The Reception of Origen in the Hexaemeron by Anastasius Sinaita Between Criticism and Approval*

Dimitrios ZAGANAS KULeuven

In his SpiritualAnagogyoftheHexaemeralCreation (CPG 7770, hereafter: Hexaemeron)1, Anastasius of Sinai frequently appeals to the early Fathers, as a group and individually2, in support of his distinctly spiritual exegesis of Gen 1–3. In all such cases the name of Origen is conspicuously absent3, although he was (among) the first to comment extensively on Gen- esis and was best known for his allegorical approach to the Bible. It is certainly plausible that Origen’s sixth-century condemnation as heretic has made it impossible to appeal to him as an ancient Christian authority without being accused of Origenism. Would this have made it instead necessary to openly criticize and even denigrate him? Anastasius’ Hexaemeron contains several references to Origen, most of which are explicit and critical. At the same time, less explicit references imply that Anastasius had some access to Origen’s works on Genesis, whilst his proposed method of interpretation shows acquaintance with Origen’s method. To be sure, the reception of Origen by Anastasius is complex and needs a special study4. In this article, I shall briefly examine Anastasius’ ambivalent (and perhaps deceptive) attitude towards Origen, in order to uncover and assess

∗ This article is a revised and extended version of a paper presented at the Origeniana Duodecima:Origen’sLegacyintheHolyLand–ATaleofThreeCities:Jerusalem,Cae- sareaandBethleheminLateAntiquity, Jerusalem, June 2017. 1. ANASTASIUS OF SINAI, Hexaemeron (hereafter: Hex.), ed. and trans. C.A. KUEHN – J.D. BAGGARLY (OCA, 278), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2007. The citations of Greek text will include book and line numbers. All translations of the Hexaemeron are mine, based on Kuehn – Baggarly’s translation, which is not literal enough and not always correct. 2. For a discussion of Anastasius’ references to, and purported quotations from, individual early Christian authors (except Origen) in the Hexaemeron see D. ZAGANAS, AnastaseleSinaïte, entrecitationetinvention:l’Hexaéméronetsessources«antiques», in Augustinianum 56 (2016) 391-409. 3. See especially Hex. I, 321-327 and VIIb, 469-475, where the list of early Christian authors who, according to Anastasius, were applying the creation and paradise narrative to Christ and the Church, ends respectively with “the very wise Ammonius” (Saccas), a teacher of Origen, and with Pantaenus and Clement, Origen’s predecessors in the catechetical school of Alexandria. 4. Cf. C. KUEHN, AnastasiusofSinai:BiblicalScholar, in ByzantinischeZeitschrift103 (2010) 55-81, here p. 71. 416 D. ZAGANAS the reception of Origen in the Hexaemeron. First I will survey the explicit references to Origen and compare them meaningfully with those implicit; then I will argue that Anastasius’ exegetical method is much inspired and influenced by Origen’s allegory.

I. EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT REFERENCES TO ORIGEN

For Anastasius of Sinai, as for other seventh- and eighth-century heresi- ologists, Origen and his followers had been officially condemned by the emperor Justinian in the fifth ecumenical council (Constantinople, 553 AD)5. Direct references to Origen were therefore strongly and, to some extent, inevitably conditioned by his condemnation as heretic. However, implicit mentions were not necessarily subject to that constraint. Throughout the Hexaemeron, Anastasius refers eight times to Origen who is either called by his name and his nickname (Adamantius), or identified as “the compiler of the Hexapla”.

1. ExplicitCriticism The five explicit references to Origen all take the form of criticism, sometimes mixed with compassion. The first one seeks to vindicate from the charge of Origenism Anastasius’ case for the spiritual meaning of paradise:

In our account of the spiritual paradise, Origen the hunchback should not boast as straight-thinking (cf. 3 Kings 21,11). Having made insatiable use of anagogies and spiritual interpretations, he allegorised as mythical tragedies all that was created in the six days. [...] Therefore by synodal decree the Church justly condemned and rejected Origen. For he should have first accepted the story as literal fact, and then he should have proceeded to anagogies where necessary6.

According to Anastasius, Origen’s allegorisation of the whole hexae- meral creation was clearly a ματαιοπονία, a labour in vain, which led many Church Fathers in fourth and fifth centuries to concentrate on a literal explanation of the biblical narrative, and thus to uphold the existence of

