Biblical Scholarship and Reading Culture in Origen's Psalm Homilies from the Codex Monacensis Graecus 314

The Word in the City: Biblical Scholarship and Reading Culture in Origen's Psalm Homilies from the Codex monacensis Graecus 314

John Solheid

A Doctoral Thesis submitted to the University of St. Michael’s College and the Graduate Centre for Theological Studies of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theological Studies awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College and the University of Toronto

The Word in the City: Biblical Scholarship and Reading Culture in Origen’s Psalm Homilies from the Codex monacensis Graecus 314

John Solheid

Doctor of Philosophy in Theological Studies

The University of St. Michael’s College And the University of Toronto

2020

Abstract

Origen of Alexandria’s biblical exegesis has been the subject of substantial scholarly attention.

However, it has been only recently that scholars have begun to pay attention to the broader intellectual and socio-cultural context in which he conducted his exegesis. In this dissertation, I explore Origen’s biblical exegesis in a recently discovered collection of homilies he preached on the Psalms to his Christian community in Caesarea Maritima. I am concerning less with questions of philology and grammar as such as I am with discerning certain reading practices revealed in the homilies, particularly against the backdrop of broader reading practices in Late

Antique learning circles. I argue that in these homilies, Origen was attempting to cultivate learned reading practices in his Christian community by bringing his scholarly reading habits to his preaching activity. Largely following the exegetical procedure of a grammarian, Origen was doing more than explaining the meaning of the text for his audience. He was guiding his listeners through the exegetical exercise giving them the requisite skills to be informed readers of the Bible.

To make my argument, I will first analyze how learned groups of men and women organized themselves around shared reading practices in Late Antiquity. I will then take a closer look at

the reading practices of Origen’s school in Caesarea, and tracks of those reading practices in the

Psalm Homilies. Then I will provide a detailed analysis of two select homilies from this collection to follow Origen through his exegetical process. In the final chapter, I will look at how Origen positioned Bible-reading against the allurements and daily tensions of life in a

Roman City, articulating a theological vision of Christian reading rooted in purity of heart.

iii

Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to Lorenzo Perrone and Joseph W. Trigg for their assistance in both translation and insightful discussions about the contents of Origen’s Psalm Homilies. I must also note gratitude to Miriam DeCock with whom I had very many productive discussions about these homilies. My supervisor, Fr. T. Allan Smith at the Faculty of Theology, University of St.

Michael’s College and the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies also deserves mention. It was his idea that I work on these homilies. I am especially for gracefully putting up with my constant questions and requests for meetings. I must also thank Arlin Nikolas for cultivating in me the love of learning. Most of all, however, I wish to express my eternal thanks to my parents, who supported me throughout this process. I left a stable job to pursue my doctoral studies and without their emotional and financial support, I would not have been able to accomplish this dream of mine.

Table of Contents Abbreviations ...... vii Introduction ...... 1 Topic and Thesis ...... 1 Literature Review ...... 6 Methodology ...... 13 Outline ...... 16 Aim ...... 19 The Psalm Homilies in the Codex ...... 20 Monacensis Graecus 314 ...... 20 Chapter One: ...... Reading Communities in Late Antiquity ...... 25 1.1 The Philosophical Schools ...... 25 1.2 Jewish Reading Communities ...... 39 1.3 Early Christian Schools ...... 53 Conclusion ...... 62 Chapter 2: ...... Reading Culture in Origen’s Caesarean School ...... 64 2.1 The School of Caesarea ...... 65 2.1.1 Location and Space ...... 65 2.1.2 Daily Routine ...... 71 2.2 Textual Practices ...... 74 2.2.1 Philology – Text Criticism and the Hexapla ...... 74 2.2.2 Grammar ...... 78 2.2.3 Zetetic Reading ...... 88 2.3 Modelling a Christian Reader ...... 101 Conclusion ...... 107 Chapter 3: ...... Tracks of an Early Christian ...... Reading Culture in the Psalm Homilies ...... 109 3.1 Tracks of Origen’s Scholarly Works ...... 110 3.1.1 The Hexapla ...... 110 3.1.2 Tracks of the Commentaries and Treatises ...... 116 3.1.3 Tracks of Zetetic Reading ...... 124 3.2 Reading as a Spiritual Exercise ...... 128 Conclusion ...... 134

Chapter Four: ...... Forming a Literate Culture ...... 137 4.1 Literacy in Early Christianity ...... 138 4.1.1 Origen’s Liturgical Audience ...... 140 4.2 Grammar and Literate Education in the Psalm Homilies ...... 145 4.2.1 Hom. 1 in Ps. 36 ...... 154 4.2.2 Hom. 1 in Ps. 77 ...... 167 Conclusion ...... 175 Chapter 5: ...... A Christian Reader in the City ...... 177 5.1 The Heart ...... 178 5.1.1 A Spiritual Being ...... 178 5.1.2 The Spiritual Organ, par excellence ...... 182 5.1.3 Purity of Heart ...... 189 5.2 Purity of Heart in the Psalm Homilies ...... 193 5.2.1 “My Kidneys Instructed Me” (Ps. 15:7a): Hom. 2 in Ps. 15 ...... 193 5.2.2 “The waters saw you, O God, and were afraid” (Ps. 76:17) – Hom. 3 in Ps. 76 ...... 195 5.2.3 “A voice of your thunder was in the circuit” (Ps. 76:19a) – Hom. 4 in Ps. 76...... 197 5.2.4 “Delight in the Lord and he will give you the requests of your heart” (Ps. 36:4) – Hom. 1 in Ps. 36 ... 199 5.3 The Word in the City ...... 201 5.3.1 Purity of Heart and the Christian Reader ...... 206 Conclusion ...... 216 Conclusion ...... 219 Bibliography ...... 222

Abbreviations

For the abbreviations of biblical books, I have followed Kate Turabian’s Manual for Writers. When citing passages that Origen is citing, I have followed his use of the Septuagint names, with NRSV titles in brackets. For example, 3 Reigns will be 3 Rgn [1 Kgs]. For Origen’s works, I have followed the style in The Westminster Handbook to Origen, with some modifications. For other ancient authors, I have followed the style of the Oxford Classical Dictionary 4th Ed.

Origen’s Works:

Behr Origen: On First Principles. Edited and Translated by John Behr. 2 Vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Bendinelli Opere di Origene: Commento a Matteo. A Cura di Guido Bendinelli. 4 Vols. Roma: Città Nuova, 2015. CC Contra Celsum Comm. in Jn. Commentary on John Comm. in Matt. Commentary on Matthew Comm. ser. in Mt. Series Commentariorum on Matthew de Prin. de Principiis/On First Principles Dial. Dialogue with Heraclides EM Exhortation to Martyrdom EpGreg. Epistle to Gregory EpistAfr. Epistle to Julius Africanus Hom. in Jer. Homilies on Jeremiah Hom. in Ps. Homilies on the Psalms Hom. in 1 Sam. Homily on 1 Samuel Orat. de Oratione/On Prayer Phil. Philocalia SelecPs. Selecta in Psalmos

Other Ancient Works:

Ant. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Ars. Gramm. Dionysius Trax, Ars Grammatica Cat. Aristotle, Categoriae/Categories Comm. in Ps. Didymus the Blind, Commentary on the Psalms Conf. John Cassian, Conferences HE Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History JW. Josephus, The Jewish War Paid. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogos/The Teacher Plot. Porphyry, Vita Plotini/Life of Plotinus Soph. el. Aristotle, Sophistici elenchi/Sophistical Refutations SVF. Stoichorum Veterum Fragmenta Top. Aristotle, Topica/Topics

vii

VP. Iamblichus, Vita Pythagoriae 1 and 2 Apol. Justin Martyr, First and Second Apologies

Modern Abbreviations:

ACW Ancient Christian Writers ASE Annali di storia dell’ esegesi BASP Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists FOTC Fathers of the Church GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte HTR Harvard Theological Review JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History JRH Journal of Religious History JTS Journal of Theological Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library LSJ Liddel, Scott, and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon PG Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca SC Sources Chrétiennes SP Studia Patristica SPA Studia Philonica Annual VC Vigiliae Christianae ZAC Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum

viii

Introduction

Topic and Thesis

One of the most prolific and well-known early Christian intellectuals was Origen of Alexandria

(ca. 185-254 CE). The centrality of scripture to Origen’s life and work cannot be questioned. The extent of his literary corpus, most of which comes from biblical commentaries and homilies, testifies to this fact. Biblical interpretation was such a preoccupation for Origen that Peter

Martens called it “a way of life” for him.1 The description of Origen’s biblical scholarship as a

“way of life,” is an apt characterization given what we now know about the role of books not only in early Christianity, but in Late Antiquity in general.

Scholarship on Origen’s biblical exegesis has experienced a significant evolution since the debates between de Lubac and Hanson around Origen’s practice of allegory. More contextual questions such as Origen’s indebtedness to Greco-Roman philology2 and autobiographical questions about the life of a Christian exegete3 have contributed greatly to our knowledge of

Origen’s exegetical enterprise. Nevertheless, there is still more work to do in order to better understand Origen’s biblical scholarship. This is all the more the case in light of the recent discovery of a collection of homilies on the Psalms by Origen dated to sometime after 245/46

1 Peter W. Martens, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), 1. 2 The Standard remains Bernard Neuschäfer’s Origenes als Philologe, 2 vols. (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, 1987). 3 Martens, Origen and Scripture.

1 2

CE,4 perhaps even as late as 248/49 CE,5 towards the end of his scholarly career, and shortly before his death in 254 CE.

In this dissertation, I will explore these homilies asking the following questions: Do these homilies provide any evidence of Origen’s reading practices? Do the homilies give us access to an early Christian reader attempting to cultivate particular reading habits in his audience?

Because these are homilies, it is especially relevant to also ask how he understood his academic endeavors, i.e. his reading practices, in relation to his preaching activities, which were directed at a less academic audience. I argue that these homilies do, in fact, provide substantial evidence for the role of reading both in Origen’s school and in his preaching. I will show how Origen applied the same reading strategies he taught his own students, reading strategies rooted in the broader reading practices of Late Antique intellectual communities, to his preaching audience in order to cultivate those same reading habits in his preaching audience. In other words, I will show how

Origen treated his preaching much like his pedagogical activities. Applying the procedure of the grammarian, Origen did more than apply the biblical text to the lives of his audience. Rather,

Origen’s use of the grammarian’s literary procedure reveals that he was providing his audience with the literary skills to become informed readers themselves.

Moreover, through his teaching on purity of heart, he attempted to form a Christian reader in the midst of the various forces competing for the reader’s attention and affection. Origen was fully aware that his audience lived in the midst of many different social attractions, such as gladiatorial and musical contests, theatrical events, not to mention the conflicts which naturally

4 Lorenzo Perrone, “‘La mia gloria è la mia lingua’: per un ritratto dell’autore della Omelia sui Salmi nel Codice Monacense Greco 314,” Adamantius 20 (2014), 179. 5 Lorenzo Perrone, “The Dating of the New Homilies on the Psalms in the Munich Codex: The Ultimate Origen?” in Proche-Orient Chrétien 67 (2017), 247.

3 exist in communities. It was in light of these social and spiritual forces that he brought his academic activities to bear on his preaching audience, though in a more generalized manner, in order that they too would benefit from cultivating similar habits of reading that would allow them a spiritually transformative encounter with the written Word. We will see how Origen employed his academic activities, such as text-criticism and dialectics, in his homilies with the aim of creating a literate Christian culture.

I initially intended this thesis to examine a recently discovered collection of homilies on the

Psalms from Origen, with the singular aim of applying Brian Stock’s “textual communities”6 model as theoretical framework for understanding Origen in light of Christian identity formation.

Defining textual communities as “microsocieties organized around the common understanding of a script,”7 Stock employed this model to explain orality and literacy in Medieval Europe. A community organized itself around a shared reading of a text through a three-step process: oral contact with a text; a process of education in which a literate person explains the meaning of the text; the community takes on a new history in light of the text.8 This would have been a helpful framework from which to study this collection of homilies.9

However, the more I read these Psalm Homilies, the more I began to notice pieces of evidence, what Marc Bloch called “tracks,”10 of the scholarly activities in Origen’s Caesarean academy.

Specifically, in his Homilies on Psalm 77, I encountered Origen describing his work with textual criticism, comparing the Hebrew text with the Greek translations to resolve textual discrepancies.

6 Brian Stock, Listening for the Text: On the Uses of the Past, (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 24-6, 140-58. 7 Stock, Listening for the Text, 23. 8 Stock, Listening for the Text, 24-26. 9 See my article “Scripture and Christian Formation in Origen’s Fourth Homily on Psalm 77(78),” JECS 27.3 (Fall 2019): 417-442. 10 Marc Bloch, The Historian’s Craft, trans. Peter Putnam (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1953), esp. 55-69.

In that same homily, Origen alluded to the “custom (ἔθος)” of identifying the person speaking in the Psalms and Prophets, as well as the genre “problems and solutions” as a means of solving certain problems in the biblical text. Therefore, I started to ask whether or not these “tracks” have any significance for the concrete reading practices in Origen’s school community in

Caesarea.

If, as I intend to show, these homilies provide quite significant evidence of the reading practices of Origen’s school, what might that suggest about the relationship between this school and the broader Caesarean Christian community? These tracks suggest that the implied audience had some degree of literacy allowing them to follow the preacher as he led them through the biblical text. Stock demonstrated that the minimum requirement for a textual community was one literate person to explain a text for the group,11 which leaves room for the application of this model to a more literate group, such as is suggested in these homilies. Nevertheless, in light of the tracks of Origen’s learned reading practices, I have chosen instead William Johnson’s work on Late Antique reading communities12 as a more suitable model with which to think about the reading practices evidenced in these homilies.

Johnson applied socio-cultural models to explore the complex ways in which texts are used in modern society (university classroom vs a peer reading group or poetry recital). With those questions in mind, Johnson investigated the diverse reading habits of highly literate communities of elite Greco-Roman citizens in the ancient world (e.g. Pliny the Younger and Galen). From his research, he introduced the term “reading community,” as a community that constructed its own

11 Stock, Listening for the Text, 23. 12 William A. Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010).

5 identity around its shared reading of texts.13 These groups, comprised mostly of men of very high social standing, formed communal identities largely based on their engagement with literature, around which their days were scheduled. One particularly relevant observation of Johnson pertains to Galen and his circle. Galen expected every one of his pupils to be a “careful reader,”14 and one who was able to engage in learned conversation and debate over the texts with a group of peers.15 This is consistent with the picture of Late Antique reading communities, as well as Origen’s, as I will show in Chapters One and Two.

The shared aspect of reading was partially necessitated by material constraints. Books in the ancient world were quite rare, and only the wealthiest could afford to own a collection. This scarcity made the act of sharing texts necessary for the group's existence. However, equally significant was the cultural importance placed on group interaction and discourse.16 Solitary reading, though not uncommon in the ancient world, was not the norm, even among the most elite groups of the Empire.17 Reading was a shared group experience, which provided the community with a sense of identity.

It is certainly the case that Origen’s exegetical methods have received plenty of scholarly attention. However, the social dimensions of Origen’s exegesis have not yet received sufficient attention. Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams18 have provided the only study in English addressing questions pertaining to the material and social infrastructure of this school. That work is divided into two sections: the first section dealing with the school and library during Origen’s

13 Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture, 11-16. 14 Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture, 84. 15 Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture, 92. 16 Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture, 92-95. 17 Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture, 92. 18 Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea, (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006).

6 time, and the second analyzing the nature of its manifestation while Eusebius of Caesarea was in charge nearly a century after Origen’s death. The insights of Johnson, Grafton, and Williams, place us in a much better position to examine the material and social aspects of Origen’s own academic milieu.

Moreover, addressing the material and social aspects of reading culture in Late Antiquity puts us in a better position to explore how an early Christian teacher and preacher used the homily as a means of cultivating particular reading habits in a more generalized audience. When we do so while reading Origen’s Psalm Homilies, what begins to emerge is that the traditional dichotomy between Origen’s learned commentaries and his pastoral homilies breaks down. Rather than seeing Origen’s commentaries and homilies as reflecting two distinct communities and two distinct activities, I will show that Origen’s Caesarean Christian community fits nicely into the broader world of Late Antique reading communities, many of which were comprised of an intellectually diverse audience.

Literature Review

Since this study hopes to contribute to the scholarship on Origen’s exegesis, I will limit the literature review to works in that particular field. The historiography on Origen’s biblical interpretation is itself much too large to provide a comprehensive review of it. The old debate about allegory and Origen’s reception/rejection of biblical history has been sufficiently summarized elsewhere, so I will simply refer the readers to those respective studies.19 The

19 The two most important works in this regard are Henri de Lubac’s History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen, trans. Anne Englund Nash, (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2007); and, R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory & Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture, with an Introduction by Joseph W. Trigg, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002). For a good summary, see Martens, Origen and Scripture, 7-9.

7 scholarship has shifted significantly over the last several decades from a focus on the conceptual elements of Origen’s exegesis (i.e. questions regarding the “literal” and “allegorical” methods), to exploring Origen’s place within the philological practices of the Alexandrian tradition, the procedures by which he interpreted the biblical text for an audience, and the life of an early

Christian exegete. In my view, there are five studies which have demarcated the terms of the current discussion.

Karen Jo Torjesen20 has shown that Origen’s concern for his audience determined his exegesis, which generally followed a four-step process, gradually bringing the audience into a deeper engagement with the text. The first step, she argued, was a succinct summary of the subject- matter of the passage. Secondly, Origen provided a verse-by verse exegesis of the text beginning with the historical/literary context of the person who uttered the passage. Third, he then placed his audience into the person of the one speaking in the passage so that they themselves became the speaker: the words of the passage became their own words. Finally, he restated the passage, but this time it came with all the meaning attached to it from the preceding exegesis.21

Torjesen’s fundamental insight that Origen’s exegesis was principally concerned with his audience, particularly mapping the journey of their souls onto the scriptural narrative, compels us to pay close attention to Origen’s audience in any study of his exegesis. However, where I differ from Torjesen, is that I will be asking questions about literacy to show how Origen attempted to construct a literate Christian culture. Torjesen largely ignores the question of literacy. This

20 Karen Jo Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen’s Exegesis, Patristische Texte und Studien, (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985). 21 Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure, 27-8.

8 appears strange given the well-documented literacy rates in Late Antiquity.22 In light of such limited literacy, the grammatical procedure Origen applied in these homilies is highly suggestive of a preacher attempting to teach his audience how to be informed readers. This is not to downplay the importance of Torjesen’s work. Rather than contradicting her insightful analysis of Origen’s exegetical procedure, I consider my analysis to be complementary.

At roughly the same time as Torjesen, Bernhard Neuschäfer23 demonstrated that Origen’s philological work with the biblical text was rooted in the grammatical tradition of Alexandria, particularly the scholar Dionysius Thrax. Neuschäfer provided a detailed analysis of the four steps of exegesis: διορθώσις (text-criticism/emendation); ἱστορικόν (historical/literary analysis);

ἐξηγητικὸν, which included determining the meaning of words (γλῶσσηματικόν), and identifying figures of speech, rhetorical features, and use of grammar (τεχνικόν); and finally, judgement

(κρίσις) about the usefulness or lessons the text had for the class. Neuschäfer’s detailed analysis of Origen’s use of traditional Greco-Roman philology will be invaluable for my attempt to show how Origen the scholar/preacher attempted to form a Christian reading culture.

Complementing the work of both Torjesen and Neuschäfer, Peter Martens24 has shown how

Origen’s exegetical activities functioned within the Christian drama of salvation. His argument is as follows: “For [Origen], the ideal scriptural interpreter was someone who embarked not simply on a scholarly journey, but, more ambitiously, upon a way of life, indeed a way of salvation, that

22 The standard remains William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989). For a more recent and more nuanced study, see the collection of essays in William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker, eds. Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 23 Bernhard Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 2 vols. (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, 1987), for the steps of exegesis, see pages 85-285. 24 Peter W. Martens, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012).

9 culminated in the vision of God.”25 By understanding the biography of the exegete, we can come to a better understanding of biblical exegesis as Origen understood and practiced it.

As someone who expounded scriptures for an audience, the exegete himself was participating in the “living drama of salvation.”26 Scripture disclosed this drama, and it was the interpreter’s job to aid his audience in understanding it. This required a life devoted to philology,27 which itself was a sign of someone’s devotion to God.28 However, as an active participant in salvation history, the exegete was not only to take up the study of scripture as a philologist. He was also responsible for proper moral conduct. Not only were they responsible for teaching the faith, but also for living it and showing others how to live it.29

Through his sketch of the interpreter, Martens filled a gap in Origen studies. Prior to Martens, most studies of Origen’s biblical interpretation focused on his methods of interpretation. Martens showed, however, that these methods were rooted in a particular way of life, a life of study and moral training. It could perhaps even be said that the methods of exegesis provided the concrete practices of an early Christian ascetic. At any rate, he illuminated how Origen understood the work of the Christian exegete to be of divine provenance, placing certain moral and intellectual demands on the scholar, whose task was to expound and model the way of salvation for his audience. Martens’ insightful exploration of the biography of an early Christian exegete has opened the door for scholars seeking to better understand the role of biblical exegesis in the lived

25 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 6. 26 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 67. 27 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 41. This thesis will not explore Origen within the philological tradition. So, I direct the reader to another good study exploring Origen as a product of the Alexandrian philological tradition: John A. McGuckin, “Origen as Literary Critic in the Alexandrian Tradition,” in Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition ed. L. Perrone, 121-35, (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003). 28 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 69. 29 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 161-91.

10 experiences of early Christian intellectuals. However, his study, focusing on the individual exegete, does not address the broader social milieu in which Origen’s exegesis took place.

Blossom Stefaniw’s monograph Mind, Text, and Commentary: Noetic Exegesis in Origen of

Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, and Evagrius Ponticus,30 while extending the discussion beyond

Origen himself, is quite relevant for my study. Her primary argument was that for these writers, noetic exegesis was an exercise not so much to delineate the “meaning” of the biblical text, as much as it was an exercise for the training of the νοῦς.31 She thus situated their exegetical labours against the backdrop of the Greco-Roman philosophical use of books and reading.32 Just as in the philosophical schools, Christian intellectuals assumed that their authoritative texts had an inherent meaning relevant for their souls.33

Stefaniw persuasively demonstrated that the formal instruction in the skills of textual criticism, grammar, and literary analysis were significant, but preparatory for noetic exegesis, which was acquired (language acquisition, not language learning) through a process of immersion and practice. This was not a mere matter of imitation, but personal transformation, becoming a particular kind of person who has sufficiently trained the mind to receive such knowledge.34

While I find her very brief discussion of Origen’s school and its curriculum unpersuasive,35 her key insight is that Christian reading for an intellectual like Origen was more than simple

30 Blossom Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary: Noetic Exegesis in Origen of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, and Evagrius Ponticus (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010). 31 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 12-13. 32Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 59-73, 270-76, 305-312. 33 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 62-63. 34 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 267. 35 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 313-19. She is correct to acknowledge how difficult it is to study Origen’s Caesarean school simply because the evidence is so fragmentary and his activities so broad. However, she ignores the role of private patronage, and she argues that his teaching activities left him little time for scholarship, assuming the two were separate activities. I will treat the question of Origen’s school in Chapter Two.

11 scholarship. It was a spiritual exercise aimed at purifying the heart.36 This will be the main focus of Chapter Five below.

Ronald Heine made a significant contribution to the study of Origen’s life and scholarship in

Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church.37 While this work is more an intellectual biography than a traditional monograph, he does make some claims important for my study. In the second half of the book, he discusses Origen’s work in Caesarea. He insightfully described the extent to which Origen was faced with pervasive elements of pagan society, especially the athletic and musical contests, and with the substantial Jewish community in Caesarea. These experiences had a profound impact on Origen’s scholarship, as both his commentaries and homilies reveal.38 The former, i.e. elements of pagan society, will be a subject of discussion in

Chapter Five.

Heine also makes the argument that Origen’s biblical commentaries were products of his classroom lectures. He suggests that Origen first delivered his lectures orally, while stenographers took down the dictations. He supports his arguments with reference to scholarship on Aristotelian commentaries, such as the occasional use of the second person plural in direct address. Heine notes the presence of second-person singular as Origen’s preferred method of direct address, while he also used the first-person plural. Heine suggests that such instances might have “slipped through” the editing process, revealing the classroom experience.39 I find this argument especially persuasive. It is consistent with H. Gregory Snyder’s study of the use of

36 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 276-283. 37 Ronald E. Heine, Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 38 Heine, Scholarship in the Service of the Church, 145-151. 39 Heine, Scholarship in the Service of the Church, 189-90.

12 texts in Aristotelian communities,40 as well as Grafton and Williams analysis of the book practices in Origen’s school.41 However, his discussion is particularly brief, and he does not elaborate on how this process might have unfolded.

In spite of the important insights of Heine, I do disagree with an argument he put forth regarding

Origen’s preaching activities in Caesarea. Namely, he contends that Origen’s preaching efforts were designed to provide his audience with spiritual edification, not to tell them the meaning of the Bible. In contrast to his commentaries, where Origen expends much effort to analyze the details of the biblical text, in his homilies he was less concerned with these scholarly questions as he was with the spiritual journey of his listeners.42 There is certainly an extent to which this argument is accurate. However, in the Psalm Homilies, I will demonstrate how Origen spent considerable effort analyzing the text, oftentimes inviting his audience to participate along with him in the research process. In light of ancient literacy rates, this is significant. In Chapter Four,

I will demonstrate how the literate education unfolds in Origen’s homiletic procedure.

Each of the aforementioned studies has provided crucial details necessary for a fair appraisal of

Origen’s work. Nevertheless, they do not sufficiently address the network of relationships which provided the social fabric in which Origen conducted his scholarship. Thus, focus on the theological, philological, and biographical evidence can succeed at bringing early Christian exegesis to life only when it addresses the social conditions in which it happened. In order to illuminate Origen’s exegesis, we must pay closer attention to the material and social world in which he operated. This is especially the case if we consider for a moment that Origen was the

40 H. Gregory Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians (New York, NY: Routledge, 2000), 86-91. 41 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 68-80. 42 Heine, Scholarship in the Service of the Church, 184-87.

13 leader of a Christian “school” in Caesarea Maritima, if not also in Alexandria.43 Even the concept of a “school” suggests the social nature of early Christian exegesis and reading. But, what did this enterprise look like? Additionally, because this dissertation looks primarily at homilies, what does this evidence suggest about the relationship between an early Christian academy and the broader church? Do these homilies shed any light on the reading experiences of his preaching audience? Do they inform us at all about early Christian reading culture?

Methodology

Admittedly, the nature of the primary source of information, being homilies, does not lend itself to easy answers. First and more generally, while Origen may have attempted to teach his audience how to be informed readers, we simply do not know how his audience received him.

Second and more specifically, when Origen preached to a general audience in the church of

Caesarea, he did not consider it an essential task to be describing the inner-workings and daily life of his school. Nowhere, then, in these homilies, do we find an explicit and detailed description of his school. Rather, the nature of a homily suggests that any details he did provide regarding such activities likely functioned to aid him in making a rhetorical or exegetical point for his audience.

In order to piece together a portrait of Origen’s reading practices, I first have to examine his scholarly works (commentaries, treatises, and so on), texts firmly situated in his school

43 The bibliography regarding the so-called “catechetical school” in Alexandria is quite substantial in itself. There is very little consensus on the mode of its existence as Eusebius described it in his Ecclesiastical History. My focus here is on the school in Caesarea Maritima, so I will not get into that debate. I direct the reader’s attention to a couple relevant works: Annewies van den Hoek, “The ‘Catechetical’ School of Early Christian Alexandria and its Philonic Heritage,” in Forms of Devotion: Conversion, Worship, Spirituality, and Asceticism, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc. 1999), 19-46; also, Robert L. Wilken, “Alexandria: School for the Training in Virtue,” in Schools of the Thought in the Christian Tradition, ed. Patrick Henry (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 15-30.

14 atmosphere. From these sources, I can begin to piece together the tracks of the school. This will provide a foundation for my analysis of similar tracks in the Psalm Homilies. However, focusing on the tracks will require that I extract certain statements from their immediate rhetorical/literary context. This approach risks doing injustice to Origen’s primary concerns in his writings.

Nevertheless, the historical nature of this project requires such a risk. For the historian, the preacher’s immediate rhetorical concern is not the only historically relevant information that the reader can glean from literary evidence. Thus, I follow Bloch’s emphasis on paying attention to the “tracks”44 our subjects have left behind. Indeed, if we do not pay attention to these “tracks,” we might fail to notice important historical details that permit us a more robust reconstruction of the contexts in which early Christian thought developed. Origen did not preach and interpret the biblical text in a vacuum. Part of the task, then, of understanding the historical and social contexts in which Origen’s preaching and exegesis took place demands that the scholar be cognizant of these “tracks.” From them, we can develop a greater awareness of early Christian culture.

This methodology, nonetheless, requires me to fill out the picture that the “tracks” from these homilies create. In order to do so, I will also engage the most detailed description of the school provided by one of his students, Gregory Thaumaturgus. Gregory’s Address of Thanksgiving, which he presented to Origen at his departure from the school, has been the subject of substantial study, being mined for details regarding Origen’s curriculum and the important details it reveals about the relationship between teacher and student.45 Sadly, however, this text focused more on the exemplary quality of the master than on the details of day-to-day life and the academic

44 Bloch, Historian’s Craft, 55-69. 45 David Satran, In the Image of Origen: Eros, Virtue, and Constraint in the Early Christian Academy (Oakland: University of California Press, 2018).

15 activities around the biblical text. Nevertheless, there is, as I hope to demonstrate, sufficient evidence in this letter allowing it to be of some use in this investigation.

These “tracks,” from Origen’s own writings and from Gregory Thaumaturgus, however, take on new significance when supplemented with advances in current research on the material and social aspects of the reading practices in Late Antiquity. Therefore, I will use some of these advancements to colour in the portrait of Origen’s academic activities. For example, I will consider the social dynamics of books, reading, and intellectual life at this time. These questions are crucial for bringing Origen’s exegetical work out of the confines of an often too limited concern for the doctrinal aspects of his hermeneutics. One of the assumptions of my work is that there is no good reason to believe that Origen was so substantially different from other teachers of his era or that his school was significantly different from other philosophical and intellectual circles in Late Antiquity. Therefore, I will spend one chapter at the beginning of the dissertation exploring what we know about such Late Antique circles of ascetically inclined urban intellectuals roughly contemporaneous with Origen, such as the Pythagoreans and the philosophical circle around Plotinus. I will also use the work of scholars such as Maren Niehoff46 on Philo. I will add to Niehoff’s work, Philo’s own description of the Therapeutai,47 a group of

Jews who formed an ascetic community outside Alexandria, Egypt.

46 Maren Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 47 Philo, De Vita Contemplativa, Trans. Colson, F.H. and G.H. Whitaker. Philo. LCL Classic Library, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 2014. For select scholarship, see Mary Ann Beavis, “Philo’s Therapeutai: Philosopher’s Dream or Utopian Construction?” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 14, no. 1 (January 2004), 30–42. Also, Angela Standhartinger, “The School of Moses at Table. Sympotic Teaching in Philo’s De vita contemplativa,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 47 no. 3 (Fall-Winter 2017), 67-84.

As I mentioned earlier, Johnson’s work on elite reading communities, 48 provides a good theoretical framework for this study. Johnson’s model is particularly useful as it describes how

Greco-Roman intellectuals developed a communal identity around their shared reading of texts.

More closely related to Origen, in both time and theological orientation, was the school of

Didymus the Blind in fourth-century Alexandria. Recent scholarship has shown the inner- workings of Didymus’ intellectual circle.49 There is also the archaeological evidence preserved by the volcanic eruption at Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE, providing a window into the life of an

Epicurean philosophical community at Herculaneum.50 These circles, though distinct from

Origen’s, can help provide some parameters for our investigation into Origen’s reading circle.

Outline

I will organize my thesis in the following manner: The first chapter will explore the material and social aspects of books and reading practices in Late Antique intellectual groups, including the work of Johnson on elite reading communities. Since this period was much too vast for a comprehensive study of these reading communities, I will focus my attention on a select few groups, including Iamblichus’ description of the Pythagoreans, Porphyry’s description of

Plotinus’ academy, the Epicureans at Herculaneum, Jewish intellectuals such as Philo and the

Palestinian Rabbis, and Didymus the Blind in fourth-century Alexandria. These groups will help to contextualize Origen’s reading community in Caesarea and serve as models to think with

48 Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture. 49 Lincoln Blumell, ed. Didymus the Blind’s Commentary on Psalm 26:10-29:2 and 36:1-3. The Brigham Young University Papyri. Vol. 1. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019). See also Richard A. Layton’s Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria: Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship, (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press), 2004. 50 Grafton and Williams provide a helpful sketch of this community in Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 46-52.

17 when I turn to a discussion of the reading community around Origen in Chapter Two and the evidence of such reading practices in the Psalm Homilies in Chapter Three.

This brief overview of intellectual reading practices in Late Antiquity will provide the context in which Origen’s works should be read. That will be the subject of Chapter Two. Here, I will examine the evidence of the reading and textual practices of Origen’s school in Caesarea. I will focus primarily on evidence from Origen’s commentaries to show how the scholarly group treated the biblical text under discussion. However, I will also analyze other literary evidence to help piece together the membership and ethos of the school. In so doing, I will show how

Origen’s scholarly milieu fits nicely into the Late Antique reading practices of other intellectual communities. Of course, due to the nature of the evidence, this portrait is only a possible reconstruction. Much more work will need to be done in order to create a more robust picture of the school.

In Chapter Three, I will turn to a formal analysis of Origen’s Psalm Homilies. I will begin with examining the “tracks” relevant to the academic activities in Origen’s school. This chapter will pay specific attention to aspects of textual criticism, evidence of some of Origen’s commentaries, such as the commentaries on Matthew and Hosea, which figure prominently in these Homilies.

In particular, there are several “tracks” of his work on the Hexapla and the infrastructure behind its production. I will also examine evidence in these homilies pertaining to other common elements in Origen’s exegetical work, particularly his grammatical habits, the zetetic method of inquiry, the meditative reading practices Origen provided in his school. Origen used such allusions strategically to justify certain exegetical points he wanted to make for his audience.

However, many of these allusions are highly suggestive of the practices conducted in his school.

Chapter four will turn to an investigation of what these homilies tell us about Origen’s program for cultivating certain reading habits in his broader Caesarean audience. To accomplish this, I will rely heavily on the scholarship of Neuschäfer and H.I. Marrou51 on reading procedures employed by the grammarians. Origen’s exegetical procedure in these Homilies is remarkably consistent with the four-step procedure which the grammarians, such as Dionysius Thrax, applied to their texts. There are many discussions on technical aspects of literature, such as homonymy, ambiguities, prosopology, and so on, so indicative of Origen’s grammatical training.

I argue that Origen’s grammatical approach to the Bible in these homilies reflects a teacher attempting to provide his audience with a literate education.

Chapter five will then turn to a more theological question: What did Origen see as his task as a

Christian teacher and preacher? To answer this question, I will discuss two key concepts in

Origen’s anthropology, the heart, and the corresponding concept purity of heart. I will situate this anthropology within the context of the daily experiences of his audience living in an urban environment. This analysis will help us to appreciate what motivated Origen in his academic and pastoral activities. Moreover, they will complement the material and social aspects behind the activities in Origen’s community by providing a firm theological foundation for the ascetic habits Origen attempted to cultivate both among his disciples in the school and his broader

Caesarean audience. Origen’s aim as a preacher and teacher, I argue here, was more than simply teaching his audience how to read. He was concerned also to situate their reading of the Bible against the distractions of city life, such as athletic and musical contests, and the latest gossip.

51 H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. George Lamb (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982).

The Christian reader Origen was trying to cultivate was a reader whose sole focus was on divine discourse, primarily through reading the scriptures.

The conclusion will briefly bring all the elements of the thesis together. I will summarize the portrait of the academic habits and intellectual milieu at Origen’s school, and how this milieu informed his preaching on the psalms. Moreover, it will have been shown how Origen’s vision of

Christian life as fundamentally oriented towards purity of heart provided the anthropological framework for his pedagogical activities.

Aim

The plethora of studies on Origen’s biblical exegesis makes it difficult to provide something original. Thankfully, a manuscript containing twenty-nine homilies on ten different psalms was discovered in Munich that had hitherto been anonymous. Once scholars determined that these homilies were from Origen, it opened up new avenues of research into one of the greatest, and most controversial, minds in the Christian intellectual tradition. That these homilies are in Greek simply means that we have a source from which questions about translation, which have informed studies of texts such as On First Principles and his Commentary on Romans, can largely be avoided.

Though Origenian scholarship has advanced well beyond ideological debates, rooted both in confessional and intra-confessional disagreements over the relationship between Hellenistic and biblical culture and concerns about some of Origen’s supposed doctrinal positions, there is not yet a study that combines both the theological, material, and social aspects of Origen’s work.

This thesis aims to do just that. The result will be a portrait of a mature ascetic, scholar, and preacher, ensconced firmly in his socio-historical setting. Moreover, it will reveal the dynamics

20 of an urban ascetic community of Christians and how their activities related to the broader church in the third century. Taken together, the portrait pieced together from the “tracks” Origen left behind, will be that of an innovative Christian intellectual who incorporated common elements of classical paideia and advanced a new form of intellectual and ascetic life for

Christians living in a pluralistic urban environment.

This thesis aims to benefit primarily Origen scholars and to contribute to their scholarship.

However, secondary and tertiary targets include scholars in early Christianity and patristics who have interests in early Christian asceticism, as well as scholars with interests in the history of reading, particularly in Late Antiquity. Such scholars can benefit immensely from the writings of

Origen, one of Christianity’s earliest and most prolific intellectuals and biblical scholars.

