Origen: Philosophy of History & Eschatology
TZAMALIKOS_F1_i-iv_NEW.indd i 2/16/2007 9:32:54 AM Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Formerly Philosophia Patrum
Editors J. den Boeft – J. van Oort – W.L. Petersen – D.T. Runia J.C.M. van Winden – C. Scholten
VOLUME 85
TZAMALIKOS_F1_i-iv_NEW.indd ii 2/16/2007 9:32:54 AM Origen: Philosophy of History & Eschatology
by P. Tzamalikos
LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007
TZAMALIKOS_F1_i-iv_NEW.indd iii 2/16/2007 9:32:54 AM This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Tzamalikos, P. (Panayiotis), 1951– Origen: Philosophy of History and Eschatology / by P. Tzamalikos. p. cm. — (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, ISSN 0920–623X) Includes bibliographical references and indices. ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15648-7 ISBN-10: 90-04-15648-8 (alk. paper) 1. Origen. 2. History—Religious aspects—Christianity—History of doctrines—Early Church, ca. 30–600. 3. Eschatology—History of doctrines. I. Title. II. Series.
BR115.H5T93 2007 230'.13092—dc22 2006052169
ISSN 0920-623x ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15648 7 ISBN-10: 90 04 15648 8
© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishers, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands
TZAMALIKOS_F1_i-iv_NEW.indd iv 2/16/2007 9:32:54 AM O , ,
Rev. 1, 18 (commJohn, 1, XXII)
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd v 2/19/2007 11:43:29 AM TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd vi 2/19/2007 11:43:29 AM CONTENTS
Preface ...... xi Abbreviations ...... xv
Introduction ...... 1 Homonyms ...... 2 The Origenistic controversy in scholarship ...... 6 Latin translations ...... 9 Origen and Platonism ...... 17 Tentative Theological Conjectures ...... 18 On the method of Biblical interpretation ...... 25 Final notes ...... 37
PART I TIME AND HISTORY
Chapter One HUMAN BEING THROUGHOUT AN AEON .... 43 Origen and the doctrine of transmigration ...... 48 The Distinction between soul and spirit ...... 53 Human being throughout an aeon ...... 56 Conclusion ...... 64
Chapter Two HISTORY AND THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST ...... 65 The perpetual advent of the Logos ...... 65 The consummation of aeons ...... 70 The uniquness of the incarnation of Christ ...... 71 Incarnation and History ...... 81 The eternal gospel ...... 96 The ‘intelligible cruci xion’ of Christ ...... 109 Conclusion ...... 115
Chapter Three PROPHECY AND HISTORY ...... 117
Chapter Four THE CONCEPT OF KAIROS ...... 130 The kairoi in God’s action ...... 130 The notion of kairos in human action ...... 134 The nation of kairos and the character of History ...... 135 Conclusion of Part I ...... 141
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd vii 2/19/2007 11:43:29 AM viii contents
PART II THE NOTION OF ETERNAL
Chapter Five ETERNAL LIFE ...... 147 Eternal life as an end ...... 156 Eternal life as contemplation ...... 159 Eternal life and Greek thought ...... 164
Chapter Six ETERNAL LIFE AND THE NOTION OF INFINITE ...... 174 The term as a homonym ...... 185
Chapter Seven ETERNAL LIFE AND FREEDOM ...... 207 Eternal life as a mutable state of action ...... 210
Chapter Eight ETERNAL DEATH ...... 223 Conclusion ...... 232
PART III ESCHATOLOGY
Chapter Nine THE END OF HISTORY ...... 237 The eventual extinction of evil ...... 237 Universal Perfection ...... 250 History as acting and waiting ‘until’ ...... 261 The notion of ‘after’ the eternal life ...... 264 The delayed Judgement ...... 275 The Sabbath of the Lord ...... 283 Apokatastasis ...... 287 The ‘perfection of resurrection’ ...... 291 The Day of God ...... 294 Consummation of nature ...... 309 A creation with a beginning, but with no end ...... 329 Being ‘in’ and ‘out’ of God ...... 333 Names and personal identity of creatures ...... 339 The raison d’etre and character of History ...... 343 The question of a ‘next’ creation and Fall ...... 348
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd viii 2/19/2007 11:43:29 AM contents ix
PART IV PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY RESOLVED Another myth reconsidered
Chapter Ten HISTORY WITHOUT A ‘BODY’? ...... 358
Chapter Eleven IS HISTORY A ‘PARABLE’? ...... 381
CONCLUSION
Appendix: Origen introducing the expression ‘my Jesus’ ...... 435 Bibliography ...... 439 Index of Names, Terms and Notions ...... 461 Index of Greek Names, Terms and Expressions ...... 471 Index of Biblical Citations ...... 489
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd ix 2/19/2007 11:43:30 AM TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd x 2/19/2007 11:43:30 AM PREFACE
