464-476; F. COCCHINI, La “lettera”, il “velo” e l’“ombra”: Presupposti scritturistici della polemica anti- giudaicadiOrigene, in AnnalidiStoriadell’Esegesi14 (1997) 101-119.

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

201

contemporary works like the Deprincipiis98 and the Commentaryonthe GospelofJohn99. The last statement about “the prophets” who “live in us … but no longer among them”100 stresses once again the transition of the prophecy from the Jewish people to the Church and depicts it as a concrete and actual event. This passage could be placed side by side with De principiis IV,1,3101 (in fact the διαφϑοραί of the Jews might be read not only as the “depraved activities” lamented in Trigg’s translation, but also as the ruins of the Jews’ lost city and Temple) as well as with HomilyXVIIonJoshua102. However, “all Israel shall be saved”103. The last fragment, FrLam CXVIII, closes the commentary with the promise of a return to the ancient homeland. Origen asks himself what is the meaning of this return, which, in the face of later events, cannot be explained except by locating it in an 98. The law and the veil: Origenes, Prin I,1,2 (GCS 22, 18,3-19 KOETSCHAU); IV,1,6 (GCS 22, 301,8-16.302,1-10); the old worship is overcome by the new faith in Christ: Prin I,1,4 (GCS 22, 19,11–20,4); Christ, his coming and the abandonment of Israel were prophesied for a long time: Prin IV,1,3 (GCS 22, 296,6-13.297,1-15.298,1-3); the heavenly Jerusalem: Prin IV,3,8 (GCS 22, 334,10-12). 99. Origenes, CIo II,6,49-50 (GCS 10, 60,13-23 PREUSCHEN). See also CIo I,1,1 (GCS 10, 3,1): the ancient covenant has been overcome;I,6,35 (GCS 10, 11,14-18): the spiritual worship; I,11,69-72 (GCS 10, 16,34–17,12): Israel’s impiety; I,37,270 (GCS 10, 48,4-11): usage of Jn 15,22. 100. About the actuality of the prophetic mission, see G. FILORAMO, Profezia, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO(ed.), Origene.Dizionario:Lacultura,ilpensiero,leopere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 376-379, p. 376: “la profezia non è un fenomeno che appartiene unicamente al passato: se è vero che l’età dei profeti si è chiusa con l’ascensione al cielo di Cristo, è altresì vero che figure come l’esegeta, il didascalo, il predicatore, ispirate nella loro azione dallo Spirito, possono essere considerate e, di fatto, sono da Origene presentate a buon diritto come gli eredi e i continuatori degli antichi profeti”. 101. Origenes, Prin IV,1,3 (GCS 22, 296,6-13.297,1-4 KOETSCHAU), transl. by BEHR, in Origen.OnFirstPrinciples(n. 39), p. 465: “But what, then, is to be said of this, that the prophets had foretold beforehand of him that RulerswillnotceasefromJudah,nor leadersfromhisloins,untilheshouldcome,forwhomitisreserved, that is, the kingdom, anduntiltheexpectationofthenationsshallcome? For it is most abundantly evident from history itself and from what is clearly seen at the present day that from the times of Christ onwards kings have not existed among the Jews. Moreover, all those ceremonies of the Jews, of which they made such a great deal of boasting and in which they exulted, whether regarding the adornment of the temple or the ornaments of the altar, and all those priestly head-bands and the robes of the high priests, were all destroyed together. For the prophecy has been fulfilled which said, ForthechildrenofIsraelwillsitformanydayswithouta king,withoutaruler;therewillbenosacrificenoraltarnorpriesthoodnororacles”. 102. This is one of the most known and quoted passage about the Jewish lament on the ruins of the Temple; Origenes, HIosXVII,1 (GCS 30, 401,21-24 BAEHRENS): siergo veniensadHierusalemcivitatemterrenam,oIudaee,invenieseamsubversametincineres acfavillasredactam,noliflere,sicutnuncfacitistamquam‘puerisensibus’ (1 Cor 14,20). 103. Rom 11,26. For the Origenian and Patristic exegesis of this verse, see F.J. CAUBET ITURBE, EtsicomnisIsraelsalvusfieret,Rom11,26:Suinterpretaciónporlosescritores cristianosdelossiglosIII-XII, in EstudiosBíblicos 21 (1962) 127-150.

202

V. MARCHETTO

eschatological dimension. Furthermore, as Sgherri has shown, the Origenian exegesis and usage of Rom 11,25-26 always concerns a Synagogue, which cannot remain as it is, even if in this passage he is less explicit than in others104. “In fact, ‘all Israel shall be saved until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in’105, since they abandoned their impiety; and then, there will be the completion of times and, with the judgment, the punishment of the carnal men”106. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of what I have presented and of earlier writings of Origen, I may conclude as follows: a)

b)

the interest in Jerusalem, the Holy Land, the themes of the destruction of the Temple and of the abandonment of Israel appeared in Origen’s agenda almost from the start, and, as Caroline P. Bammel has pointed out107, on the basis of new foundations; because of this, we should not exclude a possible relation with a Jewish milieu in Alexandria, in spite of the lack of evidence concerning the Jewish community there for a longer period after 117 CE. According to Eusebius’ account, which I am inclined to regard as reliable108,

104. For a detailed exam of Rom 11,25-26 in Origen, see SGHERRI, ChiesaeSinagoga (n. 6), pp. 433-444. 105. Rom 11,26.25. 106. FrLam CXVIII (GCS 6, 278,8-10 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): καὶ “πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωϑήσεται μετὰ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐϑνῶν” τὴν ἀνομίαν ἀπολιπών· μεϑ’ ὃ λοιπὸν ἡ συντέλεια, καὶ τῶν γηΐνων ἡ κόλασις, ἐκδεχομένης τῆς κρίσεως. However, this exegesis is followed by another, according to which God promises hope to the Church, and not to the Synagogue. See, FrLam CXVIII (GCS 6, 278,11-17): ῥηϑείη δ’ἂν καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὁ λόγος, ἥτις ἐστὶ ϑυγάτηρ τῆς πάλαι συναγωγῆς (“ἀμεταμέλητα γὰρ τὰ χαρίσματα τοῦ ϑεοῦ” [Rom 11,29], ἐξέλιπε δὲ ταύτης ἡ ἀνομία διὰ τοῦ ϑείου βαπτίσματος), ἣν οὐκέτι τοῖς ἐχϑροῖς παραδίδωσιν ὁ φήσας· ὧδε κατοικήσω, ὅτι ᾑρετισάμην αὐτήν” (Ps 131[132],14) καὶ τὸ “ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεϑ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος” (Mt 28,20), ὅτε καὶ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐστηλίτευσε τῶν φρονούντων τὰ γήϊνα. 107. See BAMMEL, LawandTempleinOrigen (n. 97), pp. 474-475: “His observations on the significance of the destruction of the temple in the context of the question of the proper attitude to be taken to the Mosaic law are not simply the repetition of the commonplaces of his predecessors but are developed in awareness of rival arguments within the framework of his own biblical and historical expertise and desire to indicate the unity of the two testaments and the beneficence of divine providence. His advocacy of ‘spiritual interpretation’ as a solution to the problem of Old Testament interpretation did not destroy his interest in historical events and their significance”. 108. Following PERRONE, Origene e la ‘Terra Santa’ (n. 5), p. 140: “Riconosco la difficoltà di pervenire, in ogni caso, ad una cronologia sicura dell’attività e, in particolare, dei viaggi di Origene, tanto più se – come fa spesso Nautin – si mette in dubbio su molti

“JERUSALEM … IS THE DIVINE SOUL” (FRLAM VIII)

203

in those years the relations with Palestine did not yet affect Origen’s literary activity as deeply as it would in the following period; c) a crucial point in Origen’s thought on Jerusalem is the conflation of the historical events of 587 BCE with those of 70 CE. The reader may have some difficulty in discerning when he is talking about the first destruction, or about the second one. This sheds light on the underlying theological basis of Origen’s theology; d) some direct and indirect quotations prove the existence of a dialogue, sometimes problematic and sometimes more open, between the Christian exegete and Jewish authors, culture and tradition; e) the question remains, however, why Origen chose to devote one of his early works to the book of Lamentations. Should we suppose an influence of his Hebrew teacher, also having in mind the JewishChristian visage of early Christianity of Alexandria, as some scholars have pointed out109? On the one hand, Origen’s relationship with Hellenistic Judaism seems to be one of clear literary debt, as the impact of Philo and the quotations of Flavius Josephus demonstrate; on the other hand, the commonality of traditions and interpretations suggests a precise milieu in which exchanges and confrontations were possible. However, Origen’s work on Lamentations has a deeper meaning if we place it with the CommentariesonthePsalms and the SongofSongs. Despite the silence of the sources on the Jewish community of Alexandria, we might postulate that Origen owed his knowledge of Jewish traditions not only to the texts, but also to concrete and personal relationship. What is Jerusalem in all of this? She is at the same time mother, bride, widow, city of ruins, of prophets’ and martyrs’ blood, but also earthly city, city of the Bible seen through the eyes of the Scripture. Largo Brescia 3 IT-40139 Bologna (BO) Italy [email protected]

Valentina MARCHETTO

punti la testimonianza della nostra fonte principale, il VI libro della StoriaEcclesiastica. Ciò non toglie che alcuni passaggi della ricostruzione fornita dallo studioso francese esigano ormai una revisione critica sostanziale, essendo largamente dipendenti da un approccio congetturale non sempre giustificato”. 109. See, for instance, POUDERON, “Jewish”(n. 12), p. 165: “As I have already stated above, the first Christian community in Alexandria should have been ‘Jewish-Christian’ and it should have been formed both from Jews who converted from Judaism to Christianity and Greeks who came into contact with Christianity through Judaism or the Jewish-Christian community”.

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE VS. RELIGIOUS IMAGING ORIGEN AND THE HOLY LAND

I In 1935, the Italian Franciscan Donato Baldi (1888-1965) published a practical collection of texts by ancient, medieval and early modern Christian authors concerning locations mentioned in the canonical Gospels1. With this, Baldi wished to document what ancient, medieval and early modern pilgrims to the holy sites saw and heard; but he also wished to present the memories and traditions still held at that time2. Origen is mentioned as early as the introduction, which presents the authors featured in the Enchiridionlocorumsanctorum in chronological order, even though his name barely reappears in the 780 pages which offer testimony along with the relevant passages in the canonical Gospels. Baldi’s introduction mentions, by way of assurance for the validity of the quoted passages as source material, that Origen had often travelled through the Holy Land – as proof, he quotes a passage from the Commentaryonthe Gospel of John, in which Origen justifies a critical textual decision on the basis of personal observation with a formulation that is in fact somewhat general: “But since we have been in the places, so far as the historical account is concerned, of the footprints of Jesus and his disciples and the prophets …”3. Interestingly, the word “often” is missing from that quotation – Origen has not written “But since we have been in the places quite often”, probably for particular reasons. Baldi also cites a passage from Origen’s ContraCelsum which holds that “there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave

1. D. BALDI, Enchiridion locorum sanctorum: Documenta S. Evangelii loca respicienta,collegitatqueadnotavit, Jerusalem, Franciscan Printing Press, 1982. 2. Ibid., p. V. 3. Origenes, CIo VI,40,204 (GCS 10, 149,12-17 PREUSCHEN): Ὅτι μὲν σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις κεῖται· “Ταῦτα ἐν Βηϑανίᾳ ἐγένετο” οὐκ ἀγνοοῦμεν, καὶ ἔοικεν τοῦτο καὶ ἔτι πρότερον γεγονέναι· καὶ παρὰ Ἡρακλέωνι γοῦν “Βηϑανίαν” ἀνέγνωμεν. Ἐπείσϑημεν δὲ μὴ δεῖν “Βηϑανίᾳ” ἀναγινώσκειν, ἀλλὰ “Βηϑαβαρᾷ”, γενόμενοι ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐπὶ ἱστορίαν τῶν ἰχνῶν Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν μαϑητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. – See also R. RIESNER, BethanienjenseitsdesJordan:Topographieund Theologie im Johannes-Evangelium (Biblische Archäologie und Zeitgeschichte, 12), Gießen, Brunnen, 2002, pp. 13-18.

206

C. MARKSCHIES

where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes”4. This latter passage will appear once again under the keyword Bethlehem5, just as the former will appear under the keyword ad ripas Iordanis inferioris. There is a distinction drawn between Bethany and Bethabara which will be discussed in the third part of this paper6. Baldi shares a further passage from Origen under the heading Regio Gerasenorum (on Matthew 8,28-34)7; this text, too, originates from the Commentary on the Gospel of John. Here, Origen differentiates between Gerasa, Gadara and Gergesa, and in so doing, reveals a detailed knowledge of the area. Not only does he pose (and answer) the question of whether there might be a sea nearby, but he also mentions the renowned hot springs of Gadara and talks of cliff faces8. Heading up the Valley of Yarmouk from the Sea of Galilee and searching out the hot springs of Ḥammat Gader or El-Ḥamma el-Sūriyā (Ἐμμαϑά)9, or else descending to these springs in the valley from the Gadara heights, it is difficult to overlook the imposing rock faces at this site. In any case, Origen does not clearly distinguish between the bathing spot in the Valley of Yarmouk, now known as Ḥammat Gader, and the Decapolis City of Gadara, now known as Umm Qais, which sits high above it. Nonetheless, there is an accurate description of the cliff that lies next to the site of Gergesa on the Sea of Galilee (provided one may 4. Origen, CC I,51 (GCS 2, 102,8-13 KOETSCHAU): Περὶ δὲ τοῦ γεγεννῆσϑαι τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ εἰ βούλεταί τις μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Μιχαία προφητείαν καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀναγεγραμμένην ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰησοῦ μαϑητῶν ἱστορίαν καὶ ἄλλοϑεν πεισϑῆναι, κατανοησάτω ὅτι ἀκολούϑως τῇ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ περὶ τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἱστορίᾳ δείκνυται τὸ ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ σπήλαιον, ἔνϑα ἐγεννήϑη, καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ φάτνη, ἔνϑα ἐσπαργανώϑη. 5. BALDI, Enchiridionlocorumsanctorum (n. 1), p. 84 (number 90). 6. Ibid., pp. 170-171 (number 164). 7. Ibid., pp. 309-310 (number 471). 8. Origenes, CIo VI,41,208-210 (GCS 10, 150,5-17 PREUSCHEN): Ἡ περὶ τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν δαιμονίων κατακρημνιζομένους καὶ ἐν τῇ ϑαλάσσῃ συμπνιγομένους χοίρους οἰκονομία ἀναγέγραπται γεγονέναι ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῶν Γερασηνῶν. Γέρασα δὲ τῆς Ἀραβίας ἐστὶν πόλις, οὔτε ϑάλασσαν οὔτε λίμνην πλησίον ἔχουσα, καὶ οὐκ ἂν οὕτως προφανὲς ψεῦδος καὶ εὐέλεγκτον οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ εἰρήκεισαν, ἄνδρες ἐπιμελῶς γινώσκοντες τὰ περὶ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν. Ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐν ὀλίγοις εὕρομεν· “Εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν” καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο λεκτέον. Γάδαρα γὰρ πόλις μέν ἐστιν τῆς Ἰουδαίας, περὶ ἣν τὰ διαβόητα ϑερμὰ τυγχάνει, λίμνη δὲ κρημνοῖς παρακειμένη οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ἐν αὐτῇ ‘ἢ’ ϑάλασσα. Ἀλλὰ Γέργεσα, ἀφ’ ἧς οἱ Γεργεσαῖοι, πόλις ἀρχαία περὶ τὴν νῦν καλουμένην Τιβερίαδα λίμνην, περὶ ἣν κρημνὸς παρακείμενος τῇ λίμνῃ, ἀφ’ οὗ δείκνυται τοὺς χοίρους ὑπὸ τῶν δαιμόνων καταβεβλῆσϑαι. – Cf. also on this passage G. DALMAN, Orte und Wege Jesu (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, II/1), Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 1921, pp. 156-159 and M. NUN, Der See Genezareth und die Evangelien:ArchäologischeForschungeneinesjüdischenFischers(Biblische Archäologie und Zeitgeschichte, 10), Gießen, Brunnen, 2001, pp. 187-204. 9. Y. HIRSCHFELD, TheRomanBathsofHammatGader.FinalReport, with Contributions by N. AMITAI-PREISS, R. BARKAY, R. BEN-ARIEH, A. BERMAN, A. BOAS, E. COHEN, T. COEN UZZIELLI, L. DI SEGNI, E. DVORJETZKI, H. HIRSCHFELD, A. LESTER, N. PORAT, G. SOLAR, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 1997, pp. 1-14.

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE VS. RELIGIOUS IMAGING

207

identify this place with the excavations of Κυρσοί or Chorsia/Kursi)10. Baldi also offers a brief entry on the mountains Tabor and Hermon11, which originates in the highly problematic material of the SelectainPsalmos and, so the suspicion goes, may not be by Origen at all12. This is suggested by the lack of any local knowledge seen in the claim that the mountain of Hermon lies close to the town of Naim13. As such, the findings that result from the commendable work of Baldi are somewhat at odds with the Franciscan’s comments in his introduction. If Origen really had travelled through the Holy Land as often as is claimed14, it is rather surprising that (according to Baldi) only three passages can be put forward out of the forty-one locations mentioned in the canonical Gospels. The findings for Eusebius of Caesarea reveal a very different story; he discusses over thirty of these locations in his works and – if we add the recently and magnificently edited Onomasticon of biblical locations15 – addresses hundreds of other biblical sites16. 10. See note 8 and V. TZAFERIS, TheEarlyChristianMonasteryatKursi, in Y. TSAFRIR (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 1993, 77-79; ID. (with E. KESSIN – D. URMAN), The Excavations of Kursi-Gergesa (‘Atiqot. English Series, 16), Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority, 1983 and NUN, DerSeeGenezareth unddieEvangelien (n. 8), pp. 166-184. 11. BALDI, Enchiridionlocorumsanctorum (n. 1), p. 319 (number 490). 12. According to Baldi himself with reference to R. DEVREESSE, s.v. Chainesexégétiques grecques, in Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément t. I, 1928, 1084-1233, p. 1121 and BALDI, Enchiridionlocorumsanctorum (n. 1), p. 319 note 1. 13. (Ps.-) Origenes, Selecta in Psalmos 88,13 (PG 12, 1548): “Θαβὼρ καὶ Ἑρμὼν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἀγαλλιάσονται”, κ. τ. ἑ. Θαβὼρ ἐκλεκτόν. Θαβὼρ δέ ἐστι τὸ ὄρος τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐφ’ οὗ μεμορφώϑη Χριστός. Ἑρμωνιεὶμ δέ ἐστι τὸ ὄρος ἐφ’ οὗ κεῖται ἡ πόλις Ναῒμ, ἐν ᾗ ἤγειρε τὸν τῆς χήρας υἱὸν ὁ Χριστός. Cf. also Origen, FrPs 88,13 (J.-B. PITRA, AnalectasacraSpicilegioSolesmensiparata, III, Paris, Jouby et Roger, 1883, p. 162 = Ottob. gr. 398 [saec. XI], fol 206v): Θαβὼρ δέ ἐστι τὸ ὄρος τῆς Γαλιλαίας, ἐφ’ οὗ μετεμορφώϑη ὁ Χριστός. Ἑρμωνιεὶμ δέ ἐστιν ὄρος ἐφ’ οὗ κεῖται ἡ πόλις Ναῒν, ἐν ᾗ ἤγειρε τὸν τῆς χήρας υἱὸν ὁ Θεός (leg. ὁ Χριστός). 14. RIESNER, Bethanien jenseits des Jordan (n. 3), pp. 15-18 (“Ortskenntnisse des Origenes”); K. HEYDEN, Orientierung:DiewestlicheChristenheitunddasHeiligeLand in der Antike (Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum, 28), Münster, Aschendorff, 2014, pp. 87-97; L. PERRONE, Origene e la ‘Terra Santa’, in O. ANDREI (ed.), Caesarea Maritima e la scuola origeniana: Multiculturalità, forme di competizione culturale e identitàcristiana.Attidell’XIConvegnodelGruppoItalianodiRicercasuOrigeneela TradizioneAlessandrina(22-23settembre2011)(Supplementi di Adamantius, 3), Brescia, Morcelliana, 2013, 139-161, esp. pp. 156-159. 15. Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen. Kritische Neuausgabe des griechischen Textes mit der lateinischen Fassung des Hieronymus, ed. S. TIMM (GCS NF, 24; Eusebius Werke, 3/1), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2017. – For an English translation cf. PalestineintheFourthCentury A.D.:TheOnomasticonofEusebiusofCaesarea, transl. by G.S.P. FREEMAN-GRENVILLE, indexed by R.L. CHAPMAN III, ed. and introduced by J.E. TAYLOR, Jerusalem, Carta, 2003. 16. R.L. WILKEN, EusebiusandtheChristianHolyLand, in H.W. ATTRIDGE – G. HATA (eds.), Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, Detroit, MI, Wayne State University Press, 1992, 736-760; ID., TheLandCalledHoly:PalestineinChristianHistoryandThought, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 78-81.

208

C. MARKSCHIES

However, one would expect that a scholar such as Origen, who readily used linguistic and textual aids, lexicons for word definitions and other chronological or encyclopaedic anthologies for his biblical exegesis, would make more than three references to sites in the Bible. So, was Baldi perhaps exaggerating? Alternatively, have scholars overlooked lots of evidence from Origen’s work related to local knowledge concerning places mentioned in the Bible? Should we consider Origen more as a scholar dictating and preaching in Caesarea, one who consulted books without actually travelling through the landscape itself or gaining knowledge of its sites from his own observation? Or was he simply not interested in mentioning his own local knowledge in his lectures, sermons and written texts, being more interested in story than in history? Should we perhaps explain the lack of local knowledge by the literary genre of commentaries in the Alexandrian tradition? If one wished to actually answer such questions solely from the work of Baldi and on the basis of the three passages from Origen’s writings that he cites, then one would probably have to answer in the negative. While Origen may have possessed a great deal of erudition in a wide variety of the disciplines of his time, this quite clearly did not include local or independently acquired knowledge of biblical sites drawn from frequent visits to such locations (seen from the limited perspective of the preserved part of his work). As such, any attempt to use Origen’s texts for a debate on the correct identification and historicity of certain sites would find itself on highly unstable footing in methodological terms. Therefore, one must exercise utmost caution when citing Origen’s text in answer to such questions as whether Jesus really was born in Bethlehem, where exactly John carried out the Baptism, and at what precise location the pigs charged into the Sea of Galilee. He is of only very limited use as apologetic evidence for the accuracy of texts of late antiquity that cite biblical traditions, especially those mentioned in the Gospels. Origen would therefore not be an example of the local knowledge mentioned in my title and, basically, not even an example of a religious image of the Holy Land in a simple literal interpretation of biblical texts: religious geography was, if this image is correct, only interesting for him to the extent that it could be used as part of a thorough interpretation of biblical places in order to clarify an exegetic dispute or a problem with a text. The three passages mentioned by Baldi appear repeatedly in the relevant literature. But for this very reason, we must first ask whether there is not significantly more and different evidence for the claim that Origen travelled through the Holy Land. I suggest that we first cast a fresh eye on those three passages and consider whether they might truly function

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE VS. RELIGIOUS IMAGING

209

as the proof they are so readily held to constitute. Key to this reasoning is not only an analysis of the actual wording, but also the issue of the genre of the source and the function of the context. In the third section of this paper, I will finally address the question of whether we can explain why (at first glance, at least,) issues of religious geography seem to have been of lesser significance to Origen, or whether personal observation may be less significant than we might wish. II After these general remarks and questions, I come to the second part of my paper and begin by examining once again evidence for the claim that Origen regularly travelled through the Holy Land. First, one must evaluate whether Origen departed from Alexandria when he explored the Holy Land, or even “travelled there often”, as Ernst Rudolf Redepenning claims in his biography of Origen, citing a single passage from the Commentary on the Gospel of John as evidence17. Unfortunately, his citation does not clarify exactly which passage of Origen he wishes to cite as proof. Was Redepenning referring to Origen’s claim that the Samaritan woman descended to the well18? Origen evidently envisaged that one would descend (καταβαίνειν) to the well from the “town of the Samaritans”19, and this conception is a little difficult to understand given the flat plane on which both Nablus/Sichem and Jacob’s Well lie, unless the well (Φρέαρ του Ιακώβ or puteus Jacobi), which has sunk lower over the course of centuries, was already in a crypt or cellar by the time of Origen (which is not very probable)20. It is well known, however, that 17. E.R. REDEPENNING, Origenes:EineDarstellungseinesLebensundseinerLehre, Bonn, Eduard Weber, 1841, vol. 1, p. 224. 18. Origenes, CIo XIII,29,177 (GCS 10, 253,31–254,3 PREUSCHEN): Ῥεβέκκα μέντοι καὶ αὐτὴ ὑδρίαν ἔχουσα ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων, πρὶν συντελέσαι λαλοῦντα ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ τὸν παῖδα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ, ἐξεπορεύετο καλὴ τῇ ὄψει παρϑένος· ἥτις ἐπείπερ οὐχ ὁμοίως ἤντλει τῇ Σαμαρείτιδι, καταβαίνει ἐπὶ τὴν πηγὴν καὶ πληροῖ τὴν ὑδρίαν, ἀναβάσῃ τε αὐτῇ ἐπιτρέχει εἰς συνάντησιν ὁ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ παῖς καὶ εἶπεν· “Πότισόν με μικρὸν ὕδωρ ἐκ τῆς ὑδρίας σου”. 19. Origenes, CIo XIII,30,185 (GCS 10, 255,3-8 PREUSCHEN): Καὶ πρότερον οὖν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ δεύτερον ἦλϑον πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Σαμαρεῖται, ἔτι ὄντα παρὰ τῇ πηγῇ τοῦ Ἰακώβ (οὐ γὰρ φαίνεται κεκινημένος ἐκεῖϑεν), “καὶ ἠρώτων αὐτὸν μεῖναι παρ’ αὐτοῖς”· οὐ γέγραπται δὲ μετὰ τοῦτο, ὅτι εἰσῆλϑεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ἀλλ’ “Ἔμεινεν ἐκεῖ δύο ἡμέρας”. 20. Cf. H.-M. SCHENKE, Jakobsbrunnen – Josephsgrab – Sychar: Topographische UntersuchungenundErwägungeninderPerspektivevonJoh.4,5.6, in ZDPV84 (1968) 159-184, pp. 163-166, 170-172, and F.-M. ABEL, Le Puits de Jacob et l’église SaintSauveur, in RB 42 (1933) 384-402.

210

C. MARKSCHIES

the verb “descend” (καταβαίνειν) in Origen’s texts quite often is not meant in the simple literal sense of “climbing down”, but used in a more Platonizing meaning to label a certain action of the mind21. Redepenning then postulates that Origen was inspired to address the issue of the authoritative scope of the Bible and its canon by “contact with Palestinian Jews on his travels through Palestine from Alexandria”22. However, Redepenning is unable to offer evidence for this hypothesis. Additionally, proofs get more hypothetical when we look at the second half of Origen’s life in Caesarea. Redepenning writes in this regard: “Perhaps he once again visited the … sites where Jesus moved around with his disciples and the prophets”23. We know that Origen repeatedly embarked on travels during his life24, and that one journey (which will not be discussed here)25 likely was what prompted him to make such a great change in his permanent place of residence that he moved from Alexandria in Egypt to Caesarea in Palestine26. We also know that Origen travelled to other Christian communities to preach and hold lectures27,

21. Cf. Origenes, CIo XIII,29,172 and 175 (GCS 10, 253,12-15.23 PREUSCHEN): κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν λέξιν σπουδὴν ἐμφαίνει πλείονα τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καταλειπούσης τὴν ὑδρίαν καὶ οὐ τοσοῦτον πεφροντικυίας τοῦ σωματικοῦ καὶ ταπεινοτέρου καϑήκοντος ὅσον τῆς τῶν πολλῶν ὠφελείας·… Πρὸς μέντοι γε τὴν ἀναγωγὴν σκοπητέον τίς ἡ ὑδρία, … . 22. REDEPENNING, Darstellung (n. 17), vol. 1, p. 234. 23. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 7. 24. R. WILLIAMS, s.v. Origenes/Origenismus(ca.185/86–ca.253/54), in Theologische Realenzyklopädie 25 (1995) 397-420, esp. pp. 399-401; H. CROUZEL, Origen, transl. A.S. WORRALL, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1989, pp. 1-36; P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et sonœuvre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 54-71; J.W. TRIGG, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-century Church, London, SCM, 1985, pp. 76-86, 130-146, and L. PERRONE, Origene a sua immagine: Frammenti di autobiografiadallelettere, in G.C. BOTTINI – L.D. CHRUPCAŁA – J. PATRICH (eds.),Knowledge andWisdom:ArchaeologicalandHistoricalEssaysinHonourofLeahDiSegni (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Maior, 54), Milano, Terra Santa, 2014, 311-327. 25. Cf. the last contribution by L. HOLLIDAY, FromAlexandriatoCaesarea:ReassessingOrigen’sAppointmenttothePresbyterate, in Numen58 (2011) 674-696 and A. FÜRST, Origenes:GriecheundChristinrömischerZeit(Standorte in Antike und Christentum, 9), Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 2017, pp. 6-13. 26. PERRONE, Origene e la ‘Terra Santa’ (n. 14), pp. 140-152; G. KRETSCHMAR, Origenes und die Araber, in ZTK 50 (1953) 258-279 and C. MARKSCHIES, Intellectuals andChurchFathersintheThirdandFourthCenturies, in O. LIMOR – G. STROUMSA (eds.), ChristiansandChristianityintheHolyLand:FromtheOrigins totheLatinKingdoms (Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 5), Turnhout, Brepols, 2006, 239-256, esp. pp. 244-246. 27. H. CROUZEL, Origène s’est-il retiré en Cappadoce pendant la persécution de MaximinleThrace?, in BLE 64 (1963) 195-203; NAUTIN, Origène:Savieetsonœuvre (n. 24), pp. 220-222 and PERRONE,Origeneela‘TerraSanta’ (n. 14), pp. 144-146.

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE VS. RELIGIOUS IMAGING

211

that he was invited by bishops, was present at synods28 – that is, he travelled a great deal more than was usual for other people in ancient times. In those times, as we know, it was mainly members of the military and public officials, as well as merchants and craftsmen, artists, magicians and those of similar professions who travelled around the Empire, and were even permitted to use the well-organised state-run coaches for their travels29. There were, of course, some among the popular philosophers who travelled throughout the land with their lectures, taking money as admission, earning their living in this way. Johannes Hahn described this profession precisely some years ago as “popular philosopher”, and I have added some Christian representatives of this profession to his description30. And ultimately, one can – if only on a very small scale – talk about ancient “tourism”, with well-known locations, cult sites like the Zeus Temple in Olympia for example, attracting visitors. There were even descriptions of the places in question, such as the Seven Wonders of the World, which provided tourists with orientation31. Furthermore, a certain form of individual pilgrimage to the holy sites connected with the life and work of Jesus was already apparent in the third century, although one cannot yet speak of regulated operations with hospices and travel guides in book form at that time32. Melito of Sardis, who is often 28. J.A. FISCHER – A. LUMPE, DieSynodenvondenAnfängenbiszumVorabenddes Nicaenums (Konziliengeschichte Reihe A: Darstellungen), Paderborn – München – Wien – Zürich, Schöningh, 1997, pp. 111-126 and 127-150. 29. C. MARKSCHIES, DasantikeChristentum:Frömmigkeit–Lebensformen–Institutionen (Beck Paperback, 1692), München, Beck, 32016, pp. 193-195 (English translation of the first ed.: BetweenTwoWorlds:StructuresofEarlyChristianity, transl. J. BOWDEN, London, SCM, 1999, pp. 177-180). 30. J. HAHN, DerPhilosophunddieGesellschaft:Selbstverständnis,öffentlichesAuftreten und populäre Erwartungen in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien, 7), Stuttgart, Steiner, 1989; C. MARKSCHIES, Christian Theology and Its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire. Prolegomena to a History of EarlyChristianTheology, transl. W. COPPINS, Waco, TX, Baylor University Press, 2015, pp. 31-91. 31. K. BRODERSEN, ReiseführerzudenSiebenWeltwundern:PhilonvonByzanzund andere antike Texte (Insel-Taschenbuch, 1392), Frankfurt a.M. – Leipzig, Insel, 1992 (with a Greek text of the fragment of Philo: pp. 20-36); cf. also N. ZWINGMANN, Antiker TourismusinKleinasienundaufdenvorgelagertenInseln:Selbstvergewisserunginder Fremde (Antiquitas, I/59), Bonn, Habelt, 2012. 32. E.D. HUNT, Holy LandPilgrimageintheLaterRomanEmpireAD312-460,Oxford, Clarendon, 1984 (= 1998); B. KÖTTING, PeregrinatioReligiosa:WallfahrteninderAntike und das Pilgerwesen in der alten Kirche (Forschungen zur Volkskunde, 33/34/35), 2. durchg. Aufl., Münster, Antiquariat Stenderhoff, 1980, pp. 83-111; PERRONE, Origenee la ‘Terra Santa’ (n. 14), pp. 157f.; J.E. TAYLOR, Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins, Oxford, Clarendon, 1993, pp. 295-332; J. ULRICH, Wallfahrt und Wallfahrtskritik bei Gregor von Nyssa, in ZAC 3 (1999) 87-96; WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly (n. 16), pp. 101-120.

212

C. MARKSCHIES

named in this context, was familiar to Origen, but – as I have demonstrated in my monograph about concepts on the “Body of God”33 – he was seen by the latter as a highly problematic author theologically, suspected of adhering to a disastrously anthropomorphic theology. Thus, one finds it hard to believe that Origen is supposed to have taken orientation from Melito of Sardis’s journey of discovery or pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the second century, which is also, on top of the aforesaid, unclear in many of its details34. It is difficult to imagine that Origen explored villages and other locations on foot, in a hired coach or on the back of a horse or donkey on his own, as described by his grand disciple Eusebius and which we can read about in his works. Eusebius reports – for example, in the Onomasticon – about the circumstances in small villages in East Jordan that he can only have known about by having visited them personally35. If, however, we want to refrain in this point from turning Origen into a Eusebius predating Eusebius himself, and also cannot imagine him as a scholar wandering continuously through the country, then the question arises as to how these passages, which are often cited as evidence that he was an oft-travelling scholar, can be explained. III In pursuit of this endeavour, in the third part of my paper, we will now take a look at a very small selection of at least two passages. Among the three passages from the works of Origen that are so readily referenced (not least by Baldi), there is one passage that we have briefly examined from 33. C. MARKSCHIES, Gottes Körper: Jüdische, christliche und pagane GottesvorstellungeninderAntike, München, Beck, 2016, pp. 87-96, 108-110. 34. Origen, FrGn D 11 = Collectio Coisliniana, fr. 73 PETIT (OWD, 1/1, 158,19-21 METZLER = CCSG 15, 73,3-5 PETIT): Ἴδωμεν δὲ πρότερον οἷς χρῶνται οἱ τὸ πρῶτον λέγοντες· ὧν ἐστι καὶ Μελίτων συγγράμματα καταλελοιπὼς περὶ τοῦ ἐνσώματον εἶναι τὸν Θεόν;. 35. Eusebius, Onom. 583 (GCS NF 24, 143,2-5 TIMM): Καριαϑιαρείμ (Num 32,37). πόλις ἣν ᾠκοδόμησαν “οἱ υἱοὶ Ῥουβίν”. καὶ νῦν ἐστιν ὅλη Χριστιανῶν κώμη, παρὰ Μηδαβὰν πόλιν τῆς Ἀραβίας, λεγομένη Καρεάδα, ἀπὸ ιʹ σημείων τῆς Μηδαβῶν πρὸς δυσμὰς ἐπὶ τὸν Βάρην; Onom. 86 (GCS NF 24, 29,7f.): Ἀννίμ (Jos 15,50). φυλῆς Ἰούδα. ἄλλη Ἀναιὰ πλησίον τῆς προτέρας, ἣ νῦν ὅλη Χριστιανῶν τυγχάνει οὖσα ἀνατολικὴ τῆς προτέρας; Onom. 546 (GCS NF 24, 136,1-3): Ἰεϑέρ (Jos 15,48). φυλῆς Ἰούδα, πόλις ἱερατική. καὶ ἔστι νῦν κώμη μεγίστη Ἰεϑειρὰ ὡς ἀπὸ σημείων κʹ Ἐλευϑεροπόλεως, ὅλη Χριστιανῶν, ἐν τῷ ἔσω Δαρωμᾷ πλησίον Μαλαϑῶν. κεῖται καὶ ἀνωτέρω. – On rural Christianity cf. C. MARKSCHIES, StadtundLand:Beobachtungen zurAusbreitungdesChristentumsinPalästina, in H. CANCIK – J. RÜPKE (eds.), Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 264-298, esp. pp. 269-279.

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE VS. RELIGIOUS IMAGING

213

that part of Origen’s CommentaryontheGospelofJohn, which arose in Caesarea and was presumably presented as a lecture in the school36. It is with this that we will now proceed. In this passage, Origen justifies why in the verse “These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptising” (Jn 1,28: ταῦτα ἐν Βηϑανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων) he takes this to be the site of Bethabara (Βηϑαβαρᾶ) rather than Βηϑανίᾳ. Here I cite the relevant passage from the CommentaryontheGospelofJohn: We are not unaware that this reading “these things were done in Bethania (Βηϑανίᾳ)” occurs in nearly all the manuscripts. It seems likely too that, in addition, this was the earlier reading. And, to be sure, we have read “Bethania” in Heracleon37. But since we have been in the places, so far as the historical account is concerned, of the footsteps of Jesus and his disciples and the prophets at the sites, we are nonetheless convinced that one should not read this as “Bethania”, but “Bethabara”. Now, “Bethania”, as the same evangelist tells us, was the town of Lazarus, and of Martha and Mary; it is about fifteen stadia from Jerusalem. The Jordan is about a hundred and eighty stadia, roughly speaking, from it (“Bethania”). Nor is there any other place of the same name in the neighbourhood of the Jordan. But they say that “Bethabara” is pointed out on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said to have baptised there38.

At this point, we shall leave aside the oft-addressed issue of the solidity of Origen’s local knowledge (Rainer Riesner considered this issue around ten years ago using this passage, but Jeremy M. Hutton pointed out that “Origen did not specify the exact location of Bethabara in his ‘Commentary on John’”39). Instead, we are interested in the combination 36. D. PAZZINI, Giovanni Ev. (scritti esegetici su), in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origene.Dizionario:Lacultura,ilpensiero,leopere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 197-200. 37. A. WUCHERPFENNIG, Heracleon Philologus: Gnostische Johannesexegese im zweitenJahrhundert (WUNT, 142), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2002, pp. 195f. 38. Origenes, CIo VI,40,204-205 (GCS 10, 149,12-23 PREUSCHEN): Ὅτι μὲν σχεδὸν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις κεῖται· “Ταῦτα ἐν Βηϑανίᾳ ἐγένετο” οὐκ ἀγνοοῦμεν, καὶ ἔοικεν τοῦτο καὶ ἔτι πρότερον γεγονέναι· καὶ παρὰ Ἡρακλέωνι γοῦν “Βηϑανίαν” ἀνέγνωμεν. Ἐπείσϑημεν δὲ μὴ δεῖν “Βηϑανίᾳ” ἀναγινώσκειν, ἀλλὰ “Βηϑαβαρᾷ”, γενόμενοι ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐπὶ ἱστορίαν τῶν ἰχνῶν Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν μαϑητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. Βηϑανία γάρ, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς εὐαγγελιστής φησιν, ἡ πατρὶς Λαζάρου καὶ Μάρϑας καὶ Μαρίας, ἀπέχει τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων σταδίους δέκα πέντε· ἧς πόρρω ἐστὶν ὁ Ἰορδάνης ποταμὸς ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων πλατεῖ λόγῳ ἑκατὸν ὀγδοήκοντα. Ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ὁμώνυμος τῇ Βηϑανίᾳ τόπος ἐστὶν περὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην· δείκνυσϑαι δὲ λέγουσι παρὰ τῇ ὄχϑῃ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου τὰ Βηϑαβαρᾶ, ἔνϑα ἱστοροῦσιν τὸν Ἰωάννην βεβαπτικέναι. – English transl. modified after Origen. Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989, pp. 224f. 39. RIESNER, BethanienjenseitsdesJordan(n. 3), pp. 15-18 – this volume is incidentally dedicated to “Father Bargil Pixner”, who trained the author to learn reading Holy

214

C. MARKSCHIES

of scientific methods, of philological textual criticism, geography and the process of logical deduction we can observe in Origen himself, that in the final summation leads (as Origen also believed40) to an improvement in the biblical texts used in the Church. I would like to explicitly state that biblical regional studies are, in Origen’s view, one of the scientific methods used in his school in interpreting the Holy Scriptures, despite Gregory Thaumaturgus failing to make a single reference to this method in his famed valedictory address41. Another pertinent place can also be found in the Commentaryonthe Gospel of John, where Origen points out that “Bethany, the home of Lazarus, was fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, but the Jordan was one hundred and eighty stadia from there”42. One cannot, of course, rule out the possibility that the author might have asked other people there for information, and did not explore the situation on site; nevertheless, it is also possible that what we have here is evidence of the fact that Origen was actually presenting knowledge about the Jordan Valley that he had gained by visiting it himself. However, in many places in his Commentary on John, in which we would expect – no matter how brief – some references to the topography, such details are missing, and they are presumably missing only because the text handed down is not open to question. To be more precise: There is obviously no interest in places mentioned in the Gospels and in other parts of the Bible, because the story and the text of the story matters far more than history. Origen was interested in noetic entities far more than in historical places43. Only when text-critical problems with Greek place-names like Βηϑανία/Βηϑαβαρᾶ, or the highly complicated problem with the three Γέρασα/Γάδαρα/Γέργεσα44 occur, does Origen have to clarify the text and use local knowledge. This folLand as “fifth gospel” (ibid., p. 2), also cf. PERRONE, Origeneela‘TerraSanta’ (n. 14), p. 158 and J.M. HUTTON, “BethanybeyondtheJordan”inText,Tradition,andHistorical Geography, in Biblica 89 (2008) 305-328 (quotation from p. 318). 40. As HUTTON has shown Origen’s impressions on “majority reading” and “minority reading” in Jn 1,28 are seen from a contemporary perspective quite problematic (“Bethany beyondtheJordan”[n. 39], pp. 305-318). 41. On the text and the Curriculum cf. MARKSCHIES, Christian Theology and Its InstitutionsintheEarlyRomanEmpire (n. 30), pp. 55-59, 76-89. 42. Origenes, CIo VI,40,205 (GCS 10, 149,17-20 PREUSCHEN): Βηϑανία γάρ, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς εὐαγγελιστής φησιν, ἡ πατρὶς Λαζάρου καὶ Μάρϑας καὶ Μαρίας, ἀπέχει τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων σταδίους δέκα πέντε··ἧς πόρρω ἐστὶν ὁ Ἰορδάνης ποταμὸς ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων πλατεῖ λόγῳ ἑκατὸν ὀγδοήκοντα. 43. On his noetic concepts of “Jerusalem” and a “Holy Land” cf. HEYDEN, Orientierung (n. 14), pp. 87-97 and L. PERRONE, “TheMysteryofJudaea”(Jerome,Ep.46): TheHolyCityofJerusalembetweenHistoryandSymbolinEarlyChristianThought, in L.I. LEVINE (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, New York, Continuum, 1999, 221-239. 44. See above p. 206 with note 8.

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE VS. RELIGIOUS IMAGING

215

lows – as one could demonstrate with a closer look at other pagan and Jewish commentaries in the Alexandrine tradition like those of Philo or Porphyry – the literary conventions linked with the genre45. In the Commentary on John, for example, Origen interprets in detail the Passion of Jesus, but nowhere does he attempt to contextualise the events in the topography of Jerusalem. He only briefly mentions that Judas “went out of the house in which the supper took place”46, but there is no indication anywhere concerning whether the community in Jerusalem still believed they knew the location of this house, or whether any of the corresponding places were to be found on Mount Zion47. Those who speak in favour of seriously treating the difficult archaeological findings and the scant information handed down in the literature concerning the so-called King David’s Tomb as evidence pointing towards the location where the Last Supper took place and as a Judeo-Christian gathering place, would certainly have been happy to see considerably more information in Origen. In the comments about the various actions of Judas, the author of the Commentary takes a closer look at the question as to whether the betrayer “was by nature unreceptive to salvation”48, but does 45. Highlighted by Maren NIEHOFF during the discussion of the paper in Jerusalem, cf. EAD., Philo:AnIntellectualBiography (Anchor Bible Reference Library), New Haven, CT – London, Yale University Press, 2018, pp. 4-11. 46. Origenes, CIo XXXII,24,301 (GCS 10, 467,10-13 PREUSCHEN): Καὶ ἀληϑῶς “ἐξῆλϑεν”· οὐ γὰρ μόνον κατὰ τὸ ἁπλούστερον ἐξῆλϑεν τοῦ οἴκου, ἐν ᾧ τὸ δεῖπνον ἐγίνετο, ἀλλὰ καὶ τέλεον ἐξῆλϑεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἀνάλογον τῷ “Ἐξῆλϑον ἐξ ἡμῶν” (Jn 13,27 and 1 Jn 2,19). 47. K. BIEBERSTEIN, DieHagiaSioninJerusalem:ZurEntwicklungihrerTraditionen im Spiegel der Pilgerberichte, in J. ENGEMANN – E. DASSMANN (eds.), Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie Bonn 22.-28. September 1991, vol. I (Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband, 20), Münster, Aschendorff, 1995, 543-551; D.C.CLAUSEN, TheUpperRoomandTombofDavid:TheHistory,Art andArchaeologyoftheCenacleonMountZion, Jefferson, NC, McFarland & Company, 2016; S. GIBSON, NewExcavationsonMountZioninJerusalemandanInscribedStone Cup/MugfromtheSecondTemplePeriod, in D. AMIT – O. PELEG-BARKAT – G.D. STIEBEL (eds.), NewStudiesintheArchaeologyofJerusalemandItsRegion, vol. 4, Tel Aviv, The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute for Archaeology of The Tel Aviv University, 2010, 32-43; J. PINKERFELD, David’sTomb:NotesontheHistoryoftheBuilding, in Bulletinof theL.M.RabinowitzFundfortheExplorationofAncientSynagogues, Jerusalem, Hebrew University, 1960, pp. 41-43 and (with first impressions of the new excavations in 2017/2018) C. MARKSCHIES, Die Christianisierung Jerusalems und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Urbanisierung, in K. HEYDEN – M. LISSEK (eds.), Jerusalem (forthcoming, in “Civitatum Orbis Mediterranei Studia”), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2019. 48. Origenes, CIo XXXII,19,246 (GCS 10, 459,1-4 PREUSCHEN): Ταῦτα δὲ κατὰ δύναμιν ἐπεξειργασάμην ἅμα μὲν παριστὰς τοῖς οἰομένοις αὐτὸν φύσει γεγονέναι ἀνεπίδεκτον σωτηρίας, ὅτι οὐ τοιοῦτος ἦν, ἅμα δὲ διηγούμενος ὅτι εὐλόγως οἱ μαϑηταὶ ἐπὶ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου λόγῳ “ἔβλεπον εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἀπορούμενοι περὶ τίνος λέγει” (cf. Jn 13,22). For the φύσει σωζόμενον vs. φύσει γεγονέναι ἀνεπίδεκτον σωτηρίας-argument cf. also W.A. LÖHR, GnosticDeterminismReconsidered,in VigChr 46 (1992) 381-390.

216

C. MARKSCHIES

not consider the question of where the betrayal, the return of the money or the suicide took place. Was Origen not shown such locations in Jerusalem? Was he not interested in them? Or was such knowledge, if he indeed possessed such, unimportant to his mind for a commentary on the biblical text? What is certain at least, is that Origen did preach in Jerusalem49. At the beginning of a homily on the beginning of the Book of Samuel, which was written around 244 AD, the preacher compares his sermons with those of the Bishop of Jerusalem, Alexander, and then states: “That is why I said that in my foreword (to my sermon), because I know that you have always been used to hearing the pleasant sermons of an exceedingly gentle father”50. From this, one correctly concludes that these words were originally spoken at the place where the then Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem preached51. The Bishop Alexander in question had, according to the biography of Origen that we received in the work of Eusebius, encouraged Origen during his first trip to the Holy Land (which should be dated to 215 AD52, not 230 AD, as Nautin stated53) to “hold sermons before the community and to explain the divine Scriptures”54. It is no 49. C. RENOUX, OrigènedanslaliturgiedeJérusalem, in Adamantius 5 (1999) 37-52; H. BUCHINGER, OrigenesunddieQuadragesimainJerusalem:EinDiskussionsbeitrag, in Adamantius 13 (2007) 174-217 and PERRONE, Origeneela‘TerraSanta’ (n. 14), pp. 148f. 50. Origenes, H1Sam 1,3 (GCS 33, 3,16-22 BAEHRENS = SC 328, 98,65–100,73 NAUTIN – NAUTIN = OWD 7, 122 FÜRST): Haecidcircodiximusinpraefatione,quiascio uosconsueuisselenissimipatrisdulcessemperaudiresermones,nostraeueroplantationis arbusculahabetaliquidausteritatisingustu.quodtamenorantibusuobisfietmedicamentumsalutis,quiaetmedicamentaquaedamsuntdulcia,quaedamueroaustera,nonnumquam et amara, et tamen in suis quaeque locis remedia tribuunt, si cum mensura et temporisopportunitatesumantur. 51. H. DE LUBAC, DasSchriftverständnisdesOrigenes,übertragen und eingeleitet von H.U. VON BALTHASAR, Einsiedeln, Johannes, 1968, p. 165 note 241; also A. FÜRST in Origenes, DieHomilienzumErstenBuchSamuel, eingeleitet und übersetzt v. A. FÜRST (OWD, 7), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, Freiburg i.Br. – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2014, p. 6 and PERRONE, Origeneela‘TerraSanta’ (n. 14), pp. 147f. 52. So FÜRST in OWD 7, p. 6. 53. NAUTIN, Origène:Savieetsonœuvre (n. 24), pp. 425-427. 54. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,19,16 (GCS 9/2, 564,3-8 SCHWARTZ): χρόνου δὲ μεταξὺ διαγενομένου, οὐ σμικροῦ κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἀναρριπισϑέντος πολέμου, ὑπεξελϑὼν τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας, ᾔει μὲν ἐπὶ Παλαιστίνης, ἐν Καισαρείᾳ δὲ τὰς διατριβὰς ἐποιεῖτο· ἔνϑα καὶ διαλέγεσϑαι τάς τε ϑείας ἑρμηνεύειν γραφὰς ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς ἐκκλησίας οἱ τῇδε ἐπίσκοποι, καίτοι τῆς τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου χειροτονίας οὐδέπω τετυχηκότα, αὐτὸν ἠξίουν·. Cf. for this passage also A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Origenepredicatoreeil suopubblico(Dipartimento di storia dell’Università di Torino, 3), Milano, Franco Angeli, 1987, pp. 47-64 and C. MARKSCHIES, „…fürdieGemeindeimGrossenundGanzennicht geeignet…“? Erwägungen zu Absicht und Wirkung der Predigten des Origenes, in ZTK 94 (1997) 39-68, esp. pp. 41f.; = ID., OrigenesundseinErbe:GesammelteStudien (TU, 160), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2007, 35-62, esp. pp. 37f.

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE VS. RELIGIOUS IMAGING

217

longer possible to say whether his ordination as a priest by Alexander and his colleague Theoctist of Caesarea during a later stay in the Holy Land took place in Jerusalem55. What is certain is that Origen and Alexander (who died a martyr in 250/251 AD56) did have a close relationship – sometimes the literature even evidences a friendship – that lasted over forty years57; little speaks against assuming that this close relationship manifested itself at least occasionally in personal contact after Origen moved to Caesarea, although we cannot, of course, have true certainty about that. What we are certain about, though, is that such personal contacts and the local knowledge these may have provided about geographical sites with religious relevance did not find their way into the scholarly biblical commentary of Origen. This conclusion leads us to the fourth and last part of this paper. IV If – as Alfons Fürst put it so nicely – Origen practised exegesis as a way of life58, and we repeatedly get the impression that he indicates to his listeners or readers that he had studied something thoroughly, then it becomes apparent that, in most cases, these statements refer to texts and not to the religious topography of the Holy Land: philology, not history. In addition, at almost no point does he appeal to relevant knowledge among those listening to his sermons in Caesarea, nor does he ask 55. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI,8,4 (GCS 9/2, 536,10-14 SCHWARTZ): … ὅτε τῶν κατὰ Παλαιστίνην οἱ μάλιστα δόκιμοι καὶ διαπρέποντες Καισαρείας τε καὶ Ἱεροσολύμων ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβείων τὸν Ὠριγένην καὶ τῆς ἀνωτάτω τιμῆς ἄξιον εἶναι δοκιμάσαντες, χεῖρας εἰς πρεσβυτέριον αὐτῷ τεϑείκασιν and 6,23,4 (GCS 9/2, 570,10-13): καϑ’ οὓς Ὠριγένης, ἐπειγούσης χρείας ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἕνεκα πραγμάτων ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα στειλάμενος τὴν διὰ Παλαιστίνης, πρεσβείου χειροϑεσίαν ἐν Καισαρείᾳ πρὸς τῶν τῇδε ἐπισκόπων ἀναλαμβάνει. 56. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI,39,2-3 (GCS 9/2, 594,6-14 SCHWARTZ); cf. P. NAUTIN, Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des IIe et IIIesiècles, Paris, Cerf, 1961, p. 137 and C. MARKSCHIES, Eusebius als Schriftsteller: Beobachtungen zum sechsten Buch der Kirchengeschichte, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), LabiografiadiOrigenefrastoriae agiografia.AttidelVIConvegnodiStudidelGruppoItalianodiRicercasuOrigenee la Tradizione Alessandrina (Biblioteca di Adamantius, 1), Villa Verucchio – Rimini, Pazzini, 2004, 33-50. 57. FÜRST in OWD 7, pp. 6-8; on Alexander cf. O. IRSHAI, FromObliviontoFame: The History of the Palestinian Church (135-303 CE), in LIMOR – STROUMSA (eds.), ChristiansandChristianityintheHolyLand (n. 26), 91-139, esp. pp. 125-129. 58. A. FÜRST, Origenes–SchöpferderchristlichenWissenschaftundKultur:Exegese undPhilosophieimfrühenAlexandria, in ID., VonOrigenesundHieronymuszuAugustinus: Studien zur antiken Theologiegeschichte (AKG, 115), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2011, 81-114 (quotation at p. 100) and ID. in OWD 7, p. 15.

218

C. MARKSCHIES

them to gain such knowledge: “David besieged Jebus. Jebus was the name given to today’s Jerusalem when it was in the hands of foreign tribes”, it says in one Greek Catena-fragment from a homily on the second book of Samuel59. Moreover, from the style of what was said, it would seem to be unlikely that he who quoted the passage in excerpt for a catena omitted relevant information or requests. The same applies for the first homily on Isaiah preserved in Latin: one could, of course, argue that Jerome omitted in his translation all remarks referring to the place where the prophet had his vision, but I consider it more probable that Origen was simply not interested in precisely where the vision took place. Origen does not seem to care that the location was, as far as we know, a desert without buildings during his lifetime, and he seems never to have seen the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which he uses for the purposes of comparison, concluding that it is a valley from the word “Valley” and from his own impressions gained while in Jerusalem60. In addition, even if the Valley of Jehoshaphat was not identified as the Kidron Valley until Eusebius’s Onomasticon61, it is nevertheless strange that Origen himself was never interested in discussing problems of localisation (if the text we have received is complete here), in contrast to other details of the temple cult, which he dealt with at greater length because of their crucial function for the text and its understanding. However, so that we do not end our exploratory stroll in such a negative manner, I would like now, at the end, to once again ask more 59. Origenes, Fr2Sam 5,6-8 (GCS 6, 299,17-28 KLOSTERMANN = OWD 7, 268,10-20 FÜRST): Ἐπολιόρκει τὴν Ἰεβοὺς ὁ Δαβίδ. Ἰεβοὺς δὲ ἡ νῦν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐλέγετο, ὅτε ὑπὸ ἀλλοφύλους ἦν. οἱ τοίνυν Ἰεβουσαῖοι, εἰδότες ὅτι φιλόπτωχος ἦν ὁ Δαβίδ, ὑπεβάλοντο ἄνωϑεν ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους τυφλοὺς καὶ χωλοὺς αὐτὸν ὑβρίζειν. ὁ δὲ κρατήσας τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοσοῦτον ἀπέσχε τοῦ διαϑεῖναι κακῶς τοὺς λελωβημένους τὸ σῶμα, ὡς καὶ νόμον ϑέσϑαι τοῖς αὐτοῦ στρατιώταις ϑανάτου, εἴ τις ἐπιχειρήσειεν ἀνελεῖν τυφλὸν ἢ χωλόν. πᾶς γὰρ ὁ τύπτων φησὶν Ἰεβουσαῖον χωλὸν ἢ τυφλὸν ἁπτέσϑω ἐν παραξιφίδι, τουτέστιν ἀναιρείσϑω· εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἐμίσουν τὴν ψυχὴν Δαβίδ, ἀλλὰ φειδοῦς τυγχάνουσι. διὸ ἀξιοῦται τῆς παρὰ πάντων τιμῆς λεγόντων· χωλὸς καὶ τυφλὸς οὐκ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς οἶκον κυρίου, οἱ τὸν Δαβὶδ ὑβρίσαντες, ὧν ἐφείδετο. 60. Origenes, HIs I,1 (GCS 33, 243,15-22 BAEHRENS = OWD 10, 196,12-18 FÜRST): Et:“Veniam,utsedeamadiudicandumpopuluminvallelosaphat”(Isa 6,1). Ergohic invalleseditetinvalle,cumiudicaturusest,cumcondemnaturus.Aliudautemestvidere eumsedentemsuperthronumexcelsumetelevatum.EtinMicheaegreditur,etdescendit Deus(Micha 1,3).EtutvideatSodomam,descendit:“Descendens”ait“videbo,sisecundum clamorem eorum venientem ad me consummaverunt” (Gen 8,21). Igitur Deus aliquandosursum,aliquandodeorsumiuxtadignitatemvideturnegotiorum. 61. Eusebius, Onom. 621 (GCS NF 24, 151,4f. TIMM): Κοιλὰς Ἰωαφάτ. μεταξὺ κεῖται Ἱ(ερουσα)λὴμ καὶ τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν. Cf. also for the valley’s name M. KÜCHLER, Jerusalem:EinHandbuchundStudienreiseführerzurHeiligenStadt, mit einem Beitrag von K. BIEBERSTEIN, 2. vollständig überarbeitete Aufl., Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014, pp. 459f.

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE VS. RELIGIOUS IMAGING

219

categorically whether the problem perhaps lies in the fact that the question concerning Origen’s local knowledge about certain places62 has quite simply been posed in the wrong way. Ever since archaeological research first got underway in the Holy Land in the 19th century, the issue of the authenticity of the late antique and Byzantine localisation of sites which played a role in the New Testament has been raised repeatedly. Considering the religious background of many of those working on archaeological excavations, and also in view of the challenge of securing funding for the expensive excavations which they faced, one need not wonder about the formulation of such questions, or about the fact that they can be primarily observed in more or less conservative and Evangelical circles. This question of authenticity, which has been posed in modern times about antique Christian authors was, however (and so much can certainly be said) not posed as part of a thorough analysis of the antique knowledge that was used by Origen for his exegesis of biblical texts. This knowledge was – and one can summarise this without problem from the in-depth monograph by Bernhard Neuschäfer63 – to a great extent, but not exclusively, text-based knowledge. One particular, characteristic exception is orally transmitted information about Jewish biblical exegesis, which Origen possibly gained from speaking to people in Caesarea (at least if one follows the relevant interpretations of certain passages by Bietenhard, De Lange and now Maren Niehoff64). However, such information that originated explicitly from oral conversations can also be found often enough throughout Origen’s work; one is certainly 62. PERRONE, Origeneela‘TerraSanta’ (n. 14), pp. 156-159 (“La conoscenza diretta della terra della Bibbia e di Gesù”). Perrone has also mentioned Origenes, CC IV,44 (GCS 2, 217,2-6 KOETSCHAU): Ὅτι δὲ καὶ φρέατα ἐν γῇ Φιλιστιαίων κατεσκεύασται ὑπὸ τῶν δικαίων, ὡς ἐν τῇ Γενέσει ἀναγέγραπται (cf. Gen 26,15.18-22.25.32), δῆλον ἐκ τῶν δεικνυμένων ἐν τῇ Ἀσκάλωνι ϑαυμαστῶν φρεάτων καὶ ἱστορίας ἀξίων διὰ τὸ ξένον καὶ παρηλλαγμένον τῆς κατασκευῆς ὡς πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ φρέατα. On Askelon as “city of wells” cf. O. KEEL, Orte und Landschaften der Bibel: Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zum Heiligen Land. Bd. 2: Der Süden, 1982, Zürich – Benziger – Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982, pp. 59f. 63. B. NEUSCHÄFER, Origenes als Philologe. Teil I: Text; Teil II: Anmerkungen (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 18/1-2), Basel, Reinhardt, 1987, pp. 155-202 s.v. “Sacherklärung (ἱστορικόν)”. 64. H. BIETENHARD, Caesarea,OrigenesunddieJuden (Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesungen an der Universität Münster, 1972), Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln – Mainz, Kohlhammer, 1974; N. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976, pp. 15-28; M. NIEHOFF, Origen’s Commentary on Genesis asaKeytoGenesis Rabbah, in S.K. GRIBETZ – D.M. GROSBERG – M. HIMMELFARB – P. SCHÄFER (eds.), Genesis RabbahinTextandContext(Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 166), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 129-153.

220

C. MARKSCHIES

not mistaken in viewing him as a text scholar, for whom knowledge then becomes attractive and authoritatively legitimised when it is based on texts and has been taken from texts. If Origen, as a scholar, was even interested in travelling, then – in contrast to his grand disciples Eusebius and Jerome – his interest lay in travelling in his head, as it were. “Reading is the art of travelling in one’s head”, as one cultural-scientific monograph of our times has said65. Eusebius wrote an Onomasticon with an endless amount of information about the places categorised in it; Origen was more concerned with the etymological meaning of biblical names, and was the author of a very much text-oriented Hexapla. The fact that Jesus wandered in Galilee and the surrounding regions and that the first disciples to follow him could be referred to as “wandering charismatics” (by Gerd Theißen)66, was not of central importance to Origen, either historically or theologically, and that presumably – no matter how scholarly he was in interpreting the literal meaning – has ultimately to do with his de-historicizing and platonizing approach. Origen even deals with or elaborates in more detail on the travel tales so characteristic for the mythological sites of Heaven and Hell in the intertestamental and apocryphal literature, or integrates the stories as literary figures into his texts, because of his well-known atopic, placeless interpretation of these “places”. As such, the travels that Origen embarked on himself were obviously purely for the purposes of moving from one place to another to carry out his clerical and academic duties. Even if we would like to say something different about Origen in this respect, and would also like to portray him more strongly in this regard as the teacher of Eusebius und Jerome, honesty demands of us that we accept we are wrong here and that we clearly state this difference between him and his grand disciples. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Unter den Linden 6 DE-10099 Berlin Germany [email protected]

Christoph MARKSCHIES

65. K. HLAVIN-SCHULZE,„Manreistjanicht,umanzukommen“:Reisenalskulturelle Praxis, Frankfurt a.M., Campus, 1998, pp. 74-76. 66. G. THEISSEN: Soziologie der Jesusbewegung: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungs- geschichtedesUrchristentums, Gütersloh, Kaiser, 71997, pp. 55-89. Cf. now K. BACKHAUS, Religion als Reise: Interkulturelle Lektüren in Antike und Christentum (Tria Corda, 8), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2014, pp. 86-104.

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN* I. INTRODUCTION One of Origen’s bolder claims regards the impossibility for the Scriptures to contain the deeper mysteries of God on account of the limits of human intelligence and language: “Now I think that all of the Scriptures, even when perceived very accurately, are only very elementary rudiments of and very brief introductions to knowledge”1. Throughout his work, Origen leaves implicit that there are two ways in which the divine pedagogy allows the human being to overcome these limits: the first is possible in this world through direct contact with the Logos2, * In memory of Prof. Manlio Simonetti 1. Origen, CIo XIII,30 (GCS 10, 230 PREUSCHEN); Οἶμαι δὲ τῆς ὅλης γνώσεως στοιχεῖά τινα ἐλάχιστα καὶ βραχυτάτας εἶναι εἰσαγωγὰς ὅλας γραφάς, κἂν πάνυ νοηϑῶσιν ἀκριβῶς; English transl.: Origen. Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 13-32, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 89), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1993, p. 74. 2. A little before the previous passage, Origen writes (CIo XIII,26; GCS 10,229-230 PREUSCHEN): Ἔτι δὲ ἐπιστήσομεν εἰ δύναται δηλοῦσϑαι τὸ ἑτερογενὲς τῆς τῶν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ ὁμιλησόντων καὶ συνεσομένων ὠφελείας παρὰ τὴν νομιζομένην ὠφέλειαν γίνεσϑαι ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν, κἂν νοηϑῶσιν ἀκριβῶς, ἐκ τοῦ τὸν μὲν πιόντα ἀπὸ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ Ἰακὼβ διψῆν πάλιν, τὸν δὲ πιόντα ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος, οὗ δίδωσιν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, πηγὴν ὕδατος ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἴσχειν ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (“But we shall take note, furthermore, of whether it is possible that the difference between the benefit to those who would associate with and be with the truth itself, and the benefit we are thought to derive from the Scriptures, even if they be accurately understood, is revealed by the fact that the one who drinks from the fountain of Jacob thirsts again, but the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives possesses a fountain of water within himself which leaps into eternal life”; transl. HEINE [n. 1], p. 74). In Prin IV,2,4 (Orígenes. Sobre los principios. Introducción, texto crítico, traducción y notas de S. FERNÁNDEZ [Fuentes Patrísticas, 27], Madrid, Ciudad Nueva, 2015, pp. 844-846) Origen expresses the same concept, making use of a vision from the Shepherd of Hermas, in this way: Grapte represents the literal sense of the Scripture, Clement that one far from the literal sense, and Hermas represents the disciple who listens to the living words: οὐκέτι δὲ διὰ γραμμάτων, ἀλλὰ διὰ ζώντων λόγων αὐτὸς ὁ μαϑητὴς τοῦ πνεύματος προστάσσεται ἀναγγέλλειν τοῖς τῆς πάσης ἐκκλησίας τοῦ ϑεοῦ πρεσβυτέροις πεπολιωμένοις ὑπὸ φρονήσεως ( “while the disciple of the Spirit is bidden to announce the message in person, no longer through letters but through living words, to the presbyters or elders of the whole Church of God, to men who have grown grey through wisdom”); transl. J.C. CAVADINI (Origen.OnFirstPrinciples; Notre Dame, IN, Ave Maria Press, 2013, p. 366). Cf. E. ALBANO, I silenzi delle Sacre Scritture:LimitiepossibilitàdirivelazionedelLogosnegliscrittidiFilone,Clementee Origene (SEA, 138), Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2014, pp. 371-535.

222

E. PRINZIVALLI

at the culmination of a particular spiritual path; the second is the possibility of proceeding after death on a path of knowledge through a spiritual progression which will end only when God will be all in all3. The first way – the one possible during earthly existence – however, cannot be taken on except through a study of the Scriptures wherein they are understood spiritually: this is fundamental. Now, in the Scriptures there are certain passages and names that permit more direct access to the mystery. Among these, Jerusalem has a position of high significance. Since, as I will try to show here, there is a reciprocal reflection between the mystery of the Logos that has been “humanized” and the mystery of Jerusalem: as the Word “humanized” in Jesus Christ gives access to the mystery of God, so does the city of Jerusalem allow access to the mystery of Creation. Christ and Jerusalem are connected, according to Origen, not only or even primarily because of the historical realities in which they are both involved4 but rather because of a protological reality: namely, Jerusalem represents the totality of the original Creation, the City of God, and the Bride of the Logos from whom she is derived and to whom she is destined. In other words, Origen utilizes the symbolism found in the Hebrew Scriptures, which speak of a spousal relationship between God and Israel or Jerusalem (by synecdoche), interpreted through a Christian lens. 3. Origen, Prin II,11,6 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, p. 534): Puto enim quod sancti quique d iscedentesexhacvitapermanebuntinlocoaliquointerraposito,quemparadisumdicit scripturadivina,velutinquodameruditionislocoet,utitadixerim,auditoriovelschola animarum, in quo de omnibus his, quae in terris viderant, doceantur, indicia quoque quaedam accipiant etiam de consequentibus et futuris, sicut in hac quoque vita positi indiciaquaedamfuturorum,licetperspeculumetaenigmata (cf. 1 Cor 13,12), tamenex aliquaparteconceperant,quaemanifestiusetlucidiussanctisinsuisetlocisettemporibus revelantur. Si qui sane mundus corde (cf. Mt 5,8) et purior mente et excitatior sensu fuerit,velociusproficienscitoetadaërislocumascendetetadcaelorumregnaperveniet perlocorumsingulorum,utitadixerit,mansiones….(“I think that the saints as they depart from this life will remain in some place situated on the earth, which the divine scripture calls ‘paradise’. This will be a place of instruction and, so to speak, a lecture room or school for souls, in which they may be taught about all that they had seen on earth and may also receive some indications of what is to follow in the future; just as when placed in this life they had obtained certain indications of the future, seen indeed ‘through a glass darkly’ and yet truly seen ‘in part’, which are revealed more clearly and brightly to the saints in their proper times and places. If anyone is ‘pure in heart’ and of unpolluted mind and well-trained understanding he will make swifter progress and quickly ascend to the region of the air, until he reaches the kingdom of the heavens, passing through the series of those abiding places”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 190). 4. For the relationship between noetic history and factual history in Origen’s exegesis see in this volume the article of G. HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD, From Capernaum toJerusalem: Origen’s Sacred Geography of the Holy Land in His Commentaries on theGospels.

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

223

Origen finds the Scriptural warrants for this grandiose construction first in Eph 5,21-33, which provides the Christological interpretation of the spousal relationship, referring to the mystery of Christ and the Church, and then in Rev 21,2-3, where Jerusalem descends from on high adorned as a bride5. These warrants, however, would not have been sufficient if Origen had not first elaborated upon the previously established elements of Christian exegesis which read the Scriptures according to a vertical line of interpretation, and had he not also developed his doctrine on Creation, which both critiques and takes up the interpretation of the first great Christian exegetes, the Gnostics, who had cherished reflection on Jerusalem before him. II. WHAT HERMENEUTICAL CRITERION SHOULD BE USED TO INTERPRET JERUSALEM? Let us then begin with the hermeneutical criterion elaborated by Origen on the basis of two principal sources: Paul and Philo. In Paul, Origen found the fundamental assertion: “the Law is spiritual” (Rom 7,14), which he reads with the eyes of a Platonist Christian and thus distinguishes between two ontologically different levels of reality. In Philo, he finds a coherent application of a Platonist reading to Scripture. From the combination of these two sources, Origen derives the spiritual verticalization of a Christological reading of Scripture. In order to clarify what I mean here, one need only consult the words of Origen himself when he says: “We must not suppose that historical things are types of historical things, and corporeal of corporeal. Quite the contrary: corporeal things are types of spiritual things, and historical of intellectual”6. Paul writes: “the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother” (Gal 4,26). The Letter to the Hebrews (which Origen considers Pauline) develops the theme of the city and of Jerusalem in a sense close to that of Philo (as we will see next), when it says that Abraham, a pilgrim on the earth, waits for the city of which God “is builder and maker” (Heb 11,10) and

5. See the identification of the Church = Jerusalem “the Bride adorned for her husband, Christ” ( Ἱερουσαλὴμ νύμφη ἐστὶ κεκοσμημένη τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς Χριστῷ) in CMt XIV,13 (GCS 40, 310 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ). 6. CIo X,110 (GCS 10, 189 PREUSCHEN): Οὐ γὰρ νομιστέον τὰ ἱστορικὰ ἱστορικῶν εἶναι τύπους καὶ τὰ σωματικὰ σωματικῶν, ἀλλὰ τὰ σωματικὰ πνευματικῶν καὶ τὰ ἱστορικὰ νοητῶν; English transl.: Origen.CommentaryontheGospelaccordingtoJohn, Books 1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989, p. 279.

224

E. PRINZIVALLI

that he waits, as do the other patriarchs, for a “heavenly” homeland: “God has prepared for them a city” (Heb 11,16). A little later, he speaks of the “heavenly” Jerusalem (Heb 12,22)7. In the light of these premises, Origen could only understand the specification “above” or “heavenly” as speaking of Jerusalem’s identity on the level of intelligible reality, the earthly Jerusalem being its typos. He says as much, according to the translation of Rufinus, in his HomiliesonNumbers: But if the faith must be applied to Paul’s words, just as it surely is to be applied, and if we believe that Jerusalem is heavenly as a type of this earthly one, by means of the spiritual understanding, then we should also more correctly relate what appears to be written about this earthly one to that heavenly one8.

Further, Origen finds in Philo the mention of the “great city”, namely, the world as it existed as a rational prototype and only afterward as a sensible creation: We must suppose that, when He was minded to found the one great city, He conceived beforehand the models of its parts, and that out of these He constituted and brought to completion a world discernible only by the mind, and then, with that for a pattern (παραδείγματι), the world which our senses can perceive9.

The Middle Platonic three-stage schema indicated by Philo is thus translated by Origen: a) into the link between the models (logoi) contained in the Son of God insofar as he is Wisdom (the first epinoia directed to God the Father)10; b) into the creation of the noes who come 7. The citations from Galatians and Hebrews are often presented together: see, e.g., CMt XVI,15. 8. HNm VII,5,5 (SC 415, 194 DOUTRELEAU): SiveroverbisPaulifidesadhibendaest, sicutcerteadhibendaest,etHierusalem caelestem esse(Heb 12,22)credimusadtypum terrenae huius et, quae scripta videntur de hac terrena, ad illam caelestem rectius spiritaliintellegentiaconferemus; English transl.: Origen.HomiliesonNumbers, transl. Th.P. SCHECK (Ancient Christian Texts), Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2009, p. 31). 9. Philo, Deopificio 19; τὰ παραπλήσια δὴ καὶ περὶ ϑεοῦ δοξαστέον, ὡς ἄρα τὴν μεγαλόπολιν κτίζειν διανοηϑεὶς ἐνενόησε πρότερον τοὺς τύπους αὐτῆς, ἐξ ὧν κόσμον νοητὸν συστησάμενος ἀπετέλει καὶ τὸν αἰσϑητὸν παραδείγματι χρώμενος ἐκείνῳ; transl. F.H. COLSON – G.H. WHITAKER (PhiloI [LCL], London – Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 17). 10. Origen, CIo I,114-115 (GCS 10, 24 PREUSCHEN): Οἶμαι γάρ, ὥσπερ κατὰ τοὺς ἀρχιτεκτονικοὺς τύπους οἰκοδομεῖται ἢ τεκταίνεται οἰκία καὶ ναῦς, ἀρχὴν τῆς οἰκίας καὶ τῆς νεὼς ἐχόντων τοὺς ἐν τῷ τεχνίτῃ τύπους καὶ λόγους, οὕτω τὰ σύμπαντα γεγονέναι κατὰ τοὺς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ προτρανωϑέντας ὑπὸ ϑεοῦ τῶν ἐσομένων λόγους· Πάντα γὰρ ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησε (Ps 103,24). Καὶ λεκτέον ὅτι κτίσας, ἵν’ οὕτως εἴπω, ἔμψυχον σοφίαν ὁ ϑεός, αὐτῇ ἐπέτρεψεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τύπων τοῖς οὖσι καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ “παρασχεῖν καὶ” τὴν πλάσιν καὶ τὰ εἴδη, ἐγὼ δὲ ἐφίστημι εἰ καὶ τὰς οὐσίας (“For I

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

225

about by means of the Logos11 (the second epinoia of the Son, directed to the sensible world); and finally c) into the creation of the sensible world12. There is a difference, however, with respect to Philo: for Origen, the creation of the noes is a creation of living beings, endowed with free will and thus subject to sin. Consequently, the earthly condition is not only a copy of the heavenly, but it is also ontologically fallen13 on account of the sin of the noes(this brings Origen close to the Gnostics). Origen distinguishes himself from the Gnostics, nonetheless, in an orthodox manner since he defends the unicity of God, the relationship of creation between God and the noes, as well as the positive and redemptive value of the sensible world. Naturally, the Gnostics also discuss Jerusalem. They could not avoid it since, being exegetes, they sought to expound their Gnostic revelation through the texts of the New Testament. As is well known, the Gnostics think that just as a house and a ship are built or devised according to the plans of the architect, the house and the ship having as their beginning the plans and thoughts in the craftsman, so all things have come to be according to the thoughts of what will be, which were prefigured by God in wisdom, ‘For he made all things in wisdom’. And we must say that after God had created living wisdom, if I may put it this way, from the models in her he entrusted to her [to present] to the things which exist and to matter [both] their conformation and forms, but I stop short of saying their essences”; transl. HEINE [n. 6], p. 57). 11. Origen, CIo I,111 (GCS 10, 23 PREUSCHEN): κατὰ μὲν τὴν σύστασιν τῆς περὶ τῶν ὅλων ϑεωρίας καὶ νοημάτων τῆς σοφίας νοουμένης, κατὰ δὲ τὴν πρὸς τὰ λογικὰ κοινωνίαν τῶν τεϑεωρημένων τοῦ λόγου λαμβανομένου (“It is wisdom which is understood, on the one hand, taken in relation to the structure of the contemplation and thoughts of all things, but it is the Word which is received, taken in relation to the communication of the things which have been contemplated to spiritual beings”; transl. HEINE [n. 6], p. 57). 12. See infra, note 13. 13. Origen uses the term καταβολή: cf. Prin III,5,4 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, pp. 748-752) in the translation of Rufinus: Illudsaneotiosepraetereundumessenonarbitror,quodscripturaesanctaeconditionesmundinovoquodametproprionominenuncuparunt,dicentes καταβολήνmundi (cf. Mt 24,21; Eph 1,4) […] Quodsiest,desuperioribusadinferiora descensumestnonsolumabhisanimabus,quaeidmotuumsuorumvarietatemeruerunt, verumetabhis,quiadtotiusmundiministeriumexillissuperioribusetinvisibilibusad haec inferiora et visibilia deducti sunt, licet non volentes […]. Talem vero ac tantum factumesseputandumestmundum,quivelomneseasanimas,quaeinhocmundostatutae suntexerceri,caperet,velomneseasvirtutes,quaeadesseeisetdispensareeasaciuvare parataesunt (“Still, there is a point which I do not think we ought lightly to pass by, and that is that the holy scriptures call the foundation of the world by a new and peculiar name, terming it καταβολή […]. There has been a descent from higher to lower conditions not only on the part of those souls who have by the variety of their own movements deserved it, but also on the part of those who have been brought down, even against their will, from those higher invisible conditions to these lower visible ones, in order to be of service to the whole world […]. We must recognize, however, that the world was made of such a size and character as to be able to hold all those souls which were destined to undergo discipline in it and also those powers which were appointed to be at hand to serve and assist them”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 315).

226

E. PRINZIVALLI

hold Paul in high esteem. Thus, they use the expression “the Jerusalem above” (Gal 4,26)14 or that of Hebr 12,22: “the heavenly Jerusalem”15 to indicate the divine world, or, in the case of the Valentinians, Sophia Achamoth, the Mother of the spiritual beings16. The Valentinians (Heracleon), because of the three-fold division of natures, distinguished between the heavenly Jerusalem and the psychic Jerusalem, symbolized by the earthly Jerusalem17. Origen considered the heavenly Jerusalem to be a creature whereas the Gnostics thought it divine; nevertheless, we note a profound parallel in the two formulations. For, it is not the allegorization of Jerusalem, pure and simple, that distinguishes Origen’s interpretation. The possibility of allegory was something he had seen already present in his predecessors18, as with that unidentified priest cited by Origen in the Homilies onLuke, who, discussing the Parable of the Good Samaritan, identified the wounded man with Adam, Jerusalem with Paradise, and Jericho with the world19. Origen’s particularity here is that he identifies the “true” Jerusalem with the first Creation of the noes who are united to the Logos: 14. Ps. Hippolytus, Elenchos V,39 (Naassens): cf. M. SIMONETTI, Testi gnostici in lingua greca e latina, Milano, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla – Mondadori, 1993, p. 64,6; Elenchos VI,34 (The Valentinians for whom the Jerusalem above is Sophia united with the Fruit of the Pleroma of which Rev 21,2 speaks); cf. SIMONETTI, ibid. p. 338,8. 15. Ps. Hippolytus, Elenchos VI,32,12 (Valentinians); cf. SIMONETTI, Testi gnostici (n. 14), p. 336,12. 16. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. I,5,3; cf. SIMONETTI, Testignostici (n. 14), p. 306,16. 17. Heracleon, in Origen, CIo X,33; cf. SIMONETTI, Testignostici (n. 14), p. 234,7. 18. In Irenaeus there is a hint of a different allegorical interpretation of the parable: cf. Adv. haer. III,17,3 (SC 34, 307-308 SAGNARD). 19. HLc XXXIV,3 (GCS 49, 190,14–191,15 RAUER): Aiebat quidam de presbyteris, volensparabolaminterpretari. Ἀνάγεται ὁ ἄνϑρωπος εἰς τὸν Ἀδάμ· ἡ δὲ Ἱερουσαλὴμ εἰς τὸν παράδεισον· ἡ δὲ Ἱεριχὼ εἰς τὸν κόσμον· οἱ δὲ λησταὶ εἰς τὰς ἀντικειμένας ἐνεργείας· ὁ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν νόμον· ὁ λευίτης εἰς τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον· ὁ Σαμαρείτης εἰς Χριστὸν τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας σάρκα φορέσαντα· τὰ τραύματα εἰς τὴν παρακοήν· τὸ κτῆνος εἰς τὸ σῶμα Χριστοῦ· τὸ πανδοχεῖον εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν· τὰ δύο δηνάρια εἰς τὴν περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ γνῶσιν· ὁ πανδοχεὺς εἰς τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐπιστατοῦντας ἀγγέλους· ἡ ἐπάνοδος τοῦ Σαμαρέως ἡ δευτέρα Χριστοῦ ἐπιφάνεια (“One of the elders wanted to interpret the parable as follows. The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord’s body, the pandochium (that is, the stable), which accepts all who wish to enter is the Church. And further, the two denarii mean the Father and the Son. The manager of the stable is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior’s second coming”; English transl.: Origen. HomiliesonLuke.FragmentsonLuke, transl. J.T. LIENHARD, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1996, p. 138). Origen nevertheless does not hesitate to add some precisions to the interpretation which he takes up again in CCt prol. (GCS 33, 70 BAEHRENS); HIos VI,4 (SC 71, 189-191 JAUBERT); CMt XVI,9 (GCS 40, 503 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ).

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

227

the “orthodox” equivalent of the Gnostic identification of the heavenly Jerusalem with Sophia or the Ogdoad (so-called “orthodox” since the vision of Origen will nonetheless not be accepted by the majority of orthodox Christianity). III. THE CITY AND CITIES IN THE DE PRINCIPIIS Let us take up again the Deprincipiis, the work in which an exegesis of the city of Jerusalem is proposed in a more organic manner with an ascending interpretation, that is, starting from the letter to arrive at the allegorical/spiritual interpretation. For this, we go to the second part of the Deprincipiis, which – according to Simonetti’s convincing subdivision20 – contains a treatment largely responding to the exigencies of ecclesial usage. Origen discusses here (Prin II,11) the promises of God to the people of Israel, a very important theme since it was at the center of the dispute between orthodox Christians and dualist Christians, in this case the Marcionites. Jerusalem stands squarely in the middle of the controversy. The Marcionites, in virtue of their literal interpretation of the Old Testament, distinguished two gods, disdaining the creator god on account of the baseness of his earthly promises (which is an unacceptable position for Origen who asserts, with all orthodox Christians, the unicity of God and of the two testaments). Certain orthodox Christians, on the other hand (see Justin and Irenaeus), in virtue of the same literal interpretation, agree with the Jews in their desire to reconstruct the earthly Jerusalem which Origen (along with the dualists) considered unworthy of God. Origen compiles a list of biblical passages (Prin II,11,2) which the millenarist Christians used in support of their arguments, in particular Revelation 21, Isaiah 60–65, Mt 26,29, but also the Parable of the Coins in Luke, where the Lord promises to his faithful servant “authority over five cities” (Lk 19,19)21. Origen proposes instead his spiritual 20. M. SIMONETTI, Agl’inizi della filosofia cristiana: Il de principiis di Origene, in VetChr 43 (2006) 157-173. 21. For Origen’s interpretation of the cities, cf. CMt XIV,12 (GCS 40, 308 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ); HLc XXXIX (GCS 49, 222 RAUER). On Jerusalem and chiliastic eschatology see L. PERRONE, “SacramentumIudaeae”(Gerolamo,Ep.46:Gerusalemmeela Terra Santa nel pensiero cristiano dei primi secoli: Continuità e trasformazioni, in A. MELLONI – D. MENOZZI – G. RUGGIERI – M. TOSCHI (eds.), Cristianesimonellastoria: SaggiinonorediGiuseppeAlberigo, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1996, 445-478, p. 459; cf. ID., “TheMysteryofJudaea”(Jerome,Ep.46):TheHolyCityofJerusalembetweenHistory

228

E. PRINZIVALLI

interpretation in which Jerusalem is the “city of the saints”22, where the faithful Christian who is ignorant can be instructed even after death. In this case, then, we have a first level of interpretation in which Origen limits himself to consider Jerusalem as the place of the just after death, which he sets in the context of his doctrine of the continual intellectual progress of the soul23, not limited by one’s time in earthly life24. and Symbol in Early Christian Thought, in L.I. LEVINE (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity andCentralitytoJudaism,Christianity,andIslam, New York, Continuum, 1999, 221-239, p. 227 (abbreviated version of the previous article). 22. Prin II,11,3 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, p. 522): Hi vero, qui secundum apostolorum sensum theoriamscripturarumrecipiunt,sperantmanducaturosquidemessesanctos,sedpanem vitae (Jn 6,35), quiveritatisetsapientiaecibisnutriatanimametinluminetmentemetpoteteam divinae sapientiae poculis, sicut dicit scriptura divina quia Sapientia praeparavit mensam suam,iugulavitvictimassuas,miscuitincraterevinumsuumetsummavoceclamat:Devertiteadmeetmanducatepanes,quosparavivobis,etbibitevinum,quodmiscuivobis (cf. Prov 9,2-5).Quibussapientiaeescisnutritamensadintegrumetperfectum,sicutexinitiofactus esthomo,ad imaginem et similitudinem (Gen 1,26) reparatur:utetiamsiquisexhacvita minus eruditus abierit, probabilia tamen opera detulerit, instrui possit in illa Hierusalem civitatesanctorum,idestedocerietinformarietefficilapis vivus,lapis pretiosus et electus (1 Pet 2,4-6),proeoquodfortiteretconstanterpertuleritagonesvitaeetcertaminapietatis (“Those, however, who accept a view of the scriptures which accords with the meaning of the apostles, do indeed hope that the saints will eat; but they will eat ‘the bread of life’, which is to nourish the soul and enlighten the mind with the food of truth and wisdom and to cause it to drink from the cup of divine wisdom, as the divine scripture says: Wisdom has prepared her table, she has slain her victims, she has mingled her wine in the bowl and cries with a loud voice, Turn in to me and eat the bread which I have prepared for you, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you. The mind, when nourished by this food of wisdom to a whole and perfect state, as man was made in the beginning, will be restored to the ‘image and likeness’ of God; so that, even though a man have departed out of this life insufficiently instructed, but with a record of acceptable works, he can be instructed in that Jerusalem, the city of the saints, that is, he can be taught and informed and fashioned into a ‘living stone’, a ‘stone precious and elect’, because he has borne with courage and endurance the trials of life and the struggles after piety”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 185). 23. See this taxis in Prin III,6,9 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, p. 788): Hoc itaque modo in consummatione ac restitutione omnium fieri putandum est, ut paulatim proficientes et ascendentesmodoetordineperveniantprimoadterramillameteruditionem,quaeinea est,inquaadmelioraetilla,quibusiamaddinihilpotest,institutapraeparentur (“This, then, is how we must suppose that events happen in the consummation and restitution of all things, namely, that souls, advancing and ascending little by little in due measure and order, first attain to that other earth and the instruction that is in it, and are there prepared for those better precepts to which nothing can ever be added”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 331). In HNm XXVII,2-3, Origen discusses the various mansiones. Cf. supra, n. 3. See G. BONFRATE, Origene e l’esodo della Parola (Cultura Studium, 12. NS, Religione e società, 5), Roma, Studium, 2013, pp. 213-357. See also A. CANELLIS, L’exégèse de Nombres 33,1-9: D’Origène à saint Jérôme (Epist. 78 à Fabiola), in E. PRINZIVALLI – F. VINEL – M. CUTINO(eds.), TransmissionetréceptiondesPèresgrecsdansl’occident, de l’antiquité tardive à la renaissance: Entre philologie, herméneutique et théologie. Actesducolloqueinternationalorganisédu26au28novembre2014àl’Universitéde Strasbourg (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Moyen Âge, 53), Paris, Brepols, 2016, 41-56. 24. Elsewhere, in the later part of the CMt (XV,25; GCS 40, 425,8-10 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ), in a simple and traditional manner but one nonetheless equivalent to that said

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

229

There is a series of references to other theologians’ doctrine in this passage. Irenaeus had understood the reign of the just in Jerusalem during the millennium as the period in which man would become progressively habituated to the presence of God, opposing this taxis to the Gnostic taxis25, which imagined a progressive ascent of the soul into the higher spheres after death. In a similar way, Origen proposes something different than Irenaeus whose polemical objective is apparent and whose position is founded on a unitary vision of the human being. Origen’s teaching refers, alternatively, only to the soul, which for him26, constitutes the identity of the human being. In the following passage, corresponding to a more refined level of interpretation, taken from Book IV, the first part of which is a treatise on hermeneutics, Origen comments on a few lines from the Shepherd of Hermas, a writing he considers among the inspired books. In it, the Church (Shepherd, Vis. II,4,3) instructs Grapte, Clement, and Hermas with directions for the various categories of the faithful. These three envoys correspond, allegorically, to the three levels of comprehension of the faithful (literal, psychic/moral, spiritual). The middle level is represented by Clement, who “will send [the book written by Hermas] to the cities beyond”, that is, according to the allegorical interpretation of Origen, to the souls who are drawn to carnal thoughts. The cities therefore represent souls, and one can thus deduce that the different cities correspond to the different conditions of individual souls. We now come to the long treatment (Prin IV,3,6-13) that begins with the division of the Chosen People into the twelve tribes, of which, under Jeroboam, ten are called Israel and the other two Judah, the region coming to be known as “Judea”. The capital of Judea is Jerusalem and there

here, when he speaks of Jesus’ promise of “fields and houses” (Mt 19,29), he says that they should be understood “as referring to the repose to be had in the divine paradise and in the city of God. This expression returns in the Latin of Rufinus where this time Jerusalem is explicitly named in HIos XIX,4 (GCS 30, 413,20-21 BAEHRENS): illavero civitas,quaeinIudaeaest,sanctorumtantummodoefficitur,quiacivitasDeiest (“but that city that is in Judah is made up only of saints, because it is the city of God”; Origen. Homilies on Joshua, transl. B.J. BRUCE; ed. C. WHITE [Fathers of the Church, 105], Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2002, p. 171). 25. Cf. D.F. BUMAZHNOV, Towards a Better Understanding of the Identity of the ‘SimplePeople’:SomeRemarksconcerningOrigen’sTreatmentofPreviousExegetical Traditions:CIoXIII,325-337, in E. PRINZIVALLI (ed.), IlcommentoaGiovannidiOrigene: Iltestoeisuoicontesti.Attidell’VIIIConvegnodiStudidelGruppoItalianodiRicerca suOrigeneelaTradizioneAlessandrina (Biblioteca di Adamantius, 3), Villa Verucchio, Pazzini, 2005, 413-422. 26. Prin IV,2,7 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, p. 856,10-11): ἀνϑρώπους δὲ νῦν λέγω τὰς χρωμένας ψυχὰς σώμασιν (“and by men I mean at the present moment souls that make use of bodies”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 373).

230

E. PRINZIVALLI

are many cities that come under Jerusalem according to the Book of Joshua (13,21). At this point, Origen returns once again to Paul, underlining that the expression “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor 10,18) implies an Israel according to the spirit, just as there are carnal Jews and spiritual Jews: these last are none other than souls “in virtue of certain unspeakable words”27. The expression “unspeakable words” is the motivation for Origen’s alluding to the deeper mystery of the pre-existence of souls. He therefore turns to the quaestio of the promises of God, where he had originally begun his treatment of Jerusalem and the cities that – as we are seeing – act as a unifying thread through the whole treatment of Creation: that is, the promises of God, taken in their literal sense, are rather limited and must therefore be understood symbolically (Prin IV,3,6). I note here that, as he has done before, Origen appeals at this point to the implicit but operative criterion of πρέπον τῷ ϑεῷ28. In other words, it is necessary that Scripture be read in a way worthy of God’s dignity, meaning, in practice, a mode that the particular exegete thinks is thus worthy. This criterion introduces the subjectivity of the interpreter who lives in a different historical situation than the sacred author whose intention may well have been quite different. Origen adds immediately after this passage: “Well, then, if the promises are of a spiritual kind though announced through material imagery, the people to whom the promises belong are not the bodily Israelites”29. That is, the spiritual promises of the Scriptures are addressed not to the whole man, endowed with a soul as he would be in the unitive anthropology of Irenaeus, but rather to the soul itself since it alone is the human subject according to Origen’s Platonic anthropology. We have here a 27. Prin IV,3,6 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, p. 890): εἰ γὰρ ἡ κρίσις τοῦ Ἰουδαίου ἐκ τοῦ κρυπτοῦ λαμβάνεται, νοητέον ὅτι, ὥσπερ Ἰουδαίων σωματικῶν ἐστι γένος, οὕτω τῶν “ἐν κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαίων” ἐστί τι ἔϑνος, τῆς ψυχῆς τὴν εὐγένειαν ταύτην κατά τινας λόγους ἀπορρήτους κεκτημένης (“For if we take the phrase ‘a Jew inwardly’ as a test, we shall realize that as there is a race of bodily Jews, so, too, there is a race of those who are ‘Jews inwardly’, the soul having acquired this nobility of race in virtue of certain unspeakable words”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 398). 28. O. DREYER, UntersuchungenzumBegriffdesGottgeziemendeninderAntike:Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Philons von Alexandrien (Spudasmata, 24), Hildesheim – New York, Olms, 1970, passim. 29. Prin IV,3,6 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, p. 892,3-4); εἰ δὲ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι νοηταί εἰσι δι’ αἰσϑητῶν ἀπαγγελλόμεναι, καὶ οἷς αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, οὐ σωματικοί; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 398.

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

231

deeper interpretive level which Origen had introduced with the expression “in virtue of certain unspeakable words”: that is, the history of Israel is a typos of the entire activity, cosmic and pre-cosmic, of the noes, at the center of which is the redemption of Christ. We saw the first interpretation of the heavenly Jerusalem as a place of instruction for souls after death. Then we saw that Jerusalem is identified with the spiritual condition of the soul. Now, Origen moves from the rational Israelites to rational clans, from these to the rational tribes, and from these to the three rational patriarchs up to Adam, that is to Christ30 (cf. 1 Cor 15,45), defined as the “father of every soul, after God”. Next to him is Eve, the symbol of rational Church (Ephesians 5), the mother of souls31. The equivalence: Eve = Church = Jerusalem which he makes

30. Prin IV,3,7 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, p. 892,10-23): ἆρ’ οὖν οἱ μὲν σωματικοὶ Ἰσραηλῖται τὴν ἀναγωγὴν ἔχουσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς δημάρχους, καὶ οἱ δήμαρχοι πρὸς τοὺς πατριάρχας, οἱ δὲ πατριάρχαι πρὸς τὸν Ἰακὼβ καὶ τοὺς ἔτι ἀνωτέρω· οἱ δὲ νοητοὶ Ἰσραηλῖται, ὧν τύπος ἦσαν οἱ σωματικοί, οὐχὶ ἐκ δήμων εἰσί, τῶν δήμων ἐκ φυλῶν ἐληλυϑότων, καὶ τῶν φυλῶν ἀπὸ ἑνός τινος, γένεσιν οὐ τοιαύτην σωματικὴν ἔχοντος ἀλλὰ τὴν κρείττονα, γεγενημένου κἀκείνου ἐκ τοῦ Ἰσαάκ, καταβεβηκότος κἀκείνου ἐκ τοῦ Ἀβραάμ, πάντων ἀναγομένων ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀδάμ, ὃν ὁ ἀπόστολος εἶναί φησι τὸν Χριστόν; πᾶσα γὰρ ἀρχὴ πατριῶν τῶν ὡς πρὸς τὸν τῶν ὅλων ϑεὸν κατωτέρω ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ ἤρξατο τοῦ μετὰ τὸν τῶν ὅλων ϑεὸν καὶ πατέρα οὕτω πατρὸς ὄντος πάσης ψυχῆς, ὡς ὁ Ἀδὰμ πατήρ ἐστι πάντων τῶν ἀνϑρώπων (1 Cor 15,45) (“Is it not the case, then, that the bodily Israelites carry back their descent to the rulers of the people, the rulers of the people to the patriarchs, and the patriarchs to Jacob and those still more ancient; whereas are not the spiritual Israelites, of whom the bodily ones were a type, descended from the clans, and the clans from the tribes, and the tribes from one whose birth was not bodily, like that of the others, but of a higher kind; and was not he born of Isaac, and Isaac descended from Abraham, while all go back to Adam, who the Apostle says is Christ? For the origin of all families that are in touch with the God of the whole world began lower down with Christ, who comes next after the God and Father of the whole world and is thus the father of every soul, as Adam is the father of all men”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 399). 31. Prin IV,3,7 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, p. 892,23-28): εἰ δὲ καὶ ἡ Εὔα ἐπιτέτευκται τῷ Παύλῳ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀναγομένη (Eph 5,31-32), οὐ ϑαυμαστόν, τοῦ Κάιν ἐκ τῆς Εὔας γεγενημένου καὶ πάντων τῶν ἑξῆς τὴν ἀναγωγὴν ἐχόντων ἐπὶ τὴν Εὔαν, ἐκπτώματα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τυγχάνειν, πάντων ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας προηγουμένῳ λόγῳ γεγενημένων (“And if Eve is interpreted by Paul as referring to the Church, it is not surprising (seeing that Cain was born of Eve and all that come after him carry back their descent to Eve) that these two should be figures of the Church; for in the higher sense all men take their beginning from the Church”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 399). See in this volume the article of L. CERIONI:“Mother of Souls”: The Holy City of Jerusalem in Origen’sCommentaryandHomily on the Song of Songs.

232

E. PRINZIVALLI

in other works32, is not explicit33, but it can be deduced easily from the successive citations of Gal 4,26 and Heb 12,22 where Jerusalem is presented as the heavenly mother34, whence comes the equivalence of Eve and the Church. Origen can then conclude that whatever is prophesied about Jerusalem and the other cities of the region can be applied to the heavenly Jerusalem and the other heavenly cities and, in particular, the promises of Lk 19,17-19 (hence returns the verse already mentioned in Book II!). Origen has thus opened up, step-by-step, a vertical exegetical itinerary which arrives at a vision of the heavenly and lower landscape, corresponding to the differentiation of rational creatures based on the choices of their free will, starting from the first step toward the heavenly Jerusalem which some already inhabit35, while others are more or less far away from it, all the way to Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, or Sidon, places of imprisonment 32. This is seen most clearly in the Prologue (GCS 33, 85 BAEHRENS) to the CommentaryontheSongofSongs where Origen says: …quodinCanticoCanticorumsponsa iam in tantum profecerat, ut maius aliquid esset quam est regnum Hierusalem. Nam Hierusalem caelestem(Heb 12,22) dicitApostolusesseatqueadeammemoratcredentes accedere;huncverosponsum,adquemnuncsponsafestinat,idemPauluscumpontificemmaximumdicit,itadeeoscribit,quasinonincaelissit,sed penetrarit et pertransierit omnes caelos (Heb 4,14)etillucquoqueeumhaecsuaperfectasponsasectetur, immoillucadhaerenseietconiuctaconscenderit;estenimfactacumeounusspiritus (1 Cor 6,17) (“… in the Song of Songs the Bride had progressed to the point where there was something greater than the kingdom of Jerusalem. For the Apostle says there is a heavenly Jerusalem, and speaks of believers coming there; but the same Paul calls this Bridegroom, to whom the Bride now hastens, theHighPriest, and writes of Him not as being in heaven, but as passing into and beyond all the heavens; where also His perfected Bride follows Him; cleaving to Him and joinedtoHim, she has ascended there, for she has been made onespirit with Him”; Origen. TheSongofSongs.Commentary and Homilies, transl. R.P. LAWSON (ACW, 26), Westmister, MD, The Newman Press; London, Longmans, 1957,p. 53. 33. One must remember that the original Greek of the Philocalia has lacune which conceal the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls and thus we are forced to integrate the Latin translations of Rufinus. 34. Prin IV,3,8 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, p. 894,9-14): πάλιν ὁ ἀπόστολος περὶ τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοιαῦτά τινα διδάσκει, ὅτι ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐλευϑέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρἡμῶν (Gal 4,26). καὶ ἐν ἄλλῃ ἐπιστολῇ· “ἀλλὰ προσεληλύϑατε Σιὼν ὄρει καὶ πόλει ϑεοῦ ζῶντος, Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ, καὶ μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων, πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς (Heb 12,22-23)” (“Again, the Apostle gives us the following instances of teaching about Jerusalem: ‘The Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother’; and in another epistle: ‘But ye are come to Mount Sion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are written in heaven”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], pp. 400-401). 35. I am aware that some modern interpreters hold that Origen thought there was a pre-cosmic sin that involved all the noeswith the exception of the soul of Christ, but this hypothesis is contradicted by an attentive reading of Origen’s writings, these pages of the Deprincipiis among them.

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

233

and suffering. These are understood as the dwellings, corresponding to the different levels of Hell, in which the noes have fallen who are farther away from God and have become demons, each of whom has a king (the prince of Tyre, often mentioned by Origen, is representative)36. IV. JERUSALEM: HEAVENLY (AND EARTHLY?) BRIDE AND MOTHER The locations of rational creatures, such as Tyre, Sidon, and the other cities in the region around Jerusalem, create a celestial topography through which we can also consider, as Origen has led us to do, the totality of their various spiritual conditions. This heavenly geography, however, stands in relation to the geography of the actual cosmos (divided into heaven, earth, and hell) where the rational creatures who are far from union with the Logos are dealt with by God on the basis of the condition they acquired in a pre-cosmic phase, and thus in various cases are subdivided among themselves even further. Both in the Deprincipiis (IV,3,10) and the CommentaryonJohn (XIX,131-150) Origen insists on the possibility of passing successively from one of these places to another, either ascending or descending, as a result of how one lives his life. If the heavenly Jerusalem, otherwise called the Bride or the primordial Church, is the totality of rational creatures still united to the Logos in an amorous relationship from the beginning, the part of them that falls is the earthly Church, through the love with which the Logos is made man, as Origen writes in the CommentaryonMatthew: And He who at the beginning created (κτίσας) Him who is intheformof God (Phil 2,6) according to the image (Gen 1,26-27), made Him male (ἄρρεν), and the church female (ϑῆλυ), granting to both oneness after the image. And, for the sake of the church, the Lord – the husband (ἀνήρ)37 – left the Father whom He saw when He was intheformofGod, left also His mother, as He was the very son of the heavenly Jerusalem which is 36. Prin IV,3,9 (ed. FERNÁNDEZ, pp. 898-900): ὁμοίως τὰ περὶ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Τύρου οὐ δύναται νοεῖσϑαι περί τινος ἀνϑρώπου ἄρξοντος τῆς Τύρου (“Similarly the statements concerning the prince of Tyre cannot be understood as being made in respect of any man who was an actual king of Tyre”; transl. CAVADINI [n. 2], p. 403). Cf. Prin I,5,4; I,8,3; III,2,1; III,3,2. 37. We must note that in this passage, for the sake of clarifying well the distinction between man and woman, Origen substitutes the term ἄνϑρωπος, used by the Septuagint in Gen 2,24, with the more precise ἀνήρ. Nonetheless, this is a small liberty (unless Origen found this as a variant in his biblical text) since right before this text the Septuagint speaks of the woman as drawn ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός.

234

E. PRINZIVALLI

above, and was joined to His wife who had fallen down here, and these two here became one flesh (Gen 2,24). For because of her, He Himself also became flesh, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and they are no more two, but now they are one flesh38.

I have treated elsewhere39 the identification of the ἄρρεν who can be understood both as the Logos and as the rational creature destined to become the soul of Christ. If we accept the identification with the soul of Christ it follows that the heavenly Jerusalem would be his mother. But can the fallen bride, the Church, also be called Jerusalem? In the context of the CommentaryonMatthew, no, since the earthly Jerusalem is only Israel having been repudiated for her infidelity. In general, then, Origen is somewhat hesitant to define the earthly Church as Jerusalem, since his first impulse and the direction in which he wants to push the faithful is predominantly toward the heavenly Jerusalem, insofar as she is mother. Nevertheless, since the descent of Christ has as its goal the conversion of the earthly Church into the heavenly Church40, the earthly Church can also be understood as Jerusalem, but only insofar as she conforms to the heavenly Church. It is in this way that there comes about one of those rare passages where Origen assigns to the earthly Church the name Jerusalem, constrained as he is by the words of the Gospel of John (4,22) where Jesus says to the Samaritan woman that salvation comes from the Jews:

38. CMt XIV,17 (GCS 40, 326 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ): καὶ ὁ κτίσας γε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς τὸν κατ’ εἰκόνα (ὡς ἐν μορφῇ ϑεοῦ ὑπάρχων) ἄρρεν αὐτὸν ἐποίησε καὶ ϑῆλυ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἓν τὸ κατ’ εἰκόνα ἀμφοτέροις χαρισάμενος. καὶ καταλέλοιπέ γε διὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κύριος ὁ ἀνὴρ πρὸς ὃν ἦν πατέρα ὅτε ἐνμορφῇϑεοῦ ὑπῆρχε, καταλέλοιπε δὲ καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς υἱὸς ὢν τῆς ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ, καὶ ἐκολλήϑη τῇ ἐνταῦϑα καταπεσούσῃ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ γεγόνασιν ἐνϑάδε οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν; transl. J. PATRICK, in Ante-NiceneFathers, 10, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, repr. 1969, pp. 506b-507a. 39. E. PRINZIVALLI, AdamandtheSoulofChristinOrigen’sCommentary on Genesis: APossibleReconstruction, in Adamantius 23 (2017) 119-129. 40. One should remember that for Origen the unique sacrifice of Christ has in every case a cosmic value that goes beyond the redemption of the sins of human beings and involves the whole of Creation (cf. CIo I,35[45],255-258). In HLv I,3 (SC 286, 76 BORRET) Origen makes explicit reference, in the Latin of Rufinus, to the ecclesiaprimitivorumof Heb 12,23, that is, to the heavenly Jerusalem: sanguis Iesu non solum in Hierusalem effususest,ubierataltareetbasiseiusettabernaculumtestimonii,sedetquodsupernum altare,quodestincoelis,ubietecclesiaprimitivorumest,idemipsesanguisadsperserit… (“Jesus’ blood was poured out not only in Jerusalem where the altar and its base and the Tent of Meeting were, but also that same blood itself was to be sprinkled on the celestial altar which in heaven, where ‘the church of the firstborn is’”; Origen.HomiliesonLeviticus, 1–16, transl. G.W. BARKLEY, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America, 1990,p. 34).

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

235

And what else would the city of the great king (cf. Mt 5,35), the true Jerusalem, be than the Church that is built of living stones? This is the place of the holy priesthood, the place where spiritual sacrifices are offered to God by people who are spiritual and who have understood the spiritual law. But when the fullness of time is imminent, when one is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and everyone is no longer still in the type but is in truth, then one must no longer bring true worship and perfect piety to Jerusalem to be offered41.

Origen is more demanding here than ever and sketches an ideal Church, made up of faithful who are already spiritual, in an eschatological projection towards the “true” worship, outside of the bonds of the earthly body. The words of Jesus in Jn 4,21 (“neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father”) allow Origen to develop a negative undertone in relation to those who do not conform to the demands outlined before. According to him, Jesus refers “to the Church’s rule (κανόνα) of faith so far as most people are concerned. The one who is perfect and holy will go beyond even this as he worships the Father in a way that is more contemplative, clearer, and more divine”42. Speaking of Jerusalem in relation to the earthly Church, therefore, has a double-edged significance depending on how much or little it conforms itself to the heavenly Jerusalem. Only the earthly Church that is conformed to the heavenly Jerusalem is the image of it. The one who lives his faith in a simplistic and unreflective manner is, on the other hand, the image of the earthly Jerusalem that was destroyed. For this reason, the earthly Church can also have the name of other cities. For example, in the Commentary on Matthew XVI,26, the earthly Church is called 41. CIo XIII,84-85 (GCS 10, 238 PREUSCHEN): Τίς δ’ ἂν εἴη ἡ πόλις τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως, τὰ ἀληϑινὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα, ἢ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐκ λίϑων ᾠκοδομημένη ζώντων, ἔνϑα ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον, πνευματικαὶ ϑυσίαι προσφέρονται τῷ ϑεῷ ὑπὸ τῶν πνευματικῶν καὶ τὸν πνευματικὸν νενοηκότων νόμον; Ἐπὰν δὲ ἐνστῇ τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, τότε οὐχ ἡγητέον τὴν ἀληϑινὴν προσκύνησιν καὶ τελείαν ϑεοσέβειαν τελεῖσϑαι ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἔτι, ὅταν τις γένηται μηδαμῶς ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλ’ ἐν πνεύματι, καὶ μηδαμῶς ἔτι ἐν τύπῳ ἀλλὰ πᾶς ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ, τοιοῦτος κατεσκευασμένος ὥστε ἐξομοιοῦσϑαι αὐτὸν οἷς ζητεῖ προσκυνηταῖς ὁ ϑεός; transl. HEINE [n. 1], pp. 85-86. There are other passages where Origen refers to the Church with more plausibility: H77Ps IX,5 (GCS NF 19, 473 PERRONE); Orat. XV,3 (GCS 3, 335,7 KOETSCHAU); HEz XI,4 (GCS 33, 430, 1-20 BAEHRENS); HIos XXI,1 (GCS 30, 428–429 BAEHRENS); CMtS 28 (GCS 38, 52 KLOSTERMANN). 42. CIo XIII,98 (GCS 10, 240 PREUSCHEN): Ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς τὴν μὲν ἐν φαντασίᾳ γνωστικῶν λόγων καὶ νομιζομένων ὑψηλῶν ὀνομαζομένην ϑεοσέβειαν παρὰ τοῖς ἑτεροδόξοις ὑπολαμβάνομεν δηλοῦσϑαι διὰ τοῦ Οὔτεἐντῷὄρειτούτῳ· τὸν δὲ κανόνα κατὰ τοὺς πολλοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ὃν καὶ αὐτὸν ὁ τέλειος καὶ ἅγιος ὑπεραναβήσεται ϑεωρητικώτερον καὶ σαφέστερον καὶ ϑειότερον προσκυνῶν τῷ πατρὶ διὰ τοῦ ΟὔτεἐνἹεροσολύμοιςπροσκυνήσετετῷπατρί; transl. HEINE (n. 1), p. 88.

236

E. PRINZIVALLI

Bethany according to the etymology “the house of obedience”, in opposition to the earthly Jerusalem43, identified with the Jews who reject Christ. And not just there. In his homilies Origen admits that the earthly Church/Jerusalem has in her womb along with her own sons the Jebusites, according to the typoi of the Book of Joshua where it is said that the sons of Judah live with the Jebusites “even today” (Josh 15,63), that is, “for as long as this world lasts” 44. As the Parable of the Weeds suggests (Mt 13,29), it is not possible in the Church to separate the saints from the hidden sinners45. When, however, the members of the earthly Church conform to that which the traditional (cf. Philo, Clement of Alexandria) etymology of the name Jerusalem expresses, that is, “the vision of peace”46, then even the earthly Church appears as the city of God. In discussing Jer 11,12 (“speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem”) Origen says in the ninth HomilyonJeremiah “The word is spoken ‘to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem’. This is the Church. For the city of God, the Vision of Peace, is the Church, the peace which he brought to us is in her, and is completed and beheld if we are children of peace”47.

43. The same idea is in CMtS LXX (GCS 38, 182,21-22 KLOSTERMANN). 44. In this case, Origen applies the defectuslitterae. In fact, he argues the prophecy, in the literal sense, is not fulfilled since even the children of Judah were banished from Jerusalem after the second Jewish War while the truth is to be found in the spiritual sense and thus Origen proposes the meaning of the expression “to today” as the duration of the current world. 45. On the ancient, medieval and modern interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds see the contributions in the journal CristianesimonellaStoria 26 (2005). 46. On the etymology of Jerusalem as the vision of peace cf. CRm III,2 (ed. C.P. HAMMOND BAMMEL, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1990, p. 219,339); FrIo 80 (GCS 10, pp. 547,19-20 PREUSCHEN); FrIer 11 (GCS 6, 202,21-22 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN); HIer XIII,2 (GCS 6, 103,l 22); HIer IX,2 (GCS 6, 65,20-22); in FrLc 72,6 (GCS 49, 257 RAUER): “Vision of the Most High”. Cf. G. SGHERRI, Chiesa e Sinagoga nell’opera di Origene (Studia patristica mediolanensia, 13), Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1982, p. 408; A. SHINAN, The Many Names of Jerusalem, in LEVINE (ed.), Jerusalem: Its Sanctity (n. 21), 120-129. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a work on the etymologies of biblical places, which was translated by Jerome: Translatio Eusebii de situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum = liberlocorum = Onomasticon (Eusebius Caesariensis, Onomasticon, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN [GCS, 11/1; Eusebius Werke 3/1], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1904). 47. HIer IX,2 (GCS 6, 65, 19-23 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): Πρὸς ἄνδρας Ἰούδα λέγεται ὁ λόγος καὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ἱερουσαλήμ (Jer 11,12). Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐκκλησία· ἔστιν γὰρ “ἡ πόλις τοῦ ϑεοῦ” ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἡ Ὅρασις τῆς εἰρήνης, ἐν αὐτῇ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἣν ἤγαγεν ἡμῖν, εἴγε ἐσμὲν τέκνα εἰρήνης, πληϑύνεται καὶ ὁρᾶται. English transl.: Origen.HomiliesonJeremiah.Homilyon1King28, transl. J.C. SMITH (Fathers of the Church, 97), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1998, p. 87.

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

V. JERUSALEM,

THE

237

SOUL OF INDIVIDUAL MEN

In quantitative terms, it must be said that Origen’s reflection on the earthly Church as an image of the heavenly Jerusalem is limited given that he attributes only very rarely Jerusalem to the earthly Church. We have already shown that in the Deprincipiisthe interpretation of Jerusalem and other cities in general occurs at various levels, not in reference to the earthly Church but rather to souls. Origen tends, in fact, to turn to the individual believer in the Church, since every soul has to accomplish its own ascetical path toward the mother, the heavenly Jerusalem. The soul in its current condition striving to free itself from sin is already a member of the heavenly Jerusalem. We can say that we are in Jerusalem if we hold firmly to the “vision of peace”, to the point of not having any evil thought or intention to sin48. On the other hand, the same ambivalence in applying the name Jerusalem to the earthly Church is seen in applying it to the soul. Every soul, when divinely instructed, becomes Jerusalem as did Jebus (Josh 18,28), the former name of the place, which meant “trampled” since the soul was in fact trampled upon by hostile powers. But if the soul, after having become Jerusalem, turns back to sin, it tramples the Son of God as did the earthly Jerusalem49. It can become a prostitute, as the Jerusalem 48. HIos XXI,2 (GCS 30, 431,3-11 BAEHRENS): De Hierusalem frequenter diximus quodvisiopacisinterpretatur.SiergoincordenostroHierusalemaedificataest,hocest sivisiopacisincordenostrofundataestetChristumsemper,quiestpaxnostraintuemur etservamusincorde,siquidemitafixietstabilessumusinhacvisionepacis,utnumquam prorsusnullacogitatiomalavelalicuiuspeccaticonsiliumadscendatincornostrum,si hoc ita fieri posset, poteramus dicere quia in Hierusalem sumus et nullus alius habitat nobiscum,nisisoliilli,quisanctisunt (“Concerning Jerusalem, we have frequently said that it means ‘a vision of peace’. If, therefore, Jerusalem has been built in our heart – that is, if the vision of peace has been established in our heart and we always contemplate and retain in our heart Christ, who is ‘our peace’ – if indeed we are so fixed and firm in this vision of peace that absolutely no evil thought or consideration of some sin ever rises up into our heart, if this could be so done, we would be able to say that we are in Jerusalem and no one else dwells with us except those who are holy”; transl. BRUCE [n. 24], p. 187) 49. HIer XIII,2 (GCS 6, 103,15–104,3 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN): Μεταβαίνω ἀπὸ τοῦ γράμματος […] ἐπὶ ἑκάστην ψυχὴν ἤδη ἀξιωϑεῖσαν τοῦ ὁρᾶν τὴν εἰρήνην· μετὰ γὰρ τὰ μαϑήματα τὰ ϑεῖα γέγονας Ἱερουσαλήμ, τὸ πρότερον οὖσα Ἰεβούς. ἡ ἱστορία λέγει, ὅτι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου ἦν Ἰεβούς, δεύτερον δὲ μετέβαλε τὸ ὄνομα καὶ γέγονεν Ἱερουσαλήμ. Ἰεβούς φασιν Ἑβραίων παῖδες ὅτι ἑρμηνεύεται Πεπατημένη. Ἰεβοὺς οὖν, ἡ Πεπατημένη ὑπὸ δυνάμεων ἀντικειμένων (Phil 1,28) ψυχή, μεταβέβληται καὶ γέγονεν Ἱερουσαλήμ, Ὅρασις εἰρήνης. εἰ οὖν, ὅτε μεταβέβληκας ἀπὸ Ἰεβοὺς εἰς τὸ γενέσϑαι Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἥμαρτες καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ καταπεπάτηκαςκαὶτὸαἷματῆςκαινῆςδιαϑήκηςκοινὸν(ὡς ἐκείνη καὶ σύ)ἡγήσω (Heb 10,29) καὶ ἐν ἁμαρτήμασι γέγονας χαλεποῖς, λεχϑήσεται καὶ περὶ σοῦ· τίς φείσεται ἐπὶ σοί, Ἱερουσαλήμ; καὶ τίς σκυϑρωπάσει ἐπὶ σοί (Jer 15,5), ἐὰν γένῃ τοιοῦτος ὡς προδοῦναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν; ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἁμαρτάνων, καὶ μάλιστα εἰ μείζονα, εἰς Ἰησοῦν

238

E. PRINZIVALLI

that Ezekiel speaks of (cf. Ez 16,30ff.) who takes payment or not depending on whether she attracts earthly happiness or unhappiness from her sin, or even the unfaithful bride of the Logos, who takes the riches of her husband for her lovers. As a consequence, the soul can “become Babylon or Babel” (HIer XIX,14) and be destroyed by sin as it happened in the earthly Jerusalem (HEz V,3). And vice versa; if, standing along the rivers of Babylon (Ps 136,1), a soul weeps for the heavenly Jerusalem, she becomes a living stone of it (1 Pet 2,5)50. VI. THE ALLEGORY OF THE CITIES In the same way that the heavenly topography corresponded to the different cosmic and super-cosmic positions of the noes, as we discussed above, so, too, can the human soul in the present age be identified with different cities to indicate the various spiritual conditions it has acquired. These conditions, however, are always subject to change (as we just saw that one can go from being Jerusalem to Babylon), given the extreme flexibility of free will which is subject to the contradictory influences of both the hostile powers and the Logos, but nonetheless is always effectively “free” in its choices. ἁμαρτάνει. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀποστάτης ᾖ, ἔτι μάλιστα ταῦτα ποιεῖ τῷ Ἰησοῦ πνευματικῶς ἃ ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ Ἱερουσαλὴμ σωματικῶς (“I pass from the letter […] to each soul already made worthy to see peace. For after divine studies, you have become Jerusalem, the prior place being Jebus. History says that the name of that place has been Jebus, but afterwards the name changed and became Jerusalem. The Children of the Hebrews say that Jebus is interpreted as ‘what has been trampled’. Jebus then is the soul which is trampled by hostile powers, has been changed, and has become Jerusalem, Vision of Peace. If then you have sinned, when you have changed from Jebus to become Jerusalem, and you have ‘trampled upon the Son of God’and ‘held as profane the Blood of the New Covenant’ as she had, and you have ended up in grievous sins, it will also be said concerning you, ‘Who will spare you, Jerusalem? And who will feel sorry for you’ if you become someone who betrays Jesus? When each of us sins, and especially if he sins grievously, he sins against Jesus. But if he is also an apostate, he does spiritually even more to Jesus the things that Jerusalem did to him bodily”; transl. SMITH (n. 47), p. 132. A similar concept is found in HLc XXXVIII,3. 50. H67Ps II (GCS NF 19, 203 PERRONE): Ἐὰν οὖν ϑρηνήσῃς σου τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἀποδημίαν καὶ νοήσῃς ὅτι ἐνδημῶν τῷ σώματι ἐκδημεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, [καὶ] ποιωϑεὶς κατὰ ϑεὸν ἔσῃ λίϑος κρύσταλλος, λίϑος τῶν περιβόλων, λίϑος ἐκλεκτός, λίϑος σάπφειρος καὶ ὅσοι ἄλλοι λίϑοι τίμιοι εἶναι λέγονται, ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκεν ἡ ἐν οὐρανῷ Ἰερουσαλήμ (“if you cry your departure from Jerusalem, if you understand that by dwelling in the body you live far from the Lord, you, become conformed to God, will be crystal, you will be stone of the boundary wall, chosen stone, lapis lazuli and how many other stones are called precious, of which the heavenly Jerusalem is composed”).

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

239

At times, the whole world is represented by one city. We have already hinted at the traditional interpretation, which precedes Origen, that allegorically identifies the world with Jericho. Origen develops this, following the account in the Book of Joshua, in his homilies on the same. It is not only that the world is destined to end, in some eschatological perspective, just as Jericho collapsed, but all that supports this world here and now, idolatry and philosophy, will be emptied of its meaning at the coming of Christ and the apostles (who are the trumpets of the army of Joshua). Up to this point, we are in the ambit of typological allegory. Origen, however, passes immediately to the perspective of the individual: “Each person has to actualize these things in himself”, conquering the temptations of the world (HIos VII,2), and thus ceasing to be Jericho. If Jericho, then, is the world, or the worldly soul, the little city of Ai (etymologically meaning “disorder”), which Joshua destroyed even more radically than Jericho and which would seem on the historical level not even to merit mention, represents the seat of the hostile powers over which the demons rule51. Naturally, however, the most representative city for the powers of evil is Babylon: thus, the spiritual Babylonians, the demons, hold sinful souls prisoner and torture them (HIer I,4). Just as the kingdom of the demons (Ai or Babylon) will be destroyed in the last days (the doctrine of apokatastasis), since it was already conquered by Christ, in the same way, in the present, it has to be defeated in each of the faithful52. When Origen speaks of destruction, he means the annihilation of evil and the recovery of good. In fact, though it will require an incredibly long time, even Sodom will be restored from its ruin, as he says when speaking of apokatastasis in HIos IX,3. There are, as well, soul-cities which are not dominated by evil in this way, and so are in need of a lesser instruction. These souls are identified with Capharnaum, to which not only Jesus but also “his mother, his brothers, and his disciples go down” (CIo X,42;cf. Jn 2,12)53. In the end, though, it is the Logos 51. E. PRINZIVALLI, La distruzione della città di Ai: Omelia VIII su Giosuè, in M. MARITANO – E. DAL COVOLO (eds.), Omelie su Giosuè: Lettura origeniana (Nuova Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose, 28),Roma, LAS, 2007, 19-32. 52. HIos VIII,7 (GCS 30, 343,5-7 BAEHRENS): inhisverbisadumbrarimysteriaethoc nobis magis indicari quod ex his, quorum chaos est habitaculum et qui regnarunt in abysso,daemonibusnullumpenitusrelinqueredebeamus,sedomnesinterimere (“mysteries are dimly shadowed in these words and they more truly indicate to us that we ought not to leave any of those demons deeply within, whose dwelling place is chaos and who rule in the abyss, but to destroy them all”; transl. BRUCE [n. 24], p. 92). 53. The treatment Origen gives of Capharnaum in CIoX,39-66 is particularly careful since Origen has to respond to the interpretation of Heracleon who considered Jesus’ stay at Capharnaum totally fictional (cf. CIo X,58).

240

E. PRINZIVALLI

of God Himself who enters the soul, indicated by the name Jerusalem. This soul, in other words, is made to rise up from the Incarnate Jesus to the Logos and thus to learn his spiritual teaching. For this reason, Origen uses the narrative of Jesus’ ascent to Jerusalem to construct a complex allegorical exegesis for the sake of opposing that of Heracleon (cf. CIoX,172-224). Regarding particular souls, the more interesting observations have as their object the various cities conquered by Joshua, who puts their kings to death54. Once again, the etymology of city names guides Origen to present a double meaning, negative or positive, for these cities, depending on whether or not the power of the king (that is, the demon) is destroyed and the city (that is, the soul) is restored by Christ. Thus, Libnah means “whiteness”: the whiteness of leprosy, when the soul finds itself under an evil king, or the whiteness of light, when the soul moves on to Israel. Lachish means “journey”, and one journeys through the evil as well as the good. Hebron means “marriage”, since the soul can in fact have as a spouse either a demon or Christ (HIos XIII,2). Cities, therefore, represent nothing other than the various dispositions of the soul, which one can choose to direct toward evil or toward good as he sees fit. Every sin, then, becomes specific to a city (pride is the sin of Sodom in HEzIX,5), but Origen’s universe is one of free will and of relationships, so the city-souls are judged based on their relationship with one another (cf. HEzIX,3). Whoever is close to God, in the Jerusalem condition of the soul, if he falls, he will undergo heavier punishments than Sodom and Samaria, since he fell from a higher place (HEzX,2). The relationship of mother-child, which joins the souls worthy of the heavenly Jerusalem, holds also for the souls that no longer have the heavenly Jerusalem as their mother and can no longer themselves be called Jerusalem. These have other fathers and mothers: “As there are certain children of Jerusalem, as mother, and of Christ, as father, so there would be certain children of Syene, or Memphis, or Tyre, or Sidon, and the rulers set over them”55.

54. See H. DE LUBAC, Storia e Spirito: L’intelligenza della Scrittura in Origene, Cinisello Balsamo, Paoline, 1971 (orig. ed. 1949), p. 209. 55. CMt XIV,13 (GCS 40, 309,31–310,35 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ): ὥσπερ Ἰερουσαλὴμ μήτηρ ἐστὶ Παύλου καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων αὐτῷ ἡ ἄνω, οὕτως εἴη ἂν ἑτέρων μήτηρ, ἀνάλογον Ἱερουσαλὴμ μητρί, φέρ’ εἰπεῖν Σοήνη τῆς Αἰγύπτου ἢ Μέμφις, ἑτέρων δὲ Τύρος καὶ Σιδὼν ἢ ὅσαι ὠνομάσϑησαν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς πόλεις; transl. PATRICK [n. 38], p. 503b.

THE CITY OF GOD AND THE CITIES OF MEN ACCORDING TO ORIGEN

241

VII. A CONCLUSION TAKING UP THE EARTHLY JERUSALEM What then, of the earthly Jerusalem, which was destroyed by Titus’/ Hadrian’s troops and is continually longed for by the Jewish people, from within the vision of Origen, who takes his cue from the “ideal” of Jerusalem? When he speaks of the earthly Jerusalem, Origen gathers up elements from within the tradition of anti-Jewish polemic in the authors that precede him. He alternates his reprobation of the Jews for their blindness before Jesus with an exhortation to move forward in the search for the truth. The Jewish worship practiced in the Temple of Jerusalem has exhausted its usefulness since it has been replaced by the true temple of God, the body of Jesus. The fall of Jerusalem confirmed the prophetic words of Jesus about it (HIos XVII,1). The function and mere existence of the city of Jerusalem, the royal city, has been surpassed. The earthly Jerusalem had to be destroyed so that the heavenly Jerusalem might appear. In the same way, the Temple had to be torn down since the flesh of Christ has become the true temple of God56. Although Origen lived out the second part of his life in Caesarea, a city where the Jews were a large community, and it is from there he gained a complete understanding of the traditions and festivals of the Jews, he limits himself to citing them, without ever describing them, since he saw them as the ruins of an irretrievable past57. To his mind, the current impossibility of worshipping in the Temple constituted in his time the opportunity for the Jews to believe in Jesus Christ58. The Jew should not lament before the ruins of the Temple, because there is an altar in heaven. The mercy of God has eliminated the possibility of an inheritance on earth so that it might be sought rather in heaven59. The polemic and the juxtaposition are particularly evident in the Homilies on the Psalms recently discovered in Munich: “Let the Jews also seek out the place, the Jerusalem here below that has fallen, and hear what is said: ‘Behold your house has been left to you deserted’ (Mt 23,38). We, however, seek out a place for the Lord, something worthy of the Lord…”60. On the human level, there is a total 56. HLv X,1 (SC 287, 130 BORRET). 57. A. FÜRST, Judentum,JudenchristentumundAntijudaismusindenneuentdeckten Psalmenhomilien, in Adamantius 20 (2014) 275-287; E. PRINZIVALLI, Gli ebrei nella predicazionediOrigene:NoteamarginedelleomeliesuiSalmidelCod.Mon.Gr.314, in QuadernidiVicinoOriente 10 (2015) 97-112. 58. HIos XVII.1 (SC 71, 372 JAUBERT). 59. Ibid. 60. H75PSI(GCS NF 19, 281 PERRONE): Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν τόπον ζητείτωσαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, τὴν πεπτωκυίαν, τὴν κάτω ̓Ιερουσαλήμ, περὶ ἧς εἴρηκεν· ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος

242

E. PRINZIVALLI

and irremediable lack of comprehension. On the metaphysical level, however, the restitutioomnium will encompass everyone and everything. The two lines of thought remain, however, without any possible reconciliation in this case. Sapienza Università di Roma Piazzale Aldo Moro 5 IT-00185 Roma Italia [email protected]

Emanuela PRINZIVALLI

ὑμῶν;Ἡμεῖς δὲ ζητοῦμεν τόπον τῷ κυρίῳ, ἄξιον τοῦ κυρίου, περὶ οὗ γέγραπται· καὶ ἐγενήϑηἐν εἰρήνῃὁτόποςαὐτοῦ(Ps 75,3a); cf.H73PsI,2 (GCS NF 19, 226) and H77Ps VIII,7 (GCS NF 19, 459).

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS ZUR AUSLEGUNG DER GRADUALPSALMEN BEI ORIGENES

I Von der Kommentierung des Origenes zu den Gradualpsalmen ist nicht viel erhalten. Laut den von Pierre Nautin rekonstruierten Werkverzeichnissen bei Eusebius und Hieronymus1 hat er alle Gradualpsalmen außer Psalm 119, 126 und 130 in einer oder zwei Homilien behandelt; Kommentare werden in diesem Zusammenhang nicht genannt, können aber bei der unglaublichen Produktivität des großen Lehrers nicht ausgeschlossen werden. Heute liegen uns, abgesehen von Bemerkungen, die durch das ganze überkommene Werk verstreut sind, etliche Texteinheiten in Katenen vor, deren Authentizität und ursprüngliche Publikation, vielleicht im Kommentar, nur problematisch zu erkennen sind. Vor allem aber und sicher von Origenes herrührend besitzen wir zwei Serien von Textstücken. Die eine von ihnen gehört zu den Tura-Papyri und stellt eine Sammlung von Fragmenten aus der Besprechung von Psalm 125 bis 133 dar, vermutlich aus den Homilien stammend2. Darunter befindet sich auch ein Auszug zu Psalm 1303; die Liste bei Hieronymus ist also unvollständig. Wann diese Sammlung angefertigt wurde, ist unbekannt; der Schriftzug wird von der Herausgeberin Bärbel Kramer dem sechsten Jahrhundert zugerechnet4. Der Zweck bestand offenbar darin, eine eigenständige Homilie zu gewinnen. Sie beginnt, anders als die Homilien des Origenes, mit einer Eröffnungsdoxologie, und sie endet mit einer Doxologie, die bei Origenes, wie es scheint, nicht gebräuchlich war. Der jetzt vorliegende Text zeigt inhaltliche Störungen und überhaupt Spuren einer privaten Hörermitschrift5, teilt aber zweifellos originalen Wortlaut mit. 1. P. NAUTIN, Origène:Savieetsonœuvre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, S. 225-260. 2. B. KRAMER, Eine Psalmenhomilie aus dem Tura-Fund, herausgegeben, übersetzt und erläutert, in ZPE 16 (1975) 164-213; nachgedruckt in EAD., Kleine Texte aus dem Tura-Fund (PTA, 34), Bonn, Habelt, 1985, S. 16-55. 3. Vgl. ibid., S. 43. 4. Ibid., S. 18. 5. Vgl. ibid., S. 25-26.

244

F.X. RISCH

Die zweite Serie besteht nicht aus Fragmenten, sondern aus zwar kleinen, aber je integralen Stücken; trotzdem wissen wir nicht, ob sie vollständig ist. Es handelt sich um Scholien, die vermutlich einen Teil des Handbuchs zu den Psalmen bildeten6. Origenes hat sie selbst angelegt in der Erwartung, sie im Kommentar verwenden zu können. Ob es dazu gekommen ist, wissen wir ebenso wenig, da, wie bereits angedeutet, aus den Kommentaren zu den Gradualpsalmen nichts überdauert hat, falls sie überhaupt existierten. Was wir aber wissen ist, daß Origenes die Gradualpsalmen intensiv reflektiert hat. Denn das erste seiner Scholien zu ihnen ist eine zusammenfassende Skizze des Verständnisses aller fünfzehn Gradualpsalmen. Sie nehmen in den sie überliefernden Katenen, in der zweiten Randkatene des CodexVindobonensistheol.gr.87 und in Vertretern der sogenannten Palästinischen Katene8, die prominente Stelle der Hypothesis ein und tatsächlich kann man sie als hermeneutisch-exegetisches Konzept zum Corpus der Gradualpsalmen lesen, so daß man sie als eine Sammlung von fünfzehn Hypothesen zu den fünfzehn Lieder verstehen wird. Die zweite Katene im Vindobonensis enthält neben Scholien von Origenes einfach zu identifizierende Fragmente aus dem direkt überlieferten Psalmenkommentar des Theodoret von Kyrrhos, vielleicht auch einige wenige Einheiten dritter Herkunft. Unsere Hypothesen werden mit der Kennzeichnung ωργ offenbar den σχόλια ὡριγένους9 zugewiesen und bilden eine deutlich von Theodoret abgegrenzte Texteinheit. Damit ist noch nicht gesagt, daß Origenes der Verfasser auch dieser Texteinheit ist, denn die Kennzeichnung ωργ bedeutet in dieser Katene nicht die Identifikation eines einzelnen Eintrags, sondern, und das ist ungewöhnlich, der ganzen Katene, um sie von der ersten Katene, mit der sie im Wechsel geboten wird, zu unterscheiden. Die Hypothesen könnten zum Beispiel von Eusebius sein. Gerade in der Überlieferung der Origenes-Scholien ist es immer wieder zu einer Verwechslung beider Autoren gekommen, wie im Vaticanusgraecus753, der mehrmals einen Auszug 6. Vgl. hierzu F.X. RISCH, DasHandbuchdesOrigeneszudenPsalmen:ZurBedeutungderzweitenRandkateneimCodexVindobonensistheologicusgraecus8, in Adamantius 20 (2014) 36-48. 7. Zu diesem Codex vgl. ibid., S. 36-38; G. DORIVAL, Leschaînesexégétiquesgrecques surlesPsaumes:Contributionàl’étuded’uneformelittéraire. Tome 2 (SSL, 44), Leuven, Peeters, 1989, S. 8-18. 8. Zu dieser Katene und ihren Handschriften vgl. G. DORIVAL, Leschaînesexégétiques grecquessurlesPsaumes:Contributionàl’étuded’uneformelittéraire, Tome 1 (SSL, 43), Leuven, Peeters, 1986, S. 115-325. 9. Zu diesem Vermerk im CodexVindobonensistheol.gr.8 vgl. RISCH, DasHandbuch desOrigenes (n. 6), S. 41-42, 47-48.

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

245

aus Eusebius unter dem Namen des Origenes bietet; umgekehrt kann ein Scholion von Origenes als Fragment des Eusebius erscheinen, wie der Eintrag zu Ps 119,510. In unserem Fall läßt sich jedoch ausschließen, dass ein eusebischer Text in die Origenes-Scholien geraten ist. Denn in den Hauptzeugen der palästinischen Katene sind die origeneischen Hypothesen zwar anonym geboten, werden aber von den folgenden eusebischen Hypothesen getrennt, allerdings nicht, wie es üblich wäre, durch einen Paragraphen und eine rubrizierte Zuweisung am Rand, sondern äußerlich unauffällig, lediglich nach einem ordinären Hochpunkt, also mitten im Textfluß, mit der Bemerkung: εὐσέβιος δέ φησιν ὁ καισαρείας11. Sie bilden dadurch zusammen mit den eusebischen Hypothesen einen zusammenhängenden Textkörper. Die Information über ihre heterogene Herkunft ist gleichwohl erhalten geblieben, nicht aber über die Authentizität der origeneischen Passagen. Gedruckt sind sie in sekundärer Textgestalt auf der Grundlage der von Charles und Charles Vincent De la Rue besorgten Mariner Ausgabe von Karl Heinrich Eduard Lommatzsch12 und von Jacques-Paul Migne13, aus dem Vaticanus753 und damit näher am Original von Jean-Baptiste Pitra14, und zuletzt aus dem AmbrosianusF126sup. und dem Patmiacus 214 von Carmelo Curti15. Der Vindobonensis wurde bisher noch nicht herangezogen, enthält aber keine gravierenden Abweichungen vom bisher veröffentlichten Text. II Carmelo Curti, der nur die anonyme Präsentation in der palästinischen Katene berücksichtigte, sah keine genaue Handhabe, sie zu identifizieren16. Ich glaube aber doch, daß neben dem wichtigen Überlieferungsort 10. PG 24, 9B13-14. 11. Eusebs Hypothesen sind ediert von G. MERCATI, Alcunenotediletteraturapatristica, in ID., OpereminoriII(Studi e Testi, 77), Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1937, 55-107, S. 61-66. 12. K.H.E. LOMMATZSCH, Origenisoperaomnia, XIII, Berlin, Haude & Spener, 1842, S. 107. 13. PG 12, 1628D-1629A. 14. J.-B. PITRA, Analecta sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi parata, III, Paris, Jouby et Roger, 1883, S. 317. 15. C. CURTI, LaCatenaPalestinesesuisalmigraduali (Saggi e Testi Classici, Cristiani e Medievali, 18), Catania, Università di Catania, 2003, S. 4. Zur Arbeit von Curti s. K. METZLER – B. HANUS, DiepalästinischeKatenederGradualpsalmen, in Adamantius 14 (2008) 420-425. 16. CURTI,LaCatenaPalestinesesuisalmigraduali (Anm. 15), S. 3.

246

F.X. RISCH

im Vindobonensis schon einige sprachliche Indizien für die Verfasserschaft des Origenes sprechen. Ich nenne nur zwei: Die Satzeinleitung στοχαζώμεϑα (besser στοχαζόμεϑα) oder στοχάζομαι ist bei Origenes ziemlich häufig, während Eusebius das Verbum selten benutzt, in der ersten Person, wie es scheint, gar nicht. Im Satz zum zehnten Gradualpsalm begegnet eine Wendung, die auch im Scholion zu Psalm 128,1b, zu eben dem zehnten Gradualpsalm steht, nämlich πολλάκις πεπολεμῆσϑαι. Diese Stelle ist freilich als Lemma-Paraphrase von Vers 1b zu verstehen, aber der genaue Ausdruck πολλάκις πεπολεμῆσϑαι ist laut Thesaurus einmalig origeneisch. Darüber hinaus finden sich in den Scholien motivische Anklänge, die mit den Hypothesen übereinstimmen, sehr deutlich im Scholion zu Psalm 123,1 oder 130,1. Vor allem aber weichen die Hypothesen des Origenes in ihrem Inhalt unübersehbar von den Ausführungen des Eusebius ab. Die Vorstellung von der Realität, in der die Psalmen gesungen oder gebetet wurden, ist je anders: Für den ersten Psalm nimmt Origenes die Erwartung eines Krieges an, ohne anzugeben, um was für einen Krieg es sich handelt. Er scheint nicht einmal eine bestimmte historische Situation im Blick zu haben17, vielmehr ist jeder betroffen, der in seinem Leben von Kind an zu kämpfen hat18, also der Beter der Psalmen, und zwar der kirchliche. Denn die Feinde, mit denen er es zu tun hat, sind anders denkende Christen19 und gefallene Bischöfe20, also Angehörige häretischer Gemeinden. In der Tura-Homilie wird sogar ausdrücklich vermerkt, daß die Schrift nichts über eine Gefangenschaft des Volkes bis auf die Zeiten Davids mitteilt, die Babylonische erst viele Generationen nach David erfolgt sei, weshalb die in Psalm 125 von David genannte „Gefangenschaft Sions“ nicht körperlich zu verstehen ist21. Dasselbe wird dann wohl auch auf den Tempelbau zutreffen. In diesem Zusammenhang wäre es besonders interessant zu erfahren, wie Origenes die Überschrift zu Psalm 95 verstanden hat, denn dort ist der Tempelbau nach der Gefangenschaft als historischer Bezugspunkt angegeben; leider ist dazu von seiner Kommentierung nichts erhalten.Die spirituelle Motivation bestimmt die Vorstellung von der Entstehung der Psalmen; obwohl Origenes von realen Ereignissen wie Krieg und Sieg spricht, sind die Angaben zu ungenau, um sie auf die Geschichte von David und Salomon beziehen zu können, wie er dies bei 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Vgl. das εἴποτε in der Hypothesis zu Psalm 119 und im Scholion zu Ps 123,1. Vgl. Scholion zu Ps 128,1b (PG 12, 1645D3-6). Vgl. Scholion zu Ps 119,2a (Vindobonensistheol.8, fol. 234r): ἑτεροδόξων. Vgl. unten Anm. 29. Tura-PapyrusCodexVIII 3,1-9 (KRAMER, EinePsalmenhomilie [Anm. 2], S. 30).

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

247

der Behandlung von Informationen aus den Geschichtsbüchern selbstverständlich unternimmt und beispielsweise im Johannes-Kommentar die Rolle des tyrischen Königs Chiram bei der Erbauung des salomonischen Tempels berücksichtigt22. Die Psalmen sind für Origenes in erster Linie nicht historische Dokumente. Das schließt im allgemeinen nicht aus, daß sie beispielartig auch auf die Situation in Babylon angewendet werden können, aber eben nur beispielartig. Bemerkenswerterweise aber sind die beiden Scholien, mit denen dies zu belegen wäre, auch als Fragmente des Eusebius überliefert23. Des weiteren ließe die Erwähnung des Tempelbaus in der achten Hypothesis von Origenes zwar vermuten, daß die Erfahrung mit dem babylonischen Feind vorausgesetzt ist, aber diese Konfrontation endete ja nicht mit dem Sieg des Volkes, der gleichwohl in den Hypothesen dem Tempelbau vorausgeht. Überhaupt sind alle Gradualpsalmen laut Überschrift Lieder, und alle Lieder der Bibel sind für Origenes Siegeslieder24. Sie handeln entweder von Kampf und Krieg retrospektiv oder drücken die Aktualität des letztlich siegenden Gerechten aus. Man hat also von einer psychologischen, idealtypischen Situation auszugehen. Dahingegen bezieht der realistische Historiker Eusebius explizit und systematisch alle Gradualpsalmen auf die Rückkehr aus der babylonischen Gefangenschaft und scheint damit zu meinen, diese Rückkehr und die Wiederherstellung der Gemeinde in Jerusalem seien die reale Situation ihrer Entstehung gewesen, eine Auffassung, die sogar von einigen modernen Exegeten noch vertreten wird25. In der Antike war sie, abhängig von Eusebius, weit verbreitet, aber nicht unumstritten. Von dem Autor der pseudo-athanasianischen ExpositionesinPsalmos, entstanden im fünften bis sechsten Jahrhundert, dessen Hauptquelle Eusebius ist, ist keine andere Auffassung zu erwarten; er bearbeitet seine Vorlagen nur

22. Vgl. CIoX,272; DerJohanneskommentar, hg. E. PREUSCHEN(GCS, 10; Origenes Werke, 4), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903, S. 217. 23. Vgl. Origenes, Scholion zu Ps 125,2a (PG 12, 1640C11-D12) und Scholion zu Ps 125,4 (PG 12, 1641A5-13) mit Eusebius, Fragment zu Ps 125,2 (PG 24, 17A7-B13) und zu Ps 125,3 (PG 24, 17B15-C7). 24. Vgl. die Bemerkung in Homilia I in Canticum canticorum: nemo quippe nisi insollemnitatibus canit (Homilien zu Samuel I, zum Hohelied und zu den Propheten. KommentarzumHoheliedinRufinsundHieronymusÜbersetzungen, hg. W.A. BAEHRENS (GCS, 33; Origenes Werke, 8), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1925, S. 27,14) mit der Liste alttestamentlicher Lieder (GCS 33, 27,20−28,16) und im Prologus zum Hohelied-Kommentar (GCS 33, 80,19−83,20). 25. Vgl. F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER, Psalmen 101–150 (HTKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2008, S. 394.

248

F.X. RISCH

sprachlich26. Aber auch Theodoret, der zwar Eusebius benutzt, aber inhaltlich eigene Akzente setzt, nimmt die Rückkehr aus Babylon als aktuelle Situation der Liedtexte an27. Theodoret wird der antiochenischen Exegese zugerechnet. Gerade in dieser Tradition findet sich Kritik. Diodor von Tarsus weiß zwar, daß man den Psalm 119 den Exilierten in Babylon in den Mund legt, will aber lieber die Flucht Davids vor Saul als Hintergrund annehmen28. Den ersten Psalm bezieht Eusebius, völlig anders als Origenes, auf einen Zeitpunkt lange nach dem Ende des Krieges, es sei denn, daß man Gefangenschaft für einen Bestandteil des Krieges halten will. Jedenfalls wird der Konflikt nicht erwartet. Der zweite Psalm hat bei Origenes die Vorbereitung zum Krieg als Hintergrund; bei Euseb befindet sich das Volk bereits auf dem Weg von Babylon nach Jerusalem. Und so zieht sich der Unterschied zwischen beider Auffassung bis zum Ende durch, wie die Übersicht auf der nächsten Seite zeigt: Trotz der offenkundigen Differenzen in der Vorstellung des realen Hintergrundes sehen beide, Origenes und Eusebius, in den fünfzehn Psalmen denselben Prozeß einer heilsamen Entwicklung gespiegelt: das Volk befindet sich in einer schwierigen Lage und geht einer Lösung entgegen. Im einzelnen ist das Konzept nicht nur inhaltlich nicht identisch. Es ist auch nicht von gleicher Stringenz. Origenes stellt die Stufenfolge der Ereignisse und Entwicklungen geradlinig dar und ordnet sie viel straffer und logisch strenger an als Eusebius, der schon zu Beginn die Möglichkeit eingeräumt hat, daß nicht alle aus der Gefangenschaft aufbrechen, und für den siebten Gradualpsalm erneut annimmt, daß nur ein Teil der Gefangenen aus Babylon zurückgekehrt ist, das Volk also nicht, wie bei Origenes, sich im ganzen konsolidiert. Die beiden Ausleger sind sich hingegen darin einig, daß die Lösung des geschichtlichen oder biographischen Problems in der Kirche liegt. Beide nehmen die Gründung ihres dauerhaften Bestandes als hermeneutischen Hintergrund des vorletzten Stufenliedes an. Während nun aber Origenes zur Gottesbegegnung gelangt, indem er aus dem letzten Stufenlied die Beschreibung der Orantenhaltung entlehnt, stellt sich bei Eusebius erneut heraus, daß das Geschehen nicht zur Totalität 26. Vgl. Pseudo-Athanasius, Expositiones in Psalmos CXIX-CXXXIII (PG 27, 509B6-523D11). 27. Vgl. Theodoret, InterpretatioinPsalmosCXIX-CXXXIII (PG 80, 1873D4-1913B11). 28. Vgl. CodexVindobonensistheol.gr.8 fol. 234r. Zu Diodors Psalmen-Kommentar in diesem Codex vgl. J.-M. OLIVIER, Diodori Tarsensis Commentarii in Psalmos I (CCSG, 6), Turnhout, Brepols, 1980, pp. xxii-xxiv.

249

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

Psalm

Origenes

Eusebius

119 = 1

Kriegserwartung in unbestimmter Zeit

In der babylonischen Gefangenschaft

120 = 2

Kriegsvorbereitung

Auf dem Weg nach Jerusalem

121 = 3

Überlegenheit während des Kampfes

Erwartung von Heimat und Frieden

122 = 4

Bangen um den Sieg

Auf dem anstrengenden Weg durch die Fremde

123 = 5

Sieg

Nach der Ankunft im jüdischen Land

124 = 6

Während der Rückkehr aus dem Krieg

Auf dem Berg Sion angesichts der Fremden im Land

125 = 7

Nach der Rückkehr

Die ganz Angekommenen beten für die noch in der Gefangenschaft Verbliebenen

126 = 8

Instandsetzung des Tempels

Tempelbau und Prophezeiung der Kirche

127 = 9

Wiedervereinigung der Familien im Frieden

Seligpreisung der berufenen Völker

128 = 10 Erinnerung im tiefen Frieden an die Überlegenheit im Krieg

Standhalten der Kirche in Verfolgungen

129 = 11 Vertieftes Gottesstudium

Gebet der Märtyrer. Belehrung über die Vergebung

130 = 12 Demut vor dem Erkannten

Demut dessen, der durch Vergebung fortgeschritten ist

131 = 13 Die Apokatastasis des Gesalbten

Gebet für David

132 = 14 Die Apokatastasis der Kirche

Die Kirche der Gesalbten

133 = 15 Das stehende Volk im Gotteshaus

Die noch nicht Gesalbten vor der Tür zum Heiligtum

250

F.X. RISCH

gelangt ist. Im letzten Psalm wird das Gotteshaus nur von den Gesalbten betreten, die Berufenen bleiben vor der Tür zum Heiligtum stehen: sie sind vom Zutritt vorläufig noch ausgeschlossen. Origenes kennt, wenigstens in den Hypothesen, diese Reserve, aber auch diese Universalität nicht; er kennt hier nur das Volk, die Gemeinde, nicht die Menschheit im ganzen. Das Volk erreicht die höchste Stufe als Einheit, ohne daß eine hierarchische Gliederung kenntlich gemacht würde; gestuft ist nur der Weg, die Entwicklung der Gemeinde bis zur Vollkommenheit des Stehens vor Gott. Natürlich sind dann die Stehenden den Fallenden, insbesondere den häretischen Bischöfen (ἄρχοντες), entgegengesetzt29. Aber Origenes thematisiert hier nicht eine Rangordnung in der Gemeinde wie Eusebius, der die der allgemeinen Berufung Folgenden von den noch nicht Folgenden unterscheidet, auch nicht wie Evagrius Ponticus30, der die Christen in die Klassen der Praktiker in den Vorhöfen und der Theoretiker im Gotteshaus einteilt. Ich wage es an dieser Stelle nicht, weitere soteriologische Schlußfolgerungen zu ziehen. Es ist aber doch ziemlich deutlich, daß die theologische Entwicklung vom Krieg zur Gottesbegegnung im Gegenüberstehen von segnendem Gott und lobpreisenden Beter abgerundet und restlos ist, während der Historiker sich mit der realen Geschichte aufhält und infolgedessen nicht zu ihrem Ziel gelangen kann. Die Geschichte wird nicht innerhalb der Geschichte beendet, sondern durch Austritt aus ihr. Es ist keineswegs selbstverständlich, im Corpus der Gradualpsalmen die Ordnung einer Klimax zu entdecken. Bei Origenes wird die Absicht sozusagen mustergültig unterstellt, bei Eusebius erleidet sie, wie wir gesehen haben, erste Beeinträchtigungen. Bei Theodoret schließlich, der in der Nachfolge Eusebs die Rückkehr aus der babylonischen Gefangenschaft als historische und hermeneutische Grundlage annimmt, ist sie zerstört. Die Rückkehr ist kein Aufstieg, der Lebenserfolg wird wiederholt gebrochen: nach der Ankunft gibt es weitere Kriege31, die im fünften,

29. Origenes, Scholion zu Ps 133,1 (PG 12, 1652C2-5). Die Gleichsetzung von negativ konnotierten ἄρχοντες mit Bischöfen ergibt sich aus dem Scholion zu Ps 117,9b (ἢ ἐλπίζειν ἐπ̓ ἄρχοντας): καὶ ὁ προφήτης φησίν: μὴ καταπιστεύετε ἐν φίλοις, μὴ ἐλπίζετε ἐπὶ ἡγουμένοις (Mi 7,5). οὐδὲ ἐπ̓ ἐπισκόποις οὖν ἐλπιστέον (hg. R. CADIOU, CommentairesinéditsdesPsaumes,Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1936, S. 103). Im Scholion zu Ps 118,161 (ἄρχοντεςκατεδίωξάνμε), das er in dieser Form nicht in den Kommentar zu übernehmen wagte, spricht er von einer Verfolgung durch Archonten der Kirche, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων τῆς ἐκκλησίας, neben der durch die „Archonten dieses Äons“ aus 1 Cor 2,6 (CADIOU,CommentairesinéditsdesPsaumes, S. 118). 30. Evagrius, Scholion zu Ps 133,1, enthalten im Vaticanusgr.754, fol. 326v. 31. Theodoret, InterpretatioinPsalmumCXIX (PG 80, 1876A10-11): τοὺς μετὰ τὴν ἐπάνοδον γεγενημένους πολέμους.

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

251

achten und zehnten Stufenlied thematisiert sind. Die Zurückgekehrten genießen zwar Freiheit, wie er im Kommentar zu Psalm 134 feststellt32, bleiben aber gefährdet. Das ist realistisch − Theodoret verweist auf die historischen Darstellungen bei den Propheten − führt aber dazu, daß das literarisch-musikalische Genus der Gradualpsalmen sozusagen verunreinigt wird: obwohl es sich laut Überschrift durchwegs um Lieder handelt, enthalten sie zum Teil Bittgebete und drücken die Notlage nicht mehr in einem retrospektiven Triumph aus. Theodoret hat, anders als Origenes, den Liedcharakter nicht berücksichtigt. Er sieht in der bunten Anordnung der Skopoi sogar den Vorteil, daß die inhaltliche Vielfalt den Überdruß an der Melodie vertreibt33, vielleicht ein Hinweis darauf, daß auch die Lieder im Psalter rezitierend, also relativ monoton und ohne Melismen wiedergegeben wurden34. III Die fünfzehn Stufenlieder wurden schon in jüdischer Tradition mit jener fünfzehnstufigen Treppe im nachexilischen Tempel in Zusammenhang gebracht, die vom äußeren Vorhof zum Nikanor-Tor führte 35. Die Mitteilung im Babylonischen Talmud ist denkbar knapp: „Vom Frauen-Vorhof führten fünfzehn Stufen zum Israeliten-Vorhof, entsprechend den fünfzehn Stufenliedern im Buch der Psalmen, auf denen die Leviten den Gesang anstimmten“36. Die Formulierung veranlaßt den Eindruck, daß die Zahl der Stufen der Zahl der Psalmen nachgebildet ist37. Vor allem aber suggeriert die Mischna einen liturgischen Zusammenhang, von dem Josephus bei seiner Erwähnung derselben fünfzehnstufigen Treppe38 nichts weiß; er ist in erster Linie an den architektonischen 32. Interpretatio in Psalmum CXXXIV (PG 80, 1913C1-2): τῶν τῆς ἐλευϑερίας τετυχηκότων. Merkwürdigerweise zählt die Überlieferung Theodorets den Psalm 134 noch zu Gradualpsalmen; vgl. PG 80, 1913B14. 33. Interpretatio in Psalmum CXIX (PG 80, 1876A12-13): τὸ ποικίλον τῆς προφητείας ἐξελαύνει τῆς μελῳδίας τὸν κόρον. 34. Zur schwierig zu entdeckenden Wiedergabe der Psalmen vgl. F.X. RISCH, Zur musikalischen Hermeneia der Psalmen nach Origenes und Eusebius, in C. BANDT – F.X. RISCH – B. VILLANI, Die Prologtexte zu den Psalmen von Origenes und Eusebius (TU, 183), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2019, 301-324. 35. Zu Lage und Architektur des von einem gewissen Nikanor gestifteten Tores vgl. E. STAUFFER, DasTordesNikanor, in ZNW 44 (1952-53) 44-66, S. 46-50. 36. mMiddot 2,5 (322 GOLDSCHMIDT). 37. ÄhnlichmSukka 5,4 (396 GOLDSCHMIDT). 38. Flavius Josephus, Bellumiudaicum V,206: βαϑμοὶ δεκαπέντε. Zur Identifizierung dieser Treppe vgl. STAUFFER, DasTordesNikanor (Anm. 35), S. 64.

252

F.X. RISCH

Maßverhältnissen interessiert. Der moderne Leser zweifelt umso mehr, wenn er mit einem Kommentator annimmt, die Mischna wolle sagen, der Zweck der fünfzehn Stufen habe darin bestanden, daß die Leviten täglich einen anderen Psalm je Stufe sangen, was einen fünfzehntägigen Rhythmus voraussetzt, den es nicht gegeben hat39. Beim täglichen Gottesdienst wurden, jeweils zum Abschluß des Opfers, überhaupt andere Psalmen gesungen: am 1. Wochentag, unserem Sonntag, Ps 24, am zweiten Ps 48, und so der Reihe nach weiter Ps 82; 94; 81; 93 und am Sabbat 9240. Diese geordnete Auswahl läßt sich zwar ebenfalls als eine Art Aufstieg, verteilt auf sieben Tage, verstehen41, aber das hat nichts mit der Treppe zu tun, denn die Leviten standen nicht auf den Stufen, sondern beim Altar, also im Priestervorhof42. Die Assoziierung von Stufen und Stufenliedern ist hinsichtlich des täglichen Opfers willkürlich und künstlich. Glaubwürdig dagegen ist die Mitteilung, alle fünfzehn Psalmen seien in der ersten Nacht des Sukka-Festes mit aufwendiger instrumentaler Begleitung gesungen worden. Die Treppe dient dabei als Podium, auf dem Orchester und Sänger aufgestellt waren43. Die Praxis allerdings, daß die im Griechischen wie im Hebräischen mit „Stufenlied“, ᾠδὴ τῶν ἀναβαϑμῶν bzw. schir hamma‘alot, überschriebenen fünfzehn Psalmen auf den fünfzehn Stufen gesungen wurden, leitet sich aus eben dieser Assoziierung ab. In ihr ist eine nachträgliche Zwecksetzung für die Zeit des zweiten Tempels vorgenommen worden. Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung der Stufenlieder ist letztlich unbekannt. Weder in jüdischer noch in christlicher Wissenschaft wird mit abschließender 39. Vgl. DieMischna:Text,ÜbersetzungundausführlicheErklärung.Seder5Qodaschim.Traktat10, hg. G. BEER − O. HOLTZMANN, Gießen, Töpelmann, 1913, p. 71. 40. mTamid 7,4 (315 GOLDSCHMIDT). Musikalische Gestaltung und Verlauf sind vielfach behandelt worden: vgl. u.a. A. BÜCHLER, ZurGeschichtederTempelmusikundder Tempelpsalmen, in ZAW20 (1900) 97-135, S. 97-101; P. BILLERBECK, EinTempelgottesdienstinJesuTagen, in ZNW 55 (1964) 1-17, S. 14; K.E. GRÖZINGER, MusikundGesang inderTheologiederfrühenjüdischenLiteratur (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum, 3), Tübingen, Mohr, 1982, S. 119-132; J. MCKINNON, The Exclusion of Musical InstrumentsfromtheAncientSynagogue, in ProceedingsoftheRoyalMusicalAssociation 106 (1979-1980) 77-87, pp. 77.86 = ID., The Temple, the Church Fathers and Early Western Chant, Farnham, Ashgate, 1998, no. III; G. STEMBERGER, Psalmen in Liturgie und Predigt der rabbinischen Zeit, in E. ZENGER (Hg.), Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum(HBS, 18), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1998, 199-213, p. 200. 41. Vgl. hierzu BILLERBECK, EinTempelgottesdienst (Anm. 40), S. 14. 42. So bereits M. STARK, Bemerkungen zu zwei Stellen in Grätz’s Geschichte der Juden, in Die Wahrheit: Wochenschrift für Leben und Lehre im Judenthum 12 (1871) 193-195 (hier S. 194 rechts) gegen H. GRÄTZ, Die Geschichte der Juden III, Leipzig, Leiner, 1888, S. 116; vgl. aber J. MAIER, ZurVerwendungderPsalmenindersynagogalen Liturgie, in H. BECKER − R. KACZYNSKI (Hgg.), Liturgie und Dichtung, St. Ottilien, Eos, 1983, 55-90, S. 65. 43. Vgl.mSukka 5,4 (396-397 GOLDSCHMIDT).

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

253

Entschiedenheit behauptet, daß es sich um „Wallfahrtslieder“ handelte, bestimmt für die Pilgerreise nach Jerusalem, oder um „Rückkehrlieder“ der Gefangenen in Babylon, oder um Lieder anderer Art44. „Keine von all diesen Erklärungen paßt auf den Inhalt aller fünfzehn Psalmen“45. Umso mehr Sinn bietet die Verwendung in der nächtlichen Feier oder eine spirituelle Deutung. In der religiösen Praxis ist die Rückführung auf Wallfahrten zur dominanten Überzeugung geworden: in der modernen Synagoge werden je fünf Lieder an den drei Wallfahrtsfesten gesungen. – Im Babylonischen Talmud wird, um dies hier nur noch nebenbei zu bemerken, die Erklärung nachgereicht, David habe die fünfzehn Lieder zur Regulierung des Grundwassers gesungen46. Demnach hätte es sich um magische Brunnenlieder gehandelt, obwohl Wasser außer als Tau in Ps 132,3 und als Regen in 134,7 nicht erwähnt wird. Der Zusammenhang mit dem Ritual des Wasserschöpfens während des Sukka-Festes wird dieser Erklärung Überzeugung gegeben haben47. Ebenso lakonisch wie der Traktat Middot äußert sich Origenes in seiner allgemeinen Einleitung zum Psalter, den Catholica in Psalmos: „Die Stufenlieder sind fünfzehn an der Zahl, wie auch die Stufen des Tempels“48. Der Vergleichsaspekt ist gegenüber der Mischna umgekehrt: die Zahl der Lieder ist der Zahl der Stufen nachgebildet. Wichtiger aber ist, daß Origenes den Zusammenhang von Stufenliedern und Tempelstufen, soweit die Quellen erkennen lassen, nicht aus einer liturgischen Praxis erklärt. Gelegentlich versucht er sich zwar vorzustellen, daß ein Psalm im Tempel gesprochen wurde. So stellt erdie Überlegung an, daß der Psalm 123 beim Morgengottesdienst (ἕωϑεν) Verwendung gefunden hat. Den Imperativ in Vers 1b „Israel soll sprechen“ versteht er als Aufforderung des Priesters an das Volk, das zum Tempel kommt; der Priester steht dabei auf einer bestimmten Stufe, auf welcher, wird nicht gesagt. Die Gemeinde führt die Anweisung aus und gibt Vers 2a und das folgende wieder. Das Szenario von Aufforderung und Ausführung entspricht in etwa der Rezitation des „Sch´mah Israel“ in der Synagoge: der Vorsteher fordert eine ausgewählte Person zur Rezitation der Texte

44. Zu diesen und anderen Erklärungen vgl. HOSSFELD – ZENGER, Psalmen (Anm. 25), S. 391-407. 45. H. FUCHS, SchirHama´alot, in JüdischesLexikon, Berlin, Jüdischer Verlag, 1930, 213. 46. bSukka53a (404 GOLDSCHMIDT). 47. Vgl. GRÖZINGER, MusikundGesang (Anm. 40), S. 274-276. 48. Catholica 4,17-18 RISCH (Anm. 34): Πάλιν τε αὖ εἰσί τινες τῶν ἀναβαϑμῶν ᾠδαί, τὸν ἀριϑμὸν πεντεκαίδεκα, ὅσοι καὶ οἱ ἀναβαϑμοὶ τοῦ ναοῦ.

254

F.X. RISCH

auf, die Gemeinde spricht sie mit49.Origenes aber meint ein Geschehen im Tempel, so daß die Vorstellung entsteht, der Morgengottesdienst im Tempel wäre mit dem Gradualpsalm 123 eröffnet worden. Nach den mir bekannten Rekonstruktionen aber war das nicht der Fall. Für den Morgengottesdienst im Tempel wurden andere Psalmen verwendet, ich habe sie bereits genannt, und zwar nicht am Anfang, sondern am Ende des Gottesdienstes, und sie wurden nicht von der Gemeinde wiedergegeben. Auch bei anderen Gelegenheiten wurde der Psalm 123 nicht herangezogen; er scheint überhaupt in den frühen jüdischen Erörterungen über das Lied nicht in Betracht gekommen zu sein, wie sich aus der Habilitationsschrift von Karl Erich Grözinger ergibt50. Ich muß an dieser Stelle offen lassen, ob Origenes besondere Informationen besaß oder auf den auszulegenden Wortlaut mit einer Fiktion reagierte. Wie es sich damit auch verhalten mag: Deutlich wird hier, wenigstens an einem Einzelfall, daß die griechische Kommentierung keineswegs, wie behauptet worden ist, nur die spirituelle Bedeutung der fünfzehn Stufen kennt und keine Verbindung mit dem historischen Tempel und seiner Praxis herzustellen versucht hat51. Origenes hält es aber auch für möglich, daß der Psalm anläßlich einer Gefahrensituation im Krieg, gemeint ist vielleicht außerhalb von Tempel und Liturgie, aber doch auf Anweisung eines Priesters hin (ἐκ προστάξεως ἱερέως), gesprochen wurde52. Diese Situation dürfte er bevorzugt haben; sie entspricht jedenfalls den Hypothesen. Aber er gibt sich damit nicht zufrieden. Denn in den Catholica fügt er über jüdische Tradition und mögliche Realsituationen hinaus die Vermutung hinzu, daß mit der Zahl Fünfzehn eine Gliederung in Sieben und Acht angedeutet werde53. Trotz des vorherrschenden liturgischpraktischen und real-historischen Desinteresses erfindet er die Unterteilung nicht einfach. Seine Zahlensymbolik fußt in der Regel auf biblischen Informationen und folgt dem Grundsatz, daß alle in der Bibel vorkommenden Zahlen einem tatsächlichen Sachverhalt korrespondieren54, nur selten und dann nebensächlich benutzt er philosophische, im besonderen

49. Vgl. P. BILLERBECK,EinSynagogengottesdienstinJesuTagen,in ZNW 55 (1964) 143-161, S. 145. 50. GRÖZINGER, MusikundGesang (Anm. 40). 51. Gegen J. MCKINNON, TheFifteenTempleStepsandtheGradualPsalms, in Imago Musicae 1 (1984) 29-50, S. 42. 52. Scholion zu Ps 123,1 (PG 12, 1636B14-C2). 53. Catholica 4,18-19 RISCH (Anm. 34) τάχα δηλοῦσαι τὰς ἀναβάσεις περιέχεσϑαι ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ καὶ ὀγδόῳ ἀριϑμῷ. 54. Vgl. CIoX,1 (GCS 10, 171,1-2 PREUSCHEN).

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

255

populäre pythagoräische Spekulation55. Man möchte zwar annehmen, er beziehe sich auf die fünfzehn Stufen des Herodianischen Tempels, denn seine bis heute unerreichte Bibelkenntnis verbietet die Auffassung, er meine den Salomonischen, wie es aus Nachlässigkeit bei Cassiodor geschieht56, ein Irrtum, der zum Standard-Fehler in der mittelalterlichen Geschichtsvorstellung geworden ist57. Aber diese fünfzehn Stufen enthalten nicht die Unterteilung in sieben und acht. Im vorausgehenden Kontext der Catholica hat Origenes Bemerkungen zur Sabbattheologie gemacht; ihr folgt diese Arithmetik in scheinbar freier Spekulation. Der Meister war gewiß auch in diesem Fall imstande, einen literarischen Beleg beizubringen; ob er es in seinen Kommentaren zu den Gradualpsalmen getan hat, können wir aufgrund der Quellenlage nicht feststellen. Die Informationen aus dem Talmud und aus Josephus konnten jedenfalls dazu nicht dienen, auch nicht die Beschreibungen des salomonischen und des nachexilischen Tempels in den kanonischen Schriften, denn dort wird kein Aufgang von fünfzehn Stufen erwähnt. Dagegen teilt Ezechiel aus seiner Tempelvision mit, dass in den äußeren Vorhof je sieben Stufen durch das Nordtor (vgl. Ez 40,22) und durch das Südtor (40,26) hinaufführen werden; für das Osttor werden zwar Stufen genannt, aber ohne Zahlangabe (40,6); es ist anzunehmen, daß es sich ebenfalls um sieben Stufen handelte, da die Tore ansonsten identisch beschrieben werden58. In den inneren Vorhof, genauer gesagt in die ihm vorgelagerte Toranlage, die mit diesem auf gleichem Niveau lag, gelangte man auf je acht Stufen durch das Südtor (40,31), das Osttor (40,34) und das Nordtor (40,37)59. Im inneren Vorhof sodann, westlich vom Brandopferaltar, führten zehn Stufen zur Vorhalle des eigentlichen Tempelgebäudes. Hauptraum und das Allerheiligste in diesem lagen mit der Vorhalle auf gleicher Ebene. Den tieferen Sinn der Sieben- und Achtzahl in Ezechiels Vision zu erkunden, ist den modernen Exegeten nicht gelungen; sie können, sofern sie überhaupt darauf eingehen, nur oberflächliche Vermutungen anstellen, etwa jene, daß der Prophet mit der Folge von Sieben und Acht die 55. Vgl. zum Beispiel die kurze Notiz von der vollkommenen Sechszahl in CIoX,270 (GCS 10, 216,28 PREUSCHEN). 56. ExpositioinPsalmumCXIX,18-19 (CCSL 98 ADRIAEN). 57. Vgl. MCKINNON, TheFifteenTempleSteps (Anm. 51), S. 43. 58. Vgl. D.I. BLOCK, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1998, S. 519.526. 59. Die Behauptung, es handele sich um Treppen von sechs und sieben Stufen, dürfte ein Versehen sein: vgl. M. KONKEL, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten TempelvisionEzechiels(Ez40–48)(Bonner Biblische Beiträge, 129), Berlin, Philo, 2001, S. 38. Die richtigen Zahlenangaben liest man ibid., S. 247.

256

F.X. RISCH

Annäherung an das Heiligtum und einen zunehmenden Grad an Heiligkeit ausdrücken wolle60. Eine bloße Steigerung anzunehmen, ist keineswegs eine befriedigende Erklärung. Ezechiel muß bewußt die Sieben- und Achtzahl gewählt haben, ungefähr in dem Sinn, wie die Toranlagen mit ihren sechs Kammern die Schöpfungsgeschichte reflektieren. Überlegenswert ist es auch, den gesamten Weg vom Außentor zur Tempelhalle in Betracht zu ziehen. Man steigt zuerst sieben Stufen hinauf, dann acht, schließlich zehn, insgesamt also 25, und diese Zahl bildet die Grundlage für die Abmessungen des Tempelareals61. Vielleicht sollte man bei der Zahl Sieben einfach an den Sabbat denken und die Acht als Zahl der Beschneidung und des Bundes (vgl. Gen 17,12) verstehen. Vielleicht aber ist es uns gar nicht erlaubt, tiefer in den Geist dessen einzudringen, der die Herrlichkeit gesehen hat. Denn diese Angaben macht der Prophet in einem Teil seines Buches, den die rabbinischen Gelehrten mit besonderer Vorsicht behandelten. Neben der Schöpfungsgeschichte, dem Hohen Lied und der Merkava-Vision sollte die Tempelvision nur reifen Schülern erklärt werden, wie Origenes, etwas abweichend vom Talmud, selbst berichtet62 und Hieronymus, vielleicht auch hierin von ihm abhängig, kurz bestätigt63; man vermutet als Grund, daß diese Passagen als gefährlich galten, weil sie zu mystischen und eschatologisch-apokalyptischen Spekulationen verleiteten64. Leider sind die Partien der Ezechiel-Kommentierung durch Origenes, die die Tempelvision behandelten, nicht erhalten. Falls Origenes sich in seiner Vorstellung von den Tempelstufen tatsächlich auf Ezechiel stützte, war ihm der besondere Status des Textes jedenfalls bewußt. Da nun Ezechiels auffallend konsequente Unterscheidung in sieben und acht Stufen eine Höherwertigkeit der Zahl Acht gegenüber der Sieben beinhaltet, ausgedrückt durch die größere Nähe am Allerheiligsten, würde man es für plausibel halten, daß der prophetische Bauplan, zumal darin die Fünfzehnzahl auf zwei Treppen verteilt ist, irgendwie in 60. BLOCK, TheBookofEzekiel:Chapters25–48 (Anm. 58), S. 530. 61. Vgl. W. ZIMMERLI, Planungen für den Wiederaufbau nach der Katastrophe von 587, in Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968) 229-255, S. 237-238; KONKEL, Architektonik des Heiligen(Anm. 59), S. 249. 62. CCtprol.62,22-30 (GCS 33 BAEHRENS); vgl. hierzu P. SCHÄFER,DieUrsprünge derjüdischenMystik.Aus dem Amerikanischen von C.-J. THORNTON, Berlin, Insel, 2011, S. 256-258, 420-421, 544-545. 63. Comm.inEzechielemprol.25-30 (CCSL 75 GLORIE). 64. Vgl. N. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations inThird-Century Palestine (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 60; SCHÄFER, Die UrsprüngederjüdischenMystik(Anm. 62), S. 256-257.

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

257

den Vorstellungen des christlichen Exegeten und seiner arithmetischen Analyse ausgeführt wurde, wenn nicht Origenes selbst zum Teil verblüffend andere Hinweise gegeben hätte: Ob schon die von Hieronymus angedeutete Verbindung mit den fünfzehn Tagen, an denen Paulus sich bei Petrus in Jerusalem aufhielt65, bei ihm zu finden war, läßt sich meines Wissens nicht belegen. Wichtig war Origenes gewiß die Entfernung zwischen Bethanien und Jerusalem: sie wird im Johannesevangelium mit fünfzehn Stadien angegeben, „wie die Stufen des Tempels“, sagt der Exeget wieder scheinbar beiläufig, teilt dann auch die Zahl fünfzehn erneut in Sieben und in Acht und bezieht sich dabei allerdings auf Kohelet 11,266, wo der rätselhafte Rat erteilt wird „Gib Anteil für die Sieben und für die Acht“. Die Arithmetik ist dieselbe, aber was sie mit dem Weg zu tun hat, bleibt ebenso im Unklaren wie der Zusammenhang des Weges mit den Tempelstufen. Man verschafft sich einen Sinn, wenn man die Zahl von Sabbat und Beschneidung als Epoche der jüdischen Religion und der nunmehr metaphorischen Beschneidung im Christen liest. Je nachdem, in welcher Zeit die Angehörigen des Gottesvolkes leben, erhalten sie einen anderen Anteil. Daß es ungefähr so zu verstehen ist, bezeugen Didymus und Hieronymus, deren Exegese nicht selten Motive entwickelt, die Origenes bereitgestellt hatte. Wie Hieronymus zur Kohelet-Stelle selbst, assoziiert Didymus die fünfzehn Stufen bei der Auslegung von Gen 7,20, wo davon die Rede ist, daß das Wasser der Sintflut 15 Ellen hoch stieg. Das Geben der Sieben bedeutet für beide die Anerkennung des Alten Testamentes; sie wird von den Juden erbracht; das Geben der Acht die Anerkennung des Neuen Testamentes; sie wird von Häretikern wie Markion und Mani erbracht. Einzig die Christen anerkennen beide Testamente und erfüllen so die Fünfzehnzahl67, was ja wohl heißt, daß nur die Christen die Tempelstufen ganz emporsteigen und das Gotteshaus betreten. Ihnen gelingt der Aufstieg im Leben. Bereits Noah hat dieses Ziel erreicht, als er von den Wassern der Sintflut fünfzehn Ellen gehoben wurde: er gelangte über die Stufen in den Tempel (φϑάσας εἰς τὸν ναὸν διὰ τῶν ἀναβαϑμῶν)68. Didymus teilt mit Origenes die Überzeugung, daß die in der Schrift genannten Zahlen nicht zufällig verwendet wurden, sondern einen tieferen Sinn haben69. Er versteht es zu zeigen, daß die Vollendung der 65. TractatusinPsalmumCXIX,26-28 (CCSL 78 MORIN). 66. CIofr. LXXX (GCS 10, 547,20-22 PREUSCHEN). 67. Hieronymus, Comm. in Ecclesiasten XI (CCSL 72, 19-32 ADRIAEN); Didymus, Comm.inGenesimVI (SC 233, 156,3-11 NAUTIN); VII (SC 233, 192,23-27). 68. Didymus, Comm.inGenesimVII (SC 233, 194,5-6 NAUTIN). 69. Didymus, Comm.inGenesimVI (SC 233, 154,8-11 NAUTIN).

258

F.X. RISCH

Lebenszeit, die in Gen 6,3 auf 120 Jahre festgelegt ist, mit der Fünfzehnzahl in enger Verbindung steht: Teilt man 120 durch ganze Zahlen und berücksichtigt nur die Ergebnisse, die wiederum ganzen Zahlen sind, findet man davon fünfzehn. Die Summe der Quotienten ergibt das Doppelte von 12070. Die Verdoppelung bedeutet für den unerschrockenen Exegeten das wahre Leben, das nicht nur in Praxis, sondern auch in der Theoria geführt wird71. Didymus hat überdies begründet, warum die Fünfzehn die vollkommenste Stufe ausdrückt; leider ist der Papyrus an dieser Stelle zerstört72. So abstrakt und schematisiert ist der Gedanke bei Origenes freilich noch nicht. Er denkt bei denen, die der Prediger einen Anteil zu geben mahnt, an die Geschwister Mariam und Martha, und Lazarus: sie haben den guten Anteil erwählt, wie es an anderer Stelle heißt73, nämlich den Anteil, der für die Zeit der Achtzahl bestimmt ist; das ist das Brot Christus selbst. Denn laut Matthäusevangelium 21,17 geht Jesus, nach der Randale im Tempel, nach Bethanien, um dort für eine Nacht zu verweilen. Origenes versteht den Aufenthalt in Bethanien nicht als Untertauchen, sondern als Ruhe unter Menschen in einem Haus, und spricht unverhohlen vom Anfang der Kirche (ἀρχὴν τοῦ συστῆναι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν)74. Offenbar beginnt in seiner Vorstellung die Kirche bereits dort, wo der kämpfende Christus unter Menschen in einem Haus zur Ruhe kommt, nicht erst im endgültigen Sabbat der nachösterlichen Geistsendung und der Missionierung außerhalb des Hauses. Und sie beginnt außerhalb von Jerusalem und außerhalb des Tempels. Dennoch läßt sich eine Analogie zu den Jerusalemer Tempelstufen und zu den Stufenliedern ausmachen, entweder einfach darin, daß die Kirchengründung in Bethanien nach der Bewältigung eines Weges von fünfzehn Stadien erfolgt, oder ein wenig intelligenter in den Motiven Krieg bzw. Randale, Betreten des friedlichen Hauses, Ruhe und geheilte Gesellschaft. Eine nähere Erläuterung der Sieben- und Achtzahl vermißt man freilich im Johannes-Kommentar noch mehr als in den Hypothesen. Dort ist sie, obwohl nicht ausdrücklich thematisiert, immerhin einfach zu bemerken. Nach den sieben Liedern zu einem offensichtlich langwierigen Krieg und zur Heimkehr beginnt mit dem achten Stufenlied die Zeit des Tempelbaus und des Friedens, des familiären Lebens, der Erinnerung und des Gottesstudiums, mit einem Wort der Vorbereitung zur Gottesbegegnung. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

Didymus, Comm.inGenesimVI (SC 233, 155,15-24 NAUTIN). Didymus, Comm.inGenesimVI (SC 233, 156,12-18 NAUTIN). Didymus, Comm.inGenesimVI (SC 233, 155,26–156,2 NAUTIN). CIoVI (GCS 10, 207 PREUSCHEN). CMtXVI,26 (GCS 40, 560,32–561,12 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ).

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

259

Dem historisch interessierten Exegeten Eusebius ging die Zahlenspekulation des Origenes im allgemeinen zu weit. Er kritisierte sie innerhalb einer kurzen Abhandlung über die Psalmenüberschriften als sinnlosen Eifer, dafür gebraucht er περίεργος75, ein ziemlich hartes Wort. Aber bei der Auslegung der Gradualpsalmen behält er doch die Unterscheidung in die Sieben- und Achtzahl nicht nur bei, sozusagen abgesichert durch eine ältere Tradition, die zuerst im Barnabasbrief (15,8) greifbar ist. Er verdeutlicht sie in einer geradezu dogmatischen Verfestigung. Durch die gesamte Auslegung der Psalmen hindurch verfolgt Eusebius die Idee einer weltweiten Kirche, und so arbeitet er auch jetzt sein Hauptthema möglichst unmißverständlich aus: in der Hypothesis zum achten Stufenlied betont er, daß die von den Heimkehrern erhoffte Endgültigkeit des Tempels nichtig ist und die christliche Kirche vorausgesagt wird. Von ihr sind die Juden ausgeschlossen. Das achte Lied ist daher das erste des Neuen Bundes, die sieben vorausgehenden, die ja die Wirklichkeit der Juden betrafen, werden nun ein Symbol genannt. Tatsächlich sind die folgenden Stufenlieder als Lieder der Kirche zu verstehen. Die Geschichte ist gebrochen. Die bei Eusebius bereits traditionelle Idee, daß mit dem Übergang von der Sieben- zur Achtzahl die Ablösung der Synagoge durch die Kirche angedeutet werde, ist locus classicus auch bei späteren Exegeten76. Interessant ist, daß Hieronymus sie in seinem Ezechiel-Kommentar auf die zwei Treppen im Ezechiel-Tempel überträgt77.Einen Zusammenhang mit den Gradualpsalmen stellt der Exeget dort nicht her, wie er umgekehrt bei der Auslegung der Gradualpsalmen nicht an den EzechielTempel denkt. Wenn er dort die fünfzehn Psalmen mit den fünfzehn Stufen verbindet, dann erinnert er sich lediglich an die Ruinen des Herodianischen Tempels, in denen er die Reste der fünfzehn Stufen selbst gesehen hatte78. Bedenkt man aber die weit reichende Abhängigkeit des Hieronymus von Origenes, wird man vermuten, daß ähnliches schon beim Archegeten der Bibelauslegung erfolgt sei.

75. Vgl. Eusebius, HypomnemazuOrigenes XVII,24. Zu dieser Schrift vgl. C. BANDT – F.X. RISCH, Eusebius, Hypomnema, in BANDT – RISCH – VILLANI, Die Prologtexte zu denPsalmenvonOrigenesundEusebius(Anm. 34). 76. Vgl. beispielsweise Cassiodor, Expositio in Psalmum CXIX (CCSL 98, 6-10  DRIAEN). A 77. Comm.inEzechielemXII,862-865; 877-881 (CCSL 75 GLORIE). 78. TractatusinPsalmumCXIX,30-39 (CCSL 78 MORIN).

260

F.X. RISCH

IV Daß Origenes sich von den liturgischen Verhältnissen entfernt, ist, wie ich schon angedeutet habe, kaum überraschend, aber es scheint mir doch bemerkenswert, daß in seiner Ausdeutung der Stufen ein neuer Gedanke auftaucht, nämlich die Idee der Prozession auf der Treppe. Es handelt sich um eine Prozession, die aufwärts führt, wie überhaupt Origenes nie an ein Absteigen auf einer Tempeltreppe denkt. Darauf hat man in der Folgezeit streng geachtet. Augustinus bemerkt, im allgemeinen könne man auf Stufen nieder- und hinaufsteigen, aber im Falle der Gradualpsalmen gehe es nur um ein Hinaufsteigen79. Dennoch weitet er den Blick auf den Abstieg Christi und assoziiert die Jakobs-Leiter, die bei Origenes nicht in den Blick rückt. Und so kann Cassiodor sekundierend bekräftigen, daß es auf der Treppe im Gegensatz zur Jakobsleiter nur ein Hinaufsteigen, nicht auch einen descensus gibt80. Allerdings weiß der Rhetor auch um die Gefahr des menschlichen Abstiegs, der ein Fallen ist81. Entschiedener wirkt die Erklärung von Hieronymus, der Aufstieg auf den Tempelstufen sei gefährlich und mit Rückfällen verbunden. Je weiter man aufgestiegen ist, desto tiefer kann man stürzen. Maior ascensus maiorruina82, sagt er, beeindruckt von seiner Besichtigung der zerstörten fünfzehnstufigen Treppe in den Tempelruinen83. Ohne konkreten Anlaß wird Ähnliches auch im MidraschTehillim angedeutet: Wenn die Israeliten steigen, steigen sie viele Stufen, und wenn sie fallen, dann fallen sie viele Stufen84. Vorherrschend bleibt indessen die Vorstellung, daß die Lieder gleich einer Lebenstreppe in die Höhe führen. Hesych von Jerusalem paraphrasiert deshalb „Stufenlied“ mit „Lied des Erhabenen“ (ᾆσμα τῶν ὑψηλῶν)85. Wenn freilich in der mittelalterlichen HesychRezeption daraus an einer Stelle ᾆσμα τῶν ᾀσμάτων wird86, dürfte es sich um einen Fehler handeln. Im jüdischen Gottesdienst dagegen diente die fünfzehnstufige Treppe während des Sukka-Festes auch einem rituellen Hinabsteigen von zwei Priestern87. Die Zahl Fünfzehn scheint dabei unwesentlich zu sein. Verdrängt ist sie auch dort, wo man annahm, die Tempelstufen dienten der 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

EnarratioinPsalmumCXIX (CSEL 95, 1,5-7 GORI); CXXI (CSEL 95, 2,4-5). ExpositioinPsalmumCXIX,30-40 (CCSL 98 ADRIAEN). EnarratioinPsalmumCXXVI (CSEL 95, 1,10-12 GORI). TractatusinPsalmumCXIX,88-89 (CCSL 78 MORIN). TractatusinPsalmumCXIX,36-39 (CCSL 78 MORIN). MidraschTehillim III,197 WÜNSCHE. Ich danke Stefanie Rudolf für den Hinweis. Comm.brevisinPsalmumCXIX,1-7 JAGIĆ. CodexVaticanusgraecus342, fol. 218v unten. mSukka5,4 (397 GOLDSCHMIDT).

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

261

Plazierung der Priesterordnungen. Auf jeder einzelnen Stufe habe eine Abteilung entsprechend zu ihrer Rangordnung gestanden. Begonnen hat mit dieser Deutung der Überschrift „Stufenlied“ Hippolyt von Rom88, übernommen und auf alle männlichen Volksgruppen ausgeweitet wird sie von Hilarius von Poitiers89 und von Hieronymus90. Sowenig es in dieser Vorstellung gelingt, fünfzehn Ordnungen von Priestern und Ständen aufzuzählen, so wenig wird auch der Zusammenhang mit den Liedern klar. Diese Erklärung der Treppe als Bild und Schema der Gesellschaftsordnung stand deshalb auch nie im Mittelpunkt der Exegese, wird eher beiläufig und auch nur auf lateinischer Seite erwähnt. Die Griechen, so scheint es, kennen diese Vorstellung nicht. Origenes gibt vielmehr mit seiner Symbolisierung von Sieben und Acht, wie ich gezeigt habe, nicht nur eine genaue Erklärung für die Zahl, indem er eine Struktur der Dignität und damit eine gerichtete, das heißt unumkehrbare, Steigerung behauptet. Mit seiner zielgerichteten Ordnung der Skopoi der einzelnen Psalmen suggeriert er auch die Zuordnung von jeweiliger Stufe und Lied. Natürlich ist die Logik der Stufenfolge, wenn überhaupt, nur im Liedtext zu entdecken. Man hat vermutet, daß erst der franziskanische Bibelkommentator Nikolaus von Lyra (um 1270-1349) sich die Gesangspraxis so vorstellte, daß pro Stufe ein Lied vorgetragen wurde91. Doch hat schon Didymus92 behauptet, daß die Sänger auf jeder Stufe stehend (ἐφ̓ ἕκαστον … ἑστηκότες) ein Lied sangen, und zwar im Hinaufsteigen (ἐν τῷ ἀναβαίνειν). Die Anzahl der Lieder ist deshalb für ihn an der Anzahl der Stufen ausgerichtet. Offenkundig stellt sich Didymus nicht eine Verteilung der Sänger auf allen Stufen vor, sondern eine Prozession: je Stufe wird ein Lied gesungen. Die Zuordnung (διάταξις) von Lied und Stufe sei in den Paraleipomena gegeben, fügt er hinzu, aber der Hinweis läßt sich nicht verifizieren. Man darf annehmen, daß dergleichen Rückschlüsse auf die Gesangspraxis im Tempelgottesdienst auf die von Origenes eingeführte graduelle Steigerung der spirituellen Leistung zurückgehen, zumindest davon beeinflußt sind.

88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

HomiliainPsalmos c.14 (177,17–179,2 NAUTIN). TractatusinPsalmumCXIX,4,1-4 DOIGNON. TractatusinPsalmumCXIX,39-45 (CCSL 78 MORIN). MCKINNON, TheFifteenTempleSteps (Anm. 51), S. 44. Comm.inPsalmosfr. 1151 MÜHLENBERG.

262

F.X. RISCH

V Im Bewußtsein unseres Gelehrten spielen einfache Begriffe räumlicher Ordnung eine große Rolle. Es ist nicht gleichgültig, ob ein Gegenstand des alltäglichen Lebens gekrümmte oder gerade Form aufweist, runde oder gewinkelte. Origenes hat nicht nur Wörter allegorisiert, sondern die Wirklichkeit überhaupt. Das führte dazu, daß ästhetische Formen, bloße Gebilde und Figuren des Raumes, einer Deutung unterzogen werden, die über die räumliche Funktion weit hinausgehen. Dabei erweckt er den Eindruck, daß es sich nicht bloß um rhetorische oder moralische Metaphern handelt, sondern um ontologische Analysen. So erhalten beim alles allegorisierenden Origenes Details eine Bedeutung, die Eusebius nicht einmal zur Kenntnis nimmt, weil er nur an der pauschalen Idee von einer weltweiten Kirche interessiert ist. Die bereits zitierte Mischna Middot erwähnt, ohne ersichtlichen Grund, daß die Stufen „nicht eckig waren, sondern wie ein Halbkreis“. Dieselbe Information gibt auch Hieronymus, als einziger christlicher Autor, in seinem Psalmenkommentar: hoctemplumincircuituquindecimgradus habuit93. Der lateinische Exeget kann der Rundung keine Bedeutung abgewinnen, vielleicht auch weil Origenes hierzu möglicherweise nichts gesagt hat. Im Falle einer anderen Treppe, der im dritten Buch der Königtümer (6,8) genannten Wendeltreppe im salomonischen Tempel, weiß Origenes die Rundung einigermaßen zu deuten94. Auch hier hat er nur das Hinaufsteigen (ἀνάβασις, ἄνοδος) im Blick. Wer die spiralförmige Treppe hinaufgeht, geht nicht eckige Abbiegungen, die durch die Brechung von Geraden hervorgerufen werden, sondern, so füge ich hinzu, in gleichförmiger Kreisbewegung; durch die Brechung erhielte die Gerade eine überraschend und störend pejorative, dem Tempel Gottes unangemessene Bedeutung. „Deshalb“, so Origenes wörtlich, „mußte der Aufgang im Tempel Gottes spiralförmig sein, weil die Spirale im Aufstieg den völlig gleichmäßigen Kreis imitiert“95. Wenn die Anabasis nicht geradlinig sein kann, muß sie kreisförmig sein. Ein Vergleich mit philosophischen und mystischen Aufstiegsvorstellungen, die ich aus Platzgründen auf eine andere Gelegenheit verschiebe, würde deutlich werden lassen, daß eine völlig neue Form des Aufstiegs 93. TractatusinPsalmumCXIX37 (CCSL 78 MORIN); vgl. MCKINNON, TheFifteen TempleSteps (Anm. 51), S. 42-43. 94. CIoX (GCS 10, 278 PREUSCHEN). 95. CIoX (GCS 10, 218,3-4 PREUSCHEN).

DIE STUFEN DES TEMPELS

263

entstanden ist. Angeregt wurde sie zweifelsohne von der Tempeltreppe. Mag der Exeget die fünfzehnstufige Treppe im herodianischen Tempel gemeint oder mit der Aufteilung in die Sieben und Acht an das ezechielisch-salomonische Bauwerk gedacht haben: auf jeden Fall hat er den Tempel verlassen. Das von ihm angegebene Ziel, nach dem Aufstieg zu Hause zu sein, ergibt sich nicht aus der Allegorese der Topographie des Gotteshauses. Im Herodianischen Tempel stand man nach der Treppe im Nikanor-Tor, im Ezechiel-Tempel in der Vorhalle zum Tor in den inneren Vorhof, in dem dann weitere zehn Stufen zur Vorhalle des eigentlichen Tempels führen. Beidemale betrat man nach fünfzehn Stufen die Toranlage zum Inneren Vorhof und war vom Allerheiligsten noch relativ weit entfernt. Entscheidend für das Erlangen der endgültigen Heiligkeit ist für den allegorisierenden Origenes nicht so sehr die bauliche Gegebenheit als die Fünfzehnzahl. Sie, nicht die Topographie des Tempels, wird allegorisiert und dadurch aus der Architektur gelöst. Diese Absetzung ermöglichte ihr, wie ich mit manchem Beispiel angedeutet habe, eine erstaunliche Karriere in der Welt der Mystik und Spiritualität. Sie wurde zum numerus ascensionis, dessen sich jeder gerne bediente, der ein Symbol dieser Art für hilfreich hielt. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften Jägerstr. 22/23 DE-10117 Berlin Deutschland [email protected]

Franz Xaver RISCH

II. THE SCHOOL OF CAESAREA AND EUSEBIUS

PORPHYRY AT ORIGEN’S SCHOOL AT CAESAREA

In Book VI of the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius quotes two fragments from the third book of the treatise Porphyry wrote in Sicily against the Christians (Hist.Eccl. VI,19,2: ὁ καϑ’ ἡμᾶς ἐν Σικελίᾳ καταστὰς Πορφύριος συγγράμματα καϑ’ ἡμῶν ἐνστησάμενος; Hist.Eccl. VI,19,9: Ταῦτα τῷ Πορφυρίῳ κατὰ τὸ τρίτον σύγγραμμα τῶν γραφέντων αὐτῷ κατὰ Χριστιανῶν εἴρηται). In the first fragment Porphyry says verbatim: Some exegetes, in their eagerness to find an explanation of the wickedness of the Jewish writings (τῆς δὲ μοχϑηρίας τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν γραφῶν), rather than give them up, resorted to interpretations that are incompatible and do not harmonize with what has been written (ἐπ̓ ἐξηγήσεις ἐτράποντο ἀσυγκλώστους καὶ ἀναρμόστους τοῖς γεγραμμένοις), offering not so much a defense of what was outlandish, as commendation and praise of their own work. For they boast that the clearly spoken sayings of Moses are enigmas, ascribing inspiration to them as if they were divine oracles full of hidden mysteries (Αἰνίγματα γὰρ τὰ φανερῶς παρὰ Μωυσεῖ λεγόμενα εἶναι κομπάσαντες καὶ ἐπιϑειάσαντες ὡς ϑεσπίσματα πλήρη κρυφίων μυστηρίων), and bewitching the mind’s critical judgment through illusion they put forward their interpretations1.

Porphyry certainly did know of some exegetes who practiced the allegorical interpretation of the Jewish writings. Before Porphyry, in the second century, Celsus brought severe charges against Jewish and Christian allegorical exegesis, claiming that Moses’s writings were “silly and had no secret meaning” (ἀδιανοήτων καὶ μηδεμίαν σύνεσιν ἀπόῤῥητον ἐχόντων)2. On the contrary, Numenius developed allegorical interpretations of various passages of Moses and the prophets, and even of a story about Jesus3. Clearly Porphyry shares Celsus’s negative view of those interpreters who read the Jewish writings allegorically, but it is meaningful that he singles out the Christian theologian Origen as particularly worthy of blame: This kind of absurdity can be learned from a man whom I met when I was still quite young (Ὁ δὲ τρόπος τῆς ἀτοπίας ἐξ ἀνδρὸς ᾧ κἀγὼ κομιδῇ νέος ὢν ἔτι ἐντετύχηκα ... παρειλήφϑω), who had a great reputation, and 1. See Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,19,4, in Eusebius.DieKirchengeschichte.DielateinischeÜbersetzungdesRufinus, ed. E. SCHWARTZ – TH. MOMMSEN – F. WINKELMANN (GCS NF, 6), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 21999, vol. 2, p. 558. 2. See Origen, CC IV,48.51-52.55. 3. See again Origen, CC IV,51.

268

P.F. BEATRICE

still holds it, because of the writings he has left behind him, I mean Origen, whose fame has been widespread among the teachers of this kind of learning4.

Porphyry continues with a long description of Origen’s life and philosophical culture. This has been the subject of endless discussions since Henri de Valois (Valesius), in his famous edition of Eusebius’s EcclesiasticalHistory (Paris, 1659), introduced a distinction between the Christian Origen and another contemporary Origen (alterOrigenes), a Platonic pagan philosopher known in modern scholarship as “Origen the Pagan” or “Origen the Platonist”5. I will not return here to this confused and confusing debate for the very simple reason that the burden of proof remains on the shoulders of the scholars who, following in the footsteps of Valois, distinguish Origen the Platonist from the Christian Origen. Recent years have seen a growing consensus that only one Origen existed, who studied with Heraclas and Plotinus in the esoteric classes of Ammonius Saccas, and was, in his turn, the teacher not only of Gregory the Wonderworker but also of pagans such as Longinus and Porphyry6. Instead, I will turn here to the surprising fact that in over three centuries of debate no one has felt the need to tackle the equally important issue of why Porphyry chose to argue against Origen in Book III of his antiChristian treatise. Now, as long as Porphyry’s text is counted as a fragment of the treatise Against the Christians7, a plausible answer to this 4. In Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. VI,19,5. 5. The note of Henri de Valois on Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. VI,19, is reprinted in PG 20, 563-564. 6. See P.F. BEATRICE, Porphyry’sJudgmentonPorphyry, in R. DALY (ed.), Origeniana Quinta:Historica–TextandMethod–Biblica–Philosophica–Theologica–Origenism and Later Developments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 353-367; ID., Origen in Nemesius’Treatise“OntheNatureofMan”, in G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nona:OrigenandtheReligiousPracticeofHisTime.Papersofthe9thInternationalOrigenCongressPécs,Hungary,29August–2September2005(BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 505-532; T. BÖHM,Origenes–Theologeund(Neu-)Platoniker?Oder:Wemsollman mißtrauen – Eusebius oder Porphyrius?, in Adamantius 8 (2002) 7-23; H.-G. THÜMMEL, Origenes’ Johanneskommentar Buch I-V. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert (STAC, 63), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011, pp. 8-11; I. RAMELLI, Origen the Christian Middle/Neoplatonist: New Arguments for a Possible Identification, in Journal of Early ChristianHistory1 (2011) 98-130; E. DEPALMA DIGESER, AThreattoPublicPiety:Christians,Platonists,andtheGreatPersecution, Ithaca, NY – London, Cornell University Press, 2012, pp. 23-71; H. MARX-WOLF, SpiritualTaxonomiesandRitualAuthority:Platonists, Priests,andGnosticsintheThirdCentury C.E. (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion), Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016, pp. 21-23; P. TZAMALIKOS, Anaxagoras,Origen,andNeoplatonism:TheLegacyofAnaxagorastoClassicalandLate Antiquity(AKG, 128), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2016, vol. 1, pp. 4-5. 7. The text is fragment 39 in A. VON HARNACK, Porphyrius. Gegen die Christen, 15Bücher.Zeugnisse,FragmenteundReferate(Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie

PORPHYRY AT ORIGEN’S SCHOOL AT CAESAREA

269

question will not be found and the Porphyrian fragments targeting the Christian allegorists and Origen will continue to hover in the void. But if we affirm, as would appear not only reasonable but well documented, that the only anti-Christian treatise by Porphyry is none other than the PhilosophyaccordingtotheOracles, we might have a chance to reach a sensible solution8. I Firstly, however, we need to deal with a preliminary issue: what did Porphyry mean by the verb ἐντετύχηκαin the autobiographical description of his personal relationship with Origen? This Greek verb has several meanings. I think we can exclude the one found, for example, in Plutarch, Solon20,3: “to have sexual intercourse”, as it would be extremely odd for Porphyry to have recorded such an experience with Origen when excoriating him for entirely different reasons. In fact, no one has yet put forward this translation, though you never know what the future holds, if we recall that a pederastic dynamic in Gregory the Wonderworker’s description of his student-teacher relationship with Origen is considered certain by Valantasis9. But the suggestion recently made by Johnson, that this verbmay denote that Porphyry “read” Origen when he was younger, that is, that he had with Origen a “textual encounter”, is far from convincing10. Why would a pagan Phoenician teenager have read the works of an old Christian der Wissenschaften / Phil.-hist. Kl., 1916.1), Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1916, and fragment 6 in Porphyrios, “ContraChristianos”: Neue Sammlung der Fragmente, Testimonien und Dubia mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, ed. M. BECKER (Texte und Kommentare, 52), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2016, pp. 132-167. 8. For the identification of the PhilosophyaccordingtotheOracleswith the treatise written by Porphyry “against the Christians”, see for the moment P.F. BEATRICE, SoSpoke theGods:OraclesandPhilosophyintheSo-called“AnonymousCommentaryontheParmenides”, in H. SENG – G. SFAMENI GASPARRO(eds.), TheologischeOrakelinderSpätantike (Bibliotheca Chaldaica, 5), Heidelberg, Winter, 2016, 115-144, and P.F. BEATRICE, Barbarians,Greeks,andChristians:RethinkingPorphyry’sAttitudeTowardstheReligious GroupsofHisTime, in G. BADY – D. CUNY(eds.), LespolémiquesreligieusesduIerau IVesiècledenotre ère.HommageàBernardPouderon (Théologie Historique, 128), Paris, Beauchesne, 2019, 259-273. A thorough investigation is in preparation. 9. R. VALANTASIS, SpiritualGuidesoftheThirdCentury:ASemioticStudyoftheGuide- DiscipleRelationshipinChristianity,Neoplatonism,Hermetism,andGnosticism (Harvard Dissertations in Religion, 27), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1991, pp. 25-31. 10. A.P. JOHNSON, ReligionandIdentityinPorphyryofTyre:TheLimitsofHellenism inLateAntiquity(Greek Culture in the Roman World),Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 16, n. 68.

270

P.F. BEATRICE

theologian? It is true that the participle οἱ ἐντυγχάνοντες may mean “the readers” (see e.g. Polybius I,3,10; Plutarch, Romulus 12,6), but the verb, when it means “to read”, normally has a complement in the dative such as “book” or “writing”, not the name of a person: see for example Plato, Symposium 177B: ἀλλ̓ ἔγωγε ἤδη τινὶ ἐνέτυχον βιβλίῳ ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ; Psellos, Op. 43: εἴ τις ἐντετύχηκε καὶ οἷς ἔγραψεν ὁ Πορφύριος11. Before quoting Porphyry’s own words, Eusebius explains that Porphyry intended to slander the sacred Scriptures and their Christian interpreters, and among these especially Origen, the man whom he says he knew (ἐγνωκέναι) in his youth12. On the other hand, Rufinus of Aquileia translates Porphyry’s sentence in this way: Huiusautemabsurdaeexpositionis initiumprocessitaviro,quemetiamego, adhuccumessemvaldeparvulus, vidiarcemtotiuseruditionistenentem…13.The problems posed by Rufinus’s translation of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History are well known, but the fact that here he renders the Greek ἐντετύχηκα into the Latin vidi certainly lends weight to the conclusion that the only possible translation of the verb in our context cannot be but “to see”, “to know”, “to meet”, “to have a personal encounter with”. But that is not enough, as we wonder what kind of meeting or encounter we are talking about. The problem is that we can know people in many ways and on various levels. I would argue that Porphyry visited Origen for a period of at least a few months, long enough to have been able to write: He (Origen) was always consorting (Συνῆν τε γὰρ ἀεὶ) with Plato and was conversant with the writings (ὠμίλει συγγράμμασιν) of Numenius and Cronius, Apollophanes and Longinus and Moderatus, Nicomachus and the distinguished men among the Pythagoreans; and he used also the books of Chaeremon the Stoic and Cornutus, from which he learnt the allegorical interpretation of the Greek mysteries, and applied it to the Jewish writings (ἐχρῆτο δὲ καὶ Χαιρήμονος τοῦ Στωϊκοῦ Κορνούτου τε ταῖς βίβλοις, παῤ ὧν τὸν μεταληπτικὸν τῶν παῤ Ἕλλησιν μυστηρίων γνοὺς τρόπον ταῖς Ἰουδαικαῖς προσῆψεν γραφαῖς)14.

No matter how and where Porphyry obtained information about Origen’s life, the depth of detail disclosed in the above citation reveals a deep, personal experience with the man and his milieu. This direct acquaintance with Origen’s intellectual habits, despite the repudiation of his religious and philosophical ideas, would have been impossible if Porphyry 11. See MichaelisPselliphilosophicaminora. 2: Opusculapsychologica,theologica, daemonologica, ed. D.J. O’MEARA, Leipzig, Teubner, 1989, pp. 154-155. 12. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,19,2-3. 13. See GCS NF 6/2, 559 SCHWARTZ – MOMMSEN – WINKELMANN. 14. In Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. VI,19,8.

PORPHYRY AT ORIGEN’S SCHOOL AT CAESAREA

271

had simply bumped up against Origen – it would be difficult to imagine where – and if he had not had time enough to meet him fairly often and at close quarters. In other words, to account for Porphyry’s remark, we need to assume that he attended Origen’s school and library at Caesarea for a certain period. In the seventh century CE Athanasius the Syrian wrote in the preface of his translation of Porphyry’s Isagoge: Porphyry was a philosopher from the city of Tyre, and he was a disciple of Origen. This man was envied by those who were there, for he had dared to make an interpretation of the holy Gospel, and his interpretation was opposed by Gregory the Wonderworker15.

I deem this information worth considering regardless of Athanasius’s source, since Gregory himself states in his Address of Thanksgiving to Origen that he attended the school of Origen at Caesarea for eight years16. Unfortunately, Athanasius’s testimony has been so far generally neglected in the relevant literature17. According to the Latin translation, Athanasius is stating here that Porphyry attacked the Gospel in a treatise which was then refuted by Gregory: PorphyriusPhilosophuseratexcivitateTyro,etOrigenisdiscipulus.Hicabillis,quiibidegebant,culpabatur(eonempe,quodausus fuissetsacrumEvangeliumimpugnare:quodtamenejusopusaGregorio Thaumaturgooppugnatumfuit). VenitautemRomam… However, as the editors acknowledge, Gregory’s written reply to Porphyry is nowhere mentioned: AnveroGregoriusThaumaturgus,utiheicdicitur,contra Porphyriumscripserit,nemoVeterum(quodsciam)idtradit18. Moreover, it is rather difficult to imagine when this work might have been written, since Gregory most probably died under Aurelian (270-275 CE), when Porphyry was just beginning to write his anti-Christian treatise. 15. The Syriac text is found in the codex Vaticanussyr. 158, f. 1. Latin translation by S.E. ASSEMANUS – J.S. ASSEMANUS, BibliothecaeApostolicaeVaticanaecodicummanuscriptorumcatalogus… Partisprimaetomustertiuscomplectensreliquoscodiceschaldaicossive syriacos, Romae, 1759, p. 305; repr. Paris, Librairie Orientale et Américaine, Maisonneuve Frères, Éditeurs, 1926. English transl.: Porphyriiphilosophifragmenta.Fragmentaarabica D.Wassersteininterpretante, ed. A. SMITH, Stuttgart – Leipzig, Teubner, 1993, p. 24, 29aT. 16. Gregory, PanOrat I,3; GrégoireleThaumaturge. RemerciementàOrigènesuivide lalettred’OrigèneàGrégoire, ed. H. CROUZEL (SC, 148), Paris, Cerf, 1969, p. 94. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. VI,30 writes “five years” and adds the name of Gregory’s brother Athenodorus. 17. DEPALMA DIGESER, A Threat to Public Piety (n. 6), pp. 76-77, is a remarkable exception to the rule. Oddly enough, M.B. SIMMONS, UniversalSalvationinLateAntiquity: Porphyry of Tyre and the Pagan-Christian Debate (Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 66-67, confuses Athanasius the Syrian with Athanasius of Alexandria. 18. ASSEMANI (n. 15), p. 305.

272

P.F. BEATRICE

Another, more likely interpretation is that at the school of Origen in Caesarea there was a debate between Gregory and Porphyry on the interpretation of the Gospel. There is however a chronological difficulty. Crouzel, followed by a majority of scholars, places the stay of Gregory at Caesarea between 231 and 238, while Nautin proposes the years 238-24519. In both cases, he could hardly have met Porphyry who was born in 23223320. I think that this problem can be solved if we date the arrival of Gregory at Caesarea to around 240-241, and the dispute between Gregory and Porphyry to around 248-249, when Gregory was about thirty-five, before the delivery of the Address and the departure from Caesarea on the eve of Decius’s persecution. In the margin of Athanasius’s manuscript one finds the following interesting words: IdemPorphyriusanteaFidelisfuerat,posteaethnicusfactusest21. According to other Christian sources, the reason for Porphyry’s apostasy was that in Caesarea he received blows (πληγάς), that is, was beaten by certain Christians, which prompted his vengeful project of writing a work against the Christians22. The experience of the young Phoenician Malcus with his Christian fellows at the school of Origen in Caesarea seems, then, to have been less than pleasant. In any event, thanks to Origen’s teaching, he came in contact with the Christian allegorical exegesis of the Jewish scriptures and the great Greek cultural tradition, the philosophers and the poets of the past.

19. See SC 148, 22 CROUZEL; P. NAUTIN, Origène:Savieetsonœuvre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 380-382. 20. J.W. TRIGG,God’sMarvelousOikonomia:ReflectionsofOrigen’sUnderstanding of Divine and Human Pedagogy in the Address Ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, in JournalofEarlyChristianStudies 9 (2001) 27-52, p. 27, n. 2, prudently states: “Either of these dates allows for a continuous, extended course of study by the author at Caesarea; we do not have sufficient evidence to be confident in choosing between them”. He does not know Athanasius the Syrian, but acutely surmises that “since Porphyry himself testifies to having met Origen during his youth, the two may even have known one another” (p. 28). 21. Latin translation ASSEMANI (n. 15), p. 305. 22. See e.g. Socrates, Hist.Eccl. III,23,37-39; Nicephorus Callistus, Hist.Eccl. X,36; Arethas (?), Scholia in Luciani Peregr. 11. These are the fragments 9T, 9aT, and 11T SMITH (n. 15). More details in W. KINZIG, WarderNeuplatonikerPorphyriosursprünglichChrist?, in M. BAUMBACH – H. KÖHLER – A.M. RITTER(eds.), MousopolosStephanos. Festschrift für Herwig Görgemanns (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften NF, II/102), Heidelberg, Winter, 1998, 320-332, with further bibliography. The Miaphysite author of Theosophia II,25 attributes this information to unnamed ἅγιοι, a word which in this context seems to refer to those writers such as Eusebius and Socrates, who impiously lay the blame for Porphyry’s apostasy on the Christians. See P.F. BEATRICE, Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia: An Attempt at Reconstruction (SupplVigChr, 56), Leiden – Boston, MA – Köln, Brill, 2001, p. xxvi and p. 36.

PORPHYRY AT ORIGEN’S SCHOOL AT CAESAREA

273

It is again Gregory, in his Address, who informs usthat at the school of Origen “all the writings of the ancient philosophers and poets” (τῶν ἀρχαίων πάντα ὅσα καὶ φιλοσόφων καὶ ὑμνῳδῶν ἐστι γράμματα), with the exception of those of the atheists who deny God and the providence, were the object of intense study23. Now, only Porphyry’s active participation in the courses held by Origen at his school in Caesarea could explain his rendering of the impassioned teaching of Origen on Homer’s epic poems, and his consequent direct critical reaction that we know about from Proclus’s discussion of Plato’s Timaeus 19D2-E2: And so, says Porphyry, Origen spent three whole days shouting and going red in the face, and getting into quite a sweat, saying that the claim was important and problematic, and very keen to demonstrate that the imitation in the works of Homer adequately depicts actions of excellence. Who, after all, is more grandiloquent than Homer, who, even when he brings gods into strife and battle, does not fall short of capturing their likeness, but matches the nature of their deeds in his majestic language. This is the argument that confronts us. In answer to it Porphyry says that Homer is quite capable of dressing their passions in intensity and majesty and lifting their deeds to an imposing magnificence, but he is not able to convey a dispassionate intellective state or the activities of the philosophic life24.

The subject of this testimony, found by Proclus somewhere in the writings of Porphyry, is currently referred to as “Origen the Platonist”, as if such enthusiasm for Homer’s poetry had been absolute anathema to the Christian Origen and Porphyry’s involvement in the discussion was proof of the existence of the other Origen. On the contrary, however, this text not only confirms the information given by Gregory about the study of philosophers and poets in the school of Origen the Christian, the only Origen we know, but also sheds new light on the passages of the treatise AgainstCelsus in which Origen expresses his deep interest in, and admiration for Homer’s poetry despite its moral and religious faults25. 23. Gregory, PanOrat XIII,151-152 (SC 148, 158 CROUZEL); St.GregoryThaumaturgus. LifeandWorks, transl. M. SLUSSER (Fathers of the Church, 98), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1998, p. 116, n. 73, thinks that the word ὑμνῳδῶν (“singers”) does not refer here to the pagan Greek poets, singers of hymns or odes in praise of gods or heroes, as the context clearly requires, but to the authors of the Psalms and other biblical writings. 24. Proclus, In Tim. I; Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum Commentaria, ed. E. DIEHL, t. I, Leipzig, Teubner, 1903, pp. 63-64. Engl. tr. by H. TARRANT, Proclus.CommentaryonPlato’sTimaeus.Vol. I:BookI:ProclusontheSocraticStateandAtlantis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 157. 25. See e.g. CC I,17; I,31; I,42; II,76; IV,36; IV,55; IV,91; VII,6; VII,36; VII,54; VIII,16; VIII,53; VIII,68.

274

P.F. BEATRICE

Proclus reports other interpretations of Origen on Plato’s writings. In my opinion, we ought not to attribute these “fragments” to the mysterious Origen the pagan, as the historians of ancient philosophy are wont to do26. I find it more reasonable to think of the Christian Origen who, according to Gregory, expounded the works of almost all the ancient philosophers. As far as I can see, the ten references to Origen found in Proclus, one in the PlatonicTheology (fr. 7 Weber) and nine in the Commentaryonthe Timaeus (fr. 8-16 Weber), are the only extant traces of Origen’s philosophical teachings at the school of Caesarea, ultimately deriving from Porphyry’s recollections of the lectures that he heard from Origen in person, or from the notes that Porphyry took there, as it were ἀπὸ φωνῆς, and then reworked in his writings27. However, this does not rule out the possibility that Porphyry also found Origen’s interpretations in the two philosophical treatises OnDaemons and ThatOnlytheKingIsCreatorwhich he mentions in the LifeofPlotinus28. Besides, Gregory reports that Origen expounded and clarified the dark and enigmatic places (ὅ τί ποτε σκοτεινὸν καὶ αἰνιγματῶδες ᾖ), of which there are many in the sacred words, and that he interpreted and illuminated the enigmas (αἰνίγματα), since he was a skilled and sagacious disciple of God29. This statement throws a special light on the charge that Porphyry brings against the Christian allegorists, above all Origen, of interpreting the words of Moses as if they were enigmas, and confirms that Porphyry witnessed Origen explaining the Jewish scriptures in the school of Caesarea. But there is more. According to Gregory, the “divine oracles” of the Scriptures were for Origen “pure and bright oracles” that he had trained himself to receive into his own soul and to teach others, and God had honoured Origen as a friend and as “the interpreter of these oracles”30. In other words, Gregory 26. See e.g. K.-O. WEBER, Origenes der Neuplatoniker: Versuch einer Interpretation (Zetemata, 27), München, Beck, 1962; TARRANT, Proclus (n. 24), pp. 35-37, 72-73. According to H. TARRANT, Plotinus,Origenes,andAmmoniusonthe“King”, in A.K. PETERSEN – G. VAN KOOTEN (eds.), Religio-Philosophical Discourses in the Mediterranean World: FromPlato,throughJesus,toLateAntiquity(Ancient Philosophy and Religion, 1), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2017, 323-337, p. 324, n. 1: “While it is methodologically correct to separate this Origenes from the Christian, it is not certain that they are distinct”. I would say that it is methodologically incorrect to separate this Origen from the Christian simply because it is certain that there is just one Origen, the Christian Platonist. 27. In fifth to eighth century philosophical texts, this technical expression is always placed before the name of a professor and means “d’après l’enseignement oral de”, “pris au cours de”: see M. RICHARD, ΑΠΟΦΩΝΗΣ, in Byzantion 20 (1950) 191-222, repr. in ID., OperaMinora, III, Turnhout, Brepols; Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1977, no. 60. 28. See Porphyry, VitaPlot. 3. 29. Gregory, PanOrat XV,174 (SC 148, 168 CROUZEL). 30. Gregory, PanOrat XV,174-176 (SC 148, 168 CROUZEL).

PORPHYRY AT ORIGEN’S SCHOOL AT CAESAREA

275

claims that the oracles (λόγια), that is, the biblical prophecies, are obscure enigmas (αἰνίγματα) which need an interpreter chosen by God, Origen. It is not by sheer coincidence, I think, if in the preface of the Philosophy accordingtotheOracles Porphyry claims that the oracular prophecies of the gods were made not openly but through enigmas (δι’ αἰνιγμάτων)31. Porphyry applies to the interpretation of the obscure and enigmatic oracles of the gods the same language Gregory uses to denote Origen’s exegesis of the biblical texts. This remark indicates that Porphyry remembered Origen and his teachings not only in the third book of the Philosophy accordingtotheOracles. Already in the preface of the treatise, where he announces the contents of his commentary on the oracles of the gods, we can detect an indirect polemical allusion to the Christian teacher of his youth. At Origen’s school in Caesarea Porphyry might also have been introduced to the protreptic function of the Delphic maxim “Know thyself” (Γνῶϑι σαυτόν). Stobaeus quotes three fragments taken from a writing that Porphyry devoted to this theme32. If we can trust Gregory’s Address, Origen praised philosophy and the lovers of philosophy who know themselves (ἑαυτούς τε γινώσκοντας) first for who they are, and castigated ignorance and all the ignorant who are many and have no knowledge of what they are. That is why he urged his disciples to philosophize, because no true piety toward the Ruler of the universe was possible to anyone who did not lead a philosophic life33. Origen’s exhortation prompted Gregory to study Greek philosophy (φιλοσοφεῖν προὐτρέψατο)34. He taught his disciples to desire and seek to know themselves (ἑαυτοὺς γινώσκειν ἐϑέλειν τε καὶ πειρᾶσϑαι). This is the noblest achievement of philosophy, which is even attributed to the most prophetic of demons, i.e. the god Apollo, as an injunction comprising all wisdom: “Know thyself”35. We know from Rufinus’s translation that in the Commentaryonthe Songof Songs Origen attributed the Delfic maxim to one of the Seven Sages: Uniusexseptem,quosapudGraecossingularesinsapientiafuissefama concelebrat, haec inter cetera mirabilis fertur esse sententia, qua ait: “Scitoteipsum”,vel“Cognosceteipsum”36.

31. In Eusebius, Praep.Evang. IV,8,2. 32. See 273F-275F SMITH (n. 15). 33. Gregory, PanOrat VI,75-79 (SC 148, 124-126 CROUZEL). 34. Gregory, PanOrat XI,133 and 135 (SC 148, 150 CROUZEL). 35. Gregory, PanOrat XI,141 (SC 148, 152 CROUZEL). 36. See Origen, CCt II,5,1, on Cant 1,8; Origenes.DerKommentarzumHohelied, ed. A. FÜRST – H. STRUTWOLF (OWD, 9.1), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter; Freiburg i.Br. – Basel – Wien, Herder, 2016, pp. 230-231.

