Origeniana Sexta. Origene et la Bible. Origen and the Bible. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum, Chantilly, 30 aout - 3 septembre 1993

441 Pages·1995·50.79 MB·French

by  Gilles Dorival

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERlDUM THEOLOGICAR DM LOVA NIENSIUM
CXVIII
ORIGENIANA SEXTA
ORIGÈNE ET LA BIBLE / ORIGEN AND THE BIBLE
Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum
Chantilly, 30 août - 3 septembre 1993
ÉDITÉS PAR
GILLES DORIVA L ET ALAIN LE BOULLUEC
AVEC LA COLLABORATION DE
MONIQUE ALEXANDRE, MICHEL FÉDOU
ALINE POURKIER, JOSEPH WOLINSKI
ST. VlADIMIR'S SEMINARV lIBRARV
575 Scarsdale Raad
Crestwood, Tuckahoe, NY 10707
LEUVEN UITGEVERIJ PEETERS
UNIVERSITY PRESS LEUVEN
1995
PRÉFACE
CIP KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK ALBERT l, BRUSSEL
Ce sixième volume des Origeniana offre les conférences et les communica
ISBN 90 6186 7185 (Leuven University Press)
tions qui ont été prononcées lors du Colloquium Origenianlllll Sextu111 (Chantilly,
D/1995/1869/60
30 août - 3 septembre 1993). Les colloques consacrés à Origène ont lieu tous les
ISBN 90 6831 725 3 (Peeters Leuven)
quatre ans: après Montserrat en 1973, Bari en 1977, Manchester en 1981, Inns
D/1995/0602/75
bruck en 1985 et Boston en 1989, ce fut au tour du Centre Culturel des Fontaines
ISBN 2 87723 251 4 (Peeters France)
de Chantilly, - un lieu convivial qui favorise le travail et les échanges scienti
fiques -, d'accueillir cent vingt participants venus de vingt pays différents
(Angleterre, Allemagne, Australie, Autriche, Belgique, Canada, Chili, Écosse,
Égypte, États-Unis, France, Hollande, Hongrie, Inde, Irlande, Israël, Italie, Japon,
Pologne, Suisse) prononcer près de soixante-dix interventions. Trois chiffres qui
témoignent de la vitalité des études origéniennes.
La préparation du Colloque a été assurée par un Comité d'organisation com
prenant Monique Alexandre, professeur à l'Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne;
Gilles Dorival, professeur à l'Université de Provence (Aix-Marseille I); Michel
Fédou, professeur au Centre Sèvres de Paris; Alain Le Boulluec, directeur
d'études à l'École Pratique des Hautes Études (ve section «Sciences Reli
gieuses»); Gérard Nauroy, professeur à l'Université de Metz; Aline Pourkier,
professeur à l'Université de Metz; Joseph Wolinski, professeur à l'Institut Catho
lique de Paris. Les organisateurs ont bénéficié du soutien logistique du Centre
d'Études des Religions du Livre (URA 152, CNRS et EPHE ve Section) et du
Centre Lenain de Tillemont (URA 167, Aix-Marseille l et Paris IV).
Le Colloque n'aurait pu avoir lieu sans les subsides accordés par le Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique; les Universités d'Aix-Marseille l, Lau
sanne (Suisse), Metz et Paris IV; la fondation de Montcheuil et l'Institut Catho
lique de Paris. La générosité de ces institutions nous a notamment permis d'invi
ter des spécialistes résidant dans des pays à monnaie faible. Nous remercions
aussi Monsieur le Maire de Chantilly qui nous a reçus dans sa mairie autour du
verre de l'amitié. Il n'a pas été possible, malheureusement, d'obtenir une subven
tion pour l'impression des Actes.
Pendant les cinq jours du Colloque, plusieurs éditeurs ou libraires ont exposé
leurs fonds patristiques à l'intention des participants. Parmi eux, les Éditions
Peeters, qui accueillent le présent volume dans la collection «Bibliotheca Ephe
meridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium». Qu'elles soient ici remerciées pour
No part of this book may be reproduced in an~ form, . tous leurs efforts en faveur des études patristiques.
by prin t, photoprillt, microfilm or any other. means wlthout wntten Nous voulons enfin saluer la patience et la minutie de M. Simon C. Mimouni,
permission from the publtsher qui a relu les épreuves et nous a aidés à confectionner les Index.