To study Origen it will not suf ce to study Origen’s works. His name is in fact not simply that of a speci c author, but a watchword marking a radical Christian transformation of the world effecting to the present day. To peruse critically his challenging experience amidst philosophical and theological ideas takes much more than reading his theology. Terms and notions did not arrive at the pen of authors in vacuum. Theorists read them somewhere, they discussed them with others, they re ected and debated upon them and expressed themselves to the degree and manner they found them articulate of their own philosophical thrust. To study Origen then takes more than just reading one’s texts. It takes perusal of the interplay of ideas and attitudes during eighteen centuries at least—from Homeric texts to 12th century A.D. In this line, there is a rich tradition of illu- minating exchanges, debate, rebuffs, misrenderings, misunderstanding, fruitful conceptions of new ideas in old forms, neologisms, fertile alterations and pro- ductive advances through fresh approach to old notions. Unless this multifarious process is taken into account, it is hard to follow a dilettante of Greek such as Origen in the precarious adventure he took upon himself. In Antiquity there were differences on tenets, viewpoints and attitudes, but the actual people were parleying with each other. In Late Antiquity they often studied in common classes, despite being of different backgrounds and aiming at different purposes: pagans, Christians, agnostics, sceptics, eclecticists, atheists at least knew each other. Today there is a hardly bridgeable chasm between theology and philosophy, and a parallel one between philosophy and science. Philosophers despise theo- logical assumptions on grounds afforded by modern Epistemology. Theologians are barely interested in detailed acquaintance with philosophy, whereas they pay some anxious attention to modern Cosmology, just in case theological doctrines might be vindicated (or, compromised) by modern science. Scientists, nonetheless, are wont to ignore philosophical re ection, even though there is no scienti c method which is not in fact a philosophical method since the times of the Presocratics and Socrates himself. A sheer dissent on the epistemologi- cal premises of constructing a theory is nevertheless there. Thus, the least one should do in aspiring to writing a book such as this is to be alert to the wider context possible regarding not only the theories expounded, but also the import of technical terms, and their alterations, if any, in the course of time. However hard the work, this is the real context for studying Origen. Modern scholarship on Origen contents itself too much with commenting on modern scholarhip, that is, on itself, rather than plunging into the huge
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd xi 2/19/2007 11:43:30 AM xii preface
(frequently con icting) streams of thought which formed thinkers such as the Alexandrian. Sundry schools or individual approaches, both before and after him, are normally left out of serious consideration, with ancient and modern claims about his theology holding sway, although anemophilously reproduced and despite history and documents attesting to a sheer different reality. Since 1986, I argue for the unpopular thesis that Origen is an anti-Platonist in many respects. This was received with suspicion and distrust within a mindset where branding him a ‘Christian Platonist’ was (and still is) a matter of course. To be sure, Hellenism in theological re ection is a detraction, appearing as a phantasm to be exorcized. I advance my thesis of anti-Platonism in this book, too, but only in respect of points related to my topic. Althought these points are numerous in number and diverse in content, is has been out of my scope to afford a comprehensive account of Origen’s anti-Platonism. Besides, since in theological orthodoxy Platonism is regarded as an obloquy, I should state that I set out to be not Origen’s defender, but simply an accurate scholar. This is all about scholarship, not allegiance to persons, schools, or religious denomina- tions. I argue for historical truth about Origen rather than for my personal philosophical convictions, which do not matter too much in this speci c book. One point should be made, however: although Origen was a theologian, not a philosopher, philosophy is indispensable for studying his thought. Thus, I feel closer to those who consent to my methodology and presuppositions of research, rather than to anyone simply going along with my theses, still on premises of research unacceptable to me. I am utterly uninterested in attempts which make points agreeing to ones of mine (let alone those making De Principiis the main source of investigation, which can lead nowhere), once Greek texts of all kinds are not rst-hand witnessed and only second-hand assertions by Greek philosophy scholars are selectively upheld to suit one’s personal convictions. It is therefore always useful for any prospective reader, before setting out to study a book, to have a look at its Bibliography, provided this is actually used by the author, not simply supposed to have been consulted with. To aspire to telling others what happened, or how things stand, is a very serious proposi- tion. A bibliography actually used (that is, put in instrumental use in speci c considerations) in the project, is an indicator of how the task was understood by the author, how seriously this was taken, and what the means for its imple- mentation are. I shall refrain from making claims about ‘orthodoxy’ or ‘non-orthodoxy’ in Origen, since I approach his thought from neither a ‘polemical’ nor a ‘sym- pathizing’ point of view. Between being a defender or a detractor of Origen, I have opted for assiduous comparative study of facts, documents and streams of thought, even of detached thinkers, in the widest context possible to me. I wonder, however: it is a coincidence that great and erudite minds, such as Origen, Didymus, Evagrius and John Philoponus, were cast off by bishops backed