276

P.F. BEATRICE

Moreover, according to Gregory, in his school at Caesarea Origen developed a program of philosophical studies which included dialectics, physics, geometry, astronomy, ethics and theology37. Eusebius confirms this information38, but it is above all Origen’s letter to Gregory on the relationship between Greek paideia and Christian faith which reveals the special place the encyclical disciplines (ἐγκύκλια μαϑήματα) had in Origen’s curriculum. What the children of the philosophers say about geometry, music, grammar, rhetoric and astronomy, as handmaids to philosophy, Christians may say concerning philosophy itself in relation to Christianity, by resorting to the allegory of “the despoliation of Egypt”39. Of course, in Porphyry’s thought the encyclical disciplines, as well as allegorical exegesis, are extraneous to Christianity, whereas they are considered necessary for the salvation of the intellectual soul of the philosopher. We owe to Porphyry the first-known systematic presentation of the seven encyclical disciplines, not by chance, in his Lives of the Philosophers (or PhilosophicalHistory) in the following order: grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy40. Nevertheless, the strong similarity of Porphyry’s list of the encyclical disciplines with that found in Origen’s letter to Gregory might mean that Porphyry was initiated to the study of the encyclical disciplines not by Longinus in Athens, as Eunapius puts it, but already by Origen in Caesarea41. To sum up, for all these reasons it would seem appropriate, even necessary, to translate the verb ἐντετύχηκα not simply as “I met”, but, with a further specification, as“I knew, I frequented, I mixed with”. 37. Gregory, PanOrat VII,93–XV,183 (SC 148, 134-172 CROUZEL). 38. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. VI,18,3. 39. Origen, Epist. Greg. 1-2 (SC 148, 186-188 CROUZEL). On Origen’s allegorical exegesis of this biblical episode see P.F. BEATRICE, The Treasures of the Egyptians: A ChapterintheHistoryofPatristicExegesisandLateAntiqueCulture, in StudiaPatristica39 (2006) 159-183; J.S. ALLEN, The Despoliation of Egypt in Pre-Rabbinic, Rabbinic and PatristicTraditions(SupplVigChr, 92), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2008, pp. 211-233, with my review in ZAC14 (2010) 449-451; C. GNILKA, Chrêsis:DieMethodederKirchenväter im Umgang mit der antiken Kultur. I: Der Begriff des rechten Gebrauchs, Basel, Schwabe, 2012, pp. 92-100. 40. See Ioannes Tzetzes, Chiliades XI, 513-528; Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae, ed. P.A.M. LEONE(Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Filologia Classica – Università degli Studi di Napoli, 1), Napoli, Libreria Scientifica Editrice, 1968, pp. 448-449, and I. HADOT, Arts libérauxetphilosophiedanslapenséeantique:Contributionàl’histoiredel’éducation etdelaculturedansl’Antiquité(Textes et Traditions, 11), Paris, Vrin, 22005, pp. 280282. 41. Eunapius, VitaePhil.Soph.; PhilostratusandEunapius.TheLivesoftheSophists, ed. W.C. WRIGHT (LCL), London – Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1961, pp. 352-354 and 358-359.

PORPHYRY AT ORIGEN’S SCHOOL AT CAESAREA

277

II Now that we have clarified this anything-but-secondary issue, we can attempt to explain why this excerpt is to be found in Book III of the Philosophy according to the Oracles. In other words, we need to ask ourselves what relationship exists between the criticisms which Porphyry directs at Origen and the general context of Book III of the Philosophy accordingtotheOracles whose dominant theme seems to be the true nature of the art of divination and the correct interpretation of oracles42. It is only by addressing this question that we can find a satisfying explanation of the meaning of Porphyry’s fragment, plucking it from its isolation and returning it to its rightful place. Porphyry starts with the general statement that the Jewish scriptures are wicked and for this reason deserve to be rejected. If Porphyry expresses himself in this way it is because he had an in-depth knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, above all the prophets, as even the Christians were obliged to admit. Theodoret claims that Porphyry spent much time poring over the prophets when contriving his anti-Christian treatise43, and it is thanks to his thorough knowledge that Porphyry was able to unmask the ignorance of Mark who in the prologue of his gospel had quoted only Isaiah without Malachi44, and the ignorance of Matthew who had erroneously attributed to Isaiah a quotation from Asaph45. Concerning the wickedness of the Jewish writings, Porphyry harshly criticized the god of the Hebrews for forbidding the knowledge of the good in the Genesis narrative46, and discovered that the book of Daniel was not the work of the prophet who lived in the sixth century BCE, but a pseudepigraphic forgery of the second century BCE47. In sum, Porphyry had multiple reasons to think that the Jewish scriptures were full of dangerous mistakes and ought to be rejected by any reputable interpreter. If this is the case, what blunder do the Christian allegorists like Origen make, and why does Porphyry see it as so serious?

42. See the extant fragments in SMITH (n. 15), pp. 389-407. 43. Theodoret, Graec.aff.cur. VII,36; Theodoret.DeGraecarumaffectionumcuratione. Heilung der griechischen Krankheiten, ed. C. SCHOLTEN (SupplVigChr, 126), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2015,p. 476. 44. See Jerome, Tract.Marc.; CCSL 78A, ed. G. MORIN, 1958, p. 452, and Jerome, Comm.inMatth. III,3; CCSL 77, ed. D. HURST – M. ADRIAEN, 1969, pp. 16-17. 45. Jerome, Tract.dePsalmoLXXVII (CCSL 78A, 66-67 MORIN). 46. See Severian of Gabala, Demundicreatione,Oratio VI,3; PG 56, 487. 47. See P.F. BEATRICE, PagansandChristiansontheBookofDaniel, in StudiaPatristica 27 (1993) 27-45.

278

P.F. BEATRICE

Firstly, the Christian allegorists not only commit the mistake of not rejecting the Jewish scriptures, as Porphyry would have expected. They go as far as subjecting them to contradictory interpretations which do not accord with their contents. In the course of this deplorable operation they effectively boast that Moses’s plain words are riddles (ainigmata) and treat them as if they were divine oracles full of hidden mysteries. This heavy charge reminds us that already in the prologue to the Philosophy accordingtotheOracles Porphyry declared that the gods did not openly reveal the unutterable secrets, but by enigmas48, and undoubtedly connects this fragment to the programmatic declaration of the entire work, attesting further that the criticism of the Christian allegorical interpretation of the Jewish scriptures belongs to the PhilosophyaccordingtotheOracles and not to the imaginary treatise AgainsttheChristians. Treating the plain words of Moses as if they were oracles of the gods, was, for Porphyry, blasphemous. The height of absurdity, Porphyry continues in the second fragment cited by Eusebius, is that Origen applied to the Jewish writings the figurative interpretation, which is legitimate solely for the Greek mysteries, having learnt it from the works of the great masters of the Greek allegorical exegesis such as Chaeremon the Stoic and Cornutus49. In conclusion, I would argue that the context which makes sense of Porphyry’s criticism of Origen’s allegorical hermeneutics is not the attack on the Bible and its Christian interpreters. What was really at stake was the nature, function and correct interpretation of the pagan oracles, and the Christian allegorists are mentioned by Porphyry only as a bad example of people who have deviated and distorted the correct method of the allegorical exegesis of the Greek myths and mysteries. That is why to my mind these fragments fit in very well with the general topic of the third book of the PhilosophyaccordingtotheOracles50. Porphyry found Origen guilty of another wrong, possibly even worse. Origen not only took impiously recourse to the Stoic allegorical exegesis 48. In Eusebius, Praep.Evang. IV,8,2. 49. On these two philosophers see P.W. VAN DER HORST, Chaeremon,EgyptianPriest andStoicPhilosopher:TheFragmentsCollectedandTranslatedwithExplanatoryNotes (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain, 101), Leiden, Brill, 2 1987; H.-G. NESSELRATH (ed.), Cornutus.DieGriechischenGötter:EinÜberblicküber Namen,Bilder,undDeutungen (Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam Religionemque pertinentia, 14), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009. 50. For more details see P.F. BEATRICE, TheOrientalReligionsandPorphyry’sUniversalWayfortheSoul’sDeliverance, in C. BONNET- V. PIRENNE-DELFORGE – D. PRAET (eds.), Les religions orientales dans le monde grec et romain: Cent ans après Cumont (1906-2006).Bilanhistoriqueethistoriographique.ColloquedeRome,16-18novembre 2006 (Études de Philologie, d’Archéologie et d’Histoire Anciennes, 45), Bruxelles – Roma, Institut Historique Belge de Rome, 2009, 343-368, pp. 366-368.

PORPHYRY AT ORIGEN’S SCHOOL AT CAESAREA

279

for the interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, in order to harmonize them with Christian doctrines, but as a former teacher of grammar, he subjected to the same allegorical treatment the epic poems of his beloved Homer, trying to show their inner Christian meaning. Traces of this surprising, and normally ignored, aspect of Origen’s exegetical activity are to be found in a passage of Didymus’s Commentary on the Ecclesiastes discovered among the Tura papyri (p. 281, 16-22). I give here the English translation according to my conjectural restitution of the text: Porphyry, then, wanting [to charge us, i.e. the Christians] with inventing anagogical and allegorical meanings [in addition to, or, probably better, in contrast with, the plain letter of the text, says that Origen] allegorized (ἠλληγόρησεν) [the epic verses, scil. of Homer] where Achilles and Hector are mentioned, relating them to Christ and the devil. And the things we (we, the Christians) are used to saying about the devil, he (i.e. Origen) said about Hector, and what we are used to saying about Christ, he said about Achilles. And he (i.e. again Origen) also used the following words: “Before Achilles’s victory, Hector strutted in front of all, and was considered stronger than all, but he did this in order to cheat (ὑπὲρ τοῦ διαβαλεῖν: hence the identification of Hector with the devil, diabolos)”. Here the figurative interpretation stops51.

As is well known, the interpretation of this highly corrupt text, whose correct reading requires filling two long lacunae for a total of about forty letters, is fraught with difficulty. As is to be expected, various attempts have been made to reconstruct its original wording. Nevertheless, thus far all the interpreters of the passage without exception, beginning with Binder52 and Gronewald53, have opined that the author of this allegory was Porphyry who intended in this way to throw discredit on Christian allegory by showing the absurd consequences of this hermeneutical method. Now, this current interpretation is based on an arbitrary procedure, that no serious papyrologist would endorse, and can therefore hardly be accepted, since it links the name of Porphyry directly with the verb ἠλληγόρησεν, totally ignoring the long lacuna which separates them. However one might wish to fill the two lacunae of the papyrus, we have to emphasize what really matters, namely, that this particular allegory 51. Edition of the Greek text and French translation by P.F. BEATRICE, Didymel’Aveugle etlatraditiondel’allégorie, in G. DORIVAL–A. LE BOULLUEC(eds.), OrigenianaSexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 579590. 52. G. BINDER, Eine Polemik des Porphyrios gegen die allegorische Auslegung des AltenTestamentsdurchdieChristen, in ZPE3 (1968) 81-95. 53. M. GRONEWALD, DidymosderBlinde:KommentarzumEcclesiastes(Tura-Papyrus). Teil V: Kommentar zu Eccl. Kap. 9,8–10,20 (PTA, 24), Bonn, Habelt, 1979, pp. 2638.

280

P.F. BEATRICE

of Achilles and Hector cannot in any way be traced back to a pagan like Porphyry, and that the subject of the verb ἠλληγόρησεν cannot be but a Christian. This statement finds support in the fact that the only other known writer who has identified Achilles with Christ is the Christian emperor Constantine in his OrationtotheAssemblyoftheSaints54. Commenting upon the Latin text of the Fourth Eclogue, vv. 35-36 (eruntetiamaltera bella/atqueiterumadTroiammagnusmitteturAchilles; the Greek version has: πολέμου δὲ/ Τρώων καὶ Δαναῶν πειρήσεται αὖϑις Ἀχιλλεύς), which prophesy that Achilles will fight a new war between Trojans and Greeks, Constantine says that here Virgil symbolically indicates Achilles as the Saviour who (in his First Coming) rushed into the Trojan war, Troy being the entire world (τὸν μὲν Ἀχιλλέα χαρακτηρίζει τὸν σωτῆρα ὁρμῶντα ἐπὶ τὸν τρωϊκὸν πόλεμον, τὴν δὲ Τροίαν τὴν οἰκουμένην πᾶσαν). The Saviour warred indeed against the opposing evil power, having been sent forth by his own providence and the order of the Supreme Father.

Even though the name of Hector is not explicitly mentioned, Constantine resumes here in almost identical terms the allegory criticized by Porphyry, only replacing Hector with Troy: Achilles and Hector, the champion of Troy, are in reality prophetic figures of Christ and the devil. Edwards does not translate Constantine’s sentence containing the allegory of Achilles-Christ and of Troy-evil power, and does not mention Didymus’s papyrus which reports Porphyry’s attack on Christian allegory55. Both Goulet and Pollmann have missed the point, since they overlook Constantine’s testimony in their interpretation of Didymus’s text56. Becker mentions this text only briefly, when it should have led him to recognize the Christian provenance of this allegory57. Cook knows Constantine’s interpretation, but his conclusive statement is unjustified: 54. Constantine, Oratioadsanctorumcoetum 20,9; ÜberdasLebenConstantins.ConstantinsRedeandieHeiligeVersammlung.TricennatsredeanConstantin, ed. I.A. HEIKEL (GCS, 7), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1902, p. 185. 55. M. EDWARDS, ConstantineandChristendom:TheOrationtotheSaints.TheGreek andLatinAccountsoftheDiscoveryoftheCross.TheEdictofConstantinetoPopeSylvester (Translated Texts for Historians, 39), Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2003, p. 50. 56. Macarios de Magnésie. Le Monogénès. Introduction générale, édition critique, traductionfrançaiseetcommentaire, ed. R. GOULET (Textes et Traditions, 7), Paris, Vrin, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 145-147, and vol. 2, p. 412; K. POLLMANN, Porphyry,Metaphor/Allegory, and the Christians, in I. MÄNNLEIN-ROBERT (ed.), Die Christen als Bedrohung? Text, KontextundWirkungvonPorphyrios’“ContraChristianos” (Roma Aeterna, 5), Stuttgart, Steiner, 2017, 85-110, pp. 101-102. 57. Porphyrios,“ContraChristianos”, ed. BECKER (n. 7), p. 172.

PORPHYRY AT ORIGEN’S SCHOOL AT CAESAREA

281

“Porphyry’s arguments were strong, if ignored by the Christian interpreters (such as Eusebius’ Constantine) who followed”58. I would suggest that Constantine inherited this allegory from some Christian interpreter. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to know where Constantine found this particular allegory of Achilles-Christ and Troy-evil power (or Hectordevil). This is just one of the numerous mysteries which still shroud the OrationtotheAssemblyoftheSaints. In any event, we can rule out the hypothesis that Constantine took it from Porphyry, whom he judged as the arch-enemy of Christianity and the precursor of Arius’s rejection of the divine nature of Christ59. We can also rule out other conjectures based on the special role Achilles played in the imperial panegyrics, in the lateantique “Alexander-Ideologie”, or as “divine man” in figurative representations60. All this has nothing to do with Constantine’s text. One might think of Lactantius who exerted a profound influence on Constantine’s theology61. But in Lactantius’s DivineInstitutes,the verses 31-36 of the Fourth Eclogue are never quoted, and there are no traces at all of this Christological interpretation of Achilles. Other verses of the same Eclogue (38-41; 28-30; 42-45 and 21-22),together with some verses of the Sibyl of Erythrae, are instead interpreted by Lactantius as a prophecy of the thousand-year reign of the son of God62. It seems likely, therefore, that Constantine was informed of the existence of this exegesis by a Christian advisor who had in some way gained an acquaintance with Origen’s works. Here we are in the dark and the 58. J.G. COOK, Porphyry’sAttemptedDemolitionofChristianAllegory, inTheInternationalJournalofthePlatonicTradition 2 (2008) 1-27, p. 23. 59. See Constantine’s letter quoted by Socrates, Hist.Eccl. I,9,30-31. 60. See e.g. P. COURCELLE, Lesexégèseschrétiennesdelaquatrièmeéglogue, in Revue desÉtudesAnciennes 59 (1957) 294-319, p. 296, n. 1, and pp. 305-306: “l’exégèse audacieuse de Constantin”; A. WLOSOK, Zwei Beispiele frühchristlicher “Vergilrezeption”: Polemik(Lact.,div.inst.5,10)undUsurpation(Or.Const.19-21), in V. PÖSCHL (ed.), 2000 JahreVergil.EinSymposion(Wolfenbütteler Forschungen, 24), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1983, 63-86, repr. in EAD., Reshumanae–resdivinae.KleineSchriften, ed. E. HECK – E.A. SCHMIDT(Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften NF, II/84), Heidelberg, Winter, 1990, 437-459, p. 452. 61. See P.F. BEATRICE, Eusebius and Marcellus: Conflicting Theological Discourses intheAgeofConstantine, in B. POUDERON – A. USACHEVA (eds.), DireDieu:Principes méthodologiquesdel’écrituresurDieuenpatristique(Théologie Historique, 124), Paris, Beauchesne, 2017, 159-189, pp. 175-178; E. DEPALMA DIGESER, PlatonisminthePalace: The Character of Constantine’s Theology, in M. SHANE BJORNLIE (ed.), The Life and Legacy of Constantine: Traditions through the Ages, London – New York, Routledge, 2017, 49-61. 62. Lactantius, Div.Inst. VII,24. See S. BENKO, Vergil’sFourthEclogueinChristian Interpretation, in ANRWII.31.1 (1980) 646-705, pp. 670-672, and A. BOWEN – P. GARNSEY, Lactantius. Divine Institutes (Translated Texts for Historians, 40), Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2003, pp. 434-436.

282

P.F. BEATRICE

greatest caution is needed. However, it would not be unfounded to speculate that one of these advisors was Ossius of Cordoba, if we remember that Origen is mentioned favourably and left a lasting imprint in the CommentaryontheTimaeus dedicated to Ossius by Calcidius63. Ossius had been a confidant and a collaborator of Constantine’s since 313, and because of his deep knowledge of Greek theology was sent in 324 to Alexandria by Constantine as judge of peace between Alexander and Arius64. Equally Eusebius may be taken into account. Eusebius possessed Constantine’s Oration which was transmitted with the LifeofConstantine65. In this case, however, the Oration should not be dated before 325, the year of the Council of Nicaea where Constantine and Eusebius met for the first time. Be that as it may, now that we have established that the allegory of Achilles-Christ and Hector-devil was produced not by a pagan philosopher like Porphyry but by a Christian theologian interested in the Christian reinterpretation of the Homeric poems, we wonder who else among the Christian writers older than Porphyry could have imagined such an allegorical exegesis if not Origen. While it is true that we do not have parallels in Origen’s extant works, after all that has been said so far it can hardly be denied that the only reasonable explanation for Didymus’s fragment is that the author of this allegory was none other than Origen. We ought not to forget that Porphyry heard Origen expounding Homer, and all the other Greek philosophers and poets, at the school of Caesarea, and that he is for this reason a precious witness to Origen’s oral teachings. Yet it is not difficult to imagine that Origen might have developed this allegory, aimed at Christianizing Homer as far as possible, or at least at harmonizing Homer with Christian theology, already in one of the ten books of the lost Stromateis, a work with which Porphyry seems to have been well acquainted66. Porphyry’s aim in mentioning the Christological exegesis of Achilles’s fight with Hector was evidently to discredit Origen’s allegorical method, taking this case as an extreme example of the grotesque absurdities to which Origen’s deviant exegetical practices had led him. From this point of view, Porphyry’s condemnation of Origen’s allegorical interpretation 63. See P.F. BEATRICE, Ein Origeneszitat im Timaioskommentar des Calcidius, in W.A. BIENERT–U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), OrigenianaSeptima:OrigenesindenAuseinandersetzungendes4.Jahrhunderts(BETL, 137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999, 75-90. 64. See Eusebius, VitaConstantini II,63 and II,73. 65. See Eusebius,VitaConstantini IV,32. 66. See R.M. GRANT, The Stromateis of Origen, in J. FONTAINE – C. KANNENGIESER (eds.), Epektasis.MélangespatristiquesoffertsauCardinalJ.Daniélou, Paris, Beauchesne, 1972, 285-292.

PORPHYRY AT ORIGEN’S SCHOOL AT CAESAREA

283

of Achilles and Hector runs parallel to his criticism of Origen’s application of the allegorical method to the Jewish scriptures as reported by Eusebius. That is why I would place the fragment reported by Didymus in the same section of the third book of the Philosophyaccordingtothe Oracles which targeted the illegitimate and paradoxical exegesis practised by Origen. Via Pietro Metastasio 16 IT-35125 Padova Italy [email protected]

Pier Franco BEATRICE

STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES AT THE SCHOOL OF CAESAREA THE TESTIMONY OF GREGORY OF NEOCAESAREA’S ORATIO PANEGYRICA

The OratioPanegyricainOrigenem, the farewell speech1 delivered by Gregory of Neocaesarea upon his departure from the school of Caesarea2, has always been considered a primary source, documenting the figure of the Alexandrian master and the outline of his school. It offers a first-hand account of Origen’s teaching. Two aspects of Gregory’s narrative have garnered much scholarly interest: the absence of central Christian doctrines, and the prominent Hellenic features which characterise the descriptions of Origen as a philosopher and of the cursusstudiorumof his school. Gregory’s report indeed seems to indicate that Origen’s pupils first studied dialectics (PanOrat§§93-108), then physics (§§109-114), then ethics (§§115-149), and finally, theology (§§150-181)3. 1. On the classification of the work as a “farewell speech” (suntaktikos logos) see A. BRINKMANN, Gregors des Thaumaturgen Panegyricus auf Origenes, in Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 56 (1901) 55-76, pp. 59-60, and L. PERNOT, La Rhétorique de l’élogedanslemondegréco-romain. T. II: Lesvaleurs(Collection des Études Augustiniennes, 138), Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1993, pp. 781-789. 2. As is well known, after Pierre NAUTIN’s study on Origen (Origène:Savieetson œuvre [Christianisme antique, 1], Paris, Beauchesne, 1977), the attribution of this work to Gregory of Neocaesarea has been disputed by some expert scholars, but with arguments which have not achieved consensus. For a review of these issues and for the reasons why I consider the traditional ascription trustworthy see F. CELIA, GregoryofNeocaesarea: ARe-examinationoftheBiographicalIssue,in Adamantius 22 (2016) 171-193, and, with further details, PreachingtheGospeltotheHellenes:TheLifeandWorksofGregory theWonderworker(Late Antique History and Religion, 20), Leuven, Peeters, 2019. The reference edition of the OratioPanegyricaremains GrégoireleThaumaturge. RemerciementàOrigènesuividelalettred’OrigèneàGrégoire, ed. H. CROUZEL (SC, 148), Paris, Cerf, 1969. The English translation I have relied on the most is St.GregoryThaumaturgus. LifeandWorks, transl. M. SLUSSER (Fathers of the Church, 98), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1998. All unattributed translations are my own. 3. Scholars usually endorse Pierre HADOT’s opinion that Origen’s order of studies was inspired by Middle- or Neo-Platonist schools (Lesdivisionsdespartiesdelaphilosophie dansl’Antiquité, in MuseumHelveticum 36 [1979] 201-223, and Théologie,exégèse,révélation, écriture, dans la philosophie grecque, in M. TARDIEU [ed.], Les reglès de l’interprétation, Paris, Cerf, 1987, 13-34). M. RIZZI (LascuoladiOrigenetralescuolediCesarea edelmondotardoantico, in O. ANDREI [ed.], CaesareaMaritimaelascuolaorigeniana: Multiculturalità,formedicompetizioneculturaleeidentitàcristiana.Attidell’XIConvegno delGruppoItalianodiRicercasuOrigeneelaTradizioneAlessandrina(22-23settembre 2011)[Supplementi di Adamantius, 3], Brescia, Morcelliana, 2013, 105-119), has recently

286

F. CELIA

Scholars have assigned various weights to each of these factors, but they have generally agreed that Gregory’s account is reliable4. Thus, Koetschau held that Origen’s training provided Gregory with extensive philosophical studies, but not with a deep penetration of Christian doctrines5. For Koch, the OratioPanegyricaconfirmed the old opinion, put forward especially by Harnack, that Origen was more of a pagan philosopher than a Christian theologian6. Gregory’s preference for a philosophical lexicon and his alleged scant knowledge of the Scriptures led Knauber to argue that Gregory gave a precise description of his studies, and to draw from it the conclusion that Origen’s school had the missionary aim to introduce young pagans to Christianity, without necessarily catechising them7. After Knauber, Crouzel, who had previously deemed that Gregory had not completed the study of the Scriptures8, became convinced that the school could not have offered only an “introduction to Christianity” to pagans, but must also have provided an “initiation to philosophy” to Christians9. Later on, Crouzel also came to endorse Knauber’s view that Gregory had remained pagan10. According to Nautin, the OratioPanegyricasupplies us with the experience of a single pupil forced to study pointed out that this view relies on scant evidence. Most scholars fail to acknowledge that the four disciplines mentioned by Gregory have a precedent in Chrysippus (SVF II, 242), although the latter put ethics before logic. Origen follows Chrysippus’s order in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs (GCS, 33, 75-76 BAEHRENS), and, with descending order, in FrLam XIV (GCS 6, 241 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN). In both cases Origen separates logic from the branches of knowledge, yet, in the prologue he says that logic should be mingled with the other disciplines. 4. With the exception of W. VÖLKER, DasVollkommenheitsidealdesOrigenes:Eine UntersuchungzurGeschichtederFrömmigkeitundzudenAnfängenchristlicherMystik (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 7), Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr, 1931, pp. 229-233, who maintained that Gregory had given a distorted picture of Origen because it is reduced to the “Hellenistic” traits and does not refer to his preaching. 5. Des Gregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, als Anhang der Brief des Origenes an Gregorios Thaumaturgos, ed. P. KOETSCHAU (Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften, 9), Freiburg i.Br. – Leipzig, J.C.B. Mohr, 1894, p. X. 6. H. KOCH,PronoiaundPaideusis:StudienüberOrigenesundseinVerhältniszum Platonismus (AKG, 22), Berlin ‒ Leipzig, De Gruyter, 1932, pp. 303-304. 7. A. KNAUBER, Das Anliegen der Schule des Origenes zu Cäsarea, in Münchener TheologischeZeitschrift 19 (1968) 182-203. 8. GrégoireleThaumaturge. Remerciement, ed. CROUZEL (n. 2), p. 91. 9. H. CROUZEL, CulturaefedenellascuoladiCesareadiOrigene, in S. FELICI (ed.), Crescitadell’uomonellacatechesideiPadri(Etàprenicena). Atti del convegno della Facolta di Lettere cristiane e classiche (Pontificium Institutum Altioris Latinitatis), 14-16 marzo 1986, Roma, LAS, 1987, 203-209, p. 209. 10. H. CROUZEL, Faut-il voir trois personnages en Grégoire le Thaumaturge?, in Gregorianum 60 (1979) 287-319, p. 309. He had ruled out this hypothesis in L’École d’OrigèneàCésarée:PostscriptumàuneéditiondeGrégoireleThaumaturge, in BLE 71 (1970) 15-27.

STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES AT THE SCHOOL OF CAESAREA

287

philosophy under a private teacher and, therefore, does not represent Origen’s teaching in Caesarea11. At present, no scholar would argue without being seriously challenged that Origen was hardly a theologian, that Gregory was a pagan when he delivered the Oratio12, or that Origen taught Gregory alone in Caesarea13. Yet, contemporary scholars continue to consider Gregory’s account of his studies as trustworthy, to the extent that it is often supposed to represent the practical plan of Origen’s “orderly training”14. Consequently, not only the centrality of philosophical studies in Gregory’s account appears to contradict Origen’s well-known view that they have an auxiliary function with respect to theology15, but also the idea that Origen’s teaching was unrelated to his catechetical activity seems reinforced. Moreover, even Gregory’s declaration that Origen and his pupils ruminated “day and night” on “the holy laws […] hymns and songs and mystical doctrines” (PanOrat§196) would appear contradictory. This paper seeks to resolve these points by reappraising some passages in the OratioPanegyrica, taking into particular account that Gregory’s audience consisted of both pagans and Christians. This element is being placed more and more at the centre of scholarly focus. Thus, Monaci 11. NAUTIN, Origène:Savieetsonœuvre (n. 2), pp. 187-188. 12. Cf., e.g., M. SIMONETTI, UnanuovaipotesisuGregorioilTaumaturgo, in Rivista distoria eletteraturareligiosa 24 (1988) 17-41, pp. 35-36; transl. SLUSSER (n. 2), p. 2; J.W. TRIGG,God’sMarvelousOikonomia:ReflectionsofOrigen’sUnderstandingofDivine and Human Pedagogy in the Address Ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, in Journal of EarlyChristianStudies 9 (2001) 27-52, p. 33; J. TLOKA, „…diesergöttlicheMensch!‟: DieDankrededesGregorThaumaturgosanOrigenesalsBeispielfürdieChristianisierungantikerIdentifikations-undDeutungsschemata, in B. ALAND – J. HAHN – C. RONNING (eds.), Literarische Konstituierung von Identifikationsfiguren in der Antike (STAC, 16), Tübingen, Mohr, 2003, 71-86, pp. 73-75. On Gregory’s knowledge of the Scriptures see, in particular, E. MAROTTA, Iriflessibiblicinell’orazioneadOrigenediGregorioilTaumaturgo, in VetChr10 (1973) 59-77. 13. Gregory refers to other pupils as “true sons” in PanOrat§189. Cf. also L. LUGARESI, Studenticristianiescuolapagana:Didaskaloi,logoiephilianeldiscorsodiringraziamentoaOrigeneenell’orazionefunebreperBasiliodiGregorioNazianzeno, in CristianesimonellaStoria 25 (2004) 779-832, p. 795, n. 46, and A. LE BOULLUEC, D’Origène àEusèbe:BibliothèqueetenseignementàCésaréedePalestine, in H. HUGONNARD-ROCHE (ed.), L’enseignementsupérieurdanslesmondesantiquesetmédiévaux:Aspectsinstitutionnels,juridiquesetpédagogiques.Colloqueinternationaldel’Institutdestraditions textuelles,6-7-8Octobre2005 (Textes et traditions, 16), Paris, Vrin, 2009, 239-261, pp. 245-246. 14. The expression is by P.M. BLOWERS, SchoolofCaesarea, in J.A. MCGUCKIN (ed.), The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Louisville, KY – London, Westminster John Knox, 2004, 191-193, p. 192; see also, for instance, W. LÖHR, ChristianityasPhilosophy: ProblemsandPerspectivesofanAncientIntellectualProject, in VigChr 64 (2010) 160188, p. 164. 15. This is clearly explained by Origen in his EpistulaadGregorium.

288

F. CELIA

Castagno has suggested that the context of Gregory’s speech may have led him to adopt a “polyvalent communicative code” capable of highlighting convergences in thought between pagans and Christians16. Rizzi has pointed out that Gregory’s description of his studies was meant to offer an “apology of Christianity as true philosophy” compatible with the values of the Second Sophistic movement and with the Empire17. Above all, Trigg has shown that Gregory’s concealment of “specifically Christian ideas” betrays a “deliberate strategy” which was inspired by his master18. Indeed, when addressing pagans prejudiced against Christianity “in order to lead them to the faith”, Origen suggested first to present “a useful teaching that is non-Christian”, and then, when the listeners accept that teaching, to expose it as “Christian doctrine” (HIerXX,5)19. These views show that a cautious approach is essential to understand the nuances and aims of our text. Indeed, Gregory often reveals himself quite capable of weaving together pagan and Christian ideas and of hiding one behind the other20. This capacity is especially evident in the passages on dialectics (PanOrat§§93-108). According to them, once Gregory decided to remain 16. A. MONACI-CASTAGNO, Origenedirettored’anime, in M. CATTO – I. GAGLIARDI – R.M. PARRINELLO (eds.), Direzionespiritualetraortodossiaederesia:DallescuolefilosoficheantichealNovecento, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2002, 61-85, p. 79. 17. Gregorio il Taumaturgo (?), EncomiodiOrigene. Introd., trad. e note di M. RIZZI, Milano, Paoline, 2002, p. 35. 18. TRIGG,God’sMarvelousOikonomia (n. 12), pp. 50-52. 19. Origenes, HIer XX,5 (SC 238, 272-274 HUSSON – NAUTIN): “Whenever we address words to pagans (ἀπὸ τῶν ἐϑνῶν) in order to lead them to the faith, if we see that they have been prejudiced against Christianity and despise the name and hate to hear it, just because it is the teaching of Christians (ὅτι οὗτος ὁ λόγος Χριστιανῶν ἐστιν), we act as if we were presenting a useful teaching that is not Christian, but when the teaching has been established according to the best of our ability, and we deem it possible to acquire the listener (τὸν ἀκροατὴν) to our party, since he has not just been listening indifferently to what has been said to him, then we confess that our praiseworthy teaching is Christian doctrine (τότε ὁμολογοῦμεν ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἐπαινετὸς λόγος Χριστιανῶν λόγος ἦν)” (transl. TRIGG, God’sMarvelousOikonomia [n. 12], p. 51). 20. A very eloquent example of this ability is given by an expression used at §18. Here Gregory says that he dared “to introduce ourselves with unwashed feet – as it is said – to ears (ἐπεμβαίνειν τολμήσαντες ἀνίπτοις τοῖς ποσί [τοῦτο δὴ τὸ τοῦ λόγου] ἀκοαῖς) in which the Divine Word himself ... resides” in order to express his being unworthy of speaking in front of Origen. Scholars are divided in considering the image of the “unwashed feet” as linked either to Origen’s exegetical works (see DesGregorios Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, ed. KOETSCHAU (n. 5), pp. XIII-XIV, and TRIGG, God’sMarvelousOikonomia [n. 12], pp. 41-42), or to Second Sophistic authors, such as Lucian of Samosata and Dio Chrysostom (see transl. SLUSSER [n. 2], p. 94 [n. 5], and transl. RIZZI [n. 17], pp. 113-114). However, there is no need whatsoever to assume that the influences exerted on Gregory by Origen’s teaching and by literary topoi of the Second Sophistic movement are mutually exclusive.

STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES AT THE SCHOOL OF CAESAREA

289

at the school, Origen started dealing with him “in a Socratic fashion” (Σωκρατικῶς, §97) by “questioning and examining and listening” to his answers (§95). In other words, Origen made use of dialectics (§109) to teach Gregory how to think and speak properly (§106). Interestingly enough, Origen is not said to have used the Socratic τέχνη τῆς μαιεύσεως mentioned in the Theaetetus (150B) but the γεωργικὴ (or φυτουργικὴ) τέχνη. Gregory dedicates a number of paragraphs to describing Origen as a “good farmer” who cultivates a “salty and parched, rocky and sandy” soil (PanOrat§93), and as a “gardener” who treats “wild” and “cultivated” plants (§94). By way of “confutations (ἐλέγχοι) and confrontation” Origen nurtured Gregory, who fought “the reins like unbroken horses”, making him “stand quietly before him” and purifying him (§§97-98). Through these means, as Gregory goes on to explain, he was readied to reject false opinions, however brilliantly devised and elegantly expressed, and to embrace holy and truthful words, which, like seeds, Origen had started sowing in him. The first passage of the section on dialectics deserves to be read carefully. (§93) … when […] it seemed that we would stay, from that point on he behaved like a good farmer (ἀγαϑὸς γεωργός) who has ground that is untilled or had never been good soil, but salty and parched, rocky and sandy – or maybe not entirely barren and unproductive but even quite fertile, though unwatered and uncultivated, overgrown with thorns and scrub and hard to till (Mt 13,3-9; Mc 4,3-8; Lc 8,4-8). (§94) Alternatively, he did as a gardener (φυτουργὸς ἀνήρ) does with a plant – a wild (ἄγριον) one which does not bear cultivated fruit (καρπῶν ἡμέρων) but which is not entirely valueless if someone versed in horticulture (τέχνῃ τῇ φυτουργικῇ) brings a cultivated (ἥμερον) shoot and grafts it in … Either way, a wild one (ἄγριον) is hardly valueless to a really skilled gardener, and even a cultivated one (ἥμερον) which is fruitful otherwise than it should be … (§95) These are the kind of people he takes, and surveying them thoroughly with his farming skill (τέχνῃ τῇ γεωργικῇ), he understands not only what is visible to all and out in the open to see, but also digs down and tests their innermost parts, questioning and probing and listening to the answers (ἐρωτῶν καὶ προτείνων καὶ ἀποκριναμένων ἀκούων) … (§96) When our unruly soul kept sending up and yielding “thorns and thistles” (Gn 3,18) [...] he cut everything off and got rid of it by proofs and by confrontation (τοῖς ἐλέγχοις καὶ τῷ κωλύειν). (§97) On occasion he would trip us in speech, challenging us in thoroughly Socratic fashion, every time he saw us fighting the reins like unbroken horses, [...] until by persuasion and coercion, [...] he made us stand quietly (ἡσυχίους) before him. (§98) At first it was hard for us and not without grief, as he was introducing us novices, who had never practiced following and argument, to his own reasoning, and purifying (ἐκκαϑαίρων) us at the same time. When he had brought us to a proper frame of mind and prepare us well to accept the words of truth (εἰς παραδοχὴν τῶν τῆς ἀληϑείας λόγων), (§99) only

290

F. CELIA

then, as into soft, well-tilled soil, ready to push forth what would come from the seeds, he began to plant lavishly. He did the sowing of the seeds at the right time, and all the rest of the cultivation at its right time, appropriately accomplishing each task and with reason’s own means. (§100) Everything obtuse or duplicitous about the soul […] he lanced and reduced by the refined arguments and rhetorical devices (λόγοις καὶ τρόποις) used for ailments of the mind …21.

While the images of the farmer22 and the “unbroken horses”23 in §97 appear to have been common in pedagogical literature, I do not think that Knauber was right in arguing that Gregory was merely endorsing a Stoic idea24. Nor do I believe Rizzi is correct in reading §93 as simply a “bucolic scene”25. Rather, I agree with Marotta that Gregory is using images derived from the Parable of the Sower to illuminate the teaching activity of Origen26. What, to the best of my knowledge, has thus far gone completely overlooked is that Gregory enriches this depiction with a series of references to Plato’s and Origen’s ideas27. Such a portrayal is unlikely to have escaped the notice of his mixed audience of pagans and Christians. At the end of the Phaedrus (276B‒277A), the farmer (ὁ νοῦν ἔχων γεωργός) who plants his seeds in good ground following the rules of the γεωργικὴ τέχνη (276B1-7) is the figure of the one who “has knowledge of the just and the good and the beautiful” and “employs the dialectic method and plants and sows in a fitting soul discourses of science (τῇ διαλεκτικῇ τέχνῃ χρώμενος, λαβὼν ψυχὴν προσήκουσαν, φυτεύῃ τε καὶ σπείρῃ μετ’ ἐπιστήμης λόγους) […] which are not fruitless, but yield seed from which there spring up in other minds other discourses 21. Gregorius Thaumaturgus, PanOrat VII (SC 148, 134,1–138,53 CROUZEL); transl. SLUSSER (n. 2), pp. 106-107. 22. Lucian, Anacharsis 20-21 (Lucian, vol. IV, transl. A.M. HARMON [LCL, 162], London, Heinemann; Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 19613, pp. 33-34) and Ps. Plutarch, TheEducationofChildren 2B‒C (Plutarch, Moralia, vol. I, transl. F.C. BABBITT [LCL, 197], Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, Heinemann, 1927, p. 9). 23. Ps. Plutarch, TheEducationofChildren 2F. 24. KNAUBER, DasAnliegenderSchuledesOrigeneszuCäsarea (n. 7), p. 193. 25. Transl. RIZZI (n. 17), pp. 146 (n. 38) and 147 (n. 41). 26. MAROTTA, Iriflessibiblicinell’orazioneadOrigene (n. 12), pp. 66-68. 27. For the presence of Plato in the Oratio Panegyrica see in particular the groundbreaking article of Brinkmann (see n. 2), the index of “textes profanes” in Crouzel’s edition (see n. 1), and the latest German edition by Peter Guyot and Richard Klein: Gregor der Wundertäter, OratioprosphoneticaacpanegyricainOrigenem,DankredeanOrigenes, im Anhang: Origenis EpistulaadGregoriumThaumaturgum, DerBriefdesOrigenesan Gregor den Wundertäter, übersetzt von P. GUYOT, eingeleitet von R. KLEIN (FC, 24), Freiburg i.Br.–Basel–Wien, Herder, 1996. None of them have detected the references to Plato I am about to mention.

STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES AT THE SCHOOL OF CAESAREA

291

capable of continuing the process for ever, and which make their possessor happy” (276E7‒277A5)28. We find the contrast between what is “wild” (ἄγριον) and what is “tame” (ἥμερον) of §94 in a passage from the ninth book of the Republic (589A-B) concerning justice. There, it is said that the “inner man” must master the many-headed beast within him “like a farmer who feeds and tames the cultivated plants but prevents the growth of the wild” (ὥσπερ γεωργός, τὰ μὲν ἥμερα τρέφων καὶ τιϑασεύων, τὰ δὲ ἄγρια ἀποκωλύων φύεσϑαι). That the confutation of wrong ideas leads to a purification of the soul and to a subsequent submission to the master, which are necessary means for living philosophically, is clearly explained in the Sophist(230B4‒E4): “those who purge the soul believe that the soul can receive no benefit from any teachings offered to it until someone by confutation reduces him who is questioned to an attitude of modesty, by removing the opinions that obstruct the teachings, and thus purges him and makes him think that he knows only what he knows, and no more” (πρὶν ἂν ἐλέγχων τις τὸν ἐλεγχόμενον εἰς αἰσχύνην καταστήσας, τὰς τοῖς μαϑήμασιν ἐμποδίους δόξας ἐξελών, καϑαρὸν ἀποφήνῃ καὶ ταῦτα ἡγούμενον ἅπερ οἶδεν εἰδέναι μόνα, πλείω δὲ μή)29. Pagan philosophers, whom Gregory seems to address directly in other passages of the Oratio30, must have recognised these allusions to Plato. For its part, the Christian community of Caesarea could not have failed to perceive that Gregory’s description was steeped in Origen’s exegetical teachings. In the fifth homily on Jeremiah, where he interprets Jer 4,3, Origen points out that a certain purification has to precede the introduction to the Scriptures: This word is especially directed to those who teach (τοῖς διδάσκουσι), lest they entrust what is said [in the Scriptures] to the pupils too soon before they have prepared the fallowgroundin their souls. ... if [...] prior to the making of fallow groundin the heart of those who hear, someone takes the holy seeds, the word concerning the Father, concerning the Son and [...] in general each of the Scriptures, and sows them, he disobeys the first commandment which states first: Breakuptheirfallowground;second: anddonotsowamongthorns31. 28. Transl., slightly altered, by H.N. FOWLER in Plato, Euthyphro–Apology–Crito– Phaedo ‒ Phaedrus (LCL, 36), Cambridge, MA – London, Harvard University Press, 1914, pp. 569-571. 29. Plato, Theaetetus–Sophist, transl. H.N. FOWLER(LCL, 123), London – New York, Heinemann – G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921, p. 315. 30. See PanOrat§§127-132 and 158-169. 31. Origenes, HIerV,13 (GCS 6, 42,1-13 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN). Origen.Homilies on Jeremiah. Homily on 1 King 28, transl. J.C. SMITH (Fathers of the Church, 97), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1998, pp. 54-55.

292

F. CELIA

At the beginning of his HomiliesonExodus, Origen clarifies the nature of “spiritual agriculture”: it is the technique used by a farmer – that is, the teacher – of planting the seeds – that is the word of divine Scriptures, which does not offer “eloquent language but a rule of living”. I think each word of divine Scripture is like a seed whose nature is to multiply diffusely [...] when it has been cast into the earth. Its increase is proportionate to the diligent labor of the skillful farmer (peritusagricola) or the fertility of the earth. So, therefore, it is brought to pass that, by diligent cultivation (culturae diligentia), a little “mustard seed [...] may be made greater than all herbs and become a tree so that the birds of heaven come and dwell in its branches” (Mt 13,31-32). ... if it [the word from the Scriptures] find a skillful and diligent farmer, as it begins to be cultivated and handled with spiritual skill (siperituminveniatetdiligentemcolonum[ ... ]utcoeperit excolietspiritaliartetractari), it grows into a tree and puts forth branches and foliage. ... If the Lord deign to grant me the discipline of spiritual agriculture (spiritalisagriculturaedisciplinam), if he grant the skill of cultivating a field, one word from these which have been read could be scattered far and wide to such an extent that [...] scarcely would a day suffice for us to treat it32.

That the context within which Origen uses the images of the farmer and spiritual agriculture is catechetical is confirmed by another passage from the CommentaryonJohn33, where, interpreting Mt 3,10 (“The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire”), the Alexandrian master writes: If we should inquire more carefully into matters concerning fruits, we will find that it is impossible for a tree, which is beginning to be cultivated now, to bear good fruit first even if it should bear. The husbandman (γεωργός) is pleased for it to bear fruit proper to the beginning of cultivation at first. Later in the course, by means of the prunings proper to the agricultural art (διὰ τῶν πρεπόντων γεωργικῇ καϑαρσίων), after he has received mediocre fruits he will, at length, also receive good fruits34.

32. Origenes, HEx I,1 (GCS 29, 145,5–146,3 BAEHRENS). Origen.HomiliesonGenesis and Exodus, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 71), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2002, p.227. 33. See V. SAXER, Les rites de l’initiation chrétienne du IIe au VIe siècle: Esquisse historiqueetsignificationd’aprèsleursprincipauxtémoins(Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 7), Spoleto, Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1988, pp. 155-157. 34. Origen subsequently concludes that the tree which “is cut down and cast into the fire” is the tree which “does not produce fruit as praise to the Lord once the three year period is past and it has entered the fourth year”. Origenes, CIo VI,28,144-145 (SC 157, 238-240 BLANC); Origen.CommentaryontheGospelaccordingtoJohn,Books1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989, pp. 209-210.

STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES AT THE SCHOOL OF CAESAREA

293

Origen’s use of the images of the farmer and the seed as representing the teacher and the holy Scriptures and doctrines gives us the key to understanding the veiled intentions of the words of Gregory. He was referring to the catechetical aspects of Origen’s instruction. This finds confirmation in the second part of the section on dialectics, where Gregory mentions the benefits deriving from Origen’s dialectic method: he was taught to investigate “inner realities”, “thus the part of our soul which judges concerning words and arguments was trained in reasonable fashion, not according to the judgments of elegant rhetors as to whether something is Greek or barbaric in its expressions” (PanOrat§§105-107). Gregory admits, indeed, that before being trained, corrupt and false opinions “entered our ears as true under the guise of elegant words” (§103) while (§104) other sound and trustworthy things, since they are not couched in plausible language, seemed against reason and most unbelievable; at first sight they were rejected as false and ridiculed undeservedly, but later, to those who worked them out and understood exactly (κατανοήσασιν ἀκριβῶς) what they meant, what previously had been deemed worthless and disreputable were understood to be the truest things (ἀληϑέστατα) of all and simply irresistible35.

Since commentators have duly noted that these passages echo well-known pagan allegations about the language of the Bible36, the “words of truth” (οἱ τῆς ἀληϑείας λόγοι, §98) which Origen prepared Gregory to accept do not concern the “school program”, as Knauber believed37, but the Bible and the Christian doctrines. I argue, therefore, that Gregory was covertly implying that the Platonic method of “questions and answers” (EpistulaeVII,344b), which Origen considered essential to biblical exegesis (CCVI,7)38 and to

35. Gregorius Thaumaturgus, PanOrat VII (SC 148, 138,73–140,80); transl. SLUSSER (n. 2), p. 108. 36. Cf. Grégoire le Thaumaturge. Remerciement, ed. CROUZEL (n. 2), p. 138, n. 1; transl. SLUSSER (n. 2), p. 108, n. 42; transl. RIZZI (n. 17), p. 150, n. 54. 37. KNAUBER, DasAnliegenderSchuledesOrigeneszuCäsarea (n. 7), p. 193, n. 62. 38. “He [Celsus] also quotes another phrase of Plato where he says that through‘the useofquestionsandanswers’understandingilluminatesthosewhofollowhisphilosophy. Let us show, then, from the holy scriptures that the divine Word also exhorts us to study dialectics. Solomon says in one place ‘Education that is unchallenged goes wrong’. In another place Jesus the son of Sirach, who left us the book of Wisdom, says ‘The knowledge of an unwise man is unexamined words’. Accordingly ‘proofsarefriendly’even more among us who have learnt that a leader of the gospel must be ‘able to refute the adversaries’. If, however, some are idle, and do not take the trouble to give heed to Bible-reading, and to search the scriptures, and do not obey Jesus’ command to seek for the meaning of the scriptures and to ask God about them and to knock for the truths locked up inside them, that is no reason for supposing that there is no wisdom in scripture” (Origen: Contra Celsum, transl. H. CHADWICK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 21965, p. 321).

294

F. CELIA

his style of proselytism (CCVI,10)39, was made use of at the school of Caesarea as a tool for the exegesis of the Scriptures. As a further consequence, if we assume, as many do, that the apparent order of studies described by Gregory implies a rigid curriculum, we should conclude that Origen’s pupils were introduced to the study of the Scriptures at the very early stages of their schooling. Other elements contradicting the idea that the Scriptures were dealt with only at the end of the curriculum can be found in the initial section concerning theological studies. According to these passages, as is usually maintained, extensive philosophical readings would have preceded the biblical one. At PanOrat§151 we read that Origen deemed worthy that we philosophised and read through with every energy all the writings of the ancient philosophers and singers, neither excluding nor disdaining any of them (since not yet able to discriminate) (Φιλοσοφεῖν μὲν γὰρ ἠξίου ἀναλεγομένους τῶν ἀρχαίων πάντα ὅσα καὶ φιλοσόφων καὶ ὑμνῳδῶν ἐστι γράμματα πάσῃ δυνάμει, μηδὲν ἐκποιουμένους μηδ’ ἀποδοκιμάζοντας [οὐδέπω γὰρ οὐδὲ τὴν κρίσιν ἔχειν]) (§152) except those which belong to the atheists, who, since they have abandoned common human beliefs, say that there is no God or providence … (§153) But [he did think it worthwhile] to take up and become conversant with all the rest, neither biased in favor of one nation or philosophic doctrine, nor yet prejudiced against it, whether Hellenic or barbarian, but listening to all40.

Two points require clarification here. First, as pointed out by Slusser41, ὑμνῳδός (“singer”) was not commonly used to refer to poets42, and Origen consistently used it for the Psalmist, as Gregory himself does later on in the text (§195)43. Therefore, theological studies entailed the reading of pagan philosophers alongside biblical poets44. Second, is it plausible that Gregory was “not yet able to discriminate” what he was reading at this stage of his studies? Rizzi, who first noted how this incidental phrase contradicts the view that the Caesarean curriculum was rigidly ordered, 39. “There are some people to whom we preach only an exhortation to believe, since they are incapable of anything more; but with others we do all we can to approach them with rational arguments ‘by questions and answers’” (Origen:ContraCelsum, transl. CHADWICK, p. 324). 40. Gregorius Thaumaturgus, PanOrat XIII (SC 148, 158,7-23); transl. SLUSSER (n. 2), slightly altered, pp. 116-117. 41. Transl. SLUSSER (n. 2), p. 116, n. 73. 42. Origen, like Philo before him, used ποιητής to define pagan poets. 43. Transl. RIZZI (n. 17), p. 169 (n. 44), believes that this term refers only to pagan poets because Gregory says that he studied “every doctrine, both barbarian and Greek, both the most mystical and the most pragmatic, both divine and human…” (§182). I think that this point is of no use to Rizzi’s argumentation because “barbarian and Greek” here, as well as in §153, clearly means biblical and pagan doctrines. 44. NAUTIN, Origène:Savieetsonœuvre (n. 2), pp. 193-194.

STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES AT THE SCHOOL OF CAESAREA

295

argued that it is evidence of a redactional stratification45. However, regardless of when the phrase was inserted in the text, its clear implication remains intact, namely, that the study of the Scriptures was not tackled at the very end of the curriculum. In closing, I believe that section §§93-108 brings to light Gregory’s ability to interweave Plato’s works and Origen’s teachings, and supplies us with ample evidence to conclude that Gregory meant to mask the use of dialectics for Scriptural exegesis, which found its place in the context of Origen’s catechetical activity. If my understanding of the section on dialectics as well as of the first paragraphs on theology is correct, the common approach that takes the OratioPanegyrica as evidence that the study of Scriptures was left to the very end of the cursusstudiorumshould be rejected. This conclusion would smooth out not only the asserted incongruity between Origen’s actual teaching and Gregory’s description of it, but would also attest that the resemblance between the curriculaof the schools of Origen and of the philosophers of his time better served Gregory’s apologetic and propagandistic strategy than his intention to give an exact description of his studies. The Center for the Study of Christianity Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem 9190501 Israel [email protected]

Francesco CELIA

45. Transl. RIZZI (n. 17), p. 169 (n. 45). More precisely, this should confirm Rizzi’s hypothesis that two editorial layers can be identified in the Oratio. The first actually pronounced draft, addressed to a mainly Christian audience, would have followed the traditional division of rhetorical discourses into four parts: exordium (§§21-34), hymnic section (§§35-39), narratio (§§40-72), probatio (§§133-183) and epilogus(§§184-207). Then, the author would have redoubled the exordium (§§1-20) and the probatio (§§73-132) for a written circulation of his work aiming mainly at a pagan public. To my knowledge, no scholar has endorsed Rizzi’s hypothesis. Important criticisms have been put forward by G. DORIVAL in his review to Rizzi’s edition, in Adamantius 11 (2005) 531-533.

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA’S DEFENSE OF ORIGEN IN CONTRAMARCELLUM I,4,1-27

The exact dates and the sequence of events in the pre-Nicene controversy over Arius are the subject of much debate1. But there is general agreement that at some point Alexander expelled Arius from the Church of Alexandria and at some point after this Arius relocated to Palestine. Here he sought to gain the support of leading bishops in the East, and his extant letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia was a key part of that effort2. Eusebius responded favorably and became the champion of Arius3. Eusebius’s support of Arius sparked the production of a series of documents which are essential for understanding the controversy over Arius. The first of these is the extant letter of Eusebius himself to Paulinus of Tyre, urging him to write to Alexander of Alexandria in support of Arius4. Paulinus did what Eusebius asked, and a few fragments of his letter to Alexander are extant5. At some point after the Council of Nicaea Asterius of Cappadocia 1. The chronology of E. SCHWARTZ, DieDokumentedesarianischenStreitsbis325, in ID., Gesammelte Schriften. Band III: Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1959, pp. 117-168, originally published in 1905, was foundational in the early twentieth century. But the chronology of H.-G. OPITZ, DieZeitfolgedesarianischenStreitesvonden AnfängenbiszumJahr328, in ZNW33 (1934) 131-159, gradually supplanted Schwartz’s; it was adopted, for example, in R.P.C. HANSON, TheSearchfortheChristianDoctrineofGod: TheArianControversy318-381AD, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1988, pp. 129-138. R. WILLIAMS, Arius:HeresyandTradition, rev. ed., Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2001, pp. 48-81, puts forward a drastically revised chronology that has become the touchstone of all further debates. Other notable chronologies include: M. SIMONETTI, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo (SEA, 11), Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1975, pp. 25-41, and W. LÖHR, AriusReconsidered(Part1), in ZAC9 (2006) 524-560. The relevant documents from before ca. 345 are helpfully collected and numbered in AthanasiusWerkeIII/1.Urkundenzur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318-328, ed. H.-G. OPITZ, Berlin – Leipzig, De Gruyter, 1934-1935 [= Urk.], and AthanasiusWerkeIII/1.DokumentezurGeschichtedes arianischenStreites. 3.Lieferung, ed. H.C. BRENNECKE – U. HEIL – A. VON STOCKHAUSEN – A. WINTJES, Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2007 [=Dok.]. 2. Urk. 1. 3. Urk. 2 is perhaps a fragment of Eusebius’s epistolary response to Arius. 4. Urk. 8. 5. Urk. 9. In my, HowDidAriusLearnfromAsterius?OntheRelationshipbetween theThaliaandtheSyntagmation, in TheJournalofEcclesiasticalHistory 69(2018) 477493, I argue that the Syntagmation of Asterius and the Thalia of Arius also belong to this same stage of the controversy and thus are products flowing from Eusebius’s decision to support Arius. In this case, after Eusebius agreed to support Arius, in addition to writing to bishops such as Paulinus, he also had Asterius write the Syntagmation in order to promote the cause of Arius throughout Syria. And some time later in the face of wavering support

298

M. DELCOGLIANO

penned a defense of Eusebius’s letter to Paulinus, a document I call the Apologia6. In response, perhaps in the early 330s, Marcellus of Ancyra attacked not only Asterius, but also Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Paulinus of Tyre, and Narcissus of Neronias, all of whom Marcellus viewed as theological and ecclesio-political allies7. In turn, in 336-337 Eusebius of Caesarea published two works against Marcellus, ContraMarcellum and Deecclesiasticatheologia8. And so, Eusebius of Nicomedia’s decision to support Arius resulted in a cascade of documents spanning about fifteen years. In Contra Marcellum I,4,1-27 Eusebius of Caesarea quotes several texts of Marcellus, and in turn these Marcellan fragments quote both Paulinus’s letter to Alexander and Asterius’s Apologia in defense of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Marcellus’s purposes here are wholly polemical, as he quotes both Paulinus and Asterius only to attack them. He identifies the root cause of their erroneous teaching as their reliance upon Origen, and then he goes on to attack Origen himself. Throughout this section, however, Eusebius of Caesarea defends Origen against the charges of Marcellus9. While there are theological disagreements between them, the debate between Marcellus and Eusebius of Caesarea in this section is also over proper theological method. It is the latter that I focus on here. In particular, there are two related issues: first, whether Origen’s method of doing theology is correct; and second, whether Origen’s theology can be used as an authoritative resource by later theologians. In response to Marcellus’s “no” on each issue, Eusebius argues “yes”. In Eusebius’s defense of Origen against Marcellus, then, we see a rare early fourthcentury discussion of theological methodology, even if quite brief. for Arius among Syrian and Palestinian bishops, Eusebius pushed Arius to write the Thalia to recover their support. I would date this activity from around 321 to around 323. 6. Only fragments of this text are extant, recoverable from the fragments of Marcellus of Ancyra preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea. See the next note. 7. The title of this Marcellan work (CPG 2800) is not preserved. It is commonly called Contra Asterium, a purely descriptive title that is not entirely accurate, given its wideranging polemics. Only fragments of this work are extant, preserved mostly in the antiMarcellan works of Eusebius of Caesarea (see notes 8 and 10 below for the editions of these fragments). The date of this work is debated. S. PARVIS, MarcellusofAncyraandthe Lost Years of the Arian Controversy, 325-345, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 118-123, summarizes the evidence and the various scholarly interpretations. I find her case for a composition before rather than after the Council of Jerusalem in 335 compelling. But I am not convinced by her argument that this work should be dated as early as 329-330. 8. Gegen Marcell. Über die kirchliche Theologie. Die Fragmente Marcells, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN – G.C. HANSEN (GCS, 14; Eusebius Werke, 4), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 3 1991. Klostermann and Hansen include an edition of the fragments of Marcellus; the enumeration of this edition is signaled with “K./H.”. 9. One might view this section of Contra Marcellum as Eusebius’s third defense of Origen, if one considers his co-authorship of Pamphilus’s ApologiaproOrigene the first and the sixth book of his HistoriaEcclesiastica the second.

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA’S DEFENSE OF ORIGEN IN CONTRAMARCELLUM I,4,1-27

299

I Marcellus criticizes Origen’s theological method on two points: (1) he relies too much on his own opinions rather than scripture, and (2) he is too influenced by philosophy10. Marcellus’s own words can be used to summarize his argument for the first charge: “that Origen used his own opinions when he wrote such things is clear from the fact that frequently he contradicts even his own views”11. Marcellus does not explain how self-contradiction proves that one relies on one’s own opinions rather than scripture, but according to the logic of his argument, if he can show that Origen contradicts himself, then he has proven that Origen relies on his own opinions rather than scripture. Marcellus’s assumption must be something like the following: scripture itself is non-contradictory and thus any theology based on it cannot be self-contradictory. This seems reasonable enough and it is an assumption that I don’t think any would have challenged in this era. Accordingly, Marcellus quotes two passages from the writings of Origen which he thinks are contradictory in order to demonstrate his point. The first passage adduced by Marcellus is the very passage from On FirstPrinciples that Paulinus had quoted in his letter to Alexander: It is time to take up again the subject of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in order to go through a few things previously set aside. As for the Father, since he is indivisible and partless, he does not become Father of the Son by issuing him, as some think. For if the Son is an issuing of the Father and a thing begotten from him, such as those begotten of animals are, he who does the issuing and he who has been issued are necessarily corporeal entities12.

Marcellus claims that “Origen wrote these things, having no intention of learning from the sacred prophets and apostles about the eternity of the 10. There is much perceptive commentary on the Marcellan fragments discussed in the remainder of this essay in K. SEIBT, DieTheologiedesMarkellvonAnkyra (AKG, 59), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1994, pp. 280-292. The most recent edition of the fragments of Marcellus is: M. VINZENT, MarkellvonAnkyra:DieFragmente&derBriefanJuliusvonRom (SupplVigChr, 39), Leiden, Brill, 1997. The enumeration of Vinzent’s fragments is signaled with “V.”. 11. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,21 (GCS 14, 22,8-9 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 21 V. (39 K./H.). 12. Urk. 8.1 = Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,19-20 (GCS 14, 21,15-22 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 19 V. (37 K./H.). Paulinus is quoting OnFirstPrinciples IV,4,1(28). The same text is one of the passages adduced by Pamphilus in Apologiapro Origene 104 to refute the charge that Origen held that the Son had come into existence as an “issuing” (πρόβλημα; prolatio). This manner of generation was routinely conceptualized as one entity separating from itself some of its substance in order to form a separate entity and thus was understood as inherently involving corporeality, change, and suffering, all considered unfitting for the divine begetting.

300

M. DELCOGLIANO

Word, but having given himself more [authority], he foolishly dared to describe a second hypostasis of the Word” – that is, to describe the Word as a second hypostasis13. The reason for this assessment of Origen’s motives appears to be that Marcellus thinks that the scriptures teach “the eternity of the Word”, but in this passage Origen contradicts this teaching by describing “a second hypostasis of the Word”. Origen does not identify the Word as a “hypostasis” in this passage, though he does elsewhere14. Accordingly, perhaps based on his knowledge of Origen’s writings, Marcellus is giving an interpretation of Origen’s language in this passage, of the “indivisible and partless” Father “becoming” the Father of the Son. In other words, if the Father is “indivisible and partless”, Marcellus must be thinking that the Father is producing the Son as an entity that is distinct from him, that is, as “a second hypostasis”. In addition to this, the language of “becoming”, which implies a coming into existence, must have led Marcellus to claim that Origen was denying the eternity of the Word. In the present context Marcellus provides no argument for the claim that scripture teaches the eternity of the Word, nor does he explain why conceptualizing the Word as a second hypostasis precludes the Word’s eternity. In response, Eusebius agrees with Marcellus that Origen “gave a hypostasis to the Son”, but contends that Origen “spoke correctly” in the passage because he is simply affirming that the begetting of the divinity of the Son is not corporeal or subject to suffering15. Eusebius’s interpretation certainly captures the key point of the text from Origen, whereas Marcellus ignores this and quibbles over language16. But Eusebius does not directly refute the charge of Marcellus, that Origen prefers his own opinions to that of scripture. For example, he does not demonstrate the scriptural basis of Origenian statement that Paulinus quoted. Eusebius appears more concerned with interpreting Origen’s words correctly against what he perceives to be Marcellus’s misinterpretations rather than with speculating about Origen’s motives. Eusebius, however, does affirm that Origen “spoke correctly”, which at least implies consistency with scripture. The next passage that Marcellus adduces to demonstrate that Origen follows his own opinions rather than scripture is a passage from Origen’s 13. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,21 (GCS 14, 21,24–22,2 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 20 V. (38 K./H.). 14. E.g. ContraCelsum VIII,12. 15. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,21 (GCS 14, 22,3-5 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN). 16. Eusebius’s interpretation of the passage follows that of Pamphilus in Apologiapro Origene 104.

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA’S DEFENSE OF ORIGEN IN CONTRAMARCELLUM I,4,1-27

301

CommentaryonGenesis in which, he claims, Origen affirms the opposite of what the OnFirstPrinciplespassage quoted by Paulinus does, namely, the eternity of the Word. According to Marcellus’s logic, if he can show that this passage says the opposite of what the OnFirstPrinciplespassage said, then he has proven that Origen prefers his own opinions to scripture. In the CommentaryonGenesis passage Origen uses the so-called “argument from correlatives” to affirm that the Son’s eternity is necessary for God’s eternal Fatherhood: For God did not begin to be Father, prevented as men who become fathers are by the inability to be fathers yet. For if God is always perfect and the power for him to be Father belongs to him and it is good for him to be Father of such a Son, why would he delay and deprive himself of what is good, and so to speak, the basis of which he is able to be Father of a Son? And indeed the same thing must also be said about the Holy Spirit17.

Note that Origen speaks neither of the Word nor of eternity. Yet Marcellus understands the implications of what Origen says. While Marcellus did not hold the Son to be eternal, since it was God’s Word who was eternal, the title “Son” being appropriate for the Word only in the incarnation, he accepts Origen’s identification of the Word with the Son for the sake of argument. One must admit that on a literal level, strictly speaking, and perhaps in a nitpicking manner, Marcellus is right: the language in the OnFirstPrinciples passage of Origen could be taken as suggesting the Son’s becoming whereas the CommentaryonGenesis passage is clear that the Son is eternal. In response, Eusebius accuses Marcellus of “speaking badly” of Origen and contradicting what Origen has “written correctly”18. Marcellus is a liar, Eusebius says, for having claimed that Origen said contradictory things19. To defend Origen from the charge of self-contradiction, Eusebius once again says that Marcellus is ignoring the central teaching conveyed by each passage: the first shows “the incorporeality and impassivity of the Father”, whereas the second that “the Son has been begotten not in time 17. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,22 (GCS 14, 22,11-18 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 21 V. (39 K./H.). Here Marcellus is quoting a passage from Origen’s CommentaryonGenesis, which is extant only in fragments. The same passage is adduced by Pamphilus in ApologiaproOrigene 48 to show that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. Marcellus quotes this passage for the same reason. I discuss this passage in Basilof Caesarea’sAnti-EunomianTheoryofNames:ChristianTheologyandLate-AntiquePhilosophyintheFourth-CenturyTrinitarianControversy(SupplVigChr, 103), Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 228-229, and the textual issue at the end of the penultimate sentence on p. 229, n. 166. 18. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,21 (GCS 14, 22,6-7 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN). 19. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,23 (GCS 14, 22,24-25 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN).

302

M. DELCOGLIANO

but before all ages”20. Thus it is improper to see these as contradictory since their subject is different aspects of the divine. Origen, in fact, is expressing complementary truths about God, not contradictory ones. Eusebius has resolved the apparent linguistic contradiction that has been perhaps nitpickingly and polemically detected by Marcellus, by an appeal to the harmony between the main theological ideas Origen was conveying, at least as interpreted by Eusebius. Note too that Eusebius disagrees with Marcellus’s interpretation that Origen is affirming the eternity of the Son. Eusebius gives a weaker interpretation that Origen is denying a temporal begetting and positing a begetting “before all ages” – an expression that Eusebius and many others of his era used to explain the divine begetting. In any event, Eusebius counters the charge that Origen relies too much on his own opinion by refuting Marcellus’s key piece of evidence for this, that Origen was self-contradictory. But note where Eusebius and Marcellus agree in terms of methodology: one’s theology should not be selfcontradictory, presumably because it is based on scripture which itself is not contradictory21.

II The second charge of Marcellus is that Origen’s theology is mistaken because he has been led astray “by the arguments of philosophy”22. He claims that Origen, because of the ambition he had from his non-Christian education, started to write too soon after becoming a Christian, before he had “an accurate comprehension of the scriptures”23. In other words, Marcellus thinks that the primary authority for Origen has always remained philosophy rather than the scriptures and this of course inevitably leads to theological errors. To demonstrate this charge, he attempts to prove Origen’s indebtedness to Plato. Two pieces of evidence are cited. First, 20. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,23 (GCS 14, 22,25-28 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN). 21. In antiquity, the conviction about the self-consistency of scripture led to various strategies for dealing with its discrepancies and contradictions. The well-known solution of Origen was adopted by many: to identify such discrepancies and contradictions as features of the literal or surface meaning of the text that masked an underlying or spiritual meaning that made sense of them. Thus resolution of discrepancies and contradictions was a matter of spiritual or theological interpretation. This is precisely the approach of Eusebius here, rejecting the “literal” contradictions adduced by Marcellus. 22. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,24 (GCS 14, 23,4-5 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 22 V. (88 K./H.). 23. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,24 (GCS 14, 23,2-3 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 22 V. (88 K./H.).

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA’S DEFENSE OF ORIGEN IN CONTRAMARCELLUM I,4,1-27

303

“while still mindful of Plato’s dogmas and the distinction made by him between first principles, Origen wrote a book on first principles and gave this title to the treatise”24. Marcellus is not attempting to show Plato’s influence on Origen by claiming that Origen borrowed the title of his treatise from Plato; rather, Marcellus is charging that Origen remained stuck in the thought world of Plato and remained like Plato preoccupied with first principles and even distinguished first principles in the manner of Plato. Thus the title OnFirstPrinciples reflects the Platonic pedigree of his thought in the treatise. Second, Origen’s indebtedness to Plato is shown by the fact that in the opening line of this treatise Origen appears to make a remark very similar to one in the Gorgias. Marcellus writes: “For at the beginning [of OnFirstPrinciples]he wrote this: ‘Those who have come to be persuaded and are convinced’ (οἱ πεπιστευκότες καὶ πεπεισμένοι) – this remark you will find so stated in the Gorgias of Plato”25. And here is the line from the Gorgiasalluded to by Marcellus: “But surely both those who have learned and those who are convinced have come to be persuaded?” (Ἀλλὰ μὴν οἵ τέ γε μεμαϑηκότες πεπεισμένοι εἰσὶν καὶ οἱ πεπιστευκότες)26. While there are similar terms being used by both Plato and Origen, it is quite debatable whether Origen is borrowing from or alluding to Plato27. In his response, Eusebius doesn’t get into the issue of whether Origen has quoted the Gorgias, but says that if even Origen had quoted Plato, it is no disgrace because of what follows in the continuation of the passage: “Those who have come to be persuaded and are convinced that grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ (Jn 1,17) and that Christ is the truth according to what was said by him, ‘I am the truth’ (Jn 14,6)”28. If one went a little further than Eusebius in the same opening passage, one would read Origen saying that “the knowledge which calls men to lead a good and blessed life” is “from no other source than the very words 24. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,24-25 (GCS 14, 23,6-8 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 22 V. (88 K./H.). See SEIBT, DieTheologie (n. 10), p. 284, note 145, on how to understand this passage. 25. Eusebius, Contra Marcellum I,4,25-26 (GCS 14, 23,11-13 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 22 V. (88 K./H.). 26. Plato, Gorgias 454E; transl. D.J. ZEYL in Plato:CompleteWorks, ed. J.M. COOPER, Indianapolis, IN, Hackett Publishing Company, 1997, p. 800. 27. SEIBT, DieTheologie(n. 10), p. 289, note 167, reports that in their edition of De principiis H. Görgemanns and H. Karpp think it unlikely that Origen is alluding to Plato. Seibt furthermore suggests that Marcellus is unaware of the context of the Gorgias passage to which he refers and must be getting the claim from an unknown source. 28. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,26 (GCS 14, 23,15-18 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN). Eusebius has quoted OnFirstPrinciples, Praef. 1 (Greek) (GCS 22, 7,6-8 KOETSCHAU). The Greek is only preserved by Eusebius.

304

M. DELCOGLIANO

and teaching of Christ”29. So it appears that Marcellus’s evidence for Origen’s allegiance to philosophy rather than scripture is very flimsy; in fact, one could say that the opening passage of On First Principles provides evidence for the contrary, that scripture is Origen’s principle authority (and thus, incidentally, also counters Marcellus’s first charge, that Origen prefers his own opinions to scripture). Here Marcellus is certainly guilty of selective quotation, a charge he levies against his opponents, as we shall see below. Eusebius also challenges the claim that the title On First Principles signals that Origen is chiefly indebted to Plato and his distinction between first principles. Eusebius notes that no book under the title OnFirstPrinciplesis attributed to Plato (which does not really respond to the charge of Marcellus in regard to the title), and that in any event Origen thought about the first principles differently than Plato: “he knew that the one first principle alone is ungenerated, beginningless, and beyond the universe, and that this is Father of one only-begotten Son, through whom all things have come into existence”30. Eusebius is clear that, even if Origen was concerned with first principles like Plato was, Origen thinks about them quite differently and thus one cannot charge that Origen is primarily indebted to Platonic philosophy. And so, against both charges of Marcellus Eusebius defends Origen. Yet Eusebius’s concern to refute the charges of Marcellus reveals that they had a shared understanding of proper theological method. Basically, a proper theological method requires using authorities according to a proper hierarchy. Scripture is clearly the highest authority. One’s own opinions or philosophical teachings should never be granted more authority than scripture, and should be rejected outright when they do not accord with scripture. Marcellus claimed Origen didn’t do theology as it should, and Eusebius countered that he had. They agreed on the “rules” of the game, as it were, while differing over whether Origen had followed them or not. There is one further aspect of theological method on which Eusebius and Marcellus seem at first glance not to have agreed but they actually did: the use of the church fathers as authorities. In the Marcellan fragments in ContraMarcellumI,4, Marcellus traces the erroneous views of Asterius back to Paulinus and the erroneous views of Paulinus back to Origen, whose theology is wrong, as we’ve seen, because he failed to follow the proper theological method. In other words, Marcellus thinks that the root cause of the erroneous teaching of Asterius and Paulinus 29. Origen, OnFirstPrinciples, Praef. 1 (Latin) (GCS 22, 7,11-13 KOETSCHAU); Origen. OnFirstPrinciples, transl. G.W. BUTTERWORTH, Gloucester, MA, Peter Smith, 1973, p. 1. 30. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,26 (GCS 14, 23,19-23 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN).

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA’S DEFENSE OF ORIGEN IN CONTRAMARCELLUM I,4,1-27

305

is ultimately the use of Origen as an authority31. In regard to Asterius, Marcellus writes: But having abandoned the true knowledge, [Asterius] has now shown us as well that [his] investigation is contrived. For not having the intention to build his own case by drawing proof “from the divine scriptures”, he has recourse to those whom he considers to be “the wisest fathers”, claiming: “This is the very thing that the wisest of the fathers declared in their own treatises”. His own “fathers”, says Asterius, have “declared” [their] judgment and put in writing [their] “dogma” about God on the basis of their own decision. For the word “dogma” implies human will and opinion. That this is so, the “dogmatic” art of physicians gives us sufficient testimony, and the so-called “dogmas” of the philosophers also give testimony. And that the resolutions by the senate are still even now called “the dogmas of [the] senate”, no one is ignorant, I think32.

Marcellus accuses Asterius of being unwilling to construct his theology from the divine scriptures and preferring to rely on the opinions found in the treatises of the “wisest fathers” who, Marcellus thinks, have “have declared their judgment and put in writing their dogma about God on the basis of their own decision”. Marcellus thinks “dogma” necessarily implies “human will and opinion”. So Marcellus depicts Asterius as ignoring the scriptures and using “wise fathers” who provided dogma based on their own opinion. His theology is flawed, claims Marcellus, because it is based on opinion, just like the dogmas of physicians, philosophers, and senators are, and not on scripture. Marcellus then argues that Paulinus was the “wise father” to whose opinions Asterius was indebted33. The main piece of evidence adduced by Marcellus is that Asterius had called Paulinus “blessed” (μακάριον) in his Apologia. The honorific “blessed” that Asterius used for Paulinus is typically understood to mean that Paulinus had recently died34. But Marcellus had another interpretation: “[Asterius] called him ‘blessed’ for this reason, because he held the same opinion as Asterius”35. Next, in regard to Paulinus, Marcellus writes: 31. On this point, see also M. VINZENT, OrigenesalsSubscriptum:PaulinusvonTyrus und die origenistische Diadoche, in W.A. BIENERT – U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima:OrigenesindenAuseinandersetzungendes4.Jahrhunderts(BETL, 137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999, 149-157, pp. 153-156. 32. Eusebius, Contra Marcellum I,4,14-16 (GCS 14, 20,12-23 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 17 V. (86 K./H.). 33. Eusebius, Contra Marcellum I,4,17-18 (GCS 14, 20,32-21,6 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 18 V. (87 K./H.). 34. E.g. SEIBT, DieTheologie(n. 10), p. 252. 35. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,17-18 (GCS 14, 21,1-2 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 18 V. (87 K./H.).

306

M. DELCOGLIANO

Not remembering the evangelical teaching, Paulinus wrote these things, acknowledging that “some are so moved on their own account, while others were led in this way by the interpretations of the aforementioned men”. Then finally, adding a kind of crowning flourish to his demonstration, he appended to his own letter [a passage] from the texts of Origen, as if he could be more convincing than the evangelists and the apostles. And the words are these... [Here Marcellus quotes the passage from On First Principles quoted and discussed above]36.

Marcellus quotes a passage from Paulinus’s letter to Alexander which, out of context, seems to suggest that theology can be motivated either by one’s own opinions or by the interpretations of the fathers, but not by “the evangelical teaching”, which is to say, the scriptures. (Not enough of Paulinus’s letter is preserved to determine why he said this, nor his reason for quoting the OnFirstPrinciples passage.) In addition, Marcellus says that Paulinus quoted Origen “as if Origen could be more convincing than the evangelists and the apostles”. So, in these remarks Marcellus depicts Paulinus as uninterested in constructing a theology rooted in the scriptures and content to follow the opinions of his predecessors, particularly Origen, whom he even quotes. In response, Eusebius interprets Marcellus as setting up a stark opposition between scripture and tradition. He provides a brief defense of tradition: “But [Marcellus] also finds fault with the obligation to follow the fathers even though the divine scripture declares: ‘Ask your father, and he will inform you, your elders, and they will tell you’ (Dt 32,7), and: ‘Do not remove ancient borders, which your fathers set up’ (Prov 22,28)”37. Thus Eusebius calls “following the fathers” an “obligation”, and cites two passages of scripture in support of this. In other words, the very scriptures which Marcellus correctly identifies as the key authority for doing theology obliges the theologian to use the traditions of the fathers. One wishes Eusebius had said more here. Elsewhere in ContraMarcellum I,4 he says that the theology of Origen, Paulinus, and Asterius is in line with a longstanding ecclesiastical tradition, and thus implies that it is in accord with scripture: And since [Marcellus] said that this heresy was concocted very recently, it must be shown that, as he goes on, he was thinking of Origen, who lived long ago, on the grounds that [Origen] holds the same opinions as those currently being attacked by him. But I myself have read very many ecclesiastical treatises of men more ancient than Origen, and various letters of both bishops 36. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,18-19 (GCS 14, 21,9-15 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 19 V. (37 K./H.). 37. Eusebius, Contra Marcellum I,4,16-17 (GCS 14, 20,26-29 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN).

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA’S DEFENSE OF ORIGEN IN CONTRAMARCELLUM I,4,1-27

307

and synods that were written long ago, through which one and the same character of the faith is made known. Well then, not rightly has [Marcellus] attacked it, saying that this heresy has been concocted recently by those who are being attacked38.

Therefore, Eusebius detects “the same character of the faith” in the treatises of ecclesiastical writers and the letters of bishops and synods prior to Origen, in the writings of Origen himself, and in the writings of Paulinus and Asterius. There is continuity in this line of tradition, according to Eusebius. The issue between Marcellus and Eusebius, however, is not about the mere use of church fathers as authorities, even if Eusebius seems to interpret the matter in this way, as if Eusebius is in favor of this and Marcellus is not. Indeed, Marcellus himself relies on both scripture and tradition39. Rather, the issue, I think, is whether Origen is worthy of being treated as an authoritative church father. In his remarks about Paulinus, Marcellus faulted him for quoting the On First Principles passage from Origen because it supported his own position but ignoring texts like the CommentaryonGenesispassage because it did not support him. After quoting the latter, Marcellus writes: “So then, given the fact that Origen also wrote this, how did Paulinus … not consider it dangerous to keep this passage hidden but to avail himself of others that contradicted it in support of his own opinions?”40. In other words, Marcellus faults Paulinus for a selective and biased use of Origen41. Marcellus thought Paulinus quoted a passage of Origen that went against scripture while ignoring others which accorded with scripture. Accordingly, Marcellus reveals himself to be not against the appeal to authoritative church fathers in itself, as Eusebius intimates. Rather, Marcellus is against appealing to Origen as an authoritative father because he says things opposed to scripture. In the eyes of Marcellus, basing one’s theology on certain opinions of a previous theologian who has misinterpreted scripture is a fatal mistake, regardless of whether this same theologian has correct interpretations elsewhere. Marcellus rejects Origen as an authoritative church father, even if some passages accord with scripture, because his theology as a whole is the result of an improper method that gave higher authority to his own opinions and philosophy than to the scriptures, which Marcellus claims he misunderstood. In the case of Origen, says Marcellus, improper 38. Eusebius, Contra Marcellum I,4,8-9 (GCS 14, 18,35–19,7 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN). 39. SEIBT, DieTheologie(n. 10), pp. 290-291. 40. Eusebius, ContraMarcellumI,4,23 (GCS 14, 22,19-22 KLOSTERMANN – HANSEN) = Marcellus, Fragment 21 V. (39 K./H.). 41. VINZENT, OrigenesalsSubscriptum (n. 31), pp. 156-157.

308

M. DELCOGLIANO

theological methodology has led to bad theological content; the two are closely linked. We see here, then, perennial issues of the supreme authority of scripture in the theological endeavor, its relation to the authority of one’s own opinions and philosophy, and precisely how the writings of the fathers should function authoritatively in the work of a theologian in tandem with scripture. Eusebius essentially agrees with Marcellus’s understanding of proper theological method. But, unlike Marcellus, he thinks that Asterius, Paulinus, and Origen have done theology in the right way, respecting the proper hierarchy of authorities. In particular, they have used Origen in the proper way as an authoritative church father42. Unbeknownst to either Eusebius or Marcellus, the divergences of theological opinion in each of their ecclesio-theological trajectories would not be resolved by appeal to such a rudimentary touchstone, according to which differences in the interpretation of scripture were ascribed to the encroachment of the inappropriate authority of one’s own opinion or philosophy on the task. As the fourth century progressed, it would become clearer and clearer that more fundamental issues like scriptural hermeneutics, theological epistemology, and theories of language accounted for the differences. In other words, two thinkers could be as equally committed to the authority of scripture in the theological endeavor, but might articulate theologies incompatible with each other on the basis of different understandings of the theory and art of exegesis, of the human capacity to know God, and of language’s true significance when applied to God. This is a salutary reminder that the theological debates of the fourth century were not limited to content and formulations, but also involved questions of methodology and epistemology, even if these concerns are rarely treated systematically. In the end, however, in defending the theological method and thus also the theology of Origen, and furthermore its authoritative use by Paulinus and Asterius, Eusebius is affirming, and perhaps even promoting, the continued use of Origen in the theological debates of his era. University of St. Thomas 2115 Summit Avenue, JRC 153 St. Paul, MN 55105 USA [email protected]

Mark DELCOGLIANO

42. Ibid., p. 152, claims this is the first time Origen is treated as an authoritative church father.

ALEXANDRIE ET CÉSARÉE LA CONTINUITÉ DE L’ITINÉRAIRE PÉDAGOGIQUE D’ORIGÈNE

I. INTRODUCTION Cet exposé a pour but de montrer la continuité de l’itinéraire et du curriculum pédagogique qu’Origène enseignait à la fois à l’école d’Alexandrie et à l’école de Césarée. En effet, suivant notre hypothèse, le modèle pédagogique proposé par Origène ne présentait ni changements, ni ruptures fondamentales dans les deux écoles où il a enseigné. Nous étudierons d’abord l’objectif primordial de sa pédagogie qui est de montrer que la présence éternelle du Fils de Dieu guide toutes les étapes de l’existence par lesquelles doivent passer les créatures intellectuelles ou νοές, et en même temps, de montrer comment ces créatures continuent leur apprentissage pendant toutes ces étapes (création primaire,créationsecondaireetcaelestialoca). Nous suivons ici la proposition d’Anders-Christian Jacobsen, qui caractérise la pédagogie d’Origène comme une pédagogie christologique et sotériologique et qui affirme que: La pédagogie sotériologique et christologique conçoit le Christ comme un pédagogue et un enseignant et son œuvre salvatrice comme une éducation et un enseignement. Le Christ enseigne et conduit les êtres rationnels déchus à leur origine par ou en Dieu. […] Ce processus commence par une purification de l’âme et se poursuit par un enseignement toujours plus poussée jusqu’à permettre aux êtres rationnels d’atteindre leur origine. La pédagogie sotériologique et christologique constitue une partie vaste et complexe de la théologie christologique et sotériologique d’Origène et de sa théologie en général1.

Pour la période alexandrine, notre hypothèse peut-être illustrée par les textes suivants: Deprincipiis et le Livre I du CommentairedeJean. Pour la période de Césarée, nous allons approfondir le Discours d’action de grâcede Grégoire le Thaumaturge.

1. A.-C. JACOBSEN, Christ,theTeacherofSalvation:AStudyonOrigen’sChristology andSoteriology(Adamantiana, 6), Münster, Aschendorff, 2016, p. 312.

310

P.D. FERNÁNDEZ

II. PÉDAGOGIE CHRISTOLOGIQUE ET SOTÉRIOLOGIQUE À ALEXANDRIE Commençons ce paragraphe par la citation d’un texte d’Henri Crouzel extraite de son livre classique sur Origène, où il fait référence à l’activité pédagogique que l’Alexandrin réalisait à Alexandrie: Eusèbe décrit en des termes trahissant l’exagération rhétorique les multitudes qui allaient vers lui pour suivre son enseignement sur l’Écriture: parmi eux se trouvaient des hérétiques et même des philosophes de renom. À ce moment Origène est revenu aux études profanes auxquelles il avait renoncé quand il avait vendu sa bibliothèque. Aux plus avancés il enseigne la philosophie avec ses sciences préparatoires comme la géométrie, et l’arithmétique, expose la doctrine des diverses écoles de philosophes, explique leurs écrits, jusqu’à acquérir lui-même une réputation de grand philosophe. Aux moins avancés il se contente d’enseigner les «sciences encycliques» à cause de l’utilité qu’elles présentent pour l’explication de l’Écriture. «Aussi estimait-il tout à fait nécessaire, même pour lui, de s’exercer aux disciplines profanes et à la philosophie» (HE VI, XVIII, 2-4)2.

Cette description de Crouzel nous montre la marque pédagogique d’Origène qui est, sans doute, celle d’un maître avec une excellente formation philosophique et théologique, alliée à une absolue cohérence entre sa vie et son enseignement. C’est-à-dire qu’Origène représentait le prototype du maître qui réalisait dans lui-même ce qu’il exigeait de ses élèves. À cet égard Patricia Ciner affirme que: Origène représentait le modèle d’un théologien qui ne craint pas de confronter sa position religieuse avec des idées philosophiques différentes des siennes, en respectant le fond de vérité qu’il était possible de trouver dans celles-ci. Même s’il comprenait parfaitement que le message du christianisme était absolument indépendant des systèmes philosophiques de son temps, il ne redoutait pas d’établir un dialogue avec eux. Il cherchait dans certains cas à aborder des questions incompatibles avec une bonne théologie, comme par exemple la négation de la Providence Divine, et dans d’autres cas il utilisait les doctrines qui lui permettaient d’approfondir des sujets plus complexes comme les questions relatives à l’éternité, le temps, le cosmos, l’être humain…3.

Dans un texte de Porphyre conservé par Eusèbe de Césarée, l’intensité de la vie intellectuelle d’Origène se manifeste de la façon suivante: Il fréquentait en effet sans cesse Platon; les œuvres de Numénius, de Kronius, d’Apollophane, de Longin, de Modératus, de Nicomaque et des hommes 2. H. CROUZEL, Origène, Paris, Lethielleux, 1985, pp. 28-29. 3. P. CINER, Eternidad, Tiempo y Libertad humana en la teología de Orígenes, in R. PERETÓ RIVAS (ed.), EntornoalneoplatonismoenlaEdadMedia (Cuadernos Medievales de Cuyo, 3), Mendoza, CEFIM–SS CC ediciones, 2011, 65-74.

ALEXANDRIE ET CÉSARÉE

311

instruits dans les doctrines pythagoriciennes étaient son entretien et il se servait aussi des livres de Chérémon le Stoïque, et de Cornutus4.

Cette ouverture par rapport à l’étude de différentes positions philosophiques et théologiques avait certainement des conséquences directes sur le programme pédagogique qu’Origène offrait à ses disciples. Ce programme s’illustre notamment dans Deprincipiis. Notre hypothèse de travail est qu’Origène n’a jamais ni suivi la philosophie platonicienne – qu’il admirait sans doute – ni confondu celle-ci avec le christianisme sur lequel il a fondé sa théologie et sa conception pédagogique. Nous pouvons le voir clairement dans la structure pédagogique que l’Alexandrin a donnée à ce chef d’œuvre. Sur ce point, le traducteur et spécialiste Samuel Fernández explique que Deprincipiis s’articule en deux grands cycles d’enseignement. Ceux-ci sont relativement parallèles et portent, en général, sur les mêmes thèmes: Dieu, les créatures intellectuelles et le monde. Ils peuvent se comprendre comme un itinéraire d’enseignement chrétien; conçu pour les chrétiens éclairés d’Alexandrie. De cette façon, le traité d’Origène visait à offrir aux croyants un chemin graduel de connaissance d’un christianisme rationnellement cohérent, pour donner une alternative réelle face à l’attraction intellectuelle du système gnostique. Étant donné le caractère des destinataires et la sensibilité pédagogique d’Origène, l’itinéraire ne pouvait pas commencer par les doctrines chrétiennes plus simples et approfondir ensuite les questions philosophiques plus complexes. Par contre, l’itinéraire devait prendre en considération les obstacles concrets qui entravaient l’adhésion de ces Grecs illustres à la communauté ecclésiale5.

Nous retrouvons cette explication dans les textes suivants du De principiis Et ils ne veulent pas comprendre qu’il y a une certaine parenté entre l’intelligence et Dieu, dont l’intelligence elle-même est une image intellectuelle, et par là elle peut saisir quelque chose de la nature divine, surtout si elle est davantage purifiée et séparée de matière corporelle6.

Comme a bien expliqué S. Fernandez, dans ce paragraphe on peut voir que le lien avec Dieu donne à l’homme la possibilité de faire sa connaissance et être assimilé à Lui7. Mais cette similitude commence en préexistence ou création première, car les noesdétiennent depuis l’éternité cette 4. Eusèbe, Histoire ecclésiastique VI,19, Paris, Librairie Alphonse Picard, 1911, pp. 207-209. 5. Orígenes. Sobre los principios. Introducción, texto crítico, traducción y notas de S. FERNÁNDEZ (Fuentes Patrísticas, 27), Madrid, Ciudad Nueva, 2015, pp. 34-35. 6. Ibid., p. 159 (Prin I,1,7). 7. Ibid., p. 35.

312

P.D. FERNÁNDEZ

image divine inscrite dans leur nature. Pour cela Origène part du principe de la nécessité de progresser dans le déroulement de cette divinité inhérente à toute créature afin d’atteindre la ressemblance complète avec le Fils. Les garanties de la réalisation de la ressemblance complète sont, d’après le maître alexandrin, l’amour de Dieu et de son Fils qui accompagnent toutes les étapes du processus pédagogique, ainsi que le libre arbitre donné aux créatures intellectuelles depuis la création primaire, et qui leur permet discerner le bien du mal. Ce processus d’apprentissage éternel va continuer, selon Origène, même après la mort physique et aura lieu dans les espaces célestes (caelestialoca). Origène le manifeste clairement en écrivant dans Prin II,11,6: Je pense en effet que les saints, en quittant cette vie demeurerons en un lieu situé sur la terre, celui que l’Écriture divine appelle le Paradis, comme dans un lieu d’instruction, ou, pour ainsi dire, un auditoire ou une école des âmes, pour être instruites de tout ce qu’ils ont vu sur la terre, pour recevoir aussi quelques indications sur les réalités qu’ils verront dans la suite.

Ici aussi S. Fernandez a commenté ce beau texte, en écrivant que «Origène suppose un long processus entre la mort et la contemplation finale. En fait, il affirme que ce processus est représenté par la marche du peuple depuis la sortie d’Égypte jusqu’à la Terre promise»8. L’autre garantie de la réussite de la ressemblance divine est, comme indiqué précédemment, le libre arbitre qui permettrait de discerner le bien du mal, jusqu’à atteindre la pleine liberté. Cette possibilité de discernement est manifestée clairement dans CIo II: Car il est comme un maître inséparable de son élève (διδάσκαλος τοῦ μανϑάνοντος), le Logos inhérent à la nature des êtres doués de raison (τῶν λογικῶν λόγος): toujours il suggère ce qu’il faut faire, même si nous ne tenons pas compte de ses ordres, si nous nous livrons aux plaisirs et si nous laissons de côté ses excellents conseils9.

La lecture des textes de la période alexandrine permet de conclure que le Logos qui est dans chaque âme humaine est identique au Logos-Dieu, et que le progrès spirituel peut actualiser cette identité essentielle. La possibilité de divinisation donnée à partir de la création primaire entraîne un grand combat spirituel, mais le succès de ce combat est garanti par la présence éternelle de Dieu Père et de son Fils dans l’âme humaine.

8. Ibid., p. 535 n. 48 (Prin II,11,6). 9. CIoII,15,109; Origène,CommentairesurSaintJean, ed. C. BLANC (SC, 120), Paris, Cerf, 1966, pp. 277-279 (traduction légèrement modifiée).

ALEXANDRIE ET CÉSARÉE

313

III. PÉDAGOGIE CHRISTOLOGIQUE ET SOTÉRIOLOGIQUE À CÉSARÉE Commençons par l’évocation du milieu philosophique et théologique dans lequel Origène enseignait à Césarée. Voici ce que dit Photius reproduisant Pamphile: Quand Origène fut banni d’Alexandrie Théotecne (lisons: Théoctiste), évêque de Palestine, l’admit volontiers à séjourner à Césarée et lui laissa toute liberté pour enseigner10.

Sur l’activité d’enseignement d’Origène à Césarée, nous avons des documents d’une exceptionnelle valeur, comme le Discoursd’actionde grâce prononcé à l’occasion du départ, après cinq ans d’étude, d’un disciple devenu par après un des saints les plus vénérés d’Orient: Grégoire le Thaumaturge. À la fin de ce discours, Grégoire (en fait il s’appelait Théodore, et il avait changé son nom probablement au moment de son baptême), décrit de façon émouvante la fascination que les paroles du Maître exerçaient sur eux quand il parlait du Logos, et l’affection mutuelle qui s’était établie parmi eux: Telle une étincelle lancée au milieu de nos âmes, voici que s’allumait et s’embrassait en nous l’amour du Verbe sacré, tout aimable, qui par son ineffable beauté attire à lui tous les hommes, et l’amour de cet homme, son ami et son interprète. Profondément blessé par cet amour, je me laissai persuader de négliger toutes les affaires et études qui semblaient nous convenir, entre autres mes belles lois elles-mêmes, ma patrie et mes parents, ceux d’ici pour qui nous étions partis. Une seule chose m’était chère et aimée, la philosophie et son guide, cet homme divin11.

La seconde partie du discours décrit le programme suivi par Origène dans son école. Il commençait par des exercices de logique et de dialectique à la manière socratique. Il enseignait ensuite les sciences de la nature, en insistant sur la Providence comme manifestation de l’intelligence divine dans l’ordre de l’univers. Après quoi, Grégoire se consacre intensément à l’étude de la morale, centrée sur les quatre vertus cardinales: Origène se préoccupait de former aussi bien en pratique qu’en théorie. Enfin, l’enseignement suprême était la théologie. Il commençait par des textes choisis au préalable par le maître, des philosophes, et des poètes païens qui parlaient de Dieu, des philosophes de toutes les écoles, à l’exception des athées. 10. Cité par CROUZEL, Origène(n. 2), p. 46. 11. GrégoireleThaumaturge.RemerciementàOrigènesuividelalettred’Origèneà Grégoire, ed. H. CROUZEL (SC, 148), Paris, Cerf, 1969, p. 129.

314

P.D. FERNÁNDEZ

Origène voulait ainsi éloigner ses élèves de toute étroitesse d’esprit. D’après lui, seul Dieu a droit à l’adhésion inconditionnelle des hommes. C’est pour cela que l’étude des philosophes constituait le prélude à l’étude de l’Écriture et couronnait tous ses enseignements. Crouzel le formule comme suit: À la suite de A. Knauber nous pensons que l’École de Césarée serait plutôt une sorte d’école missionnaire s’adressant à de jeunes païens sympathisants au Christianisme, mais non nécessairement décidés à demander le baptême: Origène les introduisait ainsi à la doctrine chrétienne à partir d’un enseignement philosophique, surtout inspiré par le Moyen Platonisme, dont il leur présentait une version chrétienne. Si ses élèves plus tard demandaient à devenir chrétiens ils avaient alors à recevoir l’enseignement catéchétique proprement dit. Mais le didascalée de Césarée est surtout une école de vie intérieure: tout son enseignement aboutit au spirituel. Il est frappant de constater que ce que Grégoire admire le plus chez Origène, ce n’est pas l’érudit universel ou le profond spéculatif, mais l’homme de Dieu et le maître des âmes12.

La lecture de ces textes nous permet d’affirmer que le programme scolaire décrit dans le Discours avait pour objectif ultime que les élèves atteignent la ressemblance avec le Fils. Dans ce sens, nous confortons l’analyse de Marcelo Merino Rodríguez, qui affirme dans l’excellente introduction de son Éloge du maître chrétien que «la vie dans l’école d’Origène, tant dans son aspect moral qu’intellectuel, tendait à la divinisation des disciples»13. Il est important aussi de souligner que le modèle pédagogique d’Origène à Césarée intégrait l’enseignement des sciences de son époque comme propédeutique de la théologie. En ceci, nous pouvons affirmer qu’Origène utilisait ce que nous appellerions la méthode interdisciplinaire. Dans ce contexte, et ayant appréhendé le modèle pédagogique d’Origène, nous sommes maintenant en mesure d’approfondir la lettre qu’Origène envoie à Grégoire, quand celui-ci doit partir vers sa ville natale, et dans laquelle il déploiera ses fonctions d’évêque. La lettre commence en saluant Grégoire en Dieu, c’est-à-dire en signalant que le vrai maître qui l’a guidé n’était pas Origène mais la sagesse divine. Après, Origène met l’accent sur les qualités et les possibilités que Grégoire aurait pu avoir dans le monde. Tes dispositions naturelles peuvent donc faire de toi un juriste romain accompli et un philosophe grec appartenant à l’une des écoles réputées. Mais je voudrais, moi, que tu utilises toute la force de tes dispositions naturelles en ayant pour fin la doctrine chrétienne14. 12. CROUZEL, Origène(n. 2), p. 50. 13. Gregorio Taumaturgo, Elogio del Maestro Cristiano. Introducción, traducción y notas de M. MERINO RODRÍGUEZ, Madrid, Ciudad Nueva, 1994, p. 84. 14. RemerciementàOrigène, ed. CROUZEL (n. 11), p. 187.

ALEXANDRIE ET CÉSARÉE

315

Cette exhortation d’Origène confirme la position de Koetschau, suivant laquelle ce texte a été écrit après l’année 23815. En effet, Grégoire avait quitté l’école de Césarée où il avait reçu une remarquable formation philosophique. L’exceptionnelle qualité d’Origène en tant que maître se manifeste justement dans le fait de lui avoir donné tous les éléments rationnels indispensables pour un intellectuel de son époque, mais en même temps dans l’avertissement affectueux sur les dangers que ce chemin pourrait comporter. Et c’est pour cela qu’il utilise le texte de l’Exode et la joie d’Égypte, dont la signification plus profonde est exprimée joliment dans l’Homélie du même nom. Dans les mots d’Origène: «Nous partons d’Égypte en une marche de trois jours si, détachant notre sagesse raisonable, naturelle et morale des choses de ce monde, nous la tournons vers les décisions divines» (HEx III,3)16. Cette sortie, n’est pas physique, bien entendu, mais elle a lieu dans l’âme qui décide de progresser dans la foi. Origène rappelle à Grégoire l’exemple d’Ader l’Iduméen qui en commençant à apprécier les pains d’Égypte a trahi son propre peuple. Il lui enseigne aussi, comme seul un véritable maître peut le faire, que le monde de l’action peut être bon et productif uniquement lorsque l’âme trouve la force et la clarté dans la parole divine. Il le recommande de la façon suivante: Toi donc, mon seigneur et fils, applique-toi principalement à la lecture des divines Écritures … En t’appliquant à les lire avec l’intention de croire et de plaire à Dieu, frappe, dans ta lecture, à la porte de ce qui est fermé, et il ouvrira, le portier dont Jésus a dit: «À celui-là le portier ouvre». … Ne te contente pas de frapper et de chercher, car il est absolument nécessaire de prier pour comprendre les choses divines. C’est pour nous y exhorter que le Sauveur a dit non seulement: «Frappez et l’on vous ouvrira» et: «Cherchez et vous trouverez» mais aussi: «Demandez et l’on vous donnera»17.

Dans ce texte, Origène demande à son disciple qu’au moment de choisir le chemin à suivre, il se laisse éclairer toujours et tout d’abord par la foi. Tenant compte l’excellente formation philosophique qu’Origène avait donnée à Grégoire, ceci ne doit pas être considéré comme une critique de la raison humaine et de ses possibilités. La dernière leçon qu’Origène veut léguer à son disciple consiste à ne pas se laisser confondre par les vanités du monde. Pour cette raison, et en guise de chaleureux adieu, il lui souhaite pouvoir participer totalement en Christ et dans l’esprit de Dieu.

15. RemerciementàOrigène, ed. CROUZEL (n. 11), p. 87. 16. Origène.Homéliessurl’Exode, ed. M. BORRET (SC, 321), Paris, Cerf, 1985, p. 101. 17. RemerciementàOrigène, ed. CROUZEL (n. 11), p. 193.

316

P.D. FERNÁNDEZ

IV. CONCLUSIONS Nous croyons qu’Origène a été fidèle à la tâche de tout bon maître dans les deux écoles qu’il a dirigées: donner à ses disciples les éléments pour atteindre par eux-mêmes la ressemblance avec Dieu, don spirituel qui n’est pas en dehors d’eux, mais dans leur être le plus intime. Dans ce sens, on peut conclure en affirmant qu’il n’y a aucune rupture ni discontinuité dans le projet pédagogique d’Origène, tant à Alexandrie qu’à Césarée. Universidad Católica de Cuyo San Juan, Argentina [email protected]

Pedro Daniel FERNÁNDEZ

ORIGEN, COPYISTS, AND BOOKS OF AGGADA

The hallmark of rabbinic culture is its orality. Yet, in traditions attributed to Jewish sages of the third century CE, we hear reports of books of aggada1, books presumably containing biblical exegesis and homilies, that circulated in Palestine. The evidence for the existence of these books of aggada includes even a sampling of their contents. I would like to reflect on this evidence and then move on to some thoughts on the nature and origin of these books in light of the prodigious output of Christian books, especially from Origen’s time onwards. Whether these Jewish books of aggada were written in the relatively new codex form which was beginning to be popular in the Roman empire, especially among Christians, or in the traditional roll, we do not know, as none has survived. In light of the exponential growth of Christian literature, I would like to speculate on how and why these books of aggada eventually won the support of the leading amora2 of the land of Israel, R. Yochanan, a younger contemporary of Origen. I Let us begin with an examination of the evidence, treating here only the evidence from Palestinian Jewish literature, beginning with the Yerushalmi, the Palestinian Talmud. Surely the most famous passage in the Yerushalmi in this regard is at PT Shabbat 16,1,15c (ed. Academy of the Hebrew Language, pp. 437-438). Two Jewish sages attest to having seen and read a book of aggada. R. Joshua b. Levi, a first-generation Palestinian amora (c. 230 CE), curses those who dared to write down aggada, or to preach it or listen to it from a book:

1. “Aggada”, from the Hebrew verb “to speak” (close to the Greek “rhetoric”), is the common designation of all rabbinic discourse which relates to areas other than law (halacha). This includes comments on biblical narratives, ethical sayings, stories about sages (chreia) and more. 2. “Amora” (= speaker) is the designation of any rabbinic sage of the period in which the Talmud and aggadic midrashim were composed, extending from third to sixth centuries CE.

318

M. HIRSHMAN

This aggada: the one who writes it has no portion (presumably, in the world to come), the one who expounds it is seared (or: excommunicated3), and the one who hears it has no reward.

He goes on to say that he had never in all his days even looked (‫)אסתכלית‬ at a book of aggada, though he confesses: “except once I looked”. Surprisingly, he then gives a full report of the contents of what he had read and concludes by saying: “even so I am frightened at night”4. This is followed immediately by another testimony of a student of R. Joshua ben Levi, R. Hiyya bar Ba, who saw (‫ )חמא‬a book of aggada, and despite conceding that it was well written, curses the hand that wrote it. These two reports provide literary evidence for the existence of books of aggada in the third century, while at the same time registering these third-century rabbis’ vehement opposition to those books. These amoraic diatribes against books of aggada found in the Palestinian Talmud are sandwiched between two statements drawn from an earlier tannaitic5 source, Tosefta Shabbat 13,4-56. The Tosefta records an excoriation of one who writes down blessings (‫)כותבי ברכות כשורפי תורה‬ and goes on to treat how one disposes of the books of heretics (minim), in this context, probably Christians. The later talmudic citation of the passage goes on to insert into this source an additional kind of forbidden work – books of aggada. Were the contents of these books of aggada normative, like the blessings, while only their format was in violation of the regnant custom of rabbinic orality and the characteristic rabbinic prohibition of written works (other than Scripture)7? Or, was there something non-normative in the very contents of these books of aggada which accounted for the vehement opposition and invective heaped upon those who wrote them or had recourse to them? The debate surrounding this crucial source remains highly contentious. What was it about this apparently banal sermonette that R. Joshua ben Levi recalled reading, that proved so traumatic? A few years ago, the doyen 3. Hrk usually means burnt or singed but might draw here on Mishna Nedarim 1,2, where the same root serves as a substitute for herem (= excommunication). 4. See M. SOKOLOFF, DictionaryofJewishPalestinianAramaic, Ramat Gan, Bar Ilan University Press, 1990, s.v. ‫בעת‬., p. 109. 5. The first period of Rabbinic activity between 1-250 CE. A tanna in this context is a rabbinic sage of this period. 6. See also S. Naeh’s wonderful treatment of “writers of blessings” in this passage in S. NAEH, TheRoleofBiblicalVersesinPrayeraccordingtotheRabbinicTradition, in J.L. KUGEL (ed.), PrayersThatCiteScripture, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2006, 43-59, pp. 44-49. 7. See the exhaustive and persuasive article by Y. SUSSMAN, TheOralTorah:Exactly That, in ID. – D. ROSENTHAL (eds.), MehqereiTalmudIII, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 2005, 209-384 (Heb.), with copious bibliography.

ORIGEN, COPYISTS, AND BOOKS OF AGGADA

319

of Israeli historians of the period, M.D. Herr, dismissed all attempts to tease out a mystical aspect to thisderasha (homiletical exegesis). Herr preferred the explanation that R. Joshua ben Levi was piqued by the very writing of aggada and was indifferent to its content8. This was also the position of S. Naeh, who had earlier contended on grammatical grounds that R. Joshua ben Levi’s night-fright stemmed from the act of reading itself and not from the contents of the book9. I find myself in disagreement with my very learned colleagues and will briefly spell out my argument so as not to veer too far from our main concern. Let us take a look at the homily that so disconcerted R. Joshua ben Levi, a very colorful and almost mythic figure in rabbinic literature who consorted with the prophet Elijah and once outwitted the angel of death. This is what he read in that book of aggada: The 175 sections (parashiyot) where it is written in the Torah “speak”, “say”, “command”, correspond (‫ )כנגד‬to the years of our father Abraham, as is written: “you have received gifts among men (baadam)” (Ps 68,19), and it is written: “the man (haadam) great among giants” (Josh 14,15)10. The 147 songs (‫ )מזמורות‬that are written in Psalms correspond to the years of our father Jacob. This teaches us that all the praises (kilusin) which Israel praises the Holy One correspond to the years of Jacob, as is written: “But you are the Holy One enthroned, the Praise of Israel” (= Jacob Ps 22,4). The 123 times Israel answers “halleluya” correspond to the years of Aaron, “praise The Lord praise God (el), in his sanctuary/holiness” (Ps 150,1), to Aaron his holy one, “to Aaron God’s holy one” (Ps 106,16) …

This, at first glance, appears to be a standard, even pedestrian, example of rabbinic aggada. Yet, on further inspection, the biblical prooftexts for each of these statements turn out to be highly charged verses which speak of an intimate, possibly mystical connection to God. The prooftext for Jacob is Ps 22,4: ‫“ – ואתה קדוש יושב תהלות ישראל‬But you are the Holy One enthroned, the Praise of Israel”. This same verse is interpreted in Genesis Rabbah 46 in the name of R. Hanina in the following manner: “…for each and every praise that Israel praises God, God makes his Shechina dwell on them”. We read in Avot de’rabbi Nathan B, chapter 37, 8. M.D. HERR,OnAggadicMidrash:Development,EditingandSurvival, in Z. WEISS etal. (eds.), “FollowtheWise”:StudiesinJewishHistoryandCultureinhonorof LeeI.Levine, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2010, 11-37, pp. 13-15 (Heb.), notes 1115. 9. S. NAEH, OntheSeptennialCycleoftheTorahReadinginEarlyPalestine (heb.), Tarbiz 74 (2004) 43-75, p. 52 n. 52. For a survey of the various scholarly positions on these “books of aggada” see SUSSMANN, TheOralTorah (n. 7), pp. 293-295, especially note 43. 10. The first verse is taken to the refer to the words of the Torah given to Moses at Sinai; the second is taken to refer to Abraham.

320

M. HIRSHMAN

(ed. Schechter, p. 95): “Ten names for prophecy… speak, say, command”. The one verse cited in this homily that does not interpret the word “holy”(kadosh), cites and interprets Ps 68,19, which Paul, in Eph 4,9, had understood as speaking of Jesus, there inverting the receiving of gifts of the verse to Jesus’s giving of gifts. The homily that frightened R. Joshua ben Levi speaks of holiness, possibly mystical, and counters a primal Christian exegesis which took the person (Heb. adam) to be Jesus while this book of aggada reads it as Abraham. This brief homily that R. Joshua ben Levi recalled reading in a book of aggada strikes me as redolent with mystical intimations. At the same time, I observed en passant that the identification of adam with Abraham in this rabbinic tradition as opposed to Paul’s reading is noteworthy. The main point, in our present context, is that whether I am correct or not in attributing deeper meaning to this statement, it definitely shows the early third-century rabbi protesting vehemently against the book of aggada. Within half a century, R. Yochanan vigorously advocates learning aggada from a book: ‫ברית כרותה היא הלמד אגדה מתוך הספר לא במהרה הוא שוכחה‬ – “It is a sealed covenant, that one who learns aggada from the book will not quickly forget it” (PT Berachot 5,1,9a [p. 43]). Some modern scholars interpret “from the book” with a capital B, meaning learning aggada while looking into the Torah scroll. Others, myself included, see this as encouraging the study of aggada from a written work of aggada11. I suggest that the formulation ‫ברית כרותה‬, which I have translated “a sealed covenant”, is a play on Ex 34,27: ‫כתב לך את הדברים האלה כי על‬ ‫“ – פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל‬Write down these commandments, for in accordance with these commandments I make a covenant (‫ )כרתי ברית‬with you and with Israel”. This verse is a crucial prooftext for the notion of two Torahs in rabbinic Judaism, playing on the words ktov – “write” – and alpi – “in accordance with” (literally: “according to the mouth”). Rabbi Yochanan is echoing this central verse while advocating a major change – studying aggada from a book. By way of conclusion, I note that one of the truly great late nineteenth-century scholars of aggada, Julius Theodor, whose classic German essays on the composition of aggada appeared recently in Hebrew translation12, was convinced that our fifth-century books of aggada were based on even older written works 11. See M. HIRSHMAN,AggadicMidrash, in S. SAFRAI etal. (eds.), Literatureofthe Sages, Part 2, Assen, Van Gorcum, 2006, 107-132, p. 108, n. 9. 12. T. KADARI, MinkhahL’Yehuda, Jerusalem, The Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 2017, p. 119.

ORIGEN, COPYISTS, AND BOOKS OF AGGADA

321

of aggada13. How can we account for the change in attitude from adamant opposition to books of aggada at the beginning of the century to their embracing at mid-century? Let us look for a moment at Christian book production in this half century. II Grafton and Williams go so far as to say that Origen’s heroic efforts to produce the Hexapla and his readiness to interpret diverse versions of the Bible reflected his double intention “to secure a correct text of the Septuagint for the use of the church, and second to provide for his own use and that of his contemporaries a means of accessing the Jewish biblical tradition in preparation for disputes with the Jews…”14. Jared Secord15, following William Adler’s foundational study of Julius Africanus, most recently emphasized both Origen’s stature as a Second Sophistic intellectual and, no less important, the enormous financial backing he enjoyed. This backing enabled him to employ many stenographers and copyists and to produce the extremely costly Hexapla. The transcripts of his oral homilies and the dictation of his massive commentaries would be unimaginable without an army of assistants. This double achievement – Origen’s stature as an intellectual on the one hand and his assembly-line like production of Christian commentaries, homilies and theology – certainly impacted his Jewish rivals. It is worth entertaining the possibility that it was Origen’s impressive accomplishment and presence that helped bring about the sea-change in rabbinic views of written books of aggada. These innovative Jewish written works might have been intended both to preserve Jewish interpretation of scripture along with combatting a market “flooded” with Origen’s commentaries. 13. Julius THEODOR, ZurCompositionderagadischenHomilien,inMonatsschriftfür GeschichteundWissenschaftdesJudentums28 (1879) 337-350, p. 341: “… und Pesikta, Gen r., Lev. R. als Werke einzelner autoren nur nach älteren geschriebenen Sammlungen redigirt worden sein können” (emphasis is Theodor’s!). A similar position was taken by D.Z. Hofmann and L. Finkelstein in regard to the aggada in the tannaitic collections. See M.I. KAHANA, TheTwoMekhiltotontheAmalekPortion, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1999, p. 27 and n. 17 (Heb.). 14. A. GRAFTON – M. WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen,Eusebius,andtheLibraryofCaesarea, Cambridge, MA – London, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006, p. 128. 15. J. SECORD, JuliusAfricanus,Origen,andthePoliticsofIntellectualLifeunderthe Severans, in ClassicalWorld 110 (2017) 211-235.

322

M. HIRSHMAN

III We should also pay attention to the physical form of the new abundance of Christian books, which are written as codices and not as scrolls. R. Bagnall reviewed the Christian predilection for the codex in an exhaustive and methodical study and summarized as follows: …there is no doubt at all that the church routinely and uniformly used the codex for scripture in the period from the end of the second to the beginning of the third century, when it becomes an institutional presence in Egypt16.

Following an earlier suggestion of Roberts and Skeat, who had proposed that the change must have emerged from a Christian center with “sufficient authority to devise such innovations and to impose them on Christendom generally”17, Bagnall toys with the idea that the prevalence of the codex among Christians was a sign of Romanization. But, he concludes that this idea requires further research. For our purposes, if indeed somewhere in the mid-third century the greatest of the Palestinian rabbinic authorities, Rabbi Yochanan, encouraged study of aggada from a book, it certainly would demand all his authority and prestige to depart from the time-honored orality of his mainstream predecessors. Would those books have been in the standard roll form, or might scribes have preferred the codex form in order to distinguish oral aggadic Torah from written biblical scrolls? If we look at examples of Jewish, non-scriptural written works cited in rabbinic literature, we find the use of rolls in the context of a “scroll of genealogies” (‫ מגילת יוחסין‬PT Taanit 4,2,68a, BT Yevamot 42a) and a “hidden scroll” (‫ מגילת סתרים‬BT Baba Mezia 92b). Beyond that, rabbinic works understand verses in Scripture that use the word sefer – book – as meaning a scroll or roll18. Might R. Yochanan’s sefer, a book of aggada, be a codex? Since we have not, as yet, found any written rabbinic remains from this period, the jury is still out as to the physical nature of these books of aggada. Let us continue our consideration of Origen and his successors’ workshops and reflect on their impact on the development of rabbinic books of aggada. 16. R. BAGNALL, EarlyChristianBooksinEgypt, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2009, p. 89. 17. Ibid., citing C.H. ROBERTS – T. SKEAT, The Birth of the Codex, London, Oxford University Press, 1983, pp. 57-58; cf. L.W. HURTADO, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: ManuscriptsandChristianOrigins, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2006, p. 71. 18. See Mishna Sota 2,4 and M.I. KAHANA, SifreonNumbers:AnAnnotatedEdition, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 2011, vol. 2, pp. 158-159 (Heb.).

ORIGEN, COPYISTS, AND BOOKS OF AGGADA

323

IV Origen’s pioneering of the Christian book found worthy heirs in two subsequent scholars of Caesarea, Pamphilus and Eusebius. We have an interesting account of Pamphilus’s arrival in Caesarea from Beirut, probably at least a decade after R. Yochanan’s death. Pamphilus is described by Eusebius, quoted in Jerome, as one who, Eagerly distributed copies of the sacred scriptures, not only to be read, but also to be kept, and not only to men, but also to those women who had shown him that they were devoted to reading. Accordingly, he prepared many codices so that he could give them out to those who wanted…19.

I am suggesting that the encouragement of written books of aggada came as a response to the proliferation of Christian literature – those works that came to be included in the New Testament and the many patristic works of the second and especially third centuries that focused on the Old Testament. Following Timothy Barnes, S. Inowlocki suggests that Eusebius’s Praeparatio Evangelica “may have been used as a comprehensive handbook for use in polemical discussion”20. The aggadic midrash of the rabbis is replete with purported dialogues between rabbinic sages and adversaries who appear under a variety of designations – heretics, philosophers, matrons and others. If midrash includes this disputation genre, clearly at least one of the aims of the collection is also to serve as a digest of authoritative rabbinic interpretations, in the face of the burgeoning Christian literature. In this context, let us turn back to the formulation of what to me seems to be R. Yochanan’s revolutionary stance – “anyone who studies aggada from the book will not quickly forget it”. The point of these books then was to serve as a kind of aidedemémoire, an educational tool that allowed one to better memorize the contents. If there were written works, why was one encouraged to memorize it? I want to suggest two reasons. The first appears in the Tosefta with which we began. Teaching of aggada on Shabbat was done entirely without recourse to a written copy of scripture – one was allowed to glance at scripture only if uncertain of the quote. The other reason to my mind is the need to have complete control of the 19. GRAFTON – WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book (n. 14), p. 181. Jerome, ContraRufinum I,9; PL 23, 422B-C. 20. S. INOWLOCKI, Eusebius’ Construction of a Christian Culture in an Apologetic Context:ReadingthePreparatioevangelicaasaLibrary, in EAD. – C. ZAMAGNI (eds.), ReconsideringEusebius:CollectedPapersonLiterary,Historical,andTheologicalIssues, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, 199-223, p. 202, citing T.D. BARNES, Constantineand Eusebius, Cambridge, MA – London, Harvard University Press, 1981, p. 184.

324

M. HIRSHMAN

rabbinic comments on scripture in order to have a ready retort in dialogue with Christians and others. The debate between Jews and Christians continued well into the sixth century and beyond21. Books of aggada provided disputants with a wealth of diverse and authoritative rabbinic interpretations. This posture would accord well with the dictum in the Mishna: “Be diligent to learn what to respond to the Epicurean” (Avot 2,14). As Martha Nussbaum has taught us, the Epicurean forte was in memorizing Epicurus’s summary of his doctrine22, and in this sense the rabbis were both imitating and countering that method. I envisage the Jewish-Christian debate in Origen’s time and others to be oral encounters, often even spontaneous. Books of aggada might have been an important contribution to the rabbis’ need to counter the Christian claims. The Melton Centre for Jewish Education The Seymour Fox School of Education The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Mount Scopus 91905 Israel [email protected]

Marc HIRSHMAN

21. See for example, A. CAMERON, Dialoguing in Late Antiquity (Hellenic Studies Series, 65), Washington, DC, Center for Hellenic Studies, 2014, chapter 2. (http://nrs. harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_CameronA.Dialoguing_in_Late_Antiquity.2014). 22. M. NUSSBAUM, TheTherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 129-135. Many thanks to the editors and readers for helpful comments and corrections.

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

As one of the most prolific and wide-ranging of Christian authors in the fourth century and as one of the most significant inheritors of Origen’s legacy in Late Antiquity, Eusebius of Caesarea needs little excuse for being included in the present volume1. Furthermore, his importance for the development of Christian ideas and activities with respect to the cities and holy places of Judaea-Palaestina cannot be denied. His composition of the Onomasticon, his OrationontheHolySepulcher, and also his descriptions of Origen’s and Constantine’s interactions and activities within the region make Eusebius an exquisite writer with whom to engage in a volume such as the present one2. In what follows I would like to attend not necessarily to particular cities discussed by Eusebius but to the broader notion of the city in several key passages of one of his most understudied works, the Commentaryonthe Psalms, and its wider contexts within Eusebius’ thinking about the civic sphere and its ambiguities3. Furthermore, our understanding of his conception of the city can usefully be enriched be approaching it from the 1. I would like to thank Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and Oded Irshai for impeccable hospitality during my stay in Jerusalem. I am also grateful for conversatism to Michael Hollerich, Lorenzo Perrone, and Cordula Bandt. 2. Rather different approaches and emphases have arisen in the modern scholarship on these texts; see e.g., P. THOMSEN, PalästinanachdemOnomasticondesEusebius, in ZDPV26 (1903) 97-188; T.D. BARNES, TheCompositionofEusebius’Onomasticon, in JTS 26 (1975) 412-415; ID., Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, MA – London, Harvard University Press, 1981, pp. 106-111; D.E. GROH, TheOnomasticonofEusebius andtheRiseofChristianPalestine, in StudiaPatristica 18/1 (1989) 23-31; R.L. WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly:PalestineinChristianHistoryandThought, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 82-100; P.W.L. WALKER, HolyCity,HolyPlaces?Christian AttitudestoJerusalemandtheHolyLandintheFourthCentury (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990, passim; B. ISAAC, Eusebius and the GeographyofRomanProvinces, in D.L. KENNEDY (ed.), TheRomanArmyintheEast (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement, 18), Ann Arbor, MI, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1996, 153-167; = ID.,TheNearEastunderRomanRule:SelectedPapers, Leiden, Brill, 1998, 284-309; O. IRSHAI, FourthCenturyChristianPalestinianPolitics: AGlimpseatEusebiusofCaesarea’sLocalPoliticalCareerandItsNachlebeninChristianMemory, in S. INOWLOCKI – C. ZAMAGNI (eds.), ReconsideringEusebius:Collected PapersonLiterary,Historical,andTheologicalIssues, Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, 25-38; as well as A. MONACI’s contribution to this volume. 3. For a compelling discussion (which does not otherwise focus upon the CommentariusinPsalmos[Comm.inPs.]), see D. SATRAN, TheIdeaoftheCityinEarlyChristian Thought:CaesareanPerspectives, in A. RABAN – K.G. HOLUM (eds.), CaesareaMaritima: ARetrospectiveafterTwoMillennia, Leiden, Brill, 1996, 537-540.

326

A.P. JOHNSON

twin domains of significance that framed the city on either side along a spectrum of specificity: namely the collectivities of humans that are larger than a polis, which received the label ethnos/ethnē (as well as the related terms genos or phulon), on the one hand, and his understanding of individual humans in their bodies that were of course smaller than the polis, on the other. Each of these spheres, the nation and the body, and the city in between these two, were contexts of primary significance for Eusebius’ thought on “the religious” in Late Antiquity. I. CONTEXTS OF RELIGION IN LATE ANTIQUITY: NATIONS AND BODIES An earlier investigation of Eusebius’ language of ethnos and genos in his monumental PraeparatioEvangelica led me to conclude that it was within the framework of ethnicity that religion or “the religious” was embedded4. Imagined communities of humans that were larger than the city-state seemed and continue to seem to me to be fundamental as a more or less powerful conceptual backdrop to most of the widely varying works of Eusebius’ corpus. Discussions of the activities or importance of cities in Eusebius’ thought were rooted within the larger portrayals of the locations, historical vicissitudes, and collective characters of the ethnē. One striking distinction between the nation and the city was, however, that whereas a nation could be disconnected from territory (even while maintaining notional links to territory), the city in Eusebius’ thought was (with one exception to which we will turn later) tied to a particular place. Eusebius’ conception of individual persons as embodied beings, which were also tied to particular places, can likewise illumine an appreciation of the city in Eusebius’ thought. Even if Eusebius would have never identified himself as a Platonist, he (like Origen) was thoroughly conversant in the language and conceptual frameworks of the middle Platonists, and the idea that the human person was most truly the soul is clearly expressed in many of his writings. There was no hint that Eusebius adopted the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls5, but he does claim (in a fascinating 4. I use the modern terms with hesitation; yet while ancient conceptual frameworks and cultural practices were foreign from those of modern contexts, they were not so foreign as to be untranslatable. See the preliminary remarks in A.P. JOHNSON, The Rhetoric of PaganReligiousIdentities:PorphyryandHisFirstReaders, in R. FLOWER – M. LUDLOW (eds.), RhetoricandReligiousIdentityinLateAntiquity, Oxford, Oxford University Press, forthcoming. 5. But, according to Emanuela Prinzivalli, one may suspect Eusebius of believing in Origen’s notion of pre-existence, since for him, human history takes place in a negative framework, even constituted by an ontological fall; or, at least, Eusebius’ anthropology is

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

327

discussion in his Commentary on the Psalms) that God foreknew what sort of person each soul would become in life even before they were planted into the “receptacle” of their mothers’ wombs6. But humans were not the only beings located in bodies. For Middle Platonists like Plutarch, Apuleius or Porphyry, daemons, too, were defined as somehow less divine because of their relation to bodies. According to a theological hierarchy expressed variously in a wide array of treatments (from the OnAbstinencefromEatingMeat, to the Sentences and the now-fragmentary EpistletoAnebo), Porphyry of Tyre, the philosopher whom Eusebius cited more times than any other except Plato, claimed that the order of ensouled beings could be articulated according to levels of ontological purity. Thus, midway between embodied human souls and the visible gods (namely the stars in the aetherial cosmic level) were daemons who were engaged in the physical world through a pneuma or spirit7. This pneuma was a sort of envelope into which the soul was inserted as it descended into the physical cosmos8. It was the means of radically dualist; see E. PRINZIVALLI, Legenrehistoriographiquedel’Histoireecclésiastique, in S. MORLET – L. PERRONE (eds.), Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique: Commentaire. Vol. 1:Étudesd’introduction.Anagôgê, Paris, Les Belles Lettres – Cerf, 2012, 83-111, p. 102. 6. Eusebius, Comm.inPs.57; PG 23, 520C. 7. See A.P. JOHNSON, ReligionandIdentityinPorphyryofTyre:TheLimitsofHellenisminLateAntiquity(Greek Culture in the Roman World),Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 84-96; G. SMITH, How Thin Is a Demon?, in Journal of Early ChristianStudies 16 (2008) 479-512; H. MARX-WOLF, Third-CenturyDaimonologiesand theViaUniversalis:Origen,PorphyryandIamblichusonDaimonesandOtherAngels, in Studia Patristica 46 (2010) 207-215; EAD., A Strange Consensus: Daemonological DiscourseinOrigen,PorphyryandIamblichus, in E. DEPALMA DIGESER – R.M. FRAKES (eds.), TheRhetoricofPowerinLateAntiquity, London, Tauris, 2010, 219-239; T. PROCTOR, DaemonicTrickery,PlatonicMimicry:TracesofChristianDaemonologicalDiscoursein Porphyry’sDeAbstinentia, in VigChr 68 (2014) 416-449; C. HECHT, Porphyry’sDemons asaThreatfortheChristians, forthcoming. For further discussion of the demonological background of Origen, see A. MONACI, Lademonologiaorigenianatraspeculazionefilosoficaepreoccupazionipastorali, in E. CORSINI – E. COSTA (eds.), L’Autunnodeldiavolo, Milano, Bompiani, 1990, 231-248; EAD., LademonologiadiOrigene:Aspettifilosofici, pastorali,apologetici, in R. DALY (ed.), OrigenianaQuinta:Historica–TextandMethod– Biblica–Philosophica–Theologica–OrigenismandLaterDevelopments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 320-325. 8. In Sententiae 29 Porphyry sought to offer a philosophical account of the relation of soul to pneuma and to body in such a way as to provide a “satisfying answer” to the ontological status of wicked daemons that had not yet been developed in the Platonic tradition (as MONACI has noted, LademonologiadiOrigene [n. 7], p. 320; for Origen’s significant contribution, see ibid., p. 322). For discussion of Sent.29, see A.P. JOHNSON, BodilyImages:SomeDifficultiesinPorphyry’sPsychology, in I. RAMELLI – S. SLAVEVAGRIFFIN (eds.), LoversoftheSoulandLoversoftheBody:PlatonicPerspectivesonSoul andBodyinLateAntiquity, Washington, DC, Harvard University Press – Center for Hellenic Studies Press, forthcoming.

328

A.P. JOHNSON

interaction between the soul and perceptible reality. In fact, what marked an individual soul off from the World Soul was precisely its individuation in a body through its pneuma, whether at aetherial, lunar, or earthly levels of existence9. For Porphyry, a soul that used its pneuma well, keeping it dry and thin, was deemed a “good daemon”, while a soul that fattened its pneuma by taking in the steam and smoke of sacrifices was deemed a “bad daemon”10. Daemons were thus defined by their relation to corporeality. Indeed, while he frequently avoids talking this way, at one point in his CommentaryontheTimaeus he refers to daemons “who have descended into bodies”11. Furthermore, some passages of Porphyry considerably increase our difficulty in determining what separates a human from a daemon ontologically, since he will claim that some daemons “have a share of earth” and could even be burned and leave physical remains on the ground12. Humans who eat bodies of animals and the daemons who soak the bodily exhalations of sacrifices into their pneumata are thus thickening the prison-walls of the soul13. In spite of the fact that Porphyry has frequently on very thin evidence been assigned a role as a defender of traditional GrecoRoman religion, it is the ontological considerations here that led him to dismiss civic religion in his OnAbstinence. If someone were to raise a concern for the life of the city in response to Porphyry’s criticism of the sacrificial system, Porphyry’s answer was firm: “This has nothing to do with us. In cities, riches and external and corporeal things are thought to be good and their opposites bad, and the soul is the least of their concerns”14. 9. See Comm.inTimaeum fr. 16 (SODANO), which refers to aetherial bodies and lunar bodies; see Sent.27-29 for the important specification that soul “in itself” is in no place and can only be said to be in a place/body “in relation”. 10. In this, Porphyry is similar to Origen; see the passages cited by MONACI, La demonologiadiOrigene (n. 7), p. 324, n. 20. 11. τοὺς μὲν ἱερέας ἀναλογεῖν τοῖς ἐν οὐρανῷ ἀρχαγγέλοις τετραμμένοις πρὸς ϑεούς, ὧν εἰσιν ἄγγελοι, τοὺς δὲ μαχίμους τοῖς εἰς τὰ σώματα κατιοῦσι δαίμοσι, Comm.inTimaeum fr. 17 (SODANO). 12. ἠλέχϑησαν δέ, ὥς φησι, τοιοῦτοι ὄντες οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν φαινόμενοι περὶ τοὺς Τούσκους οὐ μόνον τῷ σπερμαίνειν καὶ τῷ σκώληκας γεννᾶν ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ καίεσϑαι καὶ τέφραν ἀπολείπειν· ἀφ’ οὗ δὴ καὶ αὐτοῦ δείκνυται πάντα μετέχοντα γῆς, Comm.inTimaeum fr. 57 (SODANO). Cf. Dephilosophiaexoraculishaurienda (Phil.Orac.) fr. 321 (SMITH) (= Eusebius, PraeparatioEvangelicaV,14,4–V,15,4): “they themselves are enclosed (perigraphontai) and are in the image (eikōn) that has been set up as if in a sacred place…”; even though the fragment later uses the term “god” it should be taken as Porphyry’s accommodation to popular language rather than his attempt to designate gods proper. 13. See DeabstinentiaII,43. 14. εἰ δὲ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τούτους ἀπομειλίττεσϑαι, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς. ταύταις γὰρ καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ τὰ ἐκτὸς καὶ τὰ σωματικὰ ἀγαϑὰ εἶναι νενόμισται καὶ τὰ ἐναντία κακά, ὀλίγιστον δ’ ἐν αὐταῖς τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπιμελούμενον, Abst. II,43,2; transl.

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

329

The entities that interacted with the city, giving oracles and in turn receiving worship by the city, were not gods (who remained in the intelligible realm for Porphyry), but daemons (this would include, in particular, Apollo and Asclepius15). In fact, even larger human communities such as ethnē were under the control of daemons who were their “shepherds”, according to a fragment from Porphyry’s CommentaryontheTimaeus16. I have little doubt that later Christians who preserved quotations and paraphrases of Porphyry have seriously distorted our understanding of the scope, tone, and precise positions of several key works of Porphyry that are no longer extant in their entirety. Nonetheless, we should not for that reason neglect the widespread evidence, especially in fully extant works, of Porphyry’s determined ambivalence toward the city and its bodies. It is an ambivalence that deserves to be at least part of the background for our appreciation of Eusebius’ own expressions of the city, the bodies inhabiting the city, and the daemons who seek pneumatic nourishing there. Eusebius clearly found Porphyry’s account of daemons amenable to his own apologetic purposes in the PraeparatioEvangelica since Porphyry’s relevant discussions in both the EpistletoAnebo and the OnAbstinence are cited as evidence by this star witness for the daemonic activity within traditional pagan religious performances. Significantly, Eusebius’ quotations from Porphyry in the fourth and fifth books of the Praeparatio are part of his treatment of “civic theology” (or “political theology” in the sense of the account of the gods of the polis17). As the third in a tripartite theological schema shared first with mythical theology and second with natural or philosophical theology18, civic theology was that type “established in the several cities and countries, and which they call political, G. CLARK modified; see A. TIMOTIN, Ladémonologieplatonicienne:Histoiredelanotion dedaimōndePlatonauxderniersnéoplatoniciens, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 208-215. 15. On Asclepius, see ContraChristianos fr. 65 (BECKER) (= 80 VON HARNACK); by my reading, the “other gods” of this fragment should be taken as Porphyry’s accommodation to popular language rather than his attempt to designate gods proper. 16. “…There are certain individual daemons, some overseeing nations, some cities, and some even individual persons” (τοὺς δὲ μαχίμους τοῖς εἰς τὰ σώματα κατιοῦσι δαίμοσι, τοὺς δὲ αὖ νομέας τοῖς ἐπὶ ταῖς τῶν ζῴων ἀγέλαις τεταγμένοις …. ἐπεὶ καὶ ἀνϑρώπων ἀγέλης ἔστι τις κηδεμὼν καὶ μερικοί τινες, οἳ μὲν ἔϑνη, οἳ δὲ πόλεις, οἳ δὲ καὶ τοὺς καϑ’ ἕκαστον ἐπισκοποῦντες); Comm.inTimaeum fr. 17 (SODANO); cf. Eusebius, DemonstratioEvangelicaIV,6,9; H. JOHANNESSEN, TheDemonicinthe PoliticalThoughtofEusebiusofCaesarea,Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 5455. 17. See A.P. JOHNSON, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 153-197. 18. For a discussion of organizational peculiarities in the Praep.Evang., see A.P. JOHNSON, Eusebius, London, Tauris, 2014, pp. 35-42.

330

A.P. JOHNSON

which also is especially enforced by the laws, as both ancient and ancestral”19. After quoting from Porphyry, Eusebius declares: “All those who have been regarded as gods among all the nations, those to whom whole peoples, both rulers and ruled, in cities and in country districts, offer animal sacrifices […are…] nothing else than daemons” (Praep.Evang. IV,10,3; transl. Gifford). The theology of the polis is thus, “the delusion handed down from their fathers about the tyranny of daemons” (Praep.Evang. IV,4,1; transl. Gifford). This notion of the tyranny of daemons over peoples and cities occurs frequently in his other works from his historical writings to his Constantinian speeches20. This notion allowed him to preserve only a muffled version of Origen’s doctrine of the angels of nations, since according to Eusebius the latter had been driven out by daemons seeking worship for themselves21; even Israel became enslaved by daemons22. It shows that Eusebius was “far less at ease in his world than is generally assumed”23. Even when daemons are not directly named in connection with civic identity and activity, it seems that there is a persistent ambivalence toward cities throughout Eusebius’ corpus. In brief, the following points need to be made. Even while Eusebius locates Christian religious practice and personnel within a civic context in his Ecclesiastical History, nonetheless the Church, with its bishops and presbyters, comprised the paroikoi or “resident aliens” of the polis and were thus at one remove from being at home in that polis. Furthermore, even while he quotes in his Life of Constantinethe emperor’s letter to Macarius of Jerusalem about church 19. Civic theology: “established in the several cities and countries, and which they call political, which also is especially enforced by the laws, as both ancient and ancestral…” (τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ κατὰ πόλεις καὶ χώρας συνεστώς, πολιτικὸν αὐτοῖς προσηγορευμένον· ὃ καὶ μάλιστα πρὸς τῶν νόμων διεκδικεῖται, ὡς ἂν παλαιὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ πάτριον καὶ τῆς τῶν ϑεολογουμένων δυνάμεως αὐτόϑεν τὴν ἀρετὴν ὑποφαῖνον), Praep.Evang. IV,1,2; transl. E.H. GIFFORD modified. Likewise, “All those who have been regarded as gods among all the nations, those to whom whole peoples, both rulers and ruled, in cities and in country districts, offer animal sacrifices […are…] nothing else than daemons” (οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντας τοὺς παρὰ πᾶσι τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν νενομισμένους ϑεούς, οἷς τὰς διὰ ζῴων ϑυσίας πανδημεὶ πάντες ἄρχοντές τε καὶ ἀρχόμενοι κατά τε πόλεις καὶ χώρας ἐκτελοῦσιν· τούτους γὰρ οὐκ ἄλλο τι τυγχάνειν ἡγεῖσϑαι χρὴ κατὰ τοὺς εἰρημένους ἢ δαίμονας),Praep.Evang. IV,10,3; transl. GIFFORD. 20. See JOHANNESSEN, TheDemonicinthePoliticalThoughtofEusebiusofCaesarea (n. 16), pp. 139-202. 21. Dem.Evang. IV,10,161ab (while Eusebius grants that the angels returned under Christ at Dem. Evang. IV,10,162d, this notion is left under-explored in Eusebius’ thought); for general discussion, see JOHNSON, EthnicityandArgument (n. 17), pp. 167168. 22. Dem.Evang. II,3,175d-176a. 23. JOHANNESSEN, The Demonic in the Political Thought of Eusebius of Caesarea (n. 16), p. 2.

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

331

construction in that city in ways that are often interpreted to sanctify the entire city, nonetheless, Eusebius’ own reference to “a new Jerusalem” in his subsequent comments only designated the Church of the Holy Sepulcher itself and not the city as a whole24. Again, evenwhile cities in the LifeofConstantinefrequently appear not so much as daemon-worshipping communities25 themselves but rather the victims of daemonically-driven tyrants in need of Constantine’s liberation26, nonetheless Constantinople is described as unique for not being a city of idols (VitaConstantini III,48)27. Thus, although cities sometimes appear the innocent victims of tyrants or of heretics28, it remains unclear – at least to me – the degree to which we can speak of the city in Eusebius’ thought as a religiously neutral community29. II. A TALE OF TWO CITIES IN

THE

COMMENTARY ON THEPSALMS

If we turn, finally, to Eusebius’ exegetical works and the Commentary on the Psalms in particular it becomes even more difficult to discern a neutral or positive attitude towards the city, at least in its earthly manifestation. As for dating this work, a single reference to miracles performed at the martyrion30 of Christ’s death, is the only clear marker of a date 24. Pace WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly (n. 2), pp. 95-97, whose account of Eusebius’ conception of Jerusalem as a “new Christian city” is a bit of an over-statement (e.g., his appeal to Eusebius, Laus Constantini IX,15 is troubled by the fact that this passage nowhere mentions the city of Jerusalem, but only the “nation of Palestine” as the location of Constantine’s new church foundations; cf. WALKER, HolyCity,HolyPlaces[n. 2], pp. 57, 108). 25. See, however, the description of Heliopolis (Vita Constantini III,58,3; cf. Praep. Evang. IV,16, citing Porphyry; IV,26); see also the description of cities defiled by gladiatorial combat (VitaConstantiniIV,25,1) or effeminate priesthoods (VitaConstantiniIV,25,3). 26. See VitaConstantiniI,25-26; I,33ff. 27. It should be noted that Eusebius’ description of Constantinople here is misleading; see L. RAMSKOLD – N. LENSKI, Constantinople’sDedicationMedallionsandtheMaintenanceofCivicTraditions, in NumismatischeZeitschrift119 (2012) 31-58. 28. On heresies/schisms as destructive of civic peace, see Vita Constantini III,4; III,59,2; III,63,2. 29. In reference to the city of Jerusalem, WALKER (Holy City, Holy Places [n. 2], p. 384) claims Eusebius has a “neutral” view, meaning merely that the city could be reinhabited after destruction. For an analysis leading to more positive conclusions than mine, see the valuable study of D. DEVORE, Eusebius’EcclesiasticalHistoryandClassical Culture:Philosophy,Empire,andtheFormationofChristianIdentity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. 30. This martyrion need not be the completed Church of the Holy Sepulcher; elsewhere Eusebius uses the label martyrion for both the pre-basilical tomb (VitaConstantiniIII,28) and the basilica itself (VitaConstantiniIII,40), as noted by WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly (n. 2), p. 92.

332

A.P. JOHNSON

(c. 326-333) for the commentary31. Although it has been argued to include pre-Nicene material based on the theological content of some passages, this strikes me as a rather unstable basis for dating the work since Nicaea hardly created a theological consensus or kept Christian intellectuals from making widely divergent claims in the course of the next decades32. In the following discussion, I will limit myself to the securely attributed section of it, which survives in the CodexCoislianus 44 and comprises Eusebius’ discussions on Psalms 51–90,3 (in other words roughly onethird of the original commentary, as Curti has noted). I am hoping thereby to avoid insofar as possible the many problems that attend the text of the CommentaryonthePsalms as printed in the PG (in fact, I cannot escape them33, but I am at least alleviating some of the larger ones)34. I shall focus on only two passages in his commentary since I believe these are exemplary of others that frequently prove to be variations on a theme (of course, those variations can be significant, but for purposes of space must be omitted from the present investigation). 31. Comm.inPs. 87,11 (PG 23, 1064A); see C. CURTI, EusebianaI:Commentariiin Psalmos, Catania, Università di Catania, 1989, p. 196 n. 7; M. HOLLERICH, Eusebius’ CommentaryonthePsalmsandItsPlaceintheOriginsofChristianBiblicalScholarship, in A.P. JOHNSON – J. SCHOTT (eds.), Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, Washington, DC, Center for Hellenic Studies Press, 2013, 151-167, p. 154; C. BANDT, SomeRemarksontheToneofEusebius’CommentaryonPsalms, in StudiaPatristica 66 (2013) 143-149, p. 143; most recently, M. COULLET, EusèbedeCésarée–Commentaire surlesPsaumes:ÉditioncritiqueettraductiondequelquesPsaumes[Pss49,72,77,82], doctoral thesis, Université d’Aix-Marseille (dir. Gilles Dorival), 2017, pp. 4-6 For a later date, c. 335, see WALKER, HolyCity,HolyPlaces(n. 2), pp. 359, 371. 32. See JOHNSON, Eusebius (n. 18), pp. 22-23. Likewise, the evidence of Cyril of Alexandria (invoked by M.-J. RONDEAU, Les commentaries patristiques du psautier (IIIe-Vesiècles). Vol. 1: Lestravauxdespèresgrecsetlatinssurlepsautier[OCA, 219], Roma, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1982, pp. 67-68) is ambiguous at best. 33. C. CURTI (Per una nuova edizione dei Commentarii in Psalmos di Eusebio di Cesarea(Ms.Coislin44), in ID., DueArticoliEusebiani(CommentariiinPsalmos), Noto, Jonica Editrice, 1971, pp. 11-34) has shown the unscrupulosity of Montfaucon, whose edition was printed in the PG. 34. My account here can only be offered in a provisional way, pending the critical edition of this section of the Comm.inPs. by C. Bandt; for preliminary studies see (in addition to her contribution to the present volume), C. BANDT, ReverberationsofOrigen’s Exegesis of the Psalms in the Work of Eusebius and Didymus, in S. KACZMAREK – H. PIETRAS (eds.), OrigenianaDecima: OrigenasWriter (BETL, 244), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, 891-905; EAD., Some Remarks on the Tone of Eusebius’ Commentary on Psalms (n. 31); EAD., Origen in the Catenae on Psalms II – The Rather Complicated Case of Psalm51to76, in Adamantius 20 (2014) 14-27; EAD., TheReceptionofOrigen’sHomiliesonPsalmsintheCatenae, in A.-C. JACOBSEN (ed.), OrigenianaUndecima:Origen andOrigenismintheHistoryofWesternThought (BETL, 279), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 235-246; EAD. – F.X. RISCH, DasHypomnemadesOrigeneszudenPsalmen–eineunerkannteSchriftdesEusebius, in Adamantius 19 (2013) 395-436.

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

333

The first passage deserving our attention is one that will surprise no one familiar with Eusebius’ representation of the Jews in his other works. As the people bound by a fixation upon the “fleshly” interpretation of the Mosaic Law and upon the physical act of circumcision, and as the murderers of Christ, the Jews received God’s punishment through the Roman destruction of their holy city Jerusalem and their scattering to the nations. The passage comes from his commentary on Psalm 54LXX (found in PG 23, 472A-492A). Although the first verses of the psalm (recounting flight into the desert, pain and confusion) were historical and spoken in the person of David, according to Eusebius, the following verses were not. In the latter the psalmist claimed to “see lawlessness and injustice day and night in the city”. “No one can say from history”, Eusebius surmised, “what sort of city the verse indicates”35. The psalm referred to a friend’s betrayal and, Eusebius notes, David had never been betrayed by a friend. Instead, the verses must be prophetic of Christ and the Jewish rulers gathered against Him36. After Eusebius’ own summary of the psalm from this perspective37, he offers a sharply negative exposition of the city. The persona of the psalm had sought to “fly on the wings of a dove” in order to go as far from the “city of the impious” as possible38. Following his favorite translator Symmachus, who had rendered the verse, “I made my withdrawal (anachōrēsis) far off, I made my home in the desert”, Eusebius summarizes: “I preferred the deserts to the aforementioned city…. By the Spirit’s foreknowledge..., I saw what was done in the city and so conceived already my escape from there”39. Because those dwelling in the city (particularly, “the presiders over the nation, the teachers of the Law, the chief priests, and the other rulers of the people”) had sharpened their tongues against the innocent victim, the psalmist had prayed prophetically that God would “divide their tongues”40. The next verses’ description of seeing “lawlessness and opposition in the city” elicited Eusebius’ 35. Ποίαν γὰρ πόλιν βούλεται σημαίνειν, ἐφ’ ἧς ταῦτα τεϑέαται, ἅ φησιν ἑωρακέναι, οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τις ἀπὸ τῆς ἱστορίας εἰπεῖν, Comm.inPs. 54,2-6; PG 23, 472B. 36. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 473A-C. 37. Interestingly, the cadence and tone of this section seem almost homiletic in nature (473D); furthermore, he makes the fascinating claim that the emotions expressed in the psalm were felt prophetically through the Holy Spirit by the psalmist himself. 38. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 477B. 39. Κατὰ δὲ τὸν Σύμμαχον· …Πόῤῥω ἂν ἐποίησα τὴν ἀναχώρησίν μου, ηὐλιζόμην ἂν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ…. φεύγων τοὺς τὰ προλεχϑέντα τολμῶντας, καὶ τὰς ἐρήμους μᾶλλον τῆς εἰρημένης πόλεως προετίμων…. τάδε καὶ τάδε προγνώσει τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος ἐϑεασάμην πραχϑησόμενα ἐν τῇ πόλει, τούτου χάριν ἐντεῦϑεν ἤδη φεύγειν διανενόημαι …; Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 477C. 40. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 477D.

334

A.P. JOHNSON

explanation that all of this was prophetic of the false witnesses at Christ’s trial as well as Peter’s denial inside the city, while the subsequent “pain and wretchedness”41, on the other hand, occurred outside the city when they led Jesus to “the place called Golgotha”42. While “pain and wretchedness” were outside the city, injustice was in her midst and “usury and trickery continuously walked her streets”43; direct quotations without comment of Aquila’s and Symmachus’ translation of this phrase heightened the rhetorical impact of the commentator’s exposition44. Later in his commentary on the same psalm, Eusebius demonstrates that a proper interpretation of the psalm cannot leave the lawless inhabitants of the city in control of the situation. Their short-lived “good time” in which they boasted and filled their own city with lawlessness and opposition would not last long; they would be humbled when “the wrath of God would pursue them and their city, when also the famous temple within it was destroyed and all the worship (latreia) performed in it was dissolved”45. Whereas his focus had been upon the leaders and teachers of the city, Eusebius subsequently becomes more inclusive: “the entire race (genos) of the aforementioned ones were handed over to destruction … in the siege during the Roman war – even up to the present time … they have been handed over”46. After a brief note reminding the reader that their eternal punishment will be even worse than the temporal one while on the contrary hope awaited the innocent victim, Eusebius’ commentary on Psalm 54 ends. The second passage that is of interest for the present discussion is a locusclassicus for Christian notions of the “city of God”, namely the verse that runs, “Glorious things are said of you, city of God” in Psalm 86LXX (found at PG 23, 1049B-1052B). Because the first verse had used the vague third person pronoun (“His foundations are on the holy mountains”) and because a later verse (v. 5) referred to a human man born in it who founded it47, Eusebius identified the foundations of the city with 41. Eusebius explicitly states that the phrase is from Symmachus’ translation of the verse. 42. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 480C. 43. In the latter phrase, Eusebius explicitly follows the LXX’s rendering. 44. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 480D. 45. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 485C. 46. τὸ πᾶν γένος τῶν προλεχϑέντων ὀλέϑρῳ παρεδόϑη, μετελϑούσης αὐτοὺς τῆς ὀργῆς ἐν τῇ καταλαβούσῃ αὐτοὺς πολιορκίᾳ κατὰ τὸν Ῥωμαϊκὸν πόλεμον. Καὶ τέως μὲν κατὰ τὸν παρόντα καιρὸν, καὶ τὸν ϑνητὸν ἐν ἀνϑρώποις βίον, μηδὲ ἡμισεύσαντες τὰς ἡμέρας αὐτῶν τοιαύτῃ παρεδόϑησαν ἀπωλείᾳ οἱ ἄνδρες αἱμάτων καὶ δολιότητος, Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 492A. 47. The feminine form of the pronoun (which I have given as “it”) is here taken by Eusebius to refer to the city.

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

335

a human who had been born there48. Possibly the psalm’s localizing reference to Zion prevented Eusebius from adopting an interpretation in terms of Christ’s birth in Bethlehem that we otherwise might imagine a historically-minded Christian to espouse. For Eusebius, furthermore, neither the city of Jerusalem in the time of the psalmist nor in the time of Jesus were designated by the label “city of God”49. Eusebius writes: To consider the mother city of the Jews long ago established in Palestine as the “city of God” is not only humble but even impious50. For to suppose that the verses are said about the city in Judea now inhabited by foreign nations – verses such as, “The Lord loves the gates of Zion”, which are now desolate and destroyed; and the verse, “Glorious things are said of you, city of God”; and furthermore the verse, “The river’s streams gladden the city of God”51; and again, “The Lord is great and very praiseworthy in the city of our God, on His mountain” – to suppose that all these verses are said about a city that now Greeks, foreign and idolatrous men, inhabit seems to me to belong to a quite humble and small-minded way of thinking (dianoia)52.

Instead, Eusebius asserted, the Church was the “city of God” both here and elsewhere in the Scriptures, since the Church was “the God-fearing community (politeia)”, which “our Savior and Lord Jesus the Christ of God founded and established”53. “The one who alone was born in it, founded the city of God, that is the community (politeia) and God-fearing constitution (politeuma) throughout the whole world, and has fixed it by 48. Comm.inPs. 86,2-4; PG 23, 1044B. 49. Cf. Comm.inIsa. 32,7-8 (ZIEGLER 208,31–209,9). For Eusebius’ earlier avoidance of applying the phrase “city of God” to the physical city, see WALKER, HolyCity,Holy Places(n. 2), p. 369. 50. For a similar rejection of a “humble” interpretation, see Comm.inPs. 75; PG 23, 876D (“those who hear more humbly and Jewishly”). 51. Cf. Ps 45,5, cited at Comm.inIsa. 32,1-4 (ZIEGLER 207,23-24). 52. Πόλιν δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ νομίζειν τὴν κατὰ Παλαιστίνην τὸ πάλαι συνεστῶσαν Ἰουδαίων μητρόπολιν οὐ μόνον ταπεινὸν, ἀλλὰ καὶ δυσσεβές. Τὸ γὰρ περὶ τῆς νῦν ὑπὸ ἀλλοφύλων ἐϑνῶν οἰκουμένης ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ πόλεως λέγεσϑαι νομίζειν τό· Ἀγαπᾷ Κύριος τὰς πύλας Σιὼν, τὰς νῦν ἐρήμους καὶ ἠφανισμένας· καὶ τό· Δεδοξασμένα ἐλαλήϑη περὶ σοῦ, ἡ πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ· Τοῦ ποταμοῦ τὰ ὁρμήματα εὐφραίνουσι τὴν πόλιν τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ πάλιν· Μέγας Κύριος καὶ αἰνετὸς σφόδρα ἐν πόλει τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ἐν ὄρει ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ταῦτα πάντα νομίζειν λέγεσϑαι περὶ πόλεως ἣν ἄνδρες οἰκοῦσι νῦν Ἕλληνες καὶ ἀλλόφυλοι καὶ εἰδωλολάτραι, σφόδρα μοι δοκεῖ ταπεινῆς εἶναι, καὶ μικροπρεποῦς διανοίας, Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1044BC; cf. Origen, HGn V,5 (cited by SATRAN, TheIdeaoftheCity [n. 3], p. 533). 53. …αἱ ϑεῖαι καὶ προφητικαὶ φωναὶ πόλιν Θεοῦ καλεῖν τὸ ϑεοσεβὲς πολίτευμα, ὄψεται τίνα τρόπον καϑ’ ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης τὴν ϑεοφιλῆ ταύτην καὶ ϑεοσεβῆ πολιτείαν τε καὶ πόλιν ὁ Σωτὴρ καὶ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐϑεμελίωσέ τε καὶ ἥδρασε, Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1044C; see F.E. CRANZ, Kingdomand PolityinEusebiusofCaesarea, in HTR 45 (1952) 47-66, pp. 61-62; WALKER, HolyCity, HolyPlaces(n. 2), pp. 371-373.

336

A.P. JOHNSON

the Catholic Church”54. Appealing to several New Testament passages, Eusebius then made a series of identifications: the “foundations” of the psalm’s city were the apostles and prophets (citing Eph 2,20)55; the mountains were the highest heavens (citing no NT passage); the city itself was “the Jerusalem above”, which was free (citing Gal 4,26) and called “the heavenly Jerusalem” (citing Heb 12,22-23)56; the “gates of Zion” were the entrances and introductions to the Church, here called Ouranopolis57. Contrasted to the gates of this heavenly Zion were the “tents of Jacob” (also mentioned in the psalm), which Eusebius took as “the Judaic traditions and the fleshly forms of worship (latreia) of Moses”58. God found the Christian “gates of Zion” much more preferable to the “legalistic and Jewish synagogues” where mention of the heavenly city was absent due to misplaced hopes upon earthly things59. Yet, earthly things were not forgotten in the heavenly city: the following verses of the psalm named Babylon, Tyre, Rahab, “the foreigners”, and the people of Ethiopia – all of them representing in obscure language (ainigmata)the calling of the nations deemed worthy of rebirth in the city of God – whom the Word wished to remind of their former birth (genos) after they had found rebirth in the new city60. Furthermore, the “man born there, i.e., in the city of 54. Τὴν γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ πόλιν, δηλαδὴ τὴν κατὰ Θεὸν πολιτείαν καὶ τὸ ϑεοσεβὲς πολίτευμα καϑ’ ὅλης τῆς ἀνϑρώπων οἰκουμένης μόνος αὐτὸς γεννηϑεὶς ἐν αὐτῇ ἱδρύσατο, καὶ κατεπήξατο διὰ τῆς ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ πάσῃ χώρᾳ καὶ πόλει συνεστώσης αὐτοῦ καϑολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1044D; CRANZ (Kingdomand Polity [n. 53], p. 60) and WALKER (Holy City, Holy Places [n. 2], p. 370) suggest that Eusebius glosses polis with politeuma in order to move away from the narrow conception of a physical city towards a broader notion of a trans-civic community. In an earlier investigation limited to the Praep.Evang. (and before I had read Walker’s rather prolix study), I concluded that politeuma and politeia seemed to be roughly equivalent in their semantic application (as CRANZ, KingdomandPolity, p. 60) and adopted within a broader ethnic frame of reference; see JOHNSON, EthnicityandArgument (n. 17), pp. 45-48. See also, M. HOLLERICH, EusebiusofCaesarea’sCommentaryonIsaiah:ChristianExegesis intheAgeofConstantine, Oxford, Clarendon, 1999, pp. 116-130. 55. Cf. Comm.inIsa. 1,25-26 (ZIEGLER 12,24-28). 56. These two New Testament passages are quoted together at Origen, Prin IV,3,8; CMtXVI,15. For discussion (especially of the broader passage in PrinIV), see Emanuela Prinzivalli’s contribution to this volume; on the significance of these verses for Origen’s understanding of the holy city, see WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly (n. 2),pp. 70-71. 57. Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1045B; this is probably a reference to catechetical or other instruction for new converts to the Church, rather than entryways of physical basilicas. 58. Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1045B. 59. Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1045D. 60. Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1048A; for Eusebius’ interpretation of the Ethiopians of the Psalms as figures of the global reach of Christianity in contrast to Origen, see A.P. JOHNSON, The Blackness of Ethiopians: Classical Ethnography and Eusebius’

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

337

God” who had founded the city, mentioned above, was a revelation in obscure language (ainigma) of Jesus but not because of the physical birth in Bethlehem (on which Eusebius is entirely silent) but because of the birth in Christians; as Eusebius clarifies, “the one born there” exhibits the Lord’s “dwelling (katoikēsin) in the human…. A human becomes the place and receptacle of the Word begotten in him as in a holy temple and shrine, or rather a statue (agalma) and receptacle of divinity”61. Finally, the designation “in you” in verse 7 indicated, according to our commentator, the city of God understood as the Church. There was thus a very positive attitude to the city here, especially because it was conceived in physically diffuse and polymorphous terms62. III. EUSEBIUS’ INTERPRETIVE TACTICS When one reads the commentary on this psalm (Psalm 86) in conjunction with that of the earlier psalm (Psalm 54) one is struck by the force and later impact that such an interpretation had upon later Christian thinking about the relationship of Christianity to Judaism (as people, religion, or culture) in affirming ways of using the Bible to solidify identity boundaries between the two. One can, however, imagine alternative interpretations of these psalmic cities that might have been deemed equally credible by late antique Christian readers. I can imagine a Christian interpretation of Psalm 54 that instead applied the city to the Church divided by heresies within and assaulted by arch-heretics; likewise, I can imagine a Christian interpretation of Psalm 86 that applied the city there to the earthly Jerusalem (as Cyril of Jerusalem would do). After all, Eusebius himself would later refer to miracles at the site of the Holy Sepulcher – why couldn’t these be the “marvelous things” spoken of in Psalm 86?

 ommentaryonthePsalms, in HTR 99 (2006) 179-200. For a broader discussion of the C relationship of Eusebius and Origen in the commentary, see BARNES, Constantineand Eusebius (n. 2), pp. 94-104. 61. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ Σιὼν, πόλις οὖσα τοῦ Θεοῦ, χώρα τυγχάνει τοῦ τεχϑέντος ἐν αὐτῇ ἀνδρὸς, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ἀνὴρ χώρα γίνεται καὶ δοχεῖον τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ γεννηϑέντος Θεοῦ Λόγου, ὡς ἐν ἱερῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ ναῷ, μᾶλλον δὲ ὡς ἐν ἀγάλματι καὶ δοχείῳ τῆς αὐτοῦ ϑεότητος ἐν αὐτῷ κατῳκηκότος, Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1049A. The language (or at least the notion) seems to have (unintended!) parallels with Porphyry’s exegesis of an oracle at Phil.Orac. fr. 321 (SMITH). More probably, see Plato, Leges 11.931D. 62. A similar attitude is expressed in Comm.inIsa. 19,18 (ZIEGLER 133,12-26), where five cities in Egypt are collectively deemed one city, the Church throughout the earth comprising its five divisions (bishops, presbyters, deacons, the enlightened, and the general congregation); see CRANZ, KingdomandPolity (n. 53), pp. 63-64.

338

A.P. JOHNSON

Aside from the fact that there were positive elements related to one psalm’s city (“glorious things”) and negative elements in the other psalm’s city (“lawlessness and injustice”) one notices that Eusebius marshals a number of interpretive tactics in order to establish his particular readings of the two cities. In particular, I can identify four mechanisms Eusebius employs for negotiating exegetical options between historical city and heavenly city. 1. The first is philological or terminological – frequently throughout the breadth of the CommentaryonthePsalms, including his discussions of Psalms 54 and 86, Eusebius attends to the presence or absence of prepositions or articles, the adoption of a particular verb tense, the shift from singular to plural, or the occurrence of a particular term or phrase that could be cross-referenced to parallels in the New Testament. For instance, in his commentary on Psalm 54 alone, he notes that the psalmist’s use of the future tense in the versions of the other translators (in contrast to the past tense of the LXX) alerts the reader that the material is prophetic63; the juxtaposition of the plural and the singular notifies the reader that the verse refers on one side to the inhabitants of the impious city and on the other to Judas who singularly betrayed Jesus64; the parallels of lake, prison and other words elsewhere in the Scriptures exhibit that the prison of the LXX or the pond (lakkos) of Symmachus designated the place of death65. Or again, the toponyms of Zion, the holy mountains, and the city of Jerusalem itself could all be cross-referenced by New Testament passages that diverted the reader away from the physical place to search for a more heavenly signification66 (and in this, Gal 4,26 and Heb 12,22-23 are key not only for his commentary on Psalm 86, but elsewhere in the Commentary on the Psalms and other works like the Demonstratio Evangelica). Likewise, his comments on Psalm 86 pay special attention to the ambiguity of the pronoun (given aoristōs) as well as the correspondence (akolouthia) of masculine singular (pro)nouns later in the same psalm67. 2. The second interpretive tactic is to attempt to identify the historical context of any psalm’s composition. Utilizing biblical narratives from the books of Kings and Chronicles, Eusebius frequently allows particular psalms to stand as historical documents of David’s own experiences. 63. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 484C. 64. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 488C. 65. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 489C. Earlier, the phrase “salvation of Zion” was taken as indicating the salvation through Christ since the New Testament referred to His birth as “salvation”; Comm.inPs. 52; PG 23, 461AB. 66. Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1045B. 67. Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1044A.

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

339

Many of these psalms, to my mind, could have readily been adapted by a skillful Christian interpreter to criticize the Jews and establish Christian superiority; yet Eusebius shows a remarkable interpretive reserve. In such cases, the historical interpretation of the psalm nonetheless allows for an ethical application to Christian life68. Alternatively, it was precisely the absence of any fitting historical connections that Eusebius claimed had prompted him to find a messianic prophecy in Psalm 54: there had been no friend who had betrayed David, it was only king Saul; the city of Saul had not been Jerusalem but Rama and then Gibea69. Eusebius, on the other hand, could quickly dismiss historical investigations when commenting on Psalm 86, since it was assigned in its inscription to the sons of Korah and thus could not be documented in the same way that David’s life could. Whereas the first two books of the Psalms could be roughly mapped onto the two phases of David’s life, before and after his sin with Bathsheba, Eusebius argued, the psalms attributed to the sons of Korah were scattered throughout the entire psalter, having been added piecemeal over time as they were found by a final compiler, and it was unclear whether they composed these psalms themselves or whether they merely recorded what another composer sung (the matter, he claims, is only for his own personal interest70, though he allows ample space to exhibit his erudition not only in the ordering of the psalms but also the temporal ordering of prophecies in the book of Jeremiah)71. 3. The third tactic of interpretation is literary, in particular a concern to identify the precise genre of the psalm at hand. Usually, those psalms bearing within their inscription the epithet “memorial” (stēlographia) are taken by Eusebius as historically-grounded in David’s life. They serve to remind the reader of a particular event or of a particular moral quality of the psalmist. For instance, because Psalm 56 was labeled both a prayer and a memorial, it could be presumed to derive from precise historical circumstances when David was persecuted by Saul72. The fact that it was “a memorial, not a psalm”, meant that it could be relevant for giving moral guidance by appeal to the psalmist’s character73. 68. Cf. Comm.inPs. 53; PG 23, 468AB. For brief discussion of the combination of moral and historical concerns with respect to his commentary of an earlier psalm, see BARNES, ConstantineandEusebius (n. 2), pp. 96-97. 69. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 472AD. 70. Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1040B. 71. Comm.inPs. 86; PG 23, 1040B-1044A; see HOLLERICH, Eusebius’Commentary onthePsalms (n. 31), pp. 163-164. 72. Comm.inPs. 56; PG 23, 504C. 73. Comm.inPs. 56; PG 23, 505C; cf. 493A (Psalm 55 is a memorial, stēlographia, of David’s humble and perfect character).

340

A.P. JOHNSON

Significantly, neither Psalm 54 nor 86 received the epithet of “memorial”. The fact that Psalm 86 is “a song of the sons of Korah” and not “a prayer of David” as the preceding psalm, contributed to Eusebius’ avoiding historical inquiry in his exposition of that psalm74. Alternatively, even though Psalm 54 is explicitly attributed to David, Eusebius invokes history to show that the psalm doesn’t fit any precise episode in David’s life, which allows him quickly to move to a prophetic interpretation. No comment, in fact, is offered on the inscription of Psalm 5475. 4. Fourthly and finally, a psalm needed to be interpreted for its ethical content, in other words, the appropriateness of the words of the psalm to the character of David (or other composer)76. This consideration is omitted in his comments on Psalm 86 since, again, it was composed or recorded by a group whose precise experiences and character could not be ascertained in a personal way. Psalm 54, however, had offered a deprecation of enemies that hardly, to Eusebius’ mind, fit David’s character (“may death come against them, may they go to Hades while still alive”). “What sort of symphonia could there be with the solemnity of David’s celebrated virtue?”77. The curse instead would have been more fitting of an enemy of Saul; but in spite of wrongfully being hated, David never retaliated in kind towards Saul78. Thus, the psalm could not be assigned to David’s own personal voice and must be representative of another person’s cry79. IV. POSITIVE ASPECTS OF EUSEBIUS’ NOTION OF CITIES Having now considered the means by which Eusebius provides a negative exegetical rendering of the earthly city in the Commentary on the Psalms, we must nonetheless ask whether there are any elements within his conception of biblical cities elsewhere in his commentary that might temper this bleak picture for earthly cities. There are at least five features 74. It is not merely that the psalm is not by David, since Eusebius can find historical referents for the Psalms of Asaph; cf. Comm.inPs. 76; PG 23, 885D-888B. 75. Cf. Psalm 52: it is not a psalm/ode, but confession seeking healing and thus a prophecy, since healing could only come through Christ (PG 23, 452CD); Psalm 52: the inscription’s tag “of understanding” tips the reader off that a deeper understanding will be needed to find the prophetic referent of the psalm (PG 23, 453A). My references to such notices could be multiplied. 76. Noted by BARNES, ConstantineandEusebius (n. 2), pp. 98-99. 77. Comm. in Ps. 54; PG 23, 472D. For other uses of symphonia in Eusebius, see Sébastien Morlet’s contribution to the current volume. 78. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 472D-473A. 79. Cf. Comm.inPs. 54; PG 23, 481A.

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

341

of his commentary that I believe do so, and they have to do not only with other cities discussed in Eusebius’ commentary, but also with those components of the wider conceptual contexts with which I started this inquiry, namely bodies (especially Christian ones), daemons, and the race of the Jews. First, some cities that are placed within more positive expositions require that they be understood as the physical place of Eusebius’ contemporary world. These include Sikima (= Shechem) a “city in Samaria” where many converts were made upon the apostle Philip’s proclamation there80 and the city of Moab, which a psalm had referred to as “my basin of hope” in anticipation of the Christians that would arise in that place81; and likewise, the whole land of the Idumeans received a prophecy of God’s visitation (“I will step with my sandal on Edom”), which could be proven by seeing the “crowds of churches” there82. At least in these cases, it would seem that if the city or land was not a Jewish place it had a higher possibility of a positive interpretation in Eusebius’ exegesis83. Second, while the Christians on earth were imitating a heavenly city, they nonetheless gathered in their bodies in particular physical places at particular moments in the religious calendar. One verse, in fact, was taken as prophetic of worship (latreia) performed in the Church throughout the world “early in the morning on each Sunday (anastasimouhēmeras)”84. This psalm, he claimed, “reveals the place (topos) where Christ is said to hymn the Father”85. Elsewhere, he noted that Christians made the sign of the cross over their face to ward off invisible enemies86; this act was a continuation of Moses’ sign-making of blood at Passover and Ezekiel’s sign-making on people’s foreheads to save them from impending destruction87 – both very physical acts performed by Jews and for Jews. “In the 80. Comm.inPs. 59; PG 23, 565A; the episode is missing from his Onomasticon. 81. Comm.inPs. 59; PG 23, 568AD. 82. Comm. in Ps. 59; PG 23, 569A; cf. Comm. in Isa. 91 (ZIEGLER 177,34–178,18) (even Petra, once full of daemons, is now filled with churches), on which, see HOLLERICH, EusebiusofCaesarea’sCommentaryonIsaiah (n. 54), pp. 73-4. 83. See especially Comm.inPs. 59; PG 23, 572AC. 84. Σημαίνει δὲ διὰ τούτου προφητικῶς τὴν κατ’ ὄρϑρον καὶ καϑ’ ἑκάστην πρωίαν τῆς ἀναστασίμου ἡμέρας καϑ’ ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ αὐτοῦ συντελουμένην λατρείαν. Ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ λέγεσϑαι, Ἐν μέσῳ Ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε, ὁ τόπος ἐδηλοῦτο καϑ’ ὃν ὑμνήσειν τὸν Πατέρα ὁ Χριστὸς ἐπηγγέλλετο, Comm.in Ps. 58; PG 23, 552A. For the importance of Eucharistic sacrifice as a key element within the context of his attitude towards holy places, see Adele MONACI’s contribution to the present volume. 85. Comm.inPs. 58; PG 23, 552A. 86. Comm.inPs. 59; PG 23, 560D. 87. Comm.inPs. 59; PG 23, 560D-561A.

342

A.P. JOHNSON

same way”, the Christian sign prophesied in the psalm, “was given as an apotropaic talisman against the enemy of human souls”88. Thus, even if bodies were religiously ambiguous places for a soul, there was a certain recognition of physical acts that helped the soul in the human body to flourish. Third, there is a notable absence of daemons from Eusebius’ descriptions of the civic sphere within his commentary. While “invisible powers” (a label he prefers over “daemons” in his exegetical works) make a frequent appearance in the CommentaryonthePsalms as well as in his other exegetical literature, I have found no passage in which their involvement in the city itself is emphasized. Whether this would allow for a religiously neutral view of the city is unclear, but the fact deserves to be noted89. Fourth, Eusebius never wanted the Jews to disappear or lose their identity by blending in with the nations among whom they had been scattered. He saw the Jews as the single people, aside from Christians, who needed providentially to remain in history. In his commentary on Psalm 58, he carefully noted that the psalmist’s prayer that the “men of blood” not be killed lest memory of “Your people” be forgotten. Thus, “their race (genos) is established, and the succession of their children multiplies; they neither died nor were quenched from humanity; they are and they subsist”90. The Jews were thus meant to play a stable (if unflattering) historical role. Fifth, in a way related to the previous point, the Christians themselves were repeatedly represented as not having a city on earth that they could call their home. Instead, David was exemplary for later Christians in the fact that his hallmark virtue of humility was expressed in not having a city or permanent abode, but dwelling in deserts91. Even though Eusebius’ 88. Ὥσπερ οὖν ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ὀλοϑρευτοῦ διέφυγόν ποτε οἱ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τὰς πληγὰς, χρήσαντες τῷ σημείῳ τοῦ αἵματος, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον εἰς ἀποτροπιασμὸν τοῦ πολεμίου καὶ ἐχϑροῦ τῶν ἀνϑρωπίνων ψυχῶν, τοῦ τοξεύειν καὶ καταβάλλειν αὐτὰς ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας πλάνην εἰωϑότος, δέδοται τὸ λεγόμενον ἐνταῦϑα σημεῖον τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸν Κύριον, Comm.inPs. 59; PG 23, 561B. 89. For a “neutral” view of the city, see WALKER, HolyCity,HolyPlaces(n. 2), p. 384 (though his use of the term neutral merely designates Eusebius’ allowance for Christians to live in the city and he nowhere deals with the topic of Eusebius’ daemonology, on which, see JOHANNESSEN, TheDemonicinthePoliticalThoughtofEusebiusofCaesarea (n. 16), pp. 139-170. 90. Διὸ συνέστηκεν αὐτῶν τὸ γένος, καὶ τῶν παίδων ἡ διαδοχὴ πληϑύνει. Οὐ γὰρ ἀπεκτάνϑησαν, οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀνϑρώπων ἀπεσβέσϑησαν· ἀλλ’ εἰσὶ μὲν καὶ ὑφεστήκασιν, Comm.inPs. 58; PG 23, 544D. Compare this with the title and discussions within A. JACOB, RemainsoftheJews:TheHolyLandandChristianEmpireinLateAntiquity,Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2004. 91. See also, Dem.Evang. IX,5-6; for useful discussion, see SATRAN, TheIdeaofthe City (n. 3), pp. 531-540 (for comparanda in Origen, see pp. 536-537).

CITIES DIVINE AND DEMONIC IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

343

commentary on Psalm 54, mentioned above, saw the “tents of Jacob” as the Jewish institutions, elsewhere he interpreted tents in a psalm to refer to the Christian life in the body. In a manner reminiscent of Plato’s Theaetetus92, bad people are described as “running about the agoras and public places (demous), the council-chambers and law-courts, buried in the sweet-pleasures of the body”. But the Christians, Eusebius says drawing on Heb 11,37, are those “going about in sheep skins and goat skins, in extremities, crushed, treated badly” – and then Eusebius inserts in the middle of the verse, “fleeing the middles of the cities” – and then resuming, “making their habitations in the deserts, mountains, caves, and holes in the ground (gē)93. Thus, even in the years of Constantine’s sole rule, the Psalms elicited for Eusebius a portrayal of the Christian life that was typified by sojourning or being a resident alien among the cities of this earth (paroikein)94. They were thus not so very unlike the Jews of Eusebius’ literary representations. V. CONCLUSION I have attempted to take seriously Eusebius’ working method of interpreting cities in his CommentaryonthePsalms in an attempt to balance what we might take as negative elements with more positive elements. And I believe the range of his thinking on cities can be illumined by considering it against the backdrop of one particular Platonic way of thinking about cities, bodies, and daemons (namely, Porphyry’s). While there is with good reason particular interest in Eusebius’ attitude to the Jewish holy city of Jerusalem, his interpretive maneuvering with respect to Jerusalem must be understood within this broader conceptual framework. Eusebius’ conception of Jerusalem and the Jews, as well as of other earthly cities and their peoples, is fascinating for its incisiveness and interpretive logic (even if it is not a logic shared by us). Like Origen before him, his meticulous industry at biblical interpretation played an integral role in late antique Christian understandings of the Jews and their cities, as well as the nations of the oikoumene and their religious practices. 92. Plato, Theaetetus 173CD; quoted by Eusebius atPraep.Evang. XII,29,2-21. 93. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ φαῦλος ἀνὴρ, ἀγορὰς καὶ δήμους, βουλευτήριά τε καὶ δικαστήρια περιτρέχων, ὅλως τε ταῖς τοῦ σώματος ἡδυπαϑείαις κατορωρυγμένος, ἐν βυϑῷ τῆς γῆς οἰκεῖν λέγοιτ’ ἂν εἰκότως· οἱ δὲ “περιελϑόντες ἐν μηλωταῖς καὶ ἐν αἰγίνοις δέρμασιν, ὑστερούμενοι, ϑλιβόμενοι, κακουχούμενοι”, φεύγοντές τε τὰ μέσα τῶν πόλεων, καὶ τὰς διατριβὰς ἐν ἐρημίαις ποιούμενοι καὶ ὄρεσι καὶ σπηλαίοις καὶ ταῖς ὀπαῖς τῆς γῆς, Comm.inPs. 59; PG 23, 576C. 94. Comm.inPs. 59; PG 23, 577A, 580A.

344

A.P. JOHNSON

At the same time, even though he lived to see a reversal of fortunes for the city (with the special status granted it by the bishops gathered at Nicaea and the sudden imperial attentions to it by Constantine’s mother), he could have scarcely countenanced the subsequent shifts and conflicts that have occurred up to the present over this city: a city of the Holy Land in which Jews (as well as those whom he would have taken to be heretics, like Muslims and Protestants) dwell, no longer encircling the city “at a distance” and “deemed unworthy [by God] of seeing (theasthai) the ground long supposed to be holy by them”95. Eusebius, for all his universal vision with its world of diverse nations and its cosmos filled with more or less benign beings, would be stunned to see the city as it is today; and for all his lofty vision of the heavenly city he remained firmly rooted in the late antique world of the early fourth century with all its conceptual and imaginary conceptual possibilities and limitations. It is hoped that the foregoing contextualization of his thinking about the city might illumine the depth and care of his exegetical thought as well the historical boundedness of his interpretations. Lee University Department of History and Humanities Cleveland, TN 37311 USA [email protected]

95. Comm.inPs. 58; PG 23, 541C.

Aaron P. JOHNSON

EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE, JÉRUSALEM ET LA PALESTINE UNE QUESTION CONTROVERSÉE

Le développement des locasancta à Jérusalem et en Palestine a représenté un changement significatif dans l’histoire religieuse du IVe siècle. Les écrits d’Eusèbe de Césarée sont des documents indispensables pour reconstituer cette étape. En revanche, le rôle joué par Eusèbe dans ce contexte a fait l’objet d’interprétations divergentes: il suffit de penser aux recherches de P.W.L. Walker et de R.L. Wilken1 qui représentent encore deux références incontournables sur cette question. Selon Walker, Eusèbe est surtout un conservateur dissimulé, qui reste, malgré tout, fidèle au spiritualisme origénien, en revanche, pour Wilken, Eusèbe aurait opéré un changement radical, documenté seulement à partir de la Viede Constantin(337). Je voudrais réexaminer le sujet en partant de l’hypothèse selon laquelle, si l’on veut comprendre une transformation qui s’est produite dans un laps de temps très court, il est nécessaire d’analyser les textes d’Eusèbe dans un ordre chronologique rigoureux, et d’éviter d’expliquer ces documents ancrés dans une période précise à la lumière d’autres textes écrits antérieurement ou postérieurement. La période qui sera examinée est celle qui va de la fin de la persécution (313) jusqu’au Concile de Nicée (324/325), lorsque la défaite d’Arius et l’initiative, adoptée par Constantin et Macarius, évêque de Jérusalem, de construire l’Église du Saint-Sépulcre auraient obligé Eusèbe à se repositionner sur la scène de la géopolitique ecclésiastique. Les textes analysés ici sont les suivants: la DémonstrationÉvangélique (=DE), le Discours panégyrique pour l’Église de Tyr (=Panégyrique), l’Onomasticon (=Onom.) et les MartyresenPalestine(en version brève en grec et en version longue en syriaque et en grec) (=MP). Je chercherai avant tout à expliquer la position d’Eusèbe quant à la question plus générale des lieux de cultes chrétiens et de leur sacralité, et j’aborderai ensuite les textes dédiés à la Palestine.

1. P.W.L. WALKER, HolyCity,HolyPlaces?ChristianAttitudestoJerusalemandthe HolyLandintheFourthCentury (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990; R.L. WILKEN, TheLandCalledHoly:PalestineinChristianHistory andThought, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992.

346

A. MONACI CASTAGNO

I. LA DÉMONSTRATION ÉVANGÉLIQUE: UN

CULTE

«EN ESPRIT ET VÉRITÉ»?

La fourchette chronologique indiquée par Sébastien Morlet – 313/314335 – pourrait être davantage précisée par les considérations suivantes2: dans la DE, qui traite pourtant des thèmes théologiques relatifs au Fils/ Logos, nous ne trouvons aucune allusion à la crise arienne; dans la DE V,9,7-8 Eusèbe rappelle les cultes païens qui entouraient l’arbre de Mambré3, mais il ne fait aucune mention de la basilique constantinienne qui a été construite avant 3334; au niveau du langage et du contenu, la DE présente de nombreuses similarités avec le Panégyriqueet l’Onom.5. Ces écrits, comme on le verra ensuite, sont compatibles avec la période 313/ 3256. Dans la DE, Eusèbe présente le Christianisme comme le simple retour d’une piété antérieure à Moïse, les lois du culte juif ont été abolies par celles promulguées par le Christ et se trouvent dans l’Évangile. La destruction du Temple et de Jérusalem, auxquels le culte juif était exclusivement lié, est, dans la perspective d’Eusèbe, la preuve la plus évidente, d’une part, du caractère provisoire de ce culte et, de l’autre, de la nécessité de son remplacement avec le culte chrétien «en esprit et vérité» (Jn 4,24). Selon Eusèbe, la «Terre Sainte», objet des promesses de Moïse (Nm 34,1-12) et ensuite du Christ (Mt 5,5), n’est pas la Judée parce qu’elle n’est pas différente des autres pays, la «Terre Sainte» est en revanche la terre eschatologique qui est dans les cieux; il en va de même pour les prophéties concernant Sion et Jérusalem, qui se réfèrent à la ville céleste7. Ce sont des affirmations qui semblent être complètement le reflet du spiritualisme alexandrin, toutefois il vaut la peine de souligner qu’Eusèbe 2. S. MORLET, LaDémonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée:Étudesurl’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 187), Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2009, pp. 84-94. Éd. critique: Die Demonstratio Evangelica, éd. I.A. HEIKEL (GCS, 23; Eusebius Werke, 4), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1913. 3. DE V,9 (GCS 23, 232,5). Sur Mambré MORLET, La Démonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée (n. 2), p. 89; A. KOFSKY,Mamre:ACaseofRegionalCult?,dans ID. – G. STROUMSA (éds),SharingtheSacred:ReligiousContactsandConflictsintheHoly Land.First-FifteenthCenturies, Jerusalem, Carta, 1998, 19-30. 4. ItinerariumBurdigalense [599],éd. P. GEYER – O. CUNTZ (CCSL, 175), Turnhout, Brepols, 1965, pp. 5-6. 5. MORLET, LaDémonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée (n. 2), pp. 82-84. 6. Même indication dans une étude plus récente: S. MORLET, Eusèbe de Césarée: Biographie,chronologie,profilintellectuel, dans ID. – L. PERRONE (éds), EusèbedeCésarée, Histoireecclésiastique:Commentaire. Vol. 1:Étudesd’introduction.Anagôgê, Paris, Les Belles Lettres – Cerf, 2012, 1-31, p. 13. 7. DEIII,2,10; VI,24,5-9.

EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE, JÉRUSALEM ET LA PALESTINE

347

insiste également sur deux autres aspects. Premièrement, il affirme que le Christ, en s’adressant aux Grecs, aux barbares et aux Juifs, ordonne de ne pas chercher le Dieu de l’univers dans un seul lieu, ni sur les montagnes, ni à l’intérieur des temples construits par les hommes. Il ordonne cependant de l’adorer dans tous les lieux, et de rester dans leur pays et parmi leur peuple8. En outre, il insiste sur le culte chrétien visible, et en particulier sur le sacrifice eucharistique: le culte «en esprit et vérité» est aussi une liturgie célébrée dans des conditions particulières de pureté du corps et de l’âme9. Nous souhaitons ici souligner qu’Eusèbe, dans sa polémique contre le culte juif, met en avant le rapport dialectique entre le sensible et l’intelligible, et instaure également la dialectique entre l’unicité du lieu de culte de la religion mosaïque et la pluralité des lieux de culte de la religion chrétienne, au même moment où partout se construisaient ou se reconstruisaient les édifices ecclésiastiques après la fin de la persécution. Il s’agit là du fondement idéologique qui favorisera la création d’une nouvelle topographie religieuse où quelques lieux, et en particulier les plus directement ancrés dans les mémoires bibliques, pouvaient devenir des points de référence à l’intérieur d’un réseau polycentrique. Origène avait beaucoup écrit sur les sens spirituels, les intérêts historiques et apologétiques conduisent Eusèbe à mettre en valeur le potentiel de la vue sensible, c’est-à-dire «voir avec ses yeux», pour convertir ou consolider la foi. La DE vise à fournir les preuves de la vérité du christianisme en démontrant la réalisation des promesses des prophètes dans les Évangiles. Eusèbe considère également comme preuves les lieux visibles «jusqu’à aujourd’hui» qui sont cités dans les Écritures, l’arbre de Mambré10, la grotte de la nativité11, la grotte du Mont des Oliviers12, ou encore les ruines du Temple de Jérusalem13. Ces notices d’Eusèbe sont très étudiées pour reconstruire la préhistoire de l’idée de Terre Sainte14; je me limite cependant à mettre en relief le fait qu’Eusèbe démontre prendre conscience de l’importance des lieux liés aux mémoires bibliques; cette nouvelle sensibilité peut être considérée comme l’origine d’un processus qui aboutit

8. DE I,6,41; XII,35,38,65. 9. DE I,6,42. 10. DE V,9,7. 11. DE III,2,47. 12. DE VI,18,23. 13. DE VI,13,17. 14. WALKER, Holy Land, Holy City (n. 1), p. 171; J.E. TAYLOR, Christians and the HolyPlaces:TheMythofJewish-ChristianOrigins, Oxford, Clarendon, 1993, pp. 96-107.

348

A. MONACI CASTAGNO

à la fin du IVe siècle au pèlerinage de Paule, l’amie de Jérôme, à Jérusalem. Il s’agit d’un pèlerinage où la vue ne venait plus en appui de la démonstration rationnelle, mais elle se fondait cependant dans l’expérience mystique15. II. L’ÉGLISE DE TYR ET LE PROBLÈME DE

LA SACRALITÉ DES LIEUX

DE CULTE CHRÉTIENS

Quand, dans le christianisme ancien, a-t-on institué l’idée de l’église comme lieu sacré? Il est évident que c’est un élément d’une importance fondamentale, qui accompagne le développement d’un réseau de loca sancta. Dans la période qui nous intéresse, le Panégyrique est un témoinclé. Il se trouve dans le Xe Livre de l’Histoireecclésiastique(=HE)qui appartient à l’«édition» de l’œuvre publiée entre 324-325, qu’Eusèbe a dédié à Paulin, évêque de Tyr16. L’oration a été prononcée entre 313-314 en présence des fidèles et de l’évêque qui avait reconstruit l’église17. Le nom de Paulin ne figure pas dans le Panégyrique, mais il ne fait pas de doute qu’il s’agissait de ce dernier à qui le livre de l’HE est dédié et dont le Panégyriqueoccupe les deux tiers18. Dans le Panégyrique, Eusèbe utilise des termes et des images bibliques qui établissent un rapport étroit entre la nouvelle église de Tyr, restaurée après la fin de la persécution, et les lieux de culte juifs (la tente de l’arche, le premier et le second Temple); l’église de Tyr est un neos, la fête de la Dédicace est egkainia, terme qui, dans le livre d’Esdras, se réfère à la dédicace du Temple de Jérusalem. L’assimilation entre la nouvelle église et le Temple est marquée également par le parallélisme entre le constructeur, Paulin de Tyr d’une part, et Béséleel, Salomon, Zorobabel d’autre part, qui sont tous des personnages se référant au Temple juif. Les fidèles qui se trouvent dans l’église de Tyr peuvent voir de leurs propres yeux la réalisation des signes divins dont ils connaissent l’existence 15. Hieronymus, Epistula 108,10. 16. V. NERI, Leséditionsdel’Histoireecclésiastique(livresVIII-IX):Bilancritiqueet perspectivesdelarecherche, dans MORLET – PERRONE(éds), EusèbedeCésarée (n. 6), 155-164 et M. CASSIN – M. DEBIÉ – Y.-M. PERRIN, Laquestiondeséditionsdel’Histoire ecclésiastiqueetlelivreX, ibid., 185-206. 17. M. AMERISE, Notesulladatazionedelpanegiricoperl’inaugurazionedellabasilica diTiro, dans Adamantius 14 (2008) 229-234; ou au plus tard, entre 316-317; M.Y. PERRIN, ÀproposdelasacralitédeslieuxdecultechrétiensdanslapremièremoitiéduIVesiècle: Quelques observations, dans T. CANELLA (éd.), L’Impero costantiniano e i luoghi sacri, Bologna, Il Mulino 2016, 191-212, pp. 193-194. 18. G. BARDY, SurPaulindeTyre, dans RevuedesSciencesReligieuses 2 (1922) 3545, p. 36.

EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE, JÉRUSALEM ET LA PALESTINE

349

grâce aux textes divins: l’église est «la maison du Seigneur» (Ps 121,1), «le lieu où réside sa gloire». À l’instar du Temple de Jérusalem dans le récit d’Ézéchiel, l’église de Tyr a été bâtie selon les «paradeigmata», c’est-à-dire selon un modèle céleste. «Cet homme – dit Eusèbe – s’est donc mis à bâtir ce temple magnifique du Dieu très haut, semblable par sa nature au modèle du temple parfait»19. Le discours a été très étudié par les archéologues et les historiens de l’art parce qu’il donne la plus ancienne description d’une basilique chrétienne. Selon F. Deichman20, pour la première fois, le Panégyrique marquerait un tournant dans les conceptions des chrétiens des lieux de culte, autrement dit, il révélerait le passage de la sacralité de l’ecclesia, entendue comme communauté de fidèles21, aux lieux où ils se rassemblent. Les dernières études sont plus prudentes sur la question et soulignent, au contraire, l’importance des aspects rhétoriques du discours22. Toutefois, pour juger la question il est nécessaire d’éclairer préalablement la définition adoptée du terme sacré; selon Mircea Eliade23, un lieu serait considéré comme sacré lorsqu’on peut le lier à un récit d’une théo/hiérophanie et à un culte; ce n’est cependant pas le cas du discours d’Eusèbe24. La position de Eliade a été critiquée par J.Z. Smith25; selon ce chercheur, le lieu sacré n’est pas 19. HE X,4,26. 20. F.W. DEICHMANN, VomTempelzurKirche, dans ID., Rom,Ravenna,Konstantinopel,NaherOsten:GesammelteStudienzurspätantikenArchitektur,KunstundGeschichte, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1982, 27-34 (première publication: 1964). 21. 1 Cor 3,16; 6,19; 2 Cor 6,16; Eph 2,21; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis VII,5,28, I,2,4. 22. C. SMITH, ChristianRethoricinEusebius’PanegyricatTyre, dans VigChr43 (1989) 226-247; J.M. SCHOTT, Eusebius’«PanegyricontheBuildingofChurches»(HE10.4.2-72): Aesthetics and the Politics of Christian Architecture, dans S. INOWLOCKI – C. ZAMAGNI (éds), ReconsideringEusebius:CollectedPapersonLiterary,Historical,andTheological Issues, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, 177-197; K. HEYDEN, DieSakralisierungder ChristlichenBasilikainEusebsKirchenweihrede,dans P. GEMEINHARDT – K. HEYDEN (éds), Heilige,HeiligesundHeiligkeitinspätantikenReligionskulturen,Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2012, 85-110; PERRIN, Àproposdelasacralité (n. 17),p. 81. 23. M. ELIADE, DasHeiligeunddasProfane:VomWesenderReligiösen, Hamburg, Rowohlt, 1957. 24. Cf. HEYDEN, Sakralisierung (n. 22), pp. 106-108. 25. J.Z. SMITH, MapIsNotTerritory:StudiesintheHistoryofReligions, Leiden, Brill, 1978 et ID., ToTakePlace:TowardTheoryinRitual, Chicago, IL – London, University of Chicago Press, 1987. La perspective méthodologique de Smith s’est avérée plus fructueuse pour les premiers siècles: A.M. YASIN, SaintsandChurchSpacesintheLate Antique Mediterranean: Architecture, Cult, and Community, Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 2009; J. R. BRANHAM, SacredSpaceunderErasureinAncient Synagogues and Early Churches, dans The Art Bulletin 74 (1992) 375-394; EAD., MappingSacrificeonBodiesandSpacesinLate-AntiqueJudaismandEarlyChristianity, dans B.D. WESCOAT – R.G. OUSTERHOUT(éds), ArchitectureofSacred, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012, 201-230.

350

A. MONACI CASTAGNO

une réalité objective («map is not territory»), mais il est construit socialement par le rituel, le pouvoir, la mémoire et le mythe. Selon J.Z. Smith – qui analyse la vision du Temple de Jérusalem d’Ézéchiel (Ézéchiel 40– 48) et la description de la basilique constantinienne d’Eusèbe dans Vita Constantini III,3-40 – tous les lieux sacrés partageraient un certain nombre de points communs: 1) la présence d’une délimitation qui sépare l’intérieur de l’extérieur; 2) dans l’espace ainsi délimité, il existe plusieurs niveaux de sainteté; 3) l’organisation de l’espace répond à une logique de combinaison entre le rite et les différences sociales et hiérarchiques; 4) à l’intérieur, il y a des règles de conduite respectueuses de la pureté; 5) le lieu n’est pas choisi au hasard, mais sur le fondement d’un récit/événement mythique. L’église de Tyre décrite par Eusèbe présente les mêmes caractéristiques: le lieu de l’église de Tyre n’a pas été choisi au hasard, mais il correspondait à celui où se dressait l’ancienne église, lieu où la mémoire de la destruction était liée à la réalisation des promesses divines (Eusèbe cite Ps 74,5-6)26. Le souci de la pureté associé à l’église est maintes fois souligné: l’emplacement a été délivré des sorts et des matériaux impurs27; la partie intérieure – le temple – est accessible seulement après ablutions28, tandis que l’autel des saints mystères est entouré par des barrières en bois et demeure inaccessible à la multitude29; l’église est entourée de murs30. Ainsi qu’on l’a déjà mentionné, la description de l’église de Tyre, du point de vue de l’architecture, n’est pas complète; en effet Eusèbe entend surtout dévoiler les sens psychologiques, typologiques et mystiques de l’église. Avant lui, Philon et Origène avaient déjà appliqué l’allégorie aux Écritures qui décrivaient le Temple juif, mais Eusèbe ne se trouve pas face à un texte, il se trouve avec les fidèles de Tyr face à une église en pierre, un bâtiment dont la forme basilicale n’était pas naturellement associée au culte religieux. Or, Eusèbe considère l’église de pierre de la même manière que le texte sacré. À l’instar du prophète pour le texte sacré, le constructeur de l’église de Tyr a été inspiré par Dieu; de même que l’Écriture où Dieu a caché ses modèles, l’église de Tyr a été bâtie selon des normes célestes31; comme l’Écriture révèle l’histoire du salut, l’église de Tyr révèle la réalisation des prophéties. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

HE X,4,6.26. HE X,4,26.36.38. HE X,4,39-40. HE X,4,44. HE X,4,38. HE X,4,25.26.55.

EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE, JÉRUSALEM ET LA PALESTINE

351

En synthèse, Eusèbe assimile d’une part la nouvelle église au Temple de Jérusalem, lieu sacré par excellence, et d’autre part à l’Écriture sainte. C’est la manière dont Eusèbe explique à son auditoire un concept qui n’était pas encore si évident; les arguments utilisés révèlent à travers quels chemins l’idée de la sacralité du lieu de culte s’était affirmée ou avait progressé dans son esprit. Il est nécessaire de souligner que tout ce qu’Eusèbe déclarait à propos de la sainteté de l’église de Tyre, et plus tard à propos de celle de Jérusalem, ne concernait pas encore toutes les églises: ses affirmations se référaient à des cas particuliers. En établissant un parallèle entre l’église de Tyre et le Temple de Jérusalem, Eusèbe confirme ce qu’il a déclaré dans la DE: la destruction du Temple et la large diffusion du culte ont créé les conditions qui ont permis à des espaces singuliers, pour des motifs différents, de devenir sacrés, comme le Temple juif. III. ONOMASTICON: CHOROGRAPHIE DE LA PALESTINE BIBLIQUE L’œuvre32 est transmise par la tradition manuscrite sous le titre: «Les noms de lieux dans l’écriture sacrée de Pamphile Eusèbe, évêque de Césarée en Palestine». Rédigée à la demande de l’évêque Paulin de Tyr († 331), elle comprenait plusieurs parties: 1) l’interprétation des termes ethnologiques dans les Écritures hébraïques; 2) la description de la Judée antique avec les héritages des douze tribus; 3) un plan de Jérusalem et du Temple; 4) la dernière, qui est la seule conservée par la tradition – c’est-à-dire l’Onomasticon – contient près de 1000 entrées, qui peuvent comprendre toutes ou seulement une partie des informations suivantes: la citation biblique extraite des Hexapla, parfois mise en perspective avec les autres versions grecques du texte hébreu de la Bible; le nom de la tribu à laquelle appartient le territoire où se trouve la ville/le village; un bref résumé sur les événements bibliques ou historiques liés à l’emplacement; la citation d’autres sources (par exemple Josèphe); la localisation des villes/villages par rapport aux routes romaines ou aux villes palestiniennes du IVe siècle. 32. Édition critique: Eusebius Caesariensis, DasOnomastikonderbiblischenOrtsnamen. Lateinische Übersetzung des Hieronymus, éd. E. KLOSTERMANN (GCS 11/1; Eusebius Werke, 3/1), Hildesheim, Olms, 1966, p. 2,4. En outre: DasOnomastikonderbiblischen Ortsnamen.EditiondersyrischenFassungmitgriechischemText,englischerunddeutscher Übersetzung, éd. S. TIMM (TU, 152), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2005; G.S.P. FREEMANGRENVILLE – R.L. CHAPMAN (éds), TheOnomasticonbyEusebiusofCaesarea:Palestinein theFourthCentury A.D., Jerusalem, Carta, 2003.

352

A. MONACI CASTAGNO

En outre, Eusèbe rapporte fréquemment des informations concernant les habitants ou la présence de fortifications ou bien de garnisons romaines, d’eaux thermales, et de tombes de personnages bibliques. Ces éléments sont indiqués de manière souvent confuse, en désordre et avec de fréquentes répétitions. Cela révèle une histoire rédactionnelle complexe où Eusèbe occupe davantage le rôle de rédacteur que d’auteur. À cet égard, il convient de distinguer la datation de la rédaction d’Eusèbe de celle de ses sources. La première est connue car c’est encore à la demande de Paulin de Tyr que l’Onomasticon fut composé33. Paulin était mort depuis un certain temps au moment de la composition du Contra Marcellum (336/338) dans lequel Eusèbe indique les principales étapes de la vie de Paulin34. À choisir entre les périodes 313/314 et 336/338, la deuxième décennie semble la plus vraisemblable: Eusèbe, évoquant Bethléem, Mambré et Jérusalem ne mentionne pas les églises constantiniennes. Cette datation est compatible avec celle de la DEet du Panégyrique, ce dernier étant lié à la DE35 a été plus probablement rédigé au cours de la deuxième décennie. La recherche des sources de l’Onomasticon s’est développée autour de deux axes, le premier s’est penché sur les informations liées à la localisation précise des lieux dans le but de repérer les sources d’Eusèbe. Ces dernières pourraient être les documents administratifs et militaires qui se trouvaient au siège du gouverneur de la Palestine à Césarée. Le deuxième axe de recherche s’est concentré sur la dimension exégétique pour mettre en lumière les traditions juives et chrétiennes qu’Eusèbe a utilisées36. 33. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 2,4). 34. Eusebius, ContraMarcellum I,4,19; pour M. VINZENT, OrigenesalsSubscriptum: PaulinusvonTyrusunddieorigenistischeDiadoche, dans W.A. BIENERT–U. KÜHNEWEG (éds), Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts (BETL, 137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999, 149-157, pp. 149-151, Paulin était mort quelques années avant 325. 35. MORLET, La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée (n. 2), p. 84 juge plus raisonnable l’antériorité de la DE. 36. P. THOMSEN, PalästinanachdemOnomasticondesEusebius, dans ZDPV 26 (1903) 97-188; B. ISAAC, EusebiusandtheGeographyofRomanProvinces, dans D.L. KENNEDY (éd.), TheRomanArmyintheEast (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement, 18), Ann Arbor, MI, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1996, 153-167; = ID.,TheNearEastunder RomanRule.SelectedPapers, Leiden, Brill, 1998, 284-309, pp. 302-303. «Eusebius used material which contained full information about the network of Roman public roads in the provinces of Palaestina and Arabia. Milestones have been found along each of the roads which he mentions and he does not mention any roads which were not provided with milestones»… «There is no indication anywhere in the Onomasticon that the author ever saw a proper map of the provinces that he studied». E.Z. MELAMED est le premier savant qui a identifié les différentes couches rédactionelles: TheOnomastikonofEusebius, dans Tarbiz 3 (1932) 314-327; 393-409; Tarbiz 4 (1933) 78-96; 248-284; ensuite: M. NOTH, Die topographischen Angaben im Onomastikon des Eusebius, dans ZDPV 66 (1943) 32-63;

EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE, JÉRUSALEM ET LA PALESTINE

353

Ainsi, à partir de ces investigations, Eusèbe se révèle davantage comme rédacteur que comme auteur. Cependant, l’originalité de l’Onomasticon n’est pas assez mise en lumière et réside dans la réunion de l’exégèse et de la géographie au sein d’un même texte consacré presque entièrement à la Palestine. Comme Origène, qui avait noté l’importance d’étudier les nomina sacra37, Eusèbe part de l’Écriture, mais il se réfère sans cesse au présent en utilisant les mêmes termes: νῦν (223 fois); εἰς δεῦρο (5); εἰς ἔτι νῦν; εἰς νῦν (67) précédés par ἐστίν, καλεῖται, plus souvent par δείκνυται38: «on montre jusqu’à aujourd’hui»; cette dernière expression est typiquement eusébienne et vise à suggérer au lecteur la présence d’une mémoire ininterrompue jusqu’à aujourd’hui qui peut être démontrée et donc vue. Les localités associées à l’histoire du salut qui pendant les liturgies retentissaient aux oreilles des fidèles avec des noms divins et barbares, sont placées par l’Onomasticon dans le réseau des routes romaines. J’illustre cette idée avec deux exemples représentatifs: Gabaas (Jos 24,33): ville de Finees fils de Éléazar où Éléazar a été enseveli. Et le village de Gabatha existe jusqu’à aujourd’hui près de la douzième pierre milliaire à partir d’Eleutheropoles où est aussi montré le tombeau du prophète Abacuc39. Bethsames (Jug 1,33): Bethsames, ville sacerdotale, dans la tribu de Beniamin et elle existe jusqu’à aujourd’hui au dixième milliaire pour ceux qui vont de Eutheropole à Nicopole vers l’est40.

Avec des indications si détaillées on pouvait – ou on avait l’impression de pouvoir – rejoindre les lieux indiqués; les personnages bibliques acquièrent ainsi une plus grande réalité parce qu’ils avaient laissé une mémoire visible dans le pays: en effet, l’Onomasticon mentionne l’arbre de Sichem où Abimelech a été proclamé roi et, près de Neapolis, «on montre» (δείκνυται) le tombeau de Joseph41; celui de Josué «est visible statusquaestionis en C.W. WOLF, EusebiusofCaesareaandtheOnomasticon, dans The BiblicalArchaelogist 27 (1964) 65-96; il avait l’intention de publier la traduction et le commentaire de l’Onomasticon mais il est mort avant de terminer son travail; le commentaire mené presque à terme a été mis en ligne: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_ onomasticon_01_intro.htm. 37. Origenes, CIo VI,41,215. 38. Ainsi D.E. GROH, TheOnomasticonofEusebiusandtheRiseofChristianPalestine, dans StudiaPatristica 18/1 (1989) 23-31, pp. 25-26. Groh définit cette expression «contemporizing formula» (p.26); elle indique «Eusebius’s distinctive way of rendering such notices». 39. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 70,23). 40. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 54,12). 41. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 54,23).

354

A. MONACI CASTAGNO

encore aujourd’hui près du village de Thamna42; il en va de même pour le tombeau du prophète Amos; pour ceux de Iesse, de David43, de Rachèle44, d’Amos45, d’Abacuc46, pour le puit d’Agar47, pour l’arbre de Mambré48 et celui d’Abimelech49. Il mentionne également 21 localités mentionnées dans les Évangiles, à titre d’exemple on peut citer: Ainon où Jean donnait le sacrement du baptême50; les restes de la ville de Jéricho honorée par la présence du Christ51; Béthanie où il ressuscita Lazare52; le village où les porcs possédés par les démons se sont jetés dans le lac de Tibériade53, la piscine «probatique» de Jérusalem54, le Gethsémani où le Christ a prié avant sa passion55, le Golgotha, lieu de sa crucifixion56. Dans deux cas Eusèbe indique la persistance de pratiques liturgiques, les fidèles – dit-il – désirent «jusqu’à aujourd’hui» se faire baptiser dans le même lieu où Jean avait baptisé à Béthabara57; et ils vont prier «jusqu’à aujourd’hui» à Gethsémani58. Dans l’Onomasticon, l’idée de l’unité des deux Testaments est exprimée à travers la description géographique d’un territoire, l’unité est inscrite dans le même pays où subsistaient les traces d’une histoire – selon Eusèbe – entièrement chrétienne. Les études plus récentes ne considèrent plus l’Onomasticon comme un guide pour les pèlerins qui venaient de l’Occident, elles soulignent plutôt son but apologétique; c’est-à-dire la tentative de rendre romaine et chrétienne la Palestine juive59. Toutefois, 42. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 70,20; cf. aussi 96,24; 100,1). 43. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 42,12). 44. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 82,13). 45. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 86,15). 46. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 88,28; 114,18). 47. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 42,17). 48. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 76,1). 49. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 54,23). Cf. J. WILKINSON, Visits of Jewish Tombs by Early Christians, dans J. ENGEMANN – E. DASSMANN (éds), Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie Bonn 22.-28. September 1991, vol. I (Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband, 20), Münster, Aschendorff, 1995, 452-465. 50. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 40,1). 51. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 104,25). 52. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 58,15). 53. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 74,15). 54. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 58,21). 55. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 74,16). 56. Onom. (GCS 11/1, 74,19). 57. Cf. supra, n. 50. 58. Cf. supra, n. 55. 59. GROH, TheOnomasticon (n. 38), pp.25-26. Même point de vue: WILKEN, TheLand Called Holy (n. 1), p. 100; P.W.L. WALKER, Eusebius, Cyril and the Holy Places, dans Studia Patristica 20 (1989) 306-314; B. BITTON-ASHKELONY, Encountering the Sacred: TheDebateonChristianPilgrimageinLateAntiquity(The Transformation of the Classical

EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE, JÉRUSALEM ET LA PALESTINE

355

cette interprétation n’explique pas l’aspect structurel caractéristique de ce texte, qui assigne à chaque lieu des coordonnées géographiques précises selon le système de repère romain. Selon moi, l’Onomasticon répond déjà aux intérêts et aux curiosités des lecteurs qui avaient déjà une certaine familiarité avec la Palestine et qui, en parcourant ses routes, pouvaient savoir à l’avance quels lieux bibliques ils auraient rencontrés sur leur chemin, pouvaient prendre conscience de la densité des mémoire bibliques de leur pays et de son importance dans l’écumène chrétienne. L’Onomasticon devrait être associé à MartyresenPalestine(=MP) plus qu’au Chronicon ou à l’HistoireEcclésiastique, comme on peut le lire dans les recherches menées sur le sujet: l’un et l’autre reflètent un changement d’attitude par rapport aux lieux du pays liés à Jésus et aux saints. IV. LES MARTYRES EN PALESTINE Robert Markus60 a souligné le rôle joué par le culte des martyrs dans le développement des locasancta de la Palestine, contre la thèse de Zemon Smith61 qui voyait, au contraire, dans ces derniers le point de départ du culte des martyrs. Il convient d’observer que c’est une question complexe d’établir une priorité chronologique parmi les deux phénomènes. Tous les deux apparaissent dans l’espace public avec la construction d’églises/ martyria et de liturgies fastueuses au cours de la même période, soit pour être précis avec Constantin à partir de 325. Cependant, uniquement dans le cas du culte des martyrs, on trouve de nombreux documents qui attestent d’une longue histoire antérieure où rite, mémoire et lieu étaient étroitement liés. Quelle est la place d’Eusèbe dans cette perspective? Markus ne mentionne pas les MP, il pense qu’Eusèbe – comme l’Histoireecclésiastique le démontrerait – ne manifeste pas d’intérêt pour le culte des martyrs et de leurs reliques. Cette assertion est vraie d’un certain point de vue, parce qu’Eusèbe entend surtout présenter le martyr comme un héros universel en célébrant ses vertus spirituelles, son courage dans les tourments, ses victoires contre la chair. Cependant Eusèbe est aussi un témoin du culte des martyrs de son temps, un culte encore lié à la dévotion traditionnelle aux défunts, Heritage, 38), Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – London, University of California Press, 2005, p. 21, n. 92. Cf. H. SIVAN, PalestineinLateAntiquity, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 252: «Biblical geography became part of the fabric of Christian consciousness…». 60. R.A. MARKUS, HowonEarthCouldPlacesBecomeHoly?OriginsoftheChristian IdeaofHolyPlaces, dans JournalofEarlyChristianStudies 2 (1994) 257-271. 61. SMITH, ToTakePlace (n. 25).

356

A. MONACI CASTAGNO

mais qui n’ignorait pas la valeur religieuse de la présence du tombeau du martyr dans la ville où il avait rendu son témoignage. Il suffit de mentionner l’épisode du martyr Marin qui concerne Césarée en particulier, le sénateur Astirius qui avait assisté au martyr – fit un geste de piété chrétienne déjà traditionnel, mais exceptionnel au regard de sa condition sociale – «l’ayant mis sur son épaule, il déposa le cadavre sur un vêtement éclatant et précieux; puis il l’ensevelit d’une manière très magnifique et lui donna un tombeau convenable»62. La position d’Eusèbe apparaît plus complexe dans les MP, œuvre que Markus n’a pas pris en considération. Nous disposons de deux recensions du texte: elles ont une longueur différente, mais toutes deux remontent à Eusèbe qui les a rédigées entre 331 et 32463. Dans le prologue de la version syriaque (=MPl syr.)64, il se présente comme un témoin direct de ces martyrs, et laisse transparaître une certaine concurrence entre les «gloires» des diverses Églises. Si Rome a assisté au martyre de Paul et à celui de Pierre, qui a souffert de la même manière que le Christ, si les autres Églises ont assisté à ceux des autres Apôtres, «notre Palestine – dit Eusèbe – n’a pas seulement été honorée par les martyrs dont tout le peuple est orgueilleux, mais elle est aussi le lieu d’où le Sauveur de toute l’humanité a jailli comme une source désaltérante»65. Dans les MP, on observe dans quelque cas un lien particulier entre la ville de Césarée et le corps du martyr; ce lien est établi par des thaumata. Je cite trois exemples qui se réfèrent tous à Césarée: 1) Apphianos, un jeune homme disciple de Pamphile, meurt dans de terribles tourments: on fait jeter son corps dans la mer; tout de suite «une agitation extraordinaire, 62. HEVII,16. 63. Édition critique de la recension grecque raccourcie: Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique. Texte grec, traduction et notes par G. BARDY (SC, 55), t. 3, Paris, Cerf, 1967 (=MPbetl.gr.). 64. Édit. critique: HistoryoftheMartyrsinPalestine.ByEusebius,BishopofCaesarea, DiscoveredinaVeryAncientManuscript, éd., tr. et commentaire W. CURETON, London – Edinburgh, Williams and Norgate, 1861; DiepalästinischenMärtyrerdesEusebiusvon Cäsarea.IhreausführlichereFassungundderenVerhältniszurKürzeren, éd. B. VIOLET (TU, 14), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1896 (avec les extraits grecs). On a discuté beaucoup de l’ordre chronologique des deux textes et du rapport entre MPb et le livre VIII de l’HE; mais il y a un consensus sur la fourchette chronologique 311-324 pour la rédaction des deux recensions, ce qui nous permet de laisser de côté ces questions déjà débattues. Cf. plus en détail: A. MONACI CASTAGNO, EusebiodiCesareastoricoeagiografodellapersecuzioneinPalestina, dans O. ANDREI (éd.), CaesareaMaritimaelascuolaorigeniana: Multiculturalità,formedicompetizioneculturaleeidentitàcristiana.Attidell’XIConvegno delGruppoItalianodiRicercasuOrigeneelaTradizioneAlessandrina(22-23settembre 2011)(Supplementi di Adamantius, 3), Brescia, Morcelliana, 2013, 179-202. 65. HistoryoftheMartyrsinPalestine, éd. CURETON (n. 64), p. 3.

EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE, JÉRUSALEM ET LA PALESTINE

357

un tremblement de terre …. ébranlèrent toute la ville …. le cadavre est rejeté devant les portes de la ville». Tous les habitants se mirent à courir devant les portes pour voir… «tous et toutes confessaient le seul et unique Dieu des chrétiens»66. En d’autres circonstances, dans la même ville de Césarée, les corps de martyrs sont exposés à l’air libre pour servir de nourriture aux chiens et aux oiseaux de proie qui dispersaient leurs membres. Après quelques jours, tandis que le ciel était serein, «les colonnes versèrent des larmes goutte à goutte, les marchés et les places furent arrosés d’eau»67. Enfin, les cadavres de Pamphile et de ses compagnons furent laissés sans sépulture pendant quatre jours, mais les animaux ne s’approchèrent pas et les corps furent laissés intacts: «ils reçurent l’honneur et les funérailles qui convenaient et furent mis au tombeau selon la coutume. Ils furent déposés dans les splendides demeures des temples, et placés dans les saintes maisons de prière, livrés à une mémoire impérissable, afin d’être honorés par le peuple de Dieu»68. Dans une ville où les chrétiens n’étaient qu’une minorité, le corps du martyr devient le lieu où Dieu manifeste sa volonté, bouleversant celle du pouvoir institué et établissant des formes nouvelles de cohésion sociale autour du martyr. La version syriaque des MP, davantage que la version brève, rappelle de manière systématique, toujours à la fin de chaque récit, le jour exact du martyr, c’est un signe clair de la formation en cours d’un Martirologium des Églises de Palestine69. V. CONCLUSION Mon analyse s’est ouverte avec l’hypothèse selon laquelle la position occupée par Eusèbe dans la trajectoire historique qui entraîna le développement des locasancta/sanctorum en un peu plus d’une génération, pouvait être mieux comprise en se concentrant soit sur une période précise – les années qui séparent l’édit de Milan du Concile de Nicée –, soit sur un ensemble d’œuvres, en particulier l’Onomasticon et les MP, qui rarement ont été mises vraiment en dialogue et valorisées comme elles le méritent. 66. MPl.gr. IV, 15 ed. BARDY p. 135. 67. MPb XII. Sur cet épisode: K.G. HOLUM, IdentityandLateAntiqueCity:TheCase of Caesarea, dans H. LAPIN (éd.), Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, Bethesda, MD, CDL Press, 1998, 157-177, p. 160. 68. MPb. et l.gr. XI, 28; seulement MPl.syr. fait référence au culte suivant. 69. Sur le rapport entre MPet les martyrologes suivants: A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Scritture agiografiche e promozione del culto: successi e insuccessi, dans CANELLA (éd.), L’Imperocostantinianoeiluoghisacri (n. 17), 491-516, pp. 502-508.

358

A. MONACI CASTAGNO

Cette méthodologie nous a donné la possibilité de souligner les aspects suivants: 1) l’antijudaïsme d’Eusèbe a été considéré comme un élément très significatif soit de son «spiritualisme», soit de l’indifférence avec laquelle il aurait considéré la Palestine. J’ai tenté au contraire de souligner qu’au centre de sa controverse qui oppose le sensible et le spirituel, se cache un dispositif interprétatif qui, en s’appuyant sur l’opposition entre l’unicité du lieu de culte juif versusla pluralité des lieux de culte chrétiens, pose les bases de la création d’une nouvelle géographie religieuse où quelques lieux en particulier peuvent devenir des points de repère permanents, des lieux «saints», comme l’avait été autrefois le temple juif. 2) Cette recherche a démontré que pour Eusèbe, si nous lisons le Panégyriqueà la lumière de la définition de lieu sacré selon Z. Smith, l’église de Tyr est un de ces lieux. 3) L’élément le plus évident qui rapproche des œuvres si différentes – la DE, le Panégyrique, l’Onomasticon – repose sur l’enjeu de «voir avec ses propres yeux», c’est-à-dire l’importance particulière accordée par la foi au lien qui unit lieux et mémoires bibliques. Il s’agit d’un véritable virage visuel si nous pensons à la portée des sens spirituels dans la tradition alexandrine. Ce que l’on peut encore voir devient une preuve de la vérité de la narration biblique, comme la trace est la preuve du passage. La mémoire s’enracine dans le visible et ce que l’on voit induit à prendre pour vérité ce qui est écrit. 4) On soutient qu’Eusèbe a changé d’attitude au sujet des locasancta seulement à partir de 337; l’analyse de ses œuvres a montré en revanche comment sa réflexion sur le lien entre lieu et mémoire était présente antérieurement. 5) L’Onomasticon n’a pas été rédigé comme un guide pour les pèlerins, ni comme un écrit uniquement apologétique. L’Onomasticon avec MP,en inscrivant les récits bibliques et martyriales dans les lieux de la Palestine, laisse transparaître l’attitude d’un évêque cultivé qui, sous la pression d’événements historiques exceptionnels, fut en mesure de comprendre l’importance stratégique du rapport entre lieux, rites et mémoire pour consolider la foi et renforcer le rôle de sa métropolie dans la géopolitique religieuse de son temps. Pour utiliser une expression qui est désormais à la mode, on peut dire que ces textes témoignent du passage d’une perspective globale propre à l’histoire ecclésiastique universelle, à une perspective «glocale». Dipartimento di Studi Storici Università di Torino [email protected]

Adele MONACI CASTAGNO

ΣΥΜΦΩΝΙΑ: SYMPHONIC EXEGESIS FROM ORIGEN TO EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

One of the bases of Origen’s conception of Scripture is the assumption that the Bible constitutes a symphonic entity with no contradiction and full of perfect harmony. Though not new in patristic tradition – it appears gradually in Theophilus, then in Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria – this idea assumes full flower in Origen, becoming a fundamental principle in his interpretation of Scripture1. I. ORIGEN 1. SymphoniawithintheBible In a famous text preserved in the Philocalia, Origen transmits a tradition of a man he calls “the Hebrew”, who compares the Bible to a house: That great scholar used to say that inspired Scripture taken as a whole was on account of its obscurity like many locked-up rooms in one house. Before each room he supposed a key to be placed, but not the one belonging to it; and that the keys were so dispersed all round the rooms, not fitting the locks of the several rooms before which they were placed. It would be a troublesome piece of work to discover the keys to suit the rooms they were meant for. It was, he said, just so with the understanding of the Scriptures, because they are so obscure; the only way to begin to understand them was, he said, by means of other passages containing the explanation dispersed throughout them2.

This text is an invitation to “read the Bible from the Bible”, and suggests that, as a totally coherent text, it contains the keys to its own interpretation. The exegete is tasked mainly to find the correct key to open the correct door. Another text, also preserved in the Philocalia, describes harmony as a fundamental aspect of the biblical text:

1. See S. MORLET, Symphonia:Laconcordedestextesetdesdoctrinesdanslalittératuregrecquejusqu’àOrigène, to be published in 2019 (Paris, Les Belles Lettres). This study stems from a Habilitation thesis defended in June, 2016. 2. Phil II,3. In this study, I give G. Lewis’s translation, sometimes slightly corrected.

360

S. MORLET

For as the different strings of the psalter or the lyre, each of which gives forth a note of its own seemingly unlike that of any other, are thought by an unmusical man who does not understand the theory of musical harmony (συμφωνία) to be discordant, because of the difference in the notes: so they who have not ears to detect the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures suppose that the Old Testament is not in harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one another, or the Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other apostles3.

This time, the Bible is not compared to a house but to a musical harmony, symphonia. The good exegete is the one who can “detect the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures”, unlike the heretics, who oppose Scripture to Scripture. Origen alludes here to a few specific cases of symphonic or cross-commentaries: cross-commentary of the Old and the New Testaments; of the Prophets and the Law; of the Gospels; of the Apostle, eventually, with the Gospel, with himself, and with the other apostles4. Each of the aforementioned cases can be found in Origen’s practice of exegesis. Generally speaking, he adopts the technical vocabulary used by the grammarians of the imperial period, especially the verbs συμφωνεῖν and συνᾴδειν, and their derivatives (συμφώνως, συνᾳδόντως, the adjectives σύμφωνος, συνῳδός). At the Origen Conference in Cracov, in 2009, I presented a short list of parallels of phrases found in Origen and in the old ScholiaontheIliad, which illustrates the former’s debt to the philological exegetical tradition5. The many cases alluded to in the Philocaliaaside, Origen’s main concern when he deals with biblical symphonia is to show the concord between the Old and the New Testaments6. A commentary on an OT text can recall

3. Phil VI,2. 4. Another important text is Phil V,4, taken from his CommentaryonJohn (book V), in which Origen writes that the word of God is not many, but single. 5. Signalerl’accorddestextes:Untraitcaractéristiquedel’exégèsed’Origèneetdu commentarismegrecdel’époqueimpériale, in S. KACZMAREK – H. PIETRAS (eds.), OrigenianaDecima: OrigenasWriter (BETL, 244), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, 127-145. See for instance, for the phrase συμφωνεῖ + dative: Origen, FrProv (PG 17, 173A) and Scholia inIliadem XXII,32b (ed. H. ERBSE); συνᾴδει + dative: Origen, CMt XVI,1 and Scholia inIliadem II,220b; the sequence dative + συνᾴδει καί: Origen, FrDt (PG 17, 36AB), CMt XVII,26 and ScholiainIliadem XI,222a; the adverb συμφώνως: Origen, CIo X,8,110; VI,43,224 and ScholiainIliadem VII,330b1; the adjective σύμφωνον: Origen, FrLam LXVIII and ScholiainIliadem XII,49b; the plural σύμφωνα: Origen, FrLc 34 and Scholiain Iliadem XI,826a. 6. See this focus in Phil V,7: “It therefore seems to me to be necessary, that he who can genuinely plead for the doctrine of the Church and refute the handlers of knowledge falsely so-called, should withstand the inventions of the heretics, opposing to them the elevation of the preaching of the Gospel, inasmuch as he is satisfied with the harmony of doctrines common to the Old Testament and to the New, as they are respectively called”.

