Origen's Commentary Research Articles

Review: The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians.

Review: The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians.

The commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. By Ronald E. Heine. (Oxford Early Christian Studies.) Pp. xii+297. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. £50. 0 19 924551 7

The commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. By Ronald E. Heine. (Oxford Early Christian Studies.) Pp. xii+297. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. £50. 0 19 924551 7 - Volume 54 Issue 4

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (review)

With this first English translation of Origen's Commentary on Romans, Thomas Scheck makes a significant contribution to studies of Origen and the history of Pauline exegesis. Scheck bases his translation on Caroline Hammond Bammel's critical edition of Rufinus' Latin version of the Commentary. His is only the second translation of the critical edition into a modern language; the first is in Japanese by Takeshi Odaka.

Recovering Origen's Pauline Exegesis: Exegesis and Eschatology in the Commentary on Ephesians

Origen's Commentary on Ephesians is preserved only in fragments excerpted in a Byzantine catena, which are inadequate for reconstructing Origen's interpretation of this letter. This article investigates the possibility that a commentary on the same text by Jerome preserves the interplay in Origen's commentary between the investigation of specific exegetical problems and the interpretation of the eschatological vision presented in Ephesians. This thesis is pursued in a detailed examination of five passages that are critical to the eschatology of Origen's commentary. Although Jerome does not permit the reconstruction of Origen's exact words, it may be possible to recover from the Latin commentary the structure and the flow of the exegetical inquiry the Alexandrian exegete conducts. In particular, Jerome's attestation to Origen's commentary may support a reappraisal of Origen's complex thought obscured by the subsequent conflict over the theologian in the late fourth century.

In Search of Origen's Commentary on Philemon

In a letter to Paula, in which he includes a list of Origen's Pauline commentaries, Jerome refers to a commentary on Philemon. There is no extant Greek manuscript tradition of this commentary by Origen. There are also no Greek fragments attributed to Origen in the catena commentary on Philemon edited by Cramer from the eleventh-century codex Parisinus Coislin 204. The Codex von der Goltz, which has provided helpful information on some of Origen's other Pauline commentaries, has only two brief, marginal references to Origen on the textual reading of Philemon at verses 10 and 12. The only known portion of Origen's commentary on Philemon that has been preserved is a fragment of his comments on Philemon 5 in Rufinus's Latin translation ofIn Apologeticum S. Pamphili.

Some traces of an ancient Latin compilation of Origen's Commentary on Genesis

Lorsqu'il composa son premier Tractatus Origenis, Gregoire d'Elvire semble avoir utilise une compilation latine du Commentaire sur la Genese d'Origene. En fait, Gregoire est clairement redevable a Origene d'une interpretation largement anti-anthropomorphite de Gen. 1, 26, en depit du fait qu'il ne pouvait certainement pas lire le grec, et qu'il fut toujours lie aux sources latines. Il est vrai que la meme section anti-anthropomorphite du Tractatus depend egalement de Novatien, comme le revele une comparaison avec le De Trinitate 6, mais il y a aussi bien des parallelismes textuels independants entre cette section du Tractatus et un fragment de la catena origenienne. Il est tres probable, toutefois, que Novatien, dans le De Trinitate 6-7, suive egalement Origene. Les passages origeniens, dans le premier Tractatus et dans le De Trinitate 6-7, sont ainsi en partie divergents et en partie convergents. Une explication plausible de ce fait peut etre que Novatien fil une compilation latine du texte d'Origene, et qu'il l'utilisa lorsqu'il redigea le De Trinitate. Bien plus tard, cette meme compilation fut exploitee par l'auteur du Tractatus Origenis.

Can the Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary on John Be Trusted?

Can the Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary on John Be Trusted?

Can the Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary On John Be Trusted?

Can the Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary On John Be Trusted?