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd xii 2/19/2007 11:43:30 AM preface xiii
by emperors (or, emperors sanctioned by bishops)? History shows that there is an episcopal distrust for secular thinkers, probably because some of the latter were incomparable in learnedness and unmatchable in argument with any high of ce-holder. Ecclesiastical men of the cloth hardly tolerated outstanding minds. It was felt, it seems, that the authority of the doctrine should stem only from the pulpit. This authority, upheld by mainstream modern scholarhip, charged Origen with letting history evaporate into thin ideas and lacking any eschatol- ogy whatsoever. My proposition is that the Alexandrian formed a distinctly Christian Philosophy of History, faithfully following Paul in making the Cross the midpoint of all history. He also formed an Eschatology, which (although obscure in the Latin of De Principiis) is crystal-clear, no matter how putative orthodoxy might receive this. I wish to thank Professor Jan den Boeft, Editor of the Supplements to the Vigiliae Christianae series, for his kind undertaking to read the manuscript and make helpful suggestions. I also thank Mrs. Louise Schouten, Senior Editor, for her congeniality, Mr. Ivo Romein, Editor, for offering to me an excellent collabora- tion during the entire process of publication, and Mrs. Wilma de Weert, the conscientious and kind editor, who secured transformation of the manuscript into this book, according to the standards of this eminent publishing company.
P. T.
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd xiii 2/19/2007 11:43:30 AM TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd xiv 2/19/2007 11:43:30 AM ABBREVIATIONS
1. Origen’s works
Cels Contra Celsum Dial Dialogus cum Heraclide epAfr Epistula ad Africanum epGr Epistula ad Gregorium Thaumaturgum homGen Homiliae 1–16 in Genesim commGen Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Genesim selGen Selecta in Genesim adnotGen Adnotationes in Genesim homEx Homiliae in Exodum commEx Fragmentum ex Commentariis in Exodum selEx Selecta in Exodum adnotEx Adnotationes in Exodum homLev Homiliae in Leviticum selLev Selecta in Leviticum homNum Homiliae in Numeris selNum Selecta in Numeris selDeut Selecta in Deuteronomium adnotDeut Adnotationes in Deuteronomium adnotLev Adnotationes in Leviticum homJos Homiliae in Josuam selJos Selecta in Josuam adnotJos Adnotationes in Josuam selJud Selecta in Judices adnotJud Adnotationes in Judices frRuth Fragmentum in Ruth frReg Fragmenta 1–22 in Reges selJob Selecta in Job enarrJob Enarrationes in Job selPs Selecta in Psalmi excPs Excerpta in Psalmi frPs Fragmenta in Psalmos 1–150 commProv Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Proverbia expProv Exposita in Proverbia frProv Fragmenta in Proverbia Cant Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd xv 2/19/2007 11:43:30 AM xvi abbreviations
minCan Fragmentum ex Commentario Minore in Canticum Canticorum homJer Homiliae 1–20 in Jeremiam frJer Fragmenta ex Homiliiae in Jeremiam frLam Fragmenta in Lamentationes frEz Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Ezechielem selEz Selecta in Ezechiel frOs Fragmentum ex Commentariis in Osee fr1,2Matt Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Evangelium Matthaei (in catenis) commMatt Commentariorum in Matthaeum libri 10–17 frMatt Commentariorum series 1–145 in Matthaeum homLuc Homiliae in Lucam frLuc Fragmenta 1–112 in Lucam commJohn Commentarii in Joannim frJohn Fragmenta in Evangelium Joannis (in catenis) homAct Fragmentum ex Homiliis in Acta Apostolorum comm1Cor Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Epistulam 1 ad Corinthios commEph Fragmenta ex Commentariis in Epistulam ad Ephesios frHeb Fragmenta in Epistulam ad Hebraeos exhMar Exhortatio ad Martyrium deOr De Oratione Princ De Principiis (P. Koetschau) frRes De Resurrectione libri ii Res Fragmenta de Resurrectione
The following unabbreviated titles indicate Latin translations: Homilies on Genesis Homilies on Exodus Homilies on Leviticus Homilies on Numbers Homilies on Joshua Homilies on Psalms Homilies on Jeremiah Homilies on Ezekiel The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies (R.P. Lawson) Homilies on Luke Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Whether a citation from De Principiis is from Greek or Latin is indicated ad hoc, unless this is obvious from the context. Following Origen, Psalms are numbered after LXX.