5. ANASTASIUS OF SINAI, Hodegos V, 68-74, ed. K.-H. UTHEMANN (CCSG, 8), Turnhout, Leuven, 1981. Cf. GEORGES HIEROMONK, Dehaeresibus IX, 3, ed. M. RICHARD, in REB 28 (1970), p. 258; ANASTASIUS OF SINAI (?), Dehaeresibusetsynodis 14 and 15, ed. K.-H. UTHE- MANN, in AnnuariumHistoriaeConciliorum 14 (1982), pp. 81-82; GERMANUS OF CON- STANTINOPLE, Dehaeresibusetsynodis 34, PG 98, 72B-C. 6. Hex. VIIb, 683-694: Λεγόντων δὲ ἡμῶν τὰ περὶ τοῦ πνευματικοῦ παραδείσου μὴ καυχάσθω Ὠριγένης ὁ κυρτὸς ὡς ὀρθόφρων. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἀπλήστως χρησάμενος ταῖς ἀναγωγαῖς καὶ πνευματικαῖς θεωρίαις πάντα τὰ ἐν τῇ ἑξαημέρῳ κτίσματα εἰς μυθικὰς τραγῳδίας ἀλληγόρησε [...] Διὸ καὶ δικαίως Ὠριγένην συνοδικῇ ψήφῳ καθελοῦσα ἀπε- βάλλετο, ἐχρὴν γὰρ αὐτὸν πρῶτον τὴν κατὰ τὸ γράμμα ἱστορίαν παραδέξασθαι, εἶθ’ οὕτως πρὸς ἀναγωγάς, ἐν οἷς χρή, χωρῆσαι. The paraphrase of 3 Kings 21,11 (μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ κυρτὸς ὡς ὁ ὀρθός) went unnoticed by KUEHN – BAGGARLY, Anastasius (n. 1), p. 269. THE RECEPTION OF ORIGEN IN ANASTASIUS SINAITA’S HEXAEMERON 417 an earthly paradise created by God7. Elsewhere, Anastasius cautions against listening to “Origen and his followers who mythically imagine a pre-existence for our souls”8. Origen’s doctrine that Adam and Eve, before being covered by garments of skin, were naked intellects fully incorrupt- ible cannot be justified, Anastasius says, on pragmatic and biblical grounds. Therefore, the “great wise Methodius” of Olympus had rightly refuted the “monstrous madness” (τερατώδη μανίαν) of Origen, showing that man was from the beginning created as earth-born body9. Apart from these rather traditional attacks, there are three cases where Anastasius briefly quotes the alleged opinion of Origen, and where virtually – and most surprisingly – denounces him for being literalist! • With regard to Gen 2,9, together with Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Theo- dore of Antioch (Mopsuestia), the “wretched Origen” appears to have identified the tree in paradise with a fig tree10. The epithet ἄθλιος (wretched, miserable) receives, however, an explanation by Anastasius:

I call him (sc. Origen) ‘wretched’ because after he authored numerous and useful works for the Church, and interpreted profitably all the Old and New Scrip- ture word by word, he fell away from the truth like Eusebius of Palestine11.

• With regard to Gen 2,17, the “vile and obscene Origen” appears to have understood the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the (knowledge of the) woman12. • According to Anastasius, one of the heresies that arose from a purely literal interpretation of the paradise story is this of Origen: Origen the unfortunate (ὁ δυστυχής) – I do not know how they call him sage – became foolish affirming that the place of incorruptibility has become a brothel, since he taught that the beautiful fruit of the tree of transgression was the intercourse with the woman13.

7. Hex. VIIb, 695-706; 720-721. 8. Hex. XI, 929-930: Ἀπίτω γὰρ ἡμῶν πόρρω Ὠριγένης καὶ οἱ τοῦ Ὠριγένους μῦσται τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν προΰπαρξιν μυθικῶς φανταζόμενοι. 9. Hex. XI, 935-938: ...οὗ (sc. Ὠριγένους) τὴν τερατώδη μανίαν ἀνατρέπων ὁ πολὺς ἐν σοφίᾳ Μεθόδιος οὐ μίαν οὐδὲ δευτέραν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ δεκάτην ἡμῖν γραφικὴν ἀπόδειξιν παρίστησι δηλοῦσαν ὅτι σῶμα ἀληθῶς γηγενὲς καὶ χοϊκὸν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεός κτλ. 10. Hex. VIII, 12-14: Θεοδώρητος δὲ ὁ τῶν Κυρ<ρ>ηστικῶν συκὴν εἶπεν εἶναι τὸ ξύλον τοῦ καρποῦ, οὗ ἔφαγεν ὁ Ἀδάμ· ὡσαύτως καὶ Θεόδωρος ὁ Ἀντιοχεύς· ὡσαύτως καὶ Ὠριγένης ὁ ἄθλιος. 11. Hex. VIII, 14-18: Ἄθλιον δ’ αὐτὸν ἀποκαλῶ, ὅτι πολλοὺς καὶ χρησίμους ἱδρῶτας καταβαλὼν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ πᾶσαν παλαιὰν καὶ καινὴν γραφὴν κατὰ λέξιν προσφόρως ἑρμηνεύσας ὕστερον, καθὰ καὶ Εὐσέβιος ὁ Παλαιστιναῖος, τῆς ἀληθείας διωλίσθησε. 12. Hex. IX, 124-125: Ὁ δὲ ἀρρητοποιὸς ὡς αἰσχρουργὸς Ὠριγένης τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦτο (sc. τὸ ξύλον τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν) ἐνόμισεν. 13. Hex. XI, 564-567: Ὠριγένης δὲ ὁ δυστυχὴς (οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως εἶναι σοφὸς λεγόμενος) ἐμωράνθη πορνεῖον ἀποφηνάμενος γεγονέναι τὸ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας χωρίον, τὴν συνουσίαν τῆς γυναικὸς τὸν ὡραῖον τοῦ ξύλου τῆς παρακοῆς δογματίσας καρπόν. 418 D. ZAGANAS

Other than Anastasius’ “quotations” of Origen contradicting each other, it is obvious that Origen could only have opposed such opinions. Suffice it to recall the reaction of Epiphanius of Salamis, in his LettertoJohnof Jerusalem:

who can tolerate Origen when he gives us a paradise in the third heaven, and transfers that which the Scripture mentions from earth to the heavenly places, and when he explains allegorically all the trees which are mentioned in Genesis [...]?14.

