Origen (185-253) represents the following generation of the Alexandrian school. Eusebius describes him as Clement’s pupil.2 This may be a specu- lative deduction from a passage in a letter of Alexander, bishop of Jeru- salem, for no there is no direct evidence to support it (and Origen was only 17 when Clement left Alexandria for good in 202).3 It is abundantly clear, however, that Origen is the spiritual heir of Pantaenus and Clement. Indeed his theology and exegetical activity could have had no other place of origin.
Unlike Clement, Origen was born into a Christian home. But he too spent a considerable time obtaining a training in Greek literature and philosophy (he probably had the same teacher as Plotinus), and even ran his own school as a grummatikos for a time. Origen became more and more attrac- ted, however, to the study and exposition of scripture, and at a decisive moment he decided to sell his books of secular literature. Origen is the last of the -great teachers of Alexandria to operate in relative independence of the Church hierarchy. Like his distinguished predecessors he belongs to the segment of the Alexandrian Church with strong intellectual interests. In time he becomes their leader and spokesman. Just at the same time, how- ever, his bishop, Demetrius, was busy converting the relatively open organization of the church of Alexandria into a tightly structured hierarchy.
Origen’s independence and intellectualism were a thorn in the bishop’s flesh. Demetrius criticized various views that Origen developed on doctri- nal questions, and refused to make him a priest. In the end the tensions in the relationship between bishop and scholar became too much.
1 A shortened version of this chapter was presented at the 5th International Origen con- ference held at Boston in August 1990 and published in its proceedings, Runia (1992f).
2 HE6.6.1.
3 As suggested by Nautin (1977), with reference to 6.11.6. In what follows I largely follow the magisterial reconstruction of Origen’s life and chronology offered in this study. Based on a minute examination of the evidence in Origen’s writings and other sources, it contains speculative elements, but the overall portrait is persuasive. Among more recent synoptic studies it is followed by Trigg (1983), cf. 264, but criticized by Crouzel (1985), cf. esp. the long note on p. 18.
IS8 CHAPTER NINE
In 233 Origen makes the decisive move to the city of Caesarea, the important civil and ecclesiastical administrative centre on the coast of Pale- stine.4 Just like sometimes happens to distinguished academics in our own time, Origen was made an offer by the bishop of Caesearea, Theoctistus, that he could not refuse. Not only would he be ordained as priest, but he would also receive the facilities that he needed to continue his biblical studies. This consisted ofi,a pool of stenographers, a scriptorium where books could be copied out, and the possibility of attracting a coterie of dis- ciples in a new ‘school’ of sacred learning. As we have already seen in our account of the survival of Pbilo’s writings,5 this move of Origen is of deci- sive importance for our theme. Origen must have taken a virtually complete set of Philo’s writings with him as part of his library. These copies were absorbed into the library of the Episcopal school at Caesarea, and form the basis for the text of Philo’s works that we today still possess.
The question that we have to address in this chapter is why Origen took the trouble to take all those rolls or codices with him. What was Pbiio doing in his library? Does he continue Clement’s extensive usage of the Philonic corpus? These questions becomes all the more intriguing if we take into account the evidence of Gregory Thaumaturgus, whose letter of thanks informs us about the curriculum of the school at Caesarea.6 After initial training in dialectic, physics, geometry, astronomy and ethics, the pupil moves on to theology, for which first the texts of ancient philosophers and poets are read, followed by the scriptures. In a beautiful passage Gregory describes how Origen was given the remarkable spiritual gift of penetrating into the meaning of God’s prophets (§173-183).7 But where was the place for Philo in this programme, if Origen moved straight from the philosophers to scripture?
2. Foundations
In order to answer this question foundations have to be laid. Regrettably it must be said that, in marked contrast to the research done on Philo and
4 On this city at the time of Origen see the excellent survey of McGuckin (1992), and also further below $11.1.
5 See above 5 1.4.
6 There has been some dispute as to whether this work is really by Gregory or not; Nautin (1977) 8 l-86, 183-196 ascribes it to a certain Theodore; Crouzel (1979) and (1985) 18 re- tains the traditional ascription.
