But it would give an unfair impression to say that nothing at all has been done. In fact there have been numerous limited studies on various exege- tical themes. We recall the research listed in the previous chapter on Clement.70 Many of studies cited there-e.g. the project on the interpre- tation of the Septuagint-also make frequent reference to Origen and his debt to his Alexandrian predecessors Philo and Clement.
As in the case of Clement, various studies of DaniClou have shown the way, e.g. on Pentateuchal themes such as the Paradise of virtues,71 Noah and the flood, the birth, sacrifice and marriage of Isaac, Moses and the exodus of Israel.72 The allegorization of the theme of Hagar and Sarah, in which Origen follows Philo rather than Paul, has been analysed by Hen- richs.73 In a long study on the theme of Abraham’s migration Pasetti notes continuities between Philo, Origen and Ambrose, but also shifts in interpre- tation, for example in the attitude towards Chaldean astrology.74 In his studies on the themes of Aaron and the Levites in Ambrose Gryson pays ample attention to the use of Philonic themes in Origen.75 Another study compares the treatment of the plagues in Egypt from Philo through the Fathers with special emphasis on the role of 0rigen.76 Finally we might mention a more unusual theme: in a study on the background and early development of the doctrine of the Trinity Kretschmar draws a line from Philo’s allegory of the Seraphim in De Deo through to Clement and Origen.77
The method used in all these studies is generally the same. An exege- tical theme is selected and then treated diachronically, with Philo generally as the first witness. Thereafter a pattern of similarity and difference, appropriation and modification can be traced. The amount of research that can be done in this way is practically endless. Origen’s exegetical output 70 See above $8.5 (a).
7 ’ On which see also Bietz (1973).
72 In addition to the studies cited in n. 42, see especially Danielou (1950). This study covers the entire field of Patristic exegesis, but in it the work of Origen is regarded as the most important (xiii). Unfortunately this important study is difficult to consult, because it lacks an Index locorum.
73 Henrichs (1968a), cf. also Van den Hoek (1987).
74 Pasetti (1982).
7s Gryson (1980a), (1980b).
76 Brottier (1989).
77 Kretschmar (1956).
172 CHAPTER NINE ORIGEN 173
was overwhelmingly vast. Even though, due to the vicissitudes of the Origenist legacy, a large proportion of the original corpus has been lost,‘*
merely the index of his exegetical references alone occupies an entire volume of the indispensable Biblia Patristica. The greatest loss, from our perspective, is that of the multi-volumed Commentary on Genesis. This work was probably started at about the same time as De principiis, but not completed until after the move to Caesarea.79 Origen examined the biblical text in such detail that by the time he had written 13 books he had got no further than the end of chapter 4. Presumably the work was so long partly because it examined in great detail the various traditions of exegesis of specific texts developed before Origen’s time, including Judaeo-hellenistic material derived from Philo. Evidence of this may be seen in the fact that in a cursory examination of the fragments preserved in the Cutenae Wendland discovered significant correspondences with Philo’s Quaestiones in Gene- sim.80 In order to complete his coverage of the Pentateuch, Origen turned to writing Scholia on particular passages instead of a complete commentary, The entire Pentateuch was also treated in the form of Homilies, of which those on the first four books still survive in Rufinus’ Latin translation. To my knowledge no synoptic studies have been specifically devoted to the question of Origen’s debt to Philo in his exegesis of the Pentateuch, but a great deal of material has been collected and analysed in an incidental fashion.81
Two final comments might be made on the question of Origen’s debt to Philo in his exegesis of the Pentateuch. Firstly we should note that, even if we possessed Origen’s Commentary on Genesis, it might in many cases still not be easy to determine what his precise debts to Philo were. An interesting example is furnished by a papyrus in the University Library in Giessen, which yields 86 lines of Greek text giving exegesis of Gen. 1:28.*2 Much of the language and some of the ideas here are perfectly Philonic. Yet in none of the works we possess does Philo actually allegorize this text in terms of the mind’s or the wise man’s control over the passions.83 Both
‘* Quasten (1950-86) 2.51 states that ‘out of 291 [books of] commentaries 275 have been lost in Greek and very little is preserved in Latin’.