SYMPHONIC EXEGESIS FROM ORIGEN TO EUSEBIUS

361

a remark about a parallel text in the NT, and, conversely, a commentary on the NT can raise a remark about a parallel in the OT. For instance, when he comments on the passage Iwilllaughwithmybitterspeech (Jer 20,8), Origen notes that it is in accordance with (συνᾴδει) Lk 6,21 (Blessedare youwhoweepnow,foryoushalllaugh), but in opposition to (ἐναντιοῦται) Lk 6,25 (Woetoyouwholaughnow,foryoushallmournandweep)7. When he comments on Jn 13,21 (oneofyouwillbetrayme), however, he compares the passage to Gen 3,22 (Adamhasbecomelikeoneofus), in order to show that the phrase “one of” designates one who has fallen from his dignity (the dignity of an apostle in the case of Judas; the dignity of a blessed man in the case of Adam)8. As we can see from these examples, the symphonic exegesis may have two, sometimes concurrent functions: one is polemical (the harmony of the text is put forward against those who deny it), while the other one is heuristic (the OT clarifies the NT, and vice versa). Elsewhere, I have provided a more complete overview of the different cases found in Origen’s symphonic exegesis9. 2. AgreementbetweentheBibleandtheGreeks It is not only with respect to the Bible’s internal agreement, though, that the notion of symphonia appears in Origen. It can, at times, involve agreement of the Bible with Plato and other Greek philosophers. This was, of course, a major theme of Christian apologetics before the third century, but it gained a new dimension in Origen. In Alexandria, Origen composed ten books of Stromateis, now lost, from which a very few fragments survived. In this work, according to Jerome, Origen sought to confirm “all the doctrines of the Church” from Plato, Aristotle, Numenius and Cornutus10. In a later work, the Contra Celsum, Origen sometimes makes use of the same kind of argument On this topic, see J. DANIÉLOU, L’unitédesdeuxTestamentsdansl’œuvred’Origène, in RevuedesSciencesReligieuses 22 (1948) 27-56. 7. HIer XX,6. 8. CIo XXXII,18,233. 9. See MORLET, Symphonia (n. 1). 10. Jerome, Epist. 70,4. About the Stromateis, see P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 293-302 (p. 295 gives a list of all the fragments known at that date). The collection was then increased by C. MORESCHINI, NoteaiperdutiStromatadiOrigene, in L. LIES (ed.), OrigenianaQuarta:DieReferate des4.internationalenOrigeneskongresses,1985(Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck – Wien, Tyrolia, 1987, 36-43. See also R.M. GRANT, TheStromateisofOrigen, in J. FONTAINE – C. KANNENGIESER (eds.), Epektasis. Mélanges patristiques offerts au CardinalJ.Daniélou, Paris, Beauchesne, 1972, 285-292.

362

S. MORLET

(III,81; VIII,35), but also engages in a more polemical discussion against Plato11. In response to Celsus’s argument that the Christians misunderstood and distorted Plato’s doctrines12, Origen countered that Plato and the Greeks distorted Scripture13. Hence, in this late work, Origen affirmed that the agreement between the Bible and Greek writings was not absolute. It admits some kind of παρακοή, misunderstanding14. Sometimes, Origen notes, the Bible says what the Greeks say, but in a better – that is, simpler – way15. Besides, states Origen, there are many topics of disagreement between the Christians and the Greeks16, such as the materialist doctrines of the Stoics17 and the Pythagorean doctrine of the mentensomatosis18. This multivalent tension between the Bible and Greek philosophy is well illustrated in the Homilies on Genesis, a text which, like the Contra Celsum, was composed in the Caesarean period of Origen’s life: This Abimelech, as I see it, does not always have peace with Isaac, but sometimes he disagrees, at other times he seeks peace. If you remember how, in what preceeds, we said of Abimelech that he represents the learned and wise of the world, who have comprehended many things even of the truth through the learning of philosophy, you can understand how he can be neither always in dissension nor always at peace with Isaac who represents the Word of God in the Law. For philosophy is neither opposed to everything in the Law of God nor in harmony with everything19.

3. Symphonia intheWorldandinHistory It is tempting to connect the above-cited text with a view on world history which Origen defended long before delivering this homily. In his treatise OnFirstPrinciples, he attributed the existence of disagreement in the world to the fall of souls after the first creation20. Freedom, which 11. On Origen’s polemic against Plato, see M.J. EDWARDS, OrigenagainstPlato(Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity), Aldershot, Ashgate, 2002. 12. See CC VI,7.15.19; VII,32. 13. CC IV,11-12; VI,7. 14. On this very important concept in Origen’s polemic against Celsus, see my study L’accusationdemauvaiseentente(παρακοή)danslapolémiqueentrepaïensetchrétiens àlafindel’Antiquité, in A. JOSSE – A. ULACCO (eds.), DealingwithDisagreement:The ConstructionofTraditionsinLaterAncientPhilosophy, to be published. 15. CC I,87; VI,2; VII,59. 16. CC VI,37; VII,51. 17. CC IV,14. 18. CC III,75. 19. HGn XIV,3; English transl.: Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 71),Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2002. 20. Prin II,1,1.

SYMPHONIC EXEGESIS FROM ORIGEN TO EUSEBIUS

363

caused the fall, also generated disagreement and thus produced diversity in the condition of the rational beings21. God nevertheless aims at resolving this disagreement in a profound unity, right now22, but also, and more deeply, at the end of time, with the apocatastasis23. This conception of history is reminiscent of Origen’s portrayal of philosophy, at once in accord and in conflict with Christianity. If one accepts this linkage, it might be possible to suggest that, in OnFirstPrinciples, Origen offers a metaphysical basis to his conception of the symphonia of the Bible with the philosophers, but also, perhaps, with itself. The relation of the Bible to Greek philosophy attests to a movement from disharmony to harmony which is at the core of history. The perfect harmony of the Bible with itself, however, constitutes a remarkable exception to this movement – it offers, rightnow, an idea of harmony which is supposed to be achieved by all men only at the end of time. To sum up this brief overview, Origen’s conception of symphonia unfolds in three areas: a reflection on the symphonia within the Bible itself, between the Bible and the Greeks, and between the souls of men in human history. Even if Origen never makes any explicit connection between these three fields of investigation, I find it interesting to consider the third one as a metaphysical basis for the first two. II. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA Symphonia is a central notion in Eusebius’s thought, and its treatment is strongly influenced by Origen. At this point, I aim to present Eusebius’s own contribution to the story of this concept – and of the exegetical practices which are connected to it. 21. Prin II,9,6. 22. “But God, by the ineffable skill of his wisdom, transforming and restoring all things, in whatever manner they are made, to some useful aim, and to the common advantage of all, recalls those very creatures which differed so much from each other in mental conformation to one agreement of labour and purpose; so that, although they are under the influence of different motives, they nevertheless complete the fullness and perfection of one world, and the very variety of minds tends to one end of perfection” (PrinII,1,2; transl. F. CROMBIE). See also II,1,3. 23. Among the different studies published on this important Origenian concept, see especially H. CROUZEL, L’apocatastasechezOrigène, in LIES (ed.), OrigenianaQuarta (n. 10), 282-290; K. HUNSTORFER, Origenes: Die Apokatastasislehre nach Periarchon, Diplomarbeit, Universität Innsbruck, 1986; C.E. RABINOWITZ, PersonalandCosmicSalvationinOrigen, in VigChr38 (1984) 319-329; ApokatastasisandSunteleia:Eschatological andSoteriologicalSpeculationinOrigen, PhD, Fordham University, 1989.

364

S. MORLET

1. Symphonia withintheBible Symphonic exegesis is a central aspect of Eusebius’s reading of Scripture24. His vocabulary is identical to that of Origen (συνᾴδειν, συμφωνεῖν25); the two authors even employ the same formulaic phrases26. One finds in Eusebius’s work different cases of symphonistic comments: crosscommentary of a prophet and the Law27, of two different books from the Law28, of a prophet with another prophet29, of a gospel and the Apostle30, of a prophetic book with the Apostle31, and also of one passage from a biblical book with another passage of the same biblical book32. The most frequent case, though, is the cross-commentary of the two Testaments. As we have seen, this was already the case in Origen, but this kind of commentary becomes even more important in Eusebius, whose exegetical project is more clearly apologetic than that of his predecessor. By and large, for Eusebius, the symphonia between the two Testaments means the fulfilment of the prophecies. Throughout his Commentaries on Isaiah and on the Psalms, the bishop of Caesarea seeks to show the fulfilment of the ancient prophecies in the coming of Christ33. In the PropheticExtracts, he tries to collect all the 24. In this part, I use the following abbreviations: DE = Demonstratio Evangelica; EP =PropheticExtracts;HE=HistoriaEcclesiastica;PE =PraeparatioEvangelica. 25. But strangely enough, this last verb is absent from the PropheticExtracts, which constitute book VI to IX of the lost GeneralElementaryIntroduction. 26. This important aspect of Eusebius’s literary activity does not seem to have a significant interest among the specialists. On symphonic devices in the HistoriaEcclesiastica, see my study, La concorde des textes dans l’Histoire ecclésiastique d’Eusèbe (=HE):Unmotifapologétique?, in M. WALLRAFF (ed.), GeschichtealsArgument?, Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2015, 49-78. 27. EP IV,8; pp. 187,26–188,3 GAISFORD (Isa 10,33 in agreement, συνᾳδούσης, with Gn 49,10, about the conversion of the nations); see also DE III,3,42 about the same parallel. 28. DE IX,3,9: Eusebius calls the reader to συνιδεῖν τε τὴν ἐν ἑκατέροις συμφωνίαν; cf. IX,3,12: Ταῦτα δὲ εἰκότως εἰς ταυτὸν συνηγάγομεν, ἵν’ ὥσπερ “ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων” τῆς ἐν ταῖς προφητείαις συμφωνίας ἡ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀπόδειξις βεβαιοτέραν λάβοι τὴν κύρωσιν. 29. DE II,3,146: Micaiah speaks συμφώνως with Isaiah; VI,14,2: Habakuk and Zechariah; VI,18,51: Zechariah and the Psalms; VII,2,23: Micaiah and the Psalms; VIII,4,15: Zechariah and Psalm 71; IX,17,18: Isaiah, Micaiah and other prophets. 30. DE VII,2,53: Paul in agreement with Matthew (συνᾴδει δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος). 31. About a symphonia of the Psalms and the Apostle, in the Comm. in Ps., see M. COULLET, EusèbedeCésarée–CommentairesurlesPsaumes:ÉditioncritiqueettraductiondequelquesPsaumes[Pss49,72,77,82], doctoral thesis, Université d’Aix-Marseille (dir. Gilles Dorival), 2017, pp. 211-213. 32. EP III,44, p. 149.6: Dn 7,13 and 2,44; IV,24, pp. 208,29–209,3: Isa 49,1 and Isa 42,1; DE V,5,6: Psalms 32 and 148. 33. On messianic exegesis in the CommentaryonIsaiah, see M. HOLLERICH, EusebiusofCaesarea’sCommentaryonIsaiah:ChristianExegesisintheAgeofConstantine,

SYMPHONIC EXEGESIS FROM ORIGEN TO EUSEBIUS

365

prophecies from the Old Testament which concern Christ34. The aim of the Demonstratio Evangelica is similar, but in its prologue, Eusebius stresses more explicitly the theme of the symphonia of the Old and the New Testaments, against the Jews, but also against the heretics: It will assuredly rebut the empty lies and blasphemy of godless heretics against the holy prophets by its exposition of the agreement of the new with the old35.

At the beginning of book V, which introduces the anthology of prophetic texts about Christ, he writes, likewise, that truth will be established from the symphonia of each of the two parts of Scripture: It is our present task, therefore, to collect these same expressions from the prophetic writings of the Hebrews, so that by their agreement in each separate part the demonstration of the truth may be established36.

In the course of his demonstration, Eusebius repeatedly underlines the agreement of the two Testaments. For instance, when he comments on Ps 32,6, the first words of his commentary demonstrate the parallels between the Old Testament and the New: Now it is evident that with the Psalm before us which says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm”, the holy gospel exactly agrees when it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made”37. Oxford, Clarendon, 1999, pp. 90-91. Eusebius sometimes also comments on the prophecies, in this commentary, as fulfilled in the history of Israel (ibid., pp. 88-90). 34. The Vienna manuscript (ÖNB, Theol. Gr. 29) which is the main witness of the text, and which served as the basis of T. Gaisford’s edition (Oxford, 1842), is mutilated, but the text may sometimes be restored. The important passage lies in fol. 1r (= p. 1 GAISFORD). I here give the text, with a tentative restoration in italics: συναγωγὴν περιέχοντα συλλήβδην ἁπασῶντῶνπερὶ τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ προφητειῶν, ἃς ἀπὸ πάσηςἡμῖν τῆς παλαιὰςδιαϑήκης ὑφ’ ἓν συναγεῖν ἔδοξεν. 35. DE I,1,13: τῶν ἀϑέων αἱρέσεων τὰς κατὰ τῶν ϑείων προφητῶν ψευδοδοξίας τε καὶ βλασφημίας ἀπελέγξει διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὰ νέα τῶν παλαιῶν συμφωνίας (tr. W.J. FERRAR). 36. DE V, prol., 34: ὡς ἂν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἑκατέροις τοῖς μέρεσι συμφωνίας ἡ τοῦ ἀληϑοῦς ἀπόδειξις παρασταϑείη. Same descripion of the method in IV,15,2: “The new Scriptures shall prove the old, and the Gospels set their seal on the prophetic evidence” (πιστουμένων τὰ παλαιὰ τῶν νέων γραμμάτων καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν τὰς τῶν προφητικῶν μαρτυρίας ἐπισφραγιζομένων). See also I,2,10: ἀκολούϑως τοῖς αὐτοῦ Μωσέως καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν προφητῶν περὶ τούτων αὐτῶν ϑεσπίσμασιν. 37. DE V,5,2: Ἀλλὰ γὰρ τῷ μετὰ χεῖρας ψαλμῷ φάσκοντι «τῷ λόγῳ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώϑησαν» συνᾴδει τὸ ἱερὸν εὐαγγέλιον διαρρήδην λέγον· «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν, καὶ ϑεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν. πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν».

366

S. MORLET

In another commentary, the bishop of Caesarea shows the concord between Nm 24,15-19 and the story of the Magi in Matthew 2, and concludes: Thus, I will conclude what I have to say of the agreement of prophetic prediction with Gospel fulfilment38.

Elsewhere, Eusebius notes the parallel between Isa 53,7 (Likeasheep hewasledtotheslaughter) and Rom 8,32: With this the Apostle agrees when he says, “Who spared not his own Son, but delivered him for us all”39.

Sometimes, the symphonia between the two Testaments is established not thanks to the content of the passages compared, but to wordly echoes: for instance, Eusebius notes that Mt 26,15 (οἱ δὲ ἔστησαν αὐτῷ τριάκοντα στατῆρας) is in agreement, σύμφωνα, with Zac 11,12 (καὶ ἔστησαν τὸν μισϑόν μου τριάκοντα ἀργυροῦς)40. Unlike Origen, however, Eusebius never engages in theoretical reflections on biblical symphonia; perhaps he perceived it as useless to say a second time what his spiritual master, in his view, had articulated perfectly. One might further note that his work, which clearly aims at practical issues – persuasion of the reader – likely left little room for hermeneutical theory41. To conclude, Eusebius’s approach towards symphonic exegesis appears to be more practical, and so more selective but also more systematic, than the one taken by Origen. Eusebius is primarily concerned with the agreement of the two Testaments. This focus, but also the fact that this type of symphonistic reading appears as a recurring pattern throughout Eusebius’s exegetical writings, lends to his approach of biblical symphonia a more systematic turn than that found in Origen.

38. DE IX,1,11: Ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν τῆς συμφωνίας τῆς τε προφητικῆς προρρήσεως καὶ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς συμπεράνσεως ὧδέ πως ἐχέτω τέλους. 39. DE X,8,36: Συνᾴδει τούτοις καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγων· «ὅς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν». 40. DE X,4,4. 41. In the prologue of DE V, the symphonia of the two Testaments is stated as an undisputable fact (DE V, prol., 25: Ταῦτ’ ἦν τὰ ἐξ αἰῶνος στήλαις καὶ βίβλοις ἱεραῖς τῶν προφητῶν συμφώνως ἀναπεφωνημένα). Throughout his demonstration, Eusebius underlines the agreement of the text he is commenting on with previous commented texts: DE II,3,161 (Συνᾴδει καὶ ταῦτα τοῖς προτεϑειμένοις); II,3,168 (Δοκεῖ μοι καὶ ταῦτα συνᾴδειν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν προφητειῶν); VII,2,31 (Συνᾴδει τῇ πρὸ ταύτης καὶ ἡ παροῦσα προφητεία). The result of such constant remarks is the impression that the OT is perfectly consonant with itself.

SYMPHONIC EXEGESIS FROM ORIGEN TO EUSEBIUS

367

2. Symphonia oftheBibleandtheGreeks Like Origen, Eusebius devotes much space to the topic of the symphonia between the Greeks (especially the philosophers) and the Bible. In book XI-XIII of the Praeparatio, he offers a complete comparison of passages from Plato and from Scripture, demonstrating their supposed agreement. No such systematic comparison is found in Origen’s work, but we should be careful not to exaggerate Eusebius’s originality: it is possible that this section of the Praeparatio was inspired, at least in part, by Origen’s lost Stromateis. H.D. Saffrey suggested this possibility forty years ago42, and elsewhere I have tried to provide some support for this idea43. However, the Stromateis, according to Jerome, included a comparison of Scripture with Plato, Aristotle, Numenius and Cornutus44; in another passage, Jerome speaks about “the Stoics” and “the Peripatetics”45. Plato and Numenius are quoted by Eusebius, but not Aristotle, nor Cornutus. Besides, Eusebius’s collection contains quotations from Porphyry and Plotinus, which Origen could not have brought. If Eusebius did use Origen’s Stromateis, which is not certain, at the same time, he selected and extended the scope of the quotations, and focused his collection on the Platonists. Another aspect of the systematisation Eusebius introduced is the connection between the symphonia of the Bible with the Greeks, and the symphonia of the Bible with itself. This connection seems to me far more explicit in his work than in that of Origen. It is achieved, first, by the use of the same vocabulary to describe both aspects. Eusebius introduces his symphonia of Plato and Scripture by stating that he will show that “Plato and his successors have produced the philosophical doctrines which agree with those of the Hebrews” (ὁ Πλάτων οἵ τε μετ’ αὐτὸν δειχϑεῖεν τὰ σύμφωνα Ἑβραίοις πεφιλοσοφηκότες)46. Likewise, at the beginning of book XI, he writes that he intends to “reveal, on some doctrinal considerations, if not all, the agreement of the Greek philosophers with the Hebrew oracles” (τὴν ἔν τισιν, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐν πᾶσι, τοῖς δογματικοῖς ϑεωρήμασι πρὸς τὰ Ἑβραίων λόγια συμφωνίαν τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησι φιλοσόφων 42. Les extraits du Περὶ τἀγαϑοῦ de Numénius dans le livre XI de la Préparation Évangélique, in StudiaPatristica 13 (1975) 46-51. 43. See especially EusèbedeCésaréea-t-ilutilisélesStromatesd’OrigènedanslaPréparation évangélique?, in RevuedePhilologie 78 (2004) 127-140; LaPréparation évangéliqued’EusèbeetlesStromatesperdusd’Origène:Nouvellesconsidérations, in Revuede Philologie 87 (2013) 107-123. 44. Epist. 70,4 (see n. 10). 45. DialogusaduersusPelagianos, Prologue, 1. 46. DE X,14,18.

368

S. MORLET

ἐκφᾶναι)47. In the following part of the apology, the Demonstratio, he will say likewise, as we saw, that he will show the symphonia between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. The two parts of the apology, in that respect, constitute two sides of one and the same organic symphonistic project. Another aspect which connects both sides of biblical symphonia (with the Greeks and with itself), is the way Eusebius uses the Platonists in his comparison of Plato and Scripture in the Praeparatio, that is, exactly as he uses the other translators of the Bible in his comparison of the Septuagint and the New Testament in the Demonstratio. The description of his method in the two parts of the apology is strikingly similar: PE XI, Prol. 3-4

DE V, Prol. 35-36

Ὧν τοὺς περιττοὺς παραιτησάμενος τὸν κορυφαῖον ἁπάντων ἀνακαλεῖται, μόνῳ χρῆναι δεῖν ἀντὶ πάντων ἡγούμενος γνώμονι χρήσασϑαι τοῦ προβλήματος Πλάτωνι, ἐπεὶ καὶ οὗτος μόνος ἔοικε τῇ δόξῃ τοὺς πάντας ὑπερακοντίσας αὐτάρκης ἡμῖν ἔσεσϑαι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ζητουμένου σύστασιν. Εἰ δέ που δέοι, σαφηνείας ἕνεκα τῆς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς διανοίας, καὶ τοῖς τὴν κατ’ αὐτὸν ἐζηλωκόσι φιλοσοφίαν μάρτυσι χρήσομαι, τὰς αὐτῶν ἐκϑησόμενος φωνὰς ἐπὶ συστάσει τοῦ προκειμένου.

Χρὴ δὲ μὴ ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι οἱ μὲν ϑεῖοι χρησμοί, πολὺ τὸ καὶ πρὸς λέξιν καὶ πρὸς διάνοιαν ὑπερφυὲς τῇ Ἑβραίων φωνῇ περιέχοντες, διαφόρου τῆς ἐπὶ τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ἑρμηνείας τετυχήκασιν τοῦ δυσϑεωρήτου χάριν. Ἑβδομήκοντα δ’ οὖν ἄνδρες ἀϑρόως Ἑβραῖοι συμφώνως αὐτὰς μεταβεβλήκασιν, οἷς μάλιστα τὸν νοῦν προσέξομεν, ὅτι δὴ καὶ τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ τούτοις κεχρῆσϑαι φίλον. Εἰ δέ που γίνοιτο χρεία, οὐδὲ τὰς τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα νεωτέρων ἑρμηνευτῶν ἐκδόσεις, αἷς φίλον εἰσέτι νῦν Ἰουδαίοις χρῆσϑαι, παραιτησόμεϑα, ὡς ἂν πανταχόϑεν τὰ τῆς ἀποδείξεως ἡμῖν βεβαιοτέρας τύχοι παραστάσεως48. Dismissing therefore those of whom And we must recognize that the sacred it is superfluous to speak, we call up oracles include in the Hebrew much that is obscure both in expression and the leader of the whole band, deeming it right to adopt as umpire of in meaning, and are capable of various the question Plato alone as equivalent interpretations in Greek because of their difficulty. The Seventy Hebrews to all: since it is likely that as he surpassed all in reputation he will be in concert have translated them together, and I shall sufficient by himself for the 47. DE XI, prol., 3. 48. This passage seems to me to be inspired by Origen, LettertoAfricanus 9.

SYMPHONIC EXEGESIS FROM ORIGEN TO EUSEBIUS

PE XI, Prol. 3-4 settlement of our question. But if at any point it should be necessary, for the sake of giving clearness to his thought, I shall also make use of the testimony of those who have studied his philosophy, and shall set forth their own words for the settlement of the question before us49.

369

DE V, Prol. 35-36 attention to them, because it is the custom of the Christian Church to use their work. But wherever necessary, I shall call in the help of the editions of the later translators, which the Jews are accustomed to use today, so that my proof may have stronger support from all sources. With this introduction, it now remains for me to treat of the inspired words50.

In both cases, Eusebius explains that the comparison will be based on a primary text (Plato / the Seventy), but that, ifnecessary, he will also make use of posterior texts (the Platonists / the Revisers of the Seventy), and in both cases, this technique is supposed to sustain the demonstration. The Praeparatio also alludes to the need to clarify the primary text (here, Plato), which is not explicit in the text of the Demonstratio, but which corresponds to a fundamental function of the Revisers in the core of the work51. We know that it was also one of the functions of the Revisers according to Origen52. Ought we to conclude that Eusebius applied to the topic of the symphonia between the philosophers and Scripture the vocabulary and the technique which are typical of the biblical exegesis in Origen? This is possible, though not totally certain. We cannot be sure that, in the Stromateis, Origen did not already make this connection. I would tend to think, however, that it is apt for an apologetical project in which the Old Testament is reread in the light both of Hellenism and of Christianity. My intuition, thus, is that Eusebius is responsible for this extension of Origen’s exegetical technique to the topic of the symphonia of the Bible and philosophy. Many parts of Origen’s work did not survive, but the impression is that Eusebius achieved a connection between two aspects of Origen’s reflection which are not explicitly connected in his preserved work – or at least, not connected in the same way. 49. Tr. E.H. GIFFORD. 50. Translations of passages from the Demonstratio are taken from that of W.J. FERRAR. 51. See my analyses, S. MORLET, LaDémonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée: Étudesurl’apologétiquechrétienneàl’époquedeConstantin(Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 187), Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2009, pp. 518-550, and L’utilisationdesrévisionsjuivesdelaSeptantedanslapremièrelittératurechrétienne. Philologie,exégèseetpolémique, in R. GOUNELLE – J. JOOSTEN (ed.), LaBiblejuivedans l’Antiquité, Prahins, Éditions du Zèbre, 2014, 117-140. 52. See MORLET, LaDémonstration évangélique d’EusèbedeCésarée (n. 51), pp. 533-536.

370

S. MORLET

There is a third aspect of biblical symphonia, which Origen only lightly touched upon and which becomes very important in Eusebius: the symphonia of the Bible as a historical text, with non-biblical historical texts. At the beginning of Book II of the HistoriaEcclesiastica, Eusebius writes: Let us now examine the events which took place after his ascension, mentioning (παρασημαινόμενοι) some of them from the divine Scriptures, and narrating others as well (προσιστοροῦντες) from outside, from such writings as we shall refer to in due course53.

Eusebius is here describing a narrative technique that intermingles biblical sources (the NT) and non-biblical sources (Jewish, pagan, Christian). This technique is particularly displayed in books I and II devoted to Jesus and the story of the apostles. Sometimes, the non-biblical sources help him to add something which is lacking in the NT; at other times, they are quoted precisely because they agree with the NT. One author is constantly quoted for his agreement with Scripture, namely, Josephus54. Josephus agrees with the Gospels about the census of Quirinus55, the rise of Archelaos56, the death of John the Baptist57, about Jesus58, about the death of King Agrippa59, about Theudas60, about the starvation under Claudius61, about the seditious Egyptian mentioned in Acts62. The basic function of Josephus is here to confirm the truth of the biblical narratives. Occasionally, however, he adds something which is not in the NT. For instance, he gives details about the death of King Agrippa which are not found in the NT63. Once again, the symphonic reading has a confirmative, but also a heuristic function. Now, it is remarkable to see how, here again, Eusebius adopts the technical vocabulary of the symphonia (e.g., Josephus συνᾴδει with the NT 64, or says things in agreement, σύμφωνα65, with the NT). His comments about Josephus’s συμφωνία with Scripture – the term is used in II,10,3 – 53. HE II, Prol., 2. 54. One exception: Philo, quoted for his supposed agreement with Acts about the life of the first Christians (HE II,18). 55. HE I,5,4-6. 56. HE I,9,1. 57. HE I,11,3-6. 58. HE I,11,7-9. 59. HE II,10,3-10. 60. HE II,11,2-3. 61. HE II,12,1-2. 62. HE II,21,1-3. 63. HE II,10,3-9 (Josephus’s narrative is far longer than Acts 12,19-23). 64. HE I,5,4; I,9,1. See also, for the same verb, but concerning his agreement with Philo, HE II,6,3. 65. HE II,12,1.

SYMPHONIC EXEGESIS FROM ORIGEN TO EUSEBIUS

371

are phrased in exactly the same way as his remarks about the συμφωνία in the Bible in his exegetical commentaries: HE II,10,2

DE IX,3,9

Θαυμάσαι δ’ ἄξιον τῆς περὶ τὴν ϑείαν γραφὴν καὶ ἐν τῷδε τῷ παραδόξῳ συμφωνίας τὴν τοῦ Ἰωσήπου ἱστορίαν, καϑ’ ἣν ἐπιμαρτυρῶν τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ δῆλός ἐστιν, ἐν τόμῳ τῆς Ἀρχαιολογίας ἐννεακαιδεκάτῳ, ἔνϑα αὐτοῖς γράμμασιν ὧδέ πως τὸ ϑαῦμα διηγεῖται (...) It is worth admiring the account of Josephus for its agreement with the divine Scripture also in regard to this wonderful event, for he clearly bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities, where he relates the wonder in the following words (…)66.

Ἄξιον δὲ παραϑεῖναι τοῖς μετὰ χεῖρας τὴν πρὸς τὸν Ἰούδαν τοῦ Ἰακὼβ προφητείαν, ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν ἐναργέστατα εἰς τὸν ἡμέτερον σωτῆρα ἐφαρμόζειν προπαρεστήσαμεν, συνιδεῖν τε τὴν ἐν ἑκατέροις συμφωνίαν.

HE II,12,2 (about the starvation under Claudius)

DE V,5,6 (Psalm 32 and Psalm 148)

Σύμφωνα δ’ ἂν εὕροις καὶ ταῦτα τῇ τῶν Πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων γραφῇ, περιεχούσῃ ὡς ἄρα τῶν κατ’ Ἀντιόχειαν μαϑητῶν καϑὼς ηὐπορεῖτό τις, ὥρισαν ἕκαστος εἰς διακονίαν ἀποστεῖλαι τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ὃ καὶ ἐποίησαν, ἀποστείλαντες πρὸς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους διὰ χειρὸς Βαρναβᾶ καὶ Παύλου. You would find this statement also in agreement with the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at Antioch, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul.

Σύμφωνα δὲ τούτοις εὕροις ἂν καὶ ἐν ρμηʹ ψαλμῷ, ὃς διδάσκει οὐ τὰ περὶ γῆν μόνα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ κατ’ οὐρανὸν καὶ συλλήβδην ἅπασαν τὴν κτίσιν κατ’ ἐπικέλευσιν τοῦ τῶν ὅλων ϑεοῦ γεγονέναι.

And it is worth comparing with this prophecy that of Jacob to Judah, which I have already shewn to be most clearly applicable to our Saviour, and to recognize the agreement of the two.

And you would find similar prophecies also in Ps 148, which teaches that not only things in earth, but also things in heaven, the whole creation in a word, came into being by the command of God.

66. All translations from the HistoriaEcclesiastica are taken from that of A.C. MCGIFFERT, slightly modified.

372

S. MORLET

These parallels demonstrate a continuity between Eusebius’ apologetics, exegetical commentaries and writing of history. The Praeparatio contains a symphonia of Plato and the Old Testament; the Demonstratio, a symphonia of the Old Testament with the New Testament; the HistoriaEcclesiastica completes this harmonistic project with a symphonia of the New Testament and Josephus. All these works are parts of one and the same harmonistic endeavour. In the Historia, this effort concerns not only the NT and Josephus, but also Christian texts. In the course of his narrative, Eusebius increasingly mines Christian sources for information about the first Christian centuries. And whenever he can, he mentions the agreement of his sources: Irenaeus and Justin67, Papias and Clement68, Hegesippus and Clement69, Tertullian and Hegesippus70, Clement and Irenaeus71, Justin and Irenaeus72, Proclus and Polycarp73, Polycarp and Irenaeus74. In that respect, we may say that Eusebius not only extends Origen’s harmonistic endeavour to the field of history, but also to another kind of text: Christian literature. His remarks about the agreement of Christian authors ought to be read against how, in ContraMarcellum and EcclesiasticalTheology, he tries to construct Christian tradition as a harmonious body. Thus, the notion of ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ συγγραφεῖς in the Historia Ecclesiastica eventually leads him to the notion of ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ πατέρες in Contra Marcellum/Ecclesiastical Theology75. CONCLUSION: ORIGEN’S LEGACY IN EUSEBIUS SELECTION, SYSTEMATIZATION, EXTENSION There is a remarkable continuity between Origen and Eusebius regarding the notion of συμφωνία and the practice of symphonic exegesis – but also obvious differences.

67. HE II,13,5. 68. HE II,15,2. 69. HE II,23,19. 70. HE III,20,7. 71. HE III,23,5. 72. HE III,26,3. 73. HE III,31,4. 74. HE III,36,13. 75. See S. MORLET, Auxoriginesdel’argumentpatristique?Citationetautoritédans leContreMarceld’EusèbedeCésarée, in R. CEULEMANS – P. DE LEEMANS (eds.),OnGood Authority: Tradition, Compilation and the Construction of Authority in Literature from AntiquitytotheRenaissance, Turnhout, Brepols, 2015, 69-94.

SYMPHONIC EXEGESIS FROM ORIGEN TO EUSEBIUS

373

Both authors were inspired by what we may call a harmonistic project. Origen’s harmonistic project was primarily a scholarly one, while Eusebius’s was essentially apologetic in nature. Yet the two exegetes were not entirely different. We have seen that Origen’s symphonic exegesis already had a strong apologetic dimension. Eusebius’s apologetic project, for its part, is not devoid of scholarly concern. Eusebius seems to me to have selected and systematized a kind of material which exists in Origen, but which is only one aspect of a more diverse approach towards the notion of symphonia. The same difference between the two literary and doctrinal projects accounts, I think, for the fact that Eusebius’s approach towards symphonia is far more practical and excludes any explicit theoretical reflection. Once again, from the two sides of Origen’s work, the practice and the theory, Eusebius has kept only the practice. Ultimately, Eusebius’s contribution to the history of symphonia consists of the way he extended Origen’s exegetical vocabulary and technique to the field of history writing. In the Chronicle, likewise, he may have consciously adapted to history the canon format of the Hexapla. The form of the canones was also used to compose the CanonsoftheGospels and also the CanonsofthePsalms, if we agree with Martin Wallraff that this is a work by Eusebius76. These few examples show a central trend in Eusebius’s reception of Origen’s work: selection and systematization, but also extension in directions which Origen had no time or no interest to take. Sorbonne Université UMR 8167 “Orient et Méditerranée” Antiquité classique et tardive Labex RESMED [email protected]

Sébastien MORLET

76. M. WALLRAFF, TheCanonTablesofthePsalms:AnUnknownWorkofEusebius ofCaesarea, in DumbartonOaksPapers67 (2013) 1-14.

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

Thirty years ago, in the framework of OrigenianaQuinta – the fifth International Origen Conference held in Boston in 1989, John Antony McGuckin had presented a paper on CaesareaMaritimaasOrigenKnew It1. I can hardly add anything new to the historical or social aspects of this comprehensive study, except about archaeology and its bearing upon these and other cultural aspects. The year that article was published – 1992, the large scale excavations at the site just began. Lee Levine’s book, Caesarea underRomanRule, although published in 1975, is still valuable, especially pertaining to the Rabbinic sources and the Jewish community2. Born in Egypt, probably at Alexandria in ca. 185, and serving as a teacher and head of its Catechetical school, Origen first arrived in Caesarea in year 215 CE, fleeing from the massacre in Alexandria in the days of emperor Caracalla. Although still a layman, he was invited by the bishops Theoctistos of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem to preach at the church in front of them. This rose the protest of Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, who ordered him to return to his school right away. More than 15 years later, while on his way through Caesarea to Athens, he was ordained there to the priesthood. When back in Alexandria he was deprived by bishop Demetrius from his chair, deposed from the priesthood and sent into exile. In 231 CE he made Caesarea his abode, bringing with him his private Alexandrian library. In the school he established there he taught, wrote and preached until his death as a martyr in ca. 254, during the persecutions of Decius. I. HOW DID CAESAREA LOOK IN THE MID-THIRD CENTURY CE? Being a Roman city, Caesarea’s urban landscape as reflected in the archaeological finds was mainly pagan and not yet Christianized. We are still in a period before crosses of Christian churches started to dominate the skyline. 1. J.A. MCGUCKIN, CaesareaMaritimaasOrigenKnewIt, in R. DALY (ed.), Origeniana Quinta:Historica–TextandMethod–Biblica–Philosophica–Theologica–Origenism andLaterDevelopments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 3-25. 2. L.I. LEVINE, CaesareaunderRomanRule, Leiden, Brill, 1975.

376

J. PATRICH

Fig. 1 – Caesarea in the third century – a city without a wall (K.G. HOLUM – R.L. HOHLFELDER [eds.], KingHerod’sDream:Caesareaon theSea, New York – London, Norton, 1988, p. 133, fig. 89)

The city, proclaimed a Roman colony by Vespasian in 71 CE, was called Caesarea Stratonis after the founder of Straton’s Tower – the deserted Hellenistic town that preceded Caesarea. The memory of its real founder – Herod the Great, king of the Jews – had faded away. It was a provincial capital and the main harbor of the province Judaea-Palaestina. The fortified Herodian city lost its walls in the early second century, by the time of the emperor Hadrian. One wall was converted to a colonnaded street – the Wall Street3. Taking advantage of the paxromana, Caesarea became an unfortified city (fig. 1), and so it remained until the fifth century. Its eastern Herodian gate was replaced by a tetrapylon that was praised for its splendor4. It was a prominent landmark in the urban landscape. In 231 Caesarea was proclaimed metropolisPalaestinae by Alexander Severus. A free standing arcuate gate with an inscription giving its new title, erected at some distance from the Herodian Gate, marked the eastern municipal boundary of the city (fig. 2)5. Cemeteries had extended 3. J. PATRICH, TheWallStreet,theEasternStoa,theLocationoftheTetrapylon,and theHalakhicStatusofCaesareaMaritima(interpretingTosefta, Ahilot,18:13), in L. DI SEGNI – Y. HIRSCHFELD – J. PATRICH – R. TALGAM (eds.), Man Near a Roman Arch. StudiesPresentedtoProf.YoramTsafrir, Jerusalem, Israel Eploration Society, 2009, 142168, published also in ID., StudiesintheArchaeologyandHistoryofCaesareaMaritima. CaputIudaeae,MetropolisPalaestinae, Leiden ̶ Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, 41-70. 4. Expositiototiusmundietgentiumxxvi (ed. ROUGÉ 1966, p. 160). 5. For the inscription see: W. AMELING et al. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptonum Iudaeae/ Palaestinae:AMulti-lingualCorpusoftheInscriptionsfromAlexandertoMuhammad.

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

377

Fig. 2 – A Greek inscription incised on the eastern gate arch of the city, denoting that Caesarea was a metropolis – a provincial capital (J. Patrich)

beyond, and farther away were vineyards and fields. Its countryside was densely populated by villages, farmsteads and other installations. Its streets, with a sophisticated drainage system underneath, were stone-paved and dotted with numerous fountains and nymphaea (fig. 3). Two of them were colonnaded. Many of the street columns were incorporated into the Muslim and Crusader city walls and in the northern mole of the Crusader harbor. Running water was distributed to the fountains as well as to private consumers by a network of lead pipes that was installed under the paved streets. Fresh water came by an arcaded aqueduct – the Upper Level aqueduct from springs located on the slopes of Mt. Carmel on the NE (the tunnel-like Lower Level aqueduct, bringing water from the Tanninim water reservoir, was built only at the end of the third and early fourth century)6. Vol. 2: CaesareaandtheMiddleCoast:1121–2160, Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2011 (hereafter CIIP II), inscr. nos. 1370-71, pp. 328-331. 6. On the water supply see: Y. PORATH, TheWater-SupplytoCaesarea:ARe-assessment, in D. AMIT – J. PATRICH – Y. HIRSCHFELD (eds.), TheAqueductsofIsrael (Journal of Roman Archaeology. Suppl. Series, 46), Portsmouth, RI, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 104-129; J. PATRICH, DamsforWaterandAgricultureinIsrael, in F. BARATTE – Ch.J. ROBIN –

378

J. PATRICH

Fig. 3 – Remains of a nymphaeumwith niches for statues that were installed in the Roman period at the foot of the temple platform, in the northwestern corner (J. Patrich)

The harbor (Josephus, War I,409-413; Antiquities XV,332-338) (fig. 4) was vast and of deep waters, built into the open sea, using the most advanced Roman architectural techniques. The harbor was comprised of three parts – external, middle and internal. The present harbor occupies just its middle section. The external harbor was submerged below sea level; the internal one was clogged by sand and is presently covered by a lawn. There were many landing places, secondary anchorages, and vaulted shelters for sailors7. There were several brothels in Caesarea, serving the soldiers (Antiquities XIX.357). Some of them were presumably located near the harbor, serving the sailors. The harbor gave Caesarea much of its cosmopolitan atmosphere. It was a city of heterogeneous population, comprised of Jews, polytheists, Samaritans and Christians. Many languages were heard in its E. ROCCA (eds.), Regardscroisésd’Orientetd’Occident:Lesbarragesdansl’Antiquité tardive, Paris, de Boccard, 2014, 93-102, pp. 94-95. 7. On the architectural history of the harbor see: A. RABAN, TheHarbourofSebastos (Caesarea Maritima) in Its Roman Mediterranean Context (BAR International Series, 1930), Oxford, Archaeopress, 2009.

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

379

Fig. 4 – The SW zone of Caesarea, stretching from the harbor to the theater. Aerial photo, from the east (Ophir Ben Tov)

streets: Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. It was populated by sailors and merchants from all over the Mediterranean, soldiers, provincial officials, city people and farmers from the countryside, each dressed in his particular costume. All these also gave the city its cosmopolitan flavor. This is also apparent in the rich variety of currency in use and in its pantheon, as reflected in the statuary and the inscriptions8. Imperial involvement in the building projects in the city is attributed by inscriptions and literary sources (Malalas) to several emperors: Vespasian had converted a synagogue of a large capacity into an odeum and Antoninus Pius built in the city a public bath9. Under Hadrian (fig. 5), a second channel was added to the former aqueduct and the emperor was honored by a Hadrianeum – apparently a temple for his cult in which a monumental porphyry statue was placed10. 8. On the city coinage see: L. KADMAN, The Coins of Caesarea Maritima (Corpus NummorumPalaestinensium2), Tel Aviv – Jerusalem, Schocken, 1957. On the statuary: R. GERST, TheSculptureofCaesareaMaritima. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 1987 (Hebrew). For the inscriptions see CIIP II, supra note 5. 9. Malalas, Chronographia X,338, ed. DINDORF, 1831, p. 261; X,46, ed. THURN, 2000, p. 197 (odeum); XI,367, ed. DINDORF, 1831, p. 281; XI,25, ed. THURN, 2000, p. 212 (bath). 10. On this temple and its aftermath see: J. PATRICH, An Architectural Complex for FreeDistributionofBread(annonae populares / pane gradili)inLateAntiqueCaesarea Maritima? (forthcoming).

380

J. PATRICH

Fig. 5 – Headless statue seated on a throne, probably of Emperor Hadrian, purple porphyry (J. Patrich)

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

381

Fig. 6 – The praetorium of the Roman governor, plan (Idan Rabinowitz)

1. GovernmentalPalaces–Praetoria11 a. Herod’sPraetorium Caesarea had two praetoria for the most eminent provincial officials residing in the city: the provincial governor (first of a senatorial rank – a legatusaugustipropraetore, later proconsularis) and the financial procurator provinciae. Each of them had a praetorium for his residence and administration. The Roman governor was the chief commander of the Roman army and the chief judicial authority. He resided in the former palace of Herod, known as Herod’s praetorium (Acts 23,35) (fig. 6). The palace extended over two terraces. The lower, in two stories, served as the private wing. It occupied a natural promontory surrounded on three sides by the sea. In its center was a rectangular swimming pool of sweet water. It was surrounded by colonnades with planters set between the columns. The private residence, curvilinear in shape, was on the west, projecting deep into the sea. On the eastern side of the swimming pool was a reception hall with a mosaic floor. The upper terrace, located in land and to the east, had a courtyard surrounded by porticos in its center. It served as the administrative wing. The northern part comprised a bathhouse, an audience hall (fig. 7a-b), and a banqueting suite. Under the Roman governors 11. See J. PATRICH, The Praetoria of Caesarea Maritima, in R. ASSKAMP – T. ESCH (eds.), Imperium – Varus und seine Zeit. Beiträge zum internationalen Kolloquium des LWL-Römermuseumsam28.und29.April2008inMünster, Münster, Aschendorff, 2010, pp. 175-186, published also in ID., StudiesintheArchaeologyandHistoryofCaesarea Maritima(n. 3), 205-224.

382

J. PATRICH

Fig. 7a – The northern wing of the praetorium of the Roman governor, comprising the law court (Idan Rabinowitz)

Fig. 7b – The law court of the Roman governor – a proposed reconstruction (Idan Rabinowitz)

the palace was extended farther to the east. Here were uncovered another bathhouse, a centurions’ club-room (scholacenturionum), an office of the custodiarii in charge of the prison, and an office of the frumentarii – imperial secret agents. The central courtyard was decorated by statues of emperors, governors and other dignitaries. The audience hall, on the north, served as a law court (dikasterion). It must have been here that Ambrose, Origen’s benefactor, was brought to trial during the persecutions under

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

383

Maximinus (235-238; Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. VI,28), and likewise Origen himself during the persecutions under Decius (Hist.Eccl. VI,39). It seems that at that time the T-shaped water cistern installed under the courtyard was converted into a jail which might have been the dungeon in which Origen was later imprisoned (Hist.Eccl. VI,39). In this dark underground space were uncovered several Greek inscriptions smeared in mud on its walls, calling in despair: KyrieboethiProcopia12. Apparently Procopia was the name of one of the female prisoners – a touching piece of evidence for the atrocities that had occurred there. b. ThePraetoriumoftheFinancialProcurator(ofanEquestrianRank) (fig. 8). This praetorium was dedicated in 77/78 CE under Vespasian and Titus13. The public wing extended over two terraces. The upper terrace was built over a complex of 15 vaults. On the west, along the longitudinal axis of the compound, stood the audience hall – a rectangular basilica facing at this phase west, to the sea. The hall served as a law-court. To its south

Fig. 8 – The praetorium of the financial procurator, view from NE, a proposed reconstruction (Idan Rabinowitz) 12. CIIP II, inscr. no. 1178, p. 102. 13. CIIP II, inscr. no. 1282, pp. 238-239.

384

J. PATRICH

Fig. 9 – The archive / library of the praetorium of the financial procurator (Anna Iamim and Idan Rabinowitz)

were offices of clerks; to its north – a library or an archive, rectangular in shape in this phase, furnished with rectangular niches in which wooden armaria holding codices or archival files were placed (fig. 9). When first uncovered by the late Prof. Abraham Negev, he cautiously considered the possibility that this was the famous library of Caesarea14. Now we know that this is not the case. It was just a component of the financial praetorium. The famous library of Pamphilus and Eusebius, housing the private library of Origen, has not been uncovered so far. It was suggested that busts of Eurypides, Carniades and Olympiodorus uncovered in Caesarea once stood there15. The audience hall was first surrounded by a reflection 14. ThePalimpsestofCaesareaMaritima, IllustratedLondonNews6483 (Nov. 2, 1963) 731. In Negev’s words: “…should its identification as the remains of the famous library of Origen, later used by Eusebius, be dismissed as a preposterous hypothesis?”. This possible identification was also proposed by him in M. Avi Yonah (ed.), art. Caesarea, Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem, 1975, p. 280. Another option proposed there is that the structure was an early Christian school. 15. R. GERSHT, Atiqot 28, 1996, pp. 99ff., and likewise: J. GEIGER, DieOlympiodorbüsteausCaesarea, in ZDPV 113 (1997) 70-74. For reservations about this proposal see: CIIP II, inscr. no. 1399, pp. 356-358.

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

385

pool, later by a garden. Latin inscriptions (and one in Greek) refer to statues of imperial and provincial dignitaries that had adorned the praetorium16. The north-eastern corner of the complex, comprising seven rooms surrounding a central hall, served in later centuries (4th-7th) as a provincial taxation office (skrinion), in which served accountants and other clerks17. In the third century it served as a warehouse. The private wing, apparently located to the north, did not survive. 2. TheMunicipalAdministration18 The municipal authorities were second in rank after the governor and the financial procurator. The provincial authorities were not permitted to interfere with the internal affairs of the colony, that were administered by a curia and decuriones. The religious affairs were directed by pontifices and there was also a collegium of augures. The emperor cult and the games associated with it were controlled and financed by a group of six wealthy freedmen (seviriAugustales). Some of these officials and decuriones are attested in the Latin inscriptions19. Its citizens were granted Roman citizenship. The administrative language was Latin, and officials and soldiers serving in the governor’s officium were a significant component in the population of the city. Since the first Flavian emperors its citizens were exempt from the poll and land taxes. We may assume that the curiales and other eminent citizens lived in luxurious dwellings. In his Homilies on Genesis XI,2, Origen admonished Christians who “are proud of having a fine house or vast estates”. Such a house, though not of Christians, was uncovered in Caesarea – the so-called House of the Dioscuri – a villaurbana with an elaborate oecus serving as its triclinium and a vast peristyle garden in its center20. The walls were decorated with frescoes, and the floors were of mosaic. On the west it had a lavish private 16. W. ECK – H.M. COTTON, InscriptionsfromtheFinancialProcurator’sPraetorium inCaesarea, in DI-SEGNI etal. (eds.), ManNearaRomanArch (n. 3), 98*-114*. 17. J. PATRICH, TheArchitecturalEvolutionoftheLateAntiqueRevenueOfficeat CaesareaMaritima, in G.C. BOTTINI – L.D. CHRUPCAŁA – J. PATRICH (eds.),Knowledge andWisdom:ArchaeologicalandHistoricalEssaysinHonourofLeahDiSegni (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Maior, 54), Milano, Terra Santa, 2014, 63-87. On the inscriptions uncovered there see: CIIP II, # 1336, 1339, 1340, pp. 291-292, 295-297. 18. On Caesarea as a Roman colony see: J. PATRICH, OntheProclamationofCaesarea asaRomanColony, in ID., StudiesintheArchaeologyandHistoryofCaesareaMaritima (n. 3), 71-90. 19. CIIP II, inscr. 1358-81, pp. 317-339. 20. P. GENDELMAN – R. GERSHT, TheHouseoftheDioscuriatCaesarea, Qadmoniot 50/153 (2017) 33-42 (Hebrew).

386

J. PATRICH

bathhouse with a heating system and a cold graded basin suggesting that it was an immersion pool – a miqveh, and that its owner at the time was a Jew21. Yet on both sides of the oecus façade stood two Dioscurii next to a protome of a horse. The house, built in the early first century CE, was refurbished around 70 CE and was deserted in the first half of the third century, slightly before Origen settled in Caesarea, but there is no doubt that wealthy Caesareans continued to reside in similar houses. Most people, however, belonged to the lower classes of the proletariat, many of which are mentioned in the Rabbinic sources. The city was famous for its purple dye. There were merchants in brine, linen and silk, perfumes and spices; there were fullers and washers, leather cutters, glass blowers, smiths and stonemasons, carpenters, tilemakers, chandlers, bed manufacturers and shipwrights22. 3. APaganLandscape Graeco-Roman statuary dominated the public sphere. On top of an eminence overlooking the city and the Harbor stood the temple Herod built for Augustus and Rome (fig. 10)23. It was approached by a monumental staircase from the harbor. An octagonal church would replace the temple only 250 years after Origen. The emperor’s cult was celebrated each year in the temple and in a procession in the streets. On these occasions chariot races, munera and venationes were held in the hippo-stadium24. Herod also built other temples in the city and set cultic statues therein (War II,266). The Tiberieum built by Pontius Pilatus25 might have been a temple or an altar dedicated to the emperor Tiberius, located near the theater; according to another opinion it was a lighthouse26. The Hadrianeum, mentioned in an 21. This component, not published yet, was uncovered in excavations supervised by myself. 22. See LEVINE, CaesareaunderRomanRule (n. 2), pp. 52-53, 68-70. 23. K.G. HOLUM, Caesarea,AreaTP, in E. STERN etal. (eds.), TheNewEncyclopedia ofArchaeologicalExcavationsintheHolyLand,Vol. 5, Supplementary Volume, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 2008, pp. 1666-1667; J.A. STABLER etal., TheTemplePlatform (areaTP), in K.G. HOLUM – J.A. STABLER – E. REINHARDT (eds.), CaesareaReportsand Studies(BAR International Series, 1784),Oxford, Archaeopress, 2008, 17-23. 24. On this composite, multi-functional, entertainment complex see J. PATRICH, Herod’s Hippodrome/Stadium at Caesarea and the Games Conducted Therein, in L.V. RUTGERS (ed.), WhatHasAthenstoDowithJerusalem. EssaysinHonorofGideonFoerster,Leuven, Peeters, 2002, 29-68, republished with an update addendum in ID., StudiesintheArchaeologyandHistoryofCaesareaMaritima(n. 3), 177-204. 25. CIIP II, inscr. no. 1277, pp. 228-230. 26. G. ALFÖLDI, PontiusPilatusunddasTiberieumvonCaesareaMaritima, in Scripta ClassicaIsraelica 18 (1999) 85-108; ID., Nochmals:PontiusPilatusunddasTiberieum vonCaesareaMaritima, in ScriptaClassicaIsraelica 21 (2002) 133-148.

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

387

Fig. 10 – The Temple to Rome and Augustus overlooking the Harbor (Anna Iamim)

inscription of the Byzantine period27, seems to have been originally a temple for Hadrian. Cults for other deities are suggested by the city coins and by the statuary, though some of the statues might have served for decoration rather than for a public cult. Once a year, on March 5, the Tyche of the city (fig. 11) was honored in a feast commemorating the proclamation of Caesarea as a Roman colony28. According to Eusebius this was her birthday. She was conceived as the genius of the colony. Being assimilated with Isis, her feast coincided with the NavigiumIsidis – the renewal of the sailing season after the winter storms throughout the Mediterranean. The Louvre Cup indicates that such ceremonies were held in Caesarea down to the mid-fourth century. As in other maritime cities, the feast included a ceremonial procession in the streets from the temple to the seashore, where a vessel dedicated to the goddess was launched to the seawaves. The celebrants carried candelabra and oil lamps shaped like a boat and all sorts of liturgical vessels. A similar oil lamp of clay, with the inscription EYPLOIA – Good Sailing – on its bottom, was found in Caesarea, indicating that such yearly rites indeed took place in the city. 27. CIIP II, inscr. no. 1262, pp. 200-203. See also supra, n. 10. 28. Supra, n. 18.

388

J. PATRICH

Fig. 11 – Headless and limbless statue of the goddess Tyche, the goddess of fortune of the city, marble (Yishai Patrich)

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

389

Osiris and Isis were considered gods of salvation who grant immortality. Their followers participated in the rites of their mysteries, in which scenes of resurrection and rising from the netherworld were dramatized. An echo of such faith in the afterlife is found on a tombstone, in Greek, placed by parents over the grave of their children, who passed away within an hour of each other: their seven-year-old daughter, who was named Isidora for the goddess, and their son, Priscus Nemonianus, age 15. The parents, narrating the story of their abrupt death, appealed to Osiris to take care of their needs even after death. The inscription reads: , “… May Osiris give the cold water to you and to your sister who was carried off within the space of one hour with you…. May the earth [Gē] be light for you, and may those things she grants you below be good” (tr. CIIP II, inscr. no. 1531). A Mithraeum was installed in the third century – the time of Origen – in the northern vault under the audience hall of the praetorium of the financial procurator29. This was associated with another mystery rite, involving seven degrees of initiation and a ceremonial meal. Also found there was a round marble medallion presenting Mithras in relief in Anatolian costume and wearing a Phrygian cap, stabbing a bull in the neck with a dagger (tauroctony) as a sacrifice to the sun god – Sol (fig. 12a)30. Origen’s acquaintance with Persian mysteries (CC I,12), might have resulted from personal knowledge of the existence of this cult at Caesarea (fig. 12b)31. A statue of the Ephesian Artemis with multiple breasts (fig. 13), discovered in the Roman theater32, likely indicates that a rite was also dedicated to her in Caesarea, perhaps as a gift from the municipal council of Ephesus to the city of Caesarea. Another cult, probably personal and not public, is attested in a Greek inscription in fulfillment of a vow to Jupiter Dolichenus, the god of Doliche in Commagene in Asia Minor. He was also popular among soldiers, mainly 29. On this temple see: R. BULL, The Mithraeum at Caesarea Maritima, in Études Mithraiques, textes et mémoires 4 (1978) 75-89; R.J. PAINTER, The Origins and Social ContextofMithraismatCaesareaMaritima, in T.L. DONALDSON (ed.), ReligiousRivalries andtheStruggleforSuccessinCaesareaMaritima(Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 8), Waterloo, Ont., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000, 205-226; and more recently: R.J. BULL etal. (eds.), TheMithraeumatCaesareaMaritima (American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports, 25; Joint Expedition to Caesarea, 2), Boston, MA, American Schools of Oriental Research, 2017. 30. R. BULL, AMithraicMedallionfromCaesarea, in IsraelExplorationJournal24 (1974) 187-190. 31. See PAINTER, TheOriginsandSocialContextofMithraism(n. 29), p. 223. 32. A. FROVA, LastatuadiArtemideEfesiaaCaesareaMaritima, in Bollettinod’Arte delMinisterodellaPubblicaIstruzione4 (1962) 305-313.

390

J. PATRICH

Fig. 12a – Marble medallion depicting the Persian god Mithras stabbing his dagger into the neck of a bull, which symbolizes the forces of evil (Courtesy Israel Museum)

Fig. 12b – The Mithraeum, proposed reconstruction. View to the east (Idan Rabinowitz)

in the west. The dedicator was apparently a military man who had settled in Caesarea. Dedicatory inscriptions were also found to MegasDespotes (Great Lord), probably referring to a preeminent Syrian god of the type of Hadad or Baᶜalshamin. Another Syrian divinity to whom an altar was dedicated by a centurion in the first half of the second century is Turmasgade. From all these we learn of the prominent presence of the Roman army in the city and of its cosmopolitan character33. 33. On the oriental religions that prevailed in Caesarea see: R.J. PAINTER, Greco- RomanReligioninCaesareaMaritima, in DONALDSON (ed.), ReligiousRivalries(n. 29), 105-126, pp. 122-124.

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

391

Fig. 13 – A headless, armless statue depicting the goddess Artemis of Ephesus, marble (Courtesy Israel Museum)

392

J. PATRICH

A pagan flavor was imparted to the city not only by cults and temples, but also by statues that decorated its streets, piazzas and public buildings. Here are some examples34: – At the mouth of the harbor stood colossal statues, three on either side, resting on columns. – Many of the marble statues portray goddesses. Such is a headless statue of Athena dated to the second or early third century CE (fig. 14a). – A torso of Tyche Fortuna holding a cornucopia decorated with flowers (fig. 14b). – A headless and limbless statue of Aphrodite pudica, striving to cover her nakedness (fig. 14c). – A statue of the genius of Caesarea (fig. 14d). – A torso of a military officer – an emperor or a governor (fig. 14e). – A marble Bust of Dionysus (fig. 15). The reverse of the city coins (fig. 16), issued by the municipal authorities, reflect this same pagan essence. L.I. Levine pointed out an anomaly in the Roman city coins of Caesarea – the extraordinarily large number of types issued in the period of our concern: under Trajan Decius (249251 CE) – 75 reverse types; under Trebonianus Gallus (251-253 CE) – 33 reverse types (i.e., 108 in total, as against 103 reverse types on coins of the colony issued under all earlier emperors), many of which depict pagan deities. On the earlier coins we find Serapis, Apollo, Dionysus and Demeter; on the later ones we find many more: Zeus, Dionysus and Demeter in various types, Poseidon, Helios, Ares, Hygeia, Roma and Tyche – the city goddess. There are also other pagan scenes and symbols: an altar flanked by two trees; the Cysta mystica between four torches, associated with the cult of Demeter; an eagle grasping a wreath in its beak. Levine suggests convincingly that their “purpose was to bring about a revival of the pagan religion, to proclaim the glory of Rome and to inculcate loyalty to the state and the emperor”. He maintains that they reflect pagan propaganda against the increasing power of the Christians in Caesarea, a campaign that eventually led to the persecution of Christians in the city under Trajan Decius35. Origen’s ContraCelsum should be understood also in light of such a reality.

34. Many of the statues are on exhibit in the Museum of Archaeology in Kibbutz Sdot Yam, located to the south of the archeological site of ancient Caesarea. 35. L. LEVINE, SomeObservationsontheCoinsofCaesareaMaritima, in IsraelExplorationJournal22 (1972) 131-140.

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

Fig. 14a – Headless statue of Athena. The aegis lies diagonally from her left shoulder to the right hip and is fold in such a manner that only half the face of a Gorgon is visible. Second half of the second century or early third century CE. (Yishai Patrich)

Fig. 14c – Lower part of the body, missing feet, of Aphrodite pudica, striving to cover her nakedness (Yishai Patrich)

393

Fig. 14b – Torso of Tyche Fortuna, the goddess of fortune, holding a horn of plenty (cornucopia) decorated with flowers (Yishai Patrich)

394

J. PATRICH

Fig. 14e Male torso wearing armor. It apparently depicted one of the emperors or governors/ army commanders who was positioned in Caesarea. End of first or beginning of the second century CE. Marble (Yishai Patrich)

Fig. 14d – A statue of the genius of Caesarea with a cornucopia near his foot. It was found in a fill near the northern niche of the nymphaeum (Yishai Patrich)

Fig. 15 – Bust of Dionysus, marble (Courtesy the Maritime Museum, Haifa)

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

395

Fig. 16 – City coins of Caesarea (Y. MESHORER, TheCityCoinsofEretz-IsraelandtheDedapolisintheRoman Period, Jerusalem, Israel Museum, 1984, pp. 20-21)

Similar pagan iconography dominated the city of the dead – the necropolis of Caesarea, as is reflected by several magnificent sarcophagi that have survived, though partially damaged (figs. 17a-b). In contrast, later Christian sarcophagi are plain, bearing only the names of the deceased. And there was also magic in Caesarea, as is reflected by its gems and amulets36. Many of the gems served as magical amulets, not just as pieces of jewelry (fig. 18). In addition to a large variety of Graeco-Roman deities, some were of Egyptian origin (not just the Hellenized Isis, Osiris / Serapis and Harpocrates, but also Chanoubis and Zeus-Amon) and others of Anatolian origin (Kybele, Men – the Phrygian moon god – and several syncretistic divinities). Others depict serpent-tailed lions, the sacrifice of Isaac surrounded by Greek letters (only EEEE AA are preserved), the zodiac, the well-known magical invocation IAW (that was not restricted to Jewish use), and the snake Ouroboros, with his tail in his mouth encircling 36. 165 of them were published years ago by A. HAMBURGER, GemsfromCaesarea Maritima, in ‘Atiqot(EnglishSeries) 8 (1968) 1-38. Others, more recently: SH. AMORAISTARK – M. HERSHKOVITZ, Ancient Gems, Finger Rings and Seal Boxes from Caesarea Maritima: TheHendlerCollection, n.p., n.p., 2016. An amulet depicting on its obverse a harvester with a broken back and on the reverse a Greek inscription asking for healthy loins (a lumbago amulet), like gem no. 123 in HAMBURGER, Gems, was recently uncovered in the excavations of the Late Roman warehouses in area KK. See PATRICH, Studiesinthe ArchaeologyandHistoryofCaesareaMaritima(n. 3), fig. 68.

396

J. PATRICH

Fig. 17a Sarcophagus of the Battle of the Amazons. Discovered in 1924 in a burial estate at Tel Mevorakh, north of Caesarea. Second–third century CE. Lying on the lid are a man and woman whose heads have been mutilated. Sculpted on the front panel, on two levels, are twelve figures (seven Greeks and five Amazons) and five horses. The Amazons are armed with spears and wearing Phrygian caps. The naked Greeks are wearing helmets (J. Patrich)

Fig. 17b A sarcophagus with a Dionysian scene. Only the lower part survives. Shown on the front are satyrs, maenads, and cupids. Also recognizable are the legs of a panther that apparently stood alongside Dionysus (J. Patrich)

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

397

Fig. 18 A haematite stone amulet. The obverse depicts a horseman subduing an enemy with his spear; a Greek inscription is around his head: “Solomon”. On the reverse is a Greek inscription: “the seal of God” (HAMBURGER, n. 36)

letters which are difficult to interpret. Other noteworthy gems depict Horos/ Harpocrates surrounded by animals and letters, a head of Gorgo, clasped hands, a kalathos, a capricorn, Pegasus, rustic scenes, Satyr/Pan, two cocks, a dolphin, fish and shrimp, ants, a scorpion, a tripod with a mouse on it and more. Some of the amulets can be attributed to Jews and Samaritans; not all served the pagans exclusively. In the excavations of the stadium were found several defixiones with long magical texts37. 4. EntertainmentStructuresandGames38 The games and spectacles held in the city were not merely intended for leisure and entertainment, or as a means to control the public. They were also associated with the cults of pagan deities maintained on behalf of the state. Caesarea had six entertainment facilities: 37. CIIP II, inscr. nos. 1679-80, pp. 559-567. 38. See: J. PATRICH, CaesareaintheTimeofEusebius, in S. INOWLOCKI – C. ZAMAGNI (eds.), ReconsideringEusebius:CollectedPapersonLiterary,Historical,andTheological Issues, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, 1-24, and 14 figs. at the end of the book, pp. 18-22.

398

J. PATRICH

Fig. 19a A frieze fragment from the scaenefrons of the theater, marble (Yishai Patrich)

Fig. 19b – Two scenes of libation on an altar set between two figures – a priest wearing a long garment and an assistant in a short clothing, marble. From the proscaenium of the Roman theater (J. Patrich)

Herod’s kurkar theatre was later enlarged and elaborated, refurbished in marble by Septimius Severus (fig. 19a-b). In the second or third century a second theater was constructed. Caesarea also had an odeum with a large seating capacity. What Josephus describes as Herod’s “amphitheater” (AntiquitiesXV,341; WarI,415), a U-shaped hippo-stadium with an arena approximately 300 m by 50 m in size, was locally known as “the great stadium” (War II,172), or just “stadium” (Antiquities XVIII,57). It had a

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

399

Fig. 20a – The hippo-stadium. Looking north (Idan Rabinowitz)

capacity of roughly 10,000 spectators. Under Hadrian, new starting gates were installed at its northern end, with a large central gate in the middle. They had a radial layout to permit a Roman style start (fig. 20a-b). Under the center of the eastern seats was a sacellum dedicated to Kore (fig. 20c). Athletes and charioteers addressed the goddess to give strength for their

400

J. PATRICH

Fig. 20b – The dignitaries’ platform (pulvinar / kathisma) of the hippo-stadium (Idan Rabinowitz).

Fig. 20c – The sacellum of the hippo-stadium (Idan Rabinowitz).

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

401

Fig. 21a – Tombstone of a triumphant athlete (Aharon Levine, USA)

Fig. 21b – Inscription mentioning Myrismos the charioteer (Yishai Patrich)

feet and stability to the hands holding the reins (fig. 21a-c). By the early fourth century the arena was shortened and the structure was converted to an oval amphitheater in which Christian martyrs were preyed upon by wild animals. After the triumph of Christianity the pagan shrine (sacellum) was converted to a martyrs’ chapel, but this postdates the time of Origen.

402

J. PATRICH

Fig. 21c Reconstruction of a scene with vegetation and running animals painted on the podium of the seats of the hippo-stadium(J. Patrich)

Hadrian added a Roman circus in the south-eastern outskirts of the city, with an arena approximately 450 m by 90 m in size. It was adorned with an obelisk at its center and a full-fledged spina (fig. 22a-b). Sometime in the second or third century an oval amphitheater was installed in the north-eastern sector of the city. Caesarea also had a ludon for the training of gladiators. The inauguration of the city in September of 9 BCE took place with pomp and ceremony. The celebrations consisted of contests in music (mousika), athletics (gymnika), and horse and chariot racing (hippika) – three elements typical of Greek games. But in addition they contained elements of Roman spectacles: pitting wild animals one against another; gladiatorial combat (muneragladiatorum); executing convicted criminals by exposing them to wild beasts in the arena; and animal hunts (venationes/kynegion). Herod established the inauguration games as quinquennial games in the same style, to be celebrated every four years, commemorating Augustus’s triumph over Antony at Actium in September of 31 BCE. Hence the games were known as the Isactium of Caesarea. They continued to be held in Caesarea until the third century39. 39. M. LÄMMER, Die Kaiserspiele von Caesarea im Dienste der Politik des Königs Herodes, KölnerBeiträgezurSportwissenschaft 3 (1974) 95-164; D.R. SCHWARTZ, “Caesarea” and Its “Isactium”: Epigraphy, Numismatics and Herodian Chronology, in ID., StudiesintheJewishBackgroundofChristianity (WUNT, 60), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1992, 167-181.

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

403

Fig. 22a – The re-erected obelisk of the Roman circus (J. Patrich)

Fig. 22b – The porphyry cones decorating the far turning point (metaprima) of the spina in the Roman circus (J. Patrich)

404

J. PATRICH

Another occasion for spectacles of this kind was the celebration of the diesimperii in honor of the ruling emperor. Under Diocletian this feast was celebrated each year throughout the empire on November 20; under earlier emperors other diesimperiiwere in effect40. II. RELIGIONS AND CULTURES 1. GreekWisdom41 It is common that in discussions about Origen in Caesarea, considerable attention is given to Christians and Jews who resided there. The majority of the population was, however, Gentile. The gentiles, Greeks or Syrians according to Josephus, conceived of themselves as descendants of the Hellenistic town of Straton’s Tower. The foundation myth of Straton was kept alive among them and celebrated in the city up to the mid-fourth century, as is evident in the contemporary “Louvre Cup”42. Greco-Roman culture dominated the urban scape for obvious reasons, but elaborate and sophisticated Greek wisdom thrived there as well, as in many other Roman cities in Palestine43. Already in the first century CE the famous philosopher Apollonius of Tyana (Epistula 11) had praised the city in a letter to its councilors for its Greek ethics, its laws and customs (cf. also War III,409). Varius Seleucus, curator of the ships of the Roman colony, honored his patron – a philosopher, by erecting a statue with a dedicatory inscription on a column dated to the second century CE44. A dozen and a half persons of letters who wrote in Greek and Latin originated in the city45. An orator named M. Flavius Agrippa, who served as a pontifex and duumvir of the 40. For the exact dates of ascending to the throne in the period of anarchy in the third century, up to Diocletian (when Origen was residing in Caesarea, 231-254), see M. PEACHIN, RomanImperialTitulatureandChronology, A.D.235-284(Studia Amstelodamensia ad Epigraphicam, ius Antiquum et Papyrologicam pertinentia, 29), Leiden, Brill, 1989, pp. 25-50. I am indebted to the anonymous reviewer of the article for this comment and references. 41. On Caesarea as an intellectual center see also PATRICH, StudiesintheArchaeology andHistoryofCaesareaMaritima (n. 3),pp. 114-116. 42. See supra, n. 18. 43. This fact, generally ignored, is at the focus of J. GEIGER, The Tents of Japhet: Greek Intellectuals in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi, 2012 (Hebrew), and Hellenism in the East: Studies on Greek Intellectuals in Palestine, Leiden, Brill, 2014, and in his more recent article: Lawyers in Late Antique Palestine, in D.M. SCHAPS – U. YIFTACH – D. DUECK (eds.), WhenWestMetEast:TheEncounterofGreeceandRome with the Jews, Egyptians, and Others: Studies Presented to Ranon Katzoff in Honor of His75thBirthday, Trieste, Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2016, 155-165. 44. CIIP II, inscr. no. 1266, pp. 210-212. 45. J. GEIGER, HowMuchLatininGreekPalestine?, in H. ROSEN (ed.), AspectsofLatin: PapersfromtheSeventhInternationalColloquiumonLatinLinguistics,Jerusalem,April1993 (Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, 86), Innsbruck, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

405

Roman colony, is attested at the end of the first or early second century CE46. Since the second and third centuries, Caesarea was renowned for its school of Roman law and as a center of secular Latin and Greek education and philosophy. It continued to maintain this reputation under Christian dominance, though most of the available information postdates Origen. Though according to Geiger, the only certain fact concerning a school of law in Caesarea is Justinian’s prohibition of 533 of teaching there, he names seven lawyers who were active in Caesarea in the fourth to sixth centuries. We know that Origen’s school of Christian theology was open to pagans and Christian alike and provided also secular education. His liberal curriculum included astronomy, mathematics, geometry, geography and philosophy. According to Perrone, philosophy and grammar, though part of the curriculum, were downgraded by Origen47. Where did this instruction take place? Graded, elongated U-shaped auditoria uncovered in Kom el-Dikka in Alexandria served as the classrooms of the academy there48. Similar structures have so far not been uncovered in Caesarea, but the Alexandrian ones provide a general idea about the structure and layout of an ancient academy. It would seem that Origen’s classes were held in similar buildings. 2. TheJews As for the Jews, Origen was introduced to a certain Jewish tradition by a Jew who believed in Christ (SelectainEzechielem 9,4; PG 13, 801); he attacked members of his congregation who followed Jewish religious practices (CMt XV,1;PG 13, 1621), and criticized Christian women of Caesarea for observing the Sabbath by refraining from bathing on that day (HIer XII,13; PG 13, 395C). In the early third century Caesarea became renowned for its Jewish academy. It was founded by Bar Qappara and Rabbi Hoshaya in ca. 230 (at about the same time Origen had established his residence in Caesarea). Referred to repeatedly as a “Father of the Mishnah” (JT Qiddushin 1,60a; der Universität Innsbruck, 39-57; ID., TheTentsofJaphet (n. 43), pp. 40-41, 139 and index; HellenismintheEast (n. 43), pp. 140-142 and index. 46. CIIPII, inscr. no. 2095, pp. 810-812. 47. See his paper in the present volume. 48. T. DERDA – T. MARKIEWICZ – E. WIPSZYCKA (eds.), Alexandria: Auditoria of Kom el-Dikka and Late Antique Education, Warsaw, Institute of Archaeology, 2007; G. MAJCHEREK, TheAuditoriaonKomel-Dikka:AGlimpseofLateAntiqueEducation inAlexandria, ProceedingsoftheTwenty-FifthInternationalCongressofPapyrology(Ann Arbor 2007 American Studies in Papyrology), Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press, 2010, pp. 471-484.

406

J. PATRICH

Fig. 23 – Reconstruction and fragments of the twenty-four priestly courses inscription – a kind of liturgical calendar that preserved the tradition of the weekly service of priestly families in the Temple, marble. Found in Caesarea (CIIP II, inscr. no. 1145)

JT BabaQamma 4,4c), Rabbi Hoshaya headed it until his death in about 250 (Origen died ca. 254). His most prominent pupil was R. Joḥanan – the future head of the academy of Tiberias. In ca. 260-265, R. Jose b. Ḥanina (d. ca. 280) was the head of the academy for five years (260-265), and after him – R. Abbahu (d. 309 CE). In his days the academy of Caesarea achieved its greatest prominence (fig. 23)49. 49. See LEVINE, CaesareaunderRomanRule (n. 2), pp. 61-106; MCGUCKIN, Caesarea MaritimaasOrigenKnewIt (n. 1).

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

407

As was already mentioned, a Jewish synagogue of a large capacity was converted by Vespasian to an odeum. This was perhaps the ‫בי אבידן‬, in which religious controversies between Jews and Christians were held50. Some of them were held before large audience (CC I,45). The synagogue on account of which the first Jewish Revolt had erupted in Caesarea, known as KnishtaDeMaradetha – the Rebellion Synagogue – served Rabbi Abbahu both as a house of prayer and an academy – a place of learning (beth midrash). The remains of one synagogue of the 4th-7th centuries, yielding seven Greek inscriptions, were uncovered in the northern part of the Herodian city51. More recently another structure that might have served as a synagogue was uncovered in the vaults of the ruined oval amphitheater that collapsed in an earthquake in the early fourth century, so it seems. The Jews also had their own cemeteries on the outskirts of the city. 3. TheSamaritans According to Eusebius52, a war erupted between the Jews and the Samaritans in 197 CE, during the rule of Septimius Severus (193-211 CE). Its causes and results are not clear. Origen (CC II,13,101ff.) relates that the Romans had deprived the Samaritans of some religious privileges which were permitted to the Jews (such as circumcision). According to a Rabbinic source (y Demai 2, 1, 22c), in the third century the Samaritans constituted the largest ethnic group in the Caesarea; the Jews outnumbered them only together with the gentiles. There was much friction between the two communities, and by the third century they were considered by the Jews as gentiles. Earlier they were involved in commercial transactions. A decisive schism occurred in the time of R. Abbahu, around 300 CE. Samaritans served in the governor’s staff (y AvodaZara 1, 2, 39c) and in the army. A Samaritan synagogue uncovered on the eastern part of the former palace of the Roman governor is to be attributed to the fifth or sixth century, long after Origen. Their presence in the city is attested also by their typical oil lamps, amulets and several inscriptions, including burial ones.

50. BTShabbath 116a and 152a; ῾AvodaZara 17b. LEVINE, CaesareaunderRoman Rule (n. 2), pp. 82-83. 51. CIIP II, inscr. no. 1139-1145, pp. 54-68. 52. In Jerome’s translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius: Eusebius Caesariensis, Chronicon, in DieChronikdesHieronymus, ed. R. HELM (GCS, 47), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1956, p. 211. See also LEVINE, CaesareaunderRomanRule (n. 2), pp. 64 and 192, n. 30.

408

J. PATRICH

4. TheChristians As for the Christians, I would like to elaborate on just one point. In the first century the Christians used to assemble in private houses of their members, such as Cornelius – the commander of the “Italian cohort” in the city –, the first gentile to be baptized together with his household by Peter (Acts 10,27.34-43). In later periods this house and that of Philip the Evangelist and his four virgin daughters were converted to chapels and were shown to Christian pilgrims53. Where did Origen preach in front of bishops, clergy and laity? Was there a church in Caesarea in those early days? An ekklesia with a liturgical focus – an agiasma – perhaps an altar, is mentioned by Eusebius in the martyrdom of Marinus during the persecutions of 260 CE, under Gallienus (Hist. Eccl. VII,15). This ekklesia seems to have been an assembly hall of the aulae ecclesiae type, that according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. VIII,2,1) served the Christians as houses of prayer – proseukteria. This kind of hall was first built only during the “Small Peace of the Church” that followed these persecutions. In Origen’s days Christians still used to assemble in private houses that served the community – domusecclesiae – like the one exposed in the village of Legio, not far from Caesarea54. The numismatic and pottery evidence indicate that it was contemporary with the period with which we are concerned: it was built in the early third century and was abandoned at the end of that century. This was a simple courtyard house. In its south-west corner was exposed a mosaic-paved hall with benches all around, in the center of which stood a table on a stone pedestal. Three Greek inscriptions set in the floor mention the names of members of the community – mainly women. One of them is a dedication of a table (trapeza in the Greek) to the God Jesus Christ (IesouChristou). It reads: “The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to the God Jesus Christ as a memorial” (tr. L. Di Segni). It is clear that we have here an assembly hall of a Christian community. Two fishes – common Christian symbols – in an octagonal medallion are depicted on one of the mosaic carpets. The different orientation of the inscriptions suggest that the focus was on the table – trapeza 53. L.M. WHITE, TheSocialOriginsofChristianArchitecture. Vol. 1:BuildingGod’s HouseintheRomanWorld:ArchitecturalAdaptationamongPagans,JewsandChristians, Valley Forge, PA, Trinity Press, 1990, pp. 11-25, 102-139; Vol. 2: TextsandMonuments for the Christian Domus Ecclesiae in its Environment, Valley Forge, PA, Trinity Press, 1997. 54. Y. TEPPER – L. DI SEGNI, AChristianPrayerHalloftheThirdCenturyCEatKefar ‘Othnay(Legio):ExcavationsattheMegiddoPrison2005, Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority, 2006.

CAESAREA MARITIMA IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN

409

– located at the center of the room. Of particular interest is the fact that a Roman centurion was a member of this congregation. This and other finds in Legio demonstrate the deep infiltration of Christianity into the ranks of the Roman army in the third century. This is also attested in Caesarea in the martyrdom of Marinus mentioned above. A similar domusecclesiae may one day be found also in Caesarea55. Hebrew University of Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology Mt. Scopus Jerusalem Israel [email protected]

Joseph PATRICH

55. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer of this article for his useful comments.

III. ORIGEN’S LATIN LEGACY: RUFINUS AND JEROME

ORIGEN, JEROME’S PAULINE PREFACES, AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF EXEGETICAL AUTHORITY

Until the middle of the fourth century, the exegesis of Paul’s epistles had been monopolized by commentators writing in Greek and Syriac1. Then, in the space of half a century, between the early 360s and 409, there appeared no less than fifty-two Pauline commentaries in Latin by six different authors2. This unprecedented burst of Latin-language exegetical activity has been dubbed the western “Renaissance of Paul”3. Jerome himself composed four commentaries: on the epistles to Philemon, the Galatians, the Ephesians, and Titus. He dictated them in quick succession in the summer of 3864, within several months of having settled into Bethlehem, and he dedicated them to Paula and Eustochium, his literary patrons from Rome who also had relocated recently to Bethlehem5. * I thank the conference organizers for their exceptional generosity as hosts and for inviting me to deliver a version of this paper as a plenary address. 1. For a conspectus, see J. LIGHTFOOT, TheEpistleofSt.PaultotheGalatians, London, MacMillian and Co., 1874, pp. 218-226. Cf. C.H. TURNER, GreekPatristicCommentarieson thePaulineEpistles, in J. HASTINGS (ed.), ADictionaryoftheBible.Supplement, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1898, 484-531. 2. In chronological order – Marius Victorinus: Galatians, Philippians, Ephesians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians (early/middle 360s); Ambrosiaster: complete Pauline corpus (370s and early 380s); Jerome: Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, Titus (386); Augustine: Romans (unfinished), Galatians (before 396); “Budapest Anonymous”: complete Pauline corpus (between 396 and 405); Pelagius: complete Pauline corpus (between 406 and 409). 3. This expression was coined by K. FROEHLICH, Which Paul? Observations on the ImageoftheApostleintheHistoryofBiblicalExegesis, in B. NASSIF (ed.), NewPerspectives onHistoricalTheology, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1996, 279-299, p. 285. For more on this explosion in Pauline studies in the late antique West, see M.G. MARA, Ricerche storico-esegetichesullapresenzadelcorpuspaolinonellastoriadelcristianesimodal IIalVsecolo, in EAD., PaolodiTarsoeilsuoepistolario, Aquila, Japadre, 1983, 6-64; J. LÖSSL, Augustine, ‘Pelagianism’, Julian of Aeclanum, and Modern Scholarship, in ZAC 10 (2007) 129-150, esp. pp. 129-133. For studies of the patristic reception of Paul more generally, see M. WILES, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in theEarlyChurch, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1967; A. LINDEMANN, Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen TheologieinderfrühchristlichenLiteraturbisMarcion, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1979; F. COCCHINI, Il Paolo di Origene: Contributo alla storia della recezione delle epistole paolinenelIIIsecolo, Roma, Studium, 1992. 4. P. NAUTIN, La date des commentaires de Jérôme sur les épîtres pauliniennes, in Revued’HistoireEcclésiastique74 (1979) 5-12. 5. On Jerome’s relations with Paula, see A. CAIN, Jerome’sEpitaphonPaula:ACommentary on the Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae, with an Introduction, Text, and Translation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.

414

A. CAIN

Jerome’s commentaries occupy a time-honored place in the history of the Latin patristic exegesis of Paul’s writings, and they also have immense significance within the broader scope of his own literary career, for at least three reasons. First of all, they were his inaugural literary productions in Bethlehem6, where he would live until his death in c. 419. Second, they constitute his first foray into sustained, systematic exegesis of whole biblical books7, which in the coming decades was to become one of his scholarly preoccupations8. Third, and most relevant to our purposes now, they offer a fascinating case study in how Jerome, at a time when he was still a novice at biblical interpretation, engaged with his Greek exegetical models – most of all, Origen – as he tried to forge his own way forward as a commentator. A synoptic comparison of the surviving fragments of Origen’s Pauline commentaries with the corresponding parts of Jerome’s reveals just how extensive and multi-layered his indebtedness to Origen in fact was9. The focus of this paper, however, is not on his actual dependence upon Origen (and other Greek authorities) but rather on how he rhetorically represents this dependence in the prefaces to his Pauline commentaries and on what this nuanced representation reveals about Jerome’s construction of his exegetical authority.

I. JEROME CONTRA MARIUS VICTORINUS Jerome’s fellow Latin commentators on Paul affixed to their commentaries short, non-literary prefaces which deal with traditional expository 6. For an overview of his literary activity during his first several years in Bethlehem, see P. NAUTIN, L’activitélittérairedeJérômede387à392, in RevuedeThéologieeted Philosophie 115 (1983) 247-259. 7. I exclude from consideration a lost commentary on Obadiah he composed in the middle 370s, a work to which he refers dismissively in the preface to his second commentary on this Minor Prophet, written in early 396 (see CCSL 76, 349). 8. His subsequent output encompassed full-scale commentaries on Ecclesiastes (388-389), Nahum (392-393), Micah (392-393), Zephaniah (392-393), Haggai (392-393), Habakkuk (392-393), Jonah (396), Obadiah (396), Matthew (398), Zechariah (406), Malachi (406), Hosea (406), Joel (406), Amos (406), Daniel (407), Isaiah (408-410), Ezekiel (410-414), and Jeremiah (414-416). 9. See A. SOUTER, TheEarliestLatinCommentariesontheEpistlesofSt.Paul, Oxford, Clarendon, 1927, pp. 110-125; M. SCHATKIN, TheInfluenceofOrigenuponSt.Jerome’s CommentaryonGalatians, in VigChr 24 (1970) 49-58; TheCommentariesofOrigenand JeromeonSt.Paul’sEpistletotheEphesians, transl. R.E. HEINE (The Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002; G. RASPANTI, Adgrediaropusintemptatum. L’AdGalatasdiGirolamoeglisviluppidelcommentariobiblicolatino, in Adamantius 10 (2004) 194-216, pp. 199-207. For Jerome’s incorporation of Latin patristic literary references into his Pauline commentaries, see A. CAIN, Tertullian,Cyprian,andLactantiusinJerome’s CommentaryonGalatians, in RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes 55 (2009) 23-51.

ARCHITECTURE OF EXEGETICAL AUTHORITY

415

matters such as identifying an epistle’s provenance and occasion, outlining its contents, and summarizing its theological themes and arguments10. Jerome’s Pauline prefaces, by contrast, are longer, sometimes elaborate literary prefaces which do cover traditional expository content but also address topics which are unrelated to the Pauline epistle in question11. For instance, near the beginning of the preface to Book 1 of his Galatians commentary he situates his exegetical venture in a broader literary-historical context: I shall undertake a work not attempted before me by writers in our language and executed by only a very choice few of the Greeks themselves in a manner warranted by the grandeur of the subject matter. I am not unaware that Gaius Marius Victorinus, who taught rhetoric at Rome when I was a boy, produced commentaries on the Apostle. However, because he was engrossed in erudition in secular literature, he was completely ignorant of the Scriptures, and nobody – no matter how eloquent he may be – is able to discuss competently what he does not know12.

Jerome takes direct aim at Marius Victorinus, the Neoplatonist philosopher and professor of rhetoric at Rome who, some twenty years earlier, had become the first Latin-speaking Christian on record to compose 10. For an overview, see S. LUNN-ROCKCLIFFE, PrologueTopicsandTranslationProblemsinLatinCommentariesonPaul, in J. LÖSSL – J. WATT (eds.), InterpretingtheBible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2011, 33-47. On the preface to the patristic biblical commentary as a minor literary genre unto itself with its own conventions, see M. SKEB, Exegese und Lebensform: Die Proömien der antiken griechischen Bibelkommentare, Leiden, Brill, 2007; cf. I. HADOT, Lesintroductionsauxcommentairesexégétiqueschez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens, in M. TARDIEU (ed.), Les règles de l’interprétation, Paris, Cerf, 1987, 99-122; D. CIARLO, Iprologhineicommentipatristici aiProfetitraquartoequintosecolo, in Augustinianum 52 (2012) 383-416. 11. These individual prefaces, which vary widely from one another in both length and subject matter, may be organized under three discrete headings according to their content: exclusively expository (Phil, Tit, Gal 2, Eph 3), a mixture of expository and non-expository (Gal 1, Eph 1), and exclusively non-expository (Gal 3, Eph 2). In this chapter we will concern ourselves with the prefaces belonging to these latter two categories. Jerome displays his characteristic literary resourcefulness and versatility in the prefaces to his Pauline commentaries. On Jerome’s documented tendency to use his prefaces for apologetic and polemical purposes, see A. CAIN, ApologyandPolemicinJerome’sPrefacestoHisBiblicalScholarship, in E. BIRNBAUM – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Hieronymus alsExegetundTheologe:DerKoheletkommentar, Leuven, Peeters, 2014, 107-128. 12. Adgrediar opus intemptatum ante me linguae nostrae scriptoribus et a Graecis quoque ipsis vix paucis, ut rei poscebat dignitas, usurpatum. non quo ignorem Gaium MariumVictorinum,quiRomaemepuerorhetoricamdocuit,edidissecommentariosin apostolum,sedquodoccupatusilleeruditionesaeculariumlitterarumscripturasomnino sanctasignoraveritetnemopossit,quamviseloquens,deeobenedisputarequodnesciat. This and other quotations from the Commentary on Galatians are from S. Hieronymi presbyteriopera:CommentariiinepistulamPauliapostoliadGalatas, ed. G. RASPANTI (CCSL, 77A), Turnhout, Brepols, 2006. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.

416

A. CAIN

commentaries on Paul’s epistles13. Jerome’s stated objection to Victorinus’ work on Paul is, quite simply, its author’s sheer incompetence: “He was completely ignorant of the Scriptures” (scripturasomninosanctasignoraverit). He attributes this ignorance to Victorinus’ involvement with pagan literature – most probably a derisive allusion to the secular wing of the professor’s prodigious and varied literary output, which included grammatical works (Arsgrammatica14 and Liberdedefinitionibus15) and commentaries on Cicero’s Topica (now lost) andDeinventione16, a translation of Porphyry’s IntroductiontoAristotle’sCategories, and possibly translations of Aristotle’s Categories and OnInterpretation17. What exactly does Jerome mean when he describes Victorinus as being “completely ignorant of the Scriptures”? In all probability, he intended this charge not as a generic, arbitrary jibe but rather as a substantive, yet allusive, critique of a peculiar aspect of Victorinus’ exegetical technique: he rarely quotes the Old Testament, overwhelmingly confining his Scriptural cross-references to the Pauline corpus18. Whether this intensive focus on the Pauline corpus is to be attributed to an imperfect acquaintance with the Old Testament19, or to a conscious methodological decision on his part to explicate the Apostle by his own words, is open to debate, but Stephen Cooper suggests a hybrid of these two possibilities, on the one hand acknowledging Victorinus’ “no doubt scanty acquaintance with the Old Testament” but on the other hand ascribing his Paul-centeredness 13. See above, n. 2. 14. Of this work only the opening chapters survive. See I. MARIOTTI (ed.), Marii Victorini Ars grammatica, Firenze, F. Le Monnier, 1967; cf. H. DAHLMANN, Zur Ars grammaticadesMariusVictorinus, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1970. 15. For the Latin text with German translation and commentary, see C.MariusVictorinus,Liberdedefinitionibus.EinespätantikeTheoriederDefinitionunddesDefinierens, ed. and transl. A. PRONAY, Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1997. 16. There are two recent critical editions: MariusVictorinus,ExplanationesinCiceronis Rhetorica, ed. A. IPPOLITO, Turnhout, Brepols, 2006, and C. Marius Victorinus, Commenta in Ciceronis Rhetorica, ed. T. RIESENWEBER, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2013. For an extensive commentary which focuses on the reconstruction of Victorinus’ text, see C.MariusVictorinus,CommentainCiceronisRhetorica, ed. T. RIESENWEBER (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 120/1-2), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015. 17. For an overview of Victorinus’ secular writings, see P. HADOT, MariusVictorinus: Recherches sur sa vie et ses œuvres, Paris, Études Augustiniennes, 1971, pp. 179-190; M. VON ALBRECHT, GeschichtederrömischenLiteratur, vol. 2, München, De Gruyter, 1992, pp. 1281-1289; cf. G. RASPANTI, MarioVittorinoesegetadiS.Paolo, Palermo, L’Epos, 1996, pp. 23-24. 18. This idiosyncratic feature of his interpretive technique prompted the following observation by SOUTER, EarliestLatinCommentaries (n. 9), p. 22: “What especially distinguishes them from other (later) commentaries is that scripture is rarely quoted in illustration of scripture”. 19. So HADOT, MariusVictorinus (n. 17), p. 238.

ARCHITECTURE OF EXEGETICAL AUTHORITY

417

to a deliberate exegetical calculation: “Victorinus’ primary goal – to explain the meaning and import of the Pauline letters for a contemporary audience – could best be accomplished by explicating Paul on the basis of what Paul himself said”20. By contrast with Victorinus, Jerome ubiquitously cross-references the Old Testament in order to situate Paul’s words in a broader biblical context, a hermeneutical approach he adopted from Origen21. The rationale of this approach was to demonstrate the unity of Scriptural truth through lexical and conceptual parallels to relevant passages elsewhere in the Bible. In Jerome’s hands it also became the vehicle for buttressing his exegetical authority in that he was able to represent himself to readers as a human concordance22. Given Jerome’s methodological inclinations, it is understandable how he may have inferred from Victorinus’ limited engagement with the Old Testament that he lacked one of the most fundamental skill-sets for serious biblical study: a comprehensive, even encyclopedic, knowledge of Scripture. After explicitly criticizing Victorinus for his supposedly tenuous grasp of the biblical text, in the very next part of the preface Jerome produces a robust catalogue of six different exegetical authorities whose commentaries he claims to have consulted in preparation for his own work on the epistle to the Galatians: What, then? Am I foolish or rash to promise what he was incapable of accomplishing? Not at all. I believe that I am more cautious and circumspect because I have recognized the scantiness of my own abilities and have followed the commentaries of Origen. He wrote five of his own volumes 20. MariusVictorinus’CommentaryonGalatians:Introduction,Translation,andNotes, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 107. Cf. M. SIMONETTI, Letterae/oallegoria: Uncontributoallastoriadell’esegesipatristica, Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1985, pp. 239-240, who sees in Victorinus’ intensive focus on Paul the influence of the rhetorical methods of the ancient schools whereby a commentator ought to explain an author’s words in the light of themselves. 21. For an overview of Jerome’s hermeneutical principles, see A. CANELLIS, Jerome’s Hermeneutics:HowtoExegetetheBible, in T. TOOM (ed.), PatristicTheoriesofBiblical Interpretation: The Latin Fathers, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2016, 49-76. For a recent analysis of Origen’s approach to Scripture, see P.W. MARTENS, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. 22. This impression – of having the entire Bible at his fingertips – is one he reinforces through periodic, carefully calculated statements throughout his four Pauline commentaries, such as the following one in his remarks on Gal 3,16: “Traversing all the Scriptures in my mind and memory, I have never come upon the word ‘seed’ in the plural but only in the singular, used in either a good sense or bad” (omnesScripturassensuacmemoria peragrans numquam plurali numero semina scripta repperi, sed sive in bonam sive in malampartemsempersingulari). For more examples, see CEph I,13; III,1-4; V,7; V,14b; CTit II,12-14.

418

A. CAIN

on Paul’s epistle to the Galatians and rounded out the tenth book of his Miscellanies with a brief section expounding it. He also produced various homilies and scholia which could have been sufficient even by themselves. I say nothing of my seeing guide Didymus, Apollinaris, who recently left the church at Laodicea, the ancient heretic Alexander, Eusebius of Emesa, and Theodore of Heraclea, all of whom have left behind modest commentaries of their own on the topic at hand23.

Jerome opens his catalogue with Origen, devoting an entry to him and his diversified output on Galatians which is as long as the notices about the other five commentators combined. Not only that, but he also states unequivocally that Origen was far and away his principal exegetical model. In short, as far as he is concerned, and likewise as far as he would have his readers be concerned, when it comes to the Greek patristic exposition of this Pauline epistle, there is Origen, and then there is everybody else. Heading the second tier of Jerome’s list is Didymus of Alexandria24, followed by Apollinaris, the anti-Arian bishop of Laodicea on the Syrian coast in the latter half of the fourth century25. Some scholars have speculated that the next exegete on Jerome’s list, Alexander, was the homonymous Valentinian teacher who argued that Christ did not possess actual human flesh26, and whom Tertullian criticized for using wily syllogisms and having a passion for arguing out of a heretical disposition27. Whatever the case, Alexander the Pauline exegete is otherwise unattested, and none 23. Quid igitur? ego stultus aut temerarius qui id pollicear quod ille non potuit? minime. quin potius in eo, ut mihi videor, cautior atque timidior, quod imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens Origenis commentarios sum secutus. scripsit enim ille vir in epistulam Pauli ad Galatas quinque proprie volumina et decimum Stromatum suorum librumcommaticosuperexplanationeeiussermonecomplevit;tractatusquoquevarios etexcerpta,quaevelsolapossentsufficere,composuit.praetermittoDidymum,videntem meum, et Laodicenum de ecclesia nuper egressum et Alexandrum, veterem haereticum, EusebiumquoqueEmesenumetTheodorumHeracleoten,quietipsinonnullossuperhac recommentariolosreliquerunt. 24. On Jerome’s use of Didymus as an exegetical model, see A. CANELLIS, LeLivreI de l’In Zachariam de saint Jérôme et la tradition alexandrine, in L. PERRONE (ed.), OrigenianaOctava:OrigenandtheAlexandrianTradition.Papersofthe8thInternational Origen Congress, Pisa 27-31 August 2001 (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 861875. 25. According to Jerome (De viris illustribus 104), Apollinaris wrote “innumerable volumes”, including commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians, but very little of his exegetical output survives. 26. E. THOMASSEN, TheSpiritualSeed:TheChurchofthe“Valentinians” (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 60), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2006, pp. 496-497. 27. Argumentandi libidine ex forma ingenii haeretici locum sibi fecit ille Alexander (carn.Chr. 16.1); …remissoAlexandrocumsuissyllogismis,quosinargumentationibus torquet (carn.Chr. 17.1). On this identification of Jerome’s Alexander with Tertullian’s, see TURNER, GreekPatristicCommentaries (n. 1), p. 489; SOUTER, EarliestLatinCommentaries (n. 9), p. 108.

ARCHITECTURE OF EXEGETICAL AUTHORITY

419

of his work survives. Listed fifth by Jerome is Eusebius, the bishop of Emesa in Phoenicia in the middle of the fourth century who composed numerous biblical commentaries, including one (in ten books) on Galatians which is lost except for nineteen Greek fragments of varying length preserved in catenae manuscripts28 as well as a twentieth fragment preserved by Jerome in Latin translation29. The final commentator mentioned by Jerome, Theodore, was the anti-Nicene bishop of Heraclea in Thrace in the middle of the fourth century whom Jerome elsewhere commended for writing his biblical commentaries in an elegant style30. The fact that Jerome immediately follows his indictment of Victorinus’ alleged ignorance of Scripture with the above-quoted fulsome catalogue of commentators is no accident. First of all, he conspicuously excludes Victorinus from the list, thereby implying that his commentaries are not worthy of being consulted by him – or by a wider Latin readership, for that matter. What is more, two of the commentators in particular seem glaringly out of place as cited sources for a commentary in which Jerome places such a high premium on the refutation of heterodox doctrine31. One is Alexander, tagged by Jerome as vetushaereticus, and the other is Apollinaris, whom Jerome condemns in other contexts as a Christological heretic for over-emphasizing Jesus’ divinity by conceding that even though he had a human body, he had a divine mind in place of a human one32. 28. These fragments are printed in K. STAAB (ed.), Pauluskommentareausdergriechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben, Münster, Aschendorff, 1933, pp. 46-52. 29. A. CAIN, AnUnidentifiedPatristicQuotationinJerome’sCommentaryonGalatians(3.6.11), in JTS NS 61 (2010) 216-225. 30. Devirisillustribus 90. Nothing of Theodore’s commentary on Galatians is extant, but fragments of his commentaries on Matthew and John have come down; see J. REUSS (ed.), Matthäus-KommentareausdergriechischenKirche, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1957, pp. 55-95; ID. (ed.), Johannes-KommentareausdergriechischenKirche, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1966. 31. See St. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, transl. A. CAIN (The Fathers of the Church, 121), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2010, pp. 41-49. 32. For his criticisms of Apollinaris, see B. JEANJEAN, SaintJérômeetl’hérésie, Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1999, pp. 239-245. In Comm.inGal. I,1 Jerome alludes to Apollinaris’ novahaeresis and novellumdogma which asserts that Christ was more God than man, and twice in his commentary on Titus he mentions this same nova haeresis and puts its auctor in the same company as Arius and Eunomius (Comm. in Tit. II,12-14; III,10-11). One reason why Jerome refrains from naming Apollinaris may be that he wants to be deferential to his own recent former teacher: less than a decade earlier in Antioch he had studied Scripture under Apollinaris; see P. JAY, Jérômeauditeurd’Apollinairede LaodicéeàAntioche, in RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes 20 (1974) 36-41. Although he consciously distanced himself from Apollinaris’ Christology, he nonetheless acknowledged his intellectual debt to him (see, e.g., Jerome, Epist. 84,3). More practically speaking, though, Jerome indicates in the prefaces to Book I of both his Galatians and Ephesians commentaries that he used Apollinaris’ commentaries on these Pauline epistles as sources

420

A. CAIN

Needless to say, the very presence of both Alexander and Apollinaris on Jerome’s bibliography is extremely insinuative: even an obscure heretic from centuries past as well as a more recent one are more suitable interpretive guides to Paul than Victorinus. The pressing issue of doctrinal orthodoxy aside, all six authors filling out Jerome’s catalogue share one essential trait in common: they composed their commentaries in Greek. Herein lies another implicit criticism of Victorinus. Because his Pauline commentaries evince no compelling evidence of acquaintance with the Greek exegetical tradition on Paul, modern scholars have been inclined to conclude that he in fact had no working knowledge of this tradition, and in practical terms of chronology this means that he would have had no firsthand knowledge of Origen’s writings on Paul. Whether or not Jerome assumes that he was ignorant of this Greek tradition, he nonetheless obliquely accuses him of arrogance for failing to use it as a hermeneutical guide33, even as he congratulates himself for adopting it as his own guide. One of the marked disparities between the commenting styles of Victorinus and Jerome is that Victorinus almost always provides a single, succinct interpretation for a given passage34, whereas Jerome often presents the opinions of multiple interpreters alongside his own35. Behind these differing methodologies lie two fundamentally opposing models of how to conduct biblical interpretation. In Jerome’s view, the Latin exegete must not work in a linguistic vacuum but rather must sustain a meaningful dialogue with his authoritative counterparts in the Greek tradition – most of all, Origen. Jerome conceptualizes the act of biblical exegesis, then, as a cross-generational colloquium, which really amounts to an intellectual extension of the notion of communiosanctorum. The unspoken assumption here is that the Latins are dwarves on the shoulders of Greek giants. To Jerome’s perception, Victorinus was a dwarf, to be sure, yet he had no giant’s shoulders on which to perch. Jerome of course portrays himself in a vastly different light, underscoring his own intimate access to the past and present luminaries of the Greek exegetical tradition. For instance, he affectionately dubs Didymus “my seer” for his own commentaries. Thus, to condemn Apollinaris by name in the commentaries themselves would be to risk impugning his own orthodoxy as well as his judgment as a biblical interpreter for consulting the theologically “tainted” writings of a heretic. 33. Similarly, a few years earlier when he was in Rome, Jerome had criticized Rheticius of Autun for failing to access Origen’s exegetical work (Epist. 37,3). 34. Cf. COOPER, MariusVictorinus’CommentaryonGalatians (n. 20), p. 109, n. 101. 35. In taking this approach, Jerome may have been at least partially influenced by his grammaticus Aelius Donatus and his commentaries on Terence and Virgil; cf. L. HOLTZ, Donatetlatraditiondel’enseignementgrammatical:Étudesurl’ArsDonatietsadiffusion (IVe–IXesiècle)etéditioncritique, Paris, CNRS, 1981, pp. 44-46.

ARCHITECTURE OF EXEGETICAL AUTHORITY

421

(vidensmeus)36, an allusion to both Didymus’ legendary blindness and the fact that he had attended Didymus’ lectures on Scripture in Alexandria in early 38637, several months before composing his four Pauline commentaries. Many years later Rufinus, who himself had studied under Didymus for eight years38, mocked Jerome for implying, here and elsewhere in his writings39, that he had been Didymus’ disciple, despite having spent no more than a month in his presence40. Rufinus’ taunt exposes the illusory nature of his former friend’s rhetoric, and, as if in a tacit admission of guilt, Jerome never disputed the charge, or at least he did not do so in his extant writings. Nevertheless, the point of Jerome’s name-dropping was, quite simply, to bolster his own exegetical pedigree. Moreover, an intriguing question looms. Out of the eight prefaces to the books of his four Pauline commentaries41, why did Jerome choose the preface to Book 1 of his Galatians commentary as the one in which to polemicize against Victorinus? In answering this question we must first pause to consider how Jerome regarded this particular commentary in the broader context of his exegetical work on Paul at that time. There are sound reasons for supposing that he positioned it first in the sequence of commentaries on the four epistles so that readers would encounter it, and its prefaces, before the other three commentaries and their respective prefaces. First of all, his grand pronouncement about the novelty of his undertaking is the kind of remark one normally finds at the very beginning of an ancient literary work (or, as the case may be, in the prologue to the first in a collection of interconnected works such as Jerome’s Pauline commentaries)42. Second, in the final chapter (135) of his literary history 36. Elsewhere Jerome calls him “Didymus the seer” (Didymusvidens) (Praef.inOrig. hom.XIVinEzech. [PL 25, 583]) and “the seeing prophet” (videnspropheta) (Praef.in lib.Did.despir.sanc. [PL 23, 108]). 37. F. CAVALLERA, SaintJérôme:Savieetsonœuvre, Paris, Champion, 1922, vol. 2, pp. 127-130. 38. Rufinus, ContraHieronymum II,15. 39. E.g., ContraRufinum I,13; Comm.inEph. I, prol., 44-49. Cf. Comm.inIs. prol., 91-92 (CCSL 73, 3 ADRIAEN), where Jerome mentions his friendship with Didymus (Didymus,cuiusamicitiisnuperusisumus). Cf. Devirisillustribus 109, where Jerome also claims, somewhat implausibly, that Didymus composed commentaries on Zechariah and Hosea at his request. 40. So Rufinus, ContraHieronymum II,15: Ceterumiste,quiintotavitasuanontotos trigintadiesAlexandriae,ubieratDidymus,commoratusest,pertotospenelibellossuos longelatequeseiactatDidymividentisessediscipulum,etκαϑηγητήνinscripturissanctis habuisseDidymum.etomnisistaiactantiainunomensequaesitaest. 41. He composed three prefaces each for Galatians and Ephesians, and one each for Titus and Philemon. 42. To take just one example within Jerome’s literary corpus, in the prologue to his HebrewQuestionsonGenesis he announces this work as one which is “new and unheard of among both Greeks and Latins until now” (opusnovumettamgraecisquamlatinisusque adidlocoruminauditum) (LiberInterpretationisHebraicorumNominum, praef., 17-18).

422

A. CAIN

Devirisillustribus, where he lists the titles of his principal writings down to the year 393, he places the Galatians commentary first in order of the four Pauline commentaries43, even though it was the second one he composed after the Philemon commentary – an evident sign of his personal prioritization of it among the four. Finally, the manuscript tradition provides a telling clue. In manuscripts that contain all four commentaries, the one on Galatians almost always precedes the other three, and this pattern of transmission presumably is a reflection of the internal structure imposed by Jerome on his archetype44. In short, Jerome evidently conceived the preface to Book 1 of his commentary on Galatians to serve as the general prolegomenon to his entire opusPaulinum. As we have seen, in this preface he juxtaposes his censure of Victorinus and his catalogue of Greek exegetical sources. This, I propose, was a strategic move on his part to throw into relief the supposed impoverishment of Victorinus’ commentaries vis-à-vis the researchintensiveness of his own. Such a move accordingly enabled him to achieve a more compelling rhetorical effect than if he had reserved his polemic for the prologues to any of his other three Pauline commentaries, for which he consulted far fewer Greek authorities: for Ephesians he used the commentaries of only Origen, Apollinaris, and Didymus45, and for his Philemon and Titus commentaries he evidently had Origen as his sole model46. By contrast, for his Galatians commentary he claims to have accessed commentaries by six different Greek writers, to say nothing of the rest of Origen’s exegetical miscellanea on Galatians. Of these six, Jerome seems to have followed Origen overwhelmingly if not almost exclusively. Yet, his presumed desire to arm himself with the appearance of strength in numbers47 would explain why he furnishes such a fulsome catalogue of sources, including at least two theologically objectionable figures (Alexander and Apollinaris). 43. …inepistulamPauliadGalatascommentariorumlibrostres,iteminepistulamad Ephesioscommentariorumlibrostres,inepistulamadTitumlibrumunum,inepistulam adPhilemonemlibrumunum… 44. For an overview of the manuscript tradition of Jerome’s Pauline commentaries, see F. BUCCHI, SullatradizionemanoscrittadelCommentoallaLetteraaTitodiGirolamo, in Eikasmos 12 (2001) 301-321; CCSL 77A, xiv-clvii RASPANTI. 45. Comm.inEph. I, prol. 46. R. HEINE, In Search of Origen’s Commentary on Philemon, in HTR 93 (2000) 117-133; F. BUCCHI, IlcommentoallaletteraaTitodiGirolamo, in Adamantius 8 (2002) 57-82. 47. Confirmation that Jerome did indeed think in these terms can be found in a piece of correspondence to Augustine (Epist. 112,6-7). In this letter he cites as partial proof of the truth of his interpretation of Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch (i.e., that it was prearranged by both parties) that so many august church writers have held the same opinion.

ARCHITECTURE OF EXEGETICAL AUTHORITY

423

But, why did Jerome feel the need to define his own exegetical work on Paul in such sharp contradistinction to that of Victorinus? Undoubtedly one of the factors motivating his polemical impulse was a deeply felt insecurity. We must bear in mind that the self-assured tone he adopts when he dismisses Victorinus as a rank amateur in Pauline interpretation is ironic, to say the least. When Jerome composed his four Pauline commentaries in 386, he was very far from being the seasoned and renowned biblical expert he would become recognized as starting in the middle to late 390s48. In fact, his Pauline commentaries constitute his first major effort at the systematic exegesis of whole biblical books; prior to that, he had produced expositions of only isolated biblical passages49. Therefore, contrary to the impression he conveys by his seemingly self-confident rhetoric, the little practical experience Jerome had accrued leading up to 386 made him, realistically speaking, not much more than an amateur himself50. It is not just that Jerome was challenging the legacy of Marius Victorinus the commentator on Paul. Victorinus had been the most prominent professor of rhetoric in mid-fourth-century Rome, holding its public chair of rhetoric during the reign of Constantius. In 354, he was elevated to the senatorial order, becoming a virclarissimus, and a statue in his honor was erected in Trajan’s Forum51. He converted to Christianity a year or two afterward, late in life52, and within another year he became an outspoken 48. A revealing index of his growing reputation as a biblical exegete during this period is the number of Christians throughout the Roman empire who wrote letters to him requesting answers to their questions about Scriptural conundra; cf. A. CAIN, Defending Hedibia and Detecting Eusebius: Jerome’s Correspondence with Two Gallic Women (Epp.120-121), in MedievalProsopography 24 (2003) 15-34. 49. E.g., Epist. 18A+B, an exegetical treatise on the vision of Isaiah 6. See P. NAUTIN, LeDeSeraphimdeJérômeetsonappendiceadDamasum, in M. WISSEMANN (ed.), Roma renascens: Beiträge zur Spätantike und Rezeptionsgeschichte. Festschrift Ilona Opelt, Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang, 1988, 257-293. For an overview of Jerome’s exegetical letters, see A. CAIN, TheLettersofJerome:Asceticism,BiblicalExegesis,andtheConstruction ofChristianAuthorityinLateAntiquity, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 218219. 50. Jerome betrays awareness of his inexperience in Comm.inPhlm. I-III, when he says: “Until today I have not ventured to make not even a peep (as the saying goes) about [Paul]” (ne “muttum” quidem, ut dicitur, ante hanc diem in eum facere ausus); S. Hieronymi Presbyteriopera. Pars I:Operaexegetica8.CommentariiinepistulasPauliApostoliad TitumetadPhilemonem, ed. F. BUCCHI, Turnhout, Brepols, 2003, p. 81. 51. Jerome, Chronicle s.a. 354 CE; Augustine, Confessiones VIII,2,3; on Trajan’s Forum during this period, see H.-I. MARROU, LavieintellectuelleauforumdeTrajanetau forumd’Auguste, in Mélangesd’Archéologieetd’Histoire 49 (1932) 93-110. As suggested by M. TARDIEU, Recherchessurlaformationdel’ApocalypsedeZostrienetlessources de Marius Victorinus, Leuven, Peeters, 1996, p. 23, Victorinus was awarded both the clarissimate and statue in tandem. 52. Inextremasenectute, according to Jerome (Devirisillustribus 101).

424

A. CAIN

advocate of Nicene orthodoxy, writing theological treatises against the Arians53, followed later by his commentaries on Paul. Decades after his death Victorinus was still fondly remembered in some sectors for being a pivotal figure in fourth-century Latin Christianity. For instance, in his Confessions Augustine famously cites him as a role-model for his own conversion54. By stark contrast, the legacy that Jerome had built for himself down to the summer of 386, when he was about forty years old and trying his own hand at Pauline interpretation, was anything but distinguished. During his recent three-year stint in Rome (382-385), his reputation as an up-andcoming biblical scholar had taken a hard hit: his revision of the Old Latin Gospels according to the Greek, despite having been commissioned by Pope Damasus, was criticized severely in some quarters for being a dangerous novelty55. He stirred up controversy, and hard feelings, also by relentlessly satirizing the secularized lifestyles of lay and clerical Christians in Rome who did not subscribe to his extreme ascetic ideology56. The Libellus de virginitateservanda (Epist. 22)57, which he released in the spring of 384 and addressed to Paula’s teenage daughter Eustochium, especially rankled these Christians. Writing around 400, Rufinus scolded his former friend for the inflammatory tone of the Libellus and also reported the fascinating detail that pagans had applauded Jerome for airing the dirty laundry of Roman Christianity for all to see and that they accordingly had made a cottage industry out of copying this treatise58. Even more damaging to Jerome’s cause is that certain of his statements in the Libellus seemed to flirt with heresy. For instance, on the basis of his exhortation to Eustochium to avoid wine as if it were poison59, some critics accused him of 53. P. HENRY – P. HADOT (eds.), MariusVictorinus,Traitésthéologiquessurlatrinité, Paris, Cerf, 1960; P. HENRY – P. HADOT (eds.), MariusVictorinus. ParsI:Operatheologica, Wien, Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1971. 54. Augustine, Confessiones VIII,2,3–VIII,4,9. 55. CAIN, TheLettersofJerome (n. 49), pp. 48-52. 56. Jerome, Epist. 52,17; 117,1; 130,19. See A. CAIN, Jerome and the Monastic Clergy:ACommentaryonLetter52toNepotian,withanIntroduction,Text,andTranslation, Leiden, Brill, 2013, pp. 267-268. On Jerome’s later defenses of the Libellus, see ID., Liber manet: Pliny, Epist. 9.27.2 and Jerome, Epist. 130.19.5, in Classical Quarterly 58 (2008) 708-710; ID., Jerome’s Epistula 117 on the subintroductae: Satire, Apology, and AsceticPropagandainGaul, in Augustinianum 49 (2009) 119-143. 57. For a commentary of this work, see N. ADKIN, JeromeonVirginity:ACommentary ontheLibellusdevirginitateservanda(Letter22), Cambridge, Francis Cairns, 2003. 58. ContraHieronymum II,5,43. 59. Epist. 22,8: hocprimummoneo,hocobtestor,utsponsaChristivinumfugiatpro veneno.

ARCHITECTURE OF EXEGETICAL AUTHORITY

425

crypto-Manichaeism for rejecting God’s material creation (i.e., wine) as being intrinsically evil60. To complicate matters further, by the summer of 385, during his final months in Rome, Jerome had become dogged by rumors and innuendo that he was using his profession of monasticism as a guide for seducing women ascetics of the Christian aristocracy and gaining access to their fortunes – and bed-chambers. Because he was an ordained priest, the Roman episcopal court intervened and handed down a verdict which amounted to Jerome’s expulsion from its diocese61. So, by the time Jerome began composing his Pauline commentaries, he was, in all historical reality, a disgraced cleric and fledgling biblical scholar newly installed in Bethlehem, a tiny agrarian village situated hundreds of miles from his recent former base of operations, Rome. Rome was where most of his literary patrons still resided62, including Marcella, to whom he makes flattering overtures in multiple Pauline prefaces in the stated hope that she will act as his literary agent and use her influence to ensure a positive reception for his commentaries once they reach Italy’s shores63. Rome also was the city where Marius Victorinus, although he had died some two decades earlier, was still a respected intellectual icon in the local Christian community and held the distinction of being the first Latinspeaking Christian on record to comment systematically on Paul. Needless to say, his was a formidable legacy with which any aspiring Pauline commentator in Latin had to contend. When confronting this legacy, Jerome refused to concede to Victorinus the seminal place in the history of Latin Pauline exegesis that was properly his64. Instead, he heralded his own opusPaulinum as something unprecedented in the Latin world and virtually unparalleled in the Greek world. 60. Jerome, Comm.inGal. V,19-21; Comm.inEph. V,18. On the seriousness of charges of Manichaeism against orthodox Christians in Late Antiquity, see A. CAIN, The Greek Historia Monachorum in Aegypto: Monastic Hagiography in the Late Fourth Century, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 190-193. 61. CAIN, TheLettersofJerome (n. 49), pp. 99-128. 62. See S. REBENICH, Hieronymus und sein Kreis: Prosopographische und sozialgeschichtlicheUntersuchungen, Stuttgart, Steiner, 1992, pp. 141-180. On the importance of patrons in ensuring that Jerome’s scholarly enterprises would see the light of day, see M. HALE WILLIAMS, TheMonkandtheBook:JeromeandtheMakingofChristianScholarship, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, pp. 233-260. 63. See CommentaryonGalatians, transl. CAIN (n. 31), pp. 16-18; TheCommentaries ofOrigen, transl. HEINE (n. 9), pp. 74, 141, 201. 64. Thus, for instance, his entry on Victorinus in Devirisillustribus (101) is dismissively short and mentions his Pauline commentaries in passing (scripsit…commentarios inapostolum), as an afterthought to his other named writings and without mentioning on which of the epistles he commented.

426

A. CAIN

To believe his revisionist account in the preface to Book 1 of his Galatians commentary, the relatively young tradition of the Pauline commentary in Latin had made a false start with Victorinus, and what it needed now was not reinvigoration or a breath of fresh air; it needed a completely new beginning. The literary historian in him accordingly recalibrated this tradition, brazenly stripping Victorinus of his canonical status within it and anachronistically conferring this status on himself. In the Galatians preface he justified this radical move to supersede Victorinus and be recognized as the premier authority on Paul in the Latin-speaking world by hitching his wagon to the Greek exegetical tradition, and especially to Origen65. II. JEROME VIS-À-VIS THE GREEK EXEGETICAL TRADITION Jerome’s carefully scripted representation of his engagement with Greek patristic sources functions as much more than a polemical device whereby to insinuate that Marius Victorinus was a novice commentator at best, and an impostor at worst. In a deeper and even more rhetorically nuanced way, it functions also as a touchstone of his developing sense of how, in practical terms, a relatively unseasoned Latin Scriptural exegete with aspirations to excellence is to interface with authoritative Greek models while simultaneously staking out his own unique identity and voice. Let us begin by revisiting momentarily the preface to Book 1 of his Galatians commentary. After listing his six Greek predecessors in Pauline interpretation, Jerome gives a methodological statement describing his compositional process: Even if I were to borrow just a little from these works, the result would be something praiseworthy. So, then, let me frankly admit that I read all of these things and stored up in my mind an extraordinary number of them. Then I summoned my secretary and dictated both my own ideas and those of others, all the while paying no attention to the method, the words, or the opinions belonging to each66.

65. On Jerome’s self-styling as the Origeneslatinus, see M. VESSEY, Jerome’sOrigen: The Making of a Christian Literary Persona, in Studia Patristica 28 (1993) 135-145; A. CAIN, Origen,Jerome,andthe senatusPharisaeorum, in Latomus65 (2006) 727-734. 66. Equibusvelsipaucadecerperem,fieretaliquidquodnonpenituscontemneretur. itaque, ut simpliciter fatear, legi haec omnia et in mentem meam plurima coacervans, accitonotario,velmeavelalienadictavi,necordinisnecverboruminterdumnecsensuum memor.

ARCHITECTURE OF EXEGETICAL AUTHORITY

427

Jerome emphasizes the collective exceptionality of his Greek sources, thereby validating his own editorial judiciousness in having selected and made use of them. He likewise accentuates his due diligence as a researcher, asserting that he not only read all of the Galatians commentaries mentioned in his list but also memorized a very significant portion of them before he set to work on his own commentary. Although he probably explored parts of them prior to composing his own in order to gain a general sense of their overall merits67, in reality he would not have virtually memorized them prior to beginning his own commentary. It is far more likely that he consulted them in increments along the way as he dictated to his amanuensis his comments on each lemmatized Pauline text68. Nevertheless, he depicts his compositional process in an almost heroicized way so as to leave his readers with the distinct impression that he internalized the Greek exegetical tradition on Paul in its totality69. At the end of the preface to Book I of his CommentaryonEphesians, which he composed immediately after the Galatians commentary, he again elaborates on his handling of Greek sources: I also alert you to the following in the preface, that you may know that Origen, whom I have followed in part, composed three volumes on this epistle, and that Apollinaris and Didymus also produced some modest commentaries. Although I have plucked a few things from these, I have added or removed some things as seemed fit to me. Consequently, the discerning reader may be aware from the very start that this work is both others’ and my own70. 67. Jerome gained physical access to these texts almost certainly at the ecclesiastical library at Caesarea, where he made regular trips. On his visits there, see P. JAY, L’exégèse desaintJérômed’aprèssonCommentairesurIsaïe, Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1985, pp. 529-534. On the history of this library, see A.J. CARRIKER, TheLibraryofEusebiusofCaesarea (SupplVigChr, 67), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2003, pp. 1-36. 68. For his use of secretaries, see P.E. ARNS, La technique du livre d’après saint Jérôme, Paris, de Boccard, 1953, pp. 37-79. 69. This is not the only time in his Pauline prefaces that he resorts to hyperbole in order to shape readers’ perception of him as a hyper-industrious and indefatigable scholar. For instance, in the short preface to Book II of his Ephesians commentary he remarks that on some days he dictates up to a thousand lines (interdum per singulos dies usque ad numerummilleversuum). The specific numerical figure by which he visualizes for readers his output – up to one thousand lines of text dictated daily – is meant to impress and even astound, all the more so because right before this in statement, in the preface, he chastised himself for inactivity (medamnoinertiae): thus, he is superhumanly productive even when he is inert. 70. IlludquoqueinpraefationecommoneoutsciatisOrigenemtriavoluminainhanc epistulamconscripsisse,quemetnosexpartesecutisumus,ApollinaremetiametDidymum quosdam commentariolos edidisse. E quibus licet pauca decerpsimus et nonnulla quae nobisvidebanturadiecimussivesubtraximus,utstudiosusstatiminprincipiolectoragnoscat hocopusvelalienumessevelnostrum; L’EsegesidiGirolamonelCommentarioaEfesini. Aspetti storico-esegetici e storico-dottrinali. Testo critico e annotazioni, ed. F. PIERI, Dissertation, Università degli Studi di Bologna, 1996/7, p. 11.

428

A. CAIN

Jerome again touts his close association with the Greek exegetical tradition, citing Origen as his principal model while also crediting Didymus and Apollinaris secondarily. This time, however, instead of avowing that he has “followed the commentaries of Origen” (Origeniscommentarios sumsecutus), as he does in the Galatians preface, he admits only of partial reliance upon him, specifying that he has followed him “in part” (exparte). He asserts his own exegetical originality and independence from all three of the named Greek exegetes as a group also when he claims that he only has “plucked a few things” from their commentaries and has incorporated material from them into his own expositions at his own discretion. The resulting product is a variorum commentary which he characterizes as a composition which “is both others’ and my own” (velalienum essevelnostrum71), much as he characterizes his Galatians commentary (velmeavelalienadictavi). A good representative example of this method at work can be found in his comments on Eph 2,7 (“That he might show in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus”), which may be divided into the following three paragraphs that correspond to the three different interpretive opinions he reports: How great is the magnitude of his goodness and how manifold the grace by which the Lord makes us sit, free from the disturbances of this world, and rule with Christ. Or, from these words it is proved especially that in the ages to come he will show his glory towards us and will demonstrate his riches, not to one but to the totality of all rational creatures. But let us, who once were held by the law of the underworld and were thus destined for works of the flesh and punishments because of vices and sins, now rule in Christ and sit with him. Moreover, let us not sit in some lowly place but let us sit “above every principality, authority, power, and dominion and every name which is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come” (Eph 1,21). For if Christ has been raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God in the heavenly places above every principality, authority, and power, and we sit and rule with Christ, we must sit above these powers which he sits above. But he who is a diligent reader immediately raises the question: What, then, is man greater than the angels and all the powers in heaven? Although it is dangerous to respond, I say that the principalities, authorities, powers, dominions, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come (especially since all things have been subjected to the 71. The construction vel…vel, as it is deployed here, does not mean “either...or” but it rather has the cumulative sense of et...et. The equivalence of vel…vel to et…et became somewhat common in late Latin; see J.B. HOFMANN – A. SZANTYR, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, München, Beck, 1965. On this usage in Jerome, see CAIN, Jerome and the MonasticClergy(n. 56), pp. 62-63.

ARCHITECTURE OF EXEGETICAL AUTHORITY

429

feet of Christ) will refer not to the good part of these powers but to their opposite. Consequently, he means that these are the apostate angels, the prince of this world (Jn 14,30) and Lucifer, who used to rise early (Isa 14,12), over whom the saints will sit with Christ in the end imparting a benefit also to those who now roam about at random, unchecked, making evil use of their freedom, and rush headlong to make sinners fall. But when these evil powers have those who sit over them, they will begin to be governed by the will of those sitting. But another says that the statement, “That he might show in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus”, will refer to the view that we have been saved, not by our merit but by his grace. It is indicative also of a kindness on behalf of sinners that is greater than dying for those who are just, “For someone might perhaps dare to die for a good man” (Rom 5,7). It will also refer to the fact that those things will be given to us which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they entered the heart of man (1 Cor 2,9). He has now given all of these things partially in Christ Jesus, because apart from Christ no good can be mentioned72.

During his pamphlet war with Rufinus, a decade and a half after writing the commentary on Ephesians, Jerome identified the authors of these three opinions: the first is his own, the second, Origen’s, and the third, Apollinaris’73. In the very same passage he explains why he anonymized his sources in this particular case: “I did not wish to disparage men whom I was partly following and whose opinions I was translating into the Latin tongue”74. He refrains from criticizing either man by name but does nonetheless register an indirect criticism of them by subtly persuading readers that his own interpretation (also given anonymously) should be privileged over theirs. For, in presenting his opinion first in order among the three, he is observing the norms of dispositio, the second of five canons of classical rhetoric which is concerned with the proper arrangement of arguments within a given speech or writing. According to the conventional wisdom, the strongest and most convincing argument is to be presented first so that the audience can be won over by it right away75. Jerome, then, 72. TheCommentariesofOrigen, transl. HEINE (n. 9), pp. 127-128. 73. Inprimaquidnobisvideretur,insecundaquidOrigenesopponeret,intertiaquid Apollinarissimpliciterexplanaret (ContraRufinum I,24). 74. Non debui eos carpere quos imitabar ex parte et quorum in latinam linguam sententiastransferebam (ibid.). 75. Anon., Rhet. ad Her. III,18: In confirmatione et confutatione argumentationum dispositiones huiusmodi conuenit habere: firmissimas argumentationes in primis et in postremis causae partibus conlocare; mediocris et neque inutiles ad dicendum neque necessarias ad probandum, quae, si separatim ac singulae dicantur, infirmae sint, cum ceteris coniunctae firmae et probabiles fiunt, interponi in medio conlocari oportet; cf. Quintilian, Inst.orat. V,12,14. Cf. D. PUJANTE, TheRoleofdispositiointheConstruction ofMeaning:Quintilian’sPerspective, in O.E. TELLEGEN-COUPERUS (ed.), Quintilianand

430

A. CAIN

brings his sophistication as a rhetorician to bear on his biblical exegesis as he nudges readers in the interpretive direction he personally favors and thus he affirms his own exegetical competence and creativity – all without openly belittling his Greek sources and thereby potentially undercutting his stated reliance upon them in the first place. Moreover, Jerome represents his commenting on Paul as something of a collaborative venture between the Greek exegetical tradition, exemplified by Origen, and himself (Galatians: velmeavelalienadictavi; Ephesians: velalienumessevelnostrum). In so conspicuously aligning himself with this tradition and emphasizing his own work’s seamless continuity with it, he was able to lay claim to just the kind of rarefied, Hellenized intellectual credibility and authenticity that he alleged was fundamentally lacking in fellow Latin commentators on Paul. In broader cultural and intellectual terms, he essentially was enacting the role of mediator between East and West in that he was providing his Latin readers with precious, though indirect, access to the august Greek tradition of Pauline interpretation76. Inherent in this act of mediatorship is a subliminal yet powerful assertion of exegetical authority on his part. He was the one mediating access to the Greek tradition. He was the one autonomously determining what content from it to distil and then to pass on to his Latin readership. He was the one refracting this material by his own editorial lens, but not without adding his own distinct voice into the mix and exercising his own exegetical originality and independence from his patristic interlocutors. As such, he implicitly positioned himself as the proverbial gatekeeper, as the arbiter of all good exegetical taste. [email protected]

Andrew CAIN

theLaw:TheArtofPersuasioninLawandPolitics, Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 169-178, at pp. 171-172. 76. See A. CAIN, Jerome’s Pauline Commentaries between East and West: Tradition andInnovationintheCommentaryonGalatians, in LÖSSL – WATT (eds.), Interpretingthe BibleandAristotleinLateAntiquity (n. 10), 91-110. For a useful assessment of the intellectual accomplishment of his Pauline commentaries, see C.P. BAMMEL, DiePauluskommentare des Hieronymus: Die ersten wissenschaftlichen lateinischen Bibelkommentare?, in CristianesimoLatinoeculturaGrecasinoalsec.IV:XXIIncontrodistudiosidell’antichità cristiana,Rome7-9maggio1992, Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1993, 187207. See also G. RASPANTI, TheSignificanceofJerome’sCommentaryonGalatiansinHis ExegeticalProduction, in A. CAIN – J. LÖSSL (eds.), JeromeofStridon:HisLife,Writings andLegacy, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2009, 163-171.

BIBLE AND/OR TRADITION IN THE WORKS OF ORIGEN, RUFINUS, AND JEROME

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between Scripture and tradition in the works of Origen, Rufinus, and Jerome. In the course of the controversy between them, Rufinus and Jerome had occasion to transmit and discuss some of Origen’s writings on this topic, as well as to express their own understanding of the concepts of Scripture and tradition. First, it will be necessary to describe the context in which Origen came to articulate his notions of the text, the canon, scriptural inspiration, and tradition1. In Origen’s day, the intellectual diversity of Alexandria and Caesarea, where he resided, spurred a need for a new synthesis of the concept of apostolic tradition, which was discussed by some of his contemporaries2. For Irenaeus of Lyon, the apostolic tradition was the reliable guide by which to read the Scriptures3. Irenaeus had identified some fundamental criteria for defining the Church’s tradition: its apostolic origin, the permanence of its content related to the regulafidei, and the authenticity guaranteed by those who were successors of the apostles in the churches they founded – the bishops, who were masters of the faith and shepherds of their flock. Irenaeus’ argument against the Gnostics allowed the Christian churches to give expression to the reality of tradition. A few decades later Tertullian took the same position, usually polemically, to declare that those who do not adhere to this tradition could not be said to be Christian, and therefore could not legitimately read the Scriptures (cf. DePraescriptioneHaereticorum 20)4. 1. Cf. J.W. TRIGG, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-century Church, London, SCM, 1985. 2. It was in this period that the Traditioapostolica attributed to Hippolytus emerged. The bishop Cyprian also wrote about the apostolic tradition: cf. W.H. VAN DE BAKHUYZEN, TraditioimtheologischenSinne, in VigChr 13 (1959) 65-86. According to Eusebius, at the end of second century Hegesippus explained the apostolic message to refute the secret Gnostic doctrines (cf. Eusebius,Hist.Eccl. IV,8,2): see M. SIMONETTI – E. PRINZIVALLI, Storiadella letteraturacristianaantica, Bologna, Dehoniane, 2010, p. 109. According to J. DANIÉLOU, La tradition selon Clément d’Alexandrie, in Augustinianum 12 (1972) 5-18, pp. 5-6, the concept of tradition became secondary because of Origen. 3. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv.Haer.III,2,1; III,4,1; III,5,1 (SC 211, 25.45.53, ed. A. ROUSSEAU – L. DOUTRELEAU). Tertullian uses the expression traditio catholica only in Monog. 2,1 (CCSL 2, 1230, ed. E. DEKKERS). 4. Cf. E. FERGUSON, ParadosisandTradition:AWordStudy, in R.J. ROMBS – A.Y. HWANG (eds.), Tradition & the Rule of Faith in the Early Church, Washington, DC, Catholic University of American Press, 2010, 3-29.

432

M. GIROLAMI

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION IN ORIGEN The expression “apostolic tradition” itself5 is mentioned for the first time in Ptolemaeus’ Letter to Flora, a Gnostic text of the mid-second century6 which deals with questions concerning the interpretation of the biblical text and the degree of authority that must be attributed to the various parts of Scripture. In fact, you will also learn next, if God grants you, the principle and the generation of these natures, once you are considered worthy of the apostolic tradition, that we too have received by succession, as well as learning to judge all doctrines by means of the teaching of our Savior7.

Though it appears in Ptolemaeus’ letter, the expression “apostolic tradition” never occurs in the surviving Greek texts of Origen. It can be read in the Latin translation of Rufinus in the preface to De principiis (Praef. 2) where Origen, opening his philosophical and theological work, states that: as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition8.

The Latin text seems to agree with the criteria already elaborated by Irenaeus. Origen adds the need to reflect upon revelation, because seeking the truth is the duty of every believer (cf. Praef 3: rationemscilicetassertioniseorumrelinquentesabhisinquirendam). The truth becomes clear to the reader only through personal commitment and asceticism in trying 5. Cf. G.G. STROUMSA, Paradosis:Traditionsésotériquesdanslechristianismedespremièressiècles, in Apocrypha 2 (1991) 133-153; ID., Clement,Origen,andJewishEsoteric Tradition, in G. DORIVAL–A. LE BOULLUEC(eds.), OrigenianaSexta:OrigèneetlaBible/ OrigenandtheBible(BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 53-70. On apostolic authority see G. ARANDA PÉREZ, Elorigendelaautoridadapostólicapermanenteentrelosgnósticos, in J.J. FERNÁNDEZ SANGRADOR – S.O. GUIJARRO (eds.), Plenitudotemporis:MisceláneahomenajealProf.Dr.RamónTrevijanoEtcheverría (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis. Estudios, 249), Salamanca, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 2002, 347-361. 6. Cf. H. KOESTER, LatraditionapostoliqueetlesoriginesduGnosticisme, in Revue deThéologieetdePhilosophie 119 (1987) 1-16. 7. Ptolomaeus, Epistula ad Floram 7,9 (SC 24, 72, ed. G. QUISPEL): μαϑήσῃ γάρ, ϑεοῦ διδόντος, ἑξῆς καὶ τὴν τούτων ἀρχήν τε καὶ γέννησιν, ἀξιουμένη τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως, ἣν ἐκ διαδοχῆς καὶ ἡμεῖς παρειλήφαμεν μετὰ καὶ τοῦ κανονίσαι πάντας τοὺς λόγους τῇ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν διδασκαλίᾳ. 8. Origenes, Prin Praef. 2 (GCS 22, 8, ed. P. KOETSCHAU): itacummultisint,quise putantsentirequaeChristisunt,etnonnullieorumdiversaaprioribussentiant,servetur veroecclesiasticapraedicatiopersuccessionisordinemabapostolistraditaetusquead praesensinecclesiispermanens,illasolacredendaestveritas,quaeinnulloabecclesiasticaetapostolicatraditionediscordat. Cf. CMtS XLVI; Prin IV,2,2.

BIBLE AND/OR TRADITION

433

to understand the biblical text. For Origen, the biblical text and one’s personal relationship with it (Scripture is for us: Prin IV,2,6) become the means by which one receives and lives the faith of the Church9. Since there are no other occurrences of the expression “ecclesiastical tradition” or “apostolic tradition” in the surviving Greek texts, we cannot evaluate the significance of this expression from Origen’s point of view (cf. AdnotationesinNumeros)10. It can, however, be said with certainty that he did not have in mind what Ptolemaeus wrote to Flora regarding the degrees of scriptural inspiration, since Origen devoted the first part of his book Deprincipiis to showing that Scripture, in all its parts, is inspired and of divine origin (cf. PrinI,praef. 4; Prin IV,1,6). Origen does not quote the Letter to Flora, and in his controversy with the Gnostic masters he does not seem to use the key concept of apostolic tradition which Irenaeus and Tertullian had elaborated for their defense against false gnosis. Indeed, it is not on this foundation that he establishes his argument, but rather on engaging his genius through the use of reason in an attempt to explain the truths of ecclesiastical preaching “by investigation of consequences and adherence to what is correct” (Praef 10: ex consequentiaeipsiusindagineacrectitenore11). Can we suppose that Origen sought to avoid this expression – apostolic tradition – because it had too much of a Gnostic flavor? This would be understandable in his works from Alexandria, where Gnostic authors strengthened the concept of apostolic tradition to promote their own ideas, which Origen found incompatible with apostolic preaching12. In Caesarea, by contrast, Origen, while continuing to argue with the Gnostics, was in 9. On the theme of the celestial Church, see Prin IV,2,2; R.P.C. HANSON, Origen’s DoctrineofTradition, in JTS 49 (1948) 17-27; P.W. MARTENS, OrigenandScripture:The ContoursoftheExegeticalLife(Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. I disagree with Hanson, p. 27, who claims that for Origen, the Bible is the tradition of the Church. For Origen, tradition is not the Bible, rather it is the commitment of the reader to seek the spiritual (Christological) meaning in the Bible. Cf. P. O’CLEIRIGH, Origen’sConsistency:AnIssueintheQuarrelbetweenRufinusandJerome, in W.A. BIENERT– U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), OrigenianaSeptima:OrigenesindenAuseinandersetzungendes4.Jahrhunderts(BETL, 137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999, 225-231; A. ALIAU-MILHAUD, Progrèsdutexte, progrèsdel’individudansleCommentairedeJeand’Origène:Lestechniquesd’exégèse appliquéesauthèmeduprogrès, in G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), OrigenianaNona:Origen andtheReligiousPracticeofHisTime.Papersofthe9thInternationalOrigenCongress Pécs,Hungary,29August–2September2005(BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 1323. 10. Origenes, Adnotationes in Numeros 40 (PG 17, 24): Ἢ καὶ ἐκ τῆς πατρικῆς παραδόσεως τοῦτο καὶ διαδοχῆς παραλαβόντες οἱ Μάγοι, ἐπὶ τὴν Βηϑλεὲμ παρεγένοντο. 11. GCS 22, 16 KOETSCHAU. 12. Cf. STROUMSA, Paradosis (n. 5), p. 150.

434

M. GIROLAMI

discussion above all with the Jews, whom he knew and quoted from their various written and oral traditions. Although he finds himself in the apostolic land par excellence, it appears that he does not place much importance on the Christian tradition that comes from the first disciples of Jesus. It will be useful to investigate briefly the use of the word “tradition” in Origen’s writings. This term recurs in several contexts: with reference to the tradition of the Jews13, to the tradition concerning the person of Jesus14 and his death15, and to the tradition concerning the transmission of the gospels, understood as texts transmitted in the Tradition process16. He defines certain Jewish traditions as mysterious and remote17, indicating an esoteric dimension of Jewish teaching. Such an esoteric dimension is typical of the Gnostic texts, too. Whereas for Clement, secrecy was an indication of the divine origin of certain teachings18, elevating the non-written tradition over the written one19, for Origen, a teacher committed to explaining the hidden sense of Scripture, one must be personally engaged in order to find a deeper spiritual sense of Scripture through ascetic practice, under the guidance of those who devote themselves to its study. 13. Cf. Origenes, Prin IV,3,2 (GCS 22, 326 KOETSCHAU): διόπερ τινὰ μὲν οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς καὶ ὅσοι ϑέλουσι πλέον τῆς λέξεως δηλοῦσϑαι μηδὲν οὐδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ζητοῦσιν, ὥσπερ τὰ περὶ τραγελάφου καὶ γρυπὸς καὶ γυπός, εἰς τινὰ δὲ φλυαροῦσιν εὑρησιλογοῦτες, ψυχρὰς παραδόσεις φέροντες, ὥσπερ καὶ περὶ τοῦ σαββάτου, φάσκοντες τόπον ἑκάστου εἶναι δισχιλίους πήχεις. See also CC II,52. 14. Cf. Origenes, CIo XIX,17,104 (GCS 10, 317, ed. E. PREUSCHEN): τάχα οὖν ἐν ταῖς περὶ Χριστοῦ παραδόσεσιν ἦν, ὥσπερ τὸ γεγεννῆσϑαι αὐτὸν ἐν Βεϑλεὲμ καὶ τὸ ἐκ φυλῆς Ἰούδα ἀναστήσεσϑαι κατὰ τὰς ὑγιεῖς ἐκδοχὰς τῶν προφητικῶν λόγων, οὕτω καὶ περὶ τοῦ ϑανάτου αὐτοῦ, ὡς εἴπομεν τρόπῳ ἀπαλλάξοντος τοῦ βίου. 15. Cf. Origenes, CIo XIX,18,113 (GCS 10, 318 PREUSCHEN): οἶμαι δ’ὅτι κακοηϑέστερον ὀνομάζοντες τὸ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν περὶ τοῦ ϑανάτου τοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐληλυϑός. 16. Cf. Origenes, CMt I fr. in Eusebius,Hist.Eccl. VI,25,4 (SC 41, 126, ed. G. BARDY): ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαϑὼν περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἀναντίρρητά ἐστι ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ κατὰ τόν ποτε τελώνην, ὕστηρον δὲ ἀπόστολον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ματϑαῖον, ἐκδεδωκώτα αὐτὸ τοῖς ἀπὸ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύσασιν, γράμμασιν Ἑβραϊκοῖς συντεταγμένον. 17. Cf. Origenes, CIo XIX,15,92 (GCS 10, 315 PREUSCHEN): λεκτέον οὖν πρὸς τὰ ζητούμενα ταῦτα τοῖς ἐπιμελέστερον καὶ βαϑύτερον ἀκούουσιν τῶν λεγομένων ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις σαφές ἐστι ὅτι πολλὰ κατά τινας παραδόσεις ἀπορρήτους καὶ ἀνεκεχωρηκυίας ἔλεγον, ὡς ἐγνωκότες ἕτερα παρὰ τὰ κοινὰ καὶ κατημαξευμένα. See also CIo XIX,15,97 (GCS 10, 315): εἰκὸς δὲ καὶ ἄλλα μυρία ἢ ἐκ παραδόσεως ἢ ἐξ ἀποκρύφων αὐτοὺς εἰδέναι παρὰ τοὺς πολλούς. 18. Cf. A.C. ITTER, Esoteric Teaching in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (SupplVigChr, 97), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2009. 19. Cf. DANIÉLOU, LatraditionselonClémentd’Alexandrie (n. 2); E. ALBANO, Rivelare etacere:NoteperunariflessionesuScritturaetradizionenelpensierodiClementedi Alessandria.Parte I:Ilprincipiobiblico-filosoficodellarivelazione, in Augustinianum 56 (2016) 5-20; STROUMSA, Clement,Origen,andJewishEsotericTradition (n. 5), pp. 56-57 refers to Stromata VI,7,61.

BIBLE AND/OR TRADITION

435

Origen’s commentary on Mt 15,1-2, where Jesus is questioned by Scribes and Pharisees regarding the reason for his disciples’ transgression of the tradition of the ancestors, is especially germane to in the present discussion. In the eleventh book of the CommentaryonMatthew (CMt XI,8-9), Origen deals with the theme of the relationship between the divine commandment and the ancestors’ tradition, declaring that true purification does not occur through the washing of hands, as practiced in the ancestors’ tradition, but through personal effort to purify one’s actions following proper reason. In paragraph 9, he adds that Jesus does not reproach the Scribes and Pharisees for observing a tradition of the ancient Jews, but rather for ignoring the commandment of God, whose authority supersedes any tradition. He adds that it was thanks to the explanation given by a Jew that he could understand the term corban. Origen says that “it is this tradition that the Savior censures, which is not good, but opposes the commandment of God”20. In this passage, Origen acknowledges the aid of a Jewish informant to interpret the literal meaning of the Gospel text but also notes the Pharisaic origin of the corban tradition, which is not divine and hence worthy of Jesus’ rebuke. Thus, for Origen, “tradition” refers to oral and written sayings of both Jewish and Christian provenance, including references to secret doctrines and heresies21 and to facts concerning the person of Jesus or his apostles22. The term, then, has such a wide use in the Origenian writings as to be basically neutral, because it is never applied in the strong sense of Irenaeus. However, especially when it comes to discovering the hidden meanings of the biblical text, Origen seems to positively regard the Jewish (or possibly Judaeo-Christian) traditions23. He declares that he does not wish to depart from the tradition given by the apostles24, though he does not employ the 20. Origenes, CMt XI,9 (GCS 40, 49, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN – E. BENZ): ταύτην οὖν ἐλέγχει ὡς οὐχ ὑγιῶς ἔχουσαν παράδοσιν ὁ σωτήρ, ἀλλὰ ἐναντιουμένην τῇ ἐντολῇ τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 21. Cf. Origenes, Fr. 1Cor 19 (Esegesi paolina. I testi frammentari, ed. F. PIERI, Roma, Città Nuova, 2009, p. 100): τοῦτο μὴ καλῶς νοήσαντες οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἰρέσεων ἐπαγγέλλονται παραδόσεις καὶ λέγουσιν‧ αὖτοι ὑπὲρ τὰ γεγραμμένα εἰσίν‧ ταύτας γὰρ παρέδωκεν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἐν ἀπορρήτῳ, καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῷ δεινὶ ἢ τῷ δεινὶ‧ καὶ οὕτως διὰ ταύτης τῆς μυϑολογίας ἐξαπατῶσι τὰς καρδίας τῶν ἀκάκων. 22. In CMt XVI,6 Origen knows a written tradition about the apostle John: cf. ὡς ἡ παράδοσις διδάσκει (GCS 40, 486 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ). 23. Cf. CPs I = Phil 2,3 (SC 302, 244,1-3, ed. N. DE LANGE): Μέλλοντες δὲ ἄρχεσϑαι τῆς ἑρμηνείας τῶν ψαλμῶν, χαριεστάτην παράδοσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἑβραΐου ἡμῖν καϑολικῶς περὶ πάσης ϑείας γραφῆς παραδεδομένην προτάξωμεν. See also Selectain Genesim (PG 12, 108C8-10): Ἔφερε δὲ ὁ Ἑβραῖος ὁ ταῦτα εἰπὼν καὶ παράδοσιν τοιαύτην, ἐπενεγκὼν ἀπόδειξιν τῇ παραδόσει. 24. According to Origen, anyone sent by the Savior to facilitate salvation may be called an apostle (cf. CIo XXXII,17,204; XIII,28,169; XXX,179).

436

M. GIROLAMI

expression “apostolic tradition”, used for the first time by the Gnostics and consecrated by Irenaeus and Tertullian for ecclesiastical purposes. For Origen, these traditions are important for understanding the nature of Scripture (PrinPraef. 2 and CMtS 46)25. II. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION IN RUFINUS AND JEROME The situation is strikingly different in the writings of Rufinus and Jerome, who employ the expression apostolicatraditio or exapostolorum traditione in different contexts. Rufinus uses the terms mainly with reference to the Symbol of the Apostles, to affirm its antiquity and apostolic origin. The “apostolic tradition” or maiorum traditio is the Church’s faith, which is taught and codified by the apostles themselves and is transmitted to inform every believer of the truth of faith in Christ26. Rufinus specified that the apostolic rules were not written down but were held in memory (retinericordibus)27, for it was better that all learn from the tradition of the apostles, and not from a written text that could be misrepresented by a non-believer. This tradition is also called “the tradition of faith given by the fathers”; it is founded on the books that make up the canon of Scripture (cf. Expositio Symboli 35-36). For Rufinus, the Church’s faith originates from the apostles who preached and transmitted orally. In Rufinus’ vision of Christian revelation, Scripture is described as the “Holy Spirit’s deposit” or “divine instrument”28, 25. As F. LEDEGANG, Origen’sViewofApostolicTradition, in A. HILHORST (ed.), TheApostolicAgeinPatristicThought (SupplVigChr, 70), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2004, p. 133, observes, for Origen the bishops are not the successor of the apostles. A.G. PADDLE, Tradition, in J.A. MCGUCKIN (ed.), TheSCMPressA-ZofOrigen, London, SCM, 2006, 202-204, p. 203, notes that for Origen the successors of the apostles are those who engage in interpreting Scripture spiritually. According to E. JUNOD, Origène, Eusèbe et la tradition sur la répartition des champs de mission des Apôtres (Eusèbe, Histoireecclésiastique,III,1,1-3), in F. BOVON – R. GOULET – E. JUNOD etal., Lesactes apocryphesdesapôtres, Genève, Labor et fides, 1981, 233-248 Eusebius uses the word “tradition” forty times, but always in the specific sense of ecclesiastical tradition. 26. Cf. Rufinus, ExpositioSymboli 2 (CCSL 20, 134-135, ed. M. SIMONETTI): Idcirco igituristudindiciumposuere,perquodagnoscereturisquiChristumueresecundumapostolicasregulaspraedicaret.…idcircodeniquehaecnonscribicartulisautmembranis, sedretinericordibustradiderunt (cf. 2Cor 3:3),utcertumessetneminemhaecexlectione, quaeinterdumperuenireetiamadinfidelessolet,sedexapostolorumtraditionedidicisse. 27. A similar expression is found in Irenaeus, Adv.Haer. III,4,2 (SC 211, 46 ROUSSEAU – DOUTRELEAU): sinechartaetatramentoscriptamhabentesperSpiritumincordibussuis salutem(cf. 2 Cor 3,3),etueteremtraditionemdiligentercustiodientes. 28. The term “deposit” is usually used by Rufinus in a positive sense, as in descriptions of Holy Scripture (cf. ContraHieronymum II,37,1; II,47,25). In a translation of Origen, Rufinus uses depositum in a positive sense to describe Christ and the Holy Spirit (HLv IV,3).

BIBLE AND/OR TRADITION

437

explained by the apostles so that their successors may preserve the faith according to apostolic rules29. The term “tradition” in the works of Rufinus is almost always positive, referring mainly to the faith that finds its origins in apostolic preaching. By contrast, Jerome generally uses the term “tradition” in a negative sense concerning Jewish teachings because they are the product of men and not of the Holy Spirit30. In the CommentaryonIsaiah, he says that the traditions of the fathers – whose prince is the Devil – are ancient errors, venerated like idols31. The critical criterion for Jerome is that Scripture does not speak of these Judaic traditions32. They should not be taken into account (cf. Comm. in Is. V,123) because they depart from God (cf. Comm.inIs. IX,11). Indeed, they are opposed to the divine commandment contained in the Scriptures themselves (cf. Comm. in Is. IX,13,65; XIII,23) and have deceived the people of God. The monk of Bethlehem uses the expression “apostolic and ecclesiastical tradition” with reference to the liturgical practices of the Church, particularly with respect to the times of Christian prayer and the celebrations of Easter (cf. Comm.inDan. II,6; Comm.inMtIV) and fasting (cf. Epist. 22,35; 41,3; 71,6). Of special interest is the conclusion of Epist. 146,233, concerning the difference in degree between the deacon, priest, and bishop, where Jerome states that the apostolic tradition was Irenaeus also uses it in a positive sense: cf. Adv.Haer.III,24,1. Jerome never uses this term to refer to Scripture. 29. Rufinus, ExpositioSymboli 34 (CCSL 20, 170): HicigiturSpiritusSanctusest,qui inueteriTestamentolegemetprophetas,innouoEuangeliaetapostolosinspirauit.Unde etapostolusdicit: Omnis Scriptura diuinitus inspirata. 30. Hieronymus, Comm. in Hier. VI (CSEL 59, 405, ed. S. REITER): nunc autem in euangelio post crucem, resurrectionem et ascensionem dare se pactum non in tabulis lapideis,sedintabuliscordiscarnalibuspollicetur,cumquescriptumfueritdominitestamentuminmentecredentium,ipsumesseeisindeumetillosesseeiinpopulum,utnequaquam iudaicos quaerant magistros et traditiones et mandata hominum, sed doceantur a spiritusancto. 31. Hieronymus, Comm. in Is. III,8,19/22-29 (CCSL 73, 121, ed. M. ADRIAEN): maledicetisprincipiuestroetpaternistraditionibus,hocestdiaboloantiquiserroribus. …Nonmirumsiuosuestrastraditionessequamini,cumunaquaequegenssuaconsulat idola. See also Comm.inIs. XVI,49,5-27 (CCSL 73A, 680-681, ed. M. ADRIAEN): Qui igituraudienstraditionesIudaicas,adescassemilleannorumuolueritpreparare,etpromissionumdeliciisirretitus,manumadcibumextendere. 32. Cf. B. KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, Jewish Traditions in the Writings of Jerome, in D.R.G. BEATTIE – M.J. MCNAMARA(eds.), TheAramaicBible:TargumsinTheirHistoricalContext (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series, 166), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994, 420-430. 33. Hieronymus, Epistula 146,2 (CSEL 56, 312, ed. I. HILBERG): et ut sciamus traditionesapostolicassumptasdeueteritestamento:quodAaronetfiliieiusatque leuitaeintemplofuerunt,hocsibiepiscopietpresbyterietdiaconiinecclesiauindicent.

438

M. GIROLAMI

taken from the Old Testament (sciamustraditionesapostolicassumptas deveteritestamento). In this case, Jerome derives the apostolic tradition of having a priest and a deacon directly from Scripture, assimilating the Aaronic priesthood and the Levites to the Church’s hierarchy that distinguishes priests from deacons. In doing so, he makes it clear that scriptural texts are the source of the similar ecclesiastical customs and institutions handed down by apostolic tradition. In accordance with Rufinus in his ExpositioSymboli, Jerome likewise says that the symbol of faith, which comes directly from the apostles, was transmitted not in writing, but through the profession of faith which is made at the time of baptism where one confesses the Trinity, Church unity, and the resurrection of the flesh34. There are a few passages where, even during the controversy over Origen, Jerome agrees with Rufinus, following the words of Paul in 2 Cor 3,3, that the symbol of the apostles was transmitted by them not with paper and ink, but by being fixed in the hearts of believers by the Holy Spirit through the profession of faith (cf. ExpositioSymboli 18)35. Jerome notes, however, that some heretics make claims to authority as if relying on apostolic tradition: “But the sword of God also strikes other things that they, without the authority and testimonies of the Scriptures, invent and devise on their own initiative as if they were derived from the apostolic tradition”36. Jerome also criticizes the traditions of the Pharisees, which are foreign to Scripture and cannot hold its “waters”, both the OT and the NT (cf. Comm.inIs. V,123). He makes the text of Scripture the criterion of truth and authority to affirm the superiority of the divine commandment over any human tradition. Moreover, he repudiates traditions of Jews and heretics, without rejecting that which he recognizes as authoritative apostolic tradition, particularly 34. Cf. Hieronymus, ContraIohannem 28 (CCSL 79A, 50, ed. J.-L. FEIERTAG): In symbolo fidei et spei nostrae, quod ab apostolis traditum est, non scribitur in chartaetatramento,sedintabuliscordiscarnalibus(cf. 2 Cor 3,3),perconfessionemTrinitatisetunitatemEcclesiae,omneChristianidogmatissacramentum,carnis resurrectioneconcluditur. See also: Hieronymus, AltercatioLuciferianietOrthodoxi (CCSL 79B, 25-26, ed. A. CANELLIS):NammultaetaliaquaepertraditioneminEcclesiis obseruantur .... Multaque alia, quae scripta non sunt, rationabilis sibi obseruatio uindicauit. 35. Hieronymus, Comm.inEzechielem XIII,44,22-31 (CCSL 75, 668-669, ed. F. GLORIE): quaenonsuntscriptacalamoetatramentosedSpiritu(cf. 2Cor 3:3) etVerboDei–unde etSaluatornullumuolumendoctrinaesuaepropriumdereliquit,quodinplerisqueapocryphorum deliramenta confingunt, sed Patris et suo Spiritu cotidie loquitur in corde credentium–;ethaeceritresponsioaduersumeosquicalumnianturprophetas:cur,quae inpentateuchocontinentur,eainsuisuoluminibusreplicent. 36. Hieronymus, Comm. in Prophetas minores (In Aggaeum) I,11 (CCSL 76A, 725, ed. M. ADRIAEN): sed et alia quae absque auctoritate et testimoniis scripturarum quasi traditioneapostolicaspontereperiuntatqueconfingunt,percutitgladiusDei.

BIBLE AND/OR TRADITION

439

with respect to institutions of the Church and its customs, such as fasts and celebrations. As can be gleaned from these brief observations, Jerome and Rufinus, both Origenian heirs, differ in their understanding of the relationship between tradition and Scripture. Both recognize the value of the written text of the divine word, but while for Rufinus Scripture is a deposit from which to draw the truths of preaching, for Jerome it is a privileged instrument for the polemic against the Jews and heretics who appeal to sources other than Scripture itself. III. THE SEPTUAGINT The contrast between the concepts expressed by the two friends who later became enemies becomes evident when they deal with the nature of the Greek version of the OT. In their disagreement, the very concept of Scripture as the divine word assumes new features. As is well-known, in his monumental Hexapla (cf. CMt XV,1437), Origen used not only the LXX version but also those of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. It is worth pointing out that in Deprincipiis, Origen does not discuss the authority of the LXX, nor does he raise the question of the relative merits of the Hebrew and Greek texts or state which LXX text should be used, though he knows that there are several versions of the LXX in circulation38. In dealing with the inspiration of Scripture and in the presentation of the fundamental hermeneutic rules in Book IV of the Deprincipiis, Origen takes for granted that the text of the LXX used by him comprises the Divine Word. He does make use of the Hebrew text, comparing it to the Greek translations39 and occasionally noting discrepancies40. In the CCt, 37. Origenes, CMt XV,14 (GCS 40, 388 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ): καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ὡς ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα (οὐ τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν), τινὰ δὲ μετ’ ἀστερίσκων προσεϑήκαμεν, ἵνα δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ προσεϑήκαμεν. 38. Cf. Origenes, FrLam XXXVI,4 (GCS 6, 252, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN – P. NAUTIN): ἐνετείλατοδὲὁϑεὸςτῷἸακὼβ ἐντολὰς δι’ ἃς παραβαινομένας ὑπ’ ἐχϑρῶν ἐκυκλώϑη, κατὰ δὲ Σύμμαχον καὶ καϑ’ ἑτέραν ἔκδοσιν τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα ἐνετείλατο κύριος κύκλῳαὐτοῦγενέσϑαιτοὺςϑλίβονταςαὐτόν, δηλαδὴ ταῖς εἰς τὸ κακοῦν τεταγμέναις δυνάμεσιν. 39. Cf. Origenes, CIo VI,6,40 (GCS 10, 115 PREUSCHEN): οὕτω γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἀκριβέσιν ἀντιγράφοις εὕρομεν καὶ ταῖς λοιπαῖς παρὰ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα ἐκδόσεσι καὶ τῷ Ἑβραικῷ. 40. Cf. Origenes, HNm XVIII,3 (GCS 30, 172, ed. W. BAEHRENS): Ethaecquidem inexemplaribusseptuagintainterpretumhabentur;inHebraeorumverocodicibusaliquidetiamvehementiusrepperi,quibusquamvisnonutamur,tamenagnoscendigratia dicemus.

440

M. GIROLAMI

he asserts that the LXX is superior to all other versions41. In HLv XII,542, he states that Jews deny that the LXX agrees with the Hebrew text, suggesting that the controversy already known in the Dialogue of Justin is still alive. Irenaeus had already declared the legitimacy, authority and authenticity of the LXX in the Christian church (cf. Adv.Haer. III,21,3), and his position was well known to Eusebius (cf.Hist.Eccl. V,8,10-15)43. Consecrated by apostolic and liturgical use, the LXX was the point of reference for every Christian in the Greek-speaking world. The fact that Origen does not consider it necessary to legitimize its authority in Deprincipiis, where he dedicates an entire book to defining the boundaries of Scripture, is quite significant44. Perhaps Origen’s intention in producing the Hexapla was not to establish the biblical text in its oldest versions – Hebrew and Greek – but to gather the various words which the Logos had spoken throughout history. The apostles themselves, he says, did not rely on the copies of the Hebrews, nor did they conform to the words of the translators, but expounded according to the sense of the Scriptures45. Scripture is divine above all, because the nature of the divine Word has been communicated through the words written by apostles and evangelists. The same Word, according to Origen, continues to communicate its divinity through the deepening of the meaning of the text to the believing reader of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. 41. Cf. Origenes, CCt I (GCS 33, 101, ed. W. BAEHRENS): tamen nos Septuaginta interpretumscriptaperomniacustodimus,certiquodSpiritussanctusmysteriorumformas obtectasessevoluitinscripturisdivinisetnonpalamatqueinpropatulohaberi. We have to consider that the CommentaryontheSongofSongs is a translation and an abridgement by Rufinus of a larger work. Indeed, Jerome’s presentation of the Alexandrian’s exegesis of the Song of Songsin the commentary sounds quite different, revealing systematic use of the other editions by Origen: Nam decemuoluminibusexplicitis[...]primumseptuaginta interpretes,deindeAquilam,Symmachum,Theodotionemetadextremumquintameditionem,quaminActiolitoreinvenissesescribit,itamagnificeapertequedisseruit(GCS 33, 26 BAEHRENS). 42. Origenes, HLv XII,5 (GCS 29, 464, ed. W. BAEHRENS): Illudtamennolovoslateat, quodHebraeinegantsescriptumhabere,quodnosapudseptuagintaInterpretesinvenimus: de genere suo. Etrecteillinonhabentscriptum. 43. According to E.L. GALLAGHER, HebrewScriptureinPatristicBiblicalTheory:Canon, Language,Text (SupplVigChr, 114), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2012, pp. 174-175, Justin is the first Christian author to write about the LXX and its origin (cf. Apol. 31). He does not reject the Hebrew text: he thinks that the LXX follows the Hebrew and is in agreement with it. 44. PADDLE, Tradition (n. 25), p. 203, observes that Origen did not try to establish the canon of the Scripture; in fact he used other books when he found in them deep meaning. 45. Origenes, CRm VIII,7 (VL, 34, 675, ed. C.P. HAMMOND BAMMEL): Haecdesermonumordineetassumptorumtestimoniorumqualitatememoravimusutostendamuspersingula quod auctoritas apostolica nequaquam Hebraeorum exemplaribus fidem facit nec verbis semperinterpretumservitsedscripturarumsensumverbisquibuscompetitexplicat.

BIBLE AND/OR TRADITION

441

When one looks at Rufinus and Jerome, one sees a rather different situation. The monk of Bethlehem, impelled by a strong philological sensibility, makes the Hebrew text, the Hebraicaveritas46, the source of truth of the literal sense and hence of the divinity of Scripture itself 47. The criterion of antiquity, well-rooted in the culture of the time, prevails over the authority and the apostolic use of the Greek. Not only when commenting on the OT or prioritizing the Hebrew when translating it, but even when reading the New Testament texts containing OT quotes, Jerome does not miss an opportunity to explain, sometimes even wrongly and against Origen48, that the apostles derived their quotes directly from the Hebrew49. Aware that the liturgical use of texts determines the authority in the Church (cf. Epist. 106,2,2.4), Jerome asserts that even the additions brought by Origen from the Hebrew text to the Greek one and those made by Theodotion are now read in the churches (cf. Comm.inIs. III,10). He claims that Adamantius used the Hebrew text for his commentaries, while for the homilies he used the Vulgate version, that is, the LXX (Hebraicae quaestiones, Praef; cf. Rufinus, Apologia c. Hier. II,25). However, he notes that the evangelists and the apostles did not translate the Hebrew verbatim, nor did they follow the authority of the LXX (cf. Comm. in Is. IX,11), but used their own words, respecting the sense of the verses (cf. Comm.inIs. IX,4). Jerome is convinced that although the LXX was 46. Cf. G. MILETTO, Die ‘Hebraica Veritas’ in S. Hieronymus, in H. MERKLEIN – K. MÜLLER – G. STEMBERGER(eds.), BibelinjüdischerundchristlicherTradition:FestschriftfürJohannMaierzum60Geburtstag, Frankfurt a.M., Hain Anton, 1993, 5665. 47. Jerome knows the Graecaveritas: cf. Hieronymus, EvangeliorumPraefatio. Cf. C.P. BAMMEL, DieHexapladesOrigenes:DiehebraicaueritasimStreitderMeinungen, in Augustinianum 28 (1988) 125-149. For Jerome’s knowledge of Origen’s Hexapla see CommentariusadTitum III,9 and P. JAY, JérômeetlaSeptanteorigénienne, in G. DORIVAL– A. LE BOULLUEC (eds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 203-214. According to M. GRAVES, Jerome’sHebrew Philology:AStudyBasedonHisCommentaryonJeremiah (SupplVigChr, 90), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2007, pp. 189-190 Jerome sought the literal sense in the Hebraica veritas and the spiritual and Christian sense in the LXX. 48. Cf. Origenes, CRm X,8 (VL 34, 810, ed. C.P. HAMMOND BAMMEL): Undesciendum estquodinomnibuspeneApostoluseditionemSeptuagintaInterpretumtenet,nisisiqua forte ei quam exsequitur assertioni minus necessaria videntur, aut si quando non tam verbisInterpretum,quamsensibusScripturaeutivultsuaenuntiationeprolatis. 49. Cf. Hieronymus, Epistula 121,2 (CSEL 56, 10): Et hoc non solum in praesenti loco,sedubicumquedeveteriInstrumentoEvangelistaeetApostolitestimoniaprotulerunt, diligentiusobservandumest:noneosverbasecutosesse,sedsensum:etubiSeptuaginta abHebraicodiscrepant,Hebraeumsensumsuisexpressissesermonibus.See also Comm. inIs. III,9.

442

M. GIROLAMI

in use during the apostolic age, the authors sought to translate, as he did, directly from the Hebrew, thus confirming its superior authority50. Rufinus, who never uses the expression Hebraicaveritas unless quoting Jerome (cf. ContraHieronymum II,25), makes the origin of the LXX and its apostolic use the crucial criteria for determining the divinity of Scripture. While translating chapter 31 of the Sixth Book of Eusebius’ Hist. Eccl., which deals with the works of Julius Africanus, Rufinus reached the conclusion that for the genealogy of Matthew and Luke, Julius had used an external account of the Scriptures, and that in any case Origen did not attend to the Jewish tales and deceptions, but only believed in the divine Scriptures as translated in the LXX and confirmed by apostolic authority51. Rufinus, who was accused by Jerome of lacking a historical and critical sense52, in turn accuses his former friend of daring to do what no one else had ever tried: placing himself above the apostles, who themselves always used the LXX version (cf. ContraHieronymum II,36 and 37). It is interesting to note that for Rufinus, the criterion of apostolic authority is the source of the concept of Scripture. Apostolic authority takes on different meanings in the different contexts in which Origen, Rufinus and Jerome lived. For Origen, it is not superior to the power of the Word of God; for Rufinus, it is the guarantee of the truth; and for Jerome, it emerges from the Scriptures. The origins and apostolic use of the LXX do not seem particularly important for Jerome. Augustine was aware of the difficulty posed by the versions of Scripture and claimed, by way of compromise, that just as the apostles used both Hebrew and Greek, scholars are justified in using both as well53. Rufinus’ position, though closer to the exegetical practice of Origen, falls into the shadows. 50. Hieronymus, Ad Galatas II (CCSL 77A, 84, ed. G. RASPANTI): Apostolus, uir hebraeaeperitiaeetinlegedoctissimus,numquamprotulissetnisiinhebraeisuoluminibus haberetur. 51. Eusebius-Rufinus, Hist.Eccl. VI,31 (GCS 9/2, 585-587, ed. E. SCHWARTZ) (Rufinus adds to Eusebius’ text): cui Origenes magnificentissime rescribens adserit nequaquam Iudaeorumcommentisetfraudibusauscultandum,sedhocsolumproverohabendumin scripturisdivinis,quodseptuagintainterpretestranstulissent,quoniamidessetauctoritate apostolicaconfirmatum. 52. Cf. Hieronymus, Adv.Ruf. II,17; F. WINKELMANN, EinigeBemerkungenzuden AussagendesRufinusvonAquileiaunddesHieronymusüberihreÜbersetzungstheorie und-methode, in P. GRANFIELD – J.A. JUNGMANN(eds.), Kyriakon.FestschriftJohannes Quasten, vol. II, Münster, Aschendorff, 1970, 532-547; P. LARDET, L’apologie de JérômecontreRufin:Uncommentaire (SupplVigChr, 15), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 1993. 53. Augustinus, Civ. 18,44,36 (CCSL 48, 641, ed. B. DOMBART – A. KALB): Unde etiam ego pro meo modulo vestigia sequens Apostolorum, quia et ipsi ex utrisque, id estexhebraeisetexSeptuaginta,testimoniapropheticaposuerunt,utraqueauctoritate

BIBLE AND/OR TRADITION

443

IV. CONCLUSIONS Christian authors debated the nature of the divine inspiration of Scripture and the question of apostolic authority. While affirming the Church’s rule of faith, Origen posited a concept of unitary Scripture, whose center is the person of the Logos, making it divine, as he explains in Deprincipiis. Its divine character goes beyond apostolic authority (cf. CIo I,3,1654) because it is a word of the Logos spoken through the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists55. In fact, all of Scripture is the Gospel (CIo I,3,17) and can become a gospel if read Christologically56. It is the Logos that is the author, the speaker, and the divinity of Scripture itself. According to Origen, it was precisely the apostolic authority, with the exegetical method applied in the quotations of the Jewish Scriptures, that confirms that the sense is more important than the words themselves (cf. CRm III,2). Yet, in its many textual forms, it is only the beginning of the knowledge that the believer is called upon to acquire through an ascetic commitment to grasp more deeply the mystery of God57 by welcoming the Logos into the soul (cf. CIo I,4,25). It is in the personal relationship between a believing reader and the sacred text that the divinity of Scripture manifests itself and edifies the heavenly church58. We can speculate that Origen did not make apostolic tradition a fundamental hermeneutical concept in order to avoid association with the Gnostics on the one hand, and with Jews on the other, who believed that their traditions transmitted the source of truth. Jerome and Rufinus, heirs of Origen, perceived the relationship between the Bible and tradition in original but distinct ways. Rufinus and Jerome alike left aside the dynamic and elaborated vision of Origen and concentrated on the biblical text as a document of revelation. Though both took a static view of the text, they differed with respect to how they understood utendumputavi,quoniamutraqueunaatquedivinaest. See E.L. GALLAGHER, Augustine ontheHebrewBible, in JTS 67 (2016) 97-114. 54. On the apostles and the Holy Spirit: Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III,1,1; Origenes, Prin II,7,3; HLc XXIV,1; CMtS XL. 55. There was unity in the apostolic preaching: cf. HIos VIII,3; HNm II,2,2-5; cf. Irenaeus, Adv.Haer.III,1,1. 56. Origenes, CIo I,15,86 (GCS 10, 19 PREUSCHEN): ἅμα δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν πρώτοις ἡμῖν εἰρημένα περὶ τοῦ δύνασϑαι εὐαγγέλιον εἶναι πᾶσαν ϑείαν γραφὴν ἐντεῦϑεν δύναται δηλοῦσϑαι. 57. Origenes, CIo XIII,5,30 (GCS 10, 230 PREUSCHEN): οἶμαι δὲ ὅλης γνώσεως στοιχεῖά τινα ἐλάχιστα καὶ βραχυτάτας εἶναι εἰσαγωγὰς ὅλας γραφὰς κἂν πάνυ νοηϑῶσιν ἀκριβῶς. 58. Origenes, Epist.Afr. 8 (SC 302, 532 DE LANGE): ἡ πρόνοια ἐν ἁγίαις γραφαῖς δεδωκυῖα πάσαις ταῖς Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίαις οἰκοδομήν.

444

M. GIROLAMI

the origin and nature of the Scriptures. Jerome held the Hebrew text to be the source of all truth, presupposing its antiquity and priority. For him, the ecclesiastical hierarchy is already foreseen in Scripture (Epist. 146), thus justifying its validity59. Rufinus, for his part, challenging Jerome for daring to translate the Hebraicaveritas, expressed, perhaps with a broader and simpler perspective on Christian history, the need to maintain the teaching of the apostles who, using the LXX and the New Testament, preached the faith and transmitted it orally. According to Rufinus, apostolic authority – not the intellectual ability to seek new meanings in Scripture – is the criterion for guaranteeing the truth, though he conceded that the main aim of Scripture is the spiritual progress of the reader (HNm praef.). Both Rufinus and Jerome inherited from Origen a love of Scripture and a love of truth. For Rufinus, that meant remaining faithful to what the apostles taught and approaching the Scriptures as a deposit of the Holy Spirit. For Jerome, it meant looking for a more authentic manifestation of that truth in the Hebrew text, setting aside the pedagogical concern for spiritual growth. For Origen, Scripture is the principle of knowledge (cf. CIo XIII,5,30) revealed through the harmonic relationships that the reader can find between the OT and NT and between the various versions of Scripture itself (CIo V, fr. 8), whereas for Rufinus it is fidelity to the deposit of the Holy Spirit received by the apostles and guarded by the faith that allows one to grow spiritually. Jerome seems far from any kind of harmonic sensibility. He subordinated to the Hebraicaveritas both the principle of apostolic origin and the Origenian concept of the living Logos that speaks through the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists. Origen, who was preoccupied with philosophically affirming Christianity, held Scripture to be a divine mediator through whom anyone who wishes may attain the mystery of God. Rufinus revealed himself as a monk, less concerned with theoretical problems and not interested in establishing an ontological placement for Scripture: its value is given by its origin and apostolic use. Jerome, more attentive to grammar than to theology, held that truth lies in philological commitment by making 59. Jerome seeks logical coherence in Origen, but remains a prisoner of his own rhetoric, failing to understand the progressive value of Origen’s thought, that extends and deepens. See P. LARDET, SaintJérôme.ApologiecontreRufin (SC, 303), Paris, Cerf, 1983, pp. 104*-105*; O’CLEIRIGH, Origen’s Consistency (n. 9), pp. 225-231. Origen shows no interest in quoting his predecessors: cf. DANIÉLOU, LatraditionselonClémentd’Alexandrie (n. 2), pp. 15-16.

BIBLE AND/OR TRADITION

445

the text, not the beginning of the totality of knowledge, but the unique source of knowledge itself. The problem becomes immediately apparent, however: What text? What Scripture? With the Hexapla, Origen demonstrated the preeminence of the Logos over any possible text. Facoltà Teologica del Triveneto Via Seminario 1 IT-33170 Pordenone Italy [email protected]

Maurizio GIROLAMI

“SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND” RUFINUS AND THE SEARCH FOR ORIGEN’S TRINITARIAN ORTHODOXY

The reliability of Rufinus’ translations of Origen, particularly OnFirst Principles, has been a central issue of Origen scholarship1. Though current scholarship is more positive in its assessment of Rufinus’ accuracy, one issue on which scholarship has generally agreed is that Rufinus’ editing is particularly evident where Origen makes statements about the Trinity2. Though Origen was an influential and original thinker, he was by no means a third-century pro-Nicene whose theological language happened to anticipate the theological developments of the fourth century. Rufinus, however, in anachronistic fashion, attempts to portray Origen in this way. In OntheFalsificationoftheBooksofOrigen 2, Rufinus claims that the less than orthodox Trinitarian statements found in Origen’s works were later interpolated by heretics3. Though past scholarship has been divided on the motives lying behind Rufinus’ particular method in translating these works, the fact of the matter remains that Origen’s works have been altered by Rufinus, a particular challenge for readers of Origen today who are interested in recovering his authentic voice. However, whether Rufinus was intentionally misleading or simply misguided in his attempts to recreate the “authentic” Origen, it is extremely unlikely that his reconstruction of Origen contains none of Origen’s actual material or language4. Rufinus notes in his preface to OnFirstPrinciples that in his admittedly periphrastic translations he is not misrepresenting Origen, but that his alterations are based on “reverent statements made by him about the Trinity in other places”5. Exactly where and what all of these other statements are, however, is difficult to ascertain and must be reconciled with the seemingly subordinationist tone that characterizes 1. For a summary, see R.J. ROMBS, ANoteontheStatusofOrigen’sDePrincipiisin English, in VigChr61 (2007) 21-29. 2. And of course the doctrine of apokatastasis. 3. CCSL 20, 9. Also in Fals. 7; CCSL 20, 12. Here he cites evidence for this based on one of Origen’s epistles. The authenticity of this epistle is confirmed in the text of Jerome, ContraRufinumII,18. 4. E.g. the case made for the orthodoxy of Origen’s views on the Son and Holy Spirit in Pamphilus’ Apologia 10-29 (PG 17, 559-572). 5. Prin Praef. 3. Translations from Origen.OnFirstPrinciples, transl. G.W. BUTTERWORTH, Gloucester, MA, Peter Smith, 1973.

448

J.J. LEE

Origen’s surviving Greek works like the CommentaryonJohn and Contra Celsum. As will be seen shortly, one very likely possibility is that Rufinus placed significant stock in the spurious Dialogue of Adamantius, which contains some seemingly pro-Nicene statements6. The goal of this paper, therefore, is to add insight to Rufinus as a translator of Origen, particularly with regard to Origen’s Trinitarian theology. More specifically, the question that will be addressed is this: what language or concepts, if any, did Rufinus find in Origen’s actual writings (i.e. those we currently possess in Greek) that convinced him that Origen’s Trinitarian theology was orthodox by fourth-century standards? What particular aspects of Origen’s Trinitarian theology remain in Rufinus’ translations and form the basis for Rufinus’ construction of him? The issue in addressing this question is that it is simply too large to be answered adequately in a paper of this scope; additionally, it involves a great deal of speculation. We simply do not possess enough of Origen’s writings to take into consideration everything he wrote, nor can we determine with any certainty every aspect of his Trinitarian theology that Rufinus would have found attractive. However, this does not mean that it is impossible to identify points in Origen’s thought on which Rufinus chose to capitalize. In this paper I will explore two examples of Origen’s theological language which Rufinus considers to be Origen’s “reverent statements”. In both of these examples, Rufinus takes advantage of ambiguous or underdeveloped portions of Origen’s theology, intentionally misreading or reinterpreting them through the standards of fourth-century orthodoxy. The first example, which I will touch on briefly, is Origen’s supposed use of homoousios, a topic which has been discussed at length in past scholarship. The second, which is closely related to the first, is the appearance of the Latin adverbial terms substantialiter and naturaliter in On First Principlesto explain the Son’s possession of the divine attributes. With this second point, I will show that Rufinus introduces these foreign terms into his translations of Origen on the basis of Origen’s use of the category of “accident” to distinguish God from creation. These examples will show that as a translator, Rufinus consistently took liberties with Origen’s writings, searching for more favorable theological statements and language in order to paint Origen more theologically orthodox.

6. See the introduction to Pamphilus, ApologyforOrigen:WiththeLetterofRufinus OntheFalsificationoftheBooksofOrigen, transl. T. SCHECK, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2010, p. 17.

“SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND”

449

I. ORIGEN’S USE OF HOMOOUSIOS By the late fourth century, a standard Trinitarian byword had been established by which orthodoxy could be measured: the homoousios. While for some the boundaries of orthodoxy were more rigid than this phrase, Rufinus was known for holding to a more minimalist definition of orthodoxy. While affirming the need for confession in the foundational doctrines of the church, he was more open to theological speculation in areas outside of these core doctrines7. Though Origen was condemned in Rufinus’ time on a number of different charges, accusations of Origen’s heresy on the basis of his subordinationist Trinitarian theology would have been an especially sensitive issue for Rufinus, particularly accusations of Origen being the root of Arianism8. It is for this reason that Rufinus made greater efforts to highlight markers of orthodoxy in Origen’s writings, freeing Origen of unjust charges brought against him. One way in which Rufinus attempted to defend Origen is by arguing for his orthodoxy on these very standards. Rufinus comments in OntheFalsificationofOrigen 1 that Origen says in places (1) that the Father and Son are of the same substance (homoousios) and (2) that “nowhere in all the Scripture is it found that the Holy Spirit was said to have been made or created”9. These arguments show that Rufinus is thoroughly convinced that Origen’s writings are not heretical and that any charges against him are misguided; he possesses clear evidence to the contrary. But does Origen actually say that the Son is homoousios with the Father? The late R.P.C. Hanson, in his article “Did Origen Apply the Word homoousiosto the Son”, argued a conclusive “no” and even suggested intentional deception on Rufinus’ part10. Mark Edwards, with an article of the same name, responded that yes, Origen did, but “analogically and not dogmatically” – not in the sense of the fourth century11. Wherever one stands in this debate, what can be determined is that (1) homoousios 7. E.A. CLARK, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early ChristianDebate, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992, p. 8. 8. E.g. Epiphanius, Panarion 64,4. Thus leading to Rufinus’ particular defense of Origen. See CLARK, OrigenistControversy (n. 7), pp. 163-167. 9. Fals. 1; CCSL 20, 7-8. The argument that the Holy Spirit is not a creature is also found in Pamphilus, Apologia 3-4; PG 17, 550. 10. R.P.C. HANSON, DidOrigenApplytheWordhomoousiostotheSon?, in J. FONTAINE – C. KANNENGIESER (eds.), Epektasis.MélangespatristiquesoffertsauCardinalJ.Daniélou, Paris, Beauchesne, 1972, 293-303. ApologyforOrigen, transl. SCHECK (n. 6), p. 23, notes that others who agree with Hanson include Amacker, Junod, Williams, and Rowekamp. 11. M. EDWARDS, Did Origen Apply the Word homoousios to the Son?, in JTS 49 (1998) 658-670. Edwards argues that the appearance of homoousios in a Trinitarian context in Origen’s now lost CommentaryonHebrews is used analogically, that they “possess

450

J.J. LEE

is a term that actually appears in Origen’s writings, though in a very different context, and (2) Origen does not use it in the way Rufinus claims he does12. Rufinus’ insistence on Origen’s pro-Nicene use of homoousios can also be refuted by simply looking at how Origen uses the language of ousia throughout his writings. As Hanson and others have correctly pointed out, ousia was used differently in the third century than in the fourth, less frequently referring to the abstract “essence” or even “substance” of God, i.e. as something separate from him, and more often with reference to actual being or existence13. This tendency is clearly present in Origen’s writings, for example, when he speaks of “the power and nature of God beyond the essence (ousia)” (CIo XIX,37) or that “God does not even participate in being (ousia)” (CC VI,64)14. Several times in his writings, Origen makes reference to Plato’s famous statement that “the Good is beyond all being (ousia)” (Republic 509B) with reference to God, a reflection of both Plato’s influence and his middle-Platonic milieu on his overall perception of God15. Elsewhere, Origen even describes God as “an invisible and bodiless nature that is pure essence” (CIoXX,158)16. In places where Origen is willing to describe the ousia of God, he chooses to draw on particular passages which describe God as light (1 Jn 1,5) or a common nature in the same degree, though not of course of the same kind, as a bodily subject and its emanation”. 12. E.g. homoousios appears several times in CIo(XIII,148-150; XX,168-170; XX,205206). In each of these cases, Origen is responding to Heracleon’s use of it (1) to describe those who are spiritual and thus homoousios with God and (2) that those who do evil are homoousios with the devil. See C. STEAD, DivineSubstance, Oxford, Clarendon, 1977, pp. 209-214. 13. Ibid., pp. 133-156, offers a number of possible meanings, including existence, category/status, substance, stuff or material form, definition, truth. 14. See also CC VII,46: “but at the higher things, whether one wishes to call them ‘being’, or things ‘invisible’ because they are intelligible, or ‘things which are not seen’ because their nature lies outside the realm of self-perception”; translations from Origen: Contra Celsum, transl. H. CHADWICK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1953; Origen. Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989, and Origen.CommentaryontheGospelaccordingtoJohn,Books13-32, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 89), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1993. 15. Cited in CC VI,64; VII,38. STEAD,DivineSubstance (n. 12), p. 161, notes that for Origen (and Eusebius) God is “beyond ineligible substance” and thus beyond definition. The most Middle-Platonic statement Origen makes of God is in Prin I,1,6 where he describes God as “simple intellectual existence” (intellectualisnaturasimplex) as well as unity (μονάς) and oneness (ἑνάς). 16. Origen more freely allows for the description of the Son and the Spirit as ousia. The description of God as ousia itself is present even in writers like Clement and all the way up to Athanasius. See STEAD,DivineSubstance (n. 12), p. 162.

“SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND”

451

fire (Dt 4,24) or spirit (Jn 4,24)17. In these discussions, Origen is concerned primarily with preserving God’s immateriality; God’s essence is not any of these things18. Rather, these images must be interpreted figuratively; they describe certain aspect of God’s work rather than his actual essence. Even where Origen speaks of God’s nature (physis), he most often repeats the same attributes: invisible (CC VI,64; CIo XX,158), bodiless or incorporeal (CIo XX,158; XIII,123), or “incorruptible, simple, uncompounded, and indivisible” (CC IV,14). Generally, Origen’s tendency is to avoid both speaking of God as possessing ousia or in trying to explain God’s ousia, reflective of his theological emphasis on the ineffability of God. The way in which Origen speaks of the Son’s ousia is markedly different than how he speaks of the Father’s. Hanson notes that Origen’s use of ousia with reference to the Son speaks of “the Son’s distinct reality within the Godhead”19. In CC VI,64, after noting that “God does not even participate in being”, Origen states that the Son is the “being of beings (οὐσίαν μὲν οὐσιῶν) and ideas and ideas … and his Father and God transcends all these”20. This is also seen particularly clearly in CIo XIII,152: the Savior transcends in his essence (ousia), rank, power, divinity (for the Word is living), and wisdom, beings that are so great and of such antiquity, nevertheless, he is not comparable with the Father in any way21.

While the Son clearly has ousia which is by necessity greater than that of humans and other created beings (e.g. CIo I,151-152), the Son is not ineffable in the way the Father is22. In one place where Origen speaks of the ousia of the Son (CIo I,151-152), it is in opposition to those who “do not give him substance (ὑπόστασιν) nor elucidate his essence” (οὐσίαν) 17. See Prin I,1; CIo XIII,123-150. Even God as “spirit” means that he gives life (CIoXIII,140). 18. CIoXIII,124. Also see CC VIII,49: “God is not a material substance (Οὐδὲ γὰρ καϑ’ ἡμᾶς σῶμα ὁ ϑεός)”. 19. HANSON, DidOrigenApplytheWordhomoousiostotheSon? (n. 10), p. 293. 20. The metaphysical places in which the Father and Son sit are a clear reflection of Origen’s Middle-Platonic heritage, drawn from figures like Numenius of Apamea. For more, see R. BERCHMAN, FromPhilotoOrigen:MiddlePlatonisminTransition(Brown Judaic Studies, 69), Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1984, p. 84. 21. Ἀλλ’ ὅμως τῶν τοσούτων καὶ τηλικούτων ὑπερέχων οὐσίᾳ καὶ πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει καὶ ϑειότητι – ἔμψυχος γάρ ἐστι λόγος – καὶ σοφίᾳ, οὐ συγκρίνεται κατ’ οὐδὲν τῷ πατρί. Also in CIo XIII,146: because the Son himself knows God (Mt 11,27) he is the one who can properly speak to us about the Father. 22. For example, Origen notes that the Son has substance in the beginning (CIoI,292), or speaks of the “substantive existence of only-begotten/firstborn” (CIoXXXII,193). In other places, he notes that Christ is one in essence (substantia) yet many in virtues/operations (CRm V,6,7). Also HIer VIII,2,27.4.1.

452

J.J. LEE

as Word of God23. Origen’s point, contrary to his Monarchian opponents, is that the Son is “invested with substance” (οὐσιωμένον) and not separate from God (CIo I,152). But nowhere in Origen’s Greek writings can one find him speaking in language resembling essential equality or “from the same essence” that Rufinus claims that he does24. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is also said to be transcendent over created beings (CIo XIII,151) and has a distinct ousia25; he is an active substance (οὐσίαν) and not an activity (ἐνέργεια)26. The Spirit also has an exalted nature (HLc XXV,5)27, distinguishing him from creation28. But as with the Son, there is a clear gradation in levels of being, noted especially in CIo II,81: “the Spirit does not excel the Son in nature”. Regarding Rufinus’ claim that Origen does not say that the Spirit is made or created, we possess evidence on both sides: at times Origen distinguishes the Spirit from created beings (e.g. CIo XIII,151), in other places he speaks of the Spirit as being “made through the Word” (CIo II,75)29. What this seems to demonstrate is Origen’s understanding of the order of being: the Father is greater than the Son who is greater than the Spirit who is greater than creation. In conclusion, Rufinus’ claim that Origen speaks of the homoousios of the Son and the Father does not appear to be true. Even Origen’s use of the language of ousia differs significantly; he does not use it to speak of the abstract substance of God. Instead, Origen’s use of this language reveals his philosophical and theological influences, as well as ideas which he is 23. This reflects his tendency to speak of the ousia of God with regard to individual existence, in a way not dissimilar from the way he tends to use hypostasis. For use of ousia, hypostasis, and hypokeimenon together, see CIoX,246. Also C. STEAD,Philosophy inChristianAntiquity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 181-182. 24. See R.P.C. HANSON, DidOrigenTeachThattheSonIsektēsousiasoftheFather?, in L. LIES (ed.), Origeniana Quarta: Die Referate des 4. internationalen Origenes- kongresses,1985(Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck – Wien, Tyrolia, 1987, 201-202. Origen prefers to speak in the language of “image”, drawing especially from Hebr 1,3 “χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως” (see esp. CIo XIII,153). Also see Prin I,2,5-8; CRmII,5,5; IV,8,8. 25. CIoII,74: “δογματίζων μηδὲ οὐσίαν τινὰ ἰδίαν ὑφεστάναι τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἑτέραν παρὰ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν”. Also see HNm VI,3,2. 26. FrIo 37. 27. Also HNm VI,2,1. 28. HLc IV,4. For John the Baptist, “the Spirit was not the principle of his being or nature”, which Lienhard notes to be an anti-Gnostic phrase. See Origen. Homilies on Luke.FragmentsonLuke, transl. J.T. LIENHARD, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1996, p. 18, n.13. 29. In CIoII in particular, it is clear that Origen is struggling to find the right language to speak of the Son and the Spirit’s origins. He does not want to call the Spirit unbegotten (CIo II,73) but at times seems to refer to the Son as being created (e.g. Prin I,2,9; IV,4,1).

“SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND”

453

guarding against, such as Gnostic materialism and Stoicism30. However, one issue that has not been explored at length is the presence of the two aforementioned theological points (i.e. Origen’s use of homoousios and his insistence that the Spirit is uncreated) in the DialogueofAdamantius. In the first book of this work, Adamantius briefly states his own theological views, which include these two points31. It should be noted, however, that these points are only mentioned and not expanded upon. While it is likely that Rufinus found evidence for Origen’s Trinitarian orthodoxy elsewhere, it is highly possible that these particular statements had some impact on Rufinus and form the basis of his claim made in Fals. 132. II. RUFINUS AND THE LANGUAGE OF SUBSTANTIALITER/NATURALITER Assuming that Origen did not use homoousios in the way that Rufinus claims he did, one way in which Rufinus most clearly takes liberties with his translations of Origen is in his use of the Latin adverbial forms of ousia and physis in OnFirstPrinciples: the terms substantialiterand naturaliter. These terms appear throughout OnFirstPrinciples33 to describe the shared essence and nature of the Trinity, over and against creation34. For example: The opposing powers, then, are called by the name of “fugitives” and are said to have been at one time “stainless”. But to be stainless is a quality which belongs essentially (substantialiter) to none except the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; for holiness is in every created being an accidental quality, and what is accidental may also be lost. These opposing powers, however, were once stainless and dwelt indeed among those that have continued stainless until now. All this shows that no one is stainless by essence (substantialiter) or by nature (naturaliter), nor is any one polluted essentially (substantialiter)35. 30. I.e. the Stoic understanding of ousia as prime material (hule), namely that everything is by nature material, e.g. Orat XXVII,8; CC I,21. For arguments for Gnostic materialism context, see L. AYRES, NicaeaandItsLegacy:AnApproachtoFourth-CenturyTrinitarian Theology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 24; R. WILLIAMS, Arius:Heresyand Tradition, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2002, pp. 134-135. 31. See Adamantius, Dial. I,2 (803). Also Holy Spirit in Pamphilus, Apologia 21-24 (PG 17, 564-567), Son in Apologia 11-20 (PG 17, 559-564). 32. The connection between the DialogueofAdamantius and Rufinus’ translations of Origen is a topic that deserves further attention. See I. RAMELLI, TheDialogueofAdamantius:ADocumentofOrigen’sThought?, in StudiaPatristica56 (2012) 71-98, 227-273. 33. E.g. PrinI,5,5; I,6,2; I,8,3; II,10,7. 34. This is part of the reason for language that assumes a shared Trinitarian nature throughout this work, e.g. incorporeal (PrinIV,3,15; IV,4,5) or unmade (Prin IV,4,8). Also see CRmVII,13,9. 35. PrinI,5,5.

454

J.J. LEE

The use of “essence” and “nature” here assumes that the Son and the Spirit both possess the divine attributes by means of a shared divine nature, innately and not from without36. Though not said explicitly, if these attributes are possessed substantialiter, then there must be a shared substantia or ousia, i.e. homoousios. One major issue with this is that we possess evidence to the contrary in the Greek fragments of Justinian (Epist. ad Menam) and Jerome (Epist.adAvitum 2). Here we find testimony that Origen said that the Son is the “image of God’s goodness, but not goodness itself” or “not good pure and simply”37. This is said in contrast to the Father who alone is “good without qualification”. Even Prin I,2,13, which agrees that the Son is the “image of [the Father’s] goodness”, appears to contain a correction of Origen’s original views: “there is no other second goodness existing in the Son” or “the Son is not of some other ‘goodness’, but of that alone which is in the Father”. This suggests that there are two conflicting views present in the Latin and surviving Greek texts of OnFirstPrinciples concerning the Son’s possession of the divine attributes. The Latin appears to be an attempt to correct the original views of Origen that we find in the fragments of this work. The logical end of this is statements like Prin I,6,2, which says that, “goodness... reside[s] essentially ... in God and in Christ and in the Holy Spirit. For only in this Trinity, which is the source of all things, does goodness reside essentially”. Even here we see a contradiction: where PrinI,2,13 says that the Father is the source of goodness, in I,6,2 it is a shared Trinitarian goodness. There are further issues with Rufinus’ use of these terms. First, though Origen’s use of “by nature” language is more variable, his use of the closest Greek equivalent to substantialiter, οὐσιωδῶς, does not ever appear in a Trinitarian sense in Origen’s Greek writings38. In places where it does appear, Origen states that the Son “exists inbeing” (Orat XXVII,12)39 or that he “subsists inhisessence insofar as the substance is concerned” (CIo VI,188)40. Both examples agree with what we have seen earlier 36. E.g. the goodness of Son/Holy Spirit in PrinI,6,2, the holiness of Holy Spirit in PrinI,8,3. 37. Koetschau’s edition places these fragments next to PrinI,2,13. 38. The use of οὐσιωδῶς in this way becomes standard in the latter half of the fourth century, seen in writers like Didymus the Blind (Spir.II,13) and Basil of Caesarea (Eun.III,2). 39. “And since the Son of God exists in being and since the Adversary also exists...” (εἰ δὲ μὴ ἀπεμφαίνει, οὐσιωδῶς ὑφεστῶτος τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ὑφεστῶτος δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἀντικειμένου). 40. “Concerning the statement, ‘He whom you do not know has stood in your midst’ (Jn 1,26), we must take these words of the Son of God, the Word, through whom all things were made, who subsists in his essence insofar as the substance is concerned (ὑφεστηκότος οὐσιωδῶς κατὰ τὸ ὑποκείμενον), and is identical with wisdom”.

455

“SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND”

concerning Origen’s use of ousia with regard to the Son, here arguing for his concrete existence against those who deny it. Second, substantialiter almost never appears elsewhere even in the other Latin works of Origen; the double-barreled construction so frequent in OnFirstPrinciples only appears there. What this suggests is that Rufinus has inserted these terms throughout OnFirstPrinciples in an attempt to make Origen look more orthodox. Finally, the most condemning statement is found in an articulation of Rufinus’ own theology in his Commentary on the Apostles Creed 6: Just as the Apostle calls the Father “the only wise” and Son alone is designated Wisdom. The Son is therefore unique. And although he is identical with the Father in glory, eternity, virtue, royalty, and power, He does not possess these unoriginately (sineauctore), as the Father does, but by derivation from the Father, as a Son, though a Son without beginning and equal to the Father41.

While Rufinus paints Origen as having held to the Son’s essential or bynaturepossession of all of the divine attributes, Rufinus himself seems not to have held to this view! Instead, the Son possesses what he has from the Father in a derived sense, a theological view which more closely resembles what we see in Origen’s Greek writings (e.g. Prin I,2,13). What this seems to reveal is Rufinus’ intentional effort to paint Origen more orthodox than he really is, even more “orthodox” than Rufinus himself appears to be here. While it may be possible to express a Trinitarian theology in which the Son possesses goodness and other divine attributes both “essentially” and “from the Father”, the confusion and contradictions we see in On First Principles can likely be attributed to Rufinus. His dislike of Origen’s language of “not goodness itself” or the Father’s sole “good without qualification”, particularly their potential association with Arianism, seems to have led him to clean up Origen’s original language. III. DIVINE IMMUTABILITY

AND THE

CATEGORY

OF

ACCIDENT

The question that remains, then, is the issue Rufinus’ trustworthiness and reliability: is he basing this construction of Origen’s theology simply on the out-of-context appearance of homoousios and similar ideas or are there other parts of Origen’s actual theology which Rufinus is using? Or 41. Rufinus, ExpositioSymboli III: omniatamenhaecnonsineauctore,sicutpater, sedexpatre,tamquamfilius,habet.

456

J.J. LEE

is Rufinus simply misleading his readers and inventing something in Origen which does not exist? My suggestion is that Rufinus’ use of the language of substantialiter/naturaliter is not completely without precedence; rather, he takes liberty with Origen’s use of the category of “accident” to distinguish God from human beings to reach his own theological ends. As we have already seen in PrinI,5,5, Rufinus highlights the Trinitarian essential possession of the divine attributes (e.g. goodness, holiness) in contrast to created beings who possess them by accident. This categorical distinction, found throughout OnFirstPrinciples, is attested also in Origen’s Greek writings, usually to differentiate God the Father from created beings (e.g. angels and humans)42. For example, in CIo II,124125, commenting on 1 Tim 6,16 (that God “alone has immortality”), Origen says of the various sorts of living beings “that no rational being whatsoever possesses blessedness by nature (οὐσιωδῶς) as an inseparable attribute (ἀχώριστον συμβεβηκός)” because “if one should possess blessedness as an inseparable attribute and preeminent life, how would that still be true which is said of God, ‘Who alone has immortality’?” Or similarly, in CC VI,44: It is not possible for that which is good accidentally (κατὰ συμβεβηκός) and consequently to be good in the same sense as that which is good in its own nature (τῷ οὐσιωδῶς); goodness in the former sense will never be absent from the man who … receives the living bread for his preservation43.

Origen’s longest treatment of this subject, found in Philocalia XXIV,4, says: Now we say that a man is sometimes bad because he commits murder, and sometimes, on the contrary, we call him good because of his well-doing; and these names are accidentally associated with the substance, though the accidents are not the substance itself (καὶ πέπλεκται ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἐκ τῶν συμβεβηκότων αὐτῇ, ἅτινα οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτή). For neither is murder a substance, nor adultery, nor is any such like evil thing. But as the grammarian is so called from grammar, and the rhetorician from rhetoric, and the medical man from medicine, though neither medicine nor rhetoric nor grammar is a substance, and the substance takes its title according to its accidents (ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῶν συμβεβηκότων αὐτῇ τὴν προσηγορίαν λαμβανούσης), 42. In clear contrast with God’s essentiality: PrinI,2,10; I,5,5; I,6,2; I,8,3. Attributes that people possess as “accidental” (e.g. goodness): Prin I,2,13; III,1,8; IV,4,7; IV,4,8. See also PrinI,1,7: “intellectual nature should be a mere accident arising out of bodies”. Also see CRmVIII,10; CCt II,125. 43. Οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τ’ ἦν ὁμοίως εἶναι τῷ οὐσιωδῶς ἀγαϑῷ ἀγαϑὸν τὸ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς καὶ ἐξ ἐπιγενήματος ἀγαϑόν.

“SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND”

457

neither of which it is; in the same way, it appears to me, the substance receives a name from what are considered evil things, though it is neither one nor the other of them44.

In each of these examples, Origen is concerned with the issue of preserving free will in created beings. Against Gnostic determinism and other issues present in his day, Origen argues that the natures of created beings are mutable, meaning that they are in control of the acts they perform, either good or evil. Only God is immutable, existing and possessing what he has “by nature” or “by essence”. Created beings are thus responsible for their own actions; good and evil are not an essential part of their nature. Instead, these attributes are added to them from without, “by accident”. Origen’s intention in these statements is not to use these terms to establish a doctrine of divine simplicity; he already assumes this. Rather, he applies Aristotelean categories to distinguish God from his creation in order to make his case for his doctrine of the will45. But it is important to note that Origen only uses οὐσιωδῶς in this way of God the Father, and to make a point about created beings, not the divine. This distinction, it should be noted, also appears repeatedly in books III and IV of the DialogueofAdamantius, which we know Rufinus considered to be important46. The significant point in Origen’s use of the category of accident, however, is not in what he does with it, but what he does not say, and subsequently, how Rufinus takes advantage of it. What Origen does not do is describe the Son and the Spirit as those who possess their attributes “by accident”. Exactly how Origen conceives of the Son and the Spirit possessing the divine attributes is a more complex issue that cannot be discussed at length in this paper. But generally speaking, Origen seems to hold to that the Son and the Spirit, by virtue of their mediatory places 44. Also in Phil IV,24: “For we said that he is called evil from the accidents of the substance, which accidents are not the substance itself (κακὸν δὲ εἴπομεν λέγεσϑαι ἀπὸ τῶν συμβεβηκότων τῇ οὐσίᾳ, ἅτινα οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ οὐσία·)”. 45. What Origen is doing is not foreign to his time and to his middle-Platonic background, this feature being found later in others, particularly in the early fourth century – both Athanasius and Arians holding to this. See STEAD,DivineSubstance (n. 12), pp. 164166. 46. DialIII,9 (837d): “I hold that Good exists as essential Being (κατ’ οὐσίαν), and that Evil is an accident (ἐπισυμβαῖνον); that the Good is incorporeal, but Evil is perceived by the physical senses”. In Dial. IV.9 (847a), responding to the claim that evil arises “as part of the essence and substance of a being” and that the manner of its coming is accidental (ἐπισυμβαίνων ἐστίν), Adamantius responds that “all these things are of an ‘accidental’ (τῶν συμβεβηκότων) nature”, as well as the fact that “a human is called evil from things that are ‘accidental’ (τῶν συμβεβηκότων) to his or her substance – things which are not the actual substance just as a craftsman takes his name from his craft”.

458

J.J. LEE

above creation (e.g. CC VI,65), possess the divine attributes in a derived sense, the Son possessing what he has through the Father, the Spirit similarly through the Son (CIo II,76). The Son’s possession of his attributes and titles is even more nuanced: Origen notes that there are some things which the Son possesses for himself and for others, other things that he does not possess for himself but for others (CIo II,125), almost suggesting “essential” possession of certain traits or titles, but definitely not in that language or as a rule47. Nowhere does Origen speak of a shared Trinitarian nature in the way that we see in OnFirstPrinciples. But Origen does say that “immaterial beings have stability of being” (τὸ εἶναι βεβαίως), a statement which seems to include the Son48. Origen seemed to believe that the Son was immutable or fixed in his attributes, different in this way from creation. Therefore, though the Son does not possess his attributes essentially or by nature, they are not accidental to him in the way that they are for creation; the Son’s possession of his attributes is different from both the Father and creation. Therefore, Rufinus, taking advantage of ambiguity of language surrounding the Son and the Spirit and their possession of the divine attributes, dismissed seemingly “subordinationist” language as interpolation and imposed onto Origen’s system the assumption of a shared divine essence and nature, seen in Origen’s occasional use of οὐσιωδῶς and his supposed use of homoousios. Rufinus concludes that if the Son and the Spirit do not possess attributes like goodness or holiness by accident, then they must, in the same way as the Father, possess them “by nature” or “essentially”, as we have seen in statements like that in PrinI,5,5. Rufinus’ use of the term substantialiter, then, is not entirely unfounded – Origen seems to have no problem applying it to God the Father, who alone is without beginning or source. But as we have seen, this distinction only applies to the Father and in the context of comparing the Father’s existence with that of created beings49. The importance of these categories to Rufinus can be seen in his own comments about God present in his CommentaryontheApostolic Creed 4: “God”, so far as human intelligence can conceive, is the designation of the absolutely supreme nature or substance. “Father” is a term pointing to a secret, inexpressible mystery. When God is uttered, you are to understand 47. Drawn heavily from his reading of 1 Cor 1,30. Other similar examples include: Word in essence (CC IV,15; VII,16), he is Son by nature (PrinI,2,5). 48. Orat XXVII,8, in contrast to Stoics. See STEAD,DivineSubstance (n. 12), p. 138. 49. We should also note Origen’s DialoguewithHeraclides (Dial V,9): “Ἐπιλέγουσίν τινες ὅτι τὰ μὲν περὶ τῆς ϑεότητος οὐσιωδῶς οὕτω προσφέρων Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τὴν ϑεότητα ὡμολόγησα ἀνάστασιν νεκροῦ σώματος ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας”.

“SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND”

459

a substance without beginning or end, simple, uncompounded, invisible, incorporeal, ineffable, incomprehensible: a substance in which there is nothing accidental, nothing creaturely. For He who is the originator of all things is Himself without origin50.

For Rufinus, the word “accidental” denotes creatureliness, while God is simple. Given statements like this, it is reasonable to conclude that Rufinus was directly influenced by this teaching of Origen or that he found an area of agreement in Origen’s usage of it. And finally, the fact that Rufinus took advantage of these categories (i.e that it is an example of what he edited into Origen) is seen especially clearly in one instance in which we possess the Greek and Latin side by side. In Origen’s discussion of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 4 (Prin III,1,8), we see the following addition51: PrinIII,1,8: (translation of Latin) Let this be our answer to them in the first place, in order that their supposition that Pharaoh was by nature lost may be overthrown.

(translation of Greek) This will be our answer to them in the first place, for the purpose of overthrowing their supposition that Pharaoh was of a lost nature.

But if they come to loss through being hardened, they are lost not by nature but by accident (ex accidentibus)

THIS PHRASE IS NOT PRESENT

But how is there need of a second mercy for those who once for all were destined by nature for salvation and come to blessedness naturally?

But how is there need of a second mercy for those who have once for all been fashioned for salvation and who by their nature are in any case destined to be blessed

Again, Origen’s concern is to clarify that the evil Pharaoh has done was not because he was evil by nature or destined by nature to be condemned – he is culpable for his own wrongdoings, not God. But we see Rufinus’ addition of the language of “by accident” to emphasize Pharaoh’s mutable and created status shows that Rufinus considered it an important and replicable piece in Origen’s theological puzzle. To conclude, I hope to have demonstrated that Rufinus bases his construction of Origen’s Trinitarian theology on evidence that he finds within Origen’s texts themselves. Though Origen’s supposed use of 50. ExpositioSymboli IV: Deus,secundumquodopinaripotesthumanamens,naturae ipsius uel substantiae, quae est super omnia, appellatio est. Pater archani et ineffabilis sacramenti uocabulum est. Deum cum audis, substantiam intellege sine initio sine fine simplicem sine ulla admixtione inuisibilem incorpoream ineffabilem inaestimabilem, in quanihiladiunctumnihilcreatumsit.Sineauctoreestenimillequiauctorestomnium. 51. The Greek text is from PhilXXI,7. Note that there is no other “accident” language elsewhere in this section.

460

J.J. LEE

homoousios has its unique set of issues, Rufinus’ appropriation of Origen’s “by accident” language demonstrates how he did not simply interpolate statements foreign to Origen’s own theological vocabulary, but intentionally misread Origen through the lens of his own fourth-century eyes. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that Rufinus modified or reinterpreted aspects of Origen’s theology rather than simply inventing them. This aspect of Rufinus’ work as the primary translator of Origen has generally been overlooked and deserves further attention. This also highlights the fact that Rufinus’ approach to Origen’s texts is actually rather similar to how the modern scholar reads Origen. Where Rufinus attempted to clear away the interpolations of heretics to uncover the original Origen, modern scholars are faced with the task of cleaning away Rufinus. But Rufinus’ motives are still difficult to discern – whether he really believed that Origen’s works were interpolated or received a more orthodox form of Origen from Didymus or was in fact willfully covering up Origen’s mistakes is still uncertain. But on the whole, it is clear that Rufinus took great liberties in representing Origen’s theology, engaging in a great deal of picking and choosing in order seek and to find the true and original Origen he felt that the world needed to know. Durham University St John’s College 3 South Bailey Durham, DH1 3RJ UK [email protected]

Justin J. LEE

LIKENESS TO THE ANGELS ORIGEN, JEROME, AND THE QUESTION OF THE RESURRECTION BODY

I. INTRODUCTION “Substitute flesh for body, and you have not denied the existence of male and female”1. These words, uttered by Jerome, were directed against Bishop John of Jerusalem, who, in a letter to Theophilus of Alexandria2, had explained his views on certain doctrinal matters, after having come under suspicion of Origenist heresy. In his work ContraIohannem, probably written in 3973, Jerome points out that in explaining his views on the resurrection, John only speaks of the body, and not of the flesh. Because of this, Jerome suspected him of holding the Originist view of the resurrection body which did not, he argued, guarantee an identity with the person who had lived on earth. In this argumentation, the question of sexual differentiation was especially important; if we do not rise as men and women, Jerome argued, we will not be the same individuals who lived on earth. As he writes in the same treatise: “Where there is diversity of sex, there John is John, and Mary is Mary”4. It is well known that while Jerome depended heavily on Origen in his work for several years and also expressed great appreciation for him, the latter part of his career was characterized by anti-Origenist polemics. The cause of this change, however, as well as its effects on Jerome’s thought, are less obvious. It is commonly held that Jerome’s choosing the antiOrigenist side in the controversy meant a definitive break with Origen, a complete volte-face. The emphasis in the past has been on the ways in which he distanced himself from Origen, and there is a tendency among 1. Tollecorpusetponecarnem,etvirumetfeminamnonnegasti. ContraIohannem 31, ed. J.-L. FEIERTAG (CCSL 79A; S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Opera III:Opera Polemica), Turnhout, Brepols, 1999, p. 57. 2. The letter was addressed to the bishop of Alexandria in 396. It is not extant, but can partly be recovered from Jerome’s ContraIohannem and Epistula 82. In his letter, John had given a description of the development of the Origenist controversy from his point of view, and he also included a statement of his beliefs, in which he more or less implicitly tried to defend himself against accusations of Origenist heresy. See J.N.D. KELLY, Jerome. HisLife,Writings,andControversies, London, Duckworth, 1975, pp. 205-206. 3. KELLY, Jerome (n. 2), p. 207. 4. Ubisexusdiuersitasest,ibiIohannesIohannesetMariaMaria. ContraIohannem 31 (CCSL 79A, 56).

462

K. PÅLSSON

scholars to neglect a possible continuity with Origenist thought after the beginning of the controversy5. My aim in this paper is to challenge the idea of a definitive break with Origen’s theology in the question of the resurrection body and the related question of the transcendence of sexual difference. I examine how Jerome’s anti-Origenist polemics influenced the views that he expressed on these issues. In doing so, I pay close attention to his use of rhetorical strategies by which he sought to maximize the difference between himself and Origen, portraying Origen as a heretic, and presenting his own ideas as orthodox in contrast to this heresy6. Ultimately, I argue that beneath this rhetorical marking of difference, one can discern a continuing dependence on Origen. I will explore Jerome’s ideas about the resurrection body and sexual difference mainly from two works: His AdversusJovinianum, where he treats the subject quite briefly, and his ContraIohannem, where he elaborates on it at length. I chose these works because they represent two different phases in Jerome’s career, that is, before and after he became engaged in anti-Origenist polemics. Certainly, when Jerome wrote his AdversusJovinianum in 393, the Origenist controversy had begun, but although Jerome chose Epiphanius’ side in the controversy, it is not until 396, in his LettertoVigilantius, that we can see him criticizing views that are ascribed to Origen. In ContraIohannem we find a developed anti-Origenist rhetoric, and one that Jerome would return to in later works. II. JEROME ABOUT THE RESURRECTION BODY IN ADVERSUSJOVINIANUM In the Jovinianist controversy, the questions under debate concerned the value of asceticism. Jovinian, himself a monk in Rome, had argued against ascetical superiority, claiming the equality of all baptized Christians, 5. For example, KELLY, Jerome (n. 2), pp. 195-258; P. BROWN, The Body and Society: Men,WomenandSexualRenunciationinEarlyChristianity, New York, Columbia University Press, 1988, pp. 380-384; E.A. CLARK, TheOrigenistControversy:TheCulturalConstruction ofanEarlyChristianDebate, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992, pp. 123-151. 6. I use “orthodoxy” and “heresy” not as referring to actual teachings, but as contingent terms referring to the rhetorical construction of orthodoxy and heresy which characterizes heresiology. What is accomplished is a mutual construction of a heretical other and an orthodox self. For this way of using the concepts, see for instance: A. LE BOULLUEC, Lanotiond’hérésiedanslalittératuregrecque,IIe-IIIesiècles, Paris, Études Augustiniennes, 1985; D. BOYARIN, BorderLines:ThePartitionofJudaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004; V. BURRUS, TheMakingofaHeretic: Gender,Authority,andthePricillianistControversy,Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – London, University of California Press, 1995; K.L. KING, WhatIsGnosticism?, Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press, 2003.

LIKENESS TO THE ANGELS

463

whether they were celibate or married. Jovinian’s insistence on such equality extended to the eternal life; he argued that the reward would be the same for all who would be saved7. Jerome’s treatment of the question of the resurrection in Adversus Jovinianum is not part of a refutation of Jovinian’s eschatological views, but of a certain view on bodily organs and their functions. Jerome presents Jovinian as claiming that the fact that humans are created with organs, which have certain functions, must mean that it is appropriate to use these organs. Jerome’s argumentation begins in pointing out the absurdity in such a connection between the existence of organs and their functioning: If the organs are there to be used, then we should always use them – otherwise, they would exist in vain8. Jerome then argues from the examples of Jesus and Paul: How can it be, asks Jerome, that Jesus and Paul commanded us to abstain from sex, when they themselves were men9? Why did Paul have male characteristics, if he abstained from sexual intercourse? Why was our Lord born with organs that He would not use? The point is: Having certain organs does not mean that it is good to use them10. From this, Jerome turns to the question of the resurrection body. “Certainly”, he writes, “in the resurrection, the substance of our bodies will be the same as we use now, but of higher glory”11. By reference to a certain idea of the resurrection body, Jerome refutes Jovinian’s argument. 7. Jovinian’s writings are not extant, but his arguments can be partly recovered from Jerome’s AdversusJovinianum, where they are refuted. Apart from Jerome, the most important sources for Jovinian’s teachings are Ambrose of Milan (Epistulaeextracollectionem 15; CSEL82/3, ed. M. ZELZER, 1982) and Siricius of Rome (Epistula 7; PL 13, ed. J.-P. MIGNE, Paris, 1845). Jovinian argued four propositions: Virgins, widows and married women who have been baptized and who do not differ from each other in other works, are of equal merit; they who with full assurance of faith have been born again in baptism cannot be overthrown by the devil; there is no difference between abstinence from food and its reception in thanksgiving; for those who have kept their baptismal vow, there is one and the same reward in heaven (AdversusJovinianum 1.3, in PL 23, 214). The Jovinianist controversy has been treated by D.G. HUNTER in Marriage,Celibacy,andHeresyinAncientChristianity, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2007. 8. AdversusJovinianum 1,36 (PL 23, 260). 9. Ibid. 10. In this, Jerome returns to an idea expressed in other places in AdversusJovinianum: The perfect Christian is the one who goes against human nature in its postlapsarian state. After the fall, several things, unknown to human nature as originally created, were permitted by God because of human weakness. Sexual intercourse within marriage was one of them. As sexuality was not part of the original creation, it will have no place in the resurrection. What the best Christians do is to begin living in this way already on earth, when the quality of their bodies still has not changed, when the corruptible still has not put on incorruption. See, for instance, AdversusJovinianum 1,12 (PL 23, 227-229); 1,16 (PL 23, 235236). 11. Certeinresurrectioneeademeritcorporumsubstantia,quanuncutimur,licetauctior gloria. AdversusJovinianum 1,36 (PL 23, 261).

464

K. PÅLSSON

Also in this case, Jesus is an example: The resurrection body of Jesus was the same as the one in which He had been crucified, to the extent that He could show the wounds in His hands and in His side. Yes, He walked through closed doors, but that does not mean that He did not have the same body as before the resurrection: In that case, we would have to claim that He and Peter did not have real bodies when they walked on water, because this is against human nature. Jerome also refers to the words in the Gospel of Matthew, that: “In the resurrection of the dead, they will not marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels”12. Likeness to the angels, in Jerome’s view, concerns the absence of sex. However, this can mean two things: Either, we will be like the angels by rising without sex, or we will be like the angels by rising in our own sex, but not using the functions of sex13. It is obvious that in this work, it is not in favor of a certain view on the resurrection that Jerome argues; rather, he argues from views on the resurrection body to support his theology of asceticism. We will be like angels in the resurrection; thus, we ought to begin to live the angelic life already on earth. The ultimate aim of this argumentation is to prove the superiority of virginity, which was Jerome’s main concern in the work. “What others will be later, in heaven, this virgins begin to be on earth”14. Conclusively, in Adversus Jovinianum, a connection is made between living the angelic life on earth and living contrary to postlapsarian human nature, not giving in to natural desires. There is a tendency to lessen the difference between the life of the perfect Christian and the resurrected life. In Jerome’s thought, likeness to the angels is not confined to the resurrected state, but can begin already on earth. III. JEROME ABOUT THE RESURRECTION BODY IN CONTRAIOHANNEM In ContraIohannem, written a few years later, the context is of course a very different one. First, Jerome is in a position where he has to defend himself against accusations of Origenism15. Secondly, the question of the 12. Mt 22,30. 13. AdversusJovinianum 1,36 (PL 23, 261). 14. Quodaliiposteaincoelisfuturisunt,hocvirginesinterraessecoeperunt. AdversusJovinianum 1,36 (PL 23, 261). 15. The first signs of this can be seen in Epist. 61, written to Vigilantius (CSEL 54, 575-582). Vigilantius, a priest from Gaul, had visited Jerome in Bethlehem. On his return to the West, he had accused Jerome of holding Origenist views. Vigilantius seems to have stayed with Rufinus and Melania in Jerusalem before he visited Jerome, and it was probably from them that he learned about Jerome’s admiration of Origen. See discussion in KELLY, Jerome (n. 2), p. 202.