The Psalm Homilies in the Codex Monacensis Graecus 314

Every once in a while, scholars have the fortune to benefit from a significant find. Such was the case during World War II, when a substantial collection of papyri fragments led to a growth of scholarship on Didymus the Blind and Origen. Perhaps even more significant was the find of the

Nag Hammadi codices and the proliferation of scholarship on the Gnostic communities in early

Christianity. Recently, scholars of Origen have been the recipients of a significant discovery, though not on the scale of the Nag Hammadi codices. The discovery in question was that of a codex manuscript containing twenty-nine Greek homilies on ten different psalms. Before 2012, these homilies were anonymous, attributed at one time to the Byzantine philosopher Michael

Psellos.52 However, Marina Molin Pradel and Lorenzo Perrone have determined that Origen was indeed the preacher behind these homilies.53

The Greek manuscript, which dates from twelfth century Constantinople contains twenty-nine homilies covering ten psalms, has been housed at the Bayerische Staatsbibliotek in Munich since the sixteenth century.54 The manuscript is comprised of homilies on Ps. 15 (2), Ps. 36 (4), Ps. 67

(2), Ps. 73 (3), Ps. 74 (1), Ps. 75 (1), Ps. 76 (4), Ps. 77 (9), Ps. 80 (2), and Ps. 81 (1). The list of the homilies on Pss. 73-81 conforms precisely to both Jerome’s and Eusebius’ lists. The four homilies on Ps. 36, however, are one homily short of Jerome’s list, which numbers them at five homilies. However, Perrone notes that the fifth homily on Ps. 36 is not attested in the external catenae, leading him to speculate that the fifth homily must have gotten lost at an early point in the transmission of the homilies.55 It is difficult to determine the rationale behind the preservation of these particular homilies. It is not known, for example, whether later copyists chose these twenty-nine homilies out of Origen’s 120 homilies on the Psalms, as numbered by

Jerome, or whether the other ninety-one homilies were simply “casualties of the text transmission.”56

52 Marina Molin Pradel, “Novità origeniane Staatsbibliotek di Monaco di Baviera: il Cod.graec.314,” Adamantius 18 (2012), 20-21. 53 A description of the discovery and the attribution to Origen can be found in Lorenzo Perrone, “Rediscovering Origen Today: First Impressions of the New Collection of Homilies on the Psalms in the Codex Monacensis Graecus 314,” in Studia Patristica. 56.4 (2013), 103-122. On the attribution to Origen, see Lorenzo Perrone, “The Find of the Munich Codex: A Collection of 29 Homilies on the Psalms,” in Origeniana Undecima, ed. Anders- Christian Jacobsen (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 201-233. 54 For a description of the manuscript and its history, see Molin Pradel, “Novità origeniane Staatsbibliotek di Monaco di Baviera,” 17-24. 55 Perrone, “Rediscovering Origen Today,” 107. 56 Perrone, “Rediscovering Origen Today,” 107.

The traditional dating of Origen’s homilies on the psalms has generally followed Pierre Nautin’s early dating to the period between 238-244CE.57 Nautin did not accept Eusebius’ assertion that

Origen did not allow stenographers to transcribe his homilies until he was sixty years old, which would place his entire extant homiletic corpus after 245CE.58 Instead, he claimed that Origen began his Caesarean preaching activities with the Psalms around the year 238CE, and subsequently followed the three-year cycle of liturgical readings.59 Nautin also speculated that

Origen’s Caesarean bishop, Theoctistus, removed him from his preaching activities due to complaints about his use of allegory and certain doctrinal positions.60

However, the discovery of this manuscript has challenged some of Nautin’s chronology. Based on certain characteristics of these homilies, Perrone and Adele Monaci Castagno attributed them to a later period, no earlier than 245CE. For example, Monaci Castagno interprets Origen’s allusion to those who ruled for thirty years prior in Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 36 as an allusion to the succession of emperors from Macrinus to Philip the Arabian (ca. 217-249).61 Perrone also identified several parallels to Origen’s works known to come from the late 240’s, such as his

Commentary on Matthew, Contra Celsum, and the lost Commentary on Hosea.62

As of the writing of this dissertation, the first English translation is in progress, and will be published in the Fathers of the Church series through Catholic University of America Press. Due to the lack of a current English translation, as well as the newness of the discovery, there has been very little research conducted on these homilies in English. Most of the scholarship so far

57 Pierre Nautin, Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre, (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), 403-405. 58 Eusebius, HE. 6.36 (LCL 88). 59 Nautin, Origène, 389-409. 60 Nautin, Origène, 405, 408, 434. 61 Monaci Castagno, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia, 249-50. 62 Perrone, The Dating of the New Homilies on the Psalms in the Munich Codex: The Ultimate Origen?” Proche- Orient Chrétien 67 (2017), 247-248.

23 is in Italian, with a collection of articles in Italian, French, and German, in the 2014 volume of

Adamantius.63 Given these circumstances, my dissertation will be one of the earliest studies of the homilies for the English speaking/reading world. Moreover, because of the discovery of the

Psalm Homilies, scholars have a rich new source from which to study the thought of the

Alexandrian, early Christian preaching practices, and the life of a Christian community in the middle of the third century.

The significance of this find for both Origen research and patristics in general cannot be overstated. One such significance is that they allow us to reassess Rufinus as a translator of

Origen. The four homilies on Psalm 36, for example, had already existed in Latin translations by

Rufinus. Rufinus, of course, translated five homilies on Psalm 36, leading Molin Pradel and

Emanuela Prinzivalli to suggest that the fifth homily dropped out of the anthology long before the current anthology took the form it has today.64 Another significance of this discovery is that prior to these Psalm Homilies, most of Origen’s homiletic corpus existed in Latin Translations.

Aside from the catenae fragments, scholars have had to rely on a collection of homilies on

Jeremiah preserved in Greek and one homily on 1 Sam. 28. Now, with this new anthology in

Greek, scholars now have greater access into Origen’s thought without the mediation of Jerome or Rufinus.

Because the liturgy was the principal occasion for early Christian education and formation, these

Homilies provide us with an opportunity to study how the process of literate education unfolded in an early Christian community. Harry Gamble, for example, has demonstrated how the hearing

63 Adamantius: Rivista del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su “Origene e la tradizione alessandrina” 20 (2014), 173- 275. 64 Emanuela Prinzivalli, “A Fresh Look at Rufinus as a Translator,” in Origeniana Undecima, ed. Anders-Christian Jacobsen (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 249.

24 of the scriptural text read at the liturgy was a locus for Christian paideia, especially for catechumens.65 Most importantly, Gamble recognized the public reading of scripture at the liturgical assembly was itself an interpretive process.66 It was at the liturgical assembly, then, when most Christians were able to have an informed engagement with the scriptural texts. There is no better place to look for this process taking shape than in the act of preaching, during which a learned preacher provided instruction for an audience.67

65 Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), 8 66 Gamble, Books and Readers, 203–232, esp. 204–05. 67 Kim Haines-Eitzen, “Textual Communities in Late Antique Christianity,” in A Companion to Late Antiquity, ed. Philip Rousseau, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 90.

Chapter One: Reading Communities in Late Antiquity

In order to create a more robust portrait of Origen’s reading practices and those he attempted to cultivate in his preaching audience, I will first ground those practices firmly within the historical setting of Late Antique reading communities. This discussion of the textual practices of other

Late Antique reading communities will provide some models to think with when I address

Origen’s scholarly book practices in the next two chapters. The question then becomes, where do we look for such models? The closest parallels to the education provided at Origen’s school are to be found in the philosophical schools, learned Jewish circles, and other early Christian schools.

1.1 The Philosophical Schools

While there are many possible points of departure for discussing textual practices in the Graeco-

Roman philosophical schools, I have chosen to begin with Iamblicus’ On the Pythagorean Life.68

Whether or not Iamblichus (c. 245-325 CE) was a reliable historian of the Pythagorean tradition, he does provide some details indicative of the textual ethos of the philosophical schools in Late

Antiquity. At the same time, Iamblichus’s treatment of the Pythagoreans gives us access into his own use of books when tracing the history of the Pythagorean school.

In tracing the history of the Pythagoreans, Iamblichus commented on their use of books, and even situated his own work within that textual tradition. What we see may not reflect the actual textual practices of Pythagoras or of the early Pythagoreans, but at the very least, it does suggest certain attitudes of the Graeco-Roman philosophical schools towards their texts, as well as

68 Iamblichus, de Vita Pythagorica Liber, ed. Ludovicus Deubner (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1975). A good English translation is Gillian Clark, Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Life (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989).

25 26 providing evidence for some of the textual practices in those communities at the time Iamblichus wrote this treatise in the fourth century CE.69 It becomes clear to the reader that Iamblichus placed books at the center of the Pythagorean life, and of the philosophical life in general.70

Iamblichus tells us that Mnesarchos provided his son, Pythagoras with a “many-sided education in the most important subjects (ποικίλοις παιδεύμασι καὶ ἀξιολογωτάτοις).”71 As he grew older,

Iamblichus informs us that Pythagoras cultivated a well-balanced routine of worship, learning, and diet.72 If we were to believe Iamblichus, Pythagoras was the paradigm of the philosophical life, which placed a well-rounded education in the different disciplines at the top of its list of values alongside other activities, such as religious practices and physical exercise, in a balanced lifestyle.

In an interesting discourse on the hierarchical structure of the Pythagorean community,

Iamblichus again shows his engagement with different textual traditions. Pythagoras, he said, divided his school into two distinct groups: “Hearers (ἀκουσματικοί)” and “Learners

(μαθηματικοί).” In this hierarchy, Iamblichus said that the “Hearers” were not considered to be real Pythagoreans or at least, were not regarded as such by the “Learners.” The Hearers’ “study of philosophy (ἡ μὲν τῶν ἀκουσματικῶν φιλοσοφία)” was limited to “maxims without demonstration or argument (ἀκούσματα ἀναπόδεικτα ἄνευ λόγου).”73 In contrast, the Learners

69 Arthur Urbano argued that the fourth-century biographies of Pythagoras reveal “a direct relationship to contemporary philosophical debate in the circles of Pythagoreans and Platonists,” in The Philosophical Life: Biography and the Crafting of Intellectual Identity in Late Antiquity (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2013), 86. 70 Urbano, The Philosophical Life, 91. 71 Iamblichus, VP. 2.9 (Clark trans. 4). 72 Iamblichus, VP. 2.10 (Clark trans. 4). 73 Iamblichus, VP. 18.80-82 (Clark trans. 34-36). Note the similarity of this passage to Eusebius’ description of Origen’s bifurcated school in Alexandria, HE. 6.3. Later in this dissertation, we will see another parallel in the way Origen described Jesus teaching the masses in parables, while explaining those parables for his disciples in private.

27 were presumably mature enough to grapple with Pythagoras’ teachings at a more advanced level.

Whether or not this was an accurate depiction of the Pythagorean community, Iamblichus was providing his Neoplatonist readers with an alternative to other accounts in circulation.74 This multilayered dimension of the Pythagorean communities, comprised of “Learners” and

“Hearers,” will be a helpful model to think with as I turn to Origen’s Christian community in the

Psalm Homilies.

Assuming for the moment that Iamblichus accurately narrated the Pythagorean schools, it is clear that texts were an important part of Pythagoras’ own pedagogy. Iamblichus remarked how

Pythagoras was a flexible teacher able to meet the needs of each individual student. Most students, according to Iamblichus, were required to go through a rigorous process of examination, including a personal interview, a three-year postulancy, and, if Pythagoras deemed the students worthy, a five-year period of silence, “to test their self-control.”75 However,

Iamblichus mentioned that Pythagoras made an exception for a certain Abaris from Scythia.

Abaris lacked a “Greek education (ἄπειρος τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς παιδείας),” so “Pythagoras did not lead him through complex studies (ποικίλων θεωρημάτων).” Pythagoras nevertheless exempted him from the five-year silence, and “expounded to him, as briefly as possible, the treatise, On

However, at that time, I will demonstrate how this is not a precise parallel. Origen was not as much of an elitist as the Pythagorean model of the philosophical community. 74 Iamblichus, VP. 18.80-82 (Clark trans. 34-36). See Clark’s note on page 34, in which she, followed J.A. Philip, and identified one such source as Aristoxenes, a fourth-century BCE Pythagorean, who wanted Pythagoreans to be enlightened Learners rather than “hippy ‘Hearers’” mocked during his time. In contrast, Iamblichus simply wanted the Learners to be the acknowledged Pythagoreans. There even seems to be some ambiguity on the part of Iamblichus, who later suggests that the Learners did accept the Hearers as real Pythagoreans. See J.A. Philip, Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966), 138-46. 75 Iamblichus, VP. 17.71-72 (Clark trans. 31).

Nature and another On the Gods.”76 Pythagoras’ students, then, were instructed, to varying degrees, through the use of central texts from that school tradition.

This last point deserves some more reflection. It is a matter of some debate whether or not

Pythagoras wrote anything. While the above passage would suggest that Iamblichus attributed these two treatises (On Nature and On the Gods) to Pythagoras himself, Diogenes Laertius tells us that some “said absurdly enough (φασιν παίζοντες)”77 that Pythagoras left no writings at all.

He specifically attributed this argument to “Heraclitus, the Physicist,” and identified the context of Heraclitus’ remark as in response to the opening words of “Pythagoras’ treatise On Nature.”78

Diogenes Laertius, at least, appears to be in agreement with Iamblichus on the provenance of the treatise On Nature, and ascribed two other works to Pythagoras: On Education, and On

Statesmanship.79

So, if we accept the plausibility that texts were significant in Pythagorean circles, it is worth asking how they were used. Iamblichus gives us some data allowing a tentative answer.

According to Iamblichus, Pythagorean days began with a morning walk as a means of calming the soul, followed by a group meeting (πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐνετύγχανον) “preferably in sanctuaries, but otherwise in similar places (μάλιστα ἐν ἱεροῖς, εἰ δὲ μη γε, ἐν ὁμοίοις τόποις),” then “after this period of study (μετὰ δὲ τὴν τοιαύτην διατριβὴν)”80 was a time for the “care of the body (ἐπὶ

τὴν τῶν σωμάτων…θεραπείαν),” taking the form of various physical activities like running races

(δρόμοις), “wrestling (πάλαις),” “jumping with weights (ἁλτηροβολίᾳ),” or “shadow” boxing

76 Iamblichus, VP. 19.90 (Clark trans. 40). 77 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.6, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, LCL, vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931), 324-25. 78 Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.6, 324-25. 79 Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.8, 326-27. 80 His use of διατριβή could either be taken in the sense of “study,” or a “discourse/lecture.” It is not entirely clear, but the context would seem to indicate the latter.

(χειρονομίᾳ).81 After these activities, they had a modest lunch, followed by “management of the community (τὰς πολιτικὰς οἰκονομίας).” In the evening, they took another walk “in twos or threes, recalling what they had learnt and exercising themselves in their admirable practices

(σύνδυο καὶ σύντρεις ποιεῖσθαι τὸν περίπατον, ἀναμιμνησκομένους τά μαθήματα καὶ

ἐγγυμναζομένους τοῖς καλοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασι).” They then took baths followed by dinner, with not more than ten eating together. They finished their dinners before sunset, then they engaged in a shared reading. Iamblichus tells us that it was customary for the youngest of the group to read, and that the oldest of the group would choose the reading.82

Regarding this last item, it is not entirely clear from Iamblichus what the content of this reading was. However, a little later in the discourse, he mentioned that “in their conversations and discussions (τὰς τε διαλέξεις καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμιλίας), their notes and records

(ὑπομνηματισμούς τε καὶ ὑποσημειώσεις), and even in all their published work (συγγράμματα

καὶ ἐκδόσεις) (most of which still survives today), they did not use common, vulgar, ordinary language.”83 The picture that begins to emerge regarding the “study” during the day and the readings after dinner, is one of a community of intellectuals who regarded reading and learned discussion as central axes around which their life revolved. Rather than discussing things in the common language, they spoke and wrote “by the use of symbols (διὰ συμβόλων),” so that outsiders would not be included in these events.84 This use of a secret language suggests that this community not only shared their texts, but they also shared a particular grammar, or language of discourse among its members.

81 Iamblichus, VP. 21.96-97 (Clark trans. 43). 82 Iamblichus, VP 21.97-99 (Clark trans. 44). 83 Iamblichus, VP 23.104 (Clark trans. 60). 84 Iamblichus, VP 23.104-05 (Clark trans. 46).

Iamblichus’ portrait of Pythagorean life matches well with Johnson’s portrayal of the reading habits of Pliny the Younger and his circle of intellectuals. Beginning with Pliny’s depiction of the daily regimen of Vestricius Spurinna in Book 3 of his Letters, Johnson highlighted the elements of the cultured individual Pliny wanted to construct.85 Spurinna’s day was a model for emulation (aemulari),86 interspersed with moderate exercise, walks with friends, meals, and reading and conversation with friends. However, Johnson warned against relying too heavily on

Pliny for the lived experiences of this circle, positing instead that his letters reveal more the ideal picture of what Pliny wanted it to be.87 Nevertheless, the similarities between Pliny’s ideal and

Iamblichus’ account of the Pythagoreans do allow for a portrait of learned reading practices to emerge.

We can say that whatever Iamblichus’ reliability as a historian of the Pythagorean communities, he at least gives us a picture of his ideal of a Graeco-Roman philosophical community, an ideal he shared with many other Late Antique readers. Iamblichus’ Neo-Platonic background leads us to inquire into the textual ethos of the Neo-Platonists of the third and fourth centuries CE.

Iamblichus’ portrait of the Pythagoreans, while perhaps resembling his own milieu, does not help us as much with that question. Rather, the best source for Neo-Platonic textual practices is

Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus.

Grafton and Williams provided a compelling portrait of the bookish habits of Plotinus and his followers based on their reading of Porphyry’s Life.88 Their investigation into the literary

85 Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture, 36-42. 86 Pliny the Younger, Letters 3.1, trans. Betty Radice, in Pliny: Letters and Panegyricus, vol. 1 Books 1-7, LCL Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, [Reprint] 1972), 158-59. 87 Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture, 33. 88 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, esp. 29-40.

31 activities in this school, and the purposes those activities served, is very helpful for the discussion in this section. Porphyry’s textual activities were oriented, at least partially, towards endowing his master’s works with authority comparable to the philosophical classics.89 A substantial part of this process, on Porphyry’s part, included the collating and emendation of

Plotinus’ texts, as well as commenting on the authenticity of the writings of opponent schools.90

Porphyry is particularly useful as he provides us with access into the dynamics of the philosophical classroom bringing us one step closer to the setting of Origen’s Caesarean school.

The content of the classes (συνουσίαι) appears rather diverse, according to Porphyry’s account.

He included a description of cultic practices, “sacrifices and feasts (θύων τε καὶ ἐστιῶν)” in commemoration of birthdays of Plato and Socrates. On these occasions, Plotinus would have someone who could “read a discourse (λόγον ἀναγνῶναι)” read for those in attendance.91 These particular meetings, however, seem to be reserved for special occasions in which learned discourse was combined with a form of cultic activity. More often, the meetings appear to be times for philosophical discussion around texts.

An intriguing inclusion in Porphyry’s description of such discussions, one that is quite helpful for our reading of Origen, is the use of commentaries (ὑπομνήματα). Porphyry tells us: “In our classes (ἐν ταῖς συνουσίαις), he used to have the commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) read out

(ἀνεγινώσκετο),” which included works by Severus, Cronius, Numenius, Gaius or Atticus, as well as those from the Peripatetics, and “of whoever happened to be at hand (ἐμπεσόντων).”92

89 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 40. 90 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 36. 91 Porphyry, Plot. 2.41-45, in Plotinus, Enneads, vol. 1, trans. A.H. Armstrong, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966). 92 Porphyry, Plot. 14.10-14.

This circle of Neo-Platonists did not restrict itself to the Platonic tradition. This list includes both

Aristotelians and Stoics. Moreover, the treatises functioned to stimulate conversation, with

Plotinus himself giving his own position: “But he did not just speak straight out of these books but took a distinctive personal line in his consideration (ἀλλ’ ἴδιος ἦν καὶ ἐξηλλαγμένος ἐν τῇ

θεωρίᾳ).”93

Even Christian works appeared to be fair game for discussion and refutation. Porphyry described how during Plotinus’ lifetime, Christianity became more popular, especially its Gnostic versions, probably in Rome. In response, Plotinus wrote his Against the Gnostics in order to refute their teachings and misrepresentations of Plato, while apparently leaving Porphyry and Amelius the task of refuting the Zoroastrians.94 Grafton and Williams suggest that the importance of this passage was not in Plotinus’ refutation of Gnostic doctrines, but the Gnostic’s “discreditable bibliography.”95 These Christian philosophers and other “sectarians (αἱρετικοὶ)” “acquired very many books (συγγράμματα πλεῖστα κεκτημένοι)” of the ancient philosophers.96 Their misrepresentation of these philosophical classics demanded that Plotinus and his school take up the task of refuting them, and in so doing, they set the record straight regarding these texts. At stake was a proper interpretation of books, and thus their implications for the philosophical community.

There is also evidence that students wrote works in response to each other in the school, as

Porphyry depicted a debate between himself and a fellow student. He said that a certain Amelius wrote a response to Porphyry’s own criticism of Plotinus entitled “Against the Difficulties

93 Porphyry, Plot. 14.15-16. 94 Porphyry, Plot. 16.1-20. 95 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 35-36. 96 Porphyry, Plot. 16.1-2.

Raised by Porphyry.” Porphyry said that he then wrote a response in return, followed by another response from Amelius. After a few rounds of back-and-forth between him and Amelius,

Porphyry conceded, saying that he “understood what he was saying,” changed his mind

(μετεθέμην) and “wrote a retraction (παλινῳδίαν γράψας),” which he had to read in the lecture

(ἐν τῇ διατριβῇ ἀνέγνων).97 The classroom, then, allowed the students themselves to create, debate, and refine their own works.

Whatever the precise use of books in this school, it is abundantly clear that they played a vital role in the life and self-understanding of that community. As the above story demonstrates, students both wrote and debated their own texts in class. Combined with the previous reference to the use of other philosophical treatises in the classes, a certain pattern emerges resembling those of a reading community. Plotinus was the undisputed leader of this school, and his lectures were the driving force behind the instruction, which were then written down and edited into polished documents for study and edification. To be a philosopher in Plotinus’ school was to be a bookish scholar, one with the skills to both read, produce, and correct texts.

Regarding this last point, Porphyry said that Amelius would emend (διώρθωτο) the copies after they had been transcribed (μεταλαμβάνω) from Plotinus’ originals (αὐτογράφοι).98 He also said that Plotinus bequeathed to Porphyry himself the task of collating and correcting (διάταξιν καὶ

τὴν διόρθωσιν) his books,99 the result of which is what we now know as the Enneads. The aim of these philological tasks, however, was not simply ensuring a correct text. Rather, Porphyry’s

97 Porphyry, Plot. 18.1-24. 98 Porphyry, Plot. 20.9-10. 99 Porphyry, Plot. 24.1-3.

34 main interest was to ensure a proper understanding of the master’s teachings, and so the proper use and reading of Plotinus’ books.

Aside from the book practices of this textual community, Porphyry also sheds some light on the kinds of individuals one might have found attending the lectures of a renowned philosopher. On the one hand, Porphyry said that the meetings were open for anyone who wanted to attend.100 On the other hand, he later named some of the more frequent attendees, and the list appears quite exclusive. Porphyry said that Plotinus had a large audience (ἀκροατὰς πλείους), which included

Amelius of Tuscany, whose family name (ὄνομα κύριον) was Gentilianus, three doctors including one Arab doctor, “quite a few Senators,” with interests in philosophy, one Serapion of

Alexander, an orator by trade, who later dropped out because he could not renounce his possessions, and Porphyry himself.101

At one point, Porphyry mentioned a certain “Origen” attended a seminar at which Plotinus felt some embarrassment in the presence of another respected philosopher.102 Plotinus also welcomed women, including a Gemina, in whose house Plotinus lived, perhaps a patroness.

Porphyry tells us that “men and women of the highest status (εὐγενεστάτων)” brought their children to Plotinus when they were nearing death, entrusting him with their children’s paideia.103 Porphyry did not specify whether these latter were regular or occasional attendees at

100 Porphyry, Plot. 1.14-15. 101 Porphyry, Plot. 7. 102 Porphyry, Plot. 14.20-25 (LCL 40-42). This has, of course, given rise to debates on the “two Origens.” I will steer clear of this debate. I simply refer the reader to some select materials reflecting the two positions. Ilaria Ramelli, “Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism: Re-Thinking the Christianization of Hellenism,” VC 63 (2009), 217-263. Also, Mark Edwards, “Ammonius, Teacher of Origen,” JEH 44 (1993), 169-81. It is interesting to note, however, the manner in which Porphyry described this encounter. The deference Plotinus showed to Origen suggests that the latter was the former’s elder. We also know that Origen of Alexandria was roughly twenty years Plotinus’ senior. Plotinus may have experienced what we call the imposter syndrome. 103 Porphyry, Plot. 9.

35 the lectures, or if he regarded them as full members of Plotinus’ coterie, but their identification here suggests that he did see them as members of the school, to some degree, and that they had some opportunities for philosophical education.

Nor is it clear whether the others listed were a part of the inner circle or simply occasional attendees. Plotinus’ open-door policy leaves room for the possibility that working professionals with an interest in philosophy could attend the seminars without being members of the school as such, perhaps analogous to the Pythagorean “Hearers.” At any rate, Plotinus’ followers appear to have been people with significant financial and social capital. And, to greater or lesser degrees, these individuals shared a common interest in reading and discussing philosophical texts. Texts were thus a defining feature of this philosophical community.

If we travel a little south from Rome, we can find another philosophical reading community helpful for our purposes. Archaeologists have unearthed a significant amount of papyri fragments, numbering around seven hundred books,104 left behind by a school of Epicureans in the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum. This Villa was preserved by the volcanic eruption of

Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE.105 Built on the southern Italian coast of the Mediterranean, the Villa of the Papyri must have been quite an impressive structure conducive for leisurely study. The lead philosophical teacher associated with the Villa is Philodemus, a philologist and Epicurean philosopher active in the first century BCE.106 The texts discovered, and the archaeological remains, give us incredible access into the life and inner workings of the Epicureans who lived

104 Mario Capasso, “Who Lived at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum – A Settled Question,” in The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction, ed. Mantha Zarmakoupi, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 89. 105 Details of the find from different fields of study can be found in a series of essays in Zarmakoupi, The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum. 106 On Philodemus and his library of books at Herculaneum, see Marcello Gigante, Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum, trans. Dirk Obbink, (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1995).

36 there, their literary pursuits, the kinds of spaces used, and the kinds of people who occupied the space.

While Philodemus was the philosophical teacher of this community, he himself did not own the

Villa. The identity of the Villa’s owner remains the subject of debate, but the leading theory is that ownership belongs most likely to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesonius, the father-in-law of

Julius Caesar.107 If that is indeed the case, we have at Herculaneum a philosophical community under the patronage of someone from the highest strata of Roman society, much like we saw with Plotinus. The Villa, overlooking the Mediterranean to the southwest, and mountains to the northeast, was filled with sculptures and mosaics, a substantial garden with a pool, an atrium, and a peristyle designed for leisurely study.108 The Villa’s substantial library provided

Philodemus and his circle a space in which to “challenge other systems already acclimated in the

Rome of Varro and Cicero, and that could decisively counter Cicero’s aversion to

Epicureanism.”109 In other words, it was the centre of a scholarly community setting itself up as a legitimate philosophical community in the Graeco-Roman world.

Aside from the impressive structure and its elite residents, we have ample evidence for the textual practices of this community. For example, Marcello Gigante has shown how one of

Philodemus’ treatises, History of Philosophy, was not the product of one scholar working in isolation. Rather, it was a “project of the entire circle of his followers and collaborators.”110 In this text, we see what Gigante called Philodemus’ “working desk,” and “the mechanisms of

107 Capasso traces out the debate over ownership in “Who Lived at the Villa of the Papyri,” 92-113. 108 Capasso, “Who Lived at the Villa of the Papyri,” 90. 109 Gigante, Philodemus in Italy, 9. 110 Gigante, Philodemus in Italy, 18.

37 literary production” from preliminary draft to the final version.111 Furthermore, an interesting feature that emerges in the papyrological evidence is the presence of different scribal hands. In one case, Philodemus’ treatise On Music, Gigante showed was edited by one scribal hand. In another case, his On Rhetoric shows signs of “substantially different kindred hands.” Moreover, scholars also found both a preliminary draft and the final version of On Rhetoric.112 What this suggests is that the production of books at Herculaneum might have involved different stages of production undertaken between author and friends.

The first step would have been the production of a draft, followed by an editing process in which any errors would be removed.113 Gigante’s observation has significant implications for how we understand the social dimensions behind the production of texts in philosophical schools. In most cases, if Herculaneum is indicative of the Graeco-Roman philosophical schools in general, these treatises were products of a collaborative effort between teacher and students. Book production and emendation were central activities in a philosophical community.

This brings us to the philological pursuits at Herculaneum. Many of the texts found in the library at Herculaneum were those of Epicurus, the founding figure of the Epicurean school. Gigante identified the presence of thirty-seven books of Epicurus’ On Nature. What is interesting, however, is not the number of books, but that there were “double or triple copies” of the book.

Gigante concluded that this suggests the authenticity of the master’s works was a matter of some discussion at this time.114 Moreover, Gigante demonstrated that there are several cases in which there is evidence of various and incomplete editions of a work that span the course of three

111 Gigante, Philodemus in Italy, 17. 112 Gigante, Philodemus in Italy, 29. 113 Gigante, Philodemus in Italy, 29. 114 Gigante, Philodemus in Italy, 18.

38 centuries.115 What this implies is that for this philosophical school, philology was and remained a central philosophical practice.

Gigante’s observations led Grafton and Williams to conclude the presence of a scriptorium at the

Villa, in which scribes corrected and copied texts for dissemination.116 They hypothesized that the similarity in scribal hands suggests a program of training for scribes in this scriptorium, in the same way that later medieval monks received scribal training in their monastic libraries.117 It is questionable whether a medieval monastic scriptorium provides an adequate model of one in

Late Antiquity.118 Furthermore, archaeologists have not unearthed anything that can decisively be called a scriptorium at Herculaneum, so we cannot be certain of the presence of such a room.

Archaeologists have, however, identified a library in which the papyrus rolls were discovered.119

At any rate, books and scholarly pursuits were central to the shared philosophical life of these

Epicureans, activities which included dictation and emendation.120

William Johnson provided a detailed analysis of the bookrolls from Oxyrhynchus, and his conclusions about the training of scribes in that community maps nicely onto the scribal practices at the Villa of the Papyri. The rolls discovered at Oxyrhynchus, he demonstrated, reveal that the

115 Gigante, Philodemus in Italy, 18. 116 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 50-51. However, it should be noted that George W. Houston cautioned that the presence of multiple copies at the Villa does not prove the progression of versions from draft to finished product. See his Inside Roman Libraries: Book Collections and Their Management in Antiquity (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014), 95-96. 117 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 51. See Guglielmo Cavallo, Libri, scritture, scribe a Ercolano: introduzione allo studio dei materiali greci, (Naples: G. Macchiaroli, 1983). 118 Lincoln Blumell cautions against such a comparison in his study of third century Oxyrhynchus in, Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 180. 119 Maria Paola Guidobaldi and Domenico Esposito, “New Archaeological Research at the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum,” in The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction, ed. Mantha Zarmakoupi, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 25. Also, David Sider, “Books of the Villa of the Papyri,” in The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction, ed. Mantha Zarmakoupi, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 115-27. 120 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 49.

39 scribes in Oxyrhynchus received a common scribal training. This is shown, he said, in scribal features such as the striking consistency of line length and column width when compared to bookrolls composed by untrained scribes. The evidence, Johnson contended, shows that when scribal features shifted over time, the consistency of the shifts across the region suggest the training of scribes according to a common set of standards.121 However, George Houston argued that many, not all, of the bookrolls at Herculaneum show the same kind of care by the scribes.122

Nevertheless, the extent to which the Herculaneum scribes were equally trained and competent in their task is not relevant for our purposes. It is enough to say that the work of the scribes was vital to the life of the philosophical community.

1.2 Jewish Reading Communities

We have just seen some characteristics of reading communities in Greco-Roman philosophical circles. It will help to fill out the picture of Late Antique reading communities by exploring the phenomenon in Jewish circles. An exhaustive analysis of Jewish reading communities is beyond the scope of this dissertation. I will, therefore, limit this discussion to a few groups for whom we have sufficient details to sketch a general portrait. For present purposes, I have chosen to explore the reading practices in Philo’s description of the so-called Therapeutai in his de Vita

Contemplativa, the textual habits of Philo himself, and the Rabbinic circles in Roman Palestine.

One could also include in this discussion the Qumran community. We have a substantial amount of literary, archaeological, and papyrological evidence from this community pointing to its

“textual ethos.”123 However, in Philo we have someone more intellectually akin to Origen, and in

121 William A. Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 85-160, with a summary, 155-60. See also, Houston, Inside Roman Libraries, 23-25. 122 Houston, Inside Roman Libraries, 105-11, with conclusions, 125-29. 123 H. Gregory Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians (New York, NY: Routledge, 2000), 139.

40 the Palestinian Rabbinic circles, we are much closer in geographical and cultural proximity to

Origen’s work in that same region.

A problem that emerges with any inquiry into the Therapeutai is the separation between fact and fiction, which is frequently a problem when dealing with literary evidence. It is certainly the case that Philo did not write an objective account of the Therapeutai with its usefulness for future historians in mind. It is more likely, rather, that he was providing an idealized portrait of a

Jewish philosophical community vis á vis other Greco-Roman philosophical schools.124

Nevertheless, much of Philo’s description is consistent with what we have already seen among other philosophical circles, making it a relevant source for our inquiry. At the very least, whether or not Philo allows us to see the Therapeutai as they actually worked with their texts, we do see a certain attitude on the part of Philo towards an ideal Jewish reading community.

Philo’s description of the Therapeutai began with an important contrast. He said that he had just finished describing the Essenes, “who persistently pursued the active life (οἵ τὸν πρακτικὸν

ἐζήλωσαν),” with whom he then contrasted the Therapeutai, describing them as “those who embraced the life of contemplation (τῶν θεωρίαν ἀσπασαμένων).”125 We see from the start that

Philo placed a particular value on reading habits set against the backdrop of his ideal of the contemplative life in contrast to the active life. Unfortunately, we do not possess his thoughts on

124 Philip R. Davies and Joan E. Taylor, “The So-Called Therapeutai of De Vita Contemplativa: Identity and Character,” HTR 91, 1 (1998): 24. Maren Niehoff has also argued that Philo described the symposia of the Therapeutai as a direct contrast to the lavish practices of Greco-Roman philosophical symposia in Maren R. Niehoff, “The Symposium of Philo’s Therapeutai: Displaying Jewish Identity in an Increasingly Roman World,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010): 95-117. 125 Philo, Cont. 1 LCL vol. 9 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941 [Revised and Reprinted 1954]), 112- 13.

41 the Essenes to trace his distinction any further. So, we do not know what, if any, were the textual practices of his ideal of the active life.

Like Porphyry’s description of Plotinus’ circle, Philo said that the Therapeutai gave all their wealth and property to their children or other family,126 situating their lifestyle firmly within the established renunciation practices of other philosophical communities.127 Furthermore, Philo described their habitation in ways strikingly similar to the Villa of the Papyri. He said that the

Therapeutai lived outside the city of Alexandria, along the shores of Lake Mareotis, both for

“security and the pleasantly tempered air (ἀσφαλείας τε ἕνεκα καὶ ἀέρος εὐκρασίας).”128 Philo said that they lived in separate houses, each possessing a “sanctuary or cell (σεμνεῖον καὶ

μοναστήριον), in which they are initiated into the mysteries of the sanctified life (τὰ τοῦ σεμνοῦ

βίου μυστήρια τελοῦνται).”129

Philo did not elaborate greatly on these “mysteries,” but they appear to be centred around the biblical text. He said that the contemplative brought nothing into the room, except the “laws and oracles delivered through the mouth of prophets, and psalms and anything else which fosters and perfects knowledge and piety.” Philo, perhaps romanticizing a bit, said that their reading of scripture was so intense that it even encroached on their subconscious manifesting itself in their

126 Philo, Cont. 13 (LCL 120-21). 127 Recall Porphyry, who said that one of the members, Serapion of Alexander had to leave the group because he could not renounce his possessions. 128 Philo, Cont. 3.23 (LCL 124-25). For more on the location, see Davies and Taylor, “The So-Called Therapeutai,” 10-14. 129 Philo, Cont. 3.25-27 (LCL 126-27). The term I translated as “cell” (μοναστήριον) is not entirely clear. In his appendix to this volume of LCL, 519-20, F.H. Colson said that it does not occur in any other Greek source until the end of the third century BCE. It took on very specific meaning in early Christian monasticism as a name for the monk’s cell, but it is probably not helpful to impose a much later usage on Philo here. Colson suggests that in this case, it is likely better to understand it in the simple sense of a room in which no one else was allowed to enter. He likened it to its use in Matt. 6:6 as “inner chamber.”

