Christology in Context and Conflict: the Nature
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHRISTOLOGY IN CONTEXT AND CONFLICT: THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF CHRIST IN ORIGEN’S POLEMICAL THEOLOGY MARY LOUISE RUSKIN SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF PhD UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON JUNE 2006 UMI Number: U592347 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U592347 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 I, Mary Louise Ruskin, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information is derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 ABSTRACT In this thesis, I highlight the crucial importance o f placing Origen’s theology within the correct polemical context. It has been common scholarly practice to interpret the works of Origen within the context of the Nicene Controversy. This leads to distortion and confusion. The correct interpretation of Origen depends upon a detailed understanding of the intellectual milieu in which he wrote. Origen’s Christology, indeed his entire theology, is primarily apologetic. He has a specific set of doctrinal opponents, whose attitudes and beliefs shape and dictate his own theology. In the first chapter of this thesis, we discuss how Origen’s engagement with pagan opponents led him to adopt their central doctrine of the deus absconditus and how Christ takes on the guise of a Middle- Platonic second God. We also see how Origen’s main opponents within the Church were the Monarchians. It was in response to their extreme unitarianism that Origen was obliged to develop his famous doctrine of the three distinct divine ouoiai. In chapter 2, we consider the controversial fragment preserved by Rufinus {Apology 2.9), in which Origen apparently describes the Father and the Son as 6poouoio<;. By a careful examination o f the original polemical context in which Origen wrote, namely the Monarchian controversy, we utterly reject the authenticity of this fragment. Consubstantiality was the distinguishing doctrine of the Monarchians; as such, Origen could never have endorsed it. Rufinus has skewed the original version to suit an entirely different polemical context, namely the Nicene controversy. In chapter 3, we examine Origen’s doctrine of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Once again we see how polemic and apologetic are the main spur to the development of Origen’s theology. It is in response to widespread pagan ridicule that Origen ignores the Saviour’s human nature and presents Christ as wholly divine. Moreover, Origen’s explanation of the mechanics of the Incarnation - exactly how it was possible for God to become man - reveals a similar awareness of traditional philosophical objections. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements P -6 Chapter 1: Origen’s Trinitarian theology in context Introduction P-7 The Apologist doctrine of God and the Logos p. 14 The Eternal Generation of the Son p.27 The role of the Son within the Godhead p.32 Origen and the Monarchians p.39 Monarchianism in the Commentary on St John p.45 The meaning of otoola p.55 The meaning o f i)7t6oTaoi<; p.63 oboia and imdaxacuq in Origen’s Trinitarian theology .66p The Father and the Son: transcendence and subordination p.69 The role of the Son in Origen’s mystical theology p.80 Subordinationism: conclusion p.88 Conclusion p.89 Chapter 2: Did Origen apply the term bpoouoioq to the Son? Introduction p. 92 Rufinus’ method of translation p.95 The importance of the 6(ioouoio<; claim in late fourth century Trinitarian Controversies p.99 The relevance of the bpooboioq claim to the charge that Origen believed the Son to be innatus p. 105 The relation of the bpoouoioc; claim to Origen’s overall theology p. 106 The attitude of Origen’s immediate successors and disciples to the term bpoouoioq p.l 17 Consubstantiality in Western and Eastern Trinitarian theology p. 122 Conclusion p. 125 Rufinus’ other emendations p. 126 4 Chapter 3: Origen’s Christology in Context. Introduction p. 131 Christology as an historically sensitive phenomenon p. 137 Pagan polemic as a background to Origen’s Christology p. 138 Origen’s understanding of the fall and of redemption p. 152 Origen’s theory of the soul of Christ p. 181 The Temptation p.202 The Agony in the Garden p.210 Christ’s arrest, crucifixion and death p.228 Conclusion p.234 Bibliography p.236 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Very many people have helped me with the writing of this thesis. To them, I now express my heartfelt thanks. I owe a very great deal to Professor Gerard O’Daly, for his patience, encouragement and, above all, his knowledge and expertise. I also thank Professor Bob