LIKENESS TO THE ANGELS

465

resurrection body has taken on manifest importance16. Jerome had not written much about the resurrection of the body before, and as we have seen from the AdversusJovinianum-excerpt, in this work it appeared in an argumentation about asceticism. In the treatise against the bishop of Jerusalem, however, the topic is described as the most pressing issue17. We will now turn to an analysis of Jerome’s presentation of Origen’s heresy in ContraIohannem, and also of his own views on the subject. 1. T  heHeresiologicalPresentationofOrigen’sViewsontheResurrection Body Jerome gives an account of Origen’s views on the resurrection body, claiming that if we do not know the nature of the venom, we will not know what antidote to apply to counteract it18. Origen, Jerome writes, wanted to distance himself from two errors – that of the heretics and that of “us”, “we” being those who claim the resurrection of the flesh, meaning the resurrection of the whole body as we know it now, with its bones, blood, and different organs19. 16. One of the charges brought up in Epist. 61 concerns the resurrection of the body. Jerome, however, does not specify what Origen’s error consists in. The importance of this question in the first Origenist controversy can be explained by reference to the heresiology of Epiphanius. Already in his Ancoratus and Panarion, written in the 370s, he had argued against Origen’s views on the resurrection body. Epiphanius was very dependent on the earlier anti-Origenist polemics of Methodius of Olympus (see J.F. DECHOW, Dogmaand Mysticism:EpiphaniusofCyprusandtheLegacyofOrigen, Macon, GA, Mercer University Press, 1988, pp. 349-390). Epiphanius also expressed charges against Origen in a letter written to John of Jerusalem in 394. The letter was translated into Latin by Jerome (Epist. 51, CSEL 54, 395-412). 17. ContraIohannem 23 (CCSL 79A, 37). 18. Jerome refers to three works of Origen: On the Resurrection, Stromateis and CommentaryonPsalm1. These works are not extant, but Origen spoke of the resurrection in other places as well; for example, his important discussion about the meaning of the angelic life in his CommentaryonMatthew is extant in the Greek (CMt XVII,29-36, in Matthäuserklärung.I:DiegriechischerhaltenenTomoi, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN – E. BENZ [GCS, 40; Origenes Werke, 10],Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1935, pp. 663-703). Excerpts from his writings on the resurrection body are also found in Rufinus’ Latin translation of Apology forOrigen by Pamphilus of Caesarea, written in 309/10. 19. Origen distanced himself both from those who denied a resurrection of the body and those who interpreted the resurrection in a materialistic way, imagining that we would live in the same way as in the present life. See, for instance, Deprincipiis II,10,1-3 (Deprincipiis, ed. P. KOETSCHAU [GCS, 22; Origenes Werke, 5], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1913, pp. 172-176); II,11,2 (GCS 22, 184-186 KOETSCHAU); ContraCelsum VII,32 (BuchVI-VIIIGegenCelsus. DieSchriftvomGebet, ed. P. KOETSCHAU [GCS, 3; Origenes Werke, 2], Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1899, pp. 182-183). The issue is discussed in H. CROUZEL, Ladoctrineorigénienneducorps ressuscité, in ID.,LesfinsdernièresselonOrigène, Hampshire, Vermont, Variorum, 1990, Part VI, pp. 177-179. It is important to note that although Jerome places himself in the group of the simple ones, he did not have much in common with the kind of ideas that Origen was refuting: As we will see in what follows, even though he claimed the resurrection of the

466

K. PÅLSSON

Jerome presents Origen as holding that after death, the elements that have made up the human body return to their substances; for example, the flesh goes into the earth. These elements do not disappear, but neither can they go back to their former composition; that is, the resurrection body will not be composed of the same materials as the earthly body. “When this is said”, Jerome concludes, “the firmness of the flesh, the fluidity of the blood, the dense interlacing of sinews and veins and the hardness of bones is denied”20. Still, Origen is presented as claiming that the same persons will rise who have lived on earth. How is this identity explained? Jerome presents Origen’s view as follows: Taking his departure from 1 Corinthians 15, Origen compared the resurrected body to the plant which springs from a seed. In every seed, there is a principle that contains all of its future growth. When the seed dies and is dissolved in the earth, it draws to itself surrounding materials, and from these, a body rises21. The bodies that will rise will not have the same flesh or be in the same form that they had before. Origen suggests, in Jerome’s presentation, that a resurrection of the flesh and the same members would mean that we would again need barbers because of growing hair, that we would again have to cut our nails, and that our genital organs would again be used for sexual purposes. Jerome thus presents Origen as claiming, against those who argue for the resurrection of the flesh, that if all the organs will remain, we will also continue to use these organs. If the same flesh will remain, we will again be men and women, and will again marry. Contrary to this, Origen is said to claim that we will have a spiritual body, which cannot be touched or seen22. We thus note an important similarity to Jerome’s argumentation in AdversusJovinianum; like the former opponent, Origen is portrayed as assuming a necessary connection between havingorgans and usingthem. 2. Jerome’sTheologyoftheResurrectionBodyinContra Iohannem After presenting the view that he opposes, Jerome offers his own. The first obvious difference from what Jerome has said in earlier works about the resurrection body is his emphasis on the resurrection of the flesh. This flesh, he thought of it as transformed into something very different in character from the earthly body. 20. Cumautemistadicantur,soliditascarnium,sanguinumuis,crassitudoneruorum uenarumqueperplexioetossiumduritiesdenegatur. ContraIohannem 25 (CCSL 79A, 43). 21. The wording is not the same but the content very similar to a quotation that Pamphilus gives from OntheResurrection. See ApologiepourOrigène, ed. R. AMACKER – É. JUNOD (SC, 464), Paris, Cerf, 2002, pp. 210-214. 22. ContraIohannem 26 (CCSL 79A, 45-46).

LIKENESS TO THE ANGELS

467

had not been a concern for Jerome in AdversusJovinianum, or in any other writing before or after the beginning of the Origenist controversy. He blames John for speaking of the body, as if it meant the same thing as the flesh. While all flesh is body, says Jerome, not all body is flesh. Beneath this disguise articulated by John, Origenist heresy seems to lurk23. The flesh will rise, says Jerome, and it will be glorious (gloria) without its reality (veritas) being destroyed24. Corruptionputtingonincorruption and mortalityputtingonimmortality does not mean that the body will be taken away, but that the very same body, which formerly lacked glory, will be glorious. We may recall the statement in AdversusJovinianum that the difference will not be in substance, but in glory. Jerome points out that where there is flesh and blood, there is sexual difference25. He sees sexual difference as directly tied to identity – if a person does not rise in his or her own sex, the person will not be the same26. While Jerome, in AdversusJovinianum, had expressed uncertainty about whether likeness to the angels implied the ceasing of sexual difference, in this work he is quite clear: The likeness refers to that the blessedness of their state withoutsex will be given to us withoursex. Jerome is also clear about what the likeness does not mean: It does not mean being turned into angels, but has to do with an increase in immortality and glory27. We have already seen that the question of bodily functions is a theme that returns in ContraIohannem. Jerome argues that sex can exist without the functions of the senses28. One does not have to fear that marriage will take place among those who even before death lived in their own sex without using the functions of it. When it is said in the Gospel of Matthew: “They will not marry...”, this must be said, Jerome points out, about those who actually can marry, but donot. It is not said about the angels that they will not marry29. Another similarity to the discussion in Adversus Jovinianum is the argumentation from the resurrection body of Christ, or more precisely, the identity between this body and the one in which He was crucified. Our bodies will be the same in the resurrection: The difference only concerns the degree of glory. Jerome even returns to the parallel between 23. ContraIohannem 27 (CCSL 79A, 48). 24. ContraIohannem 29 (CCSL 79A, 52). 25. ContraIohannem 31 (CCSL 79A, 56). 26. ContraIohannem 30 (CCSL 79A, 55). 27. ContraIohannem 31 (CCSL 79A, 57). 28. ... sine sexus operibus homines resurgere et sic eos angelis adaequari. Contra Iohannem 31 (CCSL 79A, 57). 29. ContraIohannem 31 (CCSL 79A, 57).

468

K. PÅLSSON

the resurrection body and earthly bodies walking on water. We remember that in AdversusJovinianum, the argument had been that if we deny that the Lord had a real body after His resurrection because He went through closed doors, we must likewise deny that He and Peter had real bodies when they walked on water, which is against human nature. In Contra Iohannem, the argument is: When Peter doubted, his body understood its own nature and he sank – meaning, Jerome explains, that it was not his body that walked on water, but his faith. In both cases, however, the conclusion is the same one: Peter was able to do in his earthly life, in his earthly body, what was against human nature. The conclusion is that we do not need a spiritual body to do things that are contrary to human nature, being similar to the angels. Let us take a moment to consider that, despite the strong similarities between Jerome’s argumentation in Adversus Jovinianum and that of the present work, the argument is, in a way, the opposite: While the question about asceticism was the important one in the first work, in this one, the issue of the resurrection body takes precedence, and he argues from the earthly body – above all, from the body of the ascetic – to support his view. IV. CONTINUITY WITH ORIGENIST THOUGHT AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTROVERSY As we have seen, there are striking similarities in Jerome’s discussions of the resurrection body before and after his engagement in anti-Origenist polemics. What is new in ContraIohannem is, above all, his emphasis on the resurrection of the flesh and all bodily organs. In the following we will examine to what extent his ideas about the resurrection body meant a refutation of Origenist ideas that he had formerly held, and to what extent he continued to embrace such ideas, despite his heresiological efforts. 1. SubstanceandGlory Concerning the distinction between reality and glory, which we have noted as salient in his anti-Origenist polemics in ContraIohannem, there is reason to suggest that this distinction actually came from Origen himself. Jerome had written in his CommentaryonGalatians: ... when we have been transformed from the body of humility into the body of glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, we will have that body that neither the

LIKENESS TO THE ANGELS

469

Jew can cut nor the Gentile preserve in the state of uncircumcision. It will not be different in regard to the substance but in regard to the glory30.

This explanation is not very different from what Origen taught about the resurrection body, and it is quite probable that Jerome learned this distinction from Origen. Origen spoke of two different natures, a visible one and an invisible one. The visible nature was given different qualities depending on the condition in which it lived. Thus, Origen could argue that the body was the same in the resurrection with regard to its substance, but different with regard to its qualities, that is, the qualities of corruption and mortality would give way to qualities of incorruption and immortality. It would be transformed from an earthly body to a spiritual body31. Since Jerome depended heavily on Origen in this commentary32, he probably learned this distinction from Origen. It thus seems plausible that one of the ways in which Jerome sought to distance himself from Origen – by claiming that we would rise in the same body, but with different qualities, while Origen was presented as arguing that it would not be the same body – drew on an Origenist idea. 2. TheAngelicLife We have seen that another important strategy in distancing himself from Origen in ContraIohannem was to claim that we could already in this life begin the angelic life. However, in claiming that we ought to live as angels already on earth, Jerome was certainly relying on Origen’s thought. Fundamental in Jerome’s ascetical theology was the idea that the present condition of human beings was utterly different from that in which they had been created. One of the radical consequences that the Fall brought with it was that of sexuality, which was not part of the original creation. The life of the ascetic, struggling against postlapsarian human nature, thus 30. Comm. in Gal. VI,15: … cum de corpore humilitatis transformati fuerimus in corpus gloriae Domini Jesu Christi, illud habebimus corpus quod nec Judaeus possit incidere,neccumpraeputiocustodireGentilis.Nonquodjuxtasubstantiamaliudsit;sed quodjuxtagloriamsitdiversum (PL 26, 436). 31. Origen, Deprincipiis III,4.5.7; ContraCelsumIII,41. See discussion in CROUZEL, Doctrineorigénienne (n. 19), pp. 241-246. 32. Jerome says in the preface that Origen is the most important authority that he follows in his commentary. Fragments from Origen’s commentary are extant in Pamphilus’ Apology, which makes it possible to confirm that certain sections in Jerome’s commentary come from Origen. However, it is above all from a comparison with Origen’s exegesis in his CommentaryonRomans that the similarities between him and Jerome become clear. See, St.Jerome’sCommentariesonGalatians,Titus,andPhilemon, transl. T.P. SCHECK, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 2010, pp. 8-9.

470

K. PÅLSSON

meant a return to Paradise as well as an anticipation of heaven. Such ideas had been expressed by Origen as well33. Ideas about the ascetic person beginning the angelic life by living against postlapsarian human nature were connected to ideas about transcending sexual difference. Jerome discussed in several places the ability of women to cease being women through asceticism, returning to the condition of Eve in Paradise before the Fall. One example can be found in his CommentaryonEphesians, written at some point between 386 and 388. Jerome, under the strong influence of Origen’s commentary, expressed the idea that through chastity, the sexual difference between husband and wife can disappear34. If a woman chooses to be more devoted to Christ than to the world, “she will cease to be woman and be said to be man”35. Concerning the eschatological realities becoming true already in this life through asceticism, Jerome claims: “... may there be no diversity of the sexes at all, but as there is no man and woman among the angels, so also let us, who will be like angels, even now begin to be that which has been promised to us in the heavens”36. One of the accusations brought against Jerome by Rufinus of Aquileia, in a later state of the Origenist controversy, was that he had formerly agreed with Origen’s views on the possibility of transcending sexual difference37. In his ApologyagainstRufinus, Jerome explains his wording

33. For Jerome, see for instance Epist. 22,19, AdversusJovinianum 1,12, 1,16. Origen’s views on the ascetic life and the transformation of the Christian in terms of beginning an angelic and sexless life can be seen in many works. For example, in his CRm IV,6,9 (PG 14, 983–984); II,13 (PG 14, 907–908); V,10,4 (PG 14, 1048); CMt XVII,29-30 (GCS 40, 663-672 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ). For a treatment of Origen’s ascetical views, see, for example, BROWN, BodyandSociety (n. 5), pp. 160-177. 34. Comm.inEph. V,28-29 (PL 26, 533-534). 35. ... mulier esse cessabit, et dicetur vir, quia omnes in perfectum virum cupimus occurrere (PL 26, 533; TheCommentariesofOrigenandJeromeonSt.Paul’sEpistleto theEphesians, transl. R.E. HEINE [The Oxford Early Christian Studies], Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 237-238). 36. Comm.inEph. V,28-29: ...nequaquamsitsexuumulladiversitas:sedquomodo apudangelosnonestviretmulier:itaetnos,quisimilesangelisfuturisumus,jamnunc incipiamus esse quod nobis in coelestibus repromissum est (PL 26, 534; transl. HEINE [n. 35], p. 238). 37. Rufinus, after moving to the West in 397, had begun a project of restoring the reputation of Origen. An important part in this was to translate some of Origen’s works. In the preface to one of these translations, that of PeriArchon, Rufinus indicated that in doing this, he was simply continuing what Jerome had already begun, thus pointing out Jerome as an Origenist. This was the start of a new phase in the Origenist controversy, with Jerome writing an apology against Rufinus and Rufinus writing one against Jerome. Important in Rufinus’ critique against Jerome was that in previous works, he had expressed Origenist ideas, above all in his Commentary on Ephesians and Commentary onEcclesiastes.

LIKENESS TO THE ANGELS

471

in the CommentaryonEphesians by claiming that he first gave a “simple” explanation that was his own, and that the words about the resurrection and transcendence of sexual difference were quoted from Origen’s commentary. However, Jerome does not stop his explanation there, and rather than distancing himself from the views ascribed to Origen, he defends them: These words should rightly disturb you, if I had not said after the previous words: “Let us even now begin to be that which is promised us in the heavens”. When I say “let us begin here on earth”, I do not take away the nature of the sexes, but I remove sexual desire and intercourse between man and woman /…/ Actually, where there is chastity between man and woman, there begins to be neither man nor woman, but, still situated in the body, they are changed into angels, among whom there is neither man nor woman38.

From this text it becomes clear that in the question of sexual difference, Jerome continued to embrace the Origenist idea about the possibility of transcendence, while distancing himself from an Origenist view on the resurrection body. That Jerome upholds the ability of the ascetic to transcend bodily conditions, while claiming that we will rise with our sexual organs, demonstrates another Origenist trait in his thought: the distinction between the outer and the inner person. Even when having a fleshly body and a sex, the innerperson could be said to be spiritual and, in a way, raised above sexual difference. The ascetic was one who lived in the flesh without living according to the flesh, that is, had a fleshly body without giving in to natural desires39. When it comes to the possibility of transcending sexual difference, the clearest expression of Jerome’s view on this question during the Origenist controversy is seen in his Letter 75, written in 399 to the widow Theodora. There, he says that she and her husband were more like brother and sister, or even brother and brother, since because of their living in continence, difference of sex was not essential to their relation. The words 38. Rectemouerent,nisipostprioradixissem:“Iamnuncincipiamusessequodnobis incaelestibusrepromissumest”.Quandodico:Hicesseincipiamusinterris,nonnaturam tollosexuum,sedlibidinemetcoitumuirietuxorisaufero/.../Etreueraubiinteruirum et feminam castitas est, nec uir incipit esse, nec femina, sed, adhuc in corpore positi, mutanturinangelos,inquibusnonestuiretmulier (CCSL 79, 28-29 LARDET). 39. Already in his work against Helvidius about the perpetual virginity of Mary, written in 383, Jerome had stressed that the main difference between the virgin and the married woman is not the physical difference, but concerns caringforChrist as opposed to caring for a husband. Jerome writes: Virginis definitio, sanctam esse corpore et spiritu; quia nihilprositcarnemhaberevirginem,simentequisnupserit. DePerpetuaVirginitateB. Mariae,AdversusHelvidium 20 (PL 23, 203-204). See also Epist. 54,9 (CSEL 54, 475) and Epist. 60,3 (CSEL 54, 552).

472

K. PÅLSSON

in Gal 3,28, about there not being male and female, will be all the more true, says Jerome, when corruption puts on incorruption, and we become like the angels. That this is written in the midst of the Origenist controversy becomes clear when Jerome adds that this does not do away with the natural body – a real body – but has to do with the greatness of the glory. We shall not beangels; but belikeangels. This is said in opposition to a heresy with great but vague promises, and we can guess that Jerome has an Origenist view on the resurrection in mind40. In this letter, it is obvious that sexual difference does not have to refer to physical conditions, and that the possibility of transcending this difference concerns the inner person. One notes here that the idea of the possibility of transcending sexual difference – an idea clearly influenced by Origen’s thought – is combined with the idea of rising with a real body, that is, rising as man or woman. Jerome expresses his view on transcendence of sex as an orthodox alternative to Origen’s view: In contrast to the heresy that he constructs, his view does not imply a denial of a resurrection of the same person who has lived on earth. V. CONCLUSIONS In his work BodyandSociety, Peter Brown deals briefly with the effects of the Origenist controversy for Jerome’s views on sexual difference and the relationship between men and women. “On issues that touched on the nature of the human person, and most particularly on the extent to which the differences between the sexes could be regarded as transcendable, Origen was shown to have belonged to a very distant age”41. When forced to choose, Jerome, in Brown’s account, chose the side of those who claimed the lasting difference between the sexes as well as the lasting risk of sexual temptation between them. The dangers about ideas of the fluidity of the human person became patent to Jerome after the beginning of the controversy, and while Brown acknowledges that Jerome remained influenced by Origen as an exegete, he holds that Jerome definitely turned against Origen’s ideas about the human person42. I hope to have demonstrated that Jerome’s heresiological treatment of the question of the resurrection body did not at all make him refute certain Origenist ideas that he had held long since. While Jerome certainly 40. Epist. 75,2 (CSEL 55, 31-32). 41. BROWN, BodyandSociety(n. 5), p. 379. 42. Ibid., pp. 379-380.

LIKENESS TO THE ANGELS

473

came to differ from Origen in claiming that we will rise with the same flesh that we now have, and with the same organs, one notes that he would continue to express many of the Origenist views that he held before the beginning of the controversy, and that deeply influenced his ascetical theology. The important similarities between his argumentation in AdversusJovinianum and ContraIohannem indicate that the ascetical theology expressed in the former work, so heavily influenced by Origenist thought, continued to be important even after Jerome’s engagement in anti-Origenist polemics. The idea of sameness in substance, or reality, anddifferenceinglory is retained in ContraIohannem. This idea probably came from Origen, but here it is given an anti-Origenist twist, becoming a way of showing that Jerome claimed the resurrection of the same individual while Origen denied this very point. When it comes to the question of sexual differentiation, Jerome also continues to embrace the Origenist idea that it is possible for the inner person to transcend sexual difference, all the while claiming that we will rise with our sexual organs. He marks his difference from Origen by pointing out that this is possible already in this life, in the earthly body – thus, it does not imply a physical difference. Once again, in his marking of distance, he uses an Origenist idea against Origen. The continuity is more obvious than the difference, despite the fact that Jerome, through heresiological rhetoric, makes Origen seem much more distant than he actually is. Lund University Centre for Theology and Religious Studies Helgonavägen 3 Lund Sweden [email protected]

Katarina PÅLSSON

IV. TRADITION, INNOVATION, AND HERITAGE: ORIGEN’S EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

PSALMS AS PART OF THE WORSHIP IN EARLY CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS

The following contribution is connected to the work on the prologue material in the catenae on Psalms taken from the works of Origen and Eusebius. Within the framework of the Berlin editorial project, “Die alexandrinische und antiochenische Bibelexegese in der Spätantike”, new critical editions of these prologue texts have been published in a joint volume1. Meant as introductions for readers of the psalter, they present a wide variety of themes, ranging from technical explanations to historical and theological comments. As many psalms are associated with the Temple in Jerusalem and originally formed a part of its worship and liturgy, the following will examine early Christian exegesis on Psalms, its awareness of these links, and its assessment of the ancient worship. I. CHRISTIAN CLAIMING OF THE PSALMS In the gospels, Jesus himself exhibits a rather negative approach towards the contemporary Temple, specifically its overseers2. Early Christian authors often display the same perception of the earthly temple in earthly Jerusalem. It had been the place of sacrifice according to the law, but these σωματικὰ ϑυσία3 had been abolished by Christ. Instead, hopes were placed on the heavenly New Jerusalem and its temple. History was invoked to support this perception, since the Second Temple had been demolished not long after Jesus’ death. But still, since “the law has a shadow of the good things to come”4, to quote one of Origen’s as well as one of Eusebius’ favorite verses from Paul, and probably also because of the presence of the remaining Temple ruins, as Franz Xaver Risch shows in his contribution5, Origen and others also took the Temple’s architecture and the actions of the priests into account. 1. C. BANDT – F.X. RISCH – B. VILLANI, DiePrologtextezudenPsalmenvonOrigenes undEusebius (TU, 183), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2018. 2. See Mt 21,12-16 parr. 3. See e.g. Eusebius, Comm.inPs. 68 (PG 23, 760C). 4. Heb 10,1. 5. See F.X. RISCH, DieStufendesTempels:ZurAuslegungderGradualpsalmenbei Origenes, in the present volume, 243-263.

478

C. BANDT

The Psalms, on the other hand, played a vital role in Christian personal piety as well as in common gatherings. Therefore, the exegesis had to provide their fellow Christians with appropriate, uplifting interpretations. Thus, Origen often concentrated on the ethical perspective and taught his audience how to conduct a proper Christian life according to the psalm verses6. Eusebius, in turn, takes every opportunity to allude to Christian salvation history7. In fact, the interpretation of psalm verses as prophecies about Christ is widespread, and we find it already in Peter’s address to the crowd at Pentecost8. Ultimately, such an interpretation of the Psalms leads to their virtual detachment from Judaism. Sometimes, they are even set in sharp contrast to it, as in the almost bizarre reasoning from Eusebius in his rather popular prologue text to the psalter: On the fact that the Book of Psalms contains a new teaching after Moses’ Law and is a second educational book, after the writing of Moses. After Moses’ and Joshua’s death and after the Judges, David was born and was found worthy to act in a way as the father of the savior, and he first introduced to the Hebrews the chanting of psalms as a new practice. By means of it, he abolishes Moses’ Law regarding sacrifices and introduces as a new kind of service the one of praising and exultation. And, the other things which exceed the Law of Moses, he teaches in his whole work9.

In this succinct statement, the psalter becomes kind of an intertestamental piece. In fact, it affects the Mosaic Law insofar as legal sacrifices are abolished and replaced by the chanting of psalms, ψαλμῳδία. David, 6. This exegetical scope is omnipresent throughout the newly found homilies. See e.g. Origenes, H67PsII,2 (GCS NF 19, 202,9–204,4 PERRONE). 3 (206,20–207,3). 4 (209,2– 211,2). 5 (212,8–215,2) etc. 7. To get an idea of the prominence of this theme within Eusebius’ enormous CommentaryonthePsalms, already one glance at the Periochae is sufficient. In the Periochae Eusebius summarizes in few words his interpretation of every single psalm. Far more than half of the psalms are categorized by Eusebius in their entirety as prophesies about Christ’s earthly life, his passion and resurrection, the repudiation of the Jews, and, most prominent, the call of the pagans. The Periochae are very popular in the Psalm catenae, they have been published by Montfaucon (see PG 23, 68A-72C), a new edition is incorporated in the above mentioned volume on the prologue material by Origen and Eusebius (see n. 1). 8. See Act 2,25: “For David speaketh concerning him: ‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved’ (Ps 15,8 = Ps 16,8 M)”. 9. Eusebius, Didascalia (cf. PG 23, 76A, critical edition included in the volume mentioned above in n. 1): Ὡς ἡ βίβλος τῶν ψαλμῶν καινὴν διδασκαλίαν περιέχει μετὰ τὴν Μωϋσέως νομοϑεσίαν καὶ ὅτι δευτέρα μετὰ τὴν Μωϋσέως γραφὴν διδασκαλικὴ βίβλος αὕτη τυγχάνει. Μετὰ γοῦν τὴν Μωϋσέως καὶ Ἰησοῦ τελευτὴν καὶ μετὰ τοὺς κριτὰς Δαυὶδ γενόμενος ὡσανεὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτὸς χρηματίσαι πατὴρ καταξιωϑεὶς καινὸν τρόπον τὸν τῆς ψαλμῳδίας πρῶτος Ἑβραίοις παρέδωκεν. δι’ ἧς ἀναιρεῖ μὲν τὰ παρὰ Μωϋσεῖ περὶ ϑυσιῶν νενομοϑετημένα, καινὸν δὲ τὸν δι’ ὑμνῶν καὶ ἀλαλαγμῶν τρόπον τῆς τοῦ ϑεοῦ λατρείας εἰσάγει· καὶ ἄλλα δὲ πλεῖστα τὸν Μωϋσέως νόμον ἐπαναβεβηκότα δι’ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς πραγματείας διδάσκει.

PSALMS AS PART OF THE WORSHIP IN EARLY CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS

479

the inventor of ψαλμῳδία, is called the “father of the savior”, which, of course, coincides which Mt 1,1. However, this title can be interpreted in a twofold manner: on the one hand, according to Eusebius’ understanding that almost all psalms are speaking about Christ and his church, and likewise for him, the psalter, regarding its content, is a forerunner of the gospels. On the other hand, regarding its function, ψαλμῳδία is portrayed as a substitute for the sacrifices and therefore a forerunner of the Eucharist. Still, it must be asked, which meaning of ψαλμῳδία did Eusebius have in mind when he stated that David introduced it to the Hebrews? Being a historian and well versed in biblical history, he was certainly aware of the report of the return of the Ark of Covenant to Jerusalem in 2 Sam 6, wherein David danced and sang before the Ark (cf. 2 Sam 6,5.14.21). This was extraordinary behavior for a king of Judah, as the dismayed reaction to this performance by David’s first wife, Michal, shows (cf. 2 Sam 6,20). However, according to this report, during the ceremony King David not only performed music but also offered a great number of sacrifices (cf. 2 Sam 6,13.17). Eusebius must have known that the sacrifice of animals in the sanctuary was sanctioned during David’s lifetime and until the Second Temple was destroyed. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Eusebius thought that the Jewish people as a whole might have benefitted from David’s innovation of ψαλμῳδία as a substitute for these sacrifices. A passage from his Commentary on Psalm 53 sheds light on the matter. Here we learn more about the circumstances of this innovation, and that it took place in the dramatic context of David’s flight from Saul, when he was cut off from the sanctuary and thus could not offer a sacrifice10: … he calls us for understanding of the content in the words: “Towards the end, in hymns, out of understanding, by David” (Ps 53,1) […], because when he was fleeing and was hunted in the desert, he armed himself instead of an amulet with the instrument of the harp and the hymns which were send up to God by its means, and he used spiritual songs and psalms instead of sacrifices, and he implemented the spiritual liturgy instead of the flavoursome incense11.

10. This argument is to a certain degree anachronistic, because as 1 Sam 14,35 shows, it would have been possible to sacrifice spontaneously away from the sanctuary in the time of Saul and David. 11. Eusebius, Comm.inPs. 53 (PG 23, 465A): … καὶ ἐπὶ σύνεσιν ἡμᾶς παρορμᾷ τῶν ἐμφερομένων, λέγων· εἰς τὸ τέλος, ἐν ὕμνοις, συνέσεως τῷ Δαυίδ (Ps 53,1) [...]· ἐπειδὴ καὶ φεύγων καὶ τὴν ἔρημον μεταδιώκων ἀντὶ φυλακτηρίου ἐπήγετο τὸ τοῦ ψαλτηρίου ὄργανον αὐτῷ χρώμενος καὶ τοῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ εἰς ϑεὸν ἀναπεμπομένοις ὕμνοις, καὶ ᾠδαῖς μὲν καὶ ψαλμοῖς πνευματικοῖς ἀντὶ ϑυσίας χρώμενος, ἀντὶ δὲ εὐώδους ϑυμιάματος δι’ εὐχῶν τὴν πνευματικὴν ἀποτελῶν λειτουργίαν.

480

C. BANDT

This means that Eusebius dates the introduction of ψαλμῳδία by David back to the times when he was not yet a king, and he understands it in David’s case as an act of personal piety, not as a collective service. Of course, here Eusebius is commenting on just one single psalm verse, but the prologue text quoted before strongly suggests that he generally uncouples the performance of psalms and the service in the sanctuary. We will return to this observation later. II. THE APPOINTMENT OF MUSICIANS BEFORE

THE

ARK

When David made Jerusalem the capital of his kingdom and brought the Ark from Kirjat-Jearim there, he was not the only musician who took part in the triumphal procession. As we learn from corresponding reports in the First Book of Chronicles, the king appointed a number of liturgical musicians from the tribe of Levi. The different lists of these musicians are not identical12, but three principal musicians (simply called ψαλτῳδοί, cf. 1 Chr 15,16) were chosen. The names were spelled either Aiman, Asaf and Aitham (cf. 1 Chr 15,17) or Asaf, Aiman and Idithum (cf. 1 Chr 25,1). These performers also led the musical service in the newly established sanctuary in Jerusalem. Together with their offspring, they formed a total number of 288 musicians (cf. 1 Chr 25,7); 24 groups of twelve men each (cf. 1 Chr 25,8-31). These numbers are not further explained, but it is clear that the number twelve constitutes their basis. The number twelve, in turn, is a formative principle in the structure of the sanctuary, as it represents the twelve tribes of Israel13. Significantly, while David is the most prominent author in the Book of Psalms, all four names of the chief musicians also appear in the headings of several psalms. This is probably due to the fact that, in his Homilyon Psalms, Hippolytus of Rome took the reports from Chronicles as a stimulus to write his own astonishingly embellished version, although he diverts notably from the biblical account14. After a short historical summary of the circumstances leading to the return of the Ark of Covenant to Jerusalem, Hippolytus speaks of the assignment for the chief musicians (ἄρχοντες ᾠδῶν). By combining both above-mentioned accounts of musicians from Chronicles, he enlarges the number from three to four, Asaf, Aiman, 12. The musicians are listed in 1 Chr 5,16-32; 15,16-24 and 16,4-6.37-42; 25,1-31. 13. Already during the Exodus for the sacrifice before the Book of the Covenant is read, twelve pillars are erected by Moses according to the number of twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Ex 24,4). See also the description of the twelve stones in the Ephod of the High priest (Ex 39,10-14 = Ex 38,17-21LXX) and the twelve loafs of bread on the altar table (Lev 24,5f.). 14. For the following see Hippolytus, InPsalmos 2f. (167,6–169,11, ed. P. NAUTIN).

PSALMS AS PART OF THE WORSHIP IN EARLY CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS

481

Aitham and Idithum. This expansion allows him to split the total number of 288 musicians into a completely different symbolic notion than his biblical model, presenting a truly universal concept. Each of the four chief musicians, he states, was leading a group, or perhaps a choir, of 72 men. He interprets the number 72 as a representation of the whole mankind, because when humanity had one language, before the Tower of Babylon was built, there were a total of (more or less)15 72 ἔϑνη as descendants of Noah’s sons Ham, Sem and Jafet. By the nomination of 288 musicians in the sanctuary David is, to Hippolytus’ understanding, not referring to the twelve tribes of Israel, but predicting that the whole of mankind, πᾶσα γλῶσσα (Rom 14,11; Phil 2,11 cf. Isa 45,23), will praise God at the end of the days. In the next paragraph, Hippolytus provides a detailed description of the worship before the ark, which I quote at length: These men (sc. the four chief musicians) stood before the sanctuary and praised God, one with cymbals, another with the harp, another with the lyre, another with the horn, whereby he elevated the heightened horn of the Lord. David as the chief of the chief musicians was standing in the middle of them with the harp in his hand, and they were accompanied by their groups. Everyone was praising God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Whenever now the Spirit jumped onto the blessed Asaf, all others became quiet and kept a peaceful moment while they were instructed by the Spirit. Then, they answered the singer for the praise of God “Hallelujah”, which means when translated from the Hebrew into the Greek tongue: “Let us praise the living God”. Now, they all became recipients; but whenever the Spirit jumped onto the first one and captured him, the others stopped. Whenever the Spirit jumped on the next one, they again kept silent16.

In fact, Hippolytus depicts here not only his vision of how worship might have been performed in those days, but states his idea of the psalms’ composition method itself17. This is especially remarkable insofar as none 15. Cf. Gen 10. 16. Hippolytus, In Psalmos 4f. (169,12-24 NAUTIN): Οὗτοι τοίνυν ἵστανται ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἁγιάσματος αἰνοῦντες ϑεῷ, ὃς μὲν κυμβάλοις, ὃς δὲ ψαλτηρίῳ, ὃς δὲ κινύρᾳ, ὃς δὲ κιϑάρᾳ, ὃς δὲ κερατίνῃ, ὑψῶν ὑψουμένου κέρατος κυρίου· ὧν μέσος ἵστατο Δαυίδ, αὐτὸς ἄρχων ἀρχόντων ᾠδῶν, κρατῶν ἐπὶ χεῖρα τὸ ψαλτήριον· τούτοις δὲ παρείπετο ἡ στρατιά. Ἕκαστος δὲ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ κινούμενος ὑμνεῖ τὸν ϑεόν. Ἡνίκα τοίνυν ἐσκίρτα τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπὶ τὸν μακάριον Ἀσάφ, οἱ πάντες ἡσυχίαν ἦγον, ὑποτασσόμενοι καιρῷ εἰρηνικῷ, πνεύματι κατηρτισμένοι· ὑπεφώνουν δὲ ἀκολούϑως τῷ ψάλλοντι εἰς ὕμνον ϑεῷ λέγοντες Ἀλληλούϊα, ὃ σημαίνει ἐκ τῆς ἑβραΐδος φωνῆς εἰς τὴν ἑλληνίδα μετατιϑέμενον· Αἰνέσωμεν τῷ ὄντι ϑεῷ. Πάντες οὖν ὑπήκοοι ἐγίνοντο· ἡνίκα δὲ ἐσκίρτα ἐπὶ τὸν πρῶτον τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐπεπήδα, οἱ λοίποι ἐπαύοντο· ἡνίκα δὲ ἐφ’ ἕτερον, πάλιν οὗτοι ἠρέμουν. 17. This also becomes clear in the following passages of Hippolytus’ homily, where he speaks about the different authors of the psalms, cf. Hippolytus, InPsalmos 6f. (171,1-32 NAUTIN).

482

C. BANDT

of the biblical reports of the appointment of the chief musicians by David links them with the composition of psalms18. This connection is originally established by Hippolytus from the psalms’ headings, which we will turn to now. III. THE HEADINGS OF THE PSALMS For the most part, the psalm headings ascribe authorship to David, but some headings attribute their psalms to other biblical figures. Of course, these assignments are either fictitious or later additions as far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned, and they are even less trustworthy in the LXX where only very few psalms lack a credit of authorship. It was probably Origen who was the first to set up a dual list showing which psalms were attributed to which author in the Hebrew and Greek versions of the psalter19. This list starts with the Hebrew Bible. Here, we encounter names which we already learned from Hippolytus: David, Asaf, Aitham. However, neither Aiman nor Idithum are included in the account, which is due to the fact that their names occur in psalms with attributions to more than one author, and Origen(?) counted every psalm only once. Instead, we learn of the sons of Kore20, of Solomon and of Moses. Regarding the Greek version, the names Haggai and Zechariah are also listed. Based solely on the Hebrew psalter, probably from Origen’s Hexapla, Eusebius compiled a table in which the numbers of the psalms are assigned to the related author21 and include a brief summary, which adds up the number of psalms attributed to each author22. 18. But David’s Psalm of Thanksgiving at the end of the report in 1 Chr 16,7-36 is a combination of verses from Pss 104.95.28 and 105 (LXX = Pss 105.96.29 and 106 M). 19. Origenes(?), Dedivisionepsalmorum. The attribution to Origen is likely, but not completely sure. A critical edition of this text accompanied by a discussion of its authenticity is included in the above-mentioned volume on the prologue material by Origen and Eusebius (see n. 1), for an edition based on two manuscripts see J.-B. PITRA, Analecta sacraSpicilegioSolesmensiparata, II, Paris, Jouby et Roger, 1884, pp. 413-418. 20. It is not entirely clear, who is behind this phrase. Hippolytus explains, that psalms with this heading are joint works of Asaph and Aiman (see Hippolytus, In Psalmos 6 [171,8 NAUTIN]). Korach/Kore indeed appears in the genealogy of Aiman (1 Chr 6,22). 21. Eusebius, CanonesPsalmorum. A new edition of this piece by Martin Wallraff is included in the already mentioned volume on the prologue material from Origen and Eusebius (see n. 1). See also G. MERCATI, OsservazioniaproemidelsalteriodiOrigene, Ippolito,Eusebio,CirilloAlessandrinoealtri,conframmentiinediti (Studi e Testi,142), Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1948, pp. 95-104 and M. WALLRAFF, TheCanonTablesofthePsalms:AnUnknownWorkofEusebiusofCaesarea, in DumbartonOaksPapers67 (2013) 1-14. 22. Eusebius, Dedivisionepsalterietpsalmorum. Also of this text a critical edition is included in the volume on the prologue material from Origen and Eusebius, for an uncritical edition see PG 23, 66C-68A.

PSALMS AS PART OF THE WORSHIP IN EARLY CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS

483

Origen’s as well as Eusebius’ compositions are part of the prologue material of psalm catenae, and they are also included in several psalter manuscripts without a catena. From this, we can deduce that the connection of the psalms with the worship in the sanctuary was well known to Origen, Eusebius and their readers. Still, the main purpose of these lists is probably the enumeration of psalm authors. Modern scholarship has shown that the other information in the headings of the psalms constitutes significant testimony regarding the origins of many of the psalms, particularly because they often provide hints about the practice of performance. However, these hints are barely noticeable as such in the translation of the LXX. Additionally, even though the Christian exegetes put a lot of effort into the explanation of the often rather cryptic lines in the headings and compare the obscure, alternative translations by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, there is hardly a case that a heading was explained in light of the liturgical role of the respective psalm. IV. THE DIAPSALMA Διάψαλμα is the standard LXX translation for the Hebrew expression ‫סלה‬, which occurs in quite a number of psalms at the end of certain verses. The original meaning of this Hebrew terminus is not entirely clear23. It always occurs outside sentences and mainly in psalms which were part of the liturgy of the temple. Therefore, it was most likely a sort of stage direction, be it for the chorus, for the musicians, or perhaps for the crowd which took part in the service. The use of its Greek counterpart διάψαλμα is likewise limited to the LXX, mainly the Book of Psalms, and therefore its meaning is, to some extent, a matter of interpretation24. In any case, the word indicates a certain cut in the structure of the text. From Origen onward, this mysterious term διάψαλμα, it seems, held a special fascination for the Christian interpreters of Psalms. In his extant prologue texts on the psalter, Origen himself deals with the διάψαλμα twice. In fact, there are no contradictions between the two passages, although there are some slight differences. In his general introduction to Psalms, he presents his own thoughts on the terminus: 23. For an aged, but nonetheless exhaustive discussion see B. JACOB, Beiträgezueiner EinleitungindiePsalmen.I.Sela, in ZAW 16 (1896) 129-181. 24. For more discussion of this matter F.X. RISCH’s lecture Das Verständnis von DiapsalmainderantikenPsalmenkommentierung held in 2010, available online via edoc. bbaw.de.

484

C. BANDT

Since we found in the Septuagint, in Theodotion and in Symmachus in the middle of quite a few psalms the expression διάψαλμα, we asked ourselves if the ones who put it there did not mark with it the change of a certain rhythm or melody or of a part, in accordance with the topics. It is neither written in Aquila nor in the Hebrew, but instead of διάψαλμα there stands “ever” (ἀεί)25.

In search for the semantic of διάψαλμα, Origen provides here a set of alternative meanings concerning performance and content of the Psalms. According to him, the terminus may have different functions, which were left open by “the ones who put it” (οἱ ϑέντες αὐτό). Who the latter are is not said explicitly, but one would assume Origen is speaking here about all Greek translators who use the term, i.e. the translators of the LXX, Theodotion and Symmachus. This is underlined by his last remark about Aquila and “the Hebrew”. Apparently, he has complete trust in Aquila’s competence, as he states that both have ἀεί26, so that the actual meaning of ‫ סלה‬is no matter of discussion for him. By setting a διάψαλμα “the ones who put it” seem to act arbitrarily, to a certain degree ignoring the Hebrew text. Besides this passage from the general introduction, we can consult a shorter treatise on only the διάψαλμα by Origen27. Here, he carefully examines the Hebrew and Greek versions of three passages containing the terminus, Ps 74,4; 75,4.10. Anticlimactically, the meaning of διάψαλμα is summed up in a single sentence, which is generally in line the abovequoted passage:“Whether the translators (οἱ ἑρμηνεύσαντες) wrote the διάψαλμα on occasion of a change in the musical melody or rhythm, or if they had another motivation, you will discern yourself”28.

25. Origenes, Catholica in Psalmos 8,1-5 (ed. F.X. RISCH): Ἐπεὶ δὲ εὕρομεν παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ Θεοδοτίωνι καὶ Συμμάχῳ ἐπί τινων κείμενον ἐν μέσῳ ψαλμῶν οὐκ ὀλίγων τὸ διάψαλμα, ἐστοχασάμεϑα μήποτε ὑπεσήμαναν οἱ ϑέντες αὐτὸ ῥυϑμοῦ τινος ἢ μέλους ἢ μέρους μεταβολὴν γεγονέναι κατὰ τοὺς τόπους. οὔτε δὲ παρὰ τῷ Ἀκύλᾳ κεῖται οὔτε ἐν τῷ ἑβραϊκῷ, ἀλλ’ ἀντὶ διαψάλματος ἀεί. 26. It is impossible to check Origen’s claim independently, since most of Aquila’s translation is lost. Field has ἀεί for Aquila in Ps 3,3, the first ‫ סלה‬in the psalter, but this information is based on Origen (see F. FIELD, OrigenisHexaplorumquaesupersunt:Sive veteruminterpretumGraecorumintotumVetusTestamentumfragmenta, Oxford, Clarendon, 1875, vol. 2, p. 89). 27. Origenes, De diapsalmate. The text was published by W. RIETZ, De Origenis prologisinpsalteriumquaestionesselectae, Jena, Pohle, 1914, pp. 11f., a new edition by F.X. Risch is included in the above mentioned volume on the prologue material from Origen and Eusebius (see n. 1). 28. Origenes, De diapsalmate 5,2-4 RISCH: πότερον δὲ μουσικοῦ τινος μέλους ἢ ῥυϑμοῦ γινομένης ἐναλλαγῆς ἔγραψαν τὸ διάψαλμα οἱ ἑρμηνεύσαντες ἢ ἄλλως κινηϑέντες, καὶ σὺ ἐπιστήσεις.

PSALMS AS PART OF THE WORSHIP IN EARLY CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS

485

Two points in this statement are remarkable. The first is that Origen formulates it as an open question to his reader rather than as a conclusion. This can be understood as an invitation to further develop his conclusions. Second, here we learn who inserted the διάψαλμα according to Origen’s view, οἱ ἑρμηνεύσαντες. But who might that be? Since Origen spoke before about the different Greek translations of ‫סלה‬, the meaning “translators (sc. of the LXX)” suggests itself. Thus, writing the διάψαλμα would be part of the process of translating the Hebrew text and therefore only the (inspired) choice for the right equivalent of the Hebrew in Greek29. But still, here again arises the possibility for further elaboration. Eusebius accepts the invitation of his predecessor in a passage of his exceptionally long treatise which was handed down by the catenae under the title Ὑπόμνημα ᾿Ωριγένους εἰς τοὺς ψαλμούς. Because of this title, it had long been mistaken as a work of Origen, but Franz Xaver Risch and I discovered that it is a critical discussion of Origen’s statements in his general introduction to the Book of Psalms. We demonstrated that the author of this text must be Eusebius30. Here Eusebius explains: According to the copies (sc. of the LXX) which are with us and according to Symmachus the notation διάψαλμα seems to stand, when a change in the melody or rhythm occurred. Often also an alteration of meaning happens at the διαψάλματα, sometimes also a change of the speaking person31.

This last, new facet is fundamental for Eusebius’ understanding of the Psalms, since he is almost constantly working with prosopological exegesis. However, the preferred πρόσωπα of Eusebius are, of course, Christ and the Holy Spirit, speaking through the mouth of the prophet David. This leaves little room for speculation about the performance of the Psalms in a liturgical context. Indeed, handed down under the name Eusebius, but also in some cases anonymous, is another prologue text answering to Origen’s above-quoted assessment. Here, the description of the chanting before the Ark from 29. Even though there are indeed sporadic cases, where in the LXX we find a διάψαλμα without a ‫ סלה‬in the Masoretic text, generally both are corresponding. Cf. J. IRIGOIN, RecherchessurleDiapsalma, in CahiersdeBibliaPatristica 4 (1994) 7-20. 30. See the introduction to Eusebius, Hypomnema (ed. BANDT – RISCH) in the already mentioned volume of the prologue material from Origen and Eusebius (n. 1). For a preliminary version of this edition and introduction see C. BANDT – F.X. RISCH, Das Hypomnema des Origenes zu den Psalmen – eine unerkannte Schrift des Eusebius, in Adamantius 19 (2013) 395-436. 31. Eusebius, Hypomnema 14,2-6 (ed. BANDT – RISCH): κατὰ δὲ τὰ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀντίγραφα καὶ κατὰ Σύμμαχον ἔοικε μουσικοῦ τινος μέλους ἢ ῥυϑμοῦ τροπῆς γενομένης ἡ τοῦ διαψάλματος παρακεῖσϑαι παρασημείωσις· πολλάκις δὲ καὶ διανοίας ἐναλλαγὴ γίνεται ἐν τοῖς διαψάλμασιν, ἤδη δέ ποτε καὶ προσώπου μεταβολή.

486

C. BANDT

Hippolytus is embedded into Origen’s reflections about the διάψαλμα. The beginning is a verbatim citation from Origen: ἔγραψαν τὸ διάψαλμα οἱ ἑρμηνεύσαντες. But these ἑρμηνεύσαντες are seen as quite different men than in Origen’s understanding, which solves the problem that they should have been the ones who originally inserted the διάψαλμα in the Psalms. Ἑρμηνεύσαντες does not hint to the translators of the Septuagint, but to the τέσσαρες ἄρχοντες, in other words, the four chief musicians who interpreted the Psalms in the sanctuary. The text runs: The four interpreting chief (musicians) who were chosen by King David from the tribe of Levi wrote down the διάψαλμα, namely Asaf and the sons of Kore, Aiman, Aitham and Idithum. These men follows the number (sc. 288) of singers (or perhaps better: musicians), each of them 72. They were standing before the sanctuary of the Lord and praised the ruler of the universe, one with cymbals, the other with a harp, the other with a lyre, the other with a horn, the other with a kithara. In their midst stood David and, in this way being the leader of the musicians, he held in his hand the harp. Everyone who was inspired by the Holy Spirit celebrated God in hymns, and all joined in with the Psalm performer singing Hallelujah. But whenever the grace of the Holy Spirit withdrew for a short moment and the instruments were not inspired, it seems likely that also in these cases they wrote down the διάψαλμα32.

Admittedly, some practical problems are neglected in this fascinating description. How could the musicians chant and write at the same time? Shall we then deduce that there were tachygraphers present in the temple to document the inspired music? And if so, was it these tachygraphers who wrote down the διαψάλματα? Nevertheless, here we finally find unambiguous proof that a patristic author was aware and approved of the relationship between the Psalms and the worship in the sanctuary, since, obviously, at least the psalms containing a διάψαλμα were composed during such a celebrated event. Eusebius’ authorship of this text, however, is doubtful. Not only because this description does not concur with the above-quoted passage on the 32. Eusebius(?), De diapsalmate 1-10 (corresponds to PG 23, 76BC, critical edition included in the volume mentioned above in n. 1): Ἔγραψαν τὸ διάψαλμα οἱ ἑρμηνεύσαντες τέσσαρες ἄρχοντες, οἳ ἐξελέγοντο ὑπὸ Δαυὶδ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευΐ· Ἀσάφ, οἱ υἱοὶ Κορέ, Αἰμάν, Αἰϑάμ, Ἰδιϑούμ· τούτοις ἀριϑμὸς ᾠδῶν παρηκολούϑει, ἑκάστῳ ἑβδομήκοντα δύο. οὗτοι ἵσταντο ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἁγιάσματος κυρίου αἰνοῦντες τὸν πάντων δεσπότην, ὃς μὲν κυμβάλοις, ὃς δὲ ψαλτηρίῳ, ὃς δὲ κινύρᾳ, ὃς δὲ κερατίνῃ, ὃς δὲ κιϑάρᾳ· ὧν μέσος ἵστατο ὁ Δαυὶδ καὶ οὕτως ἄρχων τῶν ᾠδῶν κρατῶν ἐπὶ χεῖρα τὸ ψαλτήριον· ἕκαστος δὲ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ κινούμενος ὕμνει τὸν ϑεόν, καὶ πάντες ἐπεφώνουν τῷ ψάλλοντι· Ἀλληλούϊα. ὁπηνίκα δὲ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου ἀπέστη χάρις πρὸς βραχὺ τῶν ὀργάνων λοιπὸν μὴ κινουμένων, τὸ τηνικαῦτα εἰκὸς καὶ τὸ διάψαλμα ἔγραφον.

PSALMS AS PART OF THE WORSHIP IN EARLY CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS

487

διάψαλμα from the Hypomnema, but also because he generally uncouples the Psalms from the worship in the sanctuary. His main concern is rather the content of each psalm and its message to the Christian church. Still, the text must have been composed in the time of Eusebius or shortly thereafter, since it was known to Diodor of Tarsus. Diodor speaks in his CommentaryonPsalm 5 about the meaning and function of the διάψαλμα and, for him, the topic has almost dogmatic value. He enumerates the explanations of his predecessors without naming them. Moreover, he sharply rejects any other explanation than the musical one, especially the idea of a pneuma that comes and goes away from a prophet seems to be unbearable; this is almost blasphemy (μὴ γένοιτο) to him. Similarly, the possibility that a change of meaning might take place within a psalm is refuted again and again33. V. CONCLUSION Unquestionable, psalms played an important role in early Christian religious life. In fact, the Book of Psalms is the part of the Septuagint which was most widely read and studied and which most obviously formed an element of Christian identity. Therefore, in general, Christian exegetes’ interest in the historical Jewish worship and its connection to the psalms is not particularly pronounced; partially ψαλμῳδία and sacrifice were even set in contrast. Nonetheless, the detailed biblical reports about all the effort David put into the worship before the sanctuary as well as certain features of the psalms themselves, especially the mysterious term διάψαλμα, captured the imagination of some patristic authors. From their 33. Cf. Diodor, InPsalmos, Ps 5,3 (CCSG 6, 8-32 OLIVIER): Διάψαλμα μὲν οὖν ἐστι μετάβασις μέλους καὶ ῥυϑμοῦ ἐναλλαγὴ καὶ οὐ νοημάτων μεταπήδησις, ὥς τινες ὑπέλαβον· ᾠδὴ δὲ διαψάλματος, ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις καὶ ᾄδοντες μετέβαινον τὰ μέλη κατὰ τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν ὀργάνων. Τροπῶν οὖν τινων καὶ ῥυϑμῶν ταῦτα σημαίνει παραλλαγάς, οὐ νοημάτων ἐξαλλαγάς. Περὶ γὰρ τοῦ ἑτέρου καὶ λέγειν γελοῖόν ἐστιν. Τινὲς γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο ἐτερατεύσαντο ὡς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐπιφοιτῶντος κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ὥραν ἐπὶ τὸν προφήτην καὶ πάλιν ἀποφοιτῶντος. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἐγίνετο· μὴ γένοιτο. Οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸς λέξιν ἐδίδου τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς προφήταις τὸ εἰπεῖν, καϑάπερ οἱ δαίμονες τοῖς οὐκ εἰδόσιν ὅ τι φϑέγγονται, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ ἅπαν ἐνετίϑει τὸ νόημα καὶ ὁ λαβὼν τὴν γνῶσιν ἐξήγγειλεν, ὡς εἶχε δυνάμεως. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀσύνετα κατὰ τοὺς μάντεις ἐφϑέγγοντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάνυ εἰδότες τῶν λεγομένων τὴν δύναμιν. Ὅπερ οὖν εἶπον, ῥυϑμῶν καὶ τροπῶν ἦσαν ἐναλλαγαὶ τὰ διαψάλματα καὶ αἱ ᾠδαὶ τῶν διαψαλμάτων, οὐ νοημάτων μεταβασίαι. Τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀκολουϑία δείκνυσιν· οὐδέποτε γὰρ μετὰ τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν τοῦ διαψάλματος ἀσύμφωνον εὑρέϑη τὸ ἐφεξῆς νόημα τῷ πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκόλουϑον καὶ ἐναρμόνιον, ὡς δῆλον εἶναι ὅτι τὸ διάψαλμα τεϑὲν ἐν μέσῳ οὐδὲν παρέβλαψε τὴν διάνοιαν τῶν λεγομένων, ἀλλὰ τὸν ῥυϑμὸν ἤλλαξε τυχὸν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους τῆς τότε κρατούσης μουσικῆς καὶ εὐρυϑμίας.

488

C. BANDT

speculations eventually arose the impressing picture of David surrounded by large bands of musicians altogether inspired by the Holy Spirit performing and thereby composing the psalms. Even though this vision was not accepted by some other Christian exegetes, it certainly did add another facet to the fascination of the Holy City of Jerusalem. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften Vorhaben „Die alexandrinische und antiochenische Bibelexegese in der Spätantike“ Jägerstr. 22/23 DE-10117 Berlin Germany [email protected]

Cordula BANDT

DISCERNING QUOTATIONS FROM HERACLEON IN ORIGEN’S COMMENTARYONTHEGOSPELOFJOHN I. INTRODUCTION The first known commentary on a writing in the emerging New Testament, Heracleon’s hypomnēmata on the Gospel of John, is an important witness to second-century Christian reflection on the Gospels. Unfortunately, Heracleon’s interpretations are only extant via references in the later Commentary on the Gospel of John by Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254 CE)1, references that all too often are taken to be as trustworthy as an independent manuscript tradition2. Although scholars have occasionally noticed that a given point may be part of Origen’s response rather than taken from Heracleon3, no systematic analysis has been made 1. Apart from two similar references in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata IV,9,71-72; Eclogaepropheticae 25,1. 2. E.H. PAGELS, TheJohannineGospelinGnosticExegesis:Heracleon’sCommentaryonJohn (SBL.MS, 17), Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1973, pp. 80, 86-91, 94, repeatedly presents quotations from Origen as if they were taken directly from Heracleon, and never discusses the accuracy of Origen’s transmission. J.-M. POFFET, La méthode exégétique d’Héracléonetd’Origène,commentateursdeJn4:Jésus,laSamaritaineetlesSamaritains (Paradosis), Fribourg, Presses Universitaires, 1985, p. 47, n. 124 remarks that it is difficult to know whether Origen gives us access to Heracleon’s words or merely to his thoughts, but regularly (pp. 31-38, 49-54, 66-74, 86-97, 104-107) presents statements attributed to Heracleon by Origen as if they were quoted directly from Heracleon’s work. A. CASTELLANO, LaexégesisdeOrígenesydeHeracleónalostestimoniosdelBautista (Anales de la Facultad de Teología, IL/1), Santiago, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 1998, pp. 56-57, sometimes asserts that Origen is quoting Heracleon verbatim, and often (pp. 55-57, 99-100) presumes this to be the case. A. WUCHERPFENNIG, HeracleonPhilologus:GnostischeJohannesexegeseimzweitenJahrhundert (WUNT, 142), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2002, pp. 84, 166-167, 261, 342, often presents quotations as if taken directly from Heracleon, but sometimes (83) notes that Origen may be summarizing rather than quoting Heracleon. K. KEEFER, TheBranchesoftheGospelofJohn:TheReceptionoftheFourth GospelintheEarlyChurch (The Library of New Testament Studies, 332), London, T&T Clark, 2006, p. 33, claims there to be a consensus that “Origen faithfully represented Heracleon’s point of view, and quite likely his exact words”. E. THOMASSEN, Heracleon, in T. RASIMUS (ed.), TheLegacyofJohn:Second-CenturyReceptionoftheFourthGospel (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 132), Leiden, Brill, 2010, 173-210, p. 174, asserts in no uncertain terms that all forty-eight of Origen’s references to Heracleon are “quotations, of varying length”, and proceeds (pp. 185, 187, 189, 191) to treat them as trustworthy material without discussing Origen’s intermediary role. M. SIMONETTI, Eracleone eOrigenesullaSamaritana, in VetChr53 (2016) 5-17, systematically treats all of Origen’s characterizations of Heracleon’s interpretations as facts. 3. For instance, I. DUNDERBERG, Valentinian Theories on Classes of Humankind, in ID., GnosticMoralityRevisited (WUNT, 347), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2015, 137-148,

490

C.J. BERGLUND

to discern when Origen presents Heracleon’s comments verbatim from when he rephrases them4, perhaps in light of later “Valentinian” ideas5. The aim of this paper is to present a set of criteria for discerning between different modes of attribution in Origen’s references to Heracleon, and to apply these criteria to one specific example: Heracleon’s interpretation of Jesus’s visit to Capernaum in Jn 2,126. Based on a combination of linguistic arguments and comparisons of Origen’s renderings to extant originals, we identify four different modes of attribution: (1)verbatimquotations are references where the statements attributed to Heracleon are presented as transmitting his actual words; (2)summaries are references presented as transmitting the point that Heracleon has made in his writing, but not necessarily the words he has used to express it; (3) explanatory paraphrases are references presented as revealing not merely the point expressed by Heracleon, but the underlying argument or dogmatic idea pp. 143-144, points out that Heracleon nowhere calls the Samaritan woman “a spiritual person” or the healed son of the royal official “an animate person”, despite the assertions to the contrary in PAGELS, GnosticExegesis (n. 2), pp. 68, 83-87; J.A. TRUMBOWER, Origen’sExegesisofJohn8:19-53:TheStrugglewithHeracleonovertheIdeaofFixed Natures, in VigChr43 (1989) 138-154, p. 139; THOMASSEN, Heracleon (n. 2), pp. 182, 187, n. 59. 4. The choices made between quotations, italics, and plain text in editions and translations such as DerJohanneskommentar, ed. E. PREUSCHEN(GCS, 10; Origenes Werke, 4), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903; W. VÖLKER, QuellenzurGeschichtederchristlichenGnosis (Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften. Neue Folge, 5), Tübingen, Mohr (Siebeck), 1932; W. FOERSTER, DieGnosis.Bd. 1:Zeugnisseder Kirchenväter, Zürich, Artemis, 1969; Origène, CommentairesurSaintJean, ed.C. BLANC (SC, 120, 157, 222, 290, 385, 120bis), Paris, Cerf, 1966-1996; Origen.Commentaryon theGospelaccordingtoJohn,Books1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989; and T.J. PETTIPIECE, Heracleon: Fragments of Early Valentinian Exegesis: Text, Translation, and Commentary (M. A. Thesis), Wilfrid Laurier University, 2002, are not explicitly discussed, and do not seem to be based on a consistent analysis. 5. Origen may have had access to multiple sources of information regarding “Valentinian” theology, including heresiological literature such as the Against the Heresies by Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130-202 CE), but also personal interaction with contemporary “Valentinians”, and with his patron Ambrose – cf. Origen, CC prol. 1; III,1; IV,1; CIo I,2,9; II,1,1; VI,2,6. All of those sources may have been more familiar with later dogmatic developments than with Heracleon’s particular views. H. LANGERBECK, Die Anthropologie der alexandrinischen Gnosis: Interpretationen zu den Fragmenten des BasilidesundValentinusundihrerSchulenbeiClemensvonAlexandrienundOrigenes, in H. DÖRRIES (ed.), AufsätzezurGnosis (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen / Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3/69), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967, 38-82, pp. 67-72; and WUCHERPFENNIG, HeracleonPhilologus (n. 2), pp. 332-357, have both argued that Origen, in his responses to Heracleon, presumes later “Valentinian” positions that are unattested in Heracleon. 6. M. SIMONETTI, EracleoneeOrigene, in VetChr3 (1966) 111-141, p. 135, remarks that this passage illustrates the conflict between Origen and Heracleon especially well, in that they both use the same methodology, but disagree on doctrinal cornerstones.

DISCERNING QUOTATIONS FROM HERACLEON IN ORIGEN’S CIO

491

on which this point rests; and (4)mereassertionsare references where Heracleon’s views are presented without any stated basis in his writing. Although only the first mode constitutes a claim to reflect Heracleon’s ipsissima verba, the second will also be considered to be trustworthy material for studying Heracleon’s methods and views. In paraphrases and assertions, Origen may be conflating Heracleon’s comments with the views of later “Valentinian” teachers. II. ORIGEN’S QUOTATION PRACTICES References to previous literature are an important feature of Origen’s writings, especially in his commentaries, whose structure is based on a series of running quotations – generally called lemmata–from the commented text. References and responses to the views of earlier authors are recurring features not only in AgainstCelsus, but also in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, where he in four dozen passages refers and responds to Heracleon’s previous interpretations. Several of his more emphatic criticisms concern the lack of scriptural quotations to prove Heracleon’s point of view7. Origen’s insistence on evidence from the scriptures does not, however, imply that all his references to previous writings are verbatim quotations. Among ancient writers, it was a common and expected practice to adapt what one quoted to the grammatical, stylistic, and argumentative needs of the new context, and it was not uncommon to use a quotation in a whole other sense than the original author intended8. 7. C.J. BERGLUND, Origen’sVacillatingStancestowardhis“Valentinian”Colleague Heracleon, in VigChr71 (2017) 541-569, pp. 559-563, 567-569. This insistence on scriptural proof implies neither that Origen neglected logic and common sense, nor that he viewed the scriptures as a simple collection of true propositions, nor that he neglected the role of human authors in their composition. See R.P.C. HANSON, Origen’sDoctrineofTradition,London, SPCK, 1954; Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock, 2004, pp. 48-52; M.W. HOLMES, Origenand theInerrancyofScripture, in JournaloftheEvangelicalTheologicalSociety 24 (1981) 221-231, pp. 221-224; P.W. MARTENS, OrigenandScripture:TheContoursoftheExegeticalLife(Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 101106. 8. P.A. BRUNT, OnHistoricalFragmentsandEpitomes, in TheClassicalQuarterly 30 (1980) 477-494, pp. 478-481; C.D. STANLEY, PaulandtheLanguageofScripture:Citation TechniqueinthePaulineEpistlesandContemporaryLiterature (Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph Series, 69), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 258264, 342-343; D. LENFANT, TheStudyofIntermediateAuthorsandItsRoleintheInterpretation of Historical Fragments, in Ancient Society 43 (2013) 289-305, pp. 293-303; C.J. BERGLUND, EvaluatingQuotationsinAncientGreekLiterature:TheCaseofHeracleon’shypomnēmata, in J. VERHEYDEN – T. NICKLAS – E. HERNITSCHECK (eds.), Shadowy Characters and Fragmentary Evidence: The Search for Early Christian Groups and Movements (WUNT, 388), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2017, 201-231, pp. 206-217.

492

C.J. BERGLUND

Origen does not use a standard formula to introduce his references to earlier works, but constructs a new formula to fit every particular occasion, and to connect the excerpt to the context in which he is using it. Although many of the variations in Origen’s attribution formulas may be made simply for rhetorical variation, we will argue below that a few particular variations correspond to different modes of attribution. This argument will be based on linguistic theory, and confirmed by comparisons of Origen’s references to their extant originals. 1. VerbatimQuotations Ancient authors sometimes used phrases such as κατὰ λέξιν (“literally”) or πρὸς ῥῆμα (“to the word”) to specify that a particular quotation was presented without adaptations9. Origen occasionally uses αὐταῖς λέξεσιν (“with the same words”) in this sense – for instance to assert that the exhortation “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body” appears, word by word, in both Matthew and Luke10. A comparison with Matthean and Lukan manuscripts confirms this assertion11, and we may presume that when Origen uses this phrase in relation to Celsus or Heracleon12, he is presenting a verbatim quotation. More commonly, Origen introduces verbatim quotations by use of a single verbumdicendi– such as φησί(ν) (“he says”) – either preceding the attributed statement or inserted a few words into it. One example is the following quotation from 2 Thess 2,11-12: “For this reason”, he says (γὰρ φησί), “God sends them a powerful delusion to make them believe in the lie, so that all who has disbelieved the truth and taken pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned”13.

Apart from the movable ν of κριϑῶσι(ν), Origen’s quotation matches available manuscripts precisely. A similar lack of adaptations recur in several similar examples14. 9. See the discussion in A. VAN DEN HOEK, Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria:AViewofAncientLiteraryWorkingMethods, in VigChr50 (1996) 223-243, p. 233. 10. Origen, Exhortatio ad martyrium XXXIV,70-72 (GCS 2, 31,13-15 KOETSCHAU; ET: mine): οἱ ἀναιροῦντες οὖν ἡμᾶς σώματος ζωὴν ἀποκτέννουσι· τοιοῦτον γάρ ἐστι τό· “μὴ φοβηϑῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶμα”, αὐταῖς λέξεσιν ὑπὸ Ματϑαίου καὶ Λουκᾶ εἰρημένον. 11. Cf. Lk 12,4 and Mt 10,28, where Origen gives text-critical support to the Codex Bezae reading φοβηϑῆτε, while Sinaiticusand Vaticanus has φοβεῖσϑε. 12. Cf. Origen, CC I,12,1; II,20,49; II,49,21; CIoVI,23,126. 13. Origen, CIoII,30,182 (SC 120bis, 334,24-27 BLANC; ET: mine): Διὰ τοῦτο, γάρ φησι, πέμπει αὐτοῖς ὁ ϑεὸς ἐνέργειαν πλάνης εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς τῷ ψεύδει, ἵνα κριϑῶσι πάντες οἱ μὴ πιστεύσαντες τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ, ἀλλ’ εὐδοκήσαντες τῇ ἀδικίᾳ. 14. Compare, for instance, Origen, CIo II,10,70 to Rom 1,1-5; CIo II,10,78 to 1 Cor 12,4-6; and CIoII,10,72 to Heb 1,2.

DISCERNING QUOTATIONS FROM HERACLEON IN ORIGEN’S CIO

493

2. Summaries Origen’s habit of presenting verbatim quotations does not, however, extend to all statements presented with a verbumdicendi.For instance, when he asserts that “the apostle says (φησί) that teachers are also appointed in the assembly”15, this speech report, given in indirect speech (oratioobliqua), is not a verbatim quotation of 1 Cor 12,28, where Paul also speaks of apostles and prophets, but a summary16. In general, speech reports given in indirect speech are not limited to what was actually said, but are free to introduce information inferred from the context or from general knowledge of the situation, or even express the reporting speaker’s understanding of what the utterance means in an assumed context17. In Ancient Greek, indirect speech is formed either with accusative and infinitive, as in φησὶ γράψειν (“He said that he would write”), or by the use of a complementizer such as ὅτι or ὡς (“that”), as in φησὶ ὅτι γράψει (“He said that he would write”)18. Distinguishing between direct and indirect speech is rather complex, partly because ὅτι is sometimes used to introduce a statement that can only be read as direct speech, such as φησὶ ὅτι γράψω (“He said: ‘I will write’”), and partly because ancient Greek authors may switch rather abruptly from indirect to direct speech, sometimes within the same sentence, without making this transition explicit19. While it might appear strange that ὅτι may be used to introduce either a direct quotation or an indirect report, this is indeed how this phenomenon is generally described20. However, Emar Maier has recently 15. Origen, CIoI,3,19 (SC 120bis, 64,44-45 BLANC): ὁ ἀπόστολός φησι τετάχϑαι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ διδασκάλους. 16. Cf. 1 Cor 12,28: Καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔϑετο ὁ ϑεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους… 17. F. COULMAS, ReportedSpeech:SomeGeneralIssues, in ID. (ed.), DirectandIndirect Speech (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 31), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1986, 1-28, pp. 2-6; C.N. LI, Direct Speech and Indirect Speech: A Functional Study, ibid., 29-45, pp. 29-30, 41; E. MAIER, SwitchesbetweenDirectandIndirectSpeechinAncient Greek, in Journal of Greek Linguistics 12 (2012) 118-139, pp. 118-119; K. ALLAN, Reports, Indirect Reports, and Illocutionary Point, in A. CAPONE – F. KIEFER – F. LO PIPARO (eds.), IndirectReportsandPragmatics:InterdisciplinaryStudies (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 5), Cham, Springer, 2016, 573-591. 18. LI, Direct Speech (n. 17), p. 29; C. BARY, Tense in Ancient Greek Reports, in JournalofGreekLinguistics 12 (2012) 29-50, p. 29; MAIER, Switches (n. 17), pp. 119-122. 19. MAIER, Switches (n. 17), pp. 122-129. Both these phenomena are recognized by N. TURNER, Syntax, in J.H. MOULTON (ed.), AGrammarofNewTestamentGreek, vol. 3, Edinburgh, Clark, 1963, 1-417, pp. 325-326. 20. A few scholars have discussed this problem. P. WINTER, ὍτιRecitativuminLukeI25, 61,II23, in HTR 48 (1955) 213-216, suggests that some instances may be explained by an underlying Hebrew kîrecitativum. T. DAIBER, Wisset!zueinemangeblichenAnakoluth inMk2,10bzwzumὅτιrecitativum, in ZNW 104 (2013) 277-285, pp. 282-284, connects the practice to later usage in Byzantine Greek and Church Slavonic.

494

C.J. BERGLUND

proposed that ὅτι should be understood uniformly as introducing indirect speech, and that a sentence such as φησὶ ὅτι γράψω should be understood as a case when the author first introduces a speech report in indirect speech, only to immediately switch to direct speech21. In the context of this investigation, where variation between different modes of attribution is expected, Maier’s model removes a level of complexity in the analysis while still representing the same complexity in the data. It is therefore worth considering whether Origen uses ὅτι to introduce indirect speech reports. Origen’s practice in this regard may be illuminated by a paragraph in which he makes two comparable references to Eph 5,822, and uses infinitive in one case, and ὅτι in the other: If it was not said in Paul that (ἐλέγετο ὅτι / 1) we once were in darkness but now are shining in the Lord, […]. But now Paul claims to be (φησι γεγονέναι / 2) once darkness, but now light in the Lord – so it is possible for darkness to turn into light23.

Origen changes the original wording in both references. In the first, ἦτε (“you were”) is altered to ἤμεϑα (“we were”). In the other, this verb is replaced by γεγονέναι (“to have become”). The first reference also changes the noun φῶς (“light”) to the participle φωτεινοί (“shining”). There is no significant difference in the amount of adaptation made to the two versions, so there seems to be no need to distinguish between the two ways to form indirect speech reports24. Thus, whenever Origen presents an attributed statement in indirect speech – either by use of infinitive constructions or preceded by ὅτι – he may be presenting a summary rather than a verbatim quotation. 21. MAIER, Switches (n. 17), pp. 129-130, 133-136. Maier does not specify to which dialects of ancient Greek his arguments refer, but since he quotes examples from Acts and from Plutarch (ca. 46-120 CE) he seems to have considered Koinē as well as Attic Greek. An alternative to Maier’s view is to speak of a third category. COULMAS, ReportedSpeech (n. 17), pp. 6-10, reviews seven such proposals, all of which have less precision than Maier’s model. 22. ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ. 23. Origen, CIoII,20,135-136 (SC 120bis, 300,22-28 BLANC; ET: mine): Εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἐπὶ Παύλου ἐλέγετο, ὅτι «ἤμεϑά ποτε ἐν σκότῳ, νῦν δὲ φωτεινοὶ ἐν κυρίῳ», […] Νυνὶ δὲ ὁ Παῦλός φησι γεγονέναι «ποτὲ σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ», ὡς δυνατοῦ ὄντος τοῦ σκότος εἰς φῶς μεταβαλεῖν. 24. Similarly, in Origen, CCVIII,29, Origen uses the formula φησὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ Παῦλος ὅτι (“Paul also says that”) to introduce a slightly rephrased version of 1 Cor 8,8, in CIoXX,32,285, Origen uses φησίν ὅτι (“he says that”) to introduce a reworded rendition of Phil 1,29, and in CIo XIII,2,11, Origen uses the formula γέγραπται ὅτι (“it is written that”) to present a rephrasing of Ex 17,3LXX. There are also cases where ὅτι is used to introduce an almost verbatim quotation, such as the reference to Jn 18,28 in CIoXXVIII,14,119, or the reference to Mk 1,35 in Origen, OratXIII,1.

DISCERNING QUOTATIONS FROM HERACLEON IN ORIGEN’S CIO

495

3. ExplanatoryParaphrases In many of the cases where Origen rewrites the passages to which he refers, he is not merely summarizing, but expressing the point of the original author in his own words. This is the case when he presents two short quotations from Rom 7,8-9, and proceeds to synopsize an important point in Paul’s teaching on sin: Accordingly, the apostle says (φησί / 1): “Without law, sin is dead”, and adds (καὶ ἐπιφέρει / 2): “when the commandment came, sin was revived” – generally teaching (καϑολικὸν διδάσκων / 3) that sin has no influence in itself, before the law and the commandments25.

The first two references are almost verbatim quotations26, but the third attribution formula καϑολικὸν διδάσκων (“generally teaching”) indicates that what follows is Origen’s attempt to articulate how he perceives Paul’s teaching in this area – based, one may presume, not only on the words quoted here but on a more general understanding of Pauline theology. Since such an articulation is separated from Paul’s words by a process of interpretation, we may call it an “explanatory paraphrase”. Origen’s explanatory paraphrases are not always true to the views expressed by the quoted author. This is clear from a reference to Rom 4,17, where Paul remarks that God, when he calls Abraham a father to many nations in Gen 17,5, is referring to what does not yet exist – Abraham’s line of future descendants – as if it already does: The apostle does appear to use “the things that do not exist” not for what does not exist in any number or any way, but for the morally bad, thinking (νομίζων / 1) that “things that do not exist” are the things that are evil. For “the things that do not exist”, he says (γάρ φησίν / 2), “God called as if they did”.

In this passage, Origen’s first attribution seriously misrepresents Paul’s point. Paul is referring to the future descendants of Abraham, who will exist at some point in the future, but Origen claims that he refers to evil – which, he argues, does not really exist, since it was not included in the original creation. The second attribution, by contrast, is a more faithful 25. Origen, CIo II,15,106 (SC 120bis, 280,8-12 BLANC; ET: mine): Φησὶ τοίνυν ὁ ἀπόστολος· «Χωρὶς νόμου ἁμαρτία νεκρά», καὶ ἐπιφέρει· «Ἐλϑούσης δὲ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἡ μὲν ἁμαρτία ἀνέζησε» καϑολικὸν διδάσκων περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὡς μηδεμίαν ἐνέργειαν αὐτῆς ἐχούσης πρὶν νόμου καὶ ἐντολῆς· 26. Origen leaves out a γάρ and drops a movable ν of ἀνέζησεν. The phrase καὶ ἐπιφέρει (“and adds”) marks a gap in the quotation. Cf. Rom 7,8-9: …χωρὶς γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία νεκρά. ἐγὼ δὲ ἔζων χωρὶς νόμου ποτέ, ἐλϑούσης δὲ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἡ ἁμαρτία ἀνέζησεν….

496

C.J. BERGLUND

rephrasing27. Similarly to the formula καϑολικὸν διδάσκων (“generally teaching”), the more interpretative verb νομίζων (“thinking”) indicates a freer rendering. When Origen makes similar references to Heracleon, we cannot take for granted that he is representing Heracleon’s views correctly. 4. MereAssertions In a number of cases where Origen refers to the views or doctrines of his opponents, he does not specify any source material from which the opinion in question has been taken28. Such references may be called “mere assertions”. The most prominent of Origen’s mere assertions concerning Heracleon is the brief introduction of his predecessor: “Heracleon, who is said to be an acquaintance of Valentinus”29. The phrase “who is said to be” (λεγόμενον εἶναι) does not present the association of Heracleon to Valentinus as taken from Heracleon’s writing or in any other way derived from Heracleon’s self-presentation, but as hearsay. Although there is no question that Origen does present Heracleon as an associate of Valentinus30, and although we have no particular reason to doubt this information31, we may want to consider how much weight we want to put on a point that may be repeated from previous sources rather than based on Heracleon’s own words32. Based on his association with Valentinus, existing scholarship often takes for granted that Heracleon’s interpretations of the Fourth Gospel is determined by a “Valentinian” dogmatic system such as the one described by Irenaeus33, including the 27. Origen has altered the order of the phrases, and replaced καλοῦντος (“calling”) with ἐκάλεσεν (“called”). 28. See, for instance, his reference to the views of Marcion in Origen, CIoX,6,24. 29. Origen, CIo II,14,100 (SC 120bis, 274,1-2 BLANC; Brooke’s fragment 1; ET: mine): τὸν Οὐαλεντίνου λεγόμενον εἶναι γνώριμον Ἡρακλέωνα. 30. Pace M. KALER – M.-P. BUSSIÈRES, WasHeracleonaValentinian?ANewLook atOldSources, in HTR99 (2006) 275-289, pp. 279-282, who have attempted to argue that λεγόμενον εἶναι indicates not only that Origen reports information he has received from others, but also that he “did not consider Heracleon a Valentinian”. Although Kaler and Bussières manage to pose interesting questions, their argumentation makes too much of these two words and their radical conclusions are not sustained by available evidence. See also THOMASSEN, Heracleon (n. 2), pp. 173-174. 31. As pointed out by THOMASSEN, Heracleon (n. 2), p. 173, Heracleon’s association with Valentinus is a point on which all our sources agree. 32. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. II,4,1; Tertullian, Val. IV,1; Hippolytus, Haer. VI,4,1; VI,29,1; VI,35,6, all of which mention Heracleon’s association with Valentinus. 33. For instance, H. STRUTWOLF, GnosisalsSystem:ZurRezeptiondervalentinianischen GnosisbeiOrigenes (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 56), Göttingen,

DISCERNING QUOTATIONS FROM HERACLEON IN ORIGEN’S CIO

497

theory of the three human natures, according to which some humans, “the spiritual ones” (οἱ πνευματικοί) are predestined for salvation, while another group, “the material ones” (οἱ ὑλικοί) are irredeemably lost34. But if this association is only based on hearsay, Origen may have used it in a similar way, and presumed Heracleon to share the heterodox positions of later “Valentinian” teachers, as suggested by Langerbeck and Wucherpfennig35. If we can discern when Origen quotes Heracleon verbatim from where he is summarizing or paraphrasing him, we may also be able to discern instances where he is reading later “Valentinian” theology into Heracleon’s comments. In the following analysis, Heracleon will therefore not be presumed to maintain any heterodox views unless such doctrines are necessary to understand his interpretations.

III. VISITING CAPERNAUM The criteria presented above for discerning between different modes of attribution in Origen’s references to Heracleon may now be applied to one specific example. In Jn 2,12, Jesus and his disciples are said to spend a few days in Capernaum before going up to Jerusalem for the Passover festival. Origen writes: Heracleon, however, when he interprets “After this, he went down to Capernaum” says (φησί / 1) that it once again reveals a beginning of a new direction (οἰκονομία), since “went down” (Jn 2,12) is not said without reason. And he says (φησί / 2) that “Capernaum” signifies these outermost [parts] of the world, the material (ὑλικός) [parts] into which he had descended. And since the place was unsuitable, he says (φησίν / 3), “he is not said to have Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993, pp. 114-125, uses Heracleon as a source for the doctrinal system of “valentinianischen Gnosis”. CASTELLANO, Exégesis (n. 2), pp. 15-22, 181183, presents Heracleon as a “gnóstico valentiniano” and concludes that his exegesis constitutes a failed attempt to legitimize the “Gnostic Valentinian” doctrine in the Church. E. THOMASSEN, TheSpiritualSeed:TheChurchofthe“Valentinians” (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 60), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2006, pp. 103-118, interprets Heracleon’s reflections in the context of debates between eastern and western “Valentinianism”. I. DUNDERBERG, BeyondGnosticism:Myth,Lifestyle,andSocietyintheSchoolofValentinus, New York, Columbia University Press, 2008, pp. 2-5, 15, accepts that Heracleon developed his own theological ideas, but still presumes Heracleon to be a credible source for the doctrines of the “School of Valentinus”. 34. Irenaeus, Adv.Haer.I,1-7. Cf. M.R. DESJARDINS, SininValentinianism (SBL.DS, 108), Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1990, pp. 12-16; K. RUDOLPH, Gnosis:TheNatureandHistory ofanAncientReligion, transl. R.M. WILSON, San Francisco, CA, HarperSanFrancisco, 1984, pp. 320-322. 35. See note 5 above.

498

C.J. BERGLUND

done or said anything there”. Had, then, our Lord not been recorded in the other Gospels as having done or said anything in Capernaum, perhaps we would have considered if his exegesis was acceptable. But now …36.

Origen goes on to summarize an extensive number of gospel passages in which actions and utterances of Jesus are connected to the town of Capernaum, including Jesus’s preaching of the kingdom in Mt 4,12-17, the man with the unclean spirit in Mk 1,21-27, and Peter’s fever-ridden mother-in-law in Lk 4,38. He concludes: We have presented all this about what has been said and done by the Savior in Capernaum to refute the exegesis of Heracleon, who says (λέγοντος / 4): “Therefore, he is not said to have done or said anything there”. Let him either grant that there are two meanings of “Capernaum”, present and argue which ones they are, or – if he is not able to do this – let him refrain from saying that the Savior has visited any place fruitlessly37!

Four statements are attributed to Heracleon in this passage, and previous scholarship tends to take all four as verbatim quotations. Preuschen presents all four references as quotations. Völker and Foerster present the first three as quotations, but leave out the fourth one. Blanc presents all four in plain text, but Heine presents the fourth one within quotation marks. Pettipiece presents the first three in italics, but leaves out the fourth. Wucherpfennig first presents the three first references in italics, but later identifies the first as a summary, and treats the second and third as verbatim quotations. Pagels quotes from the first two references as if directly from Heracleon38. 36. Origen, CIo X,11,48-49 (SC 157, 414,1–416,11 BLANC; Brooke’s fragment 11; ET: mine): Ὁ μέντοι γε Ἡρακλέων τὸ «Μετὰ τοῦτο κατέβη εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ αὐτὸς» διηγούμενος ἄλλης πάλιν οἰκονομίας ἀρχήν φησι δηλοῦσϑαι, οὐκ ἀργῶς τοῦ «Κατέ » εἰρημένου· καί φησι τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ σημαίνειν ταῦτα τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ κόσμου, ταῦτα τὰ ὑλικὰ εἰς ἃ κατῆλϑεν· καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀνοίκειον, φησίν, εἶναι τὸν τόπον οὐδὲ πεποιηκώς τι λέγεται ἐν αὐτῇ ἢ λελαληκώς. Εἰ μὲν οὖν μηδὲ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς εὐαγγελίοις πεποιηκώς τι ἢ λελαληκὼς ἐν τῇ Καφαρναοὺμ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀνεγέγραπτο, τάχα ἂν ἐδιστάξαμεν περὶ τοῦ παραδέξασϑαι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν. Νυνὶ δὲ …. 37. Origen, CIoX,11,58-59 (SC 157, 418,55–420,62 BLANC; Brooke’s fragment 11; ET: mine): Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα περὶ τῶν ἐν Καφαρναοὺμ τῷ σωτῆρι εἰρημένων καὶ πεπραγμένων παρεστήσαμεν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἐλέγξαι τὴν Ἡρακλέωνος ἑρμηνείαν λέγοντος· Διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ πεποιηκώς τι λέγεται ἐν αὐτῇ ἢ λελαληκώς. Ἢ γὰρ δύο ἐπινοίας διδότω καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς Καφαρναοὺμ καὶ παριστάτω καὶ πεισάτω ποίας· ἢ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι μὴ δυνάμενος ἀφιστάσϑω τοῦ λέγειν τὸν σωτῆρα μάτην τινὶ τόπῳ ἐπιδεδημηκέναι. 38. GCS 10, 180-181 PREUSCHEN; SC 157, 415-419 BLANC; transl. HEINE (n. 4), pp. 266-268; VÖLKER, Quellen (n. 4), pp. 68-69; FOERSTER, Gnosis (n. 4), pp. 218-219; PETTIPIECE, Heracleon (n. 4), p. 68; PAGELS, Gnostic Exegesis (n. 2), pp. 52, 67, 85; WUCHERPFENNIG, HeracleonPhilologus (n. 2), pp. 51, 60-64, 94.

DISCERNING QUOTATIONS FROM HERACLEON IN ORIGEN’S CIO

499

Statement1 φησί

Statement2 φησί

Statement3 φησίν

Statement4 λέγοντος

Preuschen

Quotation

Quotation

Quotation

Quotation

Völker

Quotation

Quotation

Quotation

–

Foerster

Quotation

Quotation

Quotation

–

Blanc

Plain text

Plain text

Plain text

Plain text

Heine

Plain text

Plain text

Plain text

Quotation

Pettipiece

Italics

Italics

Italics

–

Wucherpfennig

Summary

Quotation

Quotation

–

Pagels

Quotation

Quotation

Berglund

Summary

Summary

– Quotation

– Quotation

All four attributions are made with a single verbum dicendi, either φησί (“he says”) or λέγοντος (“who says”). The first two attributed statements are presented in indirect speech using accusative and infinitive, but the third and fourth appear in direct speech. According to the criteria presented above, the first and second attributions are presented as summaries, while the third and fourth are presented as verbatim quotations. The ends of the two quotations are clear, since both are followed by sentences in which Origen undoubtedly is responding to Heracleon. Their beginnings are less clear. The main clause – οὐδὲ πεποιηκώς τι λέγεται ἐν αὐτῇ ἢ λελαληκώς (“he is not said to have done or said anything there”) – is identical in both cases, which gives a strong impression that it is quoted verbatim from Heracleon’s writing. The causal sub-clauses, however, do not match, and it is likely that Origen has either summarized καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀνοίκειον εἶναι τὸν τόπον (“and since the place was foreign”) into διά τοῦτο (“therefore”), or expanded the latter into the former. The forms of these two references give no definite reason to prefer one of these scenarios to the other, and we can only conclude that the causal connection between the foreignness of the place and the fact that Jesus is not said to have done or said anything in Capernaum may be inferred by Origen rather than expressed by Heracleon. Origen’s first summary informs us that Heracleon has remarked that the verb κατέβη (“went down”) is not chosen without a reason. This suggests that Heracleon is performing a γλωσσηματικόν (“word study”) on the verb καταβαίνω (“go down”), an indication of his literary-critical interests39. 39. On γλωσσηματικόν as a method of Greco-Roman literary criticism, see H.-I. MARROU, Histoiredel’éducationdansl’antiquité, Paris, Seuil, 51960, pp. 229-242; B. NEUSCHÄFER,

500

C.J. BERGLUND

How this downward motion is significant is revealed by the second summary, in which Heracleon is said to have interpreted the travel itinerary of Jn 2,12 as a metaphor for Christ’s descent into the material realm40. The expression τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ κόσμου (“the outermost parts of the world”) seems consistent with the outlook of the Johannine prologue: from the perspective of an eternal Logos originating in the immediate proximity of the Father, the material world may indeed be described as a remote periphery41. The Greek word οἰκονομία (here: “direction”) is a multivalent term that is often used to denote the management or stewardship of a family or a government. In early Christian usage it often denotes Christ’s salvific ministry on earth42, or God’s salvific plan for humanity43. Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165) and Origen both remark that the Incarnation brought an end to the old οἰκονομία and initiated a new one, where God’s grace is extended to include non-Jews44. Origen also uses the term to denote OrigenesalsPhilologe (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 18), Basel, Reinhardt, 1987, pp. 139-140; F.M. YOUNG, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 85-89; T. VEGGE, Paulusunddas antikeSchulwesen:SchuleundBildungdesPaulus (BZNW, 134), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2006, pp. 113-115; MARTENS, OrigenandScripture (n. 7), pp. 41-42; C.J. BERGLUND, Interpreting Readers: The Role of Greco-Roman Education in Early Interpretation of New Testament Writings, in F. WILK (ed.), ScripturalInterpretationattheInterfacebetweenEducationand Religion (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 22), Leiden, Brill, 2018, 204-247, pp. 225-236. Heracleon’s interest in literary criticism is studied by WUCHERPFENNIG, HeracleonPhilologus (n. 2). 40. On this point, I agree with THOMASSEN, TheSpiritualSeed (n. 33), pp. 107-108: “Heracleon begins his reading of the text with the descent to Capernaum, which he interprets as an allusion to the katabasis of the Saviour into matter. Capernaum is the material world”. I disagree with PAGELS, GnosticExegesis (n. 2), p. 56, who asserts that Heracleon explains that Capernaum symbolizes the spiritual condition of total ignorance, the standpoint of the “hylics”. I agree with SIMONETTI, Eracleone e Origene (n. 6), p. 135, that Heracleon refers to the Savior’s descent into the material world, but disagree with his insistence to view this “material world” within the theory of the three human natures. 41. The attempt by WUCHERPFENNIG, HeracleonPhilologus (n. 2), pp. 60-64, to argue that Heracleon’s philosophical view of the material world is influenced by the philosopher Numenius of Apamea (second century CE), whose views has parallels in other “Valentinian” texts, appears to make altogether too much of Heracleon’s characterization of the material world as remote and lower compared to the original location of the Logos. 42. Justin, Dial.30,3; 31,1; 67,7; 103,3; Origen, CIoVI,53,273; X,27,164; CCII,9,67; II,26,7; II,65,4; II,69,2; VI,78,17. 43. Ignatius, TotheEphesians XVIII,2; XX,1; Justin, Dial.45,4; 120,1; 134,2; 141,4. 44. Justin, Dial.87,5; Origen, CCIV,9,4; V,20,21. Cf. J.W. TRIGG,God’sMarvelous Oikonomia:ReflectionsofOrigen’sUnderstandingofDivineandHumanPedagogyinthe Address Ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, in Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001) 27-52, pp. 34-39. See also G.L. PRESTIGE, God in Patristic Thought, London, SPCK, 21952, pp. 57-67; H.S. BENJAMINS, OikonomiabeiOrigenes:SchriftundHeilsplan, in G. DORIVAL–A. LE BOULLUEC(eds.), OrigenianaSexta:OrigèneetlaBible/Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 327-331; G. RICHTER, Oikonomia Berlin, De Gruyter, 2005, pp. 192-201, 214.

DISCERNING QUOTATIONS FROM HERACLEON IN ORIGEN’S CIO

501

specific episodes in Jesus’s earthly activities, such as the wedding at Cana, the descent into Judea, or the interaction with the fig-less fig tree45, and may have understood it in the same sense here – that at this point in the narrative, Jesus’s work in Cana is concluded, and a new episode begins. In order to understand in what sense Heracleon is using the term, however, we should look at the context in which he is using it. Here, οἰκονομία appears alongside the second summary, where Heracleon is said to interpret Jn 2,12 as a metaphor for Jesus’s descent into the material world. In the only other instance where οἰκονομία is attributed to Heracleon, the context is expressed similarly: “that he would descend from his majesty and take flesh”46. It is therefore highly likely that Heracleon’s is using οἰκονομία to refer to the new stage in God’s salvific plan that begins at the appearance of Christ47. Origen’s response is based on the understanding that Heracleon has argued that Jesus never did or said anything in Capernaum, and enumerates several healings and speaking events located in Capernaum as described in the Synoptics48. In view of the summary in statement 2, however, it appears unlikely that Heracleon would argue that Jesus never did or said anything in a Capernaum that he interpreted as a metaphor for the material existence into which Jesus descended from the eternal realm. Such an argument would be contradicted by every sayings report and healing narrative in the Gospels. His comment more likely refers to the evangelist’s choice not to describe any words or actions by Jesus at this particular point in his narrative. The διὰ τοῦτο (“therefore”) may have referred to a reason for this choice that Heracleon found plausible – perhaps that the evangelist refrained from expanding on Jesus’s activities in Capernaum to avoid drawing his readers’ attention from the metaphorical meaning of the travel itinerary. 45. Origen, CIoX,3,10; X,3,13; X,8,37; X,21,126. 46. Origen, CIo VI,39,198 (SC 157, 278,33-34 BLANC; Brooke’s fragment 8; ET: mine): κατέλϑῃ ἀπὸ μεγέϑους καὶ σάρκα λάβῃ. 47. On this point I agree with THOMASSEN, TheSpiritualSeed (n. 33), pp. 108-109, who maintains that “The word must thus refer to the divine plan of salvation, and the assumption of flesh by the Savior must form part of this plan”. I disagree with WUCHERPFENNIG, HeracleonPhilologus (n. 2), pp. 94-95, who argues that Heracleon uses the term to state that a new major division of the Fourth Gospel begins at 2,12. 48. Origen, CIo X,8,37-38; X,9,42; X,12,62-66. This material is cited not only to refute Heracleon’s interpretation, but also to substantiate Origen’s own argument that Capernaum, which etymologically means ἀγρὸς παρακλήσεως (“field of exhortation”), is a place for exhortations to righteous action, while Cana is a location for joyful celebration. See Origène, CommentairesurSaintJean, ed.BLANC (SC, 157) (n. 4), p. 406, n. 1; transl. HEINE (n. 4), p. 264, n. 63; WUCHERPFENNIG, HeracleonPhilologus (n. 2), p. 64.

502

C.J. BERGLUND

Origen’s response fits well with a “Valentinian” world-view in which the material world is not a concrete reality shared by all humanity, but a category of particularly unfortunate individuals, who are predestined to perdition and beyond all possible aid, even from Christ. But this worldview seems to be presupposed only in Origen’s response, and not in the quotations from Heracleon. If Heracleon interpreted Jn 2,12 as a metaphor for Christ’s descent from his eternal glory into the material world, and identified this descent as the beginning of a new stage in God’s plan, his reading cannot be said to represent a heterodox opinion. On the contrary, it seems to be in line with the outlook of the author of the Fourth Gospel, and with Justin’s and Origen’s remarks about the new οἰκονομία originating with the Incarnation. IV. CONCLUSION This paper has presented a set of criteria for discerning four different modes of attribution in Origen’s references to Heracleon. Statements attributed with a verbumdicendiand presented in direct speech (oratio recta) are categorized as verbatim quotations, which purport to present Heracleon’s ipsissimaverba.Statements attributed with a verbum dicendi but presented in indirect speech (oratioobliqua) – whether by use of an accusative-with-infinitive construction or by use of ὅτι – are presented as summaries, claiming to transmit the point that Heracleon has made in his writing, but not necessarily the words he has used to express it. Attributions made with more interpretive verbs, indicating that Origen’s presentation is separated from Heracleon’s words by a process of interpretation, are viewed as explanatory paraphrases, presented as revealing not merely the point expressed by Heracleon, but the underlying argument or dogmatic idea on which this point rests. Lastly, what is attributed to Heracleon with no stated basis in his writing is considered mere assertions. While only the first category purports to contain information that can be used to reconstruct Heracleon’s actual words, the second also claims to be trustworthy material for studying his methods and views. Within the two latter categories, however, Origen may have used the views and reasoning of later “Valentinian” teachers to interpret and describe Heracleon’s interpretations. By using these criteria to analyze Origen’s references to Heracleon’s comments on Jn 2,12, we have identified two summaries and one, partly repeated, verbatim quotation. Judging from this material, Heracleon interprets Jesus’s travel itinerary of Jn 2,12 as a metaphor for Christ’s descent

DISCERNING QUOTATIONS FROM HERACLEON IN ORIGEN’S CIO

503

into the material world, which reveals the beginning of a new οἰκονομία – a multivalent term that in this context may refer to a new stage in God’s salvific plan that begins at Christ’s incarnation. Heracleon’s reflections on Jn 2,12 seem not to be based on any heterodox dogmatic position, but seem to be in line with the version of early Christianity presented by the Fourth Gospel. Further analysis will be necessary to determine to what extent Heracleon’s interpretations of other Johannine passages express heterodox theology. Careful application of these criteria to all passages where Origen interacts with Heracleon’s interpretations may allow us to discern what Origen quotes from Heracleon’s hypomnēmatafrom what he infers based on the views of later “Valentinian” teachers – thereby providing a more secure foundation for future scholarship on Heracleon. Department of Theology Uppsala University Box 511 SE-751 20 Uppsala Sweden [email protected]

Carl Johan BERGLUND

JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND THE CONDITIONS OF CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN ORIGEN’S WORK I. INTRODUCTION Throughout his written corpus, Origen repeatedly asserts that while Christians rightly read Scripture in a spiritual, or noetic manner, the Jews erroneously read it according to the literal sense, or the letter of the text. He refers to these Jewish readers as “slaves of the letter”1 or “friends of the letter”2, noting that they approach the Scriptures “superficially and only as stories”3. Indeed, when Celsus asserts that Christians and Jews employ similar interpretive methodologies, Origen takes offense and counters: If we may give an exact answer to Celsus’ words when he thinks that we hold the same opinions as the Jews about the stories he quotes, we will say that we both confess that the books were written by divine inspiration, but concerning the interpretation of the books we no longer speak alike. In fact, the reason why we do not live like the Jews is that we think the literal interpretation of the laws does not contain the meaning of the legislation. We maintain that when Moses is read “a veil lies upon their heart” because the meaning of the Mosaic law has been hidden from those who have not eagerly followed the way through Jesus Christ4.

And of course, Origen alleges that this is true not only of the Mosaic law, but of the prophetic writings as well: “For the Jews … suppose that the prophecies that relate to [the Messiah] must be understood literally, that is, that he ought actually and visibly to have ‘proclaimed release to the captives’, and that he ought to have at once built a city such as they think the ‘city of God’ really is”5.

1. CIo X,103; Origen. Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 80), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989. 2. HGn XIII,3; English transl.: Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 71),Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2002. 3. CC II,4; Origen: Contra Celsum, transl. H. CHADWICK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1953. 4. CCV,60. 5. Prin IV,2,1; Origen. On First Principles, transl. G.W. BUTTERWORTH, New York, Harper & Row, 1966.

506

A. BLASKI

The problems with these charges are well recognized by Origen scholars today. Among them, the fact that Origen approvingly cites the works of Jewish writers like Philo and Josephus6, that he openly borrows from “those among the Hebrews who are learned”7, that he himself relies on the literal sense from time to time8, and that he is plainly aware of Jewish allegorical interpreters who had only recently flourished in his own city of Alexandria. Such incongruities led scholars like Henri de Lubac, Nicholas de Lange, and Marguerite Harl to conclude that Origen was merely relying on an outdated polemic, or an “archaism” inherited from earlier Christian thinkers9. In contrast, Peter Martens finds this explanation unsatisfactory. Martens argues instead that the charges of literalism Origen levels against the Jews are not concerned with “Jewish literalism in abstraction”10, but rather with two specific typesof literal interpretation: first, those interpretations “that endorsed the continued adherence to the Jewish law, in particular, its liturgical and ceremonial customs such as circumcision, keeping the Passover, Sabbath regulations, dietary customs, and the distinctions between pure and impure”11, and second, those interpretations “that denied Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the law and the prophetic writings”12. That is to say, Origen was more concerned with literal interpretations that challenged Christian identitythan he was with literal interpretation as a method in itself. But because these doctrinal deficiencies were regularly “sustained by philological decisions”13, Martens argues, Origen finds it convenient simply to label all Jewish exegesis “literal”, thus producing the apparent contradictions mentioned above. But there is another question we ought to pose with relation to this topic, because it leads to yet another, often overlooked contradiction: 6. Regarding Philo, for example, Origen writes in CCVI,21, “I hazard the guess that Celsus has not read the books [of Philo], for I think that in many places they are so successful that even Greek philosophers would have been won over by what they say”. See also CCIV,51; CMtX,17. 7. CCIV,34; CMtXI,9; HGnII,2; HIs IX; HIosXV,6. 8. See especially Origen’s discussion of the value of the literal/somatic sense in Prin IV,2,4; IV,2,8; IV,3,4. 9. H. DE LUBAC, History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture according to Origen, transl. A.E. NASH – J. MERRIELL, San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press, 2007, p. 126; N. DE LANGE, OrigenandtheJews:StudiesinJewish-ChristianRelationsinThird-Century Palestine(University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 83; Philocalie1-20:SurlesÉcritures, ed. M. HARL (SC, 302), Paris, Cerf, 1983, p. 51. 10. P.W. MARTENS, OrigenandScripture:TheContoursoftheExegeticalLife (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 141. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid., p. 143. 13. Ibid., p. 118.

JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN ORIGEN

507

When, for Origen,did this divide between the “Jewish literalist” approach and the Christian “spiritual” approach begin? It is easy to assume, as many would today, that it could only possibly have begun with the bodily advent of Christ himself, because only afterChrist’s coming would it be possible to reject him as a hermeneutical lens. At times, this is precisely what Origen seems to suggest. In OnFirstPrinciples, Book Four, he writes: “And we must add that it was after the advent (ἐπιδημία) of Jesus that the inspiration of the prophetic words and the spiritual nature of Moses’ law came to light”14. He goes on, declaring, “the light which was contained within the law of Moses, but was hidden away under a veil, shone forth at the advent (ἐπιδημία) of Jesus, when the veil was taken away and there came at once to men’s knowledge those ‘good things’ of which the letter of the law held a ‘shadow’”15. These remarks appear straightforward, until one reads what Origen has to say elsewhere regarding those who had been “perfected” priorto Christ’s coming. For example, in the Commentary on John, he declares in Book Six, “I wish to prove that those who have been perfected in former generations (τοὺς τετελειωμένους ἐν παῖς προτέραις γενεαῖς) have known no less than the things which were revealed to the apostles by Christ, since the one who also taught the apostles revealed the unspeakable mysteries of religion to them”16. In this passage, the implication is that, at least with regard to knowledge, the advent of Christ made no difference at all. The patriarchs, prophets, and indeed (as we shall see) any truly righteous figure prior to Christ’s coming was capable of reading the Scriptures in a fully pneumatic, Christological sense, leaving us to wonder how this can be reconciled with Origen’s earlier claim. Before making an attempt at reconciliation, however, it is necessary to demonstrate what Origen actually says regarding the degree of knowledge these ancient “saints” possessed. It is, after all, a somewhat contentious point in the scholarship17. II. HOW MUCH DID THE PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS KNOW? Earlier on in Origen’s career, he seems to waver on whether or not the patriarchs and prophets possessed knowledge equal to the apostles. 14. PrinIV,1,6. 15. Ibid. 16. CIoVI,24. 17. Certain portions of the following discussion, regarding the knowledge of the patriarchs and prophets in the CommentaryonJohn, are taken from my unpublished doctoral dissertation: A. BLASKI, OrigenofAlexandriaandtheScripturalIncarnationoftheWord, University of Edinburgh, 2017, pp. 136-142.

508

A. BLASKI

Looking closer at the CommentaryonJohn, we will find that the question gradually becomes a source of tension for him. After his stronglyworded statement in Book Six, above, he adds with apparent certainty that Moses “saw in his mind (νοῦς) the truth of the Law and the allegorical meanings”18, that Joshua “understood the true (ἀληϑής) distribution of land which took place after the overthrow of the twenty-nine kings” 19, and that Isaiah “saw the mystery (μυστήριον) of the one seated on the throne” 20. However, by the time he reaches Book Thirteen, his confidence has somewhat subsided. He begins to vacillate, even to debate with himself. Commenting on Jn 4,36 (“He who reaps receives a reward and gathers fruit for eternal life, that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together”), Origen concludes that the “sowers” must be Moses and the prophets, and that the “reapers” must be the apostles. According to the text, these two parties will rejoice “together”, which leads Origen to question how and when that occurs. He puts forth the proposition that it was perhaps at the Transfiguration, when these figures literally gathered together in the presence of Christ, and where Moses and Elijah witnessed the glory of the Son of God which they had “not previously seen”21. He then adds the following: Some will accept these interpretations readily and have no hesitations about the conclusion that things hidden to former generations, including even Moses and the prophets, have been revealed to the holy apostles during the sojourn of Christ, who enlightened them with the light of the knowledge of all Scripture22.

However, he is not entirely satisfied with this solution, and so continues: “Others, however, will hesitate to assent to this, not daring to assert that so great a man as Moses and the prophets did not, during their earthly life, anticipate the things that have been understood by the apostles”23. Considering a series of scriptural passages in support of either proposition, he notes that on the one hand, Jesus says, “Many prophets and just men desired to see the things that you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things that you hear, and did not hear them” (Mt 13,17), but that 18. CIoVI,22. 19. Ibid. 20. CIoVI,23. 21. CIo XIII,310; Origen.CommentaryontheGospelaccordingtoJohn,Books13-32, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 89), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1993. 22. CIo XIII,314. 23. Ibid.

JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN ORIGEN

509

on the other hand, Solomon says, “A wise man will understand the words from his own mouth, and upon his lips he bears knowledge (Prv 16,23)” 24. Ultimately, Origen does not take a hard stance in this text. As a result of this ambiguity, Origen’s modern interpreters have occasionally used the passages above to conform Origen’s thought to whichever position they themselves hold. Crouzel, for example, claims that Origen’s early view (as seen in Book Six) was a somewhat naive and reactionary response to the Marcionites: “Origen defends, sometimes protesting too much, the old covenant against the contempt in which the Marcionites held it: he seems anxious to equate the knowledge its saints enjoyed with that of the apostles for example in Book VI of the CommentaryonJohn”25. Then, on the assumption that Origen does change his position, he notes, “Book XIII restores the balance”26. But we should perhaps take greater caution in our interpretation. Indeed, several factors strongly indicate that Origen continues to favor his earlier, original position. First, he takes a hard stance in Book Six. The presentation of an alternative interpretation in Book Thirteen does not necessitate the endorsement of that interpretation. Indeed, given the ambiguity of the passage, the burden of proof rests upon those who believe he has undergone a dramatic shift in thought. Second, near the conclusion of this internal debate, he contends that for Moses and the prophets, “it was a matter of waiting for the fullness of time”27, which, as we will soon see, has a very specific, nontemporal meaning in the CommentaryonJohn. Finally, and most importantly, we must take into account what Origen has to say in his many other 24. Earlier, Origen cites a passage from the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul writes that “the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages” is now revealed through “the prophetic writings” (Rom 16,25-26). Pairing this with the Proverbs text, Origen notes, “If the mystery which was kept secret long ago has been made manifest to the apostles through the writings of the prophets, and the prophets understood ‘the words from their own mouth’ because they were ‘wise’, the prophets knew the things which have been made manifest to the apostles” (CIoVI,25). 25. H. CROUZEL, Origen, transl. A.S. WORRALL, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1989, p. 77. There are indeed times in which Origen uses this argument to combat his theological opponents. See, for example, FrLc162: “The heterodox think they can construct their impious dogma from this starting-point: that the Father of Jesus Christ was unknown to the saints of the Old Covenant. We say to them that the words ‘to whom the Son wishes to reveal’ apply not only to future time, about which the Savior spoke these words to us, but also to past time. For, the words, ‘to reveal’ in the aorist tense, apply to anyone in the past. To refute them we should use the Scripture passage that reads, ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad’”. 26. Ibid., p. 77. See also R.P.C. HANSON, AllegoryandEvent:AStudyoftheSources andSignificanceofOrigen’sInterpretationofScripture, London, SCM, 1959, reprinted with introduction by J.W. TRIGG, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2002, pp. 210211. 27. CIoXIII,319.

510

A. BLASKI

written works. Doing so proves the most beneficial. In the Homilies on Leviticus, the HomiliesonNumbers, the HomiliesonJoshua, the CommentaryonRomans, ContraCelsum, and many other works, Origen makes it abundantly clear that the patriarchs and prophets knew, in full, the meaning of their words, and thus “witnessed Jesus’ day (Jn 8,56)”28. We might look, for example, at a passage in the HomiliesonNumbers, where Origen is describing the individual who is able to ascend from the letter “to the splendor of the mystery and contemplate the light of the spiritual Law”29. As his chief example, he turns not to one of the apostles, but to none other than Moses: Doubtless Moses understood what the true circumcision was. He understood what the true Passover was. He knew what the true new moons were and the true sabbaths. And although he had understood all these things in the Spirit (etcumhaecomniaintellexissetinspiritu), he nevertheless kept them veiled by means of words through the forms and foreshadowing of physical realities. And though he knew that “Christ our true Passover had to be sacrificed”, he commanded a physical sheep to be sacrificed at the Passover … yet he handed these things down covered up and veiled by means of a common communication of words30.

In these texts, we discover two fundamental points. First, that for Origen, Moses and the prophets did possess knowledge equal to the apostles. Though Christ had not yet come bodily, they knew that the whole of their Scriptures spoke of him, and indeed revealed him. Second, because they themselves composed those Scriptures, they willingly choseto veil the spiritual meaning of the text with seemingly plain words or insignificant stories31. It is precisely for this reason, Origen remarks, that Moses 28. See CC IV,49; VII,10; CRm I,10,2-3; IV,7,3; HIos XXVI,3; HLv VI,3,5; HNmV,1,3. 29. HNmV,1,2; Origen.HomiliesonNumbers, transl. Th.P. SCHECK (Ancient Christian Texts), Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2009. 30. HNmV,1,3. Though the dating of Origen’s homilies is notoriously complex, we can be fairly certain that he composed his HomiliesonNumbers (and therefore this passage) after he had already completed the CommentaryonJohn. With few exceptions, his homilies were delivered in the latter portion of his life, during his time in Caesarea. Furthermore, internal references within the homilies suggest that he preached on the “historical books” (the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges) last, after he had already gone through the prophetic books and the “wisdom” books. Though Books 6-32 of the CommentaryonJohnwere also composed in Caesarea, evidence suggests that Origen completed them first thing, as he indicates in CIo VI,11-12 (“For I thought it better to begin the remaining books now…”). For a concise English treatment of the dating of the homilies, see Heine’s introduction to Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 71), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2002, pp. 17-24. For fuller treatments, see R.P.C. HANSON, Origen’sDoctrineofTradition,London, SPCK, 1954; P. NAUTIN, Origène:Savieetsonœuvre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 363-412. 31. Additionally, in CCVII,10, Origen writes, “The prophets, according to the will of God, said without any obscurity whatever could be at once understood as beneficial to

JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN ORIGEN

511

smashed the “stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God”. In his own words, “He conferred so little honor upon the letter of the law that he threw down the tablets from his own hands and shattered to pieces what had in fact been written by the finger of God … In so doing he was without doubt even then showing that the glory and power of the law was not contained in the letters but in the Spirit”32. We might protest here, and argue that Origen is only speaking of biblical authorsin these passages, and that these authors were simply gifted with an intimate knowledge of Christ (through the Holy Spirit), prior to his coming. That is to say, the biblical authors were “exceptions” because they were the ones chosen to compose and veil the sacred texts. One scholar, for example, describes them as “a few chosen saints in the ancient generations”, who had sketched out in figures “the more obscure revelation of the Hebrew Scriptures”33. But Origen does not actually seem to think in these terms. While it is true that the prophets were, for him, “the first to enjoy the visitation of the superior Spirit”34, his language is usually not so narrow, and he typically speaks in broader terms of “the just”, “the perfect”, or even “the saints who preceded Jesus’ bodily sojourn, who had a somewhat greater mental grasp than the majority of believers”35. At least among the Jews, then, Origen does not limit his language to the biblical authors, but in theory extends this knowledge to anyone living a life worthy of God. As a test case, we might look to what Origen says about Aaron the high priest in his HomiliesonLeviticus. While commenting on the priestly garments, he remarks that the true high priest is the their hearers and helpful towards attaining moral reform. But all the more mysterious and esoteric truths, which contained ideas beyond the understanding of everyone, they expressed by riddles and allegories and what are called dark sayings, and by what are called parables or proverbs”. Much of this is also wrapped up in Origen’s understanding of allegory. In order for the Scriptures to be read allegorically, they need to have been written allegorically (see CCIV,49). 32. CRmII,12; Origen.CommentaryontheEpistletotheRomans,Books1-5, transl. T.P. SCHECK (Fathers of the Church, 103), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2001. Thus I must disagree with Crouzel, who writes, “Origen, like many of the ancient Fathers, had an inadequate idea of the inspiration of Scripture; he thought of it rather like a dictation. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible, the human author is of little account” (CROUZEL, Origen [n. 25], p. 71). In his Homilies on Ezekiel, Origen explicitly rejects the notion that the human authors were passive instruments, stating, “For it is not the case, as some people surmise, that the prophets were out of their minds and spoke by the Spirit’s compulsion” (VI,1,1). 33. J. MCGUCKIN, Origen on the Jews, in D. WOOD (ed.), Christianity and Judaism (Studies in Church History, 29), Cambridge, MA, Blackwell, 1992, 1-13, pp. 7-8. However, as McGuckin rightly points out, “What stands out from [Origen’s] method is its great freedom from any anxiety to follow only linear historical process in its unfolding of what he defines as transcendent biblical meaning” (ibid). 34. CCVII,4. 35. CIo VI,17, emphasis mine.

512

A. BLASKI

one who knows the true meaning of the Law and the “reasons for each mystery”36. Thus, “This high priest [Aaron] whom Moses ordained at that time knew that circumcision was spiritual (spiritalis), yet he also observed the circumcision of the flesh because the high priest could not be uncircumcised … He knew also that spiritual sacrifices ought to be offered to God, yet he was offering carnal sacrifices nonetheless”37. Because the high priest knew these things, reasons Origen, he was required to wear two tunics: one for the “ministry of the flesh” and another for “spiritual understanding (intelligentiaspiritalis)”. In other words, Aaron understood that “the Law is spiritual” (Rom 7,14) just as well as Moses. As a result, he performed all of his ritual acts with an understanding of their full spiritual and Christological significance38. In fact, Origen goes so far as to say that the priest who “removed the hide of the calf” was more fundamentally the one who “removed the veil of the letter”39. III. THE COMING OF CHRIST

AS A

TIMELESS NOETIC PHENOMENON

Returning to our problem, then, can Origen really claim that it was only in the coming of Christ that the “veil was lifted”, if the veil had already been lifted for so many? The answer, I will argue, is yes. However, we need to redefine a few key phrases in Origen’s work, such as “the fullness of time” and indeed, “the coming of Christ” itself. To do so, I will turn to the CommentaryonJohn once more, this time with the question, “What is the coming of Christ, and in what sense does it occur?” The answer is straightforward, though not straightforwardly historical. In Book One, Origen writes the following: We must not fail to remark, however, that Christ came noetically (νοητός) even before he came in a body. He came to the more perfect and to those who were not still infants or under pedagogues and tutors, in whom the noetic “fullness of time” was present, as, for example, the patriarchs, and Moses the servant, and the prophets who contemplated the glory of Christ. 36. HLvVI,3,4; Origen:HomiliesonLeviticus, transl. G.W. BARKLEY (Fathers of the Church, 83), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America, 1990. 37. HLvVI,3,5. 38. For this reason, Marguerite Harl writes, “La venue du Christ n’a pas apporté la révélation d’une vérité nouvelle, mais seulement la manifestationd’une vérité ancienne”. M. HARL, OrigèneetlafonctionrévélatriceduVerbeincarné,Paris, Seuil, 1958, p. 162. See also what Origen writes of Abraham in CRm IV,7,3: “For when he was commanded to sacrifice his only son, he believed that God was able to raise him even from the dead; he believed as well that this matter would not only be accomplished at that time for Isaac but that the full truth of the mystery would be reserved for his seed, who is Christ”. 39. HLvI,4,2.

JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN ORIGEN

513

But just as Christ visited the perfect before his sojourn which was visible and bodily, so also he has not yet visitedthose who are still infants after his coming which has been proclaimed, since they are “under tutors and governors” and have not yet arrived at “the fullness of time”. The forerunners of Christ have visited them – words with good reason called “pedagogues” because they are suited to souls which are children – but the Son himself, who glorified himself as the Word who is God, has not yet visited them, because he awaits the preparation which must take place in men of God who are about to receive his divinity40.

What are the implications of this? There are perhaps more than we can enumerate here, but for our present purposes, the crucial takeaway is that these ancient saints were not “exceptions” to the rule41. That is to say, the conditions of Christological interpretation remain the same for all people at all times, but the principal condition (namely, the coming of Christ) is first and foremost an individualized, noetic phenomenon in Origen’s work. In one sense, this is simply another way of stating a point Origen makes numerous times elsewhere, that the “Word of the Lord” which came to the prophet Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, is the very same “Word” who was “in the beginning with God”42. Christ, the Word, must come to each person, and each person must arrive at his/her own “fullness of time”, to return to an earlier point. For Origen, this is true whether one is living one thousand years before Christ, or two thousand years after him. As relativistic and individualistic as it might sound, Origen professes this unreservedly right in the midst of the third century. We ought to pause for a moment here, and ask an obvious question, concisely articulated by David Dawson: “If the patriarchs and prophets share the same knowledge as the apostles, what difference did the incarnation make?”43. There are a number of ways one might respond to that, including the solution Dawson himself offers by pointing out the distinction between the two meanings of “revealed” in Origen’s work (once when something is understood, another when it is fulfilled)44. Still, it is 40. CIoI,37-38. It is important to note that Moses, the patriarchs, and the prophets are merely listed as examples of the “more perfect”. For an alternative take on the translation and meaning of this passage, see M. CANÉVET, Unefaussesymétrie:LavenueduChrist chezlesparfaitsdansl’AncienetleNouveauTestamentsselonOrigène,InJoh.,I,VII,37- 40, in Gregorianum75 (1994) 743-749. 41. Indeed, if we think of certain figures as “exceptions”, we begin to contradict what Origen is so concerned to stress elsewhere against the various streams of “gnostic” thought: that the truths of Christianity are not reserved for specific chosen individuals. 42. HIerIX,1; CIoXX,398; HEzI,9. 43. J.D. DAWSON, ChristianFiguralReadingandtheFashioningofIdentity,Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 2002, p. 129. 44. “A thing is revealed in one way when it is understood; in another way, when it is a prophecy that has occurred and been fulfilled … It is revealed when its fulfillment is

514

A. BLASKI

a stubborn fact that Origen is not terribly concerned with this question. That is because at the heart of the question is an assumption Origen simply does not share: that Christ assumed a body and entered into history in order to reveal himself more fully, and to impart greater knowledge. For Origen, this is simply not so. In the words of Panayiotis Tzamalikos: “The presuppositions required to accept the Logos of God are the same whether he is incarnated or not ... If these presuppositions do not exist, a man cannot apprehend the Logos, even if he sees him incarnated in front of him”45. For Origen, unlike some other early Christian writers, the Incarnation is not a concentrated means of revelation. For him, to know the Logos (in any time or place) is to see him. But to see him is not necessarily to know him. IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR “JEWISH”

AND

“CHRISTIAN” WAYS OF READING

What do these things mean for the way in which Origen speaks about “Jewish” and “Christian” ways of reading? First and foremost, it means that this divide cannot have begun at the time of Jesus’ bodily sojourn, as though the Jews “missed something” (a one-time event). By Origen’s account, those who read in a “Jewish” (or rather, literalist) manner have always been in a constant state of missing something: the noetic coming of Christ. In other words, the divide goes as far back as the Law itself. It also means that the categories Origen uses for different methods of interpretation, “Jewish” versus “Christian”, are not as straightforward as they might appear. After all, for Origen, the “Jews” themselves were the first Christological readers of Scripture. They are themselves Origen’s tutors in biblical interpretation, meaning that in a very real sense, Origen perceives his own methodology to be first and foremost “Jewish” in heritage. For this reason, his terminology can often appear inconsistent. He can, for example, proclaim, “If anyone wishes to hear and understand these words literally he ought to gather with the Jews rather than with the Christians. But if he wishes to beaChristian and a disciple of Paul, let him hear Paul saying that ‘the Law is spiritual’”46. But,he can simultaneously declare that those who “take all these words in a sense other than the literal text shows” and who find “in what sense these things were said … indeed, he who hears these things will becomeaJew”47. completed” (ibid., pp. 130-131). The prophets know as much as the apostles, but they do not “grasp it as a fulfilled promise” (ibid). 45. P. TZAMALIKOS, TheConceptofTimeinOrigen,Bern, Lang, 1991, pp. 268-269. 46. HGnVI,1, emphasis mine. 47. HLv V,1,2, emphasis mine. It is not, therefore, always strictly true that (in the words of de Lange), “If the connotations of Hebraioiare philological, those of Ioudaioi

JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN ORIGEN

515

Origen makes it clear that he is borrowing here the concept of an “inward Jew” from Paul’s EpistletotheRomans, where Paul remarks that “he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal” (Rom 3,2829). And yet, Origen takes this concept further in that for him, an “inward Jew” is not simply one who is circumcised in heart, but who recognizes that circumcision is a matter of the heart in the first place. That is, the inward Jew is the one who interpretsthe law about circumcisionin a spiritual manner, specifically as a result of having experienced the coming of Christ. Paired with everything we have seen thus far, this would suggest that Origen perceives the “inward Jew” to be something comparable to the “archetypal Jew”. Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David, Isaiah, and many others, because they fully recognizedthat the Law is spiritual, because Christ had come to them, are actually the fullest manifestation of Jewish identity in Origen’s system, which is precisely why he can urge his audience to “become Jews” through the pneumatic interpretation of the biblical texts. It is more common, however, to find Origen referring to these ancient Jewish figures as “Christians”, precisely because, having met Christ, Christ now serves as their hermeneutical lens. There is, he writes, “no division and separation” between Christians in his own time and “those who were righteous before the coming of Christ”. They are “still our brothers”48. The reasoning is as follows: For although they possessed an altar then before the coming of the Savior, nevertheless, they knew and perceived that it was not that true altar, but that it was a form and figure of what would be the true altar. Those persons knew this because the true victims and those who were able to take away sins were not offered on that altar that the firstborn people possessed, but on this one where Jesus was. … Therefore, they are made “one flock and one shepherd”, those former righteous ones and those who are now Christians49.

Origen can thus comfortably speak of contemporary Christians as “Jews” in the sense that they resemble the “archetypal” Jewish figures are polemical. Ioudaioiis used in the context of the confrontation of the Church and the Synagogue: in recalling debates or disputations, in condemning the Jews for rejecting and killing Jesus, in criticizing Jewish literalism in the interpretation of the biblical law… Ioudaios, in many mouths, was a sneering expression, even perhaps a term of abuse; Hebraiois, on the other hand, was a liberal’s word, leaning over backwards to give no offense” (DE LANGE, OrigenandtheJews [n. 9], pp. 30-31). 48. HIos XXVI,3; Origen. Homilies on Joshua, transl. B.J. BRUCE; ed. C. WHITE (Fathers of the Church, 105), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2002, pp. 218-219. 49. Ibid., p. 219.

516

A. BLASKI

of the past who read the Law and the prophets spiritually, and he can comfortably speak of these “archetypal”, “perfected”, or “righteous” Jewish figures of the past as Christians. The terms are, in a sense, reversible and unbound by time, precisely because the coming of Christ is itself unbound by time. The saints of old, in Origen’s work, are therefore Christians not simply because they foresaw the reality of Christ, but because they encountered him and followed him. That is, they are Christians in the very same manneras the apostles. What then, is it to read in a “Jewish manner” for Origen? Ultimately, it depends on the perspective from which he is speaking. But, it seems always to entail a desire to remain faithful to the law and the prophets (which Origen’s other opponents, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, did not by his account possess). This can mean one of two things. It can mean either manifesting that desire wrongly through an overly literalreading of the Scriptures (thus remaining “under tutors and pedagogues”, to borrow Origen’s terminology), or manifesting that desire rightly through a spiritual reading of the Scriptures (thus imitating the “archetypal” Jewish figures: the patriarchs, prophets, and other ancients who first witnessed the coming of Christ in their minds and spirits). To be like the latter, for Origen, each and every individual must personally experience that same coming, which can occur (or not occur) regardless of one’s historical relation to the first century advent of Jesus. The conditions of Christological interpretation in Origen’s work, put simply, remain constant in all times and places. As a final thought, we might draw in here Origen’s conviction that Scripture itself is the incarnateLogos, or as he puts it, that “always in the Scriptures the Word became flesh that he might tabernacle among us” (ἀεὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, ἵνα κατασκηνώσῃ ἐν ἡμῖν)50. That is, Christ has come also through the very words of the text. The biblical authors havewritten Christ into material existence, through their language and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, bringing him incarnationally into contact with those who daily meditate upon the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets. In this sense, for Origen, Christ has been timelessly sojourning among his people not only noetically, but also, to a certain extent, materially. Of course, this may appear circular. How could the coming of Christ as Scripture serve as the very thing that reveals his presence inScripture? How could anyone be expected to know? After all, in the Emmaus event of Luke 24, the walking, talking, bodily Christ had to verbally explainsuch things to the two disciples, “beginning with Moses 50. PhilXV,19; transl. mine.

JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN ORIGEN

517

and all the Prophets”(Lk 24,27). But we must remember that for Origen, Scripture itself explains Scripture. In the words of Mihai Niculescu: “The Bible’s main task is not only one of teaching the reader/hearer to tackle the tension between the letter and the spirit. Even more important, is the Bible’s aid in signaling the very existence of this tension”51. The Holy Spirit and the biblical authors have intentionally included elements that show the reader that they must move beyond the letter, or “lift the veil”, which is perhaps one of the reasons Origen is so fond of the Emmaus event in the first place, where Jesus first chastises the two disciples before giving his explanation: “O foolish ones, slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Lk 24,24). No matter the case, we must conclude that in Origen’s work, the coming of Christ as a revelatory phenomenon is anything but straightforward. Holy Apostles College and Seminary 33 Prospect Hill Road Cromwell, CT 06416 USA [email protected]

Andrew BLASKI

51. M.V. NICULESCU, The Spell of the Logos: Origen’s Exegetic Pedagogy in the ContemporaryDebateregardingLogocentrism(Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies, 10), Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2009, p. 65.

ORIGEN’S UNIQUE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY ITS JEWISH AND EGYPTIAN SOURCES

The Apostolic Church never formulated a doctrine of the Trinity1; it simply maintained a Jewish monotheism. The great rallying cry of Judaism: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (Dt 6,4) was readily quoted with Irenaeus, for example, referring to God as: The Maker of heaven and earth, whom the prophets proclaimed, whom Christ confessed as his Father, and the law announced, saying: “Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God is one God”2.

Facing a bitter battle with polytheism, Christians had no alternative. As Tertullian said, “the rule of faith drew them from the world’s plurality of gods to the only one true God”3. The demand by Hermas that Christians should first of all believe there is one God who created all things was seen as definitive and determinative4. When Origen quoted this injunction he made it clear the One God was the God of the Jewish saints and prophets and the law as well as the gospels5. The “One God” of Judaism and the early Church was not an isolated deity. He was the “Lord of hosts” at the centre of an angelic universe. God was revealed and his universe was governed through the angelic orders, and the Christian understanding of the Word and Spirit of God did not alter this picture. St John’s exposition of the Logos, for example, builds on what we find in Philo, who described him as the “first-born” 1. Cf. J.N.D. KELLY, EarlyChristianDoctrines, London, A.&C. Black, 21960, p. 95. 2. Irenaeus,Adv.Haer.IV,2,2; cf. Adv.Haer. V,22,2. The Shema had described God as “one Lord” but when Jesus was addressed as Lord, it was altered to read “The Lord your God is one God (εἷς Θεός)”. Irenaeus so worded it as did Origen cf. HNmXIV,1; HLc XXXIV,1. 3. Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 3. “The doctrine of one God formed the background and indisputable premise of the Church’s faith”. KELLY, Early Christian Doctrines (n. 1), p. 87. The key text 1 Cor 8,5-6 referred quite simply to the menace of pagan polytheism. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv.Haer. III,6,5; Clement, Paedagogus II,1. 4. Hermas, Mand. 2,1. Some scholars date his book to about AD 90-100. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement and Origen all cite it as scripture or regard it as quasi-canonical. Cf. J.B. LIGHTFOOT, TheApostolicFathers,London, MacMillan and Co., 1907,pp. 293f. The injunction from Hermas is linked by Irenaeus (Adv.Haer. IV,20,2) to the texts Mal 2,10 and Eph 4,6. 5. Cf. Origen, Prin Praef. 4. Later he repeats the quotation from Hermas and refers to a similar statement in the book of Enoch. Cf. Origen, Prin I,3,3.

520

G. BOSTOCK

of God and the “oldest of the angels and ruler of the angels”6. In Jewish Christian circles both the Word and the Spirit came to be described in angelic terms7 even while they towered above the lesser angels as was stated in the MartyrdomandAscensionofIsaiah which described Christ ascending through the heavens until he sits at the right hand of the “Great Glory” while “the angel of the Holy Spirit” sits on the left8. Origen similarly identified the two Seraphim of Isaiah 6 with the Son and the Holy Spirit who are elevated above “the armies of the holy angels” in their knowledge of God9. The divine monarchy was not weakened by the existence of divine agents of the One God, as Tertullian recognised10, and Origen did not hesitate to set the Father and the Son in a world of divine beings11 where the critical issue was not the nature of a “god” or “lord” but the question of their obedience or otherwise to the Creator. The issue was moral not ontological. Judaism happily recognised the existence of supernatural figures such as Elijah and Melchizedek, to say nothing of Enoch and the various archangels described in esoteric Judaism as sons of God12, and the Church readily accepted this Jewish picture of an angelic universe governed by the One God. Difficulties only arose when it became necessary to define the relationship between the One God and his principal agents namely the Son and the Spirit. An implicit relationship was expressed in the baptismal rite effected “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28,19)13, but its precise nature was long left fluid and indeed confused14. Only gradually were two distinctions made which 6. Philo, Deconfusionelinguarum 146. 7. Cf. J. DANIÉLOU, TheTheologyofJewishChristianity,transl. J.A. BAKER(A History of Early Christian Doctrine,1), London, Darton, Longman & Todd; Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1964, p. 117; cf. p. 16. Hermas appeared to identify the Logos with the archangel Michael cf. Vis. 5,2; Sim. 8,3; Mand. 5,1,7. The apocryphal gospel EpistulaApostolorum (14) said Christ appeared in the form of the archangel Gabriel to Mary. Justin (Dialogus cumTryphone 56,59-60) identified Christ with the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. Cf. B. STUDER, TrinityandIncarnation,Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1993, p. 37. 8. Cf.MartyrdomandAscensionofIsaiah 11,22-33. 9. Origen,Prin IV,3,14; cf. PrinI,3,4; HIs I,2; CC VI,18; CIo VI,2. 10. Cf. Tertullian, Adv.Prax.3. 11. Cf. Origen, CC IV,29; HEx VIII,2. 12. Cf. F. YOUNG, TwoRootsoraTangledMass?, in J. HICK (ed.), TheMythofGod Incarnate,London, SCM, 1977, pp. 108-113. 13. Catechumens affirmed their faith in Father, Son and Holy Spirit with a threefold interrogation before the threefold immersion. Cf. J.N.D. KELLY, EarlyChristianCreeds, Longman, Harlow, 31972, pp. 39ff. 14. The Son and Spirit seemed at times to be interchangeable concepts. Hermas, for example, envisaged God as a master with a “well-beloved Son”, meaning the Holy Spirit, and a servant, meaning Christ (Sim. 5,5). Cf. KELLY, EarlyChristianDoctrines (n. 1), p. 94. Since the Spirit was seen as the principle of deity the divine Son was easily thought of as

ORIGEN’S UNIQUE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

521

paved the way for a doctrine of the Trinity. The first was a distinction in rank and order of importance for the Son and the Spirit in relation to the One God15; the second was the difference of function in the work of redemption. Generally speaking, the Son had the function of creation as the one through whom “all things came to be”16 while the Holy Spirit, believed to be the Spirit who had inspired the prophets, was understood as the source of inspiration and illumination for Christians17. Until the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) the Son and the Spirit were strictly subordinate to the One God18, as evidenced by the doxology which gave glory to God through the Son and the Spirit19. There was no problem with this until the rise of modalism which claimed that the Son and Spirit were indistinguishable from the Father. The Church then had to insist on three distinct powers and needed to clarify what was meant by a divine “triad”20. Tertullian expounded the distinctions needing to be made in the relationships between the three persons of the Trinity21 but described the problem rather than its solution. Origen was successful in formulating what has been rightly described as “a brilliant reinterpretation of the traditional triadic rule of faith”22. being spirit and there was a belief that the one who had become incarnate through the Virgin Mary was divine Spirit, with the result that Justin identified the Logos with the Spirit mentioned in Lk 1,35. Other theologians reflected this Spirit-Christology. Cf. KELLY, EarlyChristianCreeds(n. 13), pp. 148f. 15. Cf. Athenagoras, Supplic. 10,3; Justin, 1 Apol. 13,3; Hippolytus c. Noet. 14; Tertullian Adv.Prax. 8. 16. 1 Cor 8,6. Cf. Justin, 1Apol. 59, 2Apol. 6; Athenagoras Supplic. 4,2. Irenaeus modified this to include the Spirit in the work of creation by quoting Ps 33,6; cf. Adv.Haer. I,22,1; III,8,3; III,42,2; IV,20,3. Irenaeus affirmed the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit, as when he described them as the two “hands” of God cf. Adv.Haer. IV, praef. 4; IV,20,1; V,1,3; V,6,1; V,28,4. 17. For variations on this theme. cf. G.L. PRESTIGE, GodinPatristicThought, London, SPCK, 21952, pp. 89ff. Hippolytus offered a simple distinction between the “Father who commands, the Son who obeys and the Spirit who gives understanding” (c.Noet. 14) while Irenaeus saw the process of illumination as one shared by the Son and the Spirit (Adv.Haer. IV,20,5). Tertullian saw the Spirit as the revealer of God (Adv.Prax. 30). 18. Cf. R.M. GRANT, Gods and the One God, Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1986, p. 160. 19. Cf. Justin, 1Apol. 65; 67; Clement, QuisDives42; Origen, Orat XXXIII,6. 20. The word “triad”, first employed by Theophilus (c.180) in his AdAutolycum 2,15, did not mean a Trinity in the sense of a tri-unity. Cf. PRESTIGE, PatristicThought (n. 17), pp. 90f. 21. “Three not in condition but in rank (nonstatusedgradu), not in substance but in mode of existence (nonsubstantiasedforma), not in power but in aspect (nonpotentatesed specie); yet of one substance, one condition, and one power”. Tertullian, Adv.Prax. 2. 22. Cf. KELLY, EarlyChristianDoctrines (n. 1), p. 128. Origen was able “to work out clearly the real distinction between Father, Son and Spirit without calling in question the unity of the Trinity and the union of the divine and human in Christ”. STUDER, Trinityand Incarnation(n. 7), p. 86.

522

G. BOSTOCK

It was a decisive clarification of the relations between the three persons of the Trinity, based upon a clear differentiation of their respective functions23 and a radical subordination of the Son and the Spirit in the work of redemption24. This subordination was an integral part of a universal salvation achieved when the Son himself is finally made subject to God25. Prior to this, the Son and the Spirit remain subordinate to God and Origen spells out the superiority of the Father26: even when raised higher than all rulers and powers (cf. Eph 1,21) the Son cannot be compared with the Father27 who is greater than the Son in terms of his self-knowledge28, and who alone is said to be uncreated (ἀγέννητος)29 and “God of Himself” (αὐτόϑεος)30. I Origen squared the circle of Jewish monotheism and belief in a divine Saviour by maintaining his subordination without endangering his divinity31. He did this through a doctrine of the Trinity with four distinct aspects. The first was that the oneness of God did not signify a numerical 23. Cf. Origen, PrinI,3,8. 24. Prayer to God is made through Christ cf. Orat XV,2. Participation in God is made possible by the Holy Spirit, cf. Prin I,3,6; and is achieved notably at baptism. Cf. P. ARGÁRATE, TheHolySpiritinPrin I 3 in G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), OrigenianaNona: Origen and the Religious Practice of His Time. Papers of the 9th International Origen CongressPécs,Hungary,29August–2September2005(BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 25-47, p. 42.: “Glory is given to the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit”; cf. OratXXXIV,6. 25. Cf. Origen,Prin I,7,5;III,5,6-7. 26. Cf. Origen, Prin I,3,5; cf. CIo II,6. 27. Cf. Origen, CIo XIII,25. Origen quotes the text “The Father is greater than I am” (Jn 14,28) and recognises the Johannine distinction between the Father as ὁ ϑεός and the Logos simply as ϑεός. Cf. Origen, CIo II,1. The distinction was seen as significant by Philo, DesomniisI,39. 28. Cf. Prin IV,4,8. Cf. R.D. WILLIAMS, TheSon’sKnowledgeof theFatherinOrigen, in L. LIES (ed.), Origeniana Quarta: Die Referate des 4. internationalen Origenes- kongresses,1985(Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck – Wien, Tyrolia, 1987, 146-153,p. 150. 29. The term occurs earlier cf. PRESTIGE, PatristicThought (n. 17), pp. 39ff. The creed of Alexandria described God as “one only unbegotten Father” (μόνον ἀγέννητον πατέρα), cf. KELLY, EarlyChristianCreeds(n. 13), p. 188. Origen uses the phrase ἀγέννητος μόνος ϑεός in Prin IV,2,1. 30. Cf. Origen, CIo II,2-3. The title was first used by Origen and is found later in Eusebius and Athanasius. Cf. G.W.H. LAMPE, APatristicGreekLexicon, Oxford, Clarendon, 1961-68, sub αὐτόϑεος. 31. Cf. S. FERNÁNDEZ, VersolateologiatrinitariadiOrigene:Metaforaelinguaggio teologico, in S. KACZMAREK – H. PIETRAS (eds.), OrigenianaDecima: OrigenasWriter (BETL, 244), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, 457-473,p. 473.

ORIGEN’S UNIQUE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

523

unity because God is above all number32. What makes God “One” is his immutability33, a principle shared by both Christians and Jews34 who described God as “One” in the sense of a unified oneness (‫ )אחד‬as opposed to a solitary oneness (‫)יחיד‬35. Following the Pythagorean principle that one is not a number but the source of number36, Origen affirmed that God, while remaining “One”, was linked with the multiplicity of the fallen world37 through the Son who is “many” in relation to the world38 but one with the Father just as in Philo the Logos is one with the divine monad39. Origen explained how “One God” can be “two Gods”40 by means of the text “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10,30) where the word used for “one” is ἕν and not εἷς, and so refers to a state of unity rather than a union of identities41. The Son and the Father are one in mental unity and identity of will42 just as Adam and Eve were “one flesh” (Gen 2,24) and the person joined to the Lord is “one spirit” (1 Cor 6,17) with him43. The second distinctive aspect of Origen’s Trinitarianism was his understanding of the Father as the “fount of divinity” for the Son and for the Spirit through whom the world is sustained and sanctified44. The Father is indeed the source (ἀρχή) of all reality, a concept grounded in the text 32. Supraomnemnumerumessecredendusest (H1SamI,4). The Son does not differ from the Father in number (τῷ ἀριϑμῷ) but is one in substance (οὐσίᾳ) cf. CIoX,37. 33. ImmutabilisestDeus,etperhocunusdictum,quodnonmutatur (H1Sam I,4). 34. Cf. Origen, CC I,21. Philo emphasised God’s immutability (QuodDeussitimmutabilis5). 35. The term Echad (‫)א ׇחד‬, ֶ used in the Shema, is also used in the text “They become one flesh” (‫ )והיו לבשר אחד‬in Gen 2,24 and in Exod 26,6 which speaks of 50 clasps of gold ensuring that “the tabernacle may be one whole” (‫)והיה המשכן אחד‬. The term Yachid (‫)יָ ִחיד‬, which means solitary oneness, is never applied to God in the Old Testament. 36. Cf. Philo, Quisrerumdivinarumheressit39. See generally G. BOSTOCK, Origen andthePythagoreanismofAlexandria, in L. PERRONE (ed.),OrigenianaOctava:Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition. Papers of the 8th International Origen Congress, Pisa 27-31August2001 (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 465-478, pp. 465f. 37. God is in “every respect Oneness” (exomniparteμονὰς) but “the mind and source from which originates all intellectual existence or mind” (Prin I,1,6). This integral relationship between God and his creation has been aptly described by Emanuela Prinzivalli as one of “unicity”. 38. The Father is completely simple (πάντη ἕν ἐστι καὶ ἁπλοῦν), but the Son has become many (διὰ τὰ πολλά, … πολλὰ γίνεται). CIo I,20. 39. Cf. Philo, QuodDeussitimmutabilis18. 40. κατὰ τί εἷς Θεός εἰσιν οἱ δύο; Origen, Dial II. 41. The point at issue was recognised by Tertullian who commented that this text meant that “we are one thing ‘Unum’, not one person ‘Unus’”. Tertullian, Adv.Prax. 22. 42. Cf.CC VIII,12. 43. Cf. Origen,DialIII. 44. Cf. “One fount of divinity (unius divinitatis fons) sustains the universe by his word and sanctifies it ‘by the spirit of his mouth’, as it is written in the Psalm, ‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all their power by the spirit of his mouth’ (Ps 33,6)”; Prin I,3,7.

524

G. BOSTOCK

Jn 1,1 “In the beginning (ἀρχή) was the Word (λόγος)” where ἀρχή signifies beginning in the sense of source45. The Father is the source of divinity for the Son and Spirit as well as for lesser beings. Using texts which refer to God as the God of other gods, Origen speaks of the Son as the firstborn (cf. Gal 1,15) who draws his divinity from God while remaining of higher rank than “the other gods of whom God is the God”46. These other beings become gods through the Son who has ministered their divinity to them47. This concept of a derivative divinity acts as the bedrock of Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity, ensuring that the Son, like the Spirit, is naturally and readily seen as divine48. The third distinctive aspect of Origen’s Trinitarianism was his concept of the eternal generation of the Son. The Son, always flowing from the being of the Father49, is described as “light from light” on the basis of the texts that “God is light” (1 Jn 1,5) while Christ is the “light of the world” (Jn 8,12). This understanding of Christ as “light from light” could seem to support the modalists, described by Origen as those who thought “the Son was not in substance separate from the Father”. But Origen assumes an epistemic distance between the Father and the Son, even while they share the same οὐσία, because the light “in which is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1,5), meaning the light of the transcendent Father, is superior to, “the light that shines in the darkness” (Jn 1,5)50, meaning the light that shines in this world. On this basis Origen affirms a clear subordination of the Son to the Father even while he is of one substance (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father51. Identifying the Son with the Wisdom described as “the 45. Using Gen 1,1 to illustrate his interpretation of Jn 1,1 Origen describes God as “the absolute source of reality” (ἁπαξαπλῶς ἀρχὴ τῶν ὄντων ὁ ϑεός); CIoI,17. 46. ϑεοῖς ὧν ὁ ϑεὸς ϑεός ἐστι κατὰ τὸ λεγόμενον ῾Θεὸς ϑεῶν κύριος ἐλάλησε᾽. Origen cites Ps 49,1 LXX. cf. Dt 10,17; Josh 22,22; Ps 135,2 LXX; Dan 2,47. Origen describes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as each a μέγας ϑεός in H76Ps II,5 (Quoted in L. PERRONE, The Find of the Munich Codex: A Collection of 29 Homilies of Origen on thePsalms, in A.-C. JACOBSEN [ed.], OrigenianaUndecima:OrigenandOrigenisminthe HistoryofWesternThought [BETL, 279], Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 201-233, p. 208, n. 11). 47. διακονήσας τὸ γενέσϑαι ϑεοῖς, ἀπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ εἰς τὸ ϑεοποιηϑῆναι αὐτούς; CIoII,2. 48. Cf. CRm VII,13. 49. For Origen the Father and the Son are correlative terms cf. Prin I,2,2. The claim that the concept could be undermined by God saying to Christ, “Today have I begotten you” (Ps 2,7) was dismissed by Origen with the comment that “this day” is always present to God; cf. CIoI,29. 50. Cf. Origen,CIoII,23.Origen adds that in the same way that the God who is the “Father of truth” is greater than “the truth” so He is superior to the “true light” (Jn 1,9). 51. The Son can be distinct from (ἕτερος) the Father. but of the same substance (ὁμοούσιος) as Him. Cf. Orat XV,1; CRm I,5. Origen’s affirmation of the Son as ὁμοούσιος with the Father has been disputed. Cf. R.P.C. HANSON, DidOrigenTeachThattheSon IsektēsousiasoftheFather?, in LIES (ed.), OrigenianaQuarta (n. 28), 201-202.For

ORIGEN’S UNIQUE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

525

radiance that streams from everlasting light” (Wis 7,26), Origen uses the text describing Christ as “the radiance (ἀπαύγασμα) of God’s glory” (Heb 1,3) to illustrate the subordinate, though eternal, relationship of the Son to the Father52. This subordination of the Son is further emphasised in Origen’s exegesis of the phrase “the image of God’s goodness” (Wis 7,26). Linking this phrase with the assertion that “No one is good but God alone” (Mk 10,18), Origen says that Christ is indeed an “image of God’s goodness” but not goodness itself53 because only one is truly good, namely the God of the Shema54. The fourth aspect of Origen’s unique Trinitarianism was the partnership of the Son and the Spirit, a relationship usually obscured through a general neglect of the Spirit55 but never omitted in Origen56. Origen affirmed the “tremendous majesty” of the Spirit57 and recognised that Baptism required the joint action of both Son and Spirit58. Salvation required all the members of the Trinity to work together59 and Origen’s clear articulation of the role of the Spirit in this respect made him the pioneer of a coherent Trinitarianism60. What was central to his teaching was the sending of both Son and Spirit into the world61 to act together as virtual twins. Just as the Spirit was sent as “another advocate” in Jn 14,16, so the Son Origen’s belief the Son was ὁμοούσιος with the Father cf. GRANT, Gods(n. 18),p. 162; KELLY, Early Christian Doctrines (n. 1), p. 130; C. STEAD, Divine Substance, Oxford, Clarendon, 1977, pp. 211f; STUDER, TrinityandIncarnation (n. 7),p. 84. 52. Cf. Origen, Prin I,2,5-13; HIer IX,4; CIo XIII,25; CRm VII,13. For the many citations used by Origen cf. A.H.B. LOGAN, OrigenandAlexandrianWisdomChristology, in R. HANSON – H. CROUZEL (eds.), Origeniana Tertia: The Third International ColloquiumforOrigenStudies, Roma, Ateneo, 1985, 123-129, pp. 125ff. 53. Cf. Origen, Prin I,2,13. 54. Cf. Origen,CMt XV,11. He quotes Dt 6,4 in this passage. 55. Cf. M. WILES, TheMakingofChristianDoctrine,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1967, pp. 78ff. 56. The view that he marginalised the Spirit is greatly mistaken. Cf. ARGÁRATE, Holy Spirit(n. 24), p. 25. 57. Origen,Prin I,3,2. 58. Cf. “He who is baptised by Jesus is baptised in the Holy Spirit” CRm V,8. Baptism could only be done in the name of the Trinity cf. Prin I,3,7. 59. Cf. “The Holy Spirit supplies … the material of the gifts which come from God, so that this material is made powerful (ἐνεργουμένης) by God, is ministered (διακονουμένης) by Christ, and owes its actual existence (ὑφεστώσης) to the Holy Spirit”; CIo II,6. 60. As Charles Kannengiesser has said, Origen was responsible for developing the concept of the Spirit as a true hypostasis and this helped to make him the leading exponent of the Trinity in the Eastern Church. Cf. C. KANNENGIESSER,Écritureetthéologietrinitaire d’Origène, in G. DORIVAL–A. LE BOULLUEC(eds.), OrigenianaSexta:OrigèneetlaBible/ OrigenandtheBible(BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995,351-364,p. 356. 61. “The speaker in Isaiah says, ‘The Lord sent me and his spirit’ (Isa 48,16) … the text means … that the Father sent Christ and the Holy Spirit” CC I,46. This text from Isaiah is similarly interpreted in CMt XIII,18.

526

G. BOSTOCK

himself was said to be “an advocate with the Father” in 1 Jn 2,162, and just as the Spirit acts as “the Spirit of life in Christ who sets us free” (Rom 8,2) so Christ himself is “the truth who makes us free” (Jn 8,31-32)63. Their joint action reflects the goodness of God himself which is drawn by both the Son and the Spirit into themselves64 and this sharing of the very nature of God means that they act as brothers. Origen illustrates their co-partnership by describing the Seraphim of Isaiah 6 as symbols of the Son and the Spirit65, as were “the two living creatures”, in whose midst Habakkuk said God would be known66, and the two eyes of the Bride in Song of Songs 1567. His most vivid illustration is the image of the two cherubim who covered the mercy-seat of the Ark with their wings as they faced each other (cf. Ex 25,20) and were said to represent the Son and the Spirit within the soul of Jesus, acting as the mediator between God and man68. Philo said that the cherubim represented fullness of knowledge69 and so did Origen who referred to Christ as one “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2,3) and the Spirit as one who “explores even the depths of God’s own nature” (1 Cor 2,10)70. II The four distinctive aspects of Origen’s Trinitarian theology not only have clear parallels in ancient Egyptian religion but also their roots. This ought not to be surprising. As the Egyptologist Wallis Budge observed, “Never did Christianity find elsewhere in the world a people so thoroughly 62. Cf. Origen,CCt III,1; Prin II,7,3. 63. Cf. CRmVI,11. 64. Cf. Origen, Prin I,2,13. 65. Cf. supra, n. 9. Origen’s exegesis was criticised by Jerome because the Arians had used it to support the idea that Son and the the Spirit were creatures. Cf. DANIÉLOU, Jewish Christianity (n. 7), p. 135. 66. Cf. Origen, Prin I,3,4. The text reads ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων γνωσϑήσῃ Hab 3,2 LXX. Cf. CRm III,8. 67. As were also the two olive trees on each side of the candlestick in Zech 4,3. Cf. Origen, CCt III,1. 68. Origen,CRm III,8 cf. HEx IX,4; HNm X,3. The link made by Origen between the Ark of the Covenant and Christ himself relies on the fact that the word ἱλαστήριον meaning place or means of expiation is found both in Exod 25,17 LXX and in Rom 3,25. 69. Philo also said they were the two most ancient and the highest powers of God. Vita Mosis 2,97-99. Cf. DANIÉLOU, JewishChristianity (n. 7), pp. 136-137. 70. After commenting that the cherubim represent ἐπιστήμη πολλή Philo observed that they were the two most ancient and the highest powers of God. (τὰς πρεσβυτάτας καὶ ἀνωτάτω δύο τοῦ ὄντος δυνάμεις); VitaMosis 2,97-99. Cf. DANIÉLOU, JewishChristianity (n. 7), pp. 136-137.

ORIGEN’S UNIQUE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

527

prepared to receive its doctrines as the Egyptians”71. At the same time it is clear the Graeco-Roman world held the Egyptian priesthood in great awe72. The priests, famed as the teachers of Pythagoras and Plato73, represented a living tradition which was described by Chaeremon74, who was studied by Origen75, and was reflected in theCorpusHermeticum, written by priests who, as Fowden said, “combined openness to the international civilisation of Hellenism with a deep awareness of their roots in Egypt76. In the hermetic writings the first distinctive aspect of Origen’s Trinitarianism, namely the oneness of God, is underlined with God depicted as “One and Alone” (εἷς καὶ μόνος)77 and specifically as “Alone, Simple, and Uncompounded” (μόνον, ἁπλοῦν, ἀσύνϑετον)78. Origen and the other Alexandrians, who rarely made use of the simple Biblical assertion that God is one (Dt 6,4)79, used these philosophical terms to express the oneness of God. As already observed, they made use of a Pythagoreanism which had its source in Egypt80. A distinctive aspect of this Pythagoreanism was its concept of the oneness of the primal God implanted in a second God, the Monad81, a concept found in the hermetic writings according to Lactantius, who described this second God as “made alone, and one only”82. The imparting of the oneness of the primal God to lesser gods was a basic principle of Egyptian religion. It was a basic aspect of divinity as when a triple god was invoked with the words: “One is Bait, one is Hathor, one is Akori – to these belong one power. Be greeted, father of the world … God in three forms (τρίμορφος ϑεός)”83. Following this 71. E.A. WALLIS BUDGE, Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life, London – Boston, MA, Routledge, 2012, p. 7. 72. Cf. J. DIELEMAN, Priests,Tongues,andRites, Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 7ff. 73. Cf. S. SAUNERON, The Priests of Ancient Egypt, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2000, pp. 110ff. 74. Cf. DIELEMAN,Priests,Tongues,andRites (n. 72), pp. 6-8, 250f. 75. Cf. Eusebius,Hist.Eccl. VI,19,6. 76. G. FOWDEN, TheEgyptianHermes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. 74. Cf. DIELEMAN,Priests,Tongues,andRites (n. 72), p. 2. 77. Cf.CorpusHermeticum 4,5; 4,8; 10,14. Lactantius attributes this depiction of God to the hermetic writings and uses it to explain why our “God and Father” has no name (Institutes1,6,4-5). 78. Cf.CorpusHermeticum14,6. 79. Cf. BOSTOCK, OrigenandthePythagoreanismofAlexandria (n. 36),p. 468. 80. As Justin and Hippolytus recognised among others. Cf. ibid., p. 465. 81. Cf. ibid.,p. 469. 82. Lactantius, Institutes 4,6,9; cf. 7,18,4. 83. Quoted in S. MORENZ, Egyptian Religion, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1973, p. 255; cf. J.G. GRIFFITHS,TriadsandTrinity, Cardiff, University of Wales, 1996, p. 163. A god such as Amon was invoked with the cry “One is Amon”. Cf. MORENZ, EgyptianReligion, p. 254. E. HORNUNG, ConceptionsofGodinAncientEgypt, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1982, p. 186.

528

G. BOSTOCK

traditional principle, Origen ascribed oneness to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as did Clement who said, “The Father is One, the Logos is One, and the Spirit is One”84. The second aspect of Origen’s Trinitarianism was his understanding of the Father as the source of divinity, not only of the Son and the Spirit but also of other “gods”. This remarkable concept can only be explained in terms of its Egyptian antecedents, as Augustine recognised when attributing to Hermes “Trismegistus” the statement “Our God and Father is the Creator of the celestial gods”85. Egyptian religion believed the gods were formed by a creator-god and had a virtual identity with him86, not being distinct individuals so much as fluid forces87. The word for god “ntr” (noute in Coptic Christianity) has the meaning of “power” and gods were seen as powers flowing from one supreme “Power”; Origen similarly envisaged powers flowing from God88. Egypt had a flexible polytheism, radically altered by Akhenaten when he fused the gods into one Sun-God and thus, according to Freud’s monograph MosesandMonotheism,created the monotheism of Judaism. The gods however remained in the background as subordinates of the one supreme God, as when Moses addressed God as “king of the gods”, a title given to Amun89. Origen could see these gods as servants of God like the guardian angels of the nations90. Bypassing the Jewish precept of no gods but Yahweh91, he adopts the Egyptian concept of lesser gods coming from the supreme God and says they can be described as “gods” because God says to them “I have said you are gods” (Ps 82,6)92. They are not illusory but an essential, even if problematic, part of his cosmic vision. 84. Clement, Paedagogus I,6. cf. BOSTOCK, OrigenandthePythagoreanismofAlexandria (n. 36), pp. 469-470. 85. Augustine,DeCivitateDeiVIII,23; cf.Asclep. 23. 86. Cf. HORNUNG, ConceptionsofGod(n. 83), p. 56. Ptah, for example, was the creator of the gods as well as of the earth and mankind. Cf. MORENZ, EgyptianReligion (n. 83), p. 182; This concept of the creation of the earth was entirely absent in early Greece. Cf. ibid., pp. 160f. 87. They can be well described as having personality but not individuality. Cf. A. WIEDEMANN, in J. HASTINGS (ed.), EncyclopaediaofReligionandEthics, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1908,vol. 6, pp. 274ff. 88. See for example Prin I,2,9. Cf. D.G. BOSTOCK, EgyptianInfluenceonOrigen, in H. CROUZEL – G. LOMIENTO – J. RIUS-CAMPS (eds.), Origeniana. Premiercolloqueinternationaldesétudesorigéniennes,Montserrat,18-21septembre1973 (Quaderni di VetChr, 12), Bari, Istituto di Letteratura Cristiana Antica, 1975, 243-256, p. 247. 89. Cf. Dt 9,26 LXX. Amun was often invoked as “king of the gods”. Cf. HORNUNG, ConceptionsofGod(n. 83), pp. 231f.; MORENZ, EgyptianReligion (n. 83), p. 257. 90. The key text is Dt 32,8. Cf. Origen, HEx VIII,2; HNm XI,5;HLcXXXV,6. 91. Commenting on the text “You shall have no other gods beside me” (Exod 20,3), Origen states that God did not deny the existence of these gods (nonnegavitquiasint); cf. Origen,HEx VIII,2. 92. Cf. Origen, HEx VI,5;HLv IX,11. Gods who were “sons of the Most High” but would “die like mere men” (Ps 82,6-7) did so because they chose to follow Lucifer;

ORIGEN’S UNIQUE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

529

The third aspect of Origen’s Trinitarianism was his concept of the eternal generation of the Son93. This concept also has Egyptian antecedents. The CorpusHermeticum said the Mind (νοῦς), which is god in humanity, comes from the being of God like light from the sun94; the “second god” in fact is made “deathless” (ἀϑανατιζόμενος)95. In the background lies the Egyptian concept of the divine (ntr), which connotes a power that renews itself 96 and points to the most sacred moment in Egyptian religion namely the rebirth of the sun at dawn, seen as the re-enactment of creation and daily celebrated as such in the temples97. For Origen it reinforced the concept of the Son being constantly renewed and we are urged to contemplate this rebirth: “Look always to the east, where the Sun of Righteousness is rising and the light is always born for you”98. The Son is always being generated like radiance generated by the light99. What we have here is a solar theology, as was recognised by Huet who said “The Son has flowed from the being of God like the light from the Sun, and so is of the same being as the Father … though not the same individual (noneademnumero) substance”100. The sun was always the supreme symbol of God in Egypt and its influence on Origen who referred to God as a spiritual sun is clearly demonstrable101. The fourth aspect of Origen’s Trinitarianism was the intimate partnership of the Son and Spirit, with both acting as the image of the divine goodness102. They were virtual twins; Origen indeed wondered whether the Holy Spirit was a Son of God103 and even referred to the kenosis of the Spirit, which was said to become a child just as Jesus cf. Origen, HEz I,9; XIII,1; CMt XVI,29; XVII,19. In Egyptian thought the gods could be said to die. Cf. MORENZ, EgyptianReligion (n. 83), p. 24. 93. A similar process applied to the generation of believers by God and of evildoers by their Father the Devil. Cf. Origen, HIer IX,4; HEz VI,3. 94. Cf. Corpus Hermeticum 12,1. Albinus echoes this thinking; cf. GRANT, Gods (n. 18), p. 80. 95. CorpusHermeticum 8,2. 96. Cf. E.A. WALLIS BUDGE, EgyptianReligion,London, Routledge, 1987, p. 5. 97. Cf. G. BOSTOCK, Origen,the“SonofHorus”,inHisEgyptianMilieu, in G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious Practice of His Time. Papersofthe9thInternationalOrigenCongressPécs,Hungary,29August–2September 2005(BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 61-79, p. 79. 98. Origen, HLv IX,10. 99. Cf. Origen, Prin I,2,4. 100. P.D. HUET,Origeniana,Paris, Debure, 1759, II 2,24. 101. Cf. Origen, CIo VI,55. The Egyptians visualised its rays reaching down to earth like so many hands. The same image is found in Origen, PrinI,1,6. Cf. BOSTOCK, Egyptian InfluenceonOrigen(n. 88),pp. 248f. 102. Cf. CRm VIII,5. God as the sole source of goodness is emphasised in Corpus Hermeticum 2,14-16. 103. Cf. Origen, Prin Praef. 4.

530

G. BOSTOCK

was104. The Spirit in fact was seen as the spiritual aspect of the Son, a belief which can only be explained in terms of the Egyptian concept of the Ka, the vital essence of life that came from the creator-god105 and acted as a person’s spiritual double106. This concept, later found in Coptic Christianity107, was developed by Origen who said that, though Christ was the Son from the very beginning, the Spirit provided his essential being (ὑποστάσει) both with the power to be (εἰς τὸ εἶναι) and the power to be wise and just108. Origen’s understanding of the Spirit as the “power to be”, theKa indeed of Christ, was an integral aspect of the Egyptian concept of a triunity of gods109. The very concept in fact of a Trinity comes from Egypt, and was a permanent feature of Egyptian theology110. An example is the hymn saying, “All gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah; they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is perceived as Re, and his body is Ptah”111. 104. Cf. Origen, CMt XIII,18. The Spirit appears as a child on the façade of Como Cathedral. Cf. G. MASPERO, Remarks on Origen’s Analogies for the Holy Spirit, in KACZMAREK – PIETRAS (eds.),OrigenianaDecima(n. 31), 563-578, p. 563. 105. The creator god was seen as “the spirit who assigns to everything its essence – its Ka”; cf. R.T. RUNDLE CLARK, MythandSymbolinAncientEgypt,London, Thamesand Hudson, 1959, p. 51. This vital essence was transmitted in an act visualised as an embrace, with the Ka represented as two arms held upwards. Cf. ibid., p. 231. 106. At the temple of Luxor Amenhotep III, for example, was shown as accompanied at his birth by another child of identical appearance i.e. his Ka. Cf. J.H. BREASTED, The DawnofConscience,New York, Scribners, 1934, pp. 49f. 107. Christian Egyptians simply transferred their traditional ideas about the ka to the Holy Ghost. Cf. C.G. JUNG, The Collected Works, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958, vol. 11, p. 116. In the PistisSophiathe Holy Spirit, is described as the “brother” of Jesus, and when the Spirit embraced Jesus they “became one”. Cf. R.McL. WILSON (ed.), NewTestamentApocrypha,London, Lutterworth, 1963, vol. 1, pp. 257f. 108. Cf.CIo II,6. Origen even quotes the description in the Gospel to the Hebrews of the Spirit as the “mother” of Christ. Cf. CIoII,6; HIer XV,4. In the Coptic Epistle of James Jesus describes himself as “son of the Holy Spirit”; cf. WILSON (ed.), New TestamentApocrypha (n. 107), p. 161. Cf. I.P. KUPÁN,TheHolySpiritastheMother oftheSon?,in HEIDL – SOMOS (eds.), OrigenianaNona (n. 97), 285-291. The Spirit similarly enables the soul to be “one spirit with Christ” (1 Cor 6,17) and so become wise and just. Cf. Origen, HNmXX,2; XXV,5. In Egyptian thought the ka was spirit in the sense of “spirit of wisdom” or “spirit of understanding”. Cf. P. RENOUF, HibbertLectures 1879, London, Williams & Norgate, 1880, p. 152. In Origen spirit is not separate from its form or content cf. FrEph VIII (JTS 3 [1902] 234-244, p. 243; ed. J.A.F. GREGG). 109. Cf. “Egyptian theology asserts the essential unity (homoousia) of God as father and son … The third person appears in the form of Ka-mutef, the procreative power of the deity … through it, father and son are combined not in a triad but a triunity”. JUNG, TheCollectedWorks (n. 107), vol. 11, p. 219; cf. vol. 14, pp. 259ff. 110. Cf. GRIFFITHS, TriadsandTrinity(n. 83), p. 11. 111. Quoted in HORNUNG, ConceptionsofGod(n. 83), p. 219. Cf. MORENZ, Egyptian Religion (n. 83), p. 144.

ORIGEN’S UNIQUE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

531

Such triadic thinking could appear to be tritheistic or modalistic112, but in general showed a clear subordinationism as in the classic example of Horus as the divine son of Osiris and Isis. This led to the notion of two lesser forms of divinity having an integral relationship with the supreme God as in the case of Thoth and Horus, regarded as emanations of Atum and seen as the power of heart and tongue respectively113. Such thinking offered a template for the Jewish “Spirit of God” and “Word of God” to be seen as divine emanations of the one “Lord our God”. A Christian doctrine of the Trinity emerged when Egyptian triadic thought began to influence Alexandrian theologians through the medium of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism114; even Philo was able to speak of God having “the appearance of a triad”115. It certainly acted as the decisive influence on Origen. Thanks to his Egyptian inheritance, Origen could affirm the subordination of the Son and the Spirit while seeing this as completely compatible with their full divinity. His insights however were lost in the reaction against Arius when the latter denied the full divinity of Christ through his misuse of the texts which Tertullian116 and others had used to defend the subordination of the Son against the modalists. Origen used these texts but had urged the Church to avoid the belief which denied the divinity of Christ117 and, as Hanson made clear, cannot be blamed for Arianism even if his shadow hung over the controversy118. III Nicaea looked at the world with new eyes119. The subordinationism earlier regarded as a sacred Jewish heritage was rejected in favour of the 112. As when the sun-god says: “I am Khepri in the morning, Re at noon, Atum in the evening”. Cf. MORENZ, EgyptianReligion (n. 83), p. 145; GRIFFITHS, TriadsandTrinity (n. 83), p. 56. 113. Cf. G.R.S. MEAD, Thrice-Greatest Hermes, London, Theosophical Publishing Society, 1906, vol. 1, p. 132. Similarly Hu and Sia, meaning speech and understanding, were seen as the autonomous attributes of Ptah the creator-god. Cf. GRIFFITHS, Triadsand Trinity(n. 83), p. 197. 114. Cf. GRIFFITHS, TriadsandTrinity(n. 83), pp. 255f. 115. The comment is made with reference to the three mysterious strangers who visited Abraham (Gen 18,2). Cf. Philo, QuaestionesinGenesim 4,2; DeAbrahamo131-132. 116. Cf. Tertullian, Adv.Prax. 21-25. 117. Cf. Origen, Dial IV. 118. Cf. R.P.C. HANSON, The Influence of Origen on the Arian Controversy, in LIES (ed.), OrigenianaQuarta(n. 28), 410-423. 119. It also ignored vital questions. Cf. STUDER, TrinityandIncarnation(n. 7),p. 140; J.R.P. MOROZIUK, OrigenandtheNiceneOrthodoxy, inR. DALY (ed.), OrigenianaQuinta:

532

G. BOSTOCK

co-equality of Father, Son, and Spirit, viewed as a bulwark against the danger of Arianism. Origen had seen the Trinity as a triangle with the Son and the Spirit flowing down from the uncreated fountain of life at its apex120, but now it took the form of a wheel with three equal spokes. All differences between the persons were effectively denied, including those which had established the case for there being three persons121. Worship was given equally to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit122, and, as Harnack saw it, the unity of the Godhead was undermined123. The Cappadocians sought to maintain Origen’s emphasis on the Father as the fountainhead of divinity but could not square this with a co-equal Trinity124, and the principles of Origen’s theology were tacitly rejected by defenders of orthodoxy such as Epiphanius125. To defend the co-equality of the Father, Son and Spirit, the Church employed the Greek philosophical terms, ousia, meaning “substance”, and hypostasis, meaning “person”, to describe their relationships. But these terms are confusing, being virtually synonymous126, although ousia has the connotation of substance in itself and hypostasis that of a being in relation to others127. The terms were occasionally used by Origen himself128 but never formed the basis of his understanding of the Trinity129. Whether the Church’s use of philosophical terms shed any light is questionable. They were for the benefit of bishops not converts130 and must have led to confusion at the level of popular devotion131. Historica – Text and Method – Biblica – Philosophica – Theologica – Origenism and LaterDevelopments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 488-493, p. 488. 120. Cf. MASPERO, RemarksonOrigen’sAnalogies(n. 104), pp. 563, 565. 121. Cf. WILES, TheMakingofChristianDoctrine (n. 55), p. 127. As Wiles observes, this approach can involve the “enormity” of Patripassianism. 122. Cf. ibid., pp. 84f. 123. Cf. A. VON HARNACK, HistoryofDogma,London, Williams & Norgate, 1894-99, vol. 4, p. 84. ὁμοούσιος, no longer used in a generic sense, expressed a numerical identity; cf. KELLY, EarlyChristianDoctrines (n. 1), pp. 234f. 124. Cf. WILES, TheMakingofChristianDoctrine (n. 55), p. 136. 125. Cf. T.F. TORRANCE, The Trinitarian Faith, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1993, p. 328. 126. Ousia comes from the word “to be” while hypostasis means that which underlies something and so means its reality as opposed to its appearance. Epiphanius (Panarion 69,72) said they had exactly the same sense. Nicaea identified the two terms cf. WILES, TheMakingofChristianDoctrine (n. 55), p. 144. 127. Cf. PRESTIGE,PatristicThought(n. 17), pp. 168f. 128. Chiefly in the context of defending Christian teaching cf.CCVIII,12 and DialIIIIV. 129. Cf. H. CROUZEL, Origen, transl. A.S. WORRALL, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1989, p. 188. 130. Cf. KELLY, EarlyChristianCreeds(n. 13), p. 205. 131. Cf. P. TILLICH, SystematicTheology,Welwyn, Nisbet & Co., 1964,vol. 3, p. 308.

ORIGEN’S UNIQUE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

533

The dogma of three fully co-equal personae was fundamentally incoherent and, as Epiphanius admitted, was “beyond explanation” (ἀνεκδιηγήτως)132. Karl Rahner described it as “wild and empty conceptual acrobatics”133, and Geoffrey Lampe said it was leading Christian theology through empty categories of thought into a blind alley134. It has become a hermetically-sealed mystery detached both from the cosmic world, in which Origen had located it135, and from the human world to which he had related it through his doctrine of the soul of Christ136. The Church has thereby sacrificed the role of the historical Christ137, and also lost a carefully-crafted monotheism which was a bridge to the other monotheistic faiths of Judaism and Islam. Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity, which was faithful to the thinking of the Apostolic Church, still offers us a valid, coherent, and necessary vision. 33 Queen Street Perth PH2 0EH United Kingdom [email protected]

Gerald BOSTOCK

132. The word is used in 2 Cor 9,15. 133. K. RAHNER, TheTrinity, New York, Burns & Oates, 1970, p. 48. 134. Cf. G.W.H. LAMPE, GodasSpirit, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977, pp. 225f. 135. Cf. KELLY, EarlyChristianDoctrines (n. 1), p. 131. 136. For the importance of this doctrine cf. WILES, TheMakingofChristianDoctrine (n. 55), pp. 56f., 103ff. 137. Cf. HARNACK, HistoryofDogma (n. 123), vol. 4, p. 49.

ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS

Did Origen know and use Papias? The question is difficult to answer, but we have some clues. On the one hand, Origen possessed a well-stocked library in Caesarea and had access to a broad stream of earlier Christian writers1, while Papias of Hierapolis was a second-century exegete who wrote five volumes of a work called ExpositionofDominicalOracles2. A copy of Papias’s work was in the hands of Eusebius of Caesarea two generations later when he composed his Ecclesiastical History3. Since much of Eusebius’s library stems from Origen4, there exists the possibility that Papias’s work may well have been among those in Origen’s library and available to Origen himself. On the other hand, we know hardly anything at all about the content of Papias’s work because it has largely perished, leaving merely fragments in the form of quotations by later writers, only a handful of which are of any substantial length. These fragments have been collected since the age of printing and none of them belong to 1. On Origen’s scholarship and bookishness, especially in Caesarea, see generally A. GRAFTON – M. WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius,andtheLibraryofCaesarea, Cambridge, MA – London, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006. 2. This information comes from Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. III,39,1, who quotes Irenaeus, Adv.Haer. V,33,4 for the number of Papias’s volumes. All quotations of the Greek text of Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. are taken from EusebiusWerke:DieKirchengeschichte, ed. E. SCHWARTZ – T. MOMMSEN (GCS NF, 6, 3 vols.), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1999. 3. Eusebius is the first to quote from the preface of Papias’s work in Hist.Eccl. III,39,34. On the other hand, B. GUSTAFSSON, Eusebius’ Principles in Handling His Sources, as FoundinHisChurchHistory,BooksI-VII, in StudiaPatristica4 (1961) 429-441, pp. 431432, argues that Eusebius may have been dependent on a lost work of Clement of Alexandria for his collection of extracts from Papias, appealing to Eusebius’s lack of citation by book. However, Gustafsson’s insistence on references to particular book numbers is arbitrary since, for one of his major quotations, Eusebius, does cite the prologue to Papias’s work (Hist. Eccl. III,39,2 κατὰ τὸ προοίμιον τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων). As for Clement as a possible intermediary, it is unsupported by the surviving works of Clement. A letter to Theodore attributed to Clement and published by Morton Smith, though dependent on Papias, has been shown to be a forgery; see F. WATSON, BeyondSuspicion:OntheAuthorship of the Mar Saba Letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark, in JTS 61 (2010) 128-170; P. JEFFERY, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2007; and S.C. CARLSON, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark, Waco, TX, Baylor University Press, 2005. 4. A.J. CARRIKER, TheLibraryofEusebiusofCaesarea (SupplVigChr, 67), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2003, p. 23.

536

S.C. CARLSON

Origen5. In other words, we do not possess any direct evidence, in the form of an explicit citation of Papias, for Origen’s knowledge and use of Papias within Origen’s incompletely but substantially preserved large body of work. This state of affairs forces us to consider indirect evidence, and this study looks at the overlaps of Origen and Papias in two different areas: on the question of chiliasm and on the origin of the Gospel of Mark. I We will begin with Papias’s eschatological views, particularly with respect to the millennial reign of the returning Christ (cf. Rev 20,4-6). In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius writes that Papias quoted “strange parables of the Savior and his teachings and some other more legendary things, among which he says that after the resurrection of the dead will be a thousand years when the kingdom of Christ will subsist upon this earth in bodily form” (Hist.Eccl. III,39,11-12)6. The idea among some Christians of a material kingdom of Christ on earth after the resurrection was also known to Origen, who rejected it7. Controversy over these views raged in Rome when Origen visited Hippolytus there, so he was in a position to become directly acquainted with the views and writings of the millenarians8. Writing in On First Principles II,11,2, Origen criticizes those who interpreted the future promises (repromissiones futuras) literally, in the pleasure and luxury of the body (inuoluptateetluxuriacorporis)9. Indeed, 5. The first printed collection of Papias’s fragments is P. HALLOIX, Illustriumecclesiae orientalis scriptorum, 1633, vol. 1, pp. 635-649. At the present writing, the two most complete editions of the fragments (with somewhat differing coverage) are E. NORELLI, PapiadiHierapolis,EsposizionedegliOracolidelSignore:Iframmenti (Letture cristiane del primo millennio, 36), Milano, Paoline, 2005, and M.W. HOLMES, TheApostolicFathers: GreekTextsandEnglishTranslations, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 32007, pp. 722-767. For an earlier list of fragments and detalied analysis, see also U.H.J. KÖRTNER, Papiasvon Hierapolis:EinBeitragzurGeschichtedesfrühenChristentums (FRLANT, 133), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983, and J. KÜRZINGER, PapiasvonHierapolisunddie EvangeliendesNeuenTestament (Eichstätter Materialien, 4), Regensburg, Pustet, 1983. 6. My translation of Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. III,39,11-12 (GCS NF 6, 290,5-8 SCHWARTZ) ξένας τέ τινας παραβολὰς τοῦ σωτῆρος καὶ διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ καί τινα ἄλλα μυϑικώτερα· ἐν οἷς καὶ χιλιάδα τινά φησιν ἐτῶν ἔσεσϑαι μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωματικῶς τῆς Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπὶ ταυτῃσὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησομένης. 7. For a helpful overview of Origen’s attitude to the millennium, see C. MAZZUCCO, Millennio, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO(ed.), Origene.Dizionario:Lacultura,ilpensiero,le opere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 281-283. 8. MAZZUCCO, Millennio (n. 7), pp. 281-282. See also L. GRY, Lemillénarismedans sesoriginesetsondéveloppement, Paris, Picard, 1904, pp. 87-107; G. MAIER, DieJohannesoffenbarungunddieKirche (WUNT, 25), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1981, pp. 88-89. 9. Origène. Traité des principes, ed. H. CROUZEL – M. SIMONETTI (SC, 252), Paris, Cerf, 1978, p. 396,30-31.

ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS

537

it is this materialism that Origen found most objectionable about the doctrine, along with its advocates’ literal exegesis of the scriptures10. Origen lists a number of scriptural passages which have been understood in this “Judaic sense” (Iudaico … sensu), among which is Mt 26,29, where Jesus takes the cup at the Last Supper and states that he will not drink of it until he drinks it new in his Father’s kingdom11. This is the very saying of Jesus that Irenaeus cites in Against Heresies V,33,1 in his confutation of the Valentinian position that life after death will take place in a super-celestial realm. Specifically, Irenaeus argues, “For [Jesus] can neither be understood as drinking the fruit of the vine with his disciples up above in the super-celestial place, nor it is the case that those who drink it lack flesh, since the drink taken from the vine belongs to the flesh and not the spirit”12. Thus for Irenaeus, a literal/non-spiritual reading of Mt 26,29 is key to his argument for the resurrection of the entire person, both body and soul. Jesus makes a promise that they will enjoy wine in the resurrection, an enjoyment that, according to Irenaeus, requires a fleshly body. In this section, Irenaeus goes on to cite another scriptural promise about a material blessing, this time Isaac’s blessing of Jacob in Gen 27,28, where God may give “from the dew of heaven and from the plenty of earth an abundance of wheat and wine” (Adv. Haer. V,33,3). This Old Testament blessing is not mentioned in the Gospels, but Irenaeus cites a statement attributed to Jesus via Papias that the days will come when grape vines and wheat stalks will be exponentially productive, with multiple factors of the number 10,000 (Adv.Haer.V,33,3-4). This application of Gen 27,28 to the future times of the kingdom is another example of a scriptural promise taken in a literal sense, the kind of reading of scripture that Origen attributes to the more simple-minded Christians13. 10. MAZZUCCO, Millennio (n. 7), pp. 282-283; H. PIETRAS,IPrincipi II,11 diOrigene eilMillenarismo, in L. PERRONE (ed.),OrigenianaOctava:OrigenandtheAlexandrian Tradition. Papers of the 8th International Origen Congress, Pisa 27-31 August 2001 (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 707-714. 11. SC 252, 398,57-61.74 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI. On the patristic exegesis of the “fruit of the vine” saying in Mt 26,29 and parallels, see generally P. LEBEAU, Levinnouveaudu royaume:ÉtudeexégétiqueetpatristiquesurlaParoleeschatologiquedeJésusàlaCène (Museum Lessianum. Section Biblique, 5), Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1966. 12. My translation of IrénéedeLyon.Contreleshérésies,livreV, ed. A. ROUSSEAU – L. DOUTRELEAU – C. MERCIER (SC, 153), Paris, Cerf, 1969, pp. 406.408,17-21: Neque enimsursuminsupercaelestilococonstitutuscumsuispotestintellegibibensvitisgenerationem,nequerursussinecarnesuntquibibuntillud:carnisenimpropriumestetnon spiritusquiexviteaccipiturpotus. 13. On Origin’s attitude toward and engagement with the “simpler” Christians, see generally G. AF HÄLLSTRÖM, Fides Simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 76), Helsinki, Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1984.

538

S.C. CARLSON

It is unclear who was first responsible for the application of Gen 27,28 to life in the eschaton. Irenaeus’s predecessor Justin, Dial. 51,2, understood it to be fulfilled by the resurrected Jesus himself in Jerusalem before his ascension. J.B. Lightfoot has argued that Irenaeus got it from Papias, by identifying Mt 26,29 as the “saying of the Lord”, interpreting it in millennial terms, and adducing an oral tradition about the fantastic fertility of grape vines and wheat in support14. Some scholars also appeal to a similar exegesis by Victorinus of Pettau in his CommentaryonRevelation that interprets Mt 26,29 in reference to the millennial kingdom as “multiplied by a hundred parts, ten thousand times greater and better”15. Yet, Victorinus is dependent on both Irenaeus and Papias and would not constitute an independent witness for the presence of this exegesis in Papias16. Hence Origen’s source could have been Irenaeus rather than Papias. Indeed, with the lack of clear evidence supporting Lightfoot’s contention that Papias himself interpreted Mt 26,29, it seems better to attribute the interpretation to Irenaeus, which means that Origen’s reference to this interpretation stems from Irenaeus rather than Papias. As such, it is not a promising avenue for exploring Origen’s knowledge of Papias, but it is important to keep in mind that Irenaeus did quote and name Papias here for a literal interpretation of an Old Testament promise. Thus, even if Origen obtained the exegesis of Mt 26,29 from Irenaeus rather than from Papias, in the same context he read a notice by Irenaeus of Papias’s reading of Gen 27,27, a materialistic reading of the divine promises that Origen objected to in OnFirstPrinciples. II The other case involves the use of Papias for something that Origen must have found more congenial: his statements connecting the author of the Gospel of Mark to Peter17. In his EcclesiasticalHistory, Eusebius 14. J.B. LIGHTFOOT, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, London – New York, Macmillan, 1889, pp. 158-159. 15. VictorindePoetovio.Surl’ApocalypsesuividuFragmentchronologiqueetdela Construction du Monde, ed. M. DULAEY (SC, 423), Paris, Cerf, 1997, p. 122: quod est centumpartibusmultiplicatum,deciesmilliesadmaioraetmeliora. 16. See M. DULAEY, VictorindePoetovio,premierexégètelatin (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 139-140), Turnhout, Brepols, 1994, vol. 1, p. 265. 17. Much has been written on Papias’s comments on the origin of Mark quoted by Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.III,39,15; see the bibliography compiled by Elizabeth König and Markus Vinzent in KÜRZINGER, Papias (n. 5), pp. 138-243, no. 40; and more recently S. MORLET – L. PERRONE (eds.), EusèbedeCésarée,Histoireecclésiastique:Commentaire. Vol. 1:Étudesd’introduction.Anagôgê, Paris, Les Belles Lettres – Cerf, 2012, pp. 359-360. My discussion here focuses on the relatively ignored Papias fragment inHist.Eccl. II,15,2.

ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS

539

conveys a defense of the fourfold gospel from Origen’s commentary on Matthew(Hist.Eccl. VI,25,4-6): As I learned in the tradition about the four gospels, which are alone uncontested in the Church of God under heaven, that written first was the one according to the former tax-collector and later apostle of Jesus Christ Matthew, who released it for the believers from Judaism as he had composed it in Hebrew letters; and second was the one according to Mark, as Peter guided him, whom he also acknowledged in the catholic epistle by stating these words, “Greeting you is the co-elect [church] in Babylon and my son Mark”; and third was the one according to Luke, the producer of the gospel praised by Paul for those from the Gentiles; in addition to them all, the one according to John18.

Two points ought to be made concerning Origen’s statement. First, Origen refers to tradition (ἐν παραδόσει μαϑῶν), a term which Origen uses, not so much in the sense of the deposit of faith, as in other early Christian writers, but for “small and comparatively unimportant pieces of information”19. Even though some of the items of his statement can be deduced from the New Testament (e.g., the relationship between Peter and Mark in 1 Pet 5,13), Origen does not present himself as the originator of these details, but indicates that they were taught by his predecessors20. Second, Origen explicitly cited 1 Pet 5,13 in his statement: “as Peter guided him, whom he also acknowledged in the catholic epistle”. Already in Origen’s time, then, the identification of the Mark the evangelist with the Mark of 1 Pet 5,13 was traditional. What could be his sources for this? A clue to Origen’s source can be found in Eusebius,Hist.Eccl. II,15, where the same passage from 1 Peter also appears. In this chapter, Eusebius transmits a tradition that the Roman Christians were not satisfied with the mere orality of Peter’s preaching about Jesus, so they went to his follower Mark to put the teaching down in writing: 18. My translation of GCS NF 6, 576,7-17 SCHWARTZ: 4 ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαϑῶν περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἀναντίρρητά ἐστιν ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ κατὰ τόν ποτε τελώνην, ὕστερον δὲ ἀπόστολον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ματϑαῖον, ἐκδεδωκότα αὐτὸ τοῖς ἀπὸ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύσασιν, γράμμασιν Ἑβραϊκοῖς συντετεγμένων· 5 δεύτερον δὲ τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον, ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ, ποιήσαντα, ὃν καὶ υἱὸν ἐν τῇ καϑολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ διὰ τούτων ὡμολόγησεν φάσκων «ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱός μου»· 6 καὶ τρίτον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, τὸ ὑπὸ Παύλου ἐπαινούμενον εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐϑνῶν πεποιηκότα· ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην. 19. R.P.C. HANSON, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition, in JTS 49 (1948) 17-27, here p. 19. Hanson goes on to explain: “Some of these traditions, whether called παραδόσεις or not, are probably intelligent guesses, and some perhaps derived from popular legend or gossip”. 20. R.P.C. HANSON, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition, London, SPCK, 1954, p. 137, identifies one of Origen’s predecessors as Clement of Alexandria.

540

S.C. CARLSON

Now such a radiance of religion beamed upon the minds of Peter’s audience that they could not be content with hearing him just once or with an unwritten teaching of the divine preaching. With all kinds of entreaties, then, they urged Mark (whose gospel is extant), as he was Peter’s follower, to leave behind a memorial in writing of the teaching handed down to them orally, and they did not give up before they prevailed upon the man, and in this way they were the occasion for the writing of the Gospel according to Mark. They say, when the apostle realized what was done as the spirit revealed to him, he was pleased with the men’s eagerness, and he ratified the writing for reading to the churches. Clement in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis has set forth the story, ...21.

It is of particular note that Eusebius attributed the whole story to Clement in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis, but claims that “they say” (φασι) Peter himself ratified the text for reading in the churches. Thus, there are two statements of attribution in this part: to Clement and to anonymous contemporaries. Although Clement’s Hypotyposeis is lost, we are fortunate that Eusebius preserves a parallel for Clement’s testimony, related later inHist. Eccl. VI,14,5-7: But again in those very books Clement presented a tradition of the original elders about the order of the gospels in this manner: He said that those of the gospels comprising the genealogies were written for the public, that Mark had this disposition: that when Peter was in Rome preaching the word openly and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many, entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what was said, to record what was spoken; but that after he composed the gospel, he shared it with those who wanted it; that, when Peter found out about it, he did not actively discourage or encourage it; but that John, last, aware that the bodily facts were disclosed in the gospels, urged by friends, and inspired by the spirit, composed a spiritual gospel. So much for Clement22. 21. My translation of GCS NF 6, 140,3-14 SCHWARTZ: τοσοῦτον δ’ ἐπέλαμψεν ταῖς τῶν ἀκροατῶν τοῦ Πέτρου διανοίαις εὐσεβείας φέγγος, ὡς μὴ τῇ εἰς ἅπαξ ἱκανῶς ἔχειν ἀρκεῖσϑαι ἀκοῇ μηδὲ τῇ ἀγράφῳ τοῦ ϑείου κηρύγματος διδασκαλίᾳ, παρακλήσεσιν δὲ παντοίαις Μάρκον, οὗ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον φέρεται, ἀκόλουϑον ὄντα Πέτρου, λιπαρῆσαι ὡς ἂν καὶ διὰ γραφῆς ὑπόμνημα τῆς διὰ λόγου παραδοϑείας αὐτοῖς καταλείψοι διδασκαλίας, μὴ πρότερόν τε ἀνεῖναι ἢ κατεργάσασϑαι τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ ταύτῃ αἰτίους γενέσϑαι τῆς τοῦ λεγομένου κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου γραφῆς. 2 γνόντα δὲ τὸ πραχϑέν φασι τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀποκαλύψαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πνεύματος, ἡσϑῆναι τῇ τῶν ἀνδρῶν προϑυμίᾳ κυρῶσαί τε τὴν γραφὴν εἰς ἔντευξιν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Κλήμης ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων παρατέϑειται τὴν ἱστορίαν, ... 22. My translation of GCS NF 6, 550,15-28 SCHWARTZ: αὖϑις δ’ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὁ Κλήμης βιβλίοις περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν εὐαγγελίων παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαϑεν πρεσβυτέρων τέϑειται, τοῦτον ἔχουσαν τὸν τρόπον. προγεγράφϑαι ἔλεγεν τῶν εὐαγγελίων τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας, τὸ δὲ κατὰ Μᾶρκον ταύτην ἐσχηκέναι τὴν οἰκονομίαν. τοῦ Πέτρου δημοσίᾳ ἐν Ῥώμῃ κηρύξαντος τὸν λόγον καὶ πνεύματι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐξειπόντος, τοὺς παρόντας, πολλοὺς ὄντας, παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μᾶρκον ὡς ἂν

ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS

541

This passage broadly supports the request motif (τοὺς παρόντας, πολλοὺς ὄντας, παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μᾶρκον), but it does not support Peter’s ratification of Mark’s Gospel, which Eusebius attributed to “they say”. Rather, Clement has an oddly non-committal response by Peter: “that, when Peter found out about it, he did not actively discourage or encourage it”. This example helps to illustrate how Eusebius uses his sources inHist.Eccl. II,15, with a mix of elements, some of which are attributed to and found in a traditional author, while others are attributed to anonymous sources and not found in the author cited nearby. Following the citation of Clement inHist.Eccl. II,15,2, Eusebius adds that Papias also corroborates his testimony, as follows: Joining him, moreover, is the Hierapolitan bishop named Papias, testifying that Peter mentions Mark in his first letter, which they say was even composed in Rome herself, and he indicates this very thing, when he referred to the city more figuratively as Babylon, with these words: The co-elect in Babylongreetsyou,andalsomysonMark23.

In this statement attributed to Papias, there is a remark in indirect discourse that “Peter mentions Mark in his former epistle”, quoting 1 Pet 5,13, as well as another claim that “they say” in the reference to Babylon as a code for Rome. As with Clement, Eusebius’s appeal to Papias can be checked later in the Ecclesiastical History, in this case, when Eusebius presents a quotation from Papias on the origin of the Gospel of Mark in Hist.Eccl.III,39,15, as follows: And this is what the elder would say: “Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about what was either said or done by the Lord”. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said24, Peter, who would give his ἀκολουϑήσαντα αὐτῷ πόρρωϑεν καὶ μεμνημένον τῶν λεχϑέντων, ἀναγράψαι τὰ εἰρημένα· ποιήσαντα δέ, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ· ὅπερ ἐπιγνόντα τὸν Πέτρον προτρεπτικῶς μήτε κωλῦσαι μήτε προτρέψασϑαι. τὸν μέντοι Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον, συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, πνεύματι ϑεοφορηϑέντα πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον. For the translation of προγεγράφϑαι as “written for the public”, see S.C. CARLSON, Clementof Alexandriaonthe“Order”oftheGospels, in NTS 47 (2001) 118-125. 23. My translation of GCS NF 6, 140,14-19 SCHWARTZ: συνεπιμαρτυρεῖ δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Ἱεραπολίτης ἐπίσκοπος ὀνόματι Παπίας, τοῦ δὲ Μάρκου μνημονεύειν τὸν Πέτρον ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῃ· ἣν καὶ συντάξαι φασὶν ἐπ’ αὐτῆς Ῥώμης, σημαίνειν τε τοῦτ’ αὐτόν, τὴν πόλιν τροπικώτερον Βαβυλῶνα προσειπόντα διὰ τούτων· Ἀσπάζεταιὑμᾶςἡ ἐνΒαβυλῶνισυνεκλεκτὴκαὶΜάρκοςὁυἱόςμου. 24. Several scholars have interpreted this “as I said” (ὡς ἔφην) as a reference by Papias to an earlier discussion of his on the Gospel of Mark, referred to in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. II,15, where the relationship to Mark to Peter is explicit: G.E. STEITZ, DesPapiasvon Hierapolis„AuslegungderRedendesHerrn“nachihrenQuellen, in TheologischeStudien und Kritiken 41 (1868) 63-95; T. ZAHN, Introduction to the New Testament, transl.

542

S.C. CARLSON

teachings as needed, but not as an arrangement of the dominical oracles, so that Mark did not fail at all by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify anything among them25.

This passage is concerned with the literary criticism of Mark’s gospel, and it lacks the request motif found in Clement, or anything about Peter’s reaction to the written Gospel, either non-committal in Clement or approving in Eusebius’s anonymous sources. In other words, with the exception of a more congenial postfactoratification by Peter attributed to anonymous tradents, the request story for the origin of Mark preceding the citation to Clement and Papias can be derived from Clement’s account alone26. Returning to the material after the citation of Papias in Hist. Eccl.II,15,2, there are also two pieces of information: first, the identification of Mark with Peter’s spiritual son of the same name in 1 Pet 5,13, and, second, the identification of Babylon in the same verse as Rome. The latter claim is attributed to the anonymous “they”, and if it is set aside as a later addition to the tradition as suggested in our treatment of the previous part, this leaves us with the identification of Mark and the question of who made it. As for Clement, there is nothing in the Clement fragment quoted by Eusebius that supports the identification with the Mark of the Petrine epistle27, though the association was known to the compiler of Clementine comments about the catholic epistles in the Adumbrationes28. J.M. TROUT etal., 2 vols., Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1909, repr. Minneapolis, MN, Klock & Klock, 1971, pp. 449-450, n. 10; A. DELCLAUX, DeuxTémoignagesdePapiassurlaCompositiondeMarc?, in NTS27 (1981) 401-411. Others, however, interpret this as a reference to Mark’s having been the interpreter of Peter in the preceding sentence, esp. NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), pp. 210-211 n. 1; KÖRTNER, Papias (n. 5), p. 259, n. 13a; W.R. SCHOEDEL, Papias, in ANRW II.27.1 (1993) 235-270, here pp. 260-261. 25. My translation of GCS NF 6, 290,21–292,2 SCHWARTZ: καὶ τοῦϑ’ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχϑέντα ἢ πραχϑέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούϑησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δέ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν. ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασϑαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς. 26. This is the conclusion of NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), p. 215 n. 1, in a change of position from his earlier view that the request tradition was Papian in E. NORELLI, Lamémoiredes origineschrétiennes:PapiasetHégésippechezEusèbe, in B. POUDERON – Y.-M. DUVAL (eds.), L’historiographie de l’Église des premiers siècles. Actes du colloque de Tours. Septembre 2000. Organisé par l’université de Tours et l’Institut Catholique de Paris (Théologie Historique, 114), Paris, Beauchesne, 2001, 1-22. 27. NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), p. 220, n. 2. 28. See B. ORCHARD – H. RILEY, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels, Macon, GA, Mercer University Press, 1987, p. 131: Marcus, Petri spectator,

ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS

543

As for Papias, there is also nothing in the famous Markan testimonium of Hist.Eccl.III,39,15, but this does not exhaust what Papias has to say about Mark. Two paragraphs later, in III,39,17, Eusebius mentions that Papias “used testimonies” from First John and First Peter29. As scholars generally recognize, this Petrine testimony would have to be none other than 1 Pet 5,1330. This line of argument suggests that it was Papias who made the identification of Mark the evangelist with Peter’s spiritual son, and accordingly part of the tradition referred to by Origen. Unfortunately, both Papias’s ExpositionoftheDominicalOraclesand Clement’s Hypotyposeis are lost, and this hampers our ability to check independently Eusebius’s citation of their testimony on the role 1 Pet 5,13. It is possible that both made the identification (or worse, that both did not make the identification)31. Nevertheless, there is one detail in Origen’s testimony on Mark that is easier to derive from Papias than from Clement. That detail is that Mark wrote as “Peter guided him” (ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ). In Clement, the composition of Mark’s Gospel occurred in response to entreaties by the local Romans without Peter’s knowledge or even subsequent endorsement, a scenario that rules out the guiding hand of Peter. By contrast, Papias is more open-ended about Peter’s role in Mark’s Gospel, and the notice that Mark was Peter’s interpreter (Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος) suggests a closer relationship of Mark to Peter in the writing down of the gospel, although modern scholarship is rightly skeptical of this interpretation32. Another point of corroboration praedicantePetroevangeliumpalamRomaecoramquibusdamCaesareanisequitibuset multaChristitestimoniaproferente,petitiusabeis,utpossentquaedicebanturmemoriae commendare,scripsitexhisquaeaPetrodictasuntevangeliumquodsecundumMarcum vocitatur;sicutLucasquoqueActusApostolorumstiloexsecutusagnoscituretPauliad Hebraeosinterpretatusepistolam. NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), p. 220, n. 2, rightly cautions that the Adumbrationes are a reworking of the Hypotyposeis. By contrast, L.J. STEVENS, The Evangelists in Clement’s Hypotyposes, in Journal of Early Christian Studies 26 (2018) 353-379, argues that the Adumbrationesbest preserved the text of Clement with Eusebius dependent on an intermediary source; even if this is correct, the Adumbrationes would not then directly reflect the form of Clement’s tradition on Mark as Eusebius encountered it. 29. GCS NF 6, 292,7-8 SCHWARTZ: κέχρηται δ’ ὁ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως. 30. NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), pp. 330-331, n. 34. 31. It is also possible that Origen himself could have made the identification, independently from Papias, despite his claim that he was presenting what he learned from tradition. This is essentially the position of NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), pp. 220-221, n. 2. The identification is certainly natural if not obvious (though the specificity of the appeal to 1 Peter instead of Acts or 2 Timothy for the identity of Mark still requires explanation), but it is striking that Eusebius would attribute it to Papias, whom he held suspect, than to Origen whom he held in high esteem. 32. In particular, the influential analysis of J. KÜRZINGER, DieAussagedesPapiasvon Hierapolis zur literarischen Form des Markusevangeliums, in BZ 21 (1977) 245-264,

544

S.C. CARLSON

for Papias as Origen’s source is the information that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, a detail also present in Papias. According to Eusebius in III,39,16 but also much more widely spread throughout the tradition, including Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III,1,1, who himself is dependent on Papias33. III The evidence that Origen knew and used Papias is admittedly circumstantial but sufficient to conclude that the Alexandrian polymath had known of Papias’s work and even consulted it for information about the origin of the Gospel of Mark. Much stronger is the case that Origen was familiar with – and rejected – Irenaeus’s eschatological teaching at the end of Book V of AgainstHeresies, especially on the nature of the resurrected body. But this familiarity with Irenaeus proves that, at the very least, Origen knewof Papias, because Irenaeus cites Papias favorably in this section and commends him as a disciple of the evangelist John (Adv.Haer. V,33,4). It is reasonable to infer that Origen’s reprinted in KÜRZINGER, Papias(n. 5), 43-61, reads Papias’s remarks about Mark in terms of rhetorical terminology, so that Mark is a later expounder of Peter’s teaching. By contrast, A.D. BAUM, Der Presbyter des Papias über einen Hermeneuten des Petrus, in TZ 56 (2000) 21-35, takes ἑρμενευτής as an oral translator for Peter, whose Aramaic was much stronger than his Greek, and he reads the aorist participle γενόμενος as indicating that this employment occurred before the composition of the Gospel. 33. If we had good evidence of Papias on the origin of the Gospel of John, then this could be another point of comparison, but such evidence is lacking. J.V. BARTLET, Papias’s ‘Exposition’:ItsDateandContents, in H.G. WOOD (ed.), AmiticiæCorolla:AVolumeof EssaysPresentedtoJamesRendelHarris,D.Litt.ontheOccasionofHisEightiethBirthday, London, University of London Press, 1933, pp. 15-44, and C.E. HILL, WhatPapias SaidaboutJohn(andLuke):A‘New’PapianFragment, in JTS49 (1998) 582-629, seek to find in Papias a source for unattributed tradition on the composition of the Gospel of John in Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. III,24. Norelli’s thorough response in Papia (n. 5), pp. 508521, finds this position dubious. Since then, two English-language articles have come out in (qualified) support for the Bartlet-Hill position, though without any citation of or engagement with Norelli’s criticism. T.S. MANOR,Papias,Origen,andEusebius:TheCriticisms and Defense of the Gospel of John, in VigChr 67 (2013) 1-21, argues that Eusebius is (also) reacting to criticisms of the Gospel of John raised by Origen. D. FURLONG, Theodore ofMopsuestia:NewEvidencefortheProposedPapianFragmentinHist.Eccl.3.24.5-13, in JournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament 39 (2016) 209-229, seeks to argue that Theodore of Mopsuestia is another source for Papias’s remarks on John, but all of Theodore’s purported knowledge of Papias is found elsewhere in Eusebius, and in my view does not therefore show Theodore’s comments to be independent of Eusebius. (Furlong’s observations about Theodore are to some extent anticipated by the uncited I. RAMELLI, Fontinote emenonotesulleoriginideivangeli:Appuntiperunavalutazionedeidatidellatradizione, in Aevum [2007] 171-185).

ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS

545

interest in scripture would have led him to consult such an early Christian, and Origen’s statements about the original of the Gospel of Mark are consistent with that consultation (indeed, more consistent than with what is known of Clement’s traditions about Mark). If these are the portions of Papias that Origen knew and used, indirectly if not directly, what does this tell us about his attitude to Papias? It appears to be much like his attitude toward the Gospel of Thomas, as I have discussed in an earlier study: although there were certainly aspects of the writer’s work he did not agree with, Origen was nonetheless willing to consider useful those parts he did agree with34. If he had read Papias, he would have agreed with his comments about the origin of Mark and the identification of Mark within another part of the New Testament. Yet, there were also parts of Papias that Origen would have strongly disagreed with, such as his readings of the fulfillment of the scriptural promises after the resurrection. These Papias had interpreted literally, and this is the very style of interpretation that Origen rejected in On First Principles, as too focused on bodily pleasures and luxuries. Origen’s decidedly negative attitude toward the kind of exegesis that Papias represents is also reflected in Eusebius, who evaluates Papias in Hist. Eccl. III,39,13 as follows: “For he had a very small mind, it appears, to judge from the words he says, except that he became part of the reason for why such a large number of the ecclesiastics after him had a similar opinion citing the man’s antiquity, as he appeared to Irenaeus and any other with similar views”35. Origen would have wholeheartedly agreed. Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry Australian Catholic University Locked Bag 4115 Fitzroy MDC, VIC 3065 Australia [email protected]

Stephen C. CARLSON

34. S.C. CARLSON, Origen’s Use of the Gospel of Thomas, in J. CHARLESWORTH – L.M. MCDANIEL (eds.), SacraScriptura:How“Non-Canonical”TextsFunctionedinEarly Judaism and Early Christianity (Jewish and Christian Texts, 20), London, Bloomsbury – T&T Clark, 2014, 137-151. 35. My translation of GCS NF 6, 290,11-14 SCHWARTZ: σφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρὸς ὢν τὸν νοῦν, ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων τεκμηράμενον εἰπεῖν, φαίνεται, πλὴν καὶ τοῖς μετ’ αὐτὸν πλείστοις ὅσοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν τῆς ὁμοίας αὐτῷ δόξης παραίτιος γέγονεν τὴν ἀρχαιότητα τἀνδρὸς προβεβλημένοις, ὥσπερ οὖν Εἰρηναίῳ καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τὰ ὅμοια φρονῶν ἀναπέφηνεν.

HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF ORIGEN’S RELATION OF THE TWO SERAPHIM TO THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT I. INTRODUCTION In his HomiliesonIsaiah, Origen identifies the two seraphim who surround the Lord’s throne in the prophet’s vision at Isaiah 6 as the Son and Holy Spirit. This association forms the basis for one of the condemnations by Emperor Justinian, suggesting that Origen held a proto-Arian subordination of the Son to the Father and thus failed to safeguard monotheism as a principle of Christian faith. Justinian’s Anathematism IV, issued during the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, condemns Origen for “think[ing] that the Word of God has become like all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim he was a cherub, for the seraphim a seraph: in short like all the superior powers...”1. At first glance, identifying the two seraphim with the Son and Holy Spirit may suggest that they are among the hierarchy of inferior beings who look up to and worship the Father. However, examination of Origen’s own words2, as well as potential precedents available to him, underscore that, for Origen, relating the two seraphim to the Son and Holy Spirit protects the theological principle that only the Son and Holy Spirit directly know the Father, a trait which, for Origen, shows that they are God. This principle is foundational to the salvific import that Origen gives to the next part of the vision when the Lord on the throne sends down a seraph with a burning coal to cleanse the lips of the prophet. For Origen this seraph represents Christ who, being God, comes down to cleanse humble believers from sin with Scripture and thus prepare them to participate through him in the glory and union of the triune Divine nature. In the vision of Isaiah, the prophet sees “the Lord sitting on a throne ...”. A seraph stands on either side of the throne, each with six wings: 1. TheAnathematismsoftheEmperorJustinianagainstOrigen, in NPNF 14 (21994) 320. 2. Origen,Deprincipiis I,3,4 and IV,3,14 as well as HIs I,2-5; IV,5-6; and V,2. For De principiis, see Origen. On First Principles, transl. G.W. BUTTERWORTH, Gloucester, MA, Peter Smith, 1973, pp. 32 and 311. The English translation of Origen’s Homilieson Isaiah is the author’s own, and appears in a forthcoming volume of Fathers of the Church for The Catholic University of America Press, based on the Latin edition, Origenes:Die Homilien zum Buch Jesaja, ed. A. FÜRST – C. HENGSTERMANN (OWD, 10), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2009.

548

E.A. DIVELY LAURO

With two [wings] they covered the face, and with two [wings] they covered the feet, and with two [wings] they flew. And they cried out one to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Sabaoth; the whole earth is full of his glory”3.

These two seraphim protect and worship the Lord on the throne, which might suggest that they are beings separate from the Lord and from each other4. Despite this danger, Origen stresses twice in Deprincipiis and throughout HIs I and IV that these two seraphim are “the Lord Jesus Christ” and the “Holy Spirit”, suggesting that the “Lord on the throne” is “God” the “Father”5. Some scholars view Origen’s portrayal of the two seraphim as the Savior and Holy Spirit standing around the throne of the Lord to reflect his belief in the Trinity, though not necessarily devoid of subordination6. More often scholars tend to focus on (1) the identification of the Hebrew master, whom Origen refers to in Deprincipiis as his influence for the association, and (2) weighing whether certain historical documents influenced the Hebrew master and/or Origen to make this association. While no one can verify the influence of certain historical texts on Origen and his Hebrew master, the five texts treated below do support this association and, in some cases, also support the theological concerns that drive Origen to make it. This paper demonstrates from Origen’s own words why he considers this association important and how its Trinitarian emphasis is essential to his understanding of Christ’s salvation plan. 3. Isa 6,2-3 LXX. The author consulted A. PIETERSMA – B.G. WRIGHT, A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included underthatTitle, New York – Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 830, but disagrees with that translation’s use of “their” before “face” and “feet”, because there is no possessive pronoun modifying “face” and “feet” in the Greek LXX. Jerome’s Latin of Origen’s quotation of the same verses in HIs I,2 is consistent with the Greek LXX. 4. Origen also identifies the Son and Holy Spirit with the two golden cherubim which God ordered be placed at either end of the gold propitiatory or mercy seat of the ark in Exodus 25, as well as to “two living creatures” in Hab 3,2 LXX. See CRm III,8,2-9. 5. See PrinI,3,4 and IV,3,14 and HIs I and IV. 6. D. HANNAH, in Isaiah’sVisionintheAscensionofIsaiahandtheEarlyChurch, in JTS NS 50 (1999) 80-101, argues that TheAscensionofIsaiah and Origen’s treatment of the two seraphim show a form of Trinitarianism held in the early church that “evolved from the same Jewish Christian exegetical tradition”, and it had a subordinationist, though non-angelic view of the Son and Holy Spirit. For similar views, see J. TRIGG, TheAngel ofGreatCounsel:ChristandtheAngelicHierarchyinOrigen’sTheology, in JTS NS 42 (1991) 35-51, and C. MARKSCHIES, Trinitarianism, in J.A. MCGUCKIN (ed.), The Westminster Handbook to Origen, London – Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2004, 207-209. The current article argues in contrast that Origen’s relation of the Son and Holy Spirit to the two seraphim, when read in light of his view of eternal generation and the collective context of his Isaiah homilies, offers a non-subordinationist Trinity, where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share one nature that is fundamental to the process of salvation.

ORIGEN’S RELATION OF THE TWO SERAPHIM TO THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT

549

In this paper, we explore the following: (1) how a small but varied collection of precedents possibly influenced the “Hebrew teacher” and Origen (namely, TheAscensionofIsaiah,Philo’s DeDeo, Irenaeus’ Epideixis, TheEucharisticPrayerofSarapion, and John 12) to relate the two seraphim to the Son and Holy Spirit and thereby protect the unknowability of the Father; (2) how Origen’s explanation of his “Hebrew teacher’s” and his own association of the two seraphim to the Son and Holy Spirit points out their shared nature with the Father; (3) how Origen’s larger theological notion of eternal generation supports this non-subordinationist reading; and (4) how the theological import of this association allows Origen to explain that Christ’s saving power in Scripture will bring believers ultimately into the shared nature of the Trinity. II. POSSIBLE PRECEDENTS FOR RELATING THE TWO SERAPHIM TO THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT Origen and his Hebrew master were possibly influenced by certain documents circulating in Alexandria before or during their time there. Since, according to Origen, his Hebrew master stressed that the one seraph was “the only-begotten Son of God”7 and “Jesus Christ”8, he is most likely a Jewish scholar converted to Christianity, rather than a rabbinical Jewish teacher or the Hellenistic Jewish scholar Philo mutedly referenced by Origen9. Five documents that focus directly on seraphim (arguably in Isaiah’s vision) and may have contributed to the intellectual milieu in Alexandria at the time of Origen and his Hebrew-Christian master are The 7. Prin I,3,4. 8. Prin IV,3,14. 9. Scholars who view Origen’s Hebrew master as a Jewish-Christian, are R.E. HEINE, Origen:ScholarshipintheServiceoftheChurch, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 30, 56-57, 117, and 208-209; HANNAH, Isaiah’sVision (n. 6), pp. 9194; N. DE LANGE, OrigenandtheJews:StudiesinJewish-ChristianRelationsinThird- CenturyPalestine(University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 25), Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976, pp. 27, 43; J. DANIÉLOU, TheTheologyofJewish Christianity, transl. J.A. BAKER (A History of Early Christian Doctrine, 1), London, Darton, Longman & Todd; Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1964, pp. 134-140, esp. 135136; R.P.C. HANSON, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’sInterpretationofScripture, London, SCM, 1959, reprinted with introduction by J.W. TRIGG, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2002, p. 174 (changed mind from earlier work in which he suggested the master was a rabbi, in R.P.C. HANSON, Origen’s DoctrineofTradition,London, SPCK, 1954, pp. 148 and 154-156); and S. KRAUSS, The JewsintheWorksoftheChurchFathers, in TheJewishQuarterlyReview5 (1892-93) 122157, p. 154 – republished in TheJewsintheWorksftheChurchFathers(Analecta Gorgiana, 67), Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2007, p. 33.

550

E.A. DIVELY LAURO

AscensionofIsaiah,Philo’s DeDeo, Irenaeus’ Epideixis, TheEucharistic PrayerofSarapion, and John 12. 1. ThreePrecedentsfortheRelation:Irenaeus,Sarapion,John a) Irenaeus Three of these precedents, Irenaeus, Sarapion and John 12, may have provided a precedence for Origen’s portrayal of the two seraphim as the Son and Holy Spirit. Irenaeus, in DemonstrationoftheApostolicPreachingorEpideixis(Epid.), discusses the two seraphim and the Son and Holy Spirit in the same breath, stating: This God, then is glorified by His Word, who is His Son, continually, and by the Holy Spirit, who is the Wisdom of the Father of all. And their powers, of this Word and of Wisdom, who are called Cherubim and Seraphim, glorify God with unceasing voices10.

Scholars grapple over whether Irenaeus means that the “powers” refer to the actions of the Son and Holy Spirit (also referred to here as God’s Word and Wisdom) or whether they are separate angelic entities serving the Son and Holy Spirit11. Either way, Irenaeus mentions that the Son and Holy Spirit themselves glorify, or worship, God “continually”. Origen and/or his Hebrew master may have found this passage precedent for identifying the Son and Holy Spirit as the two seraphim surrounding and honoring the Father on the throne in the Isaiah vision. b) Sarapion An early eucharistic prayer or anaphora (“offering”) by Sarapion of Thmuis, dating to the late second century12, has worshippers sing the 10. Irenaeus, Epideixis(Epid.)I,10; OntheApostolicPreaching, transl. J. BEHR Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997, p. 46. The translator employs the Greek and Armenian edition: TheProofoftheApostolicPreaching,withSevenFragments,ed. K. TER-MEKERTTSCHIAN – S.G. WILSON (PO, 12/5), 1917 – reprinted Turnhout, Brepols, 1989. 11. Daniélou and Dom Emmanuel Lanne consider the two seraphim in Irenaeus’ passage to refer to the “powers” of the Son and Holy Spirit, yet Lanne argues the influence on Irenaeus is Philo and Daniélou argues it is TheAscensionofIsaiah. See DANIÉLOU, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (n. 9), pp. 138-140, and D.E. LANNE, Cherubim et Seraphim:Essaid’interprétationduchapitrexdelaDémonstrationdeSaintIrénée, in Recherchesdesciencereligieuse43 (1955) 524-535. Cf. A. BRIGGMAN, Re-evaluatingAngelomorphisminIrenaeus:TheCaseofProofoftheApostolicPreaching10, in JTS NS 61 (2010) 583-595. 12. Eusebius, inHist.Eccl. VI,12,1-2, places Sarapion at the end of the second century. In agreement are DANIÉLOU, TheTheologyofJewishChristianity (n. 9), p. 21; P.F. BRADSHAW – M.E. JOHNSON, TheEucharisticLiturgies:TheirEvolutionandInterpretation,Collegeville,

ORIGEN’S RELATION OF THE TWO SERAPHIM TO THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT

551

Trisagion to the two seraphim and the one beside whom they stand. At the beginning of the prayer, it states, “Let the Lord Jesus speak in us and the Holy Spirit also hymn through us”13. The image, then, is that the two seraphim are Jesus and the Holy Spirit singing the Trisagion to the Father and to themselves through the churchgoers. It is possible that this prayer, or a prior version of it, influenced Origen and/or his Hebrew master to relate the two seraphim of Isaiah to the Son-Christ and the Holy Spirit. c) John The Biblical text, Jn 12,37-46 (citing Isa 6,9-10)14, may have influenced Origen’s association of the Son with the seraph in the Isaiah vision who was sent down to purify the prophet’s lips with coal from the heavenly altar, or, at least, it shows Scriptural consistency with this association. Later in Isaiah’s vision, the prophet stresses that God has “blinded ... the eyes of the people”, so that they may not “perceive with their heart” God’s help and “be healed”. The gospel author applies this sentiment to the “Pharisees” who do “not confess” or “believe” in Jesus Christ, since they “love [] the praise of men more than the praise of God”. The gospel author next reports that Isaiah “saw” the “glory” of the “Lord” Jesus in his vision “and spoke of him”, and reports Jesus as saying, “He who believes in me, believes in him who sentme”. This suggests that the gospel author understands Jesus as the seraph sent down by the Father, and he states that these two seraphim are due “glory” alongside the Lord. While Origen does not directly refer to this passage in conjunction with the two seraphim in his extant works, he might have had this passage in mind as Biblical support for his treatment15. MN, Liturgical Press, 2012, pp. 111-121; M.E. JOHNSON, TheBaptismalRiteandAnaphora inthePrayersofSarapionofThmuis:AnAssessmentofaRecent‘JudiciousReassessment’, in Worship 73 (March 1999) 140-168; B. SPINKS, TheIntegrityoftheAnaphora of Sarapion of Thmuis and Liturgical Methodology, in JTS 49 (1998) 136-144, p. 141; ID., TheSanctusintheEucharisticPrayer,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 89; and R.D. WILLIAMS, AngelsUnawares:HeavenlyLiturgyandEarthlyTheologyin Alexandria, in StudiaPatristica 30 (1997) 350-363, pp. 351-356. For the argument that the Sarapion eucharistic prayer dated afterOrigen, see SPINKS, TheSanctus, p. 89. 13. See text for the prayer of Sarapion in ThePrayersofSarapionofThmuis:ALiterary, Liturgical, and Theological Analysis, ed. and transl. M.E. JOHNSON, Roma, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1995, pp. 46-47, as well as at BRADSHAW – JOHNSON, TheEucharistic Liturgies (n. 12), p. 113. 14. Jn 12,37-46, citing Isa 6,9-10. 15. Jerome read Jn 12 to mean that Christ is the one on the throne, using it to support his view, followed by others after him, that the two seraphim represent the two testaments of Scripture. See Jerome, Letters 18 and 84, in NPNF 6 (21994) 22 and 176-177; A. FÜRST, JeromeKeepingSilent:OrigenandHisExegesisofIsaiah, in A. CAIN – J. LÖSSL (eds.), JeromeofStridon:HisLife,WritingsandLegacy, Farnham – Burlington, VT, Ashgate,

552

E.A. DIVELY LAURO

2. TwoPrecedentsfortheTheologicalImportoftheAssociation Two other possible precedents, TheAscensionofIsaiah and Philo’s De Deo, show not only a correlation between the two seraphim and the Son and Holy Spirit but also the idea that they alone hold direct knowledge of the Father and that any human knowledge of the Father is at best indirect through them. a) The Ascension of Isaiah In particular, there is scholarly support that the Jewish-Christian apocalyptic document The Ascension of Isaiah shares strong parallels with Origen’s treatment of the two seraphim16, also likening them to the Son and Holy Spirit17.In TheAscensionofIsaiah, we have a Christian retelling of Isaiah’s vision18. After Isaiah is martyred, he ascends up through the seven heavens19. In the seventh heaven he states: “I ... saw the Great Glory while the eyes of my spirit were open, but I could not thereafter see”. But then “my Lord approached me, and the angel of the Spirit, ... [a]nd I saw how my Lord and the angel of the Holy Spirit worshipped and both together praised the Lord”. Then all the “angels” of all the heavens “sang praises”, worshipping “that Glorious One whose glory I could not see”. Isaiah’s angel-guide said to him, “‘This is the most High of the high ones, who dwells in the holy world, who rests among the holy ones, who will be called by the Holy Spirit in the mouth of the righteous the Father 2009, 141-152, pp. 145-147; and H. DE LUBAC, Medieval Exegesis. Vol. I: The Four SensesofScripture, transl. M. SEBANC, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998, pp. 255-256. Yet, if John is read from a non-subordinationist perspective, we can recognize that Jesus refers to himself in Jn 12,44 as the one “sent”, and thus as the second seraph sent down to cleanse, and then it is fitting to attribute the Lord’s words in Isa 6,9-10 (at Jn 12,40) to Jesus as well as to the Father and to speak of Jesus’ “glory” in Jn 12,41 as well as the Father’s. 16. HANNAH, Isaiah’sVision (n. 6), pp. 93-94; and DANIÉLOU, TheTheologyofJewish Christianity (n. 9), pp. 36-40. 17. For those who view TheAscensionofIsaiah as a Christian work from the second century, see M. HIMMELFARB, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, Oxford,Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 55-59, esp. 55; TheAscensionofIsaiah, transl. M.A. KNIBB, in J.H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1985, 143-176, p. 150; and HANNAH, Isaiah’sVision (n. 6), p. 85 n. 15. Daniélou places it “from Palestinian circles before A.D. 70”. DANIÉLOU, The TheologyofJewishChristianity (n. 9), p. 15. 18. TheAscensionofIsaiah9-10, in CHARLESWORTH (ed.), TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha (n. 17),pp. 172-173. 19. Origen mentions “seven worlds or heavens” in reference to “Baruch” in Prin II,3,6, though the extant Baruchmentions only five heavens. See Origen, trans. BUTTERWORTH (n. 2), p. 91, n. 1, and HIMMELFARB, AscenttoHeaven (n. 17), p. 90. In CC VI,21, Origen mentions that accepted Biblical texts in the church do not mention seven heavens. Irenaeus mentions seven heavens in Epid. IX.

ORIGEN’S RELATION OF THE TWO SERAPHIM TO THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT

553

of the Lord’”20. Then Isaiah “heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, as he said to my Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus, ‘Go out and descend through all the heavens, … [to the] world, … for they have denied me’”. And the Most High explained that the Son will later return”, or “ascend and sit at [his] right hand, and then the princes and the powers of that world” as well as the powers in the heavens, “will worship [the Son]”. Clearly, the “Lord” is the Son, Christ, while the “Most High” or “Great Glory” or “Glorious One” is the Father. The Father is surrounded by the Lord Christ, “who will be called Jesus”, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is praised by all, but everything is seen and heard only by the Lord Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Father is unknowablebycreation;onlytheSon andHolySpiritcanseeandknow the Father as others do not. b) Philo’sDe Deo In De Deo, Philo21 interprets the two seraphim in Isaiah’s vision as “patterns” or “conflagrations”22. He explains: These names point directly to the Powers, for they are the ideas and the seal after which the Creator patterned the world, branding and sealing each thing with its proper qualities. Hence they are called “patterns”. [T]he Powers ... consist of ... preserving fire, by which all things were fashioned artistically... . Looking around, one fathoms that creative fire which executes the divine images not (only into) those that are soulless but (also into) those endowed with soul and reason23. 20. Note the Holy Spirit praising the Father through the worshippers, as occurs in the eucharistic prayer of Sarapion. 21. For Philo’s influence on Origen, see D.T. RUNIA, PhiloinEarlyChristianLiterature:ASurvey,Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1993, pp. 157-183. See also A. VAN DEN HOEK, AssessingPhilo’sInfluenceinChristianAlexandria:TheCaseofOrigen, in J.L. KUGEL (ed.), ShemintheTentsofJaphet:EssaysontheEncounterofJudaismandHellenism, Leiden, Brill, 2002, 223-239, and Philo and Origen: A Descriptive Catalogue of Their Relationship, in StudiaPhilonicaAnnual 12 (2000) 44-121, and The‘CatechetialSchool’ ofEarlyChristianAlexandriaandItsPhilonicHeritage, in E. FERGUSON (ed.),Formsof Devotion:Conversion,Worship,Spirituality,andAsceticism, New York, Garland, 1999, 19-47, and ClementandOrigenasSourceson‘Noncanonical’ScripturalTraditionsduringtheLateSecondandEarlierThirdCenturies, in G. DORIVAL–A. LE BOULLUEC(eds.), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 93-113. 22. Philo, DeDeo4-9, esp. 6. There is only an extant fragment in Armenian of Philo’s DeDeo, and it contains an exegesis of Genesis 18. For the edition, English translation and commentary, see A. TERIAN, PhilonisdeVisioneTriumAngelorumadAbraham:ANew Translation of the Mistitled De Deo, in Studia Philonica Annual 28 (2016) 77-93 and 94-107, esp. pp. 99-101, 105, here 99. Note that “saraph” means “burning”, from the verb meaning “to be on fire”, “set on fire” or “cause or make a fire”. J. STRONG, Dictionaries oftheHebrewandGreekWordsoftheOriginal, in TheExhaustiveConcordanceofthe Bible, New York, Abingdon, 1890, pp. H8313-H8314. 23. Philo, DeDeo6, ed. TERIAN, p. 101.

