In our earlier discussion on Origen’s interpretation of scripture we noted a dispute on the extent to which his ‘spirituality’ was indebted to Philo (and the Judaeo-hellenistic tradition). In spite of the denials of De Lubac and Crouzel, it appeared that there was a connection between the two thinkers in this area as well. There remain further aspects of Origen’s spirituality and its historical antecedents which have so far not yet been discussed.
This area of research has above all been the province of the French-Ameri- can scholar Jean Laporte. After completing a doctorate under DaniClou on the theme of thanksgiving (~b~apto~ia) in Philo, he has turned his attention to the continuation of diverse Philonic ‘spiritual’ themes in the thought of Origen, among which the following are notable (as will be apparent, there is quite a lot of overlap):
(a) thanksgiving. In Origen’s views on the Eucharist the breadth of the Philonic notion reappears, based in all cases on a biblical background.’ I4 The chief themes are: (i) the first-fruits and sacrifices as images of thanks- giving; (ii) the word of God as bread of life; (iii) the Pascha; (iv) the high priest as mediator of prayer and (v) as mediator of propitiation. In each case Origen takes over the Philonic model and combines it with the data of
“2 Scott (1991) 110.
I I3 Laporte (1972), English translation (1983).
‘I4 Laporte (1986a); cf. also Lies (1978).
ORIGEN 179
Christian tradition. The reference of the Eucharist to the incarnated body of Christ, as recorded especially in the Gospel of John, Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews, sets in motion a deep transformation of the Philonic model.
(b) sacrifice. A specific study is also devoted to the theme of sacrifice as part of the broader theme of thanksgiving.115 Here Origen’s model goes back to Philo’s allegorical interpretation of the four sacrificial injunctions recorded in Leviticus: first fruits, holocausts, salvational sacrifices, and sacrifices for sin. Philo’s teachings are repeated without much alteration, but then completed in a Christian development already prepared by Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews.116
(c) sin. In an early study Laporte emphasized a difference between Philo and Origen on the theme of man’s ‘fall’ in that Philo is relatively uninter- ested in any kind of anterior spiritual life.117 Later a specific study was devoted to the theme of original sin in Origen.1’8 Here Laporte does see important correspondences with Philo, especially when contrasted with the classical Augustinian doctrine. For both Philo and Origen Adam is above all a type, who represents the universality of sin (cf. Paul’s sentence that ‘in Adam we all sinned’*lg). But sin is not inherited from Adam.120
(d) forgiveness of sin. Here too, in Laporte’s view, Origen develops his theology of forgiveness with assistance from Philonic models. Scholars have not recognized this debt because they have not been able to fathom Philo’s ‘specific theological reasoning based on scriptural evidence and the identification of practical methods of forgiveness’.121 As an example one might mention the sacrifice for sin, which represents for Origen, as it did for Philo, a kind of guide for the sinner seeking forgiveness. Both develop inte- riorized versions of this sacrifice. 122
Quite a different ‘spiritual’ theme is the motif of ‘sober drunkenness’
(v~~cp&hto~ ~188~) which Philo introduces in a number of texts, and to which Lewy devoted a famous monograph. 123 Lewy argues that the Philonic oxy-
‘I5 Laporte (1988a); cf. also the study of Daly (1978), which investigates the theme as a background to Origen’s doctrine of sacrifice and concludes (391): ‘In richness and depth this [Philo’s] theology of sacrifice was surpassed in early antiquity only by Origen. And in terms of influence on the early Christian idea of sacrifice, especially Origen, Philo yields pride of place only to the Scriptures themselves.’
’ I6 Laporte (1988a) 274-275.
’ I7 Laporte (1970), esp. 325-326.
’ ‘* Laporte (1988b).
‘I9 Sic Laporte (1988b) 202, but these words are not literally found in Romans; cf. 3:23, 5: 14.
’ 2o Ibid. 202-203.
12’ Laporte (1986b), quote at 521.
’ 22 Ibid. 522-523.
‘23 Lewy (1929); cf. the listing of some ten texts at Chadwick (1967) 150 n. 4, who suggests that Lewy may be mistaken in denying a pre-Philonic origin. But this need not obviate Patristic dependence on Philonic usage.