Leuven University Press / Presses Universitaires de Louvain G. Dorival
Universitaire Pers Leuven
A. Le Boulluec
Blijde Inkomststraat 5, B-3000 Leuven-Louvain (Belgium)
© Uitgeverij Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)
TABLE DES MATIÈRES
PRÉFACE . VII
ABRÉVIATIONS XII
1. SITUATION DE L'HERMÉNEUTIQUE D'ORIGÈNE
R.E. HEINE, The Introduction to Origen's Commentmy 011 John Compared
with the Introductions to the Ancient Philosophical Commentaries on
Aristotle 3
K.J. TORJESEN, Influence of Rhetoric on Origen's Old Testament Homilies. 13
J.-D. DUBOIS, Le titre christologique d'Évangéliste et la polémique d'Ori-
gène contre les Gnostiques. 27
A. PASQUIER, L'allégorie du ciel et du firmament chez Origène et dans un
traité gnostique de Nag Hammadi . 37
G.G. STROUMSA, Clement, Origen, and Jewish Esoteric Traditions. 53
J.H.C. NEEB, Origen's Interpretation of Genesis 28: 12 and the Rabbis 71
R.L. WILKEN, Origen's Homilies on Leviticlis and Vayikra Rabbah . 81
A. van den HOEK, Clement and Origen as Sources on "Noncanonical" Scrip-
tural Traditions during the Late Second and Earlier Third Centuries 93
A. MÉHAT, Sur deux définitions de la prière 115
E. OSBORN, Clement and the Bible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
É. JUNOD, Que savons-nous des «Scholies» (O"X6Àw - O"ll/-!ëlcOO"ëlÇ) d'Ori-
gène? 133
L. PERRONE, Perspectives sur Origène et la littérature patristique des
«Quaestiones et Responsiones» . 151
II. ORIGÈNE DEYA NT LE TEXTE DE LA BIBLE
O. MUNNICH, Les Hexaples d'Origène à la lunùère de la tradition manu-
scrite de la Bible grecque . 167
G.J. NORTON, The Fragments of the Hexapla of the Psalter and the Prepa-
ration of a Critica1 Edition of the Hebrew Psalter , 187
P. JAY, Jérôme et la Septante origénienne . 203
J.-N. GUINOT, La fortune des Hexaples d'Origène aux Iye et ye siècles en
milieu antiochien. 215
III. L'ARGUMENTATION SCRIPTURAIRE
D. BERTRAND, Bible et prière. Typologie des références à la Bible dans le
Discours sur la Prière . 229
x TABLE DES MATIÈRES TABLE DES MATIÈRES XI
L.N. FERNANDO, Origen's Use of Scripture in Contra Celsu171 . 243 R. ROUKEMA, La prédication du Christ cmcifié (1 Corinthiens 2,2) selon
M. MARITANO, L'argomentazione scritturistica di Origene contro i sosten- Origène. 523
itori della metensomatosi . 251 G. BOSTOCK, Origen's Exegesis of the Kenosis Hymn (Philippians 2:5-11) 531
P. O'CLEIRIG, Topoi of Invention in Origen's Homilies . 277
G. SFAMENI GASPARRO, Ispirazione delle Scritture e divinazione pagana: D. Autres textes
Aspetti della polemica fra Origene e Celso 287
B. STUDER, Die doppelte Exegese bei Origenes 303 E. BAMMEL, Der Prozess Jesu in der Erklii.mng des Origenes 549
P. BRIGHT, The Epistle to the Hebrews in Origen's Christology 559
E. DAL COVOLO, L'interpretazione origeniana di 1 Petri 2,9 567
IV. EXÉGÈSE ET THÉOLOGIE
H.S. BENJAMINS, Oikonomia bei Origenes: Schrift und Heilsplan 327 VI. LA POSTÉRITÉ DE L'HERMÉNEUTIQUE D'ORIGÈNE
H. CROUZEL, Le contexte spirituel de l'exégèse dite spirituelle 333 CHEZ LES PÈRES DE L'ÉGLISE GRECS
M. FÉDou, L'helméneutique origénienne de la Bible et les religions païennes 343
,,_ C. KANNENGIESSER, Écriture et théologie trinitaire d'Origène . 351 P.P. BEATRICE, Didyme l'Aveugle et la tradition de l'Allégorie 579
L. LIES, Die »Gottes würdige« Schriftauslegung nach Origenes . 365 G. GOULD, The Influence of Origen on Fourth-Century Monasticism: Sorne
J.S. O'LEARY, The Recuperation of Judaism . . . . '/ . . . . . 373 Further Remarks . 591
1. RrGOLOT, Le Mysterion de l'unité des deux Testaments: Evangile unique A. MEIS, Origenes y Gregorio de Nisa, «In Canticum» . 599
et histoire en acte 381 D. PAZZINI, Il Prologo di Giovanni in Origene e Cirillo Alessandrino: un
confronto . 617
B. DALEY, What Did "Origenism" Mean in the Sixth Century? . 627
V. ORIGÈNE EXÉGÈTE DE LA BIBLE
P.M. BLOWERS, The Anagogical Imagination: Maximus the Confessor and
the Legacy of Origenian Hermeneutics . 639
A. L'Ancien Testament
Y-M. DUVAL, Vers le Commentaire sur Joël d'Origène 393 VII. LA POSTÉRITÉ DE L'HERMÉNEUTIQUE D'ORIGÈNE
M. PESTY, Origène et les prophètes . 411 CHEZ LES PÈRES LATINS ET AU MOYEN AGE
B. Évangile de Jean R.M. BERCHMAN, In the Shadow of Origen: Porphyry and the Patristic Ori-
gins of New Testament Criticism. 657
W.A. BIENERT, 'AvaymYlÎ im Johannes-Kommentar des Origenes 419 A. BASTIT, Conception du Commentaire et tradition exégétique dans les In
R. GOGLER, Einführung zur Diskussion über das Referat: 'AvaymYlÎ im Matthaeum d'Origène et d'Hilaire de Poitiers. 675
Johannes-K0l/1171entar des Origenes . 429 J. DOIGNON, De l'absence à la présence d'Origène dans l'exégèse d'Hilaire
M. KUYAMA, The Searching Spirit. The Hermeneutical Principle in the de Poitiers: Deux cas typiques . 693
Preface of Oligen's Com171entary on the Gospel of John . 433 M. MILHAU, Comparaison entre la version grecque du Psaume CXVIII par