42 dreams to the degree that “many when asleep and dreaming give utterance to the glorious verities of their holy philosophy (τῆς ἱερᾶς φιλοσοφίας).”130

According to Philo, the Therapeutai observed a structured prayer life, praying both at sunrise and again at sunset. In between these times for prayer, they engage in “ascesis (ἄσκησις).” In the next clause, Philo said that “reading the Holy Scriptures they seek wisdom of their ancestral philosophy reading it allegorically (ἐντυγχάνοντες γὰρ τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασι φιλοσοφοῦσι τὴν

πάτριον φιλοσοφίαν ἀλληγοροῦντες).131 It’s not entirely clear if Philo was saying that their scripture reading was understood to be an ascetic practice, or if these two separate clauses suggest two distinct activities. However, the Greek text in LCL has a colon after ἄσκησις, immediately after which Philo described their allegorical reading. If LCL accurately reflects the division of the original text, this would suggest that at least Philo thought their allegorical reading of scripture functioned as an ascetic practice.

Perhaps to assist their Bible-reading, Philo said that the Therapeutai also had on hand “writings of the men of old, who are the founders of the sect, who left behind many memorials of the ideas with allegorical interpretations (συγγράμματα παλαῖων ἀνδρῶν, οἵ τῆς αἱρέσεως ἀρχηγέται

γενόμενοι πολλὰ μνημεῖα τῆς ἐν τοῖς ἀλληγορουμένοις ἰδέας ἀπέλιπον).”132 This is an intriguing passage as it alludes to the possibility of a form of biblical commentary in use among the members. In any case, the “memorials of ideas in allegorical interpretations,” even if they were not running commentaries on scriptural books, provide evidence that they made use of inner- group writings to aid in their reading of scripture.

130 Philo, Cont. 3.25-27 (LCL 126-27). 131 Philo, Cont. 3.28 (LCL 128-29). 132 Philo, Cont. 3.29 (LCL 128-29).

In terms of classroom dynamics, Philo’s depiction does not map perfectly onto the models we have seen above from the Greco-Roman philosophical schools. Philo says that the Therapeutai spent six days per week isolated in their cells, only meeting together as a group every seventh day. On that day, Philo says that they gathered together as a “general assembly (εἰς κοινὸν

σύλλογον),” and sat in order of rank. Then, the “most senior member (πρεσβύτατος) who also is the most acquainted with the doctrines (τῶν δογμάτων ἐμπειρότατος) gave a learned discourse

(διαλέγεται).”133 Unlike what we saw in Porphyry, who described Plotinus’ classroom as one filled with much debate between students, in the Therapeutai, Philo said that the audience sat quietly (ἡσυχίαν) showing their approval with “looks or nods (νεύμασιν ὄψεως ἤ κεφαλῆς).”134

The picture resembles a Christian homily more than a philosophical seminar as we saw in

Plotinus’ circle. Here we see a less participatory learning circle, meeting once per week. The teacher was the focus of the class, rather than the student debates. Also, there is no indication that students composed their own works as part of the classroom experience.

However, there are some similarities between Philo’s description of the Therapeutai and

Porphyry’s description of Plotinus’ circle. Like we saw with Plotinus, women would often attend his seminars. The same was true among the Therapeutai. Philo said that in the sanctuary in which the Therapeutai gathered to meet on every seventh day was a wall that separated the men from the women. The wall was not from floor to ceiling, as Philo said that they designed it in such a way that the women could follow the lectures while protecting their modesty.135 Unfortunately,

Philo did not describe the extent to which the women participated. But, since he depicted the classroom as students listening attentively to the lecture with no formal participation through

133 Philo, Cont. 3.30-31 (LCL 130-31). 134 Philo, Cont. 3.31 (LCL 130-31). 135 Philo, Cont. 3.33 (LCL 132-33).

44 questions or comments, we have no reason to suspect the women in attendance to be held to different standards.

Philo also provided a detailed discussion of the symposia of the Therapeutai, which appear to have provided other occasions for scripture reading and learned discourse. These appear to have been daily meetings, rather than the weekly gatherings discussed earlier. Prior to sitting down for the “most holy food (παναγέστατον σιτίον),” all gather together in order of rank in complete silence, while the “President inquired into some question arising in the Holy Scriptures or solves one that has been propounded by someone else (πρόεδρος ζητεῖ τι τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν

ἤ καὶ ὑπ’ ἄλλου προταθὲν ἐπιλύεται).”136 Philo explicitly contrasted the discourse of the

President with those of the orators who, he said, were primarily concerned with making a reputation. In contrast, at this symposium, the President “uses a more leisurely form of instruction (ὁ μὲν σχολαιοτέρα χρῆται τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ)” with repetitions “engraving the thoughts in the souls [of the hearers] (ἐγχαράττων ταῖς ψυχαῖς τὰ νοήματα).”137 And, just like before,

Philo depicts the audience as listening with complete silence, only showing their approval with

“nods and glances.” 138

Philo then went into some detail about the content of the instruction. He said that the lecture

“treats the inner meaning conveyed in allegory. For, to these people the whole law book seems to resemble a living creature with the literal ordinances for its body and for its soul the invisible mind laid up in its wording.” He said that it was in the mind of Scripture that “the rational soul begins to contemplate the things akin to itself and looking through the words as through a mirror

136 Philo, Cont. 10.75 (LCL 158-59). 137 Philo, Cont. 10.76 (LCL 158-61). 138 Philo, Cont. 10.76 (LCL 158-61).

45 beholds the marvelous beauties of the concepts…to enable them to discern the inward and hidden through the outward and visible.”139 Conspicuously absent in this description was any discussion of philological or textual problems. The entire instruction among the Therapeutai appears to have been exclusively on the Bible’s noetic meaning. Concern seems focused on developing a proper religious reading of scripture, and the cultivation of certain habits in response to the biblical text.

Again, it must be repeated that Philo’s depiction of the textual practices of the Therapeutai may reflect more his idealized portrait of the life of contemplation than a factual account of their actual practices. Even if that were the case, his ideal is in many ways consistent with the ethos of the Greco-Roman philosophical schools. Like the schools, the Therapeutai had something of a canon of literature including their Scriptures and the writings of their founding members. They would meet on a set schedule for instruction under the direction of a leader who would provide a learned discourse, perhaps a homily, on their readings. They might have lacked the philological habits of the Herculaneum Epicureans and the philosophical debates of the Neoplatonists, but they certainly participated in a shared ethos of reading, study, and formal instruction in their living of the philosophical life.

However, since we have acknowledged that Philo may have imposed his own values onto this community of readers, it will be helpful to briefly explore the context of Philo’s own writings. In many ways, Philo’s biblical commentaries reflect the presence of two different textual communities. Maren Niehoff has argued similarly regarding Philo’s writings. She has persuasively demonstrated a shift in implied audiences from his Allegorical Commentaries to his

139 Philo, Cont. 10.78-79 (LCL 160-61).

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (Q & A). The former, she showed, were written primarily for an audience of erudite biblical scholars trained in the text-critical methods of

Alexandrian philology, while the latter reflect an implied audience with less formalized training in methods of textual criticism. Instead, the Q & A readers appeared to be more amenable to

Philo’s allegorical interpretation.140

Particularly useful for our purposes is her insight into Philo’s concerns as a scholar and teacher in both his Allegorical Commentaries and his Q & A. Regarding the former, she demonstrated that Philo applied the rigorous scholarly methods in Alexandria and was quite sympathetic to their use by his colleagues. However, Philo mobilized those text-critical methods for a different end. Rather than using them simply as a means of correcting textual problems, as was practiced among both the Aristotelians and the grammarians following Aristarchus, Philo “used them in a sophisticated and highly innovative fashion to construct a separate discourse of Jewish hermeneutics.”141 His concern was not for διόρθωσις for its own sake, but for its utility in developing a proper Jewish allegorical reading of the biblical text.

Niehoff maintained that Philo’s Allegorical Commentaries were addressed to Jewish biblical scholars who were used to and accepted the aforementioned text-critical methods but were reluctant to accept his use of allegory. Philo was open to forms of literal interpretation, but only insofar as they served as the foundation for a deeper allegorical reading. Thus, his aim in the

Allegorical Commentaries was to persuade his contemporaries to adopt his allegorical

140 Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 131-68. A more abbreviated form of her thesis can be found in her Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (New Haven, CT: Yale university Press, 2018), 173-91. 141 Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship, 133.

47 hermeneutics.142 In other words, he composed his Allegorical Commentaries within broader

Jewish exegetical debates, while trying to persuade a specific type of reader of the superiority of allegory. He was not, however, attempting to dissuade readers from literal exegesis. His concern was primarily to demonstrate how too much emphasis on the literal meaning was too short- sighted, while allegorical interpretation was able to remain faithful to the biblical text.143

Niehoff demonstrated how later in his career, Philo became more polemical against biblical literalists in his Q & A. In these works, she showed that Philo spent almost no time engaging in textual problems and was often overtly hostile to them. Philo’s concern here was not to enter into dialogue with literalists, but to “excommunicate” them. These writings show no signs of Philo attempting to justify allegory. Rather, Philo assumes that his readers already have a preference for it. The product, then, was that of a teacher forming “his own community” of readers.144

The setting in which Philo’s pedagogy functioned, however, is not entirely clear from the literary evidence. Did he deliver his Allegorical Commentaries and the Q & A in a classroom setting or in a synagogue? Gregory Sterling suggests that Philo’s Allegorical Commentaries imply an audience too sophisticated for a synagogue setting. He proposed instead that Philo ran a private school either from his own home or a privately-owned building similar to other schools in the

Greco-Roman world.145 He supported his hypothesis with several statements from Philo himself

142 Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship, 134-39. Gregory E. Sterling has similarly argued that Philo’s Allegorical Commentaries were addressed to a sophisticated audience who could engage in learned philosophical discussion of the biblical text, in “‘The School of Sacred Laws’: The Social Setting of Philo’s Treatises,” VC 53 (1999): 159. 143 Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship, 135. 144 Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship, 155. Again, Sterling makes a similar argument. However, he suggested that the Q & A were for beginner students. See “‘The School of Sacred Laws,’” 160. 145 Sterling, “‘The School of Sacred Laws,’” 149-51.

48 in which he left clues about the setting, such as references to a διδασκαλεῖον. He also noted how

Philo often couched the Jewish word for “house of prayer (προσευχή)” in the Hellenistic language of the schools.146 This would certainly fit with the other philosophical schools we looked at, such as Plotinus and the Epicureans at Herculaneum, who also taught and studied in private settings.

Furthermore, that Philo addressed his Allegorical Commentaries to scholars he thought were too literal in their exegesis, suggests to Sterling that these works were products of a “school” tradition. That is to say, Philo composed his exegetical works within an existing exegetical tradition, which included figures such as Aristobulus, some Wisdom literature, and even some texts circulating in early Christian circles.147 The presence of this exegetical tradition led Sterling to hypothesize that Philo had at his disposal a significant philosophical library, similar to what we saw at Herculaneum, containing primarily works of the Jewish exegetical tradition. This library also possibly served as something of a scriptorium for the production of his own works.148

Again, Sterling’s contention rests largely on literary evidence, and so can only be held as a plausible setting. Nevertheless, the literary evidence does map nicely onto wider Greco-Roman intellectual culture.

It should not be surprising that Philo, a Hellenized Jewish philosopher of the first century CE, followed intellectual patterns similar to his Graeco-Roman contemporaries. But, can the same be said for the Rabbinical schools of Roman Palestine? We know that contemporaneous with

146 Sterling, “‘The School of Sacred Laws,’” 154-55. 147 Sterling, “‘The School of Sacred Laws,’” 152-53. 148 Sterling, “‘The School of Sacred Laws,’” 160-63. For a detailed description of Philo’s library, see David Lincicum, “Philo’s Library,” SPA, 26 (2014), 99-114.

Origen in Caesarea Maritima there was a flourishing Rabbinical academy.149 What were the textual practices in which the Palestinian Rabbis were engaged? What do we know about the social setting of those schools? The remainder of this section will address those questions before turning attention to Christianity.

Hayim Lapin has recently demonstrated that the Rabbinic schools in Roman Palestine followed the pattern of the Graeco-Roman philosophical schools and voluntary associations,150 making them an appealing subject for this study. Similar to what we saw with respect to Plotinus, the

Epicureans at Herculaneum, and Philo, the Palestinian Rabbis likely met at “study houses (bet midrashot)” often linked to a specific rabbi.151 These study houses were the locations of dedicated Torah study involving to greater or lesser degrees learned discussions between Rabbis and students.152 This would sometimes take the form of discussions regarding the succession of a particular school of thought. What Lapin has persuasively shown is that in these discourses on lines of succession, the Rabbis saw themselves as akin to the philosophical schools, demarcating themselves as a school vis á vis other competing schools. 153

149 See Hayim Lapin, “Jewish and Christian Academies in Roman Palestine: Some Preliminary Observations,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia, ed. Avner Raban and Kenneth Holum (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 496-512. Also, Michele Murray, “Jews and Judaism in Caesarea Maritima,” in Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima, ed. Terence L. Donaldson (Waterloo, ON: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion by Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2000), 127-52, esp. 143-51. 150 Hayim Lapin, Rabbis as Romans: The Rabbinic Movement in Palestine 100-400 C.E. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 69, 90-97. For more on the parallels between the Rabbis, Philosophical Schools, Christians, and the Voluntary Associations, see Steve Mason, “Philosophiai: Graeco-Roman, Judean, and Christian,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, (New York, NY: Routledge, 1996), 31-58. 151 Lapin, Rabbis as Romans, 77-83. 152 Lapin, Rabbis as Romans, 80-83. See also Marc Hirshman, who provides a more detailed analysis of these interactions in The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C.E.-350 C.E.: Texts on Education and Their Late Antique Context, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 31-48. 153 Lapin, Rabbis as Romans, 92-95.

To look at the textual practices in a Rabbinic school, we can turn to some passages in the Sifre on

Deuteronomy. In doing so, we can see both the social dynamics in the classroom and Rabbinical attitudes towards Torah study. I will largely follow the work of Marc Hirshman here, as he has already discussed this topic in some detail.154 Chapter 41 in the Sifre on Deuteronomy covers a

Rabbinical debate about the priority of Torah study over performing the commandments, in light of Deut. 11:13-24. This discussion provides us with an interesting point of departure. What we see, besides the commentator’s own position on the matter, is that his position was set against the broader textual backdrop of Rabbinical debates regarding the relationship between Torah study and performance.

The text from Deuteronomy reads: “And it shall pass, if you shall hearken diligently unto my commandments (Deut. 11:13).” The Rabbi asks why this passage was spoken. He replied to his own question that it was in reference to Deut. 5:1: “That you may learn them (i.e. the commandments) and observe to do them.” The Rabbi interjected that someone might suppose that one was not obliged to study the commandments until they had sufficiently performed them, except that 11:13 shows that one was obliged to study them immediately.155 As Hirschman noted, the Rabbi interpreted the “hearken diligently,” or “listen” as a command to study by looking to Deut. 5:1 for clarification.156

The debate over the priority of study or performance was at the centre of this interpretation.

Following Deut. 5:1 as an intertext for 11:13, the commentator said: “This indicates that deeds

154 Hirshman, The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 31-48. 155 Reuven Hammer, trans. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986), 82. 156 Hirshman, The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 33.

51 are dependent on learning, but learning is not dependent on deeds.”157 He then introduced a prior debate to support his case. He said, “Once R. Tarfon, R. Akiba, and R. Jose the Galilean were reclining at Bet ‘Aris in Lod’ when this question was presented to them, ‘What is more important, study or performance?’” He then described how R. Tarfon argued that performance was better while R. Akiba and Jose the Galilean, as well as “everyone present” agreed that study was superior. How they reached that conclusion is inconsequential for our purposes.158

What is significant is to note that not only did the original debate take place between Rabbis and a participating (seemingly) audience, but the commentator in Sifre Deuteronomy saw his work as existing within that same intellectual tradition of Rabbinical exegesis. Moreover, the debate centred on a particular text, Deut. 11:13-24 in light of current Rabbinical debates about the priority of Torah study or performance. Simultaneously then, we catch a glimpse of Rabbinical textual practices as well as certain attitudes towards those practices. At issue was the relationship between study and obedience to the commandments, a debate which occurred against a scriptural backdrop. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, this circle of Rabbis viewed their own interpretation of Deuteronomy to be situated within broader Rabbinical debates.

Furthermore, it would seem that the Sifre on Deuteronomy was intended primarily for those beginning their Torah study.159 In Chapter 48 of the Sifre, Hirshman noted how the editors encouraged beginners, assuming they already possessed a capacity to read the biblical text.

Commenting on Deut. 11:22 (“For, if you shall diligently keep all this commandment”), the Sifre introduced a certain R. Simeon ben Yohai, who provided a parable to his disciples. He said:

157 Hammer, Sifre Deuteronomy, 83. 158 Hammer, Sifre Deuteronomy, 83. 159 Hirshman, The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 46.

“Two brothers inherit money from their father. One converts it into a denar and spends it, while the other converts it into a denar and puts it aside.”160 In the parable, the former became poor while the latter became wealthy. The Rabbi then connected the parable to Torah study. The moral of the story was that the student who dedicated himself to studying two or three things per day, two or three chapters per week, or two or three Scriptural lessons per month, becomes intellectually wealthy.

The instruction for ideal students did not stop with that parable, however. The Sifre continued by encouraging students to not advance to the next lesson before mastering the current lesson. The editor also encouraged students to put forth the same effort in both easy and difficult lessons, and not to stop with simply learning the Torah, but to perform the Law as well. The students were also not to study the Torah for self-aggrandizement (i.e. “to be called a sage, in order to sit in the academy”), but to study it for its own sake.161 The ideal students were thus diligent and patient in their studies, and cultivated certain attitudes and dispositions towards their learning. Namely,

Torah study was to be done not for self-promotion or status, but for the intrinsic good of study itself. In other words, the Rabbis in the Sifre on Deuteronomy were instructing those beginning their Torah study in the habits of an ideal reader.

Moreover, implied in the Sifre is that study not only involved the reading of the Torah, but also the reading of learned commentaries, midrash, halakha, and haggadah.162 This picture fits nicely, though not perfectly, with what we saw in the philosophical schools, in which students studied both the central texts of their founders (Epicurus and Plotinus, for example), as well as

160 Hammer, Sifre Deuteronomy, 100-01. 161 Hammer, Sifre Deuteronomy, 101-05. See also Hirschman, The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 46. 162 Hammer, Sifre Deuteronomy, 104.

53 the necessary supplementary material from within their respective traditions. It remains to be seen, however, if early Christian learning circles fit the pattern of these textual communities in

Late Antiquity. The rest of this chapter will address that question.

1.3 Early Christian Schools

There is already a substantial bibliography pertaining to early Christian book practices.163 For example, Larry Hurtado has provided substantial evidence of scribal habits particular to early

Christian texts, such as the use of the nomina sacra and the staurogram.164 Much has been made of the early Christian preference for the codex instead of the book roll.165 Guy Stroumsa, noticing that trend, suggested that the Christian preference for the codex marked a revolutionary new culture of the book.166 Whether such practices can help us to better understand reading communities certainly warrants a more dedicated treatment than this dissertation can provide.

For now, it will suffice to explore early Christian reading communities against what we have seen in the philosophical and rabbinical schools. The problem that emerges, is where to focus our attention. It would certainly be worthwhile to look at second-century figures such as Justin

163 The seminal work remains Harry Y. Gamble’s Books and Readers. See also, Colin H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1979). There have been some more recent contributions such as Larry W Hurtado’s The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins, (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2006); Brent Nongbri’s God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018); Guy G. Stroumsa, “Early Christianity – A Religion of the Book”? in Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, ed. Margalit Finkelberg and Guy G. Stroumsa, 153-73 (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Roger Bagnal’s Early Christian Books in Egypt, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); John S. Kloppenborg, “Literate Media in Early Christ Groups: The Creation of a Christian Book Culture,” JECS 22, 1 (Spring 2014), 21-59; and the collection of essays in The Early Christian Book, ed. William E. Klingshirn and Linda Safran, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2006). 164 Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts, for the nomina sacra, see 95-135, and for the staurogram, see 135-54. Hurtado also challenged previous assumptions about the dominance of orality in early Christianity, arguing instead that early Christians were actually prolific in their literary output. See, Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 105-41. 165 The standard work remains Colin H. Roberts and T.C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1983). See also, Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, esp. 49-66; and, Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts, 43-93. 166 Stroumsa, “Early Christianity – A Religion of the Book?” 167-73.

Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, or Clement of Alexandria for models. Doing so would help us to explore the kinds of practices Origen may have inherited. However, the evidence is too sparse to piece together the dynamics of their learning environments.

Another appealing possibility is the Christian community at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. Lincoln

Blumell has analyzed the various papyri fragments from this community, revealing the presence of a modest degree of literary erudition, even suggesting the presence of a scriptorium.167 The significant amount of papyri fragments associated with this community provide scholars with much needed raw material from which to piece together historical details. Unfortunately, the evidence there is also too sparse and fragmented to be helpful here. Moreover, the lack of biblical commentaries and homilies from Oxyrhynchus does not necessarily help us reconstruct the learning environment behind Origen’s biblical scholarship in Caesarea.

Jerome’s (c. 327-420 CE) biblical scholarship certainly deserves mention as a model for what may have been happening in Origen’s Caesarea. Megan Williams has persuasively shown the social and material dynamics of Jerome’s monastic circle in the production and dissemination of his works.168 Jerome’s indefatigable biblical studies, especially his production and dissemination of biblical commentaries, would certainly provide a helpful framework from which to encounter

Origen’s scholarly community. However, I argue that there is a better Christian exemplar than

Jerome, namely, Didymus the Blind.

167 Lincoln H. Blumell, Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus, (Leiden: Brill, 2012), esp. 165-236, and for his argument in favor of a scriptorium, book shops, and a private library, see 175. 168 Megan Hale Williams, The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship, (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006).

Didymus (c. 313-398 CE) lived more than a century after Origen, so we must be aware of potential anachronisms. An advantage with using Didymus, however, is that in his Lectures on the Psalms, we have transcripts of his lectures rather than polished documents, the raw material before it was edited for publication. These lectures are more akin to the preliminary drafts we encountered at Herculaneum, thus giving us direct access into the dynamics of his classroom. In other words, we can see a reading community in action. Moreover, we see the formation of a particular Christian identity taking place within a fourth-century classroom.169

Of the school in which Didymus delivered these lectures, we know rather little. Rufinus of

Aquileia (c. 340-410 CE) said that Athanasius made Didymus “master of the church school,”170 which would suggest that this school had ecclesiastical patronage. This seems to locate the school in the line of the so-called Alexandrian catechetical school in which Eusebius placed

Origen.171 Richard Layton rightly doubts the accuracy of such statements. Layton also rightly argued that the connection with Athanasius meant that the school had some form of ecclesial approval, even if not to the extent Rufinus described.172

Regarding Didymus’ classroom, there is not much evidence pertaining to the space his classroom occupied. We do not know, for example, if the class used a rented space or met in a private

169 Richard A. Layton, Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria, (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 7. See also, Grant D. Bayliss, The Vision of Didymus the Blind: A Fourth-Century Virtue- Origenism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). And, Blossom Stefaniw, Christian Reading: Language, Ethics, and the Order of Things (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2019). 170 Rufinus, History of the Church 11.7, trans. Philip R. Amidon, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 133 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 443. 171 For Eusebius’ description of the so-called “catechetical school,” see his HE. 6.3 (LCL 16). The standard English translation is Eusebius Pamphili: Ecclesiastical History (Books 6-10), trans. Roy J. Deferrari, FOTC, vol. 29 (New York, NY: Fathers of the Church, Inc.1955), 8-10. There is a substantial body of literature on the so-called catechetical school. See, for example, Roelof van den Broek, “The Christian ‘School’ of Alexandria in the Second and Third Centuries,” in Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East, ed. Jan Willem Drijvers and Alistair A. MacDonald, (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 39-47. See also Annewies van den Hoek, “The ‘Catechetical School’ of Early Christian Alexandria and its Philonic Heritage,” HTR 90, 1 (1997): 59-87. 172 Layton, Didymus the Blind and His Circle, 15-18.

56 home. On the other hand, we do have reason to think that his classroom attracted very learned individuals with some background in advanced philosophical instruction similar to the philosophical schools.173 In his History of the Church, Rufinus said, “We, however, who were both to some extent disciples of his when he spoke in person,”174 suggesting that at least at some point of his life, Rufinus and perhaps some of his students attended Didymus’ lectures. Rufinus also alluded to an encounter Didymus had with “the blessed Antony,” while Antony was going from the Thebaid to Alexandria for a debate with the Arians.175 This encounter is also reported by Palladius in his Lausiac History.176 This does not prove that Antony attended Didymus’ lectures, but it does show that his reputation as a Christian teacher put him in similar circles of friends.

With respect to the classroom activities, Rufinus tells us that Didymus had stenographers to take down his dictations, either his lectures (“what he said”), or classroom debates (“his debates with others”), and his replies to problems presented to him, presumably in the lectures (“replies to the issues raised”).177 On the one hand, the stenographers, if not formally recognized as students, likely benefited from the lectures. However, aside from the status they had in the classroom, their presence supports Stefaniw’s claim that alongside his teaching activities, Didymus was also engaged in both the dictating and editing of his texts.178 Didymus’ school, then, looks somewhat similar to that of Plotinus and the Epicureans at Herculaneum.

173 Layton, Didymus the Blind and His Circle, 28. 174 Rufinus, History of the Church 11.7, 443. 175 Rufinus, History of the Church, 11.7, 443-44. See also Layton, Didymus the Blind and His Circle, 19-26. 176 Palladius, The Lausiac History 4.3, trans. Robert T. Meyer, ACW 34 (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1964), 35- 36. 177 Rufinus, History of the Church, 11.7, 443. 178 Blossom Stefaniw, Mind, Text, Commentary, 320.

Didymus himself provides some details about his curriculum. For example, in his Commentary on Genesis, discussing the birth of Cain and Abel in Gen. 4:1-2, Didymus said that “the scholar will know (ὁ φιλόκαλος εἴσεται)179 all that Philo said in treating this passage allegorically.”180

The manner in which Didymus referred to Philo here suggests that he either used Philo’s texts in class, that he expected his students to have read Philo, or at least that his students had easy access to Philo’s works. We have, then, either a required or recommended supplemental reading for the class.

Aristotle also plays a significant role in Didymus’ lectures. In his lecture on Ps. 21:27, Didymus introduced an element of Aristotle’s logic, the proper use of syllogisms.181 Secular philosophy also appears in Didymus’ lecture on Ps. 21:2. There, he prefaced his remarks on 21:2 by saying that his class was “compelled to undertake a more profound contemplation (ἀναγκαζόμεθα

βαθυτέρας θεωρίας ἅψασθαι).” Then, he proceeded to review the categorization of concepts and attributes from Euclid, Aristotle, and Sextus Empiricus.182 Unlike in the case of Philo above,

Didymus did not name his sources, so it is difficult to determine whether Aristotle and Sextus

Empiricus were required reading for the class.

If they were required reading, one might expect Didymus to mention them by name as he did with Philo. Stefaniw, however, suggested that the writings of such philosophers served as a

179 Literally, “the lover of beauty will know.” 180 Didymus the Blind, Sur la Genèse 4.1-2.121-22, ed. Pierre Nautin, SC, 233 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1976), 278. The English translation is, Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Genesis, trans. Robert C. Hill, FOTC. vol. 132 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016), 115. For a detailed discussion of Didymus’ use of Philo, see, Justin M. Rogers, Didymus the Blind and the Alexandrian Christian Reception of Philo, (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2017). 181 Didymus the Blind, Comm. in Ps. 51.19-25 (Gronewald 1:206). See also Stefaniw, Mind, Text, Commentary, n.287 on p. 286. See Aristotle, Soph. el. 169b 20ff; 171b 6ff; Top. 100b 6ff; 100b 23ff; 100a 27ff; 100a 30ff. 182 Didymus, Comm. in Ps. 25.21-26.1 (Gronewald 1:102-03). See Gronewald’s note b, on page 103.

58 potential “second step” in Didymus’ curriculum.183 At any rate, it indicates the intellectual ethos of this philosophical community of readers, particularly the interplay between philosophy and biblical scholarship in the classroom. Didymus supplemented his classroom’s reading of scripture with the knowledge available to them at the time. Required or recommended, the philosophers were vital for a proper Christian reading of the biblical text in Didymus’ classroom.

Looking only at the Psalm Lectures,184 which Didymus may have delivered twice per day,185 we see some patterns and classroom dynamics that will help us when we encounter Origen in the next chapter. Didymus and his classroom worked through each Psalm verse-by-verse. The lectures began with a simple lemma from a particular Psalm, followed by Didymus’ explication.

We also see, however, that at various points in the lectures, students would pose questions for

Didymus, presumably for clarification or from dissatisfaction with Didymus’ argument.186

Stefaniw argued that the Psalms Lectures are highly indicative of grammatical instruction, but that instruction included lessons in the broader scope of philosophical education.187 In the cases we will encounter here, it appears as if the questions were not related to any textual problem, or philological concern. Rather, the discussions revolved around the theological implications of

Didymus’ exegesis, particularly in light of the Christological debates surrounding the

Apollinarian controversy.188

183 See also Stefaniw, Mind, Text, Commentary, 285. 184 A recent edition, translation, and study can be found in Lincoln Blumell, Thomas W. Mackay and Gregg Schwendner, eds. Didymus the Blind’s Commentary on Psalms 26:10-29:2 and 36:1-3 (P.BYU.1), (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2019). 185 See, Stefaniw, Mind, Text, Commentary, 320. 186 Layton made a case for the latter interpretation of some of the questions in the Psalm Lectures, see Didymus the Blind and His Circle, 125-27. 187 Stefaniw, Christian Reading, esp. 43-91. 188 For a good brief description of the Apollinarian Controversy, see J.N.D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th Revised Edition (New York, NY: HarperOne, 1978), 289-95.

Didymus opened his lecture on Psalm 40 with a statement about the literary nature of the text. He began by stating that the words of the Psalm were spoken from the persona of the Saviour, (ἐκ

τοῦ προσώπου τοῦ σωτῆρος).189 This authorial attribution, identifying the persona (πρόσωπον) speaking in the text provided the direction Didymus took in his explanation of the text, as well as the reason for his students’ questions. It is also important to note here that Didymus’ prosopological reading was situated within an existing exegetical tradition. His words, “many take this psalm (τοῦτον τὸν ψαλμὸν…ἐκλαμβάνουσιν πολλοὶ),”190 reveal that Didymus was using the work of other Christian exegetes. Unfortunately, he did not cite his sources, so we do not know with certainty to whom the “many” referred. Again, the anonymity of the reference also makes it difficult to determine what, if any, other Christian exegetes were formally part of

Didymus’ curriculum.

At the same time, the tradition in which Didymus worked also limited the scope of his inquiry.

Identifying the Saviour as the voice speaking in the psalm placed certain parameters around how

Didymus interpreted the text. The theological implications of this Christological reading created certain problems for his students when read in light of particular verses. We will see that his students, picking up on these problems, sought greater clarity, sometimes asking repetitive questions frustrating the teacher.

When Didymus approached Ps. 40:5, the implications of his prosopological exegesis provoked some challenging questions from his students. Keeping in mind Didymus’ argument that Psalm

40 was spoken both from and about the person of the Saviour, verse 5 clearly created some problems for the astute students. It reads: As for me, I said, O Lord, have mercy on me. Heal my

189 Didymus the Blind, Comm. in Ps. 290.14 (Gronewald 5:2). 190 Didymus the Blind, Comm. in Ps. 290.14 (Gronewald 5:2).

60 soul, because I sinned against you (40:5a-5b). One of the students, presumably confused about the implications of this verse if, indeed, these were the Saviour’s own words, began the questioning: “So then, did the soul of the Saviour sin?”191

Didymus’ reply, that the “soul of the Saviour (ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ) is every good/excellent soul (πᾶσα ἡ

σπουδαία), but not when it sins,” 192 was too vague to satisfy his students, and so the discussion on this issue continued. A student raised another question: “So then, do the souls of the saints sin?” Didymus replied that the “soul of the saints is said to sin in this way, when it enters into propatheia (ὅταν γένηται ἐν προπαθείᾳ).”193 Here again, we see the interplay between the biblical text and philosophical ideas in this learning community. Didymus used the Stoic concept propatheia in his theological explanation of the biblical text,194 which occupied the classroom for a lengthy section of the lecture.

Didymus’ answer to the above question prompted another student question: “Does the body not come into sin?” This question moved Didymus to the heart of the problem at stake. He said: “My soul comes into propatheia.” He appealed to Christ’s agony in Gethsemane to make his point. In that account, Didymus highlighted that the text read: “He began to be saddened and distressed.”

He zeroed in on the term “began (ἤρξατο)” in order to demonstrate the distinction between propatheia and pathos. The former was merely a beginning, he said, but once it had developed into a pathos, it no longer was a beginning. He was keen to highlight how the Gospels did not go

191 Didymus the Blind, Comm in Ps. 292.33, (Gronewald 5:16). 192 Didymus the Blind, Comm in Ps. 292.33-293.3 (Gronewald 5:16). 193 Didymus the Blind, Comm in Ps. 293.3-4 (Gronewald 5:16. 194 Both Layton and Bayliss provide detailed analyses of the Origenist connection in Didymus’ discourse on propatheia. See Layton, Didymus the Blind and His Circle, 114-34; and Bayliss, Vision of Didymus the Blind, 201- 20. For the Stoic background, see Richard Sorabji, Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 [Reprint 2010]), 17-143, on Origen’s influence 343-56, on Didymus 351-52.

61 beyond Christ’s “beginning” to be saddened and distressed.195 Had Christ progressed beyond the beginning, or preliminary experience of a passion, he would have been guilty of sin.

Significant for our purposes is that Didymus’ exegesis of Psalm 40 was rooted in an existing

Christian exegetical tradition. The first known Christian to incorporate propatheia into his discourse on a biblical text to distinguish between anger as an acceptable response and a sin was

Origen, in his Commentary on Ps. 4. There, Origen began interpreting Ps. 4:5 (“Be angry, and do not sin”) with a grammatical lesson by explaining that the verb “be angry (ὀργίζεσθε)” could either be taken as an imperative or an indicative. Origen could not, however, convict the psalmist of commanding a passion, so he considered it to be an indicative. To support his interpretation on logical grounds, he applied the Stoic concept propatheia as a preliminary movement towards the passion of anger. This preliminary movement was not in itself a sin.196

Furthermore, Didymus’ use of Christ’s agony in Gethsemane is remarkably consistent with

Origen’s own exegesis of Matt. 26:37. In the Latin translation known as the Series

Commentariorum, Origen focused on Matthew’s use of “began” in order to reject the notion that

Christ from experienced a full passion.197 This consistency of Didymus with Origen here leads to the question of direct dependence. Though it does not prove that Didymus had direct access to

Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, it does suggest that he was familiar with it, and understood himself to be situated within that tradition of biblical exegesis.

195 Didymus the Blind, Comm in Ps. 293.7-11 (Gronewald 5:16-18). 196 Origen, Select in Ps. 4, (PG 12:1141D-1144A). 197 Origen, Comm. ser. 90 in Mt. (GCS 38.205-06). See the new English translation in The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St. Matthew, trans. Ronald E. Heine, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 698-99.

Interestingly, Didymus appears to have been frustrated at times with his students’ questions.

Sticking with the notion of propatheia, Didymus’ lecture on Ps. 34 focused on this issue. At one point in the lecture, a student asked the simple question: “What is propatheia?” Didymus’ response reveals a great deal about the classroom dynamics, and his own temperament. He said:

“This has been explained many times (πολλάκις ἐλέχθη τοῦτο).”198 It appears to have been a popular subject in Didymus’ lectures. Grant Bayliss identified forty-one occurrences of propatheia in Didymus’ writings.199 It is no wonder, then, that Didymus would show some frustration with his students when they asked him a question they presumably should have known. It is possible that the student who asked Didymus to define propatheia was either new to the circle, an occasional participant, or simply missed the lectures in which Didymus discussed the concept. At any rate, it shows that in a fourth-century learning community, sometimes teachers had to explain important concepts many times in order for the students to grasp them.

Conclusion

This chapter has explored some of the activities of reading communities in Late Antiquity. We have seen that textual practices were integral to the Graeco-Roman philosophical schools, Jewish intellectuals, and early Christian learning circles. This analysis was not exhaustive but did demonstrate some common features of the textual ethos shared between these groups. For example, we saw that philology had greater and lesser roles depending on the circle, but ideas were certainly of paramount concern. In the philosophical schools, it was particularly the ideas of the leading figures that were heavily debated as these groups grappled with what it meant to be a member of the school.

198 Didymus the Blind, Comm in Ps. 34:222.12, 378-79. 199 Bayliss, Vision of Didymus the Blind, 216.

We saw a similar pattern in the Jewish groups, to various degrees, as they used the biblical text to form their own self-understanding. And in Didymus the Blind, we see a figure who mobilized the biblical text in light of an existing Christian exegetical tradition beginning with Origen but re-situated in evolving theological debates of the fourth century. Furthermore, these schools tended to attract highly learned and socially mobile individuals with varying degrees of commitment to philosophical pursuits.

We do see some differences between groups, however. On the one hand, in Porphyry’s description of Plotinus’ seminars, there appears to have been substantial student participation, even debate and the production of texts. Similarly, in Didymus’ classroom, the teacher’s remarks often prompted student questions, sometimes even debates between teacher and students. A similar pattern emerged in the case of the Palestinian Rabbis. On the other hand, Philo’s description of the Therapeutai and his own teaching activities reveal scenarios in which the teacher lectured while the students sat quietly and listened. Whether or not Philo’s description of the Therapeutai reveals anything about their lived experiences, the transcripts of Didymus’ lectures do provide us with a window into the lived practice of his classroom. Together, this chapter has shown particular values towards textual practices in Late Antique reading communities. This discussion will help us to think about the activities in Origen’s Caesarean school, which will be the subject of the next chapter.