This seems to be a counter-question to Origen’s Deprincipiis IV, 3, 1. There Origen himself was wondering:

who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, ‘planted a paradise eastward in Eden’, and set in it a visible and palpable ‘tree of life’ [...]?15.

2. ImplicitBorrowings Contrary to the passages where Origen is mentioned by name, less explicit references to Origen – once called by his nickname, Adamantius, and twice referred to as “the compiler of the Hexapla” –, are also less critical since they point to borrowings from his (now lost) exegesis of Genesis. For instance, what makes Gen 3,8-11 particularly obscure, according to Anastasius, is the difficulty to “apply it also to Christ in a way similar to the previous passages”, a problem that was common “to the early inspired and learned (sc. exegetes), so Adamantius the deceiver (Ἀδαμάντιος ὁ φυρατής) says”16. It is not unlikely that this information may have come from Origen’s lost commentary on Genesis, given the importance Origen was attaching to render homogeneous (ἐξομαλίζειν) the (spiritual) meaning of the biblical text17. The other two references to Origen as the compiler of the Hexapla may also have some connection with his commentary. Contrary to appearances,

14. Preserved in Latin by JEROME, Letter 51,5 (From Epiphanius of Salamis to John of Jerusalem), ed. J. LABOURT, vol. 2, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1951, p. 164: autquisaudiat intertiocaelodonantemnobisOrigenemparadisum,etillumquemscripturacommemorat deterraadcaelestiatransferentem,etomnesarboresquaescribunturinGenesiallegorice intellegentem[...]?. Translation by W.H. FREMANTLE etal., St.Jerome:LettersandSelected Works, New York, 1893, p. 86. 15. ORIGEN, DeprincipiisIV, 3, 1, SC 268, p. 342: Τίς δ’ οὕτως ἠλίθιος ὡς οἰηθῆναι τρόπον ἀνθρώπου γεωργοῦ τὸν θεὸν πεφυτευκέναι παράδεισον ἐν Ἐδὲμ κατὰ ἀνατολάς, καὶ ξύλον ζωῆς ἐν αὐτῷ πεποιηκέναι ὁρατὸν καὶ αἰσθητόν [...]; Translation by G.W. BUT- TERWORTH, Origen:OnFirstPrinciples, New York, Harper and Row, 1966, p. 288. 16. Hex. XI, 124-128: Ἐπεὶ οὖν πολλὴ καὶ δυσκατάληπτος ὑπὲρ πάντα τὰ προειρη- μένα ἡ τῶν προκειμένων (sc. Gen 3,8-11) ἀληθὴς κατανόησις μὴ ὅτι τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἀνέκαθεν θεολήπτοις καὶ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοῖς (sc. ἐξηγηταῖς), ὡς καὶ Ἀδαμάντιός φησιν ὁ φυρατὴς εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ ταῦτα καθ’ ὁμοιότητα τῶν ἄλλων λαβεῖν κτλ. 17. Cf. ORIGEN, Philocalia 1, 29, SC 302. THE RECEPTION OF ORIGEN IN ANASTASIUS SINAITA’S HEXAEMERON 419

Anastasius does not quote variant readings from the Hexapla18, but textual remarks such as the doubling of God’s name (‘Lord God’ instead of ‘God’) from Gen 2,8 onward19 and the thematic division between Gen 3,22 and 3,2320, which support a christological explanation. It is noteworthy that in the few implicit references, Origen’s witness is useful and comparable to that of learned exegetes or venerable early Christian authors like Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon and Philo the philoso- pher. This contrasts with the explicit references, where Origen, accused either of allegorism or of literalism, is presented as an official heretic and as an ancient heresiarch next to Samaritans and Manicheans. For sure, Anastasius’ attitude towards Origen appears complex and ambivalent, if not deliberately deceptive: on the one hand, repeating old accusations and making out- rageous allegations against Origen, and on the other hand, acknowledging the usefulness of his exegetical work and indirectly referring to it.

II. ANASTASIUS’ AND ORIGEN’S EXEGESIS IN COMPARISON

Anastasius’ ambivalence vis-à-vis Origen becomes more noticeable when we juxtapose his critical statements about Origen with his own approach to Genesis 1–3, in the sense that Anastasius’ Hexaemeron per- petuates and reinforces the exegetical paradigm of Origen. Although Origen’s commentary on Genesis 1–4 has been lost except for a few fragments, his other works and indirect witnesses21 reflect his general hermeneutical views and provide glimpses of the way the creation and fall story was, or could have been, read. I will then attempt to assess how Origen has influenced Anastasius of Sinai’s method of interpretation by demonstrating a significant point of convergence: the establishment of an all-embracing allegory. For the sake of clarity, I will first expound Anasta- sius’ ratioexegetica, then draw parallels with Origen.