J.A. McGuCKIN, Stmctural Design and Apologetic Intent in Origen's Com Origène et sa version latine par Hilaire de Poitiers . 701
441
mentm)' on John. V. GROSSI, Il Cristiano «Filius Pacis» nell'esegesi Origeniana di Luca 10,5-7 709
T. MIKODA, 'Hy81l0VtKôV in the Soul. 459 M.-A. VANNIER, Origène et Augustin, interprètes de la création . 723
J. WOLINSKI, Le recours aux ÈntVOtal du Christ dans le Commentaire sur
Jean d'Origène . 465
VIII. LES DÉBATS AUTOUR DE L'HERMÉNEUTIQUE D'ORIGÈNE
C. Lettres de Paul AUX ÉPOQUES MODERNE ET CONTEMPORAINE
C. BAMMEL, Origen's Pauline Prefaces and the Chronology of his Pauline J. DECHOW, Origen's Shadow over the Erasmus(Luther Debate 739
Commentaries. . . . . . 495 B. ROUSSEL, Bèze et Origène . 759
T. HEITHER, Origenes' Exegese von Romerbrief 12,1-8 aIs Einfühmng in die T. CERBU, Autour de la Philocalie de Tarin. 773
Spiritalis Observantia . 515 C. THEOBALD, Origène et le débat herméneutique contemporain 785
XII TABLE DES MATIÈRES
INDEX SCRIPTURAIRE 799
INDEX DES ŒUVRES D'ORIGÈNE. 811
INDEX DES TEXTES ET AUTEURS ANCIENS ET MÉDIÉVAUX 824
INDEX DES AUTEURS ET PERSONNALITÉS DE LA RENAISSANCE AU XVIIIe SIÈCLE 852
INDEX DES AUTEURS ET PERSONNALITÉS DES XIXe ET XXe SIÈCLES 854
l
SITUATION DE L'HERMÉNEUTIQUE D'ORIGÈNE
ABRÉVIATIONS
On se reportera à la liste donnée dans Origeniana Quinta, éd. RJ. Daly
(BETL, 105), Leuven, 1992, p. XIII-XVII, qu'on complètera par Siegfried
Schwertner, Index intemational des abréviations pour la théologie et domaines
apparentés, Berlin, New York, 1992 (IATG2).
THE INTRODUCTION TO ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON JOHN
COMPARED WITH THE INTRODUCTIONS TO
THE ANCIENT PHILOSOPHICAL COMMENTA RIES ON ARISTOTLE
Two studies, both of which appeared in 1987 and whose authors appear to have
been unaware of one another's work, have related the form of introduction found
in the commentaries on Aristotle to the introductions in two of Origen's Bible
commentaries. Ilsetraut Hadot, in a comprehensive article treating the various
introductory schemata in the commentaries, examines the introduction to Origen's
commentary on the Song of Songs in her attempt to show, contra PraechterI, that
the schemata can be found in works earlier than those of Ammonius (435/45-
517/26 A.D.)2. Bernhard N euschafer devotes a chapter to the introductions to
Origen's commentaries on the Psalms and the Song of Songs in relation to the
ancient commentary introductions in his book, Origenes aIs Phi/%ge3•
We have the beginnings of four of Origen's commentaries on the Bible, those
on the psalms, the Song_QJ1ioI!,g~J3:om~n~~Jl!l:sL!h~_ Gosl?el of John4• Of these,
that on the Psalms must be reconstmcted from Greek fragments, and those on the
Song of Songs and Romans are ex tant only in the Latin translations of Rufinus,
with that on Romans being especially curtailed or garbled or both by Rufinus.
Only the introduction to the commentary on the Gospel of John exists in its
en tiret y in a Greek manuscript tradition. This makes it worthwhile to look at this
particular introduction in relation to the introductions in the philosophical com
mentaries.
l shaH begin with a brief summary of what has been learned about the form of
introduction in the philosophical commentaries, noting in particular those points
which are most relevant to the comparison with Origen, and then examine the
introductions in the commentaries of {\lexander of Aphrodisias, a contemporary
of Origen, before taking up the introduction to the ComJn. ..
1. K. Praechter, "Die griechischen Aristoteleskommentare", BZ 18 (1909), p. 53l.
2. "Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les
auteurs chrétiens", in Les règles de l'interprétation, ed. by M. Tardieu (Paris: Les éditions du Cerf,
1987),99-122.
3. Schweizerische Beitriige zur Alteliumswissenschaft 18.1-2 (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1987),
57-84. In addition to the philosophical commentators, where he concentrates almost exclusively on
Ammonius, Neuschiifer considers also the commentaries on Virgil by Donatus and Servius.
Praechter had earlier noted that three of the topies which appear in the introductions to the philo
sophical commentaries are found in fragment 7 of Ps.-Hippolytus on the Psalms, which a Syrian
manuscript attributes to Origen. Using his conclusion that the schema cannot be found before the
lime of Ammonius as a criterion for dating the fragment, he rejects the possibility that the fragment
could come from Origen in the third century (p. 531).
4. There is also one fragment from the introduction to the COIllGn preserved in Rufinus' Latin
translation of Pamphilus' Apology (PG 12.45-46), and six fragments from the introduction to the
COIllLalll (GCS 3, 235-237). Of these fragments, only fragment 3 of the COIllLam contains anything
related to the philosophical commentaries. There is a brief discussion of the title in this fragment,
which was one of the subjects treated in the philosophical commentaries.