Chapter 2: Reading Culture in Origen’s Caesarean School

In the previous chapter, I took a cursory look at some of the textual practices in various Late-

Antique reading communities. Those practices will provide us with some models to think with as we encounter Origen’s scholarly community in this chapter. The social dynamics of the classroom as well as the role of texts and their production will become significant as we look in this chapter at Origen’s scholarly works as products of his classroom. As we approach Origen’s

Caesarean scholarship, we will see that the characteristics of his extant commentaries do not easily allow for solid conclusions about the setting of his works. Therefore, we will have to pay attention to the tracks, or the clues, which might help us to reconstruct a tentative portrait of the group.

Because there has been no comprehensive treatment of the social and material infrastructure of this school, I will first make some preliminary remarks about possible scenarios. Then, I will look at the group’s textual practices analyzing the evidence from scholarly works, especially the

Commentary on Matthew, which is known to have a Caesarean provenance. While various aspects of Origen’s exegetical “method” will be abundantly clear, I am less concerned with

“method” as such, as I am in what those methods suggest about the group’s scholarly reading habits. In the next chapter, I will examine the “tracks” of these scholarly reading habits in the

Psalm Homilies, which will then lead to a discussion of how Origen attempted to construct a

Christian reading culture in chapters four and five.

64 65

2.1 The School of Caesarea

2.1.1 Location and Space

Grafton and Williams have already shown the massive infrastructure that would have been required to produce the Hexapla. Given the nature of codex technology in the third century, they estimate that the Hexapla would have filled approximately forty codices of about four hundred leaves (800 pages).200 Not only would such a document require substantial space for storage, but also substantial human and financial resources for its composition. We know from Eusebius and

Origen himself that his patron Ambrose underwrote Origen’s scholarly activities. Eusebius tells us that Origen met Ambrose, a former member of the Valentinian sect, who later “instigated

(παρορμάω)” Origen to compose his biblical commentaries (ὑπομνήματα), while in

Alexandria.201 Eusebius added that Ambrose provided Origen with whatever resources he needed for his commentaries, which included “more than seven short-hand writers

(ταχυγράφοι…πλείους ἤ ἑπτὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν)” for Origen’s dictations, “as many copyists

(βιβλιογράφοι τε οὐχ ἥττους),” and “girls trained in beautiful writing (κόραις ἐπὶ τὸ

καλλιγραφεῖν ἠσκημέναις).”202

Whether or not Eusebius’ numbers were correct, we have no reason to doubt him when he attributes to Ambrose the “instigation” and the resources for Origen’s biblical scholarship.

Origen himself attested to Ambrose’s patronage on multiple occasions. For example, Origen addressed his Commentary on the Gospel According to John to Ambrose.203 Ambrose’s

200 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 105. 201 Eusebius, HE 6.23 (LCL 68). Ἐξ ἐκείνου δὲ καὶ Ὀριγένει τῶν εἰς τὰς θείας γραφὰς ὑπομνημάτων ἐγίνετο ἀρχή, Ἀμβροσίου παρορμῶντος αὐτὸν μυρίαις ὅσιας οὐ προτροπαῖς ταῖς διὰ λόγων καὶ παρακλήσεσιν αὐτὸ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀφθονωτάταις τῶν ἐπιτηδείων χορηγίαις. 202 Eusebius, HE 6.23 (LCL 68). 203 Origen, Comm. in Jn. 1.2.3. Origenes Werke Band 5: der Johanneskommentar, hrsg. Erwin Preuschen, GCS (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899), 5. For the English translation of the Commentary on John, see Ronald E. Heine,

66 patronage also extended into Origen’s Caesarean period. We know this from Book Six of

Origen’s Commentary on John, which was begun in Alexandria, but interrupted by the conflict between him and Demetrius, the Bishop of Alexandria.204 Furthermore, at least three other works known to come from Origen’s Caesarean period were also addressed to Ambrose:

Exhortation to Martyrdom, On Prayer, and the much later Contra Celsum.205

It is very plausible that, aside from providing Origen with the necessary resources for writing and scholarship, Ambrose also may have provided Origen with a place to live and work. In an interesting fragment from a letter Origen wrote to Pope Fabian, he expressed at once both his appreciation and perhaps frustration with Ambrose:

The holy Ambrose, who is sincerely devoted to God, greets you: he who considers me to be industrious (φιλόπονος) and one thirsty for the divine word, tested me with his own industriousness and love for sacred studies (ἅγια μαθήματα): he has surpassed me by such an extent that I am at risk of failing to answer his propositions. For, we are not permitted to dine without discussion, or, having dined, to take a walk for the body to recover, but even at those times we are required to study and to correct copies (ἐν τοῖς καιροῖς ἐκεῖνοις φιλολογεῖν καὶ ἀκριβοῦν τὰ ἀντιγράφα ἀναγκαζόμεθα), nor are we allowed to sleep through the night for the healing of the body, since our textual studies (φιλολογία) continue into the entire evening: and, allow me to say that it is from dawn until the ninth and sometimes the tenth hour: for, all who desire to love labour dedicate those times to the examination of the divine words (τῇ ἐξετάσει θείων λογίων) and to readings (ἀνάγνωσις).206

Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, 2 vols. FOTC (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1989, 1993). 204 Hence, Origen’s famous lament at the beginning of Book Six of the Commentary on John. See, Origen, Comm. in Jn. 6.1-2 (GCS 106-08). 205 See, Origen, EM 1. Origenes Werke Band 1: die Schrift vom Martyrium, Buch I-IV Gegen Celsus, hrsg. Paul Koetschau, GCS (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899), 3. (“So, most God-fearing Ambrose and most pious Protectetus”); PE Pref.2.1. Origenes Werke Band 2: Buch 5-VIII Gegen Celsus, die Schrift vom Gebet, hrsg. Paul Koetschau, GCS (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899), 298 (“Now, my most religious and industrious Ambrose and my most honest and manly Tatiana”); CC Praef.1 (SC 64)(And, you, O God-loving Ambrose, I do not know why you wanted us to write a defense against the false testimony of Celsus in writings against Christians”). 206 Quote from Pierre Nautin, Patristica II: Lettres et Écrivains chrétiens des II et III siècles (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961), 250-51. Ὁ ἱερὸς καὶ θεῷ γνησίως ἀναμείμενος Ἀμβρόσιος πολλὰ προσαγορεύειν σε· ὅστις νομίζων με φιλόπονον εἶναι καὶ πάνυ διψᾶν τοῦ θείου λόγου ἤλεγξε τῇ ἰδίᾳ φιλοπονίᾳ καὶ τῷ πρὸς τὰ ἅγια μαθήματα ἔρωτι·

In this passage is something relevant for our purposes beyond the simple allusion to Ambrose’ patronage. Origen, perhaps using a bit of hyperbole, complained that their studies interrupted their meals, leisure activities, and sleep. It certainly sounds like either Origen lived with

Ambrose, or that they spent the majority of every day together in scholarly pursuits. At any rate, this portrait echoes the living and study context of the Pythagoreans and Pliny the Younger, as I showed in the previous chapter. Textual practices were part of a much larger life shared partly in common, including meals and physical activities like walks.

While it is certainly possible that Ambrose’s home provided the living and workspace for this school, other possibilities must be considered. One such possibility is that the group rented a public space for their meetings. Edward Adams, for example, has recently demonstrated that houses were not the exclusive locations for Christian meetings. Particularly relevant is his observation that public spaces such as bathhouses, and commercial spaces such as workshops were just as often locations for Christian instruction as private homes.207 It is entirely possible that Origen’s school met in such public or commercial spaces. John McGuckin speculated that the Temple to Augustus in Caesarea may have provided the school with a place for learning.

Comparing the Temple to the Sebasteum in Alexandria, which housed a library and a room for

ὅθεν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτόν με παρελήλυθεν, ὥστε κινδυνεύειν ἀπαυδᾶν πρὸς τὰς αὐτοὺ προτάσεις. Οὔτε γὰρ δειπνῆσαι ἔστιν ὅτι μὴ ἀντιβάλλοντα, οὔτε δειπνήσαντα ἔξεστι περιπατῆσαι καὶ διαναπαῦσαι τὸ σωμάτικον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς καιροῖς ἐκεῖνοις φιλολογεῖν καὶ ἀκριβοῦν τὰ ἀντιγράφα ἀναγκαζόμεθα, οὔτε μὴν ὅλην ἐπὶ θεραπεῖᾳ τοῦ σώνατος τὴν νύκτα ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν κοιμάσθαι, ἐπὶ πολὺ τής ἑσπέρας φιλολογίας παρατεινούνης· ἐῶ δὲ λέγειν καὶ τὰ ἕωθεν μέχρι τής ἐννάτης ἔσθε’ ὅτε καὶ δεκάτης ὥρας· πάντες γὰρ οἱ θελόντες φιλοπονεῖν τοὺς καιροὺς τούτους τῇ ἐξετάσει θείων λογίων καὶ ταῖς ἀναγνώσεσιν ἀνατιθέασι. This quote can also be found in Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 78-79. 207 Edward Adams, The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? (New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013: Revised Edition, 2016), esp. 72-76, and 116-19.

68 civic archives, McGuckin suggested that the Temple to Augustus could have housed a similar space for civic and religious texts.208

Another intriguing possibility is that Origen and his students used a local church building for their studies. McGuckin, on the premise that the Caesarean Church must have had its own private library by the time Origen arrived in the early 230’s CE, suggested that the church itself may have provided the space for the school’s activities.209 A. Negev identified what he thinks was a Christian building used for religious purposes and may even have been the location of

Origen’s library.210 The building, with a statue of Christ Criophoros, inscriptions of biblical texts

(Rom. 13:3), and a Christian greeting, could certainly have had religious functions.211 The building was fairly substantial in size, containing a portico on the eastern edge, with an adjacent hallway. There was a main room with several smaller rooms on the southern side of the building. Following the work of A. Negev, McGuckin claimed that this could have provided the space for the Christian library and may even have been the original site of Origen’s school.

Moreover, it is very likely that Origen’s school would have required a substantial space for a library and a scriptorium for the group’s textual scholarship. 212 A sizeable private residence or a church building could have provided such a space.

The presence of a library, and even a scriptorium, at the school’s disposal cannot be confirmed from the literary evidence. At no point in his works did Origen ever speak directly of such a library or scriptorium. It is, nevertheless, a strong possibility based on what we do know from

208 John Anthony McGuckin, “Caesarea Maritima as Origen Knew It,” in Origeniana Quinta: Papers of the 5th International Origen Congress, Boston College, 14-18 August 1989, ed. Robert J. Daly (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 5-6. 209 McGuckin, “Caesarea Maritima,” 16. 210 A Negev, “Caesarea Maritima,” in Christian News from Israel 11 (1962), 22. 211 McGuckin, “Caesarea Maritima,” 20. 212 For the presence of a scriptorium at Origen’s disposal, see Gamble, Books and Readers, 120-21, 155-61.

69 the literary sources. For example, we saw above that Eusebius described some of the human infrastructure that Ambrose provided for Origen, including “more than seven short-hand writers

(ταχυγράφοι…πλείους ἤ ἑπτὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν)” for Origen’s dictations, “as many copyists

(βιβλιογράφοι τε οὐχ ἥττους),” and “girls trained in beautiful writing (κόραις ἐπὶ τὸ

καλλιγραφεῖν ἠσκημέναις).”213 Whether or not Eusebius was projecting his own circumstances onto Origen’s, there is no reason not to infer the presence of some kind of “publishing operation”214 present for Origen in Caesarea, and such an operation would have required substantial space.

We know from Origen himself that he had stenographers to take down his dictations, from which we have his commentaries. In his famous lament at the beginning of Book Six of his

Commentary on John, Origen said that he was not able to resume its composition when he arrived at Caesarea, because his “stenographers (ταχυγράφοι)” were not present to take down his dictations (ὑπαγορεύσει).”215 There is no reason to suspect this circumstance was peculiar to the

Commentary on John and that Origen did not also have stenographers for his other works. It would appear, then, that Origen had a rather sophisticated publishing enterprise, including the initial stage of dictations, after which his texts would have been edited for distribution.

2.1.2 Membership

When considering Origen’s school in Caesarea Maritima, we must banish any idea that this school amounted to anything akin to modern universities, or other formal academic institutions in the modern sense of the term. It was, rather, an intimate group of friends connected under the

213 Eusebius, HE 6.23 (LCL 68). 214 Gamble, Books and Readers, 120-21. 215 Origen, Comm. in Jn. 6.2 (GCS 4:108).

70 leadership of their master.216 But, who were these students? What kind of audience did Origen have? These questions do not lend themselves to easy answers. We cannot be certain, for example, about the audience for any given lecture or homily. The literary evidence, though sparse, does provide us with some details, so that we can at least place a few individuals in

Origen’s school with some certainty, and therefore can identify the kinds of individuals Origen attracted.

Gregory’s Address is a key piece of evidence in this regard. Gregory tells us that he met Origen in Berytus (modern day Beirut) while on his way to study Law. He also informs us that he was set to embark on these studies after his mother paid for him to study under a rhetor (ῥήτωρ). 217

He also says that “the Governor of Palestine at the time (ὁ τότε ἄρχων τῶν Παλαιστίνων)” summoned Gregory’s brother-in-law (Κηδεστήν μου ἄνδρα ἀδελφῆς ἐμῆς) to Berytus to be his assistant (συνεπιβοηθήσοντα). So, his brother-in-law arranged for a soldier to escort Gregory, his sister, and brother, Athenodore218 to Berytus. In Gregory, then, we have someone with an advanced literary education, likely coming from an elite stratum of Roman society.

Also, we have already seen that Origen directly addressed a number of his works to his patron,

Ambrose. There is no reason to suspect that he was not in the audience for Origen’s lectures.

Also, two of the aforementioned references to Ambrose included a certain Protectetus and

Tatiana.219 While we know nothing of these latter, it is certainly possible that they attended

216 Knauber, “Das Anliegen der Schule,” 182. 217 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Remerciement à Origène, 5.62,56 (SC 120, 118). 218 Gregory himself never mentioned Athenodore in the Address. Eusebius, HE 6.30, said that both Gregory (at the time Theodore) and his brother Athenodore attended Origen’s school for five years. Based on Eusebius, Crouzel, Remerciement à Origène, 14-15, argued that many of the first-person plural references in the Address included both Gregory and Athenodore. On the problem of Gregory’s mingling of the first-person singular and plural, see Michael Slusser’s “Introduction” in St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: Life and Works, FOTC 98 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 17-19 (fn. 71-75). 219 Origen, EM 1 (GCS 3), and PE 2.1 (GCS 2:298) (respectively).

Origen’s lectures. To this list, we could also add the stenographers (ταχυγράφοι), who took down Origen’s dictations.

We should probably not include in this list members from imperial, senatorial, equestrian, or decurial ranks. At least, there is no literary evidence to suggest their attendance. On the other hand, Eusebius said that both the Bishop of Jerusalem, Alexander, and the Bishop of Caesarea,

Theoctistus, were “devoting themselves to him the whole time (τὸν πάντα χρόνον προσανέχοντες

αὐτῷ).” He also included the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Firmilian, as one of Origen’s pupils.220 It would appear, then, that along with well-educated and affluent lay people, high- ranking ecclesiastical figures were also members, to some degree, of this learning community.

2.1.2 Daily Routine

Before we turn our attention to the evidence of a reading community in Origen’s Caesarean school, one question we must ask concerns the daily life of the school. What did a normal day look like? Determining the routine of schools in Late Antiquity is notoriously difficult. Our ancient teachers and students simply did not leave us with their daily schedules. Moreover, it is evident that the organization of schools during this period was not static, and often varied from circumstance to circumstance.221 Nevertheless, returning to the passage from the letter Origen wrote to Pope Fabian, we do see some potential evidence of the daily routine. In that letter,

Origen complained that Ambrose was so demanding of him that his “propositions” often encroached upon their time for meals, walks, and study and correction (φιλολογεῖν καὶ ἀκριβοῦν) of texts. Moreover, these latter textual studies (φιλολογία) also appear to have encroached upon

220 Eusebius, HE 6.27 (LCL 78-79). 221 Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 37.

72 the times set for the examination of the divine words (τῇ ἐξετάσει θείων λογίων) and to reading

(ἀνάγνωσις).222

This passage provides some tantalizingly vague details about the daily life of the school. First, it appears that the day was compartmentalized into periods for textual criticism and reading with learned discourse, interspersed with times for meals and leisure activities. This portrait is consistent with what we saw in the first chapter regarding the Pythagoreans, and in Johnson’s work on elite reading communities.223 Of course, implied in this letter, however, is that such a portrait was more Origen’s ideal than a reality. Notwithstanding some hyperbole, this passage suggests that Ambrose’s propositions or questions must have occupied a significant amount of time, often interfering with some of the other activities. It is also possible, though merely a hypothetical, that this allusion to Ambrose’s “propositions (προτάσεις),” reflects something of the learning environment. If Origen’s commentaries were not produced in a classroom, it should at least be considered whether they were joint efforts between Ambrose and Origen.

In light of this observation, there is an intriguing passage from Origen’s Commentary on

Matthew that has relevance not only for the group activities, but even for the production of commentaries themselves. In a discussion on the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matt.

18:21-35, Origen paused for a moment and expressed a principle for interpreting parables:

In general, we must think about every parable whose explanation has not been recorded by the evangelists [as follows]: Because Jesus “solved (ἐπέλυε) all things privately for his disciples (Mark 4:34),” therefore those who wrote the Gospels hid the plain truth of the parables, since what was revealed in the parables was greater than the nature of written characters (τῆς τῶν γραμμάτων φύσεως).

222 Nautin, Patristica II, 250-51. 223 See Ch. 1, pp. 31-33.

He continues:

We will say, one the one hand, that some of the things which we appear to discover (ἐκ πολλῆς βασάνου καὶ ζητήσεως εὑρίσκειν δοκοῦμεν), whether by the grace of God or by our own intellectual ability, we dare not entrust to writing (οὐ τολμῶμεν ἐμπιστεῦσαι γράμμασι). On the other hand, we set forth some things in a limited way to provide an exercise for ourselves (γυμνασίας ἡμετέρας) and for the sake of those who will read these words. Let these [words] be my defence, because the depth of this parable.224

Origen first acknowledged that the evangelists did not record Jesus providing an explanation for every parable. The meaning of some parables was simply too deep and obscure to adequately capture with human language. The evangelists left out those explanations. Likewise, Origen recognized that he and his students were not able to grasp everything contained in the scriptures.

In a comment that is quite revealing both about Origen’s self-understanding and the process of composing a commentary, he explained that they did “set forth some things” as “an exercise for ourselves (γυμνασίας ἡμετέρας).”225 To reiterate a previous point, this comment suggests that prior to writing out the text of the commentary, the group first discussed it together.

Returning to Origen’s Letter to Pope Fabian, for a moment, there is another important aspect that must not be neglected. Specifically, what Origen said about the study and correcting of the copies (φιλολογεῖν καὶ ἀκριβοῦν τὰ ἀντιγράφα) and the designated times for readings and the examination of the scriptures, is highly suggestive of a schedule of activities. There is an implicit distinction between φιλολογία and ἐξέτασις, between textual criticism and examination,

224 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 14.12 (Bendinelli 11/3:108). ἁπλαξαπλῶς δὲ χρὴ φρονεῖν περὶ πάσης παραβολῆς, ἧς μὴ ἀναγέγραπται ἡ διήγησις ὑπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν, ὄτι καὶ Ἰησοῦς «τοῖς ἰδίοις μαθηταῖς κατ᾿ ἰδίαν ἐπέλυε πάντα» καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπέκρυψαν οἱ τὰ εὐαγγέλια γράφοντες τὴν σαφήνειαν τῶν παραβολῶν, ἐπεὶ μείζονα ἦν τὰ κατ᾿ αὐτὰς δηλούμενα τῆς τῶν γραμμάτων φύσεως … φήσομεν, ὅτι τινὰ μὲν ὧν ἐκ πολλῆς βασάνου καὶ ζητήσεως εὑρίσκειν δοκοῦμεν, εἴτε χάριτι θεοῦ εἴτε δυνάμει τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν νοῦ, οὐ τολμῶμεν ἐμπιστεῦσαι γράμμασι, τινὰ δὲ γυμνασίας ἡμετέρας καὶ τῆς τῶν ἐντευξομένων χάριν ἐπὶ ποσὸν ἐκτιθέμεθα. Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἀπολελογήσθω διὰ τὸ τῆς παραβολῆς βάθος. 225 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 14.12 (Bendinelli 11/3:108).

74 with the former sometimes consuming the times for the latter. If we take Origen at his word, this passage implies that the mornings were dedicated to “textual studies,” while the “ninth” and

“tenth” hours (about 3p-5p) were assigned to “the examination of the divine words and to reading.”226 This tentative reconstruction helps to place Origen’s textual practices within a more specific, yet hypothetical, context. It is very likely that such practices were not merely those of a solitary scholar alone at his desk.227 Rather, it is more likely that they reflect the activities of

Origen’s scholarly community. I will now turn to the evidence of some of those textual practices.

2.2 Textual Practices

2.2.1 Philology – Text Criticism and the Hexapla228

Origen’s allusion to φιλολογεῖν καὶ ἀκριβοῦν immediately conjures up images of Origen’s massive text—critical apparatus, the Hexapla. Sadly, the Hexapla is no longer extant aside from a couple of fragments, one of which is a palimpsest.229 The function of the Hexapla in Origen’s school has received much attention from scholars, so I will simply refer the readers to those sources.230 Nevertheless, it is of some use to consider the scope of the Hexaplaric activities here.

226 According to Johnson, Pliny’s group also divided their reading activities up into the mornings and later in the afternoon. See Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture, 37. Interestingly, Clement of Alexandria approved of drinking wine in the evenings, because “we are no longer engaged in readings (μηκέτι ἀναγνώσμασιν σχολάζωμεν) which demand abstinence of wine.” Clement of Alexandria, Paid. 2.2.22 in Le Pédagogue : texte grec, ed. Marguerite Harl, SC 70 (Paris : Éditions du Cerf, 1960), 52. Implied here is that the afternoon was a time set aside for reading and perhaps learned discussion. 227 John Wright, “Origen in the Scholar’s Den: A Rationale for the Hexapla,” in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy, ed. Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Peterson (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), 53. 228 For a more detailed analysis of Origen’s text-critical practices, see Martens, Origen and Scripture, 42-49. The most detailed study, however, remains Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 85-138. 229 Thanks to Frederick Field’s tedious labours, scholars have access to a critical edition of the fragments. Origenes Hexaplorum quae supersunt: sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964). 230 Perhaps the best reconstruction to date can be found in Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 86-132. See also the collection of essays in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments: Papers

From Origen himself, we have three descriptions of the project. The most famous of these is found in Comm. in Matt. 15.14. There, Origen said:

So then, we discovered, since God granted it, the disagreement in the copies of the Old Testament are corrected (lit. healed), using the remaining versions as a criterion: for, by making the decision from the other versions because of the ambiguities in the Septuagint owing to the disagreement of the copies, we preserved agreement among them. On the one hand, we marked some passages that do not appear in the Hebrew with an obelus (we dared not remove them altogether), but on the other hand, we added other passages with asterisks, in order that it be clear that what we added from the remaining versions in agreement with the Hebrew are not found in the Septuagint, and the one who wishes can attend to these, but the one who is offended by this can do whatever he wants (regarding their acceptance or not).231

Origen provided another description of the text-critical apparatus in his Letter to Africanus.

Julius Africanus had written to Origen asking for an explanation of his contention that the story of Susanna in the Book of Daniel was authentic. One of the issues Africanus claimed proved the story’s spurious authenticity was its use of Greek terms that are not found in Hebrew usage. In his reply, Origen said:

And there are other cases to be found in Genesis, for which we added signs called by the Greeks obeli, in order that such be familiar to us: just as [we used] asterisks for those found in the Hebrew, but not discovered by us. And, what can I say about Exodus, where things about the tabernacle and its court, and the ark and the garments of the arch-priest and priests are varied to a

Presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies 25th-3rd August 1994, ed. Alison Salvesen, Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 58 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Also, Schironi, “P.Grenf. 1.5,” BASP 52 (2015),181-223. 231 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.14 (Bendinelli 11/3:210). τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν θεοῦ διδόντος εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν· τῶν γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλομένων παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφωνίαν τὴν κρίσιν ποιησάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων τὸ συνᾷδον ἐκείναις ἐφυλάξαμεν, καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν <ὡς> ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα (οὐ τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν), τινὰ δὲ μετ’ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν, ἵνα δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ προσεθήκαμεν, καὶ ὁ μὲν βουλόμενος προ<σ>ῆται αὐτὰ, ᾧ δὲ προσκόπτει τὸ τοιοῦτον ὅ βούλεται (περὶ τῆς παραδοχῆς αὐτῶν ἤ μὴ) ποιήσῃ.

great extent, because the meaning does not at all appear to be similar? So then, observe, unless these things escape our notice, to reject the copies carried in the churches, and ordain to the brothers to renounce the holy books used by them, but to flatter the Jews and to persuade them, in order that they share their copies with us, which are unadulterated and having no forgery at all! Are we to believe that the same providence which in the sacred scriptures has taught all the churches of Christ, gave no thought to those bought with a price, for whom Christ died?232

From these descriptions, we see that Origen compared the Septuagint with the other Greek versions (ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν), using them as a criterion (κριτήριον) to fix scribal errors in the

Septuagint. We also see that Origen used the text-critical signs (σημεῖα) to indicate passages in the Septuagint that were not also found in the Hebrew (obelus) and passages found in the

Hebrew and the “remaining versions”, but not found in the Septuagint (asterisk).

These two descriptions, along with the well-known description from Eusebius,233 have allowed scholars a solid reconstruction of the apparatus. What is equally important is the manner in which Origen described the project. Thus, we are able to fill in some of the blanks related to the philological practices of this school. In each case, Origen used the plural to describe the process,

232 Origen, EpistAfr. 7-8, ed. Marguerite Harl and Nicholas de Lange, Philocalie, 1-20: Sur Les Écritures, et La Lettre À Africanus sur L’Histoire de Suzanne, Source Chrétiennes (Paris : Les Éditions du Cerf, 1983), 530-533. Καὶ ἄλλα δὲ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἐν τῇ Γενέσει, οἷς ἡμεῖς [σημεῖα] παρεθήκαμεν τούς καλουμένους παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ὀβελούς, ἵν’ ἡμῖν γνώριμον ᾖ τὸ τοιοῦτον· ὡς πάλιν ἀστερίσκους τοῖς κειμένοις μὲν ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ, παρ’ ἡμῖν δὲ μὴ εὑρισκομένοις. Τί δέ με δεῖ λέγειν περὶ τῆς Ἐξόδου, ἔνθα τὰ περὶ τὴν σκηνὴν καὶ τὴν αὐλὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν καὶ τὰ ἐνδύματα τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τῶν ἱερέων ἐπὶ πολὺ παρήλλακται, ὡς μηδὲ τὴν διάνοιαν παραπλησίαν εἶναι δοκεῖν; Ὅρα τοίνυν, εἰ μὴ λανθάνῃ ἡμᾶς τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἀθετεῖν τὰ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις φερόμενα ἀντίγραφα, καὶ νομοθετῆσαι τῇ ἀδελφότητι ἀποθέσθαι μὲν τὰς παρ’ αὐτοῖς φερομένας ἱερὰς βίβλους, κολακεύειν δὲ Ἰουδαίους καὶ πείθειν ἵνα μεταδῶσιν ἡμῖν τῶν καθαρῶν καὶ μηδὲν πλάσμα ἐχόντων; Ἆρα δὲ καὶ ἡ Πρόνοια, ἐν ἁγίαις γραφαῖς δεδωκυῖα πάσαις ταῖς Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίας οἰκοδομὴν, οὐκ ἐφρόντισε « τῶν τιμῆς ἀγορασθέντων (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23) », « ὑπὲρ ὧν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν (Rom. 14 :15)» 233 Eusebius, HE 6.16 (LCL 50-52). Τοσαύτη δὲ εἰσήγετο τῷ Ὀριγένει τῶν θείων λόγων ἀπηκριβωμένη ἐξέτασις, ὡς καὶ τὴν Ἑβραΐδα γλῶτταν ἐκμαθεῖν τὰς τε παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις φερομένας πρωτοτύπους αὐτοῖς Ἑβραίων στοιχείοις γραφὰς κτῆμα ἴδιον ποιήσασθαι ἀνιχνεῦσαι τε τὰς τῶν ἑτέρων παρὰ τοὺς Ἑβδομήκοντα τὰς ἱερὰς γραφὰς ἑρμηνευκότων ἐκδόσεις καὶ τινας ἑτέρας παρὰ τὰς κατημαξευμένας ἑρμηνείας ἐναλλαττούσας, τὴν ᾿Ακύλον καὶ Συμμάχου καὶ Θεοδοτίωνος, ἐφευρεῖν . . . ἐν γε μὴν τοῖς Ἑξαπλοῖς τῶν Ψαλμῶν μετὰ τὰς ἐπισήμους τέσσαρας ἐκδόσεις οὐ μόνον πέμπτην, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕκτην καὶ ἑβδόμην παραθεὶς ἑρμηνείαν . . . ταύτας δὲ ἁπάσας ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν συναγαγὼν διελών τε πρὸς κῶλον καὶ ἀντιπαραθεὶς ἀλλήλαις μετὰ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς Ἑβραίων σημειώσεως.

77 such as “we discovered (εὕρομεν),” and “we added signs (παρεθήκαμεν).” It is easy to overlook the importance of the plural and interpret them as the royal “We.” However, in light of the textual practices reviewed in the previous chapter and in light of Origen’s lament in his Letter to

Pope Fabian above, I agree with Grafton and Williams, that the Hexapla must have been a part of the school’s practices.234

These philological labours involved in the making of the Hexapla had benefits for the school beyond the mere production of the critical apparatus. In the passage from the Commentary on

Matthew, Origen was not concerned with variant readings of Old Testament texts. He was, rather, addressing a discrepancy in the copies of the Gospel of Matthew. We see, then, Origen applying a similar methodology of comparing manuscripts of the Gospels in order to determine the best interpretation.

Furthermore, a fragment of Origen’s Commentary on Genesis preserved in the Philocalia reveals the teacher applying Aquila’s translation to demonstrate an ambiguity in Gen. 1:16-18. The ambiguity in question was the meaning of the different forms of “rule” in the passage. Prior to solving the ambiguity, however, Origen alludes to Aquila, saying that even he observed the equivocation, and changed the term “rule” to “authority”: Aquila … who made it “for authority

(εἰς ἐξουσίαν)” instead of “for rule (εἰς ἀρχάς)”, and “to have authority (ἐξουσιάζειν)” instead of

“to rule (ἄρχειν).”235 While the fragment does not contain Origen’s solution for the ambiguity, it does reveal that his Hexaplaric activities bore fruit beyond the Hexapla itself. Here, Origen uses

Aquila to demonstrate for his students both the presence of an ambiguous expression and as a

234 Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 86-132. 235 Phil. 14.1.10-11 (SC 406).

78 springboard for a lengthy discussion of difference between appellatives and predicates in the

Bible, as well as ambiguities caused by homonyms.236

2.2.2 Grammar

The exegetical task went well beyond emending corrupted or ambiguous texts. As the example from the fragment of Origen’s Commentary on Genesis shows, a significant barrier to understanding the biblical text was biblical language itself. There is an intriguing case of a solecism in the prophet Hos. 12:4, preserved in the Philocalia. The Greek fragment begins with

Origen addressing a frequent problem in the scriptures: “Since things are frequently spoken incorrectly (σολοικοιεδῶς), in so far as it concerns the diction (ὅσα κατὰ τὴν λέξιν), it confuses those who are reading it.”237 In this particular circumstance, the passage from Hos. 12:4 switches from plural to singular. On account of such an apparent solecism, some readers doubted the coherence of the expression.238

An apparent grammatical error was not reason enough to emend the text, as some scholars

“dared” to do. Origen’s response, rather, is to invite his pupils look at the “underlying sense

(ἴδωμεν … ἐγκείμενον νοῦν).”239 To solve this solecism, Origen appeals to other biblical passages in which there is a shift between singular and plural, such as Gen. 2:16-17, which began with God addressing Adam in the second singular “you will eat (φαγῇ),” but turns to the second

236 Phil. 14.1.12-2.31 (SC 408-10). I will provide a more detailed discussion of this commentary below. 237 Phil. 8.1.1-2 (SC 336). 238 Phil. 8.1.3-8 (SC 336). ὡς ὑπονοεῖν οὐκ ὀρθῶς οὐδὲ ἀκολούθως οὐδὲ ὡς ἔχει γεγράφθαι τὰ ῥητὰ, ὡς καὶ τολμᾷν τινὰς προφάσει διορθώσεως μετατιθέντας ἀλλοιοῦν τὸν ἐγκείμενον περὶ τὰ δοκοῦντα ἀνακολοῦθως γεγράφθαι ῥητὰ νοῦν, ἀναγκαίως καὶ ἐνθάδε, τοῦ ὁμοίου ἐμπεσόντος ὅσον κατὰ τὴν λέξιν περὶ τὰ προκείμενα ῥητά. “because they suppose the expressions have been written neither correctly nor coherently, and because some dare, on the pretense of emendation, to alter it, changing the latent sense about the words appearing to have been written incoherently, necessarily also here, since there are similar circumstances regarding the passage lying before us as far as regarding the diction.” 239 Phil. 8.1.8 (SC 336).

79 person plural in the command regarding the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “you will not eat (οὐ φάγεσθε), for on the day you do eat (φάγητε) from it, you will die

(ἀποθανεῖσθαι).”240 Origen then adds Pauline discourses on the unity of Christians in 1 Cor.

10:17, Eph. 4:5-6, Rom. 12:5, 2 Cor. 11:2, to expand on the distinction between multiples and singulars.

According to the Greek philosophical tradition from Plato and Aristotle, virtue was associated with unity, while vice was associated with multiplicity.241 Origen followed this philosophical tradition in applying a spiritual reading of the switch from singular to plural in Gen. 2:16-17. In so doing, he attempted to preserve its logical coherence. The positive command of Gen. 2:16 to a singular object reflects the unity of the man who obeys God’s command, while the plural of

2:17 reflects the multiplicity of the sinner. Origen then returns to apply this principle to Hos.

12:4. On the one hand, he notes, the words “They wept and bound me,” implies a negative, those weeping were still in need of God. On the other hand, “The word spoken to him” suggest that the those who were formerly a multiplicity became one in finding God: “For, at that time the many in finding God and in hearing his Word have become one. For the one, when he sins, is many, being separated from God, and excluded from the union: but the many who follow the commandments of God are one.”242

What is perhaps most striking in this ingenious spiritual interpretation of the prophet, is that in spite of the grammatical discrepancy, there is no indication that Origen consulted different copies

240 Phil. 8.2.1-19 (SC 338). 241 See Harl’s commentary, Phil. 8 (SC 347-48). 242 Phil. 8.3.5-9 (SC 340). Ἤδη γὰρ ἕν γεγόνασιν οἱ πολλοὶ ἐν τῷ εὑρηκέναι τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀκούειν λόγον αὐτοῦ. Ὁ γὰρ εἷς ὅτε ἁμαρτάνει πολλοστός ἐστιν, ἀποσχιζόμενος ἀπὸ θεοῦ καὶ μεριζόμενος καὶ τῆς ἑνότητος ἐκπεςών· οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ ταῖς ἐντολαῖς ἑπόμενοι ταῖς τοῦ θεοῦ εἷς εἰσί.

80 of the prophet or even the different Greek translations of the Hebrew. Given the labours behind the Hexapla, one might expect Origen here to at least allude to textual variants. This was indeed what his interlocutors “dared” to do. In fact, Origen warns against such rash emendation

(διόρθωσις) simply because there appears to be a grammatical error. Instead, he appeals to the internal coherence (ἀκολουθία) of the “underlying sense (ἐγκείμενον νοῦν)” of the expression.243

This fragment from Origen’s Commentary on Hosea is a prime example of the confluence of logic and grammar in Origen’s exegetical enterprise. Martens correctly observes that, according to Origen, scripture often contained what on the surface appeared to be logical inconsistencies.

Such cases, however, merely prompted the attentive reader to embark on a research project to figure out the problem.244 Origen’s reluctance in this case to hastily emend the text was due principally to his attentiveness to what he considered the author to be doing: making a theological claim about vice and virtue in respect to God.

Returning to the Greek fragment of the Commentary on Genesis discussed above, it does not contain Origen’s solution to the problematic passage from Gen. 1:16-18. It does, however, provide a lengthy discussion of grammatical concepts. In order to resolve the equivalent

(ἀνάλογον) expressions εἰς ἀρχάς (= “for rule”) and ἄρχειν (= “to rule”), Origen provided a lesson on the relationship between appellatives and predicates:

Among those who have applied care for the examination of the meanings in passages that have a pairing of appellatives and predicates (συζυγίαν προσηγοριῶν καὶ κατηγορημάτων), objects come before appellatives (προϋφίστασθαι245 τὰ τυγχάνοντα τῶν

243 Phil. 8.1. 244 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 59. The key passage from Origen is de Prin. 4.2.9 (Behr 514-17). 245 The Greek in SC has two different renderings of this term: προϋ φίστασθαι and προϋφίστασθαι (408: 14, 18-19, respectively). Harl translates this term into French as “préexistent” and “préexiste,” respectively (409). The Greek

προσηγοριῶν), and then predicates are put next to the appellative. They also say that appellatives have predicates, for example, “prudence (φρόνησις)” is a predicate of “to be prudent (τὸ φρονεῖν)”: Similarly, “moderation (σωφροσύνη)” is an appellative (προσηγορίαν), but “to be moderate” is a predicate (κατηγόρημα), and they say “prudence” comes first (προϋφίσθασθαι), then the predicate “to be prudent” which follows from “prudence.”246

The key term, προϋφίστασθαι, demarcates for Origen, the intrinsic relationship between syntax and meaning, rooted in a Stoic theory of language.247

The passage from Origen’s Commentary on Genesis also reveals a common grammatical concept in Origen’s apparatus: homonymy. This term appears so frequently in his works that it is far beyond the scope of this dissertation to discuss all of them. It is also difficult to pinpoint the source for Origen’s use of it. It can be found in both Aristotle and later Hellenistic grammarians.