554

E.A. DIVELY LAURO

The seraphim are “ideas” of the Creator, or God, and they act as a “creative fire executing the divine images” onto those below. Philo then explains that the two seraphim each have six wings and with two cover the feet and with two the face, because they cover the “lowest part” of creation and “the highest” part24, arguably the beginning and end of things, or God’s own knowledge. If these seraphim are God’s own ideas that emanate outwardly as God’s creative fire, then they are not separate beings from God; rather, they are one with God’s nature25. While all five possible precedents arguably suggest a relation between the two seraphim and the Son, or Christ, and the Holy Spirit, TheAscension of Isaiah and Philo’s De Deo additionally suggest that these two seraphim alone directly know the Father, or Lord on the throne, and that all knowledge of the Father by creation is at best indirect through them. In addition, Philo’s treatment suggests that these two seraphim-ideas share the Creator-God’s nature. This theological principle that protects the unknowability of the Father supports Origen’s “rule of piety”26 (to make only statements fitting of God), and drives his explanations of the Hebrew master’s advice in Deprincipiis and his treatment of the vision in HIs I and IV. III. ORIGEN’S

HEBREW MASTER’S EXPLANATION THEOLOGICAL IMPORT

AND THE THE

OF

In the two passages of De principiis, Origen states that his “Hebrew teacher” advised him to relate the Son and Holy Spirit to the two seraphim and, in both instances, stresses that this relation underscores the unknowability of the Father except by and through the Son and Holy Spirit. In Deprincipiis I, Origen states: My Hebrew master used to say that the two six-winged seraphim in Isaiah ... were the only-begotten Son of God and the Holy Spirit... . For all knowledge 24. Philo, DeDeo 9, ed. TERIAN, p. 105. 25. For agreement that these powers of the seraphim and cherubim are the ideas of God which act on creation, see H.A. WOLFSON, Philo:FoundationsofReligiousPhilosophyinJudaism,Christianity,andIslam.Vols. 1 and 2, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1962, revised 1968, Vol. 1, pp. 222-226. For the argument that Philo’s influence on Origen regarding the two seraphim is at best indirect since Philo does not refer to them as Son, or Logos, and Holy Spirit but rather as “two divine powers which surround the only-begotten Logos”, see DANIÉLOU, TheTheologyofJewishChristianity (n. 9), pp. 135-138. 26. See Prin, Ruf. Pref. 3, Prin III,1,17 and III,1,9, and E.A. DIVELY LAURO, TheSoul and Spirit of Scripture within Origen’s Exegesis (The Bible in Ancient Christianity, 3), Boston, MA – Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp.38-39, n. 7.

ORIGEN’S RELATION OF THE TWO SERAPHIM TO THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT

555

of the Father, when the Son reveals him, is made known to us through the Holy Spirit ... [s]o that both [the Son and Holy Spirit]... are the cause of our knowledge of God the Father27.

In Deprincipiis IV, Origen again refers to his Hebrew master’s affinity for this association: My Hebrew teacher also used to teach as follows, that since the beginning or the end of all things could not be comprehended by any except our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, this was the reason why Isaiah spoke of there being in the vision that appeared to him twoseraphimonly who with two wings cover the face of God, with two cover his feet ... . [N]either the armies of the holy angels, nor the holy thrones, nor the dominions, nor principalities, nor powers can wholly know the beginnings of all things and the ends of the universe... . Nevertheless whatever it is that these powers may have learned through the revelation of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit – and they will certainly be able to acquire a great deal of knowledge, and the higher ones much more than the lower – still it is impossible for them to comprehend everything28.

Instead of portraying the Son, or Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as separate beings who worship the Father in a hierarchy with other creatures, this Hebrew master, according to Origen, actually sets them apart from all heavenly powers as uniquely and wholly knowing all things of the Father. Origen describes the heavenly powers as existing in a hierarchy up toward the Father, or toward “the very beginnings of things”, yet “still it is impossible for them to comprehend everything”. Origen’s own wording suggests that only Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit “comprehend everything”. The heavenly powers, “according to” their individual “capacity”, can gain “a clearer understanding and knowledge” of “things ... before”, but only “through the revelation of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit”. According to Origen, then, his Hebrew teacher recommended relating the two seraphim to the Son and Holy Spirit because it stresses their unique role of directly and fully protecting that knowledge of the Father and the Father’s workings regarding creation. When reiterating this theological principle of the Hebrew master in HIs I later in Caesarea, Origen makes explicit the logic of this principle: that the Son and Holy Spirit areGod: They were covering the face of God; for the beginning of God is unknown. And indeed also the feet; for what end is comprehended in our God? Only 27. Prin I,3,4, citing Isa 6,2f., Hab 3,2, Mt 11,27 and 1 Cor 2,10, as well as Jn 16,12f. and Jn 14,26, 1 Cor 2,10 and Jn 3,8. Origen, trans. BUTTERWORTH (n. 2), pp. 32-33; SC 252, 148.150 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI. 28. Prin IV,3,14, citing Isa 6,2-3 and Wisdom of Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) 16,21b. Origen, trans. BUTTERWORTH (n. 2), pp. 311-312; SC 268, 394.396 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI.

556

E.A. DIVELY LAURO

the middle things alone are seen. What things were before those things, I do not know. From these things which are, I comprehend God. What things are going to be after those things, consequently, because they are going to be [but are not yet], I do not know... . [I]f someone has told of things gone by and has been able to tell of the last things, he is God. Therefore, who can tell except the Seraphim? ... My Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit29.

Origen stresses that anyone who knows and can tell the beginning and end of things isGod, and that is why the two seraphim are “[m]y Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit”, who logically then areGod. They are as holy as the Father, for, as Origen explains, These Seraphim, who surround God, who say by pure knowledge, “Holy, holy, holy!”, observe in this way the mystery of the Trinity, because they themselves also are holy. Indeed, in all these things which exist, nothing is more holy30.

While the mention of the “mystery of the Trinity” may have been added by translator Jerome, even without that sentence, Origen indicates that the two seraphim know the Father “by pure knowledge” and that this makes them equally holy to the Father. Logically, the Son and Holy Spirit, most holy and all-knowing, are God, sharing the Father’s nature. IV. THE CONSISTENT LARGER THEOLOGY IN ORIGEN OF THE ETERNITY OF THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT This logic of shared nature is confirmed by Origen’s larger theological doctrine of the Father’s eternal generation of the Son, and, by inclusion, the Holy Spirit31. In Deprincipiis I Origen explains: [I]t is impious and shocking to regard God the Father in the begetting of his only-begotten Son and in the Son’s subsistence as being similar to any human being or other animal in the act of begetting, but there must needs be some exceptional process, worthy of God, ... how the unbegotten God becomes Father of the only-begotten Son. This is an eternal and everlasting begetting, as brightness is begotten from light... . [He] is Son bynature32. 29. HIs I,2, citing Isa 6,2 and 6,3a. OWD 10, 200. 30. HIs I,2, referring to Isa 6,2-3; OWD 10, 198. 31. For Origen’s views on the Son’s eternal generation, see Prin I,2,1-4, HIer IX,4,4-5 and CIo II,9-18, and E.A. DIVELY LAURO, The Meaning and Significance of Scripture’s SacramentalNaturewithinOrigen’sThought,in StudiaPatristica 94 (2018) 153-185, pp. 154-160. 32. Prin I,2,4, referring to Wis 7,26 and Heb 1,3. Origen, trans. BUTTERWORTH (n. 2), pp. 17-18; SC 252, 118 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI.

ORIGEN’S RELATION OF THE TWO SERAPHIM TO THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT

557

God “was always a Father”33, and so it would be “impious” and “unworthy of God” to consider the Son other than the eternally and everlastingly begotten “Son by nature”34. Origen similarly attributes eternity to the Holy Spirit: We must not suppose ... that the Spirit knows God as we do, through the revelation of the Son... . [I]t was not by a process of development that he came to be the Holy Spirit ... for the Holy Spirit would never have been included in the unity of the Trinity, that is, along with God the unchangeable Father and with his Son, unless he had always been the Holy Spirit35.

Origen’s notion of eternal generation, then, links the Holy Spirit as well as the Son to the Father bynature. Henri Crouzel and Robert Berchman demonstrate that Origen does not view the Son as subordinate innature to the Father. Crouzel explains that the Son is equal in nature but non-substantively subordinate in three ways36: (1) he receives his existence from the Father while the Father has no cause, (2) he is an agent of the Father to creation, and (3) he mediates between the Father and creation37. Berchman also stresses that, for Origen, the Son is not subordinate to the Father in nature or in power, but is distinct from the Father only in his cause of existence. Berchman understands Origen’s ontology to be influenced by the Aristotelian category of causation. He explains that, for Origen, the Son exists “contingently” and therefore is οὺσιαperaccidens while the Father has no cause and so exists “necessarily” and is οὐσία per se; still, this is a difference within the same, single οὐσία38.

33. Prin I,2,3. Origen, trans. BUTTERWORTH (n. 2), p. 17; SC 252, 116 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI. 34. Origen reiterates this same view later in Caesarea when preaching on Jeremiah: “with respect to the Savior, ... the Father has not begotten the Son and then severed him from his generation, but always begets him...”. HIer IX,4,4; English transl.: Origen. HomiliesonJeremiah.Homilyon1King28, transl. J.C. SMITH (Fathers of the Church, 97), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1998, p. 92; SC 232, 392 HUSSON – NAUTIN. 35. Prin I,3,4. Origen, trans. BUTTERWORTH (n. 2), p. 33; SC 252, 150.152 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI. See also HNm XI,8. 36. This logic could arguably be applied to the Holy Spirit as well. 37. See H. CROUZEL, Origen: The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian, transl. A.S. WORRALL, San Francisco, CA, Harper & Row, 1989, pp. 187-192, p. 188. Also, see DIVELY LAURO, TheMeaningandSignificanceofScripture’sSacramentalNature (n. 31), p. 157, n. 15. 38. See R. BERCHMAN, FromPhilotoOrigen:MiddlePlatonisminTransition(Brown Judaic Studies, 69), Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1984, pp. 141-156. Also, see DIVELY LAURO, The Meaning and Significance of Scripture’s Sacramental Nature (n. 31), p. 157, n. 15 and p. 158, n. 18.

558

E.A. DIVELY LAURO

Origen also explains that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, though One, extend their powers differently to creation: the Father gives existence to all things, the Son gives rational nature to human beings, and the Holy Spirit gives holiness to believers39. This does not touch the sameness of their nature nor the comparative level of their power, but simply explains the reach of their respective powers withrespecttocreation. By relating the two seraphim to the Son and Holy Spirit surrounding the Father-Lord of Hosts, Origen supports this understanding of a triune God whose single nature carries non-substantive distinctions within it. The relation of the two seraphim to the Son and Holy Spirit, then, serves the rule of piety not only by protecting the Father’s unknowability, but also by preserving the triune nature of God and thus monotheism. V. THE SALVIFIC IMPORT FOR ORIGEN OF RELATING THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT

THE

SERAPHIM TO

This principle, that the Son and Holy Spirit know the Father and all things indicative of the Father directly and purely, and thus are God, allows Origen to explain (in HIs I and IV) the salvific import of their unique position with the Father. Origen unfolds for his audience the understanding that Christ will cleanse from sin humble believers with Scripture and thus prepare them to share in the triune Divine nature. Origen stresses that “these two Seraphim[,] ... [m]y Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit, ... speak not softly to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy!’ but by crying out, they announce the salvific confession to everyone”40. While holding back the Father’s mysteries of “the former (or first) things and the last things which will be”41, or “beginning of God” and “end”42, by “covering the face of God ... [a]nd indeed also the feet”43, they shout their “salvific confession” of the Divine plan of salvation for humankind by sharing “the middle things alone”44. Origen speaks here of the phases of salvation history, and the “middle things” refer to “the coming of my Lord Jesus Christ” into the world: 39. See Prin I,3,8; Origen, trans. BUTTERWORTH (n. 2), pp. 38-39 (SC 252, 162.164 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). Also, see Prin I,3,5; Origen, trans. BUTTERWORTH (n. 2), pp. 3334 (SC 252, 148.150 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). See CROUZEL, Origen (n. 37), pp. 191-192 and 187-188, and BERCHMAN, FromPhilotoOrigen (n. 38), p. 123. See also DIVELY LAURO, The MeaningandSignificanceofScripture’sSacramentalNature (n. 31), p. 159, n. 21. 40. HIs I,2, referring to Isa 6,2-3; OWD10, 198.200. 41. HIs I,2, citing Isa 41,22-23; OWD10, 200. 42. HIs I,2, referring to Isa 6,2; OWD10, 200. 43. HIs I,2, referring to Isa 6,2; OWD10, 200. 44. HIs I,2, referring to Isa 6,2; OWD10, 200.

ORIGEN’S RELATION OF THE TWO SERAPHIM TO THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT

559

[When] they say: “Holy, holy, holy Lord of Hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory[,]” [t]he coming of my Lord Jesus Christ is announced, and, for that reason, now the whole earth is full of his glory. Or at least it is not yet full, but it is going to be ... when ... the will of the Father is ... “fulfilled on earth” ... [and] all things have been made subject to ... Christ ... . “For [our] salvation is in him”45.

Origen emphasizes the Trisagion here not as praise of the Father by subordinates but as a unified Divine confession to the prophet, and so symbolically to all humankind, of the “middle things”, or salvation history, that is, Christ descending into the world to bring “salvation”46. Origen understands that this Christ is the Son represented by the seraph whom the Lord of Hosts sends down and who brings down from the fire on the heavenly altar a burning coal with which he touches the prophet’s lips. As Isaiah declares, “[O]ne of the Seraphim was sent to me, and he had in his hand a burning coal, which he had taken from the altar with tongs”47. Origen stresses that “Scripture says and gives witness that [Isaiah’s] lips are cleansed by [this] Seraph[], who was sent to take away his sins”48. This “Seraph[] is my Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent by the Father to take away our sins”49, and, Origen points out, this seraph, Christ, “says, “Behold, I have taken away your iniquities and completely cleansed you from your sins”50. This seraph is Christ and the coal is Scripture51; for, as Origen explains: “The prophet is not cleansed by [just] any available fire ... but by that fire which is from the altar of God... . the Divine Word ... the reproving word [that] touch[es] the lips of our mind and soul”52. Indeed, Christ comes down to set their souls on fire so that they may be made pure for God53. Origen hereby calls his audience to consume the saving power of Christ in Scripture54.

45. HIs I,2, quoting and referring to Isa 6,3b, Mt 6,9-10, Mt 28,18, Jn 1,11, Phil 3,21, 1 Cor 15,24-28; Ps 61,2 (62,1); OWD10, 200.202. 46. HIs IV,1, quoting Isa 6,3; OWD10, 228.230.232. 47. HIs IV,5, quoting Isa 6,6; OWD10, 238. 48. HIs I,4, referring to Isa 6,6; OWD10, 202. 49. HIs I,4, referring to Isa 6,6-7; OWD10, 202. 50. HIs I,4, quoting and referring to Isa 6,6-7; OWD10, 202. 51. B.G. Bucur considers a tradition identifying the coal in the Isaiah vision with the Eucharist. B.G. BUCUR, ISawtheLord:ObservationsontheChristianReceptionHistory ofIsaiah6, in ProEcclesia23 (2014) 309-330. 52. HIs IV,5-6, referring to Isa 6,6-7; OWD10, 238. 53. As stated above in n. 22, the Hebrew word saraph means “burning”, from the verb meaning “to be on fire”, “set on fire”, or “cause or make a fire”. 54. In HIs II,2; OWD10, 212.214.216, Origen calls for his audience to consume Scripture and Christ as honey from the bees and king-bee, the prophets and Christ, suggesting Eucharist and recalling as likely precedent Sarapion’s Eucharistic prayer. See DIVELY

560

E.A. DIVELY LAURO

Origen exhorts his audience to the humility necessary to receive the purification of the seraph’s coal, or Christ’s Word. First, he explains that Isaiah was humble, recognizing his need for the purifying coal, saying, “Woe is me, since now I have been stung, because, since I am a man, I also have unclean lips”55. Admitting that he has been “stung” by sin, Isaiah knows that he needs the cleansing of the seraph’s coal. Second, Origen points out that “the Apostle”, Paul, also admits his own sinfulness, saying with Isaiah, “I am a wretched man”56. Third, Origen confesses his own need for cleansing from sin, declaring, “I pray that the Seraph may be sent even to me and with coal seized with tongs may he cleanse my lips”57. Origen now exhorts his audience to make the same humble confession: Let ussay: “Wretched I am, because I have been stung!” ... so that we also may say: “And he touched my mouth”... . May the Divine Word bite into us [and] may it set our souls on fire, ... so that our iniquities and sins may be taken away...”58.

The coal of Scripture, drawn from the fire of the heavenly altar, will heal by purging, and so cleanse from sin those who submit to it. This cleansing through submission will prepare the believer to enter into the glory that the Son and Holy Spirit share with the Father59. For, in response to the seraphim’s declaration, “All the earth [is] full of his glory”60, Origen responds, “Glory to God, who sent his own Son, so that the whole earth would become full of his glory”61. Believers will share in this glory if they allow Scripture to direct their words and actions. Therefore, he calls his hearers to

LAURO, The Eschatological Significance of Scripture according to Origen, in Studia Patristica 56 (2013) 83-102. 55. HIs I,4, quoting Isa 6,5a; OWD10, 202. 56. HIs IV,3, quoting Rom 7,24; OWD10, 234. 57. HIs V,2, referring to Isa 6,6; OWD 10, 244. See the same sentiment at HIs I,4; OWD10, 204. 58. HIs IV,3, referring to Isa 6,5a; HIs IV,5, referring to Isa 6,7a; HIs IV,6, referring to Lk 24,32; OWD10, 234.238. 59. Similarly, I examine Origen’s view that we are called to participation in the Son’s union with the Father by taking in Scripture. in a forthcoming article with The Catholic University of America Press (in a proceeding from the May 2017 colloquium on the recently discovered HomiliesonthePsalms by Origen), titledTheInadequacyoftheTerm ‘Subordination’ for Origen’s Theology and Ministry: A Study of Origen’s Homilies on Psalm15. Also, I treat the ontological bases and effects of this view in DIVELY LAURO, TheMeaningandSignificanceofScripture’sSacramentalNature (n. 31), pp. 153-185. 60. Isa 6,3b. 61. HIs IV,2, referring to Jn 3,16, Rom 8,3, and Isa 6,3; OWD10, 232.

ORIGEN’S RELATION OF THE TWO SERAPHIM TO THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT

561

work and make an effort in all things, searching for the glory of God, ... so that even you may become full of God’s glory... . How may the fullness of the glory of God occur through each of us? If what things I do, [and] what things I speak, are done in the glory of God, my word and deed becomes full of the glory of God...62.

To share in this glory is to share in the Divine nature, for Origen explains in HIs IV that we are called to participate in Christ’s humanity and Divinity: And so, it is blessed for each of us to work in such a way that he may become a participant of the door and of the lintel of the door, which is near to Christ’s understanding of God. For, I suppose, it is not improper by way of reference for the flesh to be called the door and the Word the lintel63.

According to the vision, when the seraphim cry out the Trisagion, the door and threshold shake64. Origen suggests that the door is Christ’s flesh and the threshold is the Divine Word, or Christ’s Divine nature. When we come humbly to Christ and speak and act in accord with Scripture, we share in Christ’s flesh, or sinless humanity, and, ultimately, in Christ’s Divinity, and so in the shared nature of the Trinity in which occurs the everlasting activity of the Father’s eternal generation of the Son. With this in mind, Origen implores his audience to “pray to the All-powerful God, that his Word may come to us”65. Then Christ the Son who is the seraph will descend even to us with the fiery coal of Scripture so that we may be cleansed from our sins and made ready to share in the sinlessness of Christ’s humanity and ultimately through Christ’s own Divinity, in the glory of the shared nature of the Trinity. VI. CONCLUSION By examining the statements of Origen and his Hebrew master as well as possible precedents, we find that when Origen relates the two seraphim of the Isaiah vision to the Son and Holy Spirit he is not making a subordinationist statement but, to the contrary, a statement protecting the unknowability of God and thus the Trinity’s shared nature, in turn, allowing his statement that God’s plan of salvation through Christ and Scripture makes believers participants in this Divine nature. His Hebrew teacher 62. 63. 64. 65.

HIs IV,2, quoting Isa 6,3 and referring to Rom 8,3; OWD10, 234. HIs IV,2, referring to Isa 6,4; OWD10, 234. Isa 6,4a. HIs V,2; OWD10, 246.

562

E.A. DIVELY LAURO

is most likely a Jewish Christian scholar and contemporary in Alexandria who has been exposed directly or indirectly to documents such as The AscensionofIsaiah, Philo’s DeDeo, Irenaeus’ Epideixis, ThePrayerof Sarapion and John 12. All five arguably support association of the two seraphim in Isaiah’s vision with the Son and Holy Spirit, and the first two also underscore that this association safeguards the unknowability of God. Origen’s explanation of his Hebrew teacher’s and his own understanding also emphasize this theological principle, and Origen goes on to stress that the Son and Holy Spirit, who alone know the Father directly, are indeed God. Origen’s vision of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit occupying the place of primacy above all existence provides an illustration of the Trinity that Origen understands to be grounded in and revolve around the Father’s eternal generation of the Son. The three, equal in substance, contain the mysteries of all existence. Through them humans learn of the plan of salvation, which includes Christ, the seraph, reaching out to us with and through Scripture to purify us and prepare us to participate in his own humanity and Divinity and so ultimately in the Trinity’s shared Divine nature. [email protected]

Elizabeth Ann DIVELY LAURO

“THAT MAN WHO APPEARED IN JUDAEA” (PRIN II,6,2) THE SOTERIOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE HUMANITY OF THE SON OF GOD ACCORDING TO ORIGEN’S DEPRINCIPIIS

Studies on the Christology of Deprincipiis tend to focus on the divinity of the Son of God, that is, on Christ as the Logos. Thus, it might be useful to take a different tack and reconstruct a particular point of Origen’s Christology, namely, the soteriological function of the humanity of the Son of God1. Origen’s Christology, according to Deprincipiis, contains the traditional statements about the Son of God made man. Especially, in the Preface of this book, the master of Alexandria offers a balanced and traditional picture of Christology: Christ Jesus, He who came to earth, was begotten of the Father before every created thing. And after He had ministered to the Father in the foundation of all things, for All things were made through him (Jn 1,3), in these last times He emptied Himself and was made man, was made flesh2.

The main points of the traditional Christology are here: the divinity, the humanity and the identity between God and man in Jesus Christ. Beyond the Preface, many other texts support these same and traditional statements3. Within this traditional Christological frame, to declare the full humanity of the Son of God made man, Deprincipiis particularly points to the reality not only of the body of Christ, but also of His soul: * This paper is part of the results of the Fondecyt 1160201 research project (2016-2018). 1. According to Pamphilus, Origen was accused of denying the reality and the relevance of Christ’s humanity: dicunteumdicereδοκήσει,idestputatiuetantum,etperallegoriam, nonetiamsecundumeaquaeperhistoriamreferuntur,gestaesseomniaquaeaSaluatore gestasunt. Pamphilus, Apol. 87; PamphileetEusèbedeCésarée.ApologiepourOrigène. Texte critique, traduction et notes par R. AMACKER – É. JUNOD (SC, 464), Paris, Cerf, 2002, p. 156. 2. Origen, Deprincipiis (= Prin) I, praef. 4: TumdeindequiaChristusIesus,ipsequi venit,anteomnemcreaturamnatusexpatreest.Quicuminomniumconditionepatriministrasset, per ipsum namque omnia facta sunt, novissimis temporibus se ipsum exinaniens homofactusest,incarnatusest; Orígenes.Sobrelosprincipios. Introducción, texto crítico, traducción y notas de S. FERNÁNDEZ (Fuentes Patrísticas, 27) Madrid, Ciudad Nueva, 2015 (= FuP 27), p. 122; translations are taken from Origen.OnFirstPrinciples, transl. G.W. BUTTERWORTH, New York, Harper & Row, 1966 (many of the translations have been modified). 3. Cf. Prin I,2; II,6; HIos VII,7; HLc XVII,4; CC II,9; V,61; VI,47; HEx III,2; HEz I,4; CRm I,6; IX,2; HGn VIII,9; CIo XIX,6-11; CMtS 65.

564

S. FERNÁNDEZ

The Son of God, therefore, because of the salvation of the human race [...] assumed not only, as some think, a human body, but also a soul4.

As Ignatius of Antioch, against the docetists, insisted on the reality of the flesh of Christ5, Origen, against some unknown adversaries, underlined the presence of His soul. According to Origen’s theological program, beyond these necessary doctrines deliveredintheplainesttermstoallbelievers6, the more diligent Christians, that is, theloversofwisdom, must go deeper and discover the truth about each particular point7. This is precisely what Origen himself intends to do in his treatise. I. THE ETERNAL LOGOS’ SALVIFIC CHARACTER To understand Origen’s soteriology, one must consider the Preexistent Logos. In Prin I,2, a chapter devoted to consider the divine nature of Christ, Origen affirms: According to John, Godislight (1 Jn 1,5). The only begotten Son, therefore, is the brightness of this light, proceeding from God without separation, as brightness from light, and lightening the whole creation8.

Even though the text speaks about the eternal status of the Son, His soteriological character is not absent: the Son, who eternally is the brightness of the Father, is the one who lights the whole creation. And speaking about the Son as image, Origen affirms: For since the [Son] is the invisible image of the invisible God (Col 1,15), He granted invisibly to all rational creatures a participation in Himself...9.

The Pauline statement says: He is the image of the invisible God (Col 1,15), but Origen underlines: He is the invisible image of the invisible God10. Obviously, the invisible image is not the Son made man, as other 4. Prin IV,4,4: Volens igitur filius dei pro salute humani generis [...], suscepit non solumcorpushumanum,utquidamputant,sedetanimam (FuP 27, p. 938). 5. Cf. Ignatius, Eph., XVIII,2; XX,2; Trall., IX,1; Rom., VII,3; Smyr., I,1–II,1. 6. Prin I, praef. 3: omnibuscredentibus[...]manifestissimetradiderunt (FuP 27, p. 118). 7. Cf. Prin I, praef. 10. 8. Prin I,2,7: DeusluxestsecundumIohannem.Splendorergohuiuslucisestunigenitus filius, ex ipso inseparabiliter velut splendor ex luce procedens et inluminans universam creaturam (FuP 27, p. 186). 9. Prin II,6,3: Nam cum invisibilis dei ipse sit imago invisibilis, participationem sui universisrationabilibuscreaturisinvisibiliterpraebuit... (FuP 27, p. 420). 10. Cf. Prin IV,4,1 (FuP 27, p. 930): fr. 33 (KOETSCHAU), Athanasius, Dedecretis 27 (Athanasius Werke II, ed. OPITZ, p. 23,23-30).

“THAT MAN WHO APPEARED IN JUDAEA” (PRIN II,6,2)

565

authors thought11, but the Preexistent one. The eternal Son, who eternally is the brightness of God’s glory, becomes the express image of God’s substance to reveal the eternal Light, that is, the Father12. According to Origen, the Son outlinesfirstinHimselfwhatHewishestorevealto others13. Therefore, even before incarnation, the eternal Son, as the Brightness of His Light (1 Jn 1,5), as the express Image of God’s substance (Heb 1,3) and as the invisible Image of the invisible God (Col 1,15), has a salvific function, that is, to light the whole creation, to reveal the Father to others and to grant participation in Himself to all rational creatures. It is interesting to note that Origen’s reflection on the eternal Son is always related to soteriology. II. THE SALVIFIC CHARACTER OF THE SOUL OF CHRIST UNITED WITH THE LOGOS One of the most characteristic – and astonishing – elements of Origen’s Christology is his doctrine on the union between the Logos and the soul of Christ before incarnation14. From the very beginning of creation, the soul of Christ, or, more specifically, the rational creature (νοῦς), which is Christ, has been united with the Logos. Since, by reason of the faculty of free-will, variety and diversity had taken hold of individual souls [...], that soul of which Jesus said: Nomantakes frommemysoul, from the beginning of the creation and ever after, clinging to him in an inseparable and indissoluble way [...], was made one spirit with him in a pre-eminent degree, as (sicut) the apostle promises to them whose duty it is to imitate Jesus: HewhoisjoinedtotheLordisonespirit[with him] (1 Co 6,17)15. 11. For example, in the 4th century, Marcellus of Ancyra, cf. S. PARVIS, Marcellusof Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 32. 12. Cf. Heb 1,3; Prin I,2,11: Splendorautemluciseiussapientiasuaest,nonsolum secundum quod lux est, sed et secundum id, quod sempiterna lux est, ita ut aeternus et aeternitatis splendor sit sapientia sua. Quod si integre intellegatur, manifeste declarat quiasubsistentiafiliiabipsopatredescendit,sednontemporaliternequeabulloalioinitio nisi, ut diximus, ab ipso deo (FuP 27, p. 202); CHb apud Pamphilus, Apol. 50 (SC 464, 108). 13. Prin I,2,8: insemetipsaprimumdescribitsapientiaea,quaerevelarevultceteris (FuP 27, p. 188). 14. Cf. R. WILLIAMS, OrigenontheSoulofJesus, in R. HANSON – H. CROUZEL (eds.), OrigenianaTertia:TheThirdInternationalColloquiumforOrigenStudies, Roma, Ateneo, 1985, 131-137. 15. Prin II,6,3: Verum cum pro liberi arbitrii facultate varietas unumquemque ac diversitashabuissetanimorum[...],illaanima,dequadixitIesusquiaNemoaufertame

566

S. FERNÁNDEZ

In other words, when rational creatures (νοί) diversified, because of their free will, one rational creature (νοῦς), from the beginning, has been united with the Logos. This union is indeed preeminent16, but the Pauline quotation, which is related to believers, shows that Origen understands this union as a model for all rational creatures’ unity with the Logos. The reference to Psalm 44, present in the context17, supports the same idea: the soul of Christ has been united with the Logos above His fellows (παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου, Ps 44,8). Since the preposition above (παρά) shows the preeminence of the union; the reference to the fellows (μέτοχοι) indicates the paradigmatic character of this union: this unique union is the pattern of all rational creatures’ union with the Logos. The twofold meaning of this union – as archetypal and as unique – is confirmed in other texts. On the one hand, there is a parallelism between the union of the soul of Christ with the Logos and the union of all the rational creatures with the Logos: The stability of both unions is based on love18, both unions have the ability to be changed into nature19, and both are described by Origen with similar expressions20. Because of these parallelisms, all the nations are able toimitatethesoul[ofChrist]through faith,andsoreachsalvation21. Nonetheless, Origen highlights the difference between the union of the Logos with the soul of Christ and with all other rational creatures22. animammeam(Jn 10,18),abinitiocreaturaeetdeincepsinseparabilitereiatqueindissociabiliterinhaerens[...],factaestcumipsoprincipaliterunusspiritus,sicutetapostolushis, quieamimitarideberent,promittit,quiaQuiseiungitdomino,unusspiritusest (FuP 27, p. 420), cf. 1 Cor 6,17. 16. Cf. Prin II,6,3: Magisenimverbumdeicumanimaincarneunaesse,quamvir cumuxoreputandusest(FuP 27, p. 424). 17. Cf. Prin II,6,4-6; IV,4,4. 18. The stability of both unions is based on love, cf. Prin II,6,5: haec anima, quae Christiest,itaelegitdiligereiustitiam,utproinmensitatedilectionisinconvertibiliterei atqueinseparabiliterinhaereret (FuP 27, p. 428). 19. Both unions have the ability to be changed into nature: whatformerlydependedupon thewillwasbytheinfluenceoflongcustomchangedintonature (Prin II,6,5), and also for the other rational creatures, the virtue could changeintonature, HIos VI,1; cf. Prin I,6,2; II,1,2; II,3,3; II,6,6; IV,3,12; CC VIII,72; IV,69; CRm V,10; VII,7; VII,12; J. RIUS-CAMPS, Lahipótesisorigenianasobreelfinúltimo, in U. BIANCHI-H. CROUZEL (eds.), ArchéeTelos: L’antropologiadiOrigeneediGregoriodiNissa.Analisistorico-religiosa, Milano, SPM, 1981, 103-115. 20. Since the soul of Christ, because of this pre-eminent union, semperindeopositaest, omnequodagit,quodsentit,quodintellegit,deusest (Prin II,6,6), every soul, when God is said to become allinall (1 Cor 15,28), omniaerithocmodo,utquidquidrationabilismens, expurgata omni vitiorum faece atque omni penitus abstersa nube malitiae, vel sentire vel intellegerevelcogitarepotest,omniadeussit (Prin III,6,3). 21. Prin II,6,7: Inhuiusnamqueassumtionissacramentogentesvivunt,quaeimitantes eamperfidemperveniuntadsalutem (FuP 27, p. 432). 22. Cf. Prin IV,4,4.

“THAT MAN WHO APPEARED IN JUDAEA” (PRIN II,6,2)

567

III. THE SON-MADE-MAN’S SALVIFIC CHARACTER According to Origen, there are two different steps in the Son’s assumption of humanity. First, from the beginning of creation, the Logos was united with the soul of Christ, and then, at the fullness of time, the Logos, united to the soul of Christ, was born of the Virgin Mary asalittlechild 23, in Judaea, in the flesh. This new status of the Son made man includes His historical life and His final subjection. The question then arises: Does one say that the Son of God became flesh or became man? Both expressions, normally used as synonyms, strictly speaking have a very different meaning. The former puts the emphasis on the reality of the flesh, whereas the latter highlights the completeness of the humanity assumed by the Son of God. Origen himself, probably because of his insistence on the soul of Christ, normally uses becoming man (ἐνανϑρώπησις) and only rarely uses terms related to becoming flesh (ἐνσάρκωσις). Rufinus, in his Latin version of OnFirstPrinciples, sometimes uses becomingflesh (incarnatusest or incarnepositus)24, but he more frequently uses becomingman (homofactusest)25. In the Greek extant texts, the words related to becomingman (ἐνανϑρώπησις) are far more frequent26. On the reasons for incarnation, following the kerygmatic Christology, Origen affirms that the Son of God became man for our salvation (pro salutemundi27, pronobis28, and prosalutehumanigeneris29). Besides, in an important text, extant in Greek, Origen says that the primary purpose of the Scripture is, among others, to reveal thecauses(αἰτίαι)oftheonly-begottenSon’sdescendingtothelevelofhumanfleshandcompletelyassuminghumanity30. It is possible to go deeper into the causes of the Son made man, and it is possible to distinguish different reasons for incarnation. 1. TheSonBecameManinOrdertoRevealtheFather According to the master of Alexandria, the express image of God’s substance (Heb 1,3), that is, the eternal Son, in order to reveal the Father, 23. Prin II,6,2. 24. Cf. Prin I, praef. 1; 4; II,8,1. Cf. Prin IV,2,7 (Latin and Greek). 25. Cf. Prin I praef. 1; 4; II,6,1 (×2); II,7,1; IV,1,2 (Latin and Greek). 26. Cf. TLG. ThesaurusLinguaeGraecae. A Digital Library of Greek Literature. 27. Prin II,6,7. 28. Prin II,11,6. 29. Prin IV,4,4. 30. Prin IV,2,7: καὶ τίνες αἱ αἰτίαι τοῦ μέχρι σαρκὸς ἀνϑρωπίνης αὐτὸν καταβεβηκέναι καὶ πάντη ἄνϑρωπον ἀνειληφέναι (FuP 27, p. 858).

568

S. FERNÁNDEZ

outlinesfirstinHimselfwhatHewishestorevealtoothers31. This eternal process seems to be the foundation of God’s economical revelation and, in order to explain the historical process of revelation, Origen introduces the well-known example of two statues: the big, invisible, and unreachable statue becomes visible in a small one32, while in the same manner, the invisible Father becomes visible in the Logos made man. The Son, in emptying Himself: becomes (efficitur) an expressimage of God’s substance; so that, through this fact of His becoming (efficitur) to us (nobis) the brightness, we who were not able to look at the glory of pure light in the greatness of His godhead, may find a way of beholding the divine Light through looking at the brightness33.

The Son becomes (efficitur) the expressimage of God’s substance, for us (nobis), to reveal to us the eternal Light, that is, the Father. By doing so, He became MediatorbetweenmenandtheLight34. That is to say, bymeansofthisveryemptyingHestrivestodisplay(demonstrare) tousthefullnessofthegodhead35. The Son of God made man, inthe likenessofHisworksandpower36, that is, also byHisdeeds37, reveals the Father. According to Origen, the advent of Christ discloses the light hidden in the Law of Moses38, and His teaching shows that God has reallybecomemantotransmittomenthedoctrinesofsalvation39. It is not necessary to insist on the soteriological meaning of the revelation in Origen’s theology, because modern scholars have shown it sufficiently40.

31. Prin I,2,8: insemetipsaprimumdescribitsapientiaea,quaerevelarevultceteris (FuP 27, p. 188). 32. Cf. Prin I,2,8. 33. Prin I,2,8: figuraexpressasubstantiaeeiusefficitur;utiquiinmagnitudinedeitatis suae positam gloriam merae lucis non poteramus aspicere, per hoc quod nobis splendorefficitur,intuendaelucisdivinaeviampersplendoriscapiamusaspectum (FuP 27, p. 190). 34. Cf. Prin I,2,7. 35. Prin I,2,8: peripsamsuiexinanitionemstudetnobisdeitatisplenitudinemdemonstrare (FuP 27, p. 188). 36. Prin I,2,8: exoperumvirtutisquesimilitudine (FuP 27, p. 190). 37. Cf. Prin II,6,1: sicuteitestimoniumredditpatercaelestis,etutsignisquoqueet prodigiisvariisqueabeogestisvirtutibusconfirmatur (FuP 27, p. 414). 38. Cf. Prin IV,1,6. 39. Prin IV,1,2: ἐμφαίνει ϑεὸν ἀληϑῶς ἐνανϑρωπήσαντα σωτηρίας δόγματα τοῖς ἀνϑρώποις παραδεδωκέναι (FuP 27, p. 800). 40. Cf. M. HARL, Origène et la fonction révélatrice du Verbe incarné, Paris, Seuil, 1958; H. CROUZEL, Origèneetla“ConnaissanceMystique” (Museum Lessianum, 56), Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1961.

“THAT MAN WHO APPEARED IN JUDAEA” (PRIN II,6,2)

569

2. TheSonofGodBecameManinOrdertoBeanExampletoMen There is another theological function of the Son’s assumption of manhood. The Logos of God, for the salvation of humankind, became visible to men and assumednotonlyahumanbody,assomesuppose,butalso asoul,initsnatureindeedlikeoursouls41. Origen introduces a critical consequence: This is why Christ is set forth as an example to all believers, because as He has always chosen the good [...]; so, too, should each one of us, after a fall or a transgression, cleanse himself from stains by the example set before him, and taking a leader for the journey proceed along the steep path of virtue, so that, maybe, as far as is possible, through our imitation of him, we become partakers of the divine nature42.

Origen shows that the traditional topic of the imitatioChristi needs, as its foundation, the completeness of the human nature of Christ. Only when the Son of God became man, did He become a real example for human kind and a leader for the journey (itinerisdux), because He became imitable by men. The salvific meaning of the Son made man is expressed with the concept of participation of the divine nature: Christ as an example enables the believer to follow the path of virtue and to become a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet 1,4). 3. TheSonofGodBecameManinOrdertoFulfillHumanLife Regarding obedience and final subjection, Deprincipiis offers another explanation for the purpose of the incarnation. Origen says that, in the fullness of times, when the human race was heading towards its final destruction, the aid of the Creator Himself was necessary in order to restore the capacity of obeying: And so the only begotten Son of God [...] emptied Himself taking the form of a servant became obedient even unto death in order to teach obedience to them who could in no other way obtain salvation except through obedience43. 41. Prin IV,4,4: suscepitnonsolumcorpushumanum,utquidamputant,sedetanimam, nostrarumquidemanimarumsimilempernaturam (FuP, 27, p. 938). 42. Prin IV,4,4: Propterea enim et omnibus credentibus ad exemplum Christus exponitur,quiasicutillesemperetantequamsciretomninomalumelegitbonum[...],ita etunusquisquevelpostlapsumvelposterroremexpurgetseamaculisexemploproposito, ethabensitinerisducemarduamviamvirtutisincedat;utsiforteperhocinquantumfieri potestperimitationemeiusparticipesefficiamurdivinaenaturae (FuP 27, p. 944). 43. Prin III,5,6: Unde unigenitus filius dei [...] exinanivit se ipsum et formam servi accipiensefficituroboediensusqueadmortem,utoboedientiamdocereteos,quinonaliter nisiperoboedientiamsalutemconsequipoterant (FuP 27, p. 754).

570

S. FERNÁNDEZ

The Son of God became man not only to reveal the Father or to give a message, He came down to obey as a man in order to teach, by His own example, obedience to man. The Son of God restored the capacity of obeying by His own human obedience: He first fulfilled in Himself what He wished to be fulfilled by others, and not only became obedient to the Father even unto the death of the cross (Phil 2,8), but also at the consummation of the age, by His including in Himself all those whom He subjected to the Father and who through him come to salvation (cf. 1 Cor 15,28)44.

Only as a man is the Son of God able to fulfill in Himself what is to be fulfilled in mankind. Origen affirms that the Son, because of His manhood, offers more than only revelation or example. The Logos, as a man, by His own obedience and subjection, accomplishes the fullness of human life, which is salvation. Hence, inhimshallbethefullnessofthosewho obtainsalvation45. Origen established a close relationship between the terms obedience and subjection. The former belongs to the kenosis, according to Phil 2,8, and the latter belongs to the eschatology, according to 1 Cor 15,28. Both Christ’s obedience and subjection embrace the whole of humanity. Origen has to explain the meaning of the word subjection (ὑπόταξις), because there are some people who refuse to apply this term to the Son: Such men do not understand that the subjection of Christ to the Father reveals the blessedness of our perfection and announces the crowning glory of the work undertaken by him, since He offers to the Father not only the sum total of all ruling and reigning, which He has corrected throughout the entire universe, but also the pattern, corrected and renewed, of the obedience and subjection of the human race46.

Obedience and subjection are not only taught by the Lord, but He, in His earthly life, in Judaea, and in the final steps of eschatology, achieves and fulfills them. That’s why, the Son of God made man is the model of human life, because, as Origen says,

44. Prin III,5,6: in semet ipso prius complens quod ab aliis volebat impleri, idcirco nonsolumusqueadmortemcrucispatrioboediensfactusest,verumetiaminconsummationesaeculiinsemetipsoconplectensomnes,quossubicitpatrietquipereumveniunt adsalutem (FuP 27, p. 756). 45. Prin III,5,6: etinipsoestsalutemconsequentiumplenitudo (FuP 27, p. 756). 46. Prin III,5,7: non intellegentes quod subiectio Christi ad patrem beatitudinem nostraeperfectionisostenditetsusceptiabeooperispalmamdeclarat,cumnonsolum regendiacregnandisummam,quaminuniversaemendaveratcreatura,verumetiamoboedientiaeetsubiectioniscorrectareparataquehumanigenerispatriofferatinstituta (FuP 27, p. 758).

“THAT MAN WHO APPEARED IN JUDAEA” (PRIN II,6,2)

571

[Christ’s subjection] is the same subjection by which we too desire to be subjected to him, and by which the apostles and all the saints who have followed Christ were subjected to Him47.

What kind of subjection is this? Believers’ subjection to Christ is like Christ’s subjection to the Father, because, according to Jn 17,20-23, the unity between the Son and the Father is like the unity between the believers and Christ48. Origen concludes: The word subjection (subiectio), when used of our subjection to Christ, implies the salvation (salutemindicat), proceeding from Christ, of those who are subjected49.

The believers’ subjection to Christ means salvation, and this subjection has its model in the Son’s subjection to the Father. Obedience and subjection do not entail oppression, but the blessedness of man’s perfection, which entails salvation. IV. CONCLUSION The present study shows that, in Origen’s thought, soteriology has a central place and, within soteriology, Christ’s manhood plays a crucial role. Every status of the Logos has a salvific meaning. When Origen describes the eternal Son of God, His soteriological character is not absent, because the eternal brightness of the Light illuminates the whole creation, and because the image of the invisible God outlines first in Himself what He wishes to reveal to others (Prin I,2,8). After that, the unique union between the Logos and the soul of Christ is understood by Origen as the pattern of the union of all rational creatures with the Logos. Finally, in the last status, the Son of God became man, that is, became visible, in order to reveal the invisible Father. The only Son of God, indeed, came down in order to reveal, but also in order to be an example for humankind. Because the Son fully assumed manhood, He really became the example (exemplum) and the leader (dux) for mankind. Consequently, the very human life of Christ, His freedom, His choices and deeds, have a theological meaning. Moreover, the Son of God became man not only to reveal and to serve as an example, but 47. Prin I,6,1: haec ipsa [subiectio], qua nos quoque optamus ei esse subiecti, qua subiectieisuntetapostolietomnessancti,quisecutisuntChristum (FuP 27, p. 276). 48. Cf. Prin I,6,2. 49. Prin I,6,1: Subiectionisenimnomen,quaChristosubicimur,salutemquaeaChristo estindicatsubiectorum (FuP 27, p. 276).

572

S. FERNÁNDEZ

to accomplish human life. That is why the Son of God made man is the pattern for human life. Christ achieves the fullness of human life, in His earthly status, by His obedience and, at the end of times, by His final subjection. Such earthly obedience and eschatological subjection involve all of mankind, through which it reaches the blessedness of perfection, which means salvation. There is a clear coherence between all these different steps: the eternal Logos outlinesfirstinHimselfwhatHewishestorevealtoothers (Prin I,2,8); the preeminent union between the Logos and the soul of Christ is the model of the historical union between the Logos and every soul (Prin II,6,3); the Son made man, by His obedience, fulfilledfirst inHimselfwhatHewishedtobefulfilledbyothers (Prin III,5,6); and, finally, at the end of time, by His own subjection, He submits all rational creatures, including in Himself, and achieves salvation for all of them (Prin III,5,6). In conclusion, two ideas are worth highlighting. First, real and full manhood, assumed by the Son of God, plays an indispensable role in Origen’s soteriological system. Second, every status of the Logos has its salvific function. It is thus possible to say that, for Origen, there is no theology without soteriology50. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Vicuña Mackenna 4860. Santiago – Chile [email protected]

Samuel FERNÁNDEZ

50. For this reason, a programmatic text of Περὶ ἀρχῶν, affirms that the aim (σκοπός) of the Scripture, is pre-eminently (προηγουμένως) concerned with the unspeakable mysteries connected – not with God, as expected –, but with men: ὅτι ὁ σκοπὸς τῷ φωτίζοντι πνεύματι προνοίᾳ ϑεοῦ διὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν ϑεὸν λόγου τοὺς διακόνους τῆς ἀληϑείας, προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους, ἦν προηγουμένως μὲν ὁ περὶ τῶν ἀπορρήτων μυστηρίων τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ἀνϑρώπους πραγμάτων, Prin IV,2,7 (FuP 27, p. 856).

MATTER AND BODY IN ORIGEN’S CHRISTIAN PLATONISM*

Origen’s assessment of matter and body, particularly the connection between mind, soul and body in his anthropology and soteriology, has been a matter of dispute since the controversies about his Christian philosophy in Late Antiquity. This debate mainly stems from a certain ambiguity in his description of these concepts. Origen’s assessment of the body, and of matter in general, is shaped both by the Platonic juxtaposition of a sensible and intelligible world on the one hand, and of the biblical tenet of the basic goodness of created matter and the human body on the other. However, even the Platonic assessment of matter and body is not wholly negative, as is often assumed in a broad strand of popular dualism. In this article, I argue that Origen modifies this complex Platonic account into an even more positive evaluation of matter and body. A number of recent publications have discussed some aspects of the goodness of the body in Origen’s thought1. Here, I expand the scope of analysis in order to describe his overall assessment of matter and body. I. PLATONIC AMBIGUITY In Platonism, all things related to matter and body, which are perceptible by sense perception, are perceived as negative. For Plato, the body poses a hindrance on the way to true knowledge. Hence, the intellectual being must strive to liberate himself from it. Many statements in Origen’s writings follow this idea, such as in the CommentaryonJohn: “Nothing perceptible by the senses is true” (CIo I,26,167: οὐδενὸς αἰσϑητοῦ ὄντος ἀληϑινοῦ). In OnFirstPrinciples he notes, based on the notion of “vanity” in Eccl 1,2.14, that all corporeal nature seems to be a kind of burden which hampers the vigor of the spiritual beings (Prin I,7,5). In the Commentary * My warmest thanks to Prof. Sarit Kattan Gribetz (Fordham University, New York) for improving the English of this article. It was finished during a stay at the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2017-2018) and gained some ideas from the inspiring atmosphere in our research group on “The Subject of Antiquity: Contours and Expressions of the Self in Ancient Mediterranean Cultures”. 1. Especially J. BIELER, OrigenontheGoodnessoftheBody, in R.A. GISELBRECHT – R. KUNZ (eds.), SacralityandMateriality:LocatingIntersections, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016, 85-94, has recently made a strong case for the goodness of the body in Origen’s philosophy.

574

A. FÜRST

ontheSongofSongs, he repeatedly admonishes the reader not to misunderstand the metaphors of love in a corporeal or sexual sense. The reader not yet able to restrain himself from the carnal desires of his body, he tells us in the preface to this work, would be wise to refrain from reading this biblical book (CCt prol. 1,6). The Platonic juxtaposition of the sensible and apparent world on the one hand, and the intelligible and true world on the other is a fundamental pillar of Origen’s metaphysics (cf. e.g. FrIo 13: διττοῦ τοῦ ϑεωρεῖν ὄντος, αἰσϑητικοῦ τε καὶ νοητικοῦ, τὸ μὲν τῶν σωμάτων τὸ δὲ τῶν ἀσωμάτων ἐστὶν ἀντιληπτικόν). This theory of two worlds, however, is reshaped by Origen in a special way. Already in Platonism, the presupposition that things perceptible by the senses are not true, does not mean that they are false. The opposite of truth in Platonic ontology and epistemology is not falsehood or lie, but image. The image represents the archetype. The image is therefore neither true because it is not the archetype, nor false because it conveys a likeness of the archetype. It provides a true image of it, albeit not the truth as such. All sense perceptible things are only image, symbol, enigma, mystery, a hint at the truth but, as such, they are also revelation and disclosure of the spiritual. Origen draws on this Platonic connection between truth and image when he states in the passage following the above-quoted statement in the CommentaryonJohn: “It does not follow, however, that because that which is perceptible by the senses is not true, it is false. For what is perceptible by the senses can have a resemblance to that which is apprehended by the intellect. Everything which is not true certainly cannot correctly be designated false” (CIo I 26,167: Ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἀληϑινὸν τὸ αἰσϑητόν, ψεῦδος τὸ αἰσϑητόν· δύναται γὰρ ἀναλογίαν ἔχειν τὸ αἰσϑητὸν πρὸς τὸ νοητόν, οὐ μὴν τὸ ψεῦδος ὑγιῶς παντὸς κατηγορεῖσϑαι τοῦ οὐκ ἀληϑινοῦ). In both Platonism and Origen’s Christian Platonism, one finds a positive relationship between the sensible and the intelligible world: the former is image and imitation of the latter. The sensible world is thus, at once, similarity and dissimilarity with respect to truth, but not the contrary of truth in the sense of falsehood. Matter and body in both Platonism and Origen are therefore neither false nor evil, albeit not true2. One finds, then, a certain ambiguity in Platonism as well as in Origen between a spiritualizing tendency which tends to devaluate the sensible realm of reality, and a symbolic tendency in which the sensible things participate in the spiritual realm and therefore disclose spiritual reality and 2. See the older but still revealing account in G. GRUBER, ΖΩΗ:Wesen,Stufenund MitteilungdeswahrenLebensbeiOrigenes, München, Max Hueber, 1962, pp. 34-36.

MATTER AND BODY IN ORIGEN’S CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

575

act as a road to it3. The tendency to devalue matter and body might be somewhat stronger in Platonism, even though there, too, they are not conceived as entirely evil – at most, insofar as they give rise to moral evil, they are conceived as partially evil. We find this devaluation in Origen as well (e.g. in CIo XX,16,134 matter is associated with a whore: ...ἐκ πόρνης, τῆς ὕλης). Nonetheless, even in Platonism, the symbolic view of the sensible reality prevails against the tendency towards devaluation. This holds true for Origen’s Christian Platonism as well. Origen fostered a more positive assessment of matter and body because he deals with the relationship of mind and matter or of soul and body in strictly ethical terms. In his ethically grounded metaphysics of freedom, the categories of “good” and “evil” can only be used for things that are determined by free will. What cannot be determined by will and decision is neither good nor evil. Evil does not exist as such, but only as a qualification of things affected by it. Body and matter as such cannot, therefore, be deemed as evil or good. In ethical terms, they are indifferent (ἀδιάφορα) (in CC II,59 Origen puts “things corporeal” together with “things indifferent”), and thus not the cause of evil. For Origen, matter is neither the origin of evil nor evil itself, as he explicitly states against Celsus, who had claimed that “evils are not caused by God, but inhere in matter and dwell among mortals”: “It is true”, Origen objects, “that evils are not caused by God. But in our view, it is not true that the matter which dwells among mortals is responsible for evils”. Origen instead attributes the origin of evil to the human mind and its decisions: “Each person’s mind is responsible for the evil which exists in him, and this is what evil is. Evils are the actions which result from it. In our view nothing else is strictly speaking evil” (CC IV,66; cf. III,42). Matter, then, only appears as evil when it is abused as a substitute for God. Origen states this against the Gnostics as well as against Platonism. Thus, he applies Stoic terminology and theories, imparting to them new content within the framework of his Platonic ideas (Phil XXVI)4. From this perspective, Origen is able to value the corporeality of human beings in a more positive way than was common in Platonism. This topic exemplifies the highly complex entanglement of his thought with its basically Platonic framework5. 3. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, WendungnachOsten, in StimmenderZeit 7/136 (1939) 3246, pp. 33-35 sets out with these two tendencies to describe the two main strands of Origen’s influence on the theology of the Christian East. 4. Details in GRUBER, ΖΩΗ (n. 2), pp. 21-34. 5. The relationship between Origen’s thought and Platonism is thus somewhat more complex than M.J. EDWARDS, Origen against Plato (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity), Aldershot, Ashgate 2002 (22004), tries to demonstrate. His

576

A. FÜRST

II. CREATION Origen discusses the corporeality of human beings in various contexts. One of the most important is his concept of creation. Does he think of human minds or souls, respectively, as corporeal or as incorporeal before the Fall? Does he argue for a subtle form of corporeality before the Fall? While some scholars hold that Origen conceived of rational beings as originally incorporeal6, others argue convincingly that, in Origen’s concept of creation, rational beings are never without bodies7. The latter view can be traced back to the famous Origeniana of Pierre-Daniel Huet. Already in 1668, the French scholar provided a nuanced discussion of the question of the corporeality of the soul, and came to the conclusion that Origen was more inclined to the opinion that the soul has a body8. This interpretation can be supported by several arguments. First, let us consider the relation between the creation of human beings according to Gen 1,26f. on the one hand and according to Gen 2,7 on the other. Is the formation of a human body, as it is depicted in Gen 2,7, a consequence of the sin of the spiritual and rational being which is created according to Gen 1,26f.? Or do these two accounts refer to the two aspects of a single creation of human beings: the spiritual or rational and the corporeal dimension of their existence9? Unfortunately, Origen’s juxtaposition between five Platonic and Origenian core tenets (pp. 159-161 as result of his book) is simply too simple. 6. E. DE FAYE, Origène:Savie,sonœuvre,sapensée, 3 vols., Paris, Ernest Leroux, 1923-1928, vol. 3, p. 73; F.-H. KETTLER, DieEwigkeitdergeistigenSchöpfungnachOrigenes, in M. GRESCHAT – J.F.G. GOETERS (eds.), ReformationundHumanismus.Festschrift für Robert Stupperich, Witten, Luther-Verlag, 1969, 272-297, pp. 285, 296: Before the Fall and after the apokatastasis all rational beings exist only spiritual; A.-C. JACOBSEN, TheConstitutionofManaccordingtoIrenaeusandOrigen, in B. FEICHTINGER – St. LAKE – H. SENG (eds.), Körper und Seele: Aspekte spätantiker Anthropologie, München – Leipzig, Teubner, 2006, 67-93, pp. 78-89 argues that the rational natures “originally possessed no bodies” (p. 82), but does not differentiate between different manners of the bodily constitution of man (cf. pp. 82-84, 85, 87). Cf. also A. TZVETKOVA-GLASER, PentateuchauslegungbeiOrigenesunddenfrühenRabbinen, Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang, 2010, pp. 87-116. 7. G. BÜRKE, DesOrigenesLehrevomUrstanddesMenschen, in ZKT 72 (1950) 1-39, pp. 15-17 (cf. p. 38); H. CROUZEL, L’anthropologie d’Origène dans la perspective du combatspirituel, in Revued’ascétiqueetdemystique 31 (1955) 364-385, pp. 369, 377f, 381f. 8. P.-D. HUET, Origeniana, Rouen, 1668, II 2,1,5.7 (pp. 29, 30; PG 17, 707, 709) and esp. II 2,6,13-16 (pp. 99-102; PG 17, 908-914). 9. In contrast with his correct account of the material substrate of every spiritual creature BÜRKE, LehrevomUrstand (n. 7), pp. 35-38 poses the decisive lapse between Gen 1,26f. and Gen 2,7; but the sources he used to prove this do not support this interpretation. CROUZEL, L’anthropologied’Origène (n. 7), pp. 369f., 381 is also not quite clear in this respect because he presents the formation of the body according to Gen 2,7 as a consequence of sin.

MATTER AND BODY IN ORIGEN’S CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

577

interpretation of Gen 1–3 is only accessible in a few passages in his extant writings, in some fragments preserved by later authors, and in the catenae10. Following Manlio Simonetti’s apt reconstruction and interpretation of these fragments11, Origen refers the creation of human beings in the image and likeness of God according to Gen 1,27 to the intellectual and spiritual element, their creation out of dust or clay according to Gen 2,7 to the corporeal element in the sense of a fine, subtle and luminous body (FrGn D 11 Metzler; HGn I,13; Prin I,2,6; III,6,1; HIer I,10; CCt prol. 2,4f.; CIo XX,22,182; CMt XIV,16; Dial XI-XII.XV-XVI)12. The coats of skin, however, by which God clothed Adam and Eve according to Gen 3,21 after they have been driven out from Paradise are a symbol of the thicker and heavier body of flesh and bones, into which the subtle element of the original body turns due to sin. The incorruptible body of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden transforms into the corruptible body of their earthly existence after the Fall (FrGn D 22; CC IV,40; HLv VI,2: The coats of skin are mortalitatis,quampropeccatoacceperat,etfragilitatiseius,quaeexcarniscorruptioneveniebat, indicium)13. The material bodies are thus not created by God as a reaction to the Fall of the heavenly spiritual beings. Instead, God created the rational beings as minds equipped with some kind of bodiliness (Gen 1,26f. and Gen 2,7), and these bodies turned into corporeal bodies of a thicker substance (cf. CIo XIII,21,129: σῶμα τυγχάνον ἐπιδέχεται ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ φύσει τὴν εἰς τὸ παχύτερον μεταβολήν) as a consequence of the Fall (Gen 3,21) (cf. Prin I,8,1.4; II,8,3). The sin, for which Adam and Eve were evicted from Paradise into the terrestrial world, took place only some time after God had created them as spiritual beings according to Gen 1,26f. and some time after he had formed them as corporeal beings 10. A.-Ch. JACOBSEN, Genesis 1–3 as Source for the Anthropology of Origen, in VigChr 62 (2008) 213-232 points to the difficulty of reconstructing Origen’s actual opinion by means of this fragmentary evidence (pp. 223-231). 11. M. SIMONETTI, Alcuneosservazionisull’interpretazioneorigenianadiGenesi2,7 e3,21, in Aevum 36 (1962) 370-381, pp. 377-380, accepted by H. CROUZEL, L’anthropologie d’Origène: De l’archè au telos, in U. BIANCHI (ed.), Archè e Telos. L’antropologia di Origene e di Gregorio di Nisa: Analisi storico-religiosa, Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1981, 36-57, p. 43. 12. On this well known theory of a “double creation” see e.g. H. CROUZEL, Théologie del’ImagedeDieuchezOrigène(Collection Théologie, 34), Paris, Aubier – Desclée de Brouwer, 1961, pp. 148-153; J. DUPUIS, L’Espritdel’homme:Étudesurl’anthropologie religieused’Origène, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1967, pp. 29-42. 13. P.F. BEATRICE, Letunichedipelle:AnticheletturediGen.3,21, in U. BIANCHI (ed.), La tradizione dell’enkrateia: Motivazioni ontologiche e protologiche, Roma, Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1985, 433-482, pp. 448-454. See also C. NOCE, Vestisvaria:L’immaginedella vestenell’operadiOrigene, Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2002.

578

A. FÜRST

according to Gen 2,7 (cf. HEz I,3: AdametEvanonstatim,utfactisunt, peccaverunt). In this sense, one can argue that God created the material bodies as a reaction to the sin of the rational beings (he clothed them into the coats of skin according to Gen 3,21). But this does not mean that in the beginning the rational beings were purely spiritual without any form of bodiliness because God created the mind and the soul (Gen 1,26f.) and formed the body (Gen 2,7) simultaneously as something good. If this account is correct, we can see two major aspects of Origen’s assessment of the human body. First, humans are equipped with a body from the outset. Originally, it was a very fine and subtle body, but it was created by God at the very beginning. Hence, it is not a consequence of sin. It is rather an aspect of the fact that human beings are created, because creatures do not possess the good by nature but accidentally. Their condition is thus characterised by mutability. As the creation is convertible and mutable, matter is unavoidable, wherefore God created a corporeal being which is able to be converted in each other by changing its qualities (Prin II,1,4; II,2,2; IV,4,8). Hence, already before the Fall, human beings were created as spiritual beings equipped with a body with ethereal qualities as a necessary condition of their status as changeable creatures: “All things which God was going to form, consisted of spirit and matter” (HGn I,2: omnia quae facturus erat Deus, ex spiritu constarent et corpore; Prin III,6,7: duasgeneralesnaturascondideritDeus:naturamvisibilem,idestcorpoream,etnaturaminvisibilem,quaeestincorporea). In Origen’s concept of creation, matter is a constitutional element of all created beings (Prin IV,4,8)14. This accords with Origen’s statement that only non-created beings are incorporeal (in FrIo 13 Origen hints to τὴν τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀσωματότητα; cf. Prin I,1; IV,4,1). Incorporeality is only a feature of the persons of the Trinity; all other beings, insofar as they are creatures, are never incorporeal (Prin I,6,4; II,2,2; III,6,1; IV,3,15; HEx VI,5: nullus enim invisibilis, nullus incorporeus, ... nisi Pater cum Filio et SpirituSancto)15. 14. Cf. BÜRKE, LehrevomUrstand (n. 7), pp. 15f. – On God as creator of matter see Ch. KÖCKERT, ChristlicheKosmologieundkaiserzeitlichePhilosophie:DieAuslegungdes SchöpfungsberichtesbeiOrigenes,BasiliusundGregorvonNyssavordemHintergrund kaiserzeitlicherTimaeus-Interpretationen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009, pp. 278-293. 15. DE FAYE, Origène (n. 6), vol. 3, pp. 73-78 ascribes the distinction between the incorporeality of the trinity and the corporeality of all creatures to Rufinus’ translation. But he does not differentiate between the precise meaning of corporeality in Origen’s writings in the sense of an unsubtle material body (which itself is further to distinguish of a subtle material body) and the ethical meaning in the sense of an orientation towards material needs and desires. De Faye thus simplifies the different meanings of corporeality and Origen’s nuanced reflections about it.

MATTER AND BODY IN ORIGEN’S CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

579

Second, the quality of the body depends on the ethical behaviour of the individual human being. Through sin, the body turns into a thicker and heavier shape which can be refined again by good acts (Prin I,5,3; II,3,2)16. This mutability is an expression of Origen’s overall metaphysical scheme: the specific status of any created being depends on its choices and decisions (Prin II,2,2; cf. I, praef. 8; CMt XVII,29f.). Mind and soul are always bound to a kind of corporeality, but the quality of the body depends on the quality of mind and soul. Even more, matter requires the soul to choose either to use matter and the body to sin, or as a means of spiritual growth. Body and matter is the realm where human freedom can be acted upon and has to prove itself. In this respect, matter is not indifferent but essentially good because of its availability for use in the movement towards freedom – but, for the same reason, it can easily be abused for evil purposes. III. ESCHATOLOGY This concept also applies to the status of human beings after the Resurrection. In the long history of Origenism, this crucial feature of Origen’s eschatology was critically discussed from the outset. In contemporary scholarship it is disputed whether or not, in the consummation, the rational beings will be without bodies. Some scholars argue for the first position17, while others defend the corporeality of all creatures even in the consummation18. These divergent opinions stem from the discussion 16. To this aspect JACOBSEN, ConstitutionofMan (n. 6), p. 83 also agrees. 17. DE FAYE, Origène (n. 6), vol. 3, pp. 73-78; D.G. BOSTOCK, QualityandCorporeity in Origen, in H. CROUZEL – A. QUACQUARELLI (eds.), Origeniana Secunda: Second colloqueinternationaldesétudesorigéniennes:Bari,20-23septembre1977(Quaderni di VetChr, 15), Roma, Ateneo, 1980, 323-337, pp. 332-337; F. KETTLER, NeueBeobachtungenzurApokatastasislehredesOrigenes, ibid., 339-348 (rightly criticised by H. CROUZEL in BLE 83 [1982] 226f.); H. STRUTWOLF, GnosisalsSystem:ZurRezeptiondervalentinianischenGnosisbeiOrigenes (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 56), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993, pp. 334-347, who declares all contrary arguments in OnFirstPrinciples as interpolations of Rufinus (pp. 336-340). His argumentation, however, is circular insofar as he presupposes what he wants to find out, namely Origen’s real opinion (in Strutwolf’s view the vanishing of all corporeality in the consummation), in order to detect Rufinus’ alleged interpolations (to which he counted, similar to de Faye [see n. 15], the distinction between the incorporeality of the trinity and the corporeality of all creatures: p. 337). 18. H. RAHNER, DasMenschenbilddesOrigenes, in EranosJahrbuch 15 (1947) 197248, pp. 241-244; BÜRKE, LehrevomUrstand (n. 7), pp. 20f.; J. RIUS-CAMPS, Lasuerte finaldelanaturalezacorpóreasegúnelPerìArchondeOrigenes:Formulacionfluctuante entreeldatoreveladoylospresupuestosfilosóficosdeunsistema, in VetChr 10 (1973) 291-304 (= Studia Patristica 14 [1976] 167-179) with the result that because of the

580

A. FÜRST

of this question by Origen. He himself considered the possibility of whether in the end the material nature will disappear and merge into spirit (Prin II,3,2f.; III,6,1-3, more clearly than in Rufinus’ translation preserved in the fragments in Jerome, Epist. 124,5.9f.). The main argument for this position would be that only then will death be annihilated and only then can the created mind live in perfect unity with the uncorporeal God (Prin II,3,3; III,6,1) because corporeality as such functions as an indicator of multiplicity (Prin II,1,4; Orat XXI,2: οὐδὲν γὰρ ἓν τῆς ὕλης καὶ τῶν σωμάτων). According to Jerome’s translation of Deprincipiis, however, this was only one of three assumptions about the corporeality of the body in the end (Prin II,3,7 in Jerome, Epist. 124,5). Moreover, according to Rufinus’ translation, for Origen himself this assumption seemed to be the “most difficult and nearly impossible” one (Prin II,2,1: quodmihiquidem difficillimum et paene inpossibile videtur). Origen maintains the ontological difference between the incorporeal creator and the corporeal creature even in the end (Prin I,6,4). Despite his own reflections about the possible annihilation of matter and body in the end, he nevertheless conceived of God’s creatures as always equipped with a body (Prin I,6,4; III,6,4-9; IV,4,8), albeit an ethereal and luminous body (CC II,60; CMt XVII,30)19. In his theory of matter, Origen proposes some ideas to explain the difference and the continuity between these different bodily conditions of a human being. “Corporeal and incorporeal things” have “a kind of common substrate” which makes the change of one and the same thing “from a corporeal into an incorporeal status” and vice versa possible (CIo XIII,61,429: μεταβάλλειν τι ἀπὸ σώματος εἰς ἀσώματον· ὡς ὑποκειμένου τινὸς κοινοῦ τῆς τῶν σωμάτων καὶ ἀσωμάτων φύσεως, ὅπερ μένει, ὥσπερ μένειν φασὶ τὸ ὑλικὸν οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοὶ τῶν data of the revelation Origen assumes a certain form of persistency of the human body; H. CROUZEL, La doctrine origénienne du corps ressuscité, in BLE 81 (1980) 175-200, 241-266, pp. 184-195, 241-257 (cf. already CROUZEL, L’anthropologied’Origène [n. 7], pp. 378-382); G. DORIVAL, Origène et la résurrection de la chair, in L. LIES (ed.), Origeniana Quarta: Die Referate des 4. internationalen Origeneskongresses, 1985 (Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck – Wien, Tyrolia, 1987, 291-321, pp. 312-315 (who pp. 312f. alligns with Crouzels critique of Kettler); L.R. HENNESSEY, APhilosophical Issue in Origen’s Eschatology: The Three Senses of Incorporeality, in R. DALY (ed.), OrigenianaQuinta:Historica–TextandMethod–Biblica–Philosophica –Theologica–OrigenismandLaterDevelopments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 373-380 (Hennessey follows widely Crouzel’s account). 19. As to the related image of the body as vehicle of the soul cf. H. CROUZEL, Lethème platoniciendu“véhiculedel’âme”chezOrigène, in Didaskalia 7 (1977) 225-237: The soul is always in need of some material form in order to be and to move in different regions.

MATTER AND BODY IN ORIGEN’S CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

581

ποιοτήτων μεταβαλλουσῶν εἰς ἀφϑαρσίαν). In a stoicising manner, he speaks of a ratio which is always preserved in the substance of a body (Prin II,10,3: ratio ..., quae semper in substantia corporis salva est; in CC V,23 and VII,32 this ratio is called “a seminal principle”, λόγος σπερματικός)20. Through this substrate, matter has the possibility to change “from all to all” (Prin II,1,4; II,2,2: ex omnibus ad omnia); it can be formed into a thicker and more solid status of a body, and it can decorate the more perfect and blissful bodies such as the celestial bodies and even the angels of God and the sons of the Resurrection with the garb of a spiritual body. The spiritual beings are therefore not absolutely immaterial, but their corporal substance will rather be so pure and purified that it can be understood in the way of any ethereal and celestial purity and integrity (Prin I,6,4; III,6,9)21. It is wrong to believe, Origen emphasizes, that after death, nothing of the substance (substantia) of the flesh (caro) will remain. Origen instead states with Paul (1 Cor 15,44) that there will be a transformation of the flesh, but its substance will pertain and be subject to further changes, until it reaches the glory of the spiritual body (Prin III,6,5). The corporeal substance of rational beings as a whole will be converted into this status when all things will be restored to their original unity and God will be “all in all” (Prin III,6,6.9 with 1 Cor 15,28). The corruptible matter of the body on earth will become incorruptible and spiritual (Prin II,3,2; II,10,3; III,6,4f.; CC V,18f.23; VII,32). “The body puts aside its former qualities, and receives better and different ones”, “the quality of the animal body” changes into “the quality of a spiritual body” (Prin II,10,1; cf. III,6,6; CC IV,56). The correspondence between the quality of the earthly body and the quality of the spiritual body is expressed in terms of moral values which determine the form of the body. “The bodily substance itself, being united to the best and purest spirits, will be changed, in proportion to the quality or merits of those who wear it, into an ethereal condition” (Prin II,3,7; cf. IV,4,8). Origen does not teach the elimination of the body. He teaches, instead, the transformation of the body through a change of its qualities by means of an appropriate ethical behaviour that affects not only mind and soul but also the body as the realm where the wishes and decisions of mind and soul become real actions22. 20. See also H. CHADWICK, Origen, Celsus and the Resurrection of the Body, in HTR 41 (1948) 83-102, p. 101. 21. Cf. BÜRKE, LehrevomUrstand (n. 7), p. 16. 22. An excellent description of how Origen conceived of this transformation as a change of qualities within his theory of matter is presented by BOSTOCK, Quality and Corporeity (n. 17), pp. 330-332. STRUTWOLF, GnosisalsSystem (n. 17), p. 339 is therefore

582

A. FÜRST

We indeed find instances in which Origen states that the “life of the blessed” in heaven is “totally immaterial and incorporeal” (CIo I,17,97: ἄϋλον πάντη καὶ ἀσώματον ζωὴν ζώντων ἐν μακαριότητι τῶν ἁγίων; cf. EM XLIV: πειϑόμεϑα γὰρ κρείττονα ἔχειν ὕπαρξιν οὐ γηΐνην ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ σωματικὴν ἀλλά τινα ἀόρατον καὶ ἀσώματον). This claim must be understood in a moral sense: the blessed no longer live “according to the flesh” (the matter), but according to the spirit (CIo XIII,53,358361, esp. 361: ἐν σαρκὶ μέν εἰσιν οἱ κατὰ σάρκα στρατευόμενοι; cf. Prin IV,4,6: ...materiamposuitpropeccatis; Orat IX,2; EM III and XIII; FrEph 10 Gregg; HIerL II[II],9 together with FrIer 36)23. “To mortify the limbs on earth” means with Paul (Rom 8,13) “to deaden the deeds of the flesh” and to live “according to the will of the spirit” (HIer VIII,1: νεκρωϑέντων δὲ τῶν μελῶν τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται τὸ κατὰ τὸ βούλημα τοῦ πνεύματος, ἐπεὶ τῷ πνεύματι αἱ πράξεις τῆς σαρκὸς κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον ϑανατοῦνται). Thus, as Huet already discussed and contrary to the charges brought forward against him in Late Antiquity, Origen never rejected the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body24. IV. INCARNATION Another disputed aspect of Origen’s soteriology is the role of incarnation. Within his concept of creation as described above, it is clear that he conceived of the incarnation of the divine Logos not as virtual but as real. He stressed this time and again against Gnostic docetism (e.g. Prin II,6,2; CIo X,6,23-27; Dial VII; CC II,23; IV,19)25. As matter is neither evil itself nor the origin of evil, Origen has no problem with stating that incarnation is a real assumption of a corporeal body by the divine Word. The incarnation of the Son of God is crucial for the Christian concept of salvation, and this is also true for the restoration. Then, too, the incarnation will be important, as he explicitly states in the CommentaryonJohn: not accurate when he contends that the transformation of a mortal nature into an immortal one was not conceivable for Origen. 23. Cf. CROUZEL, Corpsressuscité (n. 18), pp. 188f.; HENNESSEY, SensesofIncorporeality (n. 18), pp. 375f. 24. HUET, Origeniana (n. 8), II 2,9 (pp. 130-137; PG 17, 980-996). Cf. Ch. HENGSTERMANN, Die Auferstehung des Leibes und die Wiederherstellung aller Dinge: Rationale TheologieundEschatologieinPierre-DanielHuetsOrigeniana, in A. FÜRST (ed.), Origenes inFrankreich:DieOrigenianaPierre-DanielHuets (Adamantiana, 10), Münster, Aschendorff, 2017, 203-238, pp. 220-227. 25. See e.g. M. FÉDOU, Lasagesseetlemonde:Essaisurlachristologied’Origène, Paris, Desclée, 1995, pp. 126-153, 173-175.

MATTER AND BODY IN ORIGEN’S CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

583

He is clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood, since the Word who became flesh, and died because he became flesh, is invested with traces of that passion, since his blood also was poured forth upon the earth when the soldier pierced his side. For, perhaps, even if in some way we attain the most sublime and highest contemplation of the Word and of the truth, we shall not forget completely that we were introduced to him by his coming in our body (CIo II,8,61).

The coming of the Word of God in a human body plays a constitutive role even in the contemplation of the Word in the end. Even there, Christ will bear the wounds he received in his earthly body, albeit in a different quality (and, for instance, visible to the angels: CIo VI,56,289f.)26. “The mortal quality of Jesus’ body” will be “changed into an ethereal and divine quality” (CC III,41). V. HUMAN LIFE What about the role of the body during the life of human beings on earth? This question is important for Origen because it was this body into which the Word entered when it became flesh. There are many hints that Origen credits the body with quite a positive role27. The body functions as a tool by which the soul is able to move towards perfection. The body is the concrete constitution in which the fallen soul can experience the punishment which is a consequence of its sin. Punishment and material corporeality are closely connected in this theory of sin and in the aim of punishment as education. The material body (the “flesh”) is an instrument in the instruction of the fallen beings, and the bodily sufferings have a healing function (Prin I,6,3: percarnemhumanumgenus...instituitur atqueeruditur; CMt XIII,1)28. Corporeality has a positive meaning, insofar as it aims towards perfection. One might see this even more clearly in the emphasis Origen places on learning through practical experience. The progress of salvation is not only and not even essentially a matter of intellectual enhancement but primarily a matter of experience: “You cannot understand it if you have not experienced it”, he says in the HomiliesontheSongofSongs (HCt I,7). 26. Cf. CROUZEL, Corpsressuscité (n. 18), pp. 257-261; FÉDOU, Christologied’Origène (n. 25), pp. 227-229. 27. See also JACOBSEN, ConstitutionofMan (n. 6), pp. 83f. 28. This positive function of the body is analyzed by A.-C. JACOBSEN, Origen on the HumanBody, in L. PERRONE (ed.),OrigenianaOctava:OrigenandtheAlexandrianTradition.Papersofthe8thInternationalOrigenCongress,Pisa27-31August2001 (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 649-656.

584

A. FÜRST

The “inner sight” (interiorvisus) has to be trained by erudition and diligence (eruditione et industria) to be able to distinguish between good and bad through much experience (per multam peritiam), because without knowledge and experience (ignorantiaetimperitia) he will not be able to do this (CCt I,4,18). Going through its errors, the soul is “educated by experience” and will thus “turn to the knowledge of itself” (FrCt 14: παιδευϑεῖσα τῇ πείρᾳ πρὸς τὴν σεαυτῆς ἐπιστρέψειας γνῶσιν). Practical experience is the first step to intellectual knowledge (CCt II,2,7: reipsaexpertusiam iamque cognosces; cf. FrCt 27; Prin IV,1,6). The bodily constitution of the soul is the necessary precondition of spiritual progress. It provides the concrete realm within which the soul can make experiences that are otherwise not possible. This is a rather positive perception of the body. Origen therefore does not speak exclusively of the sanctification of mind (or spirit) and soul, but with Paul (1 Thess 5,23) of spirit and soul and body. The body has to be sanctified together with the spirit and the soul. The righteous will enter heaven with all parts of his existence (Prin II,10,7; CMtS 62). All parts of a human being are interconnected when it comes to sanctification, and the sacredness of spirit and soul is expressed in the sacredness of the body and vice versa. The soul uses the services of the corporeal senses to exercise the justice of God (HIos XI,4f.). The corporeal senses of humans are not only the means of going astray from God by following the fleshly desires of the body, but also the medium of exercising the commandments of God29. These senses are thus revalued as positive means of spiritual progress. The rational beings will not be liberated from the body but from sin – with the body30. This is the general view of early Christian philosophers against the common Hellenic (not only Platonic) eschatological expectations, which Origen articulated in a sophisticated manner. VI. CORPOREAL AND SPIRITUAL SENSES This positive assessment of the body can also be identified in Origen’s theory of the spiritual senses. When he speaks of seeing, hearing, smelling, 29. Cf. CROUZEL, L’anthropologied’Origène (n. 7), p. 377. 30. JACOBSEN, ConstitutionofMan (n. 6), pp. 87f. argues that “man’s perfection will exclude possession of any kind of body. Reaching the fullest possible likeness to God means that Man will be a pure rational being without a body, just as God himself has no body”. However, the rational beings remain creatures, and this implies a kind of corporeality. The kinship to God is quodammodo, as Origen precisely states (Prin IV,4,9f.). This is to be taken seriously, as Huet emphasized against Jerome, Epist. 124,14, who had accused Origen of using this word only rhetorically to avoid being accused of blasphemy: HUET, Origeniana (n. 8), II 2,1,5.7 (pp. 29, 30; PG 17, 707, 709f.); II 2,6,3 (p. 93; PG 17, 896).

MATTER AND BODY IN ORIGEN’S CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

585

tasting and touching God, Origen is not only describing contemplation metaphorically31. Rather, the spiritual senses play an important function in his epistemology: they refer to the perception of spiritual realities, and they are the inevitable realm of humans’ contact with God32. The sensible things disclose the spiritual realm, and thus the spiritual senses are the way to get into contact with the spiritual. The underlying question is how the finite human mind is able to perceive infinite spiritual realities. “Whence comes it”, Origen asks, “that the power of memory, the contemplation of invisible things, yes, and the perception of incorporeal things reside in a body? ... And divine doctrines, which are obviously incorporeal, how can it discern and understand them?” (Prin I,1,7). There must be something like an incorporeal perception in order to perceive intelligible things. Origen calls this capacity, evoking a special reading of Prov 2,5, a “divine sense” (ϑεία αἴσϑησις: CIo X,40,279; XX,43,405; CC I,48; VII,34; FrLc 186 Rauer2; FrRm VI,5 Scherer; sensusdivinus: Prin I,1,9; IV,4,10; CCt I,4,16; CMtS 63) or a “pneumatic sense” (αἴσϑησις πνευματική: FrCt 3), and he coins a term, the oxymoron “a not sensible sense” (αἴσϑησις οὐκ αἰσϑητής: CC I,48), to express the inexpressible. Through this concept, Origen tries to explain how a human being is able to grasp the spiritual reality within and beyond of the framework of its bodily constitution. The spiritual senses are exercised through a proper use of the related corporeal senses. The eyes, for instance, should not see injustice, the ears should not hear idle talk, but rather they should see and hear the words of Jesus (CMtS 64, Greek fragment in GCS 38, 150). By virtue of this practice, the senses get used to the spiritual realities enclosed in corporeal things. The corporeal senses have a preparatory function: to use them according to the commandments of the Gospel prepares the spiritual faculty of sensation to perceive incorporeal and intellectual objects: “The ascent from objects perceptible by the 31. This is the interpretation of J.M. DILLON, Aisthêsisnoêtê:ADoctrineofSpiritual Senses in Origen and in Plotinus, in A. CAQUOT – M. HADAS-LEBEL – J. RIAUD (eds.), HellenicaetJudaica:HommageàValentinNikiprowetzky, Leuven, Peeters, 1986, 443-455, again in J.M. DILLON, TheGoldenChain:StudiesintheDevelopmentofPlatonismand Christianity, Aldershot, Ashgate, 1990, nr. xix. Cf. also J. DANIÉLOU, Origène, Paris, La Table Ronde, 1948, p. 300. 32. After the seminal article of K. RAHNER, Le début d’une doctrine des cinq sens spirituelschezOrigène, in Revued’ascétiqueetdemystique 13 (1932) 113-145, and the critical assessment of Dillon’s interpretation by M.J. MCINROY, OrigenofAlexandria, in P.L. GAVRILYUK – S. COAKLEY (eds.), TheSpiritualSenses:PerceivingGodinWestern Christianity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012, 20-35, see now the study of A. FÜRST, Θείααἴσϑησις:Origen’sEpistemologicalConceptofSpiritualSensation, in Ch. HENGSTERMANN (ed.), GodintheIconicImagination:SpiritualSensationinDouglas Hedley’sChristianPlatonism, London, Bloomsbury (in print).

586

A. FÜRST

senses to those perceptions called divine ... leads to the comprehension of spiritual realities” (CIo X,40,279). Like physical faculties, the spiritual senses are strengthened by constant practice (CCt I,4,17-19). The corporeal senses thus fulfil a special task in the progress towards spiritual perception and in the end towards perfection: “A rational mind, by advancing from a knowledge of small to a knowledge of greater things and from things visible to things invisible, may attain to an increasingly perfect understanding. For it has been placed in a body, and of necessity advances from sense-objects which are bodily, to sense-objects which are incorporeal and intellectual” (Prin IV,4,10; cf. FrLc 186 Rauer2). The corporeal senses are therefore precisely the medium through which human beings are able to get into contact with the intellectual and spiritual reality. The spiritual senses do not become effective when the bodily senses are deadened33, but rather when the latter are exercised in virtuous behaviour. Human beings can talk about spiritual sensation only within the confines of their bodily constitution. Human corporeality thus plays an important role in the spiritual relationship with God. The human being has to start with the senses when trying to comprehend spiritual realities (CC VII,37). In Origen’s concept of spiritual sensation, human beings as a whole, consisting of mind, soul and body, are engaged in the perception of God which therefore is described by means of the sensible notions of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching (Prin III,6,3). Corporeal and spiritual senses are mutually interconnected, and the perfect contemplates God not only intellectually but with all his senses, i.e. as a complete being of mind and body (at length described in Dial XV-XXIV). In this sense, bodily reality has a mediating and everlasting role in spiritual progress and perfection34. VII. HISTORY AND NATURE Origen’s positive assessment of matter and body as the specific realm where bodily creatures can learn to strive for the good and thus for God is not confined to human beings but expanded to the creation as a whole. In his universal cosmo-soteriology, both nature and history are conceived 33. This is the misinterpretation of DANIÉLOU, Origène (n. 31), p. 301 and A. LOUTH, TheOriginsoftheChristianMysticalTradition:FromPlatotoDenys, Oxford, Clarendon, 1981, p. 68. 34. With respect to the theory of spiritual sensation, the assertion of BOSTOCK, Quality andCorporeity (n. 17), p. 335 that “in this unified state of being, which exists when God is all in all, material nature has no role or function”, can be questioned.

MATTER AND BODY IN ORIGEN’S CHRISTIAN PLATONISM

587

as the actualization of God’s goodness and love. Because the free God, who is “uncreated freedom” (HLv XVI,6), cannot but create free beings as partners of his love, reality as a whole is, so to speak, God’s selfcommunication, insofar as according to Origen all being is nothing else but the movement of spirit and freedom35. History and nature are both the “movement of God”, as he says in a deeply non-Aristotelian manner (HIs I,1; IV,1). Matter mirrors the beauty of God in his creation and points the human being toward God by communicating divine goodness and beauty (CCt prol. 2,17; III,14,16-19). Thus, matter plays a mediating role in salvation: it mediates the goodness and truth of God to the rational beings, and sensible perception is the starting point of all knowledge that leads to salvation. The world as a whole participates in God’s Wisdom (the Son of God) as a principle of all reality (CIo I,34,245). As Word and truth, Wisdom permeates all parts of the empirical world (HIs II,1; Phil II,4). Wisdom is thus not only beyond this world, but also as its form and life within this world (Prin II,3,6). “God, the Father of the Universe, pervades and comprises the whole world by the plethora of his power” (Prin II,1,3; cf. III,6,2), and Christ’s power is at the same time “present in every human being and coextensive with the whole world” (CIo VI,30,154: παρὼν παντὶ ἀνϑρώπῳ παντὶ δὲ καὶ ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ συμπαρεκτεινόμενος; cf. VI,39,202; Prin II,11,6). Precisely because God and Christ are strictly incorporeal, they can at once be present in every corporeal reality (Prin IV,4,2.4). This world is “an immensely big animal” (Prin II,1,3) and participates, as Origen explains with Paul (Rom 8,1921), in the process of salvation (HEz IV,1, where Origen discusses the notion peccatrixterra in Ez 14,12; cf. CIo I,26,168.177f.). During the history of salvation, the whole world will be transformed into the glory of God (HIs I,2). Origen’s ideas evidence neither Stoic pantheism nor Gnostic dualism. They also lack any tendency to a dualistic scheme, but rather advance a strict monism in which the difference between the spiritual and incorporeal creator and the spiritual and corporeal creation is preserved, although they are closely intertwined. From the beginning, matter is the substrate of human freedom, and nature is the history of spirit in which not only 35. For the following brief account of Origen’s philosophy of history and nature see the groundbreaking studies of Ch. HENGSTERMANN, ChristlicheNatur-undGeschichtsphilosophie: Die Weltseele bei Origenes, in A. FÜRST (ed.), Origenes und sein Erbe in Orient und Okzident (Adamantiana, 1), Münster, Aschendorff, 2011, 43-74, and Ch. HENGSTERMANN, Origenes und der Ursprung der Freiheitsmetaphysik (Adamantiana, 8), Münster, Aschendorff, 2016, pp. 306-320.

588

A. FÜRST

the freedom of all creatures but also the uncreated freedom of God will reach their perfection36. Within this universal framework, in combination with the basic tenet that nothing but the Trinity is incorporeal, created matter and body cannot be devaluated as negative or evil. As an expression of God’s love, each being equipped with a body is good, at least potentially. This point should be considered in light of the wider perspective of the evaluation of matter in ancient philosophy. As George Karamanolis keenly noted in his book ThePhilosophyofEarlyChristianity, ancient philosophy lacked an adequate theory of matter37. Hence, it would be fruitful to determine whether Origen’s new form of metaphysics of freedom implies a specific theory of matter, or at least allows us to interpret it in this sense. But this is the topic of a broader study. VIII. CONCLUSION One may advance several arguments for the claim that Origen argues for the goodness of matter and body. Going beyond Plato in ascribing essential goodness to matter, Origen ascribes to matter and body a mediating function in the salvation of the soul. They are open for the freedom the soul has to exercise, and thus, if used properly, they pave the way that leads to unify the soul with the incarnated and resurrected soul of Christ. Since the created minds and souls are always connected with a body, the body is more than just a tool which can be abandoned when this goal has been achieved. It is the everlasting condition of the spiritual life of a created rational being, in heaven as it is on earth. Seminar für Alte Kirchengeschichte Forschungsstelle Origenes Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät, WWU Münster Domplatz 23 DE-48143 Münster Germany [email protected]

Alfons FÜRST

36. Cf. HENGSTERMANN, OrigenesundderUrsprungderFreiheitsmetaphysik (n. 35), p. 348. 37. G. KARAMANOLIS, The Philosophy of Early Christianity, London – New York, Routledge, 2014, pp. 69-107.

ORIGEN ON BODY AND SOUL I. THE HUMAN BEING: SOUL AND BODY According to Origen, all rational beings and souls are created1. This is part of the teaching of the church2. It seems as if Origen thinks of the rational beings and the souls as identical, but as we will see later, he also finds differences between the two. In OnFirstPrinciples II,9, where he also writes about the creation of the rational beings, he adds that this means that the rational beings did not exist before they were created and that their createdness means that they can change and undergo transformations3. This, however, does not mean that the rational beings were created in time. Origen says that the rational beings were created “in the beginning” (inprincipio = ἐν ἀρχῇ)4. This beginning is Logos and the Wisdom (PrinI,3,3; III.1,17; CC IV,30). Thus, when Origen says that the rational beings did not exist before they were created, this should not be understood in a temporal sense. In OnFirstPrinciples I,4,4, Origen explicitly says that the creation existed eternally in Logos or the Wisdom as prefigurations (descripta/formata) of what would later be externalized from Logos. In this original condition, the rational beings were all identical, unchanging and not moving (PrinII,1,1; II,9,6). At a certain point, they turned away from the Word. This move caused their fall, which led to their existence as souls in bodies. 1. I have previously published on this theme in Danish, in A.-C. JACOBSEN, Kødets opstandelse?MennesketogmålethosIrenæusogOrigenes, Copenhagen, Anis, 2002. 2. Secundumdogmanostrum,idestsecundumecclesiaefidem, omnesanimaeatque omnesrationabilesnaturaefactaesuntvelcreatae,sivesanctaeillaesint,sivenequam, Prin I,7,1; cf. Prin II,9,2. 3. Verumquoniamrationabilesistaenaturae,quasininitiofactassupradiximus,factae sunt cum ante non essent, hoc ipso, quia non erant et esse coeperunt, necessario convertibiles et mutabiles, substiterunt, quoniam quaecumque illa inerat substantiae earumvirtus,nonnaturaliterineratsedbeneficioconditoriseffecta.Quodsuntergo,non estpropriumnecsempiternum,sedadeodatum, Prin II,9,2. 4. “InprincipiofecitDeuscoelumetterram” [Gen 1,1]. QuodestomniumprincipiumnisiDominusnosteretSalvatoromniumIesusChristus“primogenitusomniscreaturae”? [Col 1,15] Inhocergoprincipio,hocestinverbosuo“Deuscoelumetterram fecit” [Gen 1,1], sicut et Evangelista Iohannes in initio Evangelii sui ait dicens: “in principioeratverbum,etverbumeratapudDeum...Omniaperipsumfactasunt,etsine ipsofactumestnihil” [Jn 1,1-3]. Nonergohictemporalealiquodprincipiumdicit,sed, inprincipio,idestinSalvatore,factumessedicitcoelumetterrametomnia,quaefacta sunt, HGen I,1. The fact that creation in the beginning, according to Origen, means creation in the Savior or in the Word is confirmed byCIo I,19; HGn I,1.

590

A.-C. JACOBSEN

When Origen, in some contexts, refuses to talk about the creation of rational beings in temporal categories, it may be because of his attempt to reconcile Platonic and Biblical traditions. The ontological division of the world, which is expressed in the idea of the first and the second creation and the notion of the inner and outer human beings, has been taken from Platonism and from Paul. In the Platonic tradition, the so-called world of ideas is eternal, uncreated and immutable, while the material world or the world of phenomena has come into existence at a certain point and will pass away again. Material phenomena are temporal formations of eternal unformed matter5. However, this way of thinking about creation is not easily reconcilable with the biblical traditions as they were understood in early Christian traditions, building on interpretations of the Septuagint version of Genesis 1–2. According to these interpretations, all material beings are created, which means that they come into existence from pure non-existence6. Origen’s different expressions may, therefore, signal that he consciously or unconsciously tried to combine two different traditions: the Platonic, according to which the world of ideas is eternal and uncreated, and the early Christian, according to which everything is created out of nothing. One can attempt to systematize the statements to make Origen either a “pure” Platonist or a “pure” Christian. However, this deprives us of the opportunity to learn how Origen himself combines the two traditions, and how he tries to formulate a coherent understanding of creation out of these traditions. It would be much more fruitful to ask why Origen tries to merge both views. I believe that is due to his concept of God. In the Platonic division of reality into two ontological levels, he finds a solution to the so-called theodicy problem: the material world, where evil exists, does not originate 5. This distinction between the world of ideas and the world of phenomena may require a hypostatization of the ideas for which there is no evidence in Plato himself. However, this interpretation of Plato has probably not only been characteristic of the German Idealistic interpretation of Plato but also for the Middle Platonists’ interpretation of Plato, and thus maybe also for Origen. The attempt to distinguish between the material and the spiritual, the temporal and the eternal, etc., was characteristic of much philosophy and religion in the time of Origen, which for example Celsus’ treatise against the Christian shows. The highest God, the highest idea, or whatever it was called, should not be mixed with the temporal and perishable matter. Therefore, the claim that the highest God enters into the time and matter, as it happens in connection with both creation and incarnation, was unacceptable to many late antique persons, whether these were Gnostics, Platonists, Marcionites or something else. 6. Concerning the idea of creatio ex nihilo in the Christian tradition, see G. MAY, SchöpfungausdemNichts:DieEntstehungderLehrevonderCreatioexnihilo(AKG, 48), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1978, who shows that the idea of creatioexnihilo is first developed in the second century in connection with the anti-Gnostic and anti-philosophical controversy. The idea in its dogmatic form was thus established in Origen’s own time.

ORIGEN ON BODY AND SOUL

591

from God or from an independent evil power, but is a consequence of the rational beings moving away from God. In the biblical traditions of creation as interpreted in early Greek Christianity, he finds a concept of God according to which God holds power over the creation. Not only the power to shape and create order or Cosmos, but power to bring into existence that which did not exist before. Both perspectives are crucial to his anthropology and eschatology: for the anthropology, the consequence is that created beings are placed under an authority to which they owe their being, and that true human beings are not human beings of flesh and blood but the inner person or soul. For his eschatology, this means that human beings are not independent and self-sufficient beings, but that their eternal existence is due to the fact that God has created the rational natures with the ability to exist forever. The other fundamental eschatological consequence of Origen’s point of view is that God will save and give eternal life to a-somatic rational beings, not to human beings of flesh and blood. Although Origen has a Platonic inheritance that influences his thinking about creation on certain points, he often says that the rational beings are created. Therefore, one must assume that he deliberately tried to maintain the basic ideas of early Greek Christian creation theology in his Platonically colored theological system. Thus, he shows that he was aware of the central function of the idea of creation in the biblical and ecclesiastical traditions. Further, his way of interpreting this tradition of creation by the help of his Platonically colored worldview was an enormously important contribution to the development of early Christian theology. II. THE SOUL Origen calls the rational beings in the original condition νόες/mentes and, in some cases, souls (ψυχή/anima). In the present condition, however, he calls this the inner man ψυχή. This shows that the turn away from God leads to a qualitative change of the rational beings from νοῦς to ψυχή. He explains this change in OnFirstPrinciples II,8,3, where he says that the rational beings move from the original “warm” condition to the present “cold” condition away from the ἀρχή. Origen finds this expressed through the similarity between the word ψυχή (soul) and the word ψῦξις (cold). The soul in its present condition is thus, according to Origen, a result of the rational beings’ fall away from their original condition. The understanding of the fall as a movement from νοῦς to ψυχή is transmitted both by Rufinus and Jerome, for which reason it almost inevitably

592

A.-C. JACOBSEN

stems from Origen himself. However, according to Rufinus, Origen feels a little uneasy about this idea. Therefore, in Rufinus’ text, it is pointed out twice (Prin II,8,4) that these thoughts are not intended as doctrines (dogmata), but presented as suggestions for discussion. Epiphanius confirms that Origen has used this etymology7. The etymology is found in the writings of several Greek philosophers, such as those of Aristotle8 and the Stoics9. However, Kettler10 believes that Origen took the etymology from the Gnostics. The etymology is thus found in Evangelium Veritatis 34. Here, the cooling is considered, as in Origen, as something negative11. III. THE BODY The rational beings had no bodies in the original condition where they existed in Logos (= ἀρχή). The embodiment of the rational beings was a result of their turn away from God and Logos. This process of embodiment is most clearly described in a fragment of OnFirstPrinciples, which is only transmitted by Jerome. In Görgemanns’ and Karpp’s edition of this work12, the fragment is placed at the end of the text (I,5,3). I agree with this, but the passage might be Jerome’s referencing of a longer passage in Origen’s text13. The context in OnFirstPrinciples I,5,3 is a discussion about whether some rational beings are created as good and others as evil, or whether all rational beings are created with a free will to decide 7. Epiphanius, EpistulaadJohannemepiscopumHierosolymae = Jerome, Epistula 51,4,34. The passage is printed in Origenes. Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, herausgegeben, übersetzt,mitkritischenunderläuterndenAnmerkungenversehenvonH. GÖRGEMANNS – H. KARPP (Texte zur Forschung, 24), Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992, p. 274. See also Epiphanius, Panarion 64,4,6. 8. Aristotle, DeAnima I,2,405b27-29. 9. H.F.A. VON ARNIM, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta II, Stuttgart, Teubner, 1964, pp. 804-808. 10. F.H. KETTLER, DerursprünglicheSinnderDogmatikdesOrigenes, Berlin, Töpelmann, 1966, p. 20, n. 85. 11. Concerning this movement from νοῦς to ψυχή, see also G. BÜRKE, DesOrigenes Lehre vom Urstand des Menschen, in ZKT 72 (1950) 1-39, p. 19; H. KARPP, Probleme altchristlicher Anthropologie: Biblische Anthropologie und philosophische Psychologie beidenKirchenväterndesdrittenJahrhunderts, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 1950, pp. 191195; H. RAHNER, DasMenschenbilddesOrigenes, in EranosJahrbuch 15 (1947) 197-248, pp. 205-207; H.S. SCHIBLI, Origen,Didymus,andtheVehicleoftheSoul, in R. DALY (ed.), OrigenianaQuinta:Historica–TextandMethod–Biblica–Philosophica–Theologica– OrigenismandLaterDevelopments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 381-391, p. 382. 12. Origenes.VierBüchervondenPrinzipien, ed. GÖRGEMANNS – KARPP(n. 7), pp. 202205. 13. Concerning the placement of the fragment, see Origenes. Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, ed. GÖRGEMANNS – KARPP(n. 7), p. 187, n. 2.

ORIGEN ON BODY AND SOUL

593

between good and evil. Origen argues for the latter point of view. Thematically, the Jerome fragment fits well in this context since the fragment states that the creatures and powers found in the cosmos are all souls in bodies that they have assumed either because of a fall or because of their service to other fallen beings14. This freedom to choose between good and evil is what leads the rational beings to turn away from Logos. This turn away from God and Logos leads to a slippery slope where the rational beings move away from Logos downwards. In this process, the rational beings change their qualities to souls, and these souls are clothed in material bodies. Depending on how far away from Logos the rational beings move, their material bodies take on different qualities. Human fleshly bodies are among the lowest bodily forms15. This condition is called imprisonment, where the rational beings are chained to the flesh. This gives a clear indication of how Origen conceives of human bodies: bodies are results of a fall and do not belong to the rational beings’ original condition. Other scholars claim that this is not Origen’s own view, but later interpolations in OnFirstPrinciples made by Jerome and others. I disagree with this because we find the same ideas in other passages of OnFirst Principles and in other works of Origen. In addition to this longer fragment from Jerome, there are several smaller fragments from OnFirstPrinciples describing the embodiment of rational beings. A fragment transmitted by Jerome without any direct parallel in Rufinus, which probably belongs in OnFirstPrinciples III,6,3, has a content that largely corresponds to the contents of the above-mentioned fragment transmitted by Jerome. Further, Epiphanius has handed down a fragment that both Koetschau16 and Görgemanns – Karpp17 place in OnFirstPrinciples II,8,3. The fragment 14. In libris enim Περὶ ἀρχῶν et angelos et thronos et dominationes, potestates et rectoresmundiettenebrarumet“omnenomenquodnominaturnonsoluminpraesenti saeculosedinfuturo”[Eph 1,21]dicitanimasesseeorumcorporum,quaeveldesiderio vel ministerio susceperint, Prin I,5,3; Origenes. Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, ed. GÖRGEMANNS – KARPP(n. 7), p. 202. Here, we find the idea that rational beings who have only turned slightly away from their original condition are still clothed in bodies, but bodies of a more subtle nature. This is because God makes these beings available as helpers for those rational beings who have fallen deeper. Origen builds this idea on Paul’s Letter to the Romans 8,20 where Paul says that some beings are subject to corruption against their own will. See further Prin I,7,5; CIo I,17. 15. In other texts, Origen writes that there are bodily stages below human fleshly corporeality, namely the stages to which the devil and his followers have moved, cf. e.g. Prin I,6,3. 16. Deprincipiis, ed. P. KOETSCHAU (Origenes Werke, 5; GCS, 22), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1913, p. 158. 17. Origenes. Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, ed. GÖRGEMANNS – KARPP (n. 7), pp. 394-395.

594

A.-C. JACOBSEN

is very short, but it clearly expresses the correlation between the fall of the rational beings and the embodiment. The starting point is a quote from Ps 118,67LXX, which states: “Before I was humbled, I was mistaken”18. According to Epiphanius, Origen interprets this statement to mean that the soul speaks about itself, saying that it had sinned in heaven before it was debased in the body. It cannot be expressed more precisely that the embodiment of the rational beings is due to their prior fall. Finally, a text handed down by Leontius from Byzantium expresses the same understanding of the correlation between the fall and embodiment of rational beings. According to Görgemanns – Karpp, this is a summary of Origen’s teachings that cannot be positioned in a particular place in OnFirstPrinciples. Therefore, they have placed the text in an appendix to OnFirst Principles I,819. Koetschau, however, has taken the fragment into his text as part of a reconstruction of OnFirstPrinciples I,8,1. Kettler places the text at the beginning of OnFirstPrinciples I,520. Although Görgemanns and Karpp are right that the text is a broad record of the teachings of Origen and therefore cannot be situated in a particular place in OnFirst Principles, it can nevertheless be considered as another argument for the view that Origen assumed a connection between the fall of the rational beings and their embodiment. Justinian has handed down a very short fragment whose main point is that the diversity of the rational beings in this world is caused by their fall from the original state. The fragment probably belongs to OnFirstPrinciplesII,1,121. H. Koch22 mentions this fragment as his main text to prove the following statement: “Eines ist ganz sicher: Wenn die Seelen in einen Körper gekleidet werden, so ist dies eine Folge des Falles; ...”. In my opinion, the fragment is an uncertain foundation for such a significant statement, although I do not contest Koch’s conclusion, which corresponds to my own. However, I contest his choice of this textual basis for his conclusion. I see no reason to consider Justinian’s fragment as more reliable than the fragments transmitted by Jerome, just because it is handed down in Greek. In addition, I find it unlikely that Jerome’s fragments have not contributed to Koch’s point of view. In my opinion, he simply does not want to list them because they are only handed down in Latin. 18. Πρὶν ἢ ταπεινωϑῆναί με, ἐγὼ ἐπλημμέλησα, … 19. Origenes.VierBüchervondenPrinzipien, ed. GÖRGEMANNS – KARPP(n. 7), p. 273, Anhang I, no. 2. 20. F.-H. KETTLER, DerursprünglicheSinnderDogmatikdesOrigenes (BZNW, 31), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1966, p. 22, n. 102. 21. Origenes. Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, ed. GÖRGEMANNS – KARPP (n. 7), pp. 284-287. 22. H. KOCH, PronoiaundPaideusis:StudienüberOrigenesundseinVerhältniszum Platonismus, Berlin – Leipzig, De Gruyter, 1932, p. 37.

ORIGEN ON BODY AND SOUL

595

The correlation between pre-material sinfulness and the clothing in bodies is expressed not only in OnFirstPrinciples but also in writings transmitted in Greek. In CIo I,17, Origen is investigating the different meanings of the expression “in the beginning” (see Gen 1,1 and Jn 1,1). Origen is thinking about the beginning of the material creation for which reason he will not use Gen 1,1 (“in the beginning, God created heaven and earth”) but rather Job 40,19LXX, which states: “This is the beginning of the Lord’s creation, created to be mocked by his angels”23. While Gen 1,1, according to Origen, relates to the pre-material creation of the rational beings, Job 40,19 relates to the creation of the material world and the embodiment of the rational beings. This distinction is probably based on the use of different terms to express the concept of creation in the two texts; in Gen 1,1, the verb is ποιέω, while the central term in Job 40,19 is the noun πλάσμα. This logic is, however, partly disturbed by the fact that in the last part of Job 40,19, a participial form of the verb ποιέω is used. Nonetheless, the really interesting question in this context is the beginning of material creation where the dragon or the big sea-monster is mentioned. According to Origen, this is the Devil himself. This dragon fell before all other rational beings, and it was therefore bound to matter and body before all other rational beings. This is the beginning of the creation of the material world. When the dragon fell, the other rational creatures still lived in a completely immovable and a-somatic existence. The decisive factor in these statements is that Origen here – partly in mythological terms – states that the material world and body are the results of a decline from the pre-material and pre-temporal state of existence24. Furthermore, similar ideas are expressed in more oblique and less systematic ways in many other of Origen’s texts. Take, for example, CC VI,63, which contains in a compact form the most important aspects of Origen’s understanding of the idea that human beings are created in the image of God. The passage is part of Origen’s answer to Celsus, who had criticized the idea of human beings being as created in the image of God. Celsus’ criticism is that this idea would imply that God must have a human form including a body. Origen replies to Celsus that his criticism rests on a misunderstanding: it is not the human body (σῶμα), which is created in the image of God, but the human soul (ψυχή)25. Further, he dismisses the 23. τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἀρχὴ πλάσματος κυρίου, πεποιημένον ἐγκαταπαίζεσϑαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ. 24. The idea that the embodiment is a consequence of the pre-material fall can also be found in other Origen texts handed down in Greek, e.g. CIo XX,22,4-17; CCVII,50. 25. Concerning Origen’s critique of anthropomorphic images of God and his polemic against those who claim such images of God, see G. HÄLLSTRÖM, Fides Simpliciorum accordingtoOrigenofAlexandria(Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 76), Eknäs,

596

A.-C. JACOBSEN

idea that both body and soul can be in the image of God, since this would lead to the conclusion that God is also composed (σύνϑετον) of soul and body. According to Origen, this is an impossible idea, since God by definition is one and indivisible. Human beings are composite, but God is one. It is not at all surprising to find this dualistic concept of human beings in Origen’s writings, since it was widespread in late antiquity among Christians as well as non-Christians. Origen, however, draws more radical consequences from this than many other Christian theologians of his time did. This becomes clear from the same short paragraph where he writes that it is this inner human being26 that can be renewed in the image of God. Here, we find the same understanding of human beings as above in the passages from On First Principles: The inner human being, the soul, is in the image of God – not the body. What does this mean? Does Origen have a purely negative understanding of the human body? No, according to Origen, Logos always meets the rational beings in their concrete situation. Logos’ incarnation is the prime example of this. This also means that Logos uses the embodiment of the rational beings in a positive way, aiming at bringing the souls back to their original condition as purely rational beings without bodies. There are many ways of purifying the soul, one of which is by punishing their bodies of the rational beings. Thus, the bodies are used as vehicles by which the souls can move back to their original condition27. We find one example of Origen’s use of this imagery in a homily on the Book of Judges (HIudVI,5)28. In the Book of Judges 5,10, some white donkeys are mentioned. Origen interprets these donkeys to be the human bodies that carry the souls. The imagery is clear: the souls need bodies in order to move, because souls do not have the ability to move of their own volition. This Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1984. According to Hällström, these simpliciores were numerous and therefore a major factor in second and third century Christianity. According to Hällström, they were not Christians without theology, but Christians who rejected speculative theology influenced by philosophy. Their theology was built on a literal interpretation of the Bible. 26. ἔσω ἄνϑρωπος (= ψυχή), cf. 2 Cor 4,16. 27. Concerning Origen’ use of this conception, see H. CROUZEL, Lethèmeplatonicien du“véhiculedel’âme”chezOrigène, in Didaskalia 7 (1977) 225-237; ID., Mortetimmortalité, in BLE 79 (1978) 182-187; L.R. HENNESSEY, APhilosophicalIssueinOrigen’sEschatology:TheThreeSensesofIncorporeality, in DALY (ed.), OrigenianaQuinta (n. 11), 373380. Concerning the relation to Plato, see eg. Phaedo 113D; Phaedrus 247B; Timaeus 41E; 44E; 69C and SCHIBLI, Origen,Didymus,andtheVehicleoftheSoul (n. 11), p. 381 where more literature can be found. 28. See also CMt XVI,19. Further CMt VI,15; CIo X,28. Origen uses the same concept in these texts, but not with the same concise meaning.

ORIGEN ON BODY AND SOUL

597

is true both when they move away from the original condition, and when they move back to that condition. Bodies in one or the other form are thus necessary for human souls as long as they are on the move. The human souls need, however, different qualities of bodies at different stages of the process of returning to their original condition. That is why bodies change their qualities. This is most clearly expressed when Origen discusses the question of the bodies before and after the resurrection. IV. TRANSFORMATION OF THE BODY In Against Celsus V,18-24, Origen answers Celsus’ critique of the Christian idea of the resurrection of the flesh29. According to Celsus, the idea of the resurrection of the flesh is that the Christians will be resurrected in their present fleshly bodies. This is, according to Celsus, “a hope for worms” (CC V,19): No human soul would wish to inhabit a rotten and decomposed body, and it is impossible for a decomposed body to return to the condition it had before it decomposed. Some Christians apparently responded to these objections that “for God is everything possible” (Mt 19,26). However, Celsus objects that God is unable to act shamefully and contrary to nature and reason. To give life to a rotten body is shameful and against nature and reason, and consequently impossible for God. Hence, the idea of the resurrection of the flesh is, according to Celsus, impossible. On the other hand, it is possible for God to provide eternal life to the soul. Celsus is apparently not an atheist, but an adherent of Platonic theology and ontology. Origen basically agrees with Celsus, but Celsus is nonetheless mistaken because he misunderstands the doctrine of the resurrection in the same way that many simple Christians misunderstand the doctrine (CC V,17). Origen begins his argument against Celsus (CC V,17) by quoting from 1 Cor 15,51-52 where Paul introduces the mystery of the resurrection to the Corinthians: “Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed – in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed”. Having finished the quote, Origen specifically addresses the change or transformation (ἀλλαγησόμεϑα). The rotten fleshly body will not be resurrected; the fleshly body will be transformed. To explain this, Origen uses 29. σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, CC V,18.

598

A.-C. JACOBSEN

the metaphor from 1 Cor 15,35-38 about the transformation of the seed, which is sown in the soil and later grows from the soil as a new plant (CC V,18). Thus, during the process, the seed is transformed into a plant. Origen transfers this imagery to the question of the resurrection of human bodies: as different kinds of human bodies are buried in the soil, so different kinds of bodies will rise (CC V,19). The individual human being’s body will be resurrected in a form that fits the condition in which this individual human being died. This reflects Origen’s idea that human beings must go through a process of upbringing (παιδεία) before it reaches perfection. The resurrection will lead the human being to the proper stage in this process of upbringing from where it can continue its process toward perfection. The transformation from being an earthly and fleshly body to being a resurrected spiritual body is an important part of this transformation and upbringing. This is, according to Origen, what Paul expresses in 1 Cor 15,42-44: “So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body”. According to Origen’s interpretation of Paul, this transformation is necessary because “… flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Cor 15,50). This means that the fleshly body cannot be resurrected; nor can it be part of God’s kingdom. The rotten body does not return to its previous condition, as Celsus accused Christians of claiming. This, however, does not imply that Origen rejects the idea of a bodily resurrection. As we have seen, the soul needs a body as a vehicle by which it can be moved toward perfection (CC V,19). The reason why Origen can simultaneously claim that the fleshly body will disappear and that a human body will be resurrected is that the human body, in his view, can take on many different qualities. This means that even if the earthly/fleshly body disappears by death, the resurrected human being still has a body by which it can move the soul toward perfection. V. THREE EXPLANATIONS

OF

BODILY TRANSFORMATION

Origen uses three philosophical explanations of the bodily transformation: The Stoic idea about the one Λόγος and the many λόγοι is used by Origen (CC V,23; VII,32) to describe the transformation of the body

ORIGEN ON BODY AND SOUL

599

from being of fleshly nature to being of spiritual nature30. According to the Stoics, there is one Logos which is the rational principle in all existing things31. This Logos exists as λόγοι σπερματικοί in all individual beings as their rational principle32. These λόγοι σπερματικοί enable all existing beings to be reestablished in an identical form after the world has been destroyed by fire. The Λόγος and the λόγοι thus create ontological stability and identity. Origen uses this idea when he explains that the human body is identical before death and after its resurrection, even if it has changed its quality from being a fleshly body to being a spiritual body. For the same purpose, Origen also uses the Platonic term “form” (εἶδος). According to Plato, the form is the substantial reality behind all individual phenomena33. Origen uses the concept in his commentary on Ps 1,5, which has survived in a fragmentary form in Methodius’ TheResurrection I,20-2434. Origen criticizes simple Christians for claiming that the material body will be raised unchanged by the resurrection (Meth. Deres.I,20-21). Against this opinion, Origen states that the body’s material substrate (ὑλικὸν ὑποκείμενον) is always changing like the water in a river – the water changes, but the river is the same35. Such a change is possible because the form (εἶδος) of the body is always the same. It is the εἶδος of the body which allows us to recognize a person as being the same from birth to death, even if the body has changed completely. Thus, it is also the body’s form that secures an identity between the earthly body and the resurrected body, even if the body has changed dramatically through this process from being fleshly to being spiritual. Origen explicitly states that it is not only the soul that keeps its identity through 30. Concerning the concept of λόγος by the Stoics, see M. POHLENS, DieStoa:Geschichte einergeistigenBewegung,Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1948, pp. 32-36, who thinks that the λόγος concept is the most central concept in Stoicism, which connects all elements in the Stoic philosophy, cf. pp. 32-36. See further W. KELBER, DieLogoslehrevonHeraklit bisOrigenes, Stuttgart, Verlag Urachhaus, 1958, pp. 44-88. Concerning the concept of λόγος σπερματικός, see ibid., pp. 48-60. 31. Cf. e.g. Diogenes Laertius VII,138. 32. POHLENS, DieStoa (n. 30), pp. 78f., 195, 219. 33. Concerning Plato’s concept of εἶδος, see F. COPLESTON, AHistoryofPhilosophy. Vol. I: GreeceandRomefromthePre-SocraticstoPlotinus, New York, Image Book, 1962, pp. 188-231. See further the following texts from Plato: Republic 596A-C; Phaedo 102B-E. 34. This passage of Deresurrectioneis transmitted in Greek in Ephiphanius’ Panarion 64,12,1–17,1. 35. A close parallel to this description of the change and continuity of the body can be found in Plato, Symposium 207C–208B. Plato does not use the word εἶδος in this text.

600

A.-C. JACOBSEN

death and resurrection, but also the εἶδος of the body. It is thus clear that the εἶδος of the body is not identical with the soul but a principle in the body, which retains the identity of the body through death and resurrection. In OnFirstPrinciples II,1,4, Origen discusses the characteristics of the bodily nature. He says that the bodily nature can change in many different ways. Bodies come into existence when qualities are added to unqualified matter36. Bodies change when the added qualities change37. This basic idea was expressed in different ways by different philosophical schools (Platonists, Aristotelians, and Stoics). I cannot discuss these differences here. Origen finds that this idea conveniently explains how the human body can change from being fleshly to being spiritual through death and resurrection. According to him, this is what Paul means when he says that the perishable body will be clothed in imperishability (1 Cor 15,53-56): the quality “perishability” will be replaced by the quality “imperishability”.

VI. BODY AND PERFECTION The last question to be asked here is whether the process of change of the bodily form and quality will ever end, and whether the body will exist when the soul returns to perfection. I cannot discuss this in detail here, so my answer to the question will be brief; as I have demonstrated above, the eternal rational beings existed without bodies in the original condition. Bodies are consequences of the Fall and help the fallen souls move back to perfection. A logical consequence of this is that there will be no bodies when the souls return to their perfect noetic condition. This argument can be supported by passages from On First Principles and also from other texts, such as Origen’s CommentaryontheGospel ofJohn I,26. In this passage, Origen discusses what the “emptiness” (ματαιότης) is in which 36. Materiam ergo intellegimus quae subiecta est corporibus, id est ex qua inditis atqueinsertisqualitatibuscorporasubsistunt, Prin II,14. However, Origen claims more than once that matter has never existed in itself without qualities, but it is logically necessary to distinguish between that matter and its qualities, cf. PrinII,1,4; IV,4,7. 37. Concerning Origen’ use of the concept, see first of all D.G. BOSTOCK, Qualityand Corporeity in Origen, in H. CROUZEL – A. QUACQUARELLI (eds.), Origeniana Secunda: Secondcolloqueinternationaldesétudesorigéniennes:Bari,20-23septembre1977(Quaderni di VetChr, 15), Roma, Ateneo, 1980, 323-337. Further H. CHADWICK, Origen,Celsusand theResurrectionoftheBody, in HTR 41 (1948) 83-102, pp. 101-102; H. CROUZEL, La doctrine origénienne du corps ressuscité, in BLE 81 (1980) 175-200, 241-266; ID., Origène, Paris, Dessain et Tolra, 1985, pp. 326-327.

ORIGEN ON BODY AND SOUL

601

– according to Rom 8,20 – the creation, including the children of God, is caught up. Origen concludes that this “emptiness” is the bodies. From this emptiness of the bodies, the souls will be liberated when they return to perfection38. Jens Chr. Skous Vej 3, 1453, 424 8000 Aarhus C Denmark [email protected]

Anders-Christian JACOBSEN

38. In my opinion, these Origen texts support the idea that Origen claimed that the rational beings are going to be without any kind of bodies in the final perfect state of being: CIo I,17; I,26; XIII,14; XIX,20; XIX,22; Orat IX,2; EM III; XIII; XLIV; CMt XVI,4-5. Some scholars agree in this point of view, see e.g. F. KETTLER, NeueBeobachtungenzur ApokatastasislehredesOrigenes, in CROUZEL – QUACQUARELLI (eds.), OrigenianaSecunda (n. 37), 339-348; BOSTOCK, Quality and Corporeity (n. 37), pp. 334-337. Other scholars claim that the perfected rational beings will have bodies, see e.g. CROUZEL, Origène (n. 37), p. 310; CROUZEL, Ladoctrineorigénienne(n. 37), p. 175, n. 2, where he lists all his works related to this theme. See further G. DORIVAL, Origèneetlarésurrectiondelachair, in L. LIES (ed.), OrigenianaQuarta:DieReferatedes4.internationalenOrigeneskongresses, 1985(Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck – Wien, Tyrolia, 1987, 291-321; RAHNER, DasMenschenbilddesOrigenes(n. 11); HENNESSEY, APhilosophicalIssuein Origen’sEschatology (n. 27).

THE SACRIFICE OF THE LAW IN ORIGEN’S HOMILIESONLEVITICUS

Origen’s HomiliesonLeviticus develop an account of the Law so integrated with sacrifice that one cannot be properly understood without the other1. Through his reading of Leviticus, Origen discerns within the Priestly Law a certain sacrificial configuration of the Word of God. Sacrifice provides the principle of the Law’s very existence, and, simultaneously, shapes his understanding of its divine origin. Thus, Leviticus appears to Origen to possess a mysteriously self-referential character, such that its ordinances come to disclose something of the nature of the divine Word itself. The primary intent of the present essay, therefore, is to recover a sense of the Word of God’s preeminence in Origen’s teaching on the sacrifices of the Law2. 1. R.J. DALY, S.J., established the groundwork for all further research on Origen’s idea of sacrifice, the study of which “will inevitably involve us with practically all of his theology” (SacrificialSoteriologyinOrigen’sCommentaryonJohn1,29, in H. CROUZEL – A. QUACQUARELLI [eds.], OrigenianaSecunda:Secondcolloqueinternationaldesétudes origéniennes:Bari,20-23septembre1977[Quaderni di VetChr, 15], Roma, Ateneo, 1980, 151-163, p. 161). See also ID., SacrificeinOrigen, in StudiaPatristica11 (1972) 125129; ID., EarlyChristianInfluencesonOrigen’sConceptofSacrifice, in H. CROUZEL – G. LOMIENTO – J. RIUS-CAMPS (eds.), Origeniana. Premiercolloqueinternationaldesétudes origéniennes,Montserrat,18-21septembre1973 (Quaderni di VetChr, 12), Bari, Istituto di Letteratura Cristiana Antica, 1975, 313-326; ID., Sacrificial Soteriology in Origen’s HomiliesonLeviticus, in StudiaPatristica17 (1982) 872-878; and ID., SacrificeUnveiled: The True Meaning of Christian Sacrifice, New York, T&T Clark, 2009, pp. 93-95. For more comparative work, see R. WILKEN, Origen’sHomilies on LeviticusandtheVayikra Rabbah, in G. DORIVAL–A. LE BOULLUEC(eds.), OrigenianaSexta:OrigèneetlaBible/ OrigenandtheBible(BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 81-91; M. HIRSHMAN, Origen andtheRabbisonLeviticus, in Adamantius11 (2005) 93-100; and J. LAPORTE, Sacrifice inOrigenintheLightofPhilonicModels, in C. KANNENGIESSER – X.L. PETERSEN (eds.), OrigenofAlexandria:HisWorldandHisLegacy, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1988, 250-276; see also I. RAMELLI, TheUniversalandEternalValidityof Jesus’ Priestly Sacrifice: The Epistle to the Hebrews in Support of Origen’s Theory of Apokatastasis, in R. BAUCKHAM (ed.), ACloudofWitnesses:TheTheologyofHebrewsin ItsAncientContexts, New York, T&T Clark, 2008, 210-221. 2. Though Origen details a diversity of ways one may offer moral or interior sacrifices in these homilies, the condition of their possibility remains the prior offering of the divine Word in the scriptural letter. (Note, for example, how HLvI,4 prepares for HLvI,5.) Origen’s most detailed account of this moral sense is found in HLv II,4, on which both R. DALY – F. YOUNG focus their accounts of Origen’s broader theology of sacrifice (see, e.g., DALY, SacrificialSoteriologyinOrigen’sHomiliesonLeviticus [n. 1], p. 874, and YOUNG, TheUseofSacrificialIdeasinGreekChristianWritersfromtheNewTestament toJohnChrysostom, Cambridge, MA, The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979, pp. 132136).

604

S. JOHNSON

Toward this end, the first section of the essay will attend to Origen’s careful integration of sacrifice and the divine Word. Identifying the selfreflexive logic underlying Origen’s reading of the Priestly Law will, in the following section, illustrate how he comes to understand that the Law not only enjoins sacrifice, but is itself, in some mysterious way, an offering of the “flesh of the Word of God”. This insight should correlatively clarify his understanding that the “spiritual sense” is intrinsic to a literal reading of the Law and need not disrupt the integrity of Leviticus’s own voice; in fact, accounting for the very nature of the written Law in sacrificial terms ensures that one cannot approach its “spiritual sense” apart from the letter of the Levitical offerings. By way of conclusion, the third section will show how, for Origen, the ultimate referent of the Priestly Law is not the earthly life of Jesus, without remainder; rather, both Testaments look to the spiritual activity of the Word of God in the world “through all this present age”. Origen’s vision of the incarnate Word’s ongoing Priestly office, in turn, lies at the heart of the HomiliesonLeviticusand grounds his understanding of the Levitical ordinances as a perduring – even “eternal” – Law for Christian faith. I. THE OFFERING OF THE WORD Origen begins his first homily on Leviticus with an intricate comparison between Law and incarnation: Just as “in the Last Days” the Word of God proceeded into this world clothed with the flesh of Mary… so also when the Word of God is offered to humans through the Prophets and the Lawgiver, it is not offered without corresponding clothing. For just as there in the veil of flesh, so also here it is covered in the veil of the letter, so that indeed the letter is seen (just as the flesh), but the spiritual sense hidden within (just as the divinity) is perceived3.

This densely knotted opening anticipates the interpretive principle underlying the whole work4. One must first attend to the primary analogy 3. HLv I,1,1; translation (with occasional alterations) Origen: Homilies on Leviticus1–16, transl. G.W. BARKLEY (Fathers of the Church, 83), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America, 1990, p. 29; Latin text from HomilienzumHexateuchinRufinsÜbersetzung. Erster Teil: DieHomilienzuGenesis,Exodus,undLeviticus, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS (GCS, 29; Origenes Werke, 6), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1920, p. 280: Sicut“innovissimisdiebus” verbumDeiexMariacarnevestitumprocessitinhuncmundum…itaetcumperprophetas vellegislatoremverbumDeiproferturadhomines,nonabsquecompetentibusproferturindumentis.Namsicutibicarnis,itahiclitteraevelaminetegitur,utlitteraquidemadspiciatur tamquamcaro,latensverointrinsecusspiritalissensustamquamdivinitatissentiatur. 4. See G. LETTIERI, OmeliaI:IlSacrificiodelLogos, in M. MARITANO – E. DAL COVOLO (eds.), Omelie sul Levitico: Lettura origeniana, Roma, LAS, 2003, 15-47, pp. 17-18:

THE SACRIFICE OF THE LAW IN ORIGEN’S HOMILIESONLEVITICUS

605

between the Word of God “clothed with the flesh of Mary”, on the one hand, and the Word “offered through the Lawgiver”, on the other. The analogy hangs on Origen’s sense of the divine Word and its “procession” (procedere) into the world – however unclear this sense may yet be to the reader. For now, one need only note how Origen grounds both the Priestly Law and the life of Jesus in this selfsame Word. Accordingly, the “spiritual sense” of Leviticus, in the first instance, simply means understanding the Priestly ordinances as a “procession” of the Word of God. Moreover, prioritizing the verbumDei in this way allows Origen to preserve the distinct voices of the “flesh of Mary” and of the “Lawgiver” respectively, even as it unifies them. Let us press further into the analogy. By virtue of the correlation, Origen does not allow his reader to understand the procession of the Word of God into the world apart from a Priestly idiom. Whatever proceeds from the mouth of God, so to speak, coincides with a certain kind of “offering” of this divine Word to humankind (proferturadhomines)5. Conversely, Origen construes the ultimate referent of the Levitical ordinances, in the final analysis, as an offering of the divine Word. Priestly language impresses itself similarly on the parallel “veiling” of the Word in flesh and letter6. Here, the veils of the Sanctuary – even the literal, historical veils – are already vestments of the “Word of the LORD”. In fact, according to the analogy, the divine Word only proceeds into the world precisely insofar as it clothes itself in such veils. In turn, these “veils” (applicable equally to the “flesh of Mary”, the literal Sanctuary, and the written Levitical ordinances as a whole) are not incidental to the Word’s procession, but rather are perfectly coincident with it (competo). They are, simply, what one “beholds” (adspiciatur), vessels that constitute the Word of the LORD’s passage into and communion with the world. The Priestly Law, just as the flesh of Mary, is the language of God.

“Questo aspetto… del Logos, il suo ri-velarsi con diversi indumenta, ognuno dei quali adeguato al grado di progresso spirituale di ciascuna anima, è non soltanto il senso complessivo di questa prima omelia e dell’interno ciclo esegetico sul Levitico, ma della stessa interpretazione origeniana della Legge e del progresso della rivelazione: nella storia della redenzione, il Logos accetta di smembrare la sua identità divina attraverso la molteplicità dei segni, delle figure, delle ombre, dei corpi visibili all’intelligenza limitata della creatura decaduta”. 5. Presumably Rufinus’s “profero” translates Origen’s original “προσφέρω”, a verb that recurs throughout Leviticus (LXX) and constitutes its first command: “προσοίσετε τὰ δῶρα ὑμῶν” (Lev 1,2). 6. Origen’s derives his language of the “veil of the letter” and “veil of the flesh” from 2 Cor 3,14 and Heb 10,20 respectively, passages which depend on similar Mosaic evocations.

606

S. JOHNSON

However, Origen acknowledges that the divine generation of these “veils” is not perfectly transparent. The “covering” is also often a “concealing” (latens)7; and for most, there remains an acute interval between what is “seen” (quod videtur) and what is to be “understood” (quod intelligitur)8. Just as many saw Jesus in the flesh but few acknowledged his divinity, many read the Levitical Law but few discern anything divine therein9. Nevertheless, one only “understands” through“what is seen”. And so the divine character makes itself known within and even as this very self-offered visibility. “For the visible holds the highest kinship with the invisible, as the Apostle says, ‘The invisible is perceived from the creation of the world through the things that were made’”10. After all, Origen notes elsewhere, the very reason for the Tabernacle and its attendant ministries – for everything shown to Moses on the Mountain – was that the LORD might render Himself visible: “You shall make for me a sanctuary and thence I will be seen by you”11. But how does one come to “understand” what is “seen”? Origen does not leave us to speculate, for it is precisely this divine Word that “we now find as we go through the book of Leviticus, in which the sacrificial rites, the diversity of victims, and even the ministries of the priests are described”12. Simply stated, the Priestly ordinances, delivered to Moses by the LORD from within the “tent of witness”, proceed into the world as the 7. Cf. CCII,67. 8. HLvI,1,1; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 29; GCS 29, 280: etaliudquidemerat,quod videbaturineo,aliud,quodintelligebatur–carnisnamqueadspectusineopatebatomnibus, paucisveroetelectisdabaturdivinitatisagnitio. 9. HLvI,1,1. 10. HLv V,1,3 (citing Rom 1,20); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 89; GCS 29, 333: quia et cognationem plurimam visibilia cum invisibilibus servant, ita ut Apostolus dicat quia “invisibilia Dei a creatura mundi per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur”. 11. Ex 25,8; note the particular phrasing preserved in the LXX: καὶ ποιήσεις μοι ἁγίασμα, καὶ ὀφϑήσομαι ἐν ὑμῖν (the MT reads “I will dwell” [‫ ]ושכנתי‬instead of “I will be seen” [ὀφϑήσομαι]). See HEx IX,3; English transl.: Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, transl. R.E. HEINE (Fathers of the Church, 71), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2002, p. 338; GCS 29, 238:“Nevertheless, the reason for constructing the Tabernacle is found already mentioned in the words above when the LORD says to Moses: ‘You shall make for me a sanctuary and thence I will be seen by you’. God wishes, therefore, that we make a sanctuary for him. For he promises that if we make a sanctuary for him, he can be seen by us” [Verumtamencausa,proqua fieri deberet tabernaculum, in superioribus invenitur praedicta dicente Domino ad Moysen:“facies”inquit“mihisanctificationem,etindevideborvobis”.VultergoDeus, ut faciamus ei sanctificationem. Promittit enim quia, si fecerimus ei sanctificationem, possitnobisvideri]. 12. HLvI,1,1; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 29; GCS 29, 280: taleergoestquodetnunc invenimuslibrumLeviticirevolventes,inquosacrificiorumritusethostiarumdiversitas acsacerdotumministeriadescribuntur.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE LAW IN ORIGEN’S HOMILIESONLEVITICUS

607

“Word of God”13. Here Origen’s sense of the self-referential or reflexive character of the scriptures begins to become more readily apparent14. For Origen, the diverse records of the “Word of the LORD” set down in the Law also inscribe, with a perfect simultaneity, something of the nature of this very Word. The divine Word is uttered in the language of “rites, victims, and ministries”, intimating its own character precisely as it vests itself with the constitutive subject matters of Leviticus. For example, Origen can speak of the offering of the Word of God through Moses because this Word communicates itself as offerings. And if the LORD speaks in the “language” of veils, vessels, and vestments, does not His Word therefore proceed into the world under the form of veils, vessels, and vestments? Are not the Sanctuary and its appurtenances the very embodiment of His utterance? By extension, Origen may even speak of the veils of “letter” and “flesh” because the LORD’s own voice proceeds from the innermost Sanctuary clothed in the letter of the rites and the flesh of the offerings. Cannot then Leviticus itself, as the record of these divinely spoken ordinances, come to be understood as a kind of written “veil”, perfectly correspondent with the voice heard only from within the literal veil? Thus the offering of the Word not only coincides with the Levitical ordinances, but also with their perpetuity in the Priestly writings themselves. Following this self-reflexive logic, the formation of the Tabernacle and its cult simultaneously discloses the character of the divine Word itself, whereby Origen senses in Leviticus something of the very nature of God15. Rites, victims, and ministries are seen (quodvidetur); nevertheless, the Word of God may be understood (quodintelligitur). II. THE PRIESTLY SACRIFICE We have considered how Origen comes to perceive the Priestly Law as a kind of divine language; in turn, the grammar and lexicon of Leviticus become the grammar and lexicon by which Origen expresses the nature of the Word of God itself. Having begun with “veils” and “vestments” 13. Cf. HLvI,2,1, citing Lev 1,1-2: “The Lord called Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting…”. 14. For another example of this principle in action, one could turn to the Homilieson Joshua, where Origen frequently understands the narratives concerning Moses to be narratives about the Law itself. See, e.g., HIosI,3, which cites Lk 16,29 as proof that even Jesus understood “Moses” as a figure of the Law. 15. Origen’s HExIX,3 provides a more extended meditation on the “Tabernacle” of the scriptures.

608

S. JOHNSON

in the opening analogy, Origen does not shrink from the explicitly sacrificial dimension that his sense of scriptural self-reflexivity must also enfold. For Leviticus openly (aperte) presents before all eyes a “letter which kills”16. One need not presume purely polemical undertones here. Origen only acknowledges, in a Pauline idiom, a simple narrative fact: Leviticus, literally speaking, runs with sacrificial blood. Yet the recognition of this fact merely renders Origen’s concluding macarism all the more striking: “‘Blessed are those eyes who see’ the divine Spirit hidden within the veil of the letter” (velaminelitteraeobtectumintrinsecus divinum Spiritum)17. Somehow the divine Spirit, for Origen, remains intrinsic (intrinsecus) to this very letter18. What can this mean? Origen has already spoken of the Levitical ordinances as an offering of the Word of God to the world. One therefore cannot facilely dispense with this “letter which kills” by “allegorizing” it away (to misuse the term)19. Rather, for Origen, the Spirit of this divine Word, and any attendant sensusspiritalis, only proceeds into the world from within this letter – even the “letter which kills”20. The sacrifices belong to this Spirit no less than the veils and vestments. In this way, the Law is seen to have always been “spiritual”21, but only inasmuch as one understands the literal Levitical sacrifices to be already, in some mysterious way, the “flesh of the Word of God” (caroverbiDei)22. At the very least, the sacrifices now begin to take on divine lineaments; conversely, one’s sense of divinity too begins to become sacrificially configured. 16. HLv I,1,1 (citing 2 Cor 3,6); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 30; GCS 29, 280: “But perchance the worthy and the unworthy see and hear these things according to the letter, which is, as it were, the flesh of the Word of God and the clothing of its divinity. But ‘blessed are those eyes’, which see the divine Spirit that is concealed within the veil of the letter; and blessed are they who bring clean ears of the inner person to hear these things. Otherwise, they will perceive openly ‘the letter which kills’ in these words” [Sed haec secundumlitteram,quaetamquamcaroverbiDeiestetindumentumdivinitatiseius,digni fortassis vel adspiciant, vel audiant et indigni. Sed “beati sunt illi oculi”, qui velamine litteraeobtectumintrinsecusdivinumSpiritumvident;etbeatisunt,quiadhaecaudienda mundasauresinteriorishominisdeferunt.Alioquinaperteinhissermonibus“occidentem litteram”sentient]. 17. HLvI,1,1 (citingLk 10,23). 18. After all (to extend the analogy), the LORD’s own presence proceeds into the world from within the “veil” (whether understood as the literal curtain or correlatively as the written Law itself); He speaks from within (intrinsecus) and dwells within. And even when the Priest (whether understood literally or correlatively as the reader) passes through the innermost veil, he remains somehow within it. In short, according to Origen’s reading, one must preserve both the “through” and the “within”. 19. Origen is well aware of his detractors, who ridicule his use (“in their terms”) of the “stratagems of language” [strophaverbi] or the “cloud of allegory” [allegoriaenubilo] (HLvI,1,2; transl. BARKLEY [n. 3], p. 30; GCS 29, 281). 20. HLvI,1,1. 21. See Rom 7,14, frequently cited by Origen: “ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν”. 22. Cf., e.g., HLvI,1,1 and I,4,1.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE LAW IN ORIGEN’S HOMILIESONLEVITICUS

609

Thus Origen arrives at the opening sacrifice commanded in Leviticus. When a person brings a gift offering, the LORD first calls for “a calf without blemish from the herd as a whole burnt offering”23. What is seen in this (quodvideturineo), flatly, is the slaughtering of an animal; but how is one to understandit (quodintelligiturineo)? Here Origen allows points of light from the Gospels to limn his vision of Leviticus, yet not so as to displace the letter of the Priestly command, but rather to discern the divine Spirit already “intrinsic” to it. For Origen, this “calf without blemish” ought to be seen in the same way as the “fatted calf” slaughtered by the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son24. The son, truly, had nothing of his own to offer, for in his sin hehad squandered all of his own property (substantia)25. Rather, the calf is a gift from the father’s own substantia, so to speak, offered at his son’s “return and restoration”, so that he may know and share in the “great feast” of his father’s joy26. So too the “calf without blemish” recorded in Leviticus is not just any calf, but a “calf sent from heaven” (istumvitulumcoelitusmissum)27. Yet Origen’s Gospel evocations do not eclipse the Levitical voice. At no point does his locution betray a sense that the value of the calf of the whole burnt offering lies only in its figural, yet ultimately extrinsic, correspondence to Jesus. Rather, more precisely, the sacrifice of the calf and the sacrifice of Jesus correlate inasmuch as they are both grounded in and referable to the offering of the divine Word. When the Word of God “clothed in the flesh of Mary” proceeded into the world as a “male without blemish”, suffered “outside the camp”, and poured out his blood “around the base of the altar”, it is this selfsame Word that Origen finds “offered through the Lawgiver”28. He concludes, simply: “This, therefore, is what is offered ‘at the door of the Tabernacle’, acceptable before the LORD”29. Origen incorporates the sacrifice of Christ (hostiaChristi) here to preserve and disclose the proper sense of the sacrificial victims already set down in Leviticus30; namely, the offerings are deemed 23. See Lev 1,3-9. 24. HLvI,2,7. 25. HLvI,2,7(citing Lk 15,13); GCS 29, 283. 26. HLv I,2,7: Iste autem “vitulus sine macula” vide, si non ille “saginatus” est “vitulus”, quem pater pro regresso ac restituto sibi illo, qui perierat, filio, quique “omnemeiussubstantiamdilapidaverat”,iugulavitetfecitconviviummagnumetlaetitiamhabuit. 27. HLvI,2,7. 28. HLvI,2,8–I,3,1. 29. HLvI,2,8; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 33; GCS 29, 284: Hocestergoquodoffertur “adostiumtabernaculiacceptumcontraDominum”. 30. See HLvIV,8,1; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 82; GCS 29, 327: “Does it not seem to you that it is better in this sense to be able to preserve the words of Moses” (Nontibi videnturistomagisordinestarepossedictaMoysi)?

610

S. JOHNSON

“acceptable to the LORD” precisely because they belong to His own Word first and foremost31. In other words, Origen senses that it was always this divine Word that one may discover “clothed” in the “calf without blemish”, such that laying one’s hand upon the calf’s head was already, in some mysterious way, tolay one’s hand on the LORD and to touch His own self-offering – that is, one might dare to say, His very flesh. For here, just as for the woman “suffering from a flow of blood” in the Gospels, “everyone who touches the holy flesh will be sanctified”32. In short, what is seen is the slaughtered calf, but what is understood is the Word of the LORD veiled in flesh and “offered at the door of the Tabernacle”. Origen perfects the arc of his presentation of the scriptures’ self-reflexive character as he proceeds to identify the “Priestly sacrifice” with the “Law itself (lexipsa) which is promulgated through Moses”33. The precise significance of this identification takes as many forms as the sacrifices it interprets, but its basic principle remains constant: as one presses into the meaning of Leviticus, one will always find the Word of God at its heart, offering itself to the world under the cover of the Law’s various rites and sacrifices. Take once more, for instance, the whole burnt offering: “I myself think that the priest who removes the hide ‘of the calf’ offered as a ‘whole burnt offering’ and pulls away the skin with which its limbs are hidden is the one who removes the veil of the letter from the Word of God and uncovers its interior parts, which are members of spiritual understanding”34. The passage follows the same interpretive logic outlined above: the Priestly Law’s written account of the whole burnt offerings 31. HLvI,2,8 (citing Heb 9,14); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 33; GCS 29, 284: quidtam “acceptum”quamhostiaChristi,“quiseipsumobtulitDeo”? 32. Lev 6,11. For Origen’s prolonged meditation on this verse and the “flesh of the Word of God”, see HLv IV,8,1-3; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), pp. 81-83; GCS 29, 327-332. 33. HLvIV,10,3; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 85; GCS 29, 330: Vide,sinon,utego suspicor,“sacrificiumsacerdotis”haecipsasitlex,quaeperMoysenpromulgator. See also HLv V,8,3; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 105; GCS 29, 348: “The flesh, which is allotted to the priests from the sacrifices, is ‘the word of God’ that they teach in the Church” [Caro, quae ex sacrificiis sacerdotibus deputatur, “verbum Dei” est, quod in ecclesia docent]; and HLvV,9,3; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 107; GCS 29, 350: “every word that pertains to God – for this is the sacrifice…” [omneverbum,quodadDeumpertinet–hoc enimestsacrificium…]; and HLv V,10,3; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 108; GCS 29, 351: “But according to the principle of our exposition, where the holy flesh is understood to be the divine Word…” (Secundumnostraeveroexpositionisordinem,ubicarnessanctae verbaintelligunturessedivina…). 34. HLvI,4,2; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 35; GCS 29, 284: Egoputoquodillesacerdosdetrahitcorium“vituli”oblatiin“holocaustum”etdeducitpellem,quamembraeius conteguntur,quideverboDeiabstrahitvelamenlitteraeetinternaeius,quaesuntspiritalisintelligentiaemembra,denudat.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE LAW IN ORIGEN’S HOMILIESONLEVITICUS

611

also inscribes in its very letter a means of touching the flesh of the divine Word (caroverbiDei)35. On the one hand, Origen is clear that the whole sacrifice belongs to the Word of God – the letter of the Law just as much as the calf’s hide and skin. Yet, however indispensable the literalunderstanding of the Law (involving realsacrifices and realflesh and blood), Origen never fails to affirm that even if the historical practiceof the ordinances has since passed away, their inner coherence and intrinsic “spiritual understanding” may still be laid bare to those who contemplate the letter rightly. Nevertheless, Origen reiterates that this spiritalisintelligentia does not belong to anything extrinsic to the letter’s own inner “members” (interna membra). Even if he finds further “progress” (profectus) in the Prophets and a certain “fullness of perfection” (plenitudoperfectionis) in the Gospels, the “principles” (principia) still belong to the Law36. After all, simply taking the visible Levitical ordinances to be “from the LORD” and the written Law as the Word of God is already a “spiritual understanding” – and one not alien to Leviticus’s own voice. Moreover, by perceiving the divine Word’s own self-offering within the Priestly sacrifices (in terms intimately evocative of the incarnation), one has accordingly cultivated a certain sense of the divine nature: the Spirit of God does not disdain to pour itself into flesh and blood, even death itself, on behalf of humankind. Nor does the Word who offered his hem for healing, his feet for weeping, his head for anointing, and his breast for reclining, shrink from being “divided limb from limb”37. III. THE ETERNAL LAW In this way, Leviticus’s “spiritual sense” perdures under the very form of its letter, and thus, may be said to be in some way “intrinsic” to it; conversely, according to Origen, the very perpetuity of the Priestly Law depends upon this spiritual sense. For, lest he silence the “voice of the Lawgiver”, Origen finds himself “compelled by the authority of divine precept” not only “to offer fine wheat flour with incense and oil” but also “to sacrifice calves and lambs”38. After all, one cannot lightly trip over the divine proclamation that “this ‘law’ is ‘eternal’ (lexaeterna), as 35. Cf. HLvI,4,1. 36. HLvI,4,4; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), pp. 35-36; GCS 29, 286. 37. HLvI,4,3 (citing Lev 1,4, Mt 9,20-22, Lk 7,44-46, and Jn 13,23); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 35; GCS 29, 286. 38. HLvI,1,2; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 30; GCS 29, 281.

612

S. JOHNSON

eternal as the “eternal gospel” proclaimed in John’s Apocalypse39. How, Origen asks in all sincerity, can this be true “according to the letter” after the destruction of the Temple40? In reply, he suggests that even following the withdrawal of the Priestly Law’s complete practice secundumlitteram, a certain part of it remains an “eternal Law”, on account of which we can say “the Law is spiritual”41.For the spiritual sense “hidden within” the letter, its interna membra, may perdure even when the Temple and its rites do not. It is toward some perception of this eternal Law and the Priestly activity of the Word of God “through all this present age” (peromnehocpraesens saeculum) that Origen ever trains his eyes in these homilies42. Perhaps nowhere is this vision clearer than in his seventh homily, where he considers the meaning of Lev 10,8-9: “And the LORD spoke to Aaron saying, ‘You and your sons with you will not drink wine or strong drink when you go into the Tent of Witness or when you approach the altar and you will not die. This is an eternal law for your descendants’”43. Having noted that the prohibition against drunkenness (of all kinds) still remains in force44, Origen begins to press into the depths of this ordinance (adintelligentiam mysticam) and notices a certain conformity of Christ and his Apostles at the Last Supper to the figure of Aaron and his sons45. For the Savior, when the time of his cross came and “he was about to approach the altar” where he would sacrifice the offering of his flesh, it says, “Taking the cup he blessed it and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take, drink from this’”… Yet that one, as it were, “about to approach the altar”, says about himself, “Truly I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine until I drink it anew with you in the kingdom of my father”46. 39. HLvIV,10,5 (citing Lev 6,15 and Rev 14,6); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 86; GCS 29, 331: Ethaec,inquit,est“lexaeterna”.IohannesquidemApostolusinApocalypsidicitesse “Evangeliumaeternum”. 40. HLvIV,10,5. 41. HLv IV,10,5 (citing Rom 7,14); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 87; GCS 29, 331: Restatutsecundumeampartemlexhaec“aeterna”dicatur,quanosdicimus“legem” esse“spiritalem”. 42. See HLvIX,2,2; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 178; GCS 29, 419: “We ought to seek a high priest who ‘once a year’, that is, through all this present age, has offered a sacrifice to God”. 43. HLvVII,1,2; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 129; GCS 29, 370: EtlocutusestDominus ad Aaron dicens: “vinum et siceram non bibetis tu et filii tui te cum, cum intrabitis in tabernaculumtestimonii,autcumacceditisadaltare,etnonmoriemini.Legitimumaeternum inprogeniesvestras”. 44. HLvVII,1,4-7. 45. HLvVII,1,8. 46. HLvVII,1,10 (citing Mt 26,27-29); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), pp. 132-133; GCS 29, 373-374: Ubi vero tempus advenit crucis suae et “accessurus erat ad altare”, ubi

THE SACRIFICE OF THE LAW IN ORIGEN’S HOMILIESONLEVITICUS

613

If one beholds with Origen the “ineffable mystery” of how “our Savior drinks no wine ‘until he drinks it’ with the saints ‘anew in the kingdom’ of God”47, one will also come as near as possible to sharing his sense of this “eternal law” for Aaron’s descendants. In fact, the subsequent section reaches into the interpretive wellspring that founds and nourishes Origen’s vision of the eternal sacrifice of the Law as a whole. Peering within the veil of the letter, Origen begins to descry the reality which both Testaments signify: the “Great High Priest”, who, through the “veil, that is, his flesh” has penetrated the “inner veil, heaven”, and even now stands “before the face of God for us… always living to intercede for these”48. This Savior, “Jesus Christ the Righteous”, “even now mourns my sins” (lugetetiamnuncpeccatamea), even now is “an advocate for our sins before the Father”, even now is “in sorrow as long as we persist in error”49. How can he drink the wine of joy “with us”, when the “sorrow of my sins ever ascends to him”50? Does the “Son of love” who “‘emptied himself’ out of love for us” not now still empty himself, “seeking us and thinking about our welfare”? Does he not “grieve about our errors and does he not weep over our ruin and griefs”51? Will “he who wept over Jerusalem”, who “bore our wounds and suffered for us” (vulnera nostra suscepit et propter nos doluit) as the physician of our souls and bodies”, now be “indifferent to our wounds”52? Surely, he is not lesser than the Apostle who “weeps with those who weep and desires to rejoice with those who rejoice”53? “For we must not think that Paul is mourning for sinners and weeping for those who transgress, but Jesus my immolarethostiamcarnissuae:“accipiens”inquit“calicembenedixitetdeditdiscipulis suisdicens:accipite,etbibiteexhoc…”.Ipseautemtamquam“accessurusadaltare” dicitdese;“Amendicovobisquianonbibamdegenerationevitishuius,usquequobibam illudvobiscumnovuminregnopatrismei”. 47. HLvVII,1,11–VII,2,1; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 133; GCS 29, 374. 48. HLvI,3,3 (citing Heb 7,25, 9,24, and 10,20); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 34; GCS 29, 284: Apostolus ad Hebraeos scribens dicit: “per velamen, id est carnem suam”. Et iteruminteriusvelameninterpretatur“coelum”,quod“penetraverit”Iesus,et“adsistat nuncvultuiDeipronobis”,“semper”inquit“vivensadinterpellandumprohis”. 49. HLv VII,2,2 (citing 1 Jn 2,1-2); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), pp. 133-134; GCS 29, 374-375. 50. HLvVII,2,2; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 134; GCS 29, 375. 51. HLvVII,2,2 (citing Col 1,13 and Phil 2,7): Quiddicamdeipso,qui“filius”dicitur “caritatis”, qui “semet ipsum exinanivit” propter caritatem, quam habebat erga nos et “nonquaesivitquaesuasunt”,cum“essetaequalisDeo”,sedquaesivit,quaenostrasunt, etpropterhoc“evacuavitse”?Cumergoita,quaenostrasunt,quaesierit,nunciamnosnon quaeritnecquaenostrasuntcogitatnecdeerroribusnostrismaeretnecperditionesnostras etcontritionesdeflet. 52. HLvVII,2,2; cf. Lk 19,41 and HLcXXXVIII,3. 53. HLv VII,2,3 (citing Rom 12,15); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 135; GCS 29, 375.

614

S. JOHNSON

Lord abstains from weeping when he approaches the Father, when he stands at the altar and offers a propitiation for us”54. In the end, through the life of Jesus and his Apostles, inextricably bound to the figure of Aaron and his descendants, Origen beholds the perpetual sacrificial office of the incarnate Word of God, the Great High Priest, who even now “in the flesh of Mary” – just as in the “rites, victims, and ministries” of Leviticus – stands “before the face of God interceding for us”55 and ascends to the heavenly altar to “offer a propitiation to God for us”, still “bearing (patitur) the bitterness of our sins”56. In short, thisis “not to drink the wine of joy ‘when he ascends to the altar’”57. And so, “through all this present age”, the awful promise resounds: “I will not drink again from the fruit of this vine until I drink it anew with you”. Although this concatenation of references may seem to have fallen “outside of the explication” (extrinsecus disputationi) of the Levitical text that occasioned them58, Origen’s lack of restraint here may well offer his readers their fullest share in his sense of that Priestly “procession” of the divine Word which renders the Law “eternal”59. Even if the office of Aaron and his sons has long since passed, and even if we “no longer know Christ according to the flesh”60, the saving Word, “Jesus my Lord”, still “waits for us … we who, neglecting our life, delay his joy”61. Through the outpouring of his Spirit, still ministering within the veil of the letter, the Great High Priest “expects us to be converted, to imitate his example, to follow his footsteps (vestigia)”, until he “makes me, who is the last and most vile of all sinners, complete and perfect”62. For “he himself wants to live in (habitare) this body of his Church and in these members of his people as in their soul, so that he can have all impulses and all works according to his own will, and so that that saying of the prophet may be truly fulfilled in us, ‘I will live in them and walk [among them]’”63. Only 54. HLvVII,2,3; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 135; GCS 29, 375-376. 55. HLvVII,2,3 (cf. Heb 9,24 and 7,25); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 134; GCS 29, 375. 56. HLv VII,2,3; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 135; GCS 29, 376. 57. HLv VII,2,3 (citing Lev 10,9): hocest“accedentemadaltare”nonbiberevinum laetitiae. 58. Origen is aware of his own diversion; see HLvVII,2,13; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 139; GCS 29, 380. 59. Cf. HLvI,1,1. 60. 2 Cor 5,16; cf. HLvI,4,5. 61. HLv VII,2,3; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 135; GCS 29, 376. 62. HLv VII,2,3-4; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), pp. 134-135; GCS 29, 375-376. On the various forms this imitation may take, see n. 2 above. 63. HLvVII,2,10 (citing Lev 26,12); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), p. 138; GCS 29, 379: Vult eniministocorporeecclesiaesuaeetinistismembrispopulisuiipsevelutanimahabitare, utomnesmotusatqueomniaoperasecundumipsiushabeatvoluntatem;utverecompleatur innobisilludprophetaedictum:“habitaboiniisetinambulabo”. Cf. HLvXVI,7,7.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE LAW IN ORIGEN’S HOMILIESONLEVITICUS

615

then will he finish his work, when “all things have been subjected to him” that “God may be all in all”, such that sacrifices for sin will be no more, and the whole body of Christ, head and members, will drink the cup of the Father’s joy64. University of Notre Dame Department of Theology 130 Malloy Hall Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA [email protected]

Samuel JOHNSON

64. Cf. HLv VII,2,4-10 (citing 1 Cor 15,28); transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), pp. 135-138; GCS 29, 376-379; having already noted how “wine” in the Psalms and Prophets may also signify that “holy drunkenness” (ebrietassancta) promised “for the delight of the saints” (pro laetitia sanctis) (HLv VII,1,7 and VII,1,11–VII,2,1), Origen concludes this section with a prolonged meditation on why the LORD bids even the “sons of Aaron” not to drink this “wine of joy” (vinumlaetitiae): “Even the Apostles have not yet received their joy, but they also await that I may be a partaker of their joy… Therefore, you will have delight when you depart this life if you are holy. But then the delight will be full when you lack none of the members of the body. For you will wait for others just as you also are waited for” (HLv VII,2,8; transl. BARKLEY (n. 3), pp. 136-137; GCS 29, 377; cf. Heb 11,39-40).

BEING AND BECOMING IN CELSUS AND ORIGEN I. INTRODUCTION I will discuss the views of two eager and fanatical thinkers in the history of Christian theology. The Platonic philosopher Celsus in the second century AD resembles a militant, free-thinker atheist of the 21st century – although he is not an atheist at all1 – when he on the one hand mocks Christians for their “stupid” teachings, and on the other strikes out with piercing criticism based on the standard worldview of the time, Middle Platonism. Origen, who answers Celsus some 80 years later, in the middle of the third century, is no less rigid. He stubbornly goes through Celsus’ treatise line by line, which is arrogantly named the TrueDoctrine, and tries to crush Celsian offense with the same weaponry – by philosophical argumentation and sometimes by taunt as well2. At the time, when cosmology was part of philosophy and theology instead of physics, myths of creation or – better – myths of cosmogony played a crucial role in metaphysical discussion3. Hellenistic Jews and early Christians had to face the problem of how to match up the divinely inspired narrative of Genesis with the Platonic myth of Timaeus, which was the standard myth of explaining the kosmos.This problem was taken particularly seriously in Alexandria, which was the centre of all wisdom 1. Celsus seems to be a Platonic monotheist (see e.g. M. FREDE, Celsus’Attackonthe Christians, in J. BARNES – M. GRIFFIN [eds.], PhilosophiaTogataII:PlatoandAristotle at Rome, Oxford, Clarendon, 1997), but appears to have a qualitative, rather exclusive notion of God (see J. JUNNI, Celsus’ArgumentsagainsttheTruthoftheBible, in Studia Patristica65 [2013] 175-184, p. 181). 2. For the context and structure of ContraCelsum, see e.g. A.-C. JACOBSEN, Kelsosog Origenes, in R. FALKENBERG – A.-C. JACOBSEN (eds.), PerspektiverpåOrigenes’Contra Celsum (Antikken og Kristendommen, 1), København, Forlaget Anis, 2004, 27-48, and for the genre, see e.g. A.K. PEDERSEN, Contra Celsum somapologi, ibid., 49-68. 3. I prefer to use the term cosmogony here, since Greek authors of Platonic tradition, like Celsus and Origen, use the word γένεσις (generation) instead of ποίησις (creation). For example, the biblical phrase traditionally translated as Deuscreavit(“God created”) is rendered as ὁ ϑεὸς ἐποίησεν in Greek (cf. Gen 1,1). It is also questionable, in which respect the Platonic cosmogony can be seen as a creation by a creative agent (see e.g. F.M. CORNFORD, Plato’sCosmology:TheTimaeus ofPlato, Indianapolis, IN, Hackett Publishing Company, 1937, pp. 34-37). For the creation, Origen uses both the word κοσμοποιΐα (see e.g. CCI,19; II,9; V,59), especially when referring to the Mosaic account of creation, and the word κοσμογονία (see e.g. CCI,44; VI,50). Even κτίσις (τοῦ κόσμου) is often used (see e.g. CCVI,3.4.20.48).

618

J.P. JUNNI

in the Hellenistic period4. I shall present a certain point of Celsus’ and Origen’s discussion about cosmology and cosmogony, namely, the Platonic concepts of being and becoming.Thus, we shall see how these two Platonists attack each other from different sides of the Platonic field5. For Celsus, the Mosaic account of creation, Genesis, was worthless. He mainly refers to this text while ridiculing Jewish and Christian faith6. According to Celsus, the authors of the Bible wrote the scriptures in erroneous thought, because Jews and Christians had abandoned the ancient doctrine that is known by all other peoples7. The Timaeus, however – which seems to be, interestingly, a kind of a sacred text for him – receives quite a bit of his attention. He does not waste lines justifying the authority of Timaeus, but refers to it directly, like any decent fundamentalist8. Hence Origen, although he is regarded as a master of biblical exegesis, cannot base his response to Celsus on biblical arguments, but has to rely on philosophical discussion instead9. He points out here and there how, in his view, Celsus has misunderstood the Genesis narrative, but biblical argumentation based on this text is rather scarce in Origen’s argumentation in ContraCelsum. This does not seem to be a problem for him, since he claims to be “careful not to raise objections to any good teachings, even if their authors are outside the faith”10. 4. The convergence and divergence of the Genesis and Timaeus myths has been analysed by J. PELIKAN, in his famous study WhatHasAthenstoDowithJerusalem?Timaeus and GenesisinCounterpoint (Jerome Lectures, 21), Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press, 1997. Since the dialogue of Celsus and Origen is not his main point of concern, my paper will deepen Pelikan’s analysis further. 5. The question “Was Origen Platonist?” has been discussed a lot in previous research. The question was most profoundly discussed by H. KOCH in his dissertation Pronoiaund Paideusis:StudienüberOrigenesundseinVerhältniszumPlatonismus, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1932. A summary of the arguments can be found e.g. in H.P. THYSSEN, Origenesogden græskefilosofi, in FALKENBERG – JACOBSEN (eds.), PerspektiverpåOrigenes’Contra Celsum (n. 2), 69-88. According to Thyssen, the theological system of Origen can be seen as “an independent construction that on the one hand uses significant platonist building blocks but, on the other hand, cannot, in its entirety, be characterised to as Platonic”. 6. See e.g. CC I,19; V,59; VI,50-51. See also J.G. COOK, TheInterpretationoftheOld TestamentinGreco-RomanPaganism(STAC, 23), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, pp. 6490. 7. For the Celsian argument of the illegitimacy of the Christian faith, see JUNNI, Celsus’ArgumentsagainsttheTruthoftheBible(n. 1), pp. 178-180. 8. See, for example, COOK, TheInterpretationoftheOldTestamentinGreco-Roman Paganism(n. 6), pp. 87-88. 9. Origen refers, of course, to the Genesis narrative, too, but his citations serve more as a paraphrase or description of the faith rather than arguments against Celsian critique (see e.g. CC II,9; IV,55; VI,50-51). 10. Πρὸς ταῦτα δ᾽ ἡμεῖς φήσομεν, οἱ μελετήσαντες μηδενὶ ἀποχϑάνεσϑαι τῶν καλῶς λεγομένων, κἄν οἱ ἔξω τῆς πίστεως λέγωσιν αὐτά, CC VII,46. The edition used here of Origen’s ContraCelsumis M. MARCOVICH (ed.), Origenes:Contra Celsum

BEING AND BECOMING IN CELSUS AND ORIGEN

619

Both Celsus and Origen demonstrated their affiliation to Platonic teachings when they agreed that the distinction between being and becoming can and must be made11. They both adopted the standard Platonic conceptual apparatus; for example, they used οὐσία for being, and γένεσις for becoming12. As has already been stated, however, the two scholars were not cut from the same cloth. Existing research has shown how Celsus tried to present himself as a true heir of Plato’s legacy13. Origen, for his part, was more critical of explicit Platonic or other non-Christian philosophical thought but did not hesitate to use their elements whenever they conformed with Christian faith14. II. PLATONIC TEACHING ON BEING AND BECOMING We can approach the Platonic distinction of being and becoming from two different perspectives, which are, in fact, found in the text of Timaeus itself. The Timaeanmyth has both ontological and epistemological aspects15. Firstly, there is an ontological distinction between that which always is, namely, being or οὐσία, and that which always becomes, namely, becoming or γένεσις. The basic difference between these two realms is mutability – there is no change in the realm of being, but in the realm of becoming, there is nothing but constant change. Secondly, there is respectively an epistemological distinction between being and becoming, so that being can be acquired only by rational intellect and becoming only by deceptive

LibriVIII (SupplVigChr, 54), Leiden – Boston, MA – Köln, Brill, 2001. All translations are from Origen:ContraCelsum, transl. H. CHADWICK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 21965. 11. CC VII,45-46. 12. Ibid. 13. See e.g. CCVII,42. I have shown before that the legacy argument is crucial for Celsus (see JUNNI, Celsus’ArgumentsagainsttheTruthoftheBible[n. 1], pp. 170-180). This point is illustrated by Frede (M. FREDE, Celsusphilosophusplatonicus,in ANRW II.36.7 [1994] 5198-5199), who says that “Celsus by no means thinks that Platonism is an invention or discovery of Plato … So Plato’s authority … is the authority of an ancient who still has a firm grasp of the true doctrine”. 14. See e.g. M.J. EDWARDS, Origen against Plato (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity), Aldershot, Ashgate 2002, pp. 159-161. 15. Timaeus27D-28A. CORNFORD, Plato’sCosmology (n. 3), pp. 23-26. For the distinction between ontological and epistemological aspects, see e.g. P. ANNALA, Timaiosdialogintrinitaarinenluomisfilosofia, in J. JUNNI (ed.), Luominenvarhaiskristillisessäteologiassa (Studia Patristica Fennica, 5), Helsinki, Finnish Patristic Society, 35-36. According to Thesleff (H. THESLEFF, Studies in Plato’s Two-Level Model [Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 113], Tammisaari, Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1999, pp. 11-25), these aspects are only a fraction of the multitude of Plato’s pairs of asymmetric contrasts.

620

J.P. JUNNI

senses16. We must keep these two perspectives – the ontological and the epistemological – in mind as we proceed to analyse Celsus’ and Origen’s debate. Next, I turn to ontology from the perspective of the Platonic distinction between being and becoming. We can identify three principles – or causes – on which the Platonic cosmology is based. Using Aristotelian terminology, the first is causaformalis, that is, the eternal ideas, according to which the second cause, causamaterialis, that is, the sensible world, is formed by the third cause, causaefficiens, that is, the World-Maker or demiurge, who looks at the intelligible and gives the sensible realm its shape. Although the demiurge of Plato is presented only after the principles of being and becoming in his Timaeus, I will start with that here because the development in Middle Platonism and Christianity led to the notion of God the Highest Being as the creative agent in both Celsus and Origen17. III. THE CREATIVE AGENT –

THE

DEMIURGE

For Plato, the task of the demiurge was to shape the sensible realm according to the eternal ideas. The demiurge was thus, for him, a necessary cause in explaining the relation of the intelligible and the sensible realms. It is unlikely that Plato meant the demiurge to exist as an autonomous being, but more like an abstract principle that had to be interpreted allegorically. Regardless, Plato’s demiurge cannot be regarded as the Highest or First Being, or monad (τὸ ἕν), as in later Middle and Neo-Platonism, but more like an intermediary, personified principle between the realms of being and becoming18. In Middle Platonism, we see a development where the lower-class demiurge is transformed into the highest form of existence, the being itself (τὸ ὄντως ὄν)19. At first sight, Celsus seems to adopt this position, when 16. Timaeus 27D-28A. I have followed Annala’s distinction here (see ANNALA, Timaios-dialoginentrinitaarinenluomisfilosofia [n. 15], pp. 37-39). 17. For the development of the notion of God in Middle Platonism from 80 BC onwards, see J. DILLON, TheMiddlePlatonists:80 B.C.to A.D.120, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1977. 18. See e.g. CORNFORD,Plato’sCosmology(n. 3), pp. 34-39. 19. Some examples of earlier Middle Platonists are, for example, Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC–50 CE) and Plutarch of Chaeronea (c. 46-120), who already had assigned God as the First Being (see e.g. DILLON, TheMiddlePlatonists[n. 17], pp. 155-160, 199-200 and R. BERCHMAN, FromPhilotoOrigen:MiddlePlatonisminTransition(Brown Judaic Studies, 69), Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1984, pp. 27-30).

BEING AND BECOMING IN CELSUS AND ORIGEN

621

he says that “God is good and beautiful and happy, and exists in the most beautiful state”20. Celsus sees that God cannot be captured by the mind; people can only have some notions about Him, because God is “impossible to explain in words”21. He even says that “God is neither intellect nor intelligence nor knowledge, but enables the mind to think and is the cause of the existence of intelligence and of the possibility of knowledge, and causes the existence of all intelligible things and of truth itself and of being itself, since he transcends all things and is intelligible by a certain indescribable power”22. We pause here for a moment, since the claim that God is not an (or the) intellect but beyond it is peculiar. Should we interpret Celsus’ notion about God in a Tillichian way, as “the Ground of Being”, or as a third principle besides being and becoming23? Neither solution fits with Celsian thought in general, and Celsus actually says that “[God] transcends all things and is intelligible by a certain indescribable power”24. Thus, it seems that Celsus strives to ensure God’s primacy and ineffability by placing Him beyond all the other intelligible, since being is, at least to some extent, attainable through intellection. Celsus does not disclose a particular second divine principle, or a lower God. This is a Stoic notion which was introduced by some Middle Platonist thinkers, such as Plutarch of Chaeronaea, Numenius of Apamea, and Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria25. We must then ask whether Celsus assigns the demiurgic function to his concept of God, who is beyond intellect. Celsus says that God “made nothing mortal, but only immortal beings, and mortal beings are the work of others”26. We find a similar kind of opposition in Timaeus, where Plato states that the demiurge only constructs divine things, but his sons made everything that is mortal27. Celsus 20. Ὁ ϑεὸς ἀγαϑός ἐστι καὶ καλὸς καὶ εὐδαίμων καὶ ἐν τῷ καλλίστῳ καὶ ἀρίστῳ, CC IV,14. 21. τὸ ἄλλως ἄρρητον, CC VII,42. 22. ἐκεῖνος, ὅσπερ οὔτε νοῦς οὔτε νόησις οὔτε ἐπιστήμη, ἀλλὰ νῷ τε τοῦ νοεῖν αἴτιος καὶ νοήσει τοῦ δι᾽ αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ τοῦ δι᾽ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν, καὶ νοητοῖς ἅπασι καὶ αὐτῇ ἀληϑείᾳ καὶ αὐτῇ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ εἶναι, πάντων ἐπέκεινα ὤν, ἀρρήτῳ τινὶ δυνάμει νοητός, CCVII,45. Emphasis mine. 23. This point has also been discussed by C. ARRUZZA in Plato’s World-Maker in Origen’sContra Celsum, in Horizons3 (2012) 61-80, pp. 64-66. 24. πάντων ἐπέκεινα ὤν, ἀρρήτῳ τινὶ δυνάμει νοητός, CCVII,45. Arruzza says that Celsus equates God with the Platonic form of Good and the first Good, which fits Celsus’ system, but I disagree with her argumentation based on her citations on other sources. ARRUZZA, Plato’s World-Maker in Origen’s Contra Celsum (n. 23), pp. 6466. 25. See DILLON, TheMiddlePlatonists(n. 17), pp. 155-165, 199-202, 366-373. 26. ὁ μὲν ϑεὸς οὐδὲν ϑνητὸν ἐποίησεν, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ ἀϑάνατα, τὰ δὲ ϑνητὰ ἄλλων ἐστὶν ἔργα, CCIV,54. 27. See Timaeus 69C.

622

J.P. JUNNI

seems to think that the indigenous deities of different peoples correspond with these lower deities, who shape the sensible realm, and that certain Christians have misunderstood Plato when they “boast of a God who is above the heavens”28. On this basis, it might not be wrong to say that Celsus assigned the demiurgic function to the Highest God. Like Celsus, Origen equates God the Father with the Highest Being. We found earlier that Celsus has reserved this place to his concept of the ineffable God, which is detached from the concepts of gods in every individual religion. Thus, according to Celsus, the Christian God would have been one of the lower deities in the intelligible realm. Origen’s answer to Celsus’ claim for God’s unattainability is based on his Logos Christology29. God the Father is knowable through human-born Logos, the Christ. He is not knowable by looking at the sensible body of the Christ – as Celsus accuses Christians – but by looking at “the image of the invisible God” in him30. Origen tries to incorporate the Genesis narrative into Platonic philosophy when he uses the very first verses of Genesis as clarification for the Father-Logos-World-chain of Christian cosmogony: We say that it was to him [Logos] that the Father gave the command in the Mosaic story of creation, when He said, “Let there be light”, and “Let there be a firmament”, and all the other things which God commanded to come into being. To him also He said, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness”. And when the Logos was commanded, he made everything that the Father enjoined him31.

In Origen’s thought, there is no court of lesser divinities organising the things in the sensible realm, as Celsus postulates, but only one mediating principle, Logos the Christ. Thus, it can be said that the divine hierarchies and relations seem quite similar in both Celsus and Origen. Nonetheless, Celsus cannot see that Christians speak of the Highest God, when Christians themselves think to do so. Origen seems to affirm that they are both addressing the same being when talking about God. 28. αὐχεῖν τὸν ὑπεροϑράνιον ϑεόν, CC VI,19. See also ARRUZZA, Plato’s WorldMakerinOrigen’sContra Celsum (n. 23), pp. 66-68. 29. CC VII,42-43. 30. τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀιράτου ϑεοῦ, CCVII,43. 31. Τούτῳ γάρ φαμεν ἐν τῇ κατὰ Μωϋσέα κοσμοποιΐᾳ προστάττοντα τὸν πατέρα εἰρηκέναι τό· Γενηϑήτω φῶς καὶ Γενηϑήτω στερέωμα καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ὅσα προσέταξεν ὁ ϑεὸς γενέσϑαι, καὶ τούτῳ εἰρηκέναι τό· Ποιήσωμεν ἄνϑρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν ἡμετέραν· προσταχϑέντα δὲ τὸν λόγον πεποιηκέναι πάντα ὅσα ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ ἐνετείλατο, CC II,9.

BEING AND BECOMING IN CELSUS AND ORIGEN

IV. THE REALM

OF

623

BECOMING AND ITS GOODNESS

As regards the sensible realm, Plato presumes the eternity of matter – it is not created as if “in the beginning”32. The Judeo-Christian term “creation” is anachronistic with regard to Plato, since the notion of a truly creative (γεννῶν) agent who brings matter into existence exnihilo, out of nothing (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), was introduced at earliest in Middle Platonism by Philo, if his notion of matter can be regarded as unformed (μὴ ὄν)33. Origen understands that in Celsus’ view the world has no beginning34, but in addition, Celsus is in favour of a sort of cyclical history of recurrences, since he mentions that “many conflagrations” and “many floods” from “all eternity” (ἐκ παντὸς αἰῶνος) have happened. He even mentions “cycles of long periods” (χρόνων μακρῶν κύκλους)35. For Celsus, the recurrence of the same things and events in determined cycles is “inevitable”36. Origen rejects Celsus’ concept of the uncreatedness of reality37, but he does not give a clear account of his notion of the creation of matter in ContraCelsum either, and actually he does not seem to think it particularly necessary to do so38. We know from other writings of Origen, especially from Deprincipiisand theCommentaryonGenesis, that the Alexandrian argued for the late creation of matter39, or better said, the matter generated as the result of the cooling of the souls alienated from God40. Matter, then, is not eternal for Origen, but dependent on the unity of the reality or likeness of its source, God the First Being. For Plato, the sensible realm is good because the demiurge has formed it according to the eternal ideas, which indeed are good41. Celsus differs 32. The question about the eternity of matter in Plato’s thought is debated, though, it is seems that his notion of γένεσις (becoming) is more like perpetual change than becoming into existences. See CORNFORD, Plato’sCosmology (n. 3), pp. 24-26. 33. Concerning the notion of the creation of matter in Philo, see e.g. G. MAY, Schöpfung ausdemNichts:DieEntstehungderLehrevonderCreatioexnihilo(AKG, 48), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1978, pp. 15-18. 34. CCI,19. I think that Chadwick’s translation of ἄνωϑεν as “from the beginning” in CCI,14 emphasises the temporality beginning of the universe more than Celsus seems to imply. Thus, I suggest, a more abstract translation like “from the above” would be more coherent here. Cf. CCIV,79. 35. CC IV,11. 36. CCIV,65. 37. CC I,19. 38. See e.g. CC VI,52. 39. See e.g. Deprincipiis II,1,4; IV,33-34 and CommentaryinGenesis,prol. 40. De principiis II,8,3. See e.g. R.A. NORRIS, God and World in Early Christian Theology:AStudyinJustinMartyr,Irenaeus,Tertullian&Origen (Studies in Patristic Thought), London, Adam & Charles Black, 1966, pp. 119-123. 41. See e.g. CORNFORD,Plato’sCosmology (n. 3), pp. 27-28, 34-41.

624

J.P. JUNNI

here from Plato, since he says that “truth is associated with being, error with becoming”42. He thus creates a dualistic opposition between being and becoming – an opposition not found in Plato43. He does not explain his reasons for this, but we might suggest that the origin of evil is related to the chaos of matter, because unorganised matter seems to be the only thing that has not originated from God. Celsus says that “evils are not caused by God, but inhere in matter and dwell among mortals”44. Indeed, it seems impossible for Celsus to attribute any causation of evil to God the First Being45. Origen, in turn, is more liberal on this point. He says that in a strict sense, God has created neither evil nor evil things, but still, the evil in the world does have its origin in God as a by-product of creation, “just as spiral shavings and sawdust are a consequence of the primary works of a carpenter”46. Perhaps it is Celsus’ negative view of matter that inclines him to consider the incarnation of the First God as blasphemy47. He specifically says that in incarnation, God “must undergo change, a change from good to bad”, something that he eventually denies in the name of the immutability48. Origen counters this when he states that the Logos preserves its essence, that is, the οὐσία, which means that God does not undergo any change in incarnation49. I suggest that Celsus and Origen use the term οὐσία differently. For Celsus, οὐσία seems to belong expressly to the intelligible realm of being as opposed to the sensible realm of becoming. Origen, instead, seems to use the term οὐσία more in an Aristotelian way, as a certain substance that is preserved despite the change in the accidents. For him, the boundary between realms of being and becoming – or the intelligible and the sensible – is not as sharp as it is in Celsus. It seems to me that Celsus treats good and evil as different qualities, in a dualistic way, and therefore assigns good to the intelligible and evil to the sensible. Such a dualism, and thus a negative view of matter, were not uncommon in Middle Platonism; we find similar claims in Plutarch and Numenius, for instance. 42. μετὰ οὐσίας μὲν ἀλήϑεια, μετὰ δὲ γενέσεως πλάνη, CC VII,45. 43. See e.g. Timaeus 29D-31A, where Plato states that the demiurge looks at the ideas that are good and thus forms the matter good as well. CORNFORD, Plato’sCosmology(n. 3), pp. 34-41. 44. ἐκ ϑεοῦ μὲν οὐκ ἔστι κακά, ὕλῃ δὲ πρόσκειται καὶ τοῖς ϑνητοῖς ἐμπολιτεύεται, CC IV,66. 45. CC VI,53. 46. CC VI,55. 47. See e.g. CC IV,2-9. 48. μεταβολῆς αὐτῷ δεῖ, μεταβολῆς δὲ ἐξ ἀγαϑοῦ εἰς κακοδαιμονίαν, CC IV,14. 49. ὁ λόγος τῇ οὐσίᾳ μένων λόγος, CC IV,15.

BEING AND BECOMING IN CELSUS AND ORIGEN

625

Origen, by contrast, describes evil more as imperfection or distress50, in more a gradual or measurable way51. Although the two-level model of reality in Plato can be considered as dualistic, I would emphasise more its monistic features like the eternity of both ideas and matter, the correlation between the intelligible and sensible realms, and finally the overall goodness of reality. For Plato, the sensible world is not bad or corrupted, even if it does not resemble eternal forms perfectly. Celsus, for his part, holds a more dualistic worldview. For him, the connection between the intelligible and sensible realms is loose, and their qualities are opposed to each other – the intelligible is good but the sensible is evil. The notion of the goodness of the sensible through the resemblance of the intelligible is alien to him. V. CONCLUSIONS Both Celsus and Origen exploit the Platonic conceptual apparatus of οὐσία and γενέσις, thus distinguishing between the intelligible realm of being and the sensible, material realm of becoming. Some remarkable differences, however, appear in their writings; these are summarised below. Celsus and Origen know of the Highest God, who is also the First Being, the One. Unlike Origen, though, Celsus does not admit of a second uncreated divine principle, such as Logos. The Celsian God is not in interaction with the sensible world, because the First Being is only capable of dwelling among immutable ideas. Thus, God cannot be captured by the mind, “he is beyond intellect”52, although He is an intelligible being.However, Celsus postulates that there are lower-class divine beings which interact with the sensible world and thus mediate the demiurgic function of the Highest God. These lower-class deities are identified with the indigenous deities of different peoples, and Celsus sees the Christian God as one of these as well. 50. κτίζει γὰρ τὰ σωματικὰ ἢ τὰ ἐκτὸς κακά, καϑαίρων καὶ παιδεύων τοὺς μὴ βουληϑέντας παιδευϑῆναι λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ ὑγιεῖ, CC VI,56. 51. I have treated a similar question before in JUNNI, Celsus’ Arguments against the TruthoftheBible(n. 1), pp. 181-182, when discussing the characteristics of Celsian and Christian monotheisms. Similarly, Celsus is in his qualitativemonotheism as rigid as in his concept of being,since Christians in general tend to think more quantitatively in both questions. Originally, I have found the distinction between qualitative and quantitative thinking in A.J. DROGE, HomerorMoses?EarlyChristianInterpretationsoftheHistory ofCulture, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1989, pp. 79-80. 52. CCVII,45.

626

J.P. JUNNI

According to Celsus, there is no temporal beginning in the realm of becoming, but recurrence and cycles of long periods instead. Celsus is extremely negative towards matter; he is in favour of a sharp, qualitative distinction between being and becoming,assigning truth and goodness to the former, but error and wickedness to the latter. Celsus treats good and evil as different qualities and thus assigns good with the intelligible and evil with the sensible in a dualistic way. The causation of evil seems to derive from chaotic matter, since Celsus denies the possibility of evil in the realm of being. The incarnation of the Highest God is impossible for Celsus because of his negative attitude towards matter, and also because he sees the incarnation as change which is incompatible with the static immutability of being (οὐσία). Christians do not address the Highest God, but some of the lower-class deities of the intelligible realm. Origen, too, tries to ensure God’s ineffability, but his solution is different from that of Celsus. While the Celsian God is completely detached from the human intellect, the God of Origen is knowable through the human-born Logos, the Christ. In contrast to Celsus, Origen has more an Aristotelian notion of οὐσία, since the term does not denote explicitly the realm of being in his thought, but is more like an essence that is preserved despite incarnation or embodiment. That is why God, according to Origen, does not undergo any change in incarnation. Logos the Christ is the only mediating principle between human beings and God the Father. That is why Origen, unlike Celsus, holds that both Celsus and Christians are talking about same God. While Celsus insists on the uncreated realm of becoming, Origen argues for the created reality with a temporal beginning. Matter, for Origen, is not eternal but created, and human beings, when turned away from the contemplation of God, become cooler and acquire material bodies for themselves. Origen is less dualistic than Celsus and shows a remarkable affinity with the idealistic monism of Neo-Platonism. For him, the sharpest distinction is not between the intelligible and the sensible, but between God and the rest of creation, whether sensible or not. This also means that Origen does not make a straightforward assignment of goodness with being and evil with becoming. For him, evil is more like gradual imperfection by its nature, as well as a by-product of creation, thus having its ultimate origin in God. Sirkkalanmäki 52 F 24 FI-00760 Helsinki Finland [email protected]

Jussi Pentti JUNNI

IS ROMANS 9,11 PROOF FOR OR AGAINST THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL? ORIGEN AND AUGUSTINE IN COMPARISON

“... but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, ‘The elder will serve the younger’1. As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’”2 (Rom 9,10-13).

The apostle Paul’s account of Rebecca’s twins Esau and Jacob in Romans 9, of whom God loved the younger and hated the elder even before their birth, “though they … had done nothing either good or bad” (9,11), is one of the most difficult passages of the New Testament. In this article, I will show the role this biblical verse played not only in Origen’s, but also in Augustine’s reflections about the pre-existence of the soul3. I. ORIGEN In his early treatise OnFirstPrinciples, Origen presents the origin of the soul as one of the questions to which the ecclesiastical tradition does not give a clear answer (he mentions the alternatives of a soul contained in a bodily seed or coming “from elsewhere”, uncreated or created, that is, created at the beginning or with the forming of the body)4. However, he considers it necessary to challenge the doctrine of “Marcion’s, Valentine’s 1. Gen 25,23. 2. Mal 1,2-3. 3. For Origen’s use of this biblical verse cf. A. CASTAGNO MONACI, L’idea della preesistenzadelleanimeel’esegesidiRm9,9-21, in H. CROUZEL – A. QUACQUARELLI (eds.), Origeniana Secunda: Second colloque international des études origéniennes: Bari, 20-23septembre 1977 (Quaderni di VetChr, 15), Roma, Ateneo, 1980, 69-78; for Augustine’s cf. R.J. O’CONNELL, Augustine’s Rejection of the Fall of the Soul, in AugustinianStudies4 (1973) 1-32, pp. 25-28; ID., TheOriginoftheSoulinSt.Augustine’s LaterWorks, New York, Fordham University Press, 1987. 4. PrinPraef.5 (SC252, 84 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI); CCtII,5,22-23 (SC375, 366-368 BRÉSARD – CROUZEL – BORRET); CCIV,30 (SC136, 256-258 BORRET).

628

L. KARFÍKOVÁ

and Basilides’ pupils”, who explain the diversity of rational beings according to the “different natures of their souls”5. Following their beliefs, it would otherwise have been unfair if God had assigned a celestial habitat to some (such as angels and stars), moreover of unequal dignity, and lower degrees to others. It would also be difficult to explain why there are great differences between human beings, even before their birth, as the Apostle’s words say about Jacob, whom God already loved in his mother’s womb (Rom 9,10-13), unlike his brother6. What Rom 9,11 says concerning Esau and Jacob was thus used by the Gnostic authors against whom Origen argues in his treatiseOnFirstPrinciples. In order to confront their viewpoint, Origen gives an account of the intelligent beings who were created by divine goodness as completely equal (aequalesacsimiles), and who diversified as a result of their own free will (libertasvoluntatissuae)7. Divine providence merely organized them justly according to their merits, that is, to the “preceding causes” (secundumpraecedentescausas), and united them into a single harmony of the world8. As proof, Origen quotes Paul on the unequal prenatal situation of the twins Esau and Jacob9. The concern about God’s injustice is turned away by the Apostle himself at this point (Rom 9,14). Therefore, God’s love for Jacob must have a fair cause, namely his “merit in the previous life”, says Origen10. God’s knowledge of future things alone does not seem to be a sufficient explanation for Origen, even if Rufinus left this point out of his translation11. 5. PrinII,9,5 (SC252, 360-362 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI): quiexscholaMarcionisac ValentinietBasilidaevenientesadseruntdiversasessenaturasanimarum. 6. PrinII,9,5 (SC252, 362 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI): antequamnascatur,diligidicitur adeo. 7. PrinII,9,6 (SC252, 364 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). 8. Prin II,9,6 (SC 252, 366 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). Rufinus’s expression secundum praecedentescausas is apparently a translation of Origen’s ἐκ πρεσβυτέρων αἰτιῶν, i.e. a cause, which precedes soul entering the body (πρὸ τῆς ἐνσωματώσεως), as we can assume from the passage PrinIII,1,21-22 (SC268, 136 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI), preserved in Greek as well as in Rufinus’ translation. 9. PrinII,9,7 (SC252, 366 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). 10. PrinII,9,7 (SC252, 368 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI): ...expraecedentisvidelicetvitae meritisdigneeumdilectumessesentiamusadeo. 11. PrinIII,1,21 (SC268, 134-136 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI): ποιεῖ μὲν γὰρ ὁ δημιουργὸς σκεύη τιμῆς καὶ σκεύη ἀτιμίας οὐκ ἀρχῆϑεν κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν, ἐπεὶ μὴ κατ’ αὐτὴν προκατακρίνει ἢ προδικαιοῖ, ἀλλὰ σκεύη τιμῆς τοὺς ἐκκαϑάραντας ἑαυτοὺς καὶ σκεύη ἀτιμίας τοὺς ἀπερικαϑάρτους ἑαυτοὺς περιϊδόντας· ὥστε ἐκ πρεσβυτέρων αἰτιῶν τῆς κατασκευῆς τῶν εἰς τιμὴν καὶ εἰς ἀτιμίαν σκευῶν γίνεσϑαι ὃν μὲν εἰς τιμὴν ὃν δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν. “For the Creator makes vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour, not from the beginning, according to his foreknowledge, since he does not, according to it, condemn or justify beforehand; but [he makes] vessels of honour those who purged themselves and vessels of dishonour those who

IS ROMANS 9,11 PROOF FOR OR AGAINST THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL?

629

As Origen puts it, God’s righteousness, as declared by the Apostle for Esau and Jacob, should be related to all heavenly, earthly and underground creatures, which “had to have some sort of cause of their diversion before their birth”12. Thus, the existence of the soul necessarily precedes its birth in a body, and this applies not only to human souls, but also to the souls of the stars13. For Origen, the biblical testimony about Jacob, who, although he was second-born, took the place of the older of both twins while they were still in their mother’s womb (cf. Hos 12,3), attests that the human soul is “inserted from outside” (extrinsecusinserta), that is, not “created together with the body” (cum corpore simul ficta)14. If the existence of the soul did not precede that of the body, God would be unjust, as Origen concludes15. In the second book of his Commentary on John (which was written before Origen’s departure to Caesarea in Palestine in 231)16, Origen used the same line of argumentation concerning Rebecca’s twins17. Moreover, he quotes the mysterious PrayerofJoseph (which he characterizes as one of the “apocrypha passed on among Jews”)18. According to this treatise, negligently remained unpurged; so that it is from causes older than the fashioning of vessels unto honour and unto dishonour that one came to be unto honour and another unto dishonour”. English transl.: Origen.OnFirstPrinciples,II, ed. and transl. J. BEHR (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 367. The underlined sentence has no equivalent in Rufinus’s translation (cf. SC 268, 134-136 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). 12. PrinII,9,7 (SC252, 370 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI): causasdiversitatisunusquisque vel caelestium vel terrestrium vel infernorum in semet ipso praecedentes nativitatem corporeamhabere. 13. Prin I,7,4 (SC 252, 214 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). Pace M.J. EDWARDS, Origen againstPlato(Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity), Aldershot, Ashgate 2002, pp. 87-122, who probably wants to make clear that the soul preceding the incarnation is not the soul in the true sense. 14. PrinI,7,4 (SC252, 214 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). 15. PrinI,7,4 (SC252, 216 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). 16. Cf. CIoVI,2,8 (SC157, 132 BLANC). 17. CIoII,31,192 (SC120bis, 340 BLANC). 18. CIoII,31,188 (SC120bis, 338 BLANC): ... τῶν παρ’ ῾Εβραίοις φερομένων ἀποκρύφων τὴν ἐπιγραφομένην “᾿Ιωσὴφ προσευχήν”. This book is also quoted in Origen’s Commentary on Genesis III (Phil XXIII,15; SC 226, 180-182 JUNOD; Phil XXIII,19; SC226, 194-196). For this apocrypha, perhaps originating from the Jewish-Christian tradition rather than the Jewish one, cf. M.R. JAMES,TheLostApocryphaoftheOldTestament: Their Titles and Fragments (Translations of Early Documents. Series 1: PalestinianJewish Texts Pre-rabbinic, 1), London, SPCK, 1920 (reprint 1936), pp. 21-31; J. DANIÉLOU, Trinitéetangélologiedanslathéologiejudéo-chrétienne, in Recherchesdesciencereligieuse45 (1957) 5-41, pp. 23-26. The idea of the pre-existence of the soul was not unusual in the Hellenistic and in the later Jewish tradition; cf. F.Ch. PORTER, Pre-existenceofthe SoulintheBookofWisdomandintheRabbinicalWritings, in R.F. HARPER etal.(eds.), OldTestamentandSemiticStudiesinMemoryofW.R.Harper, I, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1908, 205-269.

630

L. KARFÍKOVÁ

Jacob Israel is one of the angels who descended into human nature19, and even “the archangel” and “the first-born of all living” who “descended to the earth and built a tent among human beings”20. His controversy with the angel Uriel, who wrongly claimed to be more prominent than Jacob Israel21, sheds a clear light on the story of Rebecca’s twins according to Origen’s interpretation, or is perhaps even “the solution to this famous riddle”22. This interpretation of Rom 9,10-13 is original, and certainly somewhat risky compared with that of Origen’s predecessors, who understood the passage rather as evidence of God’s foreknowledge of future events23. However, this is not the only interpretation that can be found in Origen’s work. In his treatise On Prayer, which goes back to the first years of his Caesarea period (around 234), Origen responds to the arguments that question the meaning of prayer: Why turn to God, who knows all things before they have arisen, providentially organized them and even determined the lives of individual people before they were born24? As our prayer cannot change the course of things, it is useless25. Did Jacob receive supremacy over his brother on the basis of his prayer? And what wickedness of Esau earned him God’s hatred even before his birth26? Again, Rom 9,10-13 forms an argument that supports a position that Origen feels obliged to dispute. In his answer, which is inspired by a Stoic source, he analyses the free choice of rational beings, i.e. the movement which these beings themselves determine (δι’ αὐτῶν) and which is therefore a matter of our decision (ἐφ’ ἡμῖν). Although God knows it in advance, his providence does not cause these movements, but only includes their consequences in the world order27. Our prayers, whether heard or unheard, are also incorporated by the divine providence into this order, which has in its view the good of every being28. 19. CIoII,31,188 (SC120bis, 338 BLANC). Cf. also the direct quotation from Prayer ofJoseph in CIoII,31,189. 20. CIoII,31,189-190 (SC120bis, 338-340 BLANC). 21. CIoII,31,190 (SC120bis, 340 BLANC). 22. CIoII,31,191 (SC120bis, 340 BLANC). 23. Cf. for example Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VII,37,5. For Origen’s predecessors cf. CASTAGNO MONACI, L’ideadellapreesistenza (n. 3), p. 72. 24. OratV,2-4 (GCS 3, 308-310 KOETSCHAU). 25. OratV,6 (GCS 3, 311 KOETSCHAU). 26. OratV,4 (GCS 3, 309f. KOETSCHAU). 27. OratVI,3 (GCS 3, 312f. KOETSCHAU). 28. OratVI,4 (GCS 3, 313f. KOETSCHAU).

IS ROMANS 9,11 PROOF FOR OR AGAINST THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL?

631

Given the subject of his treatise, Origen does not speak of the choice that precedes the birth of individual human beings, but of the knowledge that God has of their future decisions. In another passage of his treatise, he observes that Esau’s murderous intention concerning Jacob cannot solely be explained by the theft of their father’s blessings by Jacob (cf. Gen 27,1-41), as it is also caused by the previous wretchedness of Esau’s soul (cf. Jn 12,16)29. In Origen’s eyes, however, the origin of this wretchedness is human free choice. The treatise On Prayer does not mention (or deny) the fact that this choice precedes earthly life30. But even his treatise On Prayer is not Origen’s final word on Rom 9,10-13, as his late CommentaryonRomans (from 243-244) followed all the above-mentioned works. This Commentary is preserved to us only in Rufinus’s translation, and for the passage concerning Rom 9,10-13, we are not even sure whether it comes from Origen’s Commentary in its Greek version31. Unlike Origen’s previous writings, the Commentary 29. OratXXIX,18 (GCS 3, 392 KOETSCHAU). 30. OratVI,4-5 (GCS 3, 313-315 KOETSCHAU). 31. In the prologue of his translation (SC532, 134 HAMMOND BAMMEL), Rufinus complained to his readers that the books from which he had proceeded had been interpolati, which does not seem to mean “contaminated by accessories”, but rather “broken” or “interrupted” in the sense of “incomplete”, as also in CRmX,43,1 (SC555, 440 HAMMOND BAMMEL). As Rufinus states, he had to add the missing part (CRm, EpilogusRufini, 2 [SC555, 452]). The eleventh part, containing the exegesis of our passage, is a hot candidate for one of these missing originals. On the one hand, according to the marginal note in the ancient manuscript of Athos, this very part is missing; cf. O. BAUERNFEIND, DerRömerbrieftext des Origenes nach dem Codex von der Goltz (cod. 184 B 64 des Athosklosters Lawra) (TU,44/3), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1923, p. 109. On the other hand, the interpretation of these biblical passages, though very important for Origen, is surprisingly sketchy; cf. H. CHADWICK, RufinusandtheTuraPapyrusofOrigen’sCommentaryonRomans, in ID., HistoryandThoughtoftheEarlyChurch(Variorum Collected Studies Series, 164), London, Variorum Reprints, 1982, no IX, pp. 40f.; C. HAMMOND BAMMEL, DerRömerbrieftextdes RufinundseineOrigenes-Übersetzung(Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel, 10), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1985, p. 92. Moreover, in the interpretation of the next passage, which refers to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, the author refers to his more extensive interpretation of this difficult question in the book OnFreeDecisionMaking (CRmVII,3; SC543, 384 HAMMOND BAMMEL, i.e. PrinIII,1,1-24). In this note we can see Rufinus’s discrete reference to his source, although it is of course possible that it originates in Origen himself (so thinks F. COCCHINI, ProblematicherelativeaRm9nelCommentodiOrigene allaLetteraaiRomani, in AnnalidiStoriadell’Esegesi 3 [1986] 85-97; EAD., Introduzione, in Origene, CommentoallaLetteraaiRomani:Introduzione,traduzioneenote, II (Ascolta, Israele!, 3), Genova, Marietti, 1986, pp. XI-XX). C. Hammond Bammel (DerRömerbrieftext, pp. 58-104) thinks that for our passage, Rufinus drew from Origen’s Stromata, which, unfortunately, has not been preserved for us. The passage about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart from the Cappadocian Philocalia, XXVII,1-8 (SC226, 268-298 JUNOD) is also sometimes regarded as part of Origen’s commentary on Romans 9, though it is rather uncertain, cf. C. HAMMOND BAMMEL, PhilocaliaIX,Jerome,Epistle121,andOrigen’sExposition ofRomansVII, in JTS32 (1981) 50-81; EAD., DerRömerbrieftext, p. 91; COCCHICINI, Introduzione, p. XVIIIf.; differently, however, J.A. ROBINSON, ThePhilocaliaofOrigen:

632

L. KARFÍKOVÁ

emphasizes the Apostle’s intention of highlighting not the biological, but the spiritual line of God’s election32. It does not seek to defend God’s righteousness in the election of Jacob, but to show that being adopted as the sons of God is not dependent on having the bloodlines of the Jewish people. If Jacob had been chosen on the basis of the merits he would gain while in the body, and if he had been justified by his “bodily acts” (i.e. by the fulfilment of Jewish Law), then the mercy of his merits would also apply to his offspring of flesh and blood33. On the contrary, it is clear that the election of a people by God is not determined by biological succession, nor by the “bodily” fulfilment of the Jewish ritual law34. The idea of pre-existence that is present in treatise OnFirstPrinciples and the Commentary on John does not appear in this interpretation. In addition, God’s foreknowledge is understood by the author of the CommentaryonRomans somewhat differently than in the treatise OnPrayer. According to the Commentary, God’s foreknowledge (praescivit, Rom 8,29) is limited to the elect. The author distances himself from the widespread “popular” idea (secundumcommunemvulgiopinionem) that God knows both good and evil in advance. There is certainly nothing that is hidden from God, but in the real biblical sense of “knowledge” it can only be said that God “knows in advance” the good, while he turns away from the evil35. Even if we accept this “popular” idea of God’s foreknowledge, it cannot be said that people accomplish their deeds because God has appointed them, but on the contrary, because they do so, God knows about their deeds36. This shift in the interpretation of Rom 9,10-13 can perhaps be attributed to Rufinus’s attempt to revise the idea of pre-existence37, or it can be explained by Origen’s own growing caution (if we accept his authorship of this section of the CommentaryonRomans)38. A few of Origen’s TheTextRevisedwithaCriticalIntroductionandIndices, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1893, p. LI; É. JUNOD, Introduction, in SC226, pp. 103-106. 32. CRmVII,13,2 (SC543, 376 HAMMOND BAMMEL). 33. CRmVII,13,3 (SC543, 378 HAMMOND BAMMEL). 34. CRm VII,13,3 (SC 543, 378 HAMMOND BAMMEL). For bodily acts that fulfil the Law, cf. CRm VIII,6,6 (SC543, 206-208). 35. CRmVII,5,4 (SC543, 304-306 HAMMOND BAMMEL). Cf. also VII,6,1-2 (SC543, 310-314); VII,6,6 (SC543, 318-320). 36. CRmVII,6,5 (SC543, 318 HAMMOND BAMMEL). 37. So thinks C. HAMMOND BAMMEL, Rufinus’TranslationofOrigen’sCommentaryon Romans and the Pelagian Controversy, in Storia ed esegesi in Rufino di Concordia, ed. Centro di antichità altoadriatiche, Udine, Arti grafiche friulane, 1992, 131-142, p. 142. 38. CASTAGNO MONACI, L’ideadellapreesistenza (n. 3), p. 76. The development in the interpretation of our passage from pre-existence to foreknowledge is also assumed by M. HARL, Lapréexistencedesâmesdansl’œuvred’Origène, in EAD., Ledéchiffrementdu

IS ROMANS 9,11 PROOF FOR OR AGAINST THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL?

633

late homilies (also preserved in Rufinus’s translation)39 seem to speak rather for the latter possibility, as there is no mention of pre-existence in connection with Rom 9,10-13. In his HomiliesonGenesis, Origen interprets both nations welding in Rebecca’s womb (Gen 25,23) as evidence that the second-born may overtake the first-born, as the Church may overtake the Synagogue40. At the same time, this passage can also be explained allegorically as “two nations in each of us” (duo populi intra nos): the nation of virtue struggling against the nation of vice41. The reflections on why the younger brother received supremacy over the older before they were able to act virtuously or viciously (Rom 9,11), and why God loved one while hating the other in the very womb of their mother, are deliberately left aside by Origen (longumest). These are, he says, secrets and riddles that “go beyond his eloquence and the interest of listeners”42. But, as Origen admits, his restraint on this issue derives from another source. He would like to ask where this special law of primacy given to the younger comes from (quaesintistanativitatisprivilegia), why Esau was born hairy (Gen 25,25), that is, “shrouded in the dirt of sin and iniquity”, and whether he himself sinned or if his parents did (Jn 9,2). But as soon as Origen went into the depths of the biblical text he had detractors, similar to the story of Isaac and the well that was immediately filled with clay and mud by the quarrelsome Philistines (Gen 26,17-21)43. By the “Philistines” Origen means both “the friends of the letter” (amicilitterae)44 and “the experts of profane doctrines”, who could claim his education as their sens:Étudessurl’herméneutiquechrétienned’OrigèneàGrégoiredeNysse (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 135), Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes 1993, 247-268, pp. 261f. 39. The records of Origen’s sermons may perhaps be dated after 245, judging by the mentioning by Eusebius of Caesarea that Origen let his sermons be written down only after the age of sixty, cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. Eccl. VI,36,1 (SC 41, 138). For this see A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Origene predicatore e il suo pubblico (Dipartimento di storia dell’Università di Torino, 3), Milano, Franco Angeli, 1987, pp. 59-64; A. GRAPPONE, AnnotazionisullacronologiadelleomeliediOrigene, in Augustinianum 41 (2001) 27-58. In the preface to the Homilies on Numbers, Rufinus also states that the sermons on Moses’ law were spoken by Origen in his old age (HNm, Epist.Rufini, SC415, 18 BAEHRENS – MÉHAT – DOUTRELEAU). 40. For this typology, cf. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adv.Haer.IV,21,2-3 (SC100/2, 678-684 ROUSSEAU). 41. HGnXII,3 (OWD 1/2, 226 HABERMEHL). 42. HGnXII,1 (OWD 1/2, 222-224 HABERMEHL). 43. HGnXII,4 (OWD 1/2, 228 HABERMEHL). 44. HGnXIII,3 (OWD 1/2, 240 HABERMEHL). A. MONACI CASTAGNO (Origenepredicatore [n. 39], pp. 101-105) thinks that these are Ebionites clinging to the letter of the biblical text, probably represented in Caesarea, and perhaps even other opponents of Origen’s allegorical exegetical method.

634

L. KARFÍKOVÁ

own (nostraartiseruditioest)45. Origen’s caution with regard to these two groups of opponents perhaps explains why the story of Rebecca’s twins is not explored to the point of the pre-existence of their souls. Nevertheless, we understand that Origen did not abandon his reflections on the subject, but only that he did not want to develop them as a preacher. Similarly, in the HomiliesonNumbers III,12-13, Origen explains the election of the younger Jacob over his elder brother as proof that God does not look at the biological primacy, but at “the intention of the heart” (expropositocordis), which is not unknown to him46. Here too, Origen relates the words on Esau and Jacob allegorically to the intentions of the soul, which precede human action. These two types of will arouse God’s love or hatred before one can do anything good or bad. This is why God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had even done anything, as the Apostle says47. On the basis of all these passages, we can infer that Origen knows four interpretations of Rom 9,10-13: (1) In the treatise OnFirstPrinciples, he formulates the idea of pre-existence, which considers God’s love of Jacob and hatred of Esau as just; in his Commentary on John, he adds the angelic origin of both brothers by drawing on the apocryphal Prayer of Joseph. (2) In the treatise On Prayer, the motif of pre-existence gives way to the idea of God’s foreknowledge, which sees future human actions. (3) In the CommentaryonRomans, the concept of foreknowledge is understood as unbiblical and the idea of God’s choice, which is not based on blood primogeniture, comes into its place. Finally, in the HomiliesonNumbers, this latter motif is combined with an emphasis on God’s foreknowledge and is supplemented by (4) the allegory of both brothers as the double intention of the soul. In his Homilies on Genesis, Origen only presents the allegorical interpretation, but he makes it clear that it is by no means all that can be read from the biblical text. II. AUGUSTINE Over 150 years later, Augustine, in his early dialogue OnFreeDecision Making, also states that the difficult question of the origin of individual souls has not yet been elucidated by the interpreters of Scripture, or at

45. HGnXIII,3 (OWD 1/2, 240 HABERMEHL). According to Eusebius’s report, that is what Porphyry did in his polemic against Christians on Origen’s account. Cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist.Eccl.VI,19,7 (SC 41, 115 BARDY). 46. HNmIII,2,2 (SC 415, 78-80 BAEHRENS – MÉHAT – DOUTRELEAU). 47. HNmXX,2,3 (SC 461, 26-28 BAEHRENS – MÉHAT – DOUTRELEAU).

IS ROMANS 9,11 PROOF FOR OR AGAINST THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL?

635

least, that such an interpretation is unknown to him48. He also presents a catalogue of options that come into consideration but he (unlike Origen) does not want to insist on any of them with certainty: either (1) all souls derive from one by passing (de propagine), or (2) the individual souls arise in newborn people, or (3) they exist before the bodies into which they are sent by God, or (4) the souls come into the bodies as a result of their own will (suasponte)49. None of the variants in this list, which we find as late as in Augustine’s letter 143 to Marcellin dating from 41250, correspond fully to the idea found in Origen’s early writings. Nevertheless, in the works of his youth, Augustine also showed an affinity for the pre-existence of the soul that was inspired by his reading of the Platonic authors (and still so in the seventh book of his Commentary TheLiteralMeaningofGenesis51. Augustine’s hesitation on the reason for the soul’s incarnation as displayed in the alternatives (3) and (4) mentioned above seems to echo Platonic thoughts on the same subject52. In his Retractations, which were written at the end of his life, Augustine explains that the biblical (and at the same time Porphyrian) theme of “the return of the soul” to heaven (Eccl 12,7) need not imply its pre-existence, but only its origin in the regiobeatitudinis. Otherwise, we would “contradict the Apostle who said that “not yet born they 48. DeliberoarbitrioIII,21,59,200 (CCSL29, 309f. GREEN – DAUR). 49. De libero arbitrio III,21,59,200 (CCSL 29, 309 GREEN – DAUR): Harum autem quatuor de anima sententiarum, utrum de propagine veniant an in singulis quibusque nascentibus novae fiant an in corpora nascentium iam alicubi existentes vel mittantur divinitusvelsuaspontelabantur,nullamtemereadfirmareoportebit. 50. Epist.143,6 (CSEL 44, 255 GOLDBACHER). 51. DeGenesiadlitteramVII,24,35–27,38 (Bibliothèque augustinienne 48, 558-562 AGAËSSE – SOLIGNAC). For the question of whether Augustine ever supported the idea of the pre-existence of the soul, and if so, in what sense, cf. the discussion R.J. O’Connell vs. G. O’Daly: R.J. O’CONNELL, Pre-existenceinAugustine’sSeventhLetter, in Revue desÉtudesAugustiniennes 15 (1969) 67-73; ID., Augustine’sRejection(n. 3), pp. 2528; ID., Pre-existenceintheEarlyAugustine, in RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes26 (1980) 176-188; ID., TheOrigin (n. 3); G. O’DALY,DidSt.AugustineEverBelieve intheSoul’sPre-existence?, in ID., PlatonismPaganandChristian:StudiesinPlotinus andAugustine (Variorum Collected Studies Series, 719), Aldershot, Ashgate Variorum 2001, No IV; ID., Augustine’sPhilosophyofMind, London, Duckworth 1987, pp. 199207. 52. Whether the soul’s descent into the body is a consequence of its wrongdoing or is in itself its wrongdoing, or whether it is, on the contrary, a service that it performs in favour of the body, remains an open question for the Neoplatonic authors. As Plotinus points out (Enneades IV,8[6],1.23-50), Plato himself does not give a definite answer (see Phaedo 62B3-6; 67C6-D2; Cratylus 400C1-9; Phaedrus 246B6–C6; 248C5-8; Respublica 514A2-B6; 619D1-7; Timaeus 34A8-35A1). In Enneades IV,8(6),5,16, Plotinus uses in this context the term ἁμαρτία (“error”, “sin”); otherwise, however, in Enneades III,9(13),3,1-2; I,1(53),12,24-27. For this aporia cf. E. BRÉHIER, LaphilosophiedePlotin, Paris, Vrin, 32008, pp. 78-82.

636

L. KARFÍKOVÁ

have not done anything good or bad” (Rom 9,11)53. From this account we can assume that following Augustine’s reasoning as regards the preexistence of the soul, the biblical line Rom 9,11 played a prominent role, albeit one completely opposite to Origen’s interpretation. Augustine quoted Rom 9,11 already in his collection of exegetic questions PropositionsfromtheEpistletotheRomans, which goes back to before his episcopal ordination in 396. God’s love of Jacob and hatred of Esau are explained here by God’s foreknowledge (praescientiaDei), which knows the qualities of both brothers before their birth54. We already met this traditional interpretation in Origen’s treatise OnPrayer. Like Origen, Augustine observes that this verse might call human free choice into question. But his main interest lies in God’s election, which is not guided by human deeds, nor even by future deeds, but by future faith55. The same question is analysed in a collection of biblical treatises addressed to Simplician, which Augustine wrote soon after his episcopal ordination, although he gives a very different answer to it. In his love and hatred of the unborn twins, God is not led by future deeds or future faith, but by his ineffable plan, according to which he loves his own grace in Jacob, while hating the iniquity of the human race in Esau56. It is as if Augustine were asking the same question as Origen concerning the justice of God’s election and reprobation, but coming to a completely different answer57. This theological position, which is found precisely in the answer to Simplician, would become the backbone of Augustine’s doctrine of grace, which he developed (with the support of Rom 9,11) against the “Pelagians”58, and against all others who could not easily reconcile themselves to Augustine’s notion of grace, which is completely independent of the human will59. Augustine describes this idea in a very pathetic manner in his letters, e.g. to Bishop Paulinus (in 417)60 or to the Roman presbyter (and later pope) Sixtus (in 418), to whom he explains that before Jacob was born, God loved the “undeserved gift of his grace” that was in him, while he hated “the original sin” in the unfortunate Esau. Therefore, the 53. Retract.I,1,3 (CCSL57, 9 MUTZENBECHER).Cf. also Retract. I,8,2 (CCSL57, 22). 54. Prop.Rom. 52,60,4 (CSEL 84, 34 DIVJAK). 55. Cf. the whole passage Prop.Rom. 52,60,1-12 (CSEL 84, 33-35 DIVJAK). 56. Cf. Simpl. I,2,3-13 (CCSL44, 25-38 MUTZENBECHER). A comparison with Augustine’s previous interpretation is made by e.g. A.F.W. LEKKERKERKER, Römer7undRömer9 beiAugustin, Amsterdam, H.J. Paris, 1942, pp. 93-137. 57. Simpl. I,2,4 (CCSL44, 28 n. MUTZENBECHER). 58. C.duasepist.Pel. II,7,15 (CSEL60, 475 VRBA – ZYCHA); II,10,22 (CSEL60, 484). 59. Decorr.gr.7,14 (Bibliothèque augustinienne 24, 298 CHÉNÉ – PINTARD). 60. Epist.186,5,13–6,21 (CSEL57, 56-62 GOLDBACHER).

IS ROMANS 9,11 PROOF FOR OR AGAINST THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL?

637

destiny of both brothers was determined “in God’s predestination through grace before they were born”61. Thus, in the interpretation of Rom 9,11, we can see a shift in Augustine’s theology from God’s foreknowledge (i.e. previous knowledge of human faith, not deeds) to God’s incomprehensible predestination (which is not led by works or faith, but establishes them). Like Origen, Augustine (in the Exposition to Ps 136 and TheCityof God XVI) mentions the story of the twins Esau and Jacob to emphasize the paradoxical nature of God’s election, which he applies to the Jewish and Christian people (here too, the promise is finally made to the younger, as Augustine believes)62, or he allegorizes the figures of both brothers as the “bodily” and “spiritual” man63. At the same time, Augustine uses Rom 9,11 in his polemics against the Origenian idea of the merits the souls acquired before their incarnation. Augustine probably used this argumentation, which we met in his Retractions, for the first time in the sixth book of TheLiteralMeaningofGenesis, where he rejects this view without explicitly associating it with Origen’s name. As Augustine puts it, the Apostle’s words about Esau and Jacob clearly show that people have neither good nor bad qualities before their birth. Insofar as they are born with a burden of guilt, it is not a sin they committed before their birth, but an inherited sin64. In the tenth book of the same work, Augustine returns to the origin of individual souls and lets both pre-existence variants disappear from his reflections65. In a similar way, Rom 9,11 is used in Augustine’s first antiPelagian work, OntheMeritsandRemissionofSins,andontheBaptism ofInfants, where he also observes that the question of undeserved grace is far from being solved in these “unlikely fairy tales” about the heavenly sin of the soul. How else could we explain how someone of slow spirit 61. Epist. 194,8,34 (CSEL 57, 203 GOLDBACHER): ...quod,antequamillinascerentur, erat in dei praedestinatione per gratiam. Quid enim diligebat in Iacob antequam natus fecissetaliquidboni,nisigratuitummisericordiaesuaedonum?EtquidoderatinEsau, antequam natus fecisset aliquid mali, nisi originale peccatum? Cf. the whole passage Epist. 194,8,34-38 (CSEL 57, 203-206). 62. Enarr.inPs.136,18 (CSEL95/4, 97f. GORI); Deciv.Dei, XVI,35 (CCSL48, 540 DOMBART – KALB); XVI,42 (CCSL48, 548). 63. Enarr.inPs.136,18 (CSEL95/4, 98f. GORI). 64. DeGenesiadlitteramVI,9,14-16 (Bibliothèque augustinienne 48, 464-468 AGAËSSE – SOLIGNAC). 65. De Genesi ad litteram X,15,27 (Bibliothèque augustinienne 49, 192 AGAËSSE – SOLIGNAC);X,7,12 (BA49, 166); X,17,30 (BA49, 196-198). Cf. P. AGAËSE – A. SOLIGNAC, Notecomplémentaire43, inBA49, 533f. These interpreters mention a possible merging of the pre-existence alternative into creationism in DeGenesiadlitteramX, but they also leave open the possibility of several imperfectly harmonized editorial layers in Augustine’s work.

638

L. KARFÍKOVÁ

– which is a result of previous sin according to this doctrine – will receive the grace of faith66? Augustine protested against the idea of sin before the incarnation of souls several times in his anti-Pelagian years, very often (though not always)67 with reference to Rom 9,11. He does so too in OntheGraceofChrist,andonOriginalSin, where he describes this doctrine as being taken from the Platonics (nonnulli secundum Platonicosopinantur)68, and in his homily 165 (which dates from 417), where he even states that, on the basis of the Apostle’s testimony in Rom 9,11, “the Catholic faith has rejected it” (respuitcatholicafides)69. In a similar sense, Rom 9,11 is quoted in the letters to Bishop Optatus of 418 and 420 (Epist. 190 and 202A respectively), and in the monographic treatise OntheSoulandItsOrigin (which dates from 419 or a little later)70. An explicit attribution of this doctrine to Origen can be found in the second of the letters to Optatus (Epist.202A)71, as well as in Augustine’s polemic in TheCityofGod, where, however, Rom 9,11 is not quoted in this context72. Augustine’s polemic against the idea of a sin which souls committed before their birth is likely a reaction to Jerome’s anti-Origenian campaign. After 393, this campaign replaced Jerome’s boundless admiration for Origen, whose thoughts – including the idea of the pre-existence of souls – he had mediated to the Latin West73. As early as 396, Jerome addressed a letter to Augustine warning him of Origen’s mistakes. Unfortunately, this letter is lost today74. In 402, Jerome also sent Augustine the third book 66. De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum I,22,31-32 (CSEL 60, 29-32 VRBA – ZYCHA). 67. Epist. 164,7,20 (CSEL 44, 539 GOLDBACHER); Epist. 166,9,27 (CSEL 44, 583); Deciv.Dei, XI,23 (CCSL48, 341 DOMBART – KALB). 68. DegratiaChristiII,31,36 (CSEL 42, 195 VRBA – ZYCHA). 69. Sermones165,6 (CCSL 41Bb, 301 PARTOENS). 70. Epist. 190,1,4 (CSEL 57, 140 GOLDBACHER); Epist. 202A,8,17 (CSEL 57, 313); DeanimaeteiusorigineIII,7,9 (CSEL 60, 367 VRBA – ZYCHA); I,12,15 (CSEL 60, 314). 71. Epist.202A,4,8 (CSEL57, 307 GOLDBACHER). 72. Deciv.Dei, XI,23 (CCSL48, 341 DOMBART – KALB). 73. Cf. Jerome, Comm. in Eccl. VI,2-3 (CCSL 72, 284 ADRIAEN); Comm. in Eph. III,6,1-3 (PL 26, 538-539) to Eccl 4,3. For this see E.A. CLARK, The Place of Jerome’s Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist Controversy: The Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals, in VigChr41 (1987) 154-171, pp. 157f.; A. FÜRST, AugustinsBriefwechselmitHieronymus (Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband, 29), Münster, Aschendorff, 1999, p. 190. 74. For this EpistoladeperditaIHieronymi,cf. Augustine, Epist. 40,6,9 (CSEL34/2, 79 GOLDBACHER) and also Jerome, Epist. 39,1,1 (CSEL34/2, 67). See also FÜRST, AugustinsBriefwechsel (n. 73), pp. 93f. For the information Augustine received from Jerome, cf. A.-M. LA BONNARDIÈRE, Jérôme“informateur”d’Augustinausujetd’Origène, in Revue desÉtudesAugustiniennes20 (1974) 42-54, pp. 44-46.

IS ROMANS 9,11 PROOF FOR OR AGAINST THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL?