THE INTRODUCTION TO ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON JOHN 5
4 R.E. HEINE
The Introductory Schemata for Reading Aristotle and Plat05 alw~ys using the technical vocabulary that was common laterll. She also thinks
the mt~'oduction t? Origen'~ commentary on the Song of Songs discusses six of
By the late fifth or early sixth century A.D., a detailed and relatively set fOlmat the ~omts found I~ the vanous schemata, sorne coming from the general intro
had developed for the introduction to the study of philosophy and for the introduc du~trons to the. p~llosophy of Aristotle and Plato, and others coming from the
tion of each particular philosophical treatise to be read. This format represented the pOl~t~ treated m mtroducing the individual treatises of Platol2. Neuschiifer, in
teaching curriculum of the Neoplatonic school. ~ddltlOn, has found four of the six points used in introducing the individual trea
The general program began with POl~ggggë, proceeded to the works tIses of Aristotle in Oligen's introduction to the Psalmsl3.
of Aristotle, beginning with his Categories, and culminated in the reading of Because the six points which introduce the individu al treatises of Aristotle will
Plato. The reading of Porphyry's Isagogë was preceded by a four point introduc be of most importance in our investigation, 1 present those points herel4.
tion to philosophy in general, folIowed by a seven point introduction to the (1) The aim or theme (0 O'Konoç) of the treatise. IIpoeEO'tç can be used inter-
Isagogë. After the Isagogë had been read, the student then received a ten point changeably with O'Konoç, with ,ÉÀoç also sometimes being so usedl5.
introduction to the philosophy of Aristotlé. Aristotle was then read in the order: (2) The usefulness (,ô xpijO't/lov) of the treatise.
Organon, Ethics, Physics, Mathematics, Metaphysics. Each of Aristotle's works (3) The authenticity (,0 yvijO'tov) of the treatise.
could be introduced by an introduction of up to six set points. AlI six points, how (4) The place of the trea.tise in the order of reading (11,açtç ,fjç àvayvcOO'EcoÇ).
ever, did not have to be treated in the introduction to each work. (5) The reason for the trtle (f] ahia ,fjç èmypa<pfjç).
After reading Aristotle7, the student then took up the works of Plato. This, (6) The division into heads (f] dç ,à KE<paÀaw èhaipEO'tç)16.
again, was preceded by a ten point introduction to Plato's philosophy, and the
various dialogues were introduced by as many as eight points8, sorne of which
The Introductions in the Commentaries on Aristotle by Alexander of Aphrodisias
corresponded to points in the six which introduced Aristotle's works.
This schema, in Praechter's view, is to be attributed to Ammonius9• While he I. hav~ found five of the above points noted by Alexander of Aphrodisias, the
admits that sorne points of the schema can be found before Ammonius, he thinks Pen~atetrc c~mmenta.tor on Aristotle of the late second and early third centuries, in
that the appearance together of ev en three of the points discussed in the introduc ~he. mtro~uc~!on t~ his co~men~ary on the P~'ior Analytics17• The relatively long
tions to individu al treatises in the early third century is unlikelylO. mtlOdu.ctIOn begms by. discussmg the questIOn of whether, since it. is a logical
Hadot, on the other hand, attributes the codification of the entire schema to :-V0rk, It should be considered a part of philosophy (IlÉPOÇ <plÀoO'o<piaç) or an
Ammonius's teacher Proclus (411-485 A.D.), and thinks that the schema of intro mstrument of philosophy .(opyavov a~,fjç)19. Those who consider it a part of phi
ductions to individual treatises has a much older tradition than this. She thinks losophy argue on the basts of the npOeEO'tÇ of the work, he says20. On the other
Porphyry's introduction to his commentary on the Categories discusses four or h~nd, those ,:"ho. consid~r it ~n in~trume~t of philosophy argue on the basis of the
five of the six point schema for introducing Aristotle's treatises, though not ,EÀOÇ of an mstlUment, lts ,açtç m relatIOn to the other parts, and its xpijO'tlloV21.
5. In the following section l shaH draw on the above mentioned works of Hadot and Praechter,
11. Hadot, pp. 11 0-111.
plus L. G. Westerink, Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy (Amsterdam: North-Holland
12. Ibid., pp. 111-114.
Publishing Company, 1962); idem, "The Alexandrian Commentators and the Introductions to their
13. Pp. 67-77.
Commentaries", in Aristotle Transformed: The Anciellf Comlllentators and Their Influence, ed. by }4.
The order of treatment is unimportant. Considerable variation in order is found among the
R. Sorabji (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990), 325-348; and R. Sorabji, "The Ancient
vallous commenta tors, and even among the various commentaries of individual commentators. l
Commentators on Aristotle", in Aristotle Transforllled, 1-30, as weil as my own reading of the intro
follow!1ere the order as they appear .in the li~t foun~ in Ammonius' commentmy on Porphyry's
ductions of the commentators.
Isagoge (CAG IV.3, p. 21.6-9). In the 1I1troductlOn to hlS commentary on the Categories (CAG IV 4
6. These ten points form the beginning of the Neoplatonist commentaries on the Categories from
pp. 7.15-8.10) the orderis 1,2,5,3,4,6. . ,
the time of Ammonius, who is the first to list them. They were previously set out, however, by
Proclus (R. Sorabji in AlIllllonius On Aristotle Categories, trans. by S. M. Cohen & G. B. Matthews 15. Se~, for~xampl~, C~G 11.1, p~. 1.20-21; 2.8; 804; 9.5; IVA, p. 7.17-19; VU, p. 1.11-24.
16. ThIS pmtIcular lIst 111 Ammomus expands this last point with the addition of "and under
[London: Duckworth, 1991], p. 1).
\Vhat part the present work is reckoned."