’ Interestingly this very section contains reminiscences of Philonic themes: (1) $176 the concept of the ‘friend of God’ to whom oracles are given or made clear (for Philo the great example being Moses, cf. Opif. 5, 8, Cher. 49, but also Abraham at Abr. 273); (2) $183 the negative interpretation of ‘working the soil’ (Gen 4:2; cf. QG 2.66, Sacr. 51, Agr. 21;
unfortunately the section of the Allegorical Commentary dealing with this text is lost).
II
ORIGEN 1%)Clement, this task has been far from adequately carried out. A number of reasons conspire to make this the case. Origen was a far more prolific author than Clement. Not for nothing his nickname was Adamantios, ‘man of steel’. Because in later centuries the Origenist legacy became doctrinally suspect, by no means all his works have survived, and the writings that we do still possess have a complex history of transmission. A few works have been preserved in the original Greek. A greater number remain in (not always faithful) Latin translations by Rufinus and Jerome. Of the rest fragments are scattered throughout the Catenae and various other later sources.8 The standard text in the series Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, consisting of 12 volumes,9 contains a considerable number of references to texts where Origen alludes to or makes use of Philo. But the majority of these volumes only have a scriptural index, and there is no comprehensive index such as was produced for Clement. For the fragments we still in many cases have to consult the edition of Delarue dating from the 18th century.10 The volumes in the series Sources Chrgtiennes contain no more than sporadic annotation, and are also-for the most part-imperfectly indexed.11 The best list of passages in Origen which are in some way indebted to Philo is to be found in Cohn and Wendland’s edition of Philo, but it is obviously far from complete.12 There is, in short, no list of loci Phibnici in Origen such as could form the basis of a study comparable to that of Van den Hoek on Clement.
The lack of a solid foundation for the study of Philo’s influence on Origen has been a chief reason, in my view, for the fragmentary and disjointed way in which the subject has been treated in the scholarly literature. Numerous studies touch on the topic of Philo and Origen briefly, but none deal with it in a primary way. 13 This makes the task of providing a lucid and informative survey of the subject difficult indeed, especially given the vast amount of scholarship that has been produced on Origen’s life and thought. In this situation the best place to begin is with the direct evidence of usage in the writings themselves.
As Chadwick has pointed out, ‘Origen’s work resembles Philo more
’ Cf. CPG 1.141-182 and highly useful overviews in Biblia Patristica 3.9-31, Berkowitz- Squitier (1986) 236-239.
‘) Published between 1899 and 1955, mostly unrevised.
“’ Delarue (1733), reprinted by Lommatzsch (1831) and Migne (= PG 11-17).
’ ’ A shining exception is SC 227, a comprehensive index to the translation of Conrru C&urn by Borret (1967-76). For the same work Chadwick (1953) had already set a good example.
But the index in SC 312 to the translation and commentary by Simonetti-Crouzel (1978-84) of the De principiis is disappointing.
I2 See now the index of passages at Runia (1992a) 94-95. The pioneering treatment of Siegfried (1875) 35 l-362 is insufficiently critical.
I3 A list of studies in the index of R-R 448. Coverage in the comprehensive bibliographies ot Crouzel is patchy; cf. (1971) 667, (1982) 324.
I 60 (.‘HAl”I‘ER N I N E
closely than Clement’s, mainly because, except for the two great works De principiis and Contra Celsum, its form is almost entirely a series of massive commentaries and expository sermons on the Bible.‘14 In the surviving works Origen seldom mentions Philo’s name. At C. Gels. 4.51 he cites Celsus’ attack on ‘allegories on the Law’ and argues that his opponent must be referring to the works of Philo and perhaps the earlier Aristobulus.
He continues:15
But I hazard the guess that Celsus has not read the books, for I think that in many places they are so successful that even Greek philosophers would have been won over by what they say. Not only do they have an attractive style, but they also discuss ideas and doctrines, making use of the myths (as Celsus regards them) in the scriptures.
