No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Polarity of the Gospels in the Exegesis of Origen
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 April 2011
Extract
In spite of all the hermeneutic research, the allegorizing of the Alexandrians, and above all the exegetical work of Origen, remains a strange phenomenon of the early church. Historians have often smiled indulgently, if they have not scoffed, at those childhood steps of biblical interpretation within ancient Christian theology, from Thomasius more than a century ago up to our present. The possibility of a complete understanding is hindered by the lack of many of Origen's texts in the original language. Many of his commentaries are lost. And yet there are certain indications from which we can learn that Origen did have his sound reasons for his exegetical undertaking. For this, one has to examine the tenth chapter of his Commentary on John.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Church History 1952
References
1 Thomasius, Gottfried: Origenes, ein Beytrag zur Dogmengeschichte des dritten Jahrhunderts, Nürnberg 1837 pp. 311 sqq.Google Scholar (“willkürlich … masslos”) Luther, : WA Tischr. I (Weimar 1912) p. 106Google Scholar, Denis, Jacques F.: De la philosophie d'Origène, Paris 1884 (“Idées abstruses, Jeu d'imagination, Tormes de la liberté de la pensée”) pp. 33 sq.Google ScholarBigg, : The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, London 1886Google Scholar (“The Alexandrine method as applied by Origen is undoubtedly unsound” … “Such Paltering with the text is not honest”!) pp. 146sqq. Lately: Cumont, : Recherches sur le symbolism funéraire des Romains, Paris 1942.Google Scholar As for the history of the interpretation of Origen's exegesis see: Lubac, De: Homélies sur la Génèse, Introduction. Paris 1943.Google Scholar
2 Rudolf, Ernst Redepenning: Origenes, eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre (2 vol.) Bonn 1841–1846Google Scholar already recognized that only Origen himself would be able to show us the reason for his interpretation, and that within it, the Scripture itself will give us the decisive basis. Pp. 322 sqq. Therefore, there is no condemnation ex cathedra in Redepenning, in contrast to so many others.
3 John Comm. X, 20–34 (Between the references in GCS).
4 Ibid. X, 20 [119].
5 Ibid. X, 21 [123–128].
6 Ibid. X, 22 [129].
7 Ibid. X, 23 [130].
8 Cf. Cullman, Oscar: Die Pluralität der Evangelien als theologisches Problem im Altertum (Theol. Zeitschrift d. Univ. Basel 1945, Heft I).Google Scholar
9 Clement with his distinction of bodily and spiritual gospels and Marcion with his choice of one gospel perhaps had an inkling too.
10 John Comm. X, 23 [130].
11 Ibid. [145–147].
12 Ibid. X, 25 [144].
13 Cf. Cullman: op. cit.
14 Jerome: Ep. 121, 6, 15.
15 John Comm. X, 26 [159–160a].
16 Ibid. [165, 164].
17 Ibid. [163].
18 One might assume a direct or an indirect influence from Marcion or the Gnostics. However, this is hard to prove.
19 One thinks of Wilhelm Viseher: Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testamentes 1934–42 and the rejection of his opinions by the plurality of Old Testament scholars.
20 Origen has for Nazareth Nazara: (John Comm. X, 2 [9], X, 11 [50]).
21 Ibid. X, 1–2: Matth. 4, 1 c. par.
22 Ibid. X, 3 [10b–11].
23 Ibid. X, 3 [13].
24 Ibid. X, 3 [14].
25 Thomasius, : op. cit. p. 33.Google Scholar Cf, also Redepenning op. cit. vol I. p. 316.
26 Cf. for this: Daniélou, : Origene, Paris 1948 pp. 175–190.Google Scholar
27 Redepenning did see this: op. cit. vol. I p. 297.
28 Bigg realized that one cannot understand Origen simply from his historical presuppositions. He therefore also separates him distinctly from Clement of Alexandria: op. cit. p. 134. Also Lubae, Henri de: “Entre Philon et Origène, il y a tout le mystère chrétien!” Homélies sur l' Eæode pp. 15 sqq.Google Scholar
29 The addition by Preuschen: dia tous pollous is evident.
30 John Comm. X, 3 [10a].
31 Ibid. X, 3 [106a].
32 Even if the beginning of X, 2 is corrupted (cf. the footnote in Preuschen's edition), its meaning is perfectly clear.
33 Beside Henri de Lubae, Preuschen (in his introduction to the critical edition of the Commentary on John) has strongly defended Origen against the reproach of a technical taking over of the Alexandrian allegorism. “… nicht nur gedankenlose Nachahmerei …” he says: p. LXXXIII.