Dionysius Thrax, for example, defines it in the following way: “A homonym is a term used equivocally for many things, such as in the case of proper names, like Ajax, son of Telamon and

Ajax son of Oileus, or in the case of appellatives, like sea-mouse and land-mouse.”248 Dionysius thus applied the principle of homonymy to both proper names and proper nouns (προσηγορικά).

His definition, however, tells us little about his theory of language.

Aristotle applied a similar definition in the first chapter of the Categories: “Things are homonymous when they have the name only in common, the definition corresponding to the

terms do not exist. Harl, however, provides a helpful commentary on this term, suggesting that Origen used it as a technical term in grammar. 246 Phil. 14.1.12-20. 247 See Harl’s commentary, in Phil. 14 (SC), 416-424. For a good summary of the Stoic theory of language, see David Blank and Catherine Atherton, “The Stoic Contribution to Traditional Grammar,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, ed. Brad Inwood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 310-327. 248 Dionysius Thrax, Ars Grammatica 12.6. Ὁμώνυμον δε ἐστιν ὄνομα τὸ κατὰ πολλῶν ὁμωνύμως τιθέμενον οἷον ἐπὶ μὲν κυρίων, ὡς Αἴας ὁ Τελαμώνιος καὶ Αἴας ὁ Ἰλέως, ἐπὶ δὲ προσηγορικῶν, ὡς μῦς θαλάσσιος καὶ μῦς γηγενής.

82 name being different.”249 Aristotle’s definition was a small part of a greater work on the metaphysics and logic of words and language. Immediately following his definition was the example of how the term “human being (ἄνθρωπος)” and a “portrait (τὸ γεγραμμένον)” can both be referred to as “living beings (ζῷον),” they only have the name in common (ὄνομα μόνον

κοινόν).250 Julie K. Ward rightly argues that Aristotle’s concern here is less about how words relate to each other than how language relates to “extra-linguistic entities.”251

Origen’s application of homonymy in the Commentary on Genesis appears to align more with

Aristotle’s concern for the relationship between words and their referents. For example, in order to elaborate on homonyms in the Bible, Origen appeals to the usage of the term “world

(κόσμος)” in 1 John 5:19. Origen attributed the theological error in the Gnostic cosmology to their ignorance of homonyms. They were “ignorant that the expression of the noun ‘world’ is a homonym.” Because they did not grasp the biblical use of a homonym, they thought John was saying that the created world itself was evil.252 Origen does not state explicitly what the proper homonym in 1 John meant. However, he appeals to John 1:29 and 2 Cor. 5:19 to explain the concept “world” from other biblical passages. 1 John 5:19 was thus not speaking about “the

249 Aristotle, Cat. 1a.1 (LCL 12-13). Ὁμώνυμα λέγεται ὧν ὄνομα μόνον κοινόν, ὁ δὲ κατὰ τοὔνομα λόγος τῆς οὐσίας ἕτερος. 250 Julie K. Ward, Aristotle on Homonymy: Dialectic and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 10. 251 Ward, Aristotle on Homonymy, 13. 252 Phil. 14.2.6-13 (SC 408-410). Ἔστι δὲ ὅπου παρὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τῶν λογικῶν μεγάλως περιπίπτομεν, μὴ καθαίροντες τὰς ὁμωνυμίας καὶ ἀμφιβολίας καὶ καταχρήσεις καὶ κυριολεξίας καὶ διαστολάς· οἷον παρὰ το ἀγνοιεῖσθαι τὴν ὁμώνυμον τῆς κόσμος προσηγορίας φωνήν, ἐκπεπτώσκασιν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀσεβέστατα φρονειν περὶ τοῦ δημιοργοῦ οἱ μὴ καθάραντες ἐπὶ τίνων κεῖται το «Ὁ κόσμος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται». But in some places, we are greatly grieved because the ignorance of the logic of the language, not clearing up (μὴ καθαίροντες) the homonyms and ambiguities, the improper uses, literal expressions, and punctuation. For example, because being ignorant that the utterance of the appellative “world” is a homonym, they have fallen into the greatest impious mindset regarding the creator, not clearing up in such cases what is ordained: The world is in the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19).”

83 world, the composite whole (τὸ σύστημα) of heaven and earth and of all the things in it.”253

Again, their error was due to ignorance of homonymy.

Origen appeals to homonymy again in a Greek fragment from his Commentary on Romans, also preserved in the Philocalia. There, Origen’s concern is to describe how sometimes scripture uses the same term more than once in the same passage, but with different meanings. The passage under discussion was Rom. 7:7 (“What then? Is the law sin?”), especially the meaning of the term “law.” He notes, on the one hand, that “law” can refer to commands that must be performed, while it can also mean something which must not be done.254 The problem is that many do not understand homonymy: “homonymous language is also in other places in scripture, which confuse those who suppose that, because it is one word, so it must also have one meaning.”255

Origen’s main concern in drawing out the many different biblical meanings of the term “law” is to draw his student’s attention to the distinction between the Jewish law, the spiritual law, and natural law, the law “written on the heart (Cf. Rom. 2:15).”256 Origen then turns to Rom. 3:21 to appeal to those who do not want to accept the double-meaning of the term “law” in the Bible.

The law to which Paul referred in the first clause was the Law of Moses. The law referred to in the second clause of Rom. 3:21 was the spiritual law. On the one hand, Origen notes, that neither the letter of the law nor the natural law testify to the righteousness of God. The former

253 Origen, Phil. 14.2.14-16. 254 Phil. 8.1.16-19 (SC 352-53). 255 Phil. 8.1.5-8 (SC 350-51). ὁμώνυμοι γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ ἄλλων εἰσὶ κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν φωναί, αἵτινες συγχέουσι τοὺς νομίζοντας ὅτι ὡς ὄνομα ἕν ἐστιν οὕτω καὶ τὸ σημαινόμενον ἕν. 256 Based on this passage, Róbert Somos thinks that the “law written on the heart” referred to truths that are formed when the rational faculties are fully matured. Some rational content is implanted at birth, but through “normal developmental progress true common conceptions are formed spontaneously in the leading part of the soul (ἡγεμονικόν) which is able to make rational decisions.” Logic and Argumentation in Origen, 44-45.

84 does not do so because of Paul’s words “the righteousness of God has been testified to apart from the law,” while the natural law is insufficient because it is inferior to Jesus. Origen then exhorts his students to pay close attention to scripture’s language and to learn the different grammatical principles

On which account, the reader of the divine scripture must carefully observe that, because by no means do the scriptures use the same diction in the case of their concrete realities: but it does this, sometimes by the homonym, sometimes, by the figurative expression, and sometimes also by the context it demands that we take a diction in one text differently than as it lays in others. And, we should carefully be on guard, because we are rescued from many errors and erroneous interpretations.257

The aforementioned lessons on homonymy bring us to the grammatical practice of defining terms (γλωσσηματικόν).258 In Book Ten of the Commentary on Matthew, we see Origen engage in such an exercise with his students. Treating Matt. 13:44, Origen drew a distinction between

“parables (παραβολαὶ)” and “similes (ὁμοιώσεις).”259 He explained that unlike the previous parables (the parable of the weeds in the field in Matt. 13:24-30; the parable of the mustard seed in Matt. 13:31-32; and the parable of the yeast in Matt. 13:33), which Jesus addressed to the

“crowds (ὄχλοι),” Jesus explained the parables in Matt. 13:44-48 to his disciples in the house

(Cf. Matt. 13:36). Origen then explained that the latter were not, properly speaking, parables, but similes.260

257 Phil. 9.3.15-22 (SC 356). Διὸ χρὴ ἐπιμελῶς τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα τὴν θείαν γραφὴν τηρεῖν ὅτι οὐ πάντως ταῖς λέξεσιν ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν πραγμάτων χρῶνται αἱ γραφαί» τοῦτο δὲ ποιοῦσιν, ὁτὲ μὲν παρὰ τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν, ὁτὲ δὲ παρὰ τὴν τροπολογίαν, καὶ ἔσθ’ ὅτε παρὰ τὴν σύμφρασιν ἀπαιτοῦσαν ἄλλως τῇ λέξει χρήσασθαι ἐν τοῖσδέ τισιν ἤ ὡς κεῖται ἐν ἑτέροις. Καὶ τοῦτο ἐὰν ἐπιμελῶς παραφυλαττώμεθα, πολλῶν σφαλμάτων ἀπαλλαττόμεθα καὶ παρεκδοχῶν. 258 “Worterklärung” in Neuschäfer’s Origenes als Philologe, 140-55, esp. 148. See also Martens, Origen and Scripture, 54-56. 259 Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 148. 260 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10:4 (Bendinelli 11/1:110).

Origen justified this distinction first by calling the readers’ attention to the fact that the Gospel

“did not hesitate to prefix the term parable to each (οὐκ ὤκνησεν ἡ γραφὴ καθ’ ἑκάστην

προτάσσειν τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παραβολῆς)” of the preceding parables. On the other hand, the Gospel did not do so with Matt. 13:44-48, “and with good reason (εἰκότως).”261 Origen then explained the point of difference: Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds, but not to his disciples. Origen’s hermeneutical distinction between the “crowds” and “disciples” informed his reading of this passage. The implication is that parables were appropriate for those who “have not been granted knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.”262 The crowds were simply not intellectually mature enough for the explanation of the parables.

The discussion did not end there, however. “Someone will say (Φήσει τις),” Origen said, “If they are not parables, what are they? Shall we not follow the letter of scripture and say that they are similes?”263 The hypothetical interlocutor leads Origen to distinguish between parables and similes. He pointed to Mark 4:30 (“To what shall we compare [τίνι ὁμοιώσωμεν] the Kingdom of God, or in what parable [παραβολῇ] shall we place it?”) and said that “this proves that there is a difference between a simile and a parable (παρίσταται διαφορὰν εἶναι ὁμοιώσεως καὶ

παραβολῆς).”264 While one could argue that Origen’s implication that the author of the Gospel of Mark was making such a point is forced, it is clear that Origen used the terms “simile” and

“parable” in Mark for pedagogical purposes. Origen was drawing his readers’ attention to the distinction between similes and parables, whether or not Mark was doing the same.

261 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.4 (Bendinelli 11/1:110). 262 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.4 (Bendinelli 11/1:110). 263 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.4 (Bendinelli 11/1:110). 264 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.4 (Bendinelli 11/1:110).

Origen then specified the distinction saying that “the simile appears to be general (γενική) and the parable specific (εἰδική),” while suggesting that the simile is “the most general form of the parable (γενικωτάτη οὖσα τῆς παραβολῆς).” He likened the relationship of a simile to a parable

(a universal to a specific), to:

What the experts (δεινοὶ) have observed about the giving of many names. They say that impulse (ὁρμὴ) is the most universal (γενικωτάτη), containing many specifics (πολλῶν εἰδῶν περιεκτικήν), like repulsion (ἀφορμὴ) and attraction (ὁρμὴ), and that attraction (ὁρμὴ), saying that in form (ἐν εἴδει) it is homonymous (ὁμωνύμως) with the universal (γενικὸς) is taken in contradistinction (πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν) to repulsion (ἀφορμὴ).265

His statement, that the term “impulse (ὁρμὴ)” has both a universal and particular meaning, appears to show that there was a similar relationship between the terms “simile (ὁμοίωσις)” and

“parable (παραβολὴ),” such that the former was a homonym for the universal, which also contained a particular meaning, while the latter was strictly a particular.266 What is important to note here is not the accuracy of Origen’s exegesis, but his application of the exegetical method of

γλωσσηματικόν (the explanation of terms) in order to make sense of the text. He was using it as a pedagogical means of teaching his students how to read the Bible.

Following Neuschäfer’s analysis, we can also identify another step in the process of exegesis, historical analysis (ἱστορικὸν).267 The Commentary on Matthew offers several examples of this practice. Origen’s historical analysis is evident, for example, when he brings Josephus, the

Jewish historian of the first century B.C.E. into the discussion. While discussing Matt. 13:54-56,

265 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.4 (Bendinelli 11/1:112). 266 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.4 (Bendinelli 11/1:112). Origen’s argument here is rather difficult to follow. The explanation above is my best effort at making sense of it. 267 Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 155-202.

87 where it is recorded that people questioned where Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, brother of

James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, received his wisdom. The text had implications for contemporary debates about Mary’s perpetual virginity. “Some (τινες),” he said, attempted to preserve Mary’s virginity by “starting from the tradition of the Gospel entitled According to

Peter or the Book of James,” claiming that the brothers were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage.268

Origen then digresses into a discussion of James. Citing Josephus’ account of James in his

Jewish Antiquities, in which Josephus attributed the razing of the temple to God’s wrath at the

Jews’ treatment of James,269 Origen considered it “amazing (θαυμαστόν)” how Josephus, who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, testified to the righteousness of James. Origen’s point is not explicit in the commentary. However, he appears to be using the story from Josephus to demonstrate how James was a brother of Jesus only in a spiritual sense, in contrast to those who considered them stepbrothers. Thus, Josephus provided some historical information about James, which Origen used to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity and account for how James could be identified as Jesus’ brother in Matt. 13:55.

Josephus also appears in Book Seventeen in Origen’s discussion of Matt. 22:15-22. Here,

Origen’s first concern was to interpret the “the intention of the wording according to the literal sense (τὸ βούλημα τῆς λέξεως κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν).” Origen implicitly referenced Josephus, when he said that “we find written in the histories at the time of Tiberius Caesar how there and then the

268 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.17 (Bendinelli 11/1:156). Τοὺς δὲ ἀδελφοὺς Ἰησοῦ φασί τινες εἶναι, ἐκ παραδόσεως ὁρμώμενοι τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένου κατὰ Πέτρον εὐαγγελίου ἤ τῆς βίβλου Ἰακώβου, υἱοὺς Ἰωσὴφ ἐκ προτέρας γυναικὸς συνῳκηκυίας αὐτῷ πρὸ τῆς Μαρίας. See also Martens, Origen and Scripture, 51. 269 See Josephus, Ant. 20.200, trans. L.H. Feldman, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities: Books XVIII-XXIX, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 494-97. Joseph did not attribute the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple to James’ trial. He did, however, say that the trial angered some of the Jews. See Heine’s footnote 119, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 50.

88 people took up arms in the time of Pontius Pilate, when Pilate pressed them hard to set up a statue of Caesar in the temple and the Jews resisted beyond their power. The same thing is recorded to have happened in the times of Gaius Caesar.”270 Origen employed these historical accounts in order to contextualize the “literal meaning of the text (κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν).”271 In so doing, Origen situated Matt. 22:15-22 in the historical contexts of Roman Jewish debates about their relationship to the Roman Empire.

While the grammatical procedure is prevalent in Origen’s exegetical works, the overarching genre in the Commentary on Matthew was “problems and solutions (προβλήματα καὶ λύσεις), indicative of the zetetic method, a dialectical approach to reading. Therefore, I will now turn to the convergence of dialectics and exegesis in Origen’s school. Not only does this inform us about the scholarly habits in Origen’s school; it also has implications for the kind of ideal reader

Origen was attempting to cultivate.

2.2.3 Zetetic Reading

The practice of the zetetic method, usually following the program of questions and answers, or problems and solutions, was a core component of Origen’s broader pedagogical activities.272

This practice reflects the dialectical approach to biblical reading Origen employed in his school.

We can look to one of Origen’s students for a testimonial about the practice of dialectics in the school:

270 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 17.25 (Bendinelli 11/4:284). The references are to Josephus’ Ant 18, and J.W. 2. 271 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 17.25-26 (Bendinelli 11/4:284). 272 Lorenzo Perrone has already conducted substantial scholarship on this practice. See his article “‘Quaestiones et responsiones’ in Origene: Prospettive di un’ analisi formale dell’argomentazione esegetico-teologica,” in Cristianesimo nella Storia 15 (1994), 1-50. For a more detailed study of the “questions and answer” method in the Matthew Commentary, see Guido Bendinelli, Il Commentario a Matteo di Origene: L’Ambito della Metodologia Scolastica dell’Antichità (Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1997), 141-242.

When our agitated soul (σεσοβημένη ἡ ψυχὴ), sending up and yielding thorns and thistles, and all kinds of wild weeds or plants, as overgrown as much as it was disorderly and reckless, he cuts and roots everything out with refutations and prohibition (πᾶν ἐκκόπτων καὶ ἐξαίρων τοῖς ἐλέγχοις καὶ τῷ κωλύειν). And, taking hold of us in an especially Socratic fashion (μάλα Σωκρατικῶς) when he tripped us up in speech, every time he saw us fighting the reins like unbroken horses leaping off the road and running about aimlessly, until by persuasion (πειθοῖ) and constraint (ἀνάγκῃ) as by the bit which was the word from our mouth, he made us silent before him. At first, it was difficult for us and not without pain, as much as he was introducing his own logic to novices not at all practiced in following logic (ἀήθεσι καὶ κατακολουθεῖν τῷ λόγῳ οὐδέπω μεμελετηκόσι προσάγων τοὺς παρ’ ἑαυτῷ λόγους), and yet purifying us.273

David Satran has insightfully described the importance Gregory attributed to the dialectical training he received at the hands of Origen. A particularly important aim of dialectics was the retraining of the mind, breaking old and unruly mental habits and cultivating new habits.274

Satran also showed that dialectics was not a stand-alone exercise, but was practiced in conjunction with other disciplines, especially biblical exegesis.275

Oftentimes, the zetetic method is explicit, such as the example above about the distinction between parables and similes in book ten of the Commentary on Matthew. After delineating the difference, Origen summons the group to an investigation into the parable.

In this case, the field by itself and the treasure hidden in it by itself must be investigated (ζητητέον), and how, having found this hidden treasure and from the joy he goes off and sells all that he has in order that he might purchase that field. And what he sells must also be investigated (ζητητέον).276

273 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Remerciement à Origène, 7.96-98 (SC 136). 274 David Satran, In the Image of Origen, 69-76. Also, Bendinelli, who also highlights the analogy between agricultural cultivation and dialectics as a means of cultivating the intellect, in Commentario a Matteo, 142. 275 Satran, In the Image of Origen, 69. Martens also highlighted the intrinsic relationship between logic and linguistics, Origen and Scripture, 79. 276 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.5 (Bendinelli 11/1:112).

Here we see the quintessential Origenian practice of the zetetic method. Origen first invites his pupils into the exercise, this time with the use of the impersonal adjective ζητητέον (= “must be investigated/inquired”), again indicative of the classroom setting.277 He then provides his own opinion (δοκεῖ μοι = “it seems to me”) that the field in the parable referred to the obvious meanings embedded in the history, law, and prophets, while the treasure refers to “thoughts concealed underlying the obvious meanings (ἀποκεκρυμμένα καὶ ὑποκείμενα τοῖς φανεροῖς

νοήματα).”278

This was not the end of the research project, however. The subsequent discourse displays the necessary dialectical practice of “questions and answers,” which Origen found in the biblical text itself.279 He introduces a hypothetical interlocutor (ἄλλος δ’ ἄν λέγοι = “someone else might say”) in order to draw out another way in which the field and the treasure could be understood.

This time, the field could refer to a person who is “truly full,” namely, Christ, while the treasure would be the kingdom of heaven hidden in the person of Christ. Origen appears to accept both interpretations as equally plausible.280

The mingling of dialectics, i.e. the Socratic method of question and answer, and biblical scholarship is most apparent in Origen’s works when we encounter the genre “problems and solutions (προβλήματα καὶ λύσεις).”281 Guido Bendinelli has argued that Origen’s Commentary

277 Bendinelli, Il Commentario a Matteo, 142-44. 278 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.5 (Bendinelli 11/1:112). 279 Responding to Celsus’ appeal to Plato and the practice of “questions and answers,” Origen said that scripture also commanded such a practice. “He [Celsus] quotes another phrase of Plato where he says that ‘through the use of questions and answers (ἐρωτήρσεσι καὶ ἀποκρίσεσι),’ understanding illuminates those who follow his philosophy. Let us show, then, from the holy scriptures that the divine Logos also exhorts us to study dialectics (ἐπὶ διαλεκτικὴν).” CC 6.7 (GCS 2:77.7-11). 280 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.5 (Bendinelli 11/1:114). 281 There is such an abundance of scholarship on this literary or exegetical genre, that there is no need to trace its history here. I simply refer the reader to some of the important scholarship. For example, Gustave Bardy, “La littérature patristique des Quaestiones et responsiones sur l’Écriture sainte,” in Revue Biblique 41 (1932), 210-236,

91 on Matthew should be read against the backdrop of this Late Antique commentary genre found particularly in the Aristotelian tradition. Writers such as Alexander of Aphrodisias and Proclus, for example, often employed the hypothetical interlocutor as a dialectical practice of solving problems.282 My concern here is not with influence, but simply to discuss how Origen mobilized the practice in his scholarship.

The most well-known example of “problems and solutions” in Origen’s exegetical works is found in a Greek fragment of his Commentary on Genesis preserved in the Philocalia. Origen set out four “problems (προβλήματα)” pertaining to Gen. 1:14:

1.) How what is in our power is preserved, while God foreknows from eternity about things thought to be done by each person. 2.) How the stars are not the causes of human affairs but are only signs. 3.) That human beings cannot have precise knowledge of these things, but the signs are put forth for powers greater than human beings. 4.) What reason has God made the signs for knowledge of the powers, is the fourth problem that will be examined.283

After he set out the four problematic points, he responded in a systematic fashion, working through them point-by-point. He does not, however, address points of grammar. His concern throughout this discussion is at the level of theology, particularly that there is no contradiction

341-369, 515-537; Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship, 131-68 ; Lorenzo Perrone, “Sulla preistoria delle ‘Quaestiones’ nella letteratura patristica: Presupposti e sviluppi del genere letterario fino al IV sec.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 8.2 (1991), 485-505; Yannis Papadogiannakis, “Instruction by Question and Answer: The Case of Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis,” in Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism, Classicism, ed. Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013), 91-105. 282 Bendinelli, Il Commentario A Matteo, 147-151. 283 Phil. 23.6.20-30 (SC 150-53). (α΄) Πῶς, προγνώστου ὄντος ἐξ αἰῶνος τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ τῶν ὑφ’ ἑκάστου πράττεσθαι νομιζομένων, τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν σῴζεται· (β΄) Καὶ τίνα τρόπον οἱ ἀστέρες οὐκ εἰσὶ ποιητικοὶ τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις, σημαντικοὶ δὲ μόνον· (γ΄) Καὶ ὅτι ἄνθρωποι τὴν περὶ τούτων γνῶσιν ἀκριβῶς ἔχειν οὐ δύνανται, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεσιν ἀνθρώπων κρείττοσι τὰ σημεῖα ἔκκειται· (δ΄) Τίς γὰρ ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὰ σημεῖα τὸν θεὸν πεποιηκέναι εἰς γνῶσιν τῶν δυνάμεων, τέταρτον ἐξετασθήσεται.

92 between God’s foreknowledge and human freedom, and the erroneous notion of the astrologers that human behaviour is necessitated by the stars (τῶν ὑπολαμβανόντων κατηναγκάσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν

ἄστρων τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πράγματα).284

There is a very similar discussion in On Prayer. Like the Commentary on Genesis, Origen puts forth five problems pertaining to the subject of prayer. Each problem addresses the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human freedom, such that, if God foreknows what will happen, then prayer is superfluous.285 Significant here is how Origen began to respond to the problems: “Let the argument I have been stating in the previous discussion be stated in the words which you have appointed for me,” followed by a numerical delineation of the problems

(“First…Second…”).286 This statement suggests that Origen’s treatise was composed in response to questions put to him by his patron Ambrose and a certain Tatiana.287

However, the concrete circumstances of On Prayer, are less clear. The aforementioned remark about “the words you have appointed for me” could indicate that Ambrose sent Origen a letter asking for the master’s response to the problems posed. Or, it could be that the final draft of the treatise provides a glimpse into the workings of the school. In this case, “the words you have appointed for me” reflect the problems Ambrose posed for Origen in person. If this is the case,

On Prayer would give us a window into the social context behind production of a theological treatise: a school, or an intimate group of friends gathered around a teacher.

284 Phil. 23.15.4-5 (SC 178-79). 285 Origen, Orat. 5.2 (GCS 2:308.26-311.7). 286 Origen, Orat. 5.6 (GCS 2:311.8-9). κείσθω δὲ ἐν τοῖς παροῦσιν αὐταῖς λέξεσιν ἅπερ διὰ τῶν προς με γραμμάτων ἔταξας, οὕτως ἔχοντα. 287 Origen, Orat. 2.1 (GCS 2:298.18-19).

Perrone rightly observes that we also must consider the fact that Origen addressed the treatise to both Ambrose and Tatiana.288 Perrone speculates that Tatiana was Ambrose’s sister.289 I cannot hope to answer that question here beyond these two hypothetical scenarios. Nevertheless, it is clear that the immediate context of the treatise was a response to questions posed by Ambrose regarding the topic of prayer.290 The social context, that of a master and his pupil(s) discussing solutions to problems brings us back to the Commentary on Matthew, where Origen uses the disciples’ questioning Jesus as a model for his school’s own scholarly activities.

Some of the examples of “problems and solutions” are explicit in the commentary. For example, in Book Thirteen, Origen discussed Matt. 18:1, in which the disciples asked Jesus who was greater in the kingdom of heaven. After discussing textual variants, he turned the lecture to a discussion of the passage “the disciples came to him.” Origen targeted this verse, specifying that the disciples were “proposing problems and inquiring (προβλήματα προτείνοντες καὶ

ἐξετάζοντες),” just “like disciples with a teacher (ὡς μαθηταὶ διδασκάλῳ),” who was greater in the kingdom of heaven.291

After directing his own readers to imitate the disciples in their seeking solutions to problems,

Origen then addressed the meaning of the text, with his own question: “What, then, did the disciples already know in relation to this question?” Their question, Origen said, implied that the disciples already knew that there was not equality in heaven. However, “they were still seeking

(ἔτι ἐζήτουν)” answers to the following questions: “Of what sort is the greater? And how has the

288 Lorenzo Perrone, La preghiera secondo Origene: L’impossibilità donata (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2011), 18. 289 Perrone, La preghiera secondo Origene, 18. 290 Perrone, La preghiera secondo Origene, 17-19. 291 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.15 (Bendinelli 11/2:300).

94 least lived, and who are those in between?”292 In other words, the text posed eschatological questions that Origen thought it worth investigating. Origen thus established the questions which his students would discuss in the classroom.

On the one hand, Origen said that the disciples likely knew who was the least appealing to Matt.

18:20 (“Whoever shall destroy one of these least commandments…shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven”). However, he said that they still had not grasped who was greatest in the kingdom. He argued that they indeed knew that there were many who were great, such as Isaac,

Moses, and John the Baptist, but that Jesus was greater than these. Nevertheless, Jesus “refers the discussion to something more general (ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ καθολικώτερον ἀνάγει τὸν λόγον),” speaking rather about “what sort of quality (ὁποδαπὸς τῇ ποίοτητι μείζων)” is the person greater in the kingdom of heaven.293 Origen used this, then, to transition to his remarks on the next verse (Matt. 18:6).294 Through an exercise in “problems and solutions,” Origen was able to expand the semantic range and the theological depth of the text in Matt. 18:1, while simultaneously guiding them through the inquisitive procedure.

There is another explicit reference to “problems and solutions” when Origen addressed the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:21-35).295 Origen expressed a difficulty interpreting some of the characters in the parable, such as the person owing one hundred talents to the debtor who also owed many talents, and who were the witnesses to the one man choking the other.

Origen premised his remarks cautioning his students and readers that “these can by no means be interpreted unless Jesus, who ‘solved (λύσαντος) all things for his own disciples in private (Mark

292 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.15 (Bendinelli 11/2:300). 293 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.15 (Bendinelli 11/2:302). 294 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.16 (Bendinelli 11/2:302). 295 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 14.11-12 (Bendinelli 11/3:104-110).

4:34),’ also ‘resides in one’s governing faculty (ἐπιδημήσαντος αὐτοῦ τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ)’ and opens up all the dark and enigmatic expressions in the parable.”296 Mark 4:34, with its use of the third- person imperfect form of the verb ἐπιλύω (= to solve or explain) was the intertextual key for an accurate interpretation of Matt. 18:21-35, and the other parables. After this prefatory remark,

Origen then provided a few tentative answers to the aforementioned questions.

Elsewhere, in Book Thirteen, Origen addressed the disciples’ question to Jesus: “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first (Matt. 17:10)?” He framed his discussion around the image of the disciples “asking questions (ἐπηρώτων)” and Jesus “answering (ἀπεκρίνατο).”297

The issue at stake in this text was “a dogma foreign to the church of God regarding the transmigration of souls (τὸ ἀλλότριον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ τῆς μετενσωματώσεως

δόγμα).”298 Origen had already addressed the same problem in Book Six of his Commentary on

John. There, Origen began by situating the Gospel text within the context of Jewish messianic expectations before proceeding to discuss the flaws of the theory of transmigration on logical grounds.299 Origen also had already challenged the doctrine of transmigration earlier in the

Commentary on Matthew.300

In Book Thirteen, the Gospel text related the discussion between Jesus and his disciples after the

Transfiguration (Cf. Matt. 17:9-13). Origen’s concern was to explain how Jesus in fact was speaking about Elijah but was not referring to “the soul of Elijah (ἡ ψυχὴ <Ἠλίου>).301 That,

296 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 14.11 (Bendinelli 11/3:104). 297 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.1 (Bendinelli 11/2:250). 298 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.1 (Bendinelli 11/2:252). 299 Origen, Comm. in Jn. 6.54-71 (GCS 4:117.24-121.15). For the English translation, see Commentary on the Gospel According to John 13.6, trans. Ronald E. Heine, FOTC (Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 183-88. The Gospel passage in question was the discourse in John 1:19-23. 300 See Origen, Comm. in Matt. 11.17 (Bendinelli 11/1:276). 301 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.1 (Bendinelli 11/2:252).

Origen said, would imply an affirmation of the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. In the course of his discussion, he refuted the doctrine as not a product of the apostolic tradition

(literally: οὔτε παραδιδόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων) and that the doctrine explicitly contradicted the scriptural teaching that the world will come to an end (Cf. 2 Cor. 4:18; 7:31).302

Origen did not stop, however, with an appeal to scripture and tradition. He continued his refutation of the transmigration of souls pointing out the logical consequences. He said that, if the same soul could exist in a body twice, particularly if the cause of its embodiment was sin, why could it not exist in a body more than twice? If such was the case, Origen said that then there would never be a time when a soul is not placed into a body, since, because of its sins, it will always be placed into a body. The consequence of the line of argument was, according to

Origen, that the world would never end.303

Origen’s primary targets in this polemic were “the Greeks, who introduce the doctrine of the transmigration (οἱ τὴν μετενσωμάτωσιν εἰσάγοντες Ἕλληνες).”304 In his Commentary on John, however, Origen’s discussion of the transmigration of souls may have been directed at

302 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.1 (Bendinelli 11/2:252). 303 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.1 (Bendinelli 11/2:252). εἰ γὰρ καθ’ ὑπόθεσιν δὶς δύναται γενέσθαι ἐν τῇ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μέχρι συντελείας τοῦ κόσμου καταστάσει ἡ αὐτὴ ἐν τῷ σώματι (δι’ αἰτίαν <δι’> ἥν ἄν γένοιτο ἐν αὐτῷ), ἡ δι’ ἁμαρτίαν γενομένην δὶς ἐν σώματι διὰ τί οὐχὶ καὶ τρὶς καὶ πλεονάκις ἔσται ἐν αὐτῷ, τῶν διὰ τὸν βίον τοῦτον καὶ τὰ ἡμαρτημένα ἐν αὐτῷ κολάσεων τούτῳ ἀποδοθησομένων μόνῳ τῷ τρόπῳ κατὰ τὴν μετενσωματωμάτωσιν; ὅπερ ἐὰν ἐξ ἀκολουθίας δοθῇ, οὐκ ἔσται τάχα ὅτε ψυχὴ οὐ μετενσωματωθήσεται· ἀεὶ γὰρ διὰ τὰ πρότερα ἁμαρτήματα ἐπιδημήσει τῷ σώματι, καὶ οὕτως οὐχ ἕξει χώραν ἡ τοῦ κόσμα φθορά, καθ’ ἥν “ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆν παρελεύσονται” (For, hypothetically, if the same soul is able to enter in the body twice (owing to the cause for which it might be in it) in the established order of the world from its beginning to its consummation, the becoming in a body twice because of sin why will it not also be in it three or even more times, since because the punishments for this life and the sins committed in it will be paid back in this way only according the doctrine of the transmigration of souls; should anyone grant it from the following, perhaps there will never be a time when the soul will not be transmigrated: for, it will always reside in the body because of the previous sins, and thus the destruction of the world, according to which “the heaven and earth will pass away (Matt. 24:35),” will have no place (my translation adapted from Heine. See, Heine, Commentary on Matthew, 128). 304 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.1 (Bendinelli 11/2:254).

Basilides.305 Whether or not the identification of Basilides is correct, what is apparent is that

Origen knew of certain individuals using John 1:21 as a proof-text for the transmigration of souls. At any rate, Origen’s discussion was rooted in debates with pagan philosophers or

Gnostics, the problem of transmigration certainly had relevance for the interpretation of the two biblical passages (John 1:21; Matt. 17:10).

Origen then attempted to solve the problem in the Commentary on Matthew by exploring the different ways in which the reader could understand the supposed implication of the biblical text.

“Some (τινες),” Origen said, thought that the soul of Elijah and John the Baptist was the same, first being called “Elijah,” and later “John.” The problematic text was Luke 1:16-17. Origen then drew distinctions between “soul” and “spirit,” and between the spirit of a human (i.e. Elijah) and the spirit of God.306 Origen’s discourse here is quite long and it is not important to discuss

Origen’s conclusions, other than to locate the exegesis within the “problems and solutions” approach. In this regard, Origen was attempting to follow the example of Jesus’ own teaching style with his disciples.307

Origen began Book Fifteen with a lengthy dialectical treatment of Matt. 19:12. He paused before putting forth his interpretation, in order to address “two incorrect interpretations (Δύο

παρεκδοχὰς).” One error was of those who thought that all three of the eunuchs in Matt. 19:12 were “bodily (σωματικά)” eunuchs. Their error was in thinking that the third eunuch was bodily because the sequence (ἀκόλουθον) of the passage led them to that conclusion. If the first two eunuchs were physical eunuchs, it followed that the third eunuch was a physical eunuch as well.

305 Heine’s speculation. See his footnote 104, in Commentary on John, 186. 306 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.2 (Bendinelli 11/2:256-60). 307 This connection is explicit in the Matthew Commentary. See, for example, Comm. in Matt. 13.15; 14.12 (Bendinelli 11/2:300; 11/3:108.

The other group, while interpreting the first two eunuchs to be physical eunuchs, did not understand the third to be physical as well. Rather, the act of castration in the third case was an

“action of the Logos (εὐνουχισμὸν ἡγήσαντο τὸν ἀπὸ λόγου).”308

Then, Origen specifies the reasons for their fault. The first group was correct in following the sequence to its logical conclusion. If the first two eunuchs were physical eunuchs, then it follows that the third was as well. Their mistake was in thinking that that first two eunuchs were physical eunuchs. The second group, while understanding the third eunuch correctly, were wrong in not extending the same logic to the first two eunuchs. In other words, in both cases, the errors were errors of logic. While he does not explicitly name the erroneous interpreters, their logical fallacies are clear: the first group of interpreters were “friends of the letter,” while the second group simply failed to consistently apply allegory.

Moreover, as Origen sets about his interpretation, mobilizing other biblical passages in his defence, he brings in other voices who supported physical castration, namely, Sextus Empiricus and Philo. This is consistent with Gregory’s portrait of Origen teaching his students from a diverse range of philosophical traditions, what Satran called the “dialectical basis” for theological studies in Origen’s school.309 Whatever the case may be, Origen incorporates non-

Christian sources in his discussion of the eunuchs in Matt. 19:12, as a means of testing their hypotheses.

308 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.1.349 (Bendinelli 11/3:168) 309 Satran, In the Image of Origen, 78-79 (italics are Satran’s).