1. Theratio exegeticaofAnastasius In the preface of the Hexaemeron, Anastasius emphasizes the prophetic dimension of Moses’ account of the genesis of the world, assuming that in the same narrative Moses not only depicted the emergence into being (εἶναι) of the creation, but also foresaw “its remaking into well-being (εὖ

18. For a discussion of Anastasius’ references to the Hexapla, see the contribution by R. CEULEMANS, FactandFictionintheBiblicalScholarshipofAnastasius(CPG7770: On the Hexaëmeron), in this volume, pp. 375-396. 19. Hex. VIIb, 246-255. 20. Hex. XII, 108-112. 21. All extant fragments of, and testimonia about Origen’s InGenesim have been use- fully gathered together by K. METZLER, Origenes:DieKommentierungdesBuchesGenesis (Origenes: Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung, 1/1), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2010. 420 D. ZAGANAS

εἶναι) by Christ, which he did in some prophetic, obscure and allegorical way (προφητικῷ δέ τινι χαρακτῆρι καὶ σκοτεινῷ καὶ ἀλληγορικῷ). For in wisdom has God made beforehand allthings (πάντα) in heaven and on earth (cf. Ps 103,24; Col 1,26) as a type and sketch of this remaking”22. This means that the wholecreation (πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις) was created and preconceived “according to the image of the Church and her bridegroom Christ” (cf. Eph 5,32). In fact, through a combination of Pauline quotations, Anastasius argues as follows (emphasis is always mine):

This is the mystery ‘which God decreed before the ages for our glory’ (1 Cor 2,7), his Son, ‘the mystery hidden for ages and generations’ (Col 1,26). Therefore God the Father is said ‘to recapitulate allthings in Christ’ (Eph 1,10). What else does it mean ‘to recapitulate’ than to fulfil in Christ through actions what has prefigured or foreshadowed Christ through words? For it is said: ‘All things were made through him and for him (John 1,3; Col 1,16), Christ, both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – allthings were created through him and for him’ (Col 1,16). When the divinely speaking Apostle says that ‘all things, both visible and invisible, were created for Christ’, he clearly points out and teaches that the visible and invisible creation was preconceived and made ‘for Christ and for the Church’ (Eph 5,32)23.

Obviously, Anastasius’ aim is to relate to Christ the whole creation story, and thus to give it a symbolic meaning. While Col 1,16 guarantees the christological foundation and purpose of all creation, a shift in meaning occurs in the phrase ‘for Christ’, since the addition ‘for Christ andfor theChurch’ points at Eph 5,32, a passage that also underlies Anastasius’ thought. A few paragraphs further on, Anastasius asserts that:

If the whole creation ‘has been made for man’ (cf. Mark 2,27), and Paul refers Adam and Eve to Christ and the Church while saying that ‘This mystery is

22. Hex. I, 68-73, 84-86: καθὰ προφήτης ὁ θεῖος Μωσῆς προεῖδε καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸ εὖ εἶναι παραγωγὴν καὶ δημιουργίαν τῆς κτίσεως, καὶ γράφων τὴν εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτῆς ὕπαρξιν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ γραφῇ ἐγκατέθηκεν καὶ τὴν διὰ Χριστοῦ εἰς τὸ εὖ εἶναι ἀνάπλασιν αὐτῆς, προφητικῷ δέ τινι χαρακτῆρι καὶ σκοτεινῷ καὶ ἀλληγορικῷ, καὶ γὰρ πάντα τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τύπον καὶ προγραμμὸν αὐτῆς ἐν σοφίᾳ προκα- τεσκεύασε [...] πᾶσα ἡ ὁρωμένη τε καὶ νοουμένη κτίσις κατ’ εἰκόνα ταύτης (sc. ἐκκλη- σίας) καὶ τοῦ νυμφίου αὐτῆς Χριστοῦ προκατεσκευάσθη τε καὶ προδιετυπώθη. 23. Hex. I, 86-98: Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ μυστήριον ὃ προώρισενὁΘεὸςπρὸτῶναἰώνων εἰςδόξανἡμῶν, τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, μυστήριοντὸἀποκεκρυμμένονἀπὸτῶναἰώνωνκαὶἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν. Ὅθεν καὶ ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι λέγεται τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατήρ. Τί ἐστι τὸ ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι, ἀλλ’ ἢ τὰ λόγοις εἰς αὐτὸν προτυπωθέντα ἢ καὶ προσκιαγραφηθέντα εἰς ἔργον πληρωθῆναι διὰ πραγμάτων ἐν αὐτῷ; Πάντα γάρ φησι δι’αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν Χριστὸν ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐνοὐρανοῖςκαὶτὰἐπὶγῆς,τά τε ὁρατὰ καὶτὰἀόρατα,εἴτεθρόνοιεἴτεκυριότητεςεἴτεἀρχαὶεἴτεἐξουσίαι,τὰπάνταδι’αὐτοῦκαὶεἰς αὐτὸνἔκτισται. Λέγων δὲ ὁ θεορρήμων Ἀπόστολος ὅτι Πάντατά τε ὁρατὰκαὶἀόρατα εἰς Χριστὸν ἔκτισται σαφῶς δείκνυσι καὶ διδάσκει ὅτι ἡ ὁρατὴ καὶ ἀόρατος κτίσις εἰς Χριστὸνκαὶεἰςτὴνἐκκλησίαν προδιετυπώθη καὶ ἐγένετο. THE RECEPTION OF ORIGEN IN ANASTASIUS SINAITA’S HEXAEMERON 421

great, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church’ (Eph 5,32), then it is undeniable that the whole creation, which has been made for man and his wife, refers to Christ and the Church24.