79 On the genesis of the commentary see Nautin (1977) 245-246,368-370,422,432.
*O Wendland (1891) 109-l 14 (based on fragments published at PG 12.92-145). On the probable use of the Commentary by Calcidius see below $13.3 at n. 73.
*I See the studies cited in chapter 8 n.53-54, to which can be added Alexandre (1986) on Gen.
3:24, Harl (1978) and Nautin (1978) on Ex. 3: 14.
82 Glaue (1928).
*j In Leg. 2.12-13 Philo does give a brief allegory of Gen. 1:24 where the animals created on the 5th day symbolize the passions. Goulet (1987) 139 sees a hint of a similar exegesis of Gen. I:28 in the words kv &c&eia~~ at Opif. 142 and surmises that an allegorical interpre- tation of Gen. 1 existed which Philo suppressed in favour of a literal reading. Since, however, the allegorization of animals as n&&l is standard in Philo, Origen need not necessarily have been dependent on other allegorical traditions.
Philo and Origen stress the excellence of the first man who was directly created by God (cf. Opif. 140). But when Origen states that difference lies in the fact that Adam received the composition of his body from the hands of God, and not ‘from the intercourse and passion and desire of a father and mother’, this would appear to introduce a new emphasis, in which one is tempted to see remnants of Gnostic thinking.84 Secondly the loss of most of Origen’s Pentateuchal exegesis makes it difficult to trace the extent to which he served as a transmitter of Philonic thought. It is to be suspected
that much Philonic material has passed through to the later exegetical tradition through the agency of Origen’s commentaries and homilies. To give one example: PCpin has examined in great detail the background to Augustine’s interpretation of the ‘heaven’ in Gen. 1: 1. By listing various parallel passages from Philo, Origen and Augustine, he shows the evolu- tion of the theme from Philo’s exegesis of ‘day one’ in Opif and other texts to the intelligible or spiritual creature in Augustine.85 We shall return to this study when investigating the direct knowledge that Augustine had of Philo’s work.86 But at this point we can already cite his conclusion that ‘it does not matter [for the hypothesis that the theme originally goes back to Philo] that he [Augustine] had read almost nothing of Philo, since the essential part of the Alexandrian Jew’s interpretation could have been transmitted to him by the Homilies on Genesis of Origen’.*T One might also cite the metaphor used by Calleja in a recent examination of the theme of the creation of man according to the image in Origen and Didymus, namely that ‘Philo can truly be said to have mapped out a route for the Christian tradition’.** As we shall see, Philonic exegetical material in authors such as the Cappadocians, Nemesius and Calcidius will have been passed on in the same way. We note too that Origen’s role as transmitter of Philonic thought was recognized by Theodore of Mopsuestia, who strongly criticizes him for learning his method of allegorical exegesis from Philo and using it as the foundation of his biblical exposition.89
x4 Compare Opif. 140 with Origen’s words in P. bibl. univ. Giss. 17.59-65: Ei O&J tip&is oi
xhqpp~hq~bq ~a~a@obp&~a &idoyias nvmpamcfj~ [cf. Eph. 1:3],06 nohh@ pkhhov b
~p~~O~~Vep~~O~bb~b~&tp~V8EO6~~~~E~~Ka~~V~apa~&~~ct,'I&6&\1~Ka~~~~OV~~Vi)7C' cr6zbvKa~ao~a0ei~KaiG~i,~o~O~o~~~nv~~uo0ei~,bz~v ~~~~'ai)7~v~dlv~~v~ohi)G~acpkpwv r@ hKeivou5 p&v in ovvovcsia~ Kai rcdr0ouq Kai &dh~Liaq xa.spbq Kai pq~pb~ z+jv 06owxo~v rot ahpaTo< &q&at, z&zov 6k k~ plw,vov x&~pGiv O~oii 6iXa nci0ouq ouvioTao0at.