7. The reading of Aristotle took Proclus less than two years under the guidance of his teacher
. 17. On Alexander, see R. W. Slm'ples, "Alexander of Aphrodisias: Scholasticism and Innova
Syrianus (H. D. Saffrey, "How Did Syrianus Regard Aristotle?", in Aristotle Trallsforllled, p. 178).
tIon", ANRW II 36.2, pp. 1176-1243.
8. This is Hadot's view, p. 109. She recognizes that not ail eight points were treated each time.
18. CAG II.1, pp. 1.4-9.2.
J. M. Dillon notes five of these eight points in Proclus' introduction to Plato's Parmenides (Proc/us'
19. Ibid., p. 1.8-9. Origen has a brief discussion of this question in the introduction to his Canto
COllllllentary on Plato's Parlllellides, trans. by G. R. MOITOW and J. M. Dillon [Princeton: University
3.1-2. H. B. Gottschalk, "Aristotelian Philosophy in the Roman World from the Time of Cicero to
Press, 1987] pp. 5-9).
9. P. 531. He notes that Littig had attempted to trace the schema back to Andronicus of Rhodes, the End of the Second ~~ntury A.D.", AN~W II 36.2, p. 1099, thinks Andronicus (first centmy
B.C.) was probably the fust to algue that 10giC \Vas not a part of philosophy, but a tool.
the Peripatetic philosopher who established the canon of Aristotle's writings c. 60 B.C., but judges
20. CAG II.!, pp. 1.13-2.2.
the attempt unsuccessful (ibid., p. 529).
21. Ibid., pp. 2.3-4.29.
!O. P. 531.
6 R.E. HEINE THE INTRODUCTION TO ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON JOHN 7
22
Having dispensed with this question, he discusses the smypaqnl of the work . its theme: ..1llÀot oÈ Kati] smypacpit tOU ~t~Àiol) titv npo9wty tf}e; Kat' aùtà
He notes that there is both a prior and a posterior analytics, the former treating the npaYl.lattiae;32. It was not uncommon among the later commentators for various
subject of syllogisms and the latter that of demonstration. On the basis of this of the topies to be grouped together when one was understood to have some kind
distinction, he then gives the reaSOI1 (ahia) of the title23. "For this reason (otà of relationship to the other. Ammonius says, for example, in introducing the six
'rOuto) he also gives the works about syllogisms the title Prior Analytics, and questions that should be discussed in interpreting any of Aristotle's works, that
those about demonstration Posterior, since the syllogism by nature comes before after discussing the aim, "<we must ask> what use we will derive from the work,
demonstration"24. Embedded within this discussion of the title there is a short if this is not apparent along with the aim (for it generally follows) "33.
notation that the Prior Analytics consists of two books25. This is his statement on Neither the commentary on the Metaphysics34, nor that on the Meteorologica has
the division into heads, but without the technical vocabulary26. Finally, he closes a general introduction. There are, however, introductions to books three, four, and
the introduction with a disc'ussion of his own views on tàv O'Konàv Kat titv five of the Metaphysics. That to book three has a short discussion of the xpi]O'tl.lOV
35
npo9EO'ty27. This introduction, then, written perhaps in the early third century, of the book , and that to book five does not discuss any of the standard topics. The
con tains a discussion with technical vocabulary of the npo9wte;/O'KonOe;, 11 taçte;, introduction to book four treats two of the topics, but uses only one of the techni
and tà xpi]O'q.lOV, and without the full technical vocabulary of i] ahia tf}e; sm cal tellDS. The introduction begins by discussing the authenticity of the book, but
on
ypacpf}e;, and, without any technical vocabulary, of i] Ete; tà KEcpaÀaw owipwte;. without using yvi]O'wv: IlÈv 'AptO''rOt8ÀOUe; sO'tt tà smypacpollEvoV ..1 tillv
In the introduction to his commentar'y on Aristotle's Topics, Alexander dis MEtà tà cpu<JtKà ~t~ÀiO)v, ... of}Àov sç cbv npoEipllKE36. There is then a discus
37
cusses three of the subjects of introductions. He begins with a statement about the sion of order in which the term taçte; appears . The Meteorologica has a short
npo9wte; and the XP110't11Oe; of the treatise28, and later, again without using the introduction to Book 4 in which he asserts that the book is by Aristotle, but that it
exact technical phrase of the later commentators, discusses the smypacpi] of the do es not belong to the Meteorologica38• This is a statement about the genuineness
29 of the book, but again, without the technieal terminology.
treatise .
In the introduction to his commentary on the Sophistical Elenchus, he again This brief survey has shown that aIl six of the technical topics of introductions
discusses tluee of the standar'd topics, 6 O'KonOe;, i] taçte;, and i] smypacpi]30. listed by Ammonius are discussed in various introductions of Alexander, and that
When he discuses the taçte; of the treatise, he is not concerned with its order the technical tellDS of points one, two and four appear, with the technical phrase
within the entire corpus of Aristotle's writings, but with its order in relation to the of point five appearing in slightly altered form. Point three in Ammonius' list is
31 discussed twice, but without the technical terminology, and point six is discussed
other logical treatises .