Indeed, as Anastasius points out elsewhere, “the whole purpose (σκο- πός) of our present treatise (sc. on the Hexaemeron) is to show that all the six-day creation prefigures the Incarnation of the Word of God and the Church”25, which means to furnish a typological or allegorical explanation of the whole Genesis 1–3. It is precisely what Anastasius strives to do throughout his commentary, looking often to Paul for inspiration and guidance. Here are a couple of examples: • In book I, Anastasius, while being “puzzled” with the plethora of earlier cosmological aporias on Gen 1,1-3, “has confidence in Paul, the mouth of the Holy Spirit, who said that everything in the Law was written (cf. Luke 24,44) beforehand as a type of Christ and his Church (cf. Eph 5,32)”26. • In book XII, he stages a dialogue between Paul and himself: The divine Paul stood beside me, and looking at me, he admonished me sternly. He said: ‘The mystery of those words (sc. Gen 3,23-24) is great, but I say to you, it refers to Christ and the Church’ (cf. Eph 5,32). Consider also these words in that way27.

Apart from Paul who serves as a cornerstone, Anastasius’ “partners” in this enterprise are the holy fathers who had previously explained28 the same chapters of Genesis. More importantly, Anastasius “reveals” that Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of John the evangelist, Clement and Pan- taenus of Alexandria, and Ammonius [Saccas], – ancient exegetes [from the period] before the councils –, “understood the whole six-day creation as referring to Christ and the Church”29. However unlikely or inaccurate

24. Hex. I, 155-160: Εἰ γὰρ πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον γέγονε, τὸν δὲ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τὴν Εὕαν εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὁ Παῦλος ἀναφέρει λέγων ὅτι Τὸ μυστήριοντοῦτομέγαἐστίν,ἐγὼδὲλέγωεἰςΧριστὸνκαὶεἰςτὴνἐκκλησίαν, ἀναντιρρήτως ὅτι καὶ πᾶσα ἡ διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ διὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ σύζυγον γεγενημένη κτίσις εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀναφέρεται. 25. Hex. VII, 240-243: ὁ πᾶς ἡμῶν σκοπὸς οὗτός ἐστι τῆς παρούσης πραγματείας ὥστε δεῖξαι ὅτι πᾶσα ἡ ἑξαήμερος ἐπουράνιός τε καὶ ἐπίγειος κτίσις τὴν σάρκωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν προδιαγράφουσιν. 26. Hex. I, 317-320: Ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ πρὸς τὰς ὑποκειμένας ἀπορίας ἄποροί τινες καὶ παντάποροι πέλομεν, τῷ στόματι τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος θαρροῦντες, λέγω δὴ τῇ τοῦ Παύλου γλώσσῃ φασκούσῃ ὅτι πάντατὰἐντῷνόμῳεἰς τύπον Χριστοῦ καὶεἰςτὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίαν προεγράφη κτλ. 27. Hex. XII, 201-204: Ἐπιστὰς ὁ θειότατος εἶπέ μοι Παῦλος αὐστηρῶς ἐμβριμώμε- νος, εἰς ἐμὲ ἀποβλέψας· Τὸμυστήριον τούτων τῶν θεωρημάτων μέγαἐστίν, ἐγὼδέσοι λέγωεἰςΧριστὸνκαὶεἰςτὴνἐκκλησίαν. Καὶ ταῦτα νόει κατὰ τόνδε τὸν τρόπον. 28. Hex. I, 169-170. 29. Hex. I, 321-325: λαβόντες τὰς ἀφορμάς, εἰ δεῖ φιλαλήθως εἰπεῖν, καὶ συλλα- λήσαντες ἐκ Παπίου τοῦ πάνυ τοῦ Ἱεραπολίτου τοῦ τῷ ἐπιστηθίῳ φοιτήσαντος, καὶ 422 D. ZAGANAS this information may be, it has nonetheless some parallel with the lost part of Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen30. As the Church historian Socrates reports31, Origen particularly explained the mystery related to the incarnate Word in the ninth book of hisGenesis commentary – written in Caesarea, according to Eusebius of Caesarea32 –, where “he established in fuller detail (πλατύτερον κατεσκεύασεν) that Adam is Christ and Eve the Church”. According to his apologists, adds Socrates, Origen “was not the first to come to this doctrine, but he interprets the mystical tradition of the Church”. We do not have to employ assumptions about Origen’s alleged line of tradition; Photius tells us that according to the Apology, Origen was the pupil and successor of Clement, who was the pupil of Pantaenus, who “heard teachers who had seen the apostles, and had even heard them himself”33. We must notice, however, in this regard that Anastasius’ chain of tradition (a) fills the gap between Pantaenus and the apostles, though in a misleading way, and (b) replaces Origen by his master Ammonius, apparently because of his damnatiomemoriae. It is nearly impossible to verify Anastasius’ statement about the early Christian “consensus” on the six-day creation, as it is to reconstruct Origen’s twelve or thirteen books on Genesis. Besides, it seems improb- able that Origen or any other leader of the school of Alexandria, “understood the whole hexaemeron of Christ and of the Church” in the way Anastasius (claims they) did five centuries later. To mention but one example, Col 1,16 is often used by Origen with reference to Gen 1, especially in the De principiis34, while expounding the creation of rational natures (souls) prior to that of the visible (corporeal) world; the same