8s PCpin (1977), reprint of the article originally published in 1953. Also added are texts from the Cohortutio ad Gentiles to be studied in our next chapter, and in an addendum a vital text at Clement Str. 5.93-94 (on which see above chapter 8 n. 44).
X6 See below 0 15.2.
x7 PCpin (1977) 268.
XX Calleja (1988) 102 (I cite the summary of Radice at SPhA 3 (1991) 354).
89 See further below $12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 13.3.
174 CHAPTER NINE
5. Philosophical and theological themes
In one of the more successful attempts to do justice to both the biblical- ecclesiastical-spiritual and philosophical-hellenic-rational aspects of Ori- gen’s thought, Chadwick has typified him as the ‘illiberal humanist’.90 Unlike Clement, Origen was not converted to Christianity away from philo- sophy. His knowledge of Greek philosophy is profound?
. . . in handling the opinions of the different philosophical schools he moves with the easy familiarity of a master... But towards even the philosophers [compared with Greek literature] his attitude is distant, and he can use expressions of cold disparagement which strike the reader as odd in view of the entirely Greek cast of his mind.
Why then call Origen (a little anachronistically) a humanist? The answer is given at the book’s end?2
If the meaning of orthodoxy is to wish to believe as the Church believes, then there can be virtually no hestitation in pronouncing Origen orthodox. He has a passionate sense of the Church as a divinely ordained society and of the normative character of its belief and practice for all believers. The model of Christ himself is always before his eyes. So sensitive is he to the charge of adulterating Christianity with Platonism that his attitude to Plato and the great phlosophers becomes prickly and even aggressively rude. He wanted to be a Christian, not a Platonist. Yet Platonism was inside him, mufgrtf hi, absorbed into the very axioms and presuppositions of his thinking. Moreover, this penetration of his thought by Platonism is no merely external veneer of apologetic. Platonic ways of thinking about God and the soul are necessary to him if he is to give an intelligent account of his Christian beliefs.
For some of these ‘ways of thinking’ Origen was later condemned. But, as Chadwick further remarks, ‘in judging the system of Origen as a whole it is important to remember that some of the most characteristic features of
‘Origenism’ are not his personal invention, but go back behind him to Clement and Philo’ .93
What, then, is Origen’s debt to Philo in the area of philosophy and theo- logy? Unlike Clement, Origen did not need to learn from Philo how to con- nect up his Platonism with biblical interpretation. This he learnt through the already existent exegetical tradition, where he also found Philo. It was precisely the Platonizing orientation of Philo’s exegesis that he must have 9o Chadwick (1966a) 66, but what he means by the depiction is explained in the final chapter 95-123.
91 Ibid. 103. Cf. also the conclusion of Crouzel (1961) 65-67, who emphasizes the instru- mental aspect of philosophy for Origen, i.e. utilizable for piety (&&@Kx).
92 Chadwick (1966a) 122.
93 Ibid. 120, with explicatory footnote at 169. Chadwick implies that at a deeper level the influence of Philo on Origen is stronger than in the case of Clement.
ORIGEN 175
found attractive, and through it his understanding of scripture was at least partly formed.94 Not all scholars have been as open to recognizing this formative element as Chadwick. An interesting example is the monograph of Crouzel on the theology of image of God. In his introduction he affirms:95
The theme of the image of God of which we speak here is found throughout almost all the ancient Christian writers and in them it often occupies a place of considerable importance... The place of the theme in the doctrine of Origen is just as central as in his predecessors and successors, and it touches on all the aspects of his personality, exegesis, spirituality and theology. It represents in effect the exegesis of several scriptural texts, especially Co1 1:15 on Christ the Image, and Gen 1:2627 on the creation of man according to the image. The account of the participation of man in the image of God, a participation which develops until reaching resemblance in the intimate union with Christ, is bound up with the Alexandriau’s entire doctrine of spirituality. Finally the Platonist and Stoic philosophies have played a role in the elaboration of the theme which should not be neglected.