180 (‘HAP’I‘ER NINE _
moron owes its wide dissemination to the fact that it was taken up in the Alexandrian tradition, most notably by Origen.124 Two aspects are of particular importance: 125 (a) the association with the Logos,126 allowing Christian developments referring to Christ as the true vine and to the wine of the Lord’s supper; 127 (b) the association of the phrase with the concept of ‘joy’, entailing that the state of drunken sobriety does not describe a moment of mystic ecstasy, but rather the durable joyous state of the pious soul. A difficulty that Lewy faces in his reconstruction is that the concept is found in Origen, but not the actual Philonic oxymoron itself (though he does speak of ‘divine drunkenness’). ‘28 This may be due to the poor trans- mission of Origen’s exegetical works. It remains probable that Origen was an important vehicle for the spread of the motif in later Patristic authors.129
7. Origen, Philo and Judaism
By way of conclusion we return to the two puzzles which were encountered at the outset of this chapter. Why does there appear to be no place for Philo in Origen’s curriculum, and why does he so often refer to Philo in anony- mous terms? A possible answer to the second question was given long ago by Conybeare, who argued that it was prudent for Origen as a Christian to conceal that his source was the Jew Philo.tsO It is certainly true that Origen does not explicitly refer to Philo’s Jewishness in the list of references which we gave above, although in one or two of them it is certainly implied (e.g. C.
&Es. 4.5 1, Comm. in Mutt. 17.17). In order to judge whether Conybeare was right, we need to look more closely at Origen’s relations to Judaism.
It is well known that Origen was the first Christian exegete to take into account that Hebrew was the original language of the Old Testament (even if his knowledge of the language probably stayed fairly rudimentary). One of his teachers was a converted Jew, and he quite often refers to Jewish informants on particular points of exegesis. When he moved to Caesarea in Palestine the opportunities for contact with Jews can only have increased.
As we noted in our opening chapter, it is likely that he was on quite friendly terms with Rabbi Hoshai’a, who himself was in charge of a Jewish Academy (or Torah school).‘31
124 Lewy (1929) 111.
125 Ibid. 112-l 18.
126 E.g. at Leg. 3.82, and cf. Somn. 2.249.
127 Cf. the banquet of the Therapeutae at Contempl. 85, 89.
12* Lewy (1929) 118-128.
‘29 On the later development of this theme see below 9 12.3(d), 0 145(b).
I30 Conybeare (1895) 329. He is wrong, however, to identify Philo with the term b ‘EppaI- OS, which Philo sometimes uses for a Jewish source (on the term see De Lange (1976) 23-25).
13’ Seeabove§1.3,1.4at n. 113.
ORIGEN 181
The subject of Origen’s relations to contemporary Judaism is fascinating and important, but also complex and difficult. Beyond location and identifi- cation of references to Judaism in his extended corpus, it also involves comparisons of his biblical interpretation with the broad stream of contemporary Jewish exegesis. A pioneering study was made of this body of evidence by De Lange. 132 He lists the passages in which Origen refers to contemporary Jews and Judaism, and also gives a valuable discussion of his relation to Jewish biblical interpretation. ~3 It is part of his argument that
‘Philo’s influence on Origen has been much exaggerated’. Many of the aspects of Jewish exegesis that Origen might be thought to have derived from Philo, such as the use of various techniques of interpretation and the use of etymologies, are better explained through acquaintance with con- temporary Rabbinic exegesis. But it cannot be said that De Lange has been able to prove his thesis. *s4 Too many of his examples of correspondence between Origenian and Rabbinic exegesis amount to no more than paral- lels. An example is the similarity that he sees between Origen and Rabbi Akiba in the assumption that scripture is devoid of redundancy, and that a seemingly superfluous word is charged with meaning.135 There are equally striking examples of this hermeneutical principle in Philo.
A question that requires separate examination is the use of etymologies of biblical names. Origen takes over the Philonic and Alexandrian practice of reading significance into these names. Indeed Jerome informs us of a
‘statement by Origen’ that Philo had published a book of Hebrew names which he himself used.137 Origen was no doubt mistaken in his belief in a Philonic origin, 138 but it does indicate that the book must have had an Alexandrian source. No doubt he took it along with him in his move from Alexandria to Caesarea. De Lange argues that Origen’s extensive use of etymologies had three possible sources: (a) the works of Philo; (b) onomu- stica (lists of transliterated Hebrew names and etymological interpreta- tions in Greek); 139 (c) contemporary Jewish traditions.140 Certainly, he argues, a number of Philo’s etymologies are taken over by 0rigen,14* but 132 De Lange (1976), based on an Oxford dissertation under supervision of H. Chadwick.
133 See esp. ibid. 15-37, 103-122.
134 In fairness we should note that his particular interest is in Origen’s relation to contemp- orary Judaism (see 12).
‘35 Ibid. 110-111.
‘36 E.g. his explicit statement of the principle at Fug. 53-54 with regard to Ex. 2 I: 12; see also further passages listed in Siegfried (1875) 168ff.
‘37 Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, praef., CCL 72.1.59.1-60.3; see further below 915.1 at n. 36.