In the short introduction to the commentary on Aristotle's On Sense Percep- once, again without the technical vocabulary. AlI six points discussed in the later
tion, Alexander treats only two of the standard topics of introductions. The sig introductions to philosophieal commentaries were, therefore, discussed in the
nifieance of this treatment for us is that he considers the title of the work to reveal philosophical schools at least as early as the beginning of the third century, and
could have been a part of Origen's education in the philosophical schools of
22. Ibid., pp. 6.13-8.2. Alexandria. They were certainly available to him prior to the time that he began
23. The technical phrase, "the reason of the title", does not appear. Ammonius, too, one of the to write commentaries.
later commentators, can discuss the title of a treatise without using the precise expression, as, for
example, when he says, "And we must investigate why in the world he entitled the book Categories"
(CAO IV.4, p. 13.12). The Introduction to Origen's Commental)1 011 John
24. CAO lU, p. 6.32-34. The ComJn begins with a seventeen page introduction in the GCS text39.
25. Ibid., p. 6.29-30.
This introduction is largely structured by a discussion of topics which were the
26. Simplicius, in his sixth century commentary on Aristotle's Physics, has a discussion of the
first five topies of introductions with the precise technieal vocabulary for each topie, then discusses
the divisions of the book without using the fOimalized vocabulary of the lists (CAO IX, pp. 1.3- 32. CAO Hl.l, p. 2.1-2.
33. CAO IV.4, p. 7.20; trans. Cohen & Matthews, AlIllllonius, p. 15. Simplicius (CAO VIII,
6.30).
27. CAO lU, pp. 8.2-9.2. This discussion is actuaUy carried on over into his discussion of the pp. 13.27-15.25) makes a very short statement about the ta.çtç of the Categories in the conclusion to
first quoted lemma from the treatise (p. 9.5ff). his discussion of ,0 XP~O'l!.lov.
34. Only books 1-5 of the commentary come from Alexander. The remaining books are
28. CAO II.2, p. 1.3-8.
attributed, in their present form, to Miehael of Ephesus (W. E. Dooley, Alexander of Aphrodisias
29. Ibid., p. 5.17-19.
30. CAO II.3, p. 1.6-8. The discussion of the ÈTClYPU.<P~ again lacks the precise later technieal [London: Duckworth, 1989], p. 3).
phrase. Alexander notes that there is a disagreement over what the O'K01rôç of the treatise is, and 35. CAO l, p. 237.14.
consequently, over the reason for the title (ota. ,0i51:0 ÈTClYEYpa.<pOm Lo<ptcrnKoùç ÈÂ.{;yxouç: Ibid., 36. Ibid., p. 344.2-5.
37. Ibid., p. 345.20-21.
p. 1.10-16. Cf. p. 1.19-2.2).
31. Ibid., p. 3.16ff. This is similar to Origen's treatment of the order of the three books of 38. CAO III.2, p. 179.3-6.
Solomon. He is not concemed with their order in relation to ail the books of the Bible, but only with 39. Der Johanneskommentar, OCS 4, ed. by E. Preuschen (Leipzig, 1903). AU my references are
their order in relation to one another (Cant. Prol. 3.14-15). to the book and paragraph numbers in this edition.
THE INTRODUCTION TO ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON JOHN 9
8 R.E. HEINE
four Gospels, that of John is preeminent because it is concerne d, more than the
standard topics for introductions to commentaries on philosophical treatises. The
others, to present the divinity of Jesus. This discussion culminates with Origen's
technical vocabulary, however, is only occasionally approximated, and more
statement, "We might dare say, then, that the Gospels are the firstfruits of aIl
often is lacking.
The opening section of the introduction (I.1-13) has only a tenuous link to the Scrip~ures, but tha~ the firstfruits of the Gospels is that according to John" (1.23).
Ongen has outlmed what he considers to be the "tuÇ,tç of the Bible as a book
topics of introductions. Among the topics included in the ten point g~neral.intro­
duction to Aristotle' s philosophy by the later commenta tors was a discussiOn of a?~ut Christ,. although the technical term does not appear43• It is especially sig
4o nifIcant for hl1ll that John stands as the final Gospel, as he makes clear when he
the qualifications necessary in the student who was to study Aristotle . ~hese
says that Matthew wrote for those awaiting the son of Abraham and David44, and
included moral and spiritual qualifications su ch as purity of soul as well as mtel-
45
41 that Mark declares the beginning (àpxiJ) of the gospel , but we find its end
lectual and academic ones .
("tsÂoç) in John (1.22)46. Origen has constructed a pyramid whose apex is the
After a lengthy and somewhat obscure discussion of the "virgins of the tribes"
Gospel of John. This is not an order of reading, however, as with the treatises of
based on Rev 7 and 14, Origen proposes that Ambrose will ask, "What, indeed,
Aristotle, but an order of perspective. Like his Christology, whieh begins from
do aIl these things mean for us"? He then immediately describes Ambrose as
above and understands the life of the earthly Jesus in the light of the divine
"truly a man of God, and a man in Christ", who is "eager to be spiritual, no
Christ, so his reading of the Bible begins from above, with the divinity of Jesus
longer being man" (1.9). He then proceeds, using the metaphor of firstfruits .and
presented most clearly in the Gospel of John, and seeks this divine Jesus of John
the imagery of the Old Testament priesthood which lived from tithe~ and fll"St
in aIl the other books of the Bible. It is not important for Origen in what order one
fruits and yet also offered tithes and firstfruits to God, to class lllmself and
reads the books of the Bible, so long as they are read from this perspective which
Ambrose figuratively in the category of priests, since they "are eager for those
the Gospel of John presents.