A little further on at 6.21 Origen hints at a particular example of allegory:‘6 But Moses, our most ancient prophet, says that in a divine dream our forefather Jacob had a vision in which he saw a ladder reaching to heaven and angels of God ascending and descending upon it, and the Lord standing still at its top;
perhaps in this story of the ladder Moses was hinting at these truths [the Platonic doctrine of the journey of souls through the planets] or at yet more profound doctrines. Philo also composed a book about this ladder, which is worthy of intelligent study by those who wish to find the truth.
The book that is meant here is Somn., but it is clear from the context that Origen is thinking particularly of the passage at Somn. 1.133-145, in which Philo gives an explanation of the dream that makes use of Platonist doc- trines.17 The only other direct reference to Philo by name’* is found in the Commentary on Matthew 15.3 (exegesis Matt. 19:12), where we read:19
And Philo, who enjoys a high reputation among intelligent people for many subjects discussed in his treatises on the Law of Moses, says in the book entitled On that the worse is accustomed to attack the better that ‘it is better to be made into a eunuch than to rage after sexual intercourse’ (= Det. 176).
This is a intriguing passage, for its author, when writing it, must surely have been reminded of the drastic deed which he himself carried out many
I4 Chadwick (1967) 183.
l5 Translation Chadwick (1953) 226 (his emphasis). The Greek text reads: ozo~&~opczt 6k
& Kkhaov pfi &v&yvw~&at zh p$h;a, &x&i nohha~oc oiirq krr~~&~&%@ai ~01 cpaive~a~,
&TE aipE&$‘al &V Kai 706s b’ “EUqat qd,CKFO~O~VTa~ &l& T&J ~O&‘vWV * h’ 01s Oil p6VOV cpprhq k&oKq12at &hhh Kai voipa7a Kai 66ypaTa Kai fi ~pijay &J, iug oi’E7at, &7tb 6~
ypacpb p%hv b Kkhooq
I6 Translation Chadwick (1953) 333f. The final sentence in Greek is: ~&pi fis Kai T@ 0ihov1 ouv&rah-zal P$hiov, &&ov cppovipou Kai ouvezfiq lraph zois +.ahi$3Ea~v ~~ET&CJE~.
I7 On this passage see Runia (1986) 229.
I8 But for an indirect direct reference see the passage in Jerome discussed below at n. 137.
I9 My translation; the first part of the text reads: Kai @ihov 66, kv nohhoi< T&V ~iq zbv
Mwuo& v6pov ouv~&&ov a_jro?_i E~)~OKI@ Kai nap& ouvEToi< &v6p&n, cpqoiv 15 P$hiq
& oihq idypayrev . nEpi TOG 76 XEipoV T@ KpEiTTOVl (PlhEiV fh43EcBat 8%.
O R I G E N 161
years earlier, and which he now implicitly repudiates in his exegesis of this
biblical text.20 The remark is certainly complimentary, though it is difficult to
judge whether the words ‘for many subjects’ indicate a qualification.
It is no coincidence that two of these three direct references are in the apologetic work Contra Celsum, which moves beyond the exposition of scripture and places the Christian religion in the wider context of the Greco- Roman world. Unlike Clement, Origen is not in the habit of ‘dropping names’ .21 Indeed he never mentions Clement himself by name, even though it is patent that he learned much from his predecessor.22 But Origen’s refe-
rences to Phllo are not confined to these three texts. I have located some. 12 or 13 texts in which Philo is clearly referred to, but in anonymous terms.23 It will be of interest to record how Origen actually makes his debt clear to the reader (indicated in bold type)?
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
C. Gels. 5.55: Nevertheless even on this subject (Gen. 6:2) we shall per- suade those who are able to understand the prophet’s meaning that also one of our predecessors has referred this text to the doctrine concerning souls who were desirous for life in a human body which he said, giving a figurative explanation, is called the ‘daughters of men’ (cf. Gig. 6-18).