13* Origen cites the work anonymously at Comm. ./oh. 2.33 (GCS 4.90.18), Horn. Num. 20.3 (I owe the references to De Lange (1976) 16 n.15).
‘39 On these and their relation to Philo’s etymologies, see below 0 15.1 and n. 40.
I40 De Lange (1976) I 19.
14’ See the list of exx. given at n. 108 on p. 199.
182 CHAPTER NINE ORIGEN
these amount to only a small proportion of all the etymologies found in his works. Moreover he sometimes accompanies the Philonic interpretation by an alternative view, or ignores Philo’s view and replaces it by another. In De Lange’s view the source of some of these alternatives may well have been the Rabbinic tradition. A difficulty here that he does not consider is the fact that the etymologies require translation from Hebrew to Greek, which would not interest the majority of Rabbis. It seems more likely that Origen is heavily dependent on onomastica, in addition to what he may have picked up in his reading of Philo’s biblical commentaries.
De Lange’s study has been criticized for painting, in the spirit of modern ecumenicity, too irenic a picture of Origen’s relation to Jews and Judaism. In Caesarea the Church was in competition with the Synagogue, and no doubt an equally competitive spirit existed between Origen’s school and the Jewish academies.142 Perhaps this was one of the reasons why Bishop Theoctistus felt the need to ‘sign up’ Origen for his church, to offer an counterweight for the Jewish revival that was taking place in the city.r43 Does this mean that Conybeare was right after all in his conclusion that Origen wished to conceal his debt to Philo?
It seems to me that there is an alternative view that is more attractive.
As we saw in the list of anonymous references give above, Origen very frequently portrays Philo as a ‘predecessor’.144 It is striking that precisely the same way of speaking is used for his references to Clement, whom he in fact never mentions by name at all. 145 Apparently Origen sees no need to distinguish between Philo and Clement as distinguished predecessors in the task of elucidating scripture. For this reason there was no need to give Philo an explicit place in the school programme. The customary procedure was assumed. When the scriptures were opened and the task of interpre- tation began, it was a matter of course that the views of earlier interpreters were taken into account. Philo has an honoured place in the tradition of biblical exposition. There is no need to draw explicit attention to his name, because the exegetical tradition itself is more important than its individual contributors. Origen is of course aware that he was a Jewish interpreter of
14* See Brooks (1988) who emphasizes the vast gulf between Origen and the Rabbinic systems of thought as codified in the Mishnah, and also Blowers (1988), who recognizes a positive element in Origen’s attitude towards Judaism, but concludes that we should distinguish between private scholarly interest (and even sympathy) and public inflexibility (cf. 116).
143 Cf. the suggestion of McGuckin (1992) 15-16, with reference to Knauber’s article, (1967-68) on the ‘missionary’ aims of the school.
t4 See above $9.2.
t4~ See the exx. given by Crouzel (1985) 25: Comm. Mutt. 14.2 riq rGv npb fi@rv; Comm.
Rom. I. I sicut quidam tradunt. Van den Hoek has recently, (1992), examined all the parallels between Clement and Origen; in her list she notes two other references at Comm. Mart.
12.3 I. Comm. Job. 2.25. Cf. also the view of Hanson cited above at n. 5 1.
scripture, which results in certain regrettable limitations. But because of Philo’s love for allegory and feeling for philosophically mature exegesis, he had in Origen’s view a considerable advantage over more recent Jewish interpretation. Philo is in fact well on the way to being adopted as an honorary Church Father. Origen thus becomes, together with Clement, a watershed in the absorption of Philonic ideas in the Christian tradition.
More importantly still, he gave Philo a place in his library, and for this reason we are in a position to read these works today.
II
IN THE ALEXANDRIAN TRADITION 185Chapter Ten
In the Alexandrian tradition
Origen, as we saw in the previous chapter, took his copies of Philo with him when he left Alexandria for good in 233. Although this move ensured a wider diffusion of Philo’s works, it did not mean that he was forgotten in his own city. His continuing presence in Alexandria and its cultural hinterland is the subject of this chapter.
1. Es. Justin Cohortatio ad Graecos
In the corpus of writings attributed to Justin Martyr are found three trea- tises which stand in the tradition of the Apologists, but cannot be attributed to Justin himself. They are generally known under the Latin titles Orutio ad Graecos, Cohortatio ad Graecos and De monarchia. Marcovich has recently produced a new edition of these three works, superseding the century-old edition of Otto.1 In the view of their latest editor all three gre to be regarded as Christian products. For both the Oratio and De monakhia, however, it has been suggested that they are in fact Judaeo-Hellenistic works which have been taken up in the Christian tradition.2 This cannot be the case for the Cohortatio, because in the final chapter $38 it introduces Jesus Christ by name and describes him as the ‘Logos of God unbounded in power’. But this treatise too may well derive much of its apologetic material from Hellenistic-Jewish sources, as Grant has surmised.3 Our discussion will focus on this work, the only one of the three to make direct use of Philo.