Phil Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd xvi 2/19/2007 11:43:30 AM abbreviations xvii
2. Other works
ACO Schwartz, E., Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum epAv Jerome, Epistula ad Avitum FP Butterworth, G.W. (tr.), Origen on First Principles GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhun- derte libOr Justinianus Imperator, Liber adversus Origenem (or, Epistula ad Mennam Constantinopolitanum) PG J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca (volume, page, line) Mansi J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (volume, page, verse) TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Lite- ratur COT Tzamalikos, P., Origen: Cosmology and Ontology of Time, Brill, Leiden, 2006
TZAMALIKOS_F1_v-xvii.indd xvii 2/19/2007 11:43:30 AM
INTRODUCTION
Christianity was grounded on the conviction that the advent of Jesus constitutes the epicenter of the world history, the turning point in a process towards salva- tion. The sense of victory stemmed from the belief that, in the person of Jesus, the rst and decisive victory against evil had already been won. What remained was this victory to be realized for the entirety of the world in the future—a future perceived as a historical one. This is the fundamental perception on which a Christian conception of history should be formed. The question of the old philosophy about Being and Becoming was not so much expressed in terms of the ‘essence’ of behind the phenomena. It was now clear that Being is God, whereas Becoming is a meaningful process in time, in which divine and creaturely will encounter each other. God manifests his will and man is free to obey or to disobey, to conform or not to conform to it, being responsible for his own conduct. This correlation was seen in the context of a teleological process, a course towards a goal, an end ( ), which was exempli ed and pre gured in the personal life of Jesus and promised to all as an eschatological prospect. Although the new religion was founded on the events and teaching related to the historical life of Jesus, the history of Revelation was understood to go as back as the creation of the world. This revelation did not come from the mystical experience of any instructor purported to be a chosen vessel of God; it was based on a concrete set of historical occurrences. To elucidate the sig- ni cance of this event was felt to be the task of Christian theologians. Hence the problem of philosophy of history came forth as one of prime importance. The Presocratic religious question had been treated mainly in terms of pursuing stability behind the physis ( ) soliciting the essence behind the phenomena. With Christianity the problem of the world in time becomes of main priority. To be sure, some pagan schools of thought did quest for a purpose of history. Plato did re ect on the ultimate goal of the earthly life. Aristotle did research on the teleological causal sequence according to which civic life was formed. The Stoics, as well as Cicero, did visualize a world-state based on reason as a goal which human race ought to ful l. What was entirely new though was the question of an overall meaning of human history—a purpose originated in the , the dispensation of God manifested within the world since its creation. Origen came into sight in the scene of History at an epoch when Christians were challenged to produce a reasoned argument for their faith: it was no more possible to rest content with the elementary proclamation of the kerygma, a duty that the Apologists ful lled to the best of their ability. He found himself in a social and spiritual setting demanding increasing explicitness. If the required
TZAMALIKOS_F2_1-39.indd 1 2/19/2007 11:46:21 AM 2 introduction
distinctness seeks supporting arguments in Scripture and, at the same time, decks itself out in the terms and skillfulness of philosophy, the predicament can be overcome by a doctrine of hermeneutics combined with an opposite philoso- phy. This is what Origen did, while it could be hardly said that his precursors broached along the hermeneutic problem. He then made out the requirement for exegetical rendering of Scripture, the disclosure and exposition of the real relationship of this revelation with the historical continuance. It was the need out of real situations that compelled Origen to move productively on the ter- rain of history, since challenges around him were too strong to be discounted. He did not have the shield of imperial protection, he was open to all kinds of winds and ‘winters’, such as that of which he speaks in commJohn, insinuat- ing his personal dif culties in Alexandria. Although far from being soaked in abstract logic and any tedious passion for formal classi cation, he had to draw on classical philosophy and certain techniques of the art of rhetoric, since he addressed himself to a social setting quite different from that of the Apologists. Besides, it was he who carried out a fruitful conjunction of the Church of the shermen, the poor in mind, with Hellenism, the greatest force which deter- mined the spiritual and social situation of his day, indeed the greatest historical cyclone of the age. Origen was well equipped for the task which circumstances determined, since he had assiduously studied the Bible as well as the common Hellenic curriculum. This was indispensable for a theologian experiencing a new world coming to the fore at the outset of the new religion. Christianity, against a background of other sects, cults, beliefs and various religions of its time and place, was successful in organizing its tenets into a coherent system. To a considerable extent, this was a feat of Origen. Christian Church eventually became the legatee of Greece and Rome besides claiming to inherit the Hebrew Scriptures. Still this did not happen right from the start. Regarding philosophy of history at least, the term ‘normative Christianity’ up to the epoch of Origen has liabilities. Through taut argument, he made an effort to dissipate some of the obscurity surrounding a grasp of history of distinct Christian colouration. Yet elusive as it may have been at his time, his theory can be accounted. Origen laid the foundation of the work and provided the material to construct the edi ce on the doctrine of a Christian Philosophy of History and Eschatology.