Origen presents passages from Sextus’ Sentences, “a book that circulates among many people as an approved book,” in which Sextus approved of the practice of castration on two occasions.310

Then, he brings in Philo, who also said that castration was preferable to a life of unbridled sexual conduct.311 In spite of the high regard with which Origen’s description suggests he viewed both

Sextus and Philo, he proceeded to demonstrate from scripture itself how both were wrong on the subject of castration. In particular, Origen said that because continence (ἐγκράτεια) was listed as one of the fruits of the Spirit in Gal. 5:22-23, it was therefore necessary to cultivate continence through practice, preserving the body that God gave intact.312

It is important to note here, that the “problem” pertaining to Matt. 19:12 was not merely an abstract problem. Origen himself said that he would not bother providing a lengthy refutation

(ἀνατροπή) of the error had it not been for the fact that he witnessed some people act rashly after reading the passage from Matthew.313 It was because he knew of some who performed castration, and because there were renowned thinkers promoting the act, that he thought it important enough to discuss at length. Such a literal interpretation of Matt. 19:12 also would have had implications for Origen’s understanding of virtue, because it commanded the need to

“produce continence as a fruit (καρποφορητέον μᾶλλον τὴν ἐγκράτειαν).” Virtue is a result of freely chosen effort. Origen has a very similar discussion in Contra Celsum, in which he demonstrated how God could not force people to act virtuously. If virtue is forced, if free will is precluded, the nature of virtue itself is destroyed.314 In the Commentary on Matthew, to subject

310 The Sentences of Sextus 13, 273, ed. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 12, 42. See Chadwick’s discussion on 109-114. 311 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.3.354-55 (Bendinelli 11/3:172). 312 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.3.355 (Bendinelli 11/3:172-73). 313 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.3.354 (Bendinelli 11/3:172). See also Chadwick’s remarks in Sentences of Sextus, 110-112. 314 Origen, CC. 4.3 (GCS)

100 the body to continence through an irrational act such as castration would preclude the possibility of virtue. At the same time, Origen also targets Marcion in this lengthy refutation of the literalist interpretation of the passage. In contrast to the literalists, however, Origen targeted Marcion for rejecting the passage altogether because he was not able to read it allegorically (μὴ δεῖν

ἀλληγορεῖν).315

It was not until after a lengthy refutation of the erroneous readings that Origen embarked upon his own interpretation of the passage. As would be expected, Origen interpreted all three “states of being eunuchs” spiritually. Some eunuchs were such from birth (Origen does not explain what that means), who were the referents of the words “There are eunuchs who were born such from their mother’s womb.” A second group of eunuchs were persuaded to live continently by philosophers or a sect promoting such a life reflected in the words: “There are eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men.” The third group was those eunuchs who “castrate the passionate faculty of the soul (ἐκτέμνοι τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς παθητικὸν)” to inherit the kingdom of heaven.316

The prevalence of “problems and solutions” in the Commentary on Matthew suggests that this commentary was a product of a philosophically erudite community engaging the text in light of the grammatical/philosophical/theological problems of the time, and especially those raised from a reading of the Bible. Not only did this form of literary criticism inform Origen’s task as exegete in the Commentary, but it also informed his own self-understanding as a Christian teacher and provided a model, as we will see in the next section, for the kinds of readers he wanted to fashion in his students.

315 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.3.356 (Bendinelli 11/3:174). 316 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.4.357-58 (Bendinelli 11/3:176).

101

2.3 Modelling a Christian Reader

The preceding discussion has only addressed the particular habits with which Origen and his students engaged the biblical text. We must not, however, suspect that exegesis and reading were ends in themselves. Rather, these were particular skills and habits that were required for a learned Christian reading of the Bible. If we peer behind the details of these practices, we can see Origen cultivating a particular kind of reader. Martens has already identified the kinds of exegetical virtues Origen taught his pupils.317 I will not duplicate his insightful analysis. Rather,

I will now discuss Origen’s treatment of two particular biblical pericopes to demonstrate how

Origen’s exegesis of them was meant to provide his students with models of Christian reading.

Recalling Origen’s principle that scripture invites the attentive reader to conduct further research through the insertion of certain stumbling blocks and impossibilities,318 we must include in this context the problem of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 4 and 7. This pericope presented a significant challenge both to God’s righteousness and human freedom. And, while

Origen provided a detailed explanation of this passage in de Prin. 3.1, we see in his Scholia on

Exodus preserved in the Philocalia319 that Origen stopped to think about this passage in a different literary context. This scholium will serve as a good segue into the discussion of

Origen’s understanding of the ideal Christian reader. Moreover, it gives us access into the preliminary process of inquisitive reading as it unfolded.

The key passage from this scholium reads:

317 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 167-78. 318 Origen, de Prin. 4.2.9 (Behr 514-517). 319 Harl suggests this was the exegetical context of the scholium. See Phil. 17.9 (SC 299, n2).

102

I still want to attend (ἔτι ἐφίστημι) to the things in this passage. Perhaps (μήποτε), just as doctors, who draw poison to the surface of those who are most in distress, cause a more painful condition and inflammations, lest by spreading it utterly destroys the man: so too, God, through his medicine, draws to the outside the evil hidden and lurking in the depths of the soul, so that it becomes visible and more apparent, in order that after this he can apply appropriate healing.320

After Origen draws the analogy, he then appeals to other biblical texts to explain what he meant.

Specifically, he introduces (ἡγοῦμαι) Deut. 8:2-3 to show how God “distresses (κακόω)” and

“tests (πειράω)” the Israelites in order to discern what is in their heart (διαγνωσθῇ τὰ ἐν καρδίᾳ

σου).321 In this rich imagery of God as a good doctor, so consistent throughout Origen’s writings,

I would like to draw attention to two key words from the opening lines: ἐφίστημι (= stop, fix attention on), and μήποτε (= never, or in this case, perhaps).

I contend that we have here Origen’s mental and pedagogical operations during the act of reading: he recognizes an aporia and alerts his students of the need to stop and inquire further into the pericope at hand. If that is the case, Origen’s musings on God as a good a doctor322 give us access to the reading process as it unfolded. There are two important texts that help us to flesh out that process on a theoretical level, how Origen conceived of the process, and how he attempted to cultivate those same reading habits in his students: his Commentary on Matthew, and Book Thirteen of his Commentary on John.

320 Phil. 27.9.1-8 (SC 298). 321 Phil. 27.9.9-13 (SC 300). 322 This analogy is so frequent throughout Origen’s works that I cannot cite each instance. A lengthy discussion using this analogy, and that of God as a good farmer, however, can be found in de Prin. 3.1.13-17 (Behr 326-49), where he calls God “the physician of the sick (ἰατρός τῶν καμνόντων).”

103

In Book Thirteen of his Commentary on John, Origen used the Samaritan woman at the well as the paradigm of dialectical reading. His commentary on John 4:13-29 followed the narrative of

Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well. Early in this commentary, Origen drew his readers’ attention to how the Samaritan woman was “persuaded to ask (πείθεται…αἰτῆσαι)”

Jesus for the water that he would give after she had heard about the difference between the water from the well and the water that Jesus gives.323

Here, Origen said that he had previously argued that the Samaritan woman was a

“representation” of the heterodox.324 He then exhorted his readers to “consider, from that which she had experienced (ὅρα ἐξ ὧν ἐπεπόνθει), how she was neither refreshed nor relieved of thirst.”325 Because she did not find relief from the water from the well, she was “persuaded” to ask Jesus for his water. As his exegesis of this text proceeded, Origen drew the spiritual interpretation that the water from the well represented the words from the Scriptures, which then prepared the reader for the unmediated teachings from Jesus Christ himself.326

However, by drawing his readers’ attention to the “experiences” of the Samaritan woman,

Origen drew them directly into the narrative of the story. The Samaritan woman’s experience in conversation with Jesus was the reader’s experience conversing with the Logos embodied in

Scripture. Just as Jesus persuaded the Samaritan woman to ask for his water, so too did this biblical narrative move the reader, conversing with the Logos, to ask him for that which the words on the page could not themselves provide, eternal nourishment.

323 Origen, Comm. in Jn. 13.6 (GCS 4:227.7-11). 324 Origen, Comm. in Jn. 13.6 (GCS 4:227.9) Since this is not found in Book 13, it presumably refers to an argument he made in Book 12, which is no longer extant. 325 Origen, Comm. in Jn. 13.7 (GCS 4:227.11-12). 326 Origen, Comm. in Jn. 13.16-19 (GCS 4:228.21-229.10).

104

At the end of this lengthy question and answer dialogue between the Samaritan woman and Jesus in John 4:13-39, Origen provides a spiritually imaginative interpretation of the following verse in which the Samaritans ask Jesus to remain with them. Origen said that it was not in the city where they wanted Jesus to remain, but “with them,” that is to say, in their ἡγεμονικόν, which

Origen consistently uses as a homonym for the heart.327 In this way, the Samaritan woman becomes a paradigm of the Christian reader of the Bible. She was able to ask Jesus questions and received his explanations. After the dialectical encounter, Jesus made his abode in her

ἡγεγμονικόν, where he presumably continued his pedagogy of the soul.

In the Commentary on Matthew, cultivation of the ideal Christian reader is most forcefully shown in how Origen interprets parables, particularly in how he understands the distinction between the “crowds (ὄχλοι)” and the “disciples (μαθηταὶ)” as portrayed in the parables. This distinction served as a leitmotif of the Commentary on Matthew and deserves our attention when addressing the kind of ideal reader Origen was attempting to cultivate in his students. In Book

Ten, Origen began the discussion noting that scripture itself distinguished the crowds and disciples. In Matt. 13:36, after speaking to the crowds, Jesus brought his disciples into the house at which time the disciples asked Jesus to explain the meaning of the parable of the weeds in the field (Cf. Matt. 13:24-30). We do not have Origen’s comments on Matt. 13:34-35 in the

Commentary.

There, the Gospel text says that Jesus spoke to the crowds only in parables, followed by Jesus’ fulfillment of Ps. 77:1 (“I will open my mouth in parables and utter problems from the

327 Origen, Comm. in Jn. 13.182 (GCS 4:254.27-28). The ἡγεμονικόν is one of the most significant concepts in Origen’s anthropology. However, I will provide a more detailed treatment of the concept in chapter five.

105 beginning”).328 Origen’s remarks on Matt. 13:36 used the distinction between the crowds and disciples as a hermeneutic for interpreting the text throughout the Commentary on Matthew.329

His point was to establish that

All those who more sincerely listen to Jesus first follow him, then, asking (πυνθανόμενοι) about his dwelling place, they are permitted to see it…Therefore, if we wish to hear Jesus unlike the crowds, which he sent away when he entered the house, let us, who understand something extraordinary beyond what the crowds do, be friends of Jesus, in order that, like his disciples (ὡς μαθηταὶ) who entered the house, we may approach [him], and approaching [him] we may be thought worthy of the expression of a parable, whether that of the weeds of the field or of any other parable.330

Origen directed his students to a proper frame of mind before beginning to interpret the passage.

Unlike the crowds, to whom Jesus only spoke in parables, his students were to imitate the disciples in their desire to ask Jesus for explanations.

The hermeneutical distinction between the crowds and disciples is the central framework for

Origen’s self-understanding as a teacher and the self-understanding he wanted to cultivate in his students. We have already seen this when discussing Origen’s use of the “problems and solutions” approach to the biblical text. It is worthwhile to revisit that text here, with a full quotation:

Next, we must understand the verse “the disciples came to him (Matt. 18:1), as disciples proposing and examining problems with a teacher (ὡς μαθηταὶ διδασκάλῳ προβλήματα προτείνοντες καὶ

328 We will see how Origen dealt with that passage in his Hom. 1 in Ps 77. That will be a central text in the next two chapters. 329 On this point, see Heine’s “Introduction” in Origen: Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 7-14. 330 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10.1 (Bendinelli 11/1:100-02). Καὶ ὅσοι γε γνησιώτερον ἀκούουσι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, πρῶτον ἄκολουθοῦσιν αὐτᾠ, εἶτα πυνθανόμενοι περὶ τῆς μονῆς αὐτοῦ ἐπιτρέπονται ἰδεῖν αὐτην…Καὶ ἡμεῖς οὖν, εἴπερ βουλόμεθα μὴ ὡς ὄχλοι ἀκούειν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, οὕς ἀφιείς [και] ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, ἐξαίρετόν τι παρὰ τοὺς ὄχλους ἀναλαμβάνοντες οἰκειωθῶμεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵν᾿ ὡς μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐλθόντι εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν προσέλθωμεν καὶ προσελθόντες ἀξιώσωμεν περὶ φράσεως παραβολῆς, εἴτα τῶν ζιζανίων τοῦ ἀγροῦ εἴθ᾿ ἡστινοσοῦν.

106

ἐξετάζοντες). And indeed, we must imitate (μιμητέον) the disciples of Jesus in these actions: if ever something is investigated and does not happen to be discovered by us, with complete agreement regarding what is being investigated, let us approach Jesus, who is present wherever “two or three are gathered” (Matt. 18:20) in his name, and is ready with his presence with power to enlighten the hearts of those sincerely desiring to be taught by him for direct apprehension of the things being investigated.331

Explicit in this central passage was Origen’s portrayal of the disciples and Jesus as comprising a quasi-philosophical community.

Origen’s students certainly would have made the connection between the disciples and Jesus engaging in “problems and solutions” exercises against the backdrop of the same practice used in contemporary philosophical communities, such as the Aristotelians.332 At least, Origen situates the Christ-disciple relationship within the contemporary philosophical traditions. Moreover, the emphasis Origen placed in imitating (μιμητέον) the disciples in this regard (ἐν τούτοις) certainly would have placed the work of Origen’s school against the backdrop of the Christ-disciple learning group.

Also, in Book Fourteen, Origen provided his students with a hermeneutical principle for interpreting parables that is very telling about the Christian reader. Treating the parable of the unforgiving servant, Origen expressed some reluctance at trying to interpret the passage: “No one can explain it unless Jesus, who explained ‘all things for his own disciples in private (Mark

4:34) resides in one’s governing faculty (ἐπιδημήσαντος αὐτοῦ τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ), and opens all the

331 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 13.15 (Bendinelli 11/2:300). Ἐξῆς δὲ κατανοητέον «τὸ προςῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταί» ὡς μαθηταὶ διδασκάλῳ προβλήματα προτείνοντες καὶ ἐξετάζοντες…Καὶ μιμητέον γε ἐν τούτοις τοὺς τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μαθητάς· εἴ ποτε ζητούμενόν τι ἐν ἡμῖν μὴ εὑρίσκατο, μετὰ πάσης ὁμονοίας περὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου προσέλθωμεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, παρόντι ὅπου «δύο ἤ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι» ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἑτοίμῳ ἐν τῇ κατὰ δύναμιν παρουσίᾳ φωτίζειν τὰς καρδίας τῶν γνησίως αὐτῷ μαθητεύθεσθαι θελόντων πρὸς κατάληψιν τῶν ζητουμένων. 332 See Snyder, Teachers and Texts, 88.

107 dark, hidden, invisible treasures in the parable.”333 Notice the similarity between this statement and the passage from the Commentary on John above. In each case, after a rigorous process of examination, Christ made his abode in the ἡγεμονικόν, or heart, where he unveiled the mysteries beyond the reach of reason alone.

Origen mobilized the Christ-disciple relationship as justification for his own scholarly habits.334

Moreover, Origen used the Christ-disciple learning community as a model for his own school.

We have already seen how Origen applied Mark 4:34 as a biblical model for the distinction between the crowds and the disciples. We also saw that Origen used Mark 4:34 to situate the

Christ-disciple learning community, particularly Christ’s solving problems for his disciples, against the backdrop of the same practice in the philosophical schools. Here, we see Origen ground the group’s own scholarly practices within such a framework. If we combine this with

Origen’s extensive use of “problems and solutions” throughout the Commentary on Matthew, it is not a leap to think that Origen’s students would have understood themselves as being a part of that Christ-disciple tradition. That is to say, the group would have developed a sense of themselves as inheritors of that historical group. Through repeated allusions to the Christ- disciple paradigm, Origen fashioned a particular identity of his school viewed against the textual backdrop of Mark 4:34.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have sketched out a potential portrait of what Origen’s school looked like, especially the kinds of spaces they might have used and the kinds of people who would have

333 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 14.11 (Bendinelli 11/3:107). 334 Bendinelli, Commentario a Matteo, 144.

108 participated. Since much of the evidence is sparse, I had to keep my comments tentative. We did have some details about who attended Origen’s lectures, and it is likely that this was a highly literate and philosophically inclined group with access to the financial and social resources to maintain its infrastructure. In this regard, Origen fit well within the parameters of Late-Antique philosophical communities as outlined in the first chapter. I also detailed what we know about this group’s textual practices, such as their philological activities and the place of scripture in their daily routine. Given what we know from Origen’s own commentaries from this period, and the description in Gregory’s Address, biblical scholarship must have provided the axis around which this group’s activities revolved.

We saw Origen apply a wide variety of textual and literary methods in his exegetical works. I argued that, in so doing, Origen provided his students with the necessary literary and intellectual skills to be informed readers of the Bible in light of its philosophical/theological problems. In other words, the textual practices in this school were primarily concerned with the cultivation of certain reading habits. I also showed how Origen’s hermeneutic of the distinction between the crowds and disciples allowed him to situate his school within the tradition of Christ solving problems for his disciples in private while teaching the crowds only in parables. In so doing,

Origen provided a biblical paradigm for the ideal Christian reader, one with the ability to ask penetrating questions, who exerted effort in the process, and who cultivated a heart, a ἡγεμονικόν capable of receiving Christ who opened the depths of the scriptures for the reader.

Chapter 3: Tracks of an Early Christian Reading Culture in the Psalm Homilies

In the previous chapter, I traced the elements of the textual practices in Origen’s Caesarean school. I showed how Origen and his scholarly pursuits fit into the textual practices of other

Late Antique reading communities (Chapter One). A key feature in these textual practices was the analysis of a text by looking at features such as diction, problematic terms, historical elements, and theological problems. Many of these same features are also found in the Psalm

Homilies. In this chapter I will begin a preliminary examination of the Psalm Homilies, identifying some of the tracks of the reading ethos at Origen’s Caesarean school. In identifying the presence of these tracks, I argue that Origen understood there to be a direct link between his more advanced pedagogical activities and his preaching. In other words, in these homilies, I will show how Origen brought his classroom to the church. Or, it could perhaps be better put that through these allusions to his scholarly enterprise he invites his preaching audience into his classroom.

When I speak of the tracks of such scholarly activities, I have in mind primarily the textual practices that I showed in the second chapter. There are three different kinds of evidence. First, there are some tracks of evidence pertaining to Origen’s exegetical corpus, such as the Hexapla,

Commentary on Matthew, and the Commentary on Hosea, a text from which we only possess a small fragment in the Philocalia. Second, the more basic sense is that we see similar exegetical techniques, such as prosopology, and γλωσσηματικόν in these homilies. I will begin this chapter with the tracks of his exegetical corpus. Because there is so much overlap (my discussions of the

109 110 tracks of Origen’s scholarly works will include elements of grammatical analysis, for example), I have chosen not to include such tracks in my discussion of the particular reading habits. Instead,

I will limit that discussion to analyzing the tracks of zetetic reading found throughout these homilies. Third, I will also present some evidence of the ascetic dimension of reading in

Origen’s school. Specifically, there are signs that reading was a spiritual practice, cultivating the mind and nourishing the soul. While these tracks help us to fill out the picture of Origen’s scholarly activities, their presence in these homilies is also relevant for the relationship between

Origen’s school and the broader church in Caesarea.

3.1 Tracks of Origen’s Scholarly Works

3.1.1 The Hexapla

A central portion of the Psalm Homilies in which the reader finds an abundance of “tracks” is in the nine homilies on Psalm 77. Lorenzo Perrone has already shown how these nine homilies, especially the opening words of Hom. 1 in Ps. 77, “We often say (Πολλάκις λέγομεν)” reflect a school ethos.335 And while Perrone is correct that we should not therefore situate these homilies within the narrow confines of Origen’s school in Caesarea,336 this homily does present several tracks significant for reconstructing the activities in Origen’s school. These homilies allow us to fill out a more robust portrait of the group’s scholarly pursuits.

Immediately after his opening remark, Origen addresses a textual discrepancy in a copy of the

Gospel of Matthew in which Jesus cites Ps. 77:2:

335 Lorenzo Perrone, “Origen’s Interpretation of the Psalter Revisited: The Nine Homilies on Psalm 77(78) in the Munich Codex,” ASE. 36.1 (2019), 139. 336 Perrone, “Origen’s Interpretation of the Psalter Revisited,” 141-47.

111

Matthew was paraphrasing the verse thus stated here in such words, but a scribal error happened in the copies of the Gospel: “In order that,” it says, “what has been spoken by Isaiah may be fulfilled: ‘I will open my mouth in parables’” (Mt. 13:35). For, it is likely that one of the ancient scribes might not have considered, on the one hand, that Asaph was a prophet. On the other hand, having found the [passage], “in order that what has been said by Asaph may be fulfilled,” he supposed that it was a mistake and dared to make it Isaiah instead of Asaph owing to the strangeness of the name of the prophet.337

While Origen’s concern in this particular homily was not to guide his audience through an exercise of textual criticism, he did take the opportunity to discuss its utility as a defence against the devil,338 who exploited such discrepancies in the Bible to sow division in the church. He then describes the process of correcting such errors: “on the one hand, how much we laboured on account of God and his grace, comparing the Hebrew and the translations for the sake of knowing the correction of the errors, God knows, and on the other hand, as much as we desire to do regarding the remaining things, God will help.”339

337 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:351.10-17). Παραφράσαντος τὸ ῥητὸν τοιαύταις λέξεσιν οὕτως ἐνθάδε εἰρημένον τοῦ Ματθαίου, γέγονε δὲ περὶ τὰ ἀντίγραφα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου σφάλμα γραφικόν· ἵνα γάρ, φησί, πληρωθῇ τὸ εἰρημένον ὑπὸ Ἠσαΐου· ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου (Matt 13:35). Εἰκὸς γὰρ ἕνα τινὰ τῶν ἀρχῆθεν γραφόντων μὴ ἐπιστήσαντα μὲν ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ Ἀσὰφ προφήτης, εὑρόντα δὲ τὸ ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ εἰρημένον ὑπὸ Ἀσάφ, ὑπειληφέναι ὅτι ἁμάρτημά ἐστι καὶ τετολμηκέναι διὰ τὸν ξενισμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ προφήτου ποιῆσαι ἀντὶ τοῦ Ἀσὰφ Ἠσαΐου. Margaret Mitchell describes the historical background of this textual discrepancy in her essay, “Problems and Solutions in Early Christian Biblical Interpretation: A Telling Case from Origen’s Newly Discovered Greek Homilies on the Psalms,” in Adamantius 22 (2016), 44-47. 338 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:351.18-24). Καὶ καθόλου δὲ λεκτέον, ὅτι ζῶσιν ἐπιβουλεύει ὁ διάβολος καὶ τὰς ἐκκλησίας βούλεται διασκορπίζειν, ἐπινοεῖν δὲ καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν αἱρέσεις καὶ σχίσματα, ἔτι δὲ καὶ σκάνδαλα μυρία γεννᾶν ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. Οὐ θαυμαστὸν εἰ καὶ ταῖς γραφαῖς ἐπιβουλεύει· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡ σωτηρία ἡμῶν δι’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν, ἐπινοεῖ διαφωνίαν γενέσθαι ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς, ἵνα διὰ τῆς διαφωνίας γένηται σκάνδαλον τοῖς ἀναγινώσκουσι· τίνι προσακτέον, τῷδε ἤ τῷδε; “And in general, it must be said, that the devil conspires against the living and wishes to scatter the churches abroad, and to contrive heresies and schisms every day, and moreover to beget myriad stumbling blocks among people. It is no wonder if he even conspires against the scriptures: since our salvation is through them, he intends discord to happen in the scriptures, in order that through the discord, a stumbling-block might happen to the ones reading: which is applicable, this or that?” 339 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:351.24-352.2). Καὶ ὅσα μὲν διὰ τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὴν χάριν αὐτοῦ ἐκάμομεν, συνεξετάζοντες καὶ τὰ Ἑβραϊκὰ καὶ τὰς ἐκδόσεις ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἰδεῖν τὴν διόρθωσιν τῶν σφαλμάτων, οἶδεν· ὅσα δὲ θέλομεν καὶ περὶ τὰ λείποντα ποιῆσαι, αὐτὸς εὐδώσει.

112

The allusion here to the comparison of the Hebrew text and the different translations (ἐκδόσεις) for the sake of emendation (διόρθωσις) are clear tracks of Origen’s massive text-critical apparatus, the Hexapla. However, I suggest that we should not overlook the relevance of the nominative plural present participle “συνεξετάζοντες (comparing together)” and the first-person plural aorist verb “ἐκάμομεν (we laboured)” as tracks of Origen’s school activities. It could be argued, of course, that Origen is simply using the royal “We.” However, what we know about the Hexapla suggests that it would have required a significant amount of human infrastructure for its production.340

If this is the case, and I suspect it is, the reader wonders if Origen’s students were not in the audience themselves, and the audience would have understood to whom Origen was referring.

Were Ambrose and his family in attendance? That is certainly possible. It would be strange if

Origen’s dedicated pupils were not attending his homilies. We already saw the collaborative effort between Origen and Ambrose in their scholarly pursuits when Origen complained that

Ambrose left him no time for peace and quiet.341 We can thus envision that the plural participle

συνεξετάζοντες included at least Ambrose.

Origen’s immediate concern in this homily was not to discuss his school activities. Rather, he was making three exegetical and rhetorical points. First, Origen’s resolution of the text-critical dilemma pertaining to the Gospel of Matthew showed his audience the need to recognize scribal errors and how to emend them. Second, he also sought to preserve the integrity of the text against the criticisms of the Marcionites. Third, his immediate exegetical point was to demonstrate how the person speaking in Ps. 77:2 was Christ himself through his intertextual

340 Grafton and Williams, Transformation of the Book, 86-132. 341 Chapter 2, pp. 67-68, 72-73.

113 application to Matt. 13:35.342 However, as this chapter unfolds, I hope to show that such allusions also served Origen’s protreptic aims. That is to say, Origen was inviting his preaching audience to join his school in its scholarly pursuits, the “hallmark of advanced Christianity.”343

The school’s Hexaplaric activities appear several times in the Homilies on Psalm 77, indeed throughout the Psalm Homilies.344 In each of the other cases, Origen does not describe the process of emendation. He does, however, introduce variant readings of the passage under discussion. In Hom. 5 in Ps. 77, Origen provides the variant readings from the ἐκδόσεις regarding Ps. 77:31b (“He killed among their masses”), noting that what the copy (ἀντίγραφον) had was mistaken. The other translations (αἱ λοιπαὶ ἐκδόσεις) did not have “in their masses” but

“among their more comfortable ones (ἐν τοῖς λιπαρωτέροις),” which was in agreement with the

Hebrew. He then noted the text would not make any sense if “among their masses” was correct, because that would imply that only few remained.345

By “their more comfortable ones” Origen suggested that the meaning was the extent to which each person had sinned: “So, as much as they sinned, they became fat from the fleshly things, receiving back sin. On account of what is written: he killed neither “among their strong ones,” nor “among their weak ones,” but among their fat ones (Ps. 77:31b), among those having tracks in the flesh of what was desired.”346 This exegetical move allowed Origen to bring in a discussion about the different degrees of sin in his interpretation of Ps. 77:32.347

342 More on this point in Chapter Four. 343 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 89. 344 See Perrone’s more detailed analysis in “The Find of the Munich Codex,” 209-220. 345 Origen, Hom. 5.3 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:412.1-7). 346 Origen, Hom. 5.3 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:412.10-14). 347 More on this discussion in Chapter 5.

114

Interestingly, the verse on which Origen was preaching appears to have been the corrupt version.

Origen made no attempt to correct the text as it stood, confirming his remark in the Commentary on Matthew (“we dared not remove them altogether”) that I presented in the previous chapter.348

Rather, while the other translations, along with the Hebrew, appeared to have allowed Origen to discuss the sense of the verse, the fact that the mistaken copy was read at the liturgy questions an old assumption that the Hexapla was designed to “restore the LXX to its original purity.”349

Origen’s reluctance to completely remove scribal errors and the presence of such errors in lectionary readings would suggest that emendation did not include creating a new edition.

In a similar fashion, Origen introduces variant readings of Ps. 127:2 in order to demonstrate the different kinds of fruit in Ps. 77:46b. After alluding to variant readings between Matt. 3:10;

7:19, and Luke 3:9 in order to draw out his lesson on the different kinds of fruit,350 Origen introduces the ἐκδόσεις of Ps. 127:2 in order to discuss the different kinds of “labours” in Ps.

77:46b. He notes that the correct text of Ps.127:2 is not “the fruit of your labours you shall eat,” in the way that “some people understand it (τινες ὑπολαμβάνουσιν).” The correct (ἀκρίβεια) reading is “the labours of your fruits you shall eat,” noting that some also have “the labours of your hands you shall eat.” The righteous people, Origen said, “labour for the means of procuring more divine works and good deeds,” turning the verse into a beatitude for the scholar who

348 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.14 (Bendinelli 11/3:210). 349 Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, revised by Richard Rusden Ottley (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989), 68-69. While acknowledging that the purpose of the Hexapla was more complex than Swete argued, Grafton and Williams agreed that preserving the integrity of the LXX was one of Origen’s purposes. See Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 127. 350 Origen, Hom 7.4 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:442.9-17).

115 labours at his work.351 In contrast, the labours of sinners are given to the locust (Cf. Ps.

77:46b)352

In Hom. 8.9 in Ps. 77, Origen brings in the different Greek translations and the Hebrew text of

Ps. 77:63 (“Fire devoured their young men and their young girls were not mourned”).353

Origen’s discourse was based on the Greek text of the translations, which read “the young girls were not praised (οὐκ ἐπῃνέθησαν),” which seems to have been in agreement with the

Hebrew.354 A similar occurrence is in Hom. 9 in Ps. 77. Origen briefly remarked on Ps. 77:69

(“He built his holy place like that of unicorns”). Origen noted that the other translations have

“on the heights” instead of “like that of unicorns (ὡς μονοκερώτων).” The holy place, of course referred to Mt. Sion (Ps. 77:68), to which Origen applied Heb. 12:22 to bring out a spiritual interpretation. However, Origen preserved the LXX reading of “unicorns” telling his audience that it was used figuratively (τροπικῶς) in reference to those who are with God and gore the enemies with one horn.355

In the last three examples of Origen’s use of the Hebrew and the other Greek translations, his concern was not so much to emend the text as it was to expand on the semantic range of the LXX verse under discussion.356 It is significant to note as well that Origen was introducing variant readings of the Psalms. We know that Origen’s Hexapla covered the Psalter. We only possess it

351 Perrone, “The Find of the Munich Codex,” 215-16. 352 Origen, Hom. 7.4 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:443.3-6). 353 Origen’s text reads οὐκ ἐπῃνέθησαν instead of οὐκ ἐπενθήθησαν as it is found in the LXX. See also Perrone’s note (GCS 462:n.N). 354 Perrone notes that Aquila has οὐκ ὑμνήσθησαν (were not hymned) (GCS 19:463:n.P). 355 Origen, Hom. 9.5 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:476.1-8). 356 See Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the “Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim,” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993). For a similar use of the Hexaplaric enterprise in Origen’s Homilies on Jeremiah, see Wright, “Origen in the Scholar’s Den,” 48-62.

116 in small fragments, however, rendering any reconstruction almost impossible.357 Whatever the motives behind the making of the Hexapla, in the above cases Origen’s Hexapla on the Psalms was certainly used in his preaching activities. Whether it functioned to expand on the meaning of the biblical passage at hand, or as a polemical device designed to refute Marcion’s exegetical endeavors, its tracks are evident in the Psalm Homilies.

3.1.2 Tracks of the Commentaries and Treatises

It is noteworthy that the scribal error Origen mentioned in Hom. 1 in Ps. 77 comes from Matt.

13:35. This is significant because the extant text of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew begins at

Matt. 13:36. Do we thus have a track of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew not found in the extant version? It is important to note that in Hom. 1 in Ps. 77, the scribal error was not in the

Psalm, but in the Gospel of Matthew. As we saw in Chapter Two, Origen’s lengthy description of the text-critical process was situated not against discrepancies in the Old Testament. It was rather part of a discussion particular to a discrepancy in the synoptic accounts of the story of the rich young man (Matt. 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23).358

On the surface, one might wonder why Origen would discuss textual variants in a homily.

However, this was not an unusual phenomenon for the Alexandrian. What we see in the Psalm

Homilies is rather consistent with well-known cases in his Homilies on Jeremiah. In Hom. 16.10 in Jer. Origen alludes to a passage (Jer. 17:1) in the prophet not found in the Septuagint but is found in the ἐκδόσεις. He expressed some bewilderment at the omission of the passage in the

Septuagint. Then, after presenting the passage (“A sin of Judah is written with an iron pen, with

357 Gerard J. Norton, “The Fragments of the Hexapla of the Psalter and the Preparation of a Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible,” in Origeniana Sexta (Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 192. 358 See also, Wright, “Origen in the Scholars Den,” 55.

117 a diamond point it is engraved the tablet of their heart”), he proceeded to discuss Judah as a figurative expression (τροπικῶς) for Christ. The sin of Judah, then, referred to the sin of

Christians, inscribed on the heart, the inner part of the person.359 As in the Psalm Homilies,

Origen appears to use the variant readings for the pedagogical purpose of expanding the meaning of the verse for his audience.360

Returning to Hom. 1 in Ps. 77, immediately after the text-critical dilemma, Origen provided his audience with an exercise in prosopology:

As it is our custom (ἔθος ἡμῖν) in the psalms and the prophets to seek (ζητεῖν) who is the person speaking, so also here we must seek (ζητητέον) the one who is speaking. Then if, on the one hand, the one speaking did not say, in the Gospel According to Matthew, “so that” the prophecy being spoken “may be fulfilled:” “I will open my mouth in parables (Mt. 13:35),” I might doubt whether I ought to understand the saying “I will open my mouth in parables, and will utter problems from the beginning,” to pertain to the Saviour.361

The central text which allowed Origen to solve the scribal error in one of the copies of the

Gospel was Ps. 77:2. It is certainly possible that Origen treated this issue in a similar manner in the Commentary on Matthew. Unfortunately, since we do not possess Origen’s remarks on this verse in the Commentary on Matthew, this is only speculation.

359 Origen, Hom. 16.10 in Jer. Origenes Band 11: Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung – Die Homilien zum Buch Jeremiah, Eingeleitet und übersetzt von Alfons Fürst und John E. Lona (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 410. 360 There are several other instances of Origen discussing textual variants in the Jeremiah Homilies. See, for example, Hom. 8.1 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 230:17); Hom. 14.3 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 338:21-26); Hom. 15.5 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 382:21-384:1); Hom. 16.5 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 400:25-28); Hom. 18.6 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 448:20-24); Hom. 20.5 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 506:4-11). See also Wright, “Origen in the Scholar’s Den,” 61n28. 361 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:353.25-354.4). Ὡς ἔθος ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τῶν ψαλμῶν καὶ τῶν προφητειῶν ζητεῖν τί τὸ πρόσωπον τὸ λέγον, οὕτως καὶ ἐνθάδε ζητητέον τίς ὁ λέγων. Εἰ μὲν οὖν μὴ ἦκεν ὁ λὲγων τὸ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον, ἵνα πληρωθῇ ἡ προφητεία ἡ λέγουσα· ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, ἔμελλον ἀμφιβάλλειν πότερον ἐπὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος λαβεῖν με χρὴ τὸ ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.

118

Nevertheless, as we saw in the previous chapter, the leitmotif of the Commentary on Matthew was Jesus teaching the crowds in parables while explaining the parables to his disciples in private. Origen’s work on the Commentary on Matthew emerges at another point in this homily.

Preaching on Ps. 77:2 (“I will open my mouth in parables and utter problems from the beginning”), Origen drew a comparison to the philosophical practice of “problems and solutions.” Then, after using Gen. 1:16 as a biblical paradigm of a problem needing a solution, he uses Mark 4:34 to draw his audience into a dialectical encounter with Jesus in the act of reading scripture.362 Mark 4:34, as I showed in Chapter Two, was the same biblical paradigm

Origen used to situate his pupil’s advanced reading activities in the Commentary on Matthew.363

I will return to this passage in Chapter Four.

At the end of Hom. 3 in Ps. 77, The text from the Psalm reads: “that they did not believe in God, nor hope in his salvation” (Ps. 77:22). Origen first suggests that “it is not only good to believe

God (τῷ θεῷ), but also to believe in God (ἐν τῷ θεῷ),” citing the righteousness of Abraham who

“believed in God (τοῦ πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ θεῷ) in Gen. 15:6 (Cf. Rom. 4:3). He considers (οἶδα) there to be an implicit distinction (διαφορὰ) between “believing God (τοῦ πιστεύειν θεῷ)” and

“believing in God (τοῦ πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ θεῷ) using the use of the preposition “in (ἐν)” in Gen.

15:6. To further draw his audience into the interpretation, he sets for the question at hand:

“How, then, are we to understand believing ‘God (τῷ θεῷ)’ and believing ‘in him (ἐν αὐτῷ)’.”

Thus, the exegetical dilemma concerned the significance of the psalmist’s use of the preposition in 77:22.

362 Origen, Hom. 1.6 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:362.17-363.13). 363 See above, p. 27. Also, Comm. in Matt. 14.11 (Bendinelli 11/3:104).

119

At this time, Origen recalls his exegetical activity on the Gospel of Matthew: “I remember the evangelical expression which I interpreted (Μέμνημαι ῥητοῦ εὐαγγελικοῦ ὅ διηγησάμην),”364 and mobilizes Matt. 10:32-33 to support his interpretation of the Psalm: “he who confesses in me before men, I too will confess in him before my Father in heaven: and, he who will deny me, I too will deny.” He noted the absence of the prepositional phrase “in him” in the second clause in the Matthaean text. The one who confesses has Christ “in” him, but the one who denies, because the one who denies is not “in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ),” does not have Christ “in” him. In the homily,

Origen applied that same interpretation to the Psalm at hand: “In this sentence (Τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ) then, believing ‘in the God (τὸ πιστεῦσαι “εν τῷ θεῷ”)’ is something greater than believing God

(τοῦ πιστεῦσαι “τῷ θεῷ”).”365 Through his intertextual application of Matt. 10:32-33 and Gen.