Κλήμεντος, καὶ Παντανέτου τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων ἱερέως, καὶ Ἀμμωνίου τοῦ σοφωτάτου, τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ πρὸ τῶν συνόδων ἐξηγητῶν εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν πᾶσαν τὴν ἑξαήμερον νοησάντων κτλ. 30. Not with Socrates’ ChurchHistory itself, as argued by R.H. HEINE, Origen:Scholar- shipintheServiceoftheChurch, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 43-44, who first drew this parallel. See note 44 on ORIGÈNE,Traitédesprincipes IV, 3, 7, in SC 269, pp. 210-211; R. AMACKER – É. JUNOD, Étude on PAMPHILE, EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE,Apologie pourOrigène, in SC 465, pp. 55-56. 31. SOCRATES OF CONSTANTINOPLE, HistoriaEcclesiastica III, 7, 7-10, SC 493, p. 276: ἰδικῶς δὲ ὁ εἰς τὴν Γένεσιν αὐτῷ (sc. Ὠριγένει) πεπονημένος ἔνατος τόμος τὸ περὶ τούτου (sc. ἐνανθρωπήσαντος) μυστήριον ἐφανέρωσεν, ἔνθα Ἀδὰμ μὲν τὸν Χριστόν, Εὔαν δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν εἶναι πλατύτερον κατεσκεύασεν. Μάρτυρες τούτων ἀξιόπιστοι ὅ τε ἱερὸς Πάμφιλος καὶ ὁ ἐξ αὐτοῦ χρηματίζων Εὐσέβιος. [...] ἐν ὅλοις <ἓξ> βιβλίοις ἀπολογίαν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ποιούμενοι οὐ πρῶτον Ὠριγένην ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν πραγματείαν ἐλθεῖν φασιν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας μυστικὴν ἑρμηνεῦσαι παράδοσιν. For an analysis, see P. VAN NUFFELEN, TwoFragmentsfromtheApology for OrigenintheChurch HistoryofSocratesScholasticus, in JTS 56 (2005) 103-114. 32. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, HistoriaEcclesiastica VI, 24, 2, SC 41, p. 124. 33. PHOTIUS, Bibliotheca 118, ed. R. HENRY, vol. 2, Paris, 1960, p. 91. For an analysis, see P. NAUTIN, Origène:savieetsonœuvre, Paris, Beauchesne, 1977, pp. 99-108, and especially the introduction by R. AMACKER – É. JUNOD in PAMPHILE, EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE, ApologiepourOrigène, SC 465, pp. 67-74. 34. ORIGEN, DeprincipiisI, 5s, SC 252, pp. 174s; I, 7, 1, pp. 206-208. THE RECEPTION OF ORIGEN IN ANASTASIUS SINAITA’S HEXAEMERON 423 would be true of Origen’s commentary on Genesis, an impression that is supported by the Homilies on the Hexaemeron of Basil of Caesarea35. On the contrary, in Anastasius’ Hexaemeron, there is no discussion about the creation of incorporeal beings, and Col 1,16 is exploited differently, as noted above. If Anastasius’ statement cannot be taken at face value and his commentary does not espouse the tenets of Origenism, then in what way Origen had an influence on Anastasius?

2.PaulasMainGuide One could readily say that the fundamental premise of Anastasius’ work – that the whole creation narrative foreshadows Christ and the Church – was too radical. To prevent this, Anastasius, as Origen says in the De principiis, does not “base his assertion merely on a correct train of rea- soning”, but tries to obtain “references from the holy scriptures, by the authority of which his conclusions may be more credibly upheld”36. Since it is about biblical hermeneutics from a clearly Christian viewpoint, Anastasius, like Origen, shows preference for the “divine apostle Paul”, his “fellow-traveller”, “the mouth of the Holy Spirit”37. Despite the fact that Anastasius makes no reference to the much disputed Gal 4,24-26, and Origen no reference to Col 1,16, both quote Eph 5,32 as a proof of allegorical interpretation38. Moreover, both authors contrast the literal meaning as Jewish with the spiritual as Christian, while exhorting to follow the example of Paul. Origen’s sixth HomilyonGenesis offers a striking parallel with Anastasius’ Hexaemeron in this regard. While expounding the story of Abimelech and Sara (Gen 20), Origen argues:

If anyone wishes to hear and understand these words literally he ought to gather with the Jews rather than with the Christians. But if he wishes to be a Christian and a disciple of Paul, let him hear Paul saying that “the Law is spiritual” (Rom 7,14) [and] declaring that these words are “allegorical” when the law speaks of Abraham and his wife and sons (cf. Gal 4,22-24)39.