Sharpies, who has helped me in various important ways. On the technical side, I am indebted to all the staff at the Institute o f Classical Studies, especially to Sue Willetts for her unparalleled computer knowledge and astounding generosity with her precious time; thanks also to Sophia Fisher for her help with various languages. I also thank the staff at Dr Williams’s Library, on whose excellent collection my research almost entirely depends. Personal thanks are due to the many friends who have lent me their emotional support over the years, especially Jennifer, Zach, Paul and, from the very beginning, Tania and Anne. My family have helped me in such an array of ways that I can never thank them enough; it is to my parents that I owe the greatest debt of all. Last but not least, thanks to Russell Henman, for a very different life. I have decided to dedicate this thesis to the memory of my Grandmother, who always encouraged and supported me. We often spoke of the day when I should finish the thesis: I am sorry that she is not here to witness it. 6 ORIGEN’S TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY IN CONTEXT INTRODUCTION (i) As head o f the Catechetical school o f Alexandria, influential teacher o f impressionable young converts, and later as a preacher and guardian of a large urban flock, Origen was well aware of the dangers of doctrinal deviance. Although it would be another fifty years or so before the meeting of the first great Councils and the definitive establishment o f doctrinal orthodoxy, Origen recognized the existence of a set of beliefs which every Christian was bound to accept. Those who did not were condemned as heretics.1 Origen’s work at the Catechetical school2 centred upon the rigorous schooling of potential converts in the regula fidei.3 He had to ensure that his pupils were taught the proper kind of Christianity; this was especially important in a city like Alexandria, where many variant forms o f the faith were vying for attention. The thirst for doctrinal orthodoxy was something of aleit-motif of Origen’s whole career. Eusebius’ panegyric in theHistoria Ecclesiastica depends to a very large extent upon presenting his subject as a pillar of orthodoxy.4 He reports, for example, on Origen’s presence at the council set up to try Beryl of Bostra, who was accused of Monarchianism. We are told that Origen succeeded in converting the man to the orthodox faith (H.E. 6.33). He enjoyed similar success in his dealings with an anonymous heretical group, active in Arabia, who denied the immediate release o f the soul (H.E. 6.37) and with the Helkesaites, who denied the authority o f the Pauline Epistles (H.E. 6.38).5 The recently discovered Dialogue with Heraclides details Origen’s rigorous examination of the Trinitarian heresy of a certain Maximus. As a young teacher in Alexandria, Origen often engaged in 1 The fei£p68o£,oi, those guilty o f alpeoiq. The use of the terms ‘heresy’, ‘heretics’, ‘orthodoxy’ etc. in this thesis do not of course reflect the personal opinion of the author nor are they intended in any way as value judgements. I am simply reflecting the prejudices of Origen. As we argue below, at this early date there was no precise, universally accepted definition of these key terms; ‘heresy’ was a subjective concept, constantly re-defined by different religious groups. It was only following the Council of Nicaea that the terms ‘heresy’ and ‘orthodoxy’ came to have a definite and specific reference. 2 As reported by Eusebuis, Historia Ecclesiastica 6.2.8, 6.15. 3 See below for a discussion and attempted definition o f this central phrase. 4 It was of course the major thrust of Eusebius’ defence of Origen to present him in this way. We must be wary therefore of a certain amount of inevitable polemical exaggeration. Le Boulluec (1985) II, pp.439-442 notes how Pamphilus also quotes many of Origen’s anti-heretical diatribes in a similar attempt to vindicate the orthodoxy of his master (Pamphilus, Apology for Origen, passim). 5 True to the dictates of the biographical genre, Eusebius reports a childhood incident which fore shadows the major characteristic of the adult subject. After the death of his father, Origen was adopted by a wealthy benefactress. In her house, he met a number of heretics, but refused to associate with 7 public debates with various heretics, notably the Gnostics .6 And as a presbyter in Caesarea, the mature Origen made full use of his clerical powers to excommunicate anyone he deemed a heretic.7 Bardy sums up Origen’s activities: “c ’est frequemment qu’Origene avait affaire aux heretiques.”8 O f course, at this early stage in the history of the Church, many fundamental questions had yet to receive definitive answers.