things which are superior", and theu' entire activity and life are "dedicated ~o
Two addition al topies of commentary introductions are embedded in this dis
God". Out of the entirety of their activity which is dedicated to God, they Will
offer the fU'stfruits to the study of the gospel (1.12-13). This may be Origen's cir cussi~n. ~f 0~der47, although the technical terminology, again, is lacking. One is
the dlvlslO/1 mto heads, and the other that of the aim or theme of the work. The
cuitous way of saying something about the qualifications necessary in one ~ho
first occurs in the statement that "of the Gospels, which are four as thollgh they
would study the Gospel of John, Le. he must be morally pure (capable of bemg
were the elements of the Church's faith, ... the fU'stfruits of the Gospels iS ... that
classed among "the virgins of the tribes"), and dedieated to the "things which are
superior". It is, as 1 said earlier, a tenuous relati?ns.hip, at be~t, to. the philosoph ~ccordi?g to !ohn" (1.21)48. The point of the sentence is that the Gospel of John
iS the f11'stfn11ts of the Gospels. Origen does, however, put a certain emphasis on
ical introductions. Nevertheless, in favor of thlS mterpretahon iS the fact that
the fact that there are four Gospels by his allusion to the four elements
Origen does treat this subject quite explicitly in the introduction to his Cant., and
42 (<H01Xëta) of early Greek philosophy. This sentence is followed irnmediately by
there too, it is very near the opening of the work .
a reference to each of the four Gospels by name, and a short descriptive statement
In ComIn I.14-23a Origen is concerned with the arder of the Gospel of John,
about each (1.22).
first in relation to the entire Bible, and then in relation to the four Gospels. He
The other topic embedded in the discussion of order is that of the CYKO-
understands the entu'e Bible to be a book about Christ. The Old Testament is not
gospel, however, because it speaks of Christ only in anticipation of the one who 1t6ç/1tp6~8.CY~Ç of the Gospel of John: Origen considers the theme of the Gospel to
be the dlVll1lty of Jesus. He has smd first, in contrast to Mark's àpxiJ of the
is to come (1.17). He later modifies that statement and allows the Old Testament
gospel, that we perhaps find its "tsÂoç in John. TSÂoç surely means end here in
to have become gospel after the Christ came and showed what was true in it
the sense of aim or goal, as weIl as end in the sense that John is the last of the
(1.33-36). The en tire New Testament, on the other hand, is gospel "because it
Gospels, as we noted above. This statement, however, is about gospel in general
contains various ascriptions of praise and teachings of him on account of whom
the gospel is gospel" (I.17).
In the New Testament, moreover, the four Gospels are gospel in a sense that 43: It ~ou~d be interesti.n~ t~ know if this order reflects in any way Origen's order of teaching
the other books of the New Testament are not, in that they are concerned to nar the ~Ible III lus school, or If It IS related to the cycle of preaching then followed, or if it has any
relatIOn to the order of teaching the Bible in catechetical instruction.
rate the life, words, death and resurrection of Christ, whereas the other books 44. Based on Mt 1.1.
consist of preaching, exhortation, and teaching based on his life, etc. Among the 45. Based on Mk 1.1.
46. What he said about Luke is lost.
. 47.!t was not unusual in the philosophieal commentaries for two or more topies to be discussed
40. See Westerink, "The Alexandrian Commentators", p. 343, and Hadot, p. 103.
41. See, for example, Ammonius in CAO IVo4, pp. 1.3-12, 6.21-24, and Olympiodorus, CAO III relatIOn to one another, where the author saw a relationship between the subjects. See our
exau:ple aboye, at note 32, where Alexander of Aphrodisias asserts that the title of the On Sense Per
XIl,4 2p.. 1TOh.e3 fffi. rst three paragraphs of the introduction to Cont. discuss the persons of the di.a logue and ceptIOn also reyeals the theme/aim of the work. Certain topics could also be treated quite briefly.
the literary genre. This is followed by his discussion of the qualifications necessary in one who . 48. ~f. the short statement of Alexander of Aphrodisias (aboye at note 25) that the Prior Ano/yt
would read the work (Conf. Prolo 104-7). Cf. Hadot' s treatment of this point, pp. 111, 113. rcs conslsts of two books. This statement, too, is embedded in the larger discussion of another tapie.
10 R.E. HEINE THE INTRODUCTION TO ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON JOHN Il
as good news, and not about the specific goal of the Gospel of John. It leads into The later commentators on Aristotle asserted that an interpreter of Aristotle
the discussion about the Gospel of John, however, via sorne statement about must have (a) a thorough understanding of Aristotle's works52, (b) wisdom to dis
Luke's Gospel which is, unfortunately, umeadable in the manuscript. John's cern what is true and what is false, and (c) impartiality so he will not argue for the
Gospel has the distinction of containing words about Jesus which are even greater truth of what is false out of loyalty to a school or person53.
and more perfecto The comparison was presumably with what he said about Finally, in the longest section of the introduction (1.27-88), Origen takes up
Luke's Gospel. Then he says, "For none of those [i.e. of the other evangelists] the question of the title. "It is now time to examine what the tenn gospel
has shown his divinity (8EO"Cll"CU) as perfectly as John" (l,22). This is as close means, and why these books have this title (Olà. "Cl W,O"Cllv EXEt "Cl]V Em
as Origen cornes to making a specific statement about the theme of the ypucpl]v "CUD"CU "Cà. ~t~Àlu)" (l,27). Origen cornes closest here to the technical
49
Gospe1 . vocabulary of the philosophical commentators.