C. Gels. 7.20: We declare therefore that the law is two-fold, namely literal and figurative (~cpb~ &&votav), as also some of our predecessors have taught.
Sel. in Gen. 27: ‘And God completed his works which he had done on the sixth day (Gen. 2:2).’ Some [interpreters], considering it absurd that God, in the manner of a builder who requires several days to finish his building, should have completed the cosmos in several days, say that all things occurred at the one moment, and hence they postulate this: they think that it is for the sake of order (cf. Opif. 13, 67) that the account of the days and what is created in them has been made.
Sel. in Gen. 44: One of our predecessors has observed that it is the wick- ed man who loves the affairs of birth and becoming and regards his birthday as important (cf. Gen. 40:20, Ebr. 208; perhaps a paraphrase of (i) below) Horn. in Ex. 2.2: Some (exegetes) before us have said that those mid - wives (Ex. 1:17) symbolize rational teaching (cf. Her. 128). 25
‘” He never refers explicitly to this act of his youth, but there is no reason to doubt the testimony of Eusebius HE 6.8 (cf. Trigg (1983) 53, Crouzel (1985) 27). The Commentary is dated by Nautin (1977) 412 to the final years of Origen’s life.
” This fact vitiates the conclusion drawn by Koch (1932) 221 (cited by Skard (1936) 25 n. 2) that Origen did not use Philo extensively because he refers to him so little.
I2 The only hard evidence that Origen knew Clement and his writings lies in the fact that he too wrote a work entitled Stromateis. But see further below $9.7 at n. 145.
l3 It should be borne in mind that anonymous references are very common in ancient lite- rature. They can be explained on various grounds: a different view of the importance of orig- inality, stylistic criteria (names are ugly), the difficulty of looking up and giving references etc. Note also that often a plural reference (e.g. some.. . others) can indicate a single source.
74 My translations; for the texts see Runia (1992f) 334-336. C-W in their testimonia in vol.
I only print one anonymous reference. Full references are given in the Appendix.
” At Sel. in Ex. PG 12 285 Origen gives an exegesis of Ex. 12:7 which he introduces with the
162 E g .
h.
i
j.
k.
l.
m.
CHAPTER NINE
Horn. in Lev. 8.6: On this matter (Lev. 13: 12-14) some (exegetes) before me have also said that the living colour [of the leper’s flesh] indicates the principle of the life that is in man (cf. Zeus 125-126).
Horn. in km. 9.5: Some, however, of those who have interpreted this passage (Num. 17:13) before us, I recall that they have said that the dead are understood to be dead in their sins through the excess of their wickedness, while the alive are those who remain in the works of life (cf.
Her. 201, Somn. 2.234-235).
Horn. in Jos. 16: Some of our predecessors too have observed in their investigation of the scriptures that people are called ‘elder’ (i.e. apt+
P&repot) or ‘of senior age’ not because of a long life, but are adorned with this epithet on account of the maturity of their faculties and the worthiness of their life (cf. Sobr. 16-20, QG 2.74 etc.).
Horn. in Jer. 14.5: One of my predecessors has tackled this passage (Jer.
15: lo), saying that these words are spoken not to the bodily mother, but to the mother who gave birth to the prophets. Who gave birth to the prophets?
The Wisdom of God (cf. Conf. 49).
Comm. in Matt. 10.22: And while their lawless reason rules over them, they revel in their birthdays, so that the movements of their genesis is pleasing to that (kind of) reason. Indeed one of our predecessors has observed that the birthday of Pharaoh is recorded in Genesis and recounts that it is the wicked man (q&q) who, being in love with the affairs of birth and becoming, celebrates his birthday. But we, taking our cue (drcpoppfi) from that interpreter, discover that nowhere in the scriptures is a birthday celebrated by a righteous person (cf. Ebr. 208 and d. above).