Homonyms
Origen’s work was transmitted via divergent, and not rarely forged, manuscripts.1 Since the principal tenets which make up his theology are incisively bound up
1 Even during his lifetime, Origen had been impeached for heresy and he complained that his writings had been tampered with. In his epistle to Julius Africanus, he refers to unnamed
TZAMALIKOS_F2_1-39.indd 2 2/19/2007 11:46:21 AM introduction 3
with his conception of History, this study ipso facto brings to the heart of his theology. A critical key to comprehend his view of History is to recognize the signi cance of homonyms in his understanding and exposition of Scripture. Many miscomprehensions are due to failure to grasp this crucial aspect of his methodology, although he emphasized the signi cance of ‘clarifying the homonyms’2 ( , that is, making out different con- ceptions denoted by a certain term) and entertained this tool in interpreting Scripture. Unless this distinction of different realities predicated by one and the same word is made, Origen’s views are bound to be misconstrued. He uses a caustic language for those who are not as mindful as they should be in studying any kind of problem, ‘be it moral, or natural or theological’ ( , ).3 He censures any lack of attentiveness to the duty of being alert to homonimity and set out to be accurate, always ready to disqualify any precarious reading of the scriptural text. ‘Precarious’ is any rendering which compromises a view of God worthy of his majesty. Otherwise, he asserts, people will inevitably fall into conclusions that are either ‘irreverent or stupid’.4 It is ‘a characteristic of idiots not to make out the issue of anagogi- cal interpretation of Scripture and not to know how to entertain tropology ( ! \ , N ` N )’.5 Cardinal notions such as (end), (aeon), / (eternal), N (earth),6 (cosmos), (knowledge), (wisdom), (death),
persons, who might accuse him of ‘falsifying’ ( ( ) the doctrine of the Church: they lay in wait watching for alleged reasons ( ` ) ‘to slunder those who are eminent’ ( \ ) and ‘impute any distinguished person in public’ ( \ ). Cf. Homilies on Luke, 25.6: “Others, however, criticize our homilies unjustly and censure us for holding positions that we never knew we held.” Also, Homilies on Genesis, 13.3: “I am indeed digging wells. But immediately the adherents to the let- ter will incite invidious charges against me and will prowl for me. They will forthwith contrive hostilities and persecutions, denying that the truth can stand except upon the soil.” In the Preface of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Ru nus tells us that Origen’s works had been ‘interpolated’. The same he says in the Preface of Princ. In his Apology Against Jerome and in his Book on the Adulteration of Origen’s Writings, Ru nus expresses suspicion that heretics have falsi ed some passages in Origen’s works. 2 commGen, 3, PG.12.89.13 (Philocalia, 14, 2). 3 Philocalia, 14, 2 (apud commGen, 3) PG.12.89.8–17. Scripture is posited to contain all three kinds of knowledge: ‘natural’ ( ), ‘moral’ ( ), ‘theological’ ( ). expProv, 1, PG.17.161.25–26. Of them, ‘natural’ knowledge is expounded in Ecclesiastes, ‘moral’ one in the Proverbs, and ‘theological’ in the Song of Songs. expProv, 22, PG.17.220.54f. Cf. frPs, 76, 21 and expProv, 1, PG.17.161.25f. 4 Philocalia, 14, 2 (commGen, 3, PG.12.89.32). Cf. ‘stupid and irreverent’ ( ` ), commJohn, 2, XXII; deOr, XXIX, 10; selGen, PG.12.101.4. Clement had emphasized the task of ‘handling homonyms’ properly. Stromateis, 8.6.17.1. 5 commMatt, 10, 14. Cf. frMatt, 433, drawing attention to ‘division and tropolgy of problems’ ( ). 6 Cels, VII, 31.