639

of his Defence against Rufinus, where Jerome writes contemptuously concerning Origen’s idea of the sin of souls before incarnation 75. Finally, Augustine knew76 of the letter that Jerome addressed to Marcellinus and Anapsychia (which goes back to 411), in which he rejected the idea that “the soul fell from heaven, as the philosopher Pythagoras, all the Platonists and Origen think”77. From our point of view, it is worth noting that Jerome does not quote Rom 9,11 in any of these works, from the portions which are available today. Rufinus, however, quotes the verse in his DefenceagainstJerome, which dates from 400, adding it to Jerome’s report on Origen’s belief that differences between human beings would contradict God’s righteousness “if the merits of the souls did not precede their incarnation” (nisi animarum merita praecesserint)78. Similarly, it would be inexplicable, Rufinus adds, if God “had loved Jacob before he came out of his mother’s womb, and hated Esau before he did anything deserving of hatred, unless the causes proving God’s righteousness had preceded (their entering the body)”79. We cannot say for sure whether Rufinus’s Defence was known to Augustine80. Neither do we know for sure when and to what extent Augustine became familiar with Origen’s own treatise OnFirstPrinciples, which had been available since 398 in Rufinus’s and, shortly after, Jerome’s translations81. However, if Augustine knew one of these texts, he drew entirely different conclusions from Rom 9,11 than Origen and his defender had. Neither is Rom 9,11 quoted in Augustine’s answer to Orosius from 415, which deals not only with Spanish Priscillianism, but also partially with Origenism82. Some interpreters believe that this verse once again attracted 75. Jerome, ContraRufinum III,30 (SC303, 296 LARDET). 76. Cf. Epist.169,4,13 (CSEL44, 620f. GOLDBACHER) from 415. 77. Jerome, Epist. 165,1,1 (CSEL 44, 542 GOLDBACHER): ... lapsa de caelo sit, ut PythagorasphilosophusomnesquePlatonicietOrigenesputant. 78. Jerome, Comm.inEph.I,1,5 (PL 26, 449C). Jerome reacts in ContraRufinumI,22 (SC303, 60-64 LARDET). Cf. also TheCommentariesofOrigenandJeromeonSt.Paul’s EpistletotheEphesians, transl. R.E. HEINE (The Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 10-13 and 89. 79. Rufinus, ContraHieronymum I,29 (CCSL20, 64). Here, the editor M. SIMONETTI seems to mistakenly include Rom 9,11 into the quote from Jerome’s “Defence”. 80. G. Sfameni Gasparro assumes Augustine’s awareness of Rufinus’s Defence inDe peccatorummeritis.Cf. G. SFAMENI GASPARRO, Agostinodifrontealla“eterodossia”di Origene, in Augustiniana 40 (1990) 219-243, pp. 232f. 81. G. SFAMENI GASPARRO (ibid., pp. 240f.) considers Augustine’s knowledge of this work to be rather mediated (cf. also a summary of the earlier discussion, ibid., p. 224, notes 23 and 24). 82. For the question of the origin of the souls, cf. Orosius, Consultatio3 (CCSL49, 161 DAUR); Augustine answers in AdOrosiumcontraPriscillianistasetOrigenistas 8,9

640

L. KARFÍKOVÁ

Augustine’s attention during his polemic against Pelagius’s Commentaryon Romans83. However, Augustine was not acquainted with this Commentary until after he wrote the first two books of OntheMeritsandRemissionof Sins84.Moreover, Pelagius’s interpretation does not concern the question of the pre-existence of souls, but exclusively follows the theological motif of God’s foreknowledge in a sense that is close to Augustine’s early accounts85. Other scholars therefore conclude that Augustine’s revived interest in the LettertotheRomans was evoked, around 411, by Origen’s Commentary, which was newly accessible thanks to Rufinus’s translation86. However, as previously mentioned, this commentary does not connect Rom 9,11 with pre-existence. Rom 9,11 nonetheless appears in the treatise De fide, which has been attributed to Rufinus the Syrian. As part of his reflection on the origin of souls, the author clearly rejects the notion of “the wicked Origen, who was caught up with pagan heresy”, and taught that “the souls were created before the bodies” (animas ante corpora factas)87. Augustine criticized this treatise for its closeness to Pelagianism in OntheMeritsandRemission of Sins88. One cannot rule out the possibility that it was this very passage of the treatise Onfaith that turned his attention to Rom 9,11, even if it was used as evidence for the sinlessness of newborns, and not in the Origenian context89. How and when Augustine discovered the anti-Origenian implications of Rom 9,11 remains uncertain; perhaps a combination of several of the above-mentioned motives contributed to it. In any case, in his eyes, this verse definitively did not provide support for reflections on the merits of souls before they enter bodies, as we saw in Origen’s treatise On First Principles and in his Commentary on John. It does, on the contrary, provide support for the denial of this Origenist view with reference to the inexplicability of God’s decisions. (CCSL 49, 172f.). For this, cf. LA BONNARDIÈRE, Jérôme (n. 74), pp. 47-51; SFAMENI GASPARRO, Agostino (n. 80), pp. 236-240. 83. So O’CONNELL, TheOrigin (n. 3), pp. 116f., 324. 84. Depecc.mer.III,1,1 (CSEL 60, 129 VRBA – ZYCHA). For this, cf. C.P. BAMMEL, Augustine, Origen and the Exegesis of St. Paul, in Augustinianum 32 (1992) 341-368, p. 359, note 74. 85. Pelagius, ExpositioinRom. 9,9-15 (Pelagius’s ExpositionsofThirteenEpistlesof St.Paul, ed. A. SOUTER [Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, IX/2], Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1926, pp. 74f.). 86. BAMMEL, Augustin (n. 84), p. 362. 87. Defide 27 (MILLER 88). 88. Cf. Depecc.mer.I,34,64 (CSEL 60, 64 VRBA – ZYCHA). The book mentioned here is identified by F. Refoulé as the treatise Liberdefide, cf. F. REFOULÉ, Datationdupremier conciledeCarthagecontrelesPélagiensetduLibellusfideideRufin, in RevuedesÉtudes Augustiniennes9 (1963) 41-49; BAMMEL, Augustine (n. 84), p. 361. 89. Rufinus the Syrian, Defide 41 (MILLER 118).

IS ROMANS 9,11 PROOF FOR OR AGAINST THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL?

641

Nothing suggests that Augustine would have been working with Origen’s interpretation of our verse since his youth90, even if he knew Origen’s questions concerning human free will and God’s justice in electing and reprobating. His interpretation in the early work PropositionsfromtheEpistletotheRomans perhaps resembles Origen’s treatise OnPrayer or his HomiliesonNumbers (with the difference that Augustine does not assume God’s foreknowledge of human decisions and intentions, but his foreknowledge of faith). In Exposition to Ps 136, and in TheCityofGod XVI, Augustine, with his interpretation of Rom 9,11 applied to the Synagogue and the Church, is closest to Origen’s Commentary on Romans and his Homilies on Genesis. The allegorical interpretation of both brothers as the “bodily” and the “spiritual” man (also in the Exposition to Ps 136) resembles Origen’s idea of the “nation of vice” and the “nation of virtue” in every human being from his HomiliesonGenesis, or the two types of intentions preceding human action from his HomiliesonNumbers. The role played by the trespass of the soul before its incarnation in Origen’s thinking was reserved by Augustine to the doctrine of hereditary sin (or alternatively, to the inclusion of the whole human race in its sinning forefather, as Augustine puts it in his letter 166 to Jerome)91. Like Origen, Augustine also assumed a misconduct that preceded the historical world; but according to his conviction, each soul does not commit this misconduct itself, but rather shares the guilt that is passed on through the human race. Instead of an emphasis on the free choice of each rational being as found in Origen, we find in Augustine the predominant intuition of human beings interconnected by shared guilt, which only God’s grace can remove. Charles University in Prague P. O. Box 529 Černá 9 CZ-115 55 Prague 1 [email protected]

Lenka KARFÍKOVÁ

90. For another conclusion cf. D. KEECH (TheAnti-PelagianChristologyofAugustineof Hippo,396-430 [Oxford Theological Monographs], Oxford, Oxford University Press 2012), who, however, focuses on another part of Origen’s CommentaryonRomans (especially Rom 8,3). As noted by BAMMEL (Augustine [n. 84], pp. 351f.), Augustine’s early interpretations of Romans are already very different from Origen’s in their form. 91. Epist. 166,9,27 (CSEL 44, 583 GOLDBACHER). Cf. A. SOLIGNAC, La condition de l’hommepécheurd’aprèssaintAugustin, in NouvelleRevueThéologique78 (1956) 359-385, pp. 376-388. I have addressed this issue in my book Grace and the Will according to Augustine (SupplVigChr, 115), Leiden, Brill, 2012.

OUSIA IN ORIGEN THE USE OF THE TERM IN LIGHT OF THE HOMILIESON THEPSALMS

I. INTRODUCTION The discovery in 2012 of the twenty-nine HomiliesonthePsalms in the CodexMonacensisGraecus3141 evidences Origen’s extensive use of philosophical vocabulary in his exegesis of the Psalter. Scholars anticipated this, 1. On the circumstances of the discovery: M. MOLIN PRADEL, Novitàorigenianedalla StaatsbibliothekdiMonacodiBaviera:ilCod. graec.314, in Adamantius18 (2012) 1640. For an overview of this homiletical corpus see: L. PERRONE, RiscoprireOrigeneoggi: PrimeimpressionisullaraccoltadiomeliesuiSalminelCodex Monacensis Graecus314, in Adamantius18 (2012) 41-58 (an adjourned study is: ID., RediscoveringOrigenToday: FirstImpressionsoftheNewCollectionofHomiliesonthePsalmsintheCodex Monacensis Graecus314, in StudiaPatristica 56/4 [2013] 103-122); ID., Origenesaltundneu: die Psalmenhomilien in der neuentdeckten Münchner Handschrift, in ZAC 17 (2013) 193-214; ID., Origenes redivivus:LadécouvertedesHoméliessurlesPsaumesdansle Cod. Gr.314deMunich, in RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes59 (2013) 55-93; ID., DiscoveringOrigen’sLostHomiliesonthePsalms, in AuctoresNostri 15 (2015) 19-46. The early dating of this corpus in the exegetical activity of Origen, put forward by P. NAUTIN (Origène:Savieetsonœuvre[Christianisme antique, 1],Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 403, 401, 434; see also: ID., Introduction, in Origène. Homélies sur Jérémie [SC, 232], ed. P. HUSSON – P. NAUTIN, Paris, Cerf, 1976, 15-191, pp. 15-21; ID., Introduction, in Origène. HoméliessurSamuel,ed. P. – M.-T. NAUTIN [SC, 328], Paris, Cerf, 1986, 11-89, pp. 5760), relying on his conjecture of a three-year cycle of homilies on the Old Testament in Caesarea under the reign of Gordian III (238-244) and on a passage in the Latin translation by Rufinus of the first homily on Ps 36: H36Ps I,2 (SC 411, 62 CROUZEL – BRÉSARD – PRINZIVALLI), has been countered by scholars in recent years: A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Origenepredicatoreeilsuopubblico(Dipartimento di storia dell’Università di Torino, 3), Milano, Franco Angeli, 1987, pp. 59-64; V. PERI, OmelieorigenianesuiSalmi:Contributo all’identificazionedeltestolatino(Studi e Testi, 289), Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1980, p. 129, n. 68; A. GRAPPONE, Annotazionisullacronologiadelleoperedi Origene, in Augustinianum41 (2001) 27-58; ID., Annotazionisulcontestoliturgicodelle omeliediOrigene, in Augustinianum41 (2001) 329-362, ultimately in light of the crossreferences between the Greek homilies on the Psalms and the AgainstCelsus: A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Contesto liturgico e cronologia della predicazione origeniana alla luce dellenuoveOmelie sui Salmi, in Adamantius 20 (2014) 238-253; L. PERRONE, TheDating of the New Homilies on the Psalms in the Munich Codex: The Ultimate Origen?, in Proche-OrientChrétien67 (2017) 243-251. In addition, the reference to the Greek text of H36Ps I,2 (GCS NF 19, 118,7-20 PERRONE) does not support the aforesaid conjecture of P. Nautin about an early dating of the corpus; on this: E. PRINZIVALLI, AFreshLookat RufinusasTranslator, in A.-C. JACOBSEN (ed.), OrigenianaUndecima:OrigenandOrigenismintheHistoryofWesternThought (BETL, 279), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 247-275, pp. 261-263.

644

V. LIMONE

however, from the extant corpus of Greek fragments2. A case in point is οὐσία, a key term in classical philosophy, which occurs six times in the corpus. Though it is impossible to draw a semantic framework of this word in Origen’s writings due to its large semantic domain3, this paper will examine his use of οὐσία in the HomiliesonthePsalms. As we shall see, he applies it in the context of two core theories in the early imperial era: the οὐσία as individual existence, and the difference between two species of the individual existence, namely, the corporeal and the incorporeal. In this regard, this study consists of three main sections. First, it offers an overview of the aforesaid theories in the philosophical backdrop in the early empire; then, it surveys Origen’s uses of οὐσία in his On Prayer, CommentaryonJohn, and AgainstCelsus; and finally, it investigates the occurrences of the term in the HomiliesonthePsalms. II. PHILOSOPHICAL USES OF OUSIA IN THE EARLY EMPIRE The term οὐσία is introduced into the philosophical vocabulary by Aristotle. His inquiry in Metaphysics Z on the notion of substance as individual (that which is to be subjected to the diairetical descent from genus and species) and the inquiry in MetaphysicsΛ on the bipartition into sensible and suprasensible substances, are both recovered and conflated in the early imperial philosophical milieu4. For instance, in his commentary on the Metaphysics, Alexander of Aphrodisias, the most representative 2. As it has been assumed by G. Dorival in light of Selecta in Psalmos 1,3 (PG 12, 1089C32-34): s.v. Origèned’Alexandrie, in R. GOULET (ed.),Dictionnairedesphilosophes antiques.IV: DeLabeoàOvidius,Paris, CNRS, 2005, 807-842, p. 817. This claim has been extended by: C. BARILLI, ElementidifilosofianeicommentidiOrigeneaiSalmi, in Adamantius20 (2014) 147-159. 3. On this see: C. STEAD, Divine Substance, Oxford, Clarendon, 1977, pp. 132-156. For a more general overview: ID., TheConceptofDivineSubstance, in VigChr 29 (1975) 1-14. 4. Respectively: Aristotle, Metaphysica Z 1028b.9–1032a.12; 1033a.24-1038a.36 – this is what Aristotle also defines “primary substance” (πρώτη οὐσία), in contrast with the universal (see: 1038b.1–1041a.6); and: MetaphysicaΛ 1069a.30-b.8. A recent study on Aristotle’s Metaphysica Z is: M.J. LOUX, Primary Ousia: An Essay on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z and H, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2008, pp. 72-108, 147-196, 236-274; see also C.-H. CHEN, Aristotle’sConceptofPrimarySubstanceinBooksZand HoftheMetaphysics, in Phronesis2 (1957) 46-59. An unsurpassed research on Aristotle’s doctrine of the substance is G. REALE, Ilconcettodifilosofia primael’unitàdellaMetafisica diAristotele, Milano, Bompiani, 2008, pp. 181-194, 258-273 (see also: pp. 109-124). On the reception and conflation of these two concepts in the early imperial philosophical context: J. MANSFELD, Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus’ Elenchos as a Source forGreekPhilosophy(Philosophia Antiqua, 56),Leiden – New York – Köln, Brill, 1992, pp. 78-133.

OUSIA IN ORIGEN

645

member of the Peripatetic school contemporary to Origen5, understands the substance (οὐσία) as the individual existence6 and attaches it to the term ὕπαρξις7, reducing every predication within the categories to a predication of individual8. In addition, Alexander shares Aristotle’s division of substance into sensible (αἰσϑητή) and intelligible (νοητή), under which he subsumes God as the first mover9, in contrast with the Middle Platonists who either consider God/Good as transcending the substance in dignity and power (Respublica509B.9: ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει)10, or at the very least assume that the only substance in the proper sense (κυρίως οὐσία) is intelligible, in which God participates11. 5. About the influence of Alexander on Origen see: R.E. HEINE, TheIntroductionto Origen’s Commentary on John Compared with the Introductions to the Ancient PhilosophicalCommentariesonAristotle, in G. DORIVAL–A. LE BOULLUEC(eds.), Origeniana Sexta:OrigèneetlaBible/OrigenandtheBible(BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 3-12; I. RAMELLI, AlexanderofAphrodisias:ASourceofOrigen’sPhilosophy?, in Philosophieantique14 (2014) 237-289. 6. Alexander Aphrodisiensis, InMetaphysicaA992a.10(CAG I, 117,25); see also: In Metaphaphysica Γ 1003a.21 (CAG I, 239,18-19); In Metaphysica Γ 1004a.30 (CAG I, 257,2-5). On this see: M. BONELLI, AlessandrodiAfrodisiaelametafisicacomescienza dimostrativa(Elenchos, 35),Napoli, Bibliopolis, 2001, pp. 88-130. 7. E.g. Alexander Aphrodisiensis, In Metaphysica Γ 1003b.22 (CAG I, 247,18-20); see also: InMetaphysicaA982a.21 (CAG I, 11,7-8). On the occurrence of this term in Aristotle and other classical sources: J. GLUCKER, TheOriginof ΥΠΑΡΧΩand ΥΠΑΡΞΙΣas PhilosophicalTerms, in F. ROMANO – D.P. TAORMINA(eds.), HyparxiseHypostasisnel Neoplatonismo. Atti del I Colloquio Internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo(Catania,1-3ottobre1992) (Lessico Intellettuale Europeo, 64), Firenze, Olschki, 1994, 1-23. About this overlap of οὐσία and ὕπαρξις in Alexander: BONELLI, Alessandro diAfrodisia (n. 6), p. 90; see also: AlexanderofAphrodisias.OnAristotleMetaphysics5, ed. W.E. DOOLEY, London, Duckworth, 1993, p. 144, n. 165. 8. As it results from: Alexander Aphrodisiensis, InMetaphysicaΓ1003b.19 (CAG I, 245,3-5); InMetaphysicaΔ1017a.7 (CAG I, 371,22-26). 9. Alexander Aphrodisiensis, In Metaphysica Γ 1071b.3 (CAG I, 687,25-32); PS.Alexander Aphrodisiensis, InMetaphysicaΛ1069a.26(CAG I, 670,24–671,20). 10. Alcinous, Didaskalikos X,165,5-6 (23 WHITTAKER); see also: Didask. X,165,8– 166,16 (23-24 WHITTAKER); Calcidius, In Timaeum 319 (315,20-23 WASZINK). The notion that God/Good is beyond the substance, that is, it can not be caught by the diairetical process, is also based on Timaeus 28C3-5: Alcinous, Didaskalikos XXVII,179,35-37 (52-53 WHITTAKER); Apuleius, DePlatoneeteiusdogmate I,190 (92.5-12 MORESCHINI); Atticus, ap.Proclus, InTimaeum28C, 93C (I,305,6-16 DIEHL) = Atticus, fr. 12 (70-71 DES PLACES). On this: A.D. NOCK, TheExegesisofTimaeus28C, in VigChr16 (1962) 79-86. 11. Nicostratus, ap.Simplicius, InCategorias2a.11 (CAG VIII, 76,13-17); Plotinus, EnneadesVI,1,2 (III, 4-5 HERNY – SCHWYZER); VI,8,12 (III, 288-290 HENRY – SCHWYZER). As it results from Peripatetic sources, e.g. Boethus, ap.Simplicius, InCategorias2a.11 (CAG VIII, 78,4–79,5); Ps.-Alexander Aphrodisiensis, InMetaphysicaZ1029a.26 (CAG I, 464,34-35); In Metaphysica Z 1032a.26 (CAG I, 489,16); In Metaphysica H 1043b.4 (CAG I, 553,7), the notion of “substance in the proper sense” is the Platonic reply to the Aristotelian difference of sensible and non-sensible substances. In response the Peripateticians,

646

V. LIMONE

Though the bipartition of substance into sensible and intelligible is typical of the Peripatetic tradition, there is no shortage of Platonic authors familiar with it. Indeed, the exegesis of Timaeus 34C-39E, in which Plato explicates the Demiurge’s creation of the soul of the world, is the foundation of the distinction between a sensible (αἰσϑητή) and divisible (μεριστή) substance on the one hand, and an intelligible (νοητή) and indivisible (ἀμέριστος) substance on the other12. In this regard, two exemplary cases are Numenius, whom Origen is acquainted with13, and Atticus. Except for the texts in which the First God is said to be beyond both the substance and the intellect14, and the controversial text in which it is equated with “he-who-is” (ὁ μέν γε ὤν)15, Numenius regards the especially Alexander, use this formula with reference to the individual; on this: R.W. SHARPLES, Alexander of Aphrodisias: Scholasticism and Innovation, in ANRW II.36.2 (1987) 11991202; ID., The School of Alexander?, in R. SORABJI (ed.), Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1990, 83-111, pp. 101-103. As it has been conjectured by H.B. GOTTSCHALK (TheEarliestAristotelianCommentators, in AristotleTransformed, 55-81, p.76), the aforesaid Platonic reply to the Aristotelian theory of substance might arise from Eudorus of Alexandria. About the mixture of Platonic and Peripatetic ideas in Eudorus: M. BONAZZI, PythagoreanisingAristotle:EudorusandtheSystematizationofPlatonism, in M. SCHOFIELD (ed.),Aristotle,Plato andPythagoreanismintheFirstCentury BC:NewDirectionsforPhilosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, 160-186. 12. In this regard: Plutarchus, DeanimaeprocreationeinTimaeo 3, 1013a-d (100-102 FERRARI – BALDI); Apuleius, DePlatoneeteiusdogmateI,193-194 (94,1-18 MORESCHINI); Alcinous, Didaskalikos IV,155,36-42 (7 WHITTAKER); XIV,169,22-31 (32 WHITTAKER); see also: Plotinus, EnneadesVI,3,2 (III, 88-90 HENRY – SCHWYZER); VI,5,2 (III, 161-162 HENRY – SCHWYZER). The soul also partakes of the intelligible substance, as it results from Plato, Phaedo 78B-84B; see: Alcinous, Didaskalikos XXV,172,22 (48 WHITTAKER). 13. As it is expressed by: Porphyrius, ap.Eusebius,Hist.Eccl. VI,19,8 (SC 41, 115 CROUZEL – BRÉSARD – PRINZIVALLI) = Porphyrius, ContraChristianos fr. 39 (65,31 VON HARNACK). On this: J.P. KENNEY, ProschresisRevisited:AnEssayinNumenianTheology, in R. DALY (ed.), Origeniana Quinta: Historica – Text and Method – Biblica – Philosophica–Theologica–OrigenismandLaterDevelopments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 217-230; R. SOMOS, OrigenandNumenius, in Adamantius6 (2000) 51-69; see also: I. RAMELLI, Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism: Re-Thinking the ChristianisationofHellenism, in VigChr 63 (2009) 217-263, pp. 231-234. 14. E.g. Numenius, ap.Eusebius,Praep.Evang. XI,18,22 (SC 292, 144 FAVRELLE – DES PLACES) = Numenius, fr. 17 (58 DES PLACES); Numenius, ap. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. XI,22,1 (SC 292, 158) = Numenius, fr. 2 (44 DES PLACES). M. FREDE (Numenius, in ANRWII.36.2 [1987] 1034-1075, pp. 1062-1068) reduces the contradiction between the statement that the First God is beyond the substance and the statement that it partakes of the intelligible substance. 15. Numenius, ap.Eusebius, Praep.Evang. XI,18,13-14 (SC 292, 140-142 FAVRELLE – DES PLACES) = Numenius, fr. 13 (55 DES PLACES). For E.R. Dodds (NumeniusandAmmonius, in LesSourcesdePlotin[Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique, 5],Vandœuvres-Genève, Fondation Hardt, 1960, 3-32, p. 15) this formula is to be emended with: ὁ μέν γε α´ ὤν; for A.-J. FESTUGIÈRE (La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste. III: Les Doctrines de l’Âme, Paris, Gabalda, 1953, p. 44, n. 2) and J. WHITTAKER (MosesAtticizing, in Phoenix21 [1967] 196-201) it is a reminiscence of Ex 3,14; finally, M. EDWARDS (Numenius,fr.13(des Places):ANoteonInterpretation, in Mnemosyne42 [1989] 478-482) reads it in light of Timaeus41E-42E and the Platonic conception of the divine generation.

OUSIA IN ORIGEN

647

First and Second Gods as partaking of the intelligible substance16. Atticus, moreover, attests to the assimilation of Aristotelian doctrine of substance to Platonism, since he shares the division of sensible and intelligible substances, despite his insistence that the Peripatetic theory of quintessence is at odds with the aforesaid division17. In addition, both the definition of οὐσία as individual existence, that is, the outcome of the division of a genus according to specific differences18, and the bipartition of οὐσία into sensible and suprasensible, on the basis of the aforementioned Timaeus34C-39E19, are attested in Alcinous’ Didaskalikòs. As J. Mansfeld has already pointed out20, the conflation of the theory of οὐσία as individual existence and the bipartition of it into sensible and suprasensible are also documented in the doxographical tradition, with roots going back to the fifth century BC21. In the early empire two representatives of this tradition, set up with comprehensive accounts of the philosophers’ views either in the form of a portrait of a philosopher’s main ideas or as a series of opinions held by more than one thinker on a single topic, are the epistle LVIII to Lucilius by Seneca22 and book VII of 16. Numenius, ap. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. XI,22,3-5 (SC 292, 158 FAVRELLE – PLACES) = Numenius, fr. 16 (57 DES PLACES); see also: Numenius, ap.Proclus, In Timaeum39E.7-9 (268a)(III,103,28-32 DIEHL) = Numenius, fr. 22 (61 DES PLACES). 17. Atticus, ap.Eusebius,Praep.Evang. XV,7,4-6 (SC 338, 276 DES PLACES) = Atticus, fr. 5 (56-57 DES PLACES). About the mixture of Aristotelianism and Platonism in Atticus: C. MORESCHINI, LaposizionediApuleioedellascuoladiGaionell’ambitodelmedioplatonismo, in Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 33 (1964) 17-56, pp. 18-21; ID., Attico:Unafigurasingolaredelmedioplatonismo, in ANRWII.36.1 (1987) 477-491, pp. 487-489. 18. Alcinous, Didaskalikos V,156,34–157,10 (8-9 WHITTAKER); see also: Galenus, Historiaphilosophica 4 (XIX, 237.3-6 KÜHN) = DoxographiGraeci, 607,2-5 DIELS. On the similarities between the Didaskalikòs’ theory of substance as individual existence and diairesis and the contents of Clement’s StromataVIII see: R.E. WITT, Albinusand theHistoryofMiddlePlatonism,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1937, p. 36; P. MORAUX, DerAristotelismusbeidenGriechen:VonAndronikosbisAlexandervon Aphrodisias. II: DerAristotelismusimI.undII.Jh.n.Chr. (Peripatoi, 6), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1984, pp. 441-480; MANSFELD, Heresiography in Context (n. 4), pp. 80-84. 19. Alcinous, Didaskalikos XIV,169,22-31 (32 WHITTAKER). See Didask.IV,155,36-42 (7 WHITTAKER). 20. HeresiographyinContext(n. 4), pp. 78-133. 21. Since the publication of Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, Reimer, 1879) in which H. Diels conjectures the existence of a doxographical source, Aëtius’ Placita,in the background of various imperial texts, there has been an increase of studies on this tradition, e.g. J. MANSFELD – D.T. RUNIA have very extensively focused on it: Aëtiana:TheMethodand IntellectualContextofaDoxographer, I-III (Philosophia Antiqua, 73; 114; 118), Leiden, Brill, 1997-2010. An overview of this tradition is: G. CAMBIANO (ed.), Storiografia e dossografianellafilosofiaantica, Torino, Tirrenia, 1986. 22. Seneca, Epist.LVIII 6-7 (72 PRÉCHAC – NOBLOT); on this: P. DONINI, L’eclettismo impossibile:Senecaeilplatonismomedio, in ID. – G.F. GIANOTTI(eds.), Modellifilosofici eletterari:LucrezioOrazioSeneca, Bologna, Pitagora, 1979, 149-300. DES

648

V. LIMONE

Ps.-Hippolytus’ Refutation23. In the former, Seneca lists three conceptions of οὐσία/essentia – Aristotelian, Stoic, and Platonic – which share both the notion of it as individual resulting from the diairetical process and the division of it as genus into the corporeal and incorporeal species24; in the latter, the account of Aristotle’s theory of οὐσία combines the Platonic hierarchy of ideal and sensible worlds, which suits the Aristotelian bipartition of sensible and suprasensible substances, and the view of individual as the substance in the proper sense25. III. ORIGEN’S USES

OF

OUSIA IN ONPRAYER, COMMENTARY ONJOHN, AND AGAINSTCELSUS

While this section will not examine all of Origen’s uses of οὐσία in his extant writings, it considers the occurrence of the above theories of substance in his OnPrayer, CommentaryonJohn, and AgainstCelsus. With respect to OnPrayer, in the course of the exegesis of the fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt6,11; Lk11,3), in order to explain the formula ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος he quotes a lexicon which has been ascribed to the Stoic Herophilus26, and which transmits two main definitions of 23. Ps.-Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium VII,15,2 (GCS 26, 191,19-27 WENDLAND = Hippolytus Werke 3). 24. For the Aristotelian conception: Seneca, Epist. LVIII 9-12 (73-74 PRÉCHAC – NOBLOT); as J. MANSFELD notes (HeresiographyinContext[n. 4], p.95, n. 44), since the outcome of the diairesis is not the species, but the individual, a Stoic influence is here attested, e.g. Diogenes Laërtius, Vitaephilosophorum VII,61 (481,11-18 MARCOVICH). For the Stoic conception: Seneca, Epist. LVIII 13; 15 (74; 75 PRÉCHAC – NOBLOT); this is proved to be the conflation of the theory of individual and the bipartition of it into incorporeal and corporeal, as it is also attested by: Alexander Aphrodisiensis, In Topica121a.10 (CAG II/2, 301,19-25) = SVF II 329 (117,1-8 ARNIM); InTopica 127a.26 (CAG II/2, 359,12-16) = SVF II 329 (117,9-13 ARNIM). For the Platonic conception: Seneca, Epist.LVIII16-28 (75-80 PRÉCHAC – NOBLOT); in light of the similarities between this text with Plutarchus, De E apud Delphos 18,392a-e (106-108 MORESCHINI) – on this: J. WHITTAKER, AmmoniusontheDelphicE, in ClassicalQuarterly19 (1969) 191192 – and of the fact that in Epist. LVIII,6-22 Seneca explicitly recovers Timaeus 27D5–28A4, J. Whittaker conjectures that the texts of Seneca and Plutarch originate from a common source, esp. Eudorus’ commentary on Timaeus; on this: J. WHITTAKER, Seneca, Ep.58,17, in SymbolaeOsloenses 50 (1975) 143-148. 25. See MANSFELD, HeresiographyinContext(n. 4), pp.110-125. 26. Origen explicitly quotes Herophilus’ lexicon in: SelectainPsalmosprol.(PG 12, 1053A6-12 = 14,27-30 RIETZ); Selecta in Psalmos prol. (PG 12, 1053A13–1056A2 = 14,31–15,17 RIETZ). The first scholar who has ascribed the lexicon in Orat XXVII,8 to Herophilus is R. CADIOU in: Dictionnairesantiquesdansl’œuvred’Origène, in Revuedes ÉtudesGrecques45/212 (1932) 271-285, pp. 275-277; a very detailed study on this lexicon is: C. MARKSCHIES, Wasbedeutetοὐσία?ZweiAntwortenbeiOrigenesundAmbrosiusund derenBedeutungfürihreBibelerklärungundTheologie, in Origenes–Virecclesiasticus.

OUSIA IN ORIGEN

649

οὐσία27. The first definition is that οὐσία is the “primary subsistence of the incorporeal things (προηγουμένη τῶν ἀσωμάτων ὑπόστασις), which are in possession of permanent being, and neither receive addition nor suffer subtraction”28. On the basis of this definition, the substance is taken to be the individual existence of the incorporeal beings, as it is extensively attested in Middle Platonists29. In addition, the lexicon handled by Origen supplies a second definition of οὐσία, which views it as “the primary subsistence of the corporeal things” (προηγουμένη τῶν ἀσωμάτων ὑπόστασις) and supports this conception with eight sub-definitions from the Stoics30. In light of the contents of this lexicon, Origen proves SymposionzuEhrenvonHerrnProf.Dr.H.J.Vogt(Hereditas, 9),Bonn, Borengässer, 1995, 59-82; = ID., OrigenesundseinErbe:GesammelteStudien(TU, 160),Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2007, 173-193). P. TZAMALIKOS (Origen:PhilosophyofHistoryandEschatology [SupplVigChr, 85], Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2007, p. 84, n. 160) conjectures that the “Herophilus” of whom Origen quotes the lexicon Περὶὀνομάτωνχρήσεως was the Alexandrian physician, see: Galenus, Deplenitudineliber(VII,525,14; 527,13; 528,12 KÜHN), also known to many of the early Christians, e.g. Eusebius, Praep.Evang. XV,61,4 (SC 338, 422 DES PLACES); Theodoretus Cyrensis, De curatione graecarum affectionum V,22 (SC 57, 232 CANIVET); Photius, Bibliotheca 114b, cod. 167 (114 BEKKER). This conjecture is not shared by MARKSCHIES (Wasbedeutetοὐσία?, p. 62, n. 16); indeed, no writing with the above title is attributed to Herophilus the physician: H. VON STADEN, Herophilus:TheArtofMedicineinEarlyAlexandria,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 67-88. 27. Origenes, Orat XXVII,8 (GCS 3, 367,13–368,19 KOETSCHAU). This text has been recently studied also by: C. BURINI DE LORENZI, Panisquotidianus/ἄρτοςἐπιούσιος (Mt.6,11;Lc.11,3):TertullianoeOrigene:leduedirettriciesegeticheelalororicezione, in Adamantius18 (2012) 184-189, pp. 186-187. 28. Origenes, OratXXVII,8 (GCS 3, 367,13-15 KOETSCHAU). 29. Numenius, ap. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. XI,22,3 (SC 292, 158 FAVRELLE – DES PLACES) = Numenius, fr. 16 (57 DES PLACES); Alcinous, Didaskalikos IX,163,11-17 (20 WHITTAKER); XXV,177,22 (48 WHITTAKER); Atticus, ap. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. XV,7,1-7 (SC 338, 272-278 DES PLACES) = Atticus, fr. 5 (55-57 DES PLACES); Celsus, ap. Origenes, CCVII,45 (SC 150, 120 BORRET); see also: Origenes, CIoXX,18,154 (SC 290, 230 BLANC); XX,22,182 (SC 290, 248). The term προηγούμενος is used by Origen in the ontological sense of “primary”; on this: M. GIUSTA, Sulsignificatofilosoficodeltermine προηγούμενος, in Attidell’AccademiadelleScienzediTorino 96 (1961-1962) 229-271, pp. 244-245, and: A. GRILLI, Contributoallastoriadiπροηγούμενος, in Studilinguistici inonorediVittorePisani. I, Brescia, Paideia, 1969, 409-499, pp. 421-424.This term is contrasted with ἐπακολουϑητική in OratXXVII, 8 (GCS 3, 368,1-2 KOETSCHAU), as in: Alexander Aphrodisiensis, Defato 11 (CAG Suppl. II/2, 178,13). About this definition: CADIOU, Dictionnairesantiques (n. 26), p. 275; MARKSCHIES, Wasbedeutetοὐσία? (n. 26), pp. 64-65. 30. 1) “Primary matter of that which exists” is attributed to Zeno; see: Arius Didymus, ap.Stobaeus, Anthologium I,11,5 (I, 132,26–133,1 WACHSMUTH); Diogenes Laërtius, Vitae philosophorum VII,150 (533,9 MARCOVICH) = SVF I 87 (24,35–25,4 ARNIM); 2) “The matter of bodies” is ascribed to the Stoics; see: Diogenes Laërtius, Vitaephilosophorum VII,150 (533,15 MARCOVICH) = SVF III 4 (259,16 ARNIM); Aëtius, Placita I,9,7 (Doxographi Graeci, 308,14-15 DIELS) = SVF II 325 (116,24 ARNIM); Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata II,4,15,1 (SC 38, 43-44 CAMELOT – MONDÉSERT) = SVF II 359 (123,16-20 ARNIM);

650

V. LIMONE

to be acquainted with both the concept of οὐσία as individual existence and with the specific difference between the existence of the incorporeal things and the existence of the corporeal things. In the CommentaryonJohn,the conception of οὐσία as individual existence of incorporeal things occurs in the debate with the Monarchians. As it emerges from the Monarchians’ exegesis of Ps 44(45),231, of Jn 1,5 and 1 Jn 1,532, and of 1 Cor 15,15 and Jn 2,1933, passed down to us by Origen, they argue that the Father and the Son share the same substance (οὐσία). In response to this statement, Origen considers the Father and the Son as different in their individual substances (οὐσίαι). In this regard, a key text is found at the beginning of book II of the CommentaryonJohn, in which Origen splits the Monarchians into those who consider the Father and the Son as sharing the same individual properties (ἰδιότητες) and, thus, the same substance (οὐσία), and those who regard the Father and the Son as to be identical in their individual properties and substance, but prevent the Alexander Aphrodisiensis, InDeanima (CAG II/1, 17,15-17) = SVF II 394 (130,34-36 ARNIM); 3) “The matter of things that have a name” is attributed to Chrysippus; see: Arius Didymus, ap.Stobaeus, Anthologium I,18,4 (I, 161,8-26 WACHSMUTH) = SVF II 503 (162,39–163,13 ARNIM); 4) “The primary subsistence without qualities” is once again attributed to Chrysippus; see: Arius Didymus, ap.Stobaeus, Anthologium I,11,5 (I, 133,6-11 WACHSMUTH) = SVF II 317 (114,24-29 ARNIM); 5) “The underlying preexisting principle of entities” reminds us of 1); 6) “That which is susceptible of all kinds of change and alteration, but itself is unalterable in its own principle” and 7) “that which underlies every quality as though it were place made ready for it” are generally ascribed to the Stoics; see: Arius Didymus, ap.Stobaeus, Anthologium I,11,5 (I, 133,6-11 WACHSMUTH) = SVF II 317 (114,2429 ARNIM); 8) “That which is changeable throught and divisible throught” is also a Stoic definition; see: Arius Didymus, ap.Stobaeus, Anthologium I,17,4 (I, 154,5-8 WACHSMUTH) = SVF I 471 (152,35–153,1 ARNIM). 31. Origenes, CIo I,24,151-152 (SC 120, 136-138 BLANC); see also: Selecta in Psalmos44,2(PG 12, 1428D). On Origen’s exegesis of this Psalm in contrast with the Monarchians: R.E. HEINE, OrigenontheChristologicalSignificanceofPsalm45(44), in Consensus: ACanadianLutheranJournalofTheology23 (1997) 21-37. With respect to the Monarchian exegesis of this Psalm: A. ORBE, OrígenesylosMonarquianos, in Gregorianum72 (1991) 55-56; S. FERNÁNDEZ, Verso la teologia trinitaria di Origene: Metafora e linguaggio teologico, in S. KACZMAREK – H. PIETRAS (eds.), OrigenianaDecima: OrigenasWriter (BETL, 244), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, 457-473, pp. 459-460. 32. Origenes, CIoII,23,149 (SC 120, 304-306 BLANC). On the Monarchian exegesis of these texts: A. ORBE, HacialaprimerateologíadelaprocesióndelVerbo.Estudios Valentinianos, vol. 1 (Analecta Gregoriana, 99), Roma, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1958, pp. 431-432; ID., Orígenes y los Monarquianos (n. 31), pp. 44-45; H. CROUZEL, Théologiedel’ImagedeDieuchezOrigène(Collection Théologie, 34), Paris, Aubier – Desclée de Brouwer, 1956, pp. 102-103. 33. Origenes, CIo X,37,246 (SC 157, 528-530 BLANC). On this text: M. SIMONETTI, SullateologiatrinitariadiOrigene, in VetChr 8 (1981) 273-307, pp. 273-274, n. 5 (reprint in: ID., StudisullacristologiadelIIeIIIsecolo [SEA, 44],Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1993, pp. 109-143). See also: ORBE, OrígenesylosMonarquianos (n. 31), pp. 45-46. The Monarchian exegesis of these texts is further attested by: Iustinus, Dialogus cumTryphone 56,11 (163,66-71 MARCOVICH).

OUSIA IN ORIGEN

651

Son from participating in the same godhead as the Father34. With respect to the former view, both the Monarchians and Origen accept the correlation of individual properties and substance, which originates from the Stoics in reply to the so-called “growing argument” (αὐξανόμενος λόγος) put forward by the Academics in contrast with any effort to single out a permament substrate in the changes35. Given this correlation of individual properties and substance, the Monarchians consider the Father and the Son identical in their individual properties and thus, in their substance, whereas Origen considers the Father and the Son distinct in their individual properties and thus, in their substance. The Monarchians argue that the Father and the Son share the same individual properties (ἰδιότητες) and, thus, the same substance (οὐσία), given that the substance is the existence individualised by the properties. In response to this argument, Origen considers the Father and the Son as different not only in subsistence (τῇ ὑποστάσει)36 but also in substance (τῇ οὐσίᾳ), namely, in their individual properties37. 34. Origenes, CIoII,2,16 (SC 120, 216 BLANC). See also: CIoI,24,151 (SC 120, 136); II,23,149 (SC 120, 304-306); X,37,246 (SC 157, 528-530 BLANC). In addition, in CIoII,2,16 Origen underscores that the Monarchians, though they consider the Father and the Son as different in their individual properties and substance, distinguish the Father and the Son in their circumscription (κατὰ περιγραφήν). On the occurrence of this formula in Monarchians and Gnostics, especially Valentinians: ORBE, Hacialaprimerateología (n. 32), pp. 434-435; ID., OrígenesylosMonarquianos (n. 31), p. 43. See also: Clemens Alexandrinus, ExcerptaexTheodoto19,1 (SC 23, 92 SAGNARD). This formula is rejected by Origen, since it denotes the animal generation, as it results from: Alexander Aphrodisiensis, De mixtione 3 (CAG Suppl. II/2, 216,17-22) = SVF II 473 (154,9-15 ARNIM). On this: ORBE, Hacialaprimerateología, pp. 440-441. 35. This Stoic correlation of individual properties and substance is also attested in: Philo, De aeternitate mundi 48 (106-108 ARNALDEZ) = SVF II 397 (131,6-22 ARNIM); Arius Didymus, ap.Stobaeus, Anthologium I,20,7 (I, 177,20–178,19 WACHSMUTH); Simplicius, InCategorias429a.10 (CAG XI, 217,36–218,2) = SVF II 395 (130,43-47 ARNIM); ID., In Cat. 5a.15 (CAG VIII, 140,24-30). On this: D. SEDLEY, The Stoic Criterion of Identity, in Phronesis27 (1982) 255-275; E. LEWIS, TheStoicsonIdentityandIndividuation, in Phronesis40 (1995) 89-108. This correlation is also shared by the Peripatetics, as it has been noted by R. CHIARADONNA, La teoria dell’individuo in Porfirio e l’ἰδίως ποιόνstoico, in Elenchos21 (2000) 303-331. 36. In recent scholarship an in-depth attention has been devoted to Origen’s use of ὑπόστασις: H. DÖRRIE, Ὑπόστασις.Wort-undBedeutungsgeschichte, in NachrichtenderAkademiederWissenschafteninGöttingen3 (1955) 35-92 (reprint in: ID., Platonicaminora[Studia et testimonia antiqua, 8], München, Fink, 1976, 12-69); J. HAMMERSTAEDT, Der trinitarische Gebrauch des Hypostasisbegriffs bei Origenes, in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 34 (1991) 12-20; ID., s.v. “Hypostase”, in RAC 16 (1994) 1003-1007; V.H. DRECOLL, DerBegriffHypostasisbeiOrigenes:BemerkungenzumJohanneskommentar II,10, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition. Papers of the 8th International Origen Congress, Pisa 27-31 August 2001 (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 479-487; I. RAMELLI, Origen,GreekPhilosophy,andtheBirthofthe TrinitarianMeaningofHypostasis, in HTR105 (2012) 302-350. 37. Origenes, CIo I,24,151 (SC 120, 136 BLANC); II,2,16 (SC 120, 216) – see supra, n. 34; II,10,74 (SC 120, 254); VI,38,188-189 (SC 157, 268-270 BLANC); X,37,246 (SC 157, 528-530) – see supra, nn. 33-34.

652

V. LIMONE

In addition, in reply to Celsus’ criticism that Christians regard God as partaking of the substance38, Origen argues that either the Father is beyond the substance, in accordance with Respublica 509B.9, or – employing the aforesaid bipartition of substance into sensible and intelligible – that He partakes of the latter39. Origen therefore proves to be acquainted with both the conception of οὐσία as individual existence, and its bipartition into the sensible and the intelligible. IV. THE OCCURRENCES OF OUSIA IN THE HOMILIES ON THEPSALMS In the whole of the homiletical corpus, the new HomiliesonthePsalms offer the sole attestation of the use of οὐσία, quoted six times40. The first occurrence of the term is in the course of the exegesis of Ps 15(16),1: “Keep me safe, my God, for in you I take refuge”41. Origen ascribes this statement to Jesus Christ, who prays to the Father for his own body, that is, the Church, in light of both 1 Cor 12,27 (“Now you are the body of Christ”) and of the conception of Christ as “composed” (σύνϑετος) of a body. As Origen underscores, this conception is based on the view of man as composed of the body, the “substance of the soul” (οὐσία τῆς ψυχῆς) and the “nature of the spirit”42. Without focusing on Origen’s doctrine of the soul, especially the soul of Christ43, the distinction of body and soul, as evidenced here, implies that the term οὐσία is concerned with the incorporeal existence44. 38. Celsus, ap. Origenes, CC VI,64 (SC 147, 338 BORRET). See also: Origenes, CIoII,2,17 (SC 120, 216 BLANC). 39. On this see: R. BERCHMAN, Origenon The Categories:AStudyinLaterPlatonic FirstPrinciples, in DALY (ed.), OrigenianaQuinta(n. 13), 231-252, pp.240-242. 40. Only a few times the term occurs in the Homilies on Jeremiah: Origenes, HIer XII,1 (SC 238, 12 HUSSON – NAUTIN); XVI,6 (SC 238, 146); XVIII,9 (SC 238, 212); XX,1 (SC 238, 254), which is actually a quotation from Aristotle, Categoriae 1a.1-2. 41. Origenes, H15PsI,3 (GCS NF 19, 77,15–78,1 PERRONE). 42. This tripartite anthropology, which is inspired by 1 Thess 5,23, is very frequently attested in Origen’s writings; see: CCI,66 (SC 132, 260 BORRET); II,9 (SC 132, 306 BORRET); DialVI (SC 67, 68 SCHERER). On this see: G. CARUSO, “RamusculusOrigenis”:L’eredità dell’antropologiaorigeniananeipelagianieinGirolamo(SEA, 130),Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2012, pp. 40-43. 43. On this: R. WILLIAMS, OrigenontheSoulofJesus, in R. HANSON – H. CROUZEL (eds.), Origeniana Tertia: The Third International Colloquium for Origen Studies, Roma, Ateneo, 1985, 131-137; A. LE BOULLUEC, Controversesausujetdeladoctrined’Origènesurl’âmedu Christ, in L. LIES (ed.), Origeniana Quarta: Die Referate des 4. internationalen Origenes- kongresses, 1985 (Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck – Wien, Tyrolia, 1987, 223-237. 44. Α similar use of this term with respect to the soul is: Origenes, CIo VI,14,85 (SC 157, 190 BLANC). As regards the controversy in Dial (see also Dial VI, supra, n. 42)

OUSIA IN ORIGEN

653

The second occurrence of οὐσία is in a context in which the aforementioned notion of Christ as “composed” is recalled. Origen mentions the view of some intellectuals who argue that at the incarnation, the Savior assumed a body similar or identical to the “substance of the Logos” (οὐσία τοῦ λόγου), and that also the soul is identical to it45. This view, which is to be ascribed to the Gnostics46, is rejected by Origen on the basis of Ps 15(16),9b-10a (“My body shall rest in hope. For you will not leave my soul in hell”), which implies the distinction of the body and the soul of Christ. In addition, a clue for the identification of the above view as Gnostic is that the formula: ὅμοιον τῇ οὐσίᾳ reminds us of a known passage in the CommentaryonJohn in which Origen phrases Heracleon’s periphrasis: οἱ πατρὸς φύσεως ὄντες, which denotes in Valentinian system the pneumatics participating at the first eon, with: ὁμοούσιοι47. Though this text transmits a Gnostic use of οὐσία, it does represent another instance in which this word is used in terms of incorporeal existence: in fact, it is attributed to the incorporeal Logos. Οὐσία further occurs in the course of the exegesis of Ps 76(77),3 (“In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord”) where Origen focuses on: “I sought”48. After noting that the discourses of the heretics prevent them see M. RIZZI, LasecondapartedelDialogo con Eraclide:L’animaèilsangue?, in Adamantius 21 (2015) 269-283. A debate about the corporeal or incorporeal existence of the soul is implied by: Origenes, CCtII,5,21 (SC 375, 366 BRÉSARD – CROUZEL – BORRET). 45. Origenes, H15PsII,8 (GCS NF 19, 108,2–109,2 PERRONE). 46. An intensive debate among the Gnostics about whether the body of Christ is either the same as his soul or his spirit is witnessed by: Ps.-Hippolytus, Refutatioomniumhaeresium VI 35, 5-7 (GCS 26, 165,2-17 WENDLAND = Hippolytus Werke 3); see also: Origenes, DialVII (SC 67, 72 SCHERER). 47. Origenes, CIo XIII,25,148-149 (SC 222, 112 BLANC). Except for FrMt 14 (GCS 41/1, 21 KLOSTERMANN) and 257 (GCS 41/1, 118), in which the term is attributed to the Trinity, as M. Edwards has already highlighted (M. EDWARDS, Did Origen Apply theWordhomoousiostotheSon?, in JTS 49 [1998] 658-670, p. 658, n. 5), the term occurs in: Origenes, ap.Pamphilus, Apol.100 (SC 464, 166-168 AMACKER – JUNOD). On this text R.P.C. HANSON (DidOrigenApplytheWordhomoousiostotheSon?, in J. FONTAINE – C. KANNENGIESER [eds.], Epektasis.MélangespatristiquesoffertsauCardinalJ.Daniélou, Paris, Beauchesne, 1972, 292-303, pp. 294-299) conjectures that it transmits an interpolation of Rufinus; also R. WILLIAMS (Arius:HeresyandTradition,London, Darton, 1987, pp. 134-135) suspects that the roots of this term are Gnostic; M. SIMONETTI (Ancorasu “Homoousios”apropositodiduestudirecenti, in VetChr17 [1980] 85-98, pp. 90-94) and E. PRINZIVALLI (LametamorfosidellascuolaalessandrinadaEraclaaDidimo, in PERRONE [ed.], Origeniana Octava [n. 36], 911-937, p. 922, n. 63; = EAD., Magister Ecclesiae:IldibattitosuOrigenefraIIIeIVsecolo[SEA, 82],Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2002, p. 46, n. 65) do not exclude that Origen could use this term; in recent years EDWARDS (Did Origen Apply the Word homoousios to the Son? [n. 47], p. 665) has assumed that the term was widespread in the theological debate before Origen and contemporary to him, and that Origen used it in a different sense. 48. Origenes, H76PsI,4 (GCS NF 19, 298,3-13 PERRONE). See: Origenes, CIoXIX,12,74 (SC 290, 92 BLANC).

654

V. LIMONE

from understanding “which substance God is” (ποία οὐσία ἐστὶν ὁ ϑεός)49, Origen states that God is to be sought and found only in the virtues (justice, temperance, courage, wisdom). The interrogative sentence (ποία οὐσία etc.) is worth a remark: it implies that various species of substance exist, and that the heretics misunderstand which substance God is50. In light of Origen’s response, that God is to be sought only in the virtues, namely, in the incorporeal, the heretics’ mistake consists in considering God as the opposite, that is, corporeal51. The fourth use of οὐσία is in the exegesis of Ps 77(78),24b-25a (“He had given them of the corn of heaven. Man did eat angels’ food”), in which Origen states that the nourishment of angels is not corporeal, but incorporeal, and that it is given them for the “subsistence of their substance” (σύστασις τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῶν)52. The “corn of heaven” is the divine Son, as Logos, Wisdom, and Truth53, and the angels derive the “subsistence of their substance” from the heavenly nourishment, that is, the contemplation of the Son. According to this text, the angels are understood as intellectual beings54. Thus, once again, Origen uses οὐσία in the sense of incorporeal existence, as the angels’ substance is said to be fed with the “corn of heaven”, namely, the divine Son who is incorporeal. 49. As already proved by A. LE BOULLUEC (Lapolémiquecontreleshérésiesdansles Homélies sur les Psaumesd’Origène(Codex Monacensis Graecus 314), in Adamantius20 [2014] 256-274, p. 257, n. 14), this is a very frequent reply in Origen’s writings; see e.g. Origenes, CIoI,8,48 (SC 120, 86 BLANC); PrinIII,1,16 (SC 268, 96-98 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI); HIerI,14 (SC 232, 226 HUSSON – NAUTIN); VIII,9 (SC 232, 374); CCVI,34 (SC 147, 262 BORRET); VIII,6 (SC 150, 188-190 BORRET); HLvIX,7 (SC 287, 100-102 BORRET). 50. This formular interrogative sentense is also attested at the beginning of the third aporia of Aristotle’s Metaphysica B: Aristotle, Metaphysica B 997a.17; Alexander Aphrodisiensis, InMetaphysicaB997a.15(CAG I, 191,17). 51. See: Origenes, H73Ps II,7 (GCS NF 19, 249,19–250,14 PERRONE). On this: LE BOULLUEC, Lapolémiquecontreleshérésies (n. 49), p. 263. 52. Origenes, H77PsIV,10 (GCS NF 19, 404,1-9 PERRONE). 53. Origenes, Orat XXVII,2 (GCS 3, 364,3-25 KOETSCHAU); CIo I,9,52-57 (SC 120, 88-90 BLANC). On this: L. PERRONE, IlprofiloletterariodelCommento a Giovanni:Operazioneesegeticaecostruzionedeltesto, in E. PRINZIVALLI (ed.), IlcommentoaGiovanni diOrigene:Iltestoeisuoicontesti.Attidell’VIIIConvegnodiStudidelGruppoItaliano diRicercasuOrigeneelaTradizioneAlessandrina (Biblioteca di Adamantius, 3), Villa Verucchio, Pazzini, 2005, 43-81, pp. 70-76; ID., LapreghierasecondoOrigene:L’impossibilitàdonata(Letteratura Cristiana Antica NS, 24),Brescia, Morcelliana, 2011, pp. 222223. See also MARKSCHIES, Wasbedeutetοὐσία?(n. 26), pp. 74-75. 54. A debate on this is in: Origenes, PrinII,8,1 (SC 252, 338 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI); on the corporeality of the angels: CMt XVII,30 (GCS 40, 671,20-21 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ); on the contrary, on their incorporeality: CIoXIII,33,214 (SC 222, 148 BLANC); OratXXVII,10 (GCS III, 369,23–370,8 KOETSCHAU). A in-depth analysis of the question is: A. MONACI CASTAGNO, Angelo, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO(ed.), Origene.Dizionario: Lacultura,ilpensiero,leopere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 6-13, pp. 6-7.

OUSIA IN ORIGEN

655

With respect to the fifth occurrence of the term, Origen uses it within his comment on Ps 77(78),29-30a (“So they did eat, and were well filled; for he gave them their own desire. They were not estranged from their lust”): Origen quotes Ex 16,3 in which the Hebrews, though they are given the manna by the Lord, look back nostalgically to the days in which they were slaves of the Pharaoh and, nevertheless, “they sat by the flesh pots in the land of Egypt”55. In this regard, Origen notes that, as the desire for the corporeal goods lured the Hebrews away from the incorporeal goods in the form of the “corn of heaven”, or of the manna, so the desire for the corporeal lures the humans away from the incorporeal, that is, “what is given them for the substance of their soul” (ἀναδιδόμενον εἰς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσίαν). The explicit contradiction between the corporeal and the incorporeal and the association of οὐσία with the soul imply that the term occurs with reference to the latter56. The last occurrence of οὐσία appears in the course of the exegesis of Ps 77(78),53 (“And he led them on safely, so that they feared not: but the sea overwhelmed their enemies”)57. On the basis of the difference between the corporeal and the incorporeal, Origen argues that the corporeal things are accessible to the eyes of the body, whereas the incorporeal things are accessible to the eyes of the soul, so that it is not an “illusory sensation” (κενοπαϑεία)58 for the intellect to have access to the “substance” (οὐσία) and “subsistence” (ὑπόστασις) of the incorporeal things. This argument entails the conception of οὐσία as incorporeal existence, which implies its bipartition into corporeal and incorporeal, and recalls the aformentioned distinction of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις. Additionally, the use of ὑπόστασις in the HomiliesonthePsalms which occurs in only two other cases, at the end of the homily II on Ps 67(68)59 and at the beginning of the homily IX on Ps 77(78)60, contributes to a further understanding of its difference from οὐσία. In the former case, this means Christ as the whole of virtues61 55. Origenes, H77PsIV,11 (GCS NF 19, 407,18-20 PERRONE). 56. The formula: ἀναδιδόμενον εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν, which is used with reference to the soul in H77Ps IV,11 (supra,n. 55), is the same as in H77Ps IV,10 (supra,n. 52), in which it is used with reference to the angels. In both cases the subject is the “corn of heaven”, that is, Jesus Christ. 57. Origenes, H77Ps VIII,4 (GCS NF 19, 456,13-16 PERRONE). See also: Eusebius, Praep.Evang. VII,20,4 (SC 215, 272-274 SCHROEDER – DES PLACES). 58. For the philosophical origins of this term: Sextus Empiricus, Adversus Mathematicos VIII,184 (II, 144,13 MUTSCHMANN). 59. Origenes, H67PsII,8 (GCS NF 19, 224,5-6 PERRONE). See: CCVIII,17 (SC 150, 210 BORRET). 60. Origenes, H77PsIX,1 (GCS NF 19, 467,17-19 PERRONE). 61. See CCI,57 (SC 132, 230-232 BORRET). This doctrine is here supported by Phaedrus245C.9 and it is very frequently used by early imperial philosophers in regard with

656

V. LIMONE

and in the latter, mankind as the whole of rational beings. This stands at odds with the aforementioned conception of οὐσία as individual existence, or existence individualised by the properties, as it was mentioned above in respect to the CommentaryonJohn. V. CONCLUSIONS The few occurrences of the philosophical term οὐσία in the Homilieson thePsalms and the generic references to it in contrast with the more technical use of it in other writings of Origen, such as the CommentaryonJohn and AgainstCelsus, in which it occurs very frequently and in a very accurate way, nonetheless enable us to put forward some conclusions. First of all, an overview of the occurrences of the term in the Homiliesonthe Psalms makes it clear that this term is related to one or more individual subjects: in the first occurrence it is related to the individual soul of Jesus Christ, in the second to the personal Logos, in the third to heretics, in the fourth to the angels, and finally in the fifth to the souls of men. Therefore, the first meaning of οὐσία in the HomiliesonthePsalms, particularly in light of the widespread use of it in the early imperial era, as has already been mentioned, is that of individuality, or individual existence, which is attributed to the soul of Jesus Christ, the Logos, the angels, or the men. Furthermore, as the above investigation has shown, the term οὐσία always occurs in exegetical contexts in which Origen stresses the contradiction between the corporeal and the incorporeal things and relates it to the incorporeal things. This use of the term implies that Origen recovers the Peripatetic bipartition of οὐσία into corporeal and incorporeal, which was also endorsed by Middle Platonists, as aforementioned, and subsumes God, the being which directly participates in His godhead, that is, the Logos, and the beings which participate in God’s godhead only through the divine Son, that is, the angels and the souls, included the soul of Christ,

the soul of the world; see e.g. Alcinous, Didaskalikos XXV,178,17-23 (50 WHITTAKER); Apuleius, DePlatoneeteiusdogmate I,199 (97,15–98,8 MORESCHINI) – on this: C. MORESCHINI, Elementi dell’esegesi del Fedro nella tarda antichità, in L. ROSSETTI (ed.), UnderstandingthePhaedrus.ProceedingsoftheIISymposiumPlatonicum.I (International Plato Studies, 1), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 1992, 191-205, pp. 200-203. This use is also attested in the doxographical tradition, e.g. Ps.-Hippolytus, Refutatio omniumhaeresium I,19,10 (GCS 26, 21,7 WENDLAND = Hippolytus Werke 3), and in Philo, e.g. Demutationenominum 58 (58 ARNALDEZ) and Despecialibuslegibus II 156 (326 DANIEL).

OUSIA IN ORIGEN

657

under the incorporeal species of οὐσία62. In sum, Origen’s use of οὐσία as incorporeal existence demonstrates his assumption of the bipartition of it into the corporeal and the incorporeal. In conclusion, the few data collected from the above examination of the occurrences of the term οὐσία in the HomiliesonthePsalms, in light of the aforementioned theories of the substance as individual existence and the bipartition of it into the species of corporeal and incorporeal, show that Origen uses it both in the sense of individual existence and in that of incorporeal existence and thus, the division of existence into corporeal and incorporeal. University Vita-Salute San Raffaele Faculty of Philosophy Via Olgettina, 58 IT-20132 Milano Italy [email protected]

Vito LIMONE

62. A still comprehensive study on the notion of participation in Origen is: D.L. BALAS, TheIdeaofParticipationintheStructureofOrigen’sThought:ChristianTransposition of a Theme of the Platonic Tradition, in H. CROUZEL – G. LOMIENTO – J. RIUS-CAMPS (eds.), Origeniana. Premiercolloqueinternationaldesétudesorigéniennes,Montserrat, 18-21 septembre 1973 (Quaderni di VetChr, 12), Bari, Istituto di Letteratura Cristiana Antica, 1975, 257-275.

ORIGEN AND THE GRAMMATICAL PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION ὙΠΕΡΒΑΤΑ AS SOLUTIONS TO SOLECISMS

I. ORIGEN AND THE USE OF GRAMMATICAL TOOLS FOR INTERPRETATION This paper deals with Origen’s activity as a γραμματικός in Alexandria and then Caesarea. Well educated in the Greek curriculum1, he was an outstanding scholar of both the Holy Scriptures and the Greek authors. Origen applied to the study of texts a rigorous philological method, combined with his knowledge of the classical philological and grammatical tradition2. Classical Greek education prioritized the study of grammar. And, as Dionysius Thrax informed his readers in The ArtofGrammar3, grammar went well beyond the morphological and syntactic analysis of the sentence. It also involved the process of text analysis and interpretation, which was divided into six parts: the “trained reading” (ἀνάγνωσις ἐντριβής) of the text with regard to prosody, the interpretation “according to the poetical tropes” (κατὰ τοὺς ποιητικοὺς τρόπους), the “readily accessible explanation” (πρόχειρος ἀπόδοσις) of words and narratives, the “discovery of etymologies” (ἐτυμολογίαν εὕρησις), the “setting out of analogies” (ἀναλογίας ἐκλογισμός), and the general “criticism of works” 1. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. VI,19,7. 2. A. GRAFTON – M. WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen,Eusebius,andtheLibraryofCaesarea, Cambridge, MA – London, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006; C. JACOB,Bibliothèque,livre,texte:Formesde l’éruditionalexandrine, in L. PERRONE (ed.),OrigenianaOctava:OrigenandtheAlexandrianTradition.Papersofthe8thInternationalOrigenCongress,Pisa27-31August2001 (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 13-22. 3. The attribution of the treatise to this Greek grammarian and philologist of the second century, pupil of Aristarchus of Samothrace in Alexandria and founder of a grammatical school in Rhodes, is still debated. For an in-depth study of the work and its dubious authorship see V. LAW – I. SLUITER, DionysiusThraxandtheTechneGrammatike(The Henry Sweet Society Studies in the History of Linguistics, 1), Münster, Nodus Publikationen, 1995, and A.L. GAFFURI, La teoria grammaticale antica sull’interpunzione dei testi greci e la prassidialcunicodicimedievali, in Aevum 68 (1994) 95-115, p. 95, n. 3. After M. SCHMIDT’s article (DionysderThraker, in Philologus 8 [1853] 231-253) and G. UHLIG’s critical edition (Dionysii Thracis Arsgrammatica, in Grammaticigraeci, Leipzig, Teubner, 1883, I, 3-100), the attribution of the Τέχνη γραμματική to Dionysius seemed definitive, but the question was rediscussed by V. DI BENEDETTO, DionisioTraceelaTechnealuiattribuita, in AnnalidellaScuolaNormaleSuperiorediPisa 27 (1958) 169-210, and 28 (1959) 87118, and remains controversial.

660

F. MINONNE

(κρίσις ποιημάτων)4. The correction and emendation of the text on the scroll, that is, the διόρϑωσις, were intrinsic to the act of reading. This was an important part of the grammatical process, as it was essential to preserving the state of the text. The reader was expected to pay attention to the variaelectiones, whether due to unintentional graphic errors or deliberate ideological interpolations5. The διόρϑωσις was thus based on the accurate reading and interpretation of texts. Varro defined it as “the correction of mistakes that occur in composition and oral expression”6 and highlighted the importance of emendation in both public speaking and writing. For example, Diogenes Laërtius, in his Lives and Opinions of EminentPhilosophers7, quoted a passage from Theophrastus of Eresus’ LettertoPhaenias in which the philosopher dealt with the places where performances(δείξεις)and public events were held. Theophrastus stated that “it is not easy to find the meeting, nor even the assembly, that one desires; yet, readings provide for corrections”8. Public readings, whether 4. Dionysii Thracis Ars grammatica α’ 5-6, ed. G. UHLIG: “[…] first the trained reading according to prosody, second the interpretation according to the poetical tropes, third the readily accessible explanation of words and narratives, fourth the discovery of etymologies, fifth the setting out of analogies, sixth the criticism of works” ([…] πρῶτον ἀνάγνωσις ἐντριβὴς κατὰ προσῳδίαν, δεύτερον ἐξήγησις κατὰ τοὺς ἐνυπάρχοντας ποιητικοὺς τρόπους, τρίτον γλωσσῶν τε καὶ ἱστοριῶν πρόχειρος ἀπόδοσις, τέταρτον ἐτυμολογίας εὕρησις, πέμπτον ἀναλογίας ἐκλογισμός, ἕκτον κρίσις ποιημάτων). 5. For a study of the act of reading at the school of grammarians and the development of a “theory of reading”, see W.A. JOHNSON, ReadersandReadingCultureintheHigh Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010; W.A. JOHNSON – H. PARKER (eds.),AncientLiteracies:TheCultureofReadinginGreece andRome, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009; L. DEL CORSO,Laletturanelmondo ellenistico, Roma – Bari, Laterza, 2005; M. KORENJAK, PublikumundRedner:IhreInteraktionindersophistischenRhetorikderKaiserzeit, München, Beck, 2000; R. CRIBIORE, Writing,Teachers,andStudentsinGraeco-RomanEgypt(American Studies in Papyrology, 36), Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1996; I. ROSIER (ed.), L’héritagedesgrammairiens latinsdel’AntiquitéauxLumières.ActesduColloquedeChantilly,2-4septembre1987 (Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale, 13), Paris, Peeters, 1988; H.I. MARROU, Histoiredel’éducationdansl’antiquité, Paris, Seuil, 1948. 6. M. Terentii Varronis, De grammatica, fr. 109, ed. G. GOETZ – F. SCHOELL: […] recorrectio errorum qui per scripturam dictionemve fiunt. See M. ROSELLINI, Varrone, Palemone,Prisciano:Effettidiuninsegnamentogrammaticalesullapraticadellalingua, in F. BELLANDI – R. FERRI (eds.), Aspettidellascuolanelmondoromano.AttidelConvegno, Pisa5-6dicembre2006, Amsterdam, Hakkert, 2008, 189-198; D.J. TAYLOR, Varroand theOriginsofLatinLinguisticTheory, in ROSIER (ed.), L’héritagedesgrammairienslatins del’antiquité(n. 5), 37-48. 7. An analysis of Diogenes’ figure and the debate on its dating to the third century is in K. JANÁČEK, Studien zu Sextus Empiricus, Diogenes Laertius und zur pyrrhonischen Skepsis, ed. J. JANDA – F. KARFÍK(Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, 249), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2008. 8. Diogenis Laertii Vitae philosophorum V,37: […] οὐ γὰρ ὅτι πανήγυριν, ἀλλ’οὐδὲ συνέδριον ῥᾴδιον, οἷόν τις βούλεται, λαβεῖν· αἱ δ’ἀναγνώσεις ποιοῦσιν ἐπανορϑώσεις.

ORIGEN AND THE GRAMMATICAL PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION

661

held in front of a large group of citizens or in the presence of a more restricted audience, were conceived as opportunities to make corrections (ἐπανορϑώσεις) to the text, also with a view to publication9. Origen was keenly aware of the malleability of texts and he had to deal with the numerous textual differences in the Greek manuscripts of the Old and New Testament. In a well-known passage from his Commentary on Matthew, he set forth his philological method, which was based on the study and comparison of various copies of manuscripts (ἀντίγραφα) and editions (ἐκδόσεις), as well as the use of diacritical marks, such as the obelosand the asterisk10. So, commenting on the parable of the rich young man11, he stressed the existence of divergences between the Gospels. This led him to the idea that a verse was interpolated in the text by someone who did not understand the true sense of the words. For Origen, philological debates were interwoven with spiritual issues. He ascribed textual ambiguities to “the carelessness of some copyists, the ruthlessness of others, neglecting the editing of writings, and the arbitrarily adding or removing text parts during emendation”12. Taking the topic even further, in his First HomilyonPsalm77, Origen blamed the devil for all apparent contradictions in the Scriptures. Scholars like Marcion and his pupils, therefore, were falling under Origen’s criticism for correcting passages that they perceived as ambiguous or contradictory without a clear set of criteria. Origen gave as example the counting of the years of Rehoboam’s kingdom in the 9. Del Corso speaks of a “pro-ecdotic reading”, that is “una lettura di un’opera o di una sua parte in una stesura provvisoria, svolta di fronte a un pubblico selezionato, da cui l’autore si aspetta commenti o suggerimenti utili in vista dell’èkdosis definitiva […] La lettura all’interno del circolo viene così a svolgere precocemente un ruolo di filtro (contenutistico, stilistico, persino politico-ideologico), che resterà fondamentale, nella circolazione delle opere letterarie, fino all’età bizantina inoltrata” (DEL CORSO,Lalettura [n. 5], pp. 83ss.). 10. Origenes, CMtXV,14, ed. BENDINELLI: “With God’s help, we have found a remedy to the differences between the manuscripts of the Old Testament, using the other editions as a criterion […] and we marked some with the obelos, as not present in the Hebrew text […] and some with the asterisk, so it would be clear that, though not present in the Septuagint, we added it from the other editions in accordance with the Hebrew text” (τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαϑήκης διαφωνίαν ϑεοῦ διδόντος εὕρομεν ἰάσασϑαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν […] καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ Ἑβραικῷ μὴ κείμενα […], τινὰ δὲ μετ’ ἀστερίσκων προσεϑήκαμεν, ἵνα δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ Ἑβραικῷ προσεϑήκαμεν). See also G. BENDINELLI, IlCommentarioaMatteodiOrigene: L’ambitodellametodologiascolasticanell’antichità(SEA, 60), Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1997. 11. See Matthew 19. 12. Origenes, CMtXV,14, ed. BENDINELLI: εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳϑυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχϑῆρας τῆς διορϑώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορϑώσει προστιϑέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.

662

F. MINONNE

third book of Kings. There was clearly a graphic error (ἁμάρτημα γραφικόν) that – as the author underlined – could be found only after a thorough comparison between other versions of the same passage13. The construction of a distinctive Christian discourse was based on the reading and analysis of the text of the Scriptures14. Identifying inconsistencies and solving ambiguities was part of the grammatical text analysis and was necessary to deepen the knowledge of the sacred texts. The Jewish Scriptures remained at the heart of interpretation: they were relied on for moral and theological arguments and were also subject to new readings in light of the emerging Christology. Together with the New Testament canon, which was being defined, they represented the set of doctrines that constituted the identity of early Christianity. Therefore, the knowledge Christians had of their authoritative texts, as well as the prolific production of exegetical, apologetic, and doctrinal works by early Christian authors, supported the cohesion and self-definition of Christian communities15. In 13. Origenes, CMtXV,14. 14. For an indicative bibliography on this question: J. DE VRIES – M. KARRER (eds.), TextualHistoryandtheReceptionofScriptureinEarlyChristianity(Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 60), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2013; A. LARDINOIS – J.H. BLOK – M. VAN DER POEL (eds.), SacredWords:Orality,LiteracyandReligion(Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World, 8), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011; M. RIZZI, Traoralitàescrittura:FormedicomunicazionenelcristianesimodelIIsecolo, in Rivistadistoriadelcristianesimo 1 (2006) 45-58; B.D. EHRMAN, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture andtheFaithsWeNeverKnew, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003; K. HAINES-EITZEN, GuardiansofLetters:Literacy,Power,andtheTransmittersofEarlyChristianLiterature, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000; H.Y. GAMBLE, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Text, New Haven, CT – London, Yale University Press, 1995. 15. M. GRUNDEKEN – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Christian Communities in the Second Century: Between Idea(l) and Reality (WUNT, 342), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2015; C. HARRISON – C. HUMFRESS – I. SANDWELL (eds.), Being Christian in Late Antiquity. AFestschriftforGillianClark, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014; K. ESHLEMAN, The SocialWorldofIntellectualsintheRomanEmpire:Sophists,Philosophers,andChristians, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012; E. EIDINOW, NetworksandNarratives:A ModelforAncientGreekReligion, in Kernos 24 (2011) 9-38; É. REBILLARD, Christians andTheirManyIdentitiesinLateAntiquity,NorthAfrica,200-450CE, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2012; P.H. HARLAND, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians:Associations,Judeans,andCulturalMinorities, London – New York, T&T Clark, 2009; E. IRICINSCHI – H.M. ZELLENTIN (eds.), HeresyandIdentityinLateAntiquity(Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 119), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008; G. FILORAMO, Veggenti profeti gnostici: Identità e conflitti nel cristianesimo antico, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2005; J.M. LIEU, NeitherJewnorGreek?ConstructingEarlyChristianity, London, T&T Clark International, 2005; EAD., Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004; P. LAMPE, DiestadtrӧmischenChristenin denerstenbeidenJahrhunderten:UntersuchungenzurSozialgeschichte, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1989; U. NEYMEYR, DieChristlichenLehrerimZweitenJahrhundert:IhreLehrtätigkeit,ihrSelbstverständnis undihreGeschichte(SupplVigChr, 4), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 1989; E.P. SANDERS (ed.), JewishandChristianSelf-Definition.Volume One: TheShapingofChristianityintheSecondandThirdCenturies, London, SCM, 1980.

ORIGEN AND THE GRAMMATICAL PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION

663

other words, these religious communities based their faith on the interpretation of the sacred texts, shared both in oral (preaching, homilies, and catechesis) and in written form (commentaries and treatises). Origen, as one of the leading scholars and interpreters of the Scriptures, was a significant figure in this process. He delivered his homilies and dialexeis16 orally, and, as Eusebius noted, at a certain point also allowed transcriptions by shorthand writers17. He centered the construction of the Christian discourse on the exegesis of the sacred texts18. For this purpose, he applied his philological method, acquired through traditional grammar training, to reading and interpreting the Christian Scriptures. The observations he made, and of which the passages reported in this article are examples, were not limited to the analysis of texts, but – as will be seen – also referred to the oral transposition of the writings. In fact, the correct reading of a text was crucial in order to convey its proper meaning. Therefore, Origen paid great attention to the act of reading. In his view, the breath pauses19 had to correspond to the syntactic articulation of the discourse, that in the written form could be made visible by an appropriate use of diacritics20. In his CommentaryonGenesis, he analyzed Gen 1,11: “Let the land produce the vegetation of the field spreading seed according to the various kinds and 16. For a thorough discussion on the word διάλεξις and its link with the rhetorical practice of the Second Sophistic movement see M. RIZZI, LasecondapartedelDialogo con Eraclide:L’animaèilsangue?, in Adamantius 21 (2015) 269-283, pp. 269-274. The debate concerns the nature of the oral teachings of the Christian διδάσκαλοι, which were intended for a wider audience. The rhetorical and philosophical διάλεξις developed from a πρόβλημα arisen in the Christian community and freely submitted to Origen by his listeners. The questions (προβλήματα) were often dwelling with the interpretation of biblical passages and the clarification of textual ambiguities. However, compared to homilies, this mode of communication was extemporary and not subject to the constraints of the liturgical calendar and readings. 17. See Eusebius, Hist.Eccl.VI,23. 18. Origen is not the only Christian author who based his theological reasoning on the exegesis of texts (see, for example, Hippolytus’ exegetical work), but according to the surviving evidence he was the first to do it in a more systematic way. 19. Origen’s focus on breath breaks recalls Dionysius Thrax’ definition of reading. Cf. Dionysii Thracis Arsgrammatica β’ 6, ed. UHLIG: “Reading is the faultless enunciation of poetries and proses. It must have regard for expression, prosody and pauses. From the expression we understand the value; from the prosody, the art; and from the pauses, the intended meaning” (Ἀνάγνωσίς ἐστι ποιημάτων ἢ συγγραμμάτων ἀδιάπτωτος προφορά. Ἀναγνωστέον δὲ καϑ᾽ ὑπόκρισιν, κατὰ προσῳδίαν, κατὰ διαστολήν. Ἐκ μὲν γὰρ τῆς ὑποκρίσεως τὴν ἀρετήν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς προσῳδίας τὴν τέχνην, ἐκ δὲ τῆς διαστολῆς τὸν περιεχόμενον νοῦν ὁρῶμεν). See also M. Fabii Quintiliani Institutiooratoria I,8,1-2. 20. For a general bibliography on the act of reading, see supranote 5. On the physiology of reading, A. VATRI, ThePhysiologyofAncientGreekReading, in ClassicalQuarterly 62 (2012) 633-647; P. SAENGER, TheSeparationofWordsandthePhysiologyofReading, in D.R. OLSON – N. TORRANCE (eds.), LiteracyandOrality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, 198-214.

664

F. MINONNE

similarities” (βλαστησάτω ἡ γῆ βοτάνην χόρτου σπεῖρον σπέρμα κατὰ γένος καὶ καϑ’ ὁμοιότητα)21. Upon a first reading, there seems to be a grammatical error, a solecism, in the relation between the participle σπεῖρον and βοτάνην χόρτου, since there is a difference of cases and the words do not seem to make sense. In fact, the present participle σπεῖρον (from σπείρω “to seed”) may be a neutral singular nominative or accusative. Consequently, σπεῖρον cannot agree with either γῆ (feminine singular nominative), βοτάνην (feminine singular accusative) or χόρτου (masculine singular genitive). It may only be linked with the following neutral singular noun σπέρμα; in this case σπέρμα would play the role of direct object of βλαστησάτω and subject of σπεῖρον, the participle σπεῖρον being used intransitively and the whole phrase meaning “seed bearing fruit/procreating”. Such a grammatical construction is peculiar22. The “error” Origen complained about would have been perceived by the reader if we assume that the text was written in scriptiocontinua and read without interruption between words. The discrepancy between σπεῖρον and the immediately preceding words, which are declined in different grammatical cases, was evident. However, an appropriate space between the elements may mitigate the incongruity and make the sentence consistent, linking σπεῖρον to the following noun σπέρμα. Therefore, Origen suggested adding a punctuation mark, a μέση στιγμή, expecting a brief pause (ὑποδιαστολή) during the reading, too. This allows him to separate the two parts of the sentence and assign σπεῖρον to the second one: With a minor separation of a middle point, it can be read as follows: Letthe landproducevegetationofthefield, and after a pause add: spreadingseed accordingtothevariouskinds, so to have: Letthelandproducevegetation ofthefield,spreadingseed – linking spreadingseedto kinds(γένος)23. 21. The passage is also commented on in B. NEUSCHÄFER, OrigenalsPhilologe(Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 18), Basel, Reinhardt, 1987, I, p. 214. 22. The Greek text can be compared with the Masoretic one: ‫ַ ֽתּ ְד ֵ ֤שׁא ָה ָ֙א ֶר ֙ץ ֶ ֔דּ ֶשׁא ֵ ֚ע ֶשׂב ַמזְ ִ ֣ר ַיע‬ ‫ז ַרע‬.ֶ֔ In the Masoretic text there seems to be no ambiguity: the masculine singular participle ‫ ַמזְ ִ ֣ר ַיע‬agrees with the immediately preceding masculine singular noun ‫ ֵ ֚ע ֶשׂב‬and has the following noun ‫ ֶ֔ז ַרע‬as its direct object. Marguerite Harl commented: “La répartition de la végétation, dans le texte grec, est bipartite: d’une part la ‘pâture d’herbe’, précisée par l’apposition ‘semant de la semence’, d’autre part les arbres fruitiers. Le TM donne une tripartition: verdure, herbes semant la semence, arbres fruitiers. Les deux mots grecs ‘semant la semence’, speîronspérma, sont de construction ambiguë […] Certains exégètes anciens l’ont rapporté au mot neutre qui suit, ‘espèce’ (génos) ou bien ils en ont fait le qualificatif de ‘semence’” (M. HARL [ed.], LaBibled’Alexandrie.LaGenèse, Paris, Cerf, 1986,p.91). See also, M. KARRER – W. KRAUS (eds.), SeptuagintaDeutsch.ErläuterungenundKommentarezumgriechischenAltenTestament,Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, I, p. 158 adloc.: “vonGrünpflazen: Im MT Aufzählung, in der LXX ein Genitivattribut: χόρτου”. 23. Origenes, FrGn D 6, ed. METZLER: Ἔστι δὲ, ὑποδιαστολῇ χρησάμενον μέσης στιγμῆς, οὕτως ἀναγνῶναι˙ Βλαστησάτω ἡ γῆ βοτάνην χόρτου˙ καὶ διαστήσαντα

ORIGEN AND THE GRAMMATICAL PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION

665

As described, Origen applied the rules of punctuation and organized the structure of the sentence in order to read the text correctly and express its full meaning coherently24. He spoke of solecisms also in other passages, mostly in his Commentary onSt.Paul’sEpistletotheEphesians25. He tried to unravel the difficult passages by restructuring the sentences and moving around their components in a way he perceived as more consistent and clear. For example, he found a solecism in Eph 3,1-3: “Because of this I, Paul, prisoner of Jesus Christ for you gentiles […] if you have heard of the dispensation of grace God gave to me for you, that by revelation the mystery was made known to me […]”26. Origen said: I think that there is a solecism in the passage; in fact, he should have said: BecauseofthisI,Paul,prisonerofJesusChrist,knewthemystery, while he says, BecauseofthisI,Paul,prisoner,byrevelationthemysterywasmade knowntome. If someone can explain both the sense and the wording expressing it, he should be listened to27.

ἐπενεγκεῖν τὸ, σπεῖρον σπέρμα κατὰ γένος˙ ἵν’ ᾖ, Βλαστησάτω ἡ γῆ βοτάνην χόρτου σπεῖρον σπέρμα˙ ἐπιφερομένου ἐπὶ τὸ γένος τοῦ σπεῖρον σπέρμα. 24. Even in this case, the punctuation system derives from Dionysius Thrax. As he stated in Ars grammatica δ’ 7, ed. UHLIG: “There are three punctuation marks: the full stop, the medium and the comma. The full stop is the sign of fulfilled meaning, the medium is the sign of granted breath, the comma is the sign of a sense not completely fulfilled, but still incomplete” (Στιγμαί εἰσι τρεῖς· τελεία, μέση, ὑποστιγμή. Ἡ μὲν τελεία στιγμή ἐστι διανοίας ἀπηρτισμένης σημεῖον, μέση δὲ σημεῖον πνεύματος ἕνεκεν παραλαμβανόμενον, ὑποστιγμὴ δὲ διανοίας μηδέπω ἀπηρτισμένης ἀλλ’ ἔτι ἐνδεούσης σημεῖον). See also M. Fabii Quintiliani Institutiooratoria XI 3,35. This system was partially integrated by Nicanor of Alexandria in the second century AD and resumed by Gaius Marius Victorinus two centuries later. In this regard, see C.M. MAZZUCCHI, Per una punteggiatura non anacronistica,epiùefficace,deitestigreci, in S. LUCÀ – L. PERRIA (eds.), Ὀπώρα. Studi in onore di Mgr Paul Canart per il LXX compleanno (Bollettino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata, 51), Roma, Congregazione d’Italia dei Monaci Basiliani, 1997, I, 129-144; GAFFURI, La teoria grammaticale antica sull’interpunzione dei testi greci (n. 3), pp. 95115; M.B. PARKES, PauseandEffect:AnIntroductiontotheHistoryofPunctuationin theWest, Aldershot, Scolar Press, 1992; P. RAFTI, L’interpunzionenellibromanoscritto: Mezzosecolodistudi, in Scritturaeciviltà 12 (1988) 239-298. 25. Fragments of Origen’s CommentaryonStPaul’sEpistletotheEphesians derive from a commentary in three books, whose excerpts are preserved in Catena commentaries. On this, see R.E. HEINE, TheCommentariesonOrigenandJeromeonStPaul’sEpistle totheEphesians, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2002. 26. Eph 3,1-3: Τούτου χάριν ἐγὼ Παῦλος ὁ δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἐϑνῶν [...] εἴγε ἠκούσατε τὴν οἰκονομίαν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς δοϑείσης μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, ὅτι κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν ἐγνωρίσϑη μοι τὸ μυστήριον […]. 27. Origen, FrEph II,28, ed. PIERI: Σολοικισμὸν δὲ νομίζω γεγονέναι ἐν τῷ τόπῳ˙ δέον γὰρ αὐτὸν εἰρηκέναι τούτουχάρινἐγὼΠαῦλοςδέσμιοςἸησοῦΧριστοῦἐγνώρισα τὸ μυστήριον, ὁ δέ φησι τούτουχάρινἐγὼΠαῦλοςδέσμιος,κατὰἀποκάλυψινἐγνωρίσϑημοι τὸ μυστήριον. Εἰ δέ τις δύναται παραστῆσαι πρὸς τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ τὴν φράσιν αὐτῷ ἐπιτετευγμένην, ἐκείνου μάλιστα ἀκουστέον.

666

F. MINONNE

According to Origen, the rhythm of the sentence is altered by a grammatical error that we call an anacoluthon. He therefore suggested a change of words to make the meaning clearer28. In the concluding sentence of this passage, Origen encouraged the reader to read beyond the meaning (πρὸς τῇ διανοίᾳ) of the text, trying to understand the structure of the sentence that expresses the meaning (αὐτῷ ἐπιτετευγμένην). He underlined the close connection between the textual configuration and the content conveyed orally. Different readings of the same passage may lead to different meanings. For this reason, Origen emphasized the importance of explaining the succession of words, as such an explanation was thought decisive for the oral articulation of the discourse.

II. ΥΠΕΡΒΑΤΑ

AS

SOLUTIONS TO SOLECISMS

Sometimes, in order to restore the correct grammatical succession of the sentence, i.e. the ἀκολουϑία, Origen relied on the presence of hyperbata29. Examples of Origen’s use of hyperbata can be found in his CommentaryontheEpistletotheEphesiansand OntheEpistletotheRomans30. In the first work we clearly find the combination σόλοικον/ὑπερβατόν. Origen analyzed Eph 1,15-18: “For this reason, having heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and love for all saints, I have not stopped giving thanks for you and remembering you in my prayers, so that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, father of glory, may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, enlightened the eyes of the heart so that you know the hope of your call”31. Origen found the arrangement in the last part of the passage quite bold, especially the sentence “in the knowledge of him enlightened the eyes of the heart”. He suggested to 28. Similarly, in FrEph II,35, he proposed the displacement of the conjunction ἵνα in Eph 3,17-19, reorganizing the syntagma with a metathesis. 29. On the hyperbaton as source of difficulty and the role of phonological boundaries as solutions to syntactic ambiguities, see A. VATRI, OralityandPerformanceinClassical AtticProse:ALinguisticApproach, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 119-122 and 175-184. 30. Both passages are considered by Neuschäfer: the first example from Origen’s CommentaryontheEpistletotheEphesians is analyzed in detail here. Cf. NEUSCHÄFER, Origen alsPhilologe (n. 21), I, p. 215. 31. Eph 1,15-18: Διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ ἀκούσας τὴν καϑ’ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου ἵνα ὁ ϑεὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης, δῴη ὑμῖν πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως ἐν ἐπιγνώσει αὐτοῦ, πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφϑαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς τίς ἐστιν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν.

ORIGEN AND THE GRAMMATICAL PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION

667

move this last sentence immediately after the first one “having heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus”, to avoid an ungrammatical statement (σόλοικον): The sentence intheknowledgeofhimenlightenedtheeyesoftheheart may seem ungrammatical if we do not consider a hyperbaton; therefore we think the rest of the sentence to be this: havingheardaboutyourfaithintheLord Jesus,intheknowledgeofhimenlightenedtheeyesoftheheart,andforall saints, I have not stopped giving thanks for you and remembering you in myprayers,sothattheGodofourLordJesusChrist,fatherofglory,may giveyouthespiritofwisdomandrevelationinorderthatyouknowthehope ofyourcall32.

The discussion concerned the parenthetical ἐν ἐπιγνώσει αὐτοῦ πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφϑαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας, which, according to Origen, may seem incorrect if put in a clause at the end of the passage. It should rather be placed before, in the first part of the paragraph. The meaning of the sentence is plain and unambiguous. However, the author’s need for clarification stems from the complicated grammatical structure. From a purely grammatical perspective, the transmitted text provides in the last sentence an “accusative absolute”. Otherwise, as Origen stated, if we think of a hyperbaton, the past participle πεφωτισμένους should be linked to ὑμᾶς and τοὺς ὀφϑαλμούς would be the “accusative of respect”. He explained the grammatical error (δόξει σόλοικον εἶναι) and the connections between the syntagma by a hyperbaton. This is a good example of Origen’s approach to commenting on a text by checking both its inner grammatical coherence and its logic and syntactical links. Ὑπερβατά and σολοικισμά, though typical mostly of Pauline style, can also be found in Origen’s other works. Neuschäfer mentions another hyperbaton in Origen’s commentary on the GospelofLuke33. It is a unique case of Origen’s approach to texts. In a Greek fragment that was transmitted to us, Origen focused on Lk 1,26-27, that is the announcement by the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary. The Gospel says, “In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph from the house 32. Origenes, FrEph I,17, ed. PIERI: Δόξει σόλοικον εἶναι τὸ ἐν ἐπιγνώσει αὐτοῦ πεφωτισμένουςτοὺςὀφϑαλμοὺςτῆςκαρδίας εἰ μὴ ὡς ὑπερβατὸν αὐτὸ ἀποδῶμεν˙ διόπερ τὸ ἐξῆς τῆς συμφράσεως οὕτως ἔχειν οἰόμεϑα διὰ τοῦτο κἀγώἀκούσαςτὴνκαϑ’ὑμᾶς πίστινἐντῷκυρίῳἸησοῦἐνἐπιγνώσειαὐτοῦπεφωτισμένουςτοὺςὀφϑαλμοὺςτῆςκαρδίας, καὶ τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶνπροσευχῶνμου,ἵναὁϑεὸςτοῦκυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ,ὁπατὴρτῆςδόξης,δῴη ὑμῖν πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως, εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς τίς ἐστιν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν. 33. See NEUSCHÄFER, Origen’salsPhilologe (n. 21), II, p. 456, n. 662.

668

F. MINONNE

of David and the virgin’s name was Mary”34. Origen suggested a hyperbaton between the verb (ἀπεστάλη), the object to whom the verb refers (πρὸς παρϑένον), and the past participle clause (ἐμνηστευμένην): This is how the hyperbaton is structured: theangelwassenttoavirginfrom the house ofDavid, and the name ofthe virgin was Mary, betrothed toa man,namedJoseph. The angel was not sent to Joseph, as Joseph was not involved in the birth of the Lord35.

Origen restructured the passage and the position of the sentences within it. From the concluding sentence the reader understands that the author’s issue is to whom the angel Gabriel was sent to announce Jesus’ birth. He was not sent to Joseph, as Origen declared that Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus’ birth. From a grammatical point of view, the Christian author linked the passive aorist ἀπεστάλη to πρὸς παρϑένον, ruling out the possibility that the verb may be related to ἀνδρί (dative case). Again, we have to assume that Luke’s text was read aloud: articulating words and grouping them in different ways could influence the interpretation of the text. In this case, if ἀπεστάλη related to ἀνδρί we should assume a pause after ἐμνηστευμένην, the whole phrase meaning: “God sent the angel, by a virgin betrothed, to a man called Joseph”. However, upon a first reading, even in the original wording of the verse, the phrase is not perceived as ambiguous: ἀπεστάλη is referred to πρὸς παρϑένον and ἐμνηστευμένην is easily related to ἀνδρί. Otherwise, ἐμνηστευμένην may seem hanging and in need of an object: “betrothed” to whom? Therefore, Origen’s remark seems unnecessary. However, in Origen’s restructuration of the text, there is another syntagma which gets a new position in the sentence, that is “from the house of David” (ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ). The phrase, firstly located after the name Joseph, is moved by the author after the noun “virgin”, as referred to Mary. According to the Gospel, the Davidic line seems to be traced via Joseph – as stated in Lk 2,4 and 3,31 –, while in this passage, restructured by Origen, the descent seems to pass through Mary. Perhaps, the ascription of the syntagma ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ to Mary is necessary to strengthen Origen’s attempt to exclude Joseph from the holy birth: if Joseph is not the biological father, his lineage cannot apply to Jesus. This statement was confirmed by Origen in the following part of 34. Lk 1,26-27: ἐν δὲ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ ἀπεστάλη ὁ ἄγγελος Γαβριὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ εἰς πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ᾗ ὄνομα Ναζαρὲϑ πρὸς παρϑένον ἐμνηστευμένην ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωσὴφ ἐξ οἴκου Δαυὶδ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παρϑένου Μαριάμ. 35. Origenes, FrLc 20, ed. RAUER: Τὸ οὖν ὑπέρβατον οὕτως ἔχει˙ ἀπεστάλη ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς παρϑένον ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παρϑένου Μαριάμ, μεμνηστευμένην ἀνδρί, ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωσήφ. Οὐκ ἀπεστάλη δὲ πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ ὁ ἄγγελος, ἐπειδὴ οὐδὲν ἦν κοινὸν τῷ Ἰωσὴφ πρὸς τὴν κυρίου γέννησιν.

ORIGEN AND THE GRAMMATICAL PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION

669

the fragment, where he said that Joseph “was not named groom because of his engagement to Mary, but thanks to God’s arrangements”36. Another possibility is that Origen was reading a different version of the same Gospel text. However, the fragment does not report the quoted verse in the original form, but only the author’s restructured version. In the SixthHomilyonLuke, the same verse appears but in a shorter form: “the angel Gabriel was sent by God to virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph”37. Even if we have the Greek fragment of this passage from Origen’s homily, we can only infer that the expression “from the house of David” is not located after “virgin”. However, since we are dealing with Catena fragments, we must remain cautious, as any alteration or omission may be due to the action of the catenist38. Beyond this digression, it is indisputable that this example of Origen’s interpretation shows the full strength of his method. In this particular case, the hyperbaton syntactically explains the internal connection of the elements in the sentence, a grammatical observation that confirms the theological meaning of the announcement made by the angel to the virgin Mary. The three examples discussed demonstrate the different applications and implications of Origen’s method. In the first case – the Commentary ontheEpistletotheEphesians–, Origen focused on the πρόχειρος ἀπόδοσις, the fluid explanation of the sentence. As he got into a so-called accusativuspendens during the reading (πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφϑαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας), he felt the need to link it with another phrase in the sentence, that is καϑ’ ὑμᾶς, and relate both elements in a grammatically justifiable way. The same solution is used in the Commentary on the EpistletotheRomans, to set a parenthetical element in the correct order within the sentence. However, in the HomilyonLuke, Origen went a step further and resorted to hyperbaton to justify a theological claim, connected to the modified structure of the phrase. Without explicitly mentioning it, Origen may have altered the original meaning of the text by introducing a new element, that is, the Davidic genealogy of Jesus by Mary. Commenting on Paul, the scruple is for the syntactic fluidity, and the hyperbaton solved the problem of pending phrases in the sentence. Commenting on 36. Οὐ γὰρ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτῆς μνηστὴρ ὠνομάσϑη ἀνήρ, ἀλλ’ οἰκονομήσαντος τοῦτο διὰ πολλὰ τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 37. Origenes, HLcVI,3, ed. RAUER: ἀπεστάλη ἄγγελος Γαβριὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ ϑεοῦ πρὸς παρϑένον μεμνηστευμένην ἀνδρὶ, ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωσήφ. 38. It can be mentioned that in his AgainstCelsus, Origen quoted Mt 1,20 (“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to accept Mary as your wife”), but he did not comment on the genealogical reference. See Origenes, CCI,66.

670

F. MINONNE

Luke, instead, the hyperbaton is cunningly used in order to change the order of the elements decisive for the author’s theological purposes. III. CONCLUSION This paper examined Origen’s work as a grammarian, analyzing the first stage of the reading process, that is, the comprehension of texts and the explanation of thedispositioverborumwithin the sentences. Origen’s method underscored the importance of clarifying the sentence construction from a syntactic and logical point of view, in order to make the structure consistent with the substance, that is, the theological sense. Punctuation marks, hyperbata, and other grammatical features were all used by him for this purpose. However, Origen also employed grammatical tools to justify his own reading of the gospel text and sometimes offered a new interpretation of the meaning of the text itself. In this way, grammar was harnessed to legitimize theological positions. As a reliable tool of analysis, it shifted the debate on the correct reading of fluid Christian texts. Origen was aware of the power of grammatical analysis and leveraged it to his advantage. He was not the only one who adapted traditional reading practices inherited from the school of grammarians to serve his theological and communicative aims. The internal debate within Christian communities was not limited to disputes about the content of the sacred texts, but – as described above – encompassed the grammatical interpretation of the syntactic structures in these texts. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Milano Italy [email protected]

Francesca MINONNE

LE LIEU DE JÉSUS ET LA VOIE NÉGATIVE DE L’ÉPINOIA DANS LE COMMENTAIRESURSAINTJEAN D’ORIGÈNE I. D’ALEXANDRIE À CÉSARÉE: LE

LIEU DE JÉSUS

J’ai l’intention d’effectuer un parcours inverse à celui d’Origène. Je pars de Césarée pour parvenir à Alexandrie. Césarée est le point d’observation d’Origène sur les mouvements de Jésus, sur ses lieux, sur son lieu. Ensuite, de là, je retourne sur mes pas, vers le commencement, commencement de l’Évangile selon Saint Jean, le commencement du Commentaire à Alexandrie. Les traces de Jésus, qu’Origène cherche lors de son entrée en Palestine (CIoVI,204)1, deviennent paradoxalement les traces suivies par les adversaires de Jésus pour le capturer: la succession des versets de l’Évangile (8,59; 10,39; 11,8; 11,54) se transforme graduellement, dans le Commentaire, en interrogation sur le lieu, caché et inaccessible, de Jésus. J’examinerai les phases les plus importantes. CIo XIII,455: reprise en détail des sept premiers jours d’activité de Jésus, du baptême dans le Jourdain à la guérison du fils du Centurion. Le passage a une valeur de récapitulation des mouvements de Jésus et aussi du parcours du Commentaire parce qu’il permet de résumer les thèmes des livres VII à XII. C’est un passage important car il permet de garder le fil du discours. Le temple: tant qu’il est dans le temple et qu’il parle, Jésus n’est pas arrêté (κρατεῖται); ce n’est que lorsqu’il se tait qu’il est pris (ἀλλ’ἐὰν σιωπήσῃ τότε κρατεῖται) (XIX,60: Jn8,20). Dans le livre XIX, Origène fait référence à certaines traditions. De même qu’il existe des traditions relatives à sa naissance à Bethléem et à son appartenance à la maison de David, il y a des traditions, connues des Juifs, concernant sa mort: ainsi une proposition comparativerelie naissance et mort dans l’interrogation des prêtres juifs sur Jésus: des déductions sont faites sur ce qui n’est pas connu, comme le lieu de la mort de Jésus, mais qui est compris dans les traditions secrètes (XIX,104; SC 290, 112,1-5: Jn8,22). Cette tradition 1. L. PERRONE, OrigenandHisLegacyinthe‘HolyLand’:FortuneandMisfortune ofaLiteraryandTheologicalHeritage,dans ce volume, 3-28; la traduction du commentaire de Jean est prise de l’édition de Cécile Blanc: CommentariiinIohannisevangelium, ed. C. BLANC (SC, 120, 157, 222, 290, 385), Paris, Cerf, 19962, 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, sauf autrement indiqué.

672

D. PAZZINI

(παράδοσις) secrète judéenne semble être l’équivalent de l’interprétation allégorique de Origène qui va au-delà du sens propre (ἁπλούστερον)2: Et sans doute les Juifs savaient-ils (ᾔδεισαν) que celui qui partirait ainsi (τὸν οὕτως ἐξελευσόμενον) irait (ἀπελεύσασϑαι) en un lieu, où eux ne pourraient pas venir, même pas ceux qui avaient compris cela (XIX,104,1-5).

Origène élève le dialogue de Jésus avec les Judéens à une interprétation plus profonde du savoir, la seule qui puisse apporter une réponse sur le lieu de Jésus. En effet la perspective s’inverse peu à peu (XX,313). Dans la controverse, c’est la technique de réduction de Jésus qui prend le dessus, cette technique ayant un caractère de prévarication sur la réalité de Jésus, surtout sur le point où Jésus prétend que la réalité historique le révèle tel qu’il est. Cette perspective ne semble pas être en mesure de déterminer le lieu de Jésus mais plutôt le lieu de l’arrestation et non plus le lieu de son chemin. Une double hypothèse irréelle en indique la raison: s’il n’avait pas voulu être pris, on le n’aurait pas arrêté (XXVIII,205) […] s’il n’avait pas voulu souffrir, il aurait dit de nouveau «c’est moi» et ces hommes si nombreux auraient tous eu un mouvement de recul et seraient tombés à terre (ἀπῆλϑον ἄν) (XXVIII,208). 2. G. BARDY, Lestraditionsjuivesdansl’œuvred’Origène, dans RB 34 (1925) 217-252; R.P.C. HANSON, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition, London, SPCK, 1954: “In all the works and fragments of Origen that survive in Greek the word παράδοσις occurs forthy-six times; thirty instances of it signify Rabbinic or Jewish tradition” (p. 73). HIer XX,2 (SC 238, 256 HUSSON – NAUTIN): καὶ πρῶτον χρήσομαι παραδόσει Ἑβραϊκῇ, ἐληλυϑυίᾳ εἰς ἡμᾶς διά τινος φυγόντος διὰ τὴν Χριστοῦ πίστιν καὶ διὰ τὸ ἐπαναβεβηκέναι ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ ἐληλυϑότος ἔνϑα διετρίβομεν (cf. Prin I,3,4; IV,3,14; EpAfr 7: E. SCHADEL, Die griechischenerhaltenenJeremiahomilien, Stuttgart, Hiersemann, 1980, pp. 297-298 n. 134; Origène, Traité des principes II [SC 253, 62 n. 23 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI]); παράδοσις Ἑβραϊκῆ / scripturaesecretaeetnonvulgatae/traditioecclesiastica: CMtS 46 (GCS 38, 94,26-30 KLOSTERMANN); Origene. CommentoaMatteoSeriesI, éd. G. BENDINELLi, trad. R. SCOGNAMIGLIO, note M.I. DANIELI, Roma, Città Nuova, 2004, pp. 288-289, n. 126. Les allégories des principaux récits (HGn;HEx;HNm;CCt) proviennent d’un contexte culturel différentié, hellénistique, gnostique, rabbinique: P.W. MARTENS, Origen’sDoctrine of Pre-Existence and the Opening Chapters of Genesis, dans ZAC 16 (2013) 516-549, p. 528; M. KISTER, AllegoricInterpretationsofBiblicalNarrativesinRabbinicLiterature, Philo, and Origen: Some Case Studies, dans G.A. ANDERSON – R.A. CLEMENTS – D. SATRAN (éds), New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of theSecondTemplePeriodandinEarlyChristianity, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2013, 133-183, p. 180 (“striking points of similarity and dissimilarity between rabbinic and early Christian literature”). Mais l’allégorie du CIoXIX,401 résulte du contexte négatif et mortel que l’évangile nous montre, contexte représenté par le lieu soustrait de Jésus, caché et suivi, où on veut provoquer sa mort. L’auto-interrogation judéenne sur le lieu de Jésus (XIX,104: Jn8,22) est semblable à celle faite à saint Jean Baptiste sur le temps de l’apparition du Messie (CIoVI,61: Jn 1,19-23, cf. Mt1,7 [ἠκρίβωσεν]): la circonspection avec laquelle Origène rapporte les deux rumeurs (εἰκός: VI,61; XIX,104: D. PAZZINI, L’uso delverboinOrigene:Itempistorici[CIo VI, X, XII], dans Adamantius22 [2016] 25-39, pp. 25-28) est la base de son interprétation profonde.

LE LIEU DE JÉSUS ET LA VOIE NÉGATIVE DE L’ÉPINOIADANS LE CIO

673

La double hypothèse traduit l’aporie entre se dérober devant la mort et la volonté de l’accepter, entre fuite et acceptation, entre la sortie de scène de Jésus et son appartenance à un lieu antécédent qui l’en empêcherait. Origène ne cherche pas la médiation entre ces deux hypothèses mais il fixe plutôt le changement du lieu. Cet autre lieu, ayant substitué celui de la persécution et celui des honneurs (XXVIII,209) (ὥσπερ … οὕτως), tous deux refusés, n’est pas le lieu de la solitude (la montagne) (XXVIII,210) ou le lieu du Logos (XXVIII,211), mais plutôt le lieu de la fuite, la ville d’Ephraïm: «c’est donc à Ephraïm, la ville proche du désert, que Jésus entra lorsqu’il ne circula plus librement parmi les Juifs» (XXVIII,212: Jn 11,54). Cette mention de la ville d’Ephraïm près du désert est l’apanage de l’Évangile selon saint Jean. Mais Origène n’engage pas de considération topographique ni synoptique, comme à propos du nom Béthabara (CIoVI,204-207: Jn1,28). Pour Origène, le lieu de Jésus est une question restée sans réponse, qui trouve son point le plus critique dans le passage de la tradition judéenne sur la mort de Jésus à la phase successive de la recherche judéenne sur son arrestation. Mais le livre XXXII soustrait aux Judéens l’interrogation sur le lieu de Jésus et la présente à Jésus lui-même. II. LE

TROUBLE DANS L’ESPRIT

Lavement des pieds. La cuvette, l’eau, le geste de Jésus. L’eau est le Logos. Jésus/Logos (XXXII,50). Ensuite le trouble: Maintenant il s’agit de dire (πρόκειται λέγειν) comment, d’après ce qui précède, «ceci dit, Jésus fut troublé» (Jn13,21), non selon son âme (οὐ τὴν ψυχήν), ni par son âme (οὐδὲ τῇ ψυχῇ), ni par () son esprit (τοῦ πνεύματος) mais «en esprit» (τῷ πνεύματι) (XXXII,223).

L’esprit de Jésus homme (XXXII,118): c’est là le point culminant de l’interprétation: S’il en est ainsi du saint, à combien plus forte raison faut-il le dire du chef (περί τοῦ ἀρχηγοῦ) des saints, Jésus, dont l’esprit de l’homme qui était en lui, puisqu’il avait assumé l’homme tout entier (ἐν τῷ ἀνειληφέναι αὐτὸν ὅλον ἄνϑρωπον), ébranla (διέσεισεν) en lui les autres éléments humains! (XXXII,225).

Le trouble entre en Jésus comme dans une maison3. Mouvement de l’extérieur vers l’intérieur. L’intérieur est l’esprit. L’intérieur est l’humain 3. Un adjectif équivalent (ἄτακτον), se référant à l’action de Jésus, indique l’entrée de Jésus dans le temple et le choc que celle-ci provoque chez les marchands (XX,147). Et un verbe analogue (ἔσαινε) est employé pour exprimer, du temps de saint Jean Baptiste, le

674

D. PAZZINI

de Jésus, l’humain comme lieu et non pas une partie ou une seule composante comme on pourrait le déduire de la vision trichotomique. L’expression ἐν τῷ ἀνειληφέναι αὐτὸν ὅλον ἄνϑρωπον a un caractère aussi bien causal que temporel mais surtout spatio-temporel. L’esprit de l’homme en lui […] ébranle en lui […] là où il assume l’homme dans sa totalité. Mais la totalité de l’humain de Jésus est le lieu même de la ville. Lieu de Jésus, lieu de la ville: c’est là l’équation de ces paragraphes. Examinonsen la genèse. Après sa fuite (XXXII,212) le retour de Jésus dans la ville identifie le lieu de Jésus dans son esprit: un lieu pressenti par le peuple qui ne le connaît pas mais essaie de l’appréhender, ce lieuconsidéré par Jésus comme élément constitutif et révélateur du lieu même de la ville. L’esprit est troublé quand il voit de façon prophétique: Son esprit, ayant en effet observé le dessein de livrer le Maître, dessein que le diable avait déjà jeté (βεβλημένον) dans le cœur de Judas, fils de Simon l’Iscariote, Jésus, éclairé (φωτισϑείς), à mon avis, sur ce qui allait arriver (τὸ ἐσόμενον), fut troublé et, puisque ce trouble venait (γεγένηται) de la connaissance qu’il avait (ἐγένετο) en l’esprit – qui était, lui aussi, saisi par le trouble –, il est dit: «Jésus fut troublé en esprit» (XXXII,227).

Jésus voit arriver (φωτισϑεῖς … τὸ ἐσόμενον) du cœur de la ville l’action de Judas. Ainsi l’humain de Jésus est confronté à l’action de la ville jusqu’à ce que la connaissance pathétique de Jésus identifie les deux lieux, l’assertion ἐν τῷ ἀνειληφέναι devenant ainsi intelligible. Ce n’est pas le Logos, mais l’humain de Jésus qui est soustrait au regard de la ville alors qu’il se révèle à l’esprit de Jésus, dans une connaissance anticipée et souffrante qui lui est propre, comme étant le lieu même de la ville. Jn 13,33: ἔτι μικρὸν μεϑ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι, «Je serai avec vous encore peu de temps». La scène du départ prochain de Jésus est immédiatement déclarée par Origène comme le niveau ἁπλούστερον, en opposition à βαϑύτερον (XXXII,376-377). Le Jésus décrit dans le récit chronologique de la passion ne montre pas l’aspect profond de Jésus au milieu des siens. Les paroles «Je ne serai plus parmi vous» (μηκέτι εἶναι μετ’ αὐτῶν: cf. XXXII,377) doivent être comprises comme un fait des disciples parce que ce sont eux qui, à cause de leur manque de foi, se détacheront bientôt de lui, scandalisés, faisant ainsi retomber la faute sur lui. On constate un renversement du rapport entre ce qui est ‘compris’ et ce qui est ‘raconté’: non pas une progression de l’évident au profond mais tourment provoqué dans le peuple, chez les prêtres et les docteurs par quelque chose qui doit arriver. De même, au début du livre six, ce sont les fondations et toute la construction de la maison représentée par le Commentaire sur Saint Jean, qui sont ébranlées par la secousse des vents et des intempéries (VI,8-9).

LE LIEU DE JÉSUS ET LA VOIE NÉGATIVE DE L’ÉPINOIADANS LE CIO

675

du caché à l’évident, de ce qui a été compris ultérieurementau récit. Pour ses adversaires comme pour ses disciples le retrait de Jésus dans le lieu inaccessible signifie le refus des premiers et la fuite des seconds face au Jésus raconté, à l’intégralité du Jésus raconté. Il ne s’agit pas de la certitude de l’eschatologique ni de son irruption dans l’histoire opposées à la méprise du visible et à sa prétention de constituer le tout, mais de l’intégralité du visible soustrait à la méprise du caché4. Si Bultmann oppose le lieu intérieur de la foi à la méprise de μικρόν de Jn 13,33 (ἔτι μικρὸν μεϑ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι), méprise qui unit Judéens et disciples dans le zwischenqui sépare le présent (νῦν ἐδοξάσϑη) (13,31) de la gloire à venir (δοξάζει) (13,32)5, le lieu d’Origène est le lieu soustrait de la ville, l’intégralité soustraite de l’humain de Jésus. III. DE CÉSARÉE À ALEXANDRIE: LA VOIE NÉGATIVE DE L’ÉPINOIA Quel est le sens de l’énumération épinoétique à rebours de CIoXXXII,387 («chercher Jésus, c’est chercher le Logos, la sagesse, la justice, la vérité et la puissance de Dieu, toutes choses qu’est le Christ») à CIoI,125-292? Dans l’étude du CIoI,125-292, je reconnais un triple circuit exégétique6. 4. D. PAZZINI, Samaritana(Gv4):Origene/Bultmann,dans A.-C. JACOBSEN (éd.), OrigenianaUndecima:OrigenandOrigenismintheHistoryofWesternThought (BETL, 279), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 105-113. 5. R. BULTMANN, DasEvangeliumdesIohannes,Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 10 1968 (1941): «Ist in dem νῦνἐδοξάσϑη sub specieaeterni die Zukunft des δόξαζει schon enthalten, und besteht in Wahrheit kein ‘Zwischen’, das die Offenbarung des δοξασϑείς in der Zukunft von der des σάρξγενόμενος in der Vergangenheit trennt, so gibt es ein solches Zwischen doch sub speciehominis: τεκνία,ἔτιμικρὸνμεϑ’ὑμῶνεἰμι. Die Zeit seiner persönlichen Gegenwart ist zu ihrem Ende gelangt: ζητήσετέ με, καὶ … ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασϑε ἐλϑεῖν (Jn 13,33). Die Seinen werden ihn vermissen; für sie wird jenes νῦν nicht sofort in seinem vollen Sinne deutlich sein. Ihr Glaube hat die Probe zu bestehen» (p. 402). 6. F. BERTRAND, MystiquedeJésuschezOrigène,Paris, Aubier, 1951, p. 20; A. ORBE, Laepinoia:Algunospreliminareshistoricosdeladistinciònκατ’ἐπίνοια,Roma, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1955, pp. 22-23; M. HARL, OrigèneetlafonctionrévélatriceduVerbe incarné,Paris, Seuil, 1958, p. 124; J. RIUS CAMPS, Eldinamismotrinitarioenladivinaciòn delosseresracionalessegunOrigenes,Roma, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1970, pp. 102-103; H. CROUZEL, LecontenuspiritueldesdénominationsduChristselon lelivreIduCommentaire de Jean d’Origène, dans ID. – A. QUACQUARELLI (éds), OrigenianaSecunda:Secondcolloqueinternationaldesétudesorigéniennes:Bari,20-23septembre1977 (Quaderni di VetChr, 15), Roma, Areneo, 1980, 132-150; D. PAZZINI, Cristo LogoseCristodynamisnelIlibrodelCommentario a Giovanni diOrigene,dansR. DALY (éd.), OrigenianaQuinta:Historica–TextandMethod–Biblica–Philosophica–Theologica–OrigenismandLaterDevelopments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 424-429; M. FÉDOU, LaSagesseetlemonde:LeChristd’Origène,Paris, Desclée, 1994, pp. 233-269; J. WOLINSKI, LerecoursauxἐπίνοιαιduChristdansleCommentaire sur Jean d’Origène,

676

D. PAZZINI

Tout d’abord un ὥσπερ … οὕτως, un demêmeque…ainsi,un pouvoir révélateur du Logos analogue à celui de chaque épinoia (I,153). Il y a une phrase énigmatique difficilement traduisible: πρὸ ὁδοῦ τῶν ἐπιφερομένων ὑπάρξει ἡ κατανόησις τῶν πραγμάτων, «avant d’entreprendre la voie des interprétations, la compréhension des faits subsistera» (I,156; notre traduction): chaque épinoia possède une capacité révélatrice appropriée7. Il n’y a pas de hiérarchie: chaque épinoia traite du rapport avec le dans W.A. BIENERT–U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), OrigenianaSeptima:OrigenesindenAuseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts (BETL, 137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999, 497-504; A. CASTELLANO, ChesignificailnomeLogos datoalFigliodiDio?Iltitolologos ela polemicaantimonarchiananelCommento a Giovanni diOrigene,dans S. KACZMAREK – H. PIETRAS (éds), OrigenianaDecima: OrigenasWriter (BETL, 244), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, 281-304. 7. CIo I,156: πλὴν ἐπιστήσαντι καὶ πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον ἔσται τὸ βασανίσαι τὰς ἐννοίας καϑ’ ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα κεῖται, καὶ πρὸ ὁδοῦ τῶν ἐπιφερομένων ὑπάρξει ἡ κατανόησις τῶν πραγμάτων: «l’esame accurato del significato in cui i nomi gli sono applicati […] ci darà la conoscenza delle realtà prima ancora di percorrere ciò che è detto in seguito» (E. CORSINI, CommentoalVangelodiGiovannidiOrigene,Torino, Unione Tipografico Editrice Torinese, 1968, p. 161); «mais, au contraire, si l’on y prend garde, notre sujet actuel bénéficiera d’une vérification attentive des sens selon lesquels ces noms sont donnés et la connaissance de leurs objets sera profitable à la suite» (SC 120, 139 BLANC); «But the attentive person will find it useful for what is proposed to test (βασανίσαι) the concepts in relation to which the titles are used, and an understanding of the concrete realities will serve as preparation for what is to come» (Origen.Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10, transl. R.E. HEINE [Fathers of the Church, 80], Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1989, p. 65); «Aber dem Verständigen wird es auch im Hinblick auf das Vorgelegte nützlich sein, die Vorstellungen zu erforschen, nach denen die Namen gesetzt werden, und auf dem zukünftigen Weg wird das Verständnis der Sachen den Anfang machen» (H.-G. THÜMMEL,Origenes’ JohanneskommentarBuchI-V.Herausgegeben,übersetztundkommentiert [STAC, 63], Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011, p. 69). Significato, sens, concepts, Vorstellungen (ἔννοιαι); sonoapplicabili, sontdonnés,areused,gesetztwerden (κεῖται): le κεῖται est traduit au passif: nous devrions le traduire plutôt à la lettre: les noms sont à la base. Comment est traduit le πρό de la seconde proposition? ‘Tautologique’ (Blanc), ‘préliminaire’(Heine, Tummel), ‘proleptique’ (Corsini). Je propose: ‘proleptique’ car c’est un génitif – sujet et non pas objet, parce qu’il s’agit d’un pouvoir total de connaissance (ἡ κατανόησις τῶν πραγμάτων) antérieur à l’interprétation au moment même où l’interprétation donne cette connaissance. CIo I,52; CIo I,125; CIo I,153-157; CIo I,180; FrIo1; CCI,24; EMXLVI,10-11: ORBE, Epinoia (n. 6), pp. 17, n. 48, 23; G. GRUBER, ΖΩΗ: Wesen, Stufen und Mitteilung des wahren Lebens bei Origenes, München, Max Hueber, 1962, pp. 241-267; R. GÖGLER, ZurTheologiedesbiblischenWortesbei Origenes,Düsseldorf, Patmos, 1963, S. 276-277; Origène.ContreCelseI, éd. M. BORRET (SC, 132), Paris, Cerf, 1967, pp. 136-137, n. 2; CORSINI, Commento, p. 275, n. 1; RIUS-CAMPS, Dinamismotrinitario (n. 6),p. 119; H. CROUZEL, Origèneetla“connaissancemystique”, Paris – Bruges, Desclée de Brouwer, 1961, pp. 387-388; M. GIRARDI, Osservazionisulle nozionicomuniinOrigeneconparticolareriferimentoalContra Celsum, dans CROUZEL – QUACQUARELLI (éds), Origeniana Secunda (n. 6), 279-292; M. HARL, Origène et la sémantiquedulangagebiblique,dans VigChr 26 (1972) 161-187, p. 165, n. 14; V. PERI, Criteri di critica semantica dell’esegesi origeniana, dans Augustinianum 15 (1975) 5-27, p. 16; ID., Omelie origeniane sui Salmi: Contributo all’identificazione del testo

LE LIEU DE JÉSUS ET LA VOIE NÉGATIVE DE L’ÉPINOIADANS LE CIO

677

fils de Dieu. Ou bien: avec chaque épinoia nous sommes déjà à l’intérieur du Fils. Toutefois l’analogie exige la différence: de la qualification du Logos en tant qu’analogue, on passe à la qualification du Logos en tant que différent: Après avoir abordé la théologie du Sauveur, … nous le connaîtrons alors davantage non seulement (οὐ μόνον) en tant qu’il est Verbe mais aussi (ἀλλὰ καί) en tant qu’il est toute autre chose (τὰ λοιπά) (I,157).

Le οὐ μόνον et le ἀλλὰ καί ne doivent pas être considérés supplémentaires ou appartenant à des niveaux différents. Il faut les mettre sur le même plan mais distants l’un de l’autre. Alors faut-il constituer deux pôles à l’intérieur du même domaine, l’un le seul Logos, l’autre les restantes épinoias toutes ensemble? Même pas. Origène ne le dit pas. L’analogie serait compromise et doit ainsi être expliquée: chaque épinoia a un caractère révélateur total parce qu’elle est déjà à l’intérieur du Fils. C’est par conséquent exactement l’inverse. Le Logos ne peut être supposé avoir une suprématie sur les autres épinoias. Le Logos est soustrait à une fonction privilégiée et est exposé à une confrontation complexe et difficile: les extraits bibliques rassemblés dans l’exégèse, c’est-à-dire les diverses dénominations épinoétiques ont trouvé le critère selon lequel être évaluées et ordonnées et également le critère selon lequel effectuer une critique du Logos, lui imposant de se laisser identifier et définir. Deuxième circuit exégétique. À l’intérieur du Logos. Un des aspects: le binôme λόγος / καρδία. Sur la base du Ps 44,2, qui unit καρδία et λόγος, «mon cœur a exhalé une bonne parole» (I,280)8. Le principal intérêt ne réside pas tant dans la partie positive de la διήγησις (καρδία est la δύναμις νοητικὴ καὶ προϑετική de Dieu, λόγος la proclamation de cette puissance) que dans la négative: en éclairant ce qui ne peut être λόγος. Ceci grâce à un processus argumentatif selon lequel, à partir du refus, imposé par l’évidence, d’une acception déterminée de καρδία, on arrive, par nécessité logique (ἀκολούϑως), au refus d’une acception déterminée du λόγος. Le sens impossible du Logos est le Logos en tant que purement physique, c’est-à-dire sans que soit appliquée la διήγησις (I,281).

latino(Studi e Testi, 289), Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1980, p. 163; D. PAZZINI, In principio era il Logos: Origene e il prologo del vangelo di Giovanni, Brescia, Paideia, 1983, pp. 23-24, n. 9; R. SOMOS, LogicandArgumentationinOrigen, Münster, Aschendorff, 2015, pp. 43-49, 93-101. 8. Logos/ καρδία: SC 120, 201; voir aussi pp.354-355 n. 3; 399-400 no. 5; GÖGLER, ZurTheologie (n. 7),pp. 246-247; CROUZEL, Contenu (n. 6), p. 135.

678

D. PAZZINI

Un troisième circuit exégétique est par conséquent dessiné, qui est antérieur aux deux circuits décrits précédemment, même si Origène le présente à la fin de son étude. Un génitif absolument lapidaire: λογικῶν τίνων ϑείων ζῷων δυνάμεων ὀνομαζομένων, des êtres divins vivants, appeléspuissances(I,291; traduction modifiée).Dans le cosmos de l’antiquité tardive, quelque chose de fort émerge et on peut le nommer (δυνάμεων ὀνομαζομένων). Il est si fort qu’on peut le considérer comme divin (ϑείων); c’est là la plus grande expression de la rationalité (λογικῶν); c’est la suprême expression de la vie (ζῷων). Le circuit qui s’établit entre le Christ et de telles puissances est exprimé de manière nette et sans équivoque: ὧν ἡ ἀνωτέρω καὶ κρείττων Χριστὸς ἦν, au milieu desquelles le Christ était la meilleure et la plus élevée (I,291). C’est l’excellence dans l’homogénéité. Un passage est effectué de la considération de δύναμις épinoia du Christ (I,241-252) à la considération du Christ – δύναμις, appartenant au domaine des δυνάμεις. Circuit Logos – épinoia, circuit Christ – δύναμις: Logos extrait du circuit épinoétique et comparé à la qualification christologique de δύναμις, c’est-àdire extrait des deux circuits épinoétiques (le premier et le deuxième) et constituant un nouveau circuit, le circuit au milieu des δυνάμεις. C’est donc ce circuit qui permet à la διήγησις ce que la recherche épinoétique n’a pas permis, à savoir la compréhension en positif du sens du Logos du prologue9. La διήγησις impose l’hypostase comme prémisse à la compréhension du Logos (I,151), déplaçant la question du Logos attribut au Logos sujet, du πῶς au εἶναι. Mais la question ne peut qu’être allusive car les énoncés de la διήγησις sont des énoncés allégoriques, anagogiques, relatifs au Logos comme ἐπίνοια du Christ. Ils ne sont pas relatifs à l’εἶναι du Logos. Sur ce plan la διήγησις ne résulte plus être pertinente à l’hypostase. En fait l’hypostase se trouve sur la voie d’explication de l’εἶναι. La formulation conclusive du premier livre (le Logos possède l’hypostase dans le principe que constitue la sagesse, ἐν ἀρχῇ, τῇ σοφίᾳ, τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχων) (I,292) ne peut être évaluée sur la base de l’énoncé du CIo I,111 (la sagesse doit être interprétée selon la permanence de la théorie de toutes choses et des concepts [κατὰ σύστασιν τῆς … ϑεωρίας καὶ νοημάτων], le Logos doit être considéré selon la communication des choses contemplées aux êtres dotés de raison [κατὰ δὲ τὴν … κοινωνίαν τῶν τεϑεωρη9. Christ – δύναμις: PAZZINI, Cristo Logos (n. 6), p. 427, n. 3; κόσμος et δύναμις: R. RADICE, Logos tra stoicismo e platonismo: Il problema di Filone, dans ID. – A. VALVO (éds), Dal Logos dei Greci e dei Romani al Logos di Dio: Ricordando Marta Sordi, Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 2011, pp. 131-145 (κοσμοποιοῦτος: Aristotèle, De caelo II,1,284a 11-23 / Philo, Deopificiomundi 24).

LE LIEU DE JÉSUS ET LA VOIE NÉGATIVE DE L’ÉPINOIADANS LE CIO

679

μένων], car cet énoncé appartient au circuit de la représentation épinoétique10. L’équation «être/avoir l’hypostase dans» a le sens d’une césure qu’on établit entre le prologue et l’évangile. Une césure ou un parcours qui ne permet pas de substitution ou de superposition mais qui impose plutôt l’interprétation du medium,c’est à dire espace vide mais actif et transformant. L’expression «avoir l’hypostase dans» constitue un déplacement par rapport à l’étude du Logos-sagesse11. Le focusse porte sur le ἦν, interprété comme être dans, c’est-à-dire comme ‘être’ et ‘lieu de l’être’12. 10. Logos – sagesses: Prin I,2,2-3; CIo I,111; CIo XXXII,375; FrIo 1; Alcinous, Didaskalikos IX,2 (163,22 HERMANN); Numénius, Fr.15(56 DES PLACES); Plotinus, Enneades V,9,8; Irenaeus, Adv.Haer.I,8,5.R. CADIOU, LaJeunessed’Origène,Paris, Beauchesne, 1936, p. 112; W. THEILER, ForschungenzumNeuplatonismus,Berlin, De Gruyter, 1966, S. 21-22; CORSINI, Commento (n. 7), p. 151 n. 38; RIUS CAMPS, Dinamismotrinitario (n. 6), pp. 117-118; M. SIMONETTI, NotesullateologiatrinitariadiOrigene,dans VetChr 8 (1971) 273-307, p. 288; R. LORENZ, Arius judaizans? Untersuchungen zur dogmengeschichtlichen EinordnungdesArius,Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979, p. 83; CROUZEL, Contenu (n. 6), pp. 133-137; J.P. KENNEY, Proschresis Revisited: An Essay in Numenian Theology, dans R. DALY (éd.), Origeniana Quinta: Historica – Text and Method – Biblica – Philosophica–Theologica–OrigenismandLaterDevelopments (BETL, 105), Leuven, Peeters, 1992, 217-230, p. 221; M. SIMONETTI, IlCommento a Giovanni traesegesieteologia,dans E. PRINZIVALLI (éd.), Il commento a Giovanni di Origene: Il testo e i suoi contesti. Atti dell’VIII Convegno di Studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina (Biblioteca di Adamantius, 3), Villa Verucchio, Pazzini, 2005, 15-41, pp. 26-30; G. LETTIERI, Il νοῦς mistico: Il superamento origeniano dello gnosticismo nel Commento a Giovanni,dans PRINZIVALLI (éd.), IlcommentoaGiovannidiOrigene, 177275, pp. 217, 232, 238; D. PAZZINI, LinguaeteologiainOrigene,Brescia, Paideia, 2009, pp. 179-180, n. 1 (sagesse et episteme). 11. SIMONETTI, Notesullateologia (n. 10),p. 290 (l’acception épinoétique de sagesse l’emporte: FrEph1); CROUZEL, Contenu (n. 6), p. 132 (fondament);C. STEAD, Divine Substance, Oxford, Clarendon, 1977, pp. 139, 142 (existential, particular category, function). 12. PAZZINI, CristoLogos (n. 6),pp. 424-429; ID., LogosedevangelonelCommento a Giovanni diOrigene,dans RADICE – VALVO (éds), DalLogosdeiGreci (n. 9), 279-293. Les deux études effectuent un parcours inverse mais convergent. Le déplacement du Logos, dans la voie qui en détermine l’hypostase, rappelle le lieu de Jésus, constitutif de la ville duquel cette dernière s’éloigne. Dans deux études, j’ai approfondi ultérieurement les conclusions de la première (la relation Logos sagesse n’est pas examinée à partir de l’hypostase du Fils Unique, mais l’hypostase du Fils Unique est interprétée à l’intérieur de cette relation de Logos et de sagesse): L’interpretazione del prologo di Giovanni in Origene e nella patristica greca, dans Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 11 (1994) 45-56, pp. 46-49 (penser le logos ἐν ἀρχῇ est penser le Logos καϑ’ αὑτόν: CIo II,69);Ilprologo diGiovanniinOrigeneeCirilloAlessandrino,dans G. DORIVAL–A. LE BOULLUEC(éds), Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible / Origen and the Bible (BETL, 118), Leuven, Peeters, 1995, 617-625, p. 619, n. 9 (ce n’est pas ‘être auprès du Père’ qui donne au Fils la prérogative d’‘être’ en ‘relation’: différence entre γυμνῶς et καϑ’ αὑτόν: CIo I,289), p. 619, n. 9; IlprologodiGiovanniinOrigeneeGregoriodiNissa,dans W.A. BIENERT– U. KÜHNEWEG (éds), Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4.Jahrhunderts(BETL, 137), Leuven, Peeters, 1999, 497-504, p. 501, n. 33 (aporie ‘être en soi’ et ‘être auprès de quelqu’un’: mais ‘être auprès de’ coexiste avec ‘être en soi’ parce

680

D. PAZZINI

CONCLUSION J’ai analysé l’hypostase du Logos et le lieu de Jésus. Le lieu de Jésus n’est pas le Logos. La connaissance anticipée et pathétique de l’esprit de Jésus ne réside pas à l’intérieur de la réflexion origénienne sur l’Esprit trinitaire ni sur son action auprès des Saints. De plus, la recherche de Jésus qui du signe parvient au Logos en tant qu’épinoia ne consiste pas dans la recherche qui révèle le Logos du prologue: c’est en effet une recherche propédeutique qui exige le passage à travers le signe (XXXII,387). Le lieu dans l’histoire de Jésus, est situé non pas au niveau le plus élevé de l’humain mais à celui le plus bas. Lieu soustrait à la méprise. Ici Jésus se révèle. C’est l’intégralité de son humanité, qui constitue le fondement de la ville. L’hypostase du Logos est conquise à travers le renvoi au triple circuit exégétique. Le Logos se soustrait à l’identification effectuée par l’énumération des épinoias. C’est cette voie négative qui est la voie de l’hypostase. Voie négative: d’abord comme condition de la configuration, énonciation, représentation de l’εἶναι du Logos; ensuite comme déplacement de la compréhension de l’εἶναι du Logos par la différence entre ‘être’ et ‘lieu de l’être’ d’une part, et comme manifestation de l’εἶναι de Jésus dans le lieu soustrait à la méprise aussi bien des apôtres que des adversaires, d’autre part. Via Rocca 3 IT-47826 Verucchio (Rn) Italy angepazzini @alice.it

Domenico PAZZINI

que ‘être en soi’ signifie déjà ‘être en relation’). Au-delà de la relation épinoétique, le contexte herméneutique logos – sagesse (constitutif de l’hypostase), reçoit un nouvel éclairage à travers la représentation, convergente et dramatique, du lieu de Jésus. Être et lieu de l’être, solitude et appartenance, γυμνῶς et καϑ’ αὑτόν, absence de l’hypostase et sa formation, soustraction et manifestation sont le medium de l’être du Fils et de l’être de Jésus, le lieu vide et inconnu, l’événement de leur réciprocité.

TROIS VERSIONS DE PHINEES NB 25,7-8 DANS LA TRADITION ALEXANDRINE (PHILON, ORIGÈNE, CYRILLE)

INTRODUCTION Les actions de Phinees en Nombres 25 présentent plusieurs questions «épineuses» pour les exégètes d’hier et d’aujourd’hui1: la jalousie de Dieu, mais aussi sa violence et celle des personnages vétérotestamentaires… C’est peut-être pour cette raison que dans l’exégèse antique, rares sont les réflexions sur ce personnage qui dépassent les quelques lignes2 – avec trois exceptions remarquables: Philon, Origène et Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Chez 1. Sur le personnage de Phinees et les faits de Nombres 25 cf. E. STERN – M. ABERPhinehas, dans Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. XVI, Detroit, MI, Thomson Gale, 2 2007, 114-115. Pour l’interprétation patristique des actions de Phinees, la seule étude d’ensemble est le bref article de M. DULAEY, Phinees embrochant de sa lance le couple pécheur:Àproposd’unepeinturedel’hypogéedelaViaLatina, dans Annuairedel’École PratiquedesHautesÉtudes–SectiondesSciencesReligieuses 117 (2008-2009) 217-224; un bon aperçu (mais centré sur les Cappadociens) aussi dans M. DELCOGLIANO, Phinehas theZealotandtheCappadocians:Philo,Origen,andaFamilyLegacyofAnti-Eunomian Rhetoric, dans AnnalidiStoriadell’Esegesi 34 (2017) 107-123. On se reportera également aux notes à Nombres 25 et 31 dans G. DORIVAL etal.,LesNombres(La Bible d’Alexandrie, 4), Paris, Cerf, 1994. On trouve une excellente synthèse des principaux courants d’interprétation de l’Antiquité à nos jours dans A. REES, [Re]ReadingAgain:AMosaic ReadingofNumbers25 (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 589), London – New York, Bloomsbury, 2015. Parmi les nombreuses études modernes portant sur divers aspects du texte de Nombres 25, on citera enfin S.C. REIF, WhatEnragedPhinehas?AStudy of Numbers 25:8, dans Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (1971) 200-206; J.J. COLLINS, The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence, dans Journal of BiblicalLiterature 122 (2003) 3-21; A. MITTLEMAN, TheProblemofReligiousViolence, dans Political Theology 12 (2011) 722-726. 2. DELCOGLIANO, Phinehas (n. 1), p. 107 estime que le judaïsme et le christianisme anciens ne se posaient guère le problème de la violence de Phinees. Mais nous verrons que les sources trahissent un certain embarras, d’autant que le passage est également lié au problème de la jalousie divine: cf. sur ce point les études de M.-O. BOULNOIS, Dieupeut-il êtreenvieuxoujaloux?Undébatsurlesattributsdivinsentrel’empereurJulienetCyrille d’Alexandrie, dans D. AUGER – É. WOLFF (éds), Culture classique et christianisme. MélangesoffertsàJeanBouffartigue(Textes, images et monuments de l’Antiquité au haut Moyen âge, 8), Paris, Picard, 2008, 13-25; EAD., “Dieujaloux”:Embarrasetcontroverses autour d’un nom divin dans la littérature patristique, dans Studia Patristica 44 (2010) 297-313; EAD., UnDieujalouxquifaitdesémules:Interprétationspatristiquesd’Ex20,5, Nb25,11etDt32,21, dans H. ROUILLARD-BONRAISIN (éd.), Jalousiedesdieux,jalousiedes hommes.ActesducolloqueinternationalorganiséàParisles28-29novembre2008(Homo Religiosus, II/10), Turnhout, Brepols, 2011, 249-276. BACHIN,

682

G. PISCINI

ces trois auteurs, les actions de Phinees font l’objet de riches développements, qui constituent sans doute les réflexions les plus complètes sur cette péricope dans la littérature des cinq premiers siècles de notre ère, mais qui sont également parmi les plus importantes, vu la stature des trois personnages et leur influence sur le développement du christianisme. Pourtant, ces trois interprétations de Phinees n’ont jamais été étudiées ensemble, et certaines d’entre elles ont reçu très peu d’attention même dans des recherches sur l’exégèse antique de Nombres 253. Nous nous proposons donc d’analyser la présentation et l’interprétation des actions de Phinees dans l’œuvre de Philon, Origène et Cyrille4. Cela nous permettra d’apprécier à la fois la façon dont chacun des trois auteurs lit ce passage quelque peu problématique, et les rapports d’imitation unissant leurs exégèses de Nombres 25; enfin, on pourra aussi signaler l’émergence de certaines interprétations de cet épisode qui deviendront traditionnelles chez les Pères5. Pour ce faire, il nous a paru judicieux d’inclure parfois dans notre analyse des récits ou des interprétations de Nombres 25 dans lesquels Phinees n’est pas mentionné: nous verrons que son absence même constitue un indice pour comprendre la façon dont le personnage est perçu par l’auteur. 3. DULAEY,Phinees (n. 1) ne cite pas Cyrille. 4. La réécriture de Nombres 25 dans l’œuvre de Flavius Josèphe (Antiquitates judaicae IV,126-155) est également très intéressante, mais Josèphe n’étant pas un exégète, elle ne sera pas étudiée ici. Nous nous contentons de renvoyer à W.C. VAN UNNIK, Josephus’AccountoftheStoryofIsrael’sSinwithAlienWomenintheCountryofMidian (Num25.1ff.), dans M.S.H.G. HEERMA VON VOSS et al. (éds), Travels in the World of the Old Testament. Studies Presented to Professor M. A. Beek (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 16), Assen, Van Gorcum, 1974, 241-261; L.H. FELDMAN, ThePortrayalofPhinehasbyPhilo,Pseudo-Philo,andJosephus, dans TheJewishQuarterlyReview 92 (2002) 315-345, pp. 326-333; D. BERNAT, Josephus’sPortrayalofPhinehas, dans Journalforthe StudyofthePseudepigrapha 13 (2002) 137-149. 5. Nous avons essayé de prendre en compte l’ensemble de l’exégèse des cinq premiers siècles, en étudiant: a) les occurrences du mot Φινεές en grec jusqu’au Ve siècle compris, selon le Thesaurus LinguaeGraecae de l’University of California, Irvine, consulté en ligne le 01/05/2017; b) les interprétations de Nb 25,7-8 et 31,6 signalées par Biblindex(http://www.biblindex. info), consulté le 01/05/2017; pour Origène, nous avons également utilisé l’index scripturaire de la nouvelle édition des HoméliessurlesPsaumes(GCS NF, 19); c) les index scripturaires des œuvres d’Augustin publiées dans la collection «Bibliothèque Augustinienne» jusqu’au 31/12/2017. Pour Cyrille (dont l’œuvre n’est pas prise en compte par Biblindex et n’est que partiellement disponible dans le TLG), nous avons consulté les notes de PG 68, les index de R.Ch. HILL, St.CyrilofAlexandria,CommentaryontheTwelveProphets, 2 vols (Fathers of the Church, 115.116), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2007.2008 et les notes et les index des éditions GCS du ContreJulien: KyrillvonAlexandrien. Gegen Julian.Teil 1:Buch1-5, éd. Chr. RIEDWEG etal. (GCS NF, 20), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2016; KyrillvonAlexandrien. GegenJulian.Teil 2:Buch6-10undFragmente, éd. W. KINZIG et al. (GCS NF, 21), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2017.

TROIS VERSIONS DE PHINEES

683

I. PHILON Dans le corpus philonien on trouve neuf références à Phinees et aux faits de Nombres 256. Dans ses ouvrages exégétiques, Philon propose une lecture allégorique du passage: les Madianites et leurs femmes symbolisent les passions de la chair. Par conséquent, Phinees est celui qui, armé du javelot du λόγος, les combat en attaquant la source des tentations (le ventre de Khasbi)7. Cette lecture allégorique permet à Philon d’affirmer dans le Deebrietateque la violence de Phinees, commise au nom du λόγος et visant non pas de véritables êtres humains mais des passions, n’est pas à condamner comme le voudraient certains8. Ce dernier passage est en quelque sorte le pendant de l’emploi de Nombres 25 dans le De specialibus legibus, où Phinees est mentionné pour montrer qu’on peut tuer des apostats sans procès9. Dans les deux cas, et notamment dans le De ebrietate, on ressent un certain embarras de l’exégète face au geste de Phinees… Avec le Despecialibuslegibus, nous passons aux œuvres philoniennes liées à Moïse et à la Loi, où Nombres 25 est repris de manière très détaillée. Dans la Vita Mosis, la fornication avec les Madianites est présentée comme un expédient conçu par Balaam, afin de priver les Israélites de la protection divine et de les rendre ainsi vulnérables en bataille. Phinees, «plein d’une juste colère» (πληρωϑεὶς ὀργῆς δικαίας), déjoue cette machination: en signe de reconnaissance et honneur, Moïse le charge de guider l’attaque contre les Madianites10. Philon élabore de manière assez libre le récit biblique, et ses modifications sont significatives. Il avilit le statut de Khasbi (fille d’un chef selon Nb 25,15), en la présentant comme une prostituée, tandis que la postposition du massacre ordonné par Moïse en Nb 25,5 accroît remarquablement l’importance de Phinees, qui devient le véritable moteur de la réaction (et donc du salut) des Israélites. On remarquera également que le «complot» de Balaam accentue la caractérisation négative des Madianites: 6. Sur Phinees chez Philon cf. FELDMAN, Portrayal(n. 4); T. SELAND, Establishment ViolenceinPhiloandLuke:AStudyofNon-ConformitytotheTorahandJewishVigilante Reactions (Biblical Interpretation Series, 15), Leiden – New York – Köln, Brill, 1995, pp. 132-136. 7. Demutationenominum 108 (éd. P. WENDLAND, 175); Deconfusionelinguarum 57 (éd. P. WENDLAND, 240). De ce point de vue, il est opposé à l’hédonisme d’Onan (DeposteritateCaini 180-184, éd. P. WENDLAND, 39-40) et à Joseph, qui fuit la tentation au lieu de la combattre (Legumallegoriae III,242, éd. L. COHN, 166). 8. Cf.Deebrietate 73-74 (éd. P. WENDLAND, 183). 9. Cf. Despecialibuslegibus I,54-57 (éd. L. COHN, 13-14). 10. Cf. DeuitaMosis I,294-306 (éd. L. COHN, 190-193).

684

G. PISCINI

ennemis d’Israël sur le plan politique, ils le deviennent aussi du point de vue de la foi et de la vertu. En revanche, le complot de Balaam et le choix de Phinees pour guider l’armée ne sont pas forcément des inventions de Philon: ces détails peuvent s’expliquer à partir de l’interprétation du texte biblique11. Ce fait a une conséquence importante pour notre étude: lorsqu’il s’agira de comparer Philon, Origène et Cyrille, ces éléments ne suffiront pas à eux seuls pour prouver de manière définitive un rapport direct; néanmoins, ils resteront significatifs, dans la mesure où l’on ne les retrouve pas chez tous les auteurs chrétiens. Comme dans la VitaMosis, dans le Deuirtutibus les Madianites envoient leurs femmes pour séduire les Israélites et les amener à l’idolâtrie. Mais dans le récit de Nombres 25 proposé dans le Deuirtutibus, Phinees n’est pas cité: le neveu d’Aaron n’apparaît ni dans le résumé de Nombres 25, ni parmi les guerriers de l’attaque de Nombres 31, car le châtiment divin suffit à ramener les Israélites sur le droit chemin et à les pousser à une expédition victorieuse contre les Madianites12. Étant donné le rôle de Phinees dans la VitaMosis, cette omission doit attirer notre attention. Il nous semble possible de l’expliquer à partir de la construction très soignée du récit philonien. Comme on le voit du tableau ci-dessous, l’auteur organise son récit de manière à créer un jeu de symétrie et opposition entre les femmes madianites (déloyales, utilisant les armes de la corruption et de la séduction) et les hommes israélites (qui triomphent grâce à leur courage, la vertu qui est au centre de ce livre du traité). Madianites (femmes): Virt. 35-41 13

1. Le discours «sophistique» des hommes les pousse à pécher (Virt. 35-38)

Juifs (hommes): Virt. 42-46 1. Le discours de Moïse les ramène à la vertu (Virt. 42)14

11. L’idée que la fornication serait le fruit d’un complot vient sans doute de Nb 31,16, verset qui a poussé certains exégètes à estimer que Balaam aurait orchestré les faits de Nombres 25. Cf. Ap 2,14; Origène, HNm XX,1,2 (SC 461, 16 DOUTRELEAU); Victorin de Poetovio, CommentariiinApocalypsimIoannis II,3 (SC 423, 58 DULAEY). Sur l’ambiguïté du rôle attribué à Phinees dans l’attaque de Nombres 31, cf. la note à Nb 31,6 dans DORIVAL etal.,LesNombres(n. 1). 12. Cf. De uirtutibus(Virt.) 34-46 (éd. L. COHN, 275-278). Phinees n’est pas cité non plus dans une allusion à Nombres 25 en Desomniis I,89-91 (éd. P. WENDLAND, 223-224), où cependant la façon dont le passage biblique est utilisé peut suffire à expliquer le silence sur les actions du personnage. En effet, Philon cite Nb 25,1-4 uniquement pour appuyer l’assimilation soleil–Dieu nécessaire à son exégèse. 13. Leur entreprise est un σόφισμα κατ’ ἐχϑρῶν καὶ στρατήγημα pour gagner le πόλεμος (Virt. 35-38); cf. aussi les remarques de Philon.DeVirtutibus, éd. R. ARNALDEZ (Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, 26), Paris, Cerf, 1962, p. 49, n. 3. 14. Philon écrit que le «chef du peuple» (ὁ δὲ τοῦ ἔϑνους ἡγεμὼν) rappelle aux Israélites «les dogmes de la piété» (τὰ ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας δόγματα).

TROIS VERSIONS DE PHINEES

Madianites (femmes): Virt. 35-41

685

Juifs (hommes): Virt. 42-46

2. Elles se lancent donc dans une 2. Ils se lancent donc dans une entreprise qui semble couronnée de attaque qui semble vouée à l’échec15 succès (Virt. 39-40) (Virt. 43-44) 3. L’intervention de Dieu déjoue leur projet (Virt. 41)

3. Grâce à leur courage et à l’aide de Dieu, ils triomphent (Virt. 45-46)

Les choses étant ainsi, on peut raisonnablement supposer que, pour garder l’opposition entre les deux peuples, Philon ait préféré omettre un épisode centré sur l’initiative d’un seul personnage16. Force est de constater que ce choix aura peu de succès auprès des exégètes postérieurs: dans la littérature chrétienne des cinq premiers siècles, très rares sont les citations de Nb 25,1-5 qui ne sont pas suivies par le récit des actions de Phinees17. Pour le reste, en revanche, Philon jette les bases de l’exégèse chrétienne du passage18: l’interprétation allégorique des Madianites et la défense des actions de Phinees contre la morale commune se retrouveront chez plusieurs auteurs, dont Origène. II. ORIGÈNE Origène fait souvent allusion aux faits de Nombres 25, qu’il analyse en détail dans les HoméliessurlesNombres. Lorsqu’il évoque les actions de Phinees, il le fait toujours pour les présenter comme un exemple de violence justifiée19. On a vu que cette idée était déjà chez Philon; avec Origène, elle entre dans l’exégèse chrétienne et reçoit, dans le CommentairesurJean, une explication nouvelle. Car l’exégète chrétien ne propose ni une lecture allégorique apte à atténuer la violence du texte, 15. À cause de leur infériorité numérique, sur laquelle Philon insiste beaucoup. On remarquera aussi que la description des préparatifs pour le «piège» des Madianites et de sa réalisation prend quasiment le même nombre de lignes que celle de l’attaque militaire des Israélites. 16. Serait-ce pour cette même raison qu’il se borne à mentionner le discours de Moïse sans le rapporter? 17. Biblindex donne une dizaine de références, mais toutes ne sont pas significatives. Car parfois, Nombres 25 n’est évoqué que pour rappeler l’idolâtrie des Israélites (Hilaire de Poitiers, Tractatussuper Psalmum 118 20,8, SC 347, 276 MILHAU), pour citer Béelphégor parmi d’autres idoles vénérées par les Israélites (Épiphane de Salamine, Panarion 62,7,5, GCS 31, 396 HOLL), ou pour parler du personnage de Balaam (Victorin de Poetovio, CommentariiinApocalypsimIoannis II,3 HAUSSLEITER). 18. Pour son influence sur les Cappadociens cf. DELCOGLIANO, Phinehas (n. 1). 19. Cf. CIo XX,25,220 (SC 290, 266 BLANC); CRm VIII,1 (SC 543, 442 ZAMAGNI); ScholiainCanticumcanticorum(PG 17, 286B); HGn I,17 (GCS 29, 21 BAEHRENS).

686

G. PISCINI

ni une explication «juridique», justifiant l’emploi de la violence pour punir des apostats: son approche est philosophique. Pour lui, Nombres 25 démontre que même le meurtre n’est pas un mal en soi, mais un acte μέσος, «indifférent» au sens stoïcien du mot: s’il est accompli au nom de Dieu, il est non seulement permis, mais digne d’approbation20. Bien que l’emploi du terme μέσος reste une particularité origénienne, cette interprétation revient souvent chez les Pères, et trouve peut-être sous la plume de Jérôme sa formulation la plus poignante: nonestcrudelitaspro Deopietas21. Dans les HoméliessurlesNombres, Origène aborde une première fois l’épisode de Phinees en HNm XV, où il l’évoque pour présenter le personnage de Balaam22. L’homélie XX, en revanche, est entièrement consacrée à Nb 25,1-11, dont elle propose la première exégèse chrétienne (et peutêtre aussi la plus riche et détaillée). Origène commence par résumer encore une fois l’épisode, puis propose son interprétation qui, conformément aux exigences du genre homilétique, consiste en une admonestation aux croyants: la fornication, personnifiée, déclare guerre au fidèle23, qui peut (et doit) la combattre en revêtant «la cuirasse de justice» et grâce au «glaive de l’Esprit» (Ep 6,14.17). Le thème de la lutte contre les tentations parcourt le reste de l’homélie24: après une digression sur les idolothytes (qui symboliseraient les doctrines des païens), l’exégète y revient avec une explication du mot «Béelphégor». Ce nom signifierait speciesturpitudinis, l’un des démons assiégeant l’âme du fidèle, au secours duquel viennent les anges et le Christ lui-même25. 20. CIo XX,25,220. Μέσος est ici synonyme d’ ἀδιάφορος, terme qui désigne chez les stoïciens un acte qui peut être moralement bon ou mauvais, selon la disposition morale de l’exécuteur. Cf. CC I,61,23 (SC 132, 242 BORRET), où Origène parle de μέσην καὶ ἀδιάφορον… εὐεργεσίαν. Sur le sens stoïcien de μέσος/medius cf. Cicéron, Definibus bonorumetmalorum III,58 (= SVFIII, 498): officiummediumquiddamesse,quodneque inbonisponaturnequeincontrariis. 21. Lettres CIX,3 (Collection des universités de France5, 204). De nombreux exemples de cet argument chez Jean Chrysostome, qui cite souvent Phinees: cf. à titre d’exemple Homiliae in Romanos XVI (PG 60, 549,53-59); AdversusJudaeosorationes IV,1–2 (PG 48, 873,8–874,37); In Kalendas 6 (PG 48, 961,13–962,45); Homiliae in Matthaeum XVII (PG 57, 262,56-59). 22. Cf. HNm XV,2,2 (SC 442, 202 DOUTRELEAU). 23. Aduersumnosmilitatfornicatio (HNm XX,1,5; SC 461, 20 DOUTRELEAU). 24. Origène continue en effet par une distinction entre fornication (ou adultère) charnelle et spirituelle. Bien que moins commune, la deuxième acception du terme n’est pas moins importante: elle concerne en effet l’âme humaine, qui peut choisir de rester fidèle à son époux, le Christ, ou d’aller à sa perte en cédant à la tentation. Cf. HNm XX,2,1-4 (SC 461, 22-52 DOUTRELEAU). 25. HNm XX,3,4-9 (SC 461, 36-48 DOUTRELEAU). Cf. Mt 28,20; Jn 12,32.

TROIS VERSIONS DE PHINEES

687

Ainsi, dans les quatre premiers chapitres de HNm XX ne sont commentés que les quatre premiers versets de Nombres 2526. Les versets 6-827 sont traités assez rapidement, à la fin de l’homélie (5,1), mais la réflexion origénienne sur ce passage est très significative: on y trouve la première attestation d’une lecture qui aura un certain succès chez les Pères, et qui consiste en une comparaison entre Phinees et le Christ – bien évidemment, pour souligner la supériorité du dernier28. Il est intéressant de souligner que chez Origène, cette comparaison découle très naturellement de l’interprétation proposée dans la première partie de l’homélie. La lecture allégorique voyant dans les femmes madianites un symbole des tentations avait été l’occasion d’insister sur le rôle de Jésus comme défenseur du chrétien dans la lutte contre le péché. À la fin de l’homélie, ce thème est repris et développé sur plusieurs niveaux. Aussi bien Phinees que Jésus accomplissent des actes violents, car ils luttent contre la tentation; mais cette violence, bien concrète dans le cas de Phinees, devient spirituelle pour Jésus, et donc pour le chrétien. Cette évolution reflète celle de l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament: le chrétien, ayant reçu l’évangile, doit dépasser l’exemple vétérotestamentaire du neveu d’Aaron29. Après la venue du Christ, le gladius corporalis de Phinees30 est remplacé par le gladius Spiritus d’Ep 6,17 (verset déjà utilisé en HNm XX,1,5), par lequel le chrétien extirpera de son âme toute 26. Nb25,4 est examiné en HNm XX,4,1-3. Sur la base de son analyse, Origène estime que les chefs du peuple punis par Dieu représentent les responsables de la perte des fidèles: les chefs des communautés, voire les anges. 27. Nous aurons à revenir sur l’absence du v. 5. 28. Des exemples en DULAEY,Phinees (n. 1), pp. 222-224. Si le point de départ de la typologie est le plus souvent le meurtre de Phinees, le sacerdoce éternel qui lui est promis et son ζῆλος pouvaient aussi suggérer l’identification avec le Christ: cf. He 10 et passim; É. TROCMÉ, L’expulsiondesmarchandsduTemple, dans NTS15 (1968) 1-22, pp. 18-22. Mais rarement les Pères se sont attardés sur ces aspects (cf. néanmoins Hilaire de Poitiers, TractatussuperPsalmum118 18,3, SC 347, 228.230 MILHAU; Ambroise de Milan, Expositio depsalmo118 18,11, CSEL 62, 402-403 PETSCHENIG; infra, n. 42). On signale en passant que le judaïsme a vu parfois en Phinees un précurseur du Messie: cf. STERN – ABERBACHIN, Phinehas (n. 1), p. 115. 29. «Phineas’ example should be imitated, yet it should also be rejected»: G.E. CASPARY, PoliticsandExegesis:OrigenandtheTwoSwords, Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – London, University of California Press, 1979, p. 37. 30. En Nb 25,7 LXX Phinees n’emploie pas une épée mais un σιρομάστης – terme traduit souvent par «lance», mais qui désigne en réalité une sonde à silo de blé: cf. la note adloc. dans DORIVAL etal.,LesNombres (n. 1). Pour CASPARY, Politics (n. 29), p. 35, n. 82 et pp. 37-39, Origène ferait allusion à l’épée de Pierre en Mt 26,52 – épisode rapproché de celui de Phinees chez les Pères (pour des exemples postérieurs à Origène: p. 34 n. 79 et 38 n. 87). Comme le remarque CASPARY, le rejet du gladius corporalis au profit du gladiusSpiritus reflète sans doute aussi celui de la «lettre qui tue» pour l’interprétation allégorique.

688

G. PISCINI

tentation31. L’homélie se termine ainsi par une invocation à Jésus, défini par Origène uerumFineem, afin qu’il intercède pour les croyants auprès de son Père32. Peut-on parler d’une influence philonienne pour cette homélie? Peutêtre, mais avec beaucoup de prudence. En effet, en ce qui concerne la présentation des faits, on retrouve des traits communs (rôle de Balaam dans la séduction des Israélites; Phinees à la tête de l’armée)33, mais nous avons déjà souligné les limites de ces rapprochements. Quant à l’interprétation du texte, le verset paulinien, cité à deux reprises, pourrait suffire à expliquer la réflexion d’Origène; mais une utilisation de la lecture philonienne n’est pas à exclure, car l’exégète juif avait lui aussi identifié les femmes madianites avec les tentations, et avait parlé du «javelot du λόγος»34 … Faute d’indices plus significatifs, on se bornera à constater que, si Origène a repris des éléments du travail de Philon, il les a «christianisés» dans deux sens: en les introduisant dans l’exégèse chrétienne, mais aussi en les utilisant comme point de départ pour une interprétation typologique35. Nous retrouverons cette dernière chez Cyrille. III. CYRILLE Venons au troisième auteur de notre corpus. Dans l’œuvre de Cyrille, Phinees est mentionné deux fois, dans le Deadorationeetcultuinspirituet ueritate et dans le Contra Julianum36; dans quatre autres passages, l’évêque d’Alexandrie fait allusion aux faits de Nombres 2537. Nous commencerons 31. Haecaedificauerintpriorempopulum;tibiautem,quiaChristoredemptuseset cuidemanibusgladiuscorporalisablatusestetdatusest«gladiusSpiritus»,arripehunc gladium… HNm XX,5,1,497-500 (SC 461, 54 DOUTRELEAU). 32. Propitius nobis fiat Deus per uerum Fineem ipsum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. 33. HNm XX,1,2-4 (SC 461, 16.18 DOUTRELEAU). 34. Σειρομάστην […], τὸ δ’ ἐστὶν ἠκονημένον καὶ ὀξὺν λόγον: Demutationenominum 108 (éd. P. WENDLAND, 175). 35. Comme remarqué par CASPARY, Politics (n. 29), pp. 38-39, qui cependant ne souligne point le caractère nouveau de la lecture typologique origénienne. L’emploi de la réflexion de Philon pourrait également concrétiser le progrès sur le plan exégétique auquel, selon CASPARY, renverrait aussi la comparaison entre Phinees et Jésus (cf. supra, n. 29). 36. Deadorationeetcultuinspirituetueritate(Ador.) IV (PG 68, 324A–325D); Contra Julianum (CJ) V,18-20 (GCS NF 20, 367-371 RIEDWEG; cf. le fr. 33 MASARACCHIA = CJ V,13; GCS NF 20, 359-360). Nous laissons de côté la réponse au fr. 36 MASARACCHIA (où l’on mentionne Phinees), car elle porte uniquement sur la question de l’impassibilité divine. 37. Ador. XIV (PG 68, 908BC); Comm. in Oseam (In Os.) 3,1-2 (éd. Ph.E. PUSEY [réimpr. Bruxelles, 1965], t. I, 81-82) et 13,1-2 (ibid., 259-260); Comm.inIsaiamprophetam (InIs.) II,3 (PG 70, 397BC).

TROIS VERSIONS DE PHINEES

689

par étudier le rôle de Phinees dans la présentation de Nombres 25 en Ador. IV; nous commenterons ensuite brièvement l’explication des actions du neveu d’Aaron dans le ContraJulianum. En Ador. IV, Cyrille mélange un résumé de l’épisode à sa lecture personnelle: les Madianites, symbole des tentations, envoient leurs femmes pour tenter les Israélites, qui tombent dans le péché et dans l’apostasie. Ceux qui résistent et restent fidèles à Dieu d’abord punissent les coupables (qui sont tués par leurs proches), puis attaquent les Madianites. Phinees, qui combat à côté des autres Israélites contre les Madianites, est défini par l’exégète ὑποτύπωσις Χριστοῦ38. L’interprétation de Cyrille est très intéressante. Plusieurs éléments de son récit (les Madianites symbole des passions, le complot de Balaam) se retrouvent chez Philon et Origène, mais également chez d’autres auteurs. Cependant, certains points communs sont assez significatifs pour qu’il soit possible d’établir une filiation directe entre les textes que nous avons étudiés. De Philon, et plus précisément du Deuirtutibus, Cyrille semble reprendre la structure générale de l’interprétation, qui passe de Nb 25,5 à Nombres 31, sans mentionner les actions de Phinees: c’est un choix qui ne va pas de soi39, et qu’on ne retrouve pas dans l’exégèse chrétienne. En ce qui concerne l’interprétation christologique de Phinees, elle est très proche de celle d’Origène. Les deux auteurs comparent Phinees à Jésus en tant que défenseur du croyant contre les tentations40 et, surtout, mentionnent l’aide apportée au fidèle par les anges41: avant Cyrille, Origène est le seul autre interprète de Nombres 25 à le faire. Mais la réflexion de Cyrille, tout en reprenant plusieurs détails de la tradition exégétique sur Nombres 25, présente des aspects très originaux. À la différence de Philon dans le Deuirtutibus, l’évêque d’Alexandrie insiste sur la présence de Phinees dans la campagne militaire de Nombres 31. 38. PG 68, 325D. Le mot ὑποτύπωσις chez Cyrille est synonyme de τύπος et désigne le sens spirituel, qui complète «l’ombre» du sens littéral: cf. A. KERRIGAN, St.Cyrilof Alexandria Interpreter of the Old Testament (Analecta Biblica, 2), Roma, Pontificio Istituto biblico, 1952, pp. 126-127 et 127 n. 1. 39. Il est vrai qu’ailleurs, lorsqu’il fait allusion aux faits de Nombres 25, Cyrille ne parle pas non plus de Phinees (sauf dans le CJ: cf. infra). Mais il s’agit d’allusions ponctuelles, non pas de récits comparables à celui d’Ador. IV: en In Is., l’Alexandrin fait une digression sur les Madianites et rappelle leur tentative de séduire les Israélites et les amener à l’apostasie; en In Os. 13, Nombres 25 est évoqué en rapport avec l’idolâtrie d’Os 13,1-2; en In Os. 3 et Ador. XIV enfin, l’épisode est mentionné pour illustrer le lien entre apostasie et prostitution. 40. Mais avant la digression sur Nombres 25, Cyrille avait déjà souligné la nécessité de l’aide du Christ: cf. PG 68, 304AB. 41. Symbolisés, selon Cyrille, par les objets saints portés en bataille par Phinees: cf. PG 68, 325D et, pour Origène, HNm XX,3,6; XX,4,2-3 (SC 461, 42.50.52 DOUTRELEAU).

690

G. PISCINI

Ce détail pourrait le rapprocher d’Origène; mais chez Cyrille, la participation de Phinees à l’attaque de Nombres 31 sert aussi à justifier l’interprétation typologique du personnage, tandis qu’en HNm XX, le Christ est dit uerusFinees en vertu des actions du neveu d’Aaron en Nombres 25. L’interprétation de Phinees comme figuraChristi proposée en Ador. IV, bien que proche de celle d’Origène, s’appuie donc sur des passages scripturaires différents42. Finalement, Cyrille semble greffer l’interprétation typologique origénienne sur la présentation de Nombres 25 proposée dans le Deuirtutibus de Philon. Le résultat est – qu’on nous excuse le jeu de mot – un «double unicum» dans l’exégèse patristique des cinq premiers siècles: aucun autre Père ne mentionne Phinees sans citer (et louer) son ζῆλος et le meurtre de Khasbi et Zambri; aucun autre Père ne compare Phinees à Jésus sur la base non pas de Nombres 25 mais de Nombres 3143. Encore une fois, le contexte dans lequel Nombres 25 et 31 sont cités peut nous aider à comprendre l’originalité de Cyrille. Ces épisodes sont évoqués pour montrer que la coexistence des bons et des mauvais permet à l’humanité d’être sauvée: aux yeux de Dieu, les actions des justes peuvent «compenser» celles des pécheurs44. Nous avons vu que Philon, dans le passage du Deuirtutibus, présente les faits de manière à opposer deux peuples, Juifs et Madianites – ce qui peut expliquer l’absence de Phinees. De même, il nous semble que Cyrille (qui, on l’a vu, reprend certains traits du texte philonien) s’efforce de souligner l’oscillation de tout le peuple entre péché et rédemption, et non pas le mérite d’un seul homme – d’où son silence sur l’intervention de Phinees. Deux éléments nous semblent confirmer notre interprétation. D’abord, une autre particularité relative à l’emploi du texte biblique. Dans son 42. On remarquera aussi que Cyrille insiste sur la charge sacerdotale de Phinees, peutêtre pour renforcer le rapprochement avec le Christ, qu’il appelle ὁ μέγας ἡμῶν ἀρχιερεύς (PG 68, 325C). Cf. supra, n. 28. 43. À première vue, le choix de l’exégète paraît étonnant même par rapport à son raisonnement. Car Nombres 25 est évoqué pour souligner la bonté de Dieu, qui regarde l’ensemble des hommes, les justes comme les pécheurs, afin que les mérites des premières rachètent les fautes des autres. Or pour les Pères, le ζῆλος de Phinees montre précisément que la vertu d’un seul homme peut sauver un peuple entier: cf. Eusèbe de Césarée, Comm.inPs. 105 (PG 23, 1316D). 44. Cf. PG 68, 321CD. Dans ses études, BOULNOIS (n. 2) a souligné l’embarras des exégètes antiques face à ce passage qui, comme d’autres, pose le problème très délicat de la jalousie divine. Cyrille évite-t-il donc de parler de Phinees pour ne pas soulever cette complexe question? C’est probable, mais ce n’est peut-être pas la seule explication. Car la violence du texte ne semble pas constituer un problème pour l’exégète, qui certes passe sous silence l’exploit de Phinees, mais insiste sur la punition des coupables et sur la guerre ordonnée par Dieu (PG 68, 324BC) et mentionne l’ὀργή divine pour montrer qu’elle est facilement apaisée (PG 68, 321BC).

TROIS VERSIONS DE PHINEES

691

résumé de Nombres 25, Cyrille insiste sur la punition des apostats de la part de leurs proches sur ordre de Moïse45, punition relatée en Nb 25,5. Ce détail distingue Cyrille non seulement de Philon et d’Origène, mais aussi de pratiquement tous les Pères citant cet épisode: dans la littérature chrétienne des cinq premiers siècles, nous avons pu identifier une seule autre utilisation certaine de ce verset46. Or le silence sur les actions de Phinees fait du châtiment du verset 5 la seule réaction à la propagation du péché, en lui conférant une grande importance: ce n’est plus l’initiative d’un seul homme qui sauve Israël, mais celle du peuple, d’autant que, suite au passage soudain de Nb 25,5 à Nombres 31, deux actions «collectives» se succèdent: punition des coupables (élimination de la contamination) et guerre contre les Madianites (élimination de l’origine de la contamination). Le rôle accordé à Phinees dans cette guerre est ensuite significatif: Cyrille, contrairement à Philon, à Origène et à la plupart des Pères, ne fait pas de lui le chef de l’armée juive. Pour notre auteur, Phinees «participe» simplement à l’expédition (συνόντος αὐτοῖς Φινεές)47. Tout cela confirme que dans sa relecture des faits de Nombres 25, Cyrille manifeste une exigence opposée par rapport à la tradition, ce qui le pousse à réduire l’importance de Phinees dans le récit. Cependant, il sera obligé d’étudier les actions de ce personnage pour répondre à l’empereur Julien. 45. PG 68, 324B: «Le législateur donc fut pris de colère face à ces crimes (et pour cause!), et l’affaire ne fut pas sans conséquences pour les Israélites. Car suite à ces actions, ils furent frappés sur le champ par des malheurs insupportables, ceux qui s’étaient rendus coupables de fornication étant tués de la main de frères et voisins» (Ἠγανάκτει μὲν οὖν καὶ μάλιστα εἰκότως ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ νομοϑέτης, καὶ ἦν τὸ χρῆμα τοῖς ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἀζήμιον. Ἐν ἀφορήτοις γὰρ ἦσαν εὐϑὺς διὰ τοῦτο συμφοραῖς, ἀδελφοῦ καὶ γείτονος δαπανωμένων χειρὶ τῶν πεπορνευκότων). 46. Biblindex récense six emplois de Nb 25,5 (mis à part Philon, DeuitaMosis I,303). De trois occurrences dans les Commentarii in Psalmos de Théodoret de Cyr (signalées comme «à vérifier», sans autres précisions), nous n’avons trouvé aucune trace. Quant aux autres, celles en Origène, FrIer 47 (GCS 6, 222 KLOSTERMANN – NAUTIN) et Eusèbe de Césarée, Commentarii in Esaiam I,86 (GCS 56, 165 ZIEGLER) sont simplement des allusions à l’apostasie des Israélites (qui d’ailleurs est mentionnée déjà en Nb 25,3). Reste donc une seule occurrence, cette fois bien claire: Jean Chrysostome, AdStagiriumadaemone uexatum III,4 (PG 47, 477,50-56). Ce texte présente d’intéressantes affinités avec celui du CJ, où Nb 25,5 apparaît aussi. Dans les deux cas, on justifie la punition divine par une comparaison avec la pratique médicale de l’amputation d’un membre malade: cf. infra, mais aussi les exemples chez Platon et Clément d’Alexandrie cités par M.-O. BOULNOIS dans Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Contre Julien. Tome II, livres III-V, éd. J. BOUFFARTIGUE – M.-O. BOULNOIS – P. CASTAN (SC, 582), Paris, Cerf, 2016, p. 506 n. 1. Par ailleurs, l’emploi de ce verset semble caractériser en général l’approche de Cyrille au personnage de Phinees, car on le trouve également en In Os. 13,1-2. 47. Jésus aussi est «allié et soutien» (σύνοπλός τε καὶ συμπαραστάτης) dans la guerre contre le péché: cf. PG 68, 325C. Un autre point commun avec Philon, qui en Virt. 45 (éd. COHN, 278) définit Dieu «un invincible auxiliaire» (ἀήττητος ἐπικουρία) des Israélites dans la guerre de Nombres 31.

692

G. PISCINI

La polémique entre Julien et Cyrille sur Nombres 25 a déjà fait l’objet de plusieurs études, portant notamment sur le problème de la jalousie divine48. Nous nous bornerons ici à quelques considérations sur la façon dont Cyrille justifie le comportement de Phinees – car il s’agit bien de justifier des actions que Julien trouvait violentes et indignes, comme le Dieu qui les avait inspirées49. Pour expliquer le geste de Phinees, Cyrille reprend à la fois les acquis de l’exégèse traditionnelle et sa réflexion personnelle sur Nombres 2550. Comme d’autres Pères, Cyrille souligne que Phinees a sauvé un peuple 48. G. CASTELLI a étudié l’emploi polémique (et donc tendancieux) de l’adjectif ζηλωτής chez Julien: Loϑεὸςζηλωτήςebraiconel«ContraGalileos[sic]»diGiuliano, dans I. LANA (éd.), Il Giuliano l’apostatadiAugustoRostagni.Attidell’incontrodistudio diMuzzanodel18ottobre1981(Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Torino – Classe di Scienze Morali – Supplementi, 116 [1982]), Torino, Accademia delle scienze, 1983, 85-91. M.-O. BOULNOIS a montré dans ses études (n. 2) l’importance de la réflexion sur le problème de la jalousie divine dans le christianisme ancien, ainsi que l’originalité de la réflexion de Cyrille. Sur la critique de Phinees chez Julien cf. aussi notre Paganiecristiani di fronte alla violenza della Scrittura: Fineès (Num. 25,7-13) in Giuliano imperatore e Cirillod’Alessandria, dans Cristianesimoeviolenza:Gliautoricristianidifronteatesti biblici«scomodi».XLIVincontrodistudiosidell’antichitàcristiana(Roma,5-7maggio 2016) (SEA, 151), Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2018, 199-207, pp. 200203. 49. Dans le fr. 33 MASARACCHIA, la blessure infligée par Phinees à Khasbi est définie «honteuse et très douloureuse» (ἀπέκτεινεν αἰσχρῷ καὶ ὀδυνηροτάτῳ τραύματι: en Nb 25,8 LXX, Phinees frappe la Madianite διὰ τῆς μήτρας). Cette dernière précision ne se trouve ni dans la LXX ni chez les Pères: elle reflète donc la pensée de l’empereur – ou plutôt, l’aspect du texte sur lequel il voulait attirer l’attention de ses lecteurs. Il convient de rappeler que Julien semble être le seul polémiste antichrétien à critiquer Nombres 25, et qu’il le fait de manière originale par rapport à la tradition exégétique aussi bien chrétienne (cf. BOULNOIS, “Dieu jaloux” [n. 2], p. 301), que juive (cf. D. ROKEAH, Jews, PagansandChristiansinConflict[Studia Post Biblica, 13], Jerusalem – Leiden, Brill, 1982, p. 129). 50. Malgré les énormes problèmes liés à la datation absolue et relative des œuvres de Cyrille, l’antériorité au moins d’Ador. IV par rapport à CJ V nous semble probable, voire certaine. Selon S. SCHURIG, DieTheologiedesKreuzesbeimfrühenCyrillvonAlexandria. DargestelltanseinerSchrift“Deadorationeetcultuinspirituetveritate” (STAC, 29), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2005, pp. 29-37, l’Ador.serait une œuvre de jeunesse, composée très sûrement au début de l’épiscopat, dans les années 412-418; une rédaction avant l’épiscopat reste possible, mais beaucoup moins probable. Les commentaires aux prophètes sont sûrement postérieurs à l’Ador. et sans doute antérieurs à 423: cf. G. JOUSSARD, L’activité littérairede saintCyrilled’Alexandriejusqu’à428:Essaidechronologieetdesynthèse, dans MélangesE.Podechard, Lyon, Facultés catholiques, 1945, 159-174, p. 170 et passim. Difficile de dire si Cyrille a commenté d’abord Osée ou Isaïe. KERRIGAN, St.Cyril (n. 38), p. 14 ne trouve pas d’indices déterminants, mais HILL, Commentary(n. 5), vol. 1, pp. 4-5 remarque que Cyrille, en commentant Os 1,1, n’exploite pas Isaïe 7: cela montrerait que l’Alexandrin n’avait pas encore étudié à fond Isaïe… Par ailleurs, selon M.-O. BOULNOIS, des parallèles entre CJ V,18,12-14 (GCS NF 20, 367 RIEDWEG) et In Is. I (PG 70, 16C) laisseraient penser que «Cyrille avait son commentaire d’Isaïe sous les yeux quand il écrivait le Contre Julien ou vice versa» (ContreJulien [n. 46], p. 498, n. 1). Pour la datation du CJ, enfin, le meilleur statusquaestionis est proposé par W. KINZIG dans RIEDWEG etal.,

TROIS VERSIONS DE PHINEES

693

entier au prix de deux seules morts, en montrant la valeur de la vertu aux yeux de Dieu51; comme en Ador.IV, l’évêque d’Alexandrie se distingue des Pères par l’emploi de Nb 25,5. Et on a l’impression qu’encore une fois (mais de manière différente), ce verset est employé pour «relativiser» la portée des actions de Phinees. Car la construction serrée du récit de Cyrille en CJ V,19, scandée par plusieurs connecteurs logiques, marque de manière très précise l’enchaînement des faits dans Nombres 2552: 1) les Israélites punissent les apostats, car il convenait de contenir le mal (ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἦν ἀκόλουϑον ἀνασειράζεσϑαι τρόπον τινὰ τὸ κακὸν…); 2) c’est alors que Phinees aussi intervient (τότε δή, τότε καὶ Φινεές), car (ἐπειδὴ) il voit «quelqu’un qui, dépassant les bornes de toute impudeur, s’accouplait avec une femme étrangère, et cela publiquement» (πέρα τις ἰὼν ἁπάσης ἀναισχυντίας ἀλλοφύλῳ γυναικὶ συνεπλέκετο, καὶ τοῦτο ἀναφανδόν)53; 3) alors (ἐνταῦϑα) la colère de Dieu s’apaise, car (ἐπειδὴ) Phinees est jaloux de sa jalousie. D’une part, on remarquera l’emploi du καὶ et la répétition de τότε. Les meurtres de Phinees ne sont plus l’exploit d’un homme isolé, mais le couronnement d’un châtiment déjà fixé et exécuté54: pour justifier ce dernier, GegenJulian (n. 5), pp. cix-cxvi, qui penche pour une rédaction entre 416 et 428. Si l’on accepte ces conclusions, on obtient la chronologie suivante: – 412-418 Ador.; – 416-428 CJ; – 418-423 InOs. et In Is., peut-être dans cet ordre. Lorsqu’il entame la rédaction du CJ, Cyrille aurait donc terminé (ou presque) les dixsept tomes de l’Ador.: aussi CJ V est-il sans doute postérieur à Ador. IV, et probablement aussi aux commentaires sur les prophètes. 51. CJ V,20,19-21.22,24-27 (GCS NF 20, 371.374 RIEDWEG). Une telle interprétation est parfois chez les Pères le point de départ pour une lecture typologique du personnage: cf. Eusèbe de Césarée, Comm.inPs.105 (PG 23, 1316D); Ambroise de Milan, Expositio depsalmo118 18,10 (CSEL 62, 402 PETSCHENIG); Cyrille de Jérusalem, Catechesesad illuminandos XIII,2 (éd. W.C. REISCHL – J. RUPP, t. II, 52). Mais une typologie n’aurait guère permis à Cyrille de répondre efficacement aux critiques de Julien. Son absence dans le CJ n’est donc pas étonnante, d’autant que toute lecture non littérale du texte biblique était âprement critiquée par les polémistes antichrétiens (cf. BOULNOIS, Dieupeut-ilêtre envieux[n. 2], p. 25). 52. Cf. CJ V,19,1-21 (GCS NF 20, 368-369 RIEDWEG). Nous avons déjà commenté la construction de ce passage et ses rapports avec Ador. IV (Paganietcristiani[n. 48], pp. 203-206). 53. Cf. CJ V,19,6-8 (GCS NF 20, 368 RIEDWEG; trad. BOUFFARTIGUE – BOULNOIS – CASTAN, SC 582, 501). L’impiété de Zambri et le caractère exceptionnel de sa faute avaient été déjà soulignés par Philon (SELAND, EstablishmentViolence [n. 6], p. 134). 54. On peut supposer que c’est pour la raison inverse que les Pères en général ne citent pas Nb 25,5: ils préfèrent attirer l’attention sur le caractère exceptionnel des

694

G. PISCINI

l’apologiste chrétien s’efforce de souligner la gravité de la faute commise par les Israélites, mais aussi de relativiser la punition infligée par rapport aux lois en vigueur dans le monde gréco-romain55, dont Cyrille rappelle la sévérité56. D’autre part, l’insistance sur la progression du récit (τότε δή, τότε, puis ἐνταῦϑα) et sur les rapports de cause à effet (trois emplois d’ἐπειδὴ en quelques lignes) permet à Cyrille de montrer que les actions de Phinees rentrent dans un dessein providentiel précis, qui vise le salut du peuple, mais que Julien n’a pas compris. À travers la citation de Nb 25,5, Cyrille lie ainsi la réaction de Phinees à la punition décrétée par Moïse, et l’insère dans un cadre plus vaste: la mort de Khasbi et Zambri est nécessaire pour le salut du peuple, tout comme l’amputation d’un membre est souvent la seule manière de sauver un corps57. CONCLUSION L’analyse menée nous a permis d’apprécier la remarquable variété des exégèses proposées pour les actions de Phinees en Nombres 25. L’éventail des solutions envisagées va de la justification littérale et historique à l’allégorie la plus poussée et à la typologie. Par ailleurs, certaines de ces interprétations marquent des étapes importantes dans la compréhension de ce texte: Phinees qui combat le péché, Phinees qui punit les apostats, le Christ uerusFinees… autant de lectures qui s’imposeront dans la patristique, et qui apparaissent pour la première fois chez Philon et Origène. Cette pluralité d’interprétations se reflète aussi sur le traitement réservé à l’exploit de Phinees, tantôt au centre de l’exégèse, tantôt relégué à un rôle secondaire, voire «oublié». Dans ce dernier cas, nous avons pu dégager un rapport précis entre les trois auteurs. Si une reprise de Philon de la part d’Origène est plus difficile à démontrer, on voit que Cyrille met savamment à profit les acquis du travail de Philon et Origène: entre tradition et innovation, la réécriture de Nombres 25 en Ador. IV montre l’habilité et la subtilité de l’évêque d’Alexandrie. actions de Phinees, d’autant que ce dernier est souvent mis en parallèle avec le sacrifice unique du Christ. 55. Cf. CJ V,18,12-14 (GCS NF 20, 367 RIEDWEG). On peut lier ce détail à la réflexion de Cyrille sur la sévérité des lois punissant l’apostasie en vigueur chez les Grecs et les Romains: cf. CJ VI,9 (GCS NF 21, 423-424 KINZIG). 56. Cf. CJ V,25-27 (GCS NF 20, 377-382 RIEDWEG). Cyrille répond ici au grief suivant immédiatement celui sur Nombres 25 (fragment 35 MASARACCHIA = CJ V,24; GCS NF 20, 376 RIEDWEG), où Julien loue la πραότης de Lycurgue, en l’opposant au comportement de Moïse et du Dieu vétérotestamentaire. 57. CJ V,20-21 (GCS NF 20, 370-372 RIEDWEG).

TROIS VERSIONS DE PHINEES

695

Le silence sur le geste du neveu d’Aaron est sûrement lié aux difficultés du texte: Philon se trouve à devoir justifier le comportement de Phinees contre ceux qui trouvent sa conduite scandaleuse, et la réflexion origénienne en CIo XX constitue aussi une défense des actions du personnage. Ces dernières d’ailleurs apparaissent dans un des textes bibliques décrivant le ϑεὸς ζηλωτής, et il est significatif que parmi les trois Alexandrins, seul Cyrille, forcé par les griefs de Julien, se soit penché sur cette question. Mais la «contrainte» liée au passage sur la jalousie divine n’a pas empêché les trois auteurs d’exploiter ce personnage et les faits de Nombres 25, et de fournir une explication cohérente en soi et dans son contexte d’utilisation: nous avons vu que la construction de certaines exégèses, centrées sur le destin du peuple d’Israël, permet d’expliquer l’absence de Phinees. Ce choix, commun à Philon et à Cyrille, reste nettement minoritaire dans la tradition patristique; mais il est finalement complémentaire de l’exaltation (bien plus fréquente) du rôle du seul neveu d’Aaron. De ce point de vue, l’étude de ces «trois versions de Phinees» nous permet d’apprécier la complexité et la richesse du travail exégétique mené à Alexandrie. Université de Tours (France) UMR 7323-CESR [email protected]

Gianluca PISCINI

THE PHILOSOPHICAL PREMISES OF ORIGEN’S TEACHINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF CHRIST AS AN ONTOLOGICAL UNITY

The belief in Jesus Christ as both the true God and a genuinely human being constitutes one of the core elements of the Christian faith. However, it contains a paradox, or might even be regarded as being absurd, in that it proclaims something impossible: not only does it accept the possibility of the true God being incarnated, but it also professes that that true God is, simultaneously, a negation of Himself. Philosophically speaking, it proposes that one and the same substance is both itself and something absolutely different – with these two occurring simultaneously and in the same subject. Defenders of Hellenic culture, moreover, were quick to seize on this paradoxical character. As one might expect, the opponents of Christianity rejected any ascription of divinity to the human being known as Jesus Christ. They tried to show that Christ was neither a god, nor even a hero, but just a mere human. Lucian called him a crucified sophist, Celsus described him as a magician and a deceiver, while Porphyry regarded him as a pious individual1, yet no matter how he was characterized, he was viewed as merely human. Those who stated otherwise were simply guilty of deceiving his followers, and these were hopelessly misguided for, as Celsus put it, they were worshipping neither a god, nor even a demon, but just a dead man2. Celsus, however, did not merely repudiate the divinity of Christ: he also leveled a series of scrupulously thought out charges against the Christian conception of divine incarnation. On the one hand, he claimed that the Christians had constructed their idea of the incarnate Son of God on the basis of several myths already familiar from ancient religions; on the other, he put forward the view that they had interpreted these wrongly. While the ancients did speak of the cosmos as a child of God, they only did so figuratively, and when they mentioned gods that could be seen by human eyes, they had in mind demigods that were human in their forms (ἀνϑρωποειδεῖς) 1. See Lucian, Peregrinus, 13,17-18 in Lucian, Works, ed. and transl. A.M. HARMON, vol. V (LCL), London, Heinemann; Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1936; Celsus, OntheTrueDoctrine, passim in R. BADER, DerἈληϑὴςλόγοςdesKelsos (Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft ), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1940; Porphyry, PhilosophyofOracles after Augustine, De civitate Dei 19,23 = Eusebius, De Demonstratio Evangelica III,6,39– III,71. 2. Celsus, OntheTrueDoctrine VII,68,1-3.

698

A. ZHYRKOVA

and therefore could be perceived by the senses3. In contrast to Christians, the ancients did not proclaim the incarnation of the true supreme deity, and thus did not violate the radical demarcation separating transcendent and intellectual divinity from the inferior but sensible world. Indeed, one can say that in the eyes of Celsus, the representatives of the ancient religions did not, in fact, violate the basic principles of rationality that the universe itself accords with in respect of its constitution and its unfolding, whereas Christians introduced the oxymoronic notion of an incarnate supreme God – something that runs counter to all reason and principles of conceptual coherence4. In Celsus’ opinion, the true supreme god, as described by Plato, is good, beautiful, perfect, and unchangeable. To be incarnated, this deity should undergo an essential alteration to its nature. Yet first and foremost, such a change, as a transition from good to bad, would be illogical – given that the sensible realm was definitely counted worse, in ontological terms, than the intellectually graspable one. It should rather be that the mortal nature is changed, while the immortal one remains the same. Then, if one persists with it, this leaves two options: either one has to embrace the impossible – namely, that an unchangeable god underwent an essential alteration of his nature from good to bad – or one accepts that he did not actually change, and that his incarnation as a human was nothing more than mere appearance. The latter, meanwhile, implies that the incarnation was deceptive – something which would itself be contradictory to divine nature5. Celsus also points to other inconsistencies, or even plain contradictions, entailed by the Christian conception of incarnation. While the Greeks agreed, for instance, with the Stoic doctrine that God is a Spirit that pervades and encompasses everything, Christians stated that the Son of God, born as a human, possesses a spirit derived from God. Thus, the Son of God (who presumably ought to be the true and supreme God) would seem to be mortal6. Nonetheless, if the Divine Spirit were to reside in a body, that body, in order to contain it, would have to be different in respect of all possible qualities. And yet, Christians proclaim that the body of Christ was a normal human body7. On the other hand, it is simply impious to 3. Cf. ibid. VI,47,2–49,3; VII,53a,1-4. 4. Cf. for instance J.W. HARGIS, AgainsttheChristians:TheRiseofEarlyAnti-Christian Polemic (Patristic Studies, 1), New York, Peter Lang, 1999, pp. 49-50. 5. See Celsus, OntheTrueDoctrine IV,14,1-9; XVIII,1-13. Cf. Plato, Republic II,380D383A. 6. Celsus, OntheTrueDoctrine VI,71-72a. 7. Ibid. VI,75,1-6.

ORIGEN’S TEACHINGS ON CHRIST AS AN ONTOLOGICAL UNITY

699

believe that all of the things done to Christ qua human being were in fact done to God, since that would contradict and violate the very nature of God8. Origen’s reply seems controversial in and of itself, because rather than giving a clear answer to the conundrums raised by Celsus, it engenders other problems of a theological nature, appearing as it does to transgress the limits of orthodoxy9. In spite of Origen’s declaration that he was persuaded that the advent of Christ was not a mere appearance, but a reality and an indisputable fact10, it is possible to draw quite the opposite conclusions from his answer to Celsus. In fact, he tries to shrug off Celsus’ point that a deity would need to undergo essential alteration to enter the sensible realm. Origen simply states that the Word, which exists in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ ϑεοῦ, from Phil 2,6) and remains unchangeable in His substance (τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἄτρεπτος), comes down to men as His providence, and does so thanks to His love11. The Word underwent no change from good to bad, happy to unhappy, etc., because Jesus neither committed nor knew sin of any kind, was not unhappy as a human being, and so on12. Additionally, insofar as he was a wise and perfect man, who more than anyone else was adorned (κεκοσμημένος) by sublime participation in the Logos, everything that happened to him or was done to him as regards either his deity or his humanity was pious and not in conflict with the conception of God13. In his counterargument, Origen does not seem to see – or maybe just pretends not to do so, in order to omit a rhetorically inconvenient point – that Celsus is talking about essential change in respect of substance rather than ethical significance. Origen seems here to substitute (either consciously or not) ontological perfection for ethical goodness. Yet if the issue of the change in essence of a deity believed to have become human is simply passed over, this may imply either that he accepts that this deity is not essentially different from the subject of its embodiment, or that he is 8. Ibid. VII,14-15. See also the very interesting analysis of Celsus’ critique in H.Y. GAMBLE, EuhemerismandChristologyinOrigen,Contra CelsumIII,22-23, in VigChr33 (1979) 12-29. 9. I shall refrain here from presenting or analyzing Origen’s Christology as such. Instead I would like to concentrate on just his answer to Celsus pointing out the ontological paradox of Christ, and on analyzing the philosophical premises of Origen’s account. 10. Origen, ContraCelsum IV,19,2-5. 11. See ibid. IV,14,18-19; IV,15,1-3. Jesus’ soul also did not change in substance when it entered a body, see ibid. IV,18,27-34. 12. Ibid. IV,15,3-11. 13. Ibid. VII,17,15-25.

700

A. ZHYRKOVA

just willing to see the reality of incarnation undermined. On the basis of Origen’s answer, the latter actually seems to be the case. For Origen uses the example of a physician who, in order to heal the sick, must come into contact with terrible illnesses and wounds but still does not go through any change from good to bad, and so on. So, likewise, the divine Word healing the wounds of our souls was incapable of any evil14. Origen, however, seems to ignore the fact that even in the case of a physician – no matter whether they be affected by the illness of the sick person or not – no one is claiming that they would actually have to become their own patient just to cure another person. It seems, then, that the divine Word, according to this comparison, does not really become human, and such a conclusion appears to be confirmed by other statements on the part of Origen. In the passage that follows, for example, he claims that if the divine Word assumes (ἀναλαβών) both a mortal body and a human soul, then the Word (ὁ λόγος) will remain in its substance logos, unaffected by any experiences of body or soul. Yet it will come to be asif He were flesh (οἱονεὶ “σὰρξ” γίνεται), and will be spoken of in corporeal terms, until the one who has accepted Him in this (human) form has been elevated by the Word and is able to see Him in His absolute form15. The nature and substance of the Logos remain unchanged, but God changes the power of the Logos (λόγου δύναμιν) for each of us according to our individual merits in order to nourish our human souls16. In other words, in order to give an answer to Celsus’ question about whether God really does change into a human17, Origen replies that God remains God, even while appearing to have become human flesh and act as a human. When it comes to defending and sustaining the true divinity of the incarnate Logos, Origen does not envisage any option other than that of compromising on the issue of His true humanity. He does not address any of Celsus’ questions concerning the ontological complexity of the phenomenon of the incarnate Logos, hiding instead behind claims concerning the unchangeability of the divine substance and jeopardizing the reality of incarnation – the very thing that makes Christianity essentially different from other religions, but also precisely what is least acceptable from the standpoint of rational coherence18. 14. Ibid. IV,15,11-18. 15. Ibid. IV,15,18-27. 16. Ibid. IV,18,12-24. 17. See Celsus, OntheTrueDoctrine IV,14,1-9; IV,18,1-13. 18. Gamble presents a possible elucidation of such a response as Origen’s, discerning an influence of so called Euhemerism in both Celsus’ criticism and Origen’s reply. See GAMBLE, EuhemerismandChristology (n. 8). More on this below.

ORIGEN’S TEACHINGS ON CHRIST AS AN ONTOLOGICAL UNITY

701

In addition to all these responses, Origen explicitly states in Deprincipiis that of all the things revealed about Jesus Christ, one utterly exceeds the limits of the human mind’s capacity for coping with the sources or objects of its own astonishment: how the power of Divine Majesty could exist within the limits of a human being who appeared in Judea is, he says, something that can be neither conceived nor made sense of by us. The human intellect, in its narrowness, is utterly perplexed and paralyzed by the sheer amazement elicited, for even if that intellect thinks of God, what it sees is a human, and in discerning a human being it perceives the One who overcame death. Thus, in one and the same instance, two natures can truly be shown19. So, while he did register the full extent of the serious conceptual and intellectual difficulties pertaining to this revealed truth accepted by Christianity as a core doctrine, Origen nevertheless also sought to furnish his readers with an elucidation of this. Even though his responses to the conundrums raised by Celsus concentrate on preserving the divinity of the incarnate Logos, and as a consequence undermine Christ’s true humanity20, he does not actually deny the incarnation of the Logos and its union with humanity21. Furthermore, he does offer an elucidation of the manner in which the Divine Logos was united with a particular human being22. Origen accepts that it is impossible for the nature of God to be mixed with any corporeal entity without some mediation. Yet, what served here as such a mediator, in his opinion, was the pre-existent human soul that was to become Jesus. On the one hand, due to its being intelligible substance (substantia rationabilis), it was not against the soul’s nature to receive God, with Whom it was already united. On the other, due to its being a human soul, it was also not against its nature to receive a body. Thus, the soul functions as an intermediary between natures that cannot be united directly23. The pre-existing human soul of Jesus is perpetually placed in the Logos and is inseparably bound to Him, so that it becomes 19. Origen, Deprincipiis II,6,2,51-78. 20. See Celsus, OntheTrueDoctrine IV,14,1-9; IV,18,1-13. 21. Origen, ContraCelsum IV,19,2-5. 22. I shall leave aside Origen’s teachings concerning the Logos in its pre-incarnational stage – i.e. its being a creature (κτίσις), the pre-existence of Christ’s human soul, etc. Instead, I shall concentrate exclusively on the question of the union involving the incarnate Divine Logos and a human nature. 23. Origen, Deprincipiis II,6,3, cf. II,6,5. Crouzel presented the soul in Origen as a kind of metaphysical principle which unites divinity and humanity in Christ. See H. CROUZEL, Théologie de l’Image de Dieu chez Origène (Collection Théologie, 34), Paris, Aubier – Desclée de Brouwer, 1956, pp. 242-243. See also A. GRILLMEIER, ChristinChristianTradition:FromtheApostolicAgetoChalcedon(A.D.451), ed. and transl. J. BOWDEN, 2nd rev. ed., vol. 1, London, Mowbrays, 1975, p. 146.

702

A. ZHYRKOVA

one with Him in spirit24. Through the mediation of this human soul, the divine Logos (which is the underlying subject and ultimate foundation of Origen’s Christology) is operative in Jesus for the sake of the salvation of other fallen human souls25. In effect, Origen can state with confidence not only that the Son of God took on all the elements of human nature (i.e. body and soul too)26, but also that in Christ, as the figure corresponding to God’s substance and subsistence (figuraestsubstantiaeuelsubsistentiaedei), the plenitude of divinity is revealed (deitatisplenitudinem demonstrare)27. Discussing Col 2,9 – i.e. “In whom dwelt all the fullness of the Divinity bodily” (corporaliter) – Origen stresses that substantial Divinity resided fully (substantialisineratplenitude) in Christ’s soul, in contrast with the case of the prophets, in whom the grace of the Spirit was present not substantially, but only via participation (participatione)28. In Origen, “substantially” (substantialiter) and “naturally” (naturaliter) are contrasted firstly with that which is as it is by participation (i.e. that which is something or possesses some feature not because of its own nature or substance but through participation in some other entity) and, secondly, with that which is accidental (accidentem) (i.e. that which is not an essential constituent of a nature or substance, but rather a feature of that nature or substance that could be received or lost)29. “Substantially” does not mean here that divinity is united with humanity into one substance – one that would possess not merely different, but also opposite and contrary characteristics and essential qualities. Instead, it means 24. Origen, Deprincipiis II,6,3,128-132; II,6,6, esp. 192-197: Hocergomodoetiam illaanima,quaequasiferruminignesicsemperinuerbo,semperinsapientia,semper indeopositaest (In this way, thus, the soul, like iron in the fire, has always been placed in the Logos, always in Wisdom, always in God). On the union of the Logos with soul, see R.D. WILLIAMS, Arius:HeresyandTradition, London, SCM, 22001, pp. 131-148; J.R. LYMAN, ChristologyandCosmology:ModelsofDivineActivityinOrigen,Eusebius, and Athanasius (Oxford Theological Monographs), Oxford, Clarendon, 1993, pp. 39-81; R.P.C. HANSON, TheSearchfortheChristianDoctrineofGod:TheArianControversy318381 AD, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1988, pp. 60-70. 25. See L. LIES, Vom Christentum zu Christus nach Origenes’ Contra Celsum, in ZKT 112 (1990) 150-177, p. 176; B.E. DALEY, Word,Soul,andFlesh:OrigenandAugustine on the Person of Christ; Saint Augustine Lecture 2004, in Augustinian Studies 36 (2005) 299-326, p. 313. 26. Origen, Deprincipiis IV,4,4,31. 27. Ibid.I,2,8,232-238. 28. Ibid.II,6,4,139-146. 29. For substantial and natural vs. accidental, see ibid. I,2,4,92-100; I,2,13,462-465; I,5,5,282-291; Origen, CommentariiinevangeliumIoannis II,18,124(12); for substantial and natural vs. by participation see Deprincipiis I,3,8,276-278; I,6,2,57-63. Cf. U.M. LANG, JohnPhiloponusandtheControversiesoverChalcedonintheSixthCentury:AStudyand TranslationoftheArbiter, Leuven, Peeters, 2001, pp. 108-109.

ORIGEN’S TEACHINGS ON CHRIST AS AN ONTOLOGICAL UNITY

703

that with respect to the fullness of the Divinity present in His soul, Christ, as a real human being, is the true God. To be sure, Origen draws comparisons between the Logos and the soul, putting quite a Platonic emphasis on their incorporeality and indivisibility, as well as on their not being affected by corporeal phenomena, et cetera30. There is certainly some degree of correspondence between his description of Christ as composed (σύνϑετόν τι) out of both divinity and humanity31, and a human being as composed out of both soul and body32. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a parallel between Origen’s Christology and his anthropology, and that, given that this is so, he was making use of the human paradigm to elucidate the paradoxical union of Christ33. And yet, once the article by Gamble (which I will discuss below) is taken into consideration, one cannot but think that this way of interpreting Origen is most probably a simplification of his conception. Firstly, he does not elucidate the union of natures in Christ by just pointing to the analogy with the union of body and soul in a human being, but rather presents it as being the result of a union of the Divine Logos with the soul. Secondly, construing his elucidation of the union of natures as merely an application of the human paradigm to Christ ignores all of the elements of Stoic thought that stand out in Origen’s argumentation. Gamble’s article is devoted to the influence of Euhemerus’ doctrine on both Celsus’ critique of Christianity and Origen’s response to this. The Stoics employed this doctrine, according to which gods are deified mortals, in seeking to justify and uphold traditional popular forms of piety. Gamble claims that Origen appropriated the Stoic conception of passive and active principles in his Christology34, noting that when arguing against Celsus’ objection based on the intrinsic mortality and corruptibility of human nature of Christ, he appealed to the Stoic conception of a passive principle. Matter, as an unqualified subject underlying existing entities, is this passive principle, and it is formed and qualified by the active principle to be an entity of a particular kind. Meanwhile the active principle, 30. See Origen, DeprincipiisI,1,6; IV,4,4,31. 31. Origen, ContraCelsum I,60,32-33; I,66,19, cf. II,9,69-73. 32. Ibid. VI,63,14-20; VII,23,17-24; cf. De principiis IV,2,4,17: “ὁ ἄνϑρωπος συνέστηκεν ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος” (human has been combined out of body, soul and spirit). The reader should note that I do not address here the issue of dichotomy and trichotomy in Origen’s anthropology. On that issue see, for instance, CROUZEL, Théologiedel’Image (n. 23), pp. 130-133; LANG, JohnPhiloponus (n. 29), pp. 113-114. 33. See DALEY, Word,Soul,andFlesh (n. 25), p. 312. Lang points to the parallel obtaining between Origen’s Christology and his anthropology in ContraCelsum See LANG, John Philoponus (n. 29), p. 111. 34. See GAMBLE, EuhemerismandChristology (n. 8), p. 27.

704

A. ZHYRKOVA

in the Stoic conception, is identified with the tenor or, in the case of human beings, with the soul, and is ultimately an expression of the immanent Deity. Gamble is of the opinion that this Stoic conception was applied by Origen to Jesus in ContraCelsum III,41-42. Origen was thus able to deny that Jesus’ corporeal nature was necessarily mortal and corruptible. For in the case of Jesus Christ, his corporeal nature (in other words, the passive principle – namely, matter) was qualified by a specific active principle, the Divine Logos itself, with the result that the mortal attribute of his body was changed (μεταβαλεῖν) into an ethereal and divine quality35. A broader examination of philosophical elements in the text discussed by Gamble, free from any narrow focus on one particular conception, not only confirms his conclusions, but also reveals considerably more Stoic elements to have been employed by Origen in his Christological discourse36. What this then appears to entail is a revised interpretation of the core of Origen’s Christology, at least in its philosophical aspects. To be sure, in several places Origen states that the Logos was closely (παραπλησίως) united with the soul of Jesus, while He received the highest level of participation (τὴν ἄκραν μετοχήν) in the Logos37. Yet in the text of ContraCelsum III,41 that Gamble discusses, Origen states that in Jesus (who from the beginning was God, the Son of God, and the Logos in himself), the mortal body and the human soul assumed (προσειληφέναι) the greatest things not only through commonality (κοινωνίᾳ), but also as a result of union and blending (ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει). Therefore, the human soul and the body, by communing (κεκοινωνηκότα) with His divinity, were transformed into God (εἰς ϑεὸν μεταβεβληκέναι). Even the term “κοινωνίᾳ”, employed by Origen in this context, echoes the Stoic idea of community rather than the Platonic one of participation, the former

35. Origen, ContraCelsum III,41,4-19. 36. The presence of elements of Stoic philosophy in Origen’s Christology actually does not come as much of a surprise, given his considerable familiarity with Stoic doctrine. After all, his works provide us with numerous quotations from Stoic texts (see ADLER’s index for SVF, 1924, pp. 204-205). What is surprising, rather, is the fact that since Chadwick’s analysis of the relationship between Origen and Stoicism (H. CHADWICK, Origen,Celsus andtheStoa, in JTS 48 [1947] 34-49), not much attention has really been paid to the issue. The article of Gamble already mentioned here (GAMBLE, Euhemerism and Christology [n. 8]) is, in all fairness, an exception in this regard, and I would venture to assert that the analyses of philosophical aspects of both Celsus’s and Origen’s thought undertaken by him are uniquely significant and deserve more attention. I am also convinced – and this especially in the wake of the numerous studies pursued by Long, Sedley and others in the field of Hellenistic philosophy that present Stoicism from an entirely new perspective – of the need for new studies investigating the influence of Stoic thought on early Christian doctrine. 37. Origen, ContraCelsumV,39,25-28; VI,47,18-26; VII,17,15-21.

ORIGEN’S TEACHINGS ON CHRIST AS AN ONTOLOGICAL UNITY

705

being that of actual qualitative and physical identity, the latter only that of an imperfect realization of a form38. The question this raises, though, is why such a union and blending with the Logos should be considered to furnish a sufficient explication and justification of the transformation of Jesus into God. The term used in the text under consideration to describe the union of the human soul and body with the Logos, that is, ἀνάκρασις, does not merely sound strikingly similar to the famous Stoic κρᾶσις – it also seems fully equivalent to it. As Henry Chadwick points out, in Deprincipiis II,6,6 Origen illustrates the union of the divine with the human in Christ using an exemplificatory device that he took from Stoicism: this was the case of a lump of iron kept continuously in the furnace so that it is heated through and through and thus becomes inseparable from the fire, being entirely converted into it39. The very example of iron immersed in fire, following Alexander’s testimony, can be traced to Chrysippus himself, who actually used it to describe the Stoic conception of krasis, construed as referring to the blending of tenor/breath with material substrate40. Therefore, Chadwick has every right to conclude that in De principiis II,6,6, Origen is simply adopting the standard Stoic illustration of κρᾶσις διʼ ὅλων41. Yet in the text of ContraCelsum under discussion, the connection with Stoic doctrine is even more obvious: anticipating possible criticism of the extension of deification to even the human body of Jesus, Origen replies that for the Greeks, unqualified matter (ἀποίος ὕλη) was covered with qualities given to it by the Creator and on many occasions would have its primary qualities replaced, receiving stronger and different ones instead. The metamorphosing of the mortal qualities of Jesus’ body into ethereal and divine ones, then, should not be that surprising. It seems quite clear that the conception of unqualified matter being utilized by Origen here is also of Stoic origin42. What is more, both the Logos and the soul of Jesus united with it are often described by him 38. See A.A. LONG – D.N. SEDLEY, TheHellenisticPhilosophers, vol. 1, Cambridge – New York, Cambridge University Press, 1987, 28 E–J, cf. 33 M. See also Alcinous, Didaskalikos XIX,174,15-19, where “commonality in air and water” replaces the term “τὸ μεταξύ” of Plato’s Timaeus 66E1, as odor is something “being in between” those two physical realities. 39. Origen, Deprincipiis II,6,6,180-187. 40. Chrysippus, Fragmenta 473,61-63; Alexander, De mixtione 218,1-2; Stobaeus, Anthologium I,17,4,26-29. 41. CHADWICK, Origen,CelsusandtheStoa (n. 36), pp. 39-40. 42. The same opinion is shared by H. CHADWICK, Origen,CelsusandtheResurrection oftheBody, in HTR 41 (1948) 83-102, p. 101. See also Deoratione XXVII,8, recognized as a quotation from Chrysippus (SVF II,318), in which substance is described as unqualified and un-shaped (“ἡ οὐσία ἐστὶν ἄποιός τε καὶ ἀσχημάτιστος”).

706

A. ZHYRKOVA

in terms that would permit one to identify this with the Stoic conception of an active principle – i.e. a tenor – that qualifies, forms, gives life to and moves the human body43. Taking all of the abovementioned elements together, I would say that what one has is an explication of the union of elements underlying Origen’s conception of a Divine Logos united with the humanity of Jesus that is essentially Stoic (though not without some Platonic elements). The Platonic element in it amounts to an incorporeal understanding of the soul that, due to its nature, can be directly united with the Logos and participate in Him. In Stoicism, however, the soul, even while considered an immaterial entity that informs and qualifies the material substrate, continues to be recognized as a corporeal entity, and with the exception of this feature Origen may be said to have applied the Stoic conception of a unity obtaining between the tenor (which in the case of an intelligible being is the soul) and its material substrate. The tenor is perfectly blended with the material substrate, such that it pervades the latter entirely in all of its parts. As the active principle, the tenor enforms the unqualified material substrate, so that it is an entity of a particular kind. Similarly, in Origen the human body is described as unqualified matter enformed by its soul, with the latter providing it with qualities proper to a nature of that kind. Yet through union with the soul of Jesus, the Divine Logos becomes the ultimate active principle of the human being that is Christ, essentially altering and transforming, in consequence, not only his soul, but also his body, into the Deity. In other words, in describing the union of the Logos with humanity, Origen employs the Stoic conception of blending (krasis) in its principal philosophical meaning: as an explanation of the unity of two jointly completing ontological elements of an entity, and not in the sense of a unity of two different substances. From a philosophical point of view, his explanation is both coherent and sound, and thus counts as a successful response to Celsus’ sharp critique. Nevertheless, such a body of Christological teaching built on ontological premises derived from Stoicism would turn out to have theological consequences not necessarily in line with orthodoxy. The Stoic elucidation of an entity entails the conclusion that if a subject qualified in a certain way, were to be altered by the introduction of qualifications different from its initial shared and distinctive qualities, this would necessarily bring about the creation of an essentially different particular. Therefore, if the Logos were to become the active principle of the particular human being known as Jesus Christ, it would ultimately 43. See Origen, ContraCelsum III,41; VI,48; cf. DeprincipiisII,6,7,223-229.

ORIGEN’S TEACHINGS ON CHRIST AS AN ONTOLOGICAL UNITY

707

transform Jesus qua human into an entirely new being. In consequence, there would be not two different entities in one subject, but rather an ontologically wholly new entity. The humanity of Christ would not be divinized, so much as ceasing to be there at all. It is worth noting, though, that unlike many other theological thinkers, Origen himself was quite aware of such consequences. He did not hesitate to state that while the divine nature was fully preserved in Christ, his humanity was transformed into divinity44. He also willingly asserted that Jesus was known as a human (his well-known κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νοούμενος ἄνϑρωπος45) and appeared as a human, but that his appearance was adjusted to the level of the capacities of individual recipients46. However, the Docetism ascribed to Origen’s Christology is only apparent, since expressions of this kind do not follow from the negation of the truth and reality of the Incarnation. Origen strongly believed that the Logos was truly united with humanity. His Christology was an attempt to elucidate this belief in rationally graspable formulations. He simply pursued the logic of his elucidations right to their logical end, accepting without reluctance the conclusion entailed by his own premises to the effect that the humanity of Jesus was simply transformed into divinity, and therefore ceased to exist as an ontologically different and distinct reality. Jesuit University Ignatianum in Kraków ul. Kopernika 26, PL-31-501 Kraków Poland [email protected]

Anna ZHYRKOVA

44. See Origen, ContraCelsum III,41-42, discussed above, and Deprincipiis II,6,5. 45. See Origen, ContraCelsum I,62,41-42; III,62,18-19; VI,45,16; VII,16,19; CommentariiinevangeliumIoannisXX,12,89,1-2; ExhortatioadmartyriumXXXV,18; CommentariuminevangeliumMatthaeiXV,24,13-15, cf.XII,37. 46. Origen, ContraCelsum II,64.

V. THE ORIGENIST LEGACY: FROM EVAGRIUS TO BALTHASAR

THE FIRST RESPONSES TO ICONOCLASM IN BYZANTIUM AND ORIGEN’S TRADITION THE CASES OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND PALESTINE

When discussing the legacy of a particular thinker, we may focus on textual borrowings of certain passages or expressions, or on a tradition stemming from him. The conceptual borrowing is often more significant since not only expressions and terms, but the ideas and concepts prove to be viable to continue giving valid theological answers to future generations. In the search of “Origen’s legacy” in the eighth century, this article will discuss the perception of Origen’s theological ideas in two locations – Jerusalem and Constantinople, and by two writers – John of Damascus and Patriarch Germanus. Following Epiphanius, in his list of heresies John of Damascus mentions two groups of Origenists. One group are “shameless people who do unmentionable things” and the other are the followers of the “writer Origen called Adamantius”, who reject the resurrection of the dead, consider Christ and the Holy Spirit to be creatures, speak allegorically about heaven and hell, and believe in the apokatastasis1. In the Expositiofideiorthodoxa, John of Damascus criticizes what can be Origen’s theory of aeons while discussing the end of time after the Great Judgment, and argues two times against the pre-existence of the soul2. At first sight, it seems that for John of Damascus the figure of Origen was a relic of the past, an archetypal heretic whose theological ideas had long been refuted and erased from the ecclesiastical tradition. This relative absence of Origen in John of Damascus is not surprising, since in the Ummayad Caliphate, all groups of Christians found themselves in equal position vis-à-vis each other and non-Christian religious groups such as the Jews, Samaritans, and Manichaeans. Internally, this led to the codification of the “Melkite” normative doctrine, exemplified by John of Damascus’ Fountain of Knowledge, and extensive florilegia, such as the Doctrina patrum and the Sacraparallela. Externally, this triggered active polemics 1. John of Damascus, Liber de haeresibus 63-64; Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, ed. B. KOTTER, vol. 4 (PTS, 22), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1981, pp. 3637. 2. John of Damascus, Expositiofidei III,18; DieSchriftendesJohannesvonDamaskos, ed. B. KOTTER, vol. 2 (PTS, 12), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1973, p. 44,35-36, Expositiofidei II,12; IV,6; ibid., p. 76,22-23; p. 177,3-4.

712

V.A. BARANOV

of the Chalcedonians with other denominations centering on those theological doctrines which were the markers of self-identification on the part of each community, and “Origenism” was not such a marker. However, things become more interesting when we address the arguments which John of Damascus advances in his most powerful polemics against iconoclastic Origenism in the early stages of the Iconoclastic Controversy. Although under Muslim rule, the Chalcedonians had lost their privileged status as the imperial Church, culturally, linguistically, and politically they still largely associated themselves with Byzantium3. The contacts continued: the evidence for the presence of bishops at the Sixth and Trullo Councils (680, 692) supposes the unhindered movement of clergymen and bishops across the border, only disrupted by local conflicts and military campaigns4. Hagiography also preserved evidence of pilgrimages to the Holy Land (some mention visits or stays at Mar Saba, one of the holy places of the region)5 in the time after the Arab conquests, and the contacts between the Holy Land and Constantinople on ecclesiastical matters6. And it is probable that John of Damascus perceived the Iconoclastic Controversy 3. A. KAZHDAN, KosmasofJerusalem. 2: CanWeSpeakofHisPoliticalViews?, in LeMuséon 103 (1990) 329-346; J. MEYENDORF, ByzantineViewsofIslam, in Dumbarton OaksPapers18 (1964) 113-132. On the situation in the Holy Land at the turn of the eighth century, see S. GRIFFITH, JohnofDamascusandtheChurchinSyriaintheUmayyadEra: The Intellectual and Cultural Milieu of Orthodox Christians in the World of Islam, in Hugoye:JournalofSyriacStudies 11/2 (2008), http://www.bethmardutho.org/index.php/ hugoye/volume-index/425.html, accessed January 6, 2018; ID., TheChurchofJerusalem andthe“Melkites”:TheMakingofan“ArabOrthodox”ChristianIdentityintheWorld ofIslam(750-1050CE), in O. LIMOR – G. STROUMSA (eds.), ChristiansandChristianityin the Holy Land: From the Origins to the Latin Kingdoms (Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 5), Turnhout, Brepols, 2006, 175-204, and P. SCHADLER, JohnofDamascusandIslam:ChristianHeresiologyandtheIntellectualBackgroundto Earliest Christian-Muslim Relations (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations, 34), Leiden, Brill, 2018, which was not available to me. 4. J. HALDON, SupplementaryEssay:TheMiraclesofSaintArtemiosandContemporaryAttitudes:ContextandSignificance, in V.S. CRISAFULLY – J.W. NESBITT (eds.), The MiraclesofSt.Artemios (The Medieval Mediterranean Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400-1453, 13), Leiden, Brill, 1997, p. 39, and n. 41. 5. A.-M. TALBOT, ByzantinePilgrimagetotheHolyLandfromtheEighthtotheFifteenthCentury, in J. PATRICH(ed.), TheSabaiteHeritageintheOrthodoxChurchfromthe FifthCenturytothePresent(OLA, 98), Leuven, Peeters – Departement Oosterse Studies, 2001, 97-110, pp. 102-103. See also the MartyrdomofSixtyPilgrimsinJerusalem (d. 724) (R.G. HOYLAND, Seeing Islam as Other Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam [Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 13], Princeton, NJ, The Darwin Press, 1997, pp. 360-363). 6. Such as a visit by a monk from the Holy Land, Saba Stephen (H. DELEHAYE [ed.], SynaxariumEcclesiaeConstantinopolitaeecodiceSirmondianonuncBerolinensi, Brussels, Socios Bollandianos, 1902, cols. 392, 1-394, 4; see also J. PATRICH,Sabas,Leaderof Palestinian Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries [Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 32], Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1995, p. 329) and

RESPONSES TO ICONOCLASM IN BYZANTIUM AND ORIGEN’S TRADITION

713

which was starting in Constantinople as his own struggle and even possessed an early iconoclastic source which he refuted in his Apologetic TreatisesagainstThoseWhoCalumniateDivineImages7. In my previous research on Origenist sources of the doctrine of Byzantine Iconoclasts, I argued that the Iconoclastic Controversy in Byzantium represented a “monopolization” of a mystical tradition of striving towards imageless non-anthropomorphic divinity, which took the form of the late, post-Constantinople II, Origenism8. Clearly, the term “Origenism” should be applied conventionally, since the name of Origen and a substantial part of his doctrinal views in the systematized form of Evagrius were “cut off” by Justinian’s edict and anathemas as well as the anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. However, Origen’s Platonist concepts of the immaterial contemplation of God as the summit of Christian spiritual life, the role of the Christ-soul as the mediator between the divinity and the flesh, and casting away the material body after the resurrection, were not explicitly condemned and thus could continue to be explored. In addition, the iconoclastic doctrine seemed to employ, albeit implicitly, the concept of Christ’s pre-existent soul, serving as an instrument for shaping Christ’s body in the Incarnation. To give just one example of such a late rethinking of Origen’s heritage, in the position on the instrumental function of the soul of Christ, which “condensed” and “shaped” the flesh of Christ’s body in the Incarnation, the Iconoclasts seem to carefully avoid the formulation of the third anathema of Justinian on the ensoulment of Christ’s body by the pre-existing soul9. Following standard practice, they also mention the Andrew of Crete (BHG 113-114c; A. ΠΑΠΑΔΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ-ΚΕΡΑΜΕΥΣ, ̓Ανάλεκτα Ιεροσολυμιτικής σταχυολογίας, vol. 5, St. Petersburg, 1898, pp. 169-179). 7. Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tres, in Die Schriften des Johannes vonDamaskos, ed. B. KOTTER, vol. 3 (PTS, 17), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1975; V.A. BARANOV, TheologyofEarlyIconoclasmasSeenintheApologies in Defence of ImagesbySt.JohnofDamascus, in KhristianskijVostok 4/10 (2002) 23-55. 8. See V.A. BARANOV, OrigenandtheIconoclasticControversy, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition. Papers of the 8th International Origen Congress, Pisa 27-31 August 2001 (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 1043-1052; ID., ByzantineDoctrinesontheResurrectedBodyofChristandTheirParallels inLateAntiquity, in ID. – B. LOURIÉ (eds.), Scrinium. IV: PatrologiaPacifica, St Petersburg, Gorgias, 2008, 4-22; V.A. BARANOV – B. LOURIÉ, TheRoleofChrist’sSoul-Mediator in the Iconoclastic Christology, in G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nona: OrigenandtheReligiousPracticeofHisTime.Papersofthe9thInternationalOrigen CongressPécs,Hungary,29August–2September2005(BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 403-411. 9. “If anyone says or thinks that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin, and after that was united to God the Word and the pre-existing soul, let him be anathema” (Justinian, Edictum contra Origenem, in Collectio Sabbaitica contraAcephalosetOrigeniastasdestinata.Insuntacta synodorumConstantinopolitanaeet Hierosolymitanaea.536, ed. E. SCHWARTZ (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, 3), Berlin,

714

V.A. BARANOV

names of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus among the condemned heretics in the summary of the Councils in the Definition of the Council of Hiereia (754)10. In order to trace Origen’s influence at this late stage of the Patristic period, this article will consider the initial responses to the iconoclastic practices and discuss a curious late development of Origen’s idea of the polymorphic Christ11, which was employed as an argument in favor of image veneration at the onset of the Iconoclastic Controversy by Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople. But the motif proved to be too weak and was never brought up again by the Iconophiles at later stages, who rather elaborated on the argument from the Incarnation and the corresponding positive value of matter, advanced by John of Damascus. The doctrine of the unity between the representation of Christ and its model (or prototype in iconophile language) was formed in the course of the Iconoclastic Controversy. However, scholars sometimes tend to project this polarization of traditions into the past, considering the concept of image in pre-iconoclastic theology in terms of the presence of latent “iconophile” or latent “iconoclastic” trends. The problem is that this confrontational model ignores a more ancient theological tradition, dating back to Origen and conventionally called “the pedagogical tradition” or “tradition of compromise”. Two major early iconophile authors, Patriarch Germanus and John of Damascus, use very different approaches for justifying icon veneration. Germanus mentions the “argument from Incarnation” in his two Epistles, but without any further Christological justification and rather seems to follow the general tone of the Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council (692)12. De Gruyter, 1940, p. 213,17-21; see also V.A. BARANOV, “CondensingandShapingthe Flesh…”:TheIncarnationandtheInstrumentalFunctionoftheSoulofChristinthe Iconoclastic Christology, in S. KACZMAREK – H. PIETRAS (eds.), Origeniana Decima: OrigenasWriter (BETL, 244), Leuven, Peeters, 2011, 919-932. 10. Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, ed. E. LAMBERZ (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II/3.3), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2016, p. 640,27. 11. See J. MCGUCKIN, The Changing Forms of Jesus, in L. LIES (ed.), Origeniana Quarta:DieReferatedes4.internationalenOrigeneskongresses,1985(Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck – Wien, Tyrolia, 1987, 215-222; P. FOSTER, PolymorphicChristology:ItsOriginsandDevelopmentinEarlyChristianity, in JTS NS 58 (2007) 66-99. 12. Epistle to John of Synada, in Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, ed. E. LAMBERZ (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II/3.2), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2012, p. 444,24–446,2); EpistletoThomasofClaudiopolis (ibid., p. 462,18). Cf. Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council (ConciliumConstantinopolitanuma.691/2inTrullohabitum (Concilium Quinisextum), ed. H. OHME [Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II/2.4], Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2013, p. 54,1-13), cf. Germanus, De haeresibus et synodis (PG 98, 80A).

RESPONSES TO ICONOCLASM IN BYZANTIUM AND ORIGEN’S TRADITION

715

It is more interesting, that he uses the argument of the usefulness of images for not spiritually advanced people in his apology of religious representations, dwelling on the archaic division of Christians into “gnostics” who could reach essentially imageless spiritual contemplation of God and “simple” people who needed artificial images as material props. In his letter to the iconoclastic bishop Thomas of Claudiopolis, Germanus thus writes: One should depict the image of the Lord according to the flesh on icons in the rebuke of the nonsense of heretics, [speaking] that He became man not in a true sense but in imagination; but also as a certain direction for those who are not strong to lift up to the height of spiritual contemplation but have a need in some bodily observation of what they have heard (χειραγωγίαν δέ τινα τῶν μὴ πάντῃ πρὸς τὸ ὑψηλὸν ἀνάγεσϑαι τῆς πνευματικῆς ϑεωρίας ἐξισχυότων, ἀλλὰ δεομένων καί τινος σωματικῆς κατανοήσεως πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀκουσϑέντων βεβαίωσιν), inasmuch as it is useful and permissible13.

According to Germanus, icons should not be entirely discarded since they have some use for less advanced members of the Church. The Patriarch implies that icons are not indispensable for all, and those who are strong enough “to lift up to the height of spiritual contemplation”, perhaps, may not need them at all. We may ask why the champion of the icons and the first confessor of the Controversy, could be so moderate and advance such a weak argument in defense of images. Germanus’ approach had a foundation in the exegetical method of Jesus himself who was said to have told the common people the truths hidden in parables, but revealed the meaning of the parables to his disciples14. Origen, however, was the thinker who “translated” this approach from the Gospels into a coherent epistemological system based on the pedagogical principle of “revelatory proportionality” (ἀναλογία)15 depending on the spiritual progress understood in Origen’s Christian Platonic paradigm as movement away from passions, senses, and fleshly matter, and manifestation of the Logos through the “words and letters of the Gospels”16.

13. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II/3.2, p. 462,18-23. 14. Mt 13,10-17, Mt 13,34-35; Lk 8,10. 15. See, for example, ContraCelsumIV,71; Origène.ContreCelseII, ed. M. BORRET (SC, 136), Paris, Cerf, 1968, pp. 358-361); P. BLOWERS, MysticsandMountains:Comparing Origen’sExegesisoftheTransfigurationandGregoryofNyssa’sExpositionoftheSinai Theophany, in Phronema 30/2 (2015) 1-18, p. 4. 16. See, for example, CMt XII,36.38.39 (Matthäuserklärung.I:Diegriechischerhaltenen Tomoi, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN – E. BENZ [GCS, 40; Origenes Werke, 10],Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1935, pp. 152,9-14; 154,19-21; 156,33–157,7).