The Sources for Valentinian Gnosticism: a Question of Methodology

The Valentinian writings often served as grains of sand in the oyster bed of second and third century patristic literature, and in many instances it is still possible to recover those irritants with a reasonable degree of certainty. The patristic works which contain this primary Valentinian material have long been isolated and, using F.-M.-M. Sagnard's list,' include the following seven: Irenaeus' Adversus haereses; Clement of Alexandria's Stromata and Excerpta ex Theodoto; Hippolytus' Refutatio; Tertullian's Adversus Valentinianos; Origen's Commentary John, which contains the fragments of Heracleon; and section 33 of Epiphanius' Panarion which reproduces Ptolemy's Letter to Flora. To these, says Sagnard, on pourrait ajouter: PseudoTertullien (Adversus omnes haereses), Philastre (De haeresibus), Epiphane ([le reste du] Panarion), trois ecrits derivant d'une meme source...; de meme Theodoret.2 To this group of later and derivative sources should be added K. Koschorke's recent collection of less familiar patristic material appearing to preserve some Valentinian sources. These range from Didymus' Commentary the Psalms to comments recorded by the Second Tryllian Synod of 692.3 Another addition which now must be made to Sagnard's list is the evidence from the Nag Hammadi find of 1945. It would appear that these writings were treasured their own merit by the monks of the neighbouring Pachomian monastary at Chenoboskion. Debate continues which of these 46 independent works are Valentinian, but the following seven make a defensible working group: The Prayer of the

A Valentinian Interpretation of Baptism and Eucharist — and Its Critique of “Orthodox” Sacramental Theology and Practice

The question of how different gnostic Christians interpreted and practiced sacraments — so long limited to the sparse references in the anti-gnostic writers — is being reexamined in the light of recently available gnostic documents. Yet one source long available — the fragments of Heracleon that Origen cites in his ownCommentary on John— yields evidence that Heracleon not only interprets the sacraments in terms of Valentinian theology, but also criticized, from this theological standpoint, the sacramental theology and practice of the “great church.” Heracleon's sacramental theology, however, has escaped the notice of those researchers that have limited their investigation to the quoted fragments themselves. Analysis of Origen's commentary as a whole reveals that other statements of Heracleon's doctrine frequently appear apart from the direct quotations. Such statements, recognizable by their concurrence of terminology and doctrine with the quoted fragments, Origen introduces as the opinion of “the heterodox,” 3 or “those who introduce the doctrine of natures,” or in the voice of the imaginary interlocutor. As Heracleon is his principal protagonist, these often set forth his views. Extending our methodology to include investigation of Origen's arguments — which are characteristically structured, in theJohncommentary, to refute Heracleon's allegations — we discover in the extant debate evidence for a Valentinian theology of baptism and the eucharist.

The Nature of Christ in Origen's Commentary on John

Origen's Commentary on John provides us with a fruitful acquaintance with his christological thinking. The Commentary as a text is not well presented, and for this reason the work is not as well known as it might be, although Origen is the first great commentator of Scripture whose exegetical works have come down to us. It seems important to know what he has to say in those works which he was able to write according to his inclination, and not for the purposes of an argumentum ad hominem. The Commentary on John itself provides the reason why it should be studied as an important revelation of Origen's thought, since he describes the Fourth Gospel as the greatest of the Gospel writings because it contains , and plainly ‘declared ’ in a way the Synoptics did not, although no one can understand the meaning of the Gospel unless, like John, he has been shown ‘by Jesus Himself, Jesus as He is’ (Book I, 6). The writing of this Commentary was not a work taken up lightly or without a great deal of hardship on the part of the author. It is a carefully—indeed painfully—wrought out work, agonised over to the last logical detail according to his exegetical method, and must be considered as one of the most serious attempts at a systematic construction of a christological position in the history of Christian thought.

The Question of the Rich Young Man in a Jewish-Christian Gospel

It is in the Latin translation of Origen's commentary on the of Matthew that a passage--dealing with the question of the rich young man (cf. Matth. xix I6-30, Mark x 17-31, Luke xviii I8-30)-is quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. This quotation is not available in the original Greek text 1) of this commentary and it is accepted that it has been added by the unknown Latin translator of this work 2). The quotation is introduced by the words: Scriptum est in evangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos..., but investigations by Schmidtke resulted in the supposition that the passage goes back to the of the Nazoraeans, a Jewish-Christian gospel based upon the gospel of Matthew and written for the Aramaic or Syriac speaking Christians in the environment of Beroea in the middle of the second century 3). This supposition has not been generally accepted; for instance, in a recent study by Jeremias, he, on the contrary, believes the quotation to have been taken from the of the Hebrews and to reflect independent gospel tradition 4).