Immediately after the "C<J,Ç,tÇ-O'K07tOÇ discussion Origen takes up a question that He has posed two questions: (1) What does the term gospel mean54? and
was discussed in the general introductions to the study of Aristotle. He discusses (~) ~hy do these particular books have this title? He must answer the first ques
what kind of person the interpreter must be. No one, Origen asserts, can grasp the tIon 111 order to answer the second, for "gospel" was not an unambiguous term
meaning ("Cov VODV)50 of John's Gospel who has not leaned on Jesus' breast and when it stood al one as a book title.
received Mary to be his mother. This means that the interpreter must become
He approaches the first question in the Aristotelian tradition of definition. Aris
John, which means further, on the basis of Jesus' dying words to Mary in relation totle had desclibed definition as the statement of what something is (Àoyoç rou ri
to John, "Behold your son", that the interpreter must, in a sense, bec orne Jesus. /Jau), and he further desClibed one kind of definition as a statement of what the
This in turn, leads Origen, via Gal. 2.20, to a quotation from Paul that he often name means (Àoyoç "COD "Cl O'll~IUlVEl "Co OVOI-lU)55. Origen begins the section by
cites in relation to himself as an interpreter of Scripture, "But we have the mind asking, "Cl of> ~OOÀE"Cat OllÀODV il 'EDUyyÉÀlOV' 7tpoO'llyoPlu (l,27), and closes
(VODV) of Christ, that we may know the things that have been given to us by it by saying, "Why must we further prolong our statement on what the gospel is
God" (1.23-24)51. ("Cov 7tEpi wu ri "Co EDUyyÉÀtov /Jarl Myov)?" (l,88).
What did having the mind of Christ in relation to interpreting Scripture mean His method in this section is like that of the later commentators on Aristotle
for Origen? ln ComIn 13.23-42, Origen discusses this theme using the when they addressed the question of the definition of philosophy, which was
metaphor of the living water which Jesus gives in comparison with the water the second of the four initial questions concerning the study of philosophy,
that cornes from Jacob's weIl. He identifies Jacob's weIl with the Scriptures, namely, "Cl EO"Ct56. Ammonius begins his exposition of this point by offering six
and speaks of the necessity of coming regularly and frequently to Jacob's weIl definitions of philosophy57. Origen begins by offering three definitions of
before one can receive the living water that Jesus gives. He means that one gospeJ58. (a) "The gospel. .. is a statement containing (EO'''Cl ... "Co EDUyyÉÀlOV
must gain a minute acquaintance with the teachings of the Bible over years of Myoç 7tEptÉXWV) a report of things which ... gladden the heat'er because they are
intense study, and have one's life shaped by its teachings. "Most people", he beneficial, when he accepts what is reported ... ". (b) "Or the gospel is a statement
says, "have a great deficiency in exercising themselves, as it were, for a long containing (11 EDUyyÉÀ10V EO"Ct Àoyoç 7tEptÉXWV) the presence of a good for the
time in drawing from Jacob's weIl" (13.42). The higher teachings which come believer". (c) "Or it is a statement which announces (Àoyoç E7tUyyEÀÀOI-lEVOÇ)
from the living water are made manifest only "to those who no longer have the
heart of man, but who are able to say, 'But we have the mind of Christ, that we
52. Some emphasized that he must be familiar with the whole of his works (Westerink, "The
may know the things which are given to us by God'" (13.35). The mind of Alexandrian Commentators", p. 343). Elias (CAG XVllI.l, p. 122,25ff) asserts that he must know
Christ, then, is formed in the interpreter by long, intense, and devoted study of al! the works of Aristotle so he can show that Aristotle is consistent with himself, and so he can inter
pret Aristotle by Aristotle.
the entire Bible.
53. See, for example, CAG IV.4, p. 8.11f; CAG XIl, p. 1O.24ff; CAG XlII. l, p. 6.30ff; CAG
XVIII.l, p. 122.25ff.
54. Dexippus (fi. C. 330 A.D.) discusses the mem1ing of the name "Categories" in his discussion
49. Origen knew the technical use of the tenn aKOTcoç;. He uses the term four times in discussing of the title (CAG IV.2, p. 5.30ff).
the aim of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures in Frillc. IV.2.7, 8, 9; IV.3.4. The tenn also appears a lit 55. AFa. II. 10 93b.
tle later in the introduction to the Comfn (I.34) where it is used of the point of a verse of Scripture . 56. The four ~uestions were: El sa,t, ,i Èall, émoî'ov Èa,!, and lità ,i Èall. They are present
(Gal 5.9). The theme of the Canto is explicitly discussed in the introduction to that commentary III the commentanes on Porphyry's Isagoge by Ammonius, Elias, and David. See Hadot, p. 100.
(Pro!. 2.1-48), but we do not, of course, know what Greek term was used. At Pro!. 1.8, the discus 57. CAG IV.3, pp. 2.22-9.24. Cf. Hadot, p. 100.
sion of the theme is introduced as scripturae huills causa praeciplla. Neuschafer did not find the
.58. E. Klostemlann also noted these definitions, and discussed them in the general context of
aKonoç; discussed in the fragments of the PsCom he examined (p. 76). Ongen's use of philosophical definitions in "Origeniana", in Neutestamentliche Studien Georg
50. Noùç;, il seems to me, approximates npOOE<Hç; very closely here, i.e. the "theme" of John's ~einri~i zu seinem 70. Gebllrtstag (Leipzig, 1914),245-251, and again in "Überkommene Defini
Gospel, which is the divinity of Jesus. Cf. 6.162 and 10.300 where Origen again uses voùç; in a t~onen lm Werke des Origenes", ZNW 37 (1938) 54-61. The same three definitions appear as the
sense that approaches npOOE<Hç;. fust catena fragment on Matthew in GCS 41, p. 13, where Klostermann notes that the fragment may
51. 1 Cor 2.16, 12. Origen always quotes these two verses together, and in this order. in fact, be derived from Comfn. '