Conspicuous by his absence in this paragraph is Philo. Just like in the letter of Gregory that we cited at the outset of this chapter, the philosophers are mentioned and scripture is given its rightful place at the centre, but there is no room for Philo. This, I would argue, is a serious omission.96 The biblical texts are central, to be sure, but the Platonism that Origen reads into them is mediated via Philo. From him is derived the singularly important notion that man is not created as the direct image of God, but KCXZ’ tzi~6va, accor- ding to God’s image, who is the Logos. And how is this being ‘according to the image’ to be interpreted? Once again Origen looks to Philo. Man’s
‘image-relation’ to the Logos and ultimately to God exists primarily in res- pect of his spiritual or intellectual nature. A closer examination of texts might well reveal that Origen actually sharpens up Philo’s emphases on this point in the direction of a thorough-going anti-corporealism.97
Various studies on theological themes in Origen and early Patristic thought emphasize connections between Origen and his predecessor. We note two diachronic studies that have been made on the subject of particu- 94 Although this should not be taken to mean that Origen himself was a Platonist in a direct sense. The recentiemarks of Scott (1991) xiii are to be applauded: ‘Discussions of Origen in terms of middle-Platonism have marked a real advance in Origen studies.. . And yet this is not a category into which Origen neatly fits. . . Origen, after all, regarded himself as an interpreter of scripture and not as a platonist, and so he did not have any special obligation to stay within a particular philosophical school of thought. Like many Christian theologians he seems to incline naturally to Platonism, but he was widely read in the other main philosophical traditions as well.’ This is, in my view, precisely the way the relation between Philo and Platonism should be judged as well.
% Crouzel (1956) 11 (my translation).
‘X The brief discussion of the Philonic background at 52-57 is insufficient compensation.
‘I7 Little systematic research has been done on these Philonic presuppositions in the area of anthropology. The study of Bianchi (1980) is but a sketch (see esp. 42-45).
176 CHAPTER NINE ORIGEN
lar attributes of God. In Maas’ monograph on divine immutability Philo is given a central place because he is the first to undertake a ‘Vermittlung’ of the two traditions of ancient philosophy and Jewish-Christian theology.98 Like Philo, Origen regards immutability as the distinguishing mark between God and creation, deriving this principle from the text Num. 23:19 ‘not as a man is God’.99 All biblical talk of God’s sorrow, joy, etc. must be taken as being meant in a figurative and human manner of speaking.lm Like Philo, Origen relates the doctrine to God’s ‘name’ of ‘true being’ in Ex. 3314; and adduces the motif of God as the standing or steadfast one (b &~&Q.ror There are, however, a few rare texts in which Origen speaks of God’s
‘sympathy’ with mankind in sending his suffering Son. In the most striking of these Origen cites Deut. 1:31.102
The same passages are also discussed by Frohnhofen in a recent study of the theme of divine impassibility. 10s He agrees that Origen, like Clement, follows in Philo’s footsteps in his handling of the theme. Like Philo, Origen argues that talk about God’s ‘passions’ (x&&Q has a primarily paideutic or educational purpose. 104 On the passages that deal with God’s ‘sympathy’, however, he argues that both hermeneutic and chronological explanations are not convincing. The question of God’s (and thus also the Son’s) impas- sibility-passibility gives rise to a theological paradoxon, which in the author’s view Origen was unable to resolve. It would appear that it was especially the concept of the incarnation, i.e. God descending down to man, that induced Origen to take the notion of divine ‘sympathy’ or even divine
‘suffering’ more seriously than Philo did. Both scholars might have paid more attention to the exegetical background of Origen’s two main proof- texts, Num. 23: 19 and Deut. 1:31. These are precisely the texts adduced when he propounds his principles of biblical interpretation, making a clear, if anonymous, reference to Philo.