15:6. Origen expanded on the semantic range of Ps. 77:22, turning it into a teaching about spiritual progress, advancing from believing “in God (τῷ θεῷ)” to believing “in God (ἐν τῷ

θεῷ).”366

Origen’s reminiscence of his work on Matthew 10:32-33 could have its source in his Exhortation to Martyrdom. There, Origen was discussing the importance of confessing God in the face of persecutors, encouraging Ambrose and Protectetus with the promise of Matt. 10:32 for those who confess Christ.367 His discussion in EM, however, does not exhibit any concern with the use of the preposition. Origen was more concerned to distinguish the rewards for maintaining one’s faith in the face of death and the punishments for those who deny Christ. Therefore, and in light

364 Origen, Hom. 3.5 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:388.29). 365 Origen, Hom. 3.5 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:389.7-8). 366 Origen, Hom. 3.5 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:389.8-10). ἀρχὴ δὲ προκοπῆς τὸ πιστεύειν θεῷ, ἵνα μετὰ τοῦτο γενόμενοι ἐν τῷ θεῷ καὶ στάντες πιστεύσωμεν αὐτῷ τῷ θεῷ. The beginning of progress is believing in God, in order that after this, we who are with and have stood firm with God might also believe in God himself.” 367 Origen, EM. 10 (GCS 1:10.19-27). See the English translation by Rowan Greer in Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1979), 47- 48.

120 of the significant attention to grammatical analysis in the Commentary on Matthew I showed in the previous chapter, I assert that this is a track of his Commentary on Matthew. Unfortunately, the extant version of the Commentary on Matthew does not contain Origen’s treatment of that verse.

Origen’s attention to grammatical details brings us back to Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77, and his reference to the practice of prosopology. We saw above Origen allude to “our custom (ἔθος ἡμῖν) in the case of the psalms and prophets to seek (ζητεῖν) who is the person speaking (πρόσωπον τὸ

λέγον).”368 Prosopology is a well attested practice in Origen’s scholarly works,369 and I take the use of the plural pronoun (ἡμῖν) to be a direct track of such scholarly activities. We see it, for example, in Origen’s Commentary on John, when he refutes Heracleon’s interpretation of John.

We also see it in a Greek fragment of his Commentary on the Song of Songs, preserved in the

Philocalia.370 Noteworthy from the fragment of the Commentary on the Song of Songs is that

Origen provides an illustration of a prosopological conundrum pertaining to Ps. 108:1-2.371

Some people attributed those words to Jesus. Origen, however, introduces Peter’s words in Acts

1:16,20 to demonstrate how the Holy Spirit was the one speaking about Judas in the Psalm.372

368 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:353.25-26). 369 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 58-59; Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 263-76. 370 Phil. 7.1 (SC 302: 326.1-9). “Anyone who does not understand the peculiar character of the persons in scripture (τὸ ἰδίωμα τῶν προσώπων τῆς γραφῆς), both regarding the speakers and those for whom the word is addressed, is very confused about what is spoken (πολλὴν παρέχει σύγχυσιν τὰ λεγόμενα) … For it often happens that the same person is addressed, though a third person speaks to him; or the person addressed is no longer the same, and a different person takes up what is said, while the same person speaks.” See Harl’s commentary (SC 302:330-33). 371 Phil. 7.2 (SC 302:328.1-). In the psalm written about Judas, someone might say that this is not the Holy Spirit speaking: for, clearly the words are of the Saviour, who says: ‘O God, do not pass over my praise in silence, because a sinner’s mouth and a deceiver’s mouth were opened against me (Ps. 108:1-2), and what follows until “and let another take his position (108:8).” 372 Phil. 7.2 (SC 302:328.6-17).

121

The Prophet Hosea also figures prominently in the homilies on Ps. 77. In the previous chapter, I analyzed a fragment of Origen’s Commentary on Hosea preserved in the Philocalia, a work considered to have been composed around the same time as the Psalm Homilies.373 We saw that

Origen’s discussion was on solecisms in the Bible. That may have been the grammatical lesson in that fragment. We saw, however, that Origen drew out a theological meaning from the apparently incoherent shift from the singular to the plural. The singular referred to the Christians united in Jesus, while the plural signified the multiplicity of sinners. Origen’s concerns there appear consistent with a discussion of schism in Hom. 2 in Ps. 77.

Earlier in his Hom. 2 in Ps. 77, Origen used Jeroboam and the sons of Ephraim as a model for contemporary schisms in the Church.374 In the next section, he turns to the prophet’s description of the sons of Ephraim, particularly Hos. 6:12-7:2, in which Jeroboam invented festivals and false deities. Jeroboam’s festival, however, was a “symbol (σύμβολον)” for the gnostic “myths, aeons and pairs (μύθους, αἰῶνας καὶ συζυγίας).”375 Origen spoke from experience, however, in a fascinating autobiographical anecdote:

And we know this from experience; indeed, in our childhood heresies flourished and many seemed to adhere to them. In fact, those who were eager for the doctrines of Christ, unable to procure capable teachers in the Church, imitated those who, in famine, eat human flesh, and they withdrew from the right doctrine, attended to any teaching, and their schools were assembled together. But when the grace of God illuminated a better teaching, the heresies dissolved day by day: and their doctrines held to be mysterious are exposed to derision and shown to be blasphemies, impious and godless words. On which account it is said in the prophet: When I turn the captivity of my people, when I have healed Israel. Then

373 Heine places Origen’s commentaries on the Minor Prophets in his later years at Caesarea. Scholarship in the Service of the Church, 220. 374 Origen, Hom. 2.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:368.6-369.17). 375 Origen, Hom. 2.3 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:370.13-371.4).

122

the injustice of Ephraim and the injustice of Samaria will be revealed (Hos. 6:12-7:1).376

I cannot be certain that Origen’s Commentary on Hosea would have included a similar discussion. However, the content of the discussions of the commentary and this homily are strikingly similar.377 In each case, Origen was contrasting the unity of the church with the multiplicity either of sin, or of heretical doctrines.

We are, nevertheless, on more solid grounds identifying the “tracks” of the Hosea Commentary in Origen’s Hom. 9 in Ps. 77. There Origen briefly remarks on the verse, and he did not chose the tribe of Ephraim (Ps. 77:67b), “hear what is said to be about the heterodox (περὶ τῶν

ἑτεροδόξων), as we have observed (τετηρήκαμεν) in the things treated by us on Hosea (ἐν τοῖς

εἰς τὸν Ὠσηὲ ἡμῖν πραγματευθεῖσιν).”378 Not only was the preacher’s concern to link the sons of

Ephraim with contemporary heretics, but we see here a direct reference to the works on Hosea.

The reference is rather striking in that, not only did Origen use the first plural (τετηρήκαμεν) and the dative plural pronoun (ἡμῖν), again highly suggestive of the school custom, but one almost gets the sense that Origen expected his audience to consult the commentary themselves. At any rate, Origen seems to jettison a more detailed analysis of Ps. 77:67b for the sake of brevity, and if his audience wanted to learn more, they knew where to go.

376 Origen, Hom. 2.4 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19371.15-372.8). Καὶ τοῦτο τῇ πείρᾳ ἴσμεν· ἐν γὰρ τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ πάνυ ἤνθουν αἱ αἱρέσεις καὶ ἐδόκουν πολλοὶ εἶναι οἱ ἐν αὐταῖς συναγόμενοι. Ὅσοι γὰρ ἦσαν λίχνοι περὶ τὰ μαθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, μὴ εὐποροῦντες ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ διδασκάλων ἱκανῶν, διὰ λιμὸν μιμούμενοι τοὺς ἐν λιμῷ ἐσθίοντας κρέα ἀνθρώπινα, ἀφιστάμενοι τοῦ ὑγιοῦς λόγου, προσεῖχον λόγοις ὁποιοισδήποτε, καὶ ἦν συγκροτούμενα αὐτῶν τὰ διδασκαλεῖα. Ὅτε δὲ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπέλαμψε διδασκαλίαν πλείονα, ὁσημέροι αἱ αἱρέσεις κατελύοντο καὶ τὰ δοκοῦντα αὐτῶν ἀπόρρητα παραδειγματίζεται καὶ δείκνυται βλασφημίαι ὄντα καὶ λόγοι ἀσεβεῖς καὶ ἄθεοι. Διὸ λέγεται ἐν τῇ προφητείᾳ· ἐν τῷ ἐπιστρέφειν με τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν τοῦ λαοῦ μου, ἐν τῷ ἰάσασθαί με τὸν Ἰσραήλ. Καὶ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται ἡ ἀδικία Ἐφραῒμ καὶ ἡ ἀδικία Σαμαρείας. 377 See also Perrone, “The Find of the Munich Codex,” 223-27. 378 Origen, Hom. 9.6 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:475.15-17). For Origen’s heresiological concerns in his Commentary on Hosea, see Perrone, “The Find of the Munich Codex,” 224. For the significance of this passage for the dating of the Psalm Homilies, see p.228 of the same article.

123

The grammatical practices found in the preceding discussion bring us to a track found in Hom. 1 in Ps. 67, while Origen was preaching on the petition in Ps. 67:2-4.379 Origen focused on the

“custom in scripture” to use the imperative mood when uttering a prayer instead of the optative

(ἔθος ἐστὶ τῇ γραφῇ πολλαχοῦ τοῖς προστακτικοῖς ἀντὶ εὐκτικῶν χρῆσθαι). Following his consistent approach of explaining one biblical verse through the application of another verse,

Origen turned to the Lord’s Prayer as a paradigm for this customary practice of the biblical authors. Origen noted that Jesus taught the disciples to pray to the Father not in order to

“command God (οὐ διδάσκει ἵνα προστάσσωμεν τῷ θεῷ), but to express wishes with the imperative (ἵνα προστακτικαῖς φωναῖς εἴπωμεν τὰ εὐκτικά).” He then cites the Matthaean version of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9-10), in which the author used the imperatives ἁγιασθήτω,

ἐλθέτω, and γενηθήτω instead of the optative forms ἀγιασθείη, ἔλθοι, and γένοιτο.380

Origen’s lesson for his audience was that, while the Bible uses the imperative, that does not mean that people can make commands of God. That would be too audacious for a human being.

However, Origen speculated that perhaps there is someone more audacious (τολμηρότερος), who could speak to God in the imperative with a certain boldness (μετά τινος παρρησίας).381 This lesson on prayer, based on a grammatical analysis, has a direct parallel with Origen’s exegesis of the Lord’s Prayer found in On Prayer.382 In that case, Origen’s target was Tatian, who mistakenly interpreted the commands in the first chapter of Genesis as God praying for there to

379 “Let God rise and let his enemies be scattered abroad, and let the ones hating him flee from his face: let them vanish as smoke vanishes, as wax melts from the presence of fire, so too may sinners perish from the face of God and the let the righteous ones be gladdened, let them rejoice in God's presence, let them be delighted with gladness” (Ps. 67:1b-3 LXX). 380 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 67 (GCS 19:175.1-8). 381 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 67 (GCS 19:175.19-176.3). 382 Compare Orat. 24.5 (GCS 2:355.22-356.1). ἔτι περὶ τοῦ «ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομα σου» καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς προστακτικῷ χαρακτῆρι εἰρημένων λεκτέον ὅτι συνεχῆς προστακτικοῖς ἀντὶ εὐκτικῶν εχρήσαντο καὶ οἱ ἑρμηνεύσαντες. “Furthermore, because “hallowed be your name” and the things that follow are spoken in the imperative mood, it must be said that the translators constantly use the imperative instead of the optative.”

124 be light, and so on.383 While Tatian does not appear in Hom. 1 in Ps. 67, the lesson Origen drew for his audience on that occasion certainly has its roots in the theological problem posed by

Tatian’s interpretation of Gen. 1, and Origen’s response to it in On Prayer.

3.1.3 Tracks of Zetetic Reading

Perhaps the reading practice regarding which Origen left us the most tracks in these Psalm

Homilies was the zetetic method.384 In Chapter Two, I demonstrated how pervasive this research program was in Origen’s scholarly enterprise. That is no less the case in the Psalm Homilies.

Above, I showed the tracks of prosopology, especially in Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77. It is significant that he began that particular discourse with an allusion to the “ethos (ἔθος ἡμῖν)” of inquiring (ζητεῖν) into the person speaking in the text, followed by an exhortation to “inquire (ζητητέον)” into the person speaking in the text.385 Such language abounds in these homilies, oftentimes either through autobiographical reflection, or with a prompt as in Hom. 1 in Ps. 77. Because of the prevalence of this form of reading in the Psalm Homilies, I will not provide an exhaustive analysis of these tracks. I will simply present two cases in order to demonstrate the practice.386

In the prologue to Hom. 5 in Ps. 77, Origen wonders about the Israelites complaining about the nourishment God was providing them in the desert, with allusions to Deut. 11:20 where God sent the Israelites quails. He looks throughout the scriptures, using 1 Cor. 2:13 as a prompt, and identified two separate accounts of people eating quails, in Exod. 16:13 and Num. 11:31-32;

21:5, and juxtaposed the two accounts and asks why, in the first case, God’s anger did not rise up

383 Origen, Orat. 24.5 (GCS 2:356.6-25). 384 Lorenzo Perrone has done substantial research on Origen’s use of the “zetetic method. See, for example, “‘Quaestiones et responsiones’ in Origene: Prospettive di un’ analisi formale dell’argomentazione esegetico- teologica,” in Cristianesimo nella Storia 15 (1994), 1-50. In the Psalm Homilies, see Perrone, “La mia gloria è la mia lingua,” 185-92. 385 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:353.25-26). 386 For a more detailed discussion, I refer the reader to Perrone’s “La mia gloria è la mia lingua,” 185-92.

125 against the people, but in the second case it did. Origen thus established the exegetical question for his audience. What was different in the two cases from Exodus and Numbers? While this might appear an irrelevant question for modern readers, for Origen, scripture always possessed an internal logic, even if such logic was not visible at first glance. At such points where the scripture appears to be inconsistent or illogical, the reader was prompted to search for an explanation.387

At this point, Origen shed light upon his own mental processes as a reader demonstrating for his audience how the research program was to be done: “Indeed, seeking by myself (ζητῶν

κατ’ἐμαυτὸν) and desiring to discover and to receive from God, I was considering something like this.”388 This led Origen into a discussion of the proper use and misuse of bodily things

(σωματικοὶ). He notes that some people use bodily things out of necessity (ἀναγκαίως), but there are times when people use them when it is not necessary (οὐκ ἀναγκαίως). When people use them out of necessity, they receive greater benefits (πρὸς τοῖς κρείττοσίν), but when bodily things are not necessary, such benefits are prevented (ἀπέστραπται τὰ κρείττονα). This was the distinction in the accounts from Exodus and Numbers.

Origen was quick to point out, that in Exodus, the people ate the quails along with the manna

(ἔφαγον ὀρτυγομήτραν μετὰ τοῦ ἔχειν τὸ μάννα), while in Numbers they complained about the manna.389 The essential difference between the accounts in Exodus and Numbers was that in

Exodus, the people accepted both the manna and quails (spiritual and bodily things) as necessary, but in Numbers the people rejected the spiritual and demanded the bodily. Origen’s research into

387 Perrone, “La mia gloria è la mia lingua,” 186. 388 Origen, Hom. 5.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:410.8-9). 389 Origen, Hom. 5.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:410.15).

126 the initial question (why God’s anger rose against the people in one case of the quails, but not the other) led him into what demarcates the boundaries between the proper use of bodily objects and the improper use of them.

His research continued as he returned to the passage from the Psalm at hand (God’s anger rose against them – Ps. 77:31), this time, however, seeking a mystical (μυστικόν) meaning: “Let me inquire (ζητῶ) also into [the verse] God’s anger rose against them. He contrasts the man who is not in sin (οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει ἄνθρωπος), in whom anger remains in the lower part (ἡ ὀργὴ κάτω

ἐστὶ κειμένη), with the sinner, upon whom the anger came (ἡ δὲ ὀργὴ ἐπαναβαίνει αὐτῷ). In this case, Origen briefly notes that the anger “rose,” because it was residing in the lower part of the soul (ἀνέβη, ὡς κάτω που οὖσα).390 Origen’s comparison of the different verses led him to formulate two lessons for his audience. One lesson pertained to the proper use of physical objects. The other lesson was on the nature of anger.

In a similar autobiographical track, Origen leads his audience through a discussion of Ps. 77:52

(God led his people like sheep). In this case, it reads as if Origen was reflecting on his own preparation for this homily:

Searching the scripture (ἐρευνῶν τὴν γραφὴν) according to my ability and wanting to be persuaded by my Lord who says Search the scriptures (John 5:39), I was inquiring by myself (ἐζήτουν κατ’ ἐμαυτὸν) if at first it happened that the people of God were called sheep being removed from God, but the second time they were not sheep but already a flock, and when they were called sheep, God removed his people like sheep: but when they were a flock, he led them like a flock in the desert (Ps. 77:52). And, inquiring (ζητῶν) I discovered that it follows (ἀκολουθεῖ) first that his people were removed like sheep, and then they are led like a flock in the desert.391

390 Origen, Hom. 5.3 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:410.24-411.1). 391 Origen, Hom. 8.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:451.17-452.2).

127

Prior to their exodus from Egypt, they were not a unified group, but existed like individual sheep. After their departure, however, they became one united flock gathered together into

God’s oikonomia. As in Hom. 5 in Ps. 77, Origen provides us with a glimpse into his research methodology, and the mental operations of a reader.

The result of the research, however, is not what is most important here. What is significant for my purpose is the beginning of the exercise. Origen wonders what a passage could mean, and he shows his audience how he arrived at his interpretation. In so doing, he also showed his audience how they could research on their own. This is similar to what I showed regarding his Scholium on Exodus. These are some of the “tracks” of the zetetic ethos of Origen’s scholastic enterprise.

I suggest that Origen conducted these inquiries privately, rather than in the context of a classroom activity. This is not, however, inconsistent with my broader argument that these tracks give us access to the school activities. I suspect that the two previous examples from his

Homilies on Ps. 77 reflect a preacher preparing for his homily. In each case, the inquiry was a means of explaining the psalm at hand, as if he were reading and preparing in advance of preaching. If this is the case, we see Origen’s, and his school’s, habitual method of study mobilized for the purposes of preaching. This will become significant in the next two chapters as I am trying to show how Origen was attempting to develop Christian readers.

So far, I have shown some tracks of Origen’s literary practices in the Psalm Homilies. Equally important, however, are the attitudinal tracks, or evidence of the disposition towards reading that

Origen cultivated in his school. Therefore, I will now turn to a discussion of these tracks and explore how Origen envisioned the aims of his scholarly enterprise.

128

3.2 Reading as a Spiritual Exercise

Preaching on Ps. 80:10 (“Open wide your mouth and I will fill it”), Origen began with a confession of his own inability to understand this passage: “Furthermore, we should know what

God commands us. For, God speaks a certain term (λέξις), for which I need him, in order to comprehend what it means.”392 He then challenged his critics who did not appreciate his allegorical interpretations to explain how this passage could make sense without recourse to allegory. He asked rhetorically: “Am I to understand it that the Word wants us to open our lips wider? How is it not shameful to think that God has said these things? So, how is anyone supposed to explain these things except in a figurative way?”393

In order to give an adequate interpretation of this puzzling passage, Origen provided one of his common interpretive principles: the principle that scripture often used sense organs to signify the spiritual senses. So, in this case, it was not the physical mouth, but the spiritual mouth spoken of in this psalm. “In this way, it seems to me that the mouth of our soul is filled.”394 Having thus established the allegorical interpretation, Origen then moved to his understanding of the formative process of reading scripture:

The mouth of our soul is filled, on the one hand, by the constant study of the holy letters, but it is constricted when we do not know the psalm, when we know neither the gospel text, nor anything else of the holy letters. And we, who do not know in the beginning what the letters mean, if we study them, we begin to fill our mouth, through the study of the letters desiring to memorize the Law and the Prophets, the Gospels and the Apostles...For as much as I fill

392 Origen, Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:501.25-26). Λέξιν γάρ τινα λέγει, εἰς ἥν δέομαι αὐτοῦ, ἵνα νοήσω τί λέγει. 393 Origen, Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:502.3-6). Ἆρα γὰρ διανοῖξαι αὺτὸ καὶ πλατύτερα ποιῆσαι τὰ χείλη βούλεται ἡμᾶς ὁ λὸγος; Καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν αἰσχρὸν νομίζειν ταῦτα τὸν θεὸν εἰρηκέναι; Πῶς οὖν ταῦτα τίς διηγήσεται μὴ τροπολογήσας τὸν τόπον; 394 Origen, Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:502.13-14). Τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον νόει μοι τὸ στόμα τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν πλατύνεσθαι.

129

the mouth, as much as I study, so much more will I be filled: and I come studying nothing other than the text, I am filled full of the mind of the divine letters.395

Important in this passage is Origen's reference to the “constant study” of scripture. The Greek word μελέτη, and the verb μελετάω, present the translator with some difficulty. It can simply be translated as “study,” as in this passage. However, the sense is more nuanced than the English term “study” can convey. It refers to a certain disposition towards a text reflected in careful examination.396

Origen provides us with an example of its meaning in de Principiis. Discussing the inspiration of the biblical text, Origen says that the reader himself can discover the inspiration simply through a reading of the text:

The one who reads (ἐντυγχάνων) the prophetic words with care and attention (μετ’ ἐπιμελείας καὶ προσοχῆς), experience from the act of reading itself a trace of divine inspiration, and through that which he experiences (δι’ ὧν πάσχει) will be persuaded that the words believed by us to be of God are not the compositions of human beings.397

This attentive, scholarly approach to biblical reading involved paying attention to the movements of the soul, expressed here as “through that which he experiences (δι’ ὧν πάσχει),” This certainly appears to be the case elsewhere when Origen applied the term and its derivatives.398

395 Origen, Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:502.13-26). τὸ στόμα τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν πλατύνεσθαι μὲν τῇ μελέτῃ τῇ συνεχεῖ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων, στενοῦσθαι δὲ ὅτε οὐκ οἴδαμεν οὐδὲ ψαλμόν, ὅτε οὐκ οἴδαμεν οὐδὲ ῥητὸν εὐαγγελικόν, οὐδὲ ἁλλο τι τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων...ὅσον γὰρ πλατύνω τὸ στόμα, ὅσον μελετῶ, τοσοῦτον μᾶλλον πληροῦται· καὶ ἔρχομαι οὐδὲν μελετήσας ἤ τὸ ῥητόν, πληροῦται τοῦ νοῦ τῶν θείων γραμμάτων. There is a very similar statement in Hom. 2.4 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:318.5-320:2). 396 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 172-73. 397 Origen, de Prin. 4.1.6. 398 Martens provides some helpful examples in Origen and Scripture, 172-73.

130

However, besides “study,” it can also mean “meditation,” or “training,” and in medical contexts can mean, “to take care for,” or “acquire a habit.”399 So, a certain kind of reading ethos emerges in this rich spiritual interpretation of Ps. 80:10: a meditative reader. Pierre Hadot traced the complex usage of μελέτη in the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition. Identifying it as a

“spiritual exercise” outlined in Philo’s Allegorical Interpretations, Hadot argued that μελέτη allowed for the engraving of “striking maxims in our memory” so that one can accept difficult circumstances in life as they arise.400 The purpose of these spiritual exercises was not the mere acquisition of knowledge, but rather to improve one’s life.401 Given the Philonic and Stoic precedence, it is not a stretch to suggest that this is what was going on in the passage from

Origen above. Origen was not speaking solely of “study” in a purely academic sense. Rather, we must appreciate the spiritual dimension of “study” in Origen’s worldview. Studying scripture was itself a spiritual exercise with the end being spiritual knowledge.

In the Egyptian monastic tradition, monastic teachers used μελέτη/μελετάω as a spiritual practice of recitation and psalmody. Such constant meditation cultivated a proper disposition for prayer so that the words of the biblical text cause prayer to arise spontaneously.402 Latin writers such as

John Cassian and Jerome in his Latin Psalter, translated these terms into Latin as meditatio and meditari. More than a simple strategy to aid memorization, it was a practice oriented towards transformation and fostering an appropriate disposition for prayer. 403 It is important to note here that Columba Stewart drew a distinction in the Egyptian monastic practice. Prayer was not

399 LSJ., μελετάω. 400 Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life," trans. Michael Chase, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1995), 84-85. 401 Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life, 83. 402 Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 101-02. 403 Stewart, Cassian the Monk, 102.

131 synonymous with μελέτη/μελετάω. Rather, the latter served as a preparatory exercise for the practice of prayer.

While it might be anachronistic to apply the fourth-century monastic usage to Origen, reading the aforementioned passage from Hom. 2 in Ps. 80 in this historical context sheds light on

Origen’s thought. When preaching on Ps. 80, he was not talking about a purely academic exercise. He was rather speaking about a spiritual practice, reading scripture as a medium for contemplation and prayer. Opening the mouth was the equivalent of asking Jesus Christ for the explanations of the mysteries of the scriptures.

In light of this observation, Paul Kolbet’s essay on Origen’s use of allegory is informative. He suggests that Origen’s allegorical interpretation was not a means of extracting meaning from the text. Rather, he argues that allegory was rooted in Origen’s understanding that exegesis was a spiritual exercise, plotting out the “mind’s path to ever more stable forms of perception.”404

Origen’s exegesis was, according to Kolbet, primarily an act of prayer.405 Such a spiritual exercise was not a means of identifying any objective meaning of the Bible. To be sure, Origen was certainly concerned with such questions. That was not, however, his sole aim. He was as much concerned with scholarship as a means of cultivating the mind’s capacity to reason and think clearly. Biblical scholarship, in particularly spiritual or “noetic” exegesis was, in other words, a means of cultivating the νοῦς, attained through habitual practice and immersion.406

While Origen does not provide a formula for how such a process unfolded, I suggest that the dynamic relationship implied in this passage, namely, dedicated study on the part of the reader,

404 Paul Kolbet, “Rethinking the Rationales for Origen’s Use of Allegory,” SP 56.4 (2013), 46. 405 Kolbet, “Rethinking the Rationales,” 46-48. 406 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 267-68.

132 and filling the spiritual mouth with the meaning of the divine scriptures on the part of God, is consistent with what we have already seen scattered throughout Origen’s works. For example, in

Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77, Origen’s statement that “how much we laboured on account of God and his grace, comparing the Hebrew and the translations for the sake of knowing the correction of the errors, God knows, and on the other hand, as much as we desire to do regarding the remaining things, God will help”407 is indicative of his assumptions regarding the dialectic between God and man in the act of reading.

Furthermore, in Hom. 2 in Ps. 80, Origen alludes to one of his favourite tropes, the spiritual organs, in order to describe the act of spiritual reading. In this case, it is the “mouth of the soul

(τὸ στόμα τῆς ψυχῆς)” through which the divine mind enters. It suffices to draw a comparison between this passage from Hom. 2 in Ps. 80, with the intertextual reading of Matt.13:35 and

Mark 4:34 in Hom. 1.6 in Ps. 77 and in Comm. in Matt. 14.11-12.408 In the latter two cases,

Christ himself unveiled the deeper meaning of scripture directly to the heart, or ἡγεμονικόν of the reader. While Origen does not apply the same terminology in Hom. 2 in Ps. 80, the thought is consistent. With sufficient effort on the part of the reader, God responds by disclosing the meaning that transcends human language and thought in or through the organs capable of receiving such a teaching.409

Another feature of reading in Origen’s school is captured in Hom. 2 in Ps. 80: the centrality of the biblical text as the object of study. Certainly, when Origen said, “I come studying nothing other than the text,” we do not have to take him at face value. There is enough evidence of the

407 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:351.24-352.2). 408 Origen, Hom. 1.6 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:363.7-13); Comm. in Matt. 14.11 (Bendinelli 11/3:104). 409 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 225-26.

133 use of non-Christian sources in Origen’s curriculum to dispel any romantic notion that Origen only provided biblical instruction. In any event, we saw Origen himself allude to Philo, Sextus

Empiricus, and Josephus, in his Commentary on Matthew. Moreover, Gregory Thaumaturgus lauded Origen for opening his students up to a broad spectrum of philosophical teachers, except the atheists.410 Nevertheless, the Bible provided the central axis around which the school’s activities revolved.

In light of that, Origen expressed a similar sentiment in his Letter to Gregory, written in response to the latter’s departure from the school:

Now you, my son, attend above all else (προηγουμένως πρόσεχε) to the reading of the divine scriptures: but really, do attend (ἀλλὰ πρόσεχε) … And, attending to the reading of the divine scriptures with faith and a predisposition pleasing to God, knock at its closed door, and it will be opened to you by the doorkeeper of whom Jesus said: ‘To this one the doorkeeper opens’ (John 10:3). And attending to this divine reading (προσέχων τῇ θείᾳ ἀναγνώσει), seek correctly (ὀρθῶς ζήτει) and with an unshaken faith in God the mind of the divine letters (νοῦν τῶν θείων γραμμάτων) hidden from the multitude. Do not be content with knocking and seeking, for prayer is most necessary for understanding the divine scriptures.411

This was advice Origen gave to one of his students, presumably a very learned Christian who would have understood what Origen meant by the attentive reading of scripture. Compare this, however, with a fascinating passage from Hom. 2 in Ps. 80, immediately following the aforementioned spiritual reading of Ps. 80:10:

if what is being said is in need of further proof (ἔτι μᾶλλον κατασκευάσαι), I will provide something like that that happens with our colleagues (ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς). Often times, someone

410 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Remerciement à Origène, 13.151-52 (SC 148:158.7-16). 411 Origen, EpGreg, 4 (SC 148:192.80-194.1).

134

arrives seeking to learn the ideas hidden in holy scripture (ζητῶν ματεῖν νοήματα κείμενα ἐν τῇ ἱερᾷ γραφῇ), and the things secretly hidden, neither having known the gospel text, nor having memorized the apostolic teaching, nor having known what the prophet says or what has been written in this book (i.e. the Psalms). Someone might appropriately (εὐκαίρως) say to that person: “open wide your mouth, if you want your mouth to be filled by learning these things about which you inquire.” So, if someone is about to understand the holy letters, let him have no other preparation than what he has from memory of the scriptures (μὴ ἄλλην παρασκευὴν ἐχέτω ἤ ἀπὸ τῆς μνήμης ἐχέτω τῶν γραφῶν): for we speak divine things not in the learned words of human wisdom, but in the learned [words] of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things to spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:13).412

If we compare the passage from Hom. 2 in Ps. 80 with the passage from Origen’s Letter to

Gregory, we see a consistent attitude towards the place of scripture study within Origen’s vision of Christian paideia. In such a light, it is striking to find this discussion in a homily. By presenting his audience with a picture of what happens when a new student arrives to embark on his or her studies, this passage takes on the feel of an advertisement. In other words, Origen is not simply telling his audience what happens in his school, but he seems to be opening an invitation for them to join in the scholarly enterprise. At least, he appears to be marketing his product for anyone who might want to join.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have highlighted some of the “tracks” of Origen’s school activities in the Psalm

Homilies. I have shown tracks of the school’s Hexaplaric endeavors, as well as tracks of some of

412 Origen, Hom. 2 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:503.5-14). εἰ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔτι μᾶλλον κατασκευάσαι τὸ λεγόμενον, τοιοῦτόν τι παραθήσομαι γενόμενον ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. Πολλάκις ἔρχεταί τις ζητῶν μαθεῖν νοήματα κείμενα ἐν τῇ ἱερᾶ γραφῇ, καὶ κεκρυμμένως κείμενα, μηδὲ εἰδὼς ῥητὸν εὐαγγελικόν, μηδὲ μεμνημένος λόγου ἀποστολικοῦ, μὴ εἰδὼς τί προφήτης λέγει καὶ τί δὲ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῷδε γέγραπται. Εἴποι δ’ ἄν τις πρὸς ἐκεῖνον εὐκαίρως· «πλάτυνον τὸ στόμα σου, εἰ θέλεις πληρωθῆναι τὸ στόμα σου διὰ τοῦ μανθάνειν ταῦτα, περὶ ὧν πυνθάνῃ». Ἐὰν οὖν τις μέλλοι νοεῖν τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα, μὴ ἄλλην παρασκευὴν ἐχέτω ἤ ἀπὸ τῆς μνήμης ἐχέτω τῶν γραφῶν· λαλοῦμεν γὰρ τὰ θεῖα οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις, ἀλλ’ ἐν διδακτοῖς πνεύματος, πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες.

135 the commentaries produced in the school, such as the Matthew and Hosea Commentaries, and

On Prayer. Furthermore, I identified a track of a meditative reading practice behind Origen’s use of the verb μελετάω in Hom. 2 in Ps. 80. Taken together, the tracks paint a picture of a reading ethos that went beyond mere study. Bible reading provided the group’s raison d’être.

Reading and biblical scholarship was a meditative means of training the intellect, cultivating its ability to grasp abstract concepts and divine truths. The effort, however, was toilsome and included a wide range of activities, such as textual criticism, grammatical analysis, and dialectics. Each of which were means to the direct encounter with the Logos, who filled the mind of the reader with mind of the Bible.

As interesting as it is that these tracks are found in the Psalm Homilies, a more important question pertains to the purpose of such tracks. It is difficult to believe that Origen was simply providing autobiographical details for his audience. Rather, I argue that Origen’s entire purpose in these homilies was either to persuade his audience to join him and his students in their scholarly pursuits, or to at least cultivate similar reading habits in his audience. In other words,

Origen was preaching in order to create a Christian reading culture. In the next chapter, I will take a closer look at two select Psalm Homilies to trace this process through entire homilies. In the final chapter I will take a broader look at how Origen applied the concept “purity of heart” to the Christian reader in the midst of all the distractions of life in a Roman city.

136

Chapter Four: Forming a Literate Culture

In the previous chapter, I highlighted certain tracks of the reading practices of Origen’s school in the Psalm Homilies. In so doing, I showed how Origen’s scholarly activities informed his preaching activities. As the title of this chapter suggests, I will now turn to a discussion of the function of such pedagogical elements. However, unlike chapter three, in which I isolated certain passages from particular homilies, in this chapter, I will provide a close analytical reading of two select homilies, namely, Hom. 1 in Ps. 36, and Hom. 1 in Ps. 77. I will rely predominately on the works of Neuschäfer413 and Marrou,414 and follow their outline of the four- step procedure of grammarians. I will thus demonstrate how Origen’s pedagogy sought to provide his audience with the literary-grammatical tools needed for them to become informed readers of the biblical text. In other words, he was providing his audience with a literate education.

This chapter, therefore, is primarily treating the issue of literacy. In order for his audience to receive a full benefit of the biblical text, they needed the literary tools to understand it themselves. Thus, in the Psalm Homilies, Origen was attempting to construct a Christian literary culture, a culture not exclusive to the students of his school. Origen’s concern to teach literary skills helps to explain why, in the Psalm Homilies, Origen engages in very technical discussions about the text, as we saw in chapter three. This provides some nuance to previous scholarship, which has tended to separate Origen the preacher from Origen the scholar.415

413 Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 85-285. 414 Marrou, History of Education, 164-75. 415 For example, see Heine, Scholarship in the Service of the Church, 184, and Morwenna Ludlow, “Origen as Teacher and Preacher: A Comparison of Exegetical Methods in His Writings of Genesis and the Song of Songs,” in

137 138

Since I will be discussing the formation of a literate Christian audience, I will first set the context of these homilies within the broader literate culture in Late Antiquity and what we can glean about the potential literacy rates among Origen’s listeners. I neither assume in this chapter that

Origen held the position of grammarian nor that he understood himself as a grammarian.

Nevertheless, we do know that he did hold such a position early in his life,416 so it should be no surprise that he applied those same tools when explaining the biblical text for his audience.

Those tools would have been habitual for someone trained in them at this time in the Empire.

Following his application of them can help us to think about his aims as a preacher, specifically his aim to provide his audience with those same tools.

4.1 Literacy in Early Christianity

William Harris estimated that no more than twenty to thirty percent of the population would have been able to read literature with any level of understanding.417 With such low literacy rates, learning to read and write was primarily available only for the more affluent members of society.

Gamble is less optimistic when it comes to Christianity, and estimated that in Christian communities, literacy likely never exceeded ten to fifteen percent of the population. Thus, he argued that the liturgy would have been the primary means by which most early Christians participated in literacy.418

Delivering the Word: Preaching and Exegesis in the Western Christian Tradition, ed. W.J. Lyons and I Sandwell (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012), 46, 50-51. 416 Eusebius, HE 6.3 (LCL 18:8). 417 William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy, 141. Harris specifies that this number is only for the more educated Greek cities, whereas the number in the Western provinces likely never exceeded five to ten percent, 272. 418 Harry Y Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, 5-10, 211-31.

139

When we approach early Christian literature, there is often a sense of hostility towards learning.

The author of Acts, for example, portrays Peter and John to be “unlettered and uncultivated people (ἄνθρωποι ἀγράμματοι καὶ ἰδιῶται)” (Acts 4:13). The author, nevertheless, holds them up as models of learning who were able to refute Jewish leaders on points of doctrine. While the adjective “unlettered (ἀγράμματοι)” is likely not far off the mark, given the low literacy rates of the time, it also served to juxtapose the learnedness of the Jewish leaders with disciples who possessed the wisdom that really mattered, in spite of their illiteracy. 419

This picture, however, stands in stark contrast to the author’s portrayal of Paul and Apollos. The author described Paul as one “engaged in discourse with them [the Jews in Thessalonica] from the scriptures (διελέξατο αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν)” (Acts 17:2), and later as one who was able to debate with the Jews from the Law and Prophets (18:23). Similarly, the author said that Apollos was “a cultured man (ἀνὴρ λόγιος),” who was “powerful in the scriptures (δυνατὸς ὤν ἐν ταῖς

γραφαῖς)” (Acts 18:24), and that he was also able to refute (εὐτόνως διακατηλέγχετο) the Jews through his use of the scriptures (διὰ τῶν γραφῶν) (18:28). These two contrasting images reflect some of the ambivalence towards learning in the earliest Jesus communities. Nevertheless, as the latter case shows, even from the earliest years of the movement, there was a certain valorization of literacy and learnedness among these groups.420

If we can judge anything from the following three centuries after Acts, it would appear that

Christianity looked more like Paul and Apollos than John and Peter. The proliferation of

Christian texts, particularly texts of a learned nature, might suggest that Christianity was a very

419 John S. Kloppenborg, “Literate Media in Early Christ Groups: The Creation of a Christian Book Culture,” JECS 22.1 (2014), 21-22. 420 Kloppenborg, “Literate Media,” 34.