716

V.A. BARANOV

Thus, Origen stated concerning Christ’s Transfiguration, that His bodily appearance, visible to all, falls ultimately short of manifesting the resplendent divinity which is opened only to those who progressed more: There are, as it were, different forms of the Word. For the Word appears to each of those who are led to know him in a form corresponding to the state of the individual, whether he is a beginner, or has made a little progress, or is considerably advanced, or has nearly attained to virtue already, or has in fact attained it. For this reason it is not true, as Celsus and those like him would say, that our God was transformed when he went up a high mountain and showed his other form, which was far superior to that which was seen by the people down below, who were unable to follow him to the high place. For the people down below had not eyes capable of seeing the transfiguration of the Word into something wonderful and more divine. They were hardly able to receive him as he was, so that it was said of him by those not able to see his higher nature, “We saw him, and he had no form or beauty, but his form was dishonourable, deserted more than the sons of men”17.

In another passage of the same polemical treatise, Origen elaborated the idea of different appearances under which the Word reveals Himself to each person in accordance with the measure of his spiritual advancement. According to Origen, Christ could change appearance and transform for the sake of the spiritual benefit of those seeing him. Yet, Origen believed that different forms of Jesus (his humble appearance in regular life and glorious shining state during the Transfiguration on Tabor) should be even more so applied to the divine Word: The doctrine has an even more mysterious meaning since it proclaims that the different forms of Jesus are to be applied to the nature of the divine Logos. For he did not appear in the same way both to the multitude and to those able to follow him up the high mountain which we have mentioned. To those who are still down below and are not yet prepared to ascend, the Logos “has not form nor beauty”. His form to such people is dishonourable and deserted more than the teaching which has originated from men, which this passage allegorically describes as “the sons of men”. We would say that the teachings of philosophers, which are “sons of men”, appear far more beautiful than the Logos of God as he is preached to the multitude18.

Indeed, in these passages Origen does not say anything about the representations of Christ. Origen’s main point is that the spiritually advanced 17. Contra Celsum IV,16 (SC 136, 220,1–222,17 BORRET); English transl.: Origen: ContraCelsum, transl. H. CHADWICK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1953, p. 194. On the Transfiguration of Christ in Origen, see M. EICHINGER, DieVerklärungChristibei Origines:DieBedeutungdesMenschenJesusinseinerChristologie (Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie, 23),Wien, Herder, 1969. 18. ContraCelsum VI,77; Origène.ContreCelseIII, ed. M. BORRET (SC, 147), Paris, Cerf, 1969, p. 372,17-35); transl. CHADWICK (n. 17), p. 390.

RESPONSES TO ICONOCLASM IN BYZANTIUM AND ORIGEN’S TRADITION

717

see the divine Word, while the simple believers see the bodily appearance of humble Jesus of the Gospels. Yet it is not difficult to observe that the position of Origen reflecting his Christology, might well serve as a basis for its more practical elaboration by later generations of theologians, since it was only the bodily appearance of Jesus, which opens up according to Origen to simple people, that can be reproduced on the icon19. The same epistemological and theological concept surfaced sometime between Origen and Germanus: our hypothesis that there must have been a tradition is confirmed by the author who wrote at the turn of the fifthsixth century under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. In his EcclesiasticalHierarchy, Dionysius also clearly follows the division of Christians into neophytes who have a need for material sensible representations, whom he locates in the nave, and the perfect who have no need of material aid anymore, but contemplate with the “eyes of the intellect” the true meaning of the Eucharistic sacrament, denuded from its materiality on the altar. In his peculiar language, Dionysius thus expresses this idea, in which it is easy to recognize the flavor of the iconoclastic imageless approach to the divinity: But let us leave behind as adequate for those uninitiated regarding contemplation these signs which, as I have said, are splendidly depicted on the entrances to the inner sanctuary. We, however, when we think of the sacred synaxis must move in from effects to causes and in the light which Jesus will give us, we will be able to glimpse the contemplation of the conceptual things clearly reflecting a blessed original beauty. And you, O most divine and sacred sacrament: Lift up the symbolic garments of enigmas which surround you! Show yourself clearly to our gaze! Fill the eyes of our mind with a unifying and unveiled light20! 19. Thus, this doctrine is the core of Eusebius of Caesarea’s EpistulaadConstantiam Augustam, which was a part of the Patristic florilegium of the iconoclastic Council of Hiereia in 754 (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II/3.3, pp. 730,24–732,16). On the Epistle, see K. SCHÄFERDIEK, ZuVerfasserfrageundSituationderEpistulaadConstantiamdeImagine Christi, in ZeitschriftfürKirchengeschichte91 (1980) 177-186; S. GERO, TheTrueImage of Christ: Eusebius’s Letter to Constantia Reconsidered, in JTS NS 32 (1981) 460-470; H.G. THÜMMEL, Brief an Kaiserin Konstantia, in Klio 66 (1984) 210-222; J.-P. CAILLET, EusebiusofCaesareaandtheImages:TowardaMorePositive–andLessUncertain– Interpretation of His Views?, in Antiquité Tardive: Revue Internationale d’Histoire et d’Archéologie (IVe-VIIe siècle) 22 (2014) 137-142, and A. VON STOCKHAUSEN, Einige Anmerkungen zur Epistula ad Constantiam des Euseb von Caesarea, in T. KRANNICH – Ch. SCHUBERT – C. SODE (eds.), DieikonoklastischeSynodevonHiereia754(STAC, 15), Tübingen, Mohr, 2002, 92-112. 20. Ecclesiastical Hierarchy III,Θ,2; Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De Coelesti Hierarchia,DeEcclesiasticaHierarchia,DeMysticaTheologia,Epistulae, ed. G. HEIL – A.M. RITTER, in CorpusDionysiacum, vol. 2 (PTS, 36), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1991, p. 82,5-12, translated in Pseudo-Dionysius.TheCompleteWorks, transl. C. LUIBHEID, New York, Paulist, 1987, p. 212.

718

V.A. BARANOV

The ecclesiastical hierarchy for Dionysius mirrors and expands the celestial hierarchy, and precisely in his Celestial Hierarchy, he makes explicit that the purpose for which God hid his true and secret doctrines, veiling them with bodily images, was not only to adapt to the weakness of our intellectual power which cannot ascend to the purely intellectual contemplation and needs the help of some forms and shapes, but also to conceal and “keep inaccessible for the multitude the sacred and hidden truth of the celestial intellects”21. From an epistemological point of view, this position fits perfectly well the apophatic approach of Dionysius, when sensible images necessary for the initial stage of ascent are accepted only to be immediately denied and confirmed again at a more transcendent level, until we enter the imageless darkness of complete negation. After all, following classical Neoplatonic epistemology, the realm of the sensually perceived for Dionysius is at a lower level than that of the intelligible and ultimately the suprasubstantial divinity. The epistemological basis for the division of Christians into groups is made explicit in the philosophical and theological system of Dionysius the Areopagite. In his MysticalTheology, Dionysius describes true and false approaches to the knowledge of God. Summoning his addressee Timothy to reject both sensible and mental knowledge for entering into a mystical union with God, Dionysius warns him against two wrong approaches, one of which is even more false than the other: But see to it that none of this comes to the hearing of the uninformed, that is to say, to those caught up with the things of the world, who imagine that there is nothing beyond instances of individual being and who think that by their own intellectual resources they can have a direct knowledge of him who has made the shadows his hiding place. And if initiation into the divine is beyond such people, what is to be said of those others, still more uninformed, who describe the transcendent Cause of all things in terms derived from the lowest orders of being, and who claim that it is in no way superior to the godless, multiformed shapes they themselves have made22?

This passage can be interpreted at three different levels. From a Scriptural point of view, the passage is connected with Moses’ ascent to Mount Sinai and the gradual separation of the Israelites: ordinary “uninitiated” people remain down below, but the priests and Moses go up the Mount. Yet, it was Moses alone who plunged into the darkness of the cloud in 21. CelestialHierarchy II,2; ibid., p. 11,11-20. 22. MysticalTheology I,2; ibid., pp. 142,12–143,3, transl. LUIBHEID (n. 20), p. 136. Cf. Germanus, EpistletoThomasofClaudiopolis (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II/3.2), p. 456,11-18).

RESPONSES TO ICONOCLASM IN BYZANTIUM AND ORIGEN’S TRADITION

719

the summit to be initiated into the divine mysteries, while the people who remained at the foot, fabricated a golden calf and worshiped it as the one who led them out of Egypt. At another level, the groups mentioned by Dionysius can be interpreted as Christians, who worship God in the right way, the Jews, and the idol-worshipping pagans. However, in addition to these meanings Dionysius is likely to focus on specific inner Christian polemics against his theological opponents – the Anomoeans with their belief that humans may know God’s substance, and Anthropomorphites with their belief in corporeal God – who hold “wrong” concepts of divinity. According to Paul Rorem, the division of believers by Dionysius into those who worship God using imperfect material images, those who do not need any material aids for worshipping God, and, finally, the “hierarchy” which mediates between these extremes, is derived not from Patristic sources, but from a very similar Neoplatonic division in Iamblichus. A similar distinction between three types of souls and three types of worship appears in Demysteriis23, where Iamblichus distinguishes between the multitude who follow their destiny and perform worship in a “material” form, rare souls who worship the divine without matter, ascending high to the level of the divine Mind, and souls in an intermediary state who practice both forms of worship, material and immaterial. Gregory Shaw accepted the suggestion of Paul Rorem and indicated several important modifications of the Iamblichian system by Dionysius, for example, associating the highest type of immaterial worship with angels and limiting the intermediary type to the ecclesiastical hierarchy24. However, it should be pointed out that although Dionysius indeed might have used the Iamblichian system for accentuating his triadic structure of hierarchies, the idea of Moses as the High Priest and an intermediary appears in Gregory of Nyssa’s treatment of Moses’ ascent to the Mount Sinai in DevitaMoysis25. Moreover, in describing the stages of mystical ascent in his MysticalTheology, Dionysius seems to consistently employ 23. Demysteriis V,18,225.5-8; Iamblichus:Demysteriis, ed. E.C. CLARKE – J.M. DILLON – J.P. HERSHBELL (SBL.WGRW, 4), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2003, pp. 256257; Demysteriis V,15,220.10-19; ibid., pp. 250-251; P. ROREM, BiblicalandLiturgical SymbolswithinthePseudo-DionysianSynthesis, Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984, pp. 106-109. 24. G. SHAW, NeoplatonicTheurgyandDionysiustheAreopagite, in JournalofEarly ChristianStudies 7 (1999) 573-599, pp. 582-583. 25. Cf. GregoriodiNissa.LaVitadiMosè, ed. M. SIMONETTI, n.p., Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1984, pp. 152-156; See also Y. DE ANDIA, Henosis:L’unionàDieuchezDenysl’Aréopagite (Philosophia Antiqua, 71), Leiden, Brill, 1996, p. 320.

720

V.A. BARANOV

the terms associated with the sequence of the Liturgy paralleling the stage of Moses’ ascent to the Mount Sinai26. In addition, the mediatory role of Christ and the High Priest during the Transfiguration is emphasized already in Origen’s CommentaryonMatthew in a passage on the prayer of Jesus immediately before the Transfiguration27. It is well known that the authenticity of the CorpusDionysiacum was initially rejected by the Chalcedonians, when the Corpus was brought by the Severian party to the dispute with the Chalcedonians in 532 in support of their position. One of these Chalcedonian theologians was Hypatius of Ephesus (d. ca. 541). Yet, in a surviving fragment, Hypatius defends religious art as a useful aid for uneducated people in their advancement from material to spiritual contemplation, although he himself, as follows from his text, does not have a need for religious imagery. This means that Hypatius’ position was independent from that of Dionysius28, and both authors must have relied on the previous common tradition going back to Origen: We ordain that the unspeakable and incomprehensible love of God for us and the sacred struggles of the saints be celebrated in holy writings since so far as we are concerned we take no pleasure at all in sculpture or painting. But we permit simpler people as they are less perfect, to learn by way of initiation about such things by [the sense of] sight which is more appropriate to their natural development, especially as we find that, often and in many respects, even old and new divine commands lower themselves to the level of weaker people and their souls for the sake of salvation We do not, then, disturb the divine [commandments] with regard to the sanctuaries but we stretch out our hand in a more suitable way to those who are still rather imperfect, yet we do not leave them untaught as to the more perfect [knowledge] but we want even them to know that the divine being is not at all identical or the same similar to any of the existing things29. 26. P. ROREM, MosesasParadigm fortheLiturgicalSpiritualityofPseudo-Dionysius, in StudiaPatristica18/2 (1989) 275-279. 27. CMt XII,39 (GCS 40, 155,30–156,17 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ);BLOWERS, Mystics andMountains (n. 15), pp. 5-6. 28. For the skepticism concerning the dependence of Hypatius on Dionysius, proposed by E. KITZINGER, TheCultofImagesintheAgebeforeIconoclasm, in DumbartonOaks Papers 8 (1954) 83-149, p. 138, see S. GERO, HypatiusofEphesusontheCultofImages, in J. NEUSNER (ed.), Christianity,JudaismandOtherGreco-RomanCults:StudiesforMorton SmithatSixty, 2 (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, 12), Leiden, Brill, 1975, 208-216, pp. 211-213. 29. Translated by P.J. ALEXANDER, HypatiusofEphesus:ANoteonImageWorship intheSixthCentury, in HTR45 (1952) 177-184, pp. 179, 181 with the correction based on GERO, HypatiusofEphesusontheCultofImages (n. 28), p. 210; the Greek text is in H.G. THÜMMEL, DieFrühgeschichtederostkirchlichenBilderlehre:TexteundUntersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit (TU, 139), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1992, pp. 320-321.

RESPONSES TO ICONOCLASM IN BYZANTIUM AND ORIGEN’S TRADITION

721

Hypatius explains that religious images are a “pedagogical dispensation” for those who are spiritually weaker (τοῖς ἀσϑενέσι), whose natural development is more akin to the sense of vision, and goes on to explain the purpose of the Cherubim in the Tabernacle as “adaptation” of God to the imperfection of the Israelites, or the star leading the Magi to the Messiah’s place of birth as the natural phenomenon corresponding to their understanding. However, the true goal of the Christians should be “spiritual worship” and striving towards “intelligible beauty” and contemplation of the intelligible and immaterial light (τὸ νοητὸν καὶ ἄϋλον φῶς)30. Hypatius did not have any significant importance in the transition of the idea, – his text most likely fell into oblivion and received some importance only during the late stages of Iconoclastic Controversy, when it was cited in two iconophile sources – a letter of Theodore the Studite31 and the florilegium in Ms. Parisinus gr. 1115 (fol. 254v–255v)32. Following the same theological paradigm, Dionysius, from his mystical perspective, responds rather negatively concerning the ultimate usefulness of religious images, whereas Hypatius, just as Germanus, responds rather positively from a pastoral perspective as a clergyman. Thus, the Iconoclastic Controversy seems to have sharpened and polarized the most extreme approaches from the spectrum of attitudes towards religious representations of the preceding period. In the light of this tradition and without settling the question of religious imagery in a Synodical way, this ambiguity may explain the wavering attitude of Patriarch Germanus. This was at the beginning of the iconoclastic policy of Leo III, since Germanus had kept his post as the Head of the Church of Constantinople for about four years after the first iconoclastic actions of Leo till the imperial silentium, when he was forced to sign a document officiating the Emperor’s policy, which was way too far for the Patriarch33.

30. THÜMMEL, DieFrühgeschichtederostkirchlichenBilderlehre (n. 29), p. 321,45. 31. Epistle 499 (Theodori Studitae Epistulae, 2, ed. G. FATOUROS [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 31], Berlin, De Gruyter, 1991, p. 737,5-10). See also J. GOUILLARD, Hypatios d’Éphèse ou du Pseudo-Denys à Théodore Stoudite, in REByz 19 (1961) 6375. 32. On the manuscript, see A. ALEXAKIS, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 34), Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1996. 33. See S. GERO, JonahandthePatriarch, in VigChr 29 (1975) 141-146, pp. 142-143. On the wavering attitude of Patriarch Germanus in the first years of Iconoclasm, see also P. KARLIN-HAYTER, The“AgeofIconoclasm?”, in Laspiritualitédel’universbyzantindans leverbeetl’image.HommagesoffertsàEdmondVoordeckers (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 30), Turnhout, Brepols, 1997, 137-149, p. 138.

722

V.A. BARANOV

However, the tradition of “pedagogical” iconodulia which originated in Origen’s optimistic view of God as revealing Himself to each and every one according to the measure of his spiritual capacity, proved its frailty precisely because of its moderate and compromising nature. It did not satisfy the Iconoclasts by moderately accepting the use of religious images for a substantial and quite numerous segment of the Church. It became alien to the Iconophiles by its main thesis: “the icons may be useful to some, but not necessary for everyone”, which divided the Church into the lower rank of “simple folk” who are still in need of icons, and the upper rank of the “spiritual athletes” who reached imageless contemplation as the ultimate degree of spiritual perfection. Among iconophile theologians, John of Damascus was the first to recognize the danger of any kind of “esoterism” and to proclaim images to be not merely useful tools for the “uninitiated” but the visual expression of doctrine of Christ’s true Incarnation, indispensable for all members of the Church. John of Damascus precisely aimed his polemics against the “Origenist” positions which were left untouched by the anathemas of the sixth century, promoting the value of vision which formed the basis of the sense-perception of religious imagery and the value of matter, which may enter into perichoretic relations with the divinity without any mediatory substances34. In the course of the Iconoclastic Controversy, the natural practice of using religious representations in ecclesiastical and everyday life was transferred to the realm of a philosophical and theological dispute. Prior to the debate, this popular practice had been interpreted from the position of intellectual elitism which seems to have stemmed from Origen. His influence continued into the eighth century and his theological concepts proved to be viable to supply both parties of the Controversy with arguments for or against the use of religious images. The Iconophiles only sporadically used Origen’s ideas: in addition to Germanus’ argument of usefulness, which might have been mediated by Dionysius35, Patriarch Nicephorus made an 34. See BARANOV, TheologyofEarlyIconoclasm (n. 7), and OrigenandtheIconoclastic Controversy (n. 8). 35. Some scholia to the Corpus Dionysiacum are attributed to Patriarch Germanus (B.R. SUCHLA, DiesogenanntenMaximus-ScholiendesCorpusDionysiacumAreopagiticum, in NachrichtenderAkademiederWissenschafteninGöttingen,Philologisch-Historische Klasse 3 [1980] 31-66, pp. 30-32). Several passages in Germanus’ Epistles to iconoclastic bishops show correspondences with pseudo-Dionysius: on the confinement of the divine nature by space by the Jews or limiting it by visible and sense-perceptible forms by the Pagans (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II/3.2, p. 456,11-18; cf. Dionysius the Areopagite, MysticalTheology I,2, cited above), and on the sensible fire as an image of immaterial light-giving (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II/3.2, p. 474,10-12, cf. Celestial

RESPONSES TO ICONOCLASM IN BYZANTIUM AND ORIGEN’S TRADITION

723

argument on idols as images of non-existing prototypes as opposed to icons, which was probably based on Origen’s HomiliaeinExodum36. Conversely, the Iconoclasts seem to borrow Origen’s entire theological system albeit without naming him, or rather what was left of this system after the condemnations of the sixth century. In effect, the Iconophiles had to develop an alternative theological system which would promote the value of matter and sensible images, and include the image of Christ’s hypostasis as an indispensable and integral consequence of the Incarnation37. John of Damascus, living in the Holy Land, turned out to be the key figure in laying out the iconophile Christological response. Morskoj Prospekt 4–33 630090 Novosibirsk Russia [email protected]

Vladimir A. BARANOV

Hierarchy I,2). On the role of pseudo-Dionysius in the Iconoclastic Controversy, see A. LOUTH, St. Denys the Areopagite and the Iconoclast Controversy, in Y. DE ANDIA (ed.), Denys l’Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident. Actes du Colloque International, Paris,21-24septembre1994 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 151), Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1997, 327-337; ID., TheAppealtotheCappadocian Fathers and Dionysius the Areopagite in the Iconoclast Controversy, in J. BØRTNES – T. HÄGG (eds.), Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reflections, Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen, 2006, 271-281. 36. BARANOV, OrigenandtheIconoclasticControversy (n. 8), pp. 1051-1052. 37. Cf. the Definition of Nicaea II: “Thus, he who venerates the icon, venerates the hypostasis of the person represented on it” (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II/3.3, p. 826,16-17).

ORIGEN AND THE GLORIFIED BODY BULLINGER, SOZZINI AND CALVIN IN DIALOGUE

The destiny of the body after its resurrection and the possibility of a perpetuation – or a renewal – of the limbs and bones were themes that resounded strongly in the era of the Reformations. The intent of this paper is to analyze the Origenian roots of the debate that occupied the churches of this age and which concentrated on the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15. Whilst maintaining an element of continuity between earthly and heavenly body1, Origen’s powerful philosophical explanation of the transformation of the body of the resurrection, which strongly emphasizes the change and transformation, was often the object of discussions and polemics in his eventful Nachleben. His doctrine was the object of heated attacks from representatives of the Latin and more “materialistic” perspective, which was represented by Jerome. At times, it was also assumed as a theological bogeyman that positively inspired new philosophical enterprises, as our case shows once again. The protagonists of the debate at state were Heinrich Bullinger, John Calvin and Lelio Sozzini; the first two were leaders of Reformed churches who were actively building new orthodoxies, the latter, an Italian refugee religioniscausae, an “heretic” as Delio Cantimori understood this definition2, a man not integrated in any of the Churches of his time. In 1545 Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor in the church of Zurich, authorized Matthias Erb to publish in a separate edition chapter 28 of Bullinger’s commentary on Matthew, under the title Resurrectio.Degloriosa 1. Through the notion of εἶδος σωματικόν and λόγος σπερματικός; cf. H. CROUZEL, La doctrine origénienne du corps ressuscité, in BLE 81 (1980) 175-200, 241-266. On Origen’s doctrine of the resurrected body, the bibliography is very extensive; see at least H. CHADWICK, Origen,CelsusandtheResurrectionoftheBody, in HTR 41 (1948) 83-102; H. CROUZEL, La‘première’etla‘seconde’résurrectiondeshommesd’aprèsOrigène, in Didaskalia 3 (1973) 3-19; E. PRINZIVALLI, Aspettiesegetico-dottrinalideldibattitonelIV secolosulletesiorigenianeinmateriaescatologica, in AnnalidiStoriadell’Esegesi 12 (1995) 279-325;EAD., Magister Ecclesiae:IldibattitosuOrigenefraIIIeIVsecolo(SEA, 82),Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2002; EAD.,LarisurrezioneneiPadri, in Morte-RisurrezioneneiPadri, ed. S.A. PANIMOLLE (Dizionario di Spiritualità BiblicoPatristica, 45), Roma, Borla, 2007, 169-288; O. LEHTIPUU, DebatesovertheResurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015. 2. D. CANTIMORI, EreticiitalianidelCinquecento.Ricerchestoriche, Firenze, Sansoni, 1939.

726

M. FALLICA

domininostriIesuChristinostrorumquecorporumresurrectione3. Bullinger here attributed all the blame for an erroneous theological tradition on the resurrection of the body to Origen, who had introduced the concept of permutatio corporum and had denied the exemplariness of Christ’s resurrection. Four years later, John Calvin and Lelio Sozzini, Bullinger’s friend, exchanged five letters concerning, amongst other themes, the resurrection. As the Italian historian Antonio Rotondò has shown4, Sozzini’s arguments in this correspondence and in his brief treatise De resurrectione, which endorsed the theory of the permutatio and the negation of the exemplary value of Christ’s death, answered the point made by Bullinger. Pasquale Terracciano5 has already briefly pointed out the Origenistic heritage of the problem. In their steps, it is possible to identify some stages in which the name of Origen was again at stake in this controversy. I. BULLINGER AGAINST ORIGEN The first step in this analysis is Bullinger’s treatise of 15456, the Resurrectio. An accurate analysis of this treatise is called for to show how the discussion on the resurrection was a new, powerful re-enactment of the controversies of early Christianity. Heinrich Bullinger7 had already treated the theme extensively on more than one occasion. In 1526 he wrote the pamphlet Quodanimaea 3. H. BULLINGER, Resurrectio: De gloriosa domini nostri Iesu Christi nostrorumque corporumresurrectione, Zürich, Christoph Froschauer, 1545. 4. A. ROTONDÒ, Notacritica, in L. SOZZINI, Opere,ed. A. ROTONDÒ, Firenze, Olschki, 1986, pp. 325-326. 5. P. TERRACCIANO, Omnia in figura: L’improntadiOrigenetra’400e’500, Roma, Storia e Letteratura, 2012, pp. 174-175. 6. There exists an old, English translation of Bullinger’s treatise, with the title The HopeoftheFaithful, made by Miles Coverdale, the famous translator of the Bible, Bishop of Exeter and Bullinger’s correspondent; cf. M. COVERDALE, HopeoftheFaithful, in ID., Remains, ed. G. PEARSON, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1846, 135-226. On Miles Coverdale as a link in the network between Zurich, Strasbourg and England, see C. EULER, CouriersoftheGospel:EnglandandZurich,1531-1558, Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 2006, pp. 76-78. 7. On Bullinger, see at least J.W. BAKER, HeinrichBullingerandtheCovenant:The OtherReformedTradition, Athens, OH, Ohio University Press, 1980; C.P. VENEMA, Heinrich BullingerandtheDoctrineofPredestination:Authorof“TheOtherReformedTradition?”, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic, 2002; P. OPITZ, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: EineStudiezuden“Dekaden”, Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 2004; E. CAMPI – P. OPITZ (eds.),HeinrichBullingerLife,Thought,Influence.Zurich,Aug.25-29,2004.International CongressHeinrichBullinger(1504-1575), 2 vols, Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 2007 (here see in particular D. WRIGHT, Henry Bullinger and the Early Church Fathers, I, 357-378;

ORIGEN AND THE GLORIFIED BODY

727

corporibusseparatenondormiant,sedcumChristoincoelisvivant8, the goal of which was to deny the souls any kind of sleep and to proclaim their eternal life with Christ before the last judgement. If something is sleeping before the judgement, it is the body, waiting for the resurrection. In another brief book on Christ’s descent into Hell (De articulo fidei“Descenditadinferna”, Zürich, 1527), Bullinger argues in favor of a liberated life for the souls of the faithful of the Old Testament, with Christ, waiting for the judgement of the flesh. His position about the souls is repeated again in 1535 in an explicitly polemical setting: the Aduersus Omnia Catabaptistarum Prava Dogmata, against the Anabaptists’ teaching about the sleep of the souls until Judgement Day9. Therefore, the Anabaptists’ doctrine was at the forefront of Bullinger’s doctrinal and pastoral preoccupations regarding the resurrection. Of course, the general theme of the resurrection was central in Bullinger’s predication, as we can see in the 8th and 9th sermon of the first decade of the Sermonum Decadesquinque, published in the years 1549/1551, the most important of Bullinger’s works and one of the best known Reformed collections of sermons. As already mentioned, Resurrectiois a chapter of the commentary on Matthew of 154210, designed by the publisher Erb as a brief handbook for the learned public11, together with the preface to the commentary on Mark, entitled DeIesuChristoPontificemaximoetRegefideliumsummo regnanteinecclesiasanctorum. The first seven chapters of the brief treatise, discussing a theme that clearly seems crucial and urgent, are devoted to the veracity of Christ’s resurrection with his body, his ascension to heaven, the fruits of his resurrection. Underlying the text is the refutation of the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of the Savior’s body12. Indeed, those were years of renewed polemics about the Eucharist between the S.-P. BERGJAN, Heinrich Bullinger, patristische Quellen und historische Arbeit in der BehandlungderBilderfrage, I, 389-406). On the relationship with the Church Fathers see also S.-P. BERGJAN, BullingerunddiegriechischenKirchenväterinderkonfessionellenAuseinandersetzung, in E. CAMPI (ed.),HeinrichBullingerundseineZeit:EineVorlesungsreihe, Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 2004 and A. SCHINDLER, Bullinger und die lateinischenKirchenväter, ibid., 161-177. 8. Preserved in manuscript (ZB, Msc A82, ff. 116r-119r), published in H. BULLINGER, TheologischeSchriften, 2, ed. H.-G. VOM BERG, Zürich, Theologischer Verlag, 1991, pp. 127-133. 9. For this summary of Bullinger’s previous works, see G.M. JUHÁSZ, Translating Resurrection:TheDebatebetweenWilliamTyndaleandGeorgeJoyeinItsHistoricaland TheologicalContext, Boston, MA, Brill, 2014, pp. 226-234. 10. H. BULLINGER, InsacrosanctumIesuChristidomininostriEvangeliumsecundum MatthaeumcommentariorumlibriXII, Zürich, Froschover, 1542. 11. M. ERB, EpistolaDedicatoria, in BULLINGER, Resurrectio (n. 3), p. 5. 12. BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), pp. 8v-9r; 20r.

728

M. FALLICA

Lutherans and the Zwinglian tradition, defended by his heir in Zurich13. Bullinger’s exegesis of the ascension envisages that the human nature of Christ, his body and flesh, is now in heaven. Heaven “is a seat and dwelling of the faithful, or blessed believers; a determinate place also, into which the Lord Jesus was received, when he was taken up into the heaven”14. Here Bullinger is suggesting a double meaning of the right hand of God, which is fully developed later on: finite as a certain place and infinite as seat of the faithful, a symbol of his dominion and power. In the first sense, Christ is “in the same heaven, as in a sure certain place, doth Christ now dwell bodily” (locabilicorpore)15, and the same heaven is prepared for the blessed. Scripture also says that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father: this, Bullinger continues, means that, speaking mainly deassumptanatura16, Christ’s nature “being discharged and free from all travail and misery of man, is now all in joy, and partaker of the kingdom everlasting”17. Nevertheless, Bullinger says with Augustine’s Defideet symbolo, to inquire about the whereabouts of the body of Christ in heaven is useless: suffice it to say that he is in heaven18. However, he insists much more on the first meaning of the right hand of God, the local character of heaven and the local and physical presence of Christ in heaven with his flesh, by surely having in mind the Lutheran ubiquity. This first meaning allows him to say that the body in heaven cannot be everywhere; otherwise, all the believers would be everywhere with the Son of God19. Instead, Christ’s promise to men to take them with him and to reserve a place for them in heaven must imply that He also has a local place in heaven: “Christ then, as a very true man, is in heaven, as in one place: wherefore it followeth, that we also shall be in heaven, as in one place certain”20. This brings us to the next point in Bullinger’s reasonings, the fruits of this ascension for humanity. The bodily ascension 13. In 1536 Bullinger refused to sign the Wittenberg Concord between Lutherans and the south-German churches, as he saw it as a betrayal of his party; in 1544 Luther was to publish a book against the Swiss as enemies of the sacrament: C. EULER, HuldrychZwingli andHeinrichBullinger, in L.P. WANDEL (ed.), ACompaniontotheEucharistintheReformation, Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2014, 57-74, pp. 66-67. 14. COVERDALE, The Hope of the Faithful (n. 6), pp. 152; transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 17r. 15. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 153; transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 17v. 16. Ibid. 17. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 156; transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 19v. 18. BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 20r. 19. Ibid. 20. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 160; transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 23r.

ORIGEN AND THE GLORIFIED BODY

729

of the Lord implies that “he with his flesh taken up into heaven (carne sublataaterris) might stay and direct upon the Holy Ghost all worshipping and God’s service of those that are his”21. The earth is deprived of whatever kind of physical presence of the Lord – (also in the Eucharist: here it is implicit) –, as He announced (Mt 26,11), and there is prepared a room for humanity in heaven; moreover, all cult is spiritualized. The presence of a real man in heaven is an unerring witness of the forthcoming resurrection of the flesh, when the members will be conformed to the Head22. From chapter six, Bullinger begins the debate on the true resurrection of our bodies, explained through the resurrection and ascension of the Lord. The doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh is treated with particular attention to Tertullian’s works, repeatedly evoked to explain that “for nothing can arise, save only what fell”23. Various ecclesiastical symbols and ancient authors are called on to testify to the resurrection of this body and flesh, as attested by the use of the deictic (credohuiuscarnis resurrectionem,oportetcorruptibilehocinduereincorruptionem), which, Bullinger surmises, makes us think of a finger, pointed at this carnal flesh24. Here we find quoted for the first time the debate between Jerome and John, Bishop of Jerusalem, later on a specific object of my analysis. Jerome is used to deny any distinction between caro (flesh) and corpus (body), a distinction that, in his opinion, was made only to confess the resurrection of the latter but not of the former. Bullinger easily admits the serious difficulties involved in the belief in the resurrection: who would easily believe in the restoration of the same bodies which will turn into putridity and soil and be eaten by beasts or burnt to ashes25? The answer to these difficulties lies in the contemplation of Christispecimen, in which we can see what the future resurrection will be. The words of Job (19,25-27) are invoked to explain that Christ will come on the last day for the Judgement, and He will revive the dust (pulvis) that is the flesh of men. Seeing God – a periphrasis for eternal bliss – happens decarne or incarne: it means, Bullinger explains, to be removed bodily into eternal joy26. Therefore, in the resurrection we will be substantiaetnatura27, 21. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 165; transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 27r. 22. Ibid.,p. 28r. 23. Cf. Adv. Marcionem V,8. 24. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 167; transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 30v. 25. BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 31r. 26. Ibid.,p. 33r. 27. Ibid.,p. 33v.

730

M. FALLICA

in substance and nature, the same that we were before death: we will have the same limbs, head, eyes, mouth… Bullinger mentions other proofs of the resurrection of the flesh from the Old and the New Testaments, claiming that he would have to report all the latter, to quote each passage about this article of faith, the one most ardently defended by the apostles. The seventh chapter is devoted to the manner in which our bodies will be resurrected28. Bullinger describes the moment of the final Judgement, in which Jesus will come in glory, showing himself in his real corporal substance. At the sound of the trumpet the flesh will be resurrected, and all the people who are alive that day will be changed in the blink of an eye29. So, everyone will stand with his flesh before Christ’s tribunal, waiting for the judgement. The bodies which were buried will be resurrected, and from the state of mortality and corruption they will be made immortal and imperishable (1 Cor 15,53). The bodies will be resurrected in the substance and truth of their previous state30 and the nature of men will be the same, except for purity, integrity and immortality. Bullinger also explains the meaning of the expression corpusgloriosum, against those exegetes who, through this expression taken from the Scriptures, made the reality of the bodies void31. This is the first attack on Origen and his tradition, to be fully developed later. Corpusgloriosum means “not a body utterly made void or brought to nothing, or altogether turned into a spirit, and therefore having no room and place, incomprehensible and invisible; but it shall be an upright, very true human body”32. In the glorified body there will remain reality and substance33 and the transformation will be only “in the infirmities that happen unto us”. As “glory” means in Scripture “light, brightness, shine”, the glorified bodies “shall be clear, bright, and shining bodies, even as the body of Christ was in his transfiguration”. In brief, this glorification will be a “freedom or discharge from this frail servitude and bondage, and a deliverance into the glorious and comfortable liberty of God’s children”34. Bullinger also addresses the problem, much present in medieval treatises 28. Ibid.,pp. 37r-44r. 29. Ibid.,p. 37v. Cf. 1 Cor 15,52. 30. Ibid.,p. 38v. 31. Ibid.,p. 39r. 32. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 178; transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 39v. 33. BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3),p. 40r. 34. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 180; transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 41v.

ORIGEN AND THE GLORIFIED BODY

731

on the subject35, of the members of the body and their destiny in the body’s resurrection. Bullinger answers that all the members of the body will be preserved, but they will desist from the use of the corruptibile, as Paul says (1 Cor 15,50): this flesh and blood that the Apostle says will not inherit the kingdom is not the substance of the body, but bodily temptations36. Another passage of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians can be easily misunderstood, in Bullinger’s view: “It is sown a natural body and shall rise a spiritual body”. This does not mean “as though the body should become a spirit, or be changed into a spirit”37. A body is truly called spiritual if it is prepared to the coelestishabitatio38. After having pointed out the possible errors in the understanding of the resurrection of the body, Bullinger at last deals directly with our theme: the eighth chapter of the treatise is devoted to the errors of the ancients regarding this article of faith. The list of the ancients who erred is long: Simonians, Valentinians, Marcionites …39. Bullinger outlines two opposite extremes that are to be avoided in this regard: the conception of a “golden, yet earthly Jerusalem”40, in which we will delight ourselves with earthly desires after the resurrection; the theory about the condition of the glorified body, which shows no difference from the spirit41, “having taken away and overthrown the corporal nature” (corporea natura distracta subversaque)42. According to Jerome, who rejected both, the first position is of carnal men, who love only the flesh; the other is typical of those who, “being unthankful for the benefits of God, would not have and bear the flesh, wherein Christ yet was born and rose again”43. The correct position is the one in the middle, which avoids glorifying animal desires and “to make the glorified bodies no more spiritual than the perfectness and truth of the bodies may permit and suffer”44. 35. Cf. for instance C. WALKER BYNUM, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity,200-1336, New York, Columbia University Press, 1995. 36. BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 43r. 37. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 182, transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 43v. 38. BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 43v. 39. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 179; transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 40v. 40. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 184, transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 44v. 41. BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 44v. 42. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 184, transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 44v. 43. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 184, transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), pp. 44v-45r. 44. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 185, transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 45r.

732

M. FALLICA

The author responsible for the second error, much more treated by Bullinger than the Millenarist one, is now presented. Old writers said, Bullinger relates, that Origen did not fully confess the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, “but in the resurrection he fantasied and imagined such a body, as hath little difference from a spirit”45. To this Bullinger replied with the notion, made classic by Gregory of Nazianze, that “what has not been assumed has not been healed”, here formulated by the Ecclesiastical definition of Gennadius, which incorporated the anti-Origenian stance: If that which falleth do stand up again, then shall our flesh truly rise again: for the same falleth in very deed, and shall not come to nothing, as Origen’s opinion was, that there should be made a sifting and change of the bodies (immutatiocorporum), namely, that there should be given us a new body for the flesh; but even the same frail flesh that falleth of the just, and vanisheth, shall with our feebleness rise again, that because of sin it may suffer pain, or else, according to his deserts, continue in eternal honour and glory46.

At this point, Bullinger directly introduces Jerome’s letter to Pammachius against the errors of Bishop John of Jerusalem to refute Origen’s thought, which Jerome quotes. In Origen’s words the orthodox position on the resurrection of the body stands between two errors: Origen saith, that “in the church there be sprung up two errors, the one from us, the other from the heretics; namely, that we, as the simple and lovers of the flesh (φιλόσαρκας), say, that even these bones, this blood, and this flesh, that is, that our face, members, and all the proportions of the body, and the whole body itself, shall rise again at the last day, so that we shall also go with the feet, work with the hands, see with the eyes, and hear with the ears”. “This”, saith he, “we speak as simple, homely, gross, and ignorant people. But the heretics, as Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, and mad Manes, deny wholly and utterly the resurrection of the flesh or body, giving salvation only unto the soul; and saying, that our words are nothing, when we affirm that, according to the ensample and pattern of our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall rise again; saying, that the Lord himself rose in a fantasy, or spirit, and that not only his resurrection, but also his birth came to pass more in the imagination, than in very truth; that is, that he was not born in very deed, but supposed to be born”. “Now for the opinion and mind of both these parties”, Origen saith, “it pleased him not; namely, that he abhorreth the flesh on our side, and the fantasy on the heretics’ part; for each of them doth too much: and namely they of our side, for that they would be again the same they were afore; and for the other, that they utterly deny the resurrection of the bodies47. 45. Ibid. 46. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 185, transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio (n. 3), p. 45r. Cf. Gennadius Massiliensis (?), De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus VI (PL 58, 982C). 47. COVERDALE, The Hope of the Faithful (n. 6), pp. 186-187, transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), pp. 45v-46r; cf. Hieronymus, ContraIohannem HierosolymitanumEpiscopumadPammachium, ed. J.L. FEIERTAG, Turnhout, Brepols, 1999, p. 41.

ORIGEN AND THE GLORIFIED BODY

733

Bullinger here summarizes Jerome’s quotation from Origen, leaving aside some important parts, such as Origen’s explanation of the necessity of the resurrection of the body, namely the divine justice that requires that we will be punished in the same body that sinned48. This passage, as Jerome admits, could be understood as saying that Origen is confessing the resurrection of the flesh as he, Jerome, intends it49. Also missing is Origen’s exegesis of the grain of wheat (1 Cor 15,36-44), which involves the permanence of the λόγος σπερματικός as the internal force which germinates at the resurrection, guaranteeing a permanence of the identity whilst insisting on the transformation. It is at this point that Bullinger resumes his quotation, when dealing with the nature of the spiritual body: there is promised us another body, namely, a spiritual and heavenly (spirituale et aethereum) that cannot be comprehended nor seen with eyes, nor having any weight, and that, according to the circumstance and diversity of the place that it shall be in, shall be changed50.

It is the kind of body that Bullinger has already explicitly refuted. The last point that Bullinger chooses to report is the passage in which Origen refuses the analogy with the resurrection of Christ: O ye simple, the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to deceive you, in that he shewed his hands and feet, stood on the sea shore, went over the field with Cleophas, and said he had flesh and bones. This body, that was not born of the seed of man, and of lust or pleasure of the flesh, is endued with greater freedom than another body, and with his nature is not unlike the spiritual and heavenly body. For when the doors were shut he entered, and in breaking of bread vanished he away from their sight51.

At this point, Bullinger leaves to Jerome the task of refuting Origen’s views and of expounding his own doctrine of the resurrection, which he fully endorses. The truth of the resurrection, as Bullinger in the wake of Jerome confessed it, is not understandable without flesh and bones, without blood and limbs. The proof of the orthodoxy of this exegesis is offered by Augustine’s Retractions, in which the Bishop of Hippo corrects 48. Cf. Hieronymus, ContraIohannem, ed. FEIERTAG, p. 43: aliarationeresurrectionem corporum confitemur, eorum quae in sepulcris posita sunt, dilapsaque in cineres: PauliPauli,etPetriPetri,etsingulasingulorum,nequeenimfasestutinaliiscorporibus animaepeccaverint,inaliistorqueantur:neciustiiudicis,aliacorporaproChristosanguinemfundere,etaliacoronari. 49. Cf. Hieronymus, ContraIohannem, ed. FEIERTAG, p. 43: Quishaecaudiens,resurrectionemcarniseumnegareputet? 50. COVERDALE, TheHopeoftheFaithful(n. 6), p. 187, transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 46r-v; cf. Hieronymus, ContraIohannem, ed. FEIERTAG, p. 46. 51. COVERDALE, The Hope of the Faithful (n. 6), pp. 187-188, transl. of BULLINGER, Resurrectio(n. 3), p. 46v: cf. Hieronymus, ContraIohannem, ed. FEIERTAG, p. 47.

734

M. FALLICA

his previous position in the De fide et symbolo, making it clear that the heavenly body is not to be interpreted as if the substance of the flesh will no longer exist. Bullinger’s treatise ends by addressing the resurrection of the ungodly, their damnation and eternal punishment and, conversely, the state of the blessed in heaven, their joy and delight. This overview of Bullinger’s treatise has hopefully shown how his doctrine on the resurrection of the body is constructed against Origen’s exegesis and his inheritance. The Swiss Reformer had known the master of Alexandria since his early years52, recognizing the extent to which some passages of Jerome depend on him53 and even using him as a witness in his anti-Anabaptist treatise54. However, he is very severe concerning Origen’s excessive use of allegory55, and, being heavily influenced by Jerome, he makes Origen the frontrunner of a dangerous error in matters of eschatology. The most interesting proof of that is the inclusion in the Second HelveticConfession, written by Bullinger for his church, of an explicit condemnation of “all who deny a real resurrection of the flesh, or who with John of Jerusalem, against whom Jerome wrote, do not have a correct view of the glorification of bodies”56. John of Jerusalem here stands for the true enemy of the resurrection of the flesh, Origen of Alexandria. II. CALVIN AND SOZZINI Leaving aside Bullinger’s treatise, it is time to address the two other protagonists of this debate with the ancients regarding the resurrection, and therefore introduce Sozzini’s dialogue with John Calvin. Lelio Sozzini57, a member of a prominent Italian family in which he was educated as a jurist, after the contacts with heterodox communities 52. As testified by the diary’s entries in 1521: Delibo quaedam Ambrosii quoque et OrigenisetAugustini and 1525: hocannopropublicalectioneexposuiepistolamPauliad Romanos,inquaexplanandaadiutussumcommentariisOrigenis,Ambrosii,Theophylacti, Melanchtonis, praecipue vero Erasmi: cf. H. BULLINGER, Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre1504-1574:Zum400.GeburtstagBullingersam18.Juli1904, ed. E. EGI, Basel, Geering, 1904, pp. 6; 10. 53. WRIGHT, BullingerandtheChurchFathers (n. 7), p. 361. 54. Ibid., p. 372. 55. Cf. M. SCHÄR, DasNachlebendesOrigenesimZeitalterdesHumanismus, Basel, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1979, p. 263, who quotes Bullinger’s harsh critique of the excesses of allegory in Origen’s CommentaryonRomans. This type of critique was very common amongst the 16th century reformers (Luther and Melanchthon, for instance), as Schär shows. 56. BookofConfessions,StudyEdition, Louisville, KY, Geneva Press, 1996, p. 111. 57. On Lelio Sozzini, besides Rotondò’s critical edition of the Opera omnia, see G.H. WILLIAMS, TheRadicalReformation, Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1962; A. STELLA,

ORIGEN AND THE GLORIFIED BODY

735

in Padua and Bologna, linked to the teachings of Camillo Renato58, left Italy, due to his explicit positions against the ongoing Council, at that moment in session in Bologna. In 1547 he began travelling throughout Europe, mostly in Germany and Poland, with long stays in Zurich, where he benefitted from the friendship and protection of Bullinger59. Only brief fragments of his works are still extant: one of them, the Paraphrasisin initiumevangeliis.Johannis, with his groundbreaking exegesis of the Prologue of John, revealed after his death the heterodoxy of his Trinitarian thought from a Zwinglian or Calvinistic perspective60. His nephew Fausto, who considered Lelio as his only guide, was destined to be one of the most prominent figures of the anti-Trinitarian movement, from that point onward known as Socinianism. In the following we will discuss his brief text, Deresurrectione, only known through later printings of 17th-century Socinians61, and his letters to Calvin. As we cannot exactly date the letters and the treatise, we will talk firstly about the letters to Calvin, in which Sozzini prudently expounds his doubts62, and then examine his own, unpublished writing, in which he speaks more freely.

AnabattismoeantitrinitarismoinItalianelXVIsecolo:Nuovericerchestoriche, Padova, Liviana, 1969;V. MARCHETTI, GruppiereticalisenesidelCinquecento, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1975; M. VALENTE, ISozziniel’Inquisizione, in L. SZCZUCKI (ed.), FaustusSocinus and His Heritage, Krakow, Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2005, 29-51; G. DALL’OLIO, Sozzini,Lelio, in A. PROSPERI (ed.),Dizionariostoricodell’Inquisizione, vol. III, Pisa, Edizioni della Normale, 2010, 1467. 58. However, Antonio Rotondò suggests that there were no direct contacts between Sozzini and Renato and he is very sceptical about Cantimori’s suggestion that Sozzini had an Anabaptist view of the afterlife such as Renato’s (cf. ROTONDÒ, Nota critica [n 4], pp. 323-324). Rotondò rightly points out that Calvin does not link Sozzini’s positions with the Anabaptists’ ones. 59. The attitude of the Zurich Church towards Lelio and other radicals was examined by M. TAPLIN, The Italian Reformers and the Zurich Church, c.1540-1620, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2003, p. 62. Taplin describes in such a way the conciliatory attitude of Bullinger and his colleagues towards Lelio: “they saw their task as being to offer guidance to an erring but talented younger colleague, to persuade him to divert his energies away from unprofitable doctrinal speculation back to what Bullinger describes as ‘practical theology’”. This attitude was fostered by the belief that “private heresies” should not be sanctioned, not being dangerous to the faith of the community. 60. It is possible that the friendship between Sozzini and Bullinger deteriorated only at the very end after Bullinger discovered Sozzini’s most radical views: four days after his death, Bullinger called him a versipellishorribilis, a horrible person that changes his skin, skilled in dissimulation (cf. Zurich, Stadtarchiv, VIII. C. 48: TotenbuchderStadtkirchen,1549-1574,sub18 May 1562, quoted in SOZZINI, Opere [n. 4], pp. 142-143). 61. ROTONDÒ, Notacritica (n. 4), pp. 314-321. 62. The complete correspondence between Sozzini and Calvin can be found in CO 13-17, nos. 1191, 1212, 1231, 1323, 1341, 1361, 2219, 3100, 3121. Letters 1191, 1212, 1231 and 1323 are translated in R. LAZZARO, ItalianReformationStudiesinHonorofLaeliusSocinus, ed. J.A. TEDESCHI, Firenze, Felice Le Monnier, 1965, 217-230.

736

M. FALLICA

On May 4, 1549, Sozzini writes a very respectful and courteous letter to John Calvin, praising his book Devitandissuperstitionibusand asking some questions, first of all about the marriage with a “Papist” woman and then about “Papist” baptism. Then, in a letter not anymore extant or in a private conversation, he asks something about the resurrection. We know that because in a letter of June or July 1549 Calvin writes that Sozzini has eagerly asked him to deal with the question of the resurrection of the flesh, which, Calvin says, “although it presents no great difficulty in my mind, nevertheless requires more time and effort”, with the help of “a good number of scriptural passages”63.He starts by declaring that the madness of the Manicheans, who deny the resurrection of the flesh, must be refuted. Calvin is well aware of the position of his correspondent: “that the resurrection of this flesh seems to you an incredible thing is of little wonder”64. But he admonishes: “however, that you should, because of this prejudice, have decided it to be enough simply to believe that one day in the future we shall be clad in new bodies, is inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture”. He underlines the fact that “without question immortality is promised expressly for these very bodies which are now subject to decay”, otherwise the corruptible will not be raised to incorruption, as Paul has said. Calvin offers a list of proofs of the resurrection of the flesh and against the notion of “new bodies”. This body in fact has been vivified by the sacraments, this body has sinned or has earned its reward, and this body will be resurrected. Those who deny the resurrection deny the presence of Christ in heaven: He himself took his body again. Everyone who will be found alive at the Judgement will be subjected to a change, to be understood as a mutation in quality: “if a change happens unto all, then certainly this very flesh will be renewed”65. If there is a difference, it will be only in the quality of the bodies, as Paul said to the Corinthians: “what is mortal may be swallowed up in life” (2 Cor 5,4). As is evident from the previous analysis, Calvin is on the same side as Bullinger, using a collection of proof texts both from the Scriptures and the Fathers which are quite well established. After some other minor arguments, Calvin drops the subject and concludes the letter with a somehow alarmed greeting: “I hope that these words will satisfy you… for our friendship’s sake I have deemed it On this correspondence see also L. SIMONUTTI, Il Sacro e la carne: Calvino versus LelioSozzinieisuoiseguaci, in F. GIACONE (ed.), Calvininsolite.Actesducolloquede Florence(12–14mars2009), Paris, Classiques Garnier, 2012, 487-502. 63. Calvin to Lelio Sozzini, June or July 1549, tr. LAZZARO, ItalianReformationStudies (n. 62),p. 221. 64. Ibid.,p. 222. 65. Ibid.,p. 223.

ORIGEN AND THE GLORIFIED BODY

737

wise to apprise you of the fact that recently, when I listened to you, I was somehow apprehensive that this opinion had struck within you roots too deep for you to cast it off with ease”66. Calvin’s fears were well-founded, because in the subsequent letter67 Sozzini comes back to the issue. He poses the problem in terms of identity and the permanence of this identity: who are we? Or rather, What shall we become and of what shall we consist? Will there exist only our soul in that blessedness … or will this present body, too, although it is endowed with a different kind of nature, exist likewise at some future time? For, a good number of scriptural passages seem to confirm this latter proposition, while reason readily grants the former.

Having enunciated this sharp opposition between Scripture and reason, Sozzini hastily adds: Not that I am of that school of thought which considers nothing believable that is contrary to reason. But as in many other matters, inthis also may the inexpert be assisted. It is a difficult thing, I admit, especially in the way of the Lord, not to place one’s faith outright in the authoritatively established word of God. And yet, in the other hand, it is no less difficult to persuade oneself that impossible things can come to pass, and to force one’s will to aspire to something which the intellect hopelessly suggest can never be. Not that I would not like to think so68!

Having described the resurrection of the flesh as impossibilia, hopelessly unbelievable, he goes beyond the divide between faith and reason that he had described before, and he suggests that what Scripture wants to do with this anthropopathies is to make easily understandable to our senses, not only that ineffable blessedness but even our own selves, who would otherwise be invisible and incomprehensible to ourselves, until such time as we may truly behold God himself in Christ as he is – bodily, that is ... Unless I am mistaken, we should have to expect an alteration of the body, not of its qualities, and a certain kind of passing of the soul, not a return to its old tabernacle.

Having cast doubts on the very existence of the anthropomorphic resurrection of our bodies, Sozzini finally opts for an alteration of the body, not simply of its qualities. Calvin’s reaction was firm and harsh: he declared that he, unlike his correspondent, has “no desire to have greater knowledge than I have provided: 66. Ibid., p. 224. 67. Sozzini to Calvin, 25 July 1549, transl. LAZZARO, ItalianReformationStudies (n. 62), p. 225; cf. SOZZINI, Opere(n. 4), p. 154. 68. Ibid.

738

M. FALLICA

if you have more arguments, they must be sought elsewhere”69. The dialogue between Sozzini and Calvin on this subject stopped here; but the objections of a most learned and respected theologian such as Sozzini were taken very seriously by Calvin, who, sensing the danger of this kind of logic, would later re-write the Institutio christianae religionis on this subject having in mind Sozzini’s points and answering them more broadly70. III. SOZZINI AND THE RESURRECTION: FRAGMENT OF AN ORIGENIAN DOCTRINE Sozzini’s few pages on the resurrection, which were not printed in his lifetime, appear to us as an unfinished sketch of a more complex position, which is now difficult to recover. Antonio Rotondò has pointed out the connection with his friend Bullinger’s erudite exegesis: in the opposition drawn by Bullinger between the true faith of the Church, represented by Tertullian, Jerome and Augustine, and the Origenian and Origenistic errors, Sozzini, without explicitly mentioning Origen, takes the side of Origen71, or, more correctly, Jerome’s quotations of Origen. In these four 69. Calvin to Sozzini, 7 December 1549, transl. LAZZARO, ItalianReformationStudies (n. 62), p. 228; cf. SOZZINI, Opere(n. 4), pp. 163-164. 70. See SOZZINI, Opere (n. 4), pp. 77-80. It is not the only point in which Calvin revised the Institutio bearing in mind Lelio’s objections: Cf. J. CALVIN, Responsio ad aliquotLaeliiSociniquaestiones(1555), CR 10: 1,160-165; see E.D. WILLIS, TheInfluenceofLaeliusSocinusonCalvin’sDoctrinesoftheMeritsofChristandtheAssurance of Faith, in LAZZARO, Italian Reformation Studies (n. 62), 231-241; R.A. PETERSON, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement, Phillipsburg, NJ, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1983, p. 72, Calvin gave greater attention to the doctrine of the merits of Christ, objecting to Sozzini’s position which has not survived in writing and which argues that Christ’s merits can obscure God’s grace. It is impossible here to expand on Calvin’s own doctrine of the resurrection: cf. his InstitutioReligionisChristianae II,16 and the commentary on 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians. 71. It is worth noting another point in which Origen’s authority is at stake in the debate between Sozzini and Bullinger, through the decisive mediation of Erasmus of Rotterdam: it is witnessed in Bullinger’s letter of the 21st of February 1552. In this letter Bullinger answers Sozzini’s doubts on the exegesis of Mt 16,20. Bullinger argues for the irrelevance of this verse, in which Jesus orders his disciples not to tell anyone that he is the Messiah, regarding the general mission of the Church, which is precisely to announce the coming of Christ. Sozzini objected, as Bullinger reports: quomodoautempriusadpraedicandum regnumDeimissisunt,sinondebuerantcuiquamdicereChristumesseMessiam? …Sinonperspicuevideruntabinitio,cumpraedicatummitterenturregnumDei,ipsum passionis Messiae mysterium, quomodo, obsecro, regnum Dei praedicarunt? Potestne regnum filii Dei praedicari, redemptionis modo, per quem regno Dei inserimur, non exposito? (SOZZINI, Opere[n. 4], p. 187; cf. ROTONDÒ, Introduzione, in SOZZINI, Opere, pp. 53-54). Erasmus in his Annotationes in Matthaeum, ed. P.E. HOVINGH (Desiderius Erasmus’ Opera Omnia, VI/5), Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2000, p. 249, pointed out the existence of textual variants of this passage (cf. Comm.InMt XII, pp. 15-19). Sozzini quotes

ORIGEN AND THE GLORIFIED BODY

739

pages, he challenges the resurrection of the bodies, these bodies in which we have lived, with classic arguments. In the incipit Sozzini poses one of the most difficult and classic problems for the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, namely the deterioration of the body, the continual process of change in which the matter of the body incurs72. Already Bullinger had addressed the rationalistic objections to the resurrection. The possibility that only some limbs of the body should be resurrected in the end is quickly and firmly dismissed as preposterous by Sozzini. Perhaps monstrous people and castratiwould obtain noses or eyes that they did not have in their first life? Why do these adventitia not disturb us while the creation of new, perfect bodies does? The exemplary value of Christ’s resurrection is openly refused: deChristoautemratioestlongediversa73; as already mentioned, this was the solution proposed by Bullinger to resolve the alleged impossibilities involved in the resurrection of the flesh. In fact, its state after the resurrection was between normal mortal life and celestial life; also Bullinger’s exegesis of the right hand of God is refused74. Moreover, how could we make use of the bodies, of this formacorporis, in eternal happiness? If we will be like angels, why should we have bodies? This stern refusal of every kind of realistic interpretation of the resurrection of the bodies, the emphasis on the continual transformation of the body, the consideration of Christ’s resurrection as suigeneris, the angelic condition of the resurrected bodies, all these elements lead back to Origen, not only to the passages carefully quoted by Jerome, but also to other works75. Finally, Sozzini proclaims his renunciation of all the sophistries of his opponents, especially Calvin, in the Confessiofidei of 1555, which was written by Sozzini at Bullinger’s request and which was designed to assure his enemies of his orthodoxy. In particular, he denounced Calvin’s speculations on the benefit accorded to us by God, stating his hope in the rising from dust omnino76. However, this faith is enunciated in very Origen’s Commentary on Romans also in De sacramentis dissertatio (SOZZINI, Opere, p. 87), for the meaning of the word “circumcision” in Paul’s letters. 72. SOZZINI, Opere(n. 4), pp. 77-78. 73. Ibid.,p. 79. 74. Necobstatillumquoquevisumfuisse,postquamincoelumsublatusDeoadstatad dextram;potestenimrexillepotentissimusqualibetrationemortalibussuisseconspiciendumpraebere;ibid.,p. 79. 75. In Against Celsus (CC IV,62), for example, Origen explicitly says that Christ’s body after the resurrection is not the same as a human body, but that he lives in a condition between his earthly body and his glorified body. Origen frequently compares the quality of the resurrected body with the angelic condition (CMt XVII,30). 76. SOZZINI, Opere(n. 4), p. 98.

740

M. FALLICA

vague and ambiguous terms, as often in the text77. Sozzini concludes the Confessio by repeating his desire and intent of acting adamplificandam rerumdivinarumcognitionem78, in the many passages of the Scriptures still open to investigation and doctrinal progress. According to Sozzini, the resurrection of the body seems to be one of these points. IV. SOME CONCLUSIONS The aim of this paper was to demonstrate how in a polemical setting posed by Bullinger, which identifies Origen as the enemy and the father of errors regarding the resurrection, following Jerome and Gennadius, Sozzini takes side with Origen. In this debate Origen on the one hand, is once again invested with the role of the enemy of the true faith, a direct antecedent of the modern heretics: through Bullinger and the English translation of Coverdale, the anti-Origenistic stance, typical of certain areas of the Reformation, would be consolidated. On the other hand, it is clear that Origen pursued a new and bold investigation into the resurrection of the flesh and the body. The point is precisely the one touched on by Calvin, in his letter of December 1549, bringing to an end the debate with Sozzini: “I can hear your objection: Since this is the chief fundamental principle of our faith, since on it rests all of our happiness, research into it seems not to be pointless”79.Calvin’s choice was to end things before they became too dangerous, to stop pointless and possibly heretical research; Bullinger, a friend of Sozzini to the end, admonished him once, afraid of the results of his investigations, saying that nostrareligiononestinfinita,sedincompendiumredacta80. Sozzini’s choice, resurrecting old debates and finding new ways, was to continue the quest and to refuse the compendium. Sapienza Università di Roma Piazzale Aldo Moro 5 IT-00185 Roma Italy [email protected]

Maria FALLICA

77. See E.M. HULME, LelioSozzini’sConfessionofFaith, in PersecutionandLiberty. EssaysinHonorofGeorgeLincolBurr, New York, The Century Co., 1931, 211-225. 78. SOZZINI, Opere(n. 4), p. 99. 79. Calvin to Sozzini, 7 December 1549, transl. LAZZARO, ItalianReformationStudies (n. 63), p. 229. 80. Bullinger to Sozzini, 21 February 1552; SOZZINI, Opere(n. 4), p. 182.

ORIGEN, “DESTROYER OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES”? ORIGEN AND THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA ON EPHESIANS 5,31-32*

I. INTRODUCTION About one hundred and fifty years ago the church historian Philipp Hergenröther mentioned the vicinity and relationship of Syria and Antioch to the Holy Land as one of the factors in the formation of the so-called Antiochene school of exegesis1. While it is true that the knowledge of Syriac contributed to the Antiochene understanding of particularities in the language of the Greek Old Testament, the geographical vicinity to the Holy Land is, in contemporary discussions, no longer brought forward as a point of real significance. As I will suggest at the end of this paper, another topographic factor may have been of greater importance in the history of the Antiochene school: the fact that Julian the Apostate had his residence in Antioch in the winter of 362/363, when he wrote his infamous AgainsttheGalileans. But I will begin with the view of Theodore, the bishop of Mopsuestia, on Origen. Theodore describes the allegorists as “destroyers of the Holy Scriptures”, because they equate the Bible with pagan myths. In the preface to his commentaryon Ps 118(119), Theodore traces the origin of the Christian allegorists back to Origen, as did Porphyry before him. Theodore says that Origen could not find anyone who would teach him the explanation of the Scriptures according to the truth, so he turned to Philo, the Jew who had introduced the pagan method of allegorical interpretation into biblical exegesis. The result was, according to Theodore, that Origen read ideas into the Scriptures that are incoherent and contrary to the plain sense. Therefore, “he is a fool and an idiot” (¿LÓÎÙxz{€z{ĀÙs¿ćáÞé)2. Theodore assails Origen with similar * Research for this paper has been made possible by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation in the context of the project TheodoreofMopsuestia’sPaulineCommentaries:AReappraisal ontheBasisofNewly-DiscoveredSyriacSources. 1. P. HERGENRÖTHER, DieantiochenischeSchuleundihreBedeutungaufexegetischem Gebiete, Würzburg, Stahel, 1866, p. 68: “[G]erade Syrien [war] auch durch seine Nähe und Verwandtschaft mit dem hl. Lande besonders geeignet zu historischer, topographischer und archäologischer Erklärung”. 2. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ExpositioinPsalmos118, praef., 4, in ThéodoredeMopsueste.FragmentssyriaquesduCommentairedesPsaumes(Psaume118etPsaumes138148), ed. L. VAN ROMPAY(CSCO, 435-436; Scriptores Syri, 189-190), Leuven, Peeters, 1982, text p. 12 lines 23-24, French transl. p. 16.

742

C. HOOGERWERF

invective – he speaks about “insanity”, “madness”, and “blasphemy” – when he argues that Origen’s allegorical method made it simple for heretics to appeal to Origen in order to legitimate their views3. The questions are: does Theodore’s description of Origen’s exegesis correspond to the actual exegesis of the latter, and why does Theodore use such strong language? I wish to answer these questions by examining Theodore’s and Origen’s actual interpretation of Eph 5,31-32, in order to better understand the difference between them. Theodore discussed this New Testament text in the same preface to his commentary on Psalm 118(119). Apparently, he considered it an important text in the debate about allegorical interpretation. The author of the Epistle to the Ephesians exhorts his audience on the subject of love between husband and wife. After citing Gen 2,24 (“‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’”), he adds: “This is a great mystery, and I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5,3132). II. ORIGEN ON EPHESIANS 5,31-32 How did Origen interpret and use Eph 5,31-324? In one set of texts, Origen contrasts the unity of the flesh with other kinds of unity. In his HomiliesontheSongofSongs, he explains Song of Songs 2,4b, “arrange love towards me” (τάξατε ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἀγάπην) as pointing towards an arrangement or a hierarchy of various kinds of love. Husbands should love their spouses, he says, “for nobody ever hated his own flesh, but love her as you love flesh: ‘They will be two’, it says, not in one spirit, but ‘they will be two in one flesh’” (Eph 5,28-31). The relationship with the Lord, however, can be described as “one spirit” (1 Cor 6,17)5. Elsewhere, 3. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ExpPs118, text pp. 11-13, French transl. pp. 14-18. 4. I will not discuss the allusion to Eph 5,32 in Origen, FragmentaecatenisinEpistulamprimamadCorinthios 6; its tangential use in CommentariiinMatthaeum:Commentariorum series 63-64; and Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos (interprete Rufino) V,1,38, where Eph 5,32 is used as an argument to interpret “the future” (Rom 5,14) with regard to Christ uniting himself with the church. For an overview of Origen’s interpretation of Adam, see C.P. BAMMEL, AdaminOrigen, in R. WILLIAMS (ed.), TheMakingof Orthodoxy.EssaysinHonourofHenryChadwick, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, 62-93. 5. Origen, In Canticum canticorum homiliae II (latine, interprete Hieronymo) II,8; OmeliesulCanticodeiCantici, ed. M. SIMONETTI, Roma, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla; Milano, A. Mondadori, 1998, p. 84.

ORIGEN, “DESTROYER OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES”?

743

he writes that the appropriate description of marriage is “one flesh” (Gen 2,24), that of the union with the Lord “one spirit” (1 Cor 6,17), and that of the Son with the Father “one God” (Jn 10,30)6. In the Commentary on John, while discussing the difference between believing in God and knowing God, Origen interprets the first reaction of Adam to his wife (Gen 2,23) as only a belief, whereas he really knew her only after “he had known his wife” (Gen 4,1). He continues: “And if someone takes offence because of the fact that we have taken the words ‘Adam knew Eve his wife’ as an example of the knowledge of God, let him first consider the words ‘This mystery is great’” (Eph 5,32)7. Here, the argument in Eph legitimates Origen’s own comparison between the knowledge of God and the unity between husband and wife. Regarding Origen’s Commentary on Ephesians, only one fragment of the comments on Eph 5,31-32, which is of a text-critical nature, has survived8. Luckily, Jerome’s commentary on the same epistle offers a way out, because he largely followed the commentary of Origen. Part of Jerome’s comments on Eph 5,31-32 can be identified as stemming from Origen9. In general, Origen’s commentary on the whole pericope is in line with the hortatory tone of Ephesians, but he elaborates on certain aspects of the comparison between the relation of husband and wife on the one hand, and of Christ and the church on the other10. That the church is “without wrinkle”, is associated with having stripped off “the old self” (Col 3,9-10)11. Another particular characteristic of Origen’s interpretation is that he cannot accept that nobody ever hated his own flesh. His solution is to read “flesh” as “flesh insofar it is to see the salvation of God”. In other words, caring for the body is to assimilate it to the soul. In the same way, wives may be turned into men, so that there will be neither male nor female12. Jerome calls this approach a “fig6. Origen, Dialogus cum Heracleida III; Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide, ed. J. SCHERER (SC, 67), Paris, Cerf, 1960, pp. 58-60. See also Origen, CC VI,47; CMt XIV,16 (Matthäuserklärung.I:DiegriechischerhaltenenTomoi, ed. E. KLOSTERMANN – E. BENZ [GCS, 40; Origenes Werke, 10],Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1935, pp. 323-324). 7. CIoXIX,23 (Origène. CommentairesurSaintJean, ed.C. BLANC [SC, 290], Paris, Cerf, 1982, p. 58). 8. Origen, Commentarii in Ephesios (fragmenta) III,76; Origene. Esegesi Paolina: I testi frammentari, ed. F. PIERI (Opere di Origene, 14/4), Roma, Città Nuova, 2009, p. 346. 9. The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, transl. R.E. HEINE (The Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 55. 10. Origene.EsegesiPaolina, ed. PIERI(n. 8), pp. 343-344. 11. Origen, FrEph III,74; Origene.EsegesiPaolina, ed. PIERI(n. 8), p. 344. 12. Origen, FrEph III,75; Origene.EsegesiPaolina, ed. PIERI(n. 8), pp. 344-346.

744

C. HOOGERWERF

urative understanding” (tropicam intelligentiam) of the passage13. Thus, Origen succeeds in finding yet another level of meaning in a text that is already packed with metaphors. Origen’s commentary probably contained an allegorical interpretation of Adam and Eve as Christ and the church14. In the Commentaryonthe SongofSongs, he states that Adam (in Gen 2,24) prophesied about the great mystery of Christ and the church, as appears from what Paul says15. According to the church historian Socrates, Origen understood Gen 2,24 in his Commentary on Genesis as allegorically referring to Christ, the church, and the incarnation16, a central theme in Origen’s thought. The CommentaryonMatthewcontains the most elaborated surviving version of this interpretation. Christ, being in the form of God (Phil 2,6), left his Father, and, being a son of Jerusalem above, left his mother (Gal 4,26). He became flesh (Jn 1,14), and became one flesh with the fallen church, so that they form one body (Eph 5,30; 1 Cor 12,27)17. In his On First Principles too, Origen notes that Paul interpreted Eve in a higher sense as the church, which is pre-existent and from which everyone is born18. Origen uses Eph 5,31-32 to legitimate the practice of allegorical or spiritual interpretation in several places19. Eph 5,31-32 is among a cluster of texts that comes up in these situations (see the following table). When the method of allegorical interpretation ansichis discussed, Origen likes to open with 1 Cor 9,9-10, where Paul contends that Moses wrote for our sake20. When Origen is interpreting the law, he prefers to begin with 13. Jerome, Comm.inEph.III,5,28b-29 (PL 26, 533-534). 14. TheCommentaries, transl. HEINE(n. 9), p. 55. See Jerome, Comm.inEph. III,5,3132 (PL 26, 534-535). 15. Origen, LibriXinCanticumcanticorum(latine,interpreteRufino) II,8,5-6; Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques, ed. L. BRÉSARD – H. CROUZEL – M. BORRET (SC, 375-376), Paris, Cerf, 1991, pp. 408-410. 16. Socrates, HistoriaEcclesiastica III,7 = Testimony C,II,3 in Origen, DieKommentierungdesBuchesGenesis,transl. K. METZLER (OWD, 1/1), Berlin, De Gruyter – Herder, 2010, pp. 54-55. 17. Origen, CMt XIV,17 (GCS 40, 325-327 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ). 18. Origen, Deprincipiis IV,3,7; Origène.Traitédesprincipes 3: LivresIIIetIV, ed. H. CROUZEL – M. SIMONETTI(SC, 268), Paris, Cerf, 1980, p. 368. See for a similar idea Origen (?), FragmentainevangeliumJoannis(incatenis) 45; OrigenesWerkeIV:Der Johanneskommentar, ed. E. PREUSCHEN(GCS, 10), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903, p. 520: “Just as [Adam and Eve] were the parents of all human beings, so Christ and the church are the progenitors of all good works”. 19. Apart from the texts discussed in the main text, there are two instances in the In Genesimhomiliaewhere Origen alludes to Eph 5,31-32 to point out that there is a spiritual or mystical level of meaning: HGn II,6; IX,2. In the latter case, the commandment to multiply (Gen 1,28) is applied to Christ and the church. 20. Origen, Prin IV,2,6 (SC 268, 320-326 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI); Origenes, CC IV,49; Origène.ContreCelseII, ed. M. BORRET (SC, 136), Paris, Cerf, 1968, pp. 310-312.

ORIGEN, “DESTROYER OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES”?

745

Heb 10,1: the law “has only a shadow of the good things to come”21. Interestingly, the hermeneutical discussion in OnFirstPrinciples is framed by a threefold citation of Heb 8,5, which text conveniently speaks about (the sanctuary as) “a sketch and shadow of the heavenly things”22. Also, Paul’s allegory of the two sons of Abraham (in Galatians 4) and his typological reading of the exodus (1 Corinthians 10) are usually cited in this context. Origen

Quotation cluster

PrinIV,2,6

1 Cor 9,9-10; Heb 8,5; 10,1; 1 Cor 2,7-8; 1 Cor 10,11.4; Heb 8,5; Gal 4,21-24; Col 2,16-17; Heb 8,5

PrinIV,3,6-7

1 Cor 10,18; Rom 9,8.6; 2,28-29; Eph 5,31-32

CCIV,49

1 Cor 9,9-10; Eph 5,31-32; 1 Cor 10

CMtXVII,34

Heb 10,1; Gal 4,22-24; Eph 5,31-32

HNmXI,1

Heb 10,1; 1 Cor 5,8; Eph 5,31-32; Gal 4,22-24

H76PsII,3

1 Cor 10,11; Eph 5,31-32; Gal 4,22-24

In OnFirstPrinciples,it becomes clear that for Origen, the spiritual meaning is the principal meaning. The primary goal of the historical narratives is conveying spiritual realities (ὅτι τοῦ προηγουμένου σκοποῦ τυγχάνοντος τὸν ἐν τοῖς πνευματικοῖς εἱρμὸν ἀπαγγεῖλαι)23. The historical narrative is the veil behind which the spiritual meaning is hidden. Sometimes the veil hints at these spiritual realities when the historical narrative cannot be true in its bodily sense. There is always a spiritual sense, but not always a bodily sense. The double meaning of the historical narratives is illustrated by the example of the bodily Israel and the spiritual Israel, and of the bodily Adam and the spiritual Adam, Christ, in which context Origen alludes to Eph 5,31-3224. Origen applies these principles with flexibility, at least in his homilies. In the HomilyonNumbersXI, he reflects on which laws or commandments should be kept according to the letter. In the case of laws, Origen thinks the letter has become obsolete. But in the case of commandments, 21. Origen, HNm XI,1; HomilienzumHexateuchinRufinsÜbersetzung. Zweiter Teil: Die Homilien zu Numeri, Josua und Judices, ed. W.A. BAEHRENS (GCS, 30; Origenes Werke, 7), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1921, p. 77; CMt XVII,34 (GCS 40, 693-696 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ). 22. Origen, Prin IV,2,6 (SC 268, 320-326 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). 23. Origen, Prin IV,2,9; IV,3,5 (SC 268, 336-338, 362 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). 24. Origen, Prin IV,3,7 (SC 268, 368 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI). See also Origène.Traité desprincipes 4: Commentaireetfragments, ed. H. CROUZEL – M. SIMONETTI (SC, 269), Paris, Cerf, 1980, p. 211.

746

C. HOOGERWERF

if, for instance, Jesus confirms them, they should be kept according to the letter. Then a remarkable statement follows: “What need is there in this to look for allegories, when even the letter edifies?”. There are also cases where the letter can stand, for instance Gen 2,24, but where there is also need for an allegorical explanation. In Origen’s view, Paul has given two examples of this situation, namely, by declaring that Gen 2,24 contains allegorical mysteries, and in the case of the allegory of the two sons of Abraham in Galatians 425. In the recently found SecondHomilyonPsalm 76, Origen meditates on the exhortation to call to mind the works of the Lord (Ps 76[77],11-12). He asserts that we have to understand what happened in the past typically (1 Cor 10,11), and thus we have to understand it primarily on a symbolical level. He says: “I unroll and scrutinize all the Scriptures from the beginning of the creation onwards and I see all the mysteries of Christ” (πάντα τὰ Χριστοῦ μυστήρια). Then he cites Gen 2,24, and proceeds: “This was not about Adam and Eve, but ‘this mystery is great’. Indeed, the one who is wiser than me says: ‘I speak concerning Christ and the church’”26. What is remarkable here is that Origen seems to dismiss the bodily sense, but we might interpret this passage as a less nuanced way of saying that the spiritual sense is the primary sense27. Finally, in his CommentaryonMatthew,Origen addresses the problem that Jesus claimed that the Scriptures say concerning marriage that it will be abolished in the resurrection and that the resurrected will be like angels in heaven (Mt 22,23-33). But it is not possible to find something like these words in the Scriptures. Origen’s solution is to read what is said in the Scriptures about rightful marriages not primarily in the plain sense, as if it contains no mystery, but as referring to Christ and the church. This is true for Gen 2,24, but also for countless other laws about marriage, which contain a sacred and divine meaning, to be found by true allegory28. III. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA ON EPHESIANS 5,31-32 Theodore of Mopsuestia’s interpretation of Eph 5,31-32 can be found in three places in his surviving writings. As is often the case in his work, there is little difference between them in terms of content. Yet, the CommentaryonEphesians offers only a brief comment, which amounts 25. Origen, HNm XI,1 (GCS 30, 77-78 BAEHRENS). 26. Origen, H76PsII,3; DieneuenPsalmenhomilien:EinekritischeEditiondesCodex Monacensis Graecus 314, ed. L. PERRONE with M. MOLIN PRADEL – E. PRINZIVALLI – A. CACCIARI (GCS NF, 19; Origenes Werke, 13), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015, pp. 316317. 27. Compare HomiliaeinExodumV,1. 28. Origen, CMt XVII,34 (GCS 40, 693-696 KLOSTERMANN – BENZ).

ORIGEN, “DESTROYER OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES”?

747

to hardly more than a paraphrase. Theodore remarks that Paul, with the addition “I speak concerning Christ and the church”, “carefully anticipated the misunderstanding” that “the great mystery” would concern “the union of husbands and wives”. He explains that “what was said in the beginning of creation [...] concerning wives and husbands has been accomplished more mystically (μυστικώτερον) in Christ and the church”29. He elaborates on that as follows: For all of us, after we have come into existence by outward birth from a father and a mother, receive, since, after all, we have been separated from that life by death, the resurrection by spiritual rebirth, joined to Christ by an ineffable relation and receiving an exact likeness with him of immortality30.

Theodore does not maintain a strict comparison of the husband to Christ and the wife to the church. On the one hand, he identifies the man with the believers who leave their natural birth behind, and, on the other hand, the wife with those who are joined to Christ. It is telling that in the Syriac version of this passage, the scholiast has simplified the elaboration by omitting the comparison of the man to the born again31. Theodore does not explicitly compare the man (or Adam) to Christ in this comment, as one would expect, although it is implied in the phrase “joined to Christ”32. From a more elaborate section on the same subject in his Commentary onJohnit can be concluded that Theodore in the CommentaryonEphesians has compressed his train of thought concerning the whole matter of the Adam-Christ typology into one sentence, but at the expense of clarity. In the Commentary on John, which Theodore wrote earlier than the CommentaryonEphesians, he also interprets the addition of Eph 5,32b as an assertion of Paul that Gen 2,24 happened in a corporeal manner33. 29. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Comm.inepistolamPauliadEphesios5,32; Theodori episcopiMopsuesteniInEpistolasb.Paulicommentarii:TheLatinVersionwiththeGreek Fragments, ed. H.B. SWETE (2 vols.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1880-1882, vol. 1, p. 187; TheodoreofMopsuestia:TheCommentariesontheMinorEpistlesofPaul, transl. R.A. GREER(SBL.WGRW, 26), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2010, p. 277, adapted. 30. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ComEph, transl. adapted. 31. I have consulted M. GOLDBERG’s translation of MS (olim) Diyarbakır 22, forthcoming. 32. It is certain that he accepted that Adam is a type of Christ, see Theodore of Mopsuestia, FragmentainepistulamadRomanosat Rom 5,13-14; Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. Aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben, ed. K. STAAB,Münster, Aschendorff, 1984 (1933), p. 119, lines 22-26; see also Diodore of Tarsus, FragmentainepistulamadRomanosat Rom 5,13-14, ed. STAAB, Pauluskommentare, p. 83, lines 15-26, who even cites Eph 5,31-32. 33. Theodore of Mopsuestia, CommentariiinIoannem II,3,29, ed. J.-M. VOSTÉ, CommentariusinEvangeliumIohannisApostoli (CSCO, 115-116), Paris – Leuven, E Typographeo Reipublicae – Ex Officina Orientali, 1940, text p. 81, Latin transl. p. 57.

748

C. HOOGERWERF

In other words, the mystery Paul is speaking about is not found in the text of Gen 2,24. But this remark is made in a wider context, in which Theodore first elaborates on Adam as representing humanity on the basis of mainly Romans 5–8: “We are all this mortal and corruptible man”34. God wishes to bring the human being to a better state than the one in which he is first born by transforming him from that corruptible into an incorruptible state. Adam was the first mortal man; Christ is the first resurrected man. Then, Theodore compares Adam and Christ by stating that they are the beginning of respectively the human race and the born again. Just as God took a part from Adam to form the woman in order to unite her with him and to begin the human race, so also God took a part of the grace of the Spirit from Christ to effect spiritual rebirth and to unite the faithful to the Lord35. In this sense, the church is the bride of Christ, Theodore concludes with a reference to Eph 5,31-32. Thus, the concise comparison of the marrying man to resurrection through spiritual rebirth in the CommentaryonEphesiansarose out of Theodore’s particular synthesis of the imagery of rebirth and marriage in John 3, Adam-humanity and Adam-Christ typology in Romans 5–8 and 1 Corinthians 15, and the comparison of Adam’s unification with his wife and Christ’s unification with the church in Ephesians 5. In the preface to the commentary on Psalm 118(119), or the “treatise against the allegorists”, as the Syriac translator calls it, the text, which is incomplete, begins inmediasres with an interpretation of Eph 5,22-3336. The exact function of the interpretation of this passage in a commentary on the Psalms, is not immediately clear. According to Lucas Van Rompay, it probably pertained to those instances where allegorists like Origen claimed that there is both a plain and an allegorical sense37. Just as we have seen in his later works, Theodore emphasizes in his explanation that Paul clarified in Eph 5,32b that the mystery does not concern Adam and Eve, but Christ and the church. Furthermore, Theodore explicates that Paul used the example of Christ and the church in the context of exhorting husbands to love their wives: “It has become clear for all, that what [Paul] says is not said with regard to our Lord and the church, but with 34. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ComIo, ed. VOSTÉ, Commentarius (n. 33), text p. 78, Latin transl. p. 55; English transl.: TheodoreofMopsuestia.CommentaryontheGospel ofJohn, ed. M. CONTI, Downers Grove, IL, IVP Academic, 2010, p. 36. 35. Theodore repeats this in in Eph 5,30, ed. SWETE, In Epistolas b. Pauli (n. 29), p. 186; see also his ExpPs118, praef., 1, ed. VAN ROMPAY,Fragmentssyriaques(n. 2), text pp. 1-2, French transl. p. 2. 36. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ExpPs 118, praef., 1, ed. VAN ROMPAY, Fragments syriaques(n. 2), text pp. 1-3, French transl. pp. 1-4. 37. VAN ROMPAY,Fragmentssyriaques(n. 2) (CSCO, 436), pp. xxxix-xli.

ORIGEN, “DESTROYER OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES”?

749

regard to men and women”38. In this manner, Theodore subordinates Paul’s ideas on Christ and the church to Paul’s moral message. This assessment has everything to do with Theodore’s view on the right, biblical way of allegorical interpretation. As we see later in the preface, he argues that Paul’s allegorical interpretation consists of admitting a sense beyond the literal one of the text in order to give a demonstration or an example of what one intends to say. However, Paul did not affect the historical narrative as it stands, or supposed that prophecies were displayed by the historical narrative39. On this point, Theodore probably has accommodated Porphyry’s criticism that biblical narratives do not contain riddles or oracles with hidden mysteries40. Yet, Theodore writes elsewhere that ancient events, while meaningful in themselves, can also display a model or representation of future events due to God’s providence41. IV. EVALUATION

OF THE

DIFFERENCES

In what way does Theodore’s treatment differ from that of Origen? First of all, whereas Origen relates “this is a great mystery” to Gen 2,24, Theodore stresses that Paul adds the clarification that the mystery concerns Christ and the church. Secondly, Origen even finds a soteriological meaning in the pericope by interpreting the concept “flesh” metaphorically. Theodore, for his part, keeps a close eye on the moral scope of the passage. He argues that the reference to Genesis and the example of Christ and the church are ancillary to Paul’s paraenetic intention. Therefore, Paul’s comparison of husband and wife to Christ and the church is meant to strengthen his argument, not to give the actual meaning of the Old Testament text. Consequently, Gen 2,24 is not a prophecy in disguise, but a saying on marriage that displays similarity (similitudo) with the more mystical level of the unification of Christ with the church. That is a third difference with Origen, for the latter claims that Gen 2,24 is a prophecy about Christ and the church, and is not about Adam and Eve, at least not in the first place. 38. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ExpPs 118, praef., 1, ed. VAN ROMPAY, Fragments syriaques(n. 2), text p. 2, French transl. p. 3. 39. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ExpPs 118, praef., 3, ed. VAN ROMPAY, Fragments syriaques(n. 2), text pp. 8-9, French transl. pp. 11-12. 40. Porphyry, Contra Christianos III,6F; Porphyrios, “Contra Christianos”: Neue SammlungderFragmente,TestimonienundDubiamitEinleitung,ÜbersetzungundAnmerkungen, ed. M. BECKER (Texte und Kommentare, 52), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2016, pp. 132-136. See also J.G. COOK, Porphyry’sAttemptedDemolitionofChristianAllegory, in InternationalJournalofthePlatonicTradition 2 (2008) 1-27. 41. Theodore of Mopsuestia, CommentariusinXIIprophetasminoresin Ionam, praef., ed. H.N. SPRENGER, CommentariusinXIIprophetas(Göttinger Orientforschungen: Biblica et Patristica, 1), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1977, p. 170.

750

C. HOOGERWERF

As becomes manifest from Origen’s Second Homily on Psalm 76, he feels legitimated by Paul’s treatment of Gen 2,24 to see the mysteries of Christ everywhere. In the CommentaryonMatthew, he argues for an allegorical interpretation of everything that is said about marriage in the Bible. For him, the spiritual sense is the primary sense. Meanwhile, Theodore maintains that the plain sense remains the primary sense. A possible different sense has its role on the level of the argument of a writer from a later age, and may not depart from the tenor of the historical narrative. It consists of a comparison of the similarities between the two dispensations, which are connected through the divine plan. In the case under discussion, Theodore takes his clue from Paul’s statement that Christians are members of Christ’s body (Eph 5,30) in order to point out the similarities between the creation of Eve and the creation of the church. Despite their differences, both Origen and Theodore admit, on the basis of Eph 5,31-32, to a higher or different sense alongside the plain sense of the historical narrative of Genesis 2. The contrast between their positions lies in how these levels of meaning relate to each other. As to the correspondence of Theodore’s description of Origen’s exegesis to the actual exegesis of the latter, Origen did not completely do away with the plain sense of Gen 2,24, while Theodore did not accuse Origen specifically of abandoning the historical sense, only for introducing contradictory ideas into the Scriptures. The case of Philo, however, was different. Theodore held that Philo only admitted the historical sense in some cases out of fear of the authority of the Scriptures. For Theodore, allegorical interpretation was a pagan method which presupposed, in the first place, that the text to which it was applied is fiction, and secondly that its superficial absurdities require allegorical interpretation, revealing knowledge about the divine42. This view dovetails nicely with that of Julian the Apostate (whose work AgainsttheGalileanswas known to Theodore, as evidenced by his ReplytoEmperorJulian). For example, Julian thought that it was absurd that God knowingly created Eve in order to help Adam, while she turned out to be utterly unhelpful43. Julian had no other choice than to regard Genesis as fictional myth. His application of his conception of myth to the Bible placed Christian interpreters in a difficult position: 42. Theodore of Mopsuestia, ExpPs 118, praef., 3, ed. VAN ROMPAY, Fragments syriaques (n. 2), text p. 10, French transl. p. 13. See also F. THOME, Historia contra Mythos: Die Schriftauslegung Diodors von Tarsus und Theodors von Mopsuestia im WiderstreitzuKaiserJuliansundSalustius’allegorischemMythenverständnis (Hereditas, 24), Bonn, Borengässer, 2004, p. 46. 43. Fragment in Cyril of Alexandria, ContraJulianumIII,1 (PG 76, 613B). See also THOME, HistoriacontraMythos(n. 42), p. 68.

ORIGEN, “DESTROYER OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES”?

751

if you allow the allegorical interpretation of the Bible, then what distinguishes the Bible from Hellenic myths? As John Granger Cook notes, “Christians did apparently not realize that the same arguments” they used against Greek myths “could be turned against Christian allegorical interpretation of the scriptures”44. Already earlier in the fourth century one Christian bishop, Eusebius of Emesa, had turned away from allegorical interpretation, partly because of his knowledge of Syriac, but probably also in response to the criticisms of Porphyry, who stated that the plain things said by Moses were not suitable for allegorical interpretation45. This anti-allegorical stance was inherited by Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore’s teacher in Antioch. And it was precisely in Antioch that Julian the Apostate composed his AgainsttheGalileans, when he resided there prior to his campaign against the Persians. He also complained in a letter that a certain Diodore, probably Diodore of Tarsus, was a “cunning sophist of a farmer’s religion”46. We may imagine that this attack contributed to Diodore’s and Theodore’s radical insistence on the truth, the integrity, and the usefulness of the historical narrative47. In one of his sermons, Eusebius of Emesa takes issue with an allegorical explanation of someone, almost certainly Origen. It is noteworthy that he explicitly says that he wishes to avoid controversy48. Theodore, however, does not hesitate to resort to fierce polemics. In general, his writings often show hostility towards opponents, especially allegorists. The vehemence of Theodore’s language can probably for the most part be ascribed to his character and style. Nevertheless, there was something fundamental at stake for him. The main reason of Theodore’s animosity towards Origen is that the latter was perceived as the instigator of the application of the Hellenic allegorical method to the Scriptures49. It was for this reason that 44. J.G. COOK, The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (STAC, 23), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, pp. 266-267. 45. R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY, A Syrian in Greek Dress: The Use of Greek, Hebrew, andSyriacBiblicalTextsinEusebiusofEmesa’sCommentaryonGenesis(Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 6), Leuven, Peeters, 1997, pp. 93-94. 46. THOME, Historia contra Mythos (n. 42), pp. 20-21; Facundus of Hermiane, In defensione trium capitulorum IV,2,61-64, ed. J.-M. CLÉMENT – R. VANDER PLAETSE, FacundiEpiscopiEcclesiaeHermianensisOperaomnia(CCSL, 90A), Turnhout, Brepols, 1974, pp. 119-120. 47. Compare THOME, HistoriacontraMythos(n. 42), pp. 217-220. 48. See R.E. WINN, Eusebius of Emesa: Church and Theology in the Mid-Fourth Century, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2012, pp. 77-79. 49. For the image of Origen, see also M. DEMURA, Origen’s Allegorical Interpretation and the Philological Tradition of Alexandria, in G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nona:OrigenandtheReligiousPracticeofHisTime.Papersofthe9thInternationalOrigen CongressPécs,Hungary,29August–2September2005(BETL, 228), Leuven, Peeters, 2009, 149-158.

752

C. HOOGERWERF

Porphyry described Origen as a traitor to Hellenic culture. Plausibly too, Theodore’s vitriolic reaction to Origen may have been partly provoked by Emperor Julian50. The latter’s recent attack on Christianity during his stay in Antioch showed that the anti-allegorical stance had lost nothing of its topicality. Theodore perceivedthe position of Origen astoo similar to the ideas that were propagated by influential persons like Julian with his program for the restoration of Hellenism. Origen’s adoption of the allegorical method could now further be understood as a fundamental step towards heresy and paganism. At the end of the preface to the commentary on Psalm 118(119), Theodore specifically identifies Origen’s heretical ideas. For Theodore, Origen was the arch-allegorist, and, after Julian probably even more, the one who had exposed Christianity to a fundamental threat: the dissolution of the Scriptures into shameful myths. Steenschuur 7 NL-2311 ES Leiden The Netherlands [email protected]

Cornelis HOOGERWERF

50. The suggestion is made by THOME, HistoriacontraMythos(n. 42), p. 219.

PHOTIUS AS ORIGEN’S READER (AND EDITOR) I. INTRODUCTION In his paper on Photius and the Alexandrian tradition, Éric Junod concluded that the Patriarch “knew Origen very badly”1, in other words, that his knowledge of the Alexandrian theologian was superficial. According to the French scholar, the only work he read was the treaty OnFirstPrinciples2. Elsewhere, Photius constrained himself to “report without hesitation”3 what he found in the books he summarized. However, Junod’s judgement was explicitly limited to the Bibliotheca and, moreover, was biased by the view that this monumental work is a juvenile work by Photius4. By contrast, we are persuaded that it represents the achievement of a life-long study5. We therefore believe that it is worth attempting a new evaluation of the Patriarch’s knowledge of Origen and that such an enquiry should not be restricted to the well-known Bibliotheca, but should also be extended to other aspects of Photius’ multifaceted activity. This research, however, will not be based solely upon literary sources; we will bear in mind, instead, an important statement by Paul Koetschau, according to whom only “a single thin line” connects the library of Caesarea with our Greek manuscripts. We have, therefore, the duty to devote attention 1. É. JUNOD, OrigèneetlatraditionalexandrinevuparPhotiusdanssaBibliothèque, in L. PERRONE (ed.),OrigenianaOctava:OrigenandtheAlexandrianTradition.Papers ofthe8thInternationalOrigenCongress,Pisa27-31August2001 (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 1089-1102, p. 1102. 2. Chapter 8 of Photius’ Bibliotheca remains crucial for the reconstruction of its structure. See M. HARL, Structureetcohérencedu Peri Archôn, in H. CROUZEL – G. LOMIENTO – J. RIUS-CAMPS (eds.), Origeniana. Premiercolloqueinternationaldesétudesorigéniennes, Montserrat, 18-21 septembre 1973 (Quaderni di VetChr, 12), Bari, Istituto di Letteratura Cristiana Antica, 1975, 11-32; G. DORIVAL, RemarquessurlaformeduPeri Archon, ibid., 33-45 and ID., Nouvelles remarques sur la forme du Traité des Principes, in Recherches Augustiniennes 22 (1987) 67-108. These researches are mirrored in the fundamental edition Origène, Traitédesprincipes, ed. H. CROUZEL – M. SIMONETTI, I-V (SC, 253), Paris, Cerf, 1978-1984. 3. JUNOD, Origèneetlatraditionalexandrine(n. 1), p. 1098. 4. Ibid., pp. 1089-1090. 5. On Photius’ books collection and on the long-lasting activity around the Bibliotheca see L. CANFORA, Libriebiblioteche, in G. CAMBIANO – L. CANFORA – D. LANZA (eds.), LospazioletterariodellaGreciaantica.Vol. II:Laricezioneel’attualizzazionedeltesto, Roma, Salerno, 1995, 29-64. The question of the supposed “embassy among the Assyrians” is resolutely tackled in Fozio,Biblioteca, ed. N. BIANCHI – C. SCHIANO, with an Introduction by L. CANFORA, Pisa, Edizioni della Normale, 2016, pp. XI-LVII with previous references.

754

R. TONDINI

to “everything important a certain manuscript offers in its text and in its notes”6. The application of these methodological indications to Photius’ case will help us explain how a notorious heretic like Origen could be read and – somehow – appreciated in the Middle Byzantine cultural milieu. Consequently, this essay will be divided into two parts. In the first, I will try to ascertain if OnFirstPrinciples was indeed the only work by Origen known to Photius; a precious hint that he had read the Commentary onJohn can be found in the first Amphilochion. In the second part, I will take into consideration the manuscript transmission of the Philocalia and, in particular, the role that the Patriarch could have played in the conservation of this fundamental anthology. I will then draw some conclusions about the attitude of a learned Byzantine reader towards Origen, reflecting on the deeper reasons for such an interest.

II. ORIGEN BETWEEN COMMAS The Amphilochia represent one of the most ambitious among Photius’ literary enterprises7. This work is organized as a series of 329 questions posed by Amphilochius, Metropolitan of Cyzicus, and answers given by Photius: altogether, they build a sort of encyclopedia of the theological and philosophical knowledge of the time8. In the Amphilochia and in his letters, when dealing with Origen, Photius usually echoes the blame that the late antique heresiological tradition, in particular Epiphanius of Salamis9, placed upon Byzantine culture. Origen, together with Didymus and Evagrius, are said to be corrupted by the Ἑλληνικὴ μυϑολογία (the pagan fables)10; Origen is called φρενοβλαβής (mad), and therefore he is considered to be responsible for 6. P. KOETSCHAU, BeiträgezurTextkritikvonOrigenes’Johannescommentar (TU, 28/2), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1905, pp. 1-15, esp. 2. 7. This work is edited in PhotiiPatriarchaeConstantinopolitaniEpistulaeetAmphilochia,6 vols., ed. B. LAOURDAS – L.G. WESTERINK, Leipzig, Teubner, 1983-1988. For a general assessment see ThesaurusPhotiiConstantinopolitani, ed. J. SCHAMP – B. KINDT, Turnhout, Brepols, 2003, pp. XXXVIII-XXXIX. 8. For the literary genre of ʻQuestions and Answersʼ, see A. VOLGERS – C. ZAMAGNI (eds.), Erotapokriseis:EarlyChristianQuestion-and-AnswerLiteratureinContext (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 37), Leuven, Peeters, 2004 and Y. PAPADOYANNAKIS, Instruction by Question and Answer: The Case of Late Antiquity and Byzantine Erotapokriseis, in S.F. JOHNSON (ed.), GreekLiteratureinLateAntiquity:Dynamism,Didacticism, Classicism, Burlington, VT, Routledge, 2006, 91-106. 9. See especially Epiphanius, AncoratusundPanarion, Band 2, ed. K. HOLL (GCS, 25), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1922, pp. 403-415. 10. Epist. 1,283-286 L.-W.; Epist. 288,143-146 L.-W.

PHOTIUS AS ORIGEN’S READER (AND EDITOR)

755

Eusebius’ adhesion to Arianism11. Such a series of attacks could confirm Junod’s thesis about Photius’ distinct lack of interest in Origen. However, we are leaving aside a more nuanced appreciation that could drive us to different conclusions. The first Amphilochion, a vast treatise on the ambiguity and the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, belongs to the core section of the work (questions 1-75). These first “problems and solutions” are significant as regards Photius’ frame of mind, since they do not depend on an immediate source and can consequently be considered a direct expression of the Patriarch’s thought12. Among the many problems tackled in the treatise, a lengthy dissertation is devoted to the role of punctuation in biblical exegesis13. The following passage is especially worth citing: Ὁ μὲν γὰρ κοινὸς τῆς ἀληϑείας καὶ ἀπερίεργος λόγος, μετὰ τὸ “πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν”, ὡς καὶ προείρηται, οὕτως ἐπάγει τὴν στιγμήν· οἱ δὲ στίζουσι μὲν μετὰ τὸ “οὐδέν”, ἀρχῆς δὲ ἀπ’ ἄλλης προφέροντες τὸ “ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν”14 νοῦν μὲν ἀναγκαῖον οὐδένα δηλοῦσιν, ἀνοίγουσι δὲ τοῖς βουλομένοις τὰ μυστικὰ καὶ φρικτὰ κάλλη τῶν ἱερῶν ἡμῶν λογίων κατορχεῖσϑαι πλατεῖαν ὁδόν. […] Καὶ οὐ κατὰ πάντων φέρω τὴν ψῆφον, ἀλλ’ ὧν ἡ γνώμη τὸν λόγον μοι δείκνυσιν ἐπαληϑεύοντα15. The common and simple reason of the truth puts a comma after the “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made”, as already said. On the contrary, they punctuate after the “not anything” and they cite from a different beginning the “What was made in him was light”. Thus, they don’t give any proper meaning, but they open a wide way for those who want to defame the mystic and fearful beauties of our holy words. […] And I don’t accuse everyone but only those whose doctrine shows that my reasoning is true. 11. Epist. 144,10-16 L.-W. The references to Origen in Amphilochia 70 are however mediated by Theodoret, QuestionesinGenesim 39 (PG 80, 137). 12. There’s no need to challenge Hergenröther’s claim that “this treatise, one of the most comprehensive, seems to be an original work by Photius” (J. HERGENRÖTHER, Photius. PatriarchvonConstantinopolen, vol. 3, Regensburg, Manz, 1869, p. 49). Anyway, a diffused link of the first Amphilochion to origenian themes should be taken into consideration, as shown by the discussion on the hardening of the pharaoh’s hart in Amphilochia 1,603623 and in Origenes Phil XXI,1. For Photius’ possible direct knowledge of the Philocalia, see the second part of the present paper. 13. Photius, Amphilochia 1,742-855 W. Other references to the theological value of the punctuation in Photius’ works are to be found in Amphilochia 152 (OntheObscurity oftheScriptures) which depends on the introduction to the CatenainJob by Polychronius of Amapea (CPG 380), Theodore of Mopsuestia’s brother (U. HAGEDORN – D. HAGEDORN, DieälterenGriechischenKatenenzumBuchHiob, vol. 1, Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1994, pp. 151-152). 14. Jn 1,3-4a. 15. Photius,Amphilochia 1,822-833 W. The same argument is previously expressed at lines 805-821.

756

R. TONDINI

Here, Photius underlines the theological danger of the careless use of punctuation. As a case study, he offers one of the most vexed questions of the whole New Testament16, the punctuation in the verses 3 and 4 of the Gospel of John. According to Kurt Aland, who provided a seminal contribution to the topic17, there are ultimately two alternative readings: A. 1,3 Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.

Ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν

1,3 All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made. What was made 4 in him was life B. 1,3 Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν. 4 Ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν 1,3 All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made, that was made. 4 In him was life

The first alternative (A) was generally in use before the Arian controversy; the second one (B) was introduced in the fourth century to avoid any delimitation of the creative activity of the λόγος. With the first punctuation, in fact, “life” would be considered as the only thing created through the λόγος18. This is the most recent reconstruction of this shift, but Photius was already aware of such a change. Moreover, he offers a tentative of interpretation of this textual phenomenon: ἄρχει δὲ τῆς ὁδοῦ ταύτης, ὅσα γε τὴν ἐμὴν οὐκ ἔλιπε μνήμην, ὁ πολυμαϑὴς μέν, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον ἢ πολυπλανὴς Ὠριγένης· ἐκδέχεται δὲ τὴν μίμησιν ὁ πνευματομάχος, εἰ καὶ μὴ τῆς δυσσεβείας (οὐ γὰρ ἅμα τε τὴν 16. See, for example, the theological-orientated T.L. BRODIE, The Gospel according toJohn:ALiteraryandTheologicalCommentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 138. 17. K. ALAND, ÜberdieBedeutungeinesPunktes:EineUntersuchungzuJoh.1,3.4, in ZNW 59 (1968) 174-209 [reprint in ID., NeutestamentlicheEntwürfe, München, Kaiser, 1979, 351-391]. On the same topic see also I. DE LA POTTERIE, Deinterpunctioneversuum Joh.1,3.4, in VerbumDomini 33 (1955) 193-208 and the daring but not fully convincing P. VAN MINNEN, ThePunctuationofJohn1:3-4, in FilologíaNeotestamentaria 7 (1994) 33-42. It is worth reminding that Eduard Schwartz saw here an interpolation that makes the original text impossible to restore (E. SCHWARTZ, AporieninviertenEvangeliumIV, in AbhandlungenderKöniglichenGesellschaftderWissenschaftenzuGöttingen.Philologisch- HistorischeKlasse 10 [1908] 497-560, p. 535). The German scholar would reach similar conclusions also about Thucydides, HistoryofthePeloponnesianWar V,26, the so-called second preface (E. SCHWARTZ, DasGeschichtswerkdesThukydides, Bonn, Cohen, [1919] 19292, p. 61). 18. See ALAND, ÜberdieBedeutungeinesPunktes(n. 17), pp. 380-387, who underlines the role played by Epiphanius of Salamis (Panarion 69,56), Theodore of Mopsuestia (R. DEVREESSE, EssaisurTheodoredeMopsueste [Studi e Testi, 141], Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1948, p. 312) and, especially, John Chrysostom’s (InIohannemhomiliae 5,1-3 in PG 59, 53–55) in this process.

PHOTIUS AS ORIGEN’S READER (AND EDITOR)

757

στιγμὴν ἐκεῖνος ὑπερετίϑει καὶ τὴν ἀσέβειαν διὰ τοῦ ῥητοῦ μετεδίδασκεν), ἀλλ’ οὖν γε τῆς περὶ τὴν στιγμὴν καινοτομίας καὶ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως ζηλωτὴς ὁ πνευματομάχος γεγονώς, τῆς οἰκείας δυσσεβείας ὄργανον αὐτὸς ποιεῖται τὴν τοιαύτην ἀνάγνωσιν. […] Ἀπολινάριος δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν μίμησιν Ὠριγένους κατὰ διαδοχὴν ὑποδύς, οὐκέτι ὁμοίως καὶ τῆς διανοίας ἐγένετο μιμητής. ἡ μὲν γάρ, εἰ καὶ τὸ περίεργον ἔχει, ἀλλ’ οὖν γε μετὰ τοῦ μηδεμίαν ἄλλην ἀτοπίαν συνεφέλκειν, οὐδέ τινος γλαφυρότητος παντελῶς ἀμοιρεῖ· ὁ δὲ μετὰ τοῦ μηδὲν τῶν ἐπαινουμένων εἰπεῖν, καὶ εἰς μακροὺς λήρους καὶ ἀνακολούϑους γνώμας καταστρέφει τὴν σπουδὴν αὐτῷ, καὶ μικροῦ δι’ ὧν λέγει τὸν κύαμον καὶ τὸν ἅλα παροιμιάζεται19. The initiator of this path – if I remember well – was the much-learned, no less than much-foolish Origen; the Pneumatomachian (i.e. Apollinaris) became then imitator, if not of his impiety (indeed, Origen didn’t move the comma and teach his heresy at the same time) but, at least, the Pneumatomachian became a partisan of this innovative lecture and he made it an instrument of his proper impiety. […] But Apollinaris, by imitating Origen as his successor, didn’t became equally imitator of his intelligence. It is in fact even excessive but, at least when it doesn’t carry any other absurdity with, it doesn’t completely lack some elegance. By contrast, Apollinaris, besides not saying anything commendable, carries on long foolishness and incoherent ideas and he nearly tells the proverb of the broad bean and the sea.

From Photius’ point of view, the responsibility is clear: the first innovator in this point was Origen, here memorably defined as “much-learned, no less than much-foolish”. This two-faced characterization emblematizes the frame of mind that enabled the Greek Middle Ages to appreciate or, at least, to accept Origen: every approbation had to be accompanied by a disparagement. Subsequently, we find a comparison between Origen’s exegesis of Jn 1,3-4 and the one by Apollinaris of Laodicea. This passage clarifies that, according to Photius, Origen and Apollinaris share heretic tendencies but are distinguished by their intellectual ability (διάνοια). From this point of view Origen is much superior, even overstated (περίεργον). More germane to my argument, however, is Photius’ judgement on Origen’s style: “it doesn’t completely lack some elegance”20 (οὐδέ τινος γλαφυρότητος παντελῶς ἀμοιρεῖ). Photius’ Bibliothecais peppered with such sketches of literary and stylistic criticism21 about works which receive collective lecture and assessment within Photius’ Lesekreis. By 19. Photius,Amphilochia 1,833-852 W. 20. For the literary meaning of γλαφυρός see LSJ s.v. III,4. Equally meaningful is the use of γλαφυρότης in [Demetr.] Eloc. 258,3. 21. Similar evaluations are to be read hardly everywhere in the Bibliotheca, especially in its first part. Just to give some example, we can remind the assessments on Gregory of Nyssa (Bibl. 6), Sergius the Confessor (Bibl. 67), Diodore of Sicily (Bibl. 70; 35a116), Eunapius (Bibl. 77; 54a13-25) and Eunomius (Bibl. 138; 97b36-98a22).

758

R. TONDINI

the same token, the presence of a stylistic judgement on Origen’s discussion of Jn 1,3-4, according to the division A and the direct comparison with Apollinaris’ exegesis22, leads us to suppose here an underlying direct reading of Origen. As stated above, the only treatise certainly known to Photius was OnFirstPrinciples23 and in this work Jn 1,3 is quoted four times24, always in relation with the statement that “everything was created”, which means, potentially, even the Son. To Photius, this was clearly enough to sustain that Origen held that the Holy Spirit had been created, too; hence the association with Apollinaris of Laodicea. However, it should also be observed that no quotation of Jn 1,4 is found in OnFirstPrinciples. Since this second verse is the most “pneumatomachian” according to division A, we can suggest a tempting hypothesis: Photius could have based his comments on the direct reading of the CommentaryonJohn, and, in particular, on the chapters 10–19 of the second book25. Therefore, it could be straightforwardly argued that Origen fully shared the verse division criticized by Photius. In this respect, it should not be forgotten that the Patriarch himself commented on the Gospel according to John26. The first step of his workflow would have been, hypothetically, the collection of different other commentaries, among whom also Origen’s and Apollinaris’ could be listed. Even though Photius’ knowledge of the CommentaryonJohn cannot be confirmed, the analysis of this passage of the first Amphilochion has offered a less monolithic idea of Photius’ judgement on Origen. The Patriarch certainly echoes opinions based on the heresiological tradition, but he is equally able to give positive assessments based on the direct reading of the Alexandrine, who turns out to be “much-learned, no less than muchfoolish”. In this first account, we have reached the conclusion that Photius did read Origen carefully, and we also argued that another book, namely, the CommentaryonJohn, should be added to Photius’ Origenian library. In 22. Photius’ knowledge of Apollinaris’ exegetical material on John (CPG 3691) remains highly problematic. In the Bibliotheca, no direct reading is testified. He could therefore have derived his knowledge from the Catenae (Johannes-KommentareausdergriechischenKirche, ed. J. REUSS [TU, 89], Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1966, pp. 3-64) even if a direct reading can’t be excluded apriori. 23. Photius, Bibliotheca 8. 24. Origen, PrinI,2,10; I,7,1; II,9,4; IV,4,3. 25. Origen, CIo II,10-19. 26. Johannes-Kommentare, ed. REUSS (n. 22), pp. XXX-XXXIII; 350-412. Reuss is inclined to recognize in this exegetical material excerpts from Photius’ homilies, as for the Patriarch’s Commentaries on Matthew (Matthäus-KommentareausdergriechischenKirche, ed. J. REUSS [TU, 61], Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1957, pp. XXXIX-XLV; 270337).

PHOTIUS AS ORIGEN’S READER (AND EDITOR)

759

the next section we will delve into the manuscript transmission on the Philocalia, where Photius acted not only as a reader but, potentially, as editor as well. III. DID PHOTIUS EDIT THE PHILOCALIA27? 1. AByzantineEditionofthePhilocalia Although Photius’ book collection must have impressed even his contemporaries, it has been recently remarked that “these manuscripts seem to have evaporated”28. The tragic loss of Photius’ concrete library must somehow be connected to his first dismissal from the Patriarchate and to the council, which was held against him on that occasion29. Nevertheless, the intense scholarly activity of the Patriarch and his reading circle30 is still recorded in some manuscript traces, and similar evidence is offered in the study of Origen’s reception in Byzantium. Within the manuscript transmission of the Philocalia – the famous anthology of Origenian materials organized in the entourage of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus31 – most of the manuscripts offer a short prologue32, whereas a longer and original introduction is to be found only in the two most ancient witnesses of the anthology33. The first one is the PatmiacusGraecus 270, a tenth-century manuscript34 which, along with the Philocalia, transmits also ScholiaontheProverbs by Evagrius 27. C.H. TURNER, TwoNotesonthePhilocalia, in ZNW 12 (1911) 231-236. 28. M. LOSACCO, «Tous les livres confluaient vers lui, tells les eaux d’un fleuve»: NotessurlabibliothèquedePhotius, in MedioevoGreco17 (2017) 107-135, p. 108. 29. See L. CANFORA, IlrogodeilibridiFozio, in ID. – N.G. WILSON – C. BEVEGNI, Fozio:Tracrisiecclesialeemagisteroletterario, ed. G. MENESTRINA, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2000, 17-28 and LOSACCO, «Tousleslivresconfluaientverslui,tellsleseauxd’unfleuve» (n. 28), pp. 127-135. 30. For a definition of this slippery category see L. CANFORA, Le«cercledeslecteurs» autourdePhotius:Unesourcecontemporaine, in REByz 56 (1998) 269-273. 31. See the partial editions with lengthy introduction Origène, Philocalie1-20surles Écritures;etLalettreàAfricanussurl’histoiredeSuzanne, ed. M. HARL – N. DE LANGE (SC, 302), Paris, Cerf, 1983 and Origène, Philocalie21-27:Surlelibrearbitre, ed. E. JUNOD (SC, 226), Paris, Cerf, 1976. The most recent complete edition of the Philocalia remains ThePhilocaliaofOrigen, ed. J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1893. 32. Origène, Philocalie1-20(n. 31), pp. 24-27. 33. ThePhilocaliaofOrigen (n. 31), pp. 1-4. 34. The date is established only on paleographical base: the writing of this manuscript can be compared with the so called “minuscola di tipo Anastasio”, developed in the tenth century (see M. D’AGOSTINO, Laminuscola“tipoAnastasio”:Dallascritturaalladecorazione, Bari, Levante, 1997).

760

R. TONDINI

Ponticus35. This manuscript can therefore be considered a sort of monument of Byzantine Origenism, at least in its monastic variant36. Unfortunately, the manuscript of Patmus happens to be acephalous, with only the last lines of the preface being readable, which makes it unfit for any reliable reconstruction of the preface to the Philocalia. The only complete witness remains the MarcianusGraecus 47. Daniele Bianconi has recently attributed this manuscript to the hand of the scribe Michael, who was active in the second quarter of the tenth century in the Styloslavra, in the territory of Milet37. The two manuscripts are therefore contemporary, and their philological features confirm that they were copied from the same model38, which already contained the preface in his longer and original version. A closer analysis of the Venice manuscript shows that the longer preface was not an isolated effort but, rather, was connected to other features of this text. The final clause of the preface announces that “we have places in the margins the signs ‘heretic’ and ‘reproachable’, through which we have marked every heretic and reproachable expression in its proper position”39. Since such notes appear in the manuscript, we can safely conclude that preface and notes represent a coherent unity: we might even be tempted to define it as an ancient scholarly edition of the Philocalia. Paul Koetschau40 tried to distinguish three different annotators on the basis of their attitude towards Origen; his conclusions, however, remain highly speculative, since all the annotations were written by the scribe himself and they were already present in the model the Marc. Gr. 4741. It is equally possible, though, that this apparently contradictory corpus of notes mirrors 35. See Évagre le Pontique. Scholies aux Proverbes (SC, 340), ed. P. GÉHIN, Paris, Cerf, 1897, pp. 55-62. Géhin underlines the difficulties in distinguishing Evagrius’ scholia from Origen’s ones, within the Patm.Gr. 270. 36. See the classic A. GUILLAUMONT, LesKephalaia Gnostica d’ÉvagrelePontiqueet l’histoire de l’origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens (Patristica Sorbonensia, 5), Paris, Seuil, 1962. 37. D. BIANCONI, MicheledellalavradiStilo:Qualchenuovaattribuzioneeconsiderazione, in Scripta 5 (2012) 31-41. 38. J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON, On the Text of the Philocalia of Origen, in Journal of Philology 18 (1890) 36-68 followed by Origène, Philocalie1-20(n. 31), pp. 158-159 and Origène, Philocalie21-27(n. 31), pp. 14-15. 39. Philpraef. 101-104 H.: ἐπὶ μετώπου σημεῖα παρατεϑείκαμεν ταῦτα· αἱρετικά· ψεκτά· δι’ ὧν ἐκεῖνα ὡς αἱρετικὰ, ὡς ψεκτὰ, κατὰ τοὺς ἰδίους ἕκαστα τόπους ἐστηλιτεύσαμεν. A keen reflection on this matter is given by ARMITAGE ROBINSON, OntheText ofthePhilocalia(n. 38), pp. 43-44. 40. KOETSCHAU, BeiträgezurTextkritik(n. 6), pp. 11-15. 41. More recently, Koetschau’s distinction has been followed by S. FERNÁNDEZ, Las notasmarginalesdeVenetusMarcianusgraecus47ylahistoriadelarecepcióndelDe principiisdeOrígenes, in CristianesimonellaStoria 38 (2017) 11-26.

PHOTIUS AS ORIGEN’S READER (AND EDITOR)

761

an ambiguous attitude towards Origen, execrated as heretic but admired as intellectual. Also, a closer examination of the notes and the preface reveals some meaningful clues linking the transmission of the Philocalia to Photius’ activity. 2. IHaveSeenaHircocervus In an important passage of the treatise OnFirstPrinciples, transmitted in its Greek version by the Philocalia42, Origen regards the τραγέλαφος, mentioned in the alimentary prescriptions of Dt 14,5, as a mythical and non-existent creature. According to Origen, such a case shows that some scriptural passages are purposely meaningless so that the exegete is forced to interpret them allegorically43. The author of a note preserved in the Marc.Gr. 47 does not agree and observes: ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς ἴδομεν44 τραγέλαφον ἀπὸ ϑράκης ἐλϑόντα εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ καίσαρος Βάρδα. ὃν ἐκάλουν ζόμβρον. ὃς εἶχεν ἐλάφου μὲν προτομήν, γένειον δὲ τράγου, ξανϑὸν τὸ χρῶμα, μέγεϑος βοός. τί δὲ καὶ γρύπα ἄπιστον ὑποχείριον ἀνϑρώποις γενέσϑαι, ὁπότε καὶ δράκοντες γεγόνασι χειροήϑεις, εἰς μέγεϑος τριάκοντα πηχέων τελοῦντες, οὓς ἡ τῶν Πτολεμαίων αἰγύπτῳ φιλοτιμία ἐκτήσατο. οἷς εἰ ἐπὶ νοῦν ἧκεν, ἐκτήσαντο ἂν καὶ γρύπας. πλὴν εἰ μὴ μυϑῶδες, ἔφασαν Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν Μακεδόνα ἅρματι ζεύξαντα γρύπας, ἐπιπολὺ μετεωρισϑῆναι τῇ πτήσει τούτων τοῦ ἀέρος45. But we have indeed seen a hircocervus that came from Thrace to Caesar Bardas’ house; it was equally called zombros. It had deer’s head, goat’s beard, blond fur and the size of an ox. Then, why should one disbelieve the existence of the gryphon in captivity when there are pet dragons thirty cubits sized? The ostentation of the Ptolemies bought them in Egypt and, if they had only had the desire, they would have bought also gryphons. Moreover, Alexander the Macedonian is said, even if in a mythical way, to have yoked gryphons to his chariot and to have reached a great height in the sky thanks to their flight.

Byzantine marginalia frequently feature links between a text’s content and the reader’s experience46. For example, exactly in the margins of the 42. Origenes, Phil I,18 corresponding to Prin IV,3,2. 43. For a historical and philosophical overview of the imagery of the hircocervus see C. GINZBURG, Mito:Distanzaemenzogna, in ID., Occhiaccidilegno, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1998, 40-81 (English translation C. GINZBURG, Myth:DistanceandDeceit, in ID., Wooden Eyes, New York, Columbia University Press, 2001, 25-61). 44. Iotacism for εἴδομεν 45. Marc. Gr. 47, f. 16v. See KOETSCHAU, Beiträge zur Textkritik (n. 6), p. 15. The note is also briefly discussed in ThePhilocaliaofOrigen (n. 31), p. XV. 46. See C.M. MAZZUCCHI, Passatoepresenteneimarginaliabizantini, in V. FERA – G. FERRAÙ – S. RIZZO (eds.), Talking to the Text: Marginalia from Papyri to Print.

762

R. TONDINI

Marc. Gr. 450 of Photius’ Bibliotheca, Theodorus Scutariota claims that he had once seen a giraffe, an animal mentioned in the extracts from Agatharchides he was then reading47. The parallel with our note is striking, except that Origen’s annotator goes on listing mythical creatures: a giant snake and the gryphon, which are respectively linked with an anecdote transmitted by Diodorus of Sicily48 and with the well-known tradition of Alexander the Great driving a chariot pulled by gryphons49. As to the hircocervus, the annotation in the Marc. Gr. 47 mirrors a discussion rooted in Aristotle, who regards this creature as the standard example of a fictive creature50. Despite such an authoritative statement, the hircocervus is referred to as an actual animal here and there in the ancient literature, for instance in Diodorus51, Pliny the Elder52 and in the Septuagint53, where it seems to be a species of antelope54. Although Origen and Aristotle before him lean toward the non-existence of the hircocervus, our annotator believes to have had a direct experience of such an animal55. ProceedingsofaConferenceheldatErice,26September-3October1998, Messina, Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Umanistici, 2002, 153-166, pp. 154-155. 47. See N. ZORZI, Lettoribizantinidella«Bibliotheca»diFozio: Marginalia delMarc. Gr. 450, in T. CREAZZO – G. STRANO (eds.), AttidelVICongressoNazionaledell’AssociazioneItalianadiStudiBizantini.Catania-Messina2-5ottobre2000, Catania, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Catania, 2004, 829-844, pp. 838-841. 48. Diodorus of Sicily, Bibliotheca historica III,36-37. This same page of Diodorus had inspired a poem by John Tzetzes (Chil. III, Hist. 113). 49. It could be interesting to note that the theme of Alexander on a chariot pulled by Gryphons was wide spread in the iconography but had only a marginal role in the manifold tradition of Alexander’s Romance (C. SETTIS-FRUGONI, Historia Alexandri elevati per griphos ad aerem: Origine,iconografiaefortunadiuntema, Roma, Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1973; V. SCHMIDT, ALegendandItsImage:TheAerialFlightofAlexander inMedievalArt, Groningen, Egbert Forsten, 1995; IlRomanzodiAlessandro, vol. II, ed. R. STONEMAN – T. GARGIULIO, Milano, Valla-Mondadori, 2012, pp. 444-447). In addition, the word γρύψ is lacking form the Romance’s text and our note would be the first witness of this term in such a context. The issue needs however further investigations. 50. Ar. An. Post. 92b, 5-9. For a general assessment of this theme, see G. SILLITTI, Tragelaphos:Storiadiunametaforaediunproblema, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 1980. 51. Diodorus of Sicily, Bibliotheca historica II,51. For an overview of this zoological tradition about the τραγέλαφος, maybe mistaken with the ἱππέλαφος, see SILLITTI, Tragelaphos (n. 50), pp. 78-83, with a quick reference to the note in the Marc.Gr. 47, 52. Plinius, Hist.Nat. 8,120. 53. Dt 14,5; Job 39,1. 54. The most likely candidate for the identification with the hircocervus is the hippotragusequinus, also known as roan antelope. However, the habitat of this animal is the central belt of the African continent, and this makes difficult to identify it with the “hircocervus that came from Thrace”. Obviously, this point is not very important for our reasoning, nor it is possible to clarify every tempted reference to the mythical hircocervus with a real animal. On the other hand, the use of the name “zombros” could drive towards the identification with the extinct bostaurusprimigenius. 55. The dependence of such a note from a real experience is confirmed by the use of the popular name “zombros”, which is thereafter attested (in the form ζοῦμπρος) only

PHOTIUS AS ORIGEN’S READER (AND EDITOR)

763

What is interesting for our purpose, however, are the circumstances in which the annotator says to have seen it: in “Caesar Bardas’ house”, that is, in the imperial palace of Constantinople between 862 and 866. In these years, Bardas was indeed the leading figure of the Byzantine court with the title of Caesar56. The chronological reference contained in this note is crucial to the reconstruction of the lines of the transmission of the Philocalia: if the notes are linked to the preface and a note must be dated between 862 and 866, we are able to place an editorial enterprise in these years, upon which depends the entire tradition of Origen’s Philocalia. The only two independent manuscript witnesses of this anthology, the PatmiacusGraecus 270 and the MarcianusGraecus 47, descend directly from this ninthcentury exemplar, which we can consider the archetype of the whole surviving tradition of the Philocalia57. 3. TheHolyFatherandtheHeretic As to the attitude of the lengthy preface to the Philocalia, it can be forthrightly stated that it is an apologetic one. The preface is indeed aimed at allowing the reading of Origen in Byzantium58. The only patristic authority used in our introduction is a passage from Cyril of Alexandria’s letter to Eulogius: “we don’t have to flee and reject everything the heretics say: they indeed share beliefs we also share”59. This quotation was a standard argument to justify the reading of heretical works, and it is indeed exploited with similar aims in the preface to the Catena on Matthew edited by Cramer60. In all likelihood, the author of the introduction derived this useful quote from the acts of the council of Ephesus, which reports the whole letter61. Evidently, the argument offered by the worshipped Cyril in Nicetas Choniates, Historiae XI,4,3: see the commentary adlocum by Anna Meschini Pontani in Niceta Coniata, GrandezzaecatasfrofediBisanzio(Narrazionecronologica), Vol. II (Libri IX-XIV), ed. A. PONTANI – J.-L. VAN DIETEN, Milano, Valla – Mondadori, 1999, pp. 672-673 with reference to the note we are discussing. 56. See the entry in TheOxfordDictionaryofByzantium, vol. 1, ed. A.P. KAHZDAN, New York – Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 255-256. 57. See Origène, Philocalie21-27(n. 31), pp. 14-15. 58. When É. Junod affirms that the preface is “antiorigénien” (Origène, Philocalie21-27 [n. 31], p. 15) he is certainly right, but the anti-origenism is here highly mild and ambiguous. 59. Philpraef. 70-72 H: Oὐ πάντα ὅσα λέγουσιν οἱ αἱρετικοὶ φεύγειν καὶ παραιτεῖσϑαι χρή· πολλὰ γὰρ ὁμολογοῦσιν ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν. 60. J.A. CRAMER, CatenaeGraecorumpatruminNovumTestamentum, vol. 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1840, p. 4. 61. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, I/1.4, ed. E. SCHWARTZ, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1928, pp. 35-37. Independently from the acts of Ephesus, this letter was known to Photius because of its inclusion in a work by Eulogius (Photius, Bibliotheca 230; 270b, 29-30).

764

R. TONDINI

was a way to safeguard Origen – and with him any heretic – within the Byzantine orthodoxy. Furthermore, the author of this edition is not destined to remain anonymous: a deeper look at the preface enables us to collect clues linking the Philocalia to the most outstanding scholar of the ninth century: Photius. Firstly, in the preface preserved in the Marc. Gr. 47, we read that the Byzantine editor had at his disposal a βίβλος […] παλαιοτάτη, i.e., a “very ancient copy”62 of the Philocalia. With this expression, the author probably referred to a manuscript written in majuscule characters long before the ninth century. Secondly, the author of the preface was well-versed in scholarship: he questioned the authenticity of the letter by Gregory of Nazianzus accompanying the anthology63 as he hesitated to connect one of the most venerated saints of the western church with a heretic such as Origen. However, he eventually had to admit their connection since, as he himself noted, the letter “is equally transmitted in all the copies of his epistolary, and it isn’t challenged by anyone”. Checking more copies of the same text to prove its authenticity was a well attested operation in the theological debates of the iconoclastic period, and particularly in the acts of the second Council of Constantinople (787)64. The author of our preface is aware of such a practice and he owned many copies of the epistolary of the Cappadocian father, something that we cannot consider commonplace, given the high value of parchment manuscripts in that period. 4. TheAdulterationoftheBooks The last argument sustaining the hypothesis of Photius as editor of the Philocalia is also the strongest. The preface in the Marc.Gr. 47 assumes In the Bibliotheca, only the first part of the sentence is quoted, so that it is more reasonable to consider the quotation in the preface as coming from the acts of Ephesus. 62. Philpraef. 9-10 H.: ὅπερ ὡς ἐν προλόγῳ καὶ ἡ βίβλος ἀφ’ ἧς τὴν μεταγραφὴν πεποιήμεϑα, παλαιοτάτη γε οὖσα, κατασκευάζειν ἠβούλετο. 63. Gregory of Nazianzus, Epist. 115 (Saint Grégoire de Nazianze, Lettres, II, ed. P. GALLAY, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1967, pp. 9-10). 64. See E. LAMBERZ, HandschriftenundBibliothekenimSpiegelderAktendesVII.ÖkumenischenKonzils(787), in G. PRATO (ed.), Imanoscrittigrecitrariflessioneedibattito. AttidelVcolloquiointernazionaledipaleografiagreca, vol. I (Papyrologica Florentina, 31), Firenze, Gonnelli, 2000, 47-63. A further example is Epistula IV,61 (PG 79, 577–580) by Nilus of Ancyra, whose authenticity is discussed in the Actio IV of the Second Council of Constantinople: ConciliumuniversaleNicaenumsecundum.ConciliiActionesIV-V, ed. E. LAMBERZ (ACO, II/3.2), Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2012, pp. 334-341; translation and discussion in L. BOSSINA, FalsiantichiemodernitraleoperadiNilodiAncira. Primisondaggi, in J. MARTÍNEZ (ed.), FakesandForgersofClassicalLiterature.Falsificaciones y falsarios de la Literatura Clásica, Madrid, Ediciones Clásicas, 2000, 61-78, pp. 67-69.

PHOTIUS AS ORIGEN’S READER (AND EDITOR)

765

a series of invasive interpolations in the Philocalia brought about by extremist Origenists after the compilation of the anthology by Basil and Gregory: τόδε γέ ἐστιν, ὡς ὁμολογουμένως τινὲς, καϑ’ ἃ λέλεκται, τὴν Ὠριγένους νοσοῦντες κακοδοξίαν, χώραν διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου λαβόντες ἐπιστολῆς, βεβήλοις τισὶ παρενϑήκαις τολμηρῶς τὸ τῆς ἐκλογῆς κατεμόλυναν ἄϑροισμα· ὡς ἂν οἱ ἁπλούστερον ἐντυγχάνοντες εὑρεϑεῖεν, καϑ’ ἅ που Βασίλειος εἶπεν ὁ ϑεῖος, τὰ δηλητήρια μετὰ τοῦ μέλιτος προσιέμενοι65. This is sure: as it was already said, some of those who suffer from Origen’s doctrinal disease, under the pretext of Gregory’s letter, contaminated the whole collection with some impious interpolation, so that the more naïve readers find, as the divine Basil said, “the poison together with the honey”66.

The argument expressed here is the pillar of the treatise by Rufinus of Aquileia DeadulterationelibrorumOrigenis67, and it ultimately goes back to the Greek tradition of defenses of Origen. We are alluding to the Apology for Origen by Pamphilus and Eusebius, partially transmitted in Rufinus’ translation, and briefly summarized in chapter 118 of Photius’ Bibliotheca. Moreover, the monumental anthology organized after Photius’ teaching transmits a short summary of an anonymous68 Apology which, among other defensive arguments, also lists the possible presence of heretical interpolation in Origen’s works: Ὑπὲρ μέντοι γε τῶν ἄλλων αὐτοῦ δογμάτων, ὅσοις μήτε συγκαταϑέσϑαι τοῦ ϑαρρεῖν πρόφασιν ἔχει, μήτε τὴν προειρημένην αἰτίαν πορίσασϑαι δυνατὸν οἶδε, πολλὴν εἰσάγει σπουδὴν ἀποφῆναι ἢ γυμνασίας αὐτῷ χάριν εἰρῆσϑαι ἢ ὑπό τινων ἑτεροδόξων τοῖς αὐτοῦ συγγράμμασι παρεμβεβλῆσϑαι. Καὶ προάγει καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον τοῦτο βοῶντα καὶ διατεινόμενον· φωρᾶσαι γὰρ αὐτόν φησι καὶ ἔτι ζῶντα ταύτην κατ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν ῥᾳδιουργίαν69. 65. Philpraef. 90-96 H. 66. The quotation comes from Basil of Caesarea, OratioadAdulescentes IV,15. 67. Rufinus, De adult. VI-VII, XIV-XVI (Pamphile et Eusèbe de Césarée, Apologie pourOrigène,suivi de Rufin d’Aquilée,Surlafalsificationdeslivresd’Origène. Texte critique, traduction et notes par R. AMACKER – É. JUNOD [SC, 464], Paris, Cerf, 2002, pp. 294-304; 316-322). 68. The author of this work is connected by E. PRINZIVALLI, Magister Ecclesiae:IldibattitosuOrigenefraIIIeIVsecolo(SEA, 82),Roma, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2002, p. 15 and JUNOD, Origèneetlatraditionalexandrine(n. 1) with the circle of Didymus the Blind. P. NAUTIN, Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre (Christianisme antique, 1), Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 99-114 recognized in this work an independently transmitted section of the Apology by Pamphilus and Eusebius (present in the Bibliotheca at chapter 118). This reconstruction is tempting but not solid enough to be accepted: a deeper inquiry on this topic would be welcome. 69. Photius, Bibliotheca 117 (92a8-16).

766

R. TONDINI

But with regard to Origen’s other doctrines, which he cannot find a pretext for accepting openly, or for which he knows it is impossible to advance the reason just given, he devotes much energy to proving that Origen advanced them as dialectical exercises, or that they were inserted into his writings by heretics. He cites Origen himself proclaiming loudly exactly this, and says that during his lifetime this conspiracy against him was uncovered70.

5. PhotiusbehindOrigen It is on the basis of these hints that the Oxonian scholar Cuthbert Hamilton Turner entitled the second of his TwoNotesonthePhilocalia “Did Photius edit the Philocalia?”71. Some other significant clues72 led him to tentatively propose the identification of the ninth-century editor of the Philocaliawith Photius. For example, this editor had access to a huge collection of books, which may have easily included both the “very ancient” exemplar of the Philocalia and the numerous copies of the Gregory’s epistolary referred to in the preface. Also, checking more than one copy of a work to solve a problem of attribution fits very well with the scholarly instinct we usually agree on attributing to Photius. A further hint is the knowledge of rare literary works shared by Photius and the editor of the Philocalia. For instance, the bizarre story of the snake’s hunt comes from Diodorus of Sicily, an author well attested in Photius’ Bibliotheca73,just as the anonymous ApologyforOrigen, which could be the source for the argument of the interpolations. The pieces of evidence listed above are also reinforced by the reference to Caesar Bardas as the owner of the hircocervus seen by the author of the note examined above. Photius was Caesar Bardas’ protégé, and it is thanks to Bardas’ intercession that he was appointed Patriarch74. To sum up, it can be quite confidently stated that the model of the Marc.Gr. 47 underwent an editorial process consisting of a preface and 70. Translation by N. Wilson in Photius, TheBibliotheca, ed. and transl. N.G. WILSON, London, Duckworth, 1994, p. 129. 71. TURNER, TwoNotes(n. 27). 72. In addition to the hints we will list, TURNER, Two Notes (n. 27), pp. 235-236 adds that the reference in the introduction to Cyril of Alexandria as τὸν σοφώτατον Κύριλλον – with an adjective often connected with Cyril in the Bibliotheca – could contribute to the identification of our editor of the Philocalia with Photius. It must be anyway admitted that this epithet in connection with Cyril was usual both before and after Photius. 73. Photius, Bibliotheca 70. The chapter’s incipit – Ἀνεγνώϑη μοι – testifies that the BibliothecaHistorica by Diodorus was personally read by Photius, within the activity of his circle (see Fozio,Biblioteca [n. 5], pp. XXIX; 998). 74. Zonaras,EpitomeHistoriarum 16, p. 403,14-16 (ed. BÜTTNER-WOBST).

PHOTIUS AS ORIGEN’S READER (AND EDITOR)

767

a series of notes75: the former tries to justify the reading of a heretical work in light of the authority of the fathers Basil and Gregory; the latter claim attention on highly problematic dogmatic issues76. The clues collected above lead us to place such an editorial activity in the ninth century, in connection with the figure of Photius. Turner’s identification of the author of the preface and the notes with the Patriarch himself 77 is surely too audacious, since we are not aware of any similar librarian enterprise assignable to Photius78. However, the scholarly confidence of the preface, the knowledge of the lost Apology of Bibliotheca 117, and the familiarity with Bardas emerging from the note at f. 16v, all represent a ground solid enough to suppose a link between the activity mirrored in the Marc.Gr. 47 and Photius’ reading circle. 6. Excerpts As an addendum, a further connection can be found between the Marc. Gr. 47 and Photius’ activity. On the last folio of the manuscript (156v) we can read excerpts from the two chapters of Photius’ Bibliotheca regarding the abovementioned apologies of Origen79. Such extracts are preceded by the words:

75. A comparable system of marginal references can be found in the Par. gr. 911, fundamental witness of the anti-iconoclastic treatises by the Patriarch Nicephorus (A. CHRYSSOSTALIS, Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite du Contra Eusebium de Nicéphore de Constantinople, Paris, CNRS, 2012, pp. 145-159). 76. The use of marginal notes to underline theological problems in Origen’s works is widespread, both in antiquity and in modern times. So acted Cassiodorus – who was a direct witness of Origen’s condemn in 553 in Constantinople – in the translation of the HomiliesontheOctateuch (QuapropterinoperibuseiusdemOrigenis,quantumtransiens invenirepraevalui,locaquaecontraregulaspatrumdictasuntἀχρήστωνrepudiatione signavi, ut decipere non praevaleat qui tali signo in pravis sensibus cavendus esse monstratur; Cassiodorus, Institutionesdivinarumetsaeculariumlitterarum I,8; see G. PASQUALI, Storiadellatradizioneecriticadeltesto, Firenze, Le Monnier, 1952, p. 179, n. 1). The same graphic strategy has been followed in Erasmus’ edition of Origen, appeared posthumously in Basel in 1536 (see e.g. the numerous cautelege in the margins to the Deprincipiis in OrigenisAdamantii,eximiiscripturaruminterpretis,opera, quaequidemextantomnia,perDes.ErasmumRoterodamumpartimversa,partimvigilanter recognita, cum praefatione de vita, phrasi, docendi ratione, & operibus illius, Basel, ex officina Frobeniana, 1536, pp. 749-798; see A. GODIN, Érasme: Lecteur d’Origène, Genève, Droz, 1982, p. 90). 77. TURNER, TwoNotes(n. 27). 78. For a survey of the manuscripts who have been anyhow connected with Photius see LOSACCO, «Tous les livres confluaient vers lui, tells les eaux d’un fleuve» (n. 28), pp. 108-123. 79. See E. MIONI, Bibliotecae Divi Marci Venetiarum Codices Graeci Manuscripti, vol. 1, Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1967, pp. 66-67. These extracts are

768

R. TONDINI

Ταῦτα παρεξεβλήϑη ἀπὸ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν τῷ λογιωτάτῳ πατριάρχῃ Φωτίῳ ἀνεγνωσμένων βιβλίων φησὶ δὲ ἀνεγνώσϑη βιβλίον ὑπὲρ Ὠριγένους καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ δογμάτων … These passages have been extracted from the collection of the books read by the very eminent Patriarch Photius, he says to have read a book about Origen and his doctrines …

The whole page is then filled with sentences selected from chapters 117 and 118 of Photius’ Bibliotheca: the reader has his attention directed to the biographical information on Origen that can be found in the summaries of the two lost Αpologies. The use of chapters from the Bibliotheca as introduction to manuscripts of different authors is a widespread phenomenon, as exemplified in the cases of Diodorus of Sicily80 and Athanasius of Alexandria81. However, the excerpts in the Marc.Gr. 47 were not copied at the same time as the main text, but they were written by a much later hand. Where and when were these passages of the Bibliotheca copied in the Marc.Gr. 47? A collation of our extracts with the direct tradition of the Bibliotheca can be decisive in this regard. There are two main manuscripts: Marc.Gr. 450 (A) and Marc.Gr. 451 (M). Marc.Gr. 450 (A) is a penchant codex dating back to the ninth-tenth century, corrected by a learned reader (signed as A2) in the eleventh-twelfth century82. A was certainly held in Constantinople before reaching Italy83. By contrast, the second codex, the Marc.Gr. 451 (M), was copied in the eleventh-twelfth century84 and, during the Byzantine era, it was conserved in Thessalonica85. also mentioned in P. ELEUTERI, I manoscritti grecidellaBibliotecadi Fozio, in Quaderni diStoria 51 (2000) 111-156, p. 138 (number 106). 80. C.M. MAZZUCCHI, Leggereiclassicidurantelacatastrofe(Costantinopoli,maggio- agosto1203):LenotemarginalialDiodoroSiculoVaticanogr.130, in Aevum 68 (1994) 164-218, p. 205. 81. M. LOSACCO, Circolazione e riuso della ‘Biblioteca’ di Fozio in età bizantina, in A. BRAVO GARCIA (ed.), TheLegacyofBernarddeMontfaucon:ThreeHundredYears of Studies on Greek Handwriting. Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium ofGreekPalaeography(Madrid–Salamanca,15-20September2008) (Bibliologia, 31), Turnhout, Brepols, 2010, 483-492, pp. 484-486. 82. Fozio,Biblioteca (n. 5), p. LXVII. 83. A. DILLER, Photius’ «Bibliotheca» in Byzantine Literature, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962) 389-396 (reprint in ID., StudiesinGreekManuscriptTradition, Amsterdam, Hakkert, 1983, 329-338). 84. See M. LOSACCO, Ancora su testimoni della Bibliotheca foziana: Sulle mani del Marc.gr.451, in Segno&Testo12 (2014) 223-259, pp. 248-249. 85. See D. BIANCONI, Tessalonica nell’età dei Paleologi. Le pratiche intellettuali nel riflessodellaculturascritta (Dossiers byzantins, 5), Paris, Centre d’études byzantines, néohelléniques et sud-est européennes. École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2005, pp. 38-39 and E. MARTINI, TextgeschichtederBibliotheke desPatriarchenPhotiosvonKonstantinopel. I: DieHandschriften,AusgabenundÜbertragungen (Philologisch-historische

PHOTIUS AS ORIGEN’S READER (AND EDITOR)

769

Here are the results of the collation, where the readings of Marc.Gr. 47 are indicated with B (its siglum in the tradition of the Philocalia), and are placed before the direct witnesses of the Bibliotheca: 91b, 33: B A μάλιστα: M μᾶλλον 92b, 3: A Εὐσεβίου: B M καὶ Εὐσεβίου 92b 4: B A2 M ξίφει: A om 92b, 39: B A δέον: M δέον ὂν 93a, 2-3: κατὰ Ὠριγένους] B A post ἀϑροίζεται: M post πρεσβυτέρων 93a, 28: B A2 M ἐξηγήσεων: A ἐξηγήσεως

It can be concluded that Marc.Gr. 47 agrees three times with A against M and twice with A2 and B against the first hand of A. Once (92b, 3) it seems to agree with M against A, but in the sentence Παμφίλου τοῦ μάρτυρος καὶ Εὐσεβίου, the extracts in Marc.Gr. 47 omit the epithet τοῦ μάρτυρος, which leads us to rule out any direct comparison between our excerpts and the direct tradition of Photius. As a result, we can infer that our excerpts have been copied from manuscript A after the intervention of A2, that is, after the turn from the eleventh to the twelfth century. In all likelihood this happened in Constantinople, in an environment that knew and conserved Photius’ legacy using his major work, the Bibliotheca, as a source of information on ancient authors, such as Origen. CONCLUSION This study has tried to show that the struggle around Origen’s legacy was surely curbed, but not interrupted, by the condemnation in 553 AD86. Following Photius’ path has enabled us to discover a reader of Origen that, despite his bias towards the heretic, recognized Origen’s intellectual stature (Amphilochion 1) and undertook to create – either personally or through some member of his entourage – a learned edition of the Philocalia. This research inevitably raises an issue: why did Photius devote his energies and attention to such a problematic author as Origen? The answer is definitely to be sought in the link between Origenism and Iconoclasm, Klasse der königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 28), Leipzig, Teubner, 1911, pp. 17-19. 86. For the circumstances of the conviction see L. PERRONE, LachiesadiPalestinae lecontroversiecristologiche.DalConciliodiEfeso(431)alSecondoConciliodiCostantinopoli(553), Brescia, Paideia, 1980, 203-222 and J. VOGT, WarumwurdeOrigeneszum Häretikererklärt?, in L. LIES (ed.), OrigenianaQuarta:DieReferatedes4.internationalen Origeneskongresses, 1985 (Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck – Wien, Tyrolia, 1987, 78-99 (reprinted in ID., OrigenesalsExeget, Paderborn, Schöningh, 1999, 241-264).

770

R. TONDINI

which was first recognized by George Florovsky87 and is now being intensively studied by Vladimir Baranov88. Finally, it should be remembered that Iconoclasm entailed not only lengthy theological conflict, but also a cultural renaissance, which, in the learned circles of Constantinople, manifested itself mainly in the search for manuscripts: it is sufficient to recall the oft-cited quest for theological books ordered by the emperor Leo IV in 81389. A few decades later, Photius was both heir and liquidator90 of this intense cultural season. Università degli Studi di Padova Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche, Geografiche e dell’Antichità (DiSSGeA) Piazza Capitaniato 7 IT-35139 Padova Italy [email protected]

Raffaele TONDINI

87. G. FLOROVSKY, Origen, Eusebius and the Iconoclastic Controversy, in Church History 19 (1950) 77-96. 88. Here is given just a selection of Baranov’s papers: V. BARANOV, Origenandthe Iconoclastic Controversy, in PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava (n. 1), 1043-1052; ID., TheVita TarasiiasaSourceforReconstructionoftheIconoclasticTheology, in B. LOURIÉ – A.V. MOURAVIEV (eds.), Scrinium. II: UniversumHagiographicum.MémorialR.P.Michel vanEsbroeck, St. Petersburg – Moskow, Gorgias, 2006, 89-97; ID., ByzantineDoctrines ontheResurrectedBodyofChristandTheirParallelsinLateAntiquity, in V. BARANOV – B. LOURIÉ (eds.), Scrinium. IV: PatrologiaPacifica, St. Petersburg, Gorgias, 2008, 4-22 and lastly ID., TheFirstResponsestoIconoclasminByzantiumandOrigen’sTradition: TheCasesofConstantinopleandPalestine, in this volume, 711-723. 89. See B. HEMMERDINGER, Essaisurl’histoiredutextedeThucydide, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1955, pp. 33-41 and L. CANFORA, Libriebiblioteche, in Lospazioletterario (n. 5), p. 28. 90. See F. DVORNIK, The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953) 67-97 and C. MANGO, TheLiquidationofIconoclasmandthePatriarch Photios, in A. BRYER – J. HERRIN (eds.), Iconoclasm, Birmingham, University of Birmingham, 1977, 133-140.

EVAGRIUS AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION

There are good reasons to think that Evagrius of Pontus knew well the Psalms Homilies of Origen. He may have been able to read them as a young man in Pontus and Cappadocia, or in Constantinople, if the homilies were contained in libraries there1. It is even more likely that he was able to read Origen’s homilies thanks to his friendship with Origen’s fourthcentury followers Rufinus and Melania, with whom he corresponded from his residence in Egypt in the 380s and 390s. Although Rufinus did not compose his Latin translation of those homilies until he had returned from Jerusalem to the west, it is likely that these last sermons of Origen had been studied and discussed before then, when Melania made it her practice to read Origen daily2. The recent publication of twenty-five of the homilies in their original Greek – rediscovered in 2012 and transcribed, edited, annotated and published only five years later – will allow for a much closer comparison of Origen’s work with the interpretation of the Psalms by his later follower Evagrius. Now that Evagrius’ ScholiaonthePsalms are expected to appear in a print edition this year, it will be possible to trace in detail the similarities and divergences between the two, and account for the ways in which Evagrius might have participated in a discussion of the Psalms among contemporaries who had read and appreciated Origen’s work but established their own interpretations in a new context – contemporaries such as Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Didymus the Blind3. 1. According to his short biography in the LausiacHistory of Palladius, Evagrius was associated with both Basil of Caesarea (as lector) and Gregory of Nazianzus (as deacon and assistant in Constantinople); Evagrius explicitly associates himself with Gregory in at least three works. See A. GUILLAUMONT, UnphilosopheaudésertÉvagrelePontique, Paris, Vrin, 2004, pp. 31-40. 2. See R.D. YOUNG, ALifeinLetters, in C.M. CHIN – C.T. SCHROEDER (eds.), Melania: EarlyChristianitythroughtheLifeofOneFamily,Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 2017, 153-170. 3. See M.-J. RONDEAU, Les commentaires patristiques du psautier (IIIe-Ve siècles) (OCA, 219-220). Vol. 1: Les travaux des pères grecs et latins sur le psautier, Roma, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1982, and vol. 2: Exégèseprosopologique etthéologique, Roma, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1985. More recently, A. ANDREOPOULOS – C. HARRISON – A. CASIDAY (eds.), MeditationsoftheHeart:ThePsalms

772

R.D. YOUNG

While scholars wait for those scholia to become available in the Sources chrétiennes edition promised for later in the year, it is nonetheless helpful to take account of the setting and impetus for Evagrius’ interpretation of the Psalms, present throughout his extant works, to determine the reasons and context for his interpretation4. An eventual study of his PsalmsScholia should also take account of the relationship between these scholia and his other scriptural scholia – on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job – as well as the connections between the PsalmsScholia and the KephalaiaGnostica5. For the most part, Evagrius has been studied as a monastic writer or spiritual author; but he was a careful biblical interpreter, and the form and content of the totality of his biblical exegesis is an urgent desideratum for future scholarship6. In that connection, and as a kind of preface to that future study, it should be noted at the outset (and as a feature that distinguishes him from Origen) that the historical or narrative interpretation of scripture seemed to hold little interest for Evagrius. Unlike Origen, he did not, for instance, think it important to account for a particular place associated with an event recounted in the Bible. Occasionally a place-name or the name of an animal needed explanation or held interest; but Evagrius, unlike Origen, has little interest in a sequence of events, and little interest in comparative philology – the contradictions in meaning yielded by differing text traditions, for instance. His absorbing interest was the way in which the scriptures offer a consistent point of view – according to him – of the moral and speculative practices that accomplish the transformation of the practitioner into a sage – a gnostikos7. inEarlyChristianThoughtandPractice:EssaysinHonorofAndrewLouth, Turnhout, Brepols, 2011. 4. The Psalms scholia were first discussed as Evagrian by W. BOUSSET in his Apophthegmata, Tübingen, Mohr, 1923, but identified by H.U. VON BALTHASAR in his DieHiera desEvagrius, in ZKT 63 (1939) 86-106 and 180-189. The reconstruction of the scholia was first thoroughly discussed by M.-J. RONDEAU, LecommentairesurlesPsaumesd’Évagre lePontique, in OCP 26 (1960) 307-348, who in the article also supplied a list of printed sources from which the scholia could be assembled. 5. See Évagre le Pontique. Scholies à L’Ecclésiaste, ed. P. GÉHIN (SC, 397), Paris, Cerf, 1993; and ÉvagrelePontique.ScholiesauxProverbes, ed. P. GÉHIN (SC, 340), Paris, Cerf, 1993. Portions of several of Evagrius’ exegetical works (two of uncertain attribution) are translated in A.M. CASIDAY, EvagriusPonticus, London – New York, Routledge, 2006. 6. See L. DYSINGER, Psalmody and Prayer in the Writings of Evagrius Ponticus, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, and ID., EvagriusPonticus:ThePsalterasaHandbookfortheChristianContemplative, in B.E. DALEY – P.R. KOLBET (eds.), TheHarpof Prophecy:EarlyChristianInterpretationofthePsalms, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 2015, 97-126. 7. For a recent overview of the connotations of the term gnostikos in the case of Evagrius, see J.S. KONSTANTINOVSKY, EvagriusPonticus:TheMakingofaGnostic, London, Ashgate, 2009, particularly chapters 1-4.

EVAGRIUS AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS

773

Such a lack of interest can be seen throughout his works. For instance, in the course of her study of late ancient pilgrimage, Encountering the Sacred, Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony explores the views of Palladius, later bishop of Helenopolis, and the philosopheaudésert and Origenian Evagrius of Pontus8. She discusses the two monks’ shared opinion, at the end of the fourth century, that no particular significance attaches to dwelling near the Christian shrines of Jerusalem or Bethlehem. This is the case even though both of them had lived there – Evagrius, briefly, on or near the Mount of Olives and Palladius, a little later, near Jericho. Interestingly, they both lived in the Holy Land at nearly the same time that Egeria observed so many monks stationed to guide pilgrims at the entrance to the holy places in Palestine and Egypt: clearly there was more than one possible interpretation of the significance of the Christian sites of Roman Palestine and Egypt. For Evagrius, Bitton-Ashkelony writes, the attainment of apatheia (a state of calm, or dispassionateness), theôriaphysikê (the contemplation of the cosmos), and theôriatheologikê (the contemplation of the divine), are the important stages in the return of the human to the original state of attachment to the immaterial God – not travel to the holy places newly furnished with churches, martyria and hostels following Constantine’s donations9. “The [historically holy] place”, she wrote, “has no significance in itself. Rather, like his predecessors, among them Origen and Eusebius, Evagrius assigns a symbolic interpretation not only to the places connected with the central events of the incarnation but also to the places associated in the Bible with Jewish history”10. One of the most important places in which this viewpoint appears is Evagrius’ Letter 2511. In the manuscripts preserving Evagrius’ letters in a Syriac translation, the names of addressees, as well as salutations, have been removed, but the Evagrian scholar Gabriel Bunge speculates that 8. His “Origenism” is a category in much need of reevaluation; a representative of the position is M. O’LAUGHLIN, Origenism in the Desert: Anthropology and Integration in EvagriusPonticus, PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1987. See also, A. GUILLAUMONT, LesKephalaia Gnostica d’ÉvagrelePontiqueetl’histoiredel’OrigénismechezlesGrecs etchezlesSyriens (Patristica Sorbonensia, 5), Paris, Seuil, 1962. 9. B. BITTON-ASHKELONY, Encountering the Sacred: The Debate on Christian PilgrimageinLateAntiquity(The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 38), Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – London, University of California Press, 2005, p. 170. The term philosopheaudésert was used of Evagrius by his chief student of the twentieth century, GUILLAUMONT, Unphilosopheaudésert(n. 1). 10. BITTON-ASHKELONY, EncounteringtheSacred (n. 9), p. 172; emphasis added. 11. For a study of Letter 25, now see L. DYSINGER, An Exegetical Way of Seeing: Contemplation and Spiritual Guidance in Evagrius Ponticus, in Studia Patristica 57/5 (2013) 31-50.

774

R.D. YOUNG

this letter went to Anatolius, a prominent associate of Evagrius’ own sponsors Rufinus and Melania, and the person to whom Evagrius dedicated the Praktikos12. In this letter he writes: You wrote [to me] that you dwell in the place that receives God, the one who created heaven and earth. You should realize that he stands in your midst, according to the witness of John the Baptist (Jn 1,21), and expects you to become Bethlehem through your works, the Anastasis through the spiritual vision of the natural purity of your created being, and to become the Ascension through your insight into the divine words, and finally to be called The Mount of Olives13.

It would be helpful in understanding this passage, to refer back to the previous paragraph of this letter, too, because the recipient of this letter is not yet a monk, but associated in some way with a Praetorium, although perhaps not in Jerusalem. The previous paragraph of that letter reads: Perhaps the thoughts of the Praetorium are not imprinted upon you, but are you possibly imprinted by the thought of vainglory? Pay attention (surely in Greek “exercise, prosochê”) lest indeed as you are living in Jerusalem in your body, your mind will be bound far away from Bethany, with the thoughts of avarice, and purchasing and buying salt, vinegar, and bread – while there are thousands who are starving, deserving their daily bread (again, in Greek, probably epiousiousartos).

There are a number of noteworthy terms in this letter: first, Evagrius is not only criticizing the idea that a holy place necessarily has a good effect on a person residing in it, and second, he is proposing that a person could somehow become such a place, and that only its symbolic significance is of importance. He is also criticizing the role of the Roman magistrate or praetor, the rank to which his correspondent belongs – and it is interesting that he felt free to do so. Not only would he have connected this praetor with the praetorium of the first-century trial of Jesus – but also he is here presuming to instruct someone who might be a high Roman official – someone of the kind he had known during his stay in Constantinople during the second ecumenical council. Evagrius seems highly conscious of his own status and authority here, and in this connection the exploration 12. See R.D. YOUNG, The Letter Collection of Evagrius of Pontus, in C. SOGNO – B. STORIN – E. WATTS (eds.), LateAntiqueLetterCollections:ACriticalIntroductionand ReferenceGuide, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 2017, 161-174. 13. For the text of the letters, see W. FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Neue Folge, 13.2), Berlin, Weidmann, 1912, pp. 565-611; the only complete transl. of the letters is G. BUNGE, EvagriosPontikos,BriefeausderWüste, Trier, Paulinus-Verlag, 1986. The present author’s English translation of the letters will appear in the Fathers of the Church series of the Catholic University Press.

EVAGRIUS AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS

775

of his thought could go in a number of different directions; for instance, to think about another letter in which he harshly rebukes a married lawyer for daring to write to him at all, compromised as he was by his profession14. There are important clues in these two letters. They give us a hint of why although Evagrius accepted and extended Origen’s thought and used his biblical interpretation, he nonetheless took that work and pointed it in a direction that might have puzzled Origen. Though Evagrius recognized and recorded the attractions, even the wonders, of the polis, he turned away from the life of the city – from its schools, its governance, and really, from its churches15. But as interesting as it is, an exploration of Evagrius’ confident sense of his own social rank, and his probable accomplishments in rhetoric and philosophy, is not the goal of this essay; rather, it aims to look at how Evagrius locates biblical interpretation deeply but not in the main influenced by Origen in the new context of the life of the single and ascetic Christian teacher, or as he would say, the gnostikos. I think we can be confident that Evagrius had the opportunity to read Origen’s Psalms Homilies, and indeed when a person reads those homilies, she hears many echoes from the future, so to speak, of Evagrius’ reformulation of Origen. He has adopted many of Origen’s teachings and interpretations, and adapted them in his own teaching16. It is well-known that among the followers of Origen in the fourth century, there were many variations: from Eusebius through Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa to Jerome, Origen’s works are put to numerous different uses, as various papers in this volume demonstrate. But Evagrius seems to have felt compelled to fragment and reassemble Origen’s thought17.

14. Letter 45; FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPontikus (n. 13), p. 597. See BUNGE, Evagrios Pontikos,Briefe (n. 13),p. 260. 15. E. WATTS briefly discusses the setting of Evagrius and Didymus – philosophers outside the city – in CityandSchoolinLateAntiqueAthensandAlexandria, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 2006, pp. 185-187. 16. For instance, in Origen’s discussion of the passions and logismosin H15PsII, in DieneuenPsalmenhomilien:EinekritischeEditiondesCodex Monacensis Graecus314, ed. L. PERRONE with M. MOLIN PRADEL – E. PRINZIVALLI – A. CACCIARI (GCS NF, 19; Origenes Werke, 13), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015, p. 90; of the passion of epithumia(H36PsIV, ibid., p. 159; or of spiritual spermata,ibid., p. 169). 17. The degree to which Evagrius followed and adjusted the teaching of Origen is controversial and much-discussed; see E.A. CLARK, The Origenist Controversy: The CulturalConstructionofanEarlyChristianDebate, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1992, and A. CASIDAY, OnHeresyinModernPatristicScholarship:TheCaseof EvagriusPonticus, in HeythropJournal 53 (2012) 241-252.

776

R.D. YOUNG

In this essay, it is useful to reconsider when and how Evagrius came to know Origen; to consider what Evagrius thought about the obstacles inherent in following the pattern of Origen’s teaching; and how Evagrius’ understanding of the Psalms differs from that of Origen. For Evagrius writes, not only in a context appreciably different from that of his unacknowledged intellectual grandfather of Caesarea, but also in a climate of discussion that had changed deeply since the time of Origen. Evagrius became an ex-urban, and even anti-urban teacher, as has been noted, and thus he then needed to draw upon sources in addition to those of Origen although he, like Origen, approached the scriptures as a systematic and coherent teaching requiring a trained, devoted and speculative mind to communicate their often-hidden or obscure teachings. Evagrius wrote nothing equivalent to Origen’s PeriArchon, and yet he is still a systematizer, as Rondeau has already described18. But he accomplishes this systematic foundation of his exegesis in a very different style. The first difference to notice is that his interpretation is either embedded in his collections of kephalaia, or attached as brief interpretive sentences to single scriptural verses – as scholia. If he ever delivered sermons or sustained commentaries, they were not recorded. The “Origenism” attributed to him is one of teaching, not of literary form or style. In describing Evagrius’ exegetical scholia, the great Antoine Guillaumont noted how Evagrius had selected one of the styles of exegesis practiced, according to Jerome, already by Origen; he noted their two main traits – their discontinuous character and their concision; their similarity to the classical tradition including lexicographic and stylistic material, and their preference for the allegorical exegesis of Philo and Origen. “More often than not”, he wrote, “Evagrius disengages from the text the elements of his own teaching, to the point that one sometimes has the impression that he is commenting on scripture to give his doctrine a scriptural basis!”19. This so far undemonstrated conclusion of Guillaumont’s may be the basis for Gehin’s judgement, in a footnote to his edition and translation of the ScholiaonProverbs: “We think that the exegetical oeuvre is posterior 18. M.-J. RONDEAU, Lescommentairespatristiquesdupsautier(IIIe-Vesiècles). Vol. 1: Les travaux des pères grecs et latins sur le psautier (OCA, 219), Roma, Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1982, p. 124.Rondeau notes, following von Balthasar, that although Evagrius’ work was connected to the thought of Origen and Didymus, it had a “sense of radicalizing systematization”, along with a “certain dependence on Clement of Alexandria, who though he did not write a commentary on the Psalms, was given to scholastic definitions”. Furthermore, Evagrius knew Clement’s work well, and manifested a similarity to Clement’s approach. His scholia were “gnomic and syllogistic”, illustrated a “doctrinally coherent system, if not an orthodox one, with its theodicy, its cosmology, its anthropology and its theory of knowledge”. 19. GUILLAUMONT, Philosopheaudésert (n. 1), p. 137.

EVAGRIUS AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS

777

to the KephalaiaGnostika, the Gnostikos, and the first redaction of the Praktikos”20 – in other words, nearly at the end of Evagrius’ life and thus closer to the year 399. Neither Gehin nor Guillaumont explained why the exegetical scholia should have been composed later, though, and from the point of view of length, these exegetical works are the bulk of his work; they may well have been assembled first. Distributed into scholia on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Psalms and Job as well as the Antirrhêtikos, a long series of biblical extracts used as remedies – to respond to and defeat logismoi that prompt vices. And furthermore, he wrote these scholia in a style similar to that of his other works – a style meant to be puzzling and obscure when Evagrius thought that was useful for the training of his reader. It is worth recalling that the form of the dense kephalaion is Evagrius’ preferred form of teaching. In constructing his works in this way, Evagrius seems to allude to previous kinds of writings. First, the pericopes of scripture organized into chapters: they were brief, they carried a direct (as distinct from narrative) voice, and they could be organized in a sequence, often interlocked with another sequence of chapters on a different or related topic. But Joel Kalvesmaki points not to scripture as the source of the genre, but to the handbooks of ancient Stoicism: Epictetus, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, and Porphyry’s Aphormai: “short paragraphs of original advice or philosophical insight that require careful, deliberate reading, richly endowed as they are with philosophical vocabulary”. But to this genre, and to the organization of scripture in chapters, Evagrius adds the new feature of “build (ing) compositions in harmonic patterns evocative of number symbolism” – as with the six sets of the nine discourses of the Enneads; the tetrachtys of Iamblichus’ OnPythagoreanism (ten objects arranged in Isosceles triangle), or the numbers of the Psalms now being invested with significance by Jerome and Didymus21. The source of Evagrius’ number theory is not only philosophical, but scriptural. Numbers appear in the symbolism – as Evagrius himself attests – of the 153 chapters of the OnPrayer, imitating the 153 fish of Jn 21,3-11: a theological symbolism arranged in triangles for the Trinity, squares, hexagons for the six days of creation and circles. Evagrius’ bestknown trilogy, his GnosticTrilogy, contains symbolic number as well: 100 of the Praktikos: a square number: 50: Pentecost: 600-60: creation22. 20. ScholiesauxProverbes, ed. GÉHIN(n. 5), p. 21, n. 2. 21. J. KALVESMAKI, EvagriusintheByzantineGenreofChapters, in J. KALVESMAKI – R.D. YOUNG (eds.), EvagriusandHisLegacy, Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 2016, 257-287. 22. An English translation (from Greek and Syriac) of the complete GnosticTrilogywill appear with Oxford University Press, transl. R.D. YOUNG – J. KALESMAKI – C. STEWART – L. DYSINGER – C. STANG.

778

R.D. YOUNG

Note also that each one of these is meant to be punctuated with silence: he wanted his chapters to help train the wandering mind to stop, having memorized the scripture and its interpretation, and remain still: hesychia. And Evagrius evidently thought it important to remember that just as silence comes before and after speech, number leads back to the One who, he hints, created the world through number. But in one of his ScholiaonthePsalms (78,21) he did outline a guide for scriptural interpretation. I cite it here in order to introduce a necessary complication into what must only be an initial evaluation of Evagrius’ purpose and practice of interpretation. It reads: Ps 78: vs. 21: You guided your people like sheep, by the hand of Moses and Aaron. Scholion 15: According to Moses, philosophy is divided into a tetrachtys: first into the historical and second into the properly-termed legislative (nomothetikon) (Exod 24,12) which should have to do with its own ethical matters; the third is the priestly (hierourgikon) which is of the physiketheoria; and the fourth which is concerned with the whole appearance of the theologike (totheologikoneidos). We must then take the Law in a tectrachtys-way: and the counsel of the law as a type of something evident, or as a sign that clarifies, or as a law ruling for correct politeia; or as a prophecy, foretelling (something). By this system (methodos), then, did Moses and Aaron lead the travelling people from vice to virtue23.

As Luke Dysinger has already noted in his Psalmody and Prayer in Evagrius, this passage Evagrius has adapted from Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata24. In Book I, Clement writes as follows: The Mosaic philosophy is accordingly divided into four parts: into the historic part, and that which is strictly called the legislative part, which two properly belong to ethics, and the third part, which relates to liturgy, belongs to physical science, and above all in the fourth place the theological part, the vision, which Plato says belongs to the truly great mysteries, while this species Aristotle calls metaphysics25.

Annewies van den Hoek has analyzed this passage of Clement, and its possible connection with a passage in Philo’s LifeofMoses, as well as its clear connection to the Platonic division between ethics, physics 23. Note that on his website, Luke Dysinger has provided his own list of the collation M.-J. Rondeau made; see RONDEAU, Le commentaire (n. 4), pp. 329-348 and Evagrius, ScholiaonPsalms, transl. L. DYSINGER, http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/Evagrius/08_Psalms/ 00a_start.htm. 24. DYSINGER, PsalmodyandPrayer(n. 6). 25. A. VAN DEN HOEK, ClementofAlexandriaandHisUseofPhilointheStromateis: AnEarlyChristianReshapingofaJewishModel, Leiden, Brill, 1988, p. 60.

EVAGRIUS AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS

779

and dialectics. Indeed, through Clement, and also even independently of him, Evagrius has consulted the thought of Philo in his scriptural exegesis. But I cite the Evagrian text for two reasons: first, to indicate briefly (many more examples could be cited) that Clement’s work has modified Evagrius’ dependence on Origen both for exegetical strategies and a prior system of thought. And second, I cite it to show how Evagrius has absorbed or at least deliberately incorporates number symbolism in his wider system of exegesis – a system which awaits adequate description, for a number of reasons. There is also another text in which Evagrius invokes the tetracthys. This is his Letter to Anatolius, one of his better-known letters because preserved in Greek, which forms the Prologue to his ChaptersonPrayer. It is worth noting along the way that Evagrius’ usually terse and gnomic style, organized for the most part into kephalaia or scholia, is replaced here by an epistolary rhetoric that allows for expressions of personal affection or distress. The LettertoAnatolius and the OnPrayer will be familiar to some, but it is worth reviewing it here, because it helps explain Evagrius’ adaptation of Clement to interpret Psalm 78. In the letter-prologue, Evagrius describes his own distress as sick with “impure passions”, but cured “by the touch of your letters filled with love for God”, themselves indebted to the example of an unnamed “great guide and teacher”. Evagrius next describes his night-long toil as having resulted in the catch of 153 fish of Jn 21,11, “sent to you in a basket of love arranged in an equal number of chapters, in fulfillment of your order”. Citing Ecclesiasticus 42,24 as the inspiration for his principle that the letter and the spirit, intelligence and writing, point to the practical and the contemplative way of prayer, Evagrius states that this text of the wise Jesus (Ben Sira) also confirms that “in the case of number, the immediate sense indicates quantity, but the meaning can refer to quality”. Here we are, of course, in the realm of Aristotle’s Categories, cited also in the first ten chapters of the first century of Evagrius’ KephalaiaGnostica. Evagrius writes: “Having divided this treatise on prayer into 153 chapters, we have sent you an evangelical feast, so you can discover the delight of the symbolic number, as well as the figure of the triangle and the hexagon: the former indicating the pious knowledge of the Trinity and the latter the description of the ordering of the present world”26. 26. Evagrius, On Prayer; Évagre le Pontique. Chapitres sur la prière, ed. P. GÉHIN (SC, 589), Paris, Cerf, 2017, pp. 212-213 (my translation).

780

R.D. YOUNG

Now, it must be added, Evagrius has extended the notion of duplication – the relationship between the invisible and visible worlds – to the connection between theoriaphysike and theoriatheologike, the contemplation of the world and the contemplation of the divine. Finally, Evagrius recalls Pythagorean number symbolism: The number 100 is itself square, whereas the number 53 is triangular and spherical, for 28 is triangular and 25 is spherical, for 5×5 is 25. You then have a square figure not only for the fourfold of the virtues, but also for a wise knowledge of the present age, represented by the number 25 on account of the cyclical nature of time periods: for week moves on to week and month to month, and time rolls around from year to year, and season follows season, as we see in the movement of the sun and moon, of spring and summer, and so on. The triangle might indicate to you the knowledge of the Holy Trinity. But if you take 153 as triangular by virtue of the multitude of numbers (of which it is the sum), think of the practical life, natural contemplation, and theological contemplation, or faith, hope and charity, or gold, silver and precious stones. So much, then, for the matter of number. You will not look down on the humble character of the chapters, since you know how to deal with want and plenty. And indeed, you remember how Christ did not reject the widow’s two small copper coins, but accepted them over the riches of many others. Therefore, as you know how to guard the fruit of good will and love for your true brothers, pray for the person who is sick that he may get well and then take up his bed and walk, by the grace of Christ27.

The above passages show that the tetrachtys dear to Iamblichus, the fourfold number that forms a triangle, is also important to Evagrius. But the figure also mediates the priesthood of the gnostikos – a priesthood crucial to the redemption of the created world of rational beings because it allows for the diffusion of virtue and knowledge. Evagrius writes in his OnPrayer: 1. If someone should wish to prepare fragrant incense he will combine, according to the Law, pure frankincense, cassia, onycha, and myrrh in equal amounts (Ex 30,34-35). These refer to the four primary virtues, for if they are fully and equally present, the mind will not be betrayed. 2. When the soul has been purified by the full complement of the virtues, it stabilizes the attitude of the mind and prepares it to receive the desired state. 3. Prayer is a communion of the mind with God. What sort of state does the mind need so that it can reach out to its Lord without turning back and commune with him without intermediary? 4. If Moses, when he tried to approach the earthly burning bush, was held back until he removed the sandals from his feet (Ex 3,5), how can you, 27. Ibid., pp. 212-217 (my translation).

EVAGRIUS AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS

781

who wish to see and commune with the one who is beyond all representation and sense perception, not free yourself from every mental representation tied to the passions28?

In the above kephalaia, Evagrius has organized into a numerological meditation the prologue to his description of a priestly therapeia, which in the treatise OnPrayer that follows, in fact, depends upon reciting the Psalms and entering into prayer: the mind’s reception of God, accomplished in one rational soul after another, with mutual assistance. But where is all this taking place? Evagrian interpreters often prejudge the answer to this question by saying: well, a monastery; because Evagrius was a monk. But we do not really understand, I think, what all the possibilities for “monachos” are in the late fourth century. Another pair of scholia give us a somewhat more complicated answer, and so I cite them, too, because as a solitary and living among solitaries, Evagrius did consider himself to be a teacher for the church and a priest in its temple, again perhaps not unlike Clement who in Stromata VI called himself “a true priest of the church” because he was a gnostikos. Thus he writes his first two scholia on Ecclesiastes: The ekklêsia of pure souls is the true knowledge of ages and worlds, and the providence and judgment in them. The ekklesiastês is the Christ who is the gennetôr of – (i.e., “the one who fathers”) such knowledge; or the Ecclesiast is the one who purifies souls through ethical theoremata and leads them to physike theoria (again, the dispassionate and detailed knowledge of the cosmos)29.

The next scholion reads: To those who have entered into the intelligible ekklêsia and who admire the contemplation of created beings, the text says: do not think, that this is the final goal, because everything is emptiness of emptinesses compared with the knowledge of God himself. Just as remedies are empty after a complete healing, likewise the reasons (logoi) of ages and worlds are empty after the knowledge of the Holy Trinity30.

Evagrius links this insight with Psalms 142,5 and 76,6: If there is no longer the memory of the first, as David says, “I remember the original days and I remember the years of the world”: But all this is forgotten when “the intellect has gone to the holy Trinity and forgotten all created things”.

28. Ibid., pp. 218-223 (my translation). 29. Scholiesàl’Ecclésiaste, ed. GÉHIN (n. 5), pp. 58-59 (my translation). 30. Ibid., pp. 58-61 (my translation).

782

R.D. YOUNG

Who in the fourth century would – indeed, would Origen in the third or Clement in the second – have thought that the true ekklêsia was the knowledge of ages and worlds? Perhaps the Anthony of the Letters, or perhaps Didymus – but few would who had not relocated into a very particular kind of library. This startling pair of scholia should prompt – at greater length than can be accomplished here – a reevaluation of Evagrius’ life and career. To understand Evagrius’ inclinations it is necessary to look at the conditions of his early life and education. No doubt he was born into wealth, coming from the wealthy class of Pontus, and that he was well-educated. Of these matters, he discusses nothing. It probably would have been contrary to his purposes as a gnostikos to have given biographical information, but it is clear enough that his scholarly works are an application of his education. He was likely exposed to the private and ecclesiastical libraries of Pontus and Cappadocia themselves daughters of the libraries of Palestine, and granddaughters of the library of Origen at Alexandria. We do not know when he would have encountered the works of the Neoplatonists, and of the Aristotle whom he consults and quotes, or the Stoic treatises he imitates in form and sometimes in content, but we may think of his predecessors as many of the bookish philosophers of late antiquity – many of them given to austere lives, such as Plotinus and Porphyry, not to mention Origen himself: an ascetic philosopher engaged in devotion to the divine and the return of human minds to the one, resolving apparent contradictions in the previous tradition with the application of scriptural interpretation at some point. Evagrius may not have started out to be a Christian philosopher, but that is what he became, and in that he may have followed in the footsteps of Nazianzus and Nyssa as well. And here it is necessary to treat critically Palladius’ short biography of Evagrius as a repentant sinner garbed as a monk to take the cure – a biography that need not be accepted literally – and think of him as a scholar and philosopher. It is likely then that since the age of thirteen, Evagrius of Pontus had been involved in being trained for scholarship. That was the year (358) he began his grammatical studies with Gregory of Nazianzus, if Gregory’s Letter 3 refers to him, after Gregory had returned from Athens, but before he joined Basil not far from Evagrius’ home in Pontus. He may even have followed Gregory up to the Pontic retreat Gregory shared with Basil of Caesarea; the place was very close to his parents’ villa in Ibora, and he may have gotten there his first taste of Origen, as his two teachers began the compilation of the Philocalia. With the moody and exacting Gregory, Evagrius may have begun his scholarly training – and if he were there he

EVAGRIUS AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS

783

may also have read Gregory Thaumaturgus’ Panegyric, as well as Origen’s letter to the older Gregory instructing him to obtain the entire extent of available knowledge as a prelude to scriptural interpretation. That letter lays out a plan of education echoed by its later reader, Basil, and advocated in his AddresstoYoungMen. Evagrius may have been in the company of Gregory and Basil, and perhaps of Basil’s younger brother Gregory later bishop of Nyssa, for some years. He may have learned rhetoric and philosophy from Gregory – but one thing he almost certainly did was to develop an appreciation for Origen and Clement, as well as other teachers. And there, under Gregory of Nazianzus’ guidance, he became the scholar that he would remain for the rest of his life – devoted to books both Hellenic and Christian, practiced as a teacher in specialized circumstances, and even an accomplished scribe in his own right. On the other hand, he might have read Origen again along with other philosophers at the newly-building imperial library during his stay in Constantinople, overseen by Themistius, or again in Jerusalem where he would have had access to the libraries in Jerusalem and in Caesarea. There he would have had both Origen and Clement, to whom he is so closely affiliated in crucial ways. But Evagrius occupied a world vastly different from Origen’s. Evagrius of Pontus was indisputably an intellectual son and coheir of Origen. What are the signs of this? First, he wears the tag “Origenist”, given to him by the unfriendly Epiphanius of Salamis at the end of the fourth century, and he did, of course, cherish some of Origen’s ideas and interpret them for his own time and context. In some ways he simply continued Origen’s work: in theology, he depended upon Origen’s exegesis within a worldview drawing widely from Greek learning and viewing it as supporting the goal of epopteiaTheou; he opposed metaphysical dualism; he was incipiently in conflict with bishops. Yet anyone familiar with Origen’s work could outline significant differences between the two. Origen of course created a comprehensive theology founded in textual scholarship, and was the first Christian to have done so. His consultations with other teachers and bishops were extensive involving considerable travel; he can be said to have created exegesis not only by founding it upon his Alexandrian predecessors, but also by adopting and improving the tactics of his enemies, primarily Marcionites and Valentinians. He disciplined, expected and celebrated martyrdom, cooperated with bishops Demetrius, Theoctistus and others and in Caesarea gave courses of preaching surely in cooperation with the bishop; and he improved at the same time the schoolroom technique of

784

R.D. YOUNG

advanced teaching. He was an ascetic, even if Eusebius exaggerated these qualities in his biography of Origen. Evagrius, on the other hand, came from a province far removed from urban life; he was born into a Christianity that was rapidly imperializing and growing; he attended a major ecumenical council as the servant of its leaders; and he turned away from urban and social life. Martyrdom and the training for it was out of the question. In some ways he rejected Origen’s teaching. He adopted, for instance, the tripartite anthropology of Plato; he revived the office (if it is an office) of the gnostikos, returning deliberately to Clement of Alexandria; and he assiduously avoided working with bishops, emphasizing far more than Origen the need for hinting and hiding the truth in riddles. Lacking from his oeuvre are sermons, apologies and commentaries – remaining are sets of kephalaia, discourses to particular individuals, letters and scholia. Another presupposition worth questioning is Evagrius’ location and purpose. Following Palladius’ short biography and the HistoriaMonachorum of Rufinus, it has been common to think of Evagrius as a monk, because he claimed authority over monastic correspondents, for instance, or described the symbolism of the monastic habit; but was he really a leader of many other monks? Or did he, like Plotinus, have a small circle of students living now not in the polis but out of it, for whom Evagrius wrote extensively and even repetitively, and not the wide circulation and widelyacknowledged reputation and authority that such later admirers as Palladius and Sozomen encourage us to assume. But more than that: he was a philosopher who through training and contemplation – thus his constant admonitions to his readers to “exercise yourself!” by alienating himself from certain social structures in order to cultivate a friendship with Christ, and with God. He refers to Origen, Clement and Philo as sources for a benevolent Christian tradition which envisions a divine oikonomia that heals everyone in an indeterminate succession of aeons. In a sense also he develops the conditions for a primary itinerarium, guiding his students as to what they will experience along the way back up from the many to the one. The question for Evagrius became, where could he practice his philosophy best? He was in Constantinople with Gregory Nazianzus and Nyssa, stayed on to assist the next bishop and is likely to have met Jerome there: there was a very tight circle of learned disputants, who then migrated away from the capital, perhaps in response to developments under Theodosius I31. 31. S. REBENICH, Jerome, London – New York, Routledge, 2002, p. 26: “Jerome’s arrival at Constantinople around the year 380 was almost perfectly timed”; and ID., Asceticism, Orthodoxy and Patronage: Jerome in Constantinople, in Studia Patristica 33 (1997) 358-377.

EVAGRIUS AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS

785

His move to Jerusalem was crucial, because he would become there like Jerome, whom Peter Brown memorably describes as living in a “gravityfree zone” with his library in Bethlehem, funded by his wealthy patroness, and unlike Origen’s life at Caesarea, “the library of Jerome owed nothing to the local church and its bishop. It was as well-stocked and autonomous as was the private library of any senator”32. Rufinus’ situation was even better, due to Melania’s management of her wealth – and we might well ask whether she contributed to Evagrius’ enterprise when he departed for Nitria. So rather than a flight from sin, we might see Evagrius’ perigrination as a flight to reading, writing and contemplation. Reading and writing and copying manuscripts would be at the center of Evagrius’ life when he went to Nitria. There he began to develop a theory of reading, inquiry and contemplation that in his thought wound its way through the pedagogy he had previously absorbed, and which he would now teach to others, as described in the Gnostikos33. This is not to say that Evagrius did not live as a monachos in his own house in Kellia, and that he did not experience difficulties. His humorous description in EightSpirits confirms this as he talks about akedia, colloquially – slacking off: The eye of the slacker always strains toward the windows and his understanding fantasizes visitors. The door creaks, and he jumps up; he hears a sound and leans out the window and stays there until he becomes stiff from sitting. When he reads, the slacker yawns a lot, and readily drifts off to sleep; he rubs his eyes and stretches out his arms; turning his eyes away from the book, he stares at the wall. Again he goes back to reading for a while; leafing through the pages, he turns them, counts the sheets, calculates the number of fascicles, criticizes the lettering and the decoration. Finally, lowering his head, he puts the book beneath it and falls into a light sleep, until he is awakened by hunger and decides to take care of it34.

32. P. BROWN, ThroughtheEyeofaNeedle:Wealth,theFallofRome,andtheMaking ofChristianityintheWest,350-550 AD, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2012, p. 179. 33. ÉvagrelePontique,Legnostique,ouàceluiquiestdevenudignedelascience, ed. and transl. A. GUILLAUMONT – C. GUILLAUMONT (SC, 356), Paris, Cerf, 1989. See for example, Gnostikos 35, p. 164 (lacking in Greek): “Invite the monks who come to your house to speak about the ethical [practices] but not about doctrines …” or the well-known Gnostikos 6, p. 96: “The gnostikos should remain firm in his condescensions, lest condescension (synkatabasis) become a habit for him …”. 34. Eight Thoughts 6,14; Evagrius of Pontus: The Greek Ascetic Corpus, transl. R. SINKEWICZ, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 84; PG 79, 1145-1164, and see J. MUYLDERMANS, Unenouvellerecensiondu De octo spiritibus malitiae deS.Nil, in Le Muséon 52 (1939) 235-274.

786

R.D. YOUNG

Most of Evagrius’ concepts come in pairs, so this portrait of bored distraction during study hall seems appropriate to a student. But for an advanced teacher, things could get much worse, especially when the book in question is the bible. Obstacles to scholarship came from a more perilous quarter than just lack of industry. There are certain impure demons who always sit in front of those engaged in reading and try to seize their mind, often taking pretexts from the divine scriptures themselves, and ending in evil thoughts. It sometimes happens that they force the reader to yawn more than they are accustomed to and they instill a very deep sleep quite different from usual sleep. Whereas some of the brothers have imagined that it is in accordance with an unintelligible natural reaction, I for my part have learned this by frequent observation: they touch the eyelids and the entire head, cooling it with their own body, for the bodies of the demons are very cold and like ice; and the head feels as if it is being sucked by a cupping glass with a rasping sound. They do this in order to draw to themselves the heat that lies within the cranium, and then the eyelids, relaxed by the moisture and cold, slip over the pupils of the eyes. Often in touching myself I have found my eyelids fixed like ice and my entire face numb and shivering. Natural sleep however normally warms bodies and renders the faces of healthy people rosy, as one can learn from experience itself. But the demons provoke unnatural and prolonged yawning, and they make themselves small enough to touch the interior of the mouth. This phenomenon I have not understood to this day, though I have often experienced it, but I heard the holy Makarios speak to me about it, and offer as proof the fact that those who yawn make the sign of the cross over the mouth according to an old and mysterious tradition. We experience all these things because we are not vigilantly attentive to the reading and we do not remember that we are reading the holy words of the living God35.

Far from the lazy and distracted student of the first quotation, the reader under siege from demons, as Evagrius describes him, seems to be an experienced scholar, one to whom adversarial forces are attracted precisely because of the nature of his research – into the deeper meaning of scripture in order to distribute it to his students. The intimacy with which the demons attack, caressing the eyelids and even entering the mouth, suggests a clever enmity disguising itself as eros. Evagrius knows this – like any empiricist – from experience, and it arises from the same problem at a higher level – laziness, slacking off – and from the failure of memory: we do not remember that we are supposed to be reading. Memorization must have been the foundation of Evagrius’ work, and this is another neglected aspect of his thought. The art of memory provided 35. Thoughts 33; EvagriusofPontus, transl. SINKEWICZ (n. 34), p. 176; see Évagrele Pontique.Surlespensées, ed. P. GÉHIN – C. GUILLAUMONT – A. GUILLAUMONT (SC, 438), Paris, Cerf, 1998, pp. 266-270.

EVAGRIUS AND THE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE PSALMS

787

the basis for his education from the Grammaticus forward, and it enabled him to recall swiftly and reuse not only the teachings of the philosophers and scientists whose work he needed; it trained the student to memorize speeches once composed, and to be able to draw on a vast amount of literary references that would signal to his audience a world of shared meaning. Memory, thus, was part of the structure of education, and the stuff of thought – tapragmata inhabits, you could say, mneme. But this is also a problem. Memories are notoriously obstacles for Evagrius, particularly in the tussle between the practice of virtue and the pull of vice. They act as a drag. And not only that – the adversaries who surround us constantly, constantly activate our memories against us. But for Evagrius the problem with shared memories is that they trouble the concentration of his students and himself. Especially solitaries who are deprived of the public for which that art of memory was designed to entertain. The difficulty is how to remove troublesome memories and recover and establish good ones through melete, concentration. Memory is thus an ambivalent faculty. On the one hand, memory is connected to misinterpretations of the created world and other rational composite beings; but on the other hand, as Evagrius seems to think, memory is also a faculty necessary for the return to unity. Evagrius hints at a theory of recollection that as far as I know Origen mentions once in OnPrayer XXIV,3 commenting on Ps 45,17, And everyone who clearly understands the things of God remembers them rather than learns them, even though he seems to be taught by someone else or things that he himself discovers the mysteries of religion36.

But Evagrius’ understanding of memory seems closer to Clement in Stromata IV,24,3: “The Stromateis of notes, then, indeed combine toward recollection, and towards expression of truth in the kind who is able to study according to reason”. For Evagrius, memories that carry the passions experienced before the turn to the life of philosophical practice are to be expunged in order that true memories can replace them. And these true memories are to be found in scripture – which is why he writes scholia on them, to guide the memory of his practitioners away from their particular experiences toward the disposition that the Psalms make possible. From the work of Luke Dysinger and Charles Fogielmann we have a description of the two 36. On Prayer 44; SC 589, 139-140 GÉHIN; Evagrius of Pontus, transl. SINKEWICZ (n. 34), p. 197.

788

R.D. YOUNG

main works in which Evagrius describes the use of the Psalms as a part of the combative or remedial praktikê and the gnôstikê theôria. The large task that remains to be done is not only to trace the influence of Origen in Evagrius’ understanding of the Psalms – that is everywhere in general and obvious in particular places. Rather, what needs to be shown is how the Psalms appear throughout the contemplative kephalaia of the Kephalaia Gnostika, decoded in their meditative verses that were meant to allow the students of Evagrius, few as they may have been in the late fourth century, to become simply the recipients of intelligible light, or, as we heard in the first paragraph of this paper, to become in stages Anastasis, Ascension, and Mount of Olives where “the glory of the Lord went up and stood upon the Mountain” (Ez 11,23). The Catholic University of America Washington, DC 20064 USA [email protected]

Robin Darling YOUNG

THE NOUS IS THE HEAD OF THE SOUL REMAKING ORIGEN’S AND EVAGRIUS’S ANTHROPOLOGY FOR THE CHURCH OF THE EAST

In the early sixth century, Barsanuphius of Gaza received a letter from a fellow monk of Palestine asking him about troubling teachings that the monk had found contained in the writings of Origen and Didymus of Alexandria, as well as in the KephalaiaGnostika of Evagrius of Pontus. In these texts, the monk had read that all creatures were created as “naked intellects” (noesgymnoi) and would return to that state in the apokatastasis, when all things would be reunited with God. Could this be true, the monk wondered, when there was no hint of such a teaching in scripture1? In his response, Barsanuphius warned his correspondent that such issues were matters of “Hellenic doctrine”; they did not pertain to the duties of a monk2. On a grander scale and in a more brutal fashion, the Second Council of Constantinople, held in 553, also aimed to put an end to speculation on such matters, by condemning the works of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and ordering them to be burned. Yet questions about these authors and their views on the nature and final end of humans persisted in the Christian East, above all within the Syriac communities of Sasanian Mesopotamia, which were unaffected by the condemnations of Evagrius at the Second Council of Constantinople. Roughly a century after Barsanuphius’s letter, Babai the Great (d. 628), an East Syrian (“Nestorian”) abbot at the “Great Monastery” on Mount Izla in northern Mesopotamia, composed a commentary on Evagrius’s Kephalaia Gnostika, in which he addressed precisely the issues raised by Barsanuphius’s confrère in Palestine. Since the pioneering study of Antoine Guillaumont in 1962, scholars have viewed Babai’s commentary as the final stage in a process whereby Syriac readers stripped Evagrius’s writings of their foundation in Origen’s thought3. Guillaumont uncovered two Syriac translations of the Kephalaia Gnostika. One version – referred to by Guillaumont as the “S2” translation – 1. Barsanuphius of Gaza, Correspondance, ed. F. NEYT – P. DE ANGELIS-NOAH, transl. L. REGNAULT (SC, 451), Paris, Cerf, 2001, vol. 2, t. 2, pp. 804-806. 2. Ibid., p. 808. 3. A. GUILLAUMONT, Les Kephalaia Gnostica d’Évagre le Pontique et l’histoire de l’origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens (Patristica Sorbonensia, 5), Paris, Seuil, 1962.

790

J. ZALESKI

provided in general a more faithful and literal rendering of the Greek. In contrast, the “S1” translation was more periphrastic and omitted Evagrius’s more controversial statements about the nature of created beings and the origin and end of humanity4. Babai used the bowdlerized S1 recension, and it was this translation that became the dominant Syriac version of the text5. Yet he also knew about the S2 translation and regarded it as a heretical perversion of the original work6. As Guillaumont demonstrated, Babai sought to eliminate the vestiges of Origenism that survived in the S1 translation, and so to end, once and for all, an Origenist reading of Evagrius. Babai’s interpretation of Evagrius’s statements on the “intellect” (Greek nous, pl. noes;Syriac hawnā, pl. hawne) formed a central part of this effort. As Barsanuphius’s correspondent had recognized, Evagrius followed Origen in teaching that all creatures were originally formed as incorporeal intellects, or noes, which existed in a state of union with God. When the noes fell from their divine source, they gained bodies and souls. Eventually, however, body and soul (at least in their present form) will pass away, and thenoes will return to union with God7. Babai was well aware that contemporary readers of Evagrius attributed to him these Origenist views about the origin, nature, and final end of the nous. In his commentary on the KephalaiaGnostika, Babai stripped Evagrius’s treatment of the nous of its Origenist dimensions by conforming Evagrius’s language to the theological anthropology of the orthodox authors of the East Syrian church, especially Theodore of Mopsuestia. In this way, Babai sought to create a Kephalaia Gnostika suitable for East Syrian monks whose theology and identity were grounded in Theodore’s authority. Babai’s commentary was, in short, a self-consciously East Syrian attempt to resolve longstanding questions about the theological anthropology of Evagrius and Origen8. 4. On the authorship of these translations, see P. GÉHIN, D’Égypte en Mésopotamie:Laréceptiond’ÉvagrelePontiquedanslescommunautéssyriaques, in F. JULLIEN – M.-J. PIERRE (eds.), Monachismesd’Orient:Images,échanges,influences, Turnhout, Brepols, 2011, 29-49, pp. 32-37. 5. The S1 translation has survived in eight manuscripts, while S2 survives in only one. It was S1 which was cited by Syriac writers after Babai, and which provided the basis for the Armenian translation of the KephalaiaGnostika.GUILLAUMONT, LesKéphalaia Gnostica (n. 3), p. 201. 6. W. FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Neue Folge, 13.2), Berlin, Weidmann, 1912, p. 23. 7. These ideas are most clearly presented in Evagrius’s “Letter to Melania”; FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6), pp. 616-618. Cf. KephalaiaGnostika III,28, discussed below. 8. While this article thus confirms and extends Guillaumont’s analysis of Babai’s effort to de-Origenize Evagrius, it also contributes to recent scholarship that has sought to

THE NOUS IS THE HEAD OF THE SOUL

791

I. DE-ORIGENIZING THE NOUS In his preface to the commentary on the Kephalaia Gnostika, Babai denies that Evagrius held Origenist ideas about the nous9. As he writes: [Evagrius] says that “the soul consists of three parts, as our teacher said” (Praktikos 89). And if his teacher taught this, and he learned it and affirmed it, how can you so unjustly treat the light [of Evagrius] as equivalent to the darkness of Origen the heretic, O you friends [of Evagrius] who do him harm, and associates who only do him evil! For [Origen], in all of these evil and perverse teachings of his, heretically asserted that the noes (hawne) that had thoughts10 fell from heaven, and instead of noes they became souls and were imprisoned in bodies11.

Babai here outlines a version, albeit a simplified one, of Origen’s views on the creation and fall of the nous. Remarkably, however, he attributes this teaching solely to Origen and attacks those readers who – correctly! – ascribed such notions to Evagrius12. Instead, Babai suggests recover the positive dimensions of Babai’s interpretative project – dimensions that have been obscured by focusing exclusively on Babai’s removal of Origenist ideas from Evagrius. Till Engelmann has provided an overview of principal features of Babai’s theology as articulated in the commentary, as well as a rich interpretation of Babai’s understanding of contemplation and knowledge of God; T. ENGELMANN, AnnahmeChristiundGottesschau:DieTheologieBabaisdesGroßen(Göttinger Orientforschungen, I/42), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2013, pp. 34-107. Other scholars have examined Babai’s commentary as an articulation of East Syrian mystical theology (G.G. BLUM, Nestorianismus und Mystik: ZurEntwicklungchristlich-orientalischerSpiritualitätinderostsyrischenKirche, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 93 [1982] 273-294), as providing the ascetic and mystical foundations of Babai’s Christology (M. METSELAAR, TheMirror,theQnoma,andtheSoul: AnotherPerspectiveontheChristologicalFormulaofBabaitheGreat, in ZAC19 [2015] 331-366), and as applying Aristotle’s categories to the analysis of the KephalaiaGnostika (GÉHIN, D’ÉgypteenMésopotamie, pp. 43-44). 9. Babai wrote two commentaries on the KephalaiaGnostika: first a longer commentary, now lost, and later a shorter commentary that survives accompanied by two prefaces. As Géhin argues, it is likely that the first, longer preface belonged originally to the longer commentary. GÉHIN, D’ÉgypteenMésopotamie (n. 4), p. 43. 10. These are the “thoughts” (ḥúshābe) that, by distracting the noes from perfect contemplation of God, caused their fall. 11. FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6), pp. 20-22 (all translations are my own): ? …Îçã ? Āàx üãs u{ Íçóáã …s{ fèçóáã üãsx ßÙs ¿þóæx èÙ{z ÁzÎæ …{ĀäÑò ĀÙ¾ćàÎï …{Āæs âÚÝz ¿çÞÙs üýs{ ôáÙ {z{ ôàs ? åáÔäà ÛäÐă {s ¿ðÚý ëÚçō{sx zÎÝÎþÑà .xÎÑá Îý¾Ãäà ÛïËÙ{ ? ? ? Ÿ åà ¿æ{zx ¿ÚÞòz €zÎçóàÎÚ …{Í ñýs ÀĀþÚ Áxz œ ÍáÞ üÚÅ {z ? ? {üéss{f{{zÀĀþóæåà¿æ{zôáÐ{fÎáóæ¿Úäýèã¿Ãý ÎÐ… {ÍáÙxx ? f¿ćäýÎÆ 12. An example of the influence of the Origenist-Evagrian understanding of the nous on Syriac literature can be seen in the Book of the Holy Hierotheos, likely written by Stephen Bar Sudayli in the early sixth century. See TheBookoftheHolyHierotheos, ed. and transl. F.S. MARSH, London, Pub. for the Text and Translation Society by Williams and Norgate, 1927, esp. pp. 131-133.

792

J. ZALESKI

that Evagrius’s anthropological doctrine was limited to the Platonic notion of the soul as tripartite (consisting of rational, irascible, and concupiscible faculties), an understanding of the soul that Evagrius inherited from Gregory of Nazianzus13. Babai’s claim that Evagrius did not teach an Origenist understanding of the origin and fall of the nous was grounded in the fact that the S1 translation of the KephalaiaGnostika sanitized Evagrius’s statements on this subject. Yet, as we will see, suggestions of Evagrius’s views survived even in this recension and so demanded of Babai a careful reinterpretation. The idea that the noesfell from divine union was especially problematic for Babai because it suggested that the human nous could someday recover its original state of union with the divine nature. This suggestion had roots in Evagrius’s own writings. In the “Letter to Melania”, Evagrius indicates that the noeswill reunite with the divine nature at the apokatastasis: “Do not be amazed”, Evagrius writes, “that I said that in the union of rational beings with God the Father, they shall be one nature in three hypostases, without any addition and without change”14. So, too, in KephalaiaGnostika(hereafter KG)IV,51, Evagrius speaks of a final “unity”, in which “all will be gods” (kollhonalāhenehwon). In commenting upon this passage, Babai emphasizes that the divinization described by Evagrius does not entail a union of human and divine nature. As he writes: [Evagrius] says that “they will all be gods”: not in nature (kyānā), as in the heretical assertion of Origen and Hnana, who claim that we are created as one nature (kyānā) with God… Rather, [he calls] “gods” those who are perfect in the knowledge that does not go astray and is not ensnared in heresy to the point of death15.

Babai here attacks not only Origen, but also Hnana of Adiabene, the director of the School of Nisibis from circa 571 to 610, whom Babai viewed as both an Origenist and a crypto-Miaphysite16. Babai attributes 13. In the preface, Babai names Gregory of Nazianzus (¿òÎúêòs †ÎٍÎÆÙüÅ {ÏçÙÏæsx) as Evagrius’s teacher, who ordained him to the diaconate; FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6), p. 20. 14. Ibid., p. 618: ? …{zÎÙËÑÂx üãsx üãx ¿ćà{ ËÐ :¿Âs ÀÍàs åïx ¿ćáÚáãx ? .¿óáÐÎý¿ćà{„ËãÀĀóé{¿ćàx :èÚãÎçùÀĀàĀ¿çÚÝ… Îæs 15. Ibid., p. 294: ? ¿ççÐx{ëÚçō{sx¿ðý{ßÙs¿çÚÞÂÎà :…{{ÍæÀÍàs… {ÍáÝxüãs Ÿ Ÿ ? ? åï¿çÚÝÎà{ :üãsüÚÅÀÍàsÀÍàsåïÁËÚ ÃïèÙ{ z¿çÚÝËÐxèÚÔ ýx Ÿ Ÿ ? ? ÀĀïËÚ€üÚäÅèÙxÎæ zhåàÀ Íàs .…Îæzx¿ðý{ßÙs¿çÚÝËÐÀÍàs ¿ðý{üÂÀÎãÎà¿ćáōĀþã¿ćà{¿ÚðÓ¿ćàx 16. On the controversies surrounding Hnana, see G. REININK, TraditionandtheFormationofthe‘Nestorian’IdentityinSixth-toSeventh-CenturyIraq, in ChurchHistoryand ReligiousCulture 89 (2009) 217-250.

THE NOUS IS THE HEAD OF THE SOUL

793

to both Origen and Hnana the belief that humans can become gods in nature (kyānā), and he presents this view as deriving from their understanding of human beings as created in the same nature (kyānā) as God. He attacks Origen and Hnana for such views at several points in the commentary17. His concern seems to have been that the Origenist understanding of the creation of the human – namely, that humans were created as pure intellects (noes) united with God – encourages a belief that the human nous can recover a union with the very nature of God. Such a belief not only threatened the proper boundaries of human and divine nature, it misconstrued what Babai saw as the ultimate end of monastic life: to gain knowledge, vision, or contemplation of God, not to be transformed into divine nature18. Babai’s solution was to equate the nous with the rational part of the tripartite soul, and so to undercut any speculation about the nousas having a special origin, nature, or final end distinct from that of the soul. This was no simple task, for Evagrius’s abstruse and coded language offers multiple ways for thinking about the relation of the nous and soul. In some cases, Evagrius does indeed speak as if the nous were equivalent to the soul’s rational faculty19. Yet other chapters in the KephalaiaGnostika present the nousas distinct from or in opposition to the soul. For example, in KGII,56, Evagrius distinguishes the nous from the soul, stating “the nous teaches the soul, and the soul [teaches] the body”20. KG I,81, in turn, opposes the nousand the soul: “The glory and the light of the nous (hawnā)”, Evagrius writes, “is spiritual knowledge. But the glory and the light of the soul (napshā) is its apatheia”21. In his commentary on such passages, Babai sought to collapse the diversity of nous-language in the KephalaiaGnostika and so to confirm that the nous is equivalent to the soul’s rational dimension. For example, in commenting on KGI,81, Babai states:

17. In addition to this passage, see Babai’s commentary on KGV,81 (FRANKENBERG, Euagrius Ponticus [n. 6], p. 354), KG VI,51 (ibid., p. 390), and Skemmata 43 (ibid., pp. 460-461). 18. On knowledge and vision of God in Babai’s commentary, see ENGELMANN, Annahme Christi (n. 8), pp. 89-91. 19. For example, KG I,84 (FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus [n. 6], p. 120)and KG III,35 (ibid., p. 212)both describe the three faculties of the soul but refer to the nous(hawnā) in place of the rational faculty. 20. FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6), p. 168: Ÿ .ÁüÆóàèÙx¿þóæ .ôáã¿þóçàâÚÝz¿æ{z 21. Ibid., pp. 116-118: Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ zzÎæ{èÙx zÎÃýf}{xÀĀïËÙ ÍÙĀÙs¿æ{zxzzÎæ{zĀÐÎÃý Ÿ fzÎýÎþпćà¿þóæx

794

J. ZALESKI

[Evagrius] does not say this as if the nature (kyānā) of the soul (napshā) were different from that of the nous (hawnā), as the fools madly believe, but it is as he says in another section, that the “nous is the head of the soul” (KG V,45). Now, the head is not different in nature from the members, but rather [the “head” is so called] because it is the director of the members. And so, too, [is] the rational part of the soul, which oversees, orders, directs, and unites these two parts [the irascible and concupiscible parts of the soul] in one light of glory22.

Babai’s commentary humanizes the nous. The noussimply represents the soul’s rational faculty and possesses no nature (kyānā), purpose, or final end distinct from that of the soul, as a whole. Babai’s nous is domesticated, collapsed into the soul, and stripped of its rich protological and eschatological implications. Yet, as we will see, Babai did not simply strip Evagrius’s anthropology of Origenist connotations, but also reinterpreted it in light of East Syrian theological authorities, especially Theodore of Mopsuestia. II. BABAI, THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA,

AND THE

NOUS

To understand Babai’s use of Theodore of Mopsuestia, it is important to appreciate the centrality of Theodore within a coalescing East Syrian orthodoxy and identity that Babai himself helped to create. The late Sasanian period was a time of intense competition among rival Christian churches, as East Syrians, Miaphysites, and (to a lesser extent) Chalcedonians vied over converts, control of churches and monasteries, and imperial patronage23. Within this context, Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose writings had anchored the curriculum at the East Syrian School of Nisibis, emerged as a symbol of East Syrian orthodoxy24. In 605, the East Syrian Synod of Gregory I declared that all must “accept and assent to all the commentaries 22. Ibid., p. 118: ? Ÿ ¿ćáÞéÎÔýxßÙs¿æ{zËà¿þóæx Íæ¾ÚÝ{zèÙüÐsx{zßÙsüÚÅÎà ¿þóæx {z ¿ý ¿æ{zx ¿æüÐs ¿Âüþ üãsx ßÙs ¿ćàs ¿Ýz üãs ? ? ¿ãxÍà üÂËã {zx âÔã ¿ćàs ¿ãxz èã ÿÙüò ¿çÚÞ Îà ¿ý Àz{ ÁüÂËã{ ¿êÞÔã{ ¿ÙÏÐ €z h¿þóæx ÀĀÚçáÝĀêã ÀĀçã ‰s{ ¿çÝz{ ? .ÀĀÐÎÃýxÁzÎæËÑ :ÀÎçãèُèÚàÍàÁËÚÑã{ 23. On the role of monks and monasteries in this confessional competition, see F. JULLIEN, LeMonachismeenPerse:Laréformed’AbrahamleGrand,pèredesmoinesdel’Orient (CSCO.S, 121), Leuven, Peeters, 2008, pp. 14-36. 24. Theodore’s writings were translated into Syriac in the fifth century. A. BECKER, Fear ofGodandtheBeginningofWisdom:TheSchoolofNisibisandChristianScholastic CultureinLateAntiqueMesopotamia(Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion), Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006, p. 116. On the reception of Theodore’s thought and writings at the School of Nisibis, see ibid., pp. 113-125.

THE NOUS IS THE HEAD OF THE SOUL

795

and writings composed by the Blessed Mar Theodore the Commentator, bishop of Mopsuestia”25. The monks of Babai’s monastery on Mount Izla sought to embody this Theodoran and East Syrian identity26. They tonsured their hair to distinguish themselves from their Miaphysite confrères, whose heads were shaved clean27; they preached their Christology at the court of the Shahanshah28; and they studied the texts and commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The living ideal of East Syrian monastic learning was the saintly Bar ‘Idta, who memorized all of Theodore’s commentaries29. Yet all monks at the Great Monastery were bound by their rule to accept Theodore’s teachings30. According to Dadisho῾ Qatraya, under Babai’s abbacy, monks spent their weekly periods of solitude praying in their cells, reading the Psalms, and studying Theodore’s writings31. Babai would thus have read the Syriac translations of Theodore both during his tenure at the School of Nisibis and during his life as a monk at the Great Monastery. It is no surprise, then, that his commentary on the KephalaiaGnostika emphasizes Theodore’s authority and teachings. In the preface, Babai names Evagrius, John of Apamea, and Theodore as the three saints who instruct the church32. Later, he pairs Evagrius and Theodore as the two embodiments of East Syrian orthodoxy. “Everyone who slanders or rejects these holy men”, he writes, “is an evil heretic, a Theopaschite [i.e. a Miaphysite], and a wicked Messalian”33. 25. J.B. CHABOT, SynodiconOrientale, Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1902, pp. 210/47475.

26. A. CAMPLANI, TheRevivalofPersianMonasticism(SixthtoSeventhCenturies): Church Structures, Theological Academy, and Reformed Monks, in ID. – G. FILORAMO (eds.), Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late-Antique Monasticism (OLA, 157),Leuven, Peeters, 2007, 277-295, pp. 282-284. 27. Thomas of Marga, TheBookofGovernors, ed. and transl. E.A.W BUDGE, 2 vols., London, K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & co., ltd., 1893, pp. 1:23/2:40-41. 28. G. REININK, BabaitheGreat’sLife of George andthePropagationofDoctrinein theLateSasanianEmpire, in J. DRIJVERS – J. WATT (eds.), PortraitsofSpiritualAuthority: ReligiousPowerinEarlyChristianity,ByzantiumandtheChristianOrient(Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 137), Leiden – Boston, MA – Köln, Brill, 1999, 171-193. 29. TheHistoriesofRabbanHormizdandRabbanBar-’Idta, ed. and transl. E.A.W. BUDGE (Luzac’s Semitic Text and Translation Series, 9-11), 2 vols. London, Luzac and co., 1902, pp. 1:119/2:174. 30. A. VÖÖBUS, SyriacandArabicDocumentsregardingLegislationRelativetoSyrian Asceticism(Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 11),Stockholm, Etse, 1960, p. 168. 31. Dadisho῾ Qatraya, On Solitude; Los cinco tratados sobre la quietud (šelyā) de Dāḏišō῾Qaṭrāyā, ed. F. DEL RÍO SÁNCHEZ (Aula Orientalis Supplementa, 18), Barcelona, Ausa, 2001, p. 50. 32. FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6), pp. 16-18. 33. Ibid.,pp. 412-414: Ÿ .€z{ĀÙs¿þÚ¿úÚӍzh¿ćáêã{ûþï¿þÙËùèÚàÍàxâÝ ? ÀÍà¾ćàÿÑã{ .¿ðÚý¿çÚàøã{

796

J. ZALESKI

In reinterpreting Evagrius’s discussion of nousand soul, Babai drew upon anthropological language and concepts that he encountered in his reading of Theodore. One text of Theodore that Babai certainly read was Theodore’s OntheIncarnation, which was directed against the Christological views of Arius, Apollinaris, and Eunomius. The Syriac translation of this work played an important role in the Christological debates at the School of Nisibis, and in Babai’s vita of his confrère Mar George, he refers to the text explicitly34. In the text, as preserved in British Library MS Add. 14,669, Theodore argues that the Apollinarian Christ, in which the divine Logos replaces the human nous, is an anthropological impossibility35. The nous, Theodore asserts, is not a “third nature” (kyānātlítāyā), distinct from the soul and capable of being supplanted by the Logos36. The nous is, rather, the “soul’s nous” (madd῾ād-napshā)37; it resides “in it [the soul]” (bah)38; and there cannot be “a human soul without anous” 34. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha: De trois autres Patriarches, d’un prêtre et de deux laïques,nestoriens, ed. P. BEDJAN, Paris, Harrassowitz, 1895,pp. 498-500. On Babai’s citation of On the Incarnation within the context of debate concerning this text at the School of Nisibis, see REININK, TraditionandFormation (n. 16), pp. 227-228. 35. Sachau identified the fragments in this manuscript as belonging to OntheIncarnation, since many of them correspond with extant Greek testimonies of this text; E. SACHAU, TheodoriMopsuesteniFragmentaSyriaca, Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann, 1869, pp. 2857 for the Latin translation and pp. v‹–Íã (pp. 45-93) for the Syriac edition. Later scholars accepted that all the fragments belonged to OntheIncarnation, while also concluding that the fragments were out of order in the manuscript and that Sachau’s reconstruction of the proper order needed to be revised; see esp. R. DEVREESSE, EssaisurThéodorede Mopsueste (Studi e Testi, 141), Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1948, pp. 44-48; M. RICHARD, LaTraditiondesfragmentsdutraitéΠερὶτῆςἐνανϑρωπήσεωςde ThéodoredeMopsueste, in Muséon46 (1943) 55-75, p. 62; and L. ABRAMOWSKI, DieReste dersyrischenÜbersetzungvonTheodorvonMopsuestia,DeIncarnatione,inAdd.14.669, in Aram 5 (1993) 23-32. More recently, however, Peter Bruns and Till Jansen have suggested that some of the fragments contained in the manuscript may, in fact, belong not to OntheIncarnation, but to a later work written by Theodore against Apollinaris. See P. BRUNS, TheodorvonMopsuestia.KatechetischeHomilien (FC, 17), 2 vols., Freiburg i.Br. – New York, Herder, 1994, 1:10 n. 52; and T. JANSEN, TheodorvonMopsuestia. De Incarnatione (PTS, 65), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2009, pp. 122-123. In the case of the fragment discussed here (folios 4a-4b), although it does not correspond to any of the extant Greek quotations of the text, there are several indications that it does belong to OntheIncarnation. Most importantly, as Abramowski pointed out, the fragment bears in the manuscript margin a chapter number (Çã = 43), corresponding to the chapter numbers that accompany other verifiable fragments from On the Incarnation (see ABRAMOWSKI, Die Reste, p. 24); secondly, the content of the passage fits well with the summary of OntheIncarnationgiven by Gennadius (see below); and, finally, the passage is directed as much against Eunomius as against Apollinaris, both of whom were (along with Arius) the targets of OntheIncarnation. 36. SACHAU, FragmentaSyriaca (n. 35), p. † (60) = Latin transl. 36-37; cf. p. ¿é (61) = Latin transl. 37 and p. Íé(65) = Latin transl. 39. 37. Ibid., p. Äé(62) = Latin transl. 37-38. 38. Ibid., p. †(60) = Latin transl. 37.

THE NOUS IS THE HEAD OF THE SOUL

797

(napshā d-barnāshā da-d-lā madd῾ā)39. Gennadius summarizes this argument when he states that, in OntheIncarnation,Theodore “teaches that the human consists of only two substances, that is, soul and body, and that mind (sensus) and spirit (spiritus) are not another substance but are rather functions inherent in the soul, by which [the soul] inspires, is rational, and makes the body sensible”40. Since Babai knew On the Incarnation, he certainly also knew Theodore’s teaching that the nousis not distinct in nature (kyānā) from the soul. By insisting that Evagrius did not conceive of the nous as a nature (kyānā) distinct from the soul, Babai thus ensured the conformity of Evagrius’s theological anthropology with that of Theodore. More concrete evidence that Babai was guided by a Theodoran anthropology can be seen in the common language used by Babai and Theodore. In Theodore’s fifth catechetical homily, he attacks Apollinarian and Eunomian claims about the anthropology of the incarnate Christ41. In this text, which survives only in Syriac, Theodore states: Whoever says that [Christ] did not assume a human nous (madd῾ā) is a raving fool, for one who says this implies either that [Christ] did not assume a soul or that he did assume a soul, but instead of a human one, a nonintellectual one (lā yādo῾tānítā), such as gives life to animals and beasts. For by this alone does the human soul differ from that of animals: that [the animal soul] does not have a hypostasis of the soul (qnomād-napshā). But, in the animal’s composition, [the soul] neither subsists on its own, nor is it believed to do so after the animal’s death. Because of this, when the blood of the animal, which is said to be the soul (Lev 17,11/14), is shed, even that which is called the soul perishes, although before the death of the animal it was considered to reside in the hypostasis and impulses of the animal. … This is the whole difference between the soul of humans and that of animals, that the [soul of animals] is dumb and does not have its own hypostasis (qnomā), whereas that of humans is immortal, and is rightly believed also to be intellectual (yādo῾tānítā)42. 39. Ibid., p. Äé (62) = Latin transl. 38. The Syriac term for nous or “intellect” in these passages is madd῾ā, rather than hawnā as is usually the case in the translations of Evagrius. Babai, however, understood madd῾ā and hawnā as functionally interchangeable. See his commentary on Skemmata 40, where he states that the fathers called the rational faculty of the soul either madd῾ā or hawnā; FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6), p. 459. 40. Hieronymus.Liberdevirisinlustribus.Gennadius.Liberdevirisinlustribus, ed. E.C. RICHARDSON(TU, 14/1), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1896, ch. 12, pp. 65-66: Docetethominem duabustantumsubstantiisconstare,idest,animaetcorpore,sensumqueetspiritumnon alteram substantiam sed officia esse animae ingenita, quibus inspirat, quibus rationalis est,quibussensibilefacitcorpus. 41. On the influence of Theodore’s catechetical homilies within the School of Nisibis, see BECKER, FearofGod (n. 24), pp. 117-119. 42. The text is contained in Birmingham Cadbury Research Library Mingana Syriac MS 561, ff. 31r-v, a photographic reproduction of which is given in Les Homélies

798

J. ZALESKI

In order to emphasize the inseparability of the nous from Christ’s human soul, Theodore explains what makes human souls distinct: human souls are intellectual (yādo῾tānítā) – that is, possessing a nous (madd῾ā) – and subsist in their hypostasis (qnomā), in contrast to animal souls, which are irrational and lack a hypostasis, consisting only in the animal’s blood. Babai makes a parallel set of claims about soul and nous in his commentary on KGVI,51. Here, Evagrius states: “If the rational part is more honorable than all the faculties of the soul, it is because it participates in the wisdom of God. The gift of spiritual knowledge, then, is more excellent than all gifts, for the fathers also call it ‘the Spirit of adoptingsons’ (Rom 9,4; Gal 4,5)”43. In commenting upon this passage, Babai first establishes the meaning of the “rational part” of the soul. As he writes: Here, too, [Evagrius’s] saying is against those who say that the rational principle within us is a particle of divinity, and against those who deny that there is an intellectual nature within us, by which we may be distinguished from the rest of irrational animals, who do not have reason. For if, in these two faculties of irascibility and concupiscence, we are equivalent to the rest of irrational animals, nevertheless, due to the intellectual part (mentāyādo῾tānítā) of the soul, that is, the nous (hawnā), we may be distinguished by the honor of the rationality of our soul, which is a nature that subsists and is alive in its hypostasis (qnomā), although it cannot enact its characteristic properties without the body; but it is not like animals whose life is in their blood (Lev 17,11/14)44. CatéchétiquesdeThéodoredeMopsueste, transl. R.-M. TONNEAU – R. DEVREESSE (Studi e Testi, 145), Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1949,pp. 121-123. In addition, the Syriac text has been printed with an English translation in CommentaryofTheodoreofMopsuestiaontheNiceneCreed, ed. and transl. A. MINGANA (Woodbrooke Studies, 5), Cambridge, W. Heffer & Sons, ltd., 1932, English pp. 58-59, Syriac pp. 169-170: ? Ÿ {s¿æz{z‰sx .âúý¿ćà¿þæs? ÛçÂx¿ïËãxüãsx¿çÙs {z¿Úçý œ œ Ÿ ¿ćà ¿ćàs h ¿þæüÂx èÙx ¿ćà ¿þóæ âúýx {s üãs âúý ¿ćà ¿þóæx ? ¿þóæ ¿óáÑþã xÎÑá ÁxÍ ËÝ .ÁüÚðÃà{ ÀÎÚÑà ¿çÚÑãx ÀĀÚæĀï{ËÙ Ÿ Ÿ ? ? ¿ÃÝ{ü¿ćàsfÍàĀÙs¿þóæx¿ćãÎçùÀ{z¿ćà€ zxÀÎ ÚÐxèã¿ þçÚçÂx œ Ÿ Ÿ ÀÎÚÐxÀÎãĀÂèã{¿ćäÚùĀãxÎÑáÂÍÙĀÙsx¿ćáòsÀÎÚÐx ÍáÙx Ÿ Ÿ ÍÙĀÙs ¿þóæx ÀÎÚÐx ¿ćãx Áxz âÔã .¿çäÙzĀã ÍÙĀÙsx ¿ćáòs Ÿ ÁËÂs ¿þóæ ¿ÙüùĀãx €z Ÿ ‰s ¿ćãx ñòÎýx Íäïx üãssx Íà ? Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ...{z ÁüÂĀêã ÍÙĀÙsx zÎã „Ëù ÀÎÚÐx ÍÚï {ÏÂ{ ‰s ÍãÎçúÂx ? ? Ÿ €zx ¿çÞÙs ÀÎÚÐx ¿þóçà ¿þçÚçÂx ¿þóæ ĀÚ ĀÙs ¿óáÐÎý ÍáÝ ¿æz Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ? ÍÙĀÙsÀÎÚã¿ćàèÙx¿þç ÚçÂx ÍàĀÚà¿þóæx¿ćãÎçù{ ÍÙĀÙsÀĀýüÐ f€œ zÀĀÚæĀï{ËÙ‰sx¿çäÙzĀãÀĀÚàÎÂ{ 43. FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6), p. 392: Ÿ ÚÐ… ? Áxz€zxâÔã :ÁüúÚãÀĀááãÀĀçã¿þóæxÍá {ÍáÝèãüÙĀÙ…s ? :ÀĀÂzÎã èÙÍáÝ èã âÚÞã €z ÁĀÚã h¿ò{Āþã ÀÍàsx ÀĀäÞÑà ? Ÿ ? .èÙüù¿Ú çÂĀäÚéx¿Ð{ÀÍ Âs‰süÚÅÁxÍà .}{xÀĀïËÙxÀĀÂzÎã 44. Ibid.: Ÿ èÂxÀĀáãÍÙĀÙsÀ{ÍàsxÁøÂxèÙüãsxèÚáÙsâÃùÎà¿Ýz‰s{ Ÿ èÚáÙs âÃùÎà{ fzĀáã ÍÙĀÙs Ÿ èçÚþÙüò ÍÂx ¿æĀï{ËÙ ¿çÚÝ è ĀÚàx èÙüóÝx

THE NOUS IS THE HEAD OF THE SOUL

799

Babai’s comments reflect Theodore’s understanding of the significance of the nousand the contrast between human and animal souls. The human soul is distinguished from that of animals by subsisting in its hypostasis (qnomā) and by possessing a nous (madd῾ā/hawnā)45 that renders it intellectual (yādo῾tānítā). To affirm the existence of the human nous is thus to affirm the human soul as rational and self-subsistent, in contradistinction to the fleeting souls of animals, which consist only in their blood. In addition, Babai’s statement that the human soul is “alive in its hypostasis” (ḥyāba-qnomah) echoes Theodore’s language in the Syriac fragment of OntheIncarnationdiscussed above, where Theodore attacks the claim that the nousis distinct in nature from the soul. Here, Theodore states that the soul “is alive in its hypostasis (ḥyā ba-qnoma[h]) naturally, by the grace of God, and administers to the body life and subsistence”46. References to the human soul’s hypostasis (qnomā) recur in both Theodore’s and Babai’s writings47. In Babai’s commentary on KGVI,51, this language functions to emphasize that the “rational principle within us” is not an alien or quasi-divine nature, but rather the defining feature of the self-subsistent, rational soul. After establishing the nous as the rational center of the soul, Babai’s commentary on KGVI,51 proceeds to attack Origen and Hnana for their views about union with divine nature: “Because it is this knowledge (ída῾tā) that partakes of the wisdom of God” (KGVI,51): [it does] not partake of his nature (kyānā), as in the heretical Ÿ Ÿ ? ¿þóæxÍáÙxÀĀÚæĀï{ËÙÀĀ çãËÚ¿ćàsfffÀĀáã¿ćàxÀÎ ÚÐx¿Ýüýè㠟 Ÿ ¿ÚÐ{¿ćäÚúã€z¿çÚÝ{èþóæxzÎáÚáãxÁüúÙ¾ÂèçÚþÙüò¿æ{zÍÙĀÙsx ? Ÿ Ÿ èÙÍãËÂx ÀÎÚÐ ßÙs Îà{ zĀÚáÙx ÁüðéŸ ¿ćà ÁüÆò Ëðá èòs ÍãÎçú Ÿ fèÙzÎÚÐÍÙĀÙs 45. Babai understood these two terms as equivalent. See footnote 39 above. 46. SACHAU, FragmentaSyriaca(n. 35), p. ¿é(61) = Latin transl. 37: ¿çéüóã ÁüÆóà{ .ÀÍàsx zÎÃÚÓ èã ĀÙ¾çÚÝ ¿ÚÐ ÍãÎçú üÚÅ €z œ .¿ćäÙÎù{¿ÚÐ? Note that the dot appears underneath the letter he, whereas, since napshā (“soul”) is feminine, one would expect a dot above the he. Yet context, as well as comparison with other statements of Theodore (see next footnote), seems to require that the reference is to the soul’s qnomā. Sachau interpreted the phrase in this way, as well, as is evident from his Latin translation. 47. In another fragment of OntheIncarnation, Theodore states that “the soul is distinguished from the body, remaining in its nature and in its hypostasis (qnomah)”. SACHAU, Fragmenta Syriaca (n. 35), p. ˆ (70) = Latin transl. 43. In Catechetical Homily 3.14, he refers to the “hypostasis of the soul” (qnomā d-napshā); Les Homélies Catéchétiques, transl. TONNEAU – DEVREESSE (n. 42), pp. 74-75. So, too, Babai refers several times to the soul’s hypostasis both in his Christological works and in his commentary on the Kephalaia Gnostika. See discussion of examples in METSELAAR, The Mirror, the Qnoma, and the Soul (n. 8), pp. 353, 358-359, 362.