Philo and Origen stand in the same Alexandrian tradition of using Greek philosophical conceptuality-primarily Platonic, but also Stoic, Aristotelian, Pythagorean-to reach a deeper understanding of biblically based doctrine.
The examples that can be given of continuity between them are legion. We
98 Maas (1974) 87.
99 On Philo’s and Origen’s shared anti-anthropomorphism, see also the monograph of Kuitert on this theme, (1967), esp. 61ff.
loo Maas (1974) 130.
‘O’ Ibid. 131.
lo2 Horn. in Ezech. 6.6, cited in ibid. 137.
lo3 Frohnhofen (1987).
lo4 Ibid. 198; cf. 114f.
lo5 Comm. MUX 17.17 (cited above in $9.2 as text (k)). Note that Dem. 1:31 is substituted for the very similar Dem. 8:5 in Philo. The juxtaposition of the two texts is one of Philo’s most central themes, found in no less than 8 passages (listed at Petit (1978) 54). Frohn- hofen’s puzzlement that Origen should wish to derive so much from Deut. 1:31 is due to his failure to take this exegetical and hermeneutical background sufficiently into consideration.
conclude with two examples in which philosophical themes play a promi- nent role.
In De principiis 2.5 Origen argues against the Gnostic and Marcionitic conception that the God of the Old Testament is a God of justice only, and not of love. His chief argument is that the virtues form a unity, with goodness as generic virtue and the other virtues related to it as species.
These species have a reciprocal relationship to each other (&vza~ohou&a), so that possession of one entails possessicn of them all. This argument is examined in detail in a fine study by Horn.1” He shows that the argument of the &vzutco&ou&~ of the virtues was used in Platonism to argue for the essential unity of’ the divine. For Origen this argument is unsatisfactory because it still allows a form of polytheism. Combined with the doctrine of
‘becoming like unto God’ (bpoioat~ 6&Q), it shows not only that God is a unity, but that man can aspire to unity with Him at the level of His Logos who is Christ. Origen’s Alexandrian subordinationism is later eliminated by Augustine, who applied the &vza~ohou&a of the virtues to the doctrine of the Trinity. Horn argues that three aspects of Origen’s argument have a direct Philonic origin: 107 (a) the genus-species relation of the virtues;iOs (b) the application of the Platonic concept of genus generulissimum to God; (c) the doctrine of bpoioot~ as related to man’s creation ‘according to the image’, which links up the two previous doctrines. These themes are ap- plied to a theological question that is quite foreign to Philo’s intellectual context.las
Our second study turns to a purely cosmological subject, Origen’s con- ception of the life of the stars and their place in a Christian view of the world. To this subject Scott has devoted an excellently argued and docu- mented monograph. 110 Philo is an important link in the chain that leads from philosophical conceptions in Plato, Aristotle and the Stoa to Origen’s own Christian and biblically founded stance. The honour given to the heavenly beings in the philosophical tradition is accepted by Philo, but he repeatedly warns that heaven should not be worshipped. Ontologically the stars are distinctly inferior to God as creator: 111
lo6 Horn (1970).
lo7 Ibid. 22-24.
lo8 On this doctrine see now further Jastram (1991), based on an unpublished 1989 University of Wisconsin Ph.D. thesis. The philosophical background of the doctrine of generic virtue and the relation to the doctrine of &vraKohou&a requires further investi- gation. Dillon’s brief article comparing Plotinus, Philo and Origen, (1983) has not said the last word on the subject.
lo9 Although one might argue that Philo’s doctrine of the two chief powers of God obviates in advance any disjunction between a God of love (grace) and a God of sovereignty (justice);
cf. esp. Cher. 29.
“O Scott (1991).
’ ’ I Ibid. 75.