35. BASIL OF CAESAREA, HomiliesontheHexaemeron I, 5, SC 26, pp. 104-106. 36. ORIGEN, DeprincipiisI, 5, 4, SC 252, pp. 182-184: Sednedetantisactamdiffi- cilibusrebusconsequentiaesoliusrationeinvitativideamurasserereatqueexconiecturis tantummodoinassensumcogereauditores,videamussiquasetiamdescripturissanctis possimusassertionesassumere,quarumauctoritatehaeccredibiliusadstruantur. Trans. BUTTERWORTH, Origen (n. 15), p. 47. 37. See Hex. I, 44; 95; 129; 318-319. 38. For Origen, see ContraCelsum IV, 49, SC 136, pp. 310-312. 39. ORIGEN, HomiliesonGenesis VI, 1, SC 7bis, pp. 182-184: Siquishaecsecundum litteramsolumaudirevultetintelligere,magiscumIudaeisquamcumChristianisdebet habereauditorium.SiautemvultChristianusesseetPaulidiscipulus,audiateumdicentem quia‘lexspiritualisest’cumdeAbrahamatqueeiusuxoreacfiliisloqueretur,pro- nuntiantemhaec‘allegorica’. Translation by R.H. HEINE, Origen:HomiliesonGenesisand Exodus (The Fathers of the Church, 71), Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 1982, pp. 121-122. 424 D. ZAGANAS

Likewise, Anastasius, after regarding the literal sense of Gen 2,19-20 as inappropriate for God and absurd, says:

Yet the Jews are sick with this disease, who limit their attention only to the letter and are killed by the letter (cf. 2 Cor 3,6). But you, O most divine paradise of the Church planted by God, travel the good and unfailing road with Paul, watcher and citizen of paradise, and listen to him saying that “all creatures in heaven and on earth (cf. Col 1,16) portray Christ and the Church’ (cf. Eph 5,32)”40.

In Anastasius, as in Origen, the authority of Paul not only favours a Christian reading of the Jewish Scriptures, but also provides good grounds for a broad appropriation of the Bible. Origen’s fifth HomilyonExodus is very telling:

The apostle Paul [...] feared that the Church, receiving foreign instructions and not knowing the principle of the instructions, would be in a state of confusion about the foreign document. For that reason he gives some examples of interpretation that we also might note similar things in other passages [... quotation of 1 Cor 10,1-4] What then are we to do who received such instructions about interpretation from Paul, a teacher of the Church? Does it not seem right that we apply this kind of rule which was delivered to us in a similar way in other passages?41.

Suffice it to remind here that in the Hexaemeron, Anastasius, after quot- ing the example of Eph 5,32, invites to “consider also Gen 3,23-24 in that way” (Καὶ ταῦτα νόει κατὰ τόνδε τὸν τρόπον)42. The same rule would apply to the ninth book of Origen’s commentary on Genesis, since in all likelihood, Origen could not have “established in fuller detail that Adam is Christ and Eve the Church” without building on Eph 5,32.

3. AnAll-embracingAllegory There is, however, a significant difference between applying Paul’s example “in other passages” and applying it rather systematically. We have seen that Anastasius practically intends to relate the entire Genesis 1–3 to

40. Hex. IX, 513-518: Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι νοσοῦσιν οἱ τῷ γράμματι μόνῳ τῆς γραφῆς προσέχοντες καὶ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκτένονται (sic). Σὺ δέ, ὦ θειότατε τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ θεοφύτευτε τῆς ἐκκλησίας παράδεισε, τὴν καλὴν καὶ ἀπλανῆ ὁδὸν μετὰ Παύλου τοῦ παραδεισοσκόπου καὶ παραδεισοπολίτου ὅδευε ἀκούων αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι Πάντατὰ ἐνοὐρανοῖςκαὶἐπὶγῆς κτίσματα τὸν Χριστὸνκαὶτὴνἐκκλησίαν διαγράφουσιν. 41. ORIGEN, HomiliesonExodus V, 1, SC 321, pp. 148-150: ApostolusPaulustradidit ecclesiae[...],nealienainstitutasuscipiensetinstitutorumregulamnesciensinperegrino trepidaretinstrumento.Proptereaergoipseinnonnullisintelligentiaetraditexempla,utet nossimiliaobservemusinceteris[...]Quidigituragendumnobisest,quihuiusmodiaPaulo ecclesiaemagistrointelligentiaeinstitutasuscepimus?Nonneiustumvidetur,uttraditam nobishuiusmodiregulamsimiliinceterisservemusexemplo?. Trans. HEINE, Origen (n. 39), pp. 275-276. 42. Hex. XII, 201-204. THE RECEPTION OF ORIGEN IN ANASTASIUS SINAITA’S HEXAEMERON 425

Christ and the Church on the grounds of Col 1,16 and Eph 5,32, although Paul did not set up any overarching principle. This point is perhaps the most evocative of Origen’s masterful achievement. In the beginning of his eleventh HomilyonGenesis, Origen states: The holy apostle (sc. Paul) always offers us opportunities for spiritual understanding and shows the zealous signs by which one may recognize in all things (inomnibus) that ‘the Law is spiritual’ (cf. Rom 7,14)43.

Again with regard to Abraham, but in his CommentaryontheGospelof John, Origen goes one step further. From the incongruity of understanding John 8,39 literally (“Do the works of Abraham”), we learn, Origen says, that “we must interpret the wholestory of Abraham allegorically, and make eachthing he did spiritual”44. A couple pages later, Origen acknowledges that: It would be the task of a wise man [...] to speak of each of these matters, by examining everystory related to Abraham in general, and the entirety of the things written about him, ‘which things are allegorical’ (Gal 4,24), [which] we, as spiritual persons, shall attempt to perform spiritually (cf. 1 Cor 2,13)45.