800

J. ZALESKI

assertion of Origen and Hnana, but it is a spiritual gift, in accordance with the saying of “the fathers: they call it ‘the Spirit of adoptingsons’” (KGVI,51). The rational creatures do not become sons by nature (kyānā), nor sons by inheritance of God, as in the heretical opinion of Origen and Hnana, but it is by grace thathegivesthemthepowertobecomesonsofGod(Jn 1,12) – the power, not the nature48.

Following Evagrius, Babai indicates that the rational part of the soul (identified by Babai with the nous) possesses intellectual knowledge (ída’tā) that participates in divine wisdom. For Babai, this provides a counterpoint to the Origenist idea of the union of the nous with divine nature. By virtue of the nous as the intellectual center of the soul, the human may gain intellectual apprehension of God, not natural union with God. Theodore’s discussion of the nous and the soul was anti-Apollinarian, not anti-Origenist. Babai was likely aware of this, and yet he may have seen Apollinarian and Origenist errors as connected, for in the preface to the commentary, he asserts that Apollinaris was a student of Origen49. In any case, through his interpretation of Evagrius’s language about the nousand soul, Babai sought to eliminate not only Apollinarian, but also Origenist interpretations of Evagrius’s words. One more example will illustrate this point. In KG III,28, Evagrius states: “The sinful soul is the nous, which, through its negligence, fell from the contemplation of the Holy Unity”50. This statement, although already altered by the S1 translator51, could easily suggest the ideas central to Origenist protology and anthropology – the preexistence of the nous and its fall from God. Babai, however, turns the reader’s attention to the suggestion of identity between soul and nous. As he writes:

48. FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6), p. 390: ßÙsÍçÚÞàÎà{h¿ò{ĀþãÀÍàsxÀĀäÞÑàÀĀïËÙÁxz€zxåàâÔã ÀĀáãåàßÙs .}{xÁxz€zÀĀÂzÎã¿ćàs .¿ççÐx{ëÚçō{sxÍðý{ Ÿ èÙüùŸ ¿ÚçÂ? ĀäÚéx ¿Ð{ .ÀÍÂsx ? ÛçÂ? ¿ćáòs{ h¿çÚÝ ÛçÂ? Îà èÙËã .Íà Ÿ ? ¿ćàs .¿ççÐx{ ëÚçō{sx Íðý{ ßÙs ¿ćááã èÙ{z ÀÍàsx À{üÙ ? ¿çÔàÎý åà …{Íà uÍÙ .ÀÎÃÚÔ üãs ¿çÔàÎý .…{{Íæ ÀÍàsx ¿ÚçÂx .¿çÚÝÎà{ 49. Ibid., p. 24. 50. Ibid., p. 206: Ÿ ÀÎÙËÚÑÙx¿Ù{sèãâóæzÎçÚãÍãËÚÂx¿æ{zhÍÙĀÙsÀĀÚÔпþóæ ÀĀþÙËù 51. Compare the S2 translation: “The soul is the nous, which, by its negligence, fell from Unity…”. A. GUILLAUMONT, Lessixcenturiesdes“KephalaiaGnostika”d’Évagrele Pontique (PO, 28.1), Paris, Firmin-Didot, 1958,p. 109: Ÿ .ÀÎÙËÚÑÙèãâóæzÎçÚãÍäÂx¿æ{zhÍÙĀÙs¿þóæ

THE NOUS IS THE HEAD OF THE SOUL

801

[Evagrius] calls the soul nous and the nous soul, that [soul] which, as he says many times about it, has three distinct faculties. Sometimes he calls the rational part of the soul nous, or [sometimes he calls] the entirety of the soul nous, in order to distinguish it from the soul of animals, which consists of their blood in place of a soul52.

Babai here suggests that Evagrius uses the term nouseither to denote the rational faculty or, parsprototo, to indicate the entire soul, inasmuch as the soul is rational and distinct from the blood-bound souls of animals. Again, this echoes Theodore’s language in the fifth catechetical homily. Yet by presenting the noussimply as the rational dimension of the human soul, Babai’s commentary steers readers away from the Origenist connotations of Evagrius’s words, including the idea that the nous might someday return to the divine Unity from which it once fell. It is important to stress that Babai’s ideas about the nous and the soul were grounded in a number of East Syrian theological authorities, not just in Theodore of Mopsuestia. The idea that animal souls consist in their blood is biblical in origin and so may be found in exegetical statements on Gen 9,4 and Lev 17,11/14 among several Greek and Syriac authors, including Basil and Ephrem53. A particularly important source for Babai’s interpretation of Evagrius’s anthropology was Gregory of Nazianzus. When, in KG II,56, Evagrius states that “the nousteaches the soul, and the soul [teaches] the body”, Babai comments as follows: The human is not three natures, as the folly of the blind would have it, but [Evagrius says this] so that [the human] may be distinguished from the rest of animals.Just as Gregory says to Cledonius, “The mind (hawnā) is that which perfects us, the ruler of the body and soul”; such is the opinion that Evagrius expresses here54.

The quotation provided by Babai comes from Gregory’s first letter to Cledonius, where Gregory, like Theodore in OntheIncarnation,attacks 52. FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6), p. 206: ? Ÿ üãs À¾ÚÆêÂx €z f¿þóæ ¿æ{Íà{ ¿æ{z Íäþã ¿þóçà üÚÅ Íà Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ? zĀçäàx €Āãs ĀÙs ‚{x ‚{ËÂ{ f¿ýĄóã ¿ćáÚÐ ÀĀà ¿Úçùx ÍÚáï Ÿ Ÿ ? ÀÎÚÐx ¿þóæ èã ÍÚýüóæx ¿çÞÙs ÍáÞà {s ¿æ{z ÁüùŸ ÀĀÚçáÝĀê㠟 .¿þóæôáÐèÙÍà¿ćáäãèÙÍãxx 53. SanctiEphraemSyriinGenesimetinExodumCommentarii, ed. R.-M. TONNEAU (CSCO, 152; Scriptores Syri, 71), Louvain, L. Durbecq, 1955, p. 62. BasiliusvonCaesarea. HomilienzumHexaemeron, ed. E.A. DE MENDIETA – S.Y. RUDBERG(GCS NF, 2), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1997, pp. 128-129. 54. FRANKENBERG, EuagriusPonticus (n. 6),pp. 168-170: ? ? ÀĀà üÚÅ Îà ßÙs ¿ćàs .¿ÞÚþÐx ¿ÙË ßÙs h¿þæü €z{ĀÙs ¿çÚÝ ? ¿çÚáäþã .†ÎçÙxÎáùÎà†ÎٍÎÆÙüÅüãsxßÙsÀÎÚÐx¿ÝüýèãŽüòĀæx Ÿ .ÁüÆòx{¿þóæx¿çý{hèáÙx¿æ{zâÚÝzåà ëÙüÅ{süãsx¿çÚïÎæz{ .¿Ýz

802

J. ZALESKI

the Apollinarian teaching that the divine Logos replaced Christ’s human nous55. Earlier in the same letter, Gregory states that “man is not a nousless animal”, so indicating that the nous is what distinguishes humans from other creatures56. Gregory’s letter does not, however, refer to the nature of animal souls as consisting in their blood or to the self-subsistent and hypostatic nature of the human soul. Thus when we consider the specific features of Babai’s anthropological language – that the nous is part of the human soul, that, by virtue of the nous, the human soul is self-subsistent and intellectual in opposition to the souls of animals, which lack a hypostasis and consist in the animal’s blood – we find that these ideas coalesce most clearly in the Syriac translations of Theodore. The soundest conclusion is to say that Babai has synthesized his authorities. Not only does he read Evagrius in light of Gregory of Nazianzus; he interprets both Evagrius and Gregory through specific terminological and conceptual aspects of the theology and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. III. CONCLUSION For Babai, it was essential that monks have a correct understanding of the nous, so that they would direct their ascetic labors toward attaining the knowledge of God, rather than seeking a false union with divine nature. By interpreting Evagrius’s discussion of the nous and the soul in light of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and other East Syrian theological authorities, Babai rendered Evagrius’s theological anthropology fit for the formation of East Syrian monks and made the KephalaiaGnostika suitable for the monastic curriculum. An examination of Babai’s commentary thus sheds light on the broader legacy of Origenist thought within the Syriac-speaking world. With minor exceptions, we have no clear evidence that Origen’s works were translated into Syriac57. The history of Origen in the Syriac world is to a large extent the history of Evagrius, and Babai’s exposition of the KephalaiaGnostika 55. P. GALLAY (ed. and transl.),GrégoiredeNazianze.Lettresthéologiques(SC, 208), Paris, Cerf, 1974,101.43, p. 54. 56. Ibid., 101.34-35, p. 50: οὐ γὰρ ἄνουν ζῷον ὁ ἀνϑρώπος. 57. A discourse of Origen on the Psalms was translated into Syriac; see C. STEWART, PsalmsandPrayerinSyriacMonasticism:CluesfromPsalterPrefacesandTheirGreek Sources, in B. BITTON-ASHKELONY – D. KRUEGER (eds.), PrayerandWorshipinEastern Christianities, 5th to 11th Centuries, London – New York, Routledge, 2017, 44-62. In addition, the Septuagint in the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla was translated into Syriac by Paul of Tella between 613 and 617; see R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY, TheSyriacVersionsoftheOldTestament, in M. ATALLAH etal. (eds.), NosSources:ArtsetLittérature

THE NOUS IS THE HEAD OF THE SOUL

803

is one of the most important sources for this history. His commentary shows that the questions about Origenist ideas in Evagrius’s writings that exercised monks in sixth-century Palestine continued to play a role in shaping monastic theology in Mesopotamia even after the Second Council of Constantinople. Outside the political borders of the Byzantine empire and beyond the linguistic boundaries of Greek Christianity, Babai’s commentary reveals an ongoing effort to correct, criticize, and reinterpret anthropological ideas rooted in the writings of Origen and to give these ideas new meaning within the theological framework of East Syrian orthodoxy. Committee on the Study of Religion Barker Center Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 USA [email protected]

John ZALESKI

Syriaques(Sources Syriaques, 1), Antelias, Centre d’études et de recherches orientales, 2005, 75-106, pp. 102-103.

“WHERE THE HUMAN SENSES BECOME SPIRITUAL, FAITH BECOMES SENSORY” CORPOREALITY AND SPIRITUAL SENSES IN BALTHASAR’S READING OF ORIGEN

I. INTRODUCTION In 1939, Hans Urs von Balthasar published two dense reflections on the Fathers and on the recent interest in them raised in Catholic theology1. In these texts, he clearly expresses one of his major critiques of Origenism: the tendency toward spiritualism, caused by the idea of a spiritual part of the human compositum that has to reach a lost divine condition, abandoning the material world2. This is what Balthasar calls “the original sin”: the religious ideal to become God, to deny human condition and regain a divine state contrary to the state of creation. “We know that the serpent got a hold in this very innermost drive of man to press on to God, and poisoned it. Original sin does not sit somewhere on the periphery of human nature; no, the very promise eritissicutdei is the perversion of the original core of man’s being itself”3. Balthasar ascribes this vision to a latent Platonism, which would lead Origen to prevail the ascending movement over God’s descent. The consequence, in Balthasar’s opinion, is a vision of Christianity as a sort of heroism, where the central message becomes good moral behavior and not Christ himself in his mission4. 1. This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 676258. 2. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, Wendung nach Osten, in Stimmen der Zeit 7/136 (1939) 32-46; ID, Patristik,ScholasticundWir, in TheologiederZeit 3 (1939) 65-104; English translation: The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves, in Communio. International CatholicReview 24 (1997) 347-396. 3. TheFathers,theScholastics,andOurselves (n. 2), p. 353. 4. “Origen, who otherwise can look right into the eye and the heart of scriptural texts with incomparable candor, not uncommonly, before the decisive words about the ‘folly of the cross’, the ‘helplessness’ and the ‘weakness’ of the Christian, begins to blink and squint. For, like so many today, he confuses in the end the heroic and the Christian. The heroic is an exalted form of the natural virtue; the Christian, however, is the supernatural form of the death and resurrection of Christ extended to the whole natural world of values”. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, GeistundFeuer, Salzburg, Müller, 1938; English transl.: R.J. DALY, Origen. SpiritandFire:AThematicAnthologyofHisWritings, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1984, p. 18. Henceforth SF.

806

E. ZOCCHI

Despite these strong critiques, Balthasar’s admiration for Origen is wellknown: in 1936, after his study with Henri de Lubac, he publishes the long article Lemysteriond’Origène5 and, two years later, the anthology Origen: GeistundFeuer. The strong relation with the Alexandrian endures for all his life and could be expressed by the title of Werner Löser’s book on Balthasar and the Church Fathers – ImGeistedesOrigenes6. The question that I would like to face can now be clearly understood: how can Balthasar admire Origen so much despite his strong criticism of spiritualism? What allows him to consider Origen as the author where he can feel more “at home”7, if he accuses him of such a moralistic tendency? My suggestion is that the answer has to be found in Balthasar’s reading of Origen’s aesthetic, which reveals more than usually underlined. This reading is declined in many examples; among them, I would like to underline here the role of spiritual perception in Origen and, therefore, his idea of sensibility and corporeality. II. THE SPIRITUAL SENSES: TWO INTERPRETATIONS The occasion to understand the importance of spiritual perception in Origen was given to a young Balthasar by Karl Rahner’s article Ledébut d’unedoctrinedescinqsensspirituelleschezOrigène8. Rahner presents here the two necessary characteristics for a doctrine of the spiritual senses to be subsistent (a fivefold structure and non-metaphorical consideration of the senses) and claims the spiritual senses to be a tool of mystical, direct perception of the upper world. In the Origenian threefold partition of knowledge (ethica, physica, enoptica), Rahner locates spiritual perception on the third level, the enoptic: the spiritual senses are tools of mystical knowledge, since their objects are the Deusnudus and the angels. Rahner relies strongly on the many passages where Origen claims that spiritual perception is only for the Perfects, for those who have reached the beatific vision thanks to their intellectual and moral progress9. This mystical 5. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, Le Mysterion d’Origène (I), in RSR 26, no. 5 (1936); Le Mysterion d’Origène(II), in RSR 27, no. 1 (1937); later edited as Paroleetmystèrechez Origène, Paris, Cerf, 1957. 6. W. LÖSER, ImGeistedesOrigenes, Frankfurt a.M., Knecht, 1976. The greatness of Löser’s work is not only to trace the aspects of Balthasar’s thought that came from Origen, but also to understand how much Balthasar’s own theology remains permeated by “the spirit of Origen”. 7. M. ALBUS,EinGesprächmitHansUrsvonBalthasar, in Herder-Korrespondenz 30 (1976) 72-82, p. 72. 8. Published in Revued’ascétiqueetdemystique 13 (1932) 113-145. 9. As an example: CCt I,4.

BALTHASAR’S READING OF ORIGEN

807

interpretation is supported, among others, by multiple passages from the SelectainPsalmos, passages where the active life is presented only as a preparation to the contemplative life, which is better because it no longer needs the fallen body and sensibility. This aspect is surely present in Origen, but it is not the only one. Balthasar wanted in fact to show a different value of the spiritual sense, which was suggested to him by his work on Evagrius Ponticus10. Here he tries to show that the SelectainPsalmos, that led Rahner to his strongly mystical interpretation, are indeed of Evagrius and not of Origen11. Leaving aside the problem of the authenticity of the Selecta, I would like to move directly to Balthasar’s consideration of the spiritual senses in Origen, to show how such a question becomes relevant for his personal reading of the Alexandrian. Balthasar believes that, despite the presence of some controversial passages, Origen had a strong and particular consideration of the corporeal world due to the role of spiritual perception. Spiritual sensitivity is not a mystical moment far from concrete reality, but a kind of perception that is at play in our world. For Balthasar, spiritual sensitivity has to be situated on the second level of knowledge, the physic, and not on the enoptic. If for Rahner what we perceive with spiritual senses is the Deus nudus, Balthasar refers more closely to the doctrine of the spiritual body and the idea that God, who has no body, cannot be perceived by the soul without a mediation. The mediation of the spiritual body can therefore allow one to know God on the level that God himself decided to assume. This non-dualistic interpretation (or better, as he calls it, unity-in-duality) shows Balthasar’s personal interest in underlining a sort of positive value of corporeality. Is this a correct way to deal with Origen? For sure, many passages show the contrary. In the PeriArchon, for example, Origen seems to tend towards a metaphorical meaning of the spiritual senses: “what else is to see God in the heart but to understand and know him with the mind?”12. Or, looking at corporeality more specifically, in ContraCelsum he claims that the spiritual senses can be open only when the bodily are closed13. Would it not be easier, for Balthasar, to simply leave Origen aside when dealing with corporeality? Even if we would admit, as many scholars do14, that Balthasar has the tendency to bend and stretch 10. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, DieHieradesEvagrius, in ZKT 63 (1939) 86-106 and 181-206. 11. Confirmed by the study of M.-J. RONDEAU, Le commentaire sur les Psaumes d’ÉvagrelePontique,inOCP26 (1960) 307-348. 12. Prin I,1,9. 13. See CC VII,39. 14. K. KILBY, Balthasar: A (Very) Critical Introduction, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2012.

808

E. ZOCCHI

the authors that he uses to build his own system wouldn’t it be easier for him to ignore Origen and refer only to Fathers with a more positive view of corporeality? The question becomes, therefore: What is Balthasar looking for, in Origen? What does he want to show that went (maybe too easily) forgotten – not merely in Origen’s scholarship but in Balthasar’s own time? I will answer this question through an example of Balthasar’s approach to Origen, and I will then conclude with a brief consideration on how this may enhance a different perspective on the question about corporeality in Origen himself. There are two main evidences in Balthasar’s argument of the positive value of corporeality. The first one lies in Origen’s views on creation and resurrection, where the condition of our body is directly described; the second is specifically the doctrine of the spiritual senses. This second way gives us, in my opinion, some important elements to better understand the role of the body in Origen’s system, but also to shape the relation between corporeality and freedom. III. THE SPIRITUAL BODY As clearly stated in the PeriArchon, God is the only incorporeal being, “incomprehensible and immeasurable”15. It is therefore impossible for the created intelligences to contemplate him directly: every νοῦς needs a mediation in order to contemplate God, who must therefore have created everything with some sort of body. Origen is clear in claiming that nothing can exist without a sort of body: “any being, with the exception of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, can live apart from a body. Life without a body is found in the Trinity alone”16. As suggested by Crouzel, Origen’s definition of life before the fall as incorporeal does not refer to a soul without a body, but simply to a soul without a corporeal body17; the needed mediation is exactly what Origen calls spiritual body18. Spiritual senses 15. Prin I,1,5. 16. Prin II,2,2. Also: “to exist without a bodily element is a thing that belongs only to the nature of God, that is, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. Prin I,6,4. 17. H. CROUZEL, Ladoctrineorigénienneducorpsressuscité, in BLE 81 (1980) 175200, 241-266. 18. Among others, Simonetti, Edwards, Hennessey and Chadwick have underlined the presence of the spiritual body in Origen’s cosmology. M. SIMONETTI, Alcuneosservazioni sull’interpretazione di Genesi 2,7 e 3,21, in Aevum 36 (1962) 370-381; H. CHADWICK, Origen,CelsusandtheResurrectionoftheBody, in HTR 41 (1948) 83-102; L.R. HENNESSEY, OrigenofAlexandria:TheFateoftheSoulandtheBodyafterDeath, in SecondCentury 8 (1991) 163-178. There are anyway some scholars that do not accept the congruence of the spiritual body in Origen’s explanation of creation, due to the controversial interpretation

BALTHASAR’S READING OF ORIGEN

809

are therefore the perceptive tool of this spiritual body. But, claims Balthasar, since “in Christ, has descended to earth and manifests itself in the fullness of the cosmos of the Sacred Scripture”19, the object of the spiritual senses is not the pure divinity in a transcendental place, but the whole of the upper world descended into the present world. Thanks to the incarnation of the Logos in Christ, in the Scriptures and in the Church, our perception has been renewed: “dualistic interpretation is impossible: it is the same senses which first are earthly and then become heavenly through the infusion of grace”20. The spiritual body is therefore not only a substance before the sin and after the resurrection, but is somehow present in our earthly condition, in the active use of the spiritual senses. The two bodies are, therefore, the same substance with different qualities and the spiritual senses are strictly bounded to the corporeal senses. Following Paul, Origen believes that our corporeal body will not resurrect in its fleshly condition. However, something must be judged after death: only the uneducated believe that our body will “perish so completely after death that nothing whatever of its substance is left”21. This passage is fundamental because of the “nothing whatever of its substance”: death is nothing else than a change of qualities. This change is expressed by the recurrent Pauline metaphor of the seed; our body, as a seed of wheat, will die and from it the new sheaf will rise. This metaphor, together with the idea that “there are two men in every one of us”22, allows us to avoid reading this division only as a moral indication. Origen seems indeed to believe in an inner man not only as an ethical attitude against the sin, but as an actual element already present in men even in the earthly condition, although clearly not material. From our bodily condition to the spiritual condition there is only a transformation, so that what was at first flesh of the earth is raised again to the glory of a spiritual body. This change ... consists in some act that is worthy of the divine grace; for we believe that it will be a change of like character to that in which “a bare grain of wheat or of some other kind” is sown in the earth, but “God gives it a body as it pleased him” (1 Cor 15,37-38) after the grain of wheat itself has first died23. of the “cloak of skin” of Gen 3,21. A. PÂRVAN, Genesis1–3:AugustineandOrigenon theCoatsofSkins, in VigChr66 (2012) 56-92. 19. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, GloryoftheLord.Vol. 1:SeeingtheForm, San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press, 1982, p. 361. Henceforth GL1. 20. GL1, p. 362. See also: “One can call these sense mystical in the broad sense, but they are, at least initially, given along with grace itself and as such are not really mystical phenomena, still less an unveiled experience of God”. SF, p. 218. 21. Prin III,6,5. 22. 2 Cor 4,16; Rom 7,22; Eph 3,16. 23. Prin II,10,3.

810

E. ZOCCHI

This passage may still be equivocal: between the corporeal and the spiritual body a consecutiveness seems to exist. Once the first dies, the latter will arise. There are however other resources that suggest a deeper kind of union between the two. There is not one body which we now use in lowliness and corruption and weakness and a different one which we are to use hereafter in incorruption and power and glory. Rather this same body, having cast off the weaknesses of its present existence, will be transformed into a thing of glory and made spiritual24.

Even if the idea of temporal transition remains, it is here suggested that there is only one body with different qualities, and not two. We can therefore start thinking that the spiritual and earthly body are to be distinguished only logically, and not chronologically. We can look for further confirmation of this hypothesis in some text on creation, since for Origen the end is always like the beginning25. And just as we would ... need to have gills and other endowment[s] of fish if it were necessary for us to live underwater in the sea, so those who are going to inherit [the] kingdom of heaven and be in superior places must have spiritual bodies. The previous form does not disappear, even if its transition to the more glorious [state] occurs, just as the form of Jesus, Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration was not [a] different [one] than what it had been. (…) “It is sown a psychic body, it is raised a spiritual body” .... [A]lthough the form is saved, we are going to put away nearly [every] earthly quality in the resurrection ... [for] “flesh and blood cannot inherit [the] kingdom”26.

This extract clearly confirms that between the corporeal and the spiritual body there is only a difference of states, a change in qualities (and not in form). Furthermore, Procopius’s Commentarii in Genesim refer to the opinion of some allegorists, among whom there might be Origen, in the missing CommentaryonGenesis: Οἱ δὲ ἀλληγοροῦντες μετὰ τὸν εἰρημένον διασυρμόν φασιν, ὡς ὁ μὲν τὴν ψυχὴν σημαίνει, ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ χοῦ πλασϑεὶς τὸ λεπτομερὲς σῶμα καὶ ἄξιον τῆς ἐν παραδείσῳ διαγωγῆς, ὅ τινες αὐγοειδὲς ἐκάλεσαν. Οἱ δὲ δερμάτινοι χιτῶνες τὸ . Τῷ δὲ αὐγοειδεῖ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐποχεῖσϑαι πρώτῳ λέγουσιν, ὅπερ ὕστερον ἐνεδύσατο τοὺς δερματίνους χιτῶνας27. 24. Prin III,6,6. 25. Prin I,6,1. 26. Origen, Fragment on Psalm I,5, in Methodius, De resurrectione I,22-23, in Methodius, ed. N. BONWETSCH (GCS, 27), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1917, pp. 244-248, and Epiphanius, Panarion64,14-15 (PG 41, 1089-1092); transl. in DECHOW, DogmaandMysticism (n. 16), pp. 374-375. 27. Prokop von Gaza, Eclogaruminlibroshistoricosveteristestamentiepitome.Teil 1: DerGenesiskommentar, ed. K. METZLER (GCS, NF 22), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2015, p. 151.

BALTHASAR’S READING OF ORIGEN

811

Writing about the “two creations” of Gen 1,26 and 2,7, Origen refers to them as logically, but not chronologically, distinct. Gen 1,26 describes the creation of the rational νοῦς, while 2,7 refers to the spiritual body, tenuecorpus of Adam in Eden. In this schema, the cloak of flesh (Gen 3,21) represents only the body after the fall, our earthly body. If we accept this fragment, it is then clear that for Origen the νοῦς always had a spiritual body28. These different resources make it clear that the corporeal and the spiritual body are not in opposition but rather united; the soul possessed a body already before the fall, a body with different, ethereal qualities29. The fall is the correspondent to resurrection, as clothing with the fleshly qualities of the human body on this earth. IV. THE DOCTRINE OF

THE

SPIRITUAL SENSES

We have so concluded the first path to understanding the relation between the spiritual and the corporeal body. The second way is the doctrine of the spiritual senses. As anticipated, Balthasar considers the senses to be “active” already in the earthly condition, and not only as a tool for the mystical contemplation of the world-to-come. For him, there is no separation in Origen between the natural and the supernatural level of perception. An important element to understand his interpretation is given by the peculiarity of each sense, that Balthasar states is clear in Origen and then lost in Evagrius and Diadochus. In Spirit and Fire Balthasar presents the five senses separately, relying on Origen’s statement that “there is a general sense for the divine which is subdivided into several kinds”30. “But those who allegorize say after this ridicule that the man in the image denotes the soul, and the man from the earth denotes the body of fine particles, which is worthy of life in Paradise, and which some have called luminous. The skin coats denote, as Job says: You have clothed me with skin and flesh, You have woven me of bones and sinews. They say that the soul first uses the luminous [body] as a vehicle, and later dons the skin coats”. On this and other sources, see A.-C. JACOBSEN, Genesis1–3asSourcefortheAnthropology ofOrigen, in VigChr 62 (2008) 213-232. 28. The simultaneity of creation of nous and spiritual bodies is to be found also in the CommentaryonGenesis of Didymus the Blind, who was heavily influenced by Origen. Didimus the Blind, Sur la Genèse, ed. P. NAUTIN (SC, 233.244), Paris, Cerf, 1976.1978. 29. A new resource to rethink the role of the flesh in Origen comes from the idea of deification present in the recently discovered HomiliesonthePsalms. On this see especially L. PERRONE,“Etl’hommetoutentierdevientdieu”:LadéificationselonOrigèneàla lumièredesnouvellesHomélies sur les Psaumes, in TeologiayVida 58 (2017) 187-220. 30. CC I,48.

812

E. ZOCCHI

There is not only a spiritual sense of the Scriptures in general, but also five spiritual senses: “every member of the external human being is also called the same thing in the inner human being”31. Origen’s texts are full of references to these five senses: as for the sight, we have “eyes of the mind”32, “eyes of the inner human being”33, “intelligible eyes”34, “eyes of the heart”35. For hearing, we have “spiritual ears”36, “internal ears”37 and a “bodiless voice in the depth of [our] heart”38. Our spiritual body also “has nostrils with which to perceive the good odour of righteousness and the bad odour of sins”39, nostrils to “be partakers and receivers of His odour”40. Finally, there is a “sense of touch for handling the Word of life”41 and a “taste that feeds on living bread that has come down from heaven”42. These senses are the perceptive organs of our spiritual body, used in order to investigate “those things which are intellectual”43. For Balthasar, “the tremendous significance of the doctrine of the inner senses is revealed fully only by looking into the activity of the individual senses”44. Balthasar is sure of a more-than-metaphorical meaning of the senses. “Only he can see, hear, touch, taste and smell Christ who is able to perceive Christ as the true Light, as the Word of the Father, as the Bread of Life, as the fragrant spikenard of the Bridegroom who hastens to come”45. He explains that “each sense contains a different mode of spiritual contact with the divine”46: “the divine Word encounters the soul in such a variety of ways that it satisfies each sense in a different way”47. There is no general mystical unity without modes: as the Word is divine expression through different phenomena (since the Word is not only in Christ but also in the Church and in the Scripture), our perception is itself differentiated in many ways. The spiritual senses have to be interpreted as fivefold because the perception of the divine in his splendor is a varied 31. Dial XVI. And again: “For just as in the body there are the different senses of tasting and seeing, so are there, as Salomon says, divine faculties of perception”. CIo XX,33. 32. FrLam CXVI. 33. Dial XVI. 34. CIo I,11. 35. Prin I,1,19. 36. Orat XIII,4. 37. Dial XVII. 38. CPs IV,4. 39. Dial XVIII. 40. Prin II,6,6. 41. CC I,48. 42. CC I,48. 43. Prin IV,4,10. 44. SF, p. 232. 45. GL1, p. 369. 46. SF, p. 232. 47. SF, p. 218.

BALTHASAR’S READING OF ORIGEN

813

phenomenon which has to be perceived in its entirety. For these two reasons, Balthasar interprets Origen’s statement that “there are two kinds of senses in us: the one kind is mortal, corruptible, human; the other kind is immortal, spiritual, divine”48 as neither dualistic nor mystical: “both sensibilities are thus but different states of the one and only sensibility”49. Balthasar’s attitude towards Origen can be clearly expressed by a quotation from SpiritandFire–a passage of Origen’s Commentarytothe GospelofJohn (commenting Rev 19,13), which shows how difficult it is to find a definitive answer about the presence of a tension between sensibility and contemplation in Origen: Now John does not see the Word of God mounted on a horse naked. He is clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood, since the Word who became flesh, and died because he became flesh, is invested with traces of that passion, since his blood also was poured forth upon the earth when the soldier pierced his side. For, perhaps, even if in some way we attain the most sublime and highest contemplation of the Word and of the truth, we shall not forget completely that we were introduced to him by his coming in our body50.

This tension is one of the aspects of Origen’s doctrine that fascinated Balthasar the most, and we can on this basis somehow understand his tendency, very often criticized by Origen scholars, to overlap his theological aesthetic with Origen’s pure doctrine. In this passage Origen seems indeed to recall himself to an aspect that he recognizes as easily forgotten – the fact that “the Word of God did not came naked”, rather he chose to come towards men in a human body. As a confirmation, this same passage of Revelation is quoted also in CommentarytotheSongofSongs II,6,6, where the garment is a symbol of the visible structure of the Church. As Jesus is the visible body of the Word, the Church is his mystical body, in the concrete form of the communion of believers, for Origen and for Balthasar. The quoted passage clearly expresses the immanent tension present especially in Origen’s exegetical works, a tension deeply understood by Balthasar in a famous passage on the role of corporeality in Origen’s Platonism: We ought not to press this either/or, since we cannot simply systematize the Christian and Biblical Origen to make him conform with the Platonic Origen. The world and matter are not evil, only the free will can be evil. For this reason, the material state as a whole remains a good likeness and an indicator for the upward-striving spirit; and in Christ, in whose flesh there is nothing evil, the lower sensibility unqualifiedly points the way to the heavenly sensibility51. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Prin I,I,9. GL1, p. 360. CIo II,8,61. GL1, p. 360.

814

E. ZOCCHI

If only free will can be evil and if, as seen, no individual spirit can stay without a spiritual body, it is clear why Balthasar tends toward this kind of reading and why he cannot see corporeality as the evil itself, as a pure punishment, or only as a “negative” tool of redemption through a pedagogical pathway. The reasons for this kind of reading are hidden not only in Balthasar’s personal believe in the positivity of the corporeal, but also in the scholars who introduced him, personally or indirectly, to Origen. I believe indeed the occasion for this interest in Origen’s evaluation of sensibility being hidden in the overall Origenian Logos-theology that Balthasar learned personally from de Lubac and from Aloisius Lieske52, which Balthasar (as also Rahner) positively reviews and comments – a book published in the same year of SpiritandFire. Lieske, going against Völker’s DasVollkommenheitsidealdesOrigenes, claims that Origen’s mystical and spiritual experience is grounded in an objective-ontological theory of grace and of the sacraments, elements which had no space in Völker’s analysis. This ontological theory of grace is based on the threefold embodiment of the Logos: Christ, the Church, and the Scriptures. Balthasar’s reading of Origen, developing in the same years of Lieske’s, is fully consonant with it. With this in mind, we can fully understand the dynamic that Balthasar calls unity-in-duality and, consequently, the “real” use of the spiritual senses. The tangible economic presence of God in the world was indeed the central focus of de Lubac and Lieske: not only in the physical person of Jesus Christ, but also in the Scriptures and in the Church. “The Word is made flesh eternally in the Scriptures in order to dwell among us”53 and “the body of Christ is not something apart different from the Church, which is His body, and from the members each in his part”54. This logostheology supports Balthasar’s claim that Origen actually had a strong intuition of the descensus in his vision of the world, but, in Balthasar’s opinion, Origen did not develop it enough. V. ONE EXEMPLARY WAY: THE BEAUTY OF THE WORLD One exemplar aspect of this Logos economy is the beauty of the corporeal world, described in the CommentarytotheSongofSongs:

52. More specifically his Die Theologie der Logosmystik bei Origenes, Münster, Aschendorff, 1938. 53. Phil XV,19,15-16. 54. CMt XIV,17.

BALTHASAR’S READING OF ORIGEN

815

If, then, a man can so extend his thinking as to ponder and consider (conicere etconsiderare) the beauty and the grace (decusetspeciem) of all the things that have been created in the Word, the very charm of them will so smite him, the grandeur of their brightness will so pierce him as with a chosen dart that he will suffer from the dart Himself a saving wound, and will be kindled with the blessed fire of His love55.

The beauty of the world is a divine arrow, which opens up man’s perception towards God. Through beauty we receive the image of the invisible God, in the corporeal world we recognize God’s dwelling among us. The embodied soul can therefore “... behold the invisible and the incorporeal by means of certain analogies and tokens and images of visible things”56. If the Scriptures are the body of the Logos, if the Church is the body of Jesus, if nature can be a way to know the divine, we can say that corporeality is a way to activate our spiritual senses. Even more: it is the only way to do it, since it is the way that the Logos chose to come toward us, in the many “economies”. We cannot know the invisible and spiritual things if not through the visible. Because it is impossible for a human being living in the flesh to recognize something that is secret and invisible if not by conceiving some image and likeness of it from visible things(nisiimaginemaliquametsimilitudinem conceperitdevisibilibus), it is my conviction that he who “made all things in wisdom” created each species of visible things on earth in such a way as to put in them a certain teaching and recognition of invisible and heavenly things (by which the human mind would ascend to a spiritual understanding and seek out the causes of things among heavenly things)57.

It is in and thanks to the earthly world that spiritual perception can become active – activated by the Word’s embodiment in its different forms: Christ, the Church, the Scriptures. Every dualism is avoided: the corporeal sense can become truly spiritual (without losing corporeality!) because it is God who, without losing his divinity, comes toward the creature. The ascending movement of the soul is possible because it is God who, firstly, descended. This can be seen in a Fragment of the CommentarytotheSong ofSongs, where Origen comments on the passages of the eyes of dove of the bride looking at the beloved: It seems that the bride has seen clearly the beauty of the Bridegroom and that through her eyes of dove she also recognized the superiority of the Word in Beauty. Maybe this means that the bed shared by bride and bridegroom is the body (soma) and that, despite being in the body, the soul is worthy 55. CCt Prol. 2,17. 56. CCt III,13,12. 57. CCt III,13,17.

816

E. ZOCCHI

of communionwith the Logos – “your bodies are limbs of Christ” (1 Cor 6,15) … And it is no wonder if the bed is flourishing for both of them, since God’s powerfulness expresses even in the body, and each of His action can be shown in the body58.

As always, we see a tension: it is despite the body that the soul is in communion with God, but this happens indeed in the body. It is God’s initiative that activates the spiritual senses, it is only with Christ that the bodily senses become spiritual (one should also remember the inaccessibility, for the Jews, to the spiritual senses of the Scripture, who did not recognize Christ). The bride has eyes of dove only after having seen the bridegroom59 – and again: the beneficial action originates from the groom; in fact, when he has not yet manifested himself to the bride, she could not yet dedicate herself to the groom. It is only after the bride has known the divine beauty of the groom that she can reach the salvific enchantment of love60.

The groom reaches the bride in a house whose walls are the bodily senses, made spiritual by their meeting. To be clear, the spiritual senses are awakened thanks to the physical senses, which perceive the beauty of the world: in this sense, physical and spiritual senses are one and the same sensitivity, the first being enlightened by the meeting with Jesus. This happens because the earthly world is in analogical relation with the spiritual world (or, to use a term closer to Origen, because there is a participation in it). This is, for Balthasar, the “best” of Plato and indeed fully Christian: the analogy is not given because this world is a “copy” of the upper world, but because the world is created in the image of the Word, thanks to the mediation of Jesus. In this sense, we can understand why Balthasar will call Jesus the “concrete analogiaentis”61: Jesus is the “place” where the two worlds meet and where none of them overcomes the other. For this reason, Jesus is not only the object and activator of spiritual perception but also the model of the human use of the spiritual senses. Jesus comes to us and, showing himself, he makes the earthly sensitivity flourish and reveals the true meaning hidden in it. The groom’s initiative to come towards the bride in the senses means to Balthasar that it is God who decides to let himself be known through senses, and it is only through senses that the groom speaks and invites 58. FrCt 16. 59. CCt III,1,4. 60. FrCt 30. 61. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, ATheologyofHistory, San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press, 1994, pp. 69-70, n. 5.

BALTHASAR’S READING OF ORIGEN

817

the bride-soul – between God and man there is an active sensibility at play, opening up a real personal relationship. This recalls the importance of the mentioned argument of the fivefoldness of the senses in Balthasar’s approach: the senses reveal a God who is glory, who is not known in one unique way but who shows himself in his splendor. This is confirmed by Balthasar’s personal notes in preparation to GeistundFeuer, where the senses are listed in both active and passive form, referring to our being called by God. The title of the chapter on sight is Viderietvidere, that of hearing is Audireetloqui, that of touch Tangiettangere. These notes define the relation between the activity and passivity of the senses as “dynamischeWahrheit”62. This allows us to come to a conclusion about Balthasar’s interest in the spiritual senses: if spiritual sensitivity opens up a dynamic truth it is because senses are tools of a personal relationship. If the Logos gives himself in his manifold economies, as showed by Lieske, the human soul has to be able to perceive it and to receive this communication – but in this relation both the unity and the distinction between subject and object have to be preserved. It is not a relative or subjective truth, since the given object is one and the same Logos, but a Logos who gives himself in a dynamic and manifold relation where all the senses are called. This is the pivotal meaning of Balthasar’s reading of Origen: the idea of the soul being involved in a personal path to God, though a path that is not only a question of moral behavior but of the ontological sacramentality of the world, given by the divine presence in Christ, in the Church, in the Scripture and, for Balthasar more clearly than for Origen, in the beauty of the world. This idea of a dynamic Truth at stake in spiritual sensitivity finds its place in many debates of 20th century’s theology which Balthasar closely lived while writing on Origen – not least, the problem of nature and grace, the center of de Lubac’s Surnaturel. This example shows that what Balthasar learns from the Fathers is not just a vague interest for the Scriptures or the solution to some specific issues; it is on the contrary a deep union between theology and spirituality, which gives shape even to the theological problem of the relation between knowledge and sensibility, and consequently to the burning problem of the role of human nature and divine grace. Balthasar finds in Origen’s doctrine of the spiritual senses a key for looking at the role of personal sensitivity that helps him to gain a new perspective on the problematic relation between nature and the supernatural. He finds a truth that is dynamic and 62. I express my gratitude to the Balthasar Archive in Basel, especially to Claudia Müller, who allowed me to have access to and work on the preparatory material to Origen: GeistundFeuer.

818

E. ZOCCHI

not static, as if already given in a handbook; he finds the possibility of a faith that becomes personal – not subjective, not relative –, but personally calling every soul to salvation. He finds in the spiritual senses the possibility of a relation which is not, as Rahner wanted, limited to the perception of God the Father in a mystical stage, but possible every day and for every creature: every soul has a spiritual body and every soul can use the senses following Christ’s archetype – because Christ came for each single soul. What Balthasar therefore underlines in his reading of Origen finds its roots in the kind of use that he makes of the Fathers – not a philological but a phenomenological dialogue between Origen and the problems of the beginning of the 20th century63. VI. CONCLUSION: THE SACRAMENTAL VALUE OF CORPOREALITY Which consequences arise from this approach to the spiritual senses? How can this be relevant for Origen’s consideration of the human body? I believe that Balthasar’s interpretation of the spiritual senses can show us an interesting approach to the problem of the body, which does not deny the other problems that we know to be present in Origen’s cosmology. a) Corporeality can be seen in Origen as a punishment and a form of purification from our sin, so that we can one day be with God, purified from our fallen status64. b) Corporeality can also be seen as a pedagogical tool, patheimathos: the Word took flesh only because we are sinners – it is only because of the lost rational souls that the soul of Jesus took on the human form, which is only given to us as a way back to an original condition. In this pedagogic vision, the corporeal body is also a “negative” opportunity of experience that God gave us in order not to sin anymore, once we know how difficult it is to live in the fallen state. This idea of Aufhebungis clear to Balthasar, who many times uses Hegel to explain Origen and vice versa65. c) I think that Balthasar could admire Origen so much because of a third, hidden but still present meaning of corporeality: it is the glory of divine love, it is the splendor of the Word, not only a tool of redemption 63. Cf. LÖSER, Im Geiste des Origenes (n. 6), p. 11, on Balthasar’s “theologischphänomenologische” method. 64. A.-C. JACOBSEN, OrigenontheHumanBody, in L. PERRONE (ed.),OrigenianaOctava: OrigenandtheAlexandrianTradition.Papersofthe8thInternationalOrigenCongress,Pisa 27-31August2001 (BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 649-656. 65. VON BALTHASAR, LeMysterion d’Origène(II) (n. 5), p. 62.

BALTHASAR’S READING OF ORIGEN

819

but indeed the sacramental presence of God here and now, in his love for humanity. Corporeality reveals, as Balthasar suggests in his introduction to SpiritandFire, its “pervasive sacramental structure”66: we can perceive the Logos because it is made corporeal, made of flesh, and “things are – therefore – in analogy with the intelligible”67. By changing the vocabulary of the spiritual senses from “mystical” to “sacramental”, we can understand the shift from a (Rahnerian) “theology of the symbol” to a (Balthasarian) “theology of expression”68. Sacramental means that this corporeal reality leads to the eternal divine mystery because it is not only an image of it, but it is itself its expression and, therefore, part of the mysterious spiritual world: it contains it already (already and not yet). To speak of sacramental ontology means to say that worldly realities are not only ordained to lead to the divine mysteries in an instrumental way, by referring or pointing beyond themselves to something, which lies behind, but that the worldly element is itself an expression of what stands behind. A sacrament is therefore a form of divine self-communication. We can speak of a sacramental ontology because God takes the initiative, moves into worldly reality, not from behind. This does not mean to deny the instrumental character of the medium, but to recognize a wider idea of sacramentality. The divine grace efficaciously operates not only in the seven sacraments, but also in the entire work of the Logos. The Incarnation of the Word, and thereby the penetration of the flesh by the Spirit, has an all-embracing Catholic-sacramental character: theology appears in this book as the doctrine of the appearing and communication of God through his eternal Word, which becomes sound and writing in the Old Covenant, in order then to become fully flesh and sacrament in the New and to bring about the turning of the world to the Father in Resurrection, Ascension and the outpouring of the Spirit69.

Sensibility appears therefore not only as the starting point of the souls’ way back to God, but also as the arrival point of God’s descensus; not 66. SF, p. 20. On the “sacramental mystery of nature” as “all-embracing law” see also: C. BIGG, TheChristianPlatonistsofAlessandria, Oxford, Clarendon, 1886, p. 134. 67. CIo I,24. See also CCt III,13,9: “Paul the apostle teaches us that the invisible things of God are understood by means of things that are visible, and that the things that are not seen are beheld through their relationship and likeness to things seen. He thus shows that this visible world teaches us about that which is invisible, and that this earthly scene contains certain patterns of things heavenly. This is to be possible for us to mount up from things below to things above, and to perceive and understand from the things we see on earth the things that belong to heaven”. 68. K. RAHNER, The Theology of the Symbol, in ID., Theological Investigations, IV, New York, Seabury, 1974, 221-252. 69. H.U. VON BALTHASAR, MyWork–InRetrospect, San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press, 1993, p. 26.

820

E. ZOCCHI

only as the place given us to be surpassed but as the place where God decided to be known, to be visible and tangible. In this sense, we can regain also the aspect I addressed about the fivefoldness of the senses and the idea of a manifold revelation of God. Perceiving the splendor of incarnation with spiritual senses is not to perceive a diminished reality of the divine but to perceive indeed the divine in his mission, in his coming towards us. What is here opened by the spiritual senses is a personal and dramatic relation between man and God, a relation that for Origen takes shape specifically in exegesis and that is perfectly described in his first homily on the Song of Songs: The Bride then beholds the Bridegroom; and He, as soon as she has seen Him, goes away. He does this frequently throughout the Song; and that is something nobody can understand who has not suffered it himself. God is my witness that I have often perceived the Bridegroom drawing near me and being most intensely present with me; then suddenly He has withdrawn and I could not find Him, though I sought to do so. I long therefore for Him to come again, and sometimes He does so. Then, when He has appeared and I lay hold of Him, He slips away once more; and when He has so slipped away, my search for Him begins anew. So does He act with me repeatedly70.

The doctrine of the spiritual senses can therefore show us one of the reasons for Balthasar’s admiration for Origen: his personal love for the incarnate Word of God, able to be experienced in a personal (dramatic) relationship between the Bridegroom and the soul. Or, using Balthasar’s words, “the center of this act of encounter (with God) must lie where the profane human senses, making possible the act of faith, become spiritual, and where faith becomes sensory in order to be human”71. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Seminar für Alte Kirchengeschichte Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät Domplatz 23 DE-48143 Münster [email protected]

70. HCt I,7. 71. GL1, p. 357.

Elisa ZOCCHI

INDICES

ABBREVIATIONES

ACW AKG ANRW BETL BLE BZ BZNW CAG CCCM CCSG CCSL CPG CSCO CSCO.S CSEL ETL FC FRLANT GCS HBS HTKAT HTR JSJ JSJS JTS LCL NPNF NTS OCA OCP OLA OWD PG PL PO PTA PTS RAC RB REByz RSR SBL.DS

Ancient Christian Writers Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina Clavis Patrum Graecorum Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Subsidia Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Fontes Christiani Forschungen zur Literatur und Religion des Alten und Neuen Testaments Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte Herders biblische Studien Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers New Testament Studies Orientalia Christiana Analecta Orientalia Christiana Periodica Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Origenes. Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Patrоlogia Orientalis Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen Patristische Texte und Studien Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Revue Biblique Revue des études byzantines Recherches des sciences religieuses Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series

824 SBL.MS SBL.WGRW SC SEA SSL STAC SupplVigChr SVF TU TZ VetChr VigChr WUNT ZAC / JAC ZAW ZDPV ZKT ZNW ZPE ZTK

ABBREVIATIONES

Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature.Writings from the Greco-Roman World Sources Chrétiennes Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Theologische Zeitschrift Vetera Christianorum Vigiliae Christianae Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirchengeschichte

SACRA SCRIPTURA

A. VETUS TESTAMENTUM Genesis 1–3 1,1 1,11 1,26-27 1,26 1,27 1,28 2,7 2,23 2,24 3,18 3,19 3,21 3,22 4,1 6,3 7,20 8,21 9,4 10 10,16 11,9 12,6 13,18 14,13 14,24 15,21 17,5 17,12 18 18,1-2 18,1 18,2 18,8 21,50 23,2 25,23 25,25 26,15

576 524, 589, 595, 617 663 233, 576-578 228, 811 577 744 576-578, 811 743 233, 234, 523, 742744, 746-750 289 167, 168, 171 577, 578, 809, 811 361 743 258 257 218 801 481 36 144 59, 60 51, 60 60 46 36 495 256 41-44, 60 46 41, 44 531 42 60 51 627, 633 633 219

26,17-21 26,18-22 26,25 26,32 27,1-41 27,27 27,28 49,10

633 219 219 219 631 538 537, 538 364

Exodus 3,5 3,8 3,14 3,17 4 5,3 13,5 16,3 17,3LXX 20,2 20,3 23,23 24,4 24,12 25 25,8 25,17LXX 25,20 26,6 30,34-35 34,27 38,17-21LXX 39,10-14

780 36 646 36 459 81 36 655 494 101 528 36 480 778 548 606 526 526 523 780 320 480 480

Leviticus 1,1-2 1,2 1,3-9 1,4 6,11 6,15

607 605 609 611 610 612

826 10,8-9 10,9 17,11 17,14 24,5f. 26,12 Numeri 24,15-19 25 25,1-11 25,1-5 25,1-4 25,3 25,4 25,5 25,7-8 25,7LXX 25,8LXX 25,15 31 31,6 31,16 32,37 34,1-12

SACRA SCRIPTURA

612 614 797, 798, 801 797, 798, 801 480 149, 614 366 681-694 686 685 684 691 683 683, 689, 691, 693, 694 681-695 687 692 683 681, 684, 689-691 682 684 212 346

Deuteronomium 1,1 60 4,24 451 6,4 519, 525, 527 7,1 36 528 9,26LXX 10,17 524 11,20 60 11,30 60 14,5 761, 762 16 86 16,6 88 16,16 187 17,8 129 20,17 36 32,7 306 32,8 528 Iosue 3,5 3,10 9,1

38 36 36

13,21 14,15 15,6 15,8 15,48 15,50 15,61 15,63 18,16 18,21-22 18,28 22,22 24,11 24,33

230 319 35 102 212 212 35 236 102 35 102, 143, 237 524 36 353

Iudices 5,10 7,24 19,10

596 35 102

ISamuelis(IRegum) 2,25 106 2,30 19 9,9 43, 45 14,35 479 IISamuelis(IIRegum) 6,5 479 6,13 479 6,14 479 6,17 479 6,20 479 6,21 479 IRegum(IIIRegum) 2,25 106 6,8 262 14,23 60 18,21 87 IIRegum(IVRegum) 17,10 60 23,14-15 190 IParalipomenon 5,16-32 480 6,22 482 11,4-5 102 15,16-24 480

SACRA SCRIPTURA

15,16 15,17 16,4-6 16,7-36 16,37-42 25,1-31 25,1 25,7 25,8-31

480 480 480 482 480 480 480 480 480

IIParalipomenon 2,1-2 109 3,1 157 6,7-10 109 35,25 181 36,18 190 Esdras 1,7-11 3,14LXX 7,1-10

190 98 144, 145

Iudith 19,10

102

Iob 19,25-27 39,1 40,19LXX

729 762 595

Psalmi 1,2 1,5 2,7 3,3 5 15(16),1 15(16),8 15(16),9b-10a 21(22),2 21(22),19 22,4 24 28 32 32,6 33,6 36 44

77 599 524 484 487 652 478 653 153 153 319 252 482 364, 371 365 521, 523 643 566

44,2 44,3-8 44,8 44(45),2 45,5 45,17 48 49 49,1LXX 49,16 52 53 53,1 54LXX 55 56 58 61(62),2 67(68) 68,19 68(69),22 72 73 73,4-5 73,5-6 73,6 73,7 73(74),4 73(74),8 74 74,4 74,5-6 75 75,2 75,3 75,4 75,10 76 76(77),3 76,6 76(77),11-12 77 77(78) 77(78),1 77(78),23-25 77(78),24-25 77(78),29-30 77(78),53 78

827 677 19 566 650 3, 37, 335 787 252 28, 91 524 28 340 479 479 333, 337-340, 343 339 339 342 559 655 319, 320 153 91 91-93, 95, 96, 106 105 91 93 104, 105 83, 84, 86 87 91 484 350 91 145 99, 149, 242 484 484 91 653 781 746 3, 14, 91 655 88 76 654 655 655 91, 779

828 78,21 79 80 81 82 82,6-7 82,6 86LXX 89–99 92 93 94 95 103,24 104 105 106,16 117,9 117(118),22 118(119) 118,67LXX 118,161 119 119,2 119,5 120 121 121,1 122 123 123,1 124 125–133 125 125,2 125,3 125,4 126 127 128 128,1 130 130,1 131 131,4-5 131(132),14 132 132,3

SACRA SCRIPTURA

778 91, 95, 96 91 91, 252 91, 95, 252 528 528 333, 337-340 18 252 252 252, 482 246 224 482 482 319 250 154 196 524 250 243, 246, 248, 249 246 245 249 249 349 249 249, 253, 254 246, 254 249 243 246, 249 247 247 247 243, 249 249 249 246 243, 249 246 249 149 202 249 253

133 134 134,7 135,2LXX 136,1 136,4 142,5 147 148 150,1

249 251 253 524 146-148, 238 146-148 781 104 364, 371 319

Proverbia 2,5 9,2-5 22,28

585 228 306

Ecclesiastes 1,2 1,14 4,3 12,7

573 573 638 635

CanticumCanticorum 1,7 43 1,8 275 2,11f. 89 Sapientia 7,26

556

Ecclesiasticus 16,21 42,24

555 779

Isaias 1,2 1,30 2,3 5,1 6 6,1 6,2-3LXX 6,2 6,3 6,4 6,5 6,6-7 6,6

149 49 129 163, 166 423, 520, 526, 547 218 548, 555, 556, 558 556, 558 556, 559-561 561 560 559 559, 560

829

SACRA SCRIPTURA

6,7 6,9-10 6,13 10,33 14,12 33,30 41,22-23 42,1 45,23 48,16 49,1 52,6 52,13–53,8 53,4-9 53,7 54,11-12 57,5 60–65

560 551, 552 49 364 429 98 558 364 481 525 364 199 19 85 84, 366 148 60 227

Ieremias 3,7ff. 3,8-11 3,8 3,15 4,3 5,19 11,2 11,12 15,5 15,6 15,16 17,1 20,8 28(51),6 31,6 31,15

142 142 142 109 291 147 141 236 237 143 93, 94, 190, 198 141 361 144, 146 129 49

Lamentationes 1 1,1 1,4 1,8 1,10 3,64 4,10 4,20

140 184 104, 187, 188 97, 104, 106 190 198 190 199, 200

Baruch 3,15

147

Ezechiel 6,13 11,23 14,12 14,21 16,30ff. 17,5-6 37,1-14 37,7 37,10 37,12 40,6 40,22 40,26 40,31 40,34 40,37

60 788 587 144 238 146 154 154 154 154 255 255 255 255 255 255

Daniel 2,47

524

Oseas 1,1 4,13 6,2 12,3

692 60 81 629

Amos 8,10

86

Michaeas 4,1-5 4,2 7,5

109 129 250

Habacuc 3,2LXX

526, 548, 555

Zacharias 11,12

366

Malachias 1,2-3

627

830

SACRA SCRIPTURA

B. NOVUM TESTAMENTUM EvangeliumsecundumMatthaeum 1,1 479 1,7 672 1,20 669 2 366 3,10 292 4,3 103 4,6 103 4,9 103 4,12-17 123, 498 4,13 123 5,5 346 5,8 43, 45, 222 5,17 87 5,35 235 6,9-10 559 6,11 648 6,17-18 88 8,5-13 126 8,5 123 8,14-16 126 8,16 126 8,28-34 206 8,34 35 9,20-22 611 10,28 492 11,23 123 11,27 451, 555 11,29 45 13,3-9 289 13,10-17 715 13,17 508 13,29 236 13,31-32 292 13,34-35 715 15,1-2 435 16,20 738 17,24 123 19 661 19,26 597 19,29 229 21,12-16 477 21,17 258 21,42 154 21,43 199 22,23-33 746 22,30 464

23,35 23,38 24,21 24,45 25,35 26,11 26,15 26,27-29 26,29 26,36-46 26,52 26,61 27,33-34 27,33 27,35 27,46 27,51-53 27,52-53 28,18 28,19 28,20

94, 190 149, 241 191, 225 78 44 729 366 612 227, 537, 538 22 687 164 153 158, 159 153 153, 154 154 170 559 520 202, 686

EvangeliumsecundumMarcum 1,2 123 1,21-27 498 1,21 123 1,35 494 2,1 123 2,19-20 89 2,19 88 2,20 88 4,3-8 289 9,33 123 10,18 525 12,10 154 14,57-58 164 15,22-24 153 15,22 162 15,24 153 15,34 154 15,36 153 15,38 154 EvangeliumsecundumLucam 1,17 34 1,26-27 668 1,35 521

SACRA SCRIPTURA

2,4 3,31 4,13 4,23 4,31 4,38 6,21 6,25 7,1 7,44-46 8,4-8 8,10 10,15 10,23 11,3 12,4 15,13 15,23 16,29 19,17-19 19,19 19,41 20,17 23,33-34 23,34 23,45 24 24,24 24,27 24,32

668 668 103 123 123 498 361 361 123 611 289 715 123 608 648 492 609 190 607 232 227 613 154 153 153 154 516 517 517 560

EvangeliumsecundumIoannem 1,1-3 589 1,1 524, 595 1,3-4 755-758 1,3 563, 758 1,4 758 1,5 524, 650 1,9 524 1,11 559 1,12 800 1,14 744 1,17 303 1,19-23 672 1,21 774 1,26 454 1,28 4, 31, 36, 213, 214, 673 1,29 88

2 2,12 2,13 2,18-22 2,19 2,21 3,8 3,16 4 4,21 4,22 4,24 4,36 4,46-53 5,2 6,16-59 6,35 6,51 6,59 8,6 8,12 8,20 8,22 8,31-32 8,56 8,59 9,2 10,18 10,30 10,39 11,8 11,54 12 12,16 12,31 12,32 12,37-46 12,40 12,41 12,44 13,21 13,22 13,23 13,27 13,31 13,32 13,33 14,6

831 123, 130 123, 124, 239, 490, 497, 500-503 76, 97 164 650 92 555 560 123, 128, 130 235 234 346, 451 508 126 158 123 228 76 123 154 524 671 671, 672 526 44, 65, 510 671 633 566 523, 743 671 671 671, 673 549, 550, 562 631 147 686 551 552 552 552 361, 673 215 612 103, 215 675 675 674, 675 303

832 14,16 14,23 14,26 14,27 14,28 14,30 15,22 16,12f. 17,20-23 18,28 19,13 19,16-18 19,17 19,20 19,24 19,28-30 20,16 21,3-11 21,11

SACRA SCRIPTURA

525 149 555 141 522 429 201 555 571 494 158 153 158, 162, 163 158 153 153 158 777 779

ActusApostolorum 1,3 154 2,25 478 4,11 154 6,1 158 10 9 10,27 408 10,34-43 408 12,19-23 370 13,46 106 15,1-35 109 21,40 158 22,2 158 23,35 381 26,14 158 EpistulaadRomanos 1,1-5 492 1,20 606 2,28-29 745 3,25 526 3,28-29 515 4,17 495 5,7 429 5,12-21 155 5,13-14 747 5,14 152, 742 5,20 173

6,6 7,8-9 7,14 7,22 7,24 8,2 8,3 8,9 8,13 8,19-21 8,20 8,29 8,32 9 9,4 9,6 9,8 9,10-13 9,11 9,14 11,5 11,16 11,25-26 11,25 11,26 11,29 12,15 14,11 16,25-26 AdCorinthiosI 1 1,30 2,6 2,7-8 2,9 2,10 3,16 5,7 5,8 6,15 6,17 6,19 8,5-6 8,6 8,8

147 495 223, 512, 608, 612 809 560 526 147, 560, 561, 641 149 582 587 593, 601 632 366 627 798 745 745 627, 628, 630-634 627, 628, 633, 636641 628 142 170, 171 202 202 201, 202 202 613 481 509 77 458 250 745 429 526, 555 349 79, 84-86, 89 87, 88, 745 816 232, 523, 530, 566, 742, 743 349 519 521 494

833

SACRA SCRIPTURA

9,9-10 10 10,3 10,4 10,11 10,18 11,3 11,20 11,24 12,4-6 12,27 12,28 13,12 14,20 15 15,3 15,21-22 15,22 15,24-28 15,28 15,35-38 15,36-44 15,37-38 15,42-44 15,44 15,45-49 15,45 15,50 15,51-52 15,52 15,53-56 15,53

744, 745 745 78 745 745, 746 230 155, 162 78 147 492 652, 744 493 222 22, 201 52, 175, 466, 725, 748 153 155 149, 152, 159, 160, 163, 164, 167-169, 175 559 566, 570, 615 598 733 809 598 581 152, 155 231 598, 731 597 730 600 730

AdCorinthiosII 3,3 436, 438 3,6 608 3,14 605 3,15-17 199 3,18 199 4,16 596, 809 5,4 736 5,8 148 5,16 614 6,16 349 9,15 533 11,22 158

AdGalatas 1,15 3,16 3,19 3,28 4,5 4,21-26 4,21-24 4,22-24 4,26

AdEphesios 1,4 1,10 1,15-18 1,21 1,22 2,7 2,12 2,20 2,21 3,1-3 3,16 3,17-19 4,6 4,9 4,15 5 5,8 5,14 5,21-33 5,22-33 5,23 5,28-31 5,30 5,31-32 5,32 6,6 6,14 6,17

524 417 106 472 798 109, 112 745 745 22, 28, 100, 101, 223, 226, 232, 336, 338, 744 225 155 666 428, 522, 593 155 428 145 37, 154, 336 349 665 809 666 519 320 155 231, 748 494 167-174, 178 223 748 155 742 744, 750 231, 741-758 742, 743, 747, 748 104 686 686, 687

AdPhilippenses 1,28 237 1,29 494 2,6 233, 699, 744 2,7 613

834

SACRA SCRIPTURA

2,8 2,11 3,5 3,21 4,7

570 481 158 559 97, 99

AdColossenses 1,13 1,15 1,18 2,3 2,7 2,9 2,10 2,15 2,16-17 3,9-10

613 162, 564, 565, 589 155, 162 526 613 702 155, 162 159 745 743

AdThessalonicensesI 5,23 584, 652 AdThessalonicensesII 2,14-16 197 2,11-12 492 AdTimotheumI 6,16 456 AdTimotheumII 3,6 87 AdPhilemonem 1,28 1,29 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,11 3,21 AdHebraeos 1,2 1,3 4,14 5,12 7,14 7,25

237 494 233, 699, 744 613 570 481 559 492 452, 525, 556, 565, 567 232 196 141 613, 614

8,5 9,14 9,24 10 10,1 10,20 10,29 11,10 11,16 11,37 11,39-40 12,22 12,22-23 12,23

745 610 613, 614 687 447, 745 605, 613 237 223 224 343 615 99-101, 109, 224, 226, 232 100, 232, 336, 338 112, 234

EpistulaPetriI 2,4-6 2,5 2,7 2,11 4,11 5,13

228 238 154 86 147 539, 541-543

EpistulaPetriII 1,4 569 3,15 101 EpistulaIoannisI 1,5 450, 524, 564, 565, 650 2,1-2 613 2,1 526 2,19 215 ApocalypsisIoannis 2,14 684 3,12 141 9,11 158

14,6 16,16 19,13 20,4-6 21 21,1-27 21,2-3 21,2 21,19

612 158 813 536 227 109 223 226 148

ORIGENIS OPERA

A. COMMENTARII ET EXEGETICA CommentariiinGenesim 179, 301, 307, 623, 663, 744, 810 III 629 CommentariiinPsalmos 180, 195 I 435 IV,4 812 CommentariiinCanticumCanticorum 13, 109-121, 180, 672 Prol. 185, 188, 226, 232, 247, 256, 286 Prol. 1,6 574 Prol. 2,4f. 577 Prol. 2,17 587, 815 Prol. 4,15-16 114 Prol. 4,15 115 Prol. 4,19-20 112 Prol. 4,19 112 Prol. 4,20 115 Prol. 4,23 112, 114 I 440 I,4 806 I,4,4 116 I,4,10 116 I,4,16 585 I,4,17-19 586 I,4,18 584 I,5,9 120 I,6,3-4 116 II,1,1 112 II,1,3 112, 119 II,1,25 112 II,1,28 113, 115, 117 II,1,37 117 II,2,5-8 112 II,2,7 584 II,3,3-5 112 II,3,17 118, 120

II,4,4-11 II,4,24 II,5,1 II,5,21 II,5,22-23 II,6,6 II,8,4 II,8,5-6 II,125 III III,1 III,1,4 III,10,4-6 III,10,6 III,13,9 III,13,12 III,13,17 III,14,16-19 III,14,21

116 43 275 653 627 813 116 744 456 185, 200 526 816 120 117 119, 819 815 815 587 115

CommentariiinLamentationes 17, 139, 179 CommentariiinMatthaeum 9, 14, 22, 160, 234, 539 VI,15 596 X,17 95, 506 XI,8-9 435 XI,9 18, 435, 506 XI,17 120 XII,21 104 XII,36 715 XII,37 707 XII,38 715 XII,39 715, 720 XIII,1 583 XIII,7 104 XIII,8 104 XIII,11 126 XIII,18 525, 530

836 XIV,4-5 XIV,12 XIV,13 XIV,16 XIV,17 XV,1 XV,3 XV,11 XV,12 XV,14 XV,24,13-15 XV,25 XVI,1 XVI,6 XVI,9 XVI,15 XVI,16 XVI,20 XVI,21 XVI,22 XVI,23 XVI,26 XVI,29 XVII,1 XVII,19 XVII,26 XVII,29-36 XVII,29-30 XVII,30 XVII,34

ORIGENIS OPERA

601 227 120, 577, 234, 405 45 525 200 439, 707 228 360 435 226, 120, 106 103 103 103 129 235, 529 103 103, 360 465 470, 580, 745,

223, 240 743 744, 814

661, 662

596 224, 336

258 529 579 654, 739 746

CommentariorumSeriesinMatthaeum 10 85 28 235 40 443 41 191 46 432, 436, 672 62 583 63-64 742 63 585 64 585 65 563 70 236 92 23 126 4, 159 CommentariiinIoannem 31, 39, 118, 123, 180, 196, 206, 209, 213,

I,1 I,1,1 I,2,9 I,3,16 I,3,17 I,3,19 I,4,25 I,6,35 I,8,48 I,9,52-57 I,11,69-72 I,11,69 I,15,86 I,17 I,17,97 I,19 I,20 I,24 I,24,151-152 I,24,151 I,26 I,26,167 I,26,168 I,26,177f. I,29 I,31,215 I,32,228-229 I,33 I,34,245 I,35,253ff. I,35[45],255-258 I,37-38 I,37,270 I,40 I,52 I,111 I,114-115 I,125-292 I,125 I,151-152 I,151 I,152

214, 258, 309, 448, 489-503, 508-510, 632, 640, 644, 648, 656, 671-680, 754, 758 812 198, 201 490 443 443 493 443 201 654 654 201 197 443 524, 593, 595, 601 582 589 523 819 650 651 600, 601 573, 574 587 587 524 181, 192 185 132 587 197 234 513 201 132 676 225, 678, 679 224 675 676 451 678 452

837

ORIGENIS OPERA

I,153-157 I,153 I,156 I,157 I,180 I,200 I,241-252 I,280 I,281 I,289 I,291 I,292 II,1 II,1,1 II,1,4 II,2-3 II,2,16 II,2,17 II,6 II,6,49-50 II,8,61 II,9-18 II,10-19 II,10,70 II,10,72 II,10,74 II,10,78 II,14,100 II,15,106 II,15,109 II,18,124 II,20,135-136 II,23 II,23,149 II,30,182 II,31,118 II,31,188 II,31,189-191 II,31,189-190 II,31,189 II,31,190 II,31,191 II,31,192 II,33 II,33,27 II,69 II,73 II,74 II,75

676 676 676 677 676 135, 678 677 677 679 678 451, 522, 490 192 522 651 652 522, 200, 583, 556 758 492 492 651 492 496 495 312 702 494 524 650, 492 196 629, 630 630 630 630 630 629 45 192 679 452 452 452

136

678 524

525, 530 201 814

651 630

II,76 II,81 II,124-125 II,125 VI VI,2 VI,2,6 VI,2,8 VI,6,40 VI,8-9 VI,11-12 VI,14,85 VI,17 VI,22 VI,23 VI,23,123 VI,23,126 VI,24 VI,25 VI,28,144-145 VI,30,154 VI,38,188-189 VI,39,198 VI,39,202 VI,40,204-205 VI,40,204 VI,40,205 VI,41,208-210 VI,41,215 VI,42,217 VI,42,219 VI,43,224 VI,53,273 VI,55 VI,56,289f. VI,61 VI,188 VI,204-211 VI,204-207 VI,204 VI,205 VI,206 VI,207 VI,208-211 VI,209 VI,211 VI,212-216 VI,213 VI,214

458 452 456 458 258 520 490 629 439 674 510 652 511 508 508 103 492 507 509 292 587 651 501 587 5, 213 4, 205 214 206 353 196 3 360 500 529 583 672 454 31-39 31, 673 32, 33, 671 32, 33 34, 39 35 31, 38 33 34-36 31 36 36

838 VI,215 VI,216 VI,217 VI,218 VI,219 VI,221 VI,229 VI,230 VI,233 VI,237 VI,242-245 X X,1 X,3,10 X,6,24 X,3,13 X,6,23-27 X,8,37-38 X,8,37 X,8,110 X,9,42 X,11,48-49 X,11,58-59 X,12,62-66 X,16,89–18,111 X,16,92f. X,16,93 X,19 X,19,116 X,20-21 X,20,120 X,20,121 X,20,122 X,21-35 X,21,126 X,23,132 X,24,138 X,26,158 X,27,164 X,28 X,28,174 X,28,176 X,31,197 X,33 X,33,211 X,33,212 X,33,216 X,37-38 X,37 X,37,246

ORIGENIS OPERA

38 31 37 37 37 32 38 38 38 32 38 262 254 501 496 501 582 501 501 360 501 498 498 501 84 84 84 135 76 136 103 103 103 136 103, 501 97 103 103 500 596 182 182 103 118, 119, 226 103 103 103 126 523 650, 651

X,38-40 X,38,259-260 X,39-66 X,39 X,40 X,40,279 X,41-42 X,42 X,48-61 X,48 X,58 X,60 X,62 X,63 X,66 X,103 X,110 X,129-130 X,130 X,132-133 X,132 X,141-142 X,141 X,144 X,148 X,172-224 X,246 X,264-286 X,270 X,272 X,299-300 XIII,2,11 XIII,5,30 XIII,12,78 XIII,13,81 XIII,13,84-85 XIII,14 XIII,21,129 XIII,25 XIII,25,148-149 XIII,26 XIII,28,169 XIII,29,172 XIII,29,175 XIII,29,177 XIII,30 XIII,30,185 XIII,33,211 XIII,33,214 XIII,53,358-361

128, 92 239 129 128 585, 127 239 125, 127 239 127 125 127 127 505 132, 135 135 130 128 129, 127 136 136 240 452 129 255 247 133 494 443, 4 98 113 601 577 522, 653 221 435 210 210 209 221 209 77 654 582

129

586 127

223

130, 133

444

525

839

ORIGENIS OPERA

XIII,56,389 XIII,61,429 XIII,84-85 XIII,98 XIII,123-150 XIII,123 XIII,124 XIII,140 XIII,146 XIII,148-150 XIII,151 XIII,152 XIII,153 XIII,250-259 XIII,310 XIII,314 XIII,319 XIII,391-392 XIII,393 XIII,397-398 XIII,397 XIII,402 XIII,407 XIII,409 XIII,410 XIII,411-413 XIII,437 XIII,438 XIII,439 XIII,440 XIII,441-443 XIII,441 XIII,445 XIII,446 XIII,447-448 XIII,455 XIX,6-11 XIX,7,43 XIX,10,57 XIX,12,74 XIX,15,92 XIX,15,97 XIX,17,104 XIX,18,113 XIX,22 XIX,23 XIX,37 XIX,69 XIX,104 XIX,104,1-5

103 580 235 235 451 451 451 451 451 450 452 451 452 136 508 508 509 133 127, 131 128 136 128 128 126, 127 128 128 127 131 131 131 131 131 126 126 125 32, 671 563 103 103 653 434 434 434 434 601 743 450 671 671, 672 672

XIX,131-150 XIX,401 XX,12,89,1-2 XX,16,134 XX,18,154 XX,22,4-17 XX,22,182 XX,25,220 XX,32,285 XX,33 XX,43,405 XX,147 XX,158 XX,168-170 XX,313 XX,398 XXVIII,14,119 XXVIII,205 XXVIII,208 XXVIII,209 XXVIII,210 XXVIII,211 XXVIII,212 XXX,179 XXX,205-206 XXXII,2,5 XXXII,17,204 XXXII,18,223 XXXII,19,246 XXXII,24,301 XXXII,50 XXXII,118 XXXII,193 XXXII,212 XXXII,223 XXXII,225 XXXII,227 XXXII,375 XXXII,376-377 XXXII,377 XXXII,387

233 672 707 575 649 595 577, 685, 494 812 585 673 450, 450 672 513 494 672 672 673 673 673 673 435 450 13 435 361 215 215 673 673 451 674 673 673 674 679 674 674 675,

649 686

451

680

CommentariiinEpistulamad Romanos 631, 632, 634, 641, 666 I,5 524 I,6 563 I,10,2-3 510 II,5,5 452 II,12 511

840 II,13 III,2 III,8 III,8,2-9 IV,6,9 IV,7,3 IV,8,8 V,1,38 V,6,7 V,8 V,10 V,10,4 VI,3 VI,11 VII,3 VII,5,4 VII,6,1-2 VII,6,5 VII,6,6 VII,7 VII,12 VII,13 VII,13,2 VII,13,3 VII,13,9 VIII,1 VIII,5 VIII,6,6 VIII,7 VIII,10 IX,2 X,8 X,43,1

ORIGENIS OPERA

470 236, 443 526 548 470 512 452 742 451 525 566 470 200 526 631 632 632 632 632 566 566 524, 525 632 632 453 685 529 632 440 456 563 441 631

CommentariiinEphesios 665, 666 CommentariiinEpistulamadTitum 24 FragmentainGenesim D6 664 D 11 212, 577 D 22 577 FragmentainDeuteronomium 360 FragmentainIISamuelem 5,6-8 218

FragmentainPsalmos 1,5 810 88,13 207 118(119), prol. 194 118 24 147,2 104 FragmentainProverbia 360 XVII 78 FragmentainCanticumCanticorum 3 585 14 584 16 816 27 584 30 816 FragmentainIeremiam 11 99, 140, 236 36 582 47 691 49 92 FragmentainLamentationes 179-203 I 183, 189, 194 I,1 92 II 183, 184, 193 III 183, 194-196 V 197 VII 184 VIII 184-186 IX 189, 192 X 192 XIII 187, 189 XIV 187, 188, 193, 286 XVI 190 XVII 197 XVIII 193 XIX 98, 186, 193 XXI 97 XXVI 189 XXVII 189 XXVIII 189 XXIX 192 XXXVI,4 439 XXXVIII 189, 197 XL 198 XLVI 197

841

ORIGENIS OPERA

LI LII LV LVIII LXII LXIII LXIV LXV LXVIII LXIX LXXII LXXX LXXXI LXXXIX XC XCIX C CI CIV CV CVI CVII CVIII CIX CX CXI CXV CXVI CXVIII

196 192 185, 196 196 197 197 196 189 360 190 185 197 197 198 94, 190 190 198 190, 197 185, 192, 198 94, 190, 191 189, 196, 199 189, 197 190, 197 181, 189, 190, 196, 197 190 198 189, 196 198, 200, 812 201, 202

FragmentainMatthaeum 14 653 257 653 469 4 493 78 551.II 158 551.III 159 FragmentainLucam 20 668 34 360 60 198 72,6 99, 236 162 509 186 585, 586 186,1 97 FragmentainIoannem 1 676, 679

8 13 37 45 80

444 574, 578 452 744 99, 236, 257

FragmentainEpistulamadRomanos VI,5 585 FragmentainEpistulamadCorinthios 6 742 12 77 19 435 FragmentainEpistulamadEphesios I (ed. Gregg) 679 I,17 667 II,28 665 II,35 666 III,74 743 III,75 743 III,76 743 VIII (ed. Gregg) 530 X (ed. Gregg) 582 ScholiainPsalmos in Ps 117,9b in Ps 118,161 in Ps 119,2a in Ps 119,5 in Ps 123,1 in Ps 125,2a in Ps 125,4 in Ps 127,9b in Ps 128,1b in Ps 129,2a in Ps 130,1 in Ps 133,1

244-247 250 250 246 245 246, 254 247 247 250 246 246 246 250

ScholiainCanticumCanticorum 685 V,13 78 VII,2 78 SelectainGenesim 435 SelectainLeviticum IX,3 78

842 SelectainPsalmos 18, 207, 807 Prol. 648 1,3 644 9,12 98, 99 44,2 650 73,5-6 94 88,13 207

ORIGENIS OPERA

CatholicainPsalmos 255 4,17-18 253 4,18-19 254 AdnotationesinNumeros 40 433

SelectainEzechielem 9,4 405 B. HOMILIAE HomiliaeinGenesim 634, 641, 672 I,1 589 I,2 578 I,13 577 I,17 685 II,2 506 II,6 744 III 42 III,5 42 IV 42 IV,1 43, 46 IV,3 43 V,5 335 VI,1 514 VIII,1 43 VIII,9 563 IX,2 744 X,3 79 X,4 185 XI,2 385 XII,1 633 XII,3 633 XII,4 633 XIII,3 505, 633, 634 XIV,3 362 XV,3 193 HomiliaeinExodum 672 I,1 292 III,2 563 III,3 315 V,1 746

V,2 VI,5 VIII,1 VIII,2 IX,3-4 IX,3 IX,4 XII,2

81 528, 578 100 520, 528 129 606, 607 526 78

HomiliaeinLeviticum 511, 603-615 I,1,1 604, 606, 608, 614 I,1,2 608, 611 I,2,1 607 I,2,7 609 I,2,8–I,3,1 609 I,2,8 609, 610 I,3 234 I,3,3 613 I,4 603 I,4,1 608, 611 I,4,2 512, 610 I,4,3 611 I,4,4 611 I,4,5 614 I,5 603 II,4 603 III,8 43 IV,3 436 IV,8,1-3 610 IV,8,1 609 IV,10,3 610 IV,10,5 612 IV,10,97-98 132

843

ORIGENIS OPERA

V,1,2 V,1,3 V,8,3 V,9,3 V,10,3 VI,2 VI,3,4 VI,3,5 VII,1,2 VII,1,4-7 VII,1,7 VII,1,8 VII,1,10 VII,1,11˗VII,2,1 VII,2,2 VII,2,3-4 VII,2,3 VII,2,4-10 VII,2,8 VII,2,10 VII,2,13 IX,2,2 IX,7 IX,10 IX,11 X,1 X,2 XII,5 XVI,6 XVI,7,7

514 606 610 610 610 577 512 510, 512 612 612 615 612 612 613, 615 613 614 613, 614 615 615 614 614 612 654 529 528 241 83 440 587 614

HomiliaeinNumeros 634, 641, 672, 685 Praef. 444 II,2,2-5 443 II,3 43 III,2,2 634 III,12-13 634 V,1,2 510 V,1,3 510 VI,2,1 452 VI,3,2 452 VII,5 102 VII,5,5 224 X,3 43, 526 XI,1 745, 746 XI,5 528 XI,8 557

XIV,1 XV,2,2 XVIII,3 XX,1,2-4 XX,1,2 XX,1,5 XX,2 XX,2,1-4 XX,2,3 XX,3,1 XX,3,4-9 XX,3,6 XX,4,1-3 XX,4,2-3 XX,5,1 XX,5,1,497-500 XXV,5 XXVI,7 XXVII,2-3 XXVII,12

519 686 439 688 684 686, 687 530 686 634 45 686 689 687 689 687 688 530 101 228 200

HomiliaeinIosuam I,3 607 VI,1 566 VI,4 226 VII,2 239 VII,7 563 VIII,3 443 VIII,4 200 VIII,7 239 IX,3 239 XI,4f. 584 XI,5 183 XIII,2 240 XV,6 506 XVII,1 22, 201, 241 XIX,4 229 XXI,1 235 XXI,2 237 XXVI,3 510, 515 HomiliaeinISamuelem 1,3 216 1,4 523 HomiliaeinPsalmos 13, 75-107, 140, 148, 241, 643657, 771, 775

844 inPs 15 I,3 II II,8 inPs 36 I,1 I,2 II,1 II,6 III,10 IV IV,3 inPs 37 inPs 38 inPs 67 II II,2 II,3 II,4 II,5 II,8 inPs 73 I,1 I,2 I,6 I,7 I,8 I,9 I,10 II,2 II,3 II,7 III,5 III,6 inPs 74 VI inPs 75 I II inPs 76 I,4 II II,1 II,3 II,4 II,5 II,7 inPs 77 I

ORIGENIS OPERA

652 775 653 91 9 10, 643 140 140 77 775 140 91 91 238 148, 478 478 478 478 655 91 92, 93, 96, 140 93, 148, 149, 242 4, 92, 96, 97 103 84 105 104, 105 86 87 654 89 11 91 15 91 145, 241 99, 140, 149 91 653 750 21 745, 746 10, 653 524 10 14, 91 661

I,1 I,2 I,3f. I,4 II,1-2 IV,2 IV,3 IV,4 IV,7 IV,10 IV,11 V,7 VI,4 VI,23-25 VII,2 VII,7 VIII,4 VIII,7 IX,1 IX,5 IX,6 inPs 80 inPs 81 I inPs 82

15, 20 140 88 76, 87, 88 142 145 76 77 77 654, 655 77, 655 8 79 76 3 100 100, 655 242 655 235 100, 142 91 91 150 21

HomiliaeinCanticumCanticorum 109-121 Prol. 247 I 247 I,1 117 I,5-6 117 I,5 114 I,6 112 I,7 583, 820 II,6 200 II,7 116 II,8 185, 742 HomiliaeinIsaiam 547 I 548, 554, 555, 558 I,1 218, 587 I,2-5 547 I,2 520, 548, 556, 558, 559, 587 I,4 559, 560 II,1 587

845

ORIGENIS OPERA

II,2 IV IV,1 IV,2 IV,3 IV,5-6 IV,5 IV,6 V,2 IX IX,1

559 548, 554, 558, 561 559, 587 560, 561 560 547, 559 559, 560 560 78, 547, 560, 561 506 18

HomiliaeinIeremiam 139, 150 I,3-4 92 I,4 239 I,10 577 I,14 654 IV,2-4 142 IV,2 141, 145 IV,3 11 IV,4 103 V,2 142 V,4 142 V,13 291 V,15 141 V,16 98, 140 VII,3 147 VIII,1 582 VIII,2 451 VIII,7 106 VIII,9 654 IX,1-2 141 IX,1 513 IX,2 99, 140, 194, 236 IX,4 525, 529 IX,4,4-5 556 IX,4,4 557 XII,1 652 XII,8 11 XII,13 405 XIII,1 105 XIII,2 102, 143, 236, 237 XIII,3 143 XV,4 530 XVI,6 652 XVI,10 141 XVIII,5 148

XVIII,9 XIX,14 XX,1 XX,2 XX,5 XX,6

652 77, 143, 145, 238 652 17, 672 288 361

HomiliaeLatinaeinIeremiam I,2 140, 145 II,1 140, 144, 146 II[II],9 582 HomiliaeinEzechielem 139 I,3 144, 578 I,4 563 I,9 513, 529 III,8 148 IV,1 587 IV,7 11 IV,8 18 V,3 144, 238 VI,1,1 511 VI,3 529 VI,4 143 IX,3 240 IX,5 240 X,1 144 X,2 240 XI,4 146, 235 XI,5 146 XII,2 140, 145, 149 XIII,1 529 HomiliaeinLucam 13, 226 IV,4 452 VI,3 669 XVI,6 8 XVII,4 563 XXIV,1 443 XXV,5 452 XXXIV,1 519 XXXIV,3 226 XXXV,6 528 XXXVIII,3 238, 613 XXXIX 227

846

ORIGENIS OPERA

C. TRACTATUS ET OPERA DIVERSA ContraCelsum 10, 13, 22, 83, 180, 362, 448, 617, 618, 644, 648, 656, 703, 705 Prol. 1 490 I,12 389 I,12,1 492 I,14 623 I,17 273 I,19 617, 618, 623 I,21 453, 523 I,24 676 I,31 273 I,42 273 I,44 617 I,45 18, 19, 407 I,46 525 I,47 95 I,48 585, 811, 812 I,51 64, 206 I,55 18, 19 I,56 18, 19 I,57 655 I,60,32-33 703 I,61,23 686 I,62,41-42 707 I,66 652, 669 I,66,19 703 I,87 362 II,4 505 II,9 617, 618, 622, 652 II,9,67 500 II,9,69-73 703 II,13 95 II,13,101ff. 407 II,20,49 492 II,23 582 II,25 25 II,26,7 500 II,29 563 II,31 18 II,49,21 492 II,52 434 II,59 575 II,60 580 II,64 707 II,65,4 500

II,67 II,69,2 II,76 III,1 III,41-42 III,41 III,41,4-19 III,42 III,62,18-19 III,75 III,81 IV,1 IV,2-9 IV,9,4 IV,11-12 IV,11 IV,14 IV,14,18-19 IV,15 IV,15,1-3 IV,15,3-11 IV,15,11-18 IV,15,18-27 IV,16 IV,18,12-24 IV,18,27-34 IV,19 IV,19,2-5 IV,29 IV,30 IV,34 IV,36 IV,40 IV,44 IV,48 IV,49 IV,51-52 IV,51 IV,54 IV,55 IV,56 IV,62 IV,65 IV,66 IV,69 IV,71 IV,79

606 500 273 490 704, 707 469, 583, 704, 706 704 575 707 362 361 490 624 500 362 623 362, 451, 624 699 458, 624 699 699 700 700 716 700 699 582 699, 701 520 627 506 273 577 120 267 510, 511, 744, 745 267 45, 267, 506 621 267, 273, 618 581 739 623 575, 624 566 715 623

ORIGENIS OPERA

IV,91 V,17 V,18f. V,18 V,19 V,20,21 V,23 V,39,25-28 V,55 V,59 V,60 V,61 VI,2 VI,3 VI,4 VI,7 VI,10 VI,12 VI,15 VI,18 VI,19 VI,20 VI,21 VI,25-26 VI,30 VI,34 VI,37 VI,44 VI,45,16 VI,47 VI,47,18-26 VI,48 VI,50-51 VI,50 VI,52 VI,53 VI,55 VI,56 VI,63 VI,63,14-20 VI,64 VI,65 VI,77 VI,78,17 VII,4 VII,6 VII,10 VII,14 VII,16

273 597 581 597, 598 597, 598 500 581, 598 704 45 617 505 563 362 617 617 293, 362 294 362 362 520 362, 618, 622 617 45, 506, 552 117 589 654 362 219, 456 707 563, 743 704 617, 706 618 617 623 624 624 625 595 703 450, 451, 652 458 716 500 511 273 510 621 458

VII,16,19 VII,17,15-25 VII,17,15-21 VII,22 VII,28-30 VII,29 VII,32 VII,34 VII,36 VII,37 VII,38 VII,39 VII,42-43 VII,42 VII,43 VII,45-46 VII,45 VII,46 VII,50 VII,51 VII,54 VII,59 VIII,6 VIII,12 VIII,16 VIII,17 VIII,22 VIII,29 VIII,35 VIII,49 VIII,53 VIII,68 VIII,72 DeOratione V,2-4 V,4 V,6 VI,3 VI,4-5 VI,4 IX,2 XIII,1 XIII,4 XV,1 XV,2 XV,3

847 707 699 704 183 139 110, 115 365, 465, 581, 598 585 273 586 450 807 622 619, 621 622 619 621, 624, 625, 627, 649 450, 618 595 362 273 362 654 300, 523, 532 273 655 76, 79, 81, 83 494 362 451 273 273 566 630-632, 634, 636, 641, 644, 648 630 630 630 630 631 630 582, 601 494 812 524 522 235

848 XXI,2 XXIV,3 XXVII,2 XXVII,8 XXVII,10 XXVII,12 XXIX,18 XXXIII,6 XXXIV,6

ORIGENIS OPERA

580 787 654 453, 458, 648, 649, 705 654 454 631 521 522

Dediapsalmate 5,2-4 484 Dedivisionepsalmorum(?) 482 DePrincipiis

Praef. 1 Praef. 2 Praef. 3 Praef. 4 Praef. 5 Praef. 8 Praef. 10 I,1 I,1,2 I,1,2,5-8 I,1,4 I,1,5 I,1,6 I,1,7 I,1,9 I,1,19 I,2 I,2,1-4 I,2,2-3 I,2,2 I,2,3

180, 181, 227-233, 237, 299, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 311, 363, 433, 439, 440, 443, 447, 448, 453456, 458, 470, 538, 545, 548, 554, 563572, 592-596, 600, 627, 628, 632, 634, 639, 640, 701, 745, 753, 754, 758, 761, 776 303, 304, 567 432, 436 564 519, 529, 563, 567 627 579 433, 564 452, 578 201 452 139, 201 808 450, 523, 529, 703 311, 456, 585 585, 807, 813 812 563, 564 556 679 524 557

I,2,4 I,2,4,92-100 I,2,5-13 I,2,5 I,2,6 I,2,7 I,2,8

529, 556 702 525 458 577 564, 568 452, 565, 568, 571, 572 I,2,8,232-238 702 I,2,9 528 I,2,10 456, 758 I,2,11 565 I,2,13 454-456, 525, 526 I,2,13,462-465 702 I,3,2 525 I,3,3 196, 519, 589 I,3,4 181, 520, 526, 547549, 555, 557, 672 I,3,5 522, 558 I,3,6 522 I,3,7 523, 525 I,3,8 522, 558 I,3,8,276-278 702 I,4,4 589 I,4,5 116 I,5 594 I,5,3 579, 592, 593 I,5,4 233 I,5,5 453, 456, 458 I,5,5,282-291 702 I,6,1-4 111 I,6,1 571, 810 I,6,2 453, 454, 456, 566, 571 I,6,2,57-63 702 I,6,3 583, 593 I,6,4 578, 580, 581, 808 I,7,1 589, 758 I,7,4 629 I,7,5 522, 573, 593 I,8 594 I,8,1 577, 594 I,8,3 233, 453, 454, 456 I,8,4 577 II,1,1 362, 589, 594 II,1,2 363, 566 II,1,3 363, 587 II,1,4 578, 580, 581, 600 II,2,1 580 II,2,1,5 584

ORIGENIS OPERA

II,2,1,7 II,2,2 II,2,6,3 II,3,2f. II,3,2 II,3,3 II,3,6 II,3,7 II,5,2 II,5,4 II,6 II,6,1 II,6,2 II,6,2,51-78 II,6,3 II,6,3,128-132 II,6,4-6 II,6,4,139-146 II,6,5 II,6,6 II,6,6,180-187 II,6,7 II,6,7,223-229 II,7,1 II,7,3 II,8,1 II,8,3 II,8,4 II,9 II,9,2 II,9,4 II,9,5 II,9,6 II,9,7 II,10,1-3 II,10,1 II,10,3 II,10,7 II,11 II,11,2-3 II,11,2 II,11,3 II,11,6 II,14 III,1,1-24 III,1,8 III,1,9 III,1,12 III,1,16 III,1,17

584 578, 579, 581, 808 584 580 579, 581 566, 580 552, 587 580, 581 197 197 563 567, 568 567, 582 701 564-566, 572, 701 702 566 702 566, 701, 707 566, 702, 705, 812 705 200, 566, 567 706 567 443, 526 567, 654 577, 591, 593 592 589 589 758 628 363, 589, 628 628, 629 465 581 581, 809 453, 584 227 139 114, 115, 227, 536 228 222, 312, 567, 587 600 631 456, 459 554 197 654 554, 589

III,1,21-22 III,1,21 III,2,1 III,2,3 III,3,2 III,4 III,5 III,5,4 III,5,6-7 III,5,6 III,5,7 III,6,1-3 III,6,1 III,6,2 III,6,3 III,6,4f. III,6,4 III,6,5 III,6,6 III,6,7 III,6,8 III,6,9 III,7 IV,1,2 IV,1,3 IV,1,6 IV,2,1 IV,2,2 IV,2,4 IV,2,4,17 IV,2,6 IV,2,7 IV,2,8 IV,2,9 IV,3,2 IV,3,4 IV,3,5 IV,3,6-13 IV,3,6-7 IV,3,6 IV,3,7 IV,3,8-10 IV,3,8 IV,3,9-10 IV,3,9 IV,3,10 IV,3,12 IV,3,13

849 628 628 196, 233 197 233 469 469 225 522 569, 570, 572 570 580 577, 578, 580 587 566, 586, 593 581 580 581, 809 581, 810 578 132 228, 581 469 567, 568 201 201, 433, 507, 568, 584 505, 522 432, 433 221, 506 703 433, 744, 745 229, 567, 572 506 745 761 189, 506 745 229 745 230 231, 744, 745 123 100, 115, 120, 198, 201, 232, 336 139 233 233 566 132, 200

850 IV,3,14 IV,3,15 IV,4,1 IV,4,1,28 IV,4,2 IV,4,3 IV,4,4 IV,4,4,31 IV,4,5 IV,4,6 IV,4,7 IV,4,8 IV,4,9f. IV,4,10

ORIGENIS OPERA

181, 520, 547-549, 555, 672 453, 578 452, 564, 578 299 587 758 564, 566, 567, 569, 587 702, 703 453 582 456, 600 196, 453, 456, 522, 578, 580, 581 584 585, 586, 812

Epistulaadcaros 8 EpistulaadGregorium 15, 16, 287 1-2 276 Exhortatioadmartyrium 22, 23 III 582, 601 XIII 582, 601 XXIX 23 XXXIV,70-72 492 XXXV,18 707 XLIV 582, 601 XLVI,10-11 676 Hexapla

14, 19, 20, 24, 25, 220, 321, 351, 373, 439, 440, 445, 482

InPascha I,40f. II,7f.34

75, 84, 85 84 85

Philocalia Praef., 9-10 Praef., 70-72 Praef., 90-96 Praef., 101-104 I,18 II,3 II,4 III IV,24 V,4 V,7 VI,2 XV,19 XV,19,15-16 XXI,1 XXI,7 XXIII,15 XXIII,19 XXIV,4 XXVI XXVII,1-8

26, 360, 759-769 764 763 765 760 761 359, 435 587 194, 195 457 360 360 360 516 516 755 459 629 629 456 575 631

Stromata

282, 361, 367, 369, 465

DeResurrectione 465, 466, 599 DialoguscumHeraclide 6 II 523 III-IV 532 III 523, 743 IV 531 V,9 458 VI 652 VII 582, 653 XI-XII 577 XV-XXIV 586 XV-XVI 577 XVI 812 XVII 812 XVIII 812 XXVI-XXVII 200 EpistulaadAfricanum 13, 14 3 15 7 672 8 443 9 19, 368 10 20 11-12 12 11 20 24 12

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Acacius Caesariensis 24, 25 Quaestiones variae 25 Adamantius De recta in Deum fide 448, 453 I,2 453 III,9 457 IV,9 457 Adamnanus De locis sanctis II,11,1 II,11,4-5

66 67

Aelredus Rievallensis 43, 44 Sermo 132 in solemnitate sanctae Trinitatis 4 45 Aetius Placita I,9,7

647

Akiva R.

111

Alcinous Didaskalikos IV,155,36-42 V,156,34-157,10 IX,2 IX,163,11-17 X,165,5-6 X,165,8-166,16 XIV,169,22-31 XIX,174,15-19 XXV,172,22 XXV,178,17-23 XXVI,179,35-37

647 646. 647 647 679 649 645 645 647 705 646, 649 656 645

Alexander (?)

418-420, 422

649

Alexander Alexandrinus 282, 297-299, 306 Alexander Aphrodisiensis 644-646 De fato 11 649 De mixtione 3 651 218,1-2 705 In De anima 650 In Metaphysica Α 982a.21 645 Α 992a.10 645 B 997a.15 654 Γ 1003a.21 645 Γ 1003b.19 645 Γ 1003b.22 645 Γ 1004a.30 645 Γ 1071b.3 645 Δ 1017b.3 645 In Topica 121a.10 648 127a.26 648 Ps. Alexander Aphrodisiensis In Metaphysica Z 1029a.26 645 Z 1032a.26 645 H 1043b.4 645 Λ 1069a.26 645 Alexander Hierosolymitanus 6, 13, 80, 216, 217, 375 Ambrosiaster

413

Ambrosius (amicus Origenis) 382, 490 Ambrosius Mediolanensis Epistulae extra collectionem traditae 15 463

852

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Expositio de psalmo 118 18,10 693 18,11 687 Expositio in Lucam X,114 175 Sermones 83,3 44 83,4 44 83,5 44

De anima I,2,405b27-29 De caelo II,1,284a11-23 De interpretatione Metaphysica B 997a.17 Z 1028b.9-1032a.12 Z 1033a.24-1038a.36 Z 1038b.1-1041a.6 Λ 1069a.30-b.8

592 678 416 654 644 644 644 644

Andreas Cretensis 713

Arius

Antipater Bostrensis 27

Thalia

281, 282, 297, 298, 345, 419, 531, 796 297, 298

Arius Didymus

649-651

Asterius Amasenus Homiliae 9,2

64

Aphrahat Demonstrationes XII,8,12 81 Apollinaris Laodicensis 418-420, 422, 428429, 757, 758, 796, 800 Apollonius Tyanensis Epistulae 11 404

Asterius Sophista Apologia Syntagmation

297, 298, 304308 298, 305 297

Apuleius 327 De Platone et eius dogmate I,190 645 I,193-194 646 I,199 656

Athanasius Alexandrinus 165, 271, 272, 450, 457, 522, 768 De decretis 27 564

Arculfus

Ps. Athanasius

50, 66, 67, 69

Arethas (?) Scholia in Luciani Peregrinum 11 272 Aristarchus Samothracenus 659 Aristoteles

361, 367, 644, 645, 648, 762, 782, 791 Analytica Posteriora 92b, 5-9 762 Categoriae 416, 779 1a.1-2 652

167-171, 174, 175 De Passione et Cruce Domini 168, 170-172, 174, 175 12 167 Expositiones in Psalmos CXIX-CXXXIII 248 Quaestiones ad Antiochum 47 177 Athanasius Baladensis 271, 272 Porphyrii Isagoge translatio 271

853

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Athenagoras Supplicatio pro Christianis 4,2 521 10,3 521 Atticus fr. 5 fr. 12

646 647, 649 645

Augustinus Hipponensis 260, 413, 441, 528, 627, 634641, 738 Ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas 8,9 639 Confessiones VIII,2,3–VIII,4,9 424 VIII,2,3 423 Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum II,7,15 636 II,10,22 636 De anima et eius origine I,12,15 638 III,7,9 638 De civitate Dei VIII,23 528 XI,23 638 XVI 637, 641 XVI,35 637 XVI,42 637 XVIII,44,36 442 XIX,23 697 De correptione et gratia 7,14 636 De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum I,2,3-13 636 I,2,4 636 De fide et symbolo 728, 734 De Genesi ad litteram VII,24,35–27,38 635 X,7,12 637 X,15,27 637 X,17,30 637 De gratia Christi II,31,36 638 De libero arbitrio III.21.59.200 635

De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum 639 I,22,31-32 637 I,34,64 640 III,1,1 640 Enarrationes in psalmos 126 260 136 637, 641 136,18 637 Epistulae 39,1,1 638 40,6,9 638 143,6 635 164,7,20 638 166,9,27 638, 641 169,4,13 639 186,5,13–6,21 636 190,1,4 638 194,8,34-38 637 194,8,34 637 202A,4,8 638 202A,8,17 638 Expositio quarumdam propositionum ex epistula ad Romanos 52,60,1-12 636 52,60,4 636 Retractationes 733 I,1,3 636 I,8,2 636 Sermones 165,6 638 Babai Magnus 789-803 Historia Mar-Jabalaha 796 Barsanuphius Gazensis 26, 789, 790 Basilides

516

Basilius Caesariensis 162-171, 177, 759, 756, 767, 771, 782, 783, 801 Adversus Eunomium III,2 454

854

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam (?) 164, 169, 171, 176 I,63,11-13 49 II,72,92 98 V,141 163, 166 V,152 98 Homiliae in Hexaemeron 801 Oratio ad Adulescentes 783 IV,15 765 Basilius Seleuciensis Contra Iudaeos de Salvatoris Adventu Demonstratio 409A2-B1 176 Homiliae 38,3 176 Beda Venerabilis 44, 66 De locis sanctis VIII,2 66 In principium Genesis usque ad natiuitatem Isaac 4,18 44 Boethus Sidonius 645 Caesarius Arelatensis 43, 44 Sermones 83,3 44 83,4 44 83,5 44 Cassiodorus Expositio in Psalmos CXIX 259 CXIX,18-19 255 CXIX,30-40 260 Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum I,8 767 Celsus

64, 267, 362, 505, 506, 575, 595, 597, 598, 626, 649, 652, 701, 703

492, 590, 617697-

Alethes logos IV,14,1-9 IV,18,1-13 VI,47,2-49,3 VI,71-72a VI,75,1-6 VII,14-15 VII,53a,1-4 VII,68,1-3 XVIII,1-13

698, 700, 701 700, 701 698 698 698 699 698 697 698

Chaeremon

270, 278, 527

Chalcidius 282 Commentarius in Platonis Timaeum 282 319 645 Chromatius Aquileiensis 175 Sermones XV,21 48 XIX,141 175 Chrysippus Fragmenta 473,61-63

286, 650, 705 705

Clemens Alexandrinus 6, 221, 229, 236, 359, 372, 434, 450, 519, 535, 539-543, 545, 630, 691, 776, 778, 779, 781-784 Adumbrationes 542, 543 Canon ecclesiasticus 6 De Pascha 6 Eclogae propheticae 25,1 489 Excerpta ex Theodoto XIII,1 77 XIX,1 651 Hypotyposeis 540, 543 Paedagogus I,6 528 I,6,35,3 77 I,6,40,2 77 I,6,41,3 77 I,6,49,3 77 I,6,50,3 77

855

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

II,1 519 II,1,9,1 77 III,11,76,2 77 Quis dives salvetur? 42 521 Stromata 631, 647, 778, 781 I,2,4 349 I,31,1 192 II,4,15,1 649 IV,9,71-72 489 IV,24,3 787 VI,7,61 434 VII,5,28 349 VII,37,5 630 Cicero De finibus bonorum et malorum III,58 686 De inventione 416 Topica 416 Constantinus Imperator 4, 41, 54, 57, 58, 61, 63, 65, 66, 280-282, 325, 330, 331, 343345, 355, 773 Oratio ad sanctorum coetum 281 20,9 280 Cornutus

270, 278, 311, 361, 367

Contra Iulianum imperatorem 689, 692, 693 V 692, 693 V,13 688 V,18-20 688 V,18,12-14 692, 694 V,19 693 V,19,1-21 693 V,19,6-8 693 V,20-21 694 V,20,19-21 693 V,22,24-27 693 V,24 694 V,25-27 694 VI,9 694 De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et ueritate 692, 693 IV 688-694 688-690, 692, 693 XIV Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus 161, 162, 168, 173, 174, 337 Catecheses ad illuminandos XIII 162 XIII,2 693 De Christo Crucifixo et Sepulto 23 162 Cyrillus Scythopolitanus 27 Dadisho‘ Qatraya

Cyrillus Alexandrinus 176, 178, 332, 681, 682, 684, 688-695, 750, 763, 766 Commentarii in Isaiam prophetam 693 I 692 II,3 688 Commentarii in Oseam prophetam 693 3 689 3,1-2 688 13 689 13,1-2 688 Commentarii in Matthaeum fr. 307,2-5 176

795 Daniil Palomnick 68 Demetrius Alexandrinus 8, 375, 783 Demetrius Phalereus De elocutione 258,3 757 Didymus Alexandrinus 27, 257, 280, 282, 283, 418, 420422, 428, 460, 714, 754, 765,

856

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

771, 775-777, 782, 789 Commentarii in Ecclesiasten 279 Commentarii in Genesim 811 VI 257, 258 VII 257 Commentarii in Psalmos fr. 1151 261 Commentarii in Zacchariam I,64 98 III,136 98 De spiritu sancto II,13 454 Dio Chrysostomus 266 Diodorus Siculus 757, 762, 766, 768 Bibliotheca historica I,1,3 98 II,51 762 III,36-37 762 Diodorus Tarsensis 248, 487, 751 Commentarii in Psalmos 5,3 487 Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos in Rom 5,13-14 747 Diogenes Laertius 660 Vitae philosophorum V,37 660 VII,61 648 VII,138 599 VII,150 649 Dionysius Alexandrinus 8 Epistulae 14,1 80, 82 Dionysius Areopagita 717-722

De Coelesti Hierarchia I,2 723 II,2 718 De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia III,Θ,2 717 De Mystica Theologia 719 I,2 718, 722 Dionysius Thrax Ars grammatica 659 α’ 5-6 660 β’ 6 663 δ’ 7 665 Egeria Peregrinatio 30-37

773 49, 65 81

Ephraem Syrus 165 In Genesim et in Exodum commentarii 801 Epiphanius Constantiensis 27, 28, 170-174, 178, 462, 465, 532, 533, 592-594, 711, 783 Ancoratus 465, 754 Epistula ad Iohannem Hierosolymitanum 592 Panarion 465, 754 18,2 64 46,5,1-10 170 62,7,5 685 64,2,8-9 28 64,4 449 64,4,6 592 64,14-15 810 64,17,19 170 69,56 756 69,72 532 70,11,3 80 Eudorus Alexandrinus 646, 648 Eunapius

757

857

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Vitae philosophorum et sophistarum 276 Eunomius Cyzicenus 419, 757, 796 Eusebius Caesariensis 6, 13, 16, 25, 26, 44, 51-57, 63, 70, 73, 79, 135, 160, 161, 178, 179, 202, 207, 212, 216, 220, 243250, 259, 262, 272, 278, 282, 283, 297, 298, 300-304, 306308, 323, 325-327, 329-358, 363-370, 372, 373, 384, 387, 419, 436, 450, 477480, 482, 483, 485487, 522, 535, 540545, 755, 765, 773, 775, 784 Canones psalmorum 482 Chronicon 355, 407 Commentarii in Isaiam 1,25-26 336 I,42,92 49 I,86 691 19,18 337 32,1-4 335 32,7-8 335 91 341 Commentarii in Psalmos 325-344, 364 52 338 53 339, 479 54 333, 334, 338-340 54,2-6 333 56 339 57 327 58 341-344 59 341-343 68 477 73,1 95 75 335 76 340

79,9-14 86 86,2-4 87,11 98,2 105 Contra Marcellum

96 335-339 335 332 98 690, 693

298, 352, 372 I,4 304, 306 I,4,1-27 297-308 I,4,8-9 307 I,4,14-16 305 I,4,16-17 306 I,4,17-18 305 I,4,18-19 306 I,4,19-20 299 I,4,19 352 I,4,21 299-301 I,4,22 301 I,4,23 301, 302, 307 I,4,24-25 303 I,4,24 302 I,4,25-26 303 I,4,26 303, 304 De diapsalmate (?) 1-10 486 De divisione psalteri et psalmorum 482 De ecclesiastica theologia 298 De martyribus Palestinae 345, 355-358 Recensiobrevior 356 XI, 28 357 XII 357 Recensioprolixior 356 IV, 15 357 XI, 28 357 VersioSyriaca 356, 357 Demonstratio evangelica 49, 53, 338, 345348, 351, 352, 358, 365, 368, 369, 372 I,1,13 348 I,2,10 365 I,6,41 347 I,6,42 347

858

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

I,19 53 II,3,146 364 II,3,161 366 II,3,168 366 II,3,175d-176a 330 III,2,10 346 III,2,47 347 III,3,42 364 III,6,39–III,71 697 IV,6,9 329 IV,10,161ab 330 IV,10,162d 330 IV,15,2 365 V, Prol. 25 365 V, Prol. 34 365 V, Prol. 35-36 368, 369 V,5,2 365 V,5,6 364, 371 V,9 52, 53, 70, 346 V,9,7-8 346 V,9,7 347 V,9,7,8 49 VI,13,17 347 VI,14,2 364 VI,18,23 347 VI,18,51 364 VI,24,5-9 346 VI,24,7 98 VII,2,23 364 VII,2,31 366 VII,2,53 364 VIII,4,15 364 IX,1,11 366 IX,3,9 364, 371 IX,5-6 342 IX,17,18 364 X,4,4 366 X,8,36 366 X,14,14 367 XI, Prol. 3 368 XII,35,38,65 347 Didascalia 478 Eclogae propheticae I,3 52 III,44 364 IV,8 364 IV,24 364 Epistula ad Constantiam Augustam 717

Fragmenta in Ps 125,2 247 in Ps 125,3 247 Historia ecclesiastica 155, 267, 268, 270, 298, 330, 348, 355, 364, 370, 372, 535, 536, 541 I,2 52 I,5,4-6 370 I,5,4 370 I,9,1 370 I,11,3-6 370 I,11,7-9 370 II, Prol., 2 370 II,6,3 370 II,10,2 371 II,10,3-10 370 II,10,3-9 370 II,10,3 370 II,11,2-3 370 II,12,1-2 370 II,12,1 370 II,12,2 371 II,13,5 372 II,15 539, 541 II,15,2 372, 538, 541, 542 II,18 370 II,21,1-3 370 II,23,19 372 II,23,20 95 III,20,7 372 III,23,5 372 III,24 544 III,26,3 372 III,31,4 372 III,36,13 372 III,39,1 535 III,39,2 535 III,39,3-4 535 III,39,11-12 536 III,39,13 545 III,39,15 538, 543 III,39,16 544 III,39,17 543 IV,6,4 198 IV,8,2 431 V,8,10-15 440 V,23-25 80

859

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

V,23,3 V,24,12 V,25 V,25,1 VI,8,4 VI,9,1-3 VI,12,1-2 VI,12,3 VI,14,5-7 VI,16,2-4 VI,16,3 VI,18,2-4 VI,18,3 VI,19 VI,19,2-3 VI,19,2 VI,19,4 VI,19,5 VI,19,7 VI,19,8 VI,19,9 VI,19,11 VI,19,12-13 VI,19,16 VI,21,3-4 VI,24 VI,24,2 VI,25,1-2 VI,25,1 VI,25,2 VI,25,4-6 VI,25,4 VI,28 VI,30 VI,31 VI,32,3 VI,36,1 VI,38 VI,39 VI,39,2-3 VI,46,2 VII,15 VII,16 VIII,2,1 X,4,6 X,4,25 X,4,26 X,4,36 X,4,38

89 81 89 6 217 80 550 6 540 310 14 310 276 268, 311 270 267 267 15, 268 634 270, 646 267 188 8 216 7 179 179 194 195 195 539 434 383 271 12, 442 23 13, 633 21 383 217 8 408 356 408 350 350 349, 350 350 350

X,4,39-40 X,4,44 X,4,55 Hypomnema XIV,2-6 XVII,24 Laus Constantini IX,15 Onomasticon

350 350 350 485, 487 485 259

331 32, 41, 49, 5153, 60, 161, 207, 220, 236, 325, 341, 345, 346, 351-355, 357-358 38 60 86 212 546 212 583 212 621 218 Periochae 478 Praeparatio evangelica 54, 323, 326, 329, 367-369, 372 IV,1,2 330 IV,4,1 330 IV,8,2 275, 278 IV,10,3 330 IV,16 331 V,14,4–V,15,4 328 VII,20,4 655 XI-XIII 367 XI 367 XI, Prol.3-4 368, 369 XI,18,13-14 646 XI,18,22 646 XI,22,1 646 XI,22,3-5 647 XI,22,3 649 XII,29,2-21 343 XV,7,1-7 649 XV,7,4-6 647 XV,61,4 649 Quaestiones evangelicae 25 Vita Constantini 56, 330, 331 I,25-26 331 I,33ff. 331 II,63 282 II,73 282 III,3-40 350

860 III,4 III,26 III,28 III,33,3-34 III,40 III,48 III,51,1 III,53,1 III,53,1-2 III,53,3 III,53,4 III,58,3 III,59,2 III,63,2 IV,25,1 IV,25,3 IV,32 V,25,1

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

331 106 331 160 331 331 57, 63 57 61 63 61 331 331 331 331 331 282 331

Eusebius Emesenus 751 Eusebius Nicomediensis 297, 298 Ps. Eustathius 70, 71 Commentarius in Hexaemeron 70 Euzoios

24

Evagrius Gallicus Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum I,50 48 Evagrius Ponticus 27, 713, 714, 754, 760, 771-803, 807 Antirrhetikos 777 De cogitationibus 33 786 De octo spiritibus malitiae 6,14 785 De oratione 777, 779-781 44 787 Epistula ad Anatolium 770, 779 Epistula ad Melaniam 790, 792

Epistulae 25 773 45 775 Gnosticus 777, 785 Kephalaia gnostica 772, 777, 779, 788-793, 795, 799, 802 I,81 793 I,94 793 II,56 793, 801 III,28 790, 800 III,35 793 IV,51 792 V,45 794 V,81 793 VI,51 793, 799, 800 Practicus 774, 777 89 791 Scholia in Proverbia 759, 776 Scholia in Psalmos 771, 772 in Ps 78,21 778 in Ps 133,1 250 Skemmata 40 797 43 793 Facundus Hermianensis Pro defensione Trium Capitulorum IV,2,61-64 751 Flavius Iosephus 50, 66, 94, 189191, 203, 251, 255, 351, 370, 372, 404, 506 Antiquitates Iudaicae 50 I,186 50 I,196 51 IV,126-155 682 XV,332-338 378 XV,341 398 XVIII,57 398 XIX,357 378 XX,200-201 95 Bellum Iudaicum 50, 196 I,409-413 378

861

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

I,415 II,172 III,409 IV,126-155 IV,530-533 V,206 V,278-280 VI,3,201-213 VI,4,260-266 VI,208 VI,316 VII,5,148-150

398 398 404 682 48 251 190 191 190 94 190 190

Galenus De plenitudine liber VII 649 Historia philosophica 4 647 Gennadius Massiliensis 740, 796 De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus (?) VI 732 De viris illustribus 12 797 Georgius Syncellus 70, 71 Germanus I Constantinopolitanus 711, 714, 715, 717, 721, 722 De haeresibus et synodis 714 Epistula ad Iohannem episcopum Synadensem 714 Epistula ad Thomam episcopum Claudiopoleos 714, 718 Gregorius I

794

Gregorius Elvirensis Tractatus Origenis (?) II,7 48 Gregorius Nazianzenus 26, 732, 759, 764767, 771, 775, 782, 783, 792, 801, 802

Epistulae 3 101,34-35 101,43 115

782 802 802 764

Gregorius Nyssenus 757, 771, 775, 783 De vita Moysis 719 Gregorius Thaumaturgus 214, 268, 269, 271276, 309, 313-315, 783 In Origenem oratio panegyrica 14-16, 272, 285295, 783 §§1-20 295 I,3 271 §18 288 §§21-34 295 §§35-39 295 §§40-72 295 §§73-132 295 VI,75-79 275 VII,93-XV,183 276 §§93-108 285, 288, 295 §93 289, 290 §94 289, 291 §95 289 §96 289 §§97-98 289 §97 289, 290 §98 293 §99 289 §100 290 §103 293 VII,104 293 §§105-107 293 §106 289 §§109-114 285 §109 289 §§115-149 285 §§127-132 291 §§133-183 295 XI,133 275 XI,135 275 XI,141 275 §§150-181 285

862

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

XIII,151-152 XIII,151 XIII,152 XIII,153 §§158-169 XV,174-176 XV,174 XV,179 §182 §§184-207 §189 §195 §196

273 294 294 294 285 274 15, 274 15 294 295 287 294 287

Hanina R.

319, 406

Hegesippus

372, 431

Heraclas

8, 12, 268

Heracleon

118, 119, 123, 125, 127, 129, 226, 239, 240, 489-492, 496503, 653

Heraclitus fr. B123

46

Hermas Visio2,4,3 Visio5,2 Mandatum 2,1 Mandatum 5,1,7 Similitudo5,5 Similitudo 8,3

221, 229 229 520 519 520 520 520

Herophilus

648, 649

Hesiodus Theogonia 806

50

Hesychius Hierosolymitanus 27 Commentarius brevis in Psalmos CXIX,1-7 260 Hieronymus

22, 24, 26-28, 32, 45, 50, 52, 66, 68, 110, 168-170, 172-

175, 178, 179, 218, 220, 236, 243, 257, 259, 407, 413-431, 433, 436-439, 441444, 461-473, 526, 548, 551, 556, 591594, 638, 639, 725, 729, 731-734, 738740, 743, 775-777, 784, 785 Adversus Helvidium 20 471 Adversus Iovinianum 462-468, 473 1,3 463 1,12 463, 470 1,16 463, 470 1,36 463, 464 Adversus Rufinum I,9 323 I,13 421 I,22 639 I,24 429 II,17 442 II,18 447 III,30 639 Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi 438 Chronicon 354 423 Commentarii in Aggaeum I,11 438 Commentarii in Danielem II,6 437 Commentarii in Ecclesiasten 470 Prol. 25-30 256 VI,2-3 638 IX 257 Commentarii in Epistulam ad Ephesios 427, 470 I, Prol. 422 I, Prol., 44-49 421 I,1,5 639 I,13 417 III,1-4 417 III,5 172, 173 III,5,28b-29 744 III,5,31-32 744 III,6,1-3 638

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

III,14 172, 173 V,7 417 V,14b 417 V,18 425 V,28-29 470 Commentarii in Epistulam ad Galatas I,1 419 II 442 V,19-21 425 VI,15 469 Commentarii in Epistulam ad Philemonem I-III 423 Commentarii in Epistulam ad Titum II,12-14 417, 419 III,9 441 III,10-11 419 Commentarii in Ezechielem Prol. 25-30 256 XII,862-865 259 XII,877-881 259 XIII,44,22-31 438 Commentarii in Hieremiam VI 437 VI,18,6 49 Commentarii in Isaiam Prol. 91-92 421 I,42,92 49 III,8,19 437 III,8,22-29 437 III,9 441 III,10 441 V,123 437, 438 VI,18,6 49 VII,22,4 102 IX,4 438, 441 IX,11 437, 441 IX,13,65 437 XIII,23 437 XVI,49,5-27 437 Commentarii in Mattheum III,3 277 IV 437 IV,27 172, 173 IV,33 172, 173 Contra Iohannem Hierosolymitanum 461, 462, 464-469, 473, 732, 733 16 466 25 466

27 467 28 438 29 467 30 467 31 461, 467 Contra Vigilantium 462 De viris illustribus 90 419 101 423, 425 104 418 109 421 113 24 135 422 146,2 437 Dialogus adversus Pelagianos Prol. 1 367 Epistula ad Avitum 2 454 Epistula deperdita I Hieronymi 638 Epistulae 18 551 18A+B 423 22 424 22,8 424 22,19 470 22,35 437 33 13 33,4 91, 179 37,3 420 41,3 437 46 169, 172 46,3.2 169, 172 51 465 51,4,3-4 592 52,17 424 54,9 471 60,3 471 61 464, 465 70,4 361, 367 71,6 437 75 471 75,2 472 82 461 84 551 84,3 419 106,2,2 441 106,2,4 441 108,10 348

863

864

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

108,11 65 109,3 686 112,6-7 422 117,1 424 121,2 441 124,5 580 124,9f. 580 124,14 584 130,19 424 146 444 146,2 437 165,1,1 639 Evangeliorum Praefatio 441 Hebraicae quaestiones Praef. 441 Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum 45, 66 Praef. 192 Praef., 17-18 421 Liber quaestionum Hebraicarum in Genesim 18,9 60 33,5 60 Onomasticon 66 Praefatio in Origenis Homilias XIV in Ezechielem 421 Praefatio in librum Didymi de spiritu sancto 421 Tractatus in Marci evangelium 277 Tractatus sive Homiliae in Psalmos 26 LXXV,3 98 LXXVII 277 CXIX,4,1-4 261 CXIX,26-28 257 CXIX,30-39 259 CXIX,36-39 260 CXIX,37 262 CXIX,39-45 261 CXIX,88-89 260 Hilarius Pictaviensis Tractatus in Psalmos 118,18,3 687 118,20,8 685 119,4,1-4 261

Hippolytus 111, 480-482, 486, 527, 536, 663 Contra Noetum 14 521 Homilia in Psalmos 2f. 480 4f. 481 6f. 481 6 482 14 261 Ps. Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium, sive Elenchus I,19,10 656 V,7,39 118 V,39 226 VI,4,1 496 VI,29,1 496 VI,30,9 118 VI,32,9 118 VI,32,12 226 VI,34 226 VI,34,3-4 118 VI,34,4 118 VI,35,5-7 653 VI,35,6 496 VII,15,2 648 Hiyya bar Ba R. 318 Hnana Adiabenus 792, 793, 799 Hoshaya Rabbah R. 17, 19, 21, 405, 406 Hymenaeus Hierosolymitanus 26 Hypatius Ephesinus 720, 721 Iamblichus Chalcidensis De mysteriis V,18,220.10-19 719

865

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

V,18,225.5-8 719 De vita pythagorica 777 Ignatius Antiochenus Epistula ad Ephesios XVIII,2 500, 564 XX,1 500 XX,2 564 Epistula ad Romanos VII,3 Epistula ad Smyrnaeos I,1-II,1 564 Epistula ad Trallianos IX,1 564 Iohannes Apamensis 795 Iohannes Chrysostomus Ad Stagirium a daemone vexatum III,4 691 Adversus Iudaeos orationes VI,1-2 686 Homiliae in Iohannem 5,1-3 756 85,1 176 Homiliae in Matthaeum XVII 686 Homiliae in Romanos XVI 686 In Kalendas 6 686 Iohannes Damascenus 711, 712, 714, 722, 723 Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tres 713 Expositio fidei II,12 712 III,18 712 IV,6 712 Liber de haeresibus 63-64 711 Orationes de imaginibus III,67 53

Iohannes Gazensis 26 Iohannes Hierosolymitanus 26, 27, 173, 174, 461, 465, 732, 734 Iohannes Magdovillanus Itinerarius IX 50, 72 Iohannes Scythopolitanus Sancti Maximi Scholia in epistolas S. Dionysii Areopagitae 549B1-6 179 Iohannes Tzetzes Chiliades III,113 762 XI,513-528 276 Iohannes Wirziburgensis Peregrinationes tres 66, 68 Irenaeus Lugdunensis 81, 155, 227, 229, 230, 359, 372, 431-433, 435, 436, 440, 519, 537, 538, 545, 550 Adversus haereses 490 I,1-7 497 I,5,3 118, 226 I,8,5 679 I,22,1 521 II,4,1 496 III,1,1 443, 544 III,2,1 431 III,4,1 431 III,4,2 436 III,5,1 431 III,6,5 519 III,8,3 521 III,17,3 226 III,24,1 437 III,42,2 521

866

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

IV, Praef. 4 521 IV,2,2 519 IV,20,1 521 IV,20,2 519 IV,20,3 521 IV,20,5 521 IV,21,2-3 633 V,1,3 521 V,6,1 521 V,28,4 521 V,33,1 537 V,33,3-4 537 V,33,3 537 V,33,4 535, 544 V,34,4 115 Demonstratio praedicationis apostolicae 49, 550, 562 I,10 550 IX 552 Isidorus Hispalensis Etymologiae 17,7,31 52 Iulianus Imperator 741, 750, 752 Adversus Galilaeos 751 11, 12, 70, 71, 155, 156, 158-160, 163, 177, 321, 442 Chronographiae 11, 12, 156 F30 70 F30a 70 F30b 70, 71 42-43 (T17) 156 Epistula ad Aristidem 12 Epistula ad Origenem 2 12 10 12 Kestoi 12 Iulius Africanus

Iustinianus Imperator 27, 41, 405, 594, 713 Edictum contra Origenem (ad Menam) 454, 547, 713

Iustinus Martyr

38, 73, 227, 372, 502, 521, 527

Apologia prima 13,3 521 31 440 59,2 521 65 521 67 521 Apologia secunda 6 521 Dialogus cum Tryphone 155, 440 30,3 500 31,1 500 45,4 500 51,2 538 56,11 650 56,59-60 520 67,7 500 86 48 87,5 500 103,3 500 120,1 500 134,2 500 141,4 500 Joshua ben Levi R. 317-320 Lactantius 281, 527 Divinae institutiones 1,6,4-5 527 4,6,9 527 7,18,4 527 7,24 281 Longinus

268, 276

Lucianus Samosatensis 288 Anacharsis 20-21 290 Peregrinus 13,17-18 697 Macarius Hierosolymitanus 330, 345

867

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Malalas Chronographia X,46 X,338 XI,25 XI,367

379 379 379 379

Opuscula psychologica, theologica, daemonologica 43 270 Narcissus Hierosolymitanus 80

Marcellus Ancyranus 298-308, 565 Fragmenta e Libro contra Asterium 17 305 18 305 19 299, 306 20 300 21 299, 301, 307 22 302, 303

Narcissus Neroniadis 298

Marcus Aurelius Meditationes

Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus 723, 767

777

Nicanor Alexandrinus 665 Nicephorus Callistus Historia ecclesiastica X,36 272

Marcus Terentius Varro De grammatica fr. 109 660

Nicetas Choniates Historiae XI,4,3 763

Marius Victorinus

Nicolas Lyrensis 261

413, 415-417, 419-426, 665 Ars grammatica 416 Liber de definitionibus 416 Maximus Confessor

Nicostratus

645

Nilus Ancyranus 166 Epistulae I,2 166 IV,61 764

25 Meletius Antiochensis 81 Melito Sardensis De Pascha 1

6, 211, 212 155 80

Methodius De resurrectione I,20-24 I,20-21 I,22-23

26, 465

Michael Psellus

762

599 599 810

Numenius Apamensis 267, 270, 310, 361, 367, 451, 500, 621, 624, 646 fr. 2 646 fr. 13 646 fr. 15 679 fr. 16 647, 649 fr. 17 646 fr. 22 647 Orosius Consultatio sive commonitorium Orosii ad Augustinum 3 639

868

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Ossius Cordubensis 282 Palladius Historia Lausiaca

773, 782, 784 771

Pamphilus Caesariensis 23-27, 313, 323, 356, 357, 384, 466, 469 Apologia pro Origene 24, 26, 298, 465, 765 3-4 449 10-29 447 21-24 453 48 301 50 565 87 564 100 653 104 299, 300 Pantaenus

6

372, 535-538, 541545, Explanatio sermonum Domini 535 Papias

Paulinus Nolanus 636 Paulinus Tyrius

297-308, 348, 351, 352

Paulus Samosatensis 26 Paulus Tellensis

802

Pausanias Graeciae descriptio I,38,7 51 Pelagius 413 Expositio in Romanos 9,9-15 640 Petrus Diaconus

65

Philo Alexandrinus 16, 20, 23, 41, 44-48, 127, 193, 203, 211, 215, 223-225, 236, 294, 370, 506, 549, 620, 621, 623, 741, 750, 776, 779, 784 De Abrahamo 109 46 131-132 531 De aeternitate mundi 48 651 De confusione linguarum 57 683 146 520 De deo 549, 550, 552-554, 562 4-9 553 6 553 9 554 De ebrietate 683 73-74 683 82 193 De migratione Abrahami 164-165 46 De mutatione nominum 58 656 108 683, 688 De opificio mundi 19 224 24 678 De posteritate Caini 180-184 683 De somniis I,39 522 II,250 194 De specialibus legibus 683 I,54-57 683 II,156 656 De virtutibus 684, 689, 690 34-46 684 35-41 684, 685 35-38 684 39-40 685 41 685 42-46 684, 685

869

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

42 684 43-44 685 45-46 685 45 691 De Vita Mosis 683, 684, 778 2,97-99 526 Onomasticon 192 Quaestiones in Genesim 46 IV,1 46, 47 IV,2 47. 531 IV,30 44 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 39 523 Quod Deus sit immutabilis 18 523 Philostratus

13

Phocas Martyr

64

Photius Amphilochia 1 1,603-623 1,742-855 1,805-821 1,822-833 1,833-852 152 Bibliotheca 6 8 67 70 77 117 118 138 167 230 Epistulae 1,283-286 144,10-16 288,143-146

313, 753-770 754 754, 758, 769 755 755 755 755 757 755 753, 762, 764, 769 757 753, 758 757 757, 766 757 765, 767, 768 765, 768 757 649, 753 763

Plato

290, 291, 295, 302-304, 327, 361, 362, 367-

754 755 754

369, 372, 450, 527, 573, 588, 590, 599, 619, 620, 622-625, 691, 698, 784 Cratylus 400C1-9 Epistulae VII,344b Gorgias 454E Leges 11,931D Phaedo 62B3-6 67C6-D2 78B-84B 102B-E 113D Phaedrus 245C9 246B6-C6 247B 248C5-8 276B-277A 276B1-7 276E7-277A5 Res publica II, 380D-383A 509B 509B9 514A2-B6 589AB 596A-C 619D1-7 Sophista 230B4-E4 Symposium 177B 207C-208B Theaetetus 150B 173CD Timaeus 19D2-E2 27D-28A 27D5-28A4 28C3-5 29D-31A 34A8-35A1

635 293 303 337 635 635 646 599 596 655 635 596 635 290 290 291 698 450 645, 652 635 291 599 635 291 270 599 289 343 617-620 273 619, 620 648 645 624 635

870 34C-39E 41E-42E 41E 44E 66E1 69C

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

646, 647 646 596 596 705 596, 621

Plinius Secundus Maior Historia naturalis 8,120 762 Plotinus Enneades I,1(53),12,24-27 III,9(13),3,1-2 IV,8(6),1,23-50 IV,8(6),5,16 V,9,8 VI,1,2 VI,3,2 VI,5,2 VI,8,12

16, 268, 367, 782, 784 777 635 635 635 635 679 645 646 646 645

Plutarchus Chaeronensis 327, 494, 620, 621, 624 De animae procreatione in Timaeo 3, 1013a-d 646 De E apud Delphos 18,392a-e 648 Romulus 12,6 270 Solon 20,3 269 Ps. Plutarchus De liberis educandis 2B-C 290 2F 290 Polybius I,3,10

270

Polycarpus

372

Polychronius Apamensis Commentarii in Iob 755

Porphyrius

15, 215, 267282, 310, 32731, 337, 343, 367, 634, 697, 741, 749, 751, 752, 782 Contra Christianos 278 6 (Becker) 269, 646 65 (Becker) 329 III,6F (Becker) 749 De abstinentia 327-29 II,43 328 II,43,2 328 De philosophia ex Oraculis 269, 275, 277, 278, 697 321 (Smith) 328, 337 Epistula ad Anebonem 327-329 Fragmenta 9T (Smith) 272 9aT (Smith) 272 11T (Smith) 272 273F-275F (Smith) 275 In Timaeum commentariorum fragmenta 16 328 17 328, 329 57 328 Isagoge 271, 416 Sententiae 327, 777 29 327 Vitae philosophorum 275 Vita Plotini 3 274 Posidonius Fragmenta 80,8 Proclus In Timaeum I 28C 39E7-9 93C fr. 8-16 (Weber)

98 273-74 273 645 647 645 274

871

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Theologia Platonica fr. 7 (Weber) 274 Proclus (Christianus) 372 Procopius Gazaeus 24 Commentarii in Genesim 810 Ptolomaeus Epistula ad Floram 433 7,9 432 Quintilianus Institutio oratoria I,8,1-2 663 V,12,14 429 XI,3,35 665 Rorgo Fretellus Liber locorum sanctorum terrae Jerusalem 68 Rufinus

10, 14, 24, 27, 28, 43, 44, 91, 110, 175, 224, 225, 229, 232, 234, 270, 275, 421, 424, 431, 432, 436444, 447-450, 452460, 464, 465, 470, 567, 578-580, 591593, 605, 628, 629, 631-633, 639, 643, 653, 771, 774, 785 Apologia adversus Hieronymum 639 I,13 421 I,24 429 I,29 639 II,5,43 424 II,15 421 II,25 441, 442 II,36 442 II,37 442 II,37,1 436 II,47,25 436

De adulteratione librorum Origenis 1 449, 453 2 447 6-7 765 7 447 14-16 765 De fide 27 640 41 640 Epilogus in explanationem Origenis super Epistulam Pauli ad Romanos 2 631 Expositio Symboli 438 2 436 3 455 4 459 18 438 34 437 35-36 436 Historia ecclesiastica VI,31 442 Historia monachorum 784 Praefatio in Origenis De Principiis 3 447, 554 Praefatio in Origenis Homilias in Numeros 633 Prologus in Origenis Commentarios in Epistulam ad Romanos 631 Seneca Epistula LVIII 6-22 6-7 9-12 13 15 16-28

648 647 648 648 648 648

Serapion Thmuitanus 550, 551 Euchologion 549-551, 553, 559, 562 Sergius Confessor

757

Severianus Gabalensis De mundi creatione orationes VI,3 277

872

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Sextus Empiricus Adversus Mathematicos VIII,184 655 Socrates Scholasticus 58, 272 Historia ecclesiastica I,18,5-6 57 I,9,30-31 281 III,7 744 III,23,37-39 272 Sozomenus 54, 56-58, 61, 784 Historia ecclesiastica II,4 49, 61 II,4,1-5 57 Stephanus bar Sudaili Liber sancti Hierothei 791 Stobaeus Anthologium I,11,5 I,17,4 I,17,4,26-29 I,18,4 I,20,7

275 649, 650 650 705 650 651

Symeon Magister et Logotheta Chronicon 156 Tertullianus

89, 372, 418, 433, 436, 519, 738

Ad uxorem II,4,2 80 Adversus Marcionem V,8 729 Adversus Praxean 2 521 3 519, 520 8 521 21-25 531 22 523 30 521 Adversus Valentinianos IV,1 496 De carne Christi 16,1 418 17,1 418

De monogamia 2,1 431 De praescriptione haereticorum 20 431 Theoctistus Caesariensis 6, 13, 217, 313, 375, 783 Theodoretus Cyrrhensis 250, 251 Graecarum affectionum curatio V,22 649 VII,36 277 Interpretatio in Psalmos 244, 248, 691 CXIX 250, 251 CXXXIV 251 Quaestiones in Genesim 39 755 Theodorus Heracleensis 419 Theodorus Mopsuestiensis 544, 741, 742, 746-752, 755, 756, 790, 794-802 Commentarii in Ioannem II,3,29 747 Commentarius in epistulam Pauli ad Ephesios 748 5,30 748 5,32 747 Commentarius in XII prophetas minores in Ionam, Praef. 749 796, 797, 799, 801 De incarnatione Expositio in Psalmos 118 742 118, Praef., 1 748, 749 118, Praef., 3 749, 750 118, Praef., 4 741 Fragmenta in epistulam ad Romanos in Rom 5,13-14 747 Homiliae catecheticae 3.14 799 Theodorus Studites Epistulae 499 721

873

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Theophrastus Eresius Epistula ad Phaeniam 660 Theophilus Alexandrinus 27, 461 Theophilus Antiochenus 359 Ad Autolycum 2,15 521 Thomas Margensis Liber superiorum 795 Thucydides De bello Peloponnesiaco V,26 756 Titus Livius Ab Urbe condita I,55,5-6 V,54,7

176 176

Vergilius Ecloga IV 21-22 28-30 31-36 35-36 38-41 42-45

281 281 281 280 281 281

Victorinus Poetoviensis 538 Commentarius in Apocalypsin 538 II,3 684, 685 Victor Romanus 6 Yohanan bar Nappaha R. 21, 111-113, 317, 320, 322, 323 Zonaras Epitome Historiarum 16 766 IUDAICA

Asatir 3,3

157

Avot de’rabbi Nathan B 37 319 Genesis Rabbah 14,8 157, 177 34,9 157 42,8 60 46 319 Midrash Tehillim III,197 260 Mishna Avot 2,14 Middot 2,5 Nedarim

324 253, 262 251

1,2 Sota 2,4 Sukka 5,4 Tamid 7,4

318 322 251, 252 252

Pirkei de-R. Eliezer 158, 163 12 158 Talmud Babyloniae Avoda Zara 17b 407 Baba Bathra 58a 157 Baba Mezia 92b 322 Erubin 53a 157

874 Shabbath 116a 152a Sukka 53a Yevamot 42a

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Shabbat 16,1,15c Taanit 4,2,68a

407 407

317 322

253 Targum Lamentationes 4,20 200

322

Talmud Ierusalem

Targum Neofiti

46, 60

317, 318 Aboda Zara 1,2,39c 1,4,39d Baba Qamma 4,4c Berachot 5,1,9a Demai 2,1,22c Nazir 7,56b Qiddushin 1,60a

Targum Onqelos 59, 60, 157 407 49

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 60 2,7 157, 177 2,15 157 3,23 157

406 320 407

Tosefta Shabbat 13,4-5

323 318

Zohar I,102b

71

164, 177 405

GNOSTICA ET HERMETICA Corpus Hermeticum 527 2,14-16 529 4,5 527 4,8 527 8,2 529 10,14 527 12,1 529 14,6 527 Asclepius 23 528

Evangelium Philippi II,69,31 118 Evangelium Thomae 545 Pistis Sophia

530

ANONYMA ET APOCRYPHA Anonymus Placentinus Itinerarium 30 58 Apocalypsis Baruch

Apocalypsis Moysis 40,3-7 156 40,5 157 40,6 177 196

875

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Apologia pro Origene 766

Expositio totius mundi et gentium xxvi 376

Ascensio Isaiae

Historiae Rabban Hormizd et Rabban bar-’Idta 795

9-10 11,22-33

548-550, 552-554, 562 552 520

Ascensio Moysis

196

2 Baruch 1,2-5 2,2 67,2-4

Itinerarium Burdigalense 599 50, 65, 346 Liber Iubilaeorum 3,32 156 4,29 156

196 196 196

Oratio Ioseph 196, 629, 630, 634

Catena Palaestinensis in Psalmum 118 24

Passio LX Martyrum 712

Constitutiones Apostolorum V,20,3 181

Rhetorica ad Herennium III,18 429

Didache 10,3

Scholia in Iliadem II,220b 360 VII,330b1 360 XI,826a 360 XII,49b 360 XXII,32b 360

77

Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace 80, 82, 83, 89 21 80-82, 181 1 Enoch

Theosophia II,25

196, 519

Epistula Apostolorum 26 80 4 Esdra

272

Traditio Apostolica 431

196

CONCILIA ET LEGES Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum I,1,4 763 II,2,4 714 II,3,2 714, 715, 718, 722, 764 II,3,3 714, 717, 723 III 713 Concilium Constantinopolitanum 553 27, 547, 713, 789, 803

Concilium Constantinopolitanum 680 712 Concilium Constantinopolitanum 692 712, 714 Concilium Constantinopolitanum 787 764 Concilium Ephesinum 431 763 Concilium Hieriae 754 714, 717

876

AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES

Concilium Hierosolymitanum 335 298 Concilium Nicaenum 325 282, 297, 521

Concilium Tridentinum 735 Gregorii Catholici Synodus 605 794

COLLECTIONES MODERNAE Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (ed. I. ab Arnim) I,87 649 I,471 650 II,242 286 II,317 650 II,318 705 II,325 649 II,329 648 II,359 649 II,394 650 II,395 651 II,397 651

II,473 II,503 III,4 III,498

651 649, 650 649 686

Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318-328 (Athanasius Werke III/1, ed. H.-G. Opitz) 1 297 2 297 8 297 8.1 299 9 297 PAPYRI

Grenf 1.5

19

Tura-Papyrus Codex VIII 3,1-9 246

AUCTORES MODERNI

ABECASSIS A. 196 ABEL F.-M. 156, 209 ABERBACH M. 59, 681, 687 ABRAMOWSKI L. 796 ADKIN N. 424 ADLER W. 11, 70, 196, 321, 704 ADRIAEN M. 102, 255, 257, 259, 260, 277, 421, 437, 438 AGAËSSE P. 635, 637 ALAND K. 756 ALBANO E. 221, 434 ALBRECHT M. VON 416 ALBREKTSON B. 182 ALBUS M. 806 ALEXAKIS A. 721 ALEXANDER P.J. 720 ALEXANDER P.S. 200 ALFÖLDI G. 386 ALIAU-MILHAUD A. 32-39, 433, 685, 687 ALLAN K. 493 ALLEN J.S. 276 AMACKER R. 24, 449, 466, 563, 653, 765 AMELING W. 376 AMERISE M. 348 AMIT D. 215, 377 AMITAI-PREISS N. 206 AMORAI-STARK SH. 395 ANDERSON G.A. 157, 672 ANDREI O. 4, 9, 16-18, 21, 114, 139, 180, 182, 207, 285, 356 ANDREOPOULOS A. 771 ANNALA P. 619, 620 ARANDA PÉREZ G. 432 ARBESMANN R. 82 ARCARI L. 181 ARGÁRATE P. 522, 525 ARMITAGE ROBINSON J. 759, 760 ARNALDEZ R. 651, 656, 684 ARNIM H.F.A. VON 592, 648-651 ARNS P.E. 427 ARRUZZA C. 621, 622

ASCOUGH R. 9, 10 ASSEMANUS J.S. 271, 272 ASSEMANUS S.E. 271, 272 ASSKAMP R. 381 ATALLAH M. 802 ATTRIDGE H.W. 26, 207 AUGER D. 681 AYRES L. 453 BABBITT F.C. 290 BACKHAUS K. 220 BADER R. 697 BADY G. 269 BAEHRENS W.A. 11, 22, 43, 78, 79, 81, 83, 100-102, 140, 141, 143146, 148, 149, 183, 185, 188, 193, 200, 201, 216, 218, 226, 229, 232, 235, 237, 239, 247, 256, 286, 292, 439, 440, 604, 633, 634, 685, 745, 746 BAERT B. 151 BAGATTI B. 151 BAGNALL R. 322 BAKER J.A. 520, 549 BAKER J.W. 726 BALAS D.L. 657 BALDI D. 205-208, 212 BALDI L. 646 BALTHASAR H.U. VON 216, 575, 772, 776, 805-807, 809, 816, 818, 819 BAMMEL C.P. CF. HAMMOND BAMMEL C.P. BAMMEL E. 94, 198 BANDT C. 251, 259, 325, 332, 477488 BARANOV V.A. 711-723, 770 BARAS Z. 94 BARATTE F. 377 BARCLAY J.M. 197 BARDY G. 4, 20, 348, 356, 357, 434, 634, 672 BARILLI C. 644 BARKAY R. 206

878

AUCTORES MODERNI

BARKLEY G.W. 234, 512, 604, 606, 608-615 BARNES J. 617 BARNES T.D. 51, 323, 325, 337, 339, 340 BARTHÉLEMY D. 20, 67 BARTLET J.V. 544 BAUERNFEIND O. 631 BAUM A.D. 544 BAUMBACH M. 272 BEATRICE P.F. 267-283, 577 BEATTIE D.R.G. 437 BECKER A. 794, 797 BECKER H. 252 BECKER M. 269, 280, 749 BEDJAN P. 796 BEER G. 252 BEHR J. 100, 189, 198, 201, 550, 629 BELAYCHE N. 51, 54, 57, 59 BELL A.A. 95 BELLANDI F. 660 BEN-ARIEH R. 206 BENDINELLI G. 14, 661, 672 BENJAMINS H.S. 500 BENKO S. 281 BEN TOV O. 379 BENZ E. 106, 200, 223, 226-228, 234, 240, 258, 435, 439, 465, 470, 654, 715, 720, 743-746 BERCHMAN R. 451, 557, 558, 620, 652 BERGJAN S.-P. 727 BERGLUND C.J. 489-503 BERMAN A. 206 BERNAT D. 682 BERTRAND F. 675 BETZ O. 94 BEVEGNI C. 759 BIANCHI N. 753 BIANCHI U. 577 BIANCONI D. 760, 768 BIEBERSTEIN K. 215, 218 BIELER J. 573 BIELER L. 66, 67 BIENERT W.A. 282, 352, 433, 676, 679 BIERINGER R. 152 BIGG C. 819 BILLERBECK P. 252, 254

BINDER G. 279 BIRNBAUM E. 415 BISHOP R.W. 81 BITTON-ASHKELONY B. 28, 64, 109, 139, 325, 354, 773, 802 BLANC C. 31, 312, 490, 492-496, 498, 499, 501, 629, 630, 649-654, 671, 676, 685, 743 BLASKI A. 505-517 BLOCK D.I. 255, 256 BLOK J.H. 662 BLOWERS P.M. 17, 19, 287, 715, 720 BLUM G.G. 791 BOAS A. 206 BÖHM T. 268 BOEREN P.C. 68 BÖRNER-KLEIN D. 158 BÖTTRICH C. 197 BOGAERT P.-M. 196 BONAZZI M. 646 BONELLI M. 645 BONFRATE G. 228 BONNET C. 278 BONWETSCH N. 810 BORRET M. 43, 64, 76, 110, 143, 234, 241, 315, 627, 649, 652-655, 676, 686, 715, 716, 744 BØRTNES J. 723 BOSSINA L. 24, 764 BOSTOCK G. 519-533, 579, 581, 586, 600 BOTTINI G.C. 15, 58, 210, 385 BOUFFARTIGUE J. 691, 693 BOULNOIS M.-O. 41-73, 681, 690693 BOVON F. 436 BOWDEN J. 211, 701 BOWEN A. 281 BOYARIN D. 134, 462 BRADSHAW P.F. 550, 551 BRADY C.M.M. 181 BRANHAM J. R. 349 BRAVO GARCIA A. 768 BREASTED J.H. 530 BRÉHIER E. 635 BRENNECKE H.C. 297 BRENTON L. 98 BRÉSARD L. 43, 110, 627, 643, 646, 653, 744

AUCTORES MODERNI

BRIGGMAN A. 550 BRINKMANN A. 285, 290 BRODERSEN K. 211 BRODIE T.L. 756 BROOKS R. 70 BROWN P. 462, 470, 472, 785 BRUCE B.J. 229, 237, 239, 515 BRUCE F.F. 100 BRUNS P. 796 BRUNT P.A. 491 BRYER A. 770 BUCCHI F. 422, 423 BUCHANAN G.W. 92 BUCHINGER H. 27, 75-90, 216 BUCUR B.G. 559 BUDGE E.A.W. 526-527, 529, 795 BÜCHLER A. 252 BÜRKE G. 576, 578, 579, 581, 592 BÜTTNER-WOBST T. 766 BULL R. 389 BULLINGER H. 725-736, 738-740 BULTMANN R. 675 BUMAZHNOV D.F. 229 BUNGE G. 773-775 BURINI DE LORENZI C. 649 BURRUS V. 462 BUSSIÈRES M.-P. 496 BUTTERWORTH G.W. 304, 447, 505, 547, 552, 555-558, 563 CACCIARI A. 3, 39, 75, 91-107, 140, 775 CADIOU R. 250, 648, 649, 679 CAILLET J.-P. 717 CAIN A. 156, 231, 413-430, 551, 683 CALVIN J. 725, 726, 734-740 CAMBIANO G. 753 CAMERON A. 106, 166, 324 CAMPI E. 726, 727 CAMPLANI A. 795 CANCIK H. 212 CANELLA T. 348, 357 CANELLIS A. 228, 417, 418, 438 CANÉVET M. 513 CANFORA L. 753, 759, 770 CANIVET P. 649 CANTIMORI D. 725, 735 CAPELLI V. 26 CAPONE A. 26, 493

879

CAQUOT A. 585 CARLSON S.C. 535-545 CARRIKER A.J. 23, 24, 427, 535 CARUSO G. 652 CASEVITZ M. 51 CASIDAY A. 771, 772, 775 CASPARY G.E. 687, 688 CASSIN M. 348 CASTAN P. 691 CASTELLANO A. 489, 497, 676 CASTELLINO G. 92 CATTO M. 288 CAUBET ITURBE F.J. 201 CAVADINI J.C. 221, 222, 225, 228233 CAVALLERA F. 421 CAZEAUX J. 46 CELIA F. 285-295 CERIONI L. 109-121, 128, 231 CERRATO J.A. 115 CEULEMANS R. 372 CHABOT J.B. 795 CHADWICK H. 95, 293, 450, 505, 581, 600, 619, 623, 631, 704, 705, 716, 725, 742, 808 CHAPMAN III R.L. 207, 351 CHARLES R.H. 103 CHARLESWORTH J.H. 156, 157, 177, 545, 552 CHAVANON J. 69 CHEN C.-H. 644 CHÉNÉ J. 636 CHIARADONNA R. 651 CHIN C.M. 771 CHRUPCAŁA L.D. 15, 58, 210, 385 CHRYSSOSTALIS A. 767 CIARLO D. 415 CINER P. 310 CLARK E.A. 27, 174, 449, 462, 638, 775 CLARK G. 329 CLARKE E.C. 719 CLAUSEN D.C. 215 CLÉMENT J.-M. 751 CLEMENTS R.A. 14, 672 CLINE R. 52, 54, 56 COAKLEY S. 585 COCCHINI F. 22, 200, 631 COEN UZZIELLI T. 206

880

AUCTORES MODERNI

COHEN E. 206 COHEN N.G. 45 COHEN S.J.D. 181, 182 COHEN-ARAZI A. 60 COHN L. 193, 194, 683, 684, 691 COLLINS J.J. 681 COLOMBO D. 181 COLSON F.H. 224 CONNOLY H. 181 CONTI M. 748 CONTICELLO G. 6 COOK J.G. 280, 281, 618, 749, 751 COOPER S. 416, 420 COPLESTON F. 599 COPPINS W. 211 CORDES A. 92 CORNFORD F.M. 617, 619, 620, 623, 624 CORSINI E. 327, 676, 679 COSTA E. 327 COTTON H.M. 385 COULLET M. 332, 364 COULMAS F. 493, 494 COURCELLE P. 281 COUREAU J. 44 COVERDALE M. 726, 728-733, 740 CRAMER J.A. 763 CRANZ F.E. 335-337 CREAZZO T. 762 CRIBIORE R. 660 CRISAFULLY V.S. 712 CROMBIE F. 363 CROUZEL H. 15, 43, 104, 110, 116, 184, 210, 271-276, 285, 286, 290, 293, 310, 313-315, 363, 465, 469, 509, 511, 525, 528, 532, 536, 537, 555-558, 565, 566, 568, 576, 577, 579, 580, 582-584, 596, 600, 601, 603, 627-629, 643, 646, 650, 652-654, 657, 672, 675-677, 679, 701, 703, 725, 744, 745, 753, 808 CUNTZ O. 50, 65, 346 CUNY D. 269 CURETON W. 356 CURTI C. 245, 332 CUTINO M. 228 CVETKOVIĆ V. 25 D’AGOSTINO M. 759 DAHLMANN H. 416

DAIBER T. 493 DAL COVOLO E. 239, 604 DALEY B.E. 702, 703, 772 DALL’OLIO G. 735 DALMAN G. 206 DALY R. 3, 268, 327, 375, 531,

580, 592, 596, 603, 646, 652, 675, 679, 805 DANIELI M.I. 672 DANIÉLOU J. 200, 282, 361, 431, 434, 444, 449, 520, 526, 549, 550, 552, 554, 585, 586, 629 DASSMANN E. 215, 354 DATEMA C. 64 DAUR K.D. 635, 639 DAWSON J.D. 134, 513 DE ANDIA Y. 719, 723 DE ANGELIS-NOAH P. 789 DEBIÉ M. 348 DECHOW J.F. 27, 465, 810 DE FAYE E. 576, 578, 579 DEICHMANN F.W. 349 DE JONGE H.J. 154 DEKKERS E. 431 DE LAGARDE P. 45, 98, 192 DE LANGE N. 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 45, 112, 161, 180, 181, 219, 435, 443, 506, 514, 515, 549, 759 DE LA POTTERIE I. 756 DELCLAUX A. 542 DELCOGLIANO M. 297-308, 681, 685 DELCOR A. 59 DEL CORSO L. 660, 661 DE LEEMANS P. 372 DELEHAYE H. 712 DEL RÍO SÁNCHEZ F. 795 DE LUBAC H. 216, 240, 506, 552, 805, 814, 817 DELUZ C. 72 DE MENDIETA E.A. 801 DE MONSABERT P. 67 DEMURA M. 751 DE NAVASCUÉS P. 26, 123, 129 DE NOROFF A. 68 DEPALMA DIGESER E. 268, 271, 281, 327 DERDA T. 405 DESJARDINS M.R. 497 DES PLACES É. 646, 647, 649, 655, 679

AUCTORES MODERNI

DE VAUX R. 59, 60 DEVORE D. 331 DEVREESSE R. 207,

756, 796, 798, 799 DE VRIES J. 662 DI BENEDETTO V. 659 DIEHL E. 273, 645, 647 DIELEMAN J. 527 DIELS H. 46, 647, 649 DIJKSTRA J. 109 DILLER A. 768 DILLON J.M. 585, 620, 621, 719 DINDORF L. 379 DI SEGNI L. 58, 206, 376, 385, 408 DIVELY LAURO E.A. 133, 547-562 DIVJAK J. 636 DÖRRIES H. 490 DOIGNON J. 261 DOMBART B. 442, 637, 638 DONALDSON T.L. 9, 14, 389, 390 DONINI P. 647 DONNER H. 41 DOOLEY W.E. 645 DORFBAUER L.J. 32 DORIVAL G. 17-19, 21, 112, 182, 195, 244, 279, 295, 332, 364, 432, 441, 500, 525, 553, 580, 601, 603, 644, 645, 679, 681, 684, 687, 753 DOUGLASS S. 126 DOUTRELEAU L. 42, 43, 45, 46, 224, 431, 436, 633, 634, 684, 686, 688, 689 DRAPER J.A. 115 DRECOLL V.H. 651 DREYER O. 230 DRIJVERS J.W. 161, 795 DROBNER H.R. 167 DROGE A.J. 625 DUECK D. 404 DULAEY M. 538, 681, 682, 684, 687 DUMMER J. 80, 170 DUNDERBERG I. 489, 497 DUPUIS J. 577 DUVAL Y.-M. 542 DVORJETZKI E. 206 DVORNIK F. 770 DYSINGER L. 777, 778, 787 EADIE J. 152 ECK W. 385

881

EDWARDS M.J. 112, 116, 134, 280, 362, 449, 575, 619, 629, 646, 653, 808 EGI E. 734 EHRMAN B.D. 662 EICHINGER M. 716 EIDINOW E. 662 ELEUTERI P. 768 ELIADE M. 349 ENGELMANN T. 791, 793 ENGEMANNJ. 215,354 EPSTEIN I. 157 ERB M. 727 ERFFA H.M. VON 41 ESCH T. 381 ESHLEMAN K. 662 ÉTAIX R. 175 ETHERIDGE J.W. 157, 177 EULER C. 726, 728 FALKENBERG R. 617, 618 FALLICA M. 725-740 FATOUROS G. 721 FAVRELLE G. 646, 647, 649 FÉDOU M. 582, 583, 675 FEDWICK P.J. 166 FEICHTINGER B. 576 FEIERTAG J.-L. 438, 461, 732, 733 FELDMAN L.H. 94, 683 FELICI S. 286 FERA V. 761 FERGUSON E. 431, 553 FERNÁNDEZ P.D. 309-316 FERNÁNDEZ S. 221, 222, 225, 228233, 311, 312, 522, 563-572, 650, 760 FERNÁNDEZ SANGRADOR J.J. 432 FERRAR W.J. 365, 369 FERRARI F. 646 FERRAÙ G. 761 FERRI R. 660 FESTUGIÈRE A.-J. 49, 57, 61, 646 FIELD F. 60, 484 FILORAMO G. 140, 201, 662 FISCHER J.A. 211 FLEMMING J. 151 FLOROVSKY G. 770 FLOWER R. 326 FOERSTER W. 490, 498, 499 FONTAINE J. 282, 361, 653

882

AUCTORES MODERNI

FOSTER P. 714 FOWDEN G. 61, 527 FOWLER H.N. 291 FRAIPONT I. 66 FRAKES R.M. 327 FRANKENBERG W. 774, 775, 790, 791, 793, 795, 798, 800, 801 FRAZER M.E. 54, 56 FREDE M. 617, 619, 646 FREEDMAN H. 157, 177 FREEMAN-GRENVILLE G.S.P. 207, 351 FRIED L.S. 98 FRIEDHEIM E. 51 FRISHMAN J. 157 FROEHLICH K. 413 FROVA A. 389 FRÜCHTEL L. 192 FUCHS H. 253 FÜRST A. 21, 24, 39, 85, 87, 120, 133, 210, 216-218, 241, 275, 547, 551, 573-588, 638 FUNK F.X. 181 FURLONG D. 544 GAFFURI A.L. 559, 665 GAGLIARDI I. 288 GAISFORD T. 52, 364, 365 GALLAGHER E.L. 440, 443 GALLAY P. 764, 802 GAMBLE H.Y. 662, 699, 700, 703, 704 GARGIULIO T. 762 GARNSEY P. 281 GASTER M. 157 GAVIN F. 151 GAVRILYUK P.L. 585 GÉHIN P. 760, 772, 776, 777, 779, 786, 787, 790, 791 GEIGER J. 384, 404, 405 GELZER H. 156 GEMEINHARDT P. 349 GENDELMAN P. 385 GERO S. 717, 720, 721 GERSHT R. 384, 385 GERST R. 379 GEYER P. 50, 65, 346 GIACONE F. 736 GIANOTTI G.F. 647

GIBSON S. 215 GIFFORD E.H. 330, 369 GINZBERG L. 157 GINZBURG C. 761 GIRARDI M. 676 GIROLAMI M. 431-445 GISELBRECHT R.A. 573 GIUSTA M. 649 GLORIE F. 256, 259, 438 GLUCKER J. 645 GNILKA C. 276 GODIN A. 767 GÖGLER R. 676, 677 GÖRGEMANNS H. 303, 592-594 GOETERS J.F.G. 576 GOETZ G. 660 GOHL J.M. 106 GOLDBACHER A. 635-639, 641 GOLDBERG M. 747 GOLDSCHMIDT L. 251-253, 260 GORI F. 260, 637 GOTTSCHALK H.B. 646 GOUILLARD J. 721 GOULDER M.D. 92 GOULET R. 46, 280, 436, 644 GOUNELLE R. 369 GOVETT B. 174 GRABAR O. 4 GRABBE L.L. 46 GRÄTZ H. 252 GRAFTON A. 7, 20, 321, 323, 535, 599 GRANFIELD P. 442 GRANT R.M. 282, 361, 521, 525, 529 GRAPPONE A. 643 GRAVES M. 441 GRÉBAUT S. 80 GREEN W.M. 635 GREERR.A. 747 GREGERMAN A. 95, 180 GREGG J.A.F. 530, 582 GREGG R.C. 54, 56 GREGGS T. 136 GRESCHAT M. 576 GRIFFIN M. 327, 617 GRIFFITH S. 712 GRIFFITHS J.G. 527, 530, 531 GRILLI A. 649

AUCTORES MODERNI

GRILLMEIER A. 701 GRÖZINGER K.E. 252-254 GROH D.E. 325, 353, 354 GRONEWALD M. 279 GROSBERG D.M. 16, 219 GROSSFELD B. 59, 60 GROTTENALLI C. 50 GRUBER G. 574, 575, 676 GRUNDEKEN M. 662 GRYPEOU E. 151 GUÉRAUD O. 75, 84 GUERRIER L. 80 GUGGENHEIMER H.W. 157, 164, 177 GUGLIELMETTI R.E. 111 GUIGNARD C. 11 GUIJARRO S.O. 432 GUILLAUMONT A. 27, 760, 771, 773, 776, 777, 785, 786, 789, 790, 800 GUILLAUMONT C. 785, 786 GUSTAFSSON B. 535 GUYOT P. 290 HAACKER K. 94 HABERMEHL P. 43, 633, 634 HADAS-LEBEL M. 585 HADOT I. 276, 415 HADOT P. 285, 416, 424 HÄGG T. 723 HÄLLSTRÖM G. AF 140, 537, 595, 596 HAGEDORN D. 755 HAGEDORN U. 755 HAHN J. 211 HAINES-EITZEN K. 662 HALDON J. 712 HALE WILLIAMS M. 425 HALL S.G. 80, 106 HALLOIX P. 536 HAMBURGER A. 395, 397 HAMMERSTAEDT J. 651 HAMMOND BAMMEL C.P. 106, 200, 202, 236, 440, 441, 631, 632, 640, 742 HANNAH D. 548, 549, 552 HANSEN G.C. 298-307 HANSON R.P.C. 133, 134, 140, 433, 449-452, 491, 509, 510, 524, 525, 531, 539, 549, 565, 652, 653, 672, 702

883

HANUS B. 245 HARGIS J.W. 698 HARL M. 12, 24, 181, 194-196, 506, 512, 568, 632, 664, 675, 676, 753, 759 HARLAND P.H. 662 HARMON A.M. 290, 697 HARNACK A. VON 7, 268, 329, 532, 646 HARPER R.F. 629 HARRISON C. 662, 771 HARVEY JR. P.B. 98 HASTINGS J. 413, 528 HATA G. 94, 207 HATCH E. 103 HAUSSLEITER J. 685 HECHT C. 327 HECK E. 281 HEERMA VON VOSS M.S.H.G. 682 HEIDL G. 268, 433, 522, 529, 530, 713, 751 HEIKEL I.A. 49, 53, 98, 280, 346 HEIL G. 717 HEINE R.E. 7, 17-19, 21, 31, 93, 97, 101, 125, 197, 198, 213, 221, 223, 225, 235, 292, 362, 414, 422, 425, 429, 450, 470, 490, 498, 499, 501, 505, 508, 510, 549, 606, 639, 645, 650, 665, 676, 743, 744 HELM R. 407 HEMMERDINGER B. 770 HENGEL M. 94 HENGSTERMANN C. 130, 547, 582, 585, 587 HENNESSEY L.R. 580, 582, 808 HENRY P. 424, 654, 646 HERGENRÖTHER J. 755 HERGENRÖTHER P. 741 HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD G. 123137, 222 HERMANN C.F. 679 HERNITSCHECK E. 491 HERR M.D. 319 HERRIN J. 770 HERSHBELL J.P. 719 HERSHKOVITZ M. 395 HERZER J. 197 HEYDEN K. 207, 214, 215, 349 HICK J. 520

884

AUCTORES MODERNI

HILBERG I. 91, 169, 179, 437 HILHORST A. 152, 436 HILL C.E. 544 HILL R.CH. 682, 692 HIMMELFARB M. 16, 219, 552 HIRSCHFELD H. 206 HIRSCHFELD Y. 206, 376, 377 HIRSHMAN M. 18, 21, 317-324, 603 HLAVIN-SCHULZE K. 220 HOFFMANN PH. 52 HOFMANN D.Z. 321 HOFMANN J.B. 428 HOHLFELDER, R.L. 376 HOLL K. 64, 80, 170, 685, 754 HOLLERICH M. 325, 332, 336, 339, 341, 364 HOLLIDAY L.R. 7, 210 HOLMES M.W. 491 HOLTZ L. 420 HOLTZMANN O. 252 HOLUM K.G. 14, 20, 325, 357, 376, 386 HOMBERGEN D. 27 HOOGERWERF C. 741-752 HORBURY W. 106, 109, 200 HORNUNG E. 527, 528, 530 HOSSFELD F.L. 247, 253 HOUGHTON A.G. 32 HOUTMAN A. 158 HOVINGH P.E. 738 HOWELL CHAPMAN H. 95 HOYLAND R.G. 712 HUET P.-D. 529, 576, 582, 584 HUGONNARD-ROCHE H. 25 HULME E.M. 740 HUMFRESS C. 662 HUNSTORFER K. 363 HUNT E.D. 53, 63, 65, 211 HUNTER D.G. 463 HURST D. 173, 277 HURTADO L.W. 322 HUSSON P. 77, 102, 141, 557, 643, 652, 654, 672 HUTTON J.M. 5, 213, 214 HUTZLI J. 59 HWANG A.Y. 431 IAMIM A. 384, 387 INOWLOCKI S. 161, 323, 325, 349, 397

INTERI T. 139-150 IPPOLITO A. 416 IRICINSCHI E. 662 IRSHAI O. 6, 7, 217, 325 ISAAC B. 325, 352 JACOB A. 342 JACOB B. 483 JACOB C. 559 JACOBSEN A.-C. 25, 111, 130, 136, 143, 309, 332, 524, 576, 577, 579, 583, 584, 589-601, 617, 618, 643, 811, 818 JAMES M.R. 629 JANÁČEK K. 660 JANDA J. 660 JANSEN T. 796 JAUBERT A. 226, 241 JAY P. 419, 427, 441 JEANJEAN B. 419 JEFFERY P. 535 JENKINS, C. 77 JEREMIAS J. 151 JERICKE D. 41 JOHANESSEN H. 106 JOHNSON A.P. 269, 325-344 JOHNSON M.D. 156, 157, 177 JOHNSON M.E. 550, 551 JOHNSON S. 603-615 JOHNSON S.F. 754 JOHNSON W.A. 660 JONES A.H.M. 56, 98 JONES H.S. 98 JOOSTEN J. 369 JOSSE A. 362 JOUSSARD G. 692 JUHÁSZ G.M. 727 JULLIEN F. 790, 764 JUNG C.G. 530 JUNGMANN J.A. 442 JUNNI J. 617-626 JUNOD É. 24, 436, 449, 466, 563, 629, 631, 632, 653, 655, 659, 763, 765 KACZMAREK S. 7 , 14, 21, 140, 147, 332, 360, 522, 530, 650, 676, 714 KACZYNSKI R. 252 KADARI A. 158 KADARI T. 320

AUCTORES MODERNI

KADMAN L. 379 KAHANA M.I. 321, 322 KAHZDAN A.P. 763 KALANTZIS G. 54 KALB A. 442, 637, 638 KALER M. 496 KALVESMAKI J. 777 KAMESAR A. 45, 192 KANNENGIESSER C. 17, 18, 26, 525, 603 KAPLAN J. 111 KARAMANOLIS G. 588 KARFÍK F. 660 KARFÍKOVA L. 627-641 KARLIN-HAYTER P. 721 KARPP H. 303, 592-594 KARRER M. 662, 664 KATTAN GRIBETZ S. 16, 219, 573 KAZHDAN A. 712 KEDAR B.Z. 4, 437 KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN B. 437 KEECH D. 641 KEEFER K. 489 KEEL O. 219 KELBER W. 599 KELLY J.N.D. 461, 519-522, 525, 532, 533 KENNEDY D.L. 325, 352 KENNEY J.P. 646, 679 KERRIGAN A. 689, 692 KESSIN E. 207 KETTLER F.-H. 576, 579, 580, 592, 594 KIEFER F. 493 KILBY K. 807 KIMELMAN R. 21, 112, 113 KINDT B. 754 KING J.C. 110 KING K. L. 462 KING M. 151 KINZIG W. 272, 682, 692, 694 KISTER M. 71, 152, 672 KITZINGER E. 720 KLAMETH G. 151 KLEIN R. 158, 290 KLOSTERMANN E. 4, 11, 66, 78, 85, 92, 94, 97-99, 102, 105, 106, 140143, 145, 147, 148, 158, 159, 161, 176, 183-196, 199, 200, 202, 218, 223, 226-228, 234-237, 240, 258,

885

286, 291, 298-305, 307, 351, 435, 439, 465, 470, 653, 654, 672, 691, 715, 720, 743-746 KNAUBER A. 286, 290, 293, 314 KNIBB M.A. 552 KOCH H. 286, 594, 618 KÖCKERT CH. 578 KÖHLER H. 272 KÖRTNER U.H.J. 536, 542 KOESTER H. 432 KOETSCHAU P. 19, 23, 95, 139, 181, 183, 189, 196-198, 200, 201, 206, 219, 235, 286, 303, 315, 432, 454, 465, 492, 564, 593, 594, 630, 631, 649, 654, 753, 754, 760, 761 KÖTTING B. 211 KOFSKY A. 51, 58, 346 KOLBET P.R. 772 KONKEL M. 256 KONSTANTINOVSKY J.S. 772 KORENJAK M. 660 KOTTER B. 53, 711, 713 KRAMER B. 243, 246 KRANNICH T. 717 KRANZ W. 46 KRAUS W. 664 KRAUSS S. 549 KRETSCHMAR G. 6, 61, 62, 67, 210 KROESEN J. 109 KRUEGER D. 802 KÜCHLER M. 218 KÜHNEWEG U. 282, 305, 352, 433, 676, 679 KÜRZINGER J. 536, 543, 544 KUGEL J.L. 16, 318, 553 KUIPER Y. 109 KUNZ R. 573 KUPÁN I.P. 530 LA BONNARDIÈRE A.-M. 638, 640 LÄMMER M. 402 LAKE ST. 576 LAMBERZ E. 714, 764 LAMOREAUX J.C. 179 LAMPE G.W.H. 78, 522, 533 LAMPE P. 662 LANA I. 692 LANFRANCHI P. 65 LANG U.M. 702, 703 LANGERBECK H. 490, 497

886

AUCTORES MODERNI

LANNE D.E. 550 LANZA D. 753 LAOURDAS B. 754 LAPIN H. 18, 357 LAPORTE J. 603 LARDET P. 442, 444, 471, 639 LARDINOIS A. 662 LAW V. 660 LAWSON R.P. 113, 188 LAZZARO R. 735-738, 740 LE BOULLUEC A. 4, 21, 25, 52, 112, 151, 287, 432, 441, 462, 500, 525, 553, 603, 645, 652, 654, 679 LEBEAU P. 537 LECLERCQ H. 41 LE DÉAUT R. 46, 60 LEDEGANG F. 436 LEE J.J. 447-460 LEEMANS J. 81 LEHTIPUU O. 725 LEKKERKERKER A.F.W. 636 LEMARIE J. 175 LENFANT D. 491 LENSKI N. 331 LEONE P.A.M. 276 LESTER A. 206 LETTIERI G. 111, 120, 129, 604, 679 LEVINE L.I. 7, 9, 20, 109, 214, 228, 236, 375, 386, 392, 406, 407 LEWIS E. 651 LEWIS G. 195, 359 LIDDELL H.G. 98 LIENHARD J.T. 226, 452 LIES L. 78, 361, 452, 522, 580, 601, 652, 702, 714, 769 LIEU J.M. 662 LIGHTFOOT J.B. 413, 519, 538 LIMONE V. 643-657 LIMOR O. 6, 109, 112, 210, 217, 712 LINDEMANN A. 413 LIPATOV-CHICHERIN N. 151-178 LISSEK M. 215 LÖHR W. 215, 287, 297 LÖSER W. 806, 818 LÖSSL J. 413, 415, 430, 551 LOMIENTO G. 528, 603, 753 LOMMATZSCH K.H.E. 245 LONG A.A. 705 LO PIPARO F. 493

LORENZ R. 679 LOSACCO M. 759, 767, 768 LOUBET M. 4, 151 LOURIÉ B. 713, 770 LOUTH A. 586, 723 LOUX M.J. 644 LUCÀ S. 665 LUDLOW M. 125, 326 LUIBHEID C. 717, 718 LUMPE A. 211 LUNN-ROCKCLIFFE S. 415 LYMAN J.R. 702 MADEC G. 76 MADER E. 45, 49, 50, 53, 58, 59 MÄNNLEIN-ROBERT I. 280 MAGEN Y. 58 MAIER E. 493, 494 MAIER G. 536 MAIER J. 252 MAJCHEREK G. 405 MANGO C. 770 MANHEIM R. 134 MANNION M. 151 MANOR T.S. 544 MANSFELD J. 644, 647, 648 MARA M.G. 413 MARAVAL P. 49, 57, 58, 65-67 MARCHETTO V. 17, 139, 179-203 MARCOVICH M. 618, 648-650 MARIOTTI I. 416 MARITANO M. 604 MARKIEWICZ T. 405 MARKSCHIES C. 205-220, 548 MARKUS R.A. 109, 355, 356, 538 MAROTTA E. 287, 290 MARROU H.-I. 423, 499, 660 MARSH F.S. 791 MARTENS P.W. 135, 417, 433, 491, 500, 506, 672 MARTIN TH.F. 54 MARTINDALE J.R. 56 MARTÍNEZ J. 764 MARTINI E. 768 MARUANI B. 60 MARX-WOLF H. 268, 327 MASARACCHIA E. 692 MASPERO G. 530, 532 MAY G. 590, 623

AUCTORES MODERNI

MAZURE A. 151 MAZZUCCHI C.M. 665, 761, 768 MCDANIEL L.M. 545 MCGIFFERT A.C. 371 MCGUCKIN J.A. 3, 20, 287, 375, 406, 436, 511, 548, 714 MCINROY M.J. 585 MCKINNON J. 254, 255, 261, 262 MCNAMARA M.J. 437 MEAD G.R.S. 531 MEES M. E. 76 MÉHAT A. 634 MELAMED Z. 352 MELLERIN L. 32 MELLONI A. 139, 178 MENESTRINA G. 759 MENOZZI D. 139, 227 MERCATI G. 245 MERCIER CH. 44, 547 MERINO RODRÍGUEZ M. 314 MERKLEIN H. 441, 482 MERRIELL J. 506 MESHORER Y. 395 MESLIN M. 64 METSELAAR M. 791, 799 METZLER K. 791, 799 MEUNIER B. 32 MEYENDORFF J. 712 MIGNE J.-P. 245, 463 MILETTO G. 441 MILLER M.W. 640 MIMOUNI S.C. 181 MINGANA A. 798 MINONNE F. 659-670 MIONI E. 767 MITTLEMAN A. 681 MIZUGAKI W. 94 MOLIN PRADEL M. 75, 91, 140, 643, 746, 775 MOMMSEN TH. 270 MONACI CASTAGNO A. 6, 10, 13, 14, 104, 111, 142, 201, 213, 216, 217, 288, 325, 327, 328, 341, 345358, 536, 627, 630, 632, 633, 643, 654 MONTESANO M. 151 MORAUX P. 647 MOREAU J. 47 MORENZ S. 527-531

887

MORESCHINI C. 361, 647 MORIN G. 44, 98, 257, 259-262, 277 MORLET S. 24-26, 44, 51, 53, 56, 70, 327, 340, 346, 348, 352, 359373, 538 MOROZIUK J.R.P. 531 MORRIS J. 56 MOULE C.F.D. 198 MOULTON J.H. 493 MOURAVIEV A.V. 770 MÜHLENBERG E. 261 MÜLLER C. 817 MUNNICH O. 148 MUTZENBECHER A. 636 MUYLDERMANS J. 785 NAEH S. 318, 319 NAIWELD R. 17-19, 182, 195 NASH A.E. 506 NASSIF B. 413 NAUTIN M.-T. 216, 643 NAUTIN P. 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 17, 33, 75, 92, 94, 97-99, 102, 105, 106, 141, 145, 147, 183, 202, 210, 216, 217, 243, 257, 258, 261, 272, 285288, 294, 361, 413, 414, 423, 439, 480-482, 510, 557, 643, 652, 654, 672, 765, 811 NERI V. 348 NESBITT J.W. 712 NESSELRATH H.-G. 278 NEUSCHÄFER B. 219, 499, 664, 666, 667 NEUSNER J. 720 NEWMAN H. 71 NEWMANN C. 151 NEYMEYR U. 662 NEYT F. 789 NICKLAS T. 491 NICULESCU M.V. 517 NIEHOFF M. 16, 215, 219 NIESE B. 190, 191 NIESIOLOWSKI-SPANO L. 45 NOBLOT H. 647, 648 NOCE C. 577 NOCK A.D. 645 NODET E. 50, 51 NORELLI E. 6, 536, 542-544 NORRIS R.A. 623

888

AUCTORES MODERNI

NOTH M. 352 NUN M. 206, 207 NUSSBAUM M. 324 O’CLEIRIGH P. 433, 444 O’CONNELL R.J. 627, 635, 640 O’DALY G. 635 OGILVIE R.M. 177 OHME H. 714 OLIVIER J.-M. 248, 487 O’LOUGHLIN T. 151, 175 OLSON D.R. 663 O’MEARA D.J. 270 OPITZ H.-G. 297, 564 OPITZ P. 726 ORBE A. 650, 651, 675, 676 ORCHARD B. 542 OULTON J.E.L. 179, 195 OUSTERHOUT R.G. 349 OVADIAH A. 61 PADDLE A.G. 436, 440 PAGELS E.H. 489, 490, 498-500 PAINTER R.J. 389, 390 PÅLSSON K. 461-473 PANIMOLLE S.A. 725 PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS A. 713 PAPADOYANNAKIS Y. 754 PARKER H. 660 PARKES M.B. 665 PARRINELLO R.M. 288 PARTOENS G. 638 PÂRVAN A. 809 PARVIS S. 298, 565 PASQUALI G. 767 PATRICH J. 15, 24, 210, 375-409, 712 PATRICH Y. 388, 393, 394, 398 PAZZINI D. 213, 671-680 PEACHIN M. 404 PEARSON G. 726 PEDERSEN A.K. 617 PELEG-BARKAT O. 215 PELIKAN J. 618 PELLETIER A. 48, 50 PERI V. 9, 10, 26, 643, 676 PÉRICHON P. 57 PERNOT L. 285 PERRIA L. 665

PERRIN Y.-M. 348, 349 PERRONE L. 3-28, 75-78, 84-89, 91-93, 96, 97, 99, 100, 103-105, 114, 116, 139, 140, 142, 145, 148150, 180, 202, 207, 210, 211, 214, 216, 219, 227, 235, 238, 241, 325, 327, 346, 348, 405, 418, 478, 523, 524, 537, 538, 583, 643, 651-655, 659, 671, 713, 746, 753, 769, 770, 775, 811, 818 PETERSEN A.K. 274 PETERSEN X.L. 17, 18, 603 PETERSON R.A. 738 PETIT F. 212 PETSCHENIG M. 687, 693 PETTIPIECE T.J. 490, 498, 499 PIERI F. 427, 435, 665, 667, 743 PIERRE M.-J. 790 PIETERSMA A. 3, 98, 548 PIETRAS H. 7, 14, 21, 140, 147, 332, 360, 522, 530, 537, 650, 676, 714 PINGGÉRA K. 11, 70 PINKERFELD J. 215 PINTARD J. 636 PIRENNE-DELFORGE V. 278 PISCINI G. 681-695 PITRA J.-B. 104, 207, 245, 482 PÖSCHL V. 281 POFFET J.-M. 489 POHLENS M. 599 POLLMANN K. 280 PONTANI A. 763 POORTHUIS M. 76 PORAT N. 206 PORATH Y. 377 PORTER F.CH. 629 POUDERON B. 181, 203, 281, 542 POUILLOUX J. 51 PRAET D. 278 PRALON D. 4, 151 PRATO G. 764 PRÉCHAC F. 647, 648 PRESTIGE G.L. 500, 521, 522, 532 PREUSCHEN E. 3-5, 13, 31, 76, 77, 84, 93, 97-99, 181, 182, 185, 192, 196-198, 200, 201, 205, 206, 209, 210, 213-215, 221, 223-225, 235, 236, 247, 254, 255, 257, 258, 262, 434, 439, 443, 490, 498, 499, 744

AUCTORES MODERNI

PRINZIVALLI E. 8, 75, 91, 110, 111, 123, 128, 221-242, 326, 327, 336, 431, 523, 643, 646, 653, 654, 679, 725, 765, 775 PROCTOR T. 327 PRONAY A. 416 PROSPERI A. 735 PUJANTE D. 429 PUSEY PH.E. 688 QUACQUARELLI A. 603, 675, 676 QUISPEL G. 432

579, 600, 601,

RABAN A. 9, 14, 20, 21, 26, 325, 378 RABINOWITZ C.E. 363 RABINOWITZ I. 382, 384, 390, 399 RACITI G. 45 RADICE R. 678 RAFTI P. 665 RAHLFS A. 142, 144, 147, 149 RAHNER H. 579, 592, 601 RAHNER K. 533, 585, 806, 807, 814, 818, 819 RAMELLI I. 111, 127, 140, 327, 453, 544, 603, 645, 646, 651 RAMSKOLD L. 331 RASIMUS T. 489 RASPANTI G. 414-416, 422, 430 RAUER M. 8, 97, 99, 198, 226, 227, 236, 585, 586, 668, 669 REALE G. 644 REBENICH S. 425, 784 REBILLARD É. 662 REDEPENNING E.R. 209, 210 REDPATH H.A. 103 REES A. 681 REFOULÉ F. 640 REGNAULT L. 789 REIDER J. 98 REIF S.C. 681 REINHARDT E. 386 REININK G. 792, 795, 796 REISCHL W.C. 693 REITER S. 49, 437 RENOUF P. 530 RENOUX C. 216 REUSS J. 176, 419, 758

889

RIAUD J. 585 RICHARD M. 274 RICHARDSON E.C. 797 RICHTER G. 500 RIEDWEG CHR. 682, 688, 692-694 RIESENWEBER T. 416 RIESNER R. 205, 207, 213 RIETZ W. 484, 648 RILEY H. 542 RINALDI G. 9, 11, 20 RISCH F.X. 243-263, 332, 477, 483485 RITTER A.M. 272, 717 RIUS CAMPS J. 528, 566, 579, 603, 676, 679, 753 RIZZI M. 6, 10, 14, 16, 285, 288, 290, 293-295, 653, 662, 663 RIZZO S. 761 ROBERTO U. 11, 70 ROBERTS C.H. 157, 322 ROBIN CH.J. 377 ROCCA E. 377 RODGERS Z. 95 ROKEAH D. 692 ROMANO F. 645 ROMBS R.J. 431, 447 RONDEAU M.-J. 57, 91, 63, 94, 332, 771, 772, 776, 778, 807 RONNING C. 287 ROREM P. 179, 719, 720 ROSCHER W.H. 151, 157 ROSE E. 76 ROSELLINI M. 660 ROSEN H. 404 ROSENTHAL D. 318 ROSIER I. 660 ROSSETTI L. 656 ROTONDÒ A. 726, 734, 735, 738 ROUILLARD-BONRAISIN H. 681 ROUSSEAU A. 537, 633 ROUSSEAU O. 110 ROUWHORST G.A.M. 80, 81 RUDBERG S.Y. 801 RUDOLPH K. 497 RÜPKE J. 212 RUGGIERI G. 227 RUNDLE CLARK R.T. 530 RUNIA D.T. 20, 23, 24, 192, 193, 553, 647

890

AUCTORES MODERNI

RUPP J. 162, 693 RUTGERS L.V. 386 SACHAU E. 796, 799 SAENGER P. 663 SAFRAI S. 320 SANDERS E.P. 662 SANDWELL I. 662 SANTING C. 151 SATRAN D. 325, 335, 342, 672 SAUNERON S. 527 SAXER V. 292 SCHADEL E. 102 SCHADLER P. 712 SCHÄFER P. 16, 256 SCHÄFERDIEK K. 717 SCHÄR M. 734 SCHAMP J. 754 SCHAPS D.M. 404 SCHATKIN M. 414 SCHECK T.P. 101, 143, 144, 146, 224, 448, 449, 469, 510, 511 SCHENKE H.-M. 209 SCHERER J. 200, 585, 652, 653, 743 SCHIANO C. 753 SCHIBLI H.S. 592 SCHICK C. 69, 70 SCHINDLER A. 727 SCHIRONI F. 15, 19, 25 SCHMIDT C. 80 SCHMIDT E.A. 281 SCHMIDT M. 559 SCHMIDT V. 762 SCHOCKENHOFF E. 123 SCHOEDEL W.R. 542 SCHOELL F. 660 SCHOFIELD M. 646 SCHOLTEN C. 277 SCHOTT J. 332, 349 SCHROEDER C.T. 655, 771 SCHUBERT CH. 717 SCHÜMMER J. 82 SCHURIG S. 692 SCHWARTZ D.R. 402 SCHWARTZ E. 80, 81, 89, 179, 188, 194, 195, 216, 217 , 267, 270, 297, 713, 756, 763 S CHWIENHORST -S CHÖNBERGER L. 415

SCHWYZER E. 98, 646 SCOGNAMIGLIO R. 672 SCOTT R. 98 SEBANC M. 552 SECORD J. 11, 13, 321 SEDLEY D. 651, 704 SEGAL M. 71 SEIBT K. 299, 303, 305, 307 SELAND T. 683, 693 SENG H. 269, 576 SETTIS-FRUGONI C. 762 SFAMENI GASPARRO G. 639 SGHERRI G. 17, 20, 85, 94, 142, 180, 191, 202, 236 SHANE BJORNLIE M. 281 SHARPLES R.W. 646 SHAW G. 719 SHEPPARD A.R. 52 SILLITTI G. 762 SIMMONS M.B. 271 SIMONETTI M. 42, 111, 117, 119, 129, 221, 226, 227, 287, 297, 417, 436, 489, 490, 500, 536, 537, 555558, 577, 627-629, 639, 650, 653, 654, 672, 679, 719, 744, 745, 753, 808 SIMONUTTI L. 736 SINKEWICZ R. 785-787 SIVAN H. 355 SKEAT T. 322 SKEB M. 415 SLAVEVA-GRIFFIN S. 327 SLUITER I. 559 SLUSSER M. 285, 287, 290, 293, 294 SMITH A. 271, 272, 275, 277, 328, 337 SMITH C. 349 SMITH G. 327 SMITH J.C. 102, 141, 144, 145, 236, 238, 291, 557 SMITH J.Z. 349, 350, 355, 358 SOARES L.G. 52 SODE C. 717 SOGNO C. 774 SOKOLOFF M. 318 SOLIGNAC A. 635, 637, 641 SOMOS R. 268, 433, 522, 529, 530, 646, 677, 713, 751

AUCTORES MODERNI

SORABJI R. 646 SOUTER A. 414, 416, 418, 640 SOZZINI L. 725, 726, 734-740 SPINKS B. 551 SPRENGER H.N. 749 SPURLING H. 151 STAAB K. 419, 747 STABLER J.A. 386 STADEN H. VON 649 STAEHLIN O. 77 STANG C. 777 STANLEY C.D. 491 STARK M. 252 STAUFFER E. 251 STEAD C. 450, 452, 457, 458, 525, 644, 679 STEFANIW B. 124 STEITZ G.E. 541 STELLA A. 734 STEMBERGER G. 252, 441 STERN E. 386, 681, 687 STEVENS L.J. 543 STEWART C. 777 STIEBEL G.D. 215 STOCKHAUSEN A. VON 717 STOLTMANN D. 17, 23, 123 STONE M.E. 71, 157 STONEMAN R. 762 STORIN B. 774 STRANO G. 762 STRONG J. 553 STROUMSA G.G. 6, 51, 109, 112, 114, 210, 217, 432-434, 712 STRUTWOLF H. 120, 275, 496, 579, 581 STUDER B. 520, 521, 525, 531 STUMMER F. 60 SUCHLA B.R. 722 SUSSMAN Y. 318, 319 SWETE H.B. 747, 748 SZANTYR A. 428 SZCZUCKI L. 735 TALBOT A.-M. 712 TALGAM R. 376 TALSHIR Z. 103 TAMAS H. 81 TAORMINA D.P. 645 TAPLIN M. 735

891

TARDIEU M. 285, 415, 423 TARRANT H. 273, 274 TATE M.E. 92 TAYLOR D.J. 660 TAYLOR J.E. 61, 153, 207, 211, 347 TEDESCHI J.A. 735 TELLEGEN-COUPERUS O.E. 429 TEPPER Y. 408 TER HAAR ROMENY R.B. 751, 802 TERIAN A. 553, 554, 738 TERRACCIANO P. 726 TERRIEN S. 157 THACKERAY H.S.J. 191 THEILER W. 679 THEISSEN G. 220 THEODOR J. 321 THESLEFF H. 619 THOMASSEN E. 118, 119, 418, 489, 490, 496, 497, 500, 501 THOME F. 750-752 THOMSEN P. 325, 352 THOMSON R.W. 167 THORNTON C.-J. 256 THÜMMEL H.-G. 676, 721 THURN H. 379 THYSSEN H.P. 618 TILLICH P. 532 TIMM S. 49, 207, 212, 218, 351 TIMOTIN A. 52 TLOKA J. 287 TOLLET D. 65 TOMMASI F.V. 129 TONDINI R. 753-770 TONNEAU R.-M. 799, 801 TOOM T. 417 TORRANCE N. 663 TORRANCE T.F. 532 TOSCHI M. 139, 227 TRANINGER A. 151 TREU U. 77 TREVISAN P. 49 TRIGG J.W. 134, 183-189, 193-195, 199, 201, 210, 272, 287, 288, 431, 500, 509, 548, 549 TROCMÉ É. 687 TROMP J. 153, 154, 157 TROUT J.M. 542 TRUMBOWER J.A. 490 TSAFRIR Y. 207

892

AUCTORES MODERNI

TURNER C.H. 413, 418, 759, 766, 767 TURNER N. 98 TZAFERIS V. 207 TZAMALIKOS P. 116, 134, 268, 514, 649 TZVETKOVA-GLASER A. 20, 21, 140, 576 UHLIG G. 559, 660, 663, 665 ULACCO A. 362 ULRICH J. 211 URBACH E.E. 19, 21 URMAN D. 207 USACHEVA A. 281 VALANTASIS R. 269 VALENTE M. 735 VALVO A. 678, 679 VAN DE BAKHUYZEN W.H. 431 VAN DEN HOEK A. 16, 140, 192-194, 492, 553, 778 VAN DER HORST P.W. 175, 278 VANDERKAM J. 196 VANDER PLAETSE R. 751 VAN DER POEL M. 662 VAN DIETEN J.-L. 763 VAN ESBROECK M. 174 VAN GEEST P. 76 VAN KOOTEN G. 274 VAN MINNEN P. 756 VAN ROMPAY L. 157, 741, 748-750 VAN UNNIK W.C. 682 VATRI A. 663, 666 VEGGE T. 500 VENEMA C.P. 726 VERHEYDEN J. 7, 491, 662 VESSEY M. 426 VILLANI B. 251, 259, 477 VINZENT M. 299, 305, 307, 352, 538 VIOLET B. 356 VÖLKER W. 249, 286, 490, 498, 499, 814 VÖÖBUS A. 80, 82, 795 VOGT J. 769 VOLGERS A. 754 VOM BERG H.-G. 727 VOSTÉ J.-M. 747, 748 VRBA C.F. 636, 638, 640

WACHSMUTH C. 649-651 WAHLGREN S. 156 WALKER P.W.L. 135, 325, 331, 332, 335, 336, 342, 345, 347, 354 WALKER BYNUM C. 174, 731 WALLACE-HADRILL D.S. 51, 94 WALLRAFF M. 11, 156, 364, 373, 482 WANDEL L.P. 728 WASZINK J.H. 645 WATSON F. 535 WATT J. 415, 430, 795 WATTS E. 774, 775 WEBER K.-O. 274 WEIGERT S. 60 WEISS Z. 319 WENDLAND P. 193, 194, 648, 653, 656, 683, 684, 688 WENSINCK A.J. 157 WESCOAT B.D. 349 WESTERINK L.G. 754 WHEALEY A. 95 WHITAKER G.H. 224 WHITE C. 229 WHITE L.M. 408 WHITTAKER J. 646-648 WICKHAM L.R. 167 WIEDEMANN A. 528 WILES M. 413, 525, 532, 533 WILK F. 500, 603 WILKEN R.L. 4 , 21, 23, 41, 113, 115, 133, 139, 207, 211, 325, 331, 336, 345, 354 WILKINSON J. 354 WILLIAMS G.H. 734 WILLIAMS M. 20, 321, 323, 535, 559 WILLIAMS R. 210, 297, 522, 551, 565, 652, 653, 702, 742 WILLIS E.D. 738 WILSON C.W. 151 WILSON N.G. 759 WILSON R.M. 497, 530 WILSON S.G. 550 WINKELMANN F. 106, 160, 267, 270, 442 WINN R.E. 751 WINTER P. 493 WINTERMUTE O.S. 156 WINTJES A. 297

AUCTORES MODERNI

WIPSZYCKA E. 405 WISSEMANN M. 423 WITT R.E. 647 WLOSOK A. 281 WOLFF É. 681 WOLFSON H.A. 554 WOLINSKI J. 675 WOOD H.G. 511, 544 WORRALL A.S. 210, 509, 532, 557 WRIGHT B.G. 3, 98, 548 WRIGHT D. 726, 734 WRIGHT W. 165 WRIGHT W.C. 276 WUCHERPFENNIG A. 213, 489, 490, 498, 500, 501 WÜNSCHE A. 260 WUTZ F.X. 32, 35, 45, 98 YASIN A.M. 349 YIFTACH U. 404

893

YOUNG F. 500, 520, 603 YOUNG R.D. 771-788 ZAHN T. 541 ZALESKI J. 789-803 ZAMAGNI C. 323, 325, 349, 397, 685, 754 ZELLENTIN H.M. 662 ZENGER E. 253 ZEYL D.J. 303 ZHYRKOVA A. 697-707 ZIEGLER J. 49, 335-337, 341, 691 ZIMMERLI W. 256 ZOCCHI E. 805-820 ZORZI N. 762 ZWINGMANN N. 211 ZYCHA J. 636, 638, 640

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

SERIES III 131. C.M. TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, 1997. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

XXIV-721

p. 60 € J. VAN RUITEN & M. VERVENNE (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah. FestschriftWillemA.M.Beuken, 1997. XX-540 p. 75 € M. VERVENNE & J. LUST (eds.), DeuteronomyandDeuteronomicLiterature. FestschriftC.H.W.Brekelmans, 1997. XI-637 p. 75 € G. VAN BELLE (ed.), Index Generalis ETL / BETL 1982-1997, 1999. IX337 p. 40 € G. DE SCHRIJVER, LiberationTheologiesonShiftingGrounds.AClashof Socio-EconomicandCulturalParadigms, 1998. XI-453 p. 53 € A. SCHOORS (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, 1998. XI-528 p. 60 € W.A. BIENERT & U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima. Origenes in denAuseinandersetzungendes4.Jahrhunderts, 1999. XXV-848 p. 95 € É. GAZIAUX, L’autonomie en morale: au croisement de la philosophie et delathéologie, 1998. XVI-760 p. 75 € J. GROOTAERS, ActesetacteursàVaticanII, 1998. XXIV-602 p. 75 € F. NEIRYNCK, J. VERHEYDEN & R. CORSTJENS, TheGospelofMatthewand the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1995, 1998. 2 vols., VII-1000-420* p. 95 € E. BRITO, Heideggeretl’hymnedusacré, 1999. XV-800 p. 90 € J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), TheUnityofLuke-Acts, 1999. XXV-828 p. 60 € N. CALDUCH-BENAGES & J. VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. StudiesinBenSiraandtheBookofWisdom. FestschriftM.Gilbert, 1999. XXVII-463 p. 75 € J.-M. AUWERS & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. FestschriftP.-M.Bogaert, 1999. XLII-482 p. 75 € C. BEGG, Josephus’StoryoftheLaterMonarchy(AJ9,1–10,185), 2000. X-650 p. 75 € J.M. ASGEIRSSON, K. DE TROYER & M.W. MEYER (eds.), From Quest to Q. FestschriftJamesM.Robinson, 2000. XLIV-346 p. 60 € T. ROMER (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 2000. XII265 p. 75 € F.D. VANSINA, PaulRicœur:Bibliographieprimaireetsecondaire-Primary andSecondaryBibliography1935-2000, 2000. XXVI-544 p. 75 € G.J. BROOKE & J.-D. KAESTLI (eds.), Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts, 2000. XXI-307 p. 75 € F. NEIRYNCK, Evangelica III: 1992-2000. Collected Essays, 2001. XVII666 p. 60 €

[2]

BETL

151. B. DOYLE, TheApocalypseofIsaiahMetaphoricallySpeaking.AStudyof the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27, 2000. XII-453 p. 75 € 152. T. MERRIGAN & J. HAERS (eds.), TheMyriadChrist.PluralityandtheQuest 75 € forUnityinContemporaryChristology, 2000. XIV-593 p. 153. M. SIMON, Le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II. Genèse et évaluation de son 75 € commentaireduSymboledesapôtres, 2000. XVI-688 p. 154. J. VERMEYLEN, La loi du plus fort. Histoire de la rédaction des récits 80 € davidiquesde1Samuel8à1Rois2, 2000. XIII-746 p. 155. A. WÉNIN (ed.), StudiesintheBookofGenesis.Literature,Redactionand 60 € History, 2001. XXX-643 p. 156. F. LEDEGANG, MysteriumEcclesiae.ImagesoftheChurchanditsMembers 84 € inOrigen, 2001. XVII-848 p. 157. J.S. BOSWELL, F.P. MCHUGH & J. VERSTRAETEN (eds.), Catholic Social 60 € Thought: TwilightofRenaissance, 2000. XXII-307 p. 158. A. LINDEMANN (ed.),TheSayingsSourceQandtheHistoricalJesus, 2001. XXII-776 p. 60 € 159. C. HEMPEL, A. LANGE & H. LICHTENBERGER (eds.), The Wisdom Texts fromQumranandtheDevelopmentofSapientialThought, 2002. XII-502 p. 80 € 160. L. BOEVE & L. LEIJSSEN (eds.), Sacramental Presence in a Postmodern 60 € Context, 2001. XVI-382 p. 161. A. DENAUX (ed.), NewTestamentTextualCriticismandExegesis. Festschrift J.Delobel, 2002. XVIII-391 p. 60 € 162. U. BUSSE, DasJohannesevangelium.Bildlichkeit,DiskursundRitual.Mit einerBibliographieüberdenZeitraum1986-1998, 2002. XIII-572 p. 70 € 163. J.-M. AUWERS & H.J. DE JONGE (eds.), The Biblical Canons, 2003. LXXXVIII-718 p. 60 € 164. L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian 180 € Tradition, 2003. XXV-X-1406 p. 165. R. BIERINGER, V. KOPERSKI & B. LATAIRE (eds.), ResurrectionintheNew 70 € Testament.FestschriftJ.Lambrecht, 2002. XXXI-551 p. 166. M.LAMBERIGTS & L. KENIS (eds.), VaticanIIandItsLegacy, 2002. XII-512 p. 65 € 167. P.DIEUDONNÉ, LaPaixclémentine.Défaiteetvictoiredupremierjansénisme français sous le pontificat de Clément IX (1667-1669), 2003. XXXIX302 p. 70 € 168. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, WisdomandApocalypticismintheDeadSeaScrolls 60 € andintheBiblicalTradition, 2003. XXXIV-491 p. 169. D. OGLIARI, Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship between Grace and FreeWillintheDiscussionofAugustinewiththeSo-CalledSemipelagians, 2003. LVII-468 p. 75 € 170. G. COOMAN, M. VAN STIPHOUT & B. WAUTERS (eds.), Zeger-BernardVan Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church80 € StateRelations, 2003. XX-530 p. 171. B. BOURGINE, L’herméneutique théologique de Karl Barth. Exégèse et dogmatique dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik, 2003. XXII-548 p. 75 € 172. J. HAERS & P. DE MEY (eds.), Theology and Conversation: Towards a 90 € RelationalTheology, 2003. XIII-923 p.

BETL

[3]

173. M.J.J. MENKEN, Matthew’sBible:TheOldTestamentTextoftheEvangelist, 2004. XII-336 p. 60 € 174. J.-P. DELVILLE, L’Europe de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle. Interprétations de laparaboledesouvriersàlavigne(Matthieu20,1-16), 2004. XLII-775 p. 70 € 175. E. BRITO, J.G. Fichte et la transformation du christianisme, 2004. XVI808 p. 90 € 176. J. SCHLOSSER (ed.), TheCatholicEpistlesandtheTradition, 2004. XXIV569 p. 60 € 177. R. FAESEN (ed.), Albert Deblaere, S.J. (1916-1994): Essays on Mystical Literature – Essais sur la littérature mystique – Saggi sulla letteratura 70 € mistica, 2004. XX-473 p. 178. J. LUST, Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays. Edited by K. HAUSPIE, 2004. XIV-247 p. 60 € 179. H. GIESEN, JesuHeilsbotschaftunddieKirche.StudienzurEschatologie undEkklesiologiebeidenSynoptikernundimerstenPetrusbrief, 2004. XX578 p. 70 € 180. H. LOMBAERTS & D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Hermeneutics and Religious 70 € Education, 2004. XIII-427 p. 181. D. DONNELLY, A. DENAUX & J. FAMERÉE (eds.), The Holy Spirit, the Church,andChristianUnity.ProceedingsoftheConsultationHeldatthe MonasteryofBose,Italy(14-20October2002), 2005. XII-417 p. 70 € 182. R. BIERINGER, G. VAN BELLE & J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), LukeandHisReaders. 65 € FestschriftA.Denaux, 2005. XXVIII-470 p. 183. D.F. PILARIO, BacktotheRoughGroundsofPraxis:ExploringTheological 80 € MethodwithPierreBourdieu, 2005. XXXII-584 p. 184. G. VAN BELLE, J.G. VAN DER WATT & P. MARITZ (eds.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS JohannineWritingsSeminar, 2005. XII-561 p. 70 € 185. D. LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon. Vol. 1: Structure littéraire du Lévitique. 120 € Vol. 2: Guidetechnique, 2005. XIV-VII-656 p. 186. R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR., Ancient Compositional Practices and the 80 € SynopticProblem, 2005. XXVIII-290 p. 187. P. VAN HECKE (ed.), MetaphorintheHebrewBible, 2005. X-308 p. 65 € 188. L. BOEVE, Y. DEMAESENEER & S. VAN DEN BOSSCHE (eds.), Religious ExperienceandContemporaryTheologicalEpistemology, 2005. X-335 p. 50 € 189. J.M. ROBINSON, The Sayings Gospel Q. Collected Essays, 2005. XVIII888 p. 90 € 190. C.W. STRUDER, PaulusunddieGesinnungChristi.IdentitätundEntschei80 € dungsfindungausderMittevon1Kor1-4, 2005. LII-522 p. 191. C. FOCANT & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Analyse narrative et Bible. Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril 2004, 2005. XVI-593 p. 75 € 192. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ & M. VERVENNE (eds.), in collaboration with B. DOYLE, Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in 70 € HonourofJohanLust, 2005. XVI-464 p. 87 € 193. F. MIES, L’espérancedeJob, 2006. XXIV-653 p. 60 € 194. C. FOCANT, Marc,unévangileétonnant, 2006. XV-402 p. 195. M.A. KNIBB (ed.), TheSeptuagintandMessianism, 2006. XXXI-560 p. 60 €

[4]

BETL

196. M. SIMON, LacélébrationdumystèrechrétiendanslecatéchismedeJean85 € PaulII, 2006. XIV-638 p. 197. A.Y. THOMASSET, L’ecclésiologie de J.H. Newman Anglican, 2006. XXX748 p. 80 € 198. M. LAMBERIGTS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), LayBiblesinEurope145079 € 1800, 2006. XI-360 p. 199. J.Z. SKIRA – M.S. ATTRIDGE, InGod’sHands.EssaysontheChurchand 90 € EcumenisminHonourofMichaelA.FaheyS.J., 2006. XXX-314 p. 200. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), TheDeathofJesusintheFourthGospel, 2007.XXXI1003 p. 70 € 80 € 201. D. POLLEFEYT (ed.), InterreligiousLearning, 2007. XXV-340 p. 202. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with D. CLAES (eds.), Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and SystematicTheologicalStudies, 2007. X-305 p. 55 € 203. T. RÖMER – K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, 65 € del’Hexateuqueetdel’Ennéateuque, 2007. X-276 p. 204. J.-M. VAN CANGH, LessourcesjudaïquesduNouveauTestament, 2008. XIV718 p. 84 € 205. B. DEHANDSCHUTTER, Polycarpiana:StudiesonMartyrdomandPersecution inEarlyChristianity.CollectedEssays. Edited by J. LEEMANS, 2007. XVI74 € 286 p. 206. É. GAZIAUX, Philosophie et Théologie. Festschrift Emilio Brito, 2007. LVIII-588 p. 84 € 207. G.J. BROOKE – T. RÖMER (eds.), Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography.L’historiographiebiblique,ancienneetmoderne, 2007. XXXVIII75 € 372p. 208. J. VERSTRAETEN, Scrutinizing the Signs of the Times in the Light of the 74 € Gospel, 2007.X-334 p. 209. H. GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei experimentalis. A Theological Genealogy of 80 € ChristianReligiousExperience, 2007. LII-457 p. 210. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER, Virtuelle Vergangenheit: Die Textrekonstruktion einer verlorenen mittelniederländischen Evangelienharmonie. Die Hand58 € schriftUtrechtUniversitätsbibliothek1009, 2007. XII-168 p. 211. R. GRYSON, Scientiam Salutis: Quarante années de recherches sur 88 € l’AntiquitéChrétienne.Recueild’essais, 2008. XLVI-879 p. 212. T. VAN DEN DRIESSCHE, L’altérité,fondementdelapersonnehumainedans 85 € l’œuvred’EdithStein, 2008. XXII-626 p. 213. H. AUSLOOS – J. COOK – F. GARCIA MARTINEZ – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), TranslatingaTranslation:TheLXXanditsModernTranslationsin 80 € theContextofEarlyJudaism, 2008.X-317 p. 214. A.C. OSUJI, WhereistheTruth?NarrativeExegesisandtheQuestionof 76 € TrueandFalseProphecyinJer26–29(MT), 2010. XX-465 p. 215. T. RÖMER, TheBooksofLeviticusandNumbers,2008.XXVII-742 p. 85 € 216. D. DONNELLY – J. FAMERÉE – M. LAMBERIGTS – K. SCHELKENS (eds.), The Belgian Contribution to the Second Vatican Council: International Research Conference at Mechelen, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve 85 € (September12-16,2005),2008.XII-716 p. 217. J. DE TAVERNIER – J.A. SELLING – J. VERSTRAETEN – P. SCHOTSMANS (eds.), Responsibility, God and Society. Theological Ethics in Dialogue. FestschriftRogerBurggraeve,2008. XLVI-413 p. 75 €

BETL

[5]

218. G. VAN BELLE – J.G. VAN DER WATT – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Miraclesand ImageryinLukeandJohn.FestschriftUlrichBusse,2008. XVIII-287 p.  78 € 219. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – M. WISSE (eds.), AugustineandPostmodern 80 € Thought:ANewAllianceagainstModernity?, 2009. XVIII-277 p. 220. T. VICTORIA, Un livre de feu dans un siècle de fer: Les lectures de l’Apocalypse dans la littérature française de la Renaissance, 2009. XXX609 p. 85 € 221. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER – W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Infant Milk or Hardy Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early 80 € ModernPeriod, 2009. XVIII-488 p. 222. F.D. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur. Bibliographie primaire et secondaire. PrimaryandSecundaryBibliography1935-2008, Compiled and updated in collaboration with P. VANDECASTEELE, 2008. XXX-621 p. 80 € 223. G. VAN BELLE – M. LABAHN – P. MARITZ (eds.), RepetitionsandVariations 85 € intheFourthGospel:Style,Text,Interpretation, 2009. XII-712 p. 224. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), FlorilegiumLovaniense: StudiesinSeptuagintandTextualCriticisminHonourofFlorentinoGarcía 80 € Martínez, 2008. XVI-564 p. 225. E. BRITO, Philosophiemoderneetchristianisme, 2010. 2 vol., VIII-1514 p.  130 € 85 € 226. U. SCHNELLE (ed.), TheLettertotheRomans, 2009. XVIII-894 p. 227. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN in collaboration with D. CLAES – 74 € M. WISSE (eds.), Orthodoxy,ProcessandProduct, 2009. X-416 p. 228. G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), OrigenianaNona:OrigenandtheReligious 95 € PracticeofHisTime, 2009. XIV-752 p. 229. D. MARGUERAT (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts – Réception du 74 € paulinismedanslesActesdesApôtres, 2009. VIII-340 p. 230. A. DILLEN – D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Children’sVoices:Children’sPerspectivesinEthics,TheologyandReligiousEducation, 2010. x-450 p. 72 € 231. P. VAN HECKE – A. LABAHN (eds.), MetaphorsinthePsalms, 2010. XXXIV363 p. 76 € 232. G. AULD – E. EYNIKEL (eds.), ForandAgainstDavid:StoryandHistoryin theBooksofSamuel, 2010. x-397 p. 76 € 233. C. VIALLE, Uneanalysecomparéed’EstherTMetLXX:Regardsurdeux 76 € récitsd’unemêmehistoire, 2010. LVIII-406 p. 234. T. MERRIGAN – F. GLORIEUX (eds.), “GodheadHereinHiding”:IncarnationandtheHistoryofHumanSuffering, 2012. x-327 p. 76 € 235. M. SIMON, LaviedansleChristdanslecatéchismedeJean-PaulII, 2010. xx-651 p. 84 € 236. G. DE SCHRIJVER, The Political Ethics of Jean-François Lyotard and JacquesDerrida, 2010. xxx-422 p. 80 € 237. A. PASQUIER – D. MARGUERAT – A. WÉNIN (eds.), L’intriguedanslerécit biblique.QuatrièmecolloqueinternationalduRRENAB,UniversitéLaval, Québec,29mai–1erjuin2008, 2010. xxx-479 p. 68 € 238. E. ZENGER (ed.), TheCompositionoftheBookofPsalms, 2010. XII-826 p. 90 € 239. P. FOSTER – A. GREGORY – J.S. KLOPPENBORG – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, 2011. XXIV-828 p. 85 €

[6]

BETL

240. J. VERHEYDEN – T.L. HETTEMA – P. VANDECASTEELE (eds.), PaulRicœur: 79 € PoeticsandReligion, 2011. XX-534 p. 241. J. LEEMANS (ed.), MartyrdomandPersecutioninLateAncientChristianity. 78 € FestschriftBoudewijnDehandschutter, 2010. XXXIV-430 p. 242. C. CLIVAZ – J. ZUMSTEIN (eds.), Reading New Testament Papyri in Con- text – Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte, 2011. XIV-446 p. 80 € 243. D. SENIOR (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early 88 € Christianity, 2011. XXVIII-781 p. 244. H. PIETRAS – S. KACZMAREK (eds.), OrigenianaDecima:OrigenasWriter, 105 € 2011. XVIII-1039 p. 245. M. SIMON, LaprièrechrétiennedanslecatéchismedeJean-PaulII, 2012. XVI-290 p. 70 € 246. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – J. TREBOLLE-BARRERA (eds.), AfterQumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts – The Historical Books, 84 € 2012. XIV-319 p. 247. G. VAN OYEN – A. WÉNIN (eds.), La surprise dans la Bible. Festschrift 80 € CamilleFocant, 2012. XLII-474 p. 248. C. CLIVAZ – C. COMBET-GALLAND – J.-D. MACCHI – C. NIHAN (eds.), Écrituresetréécritures:larepriseinterprétativedestraditionsfondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique. Cinquième colloque internationalduRRENAB,UniversitésdeGenèveetLausanne,10-12juin2010, 90 € 2012. XXIV-648 p. 249. G. VAN OYEN – T. SHEPHERD (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical 85 € TraditionsinDialogue, 2012. XVI-632 p. 90 € 250. E. NOORT (ed.), TheBookofJoshua, 2012. XIV-698 p. 251. R. FAESEN – L. KENIS (eds.), The Jesuits of the Low Countries: Identity andImpact(1540-1773).ProceedingsoftheInternationalCongressatthe FacultyofTheologyandReligiousStudies,KULeuven(3-5December2009), 65 € 2012. X-295 p. 252. A. DAMM, AncientRhetoricandtheSynopticProblem:ClarifyingMarkan 85 € Priority, 2013. XXXVIII-396 p. 253. A. DENAUX – P. DE MEY (eds.), The Ecumenical Legacy of Johannes 79 € CardinalWillebrands(1909-2006), 2012. XIV-376 p. 254. T. KNIEPS-PORT LE ROI – G. MANNION – P. DE MEY (eds.), The HouseholdofGodandLocalHouseholds:RevisitingtheDomesticChurch, 2013. XI-407 p. 82 € 255. L. KENIS – E. VAN DER WALL (eds.), ReligiousModernismoftheLowCoun75 € tries, 2013. X-271 p. 256. P. IDE, UneThéo-logiqueduDon:LeDondanslaTrilogiedeHansUrsvon 98 € Balthasar, 2013. XXX-759 p. 257. W. FRANÇOIS – A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), “WadingLambsandSwimming Elephants”:TheBiblefortheLaityandTheologiansintheLateMedieval 84 € andEarlyModernEra, 2012. XVI-406 p. 258. A. LIÉGOIS – R. BURGGRAEVE – M. RIEMSLAGH – J. CORVELEYN (eds.), “After You!”: Dialogical Ethics and the Pastoral Counselling Process, 79 € 2013. XXII-279 p. 259. C. KALONJI NKOKESHA, PenserlatraditionavecWalterKasper:Pertinence d’une catholicité historiquement et culturellement ouverte, 2013. XXIV320 p. 79 €

BETL

[7]

260. J. SCHRÖTER (ed.), The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early 90 € ChristianTheology, 2013. XII-804 p. 261. P. DE MEY – P. DE WITTE – G. MANNION (eds.), BelievinginCommunity: 90 € EcumenicalReflectionsontheChurch, 2013. XIV-608 p. 262. F. DEPOORTERE – J. HAERS (eds.), To Discern Creation in a Scattering 90 € World, 2013. XII-597 p. 263. L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with C. DICKINSON (eds.), Tradi55 € tionandtheNormativityofHistory, 2013. X-215 p. 264. M. GILBERT, BenSira.Recueild’études–CollectedEssays, 2014. XIV-402 p. 87 € 265. J. VERHEYDEN – G. VAN OYEN – M. LABAHN – R. BIERINGER (eds.), Studies intheGospelofJohnandItsChristology.FestschriftGilbertVanBelle, 94 € 2014. XXXVI-656 p. 266. W. DE PRIL, TheologicalRenewalandtheResurgenceofIntegrism:The 85 € RenéDraguetCase(1942)inItsContext, 2016. XLIV-333 p. 267. L.O. JIMÉNEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, TheArticulationbetweenNaturalSciencesand SystematicTheology:APhilosophicalMediationBasedonContributions 94 € ofJeanLadrièreandXavierZubiri, 2015. XXIV-541 p. 268. E. BIRNBAUM – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe: Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Koheletkommentar 80 € desHieronymus, 2014. XVIII-333 p. 269. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN (eds.), APillarofCloudtoGuide:Text-critical, Redactional,andLinguisticPerspectivesontheOldTestamentinHonour 90 € ofMarcVervenne, 2014. XXVIII-636 p. 270. E. TIGCHELAAR (ed.), OldTestamentPseudepigraphaandtheScriptures, 95 € 2014. XXVI-526 p. 271. E. BRITO, Sur l’homme: Une traversée de la question anthropologique, 215 € 2015. XVI-2045 p. (2 vol.) 272. P. WATINE CHRISTORY, DialogueetCommunion:L’itinéraireœcuménique 98 € deJean-MarieR.Tillard, 2015. XXIV-773 p. 273. R. BURNET – D. LUCIANI – G. VAN OYEN (eds.), Le lecteur: Sixième ColloqueInternationalduRRENAB,UniversitéCatholiquedeLouvain, 85 € 24-26mai2012, 2015. XIV-530 p. 274. G.B. BAZZANA, KingdomofBureaucracy:ThePoliticalTheologyofVillage 85 € ScribesintheSayingsGospelQ, 2015. XII-383 p. 275. J.-P. GALLEZ, Lathéologiecommescienceherméneutiquedelatraditionde foi:Unelecturede«Dieuquivientàl’homme» deJosephMoingt, 2015. XIX-476 p. 94 € 276. J. VERMEYLEN, Métamorphoses:LesrédactionssuccessivesdulivredeJob, 84 € 2015. XVI-410 p. 277. C. BREYTENBACH (ed.), Paul’sGraeco-RomanContext, 2015. XXII-751 p. 94 € 278. J. GELDHOF (ed.), MediatingMysteries,UnderstandingLiturgies: OnBridging 78 € theGapbetweenLiturgyandSystematicTheology, 2015. X-256 p. 279. A.-C. JACOBSEN (ed.), OrigenianaUndecima:OrigenandOrigenisminthe 125 € HistoryofWesternThought, 2016. XVI-978 p. 280. F. WILK – P. GEMEINHARDT (eds.), TransmissionandInterpretationofthe BookofIsaiahintheContextofIntra-andInterreligiousDebates, 2016. XII-490 p. 95 € 281. J.-M. SEVRIN, Lequatrièmeévangile. Recueild’études. Édité par G. VAN 86 € BELLE, 2016. XIV-281 p.

[8]

BETL

282. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – T. MERRIGAN (eds.), The Normativity of History:TheologicalTruthandTraditionintheTensionbetweenChurch HistoryandSystematicTheology, 2016. XII-273 p. 78 € 283. R. BIERINGER – B. BAERT – K. DEMASURE (eds.), Noli me tangere inInterdisciplinaryPerspective:Textual,IconographicandContemporaryInterpretations, 2016. XXII-508 p. 89 € 284. W. DIETRICH (ed.), The Books of Samuel: Stories – History – Reception History, 2016. XXIV-650 p. 96 € 285. W.E. ARNAL – R.S. ASCOUGH – R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR. – P.A. HARLAND (eds.), Scribal Practices and Social Structures among Jesus Adherents: EssaysinHonourofJohnS.Kloppenborg, 2016. XXIV-630 p. 115 € 286. C.E. WOLFTEICH – A. DILLEN (eds.), Catholic Approaches in Practical Theology:InternationalandInterdisciplinaryPerspectives, 2016. X-290 p. 85 € 287. W. FRANÇOIS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), VernacularBibleandReligious ReformintheMiddleAgesandEarlyModernEra, 2017. VIII-305 p. 94 € 288. P. RODRIGUES, C’esttafacequejecherche…Larationalitédelathéologie selonJeanLadrière, 2017. XIV-453 p. 92 € 289. J. FAMERÉE, Ecclésiologie et œcuménisme. Recueil d’études, 2017. XVIII668 p. 94 € 290. P. COOPER – S. KIKUCHI (eds.), CommitmentstoMedievalMysticismwithin 79 € ContemporaryContexts, 2017. XVI-382 p. 291. A. YARBRO COLLINS (ed.), New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, 2017. X-644 p. 98 € 292. J. FAMERÉE – P. RODRIGUES (eds.), The Genesis of Concepts and the 78 € ConfrontationofRationalities, 2018. XIV-245 p. 293. E. DI PEDE – O. FLICHY – D. LUCIANI (eds.), LeRécit:Thèmesbibliqueset 95 € variations, 2018. XIV-412 p. 294. J. ARBLASTER – R. FAESEN (eds.), Theosis/Deification:ChristianDoctrines 84 € ofDivinizationEastandWest, 2018. VII-262 p. 295. H.-J. FABRY (ed.), TheBooksoftheTwelveProphets:MinorProphets– 105 € MajorTheologies, 2018. XXIV-557 p. 296. H. AUSLOOS – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Temporalité et intrigue. Hommage à AndréWénin 95 € 297. A.C. MAYER (ed.), TheLetterandtheSpirit:OntheForgottenDocuments 85 € ofVaticanII, 2018. X-296 p. 298. A. BEGASSE DE DHAEM – E. GALLI – M. MALAGUTI – C. SALTO SOLÁ (eds.), Deus summe cognoscibilis: The Current Theological Relevance of Saint BonaventureInternationalCongress,Rome,November15-17,2017, 2018. XII-716 p. 85 € 299. M. LAMBERIGTS – W. DE PRIL (eds.), Louvain,BelgiumandBeyond:Studies inReligiousHistoryinHonourofLeoKenis, 2018. XVIII-517 p. 95 € 300. E. BRITO, De Dieu. Connaissance et Inconnaissance, 2018. LVIII-634 + 635-1255 p. 155 € 301. G. VAN OYEN, ReadingtheGospelofMarkintheTwenty-firstCentury: 105 € MethodandMeaning, 2019. XXIV-933 p.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706