TZAMALIKOS_F2_1-39.indd 3 2/19/2007 11:46:21 AM 4 introduction
` (resurrection),7 (law),8 (prophecy)9 can be elucidated only once they are duly pointed out as homonyms. The term end, for example, has no less than four denotations (excluding the current meanings of it). Firstly, it may suggest the end of a certain cosmic period (which is the beginning of the next). Secondly, it may allude to the ‘goal’ of an individual rational crea- ture—a goal that may come to pass in any of the aeons to come. Thirdly, it may well betoken the nal ‘subjection’ of all rational nature to Christ, as in 1 Cor. 15, 25–27. Fourthly, it may point to the ultimate end, marked by the ‘subjection’ of Christ to the Father, according to 1 Cor. 15, 28. This is why I bring the notion of end to the fore, scrutinizing this as a homonym, and arguing that this represents the culmination of a chain of cardinal ideas which make up Origen’s theology. Without the different imports of a homonym being resolved and the sun- dry realities denoted by this being clari ed, Origen’s theology is bound to be miscomprehended. I shall argue that confusion and apparent contradictions in Princ are due to failure (of both Ru nus and Origen’s detractors) to grasp the different realities denoted by the term ‘end’, as well as by other homonyms, such as (aeon) and / (eternal), (knowledge), etc. It will be shown that much of the miscomprehension of his authentic views stem from failure to grasp the importance of homonyms and to point out the import ascribed to them on each occasion. What I am looking for is an awareness that there is a distinction to be made, which is all the more necessary since scholarship by and large appears to have no inkling of homonimity as a principal key for understanding Origen’s theology, a factor bearing heavily upon his philosophy of history. This places an onus on me to point out and explain the nuances of crucial designations. For neglecting homonyms results to losing one of the tools which (with due caution) can be used in assessing the meaning (indeed meanings) of speci c terms. Unless this task is ful lled certain passages may appear as tantalizingly inconclusive. Origen himself put forward the importance of homonyms as a prerequisite for understanding the occasionally veiled meaning of Scripture. I myself stressed the importance of studying homonyms in Origen since long time ago, urging that his theology cannot be understood unless the signi cance of homonyms is pointed out and put into use.10 Origen’s assertion is that the key to unlocking the Epistle to the Romans is understanding Paul’s use of homonyms: expressions
7 commMatt, 17, 29. 8 frGen, PG.12.84.52; Philocalia, 9: 1, 2, 3; Commentarii in Romanos (III.5–V.7), pp. 150, 152; Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos (I.1–XII.21), sections 10, 15, 36a. 9 comm1Cor, section 48. 10 P. Tzamalikos, The Concept of Time in Origen (1986), Introduction. Cf. COT, pp. 16–17.
TZAMALIKOS_F2_1-39.indd 4 2/19/2007 11:46:22 AM introduction 5
such as ‘law’, ‘Jew’, ‘circumcision’, ‘death’, are used by Paul repeatedly but with divergent meanings.11 I was glad to come across R. Roukema’s assertion that Origen ‘made homonimity the key of his interpretation of this epistle.’12 Indeed Origen gives emphasis to points such as the homonimity of ‘natural law’ and the ‘law of Moses’, but Roukema’s remark holds true not only for this particular epistle, but also for all Scripture. In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Origen put considerable stress on the importance of homonyms, obviously because he makes extensive use of it in this particular work. In all probability, he felt he could hardly resolve crucial points of this Epistle without having recourse to the notion of homon- imity. Recognizing this signi cant point, the Cappadocians Basil and Gregory who excerpted the Philocalia, recorded his remarks about the emphasis placed on the signi cance of homonyms. Scripture itself makes use of homonyms, he asserts: this ‘should be observed by those who are diligent students of it’, in order to ‘protect ourselves from mistakes and misconstructions’.13 This indeed happens, Origen remarks, with those who do not realize that the Scripture employs ‘homonyms’ ( / ) and think that, ‘since the name is one, what is designated by this name is also one’ (Q <