For Origen, it is not only possible but often necessary to understand the whole biblical story allegorically, since, as stated in the Deprincipiis, “the whole of divine scripture has a spiritual meaning, but not all a bodily meaning; for the bodily meaning is often proved to be an impossibility”46. To sum up, taking as a starting point the few examples of Paul, Origen had recommended and theorized what we can call an “all-embracing allegory” of the Scripture47. It is on this very model of interpretation that Anastasius seems to have built his own exegetical strategy on Gen 1–3.

43. ORIGEN, HomiliesonGenesis XI, 1, SC 7bis, p. 276: SempernobissanctusApostolus occasionespraebetintelligentiaespiritalisetpaucalicet,tamennecessariastudiosisosten- ditindicia,quibusquod‘lexspiritalis’sit,inomnibusagnoscatur. Trans. HEINE,Origen (n. 39), p. 167. 44. ORIGEN, Commentary on John XX, 67, SC 290, p. 190: σαφῶς καὶ ἐντεῦθεν μανθάνομεν ὅτι δεῖ πᾶσαν τὴν κατὰ τὸν Ἀβραὰμ ἀλληγοροῦντα ἱστορίαν ἕκαστον πνευ- ματικῶς ποιῆσαι τῶν πεπραγμένων ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ. Translation by R.H. HEINE, Origen:Com- mentaryontheGospelofJohn,Books13-32 (The Fathers of the Church, 89), Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 1993, p. 220. 45. ORIGEN, CommentaryonJohn XX, 74, SC 290, pp. 194-196: Περὶ ὧν ἑκάστου σοφοῦ τινος καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ βάθη τῆς γραφῆς ἐπισταμένως φθάνειν δυναμένου ἔργον ἂν εἴη λέγειν καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς γε πᾶσαν τὴν κατὰ τὸν Ἀβραὰμ ἱστορίαν βασανίζοντος καὶ ὅλα τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένα, ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, <ἃ> ὡς πνευματικοὶ πνευμα- τικῶς ποιεῖν πειρασόμεθα. Trans. HEINE, Origen (n. 44), p. 222. 46. ORIGEN, DeprincipiisIV, 3, 5, SC 268, p. 362: διακείμεθα γὰρ ἡμεῖς περὶ πάσης τῆς θείας γραφῆς, ὅτι πᾶσα μὲν ἔχει τὸ πνευματικόν, οὐ πᾶσα δὲ τὸ σωματικόν· πολλα- χοῦ γὰρ ἐλέγχεται ἀδύνατον ὂν τὸ σωματικόν. Trans. BUTTERWORTH, Origen (n. 15), p. 297. 47. For a comparison between Paul and Origen with regard to the allegory, see A. LE BOULLUEC, DePaulàOrigène:continuitéoudivergence?, in G. DAHAN – R. GOULET (eds.), Allégoriedespoètes,allégoriedesphilosophes:étudessurlapoétiqueetl’herméneutique del’allégoriedel’AntiquitéàlaRéforme (Textes et traditions, 10), Paris, Vrin, 2005, 113-132 426 D. ZAGANAS

Origen’s prolific work on the Bible was therefore far from being a ματαιο- πονία, a labour in vain48.

III. CONCLUSION: ORIGEN BETWEEN CRITICISM AND APPROVAL

The reception of Origen in the Hexaemeron by Anastasius of Sinai oscillates between explicit criticism and implicit approval. On the one hand, Origen is regarded as an ancient heretic and is thus openly castigated for his doctrinal errors (preexistence of souls, resurrection of the flesh), for excessively allegorizing the Genesis narrative on creation, but also for his (allegedly) purely literal understanding of the paradise trees and their fruits! On the other hand, Origen’s opinion is sometimes deemed worthy of (indirect) mention, whilst his exegetical paradigm appears to have tacitly, but considerably, influenced Anastasius’ own allegorical approach to Gen 1–3 which consists in expounding the whole creation and paradise narrative as foreshadowing the mystery of Christ and the Church. Anasta- sius’ ambivalence towards Origen may well be explained by the effort to shield his predominantly spiritual exegesis from the accusation of Origenism and perhaps to camouflage its reliance on Origen’s method of interpretation. However convincing this attempt had been, it implies that Anastasius had a certain access to Origen’s work on Genesis, on which he actually drew much more than he acknowledged.

Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies Dimitrios ZAGANAS KU Leuven Sint-Michielsstraat 4 - Box 3101 BE-3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

ABSTRACT. — This article examines Anastasius of Sinai’s complex attitude towards Origen in his Hexaemeron (CPG 7770). While the explicit references to Origen are all taking the form of criticism, sometimes mingled with compassion, the few indirect references point to borrowings from his (now lost) work on Genesis. Moreover, Anastasius’ method of interpretation shows acquaintance with Origen’s exegesis. It is argued that Anastasius’ approach to Gen 1–3, which consists in expounding the whole creation and paradise narrative as foreshadowing the mystery of Christ and the Church, has been based upon Origen’s paradigm of an “all- embracing allegory”. Origen, although regarded as heretic, was therefore one of the early Fathers on whom Anastasius actually, but tacitly, drew.

(reprinted in A. LE BOULLUEC, Alexandrieantiqueetchrétienne:ClémentetOrigène [Études Augustiniennes, 178], Paris, 2006, pp. 415-435). 48. Cf. Hex. VIIb, 695-696.