34 Thomasius did not know what to make out of John Comm X, lsqq. op. cit. p. 316. The best Denis could say was: “Origène ne déprime la lettre que pour mieux faire sentir la nécessité de chercher sous le sens historic un sens spiritual” pp. 36–40 op. cit., and Eugène de Faye called Origen's exegetical work an “unbelievable illusion” op. cit. vol. I p. 95. Redepenning has been considerably more careful: op. cit. vol. I p. 292. In his work about the exegesis of Origen, Prat, J.: Origène, 1908Google Scholar, misses completely the critical aspects and does not speak about the historical problems at all, just mentioning John Comm. X, 5 in a footnote (pp. 130–133).
35 Without knowing exactly these reasons, Eedepenning was right in postulating that the Scripture itself had to furnish the explanation for the exegetical attempts of Origen, : op. cit. vol. I p. 322.Google Scholar
36 Philocalia VI, 2 (ed. J. Robinson, Cambridge 1893).
37 Cf. Eusebius, : Hist. Eccl. VI, pp. 19 sqq.Google Scholar
38 For this apologetic side of allegorism cf. Bigg, : op. cit. pp. 139 sqq.Google Scholar If there is a negative and a positive side of allegorism, as Bigg suggests (the first being apologetic, and the second for the discoveries of mysteries), these two aspects are almost identical in the question of the polarity of the gospels.
39 One finds therefore Origen opposed to both at the same time, to the Diatessaron and the Contra Hellenes.
40 Peri Archon is called a “System patristischer Gnosis” by Jonas, Hans in Theol. Zeitschr. d. Univ. Basel, 1947, Heft 2.Google Scholar
41 Cf. the discussion about Heraelion's commentary in Origen's Commentary on John.
42 Koch, Hal: Pronoia and Paideusis, Studien über Origenes und sein Verhältnis zum Platonismus Leipzig 1932.Google Scholar
43 Cf. Hans Jonas: loc. cit.
44 In John Comm. VI, 30–39 for instance, Origen compares the words by John the Baptist about his not being worthy to unloose the latehets of the Messiah (John 1, 26–27) with its parallel texts: Matth. 3, 11, Mark 1, 7sq. and Luke 3, 15sq. Analyzing every little difference (the mentioning of the penance in Matthew, the different order of words, the discrepancies), he comes to the conclusion that those reported sentences by the Baptist could not possibly go back to one and the same event. Otherwise, Origen says, we should have to assume that the evangelists erred and reported wrong details. (VI, 34) For it is not the same “to unloose the latehets” and “to bear the shoes,” the first being told by Matthew, the second by Mark, Luke and John. John the Baptist has spoken both, at different occasions, in order to express each time something specific. Ana Origen tries to find the explanation and the connection of the two: the two versions represent two stages within the life of a Christian. First, he kneels down in order to unloose the latehets, then, however, he achieves the unloosing of his shoes, separating himself from the shoes, ie. from the earthly. The kupsas of the first version does not exist anymore in the second. This is no doubt a highly literal treatment of Scripture. Nevertheless, it shows us how utterly seriously Origen takes the discrepancies of the New Testament.
45 John Comm. X, 5 [18] P. A. IV 3, 4.
46 John Comm. X, 4.
47 John Comm. X, 5.
48 He does not work para but huper tēn phusin K. K. V 23.
49 Right afterwards (John Comm. X, 6) he struggles with vehemence against the Gnostic docetism.
50 Had he done so, he would have had to give up perhaps half of the gospel material.