Comm. in Matt. 17.17 (exeg. Matt. 22:2 &v&&q): One of our prede- cessors, who composed books on the allegorization of the sacred laws, presents some texts in which God is described [reading 6~qyo~$vvcc~] as having human feelings and other texts in which his divinity is revealed. For the view that God is spoken of as a man who exercises care over mankind he used as a (proof-)text ‘the Lord your God nourished you like a man nourishes his son (Deut. 1:31)‘, while for the view that God is not as a man he used the text ‘not like a man is God deceived (Num. 23:19)’ (cf. Zeus 53-54 and below n. 105).
Comm. in Matt. frag. ad 25:30: He says ‘outer darkness’, where there is no illumination, perhaps not even of a bodily kind, but certainly no visitation of divine light.. . [He says this] perhaps also for another reason.. ., since we read one of our predecessors who gave an exposition on the darkness of the abyss (Gen. 1:2) and said that the abyss and the darkness were outside the cosmos (cf. the void at Opif. 29).*6
Comm. in Joh. 6.25 (exeg. John 1:28): This descent some have understood as hinting at the descent of the souls into the bodies, interpreting the daughters of men (Gen. 6:2) in allegorical terms as indicating the earthly tent (i.e. body) (cf. Gig. 6-18 and a. above; note that the etymology of Jordan as KCXT&~CUS~~ is also Philonic, cf. Leg. 2.89).
phrase zy Gv xpb fipijv. It is natural to think of Philo here, but the exegesis differs from what we find in QE 1.8, so we cannot be certain. See further $12.3d(i).
26 The reminiscence is not very exact, and may be to another exegetical tradition.
,. ,, ,, ,,, .,” ,,, ,,,
ORIGEN 163
From these passages it emerges that Origen regards Philo above all as an exegete of scripture. He is described as an interpreter (j), teacher (b) and expositor (1). He is praised for his sharp perception (cf. h, j). He supplies the exegete with ideas that can be further pursued (j). His views are held in respect by intelligent men (passage from Comm. in Matt. cited above), among whom Origen himself is clearly to be included. He is well-known for having practised allegorical exegesis (k, cf. the texts from C. Gels. cited above). In fact, al1 the texts we have assembled deal directly with scrip- tural exegesis in one way or another, with the majority involving allegorical interpretation. Most striking of all is Origen’s emphasis on the fact, men- tioned in ali but three of the passages that the cited exegete is a prede- cessor. This suggests that he saw his own activity very much as part of an exegetical tradition, which clearly goes back at least as far as Philo.*
It is therefore with the subject of the interpretation of scripture that we should begin our discussion. But before we do so we are now in a position to add a further question to the one posed at the end of the previous section. why does Origen, when he does refer to Philo, so frequently speak of him in anonymous terms?
3. Biblical interpretation
As we have already seen, the interpretation of scripture lies at the very centre of Origen’s writings and thought. Like Philo Origen believes that the figurative form of biblical exegesis is superior to the literal, and is to be gained through application of the allegorical method in the broadest sense of the term. Moreover many specific examples of textual interpretation are common to both authors. After the Second World War intensive research was carried out on Origen’s biblical interpretation, with some attention necessarily being paid to the influence of Philo. It will worth our while briefly to look at the contribution of six scholars.28
27 Caroline Hammond Bammel points out to me an interesting text on the subject of circumcision in her edition of Rufinus’ translation of Origen’s Commentary on Remans, 2.9.358-362 (see Hammond Bammel (1990) 163): hactenus nobis de circumcisione carnali pro uiribus dictum sit. Age iam secundum eum qui dixit quia lex spiritalis est, et qui de his quae referuntur in lege dicit quod per allegoriam dicta sint, quid etiam allegoricis legibus de ea sentiendum sit uideamus. Scio multorum de hoc ferri dicta uel scripta... Quite rightly a reference is given to Philo Spec. 1.1-l 1 in the apparatus fintium, for Origen may well be thinking of this text. The allegorical explanation given is similar. But the reason for the injunction to carry out the act on the eighth day naturally differs from Philo’s suggestions at QG 3.49.
2R It is better to present these in a logical rather than chronological order, since some of the authors published more than one essay on the subject, in which they cross-refer to each other’s work.