’ Marcovich (1990b). The edition has been criticized on account of its excessive emendation of the text, e.g. by Gronewald (1990). The upparufusfontium is valuable, but becomes some- what unwieldy. A commentary would have been more useful, as I point out in my review, Runia (1991d) 403. Otto’s edition dated back to (1879) 2-158. The Hubiliturionsschrifr that Christoph Riedweg is preparing in Ziirich should pour a flood of light on the Cohortdo.
* For the Orutio Goodenough (1925), for the De Monurchiu Riedweg (1990) 124 n. 4.
3 Grant (1988) 192.
4 As Marcovich notes, there are Philonic themes in the other two works-e.g. De monurchiu
I, 6 ~b &rpmcrov hopa (cf. 82-83), Orutio 5, 6xdhpia as the source of all evil (cf. 103). But these themes may also have a more general Judaeo-Hellenistic origin.
The Cohortatio obtains its name from the fact that it is a h6yos napal- v&ztlc6< exhorting the Greeks to cease their quarrels and abandon the errors of their forefathers in order follow the doctrines of true piety. In the first part of the work ($2-7) it is argued that the ideas of the poets and philosophers are full of falsehood and contradictions. The true teacher is Moses, whom even Greek historians admit to be chronologically prior (98- 13). The remainder of the work argues with stolid persistence that any truth in the Greek poets is derived from Moses ($14-34). In the peroration ($35-38) the author appeals to the Sibyl who announced the incarnation of the Logos.s
The treatise thus pursues themes familiar in the earlier apologetic works of the 2nd century. In contrast to what we encountered in those writings, however, we may be certain this time that the author is directly acquainted with Philo. The author mentions him three times, each time in association with Josephus. Firstly they are included in a long list of Greek and Jewish authors who attest to Moses’ antiquity (§9), being described as ‘most wise Jewish historians’.7 This reference of course tells us very little. The second allusion is more informative. The education and honour that Moses received at the hands of the Egyptians is recounted by ‘the most wise historiographers Philo and Josephus, who decided to record his life and deeds and the high repute of his lineage. For these writers, recounting the history of the Jews, say that Moses belonged to the Chaldean race by birth, but that his ancestors on account of a famine had migrated from Phoenicia to Egypt, where they say he was born. ‘8 At this point it becomes clear that the author is acquainted with Philo’s De vita Moysis. Especially the term
‘Chaldean’ gives him away. Philo used this as a synonym for ‘Hebrew’
throughout this treatise, and specifically describes him as XahGa^to< by race at Mos. 1.5.9 Two chapters further on the author recounts how King Ptolemy commanded the Septuagint translation to be made. At the end he indicates his sources, those same ‘wise and reputable men, Philo and Jose-
s Derived from the well-known appropriation of the Sibyl by Hellenistic-Jewish apologists, on which see Schiirer (1973-87) 3.618-654.
6 Compare the debts to Hellenistic Judaism of Aristides, Athenagoras, and above all Theo- philus, analysed above in chapter 6.
7 $9.2 oi oocpcjra~o~ Cpihwv TTE Kai ‘I&rqxoq, oi zh IcaT& ‘IouGaicq ioropiloavzeq.
8 $10.1 bs ioTopo%otv oi ooq&a~o1 rGv iasoptoyp&pov, oi Kai zbv piov ahoG rd z&q rcp&&~s Kai zb zoii ykvou~ &&0~a &vayp&yfaoea~ ~po&&vot, 0ihov T5E Kai ‘IcjoqnoS.
o&o1 ycip, z&q ‘IouGaiov ics~opo~v~&~ np&& &&I pkv zoii XahGaiov ybou~ T&V Moijda yeyevijoeai cpaot. zGjv 6k xpoybvov a6705 &I% h~poij rcpbcpaotv drrcb zfi< QotviKqq Cni ziv A’iyurczov pEzavaa&vTov &K&i zbv &6pa +&3at cpaoiv.
9 On Philo’s use of the term see now the detailed study by Wong (1992). Josephus does not use the term ‘Chaldean’ in connection with Moses in the Antiquities (in 1.168 he theorizes that Abraham brought Chaldean science to Egypt). Another Philonic phrase in Mos. I .5 that our author takes over is T&V xpoy6vov a&oG &&... h1~6v... pmavaowkwv.