140 literate society at this time. However, we must be careful not to overestimate the value of early

Christian literature for determining early Christian literacy. The texts from scholars such as

Origen and Augustine likely do not reflect the literary skills of the average Christian of the time.

Such a broad strokes consideration of early Christian literacy is well beyond the scope of this project.421 It will be helpful, at any rate, to discuss what we might be able to glean about literacy among Origen’s preaching audience in Caesarea Maritima.

4.1.1 Origen’s Liturgical Audience

Pinning down Origen’s homiletic audience is notoriously difficult. Most scholarship maintains that those who attended Origen’s homilies were a mixed bag of catechumens and baptized

Christians, and perhaps even some pre-catechumens. Some were able to possess and read their own copies of the scriptures. There is certainly present the more affluent members of society, who partake of luxurious items while often neglecting their worship, both frequent targets of

Origen’s homilies.422 Such members may very well have had some facility in literate activities, or at least, in reading. While it is difficult to speak with any more certainty than these generalities, there is corroborating evidence in the Psalm Homilies.

The presence of catechumens, for example, appears in Hom. 2 in Ps. 76. While preaching on Ps.

76:14 (“Who is God like our God?”), Origen brings in 1 Cor. 8:5 in which Paul speaks of “many gods and many lords.” Origen then addresses a catechumen: “But, look, O Catechumen, lest you make the mistake that Christians also speak of many gods and you revert to idols. For, hear the

421 I refer the reader to Gamble’s Books and Readers as the standard source on this subject. 422 Heine, Scholarship in the Service of the Church, 179-83; Adele Monaci Castagno, “Origen the Scholar and Pastor,” trans. Frances Cooper, in Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed. Mary B. Cunningham and Pauline Allen (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 70-73. Monaci Castagno also addresses this issue in the Psalm Homilies specifically: “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 239-42.

141 scripture of God saying: all the gods of the nations are demons (Ps. 95:5a).”423 What is not clear, however, is how many catechumens Origen was addressing. The singular could be a universal reference, rather than a true singular. The former is more probable in my opinion.

Origen began this homily with a reflection on the different meanings of the term “beginning

(ἀρχή)” in relation to “the preliminary stages of life according to God.”424 I find it unlikely he would construct a homily around such a theme if there was only one catechumen in attendance.

In the subsequent homily, Origen referenced catechumens in the plural: “Consider with me the catechumens presenting themselves to the Word (τῷ λόγῳ προσερχομένους κατηχουμένους).”425

At any rate, these two passages from Hom. 2 in Ps. 76 suggest that he had at least some catechumens and/or neophytes in his audience. If we consider then, that some members of his audience were not Christian from birth, they might have come from the educated classes, and therefore had greater access to literate education than those who were born into a Christian family. That is merely hypothetical, however, and there is no evidence in the Psalm Homilies to confirm it.

Origen is sometimes reluctant to provide more sophisticated theological instruction for his preaching audience. For example, in Hom. 4 in Ps. 77, Origen hesitates before instructing his

423 Origen, Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:321.5-8). Ἀλλ’ ὅρα, ὦ κατηχούμενε, μὴ σφαλῇς ὅτι καὶ Χριστιανοὶ λέγουσι πολλοὺς θεοὺς καὶ παλινδρομήσῃς ἐπὶ τὰ εἴδωλα. Ἄκουε γὰρ τῆς γραφῆς τοῦ θεοῦ λεγούσης· πάντες οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνια (Ps 95:5a). 424 Origen, Hom. 2.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:313.1-6). Ὁ βιοὺς κατὰ θεὸν πολλάκις ἐν προοιμίοις ὤν τοῦ βίου τοῦ κατὰ θεὸν οἴεται τὴν ἀρχὴν πεποιῆσθαι τοῦ βιοῦν καθὸ χρὴ βιοῦν· ἐπὰν δὲ νοήσας τὴν διαφορὰν τοῦ προοιμίου τοῦ κατὰ θεὸν βίου γένηται μετὰ τὸ προοίμιον ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ κατὰ θεὸν βίου, ἐπιγινώσκων ὅτι πρότερον μὲν ἐδόκει ἄρχεσθαι, οὐκ ἦν δὲ ἀρξάμενος, ὕστερον δὲ ἔγνω τίς ἡ ἀρχή, φησὶ τὸ νῦν ἠρξάμην (Ps 76:11a). He who lives according to God, who is in the preliminary stages of the life according to God, often thinks he has made a beginning of living to the degree that he must live it: but, as soon as he considers the difference between the preliminary stage of live according to God it happens after the preliminary stage on the road of live according to God, recognizing that, on the one hand, he seems first to have begun, but on the other hand, he was not beginning, but he knew that there was some later beginning, it says: Now, I have begun (76:11a). See also, Monaci Castagno, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 241. 425 Origen, Hom. 3.5 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:339.10-11).

142 audience on the immortality of the soul.426 However, the fact that Origen did “dare” to instruct his audience in such a subject suggests that, despite his reluctance, he deemed it necessary for his audience to know. Monaci Castagno has shown that, even in the presence of catechumens,

Origen was committed to providing a rigorous intellectual formation, including discussions on philological problems. She argued that this fact in Origen’s Psalm Homilies suggests that, at least some in his audience already possessed a degree of erudition and biblical preparation.427

In the same homily, Origen chastised his audience for their lax liturgical participation and their preference for luxurious goods to the detriment of their spiritual nourishment.428 In order to get his message across that they needed to attend to their spiritual nourishment, Origen juxtaposed their present existence with the Israelite Exodus. He interpreted the manna (Ps. 77:23-25) as

“bread of life who descended from heaven (John 6:51).” He then posed a rhetorical question suggestive of his audience, and his expectations for them: “Or, are you not aware that the Holy

Spirit mixed in the historical record a plain figurative meaning, in order to incite the listener about to fall down upon entirely bodily and entirely perceptible things, in order that he might incite him to spiritual and greater things.”429 The rhetorical question assumes that his audience knew this principle, probably from hearing him speak on it before.

426 Origen, Hom. 4.6 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:396.4-6). Καὶ τολμᾷ τι ὁ λόγος διὰ τὰς τροφὰς εἰπεῖν, εἴ γε εὐκαίρως τολμήσει ἐπὶ τοῦ τοιούτον ἀκροατηρίου τοιαῦτα εἰπεῖν· τολμησάτω δὲ καὶ μὴ τολμησάτο, καὶ λεγέτω καὶ κρινέτω. And, the Word dares to say something on account of the nourishment, if indeed he appropriately dares to speak such things before such an audience: but, let him dare and not dare, and let him speak and judge. Origen showed hesitation in very similar words in his Hom. 20(19).8 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 516:30-31). Μέλλει τι ὁ λόγος τολμᾶν, οὐκ οἶδα δὲ εἰ συμφέρον τῷ τοιούτῳ ἀκροατηρίῳ καὶ τοιούτῳ. The Word intends to dare something, but I do not know for what sort of audience it is useful. 427 Monaci Castagno, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 242. 428 Origen, Hom. 4.4 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:394.10-21; 4.11 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:407.6-20). 429 Origen, Hom 4.5 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:395.13-16). Ἤ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι ἀνέμιξε τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τῇ ἱστορίᾳ τροπολογίαν γυμνήν, ἵνα διεγείρῃ τὸν ἀκροατὴν μέλλοντα καταπίπτειν ὅλον ἐπὶ τὰ σωματικὰ καὶ ὅλον ἐπὶ τὰ αἰσθητά, ἵνα διεγείρῃ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ καὶ τὰ κρείττονα. This is very reminiscent to his comment in de Prin. 4.2.9 (Behr 514-17).

143

The affluence of some among his audience had benefits, such as their ability to own and consult their own biblical texts. Preaching on the inscription of Ps. 15, Origen decided not to elaborate further on inscriptions with the term “stele,” telling them “you can discover by reading through them by yourselves (ἑαυτοῖς ἀναλεγόμενοι).”430 The expression “reading through them by yourselves,” is somewhat ambiguous here. On the one hand, it is simply not possible to quantify how many in his audience would have been able to consult the Bible on their own. On the other hand, it does suggest that Origen at least assumed some of his listeners had the economic means and literate capacity to do so.

If, as I argue in this chapter, Origen was providing his audience with a literate education in these homilies, does not the implication of Hom 1.1 in Ps. 15 suggest that his audience, or at least some in the audience, were already literate? At this point, I must make a clarification. To say that Origen’s homilies, following the procedure of the grammarians, were intended to provide his audience with a literate education does not necessarily imply that most in his audience were illiterate.

Teresa Morgan has shown that the teaching of grammar was not necessarily an elementary form of education,431 and that even in the grammar schools of the time, many of the students who went through grammatical education already possessed facility in reading and writing Latin and

Greek.432 She suggests that the aim of grammatical education was to improve reading, writing, and speaking skills. In the case of reading, she says that the aim was a “grammatically informed

430 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:73.18-19). For other such instances in Origen’s preaching, see Heine, Scholarship in the Service of the Church, 181. 431 Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 162. 432 Morgan, Literate Education, 167, 169.

144 reading” for those already able to read and understand the words on the page.433 The presence of grammatical discussions in the Psalm Homilies, then, should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that his audience was mostly illiterate.

Among the three aims of grammar study noted in the previous paragraph, facility in literature was the primary aim of the grammarians. “Grammar (γραμματική),” Dionysius Thrax tells us,

“is the practical knowledge (ἐμπειρία) of what is spoken for the most part (ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ

λεγομένων) by the poets and other writers.”434 This expression is noteworthy with respect to what we know about Origen himself. As Eusebius tells us, after the martyrdom of Origen’s father, Origen had to provide for his family. He did so by “the teaching of letters (τὴν τῶν

γραμματικῶν λόγων διδασκαλίαν).”435 Eusebius subsequently says that Origen abandoned the teaching of letters, because he did not think it was a practice consonant with “holy learning (ἱεροί

μαθήματα).”436 We should not, however, understand from this that Origen abandoned the grammatical skills he employed as a teacher of grammar. Rather, due to the prevalence of grammatical and philological discussions throughout Origen’s writings, it is more likely that what Eusebius is describing is Origen abandoning the study of the “poets and other writers,” that

Dionysius said were the primary subjects of the grammarian’s teaching.437 The Bible became

Origen’s primary text to which he applied the skills of the grammarian in his exegetical work.

433 Morgan, Literate Education, 175. 434 Dionysius Thrax, Ars Gramm. 1.1. 435 Eusebius, HE. 6.3 (LCL 18:8). 436 Eusebius, HE. 6.3 (LCL 18:18-19). 437 Dionysius Thrax, Ars Gram. 1.1.

145

4.2 Grammar and Literate Education in the Psalm Homilies

In light of this observation, I will show in the next section that Origen applied these skills in order to provide his audience with a “grammatically informed”438 literacy. What will be clear in this chapter is that Origen’s homiletic procedure in these two homilies closely follows the procedure of the grammarians. Again, I am not necessarily challenging the four-step procedure that Torjesen highlighted.439 I am rather approaching Origen’s homilies from a different angle, that of the grammarian. The result will do more to complement Torjesen’s work than diminish it.

At any rate, as Torjesen identified a four-step procedure in Origen’s homilies, the grammarians also employed a four-step process when dealing with their texts. Following an introductory section in which teachers gave their students a summary of the text (ὑπόθεσις), the teacher then began the task of interpretation occurring over four stages: text-criticism (διόρθωσις), reading aloud (ἀνάγνωσις), exegesis (ἐξήγησις), and judgment (κρίσις).440

These steps are similar to but deviate slightly from the procedure that Dionysius Thrax outlined.

He identified the “parts of grammar (μέρη δὲ αὐτῆς)” to be: 1.) “reading by someone skilled in pronunciation (ἀνάγνωσις ἐντριβὴς κατὰ προσῳδίαν)”; 2.) “exegesis according to the prevailing poetic methods (ἐξήγησις κατὰ τοὺς ἐνυπάρχοντας ποιητικοὺς τρόπους)”; 3.) “obvious interpretation of both words and historical considerations (γλωσσῶν τε καὶ ἱστοριῶν πρόχειρος

ἀπόδοσις); 4.) “judgment (κρίσις),” which he called “the most beautiful of everything else in the art (κάλλιστόν ἐστι πάντων τῶν ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ).”441 Dionysius left out the task of emending the text

438 Morgan, Literate Education, 175. 439 Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure, 27-28. 440 Marrou, History of Education, 165. 441 Dionysius Thrax, Ars Gramm. 1.1.

146

(διόρθωσις), otherwise he follows the scheme quite closely. With respect to Origen’s exegesis,

Neuschäfer’s monograph remains the standard resource on this subject. However, he rarely applied these questions to Origen’s homilies.442 As I will show shortly, Origen, even while preaching, could not fully separate his scholarly approach from the pastoral demands of preaching.

Before proceeding to the homilies, however, I need to address one of the steps of this procedure, namely, reading. On the one hand, it would be easy to ignore it on the simple assumption that, since Origen delivered these homilies in a liturgical assembly, there would have been a lector to read the text to the audience prior to Origen’s preaching. On the other hand, the reading of scripture at liturgical assemblies raises the notoriously difficult discussion of orality. Just how would the audience have experienced the reading of the text? This question leads to another: how would the audience have experienced the oral delivery of the homily itself? Does the manuscript accurately reflect Origen’s homily as it happened in real-time?

Little is known about how exactly the psalms were delivered in the early Christian liturgies. We know that churches had lectors to read biblical passages for the assembly.443 Most of the evidence and the scholarship on it, however, says little about the reading of the Psalms. Gamble argued for the need for the cantillation of any biblical text at the assembly in order for an articulate delivery and for its easy interpretation by the audience. Gamble’s argument was based

442 Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 85-285. 443 The author of the Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus suggests that the lector had an official liturgical role, with the bishop giving him a book upon installation. See Alistair C. Stewart, Hippolytus: On the Apostolic Tradition, Second Edition (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2015), 111. Justin Martyr also gives witness of a reader reading the text aloud for the assembly in 1 Apol. 67. For a recent study of lectors and the reading of the Bible at the liturgy, see Dan Nässelqvist, Public Reading in Early Christianity: Lectors, Manuscripts, and Sound in the Oral Delivery of John 1-4 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), esp. 63-118. See also Gamble, Books and Readers, 203-08, 211-231.

147 on the characteristics of early Christian books, such as scriptio continua, suggesting that “the communication of its semantic substance depended entirely on the oral gestures of pause, tone, rhythm, and cadence, which compose the chant-style and make it an effective hermeneutical medium.”444

While Gamble acknowledges that there is no direct evidence for such cantillation, “it is presupposed by the phenomenon of Christian psalmody.”445 The chanting was a necessary

“hermeneutical” device making the text more accessible to the audience.446 In his study of public reading in early Christianity, Dan Nässelqvist argued that the material aspects of the book would have required a cantillation, both for the lector and audience. He mapped out how the

Prologue to the Gospel of John would have sounded when cantillated for an audience.447

The Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus, but a third or fourth century text, has virgins and children singing psalms at the agape followed by an “Alleluia” response from the audience.448 This might be a description of the psalms used at a Eucharistic gathering, but it does suggest the practice of singing with a degree of audience participation. While there is no direct evidence for the singing of the psalms in the Psalm Homilies, Origen’s preface to Hom. 2 in Ps. 80 is a lengthy reflection on musical harmony, which might be suggestive for present purposes:

The blessed prophets have become the instruments of God (Ὄργανα οὖν θεοῦ), and just as the one hearing the string and the sound of the lyre (ὁ ἀκούων χορδῆς καὶ ἤχου τοῦ ἐν τῇ λύρᾳ), he

444 Gamble, Books and Readers, 227. 445 Gamble, Books and Readers, 227-28. 446 Gamble, Books and Readers, 228. 447 Nässelqvist, Public Reading in Early Christianity, 119-180. For his analysis of the reading of John 1-4, see pp. 181-320. 448 Hippolytus, On the Apostolic Tradition, 165.

148

hears not that but the musician musically playing the appropriate instrument (κρούοντος μουσικῶς τὸ ἐπιτήδειον ὄργανον), so thus, let not the one hearing the prophet think to be hearing men, but God who finds the appropriate instrument and makes use of it for that purpose. And indeed, Asaph was an instrument of God, and the one hearing God the musician speaking through the strings of Asaph: hear, my people, and I bear witness to you, Israel (Ps. 80:9). Indeed, Asaph was an instrument of God (Καὶ ὁ Ἀσὰφ γοῦν ὄργανον ἤν τοῦ θεοῦ).449

One wonders if Origen’s prefatory remarks to this homily were inspired while listening to the chanting of the psalm at the assembly. He certainly could have planned these remarks beforehand, but his reflection on someone trained in musical contests (ὁ οὖν γεγυμνασμένος ἐν

τοῖς μουσικοῖς ἔργοις) fleeing in embarrassment if his instrument was out of tune (φεύγει δὲ

προτροπάδην, μάλιστα ἐάν τις ἤ κιθάρα ἤ λύρα ἤ ψαλτήριον ἀνάρμοστον ᾖ, ἵνα μὴ

ἀσχημονῇ),450 reads like an improvised speech. Unfortunately, beyond this, there is no evidence of the kind of oral delivery of the psalms in these homilies.

Regarding the extent of the reading, Origen does provide us with a few more details. However, even here the evidence is ambiguous. We do not know, for example, if the reading only included one psalm, portions of one psalm, or multiple psalms. Origen’s Homilies on Psalm 77 consist of nine homilies, each covering portions of various length of this long psalm (72 verses in the

LXX). Each homily begins with a preface of varying length and closes with a doxology. This would suggest that these homilies should be read as individual units delivered at separate occasions.

449 Origen, Hom. 2.1 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:496.14-19). 450 Origen, Hom. 2.1 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:496.2-6).

149

What adds to the problem is that on only one occasion does Origen refer explicitly to previous homilies in this series. This occurs in Hom. 3 in Ps. 73, when Origen addresses Ps. 73:14a, material covered in Hom. 2 in Ps. 73: “and we saw the things being examined in this psalm previously.”451 Monaci Castagno noted the ambiguity of the term πρώην (before, previously), rather than the term “yesterday” as one might expect in a homily. While it does suggest close proximity, it does not prove that Origen preached these homilies on consecutive days.452 So, we do not know if Origen himself considered these to be a continuous commentary covering consecutive days of liturgical reading or if they were separated by longer periods of time.

Another problem is that we do not know if the audience heard the entire psalm before each of these homilies, or if they only heard the portion on which Origen preached. I find the latter explanation unsatisfactory. If the liturgical reading only consisted of the portion covered in each particular homily, the readings would have been rather short (vv. 1-8 in Hom. 1 in Ps. 77, for example). On the other hand, the first explanation is not much better. This would suggest that the assembly heard Ps. 77 in its entirety on nine consecutive gatherings. If this were the case, the gatherings would appear to be more for catechetical instruction than worship. This could certainly have been the case, as we will see in the next section how Origen’s homilies certainly read like catechetical instruction.

The matter is also complicated when we look at Hom. 1 in Ps. 67. In the introductory segment of that homily, Origen alluded to the presence of the bishop, who appears to have delivered his own homily before Origen gave his.

451 Origen, Hom. 3.7 in Ps. 73 (GCS 19:262.21-22). Καὶ ἴδωμεν τὰ πρώην ἐξετασθέντα εἰς τὸν ψαλμὸν τοῦτον. 452 Monaci Castagno, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 239.

150

So then, if your praying is delivered in the church (εὐχομένων ὑμῶν ἐπιδιδόναι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ), the things being said by the bishop about us (τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ πάπα περὶ ἡμῶν) will also be a prophecy, a prophecy rather than something that is already present to us. For, I know that it has not yet happened.453

While Origen does not tell us what exactly the bishop said, the phrase “what was said by the bishop about us,” suggests that the bishop delivered some kind of address to the audience before

Origen began to preach.454 Two homilies at one liturgical gathering was not unheard of as

Nikolai Lipatov-Chicherin showed in the cases of an anonymous homily from the fourth century and also in some of Chrysostom’s homilies.455

What is also relevant from Origen’s Hom. 1 in Ps. 67 is what he said after alluding to the bishop.

The bishop’s presence appears to have triggered some anxiety in Origen who asked his audience to pray so that he could speak adequately about the text:

one of the readings being recited (ἕνα τῶν ἀναγνωσθέντων ἐπιλεξάμενος) is a psalm containing a prayer, I would like to pray according to it before the interpretation of the psalm having been set before us and read. And, I would like all of you praying together with me to say about me (Καὶ βουλοίμην ἅπαντας ἡμᾶς συνευχομένους μοι εἰπεῖν περὶ ἐμοῦ), what I am saying about myself: O God, come to my assistance, Lord, make haste to help me: Let the ones who are seeking my soul be put to shame and feel ashamed, let them be turned backwards and disgraced, and let those who wish me evil be turned first (Ps. 69:1-2).456

453 Origen, Hom. 1 in Ps. 67 (GCS 19:173.8-10). Taking πάπα here as a reference to the bishop, following Perrone (GCS 172n1). Monaci Castagno thinks it’s a reference to the Bishop of Caesarea Maritima, Theoctisus, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 244. 454 Interesting to note here as well Origen’s reference to the Bishop’s words as “prophecy.” Alistair Stewart-Sykes described the earliest Christian preaching to be a form of prophecy, from which he distinguished later “scholasticized” preaching. See, Stewart-Sykes, From Prophecy to Preaching: A Search for the Origins of the Christian Homily (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 88-269. 455 Lipatov-Chicherin, “Preaching as the Audience Heard it: Unedited Transcripts of Patristic Homilies,” in SP 64, 12 (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 283, 288. Lipatov-Chicherin suspects that the author of the anonymous homily was Basil of Caesarea, pp. 286-87. 456 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 67 (GCS 19:173.14-174.3).

151

Origen’s allusion to Ps. 69 as “one of the readings being recited,” might that Ps. 69 was read together with Ps. 67, the text under discussion at this assembly. However, Origen’s homily ends with his comments on 67:4 before a doxology.457

In the next homily, Origen began by stating “the beginning of today’s reading (ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ

σήμερον ἀναγνώσματος),” then citing the words from verse 5.458 We also see this in Hom. 2 in

Ps. 15, Origen identified “the beginning of today’s reading (ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ σήμερον

ἀναγνώσματος)” as verse 15:7 (“I will bless the Lord who makes me understand”).459 Here we see that at this liturgy, the audience did not hear the entire psalm. Instead, it would appear that they had heard the first six verses at a previous gathering, since Hom. 1 in Ps. 15 ends at that point with a doxology.460 From this, Monaci Castagno concluded that it is unlikely that τῶν

ἀναγνωσθέντων can refer to the entire passage read at the assembly.461 However, the reading of multiple psalms was not unheard of at this time. The author of a homily on the Psalms traditionally attributed to Hippolytus alluded to two psalms being read before the assembly.462

Therefore, it is certainly possible that the liturgical reading included Psalms 67 to 69, or more, of which Origen only preached on a portion of the text read.

Another explanation is that the psalm texts under discussion in the homilies were accompanied by readings from other books, such as in a system of three readings consisting of an Old

457 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 67 (GCS 19:199.11). The two homilies on Ps. 67 in this collection together only cover the first seven of the thirty-six verses of the entire psalm. 458 Origen, Hom. 2.2 in Ps. 67 (GCS 19:201.1-4). 459 Origen, Hom. 2.2 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:92.18-19). 460 Origen, Hom. 1.9 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:90.12-18). 461 Monaci Castagno, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 244. 462 “Hippolytus’ Homily on the Psalms,” trans. Alistair C. Stewart, in Hippolytus: On the Apostolic Tradition, Second Edition (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2015), 222.

152

Testament text, Pauline Epistles/Acts, and a Gospel reading, which was present in the fourth century.463 If this were the case, it would suggest that homilies such as those on Pss. 15 and 67 were preached at Eucharistic liturgies, which might also account for the presence of the bishop in

Hom. 1 in Ps. 67.464

In dealing with orality, we must also be aware of the gap between the published texts with which we are working, and what the preacher said on the occasion of preaching.465 Does the surviving manuscript of the Psalm Homilies adequately reflect what Origen said while preaching to his audience? Or, does it reflect the homilies after Origen, or a later scribe, edited them for distribution to a broader audience? Lipatov-Chicherin has shown evidence of the production process of some early Christian homilies, revealing stages from original draft to stenographic records and later handwritten editions.466

According to his analysis, an original draft would not possess any references to the audience or any prefatory remarks or conclusion. However, if it contains references to the audience along with an introduction and conclusion, it is likely to be an edited version, or perhaps a text prepared beforehand for delivery.467 The text of Origen’s Psalm Homilies fits the latter criteria more than the former. It is thus certainly plausible that the manuscript of Origen’s Psalm

Homilies reflects a more polished version than what the original transcript would give us.

463 Monaci Castagno, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 245. 464 Monaci Castagno, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 245. 465 Nikolai Lipatov-Chicherin, “Preaching as the Audience Heard it, 277. 466 Lipatov-Chicherin, “Preaching as the Audience Heart it,” esp. 278. 467 Lipatov-Chicherin, “Preaching as the Audience Heart it,” 281-82.

153

Moreover, Eusebius said that Origen “permitted shorthand-writers (ταχυγράφοι) to take down his discourses (διαλέξεις) delivered to the public (ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ).”468 Eusebius then used the same prepositional phrase later to denote Origen’s Homilies on Psalm 82 (“ὁμιλῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ”).469

If Eusebius is a reliable witness, Origen certainly fits the pattern which Lipatov-Chicherin identified.470 Stenographers first took down Origen’s homilies, or discourses, in short-hand form. It is likely, then, that the text we have today reflects later editorial work on the part of

Origen, or a later scribe, who polished it for publication. It could be, however, that Origen first dictated his thoughts to stenographers while preparing to deliver his homily.

There is an assumption on the part of scholars that Origen delivered his homilies extemporaneously. There is some warrant for this assumption. In his famous Homily 5 on 1

Samuel, prior to giving his homily, Origen turned to the bishop to select the passage on which he was to preach.471 Furthermore, three of the four Homilies on Psalm 76 have the participle

“improvised (ἐσχεδιασμένη)” in the title.472 However, Perrone argued that these three homilies do not contain any clear characteristics of oral performance in a way that distinguishes them from the other homilies in the collection.473

Even if Origen did give improvised homilies, Monaci Castagno noted that we would need to redefine the term “improvised” for Origen. Since he was so well versed in the Scriptures, and would have known the pericopes to discuss in advance, that the line between improvisation and preparation were blurred for him.474 In light of these observations, it is just as possible that

468 Eusebius, HE. 6.36 (LCL 88-91). 469 Eusebius, HE. 6.38 (LCL 92-93). 470 Lipatov-Chicherin, “Preaching as the Audience Heard it,” 278-82. 471 Origen, Hom. in 1.1 Sam. trans. Joseph W. Trigg, in Origen (New York: Routledge, 1998), 200. 472 Origen, Hom. 1 in Ps. 76; Hom. 2. in Ps. 76, and Hom. 3 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:293, 313, 326). 473 Perrone, “Einleitung,” Origenes XIII, 4-5. 474 Monaci Castagno, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 246.

154

Origen prepared his homilies in advance with some written version, from which he delivered them to his audience as it is that he delivered them extemporaneously. I cannot hope to solve this problem here. The preceding discussion simply served to highlight some of the difficulties historians face when asking these questions, and the parameters around which we might be able to think about what is possible. At any rate, I will now turn to the analysis of two select homilies, paying close attention to the tracks of the grammarian providing a literate education.

4.2.1 Hom. 1 in Ps. 36

Origen began Hom. 1 in Ps. 36 with a very brief introduction, only ten lines in the critical edition. He opens with a quotation of Heb. 1:1: “In many ways and many places, God speaks through the prophets.” Origen used this text in order to teach his audience the different subject matter to be found in the Psalms. “Sometimes,” Origen said, “[God] teaches us unspeakable and mystical things in what is said, sometimes God proclaims in advance things about the Saviour and his sojourn, but there are other times when God heals our moral character.”475 Then, after inviting his audience to investigate the subject matter of each passage in scripture, Origen identifies the subject of Ps. 36: “Therefore, here also at the beginning of the thirty-sixth psalm, we find that the entire psalm is ethical (ἠθικός), therapeutic (θεραπευτικὸς) of our soul, reproving our sins and converting us to live according to the law.”476

There are two mutually informative ways to approach this introduction. First, we can follow

Torjesen’s observation that Origen’s prologues or introductions to his homilies functioned to situate the audience in relation to the text.477 In answering what this particular psalm is about,

475 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:113.1-4). 476 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:113.7-10). 477 Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure, 23.

155

Origen clues his audience to the understanding that the psalm is about the healing of their souls.

Therefore, the text will be instructive for how they live, since the subject matter is ethical. As

Torjesen unfolded her argument, she showed how, in the prologue to his exegesis of Ps. 37,

Origen explained the subject matter of the psalm by explaining the concepts of rebuke.478 Hom.

1.1 in Ps. 36 is very consistent with that procedure. After elucidating the subject matter of Ps.

36, Origen spent substantial time explaining the terms “to fret (παραζηλοῦν)” and “to be jealous

(ζηλοῦν).”479

Origen provided an arsenal of examples drawn from human experience and scripture in order to explain the subject matter and apply it to his audience’s lives. First, Origen applies Deut. 32:21 and 1 Cor. 10:22-23 as intertexts to explain the meaning of scripture’s use of the terms. In each case, the text refers to provoking God to jealousy through idol worship. Origen thus combined the two verbs into one coherent meaning. On the one hand, the Israelites “fretted” among those who acted wickedly, and therefore turned to idolatry, provoking God to jealousy. Origen then applied an example from experience, alluding to a woman who attempts to arouse jealousy in others by putting on a display when they are with their husbands.480

Origen then turned to a direct address, telling his audience that this is what “fretting

(παραζηλοῦν)” means, to incite someone else to jealousy, which is exactly what the Israelites did

478 Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure, 24. 479 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:113.11-118.6). 480 Origen, Hom 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:114.14-19). Εἰσί τινες μιαραὶ καὶ ἀνόσιοι γυναῖκες, ἀκόλαστοι τὴν προαίρεσιν, αἵτινες, οὐκ ἀρκούμεναι τῇ γινομένῃ ἀκολασίᾳ κρύφα, βούλονται γνωσθῆναι καὶ ταῖς τῶν ἐραστῶν ὅτι οἱ αὐτῶν ἄνδρες εἰσὶν σὺν αὐταῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ γνωσθῆναι, ἵνα ζῆλον ἐκκαύσωσιν ἐν ἐκείναις καθ’ ἑαυτῶν καὶ ἐκταράξωσι τὰς οἰκίας τὰς ἀλλοτρίας. “there are some women who are defiled and profane, undisciplined in character, who, not content with being undisciplined in secret, they also want to be known in the eyes of their admirers because their husbands are with them and on this account they are known, in order that they might kindle jealousy with them against each other and that they might cause trouble for the other home.”

156 to God when they worshipped idols in Deut. 32:21.481 Like the woman who incited men to jealousy, people provoke God to jealousy with their sins, because “our God is a jealous God

(Deut. 5:9).” God responded by provoking Israel to jealousy with a “non-nation” (Deut. 32:21), which Origen tells his audience was the Christian community, a non-nation gathered from the nations.482

Then, with another direct address, Origen warned his audience to pay attention, lest Deut. 32:21 be said also about them. At this point, Origen again describes the present Christian experience, living alongside both Jews and pagans in an urban environment. He instructed them, that if they ever saw a Jew not being troubled (μὴ κινούμενον) by the idolatry of the pagans, but hating

Christians who “abandon the idols (τῷ καταλιπόντι τὰ εἴδωλα),” to remember that the prophecy was fulfilled: “I will provoke them to jealousy with a non-nation (Deut. 32:21).”483 To this point, Origen’s homily is consistent with Torjesen’s portrait. Origen’s back-and-forth between the text and his audience follows the pattern of a preacher connecting the meaning of the text to the experience of his audience.

At the same time, there is another aspect that warrants attention. First, Origen’s identification of the subject matter of the Psalm has its roots in the grammatical schools. Before students would engage a text, the teacher would provide them with a summary, the ὑπόθεσις.484 However, prior to explaining the ethical teaching of this Psalm, Origen first discussed a grammatical problem, showing the hallmarks of a grammarian explaining a text to his students. He began by inviting them to look at the first verse (Ἴδωμεν τὴν πρώτην λέξιν). In chapter two, I discussed how

481 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:114.19-21). 482 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:115.4-5). 483 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:115.10-18). 484 Marrou, History of Education, 165.

157

Bendinelli showed Origen’s use of the first-person plural in the Commentary on Matthew often functioned to invite his audience into the research project.485 So too, here, Origen begins by inviting his audience to look at the text, along with the teacher.

Origen then addresses the lexical problem:

So, there is a certain distinction between “fretting” and “being jealous” to be understood. This is certainly not a Greek diction used either in the customary language (συνήθεια) of the Greeks or of the philologists, or of those considered more unlearned, but seems to have been forced by the translators wanting to translate the Hebrew expression and to present, according to the ability in human nature,486 the distinction between “jealousy” and “provoking to jealousy.487

Here, we see that Origen’s exegesis of the verse began with a grammatical observation. He immediately addressed the ambiguity of the terms παραζηλοῦν and ζηλοῦν, noting how they do not seem to follow any customary Greek diction (λέξις Ἑλληνικὴ). His hypothesis was that those who translated the Hebrew original into Greek “forced (βεβιασμένη)” the translation to show a difference between the two terms.

It is at this point in the homily that Origen provided the arsenal of examples from scripture and experience in order to draw out the meaning of the verbs in question. He prefaced this discourse, however, with a citation of 1 Cor. 2:13 to address the ambiguity:

So then, in order that the unfamiliar nature of the meaning of the words Do not fret among those who act wickedly be understood, it is necessary for us to collect the diction from many other places: for, thus we will be able, by comparing spiritual things with

485 Bendinelli, Il Commentario a Matteo, 51-53. 486 I think he means according to the translators’ ability, limited by human nature. 487 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:113.20-25).

158

spiritual (1 Cor. 2:13), to see what is meant by the words do not fret among those who act wickedly.488

The reference to 1 Cor. 2:13 is the key exegetical device. In order for his audience to understand how scripture used the verbs παραζηλοῦν and ζηλοῦν, Origen had to provide passages from other biblical texts to demonstrate the meaning of Ps. 36:1. This entire discussion is thus a lesson in how to read the Bible properly. Integral to Origen’s pastoral aims, the ethical instruction of not worshipping idols, was the teacher’s concern to instruct his audience how to understand the text in front of them. He did this by first identifying a lexical problem (γλωσσηματικόν), then teaching his audience how to solve it, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things (1 Cor.

2:13), or, in the lexicon of the classical grammarians, explaining Homer from Homer.489

We should not, however, overlook the importance of 1 Cor. 2:13 as a literary device. This is not a one-off occurrence in Origen. This literary principle had a long history in pagan exegesis prior to Origen, and it normally occurred in three different contexts: the explanation of individual words, resolving potential contradictions, and clarification of ambiguous passages. One of the primary aims driving these applications was the attempt to show the inner unity, or the harmony

(σύμφωνια) of an author.490 Furthermore, relevant for present purposes, is Neuschäfer’s observation that Origen often applied this principle when the customary language (συνήθεια) of the Bible does not match the customary language of the Greeks.491 This was precisely the problem Origen was addressing at the beginning of this homily.

488 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:113.25-114.4). 489 Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 276-85. 490 Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 278, 280. 491 Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 280.

159

In light of that observation, it becomes more apparent that what Origen was doing was providing his audience with an exercise in literary criticism. Origen used 1 Cor. 2:13 as a pedagogical strategy to tell his audience how they could solve difficult passages, using a strategy rooted in the grammatical-literary tradition. So, in this case, Origen guided his audience through such an exercise, by applying Deut. 32:21 and 1 Cor. 10:22-23 in order to clarify unfamiliar terms, with the concluding remarks: “Now, by gathering together the texts from these three passages, from

Deuteronomy and from the apostle and from the psalm set before us, we discover the meaning of the words do not fret.”492 It was only after these grammatical remarks that Origen then turned to the example of the woman attempting to provoke jealousy in others, and the Jews hating their

Christian neighbors.

Then, after elaborating on the terms “fretting” and “to be jealous,” Origen returned to the text, noting what the Psalm said about those fretting and those who were jealous. Here again, the grammarian is before the audience. Earlier, Origen remarked, “it says that it follows (ἀκολουθεῖ) for the one fretting among those acting wickedly, that he dries up like grass and he suffers this not briefly, but quickly, and on the other hand to the one who is jealous of those who do lawlessness that he fades away like green herbs.”493 The key verb here is “it follows

(ἀκολουθεῖ).” In this context, it points to the sequence of the verse. The one who frets among those acting wickedly, Origen says, “dries up like grass,” while the one who is jealous of those who do evil, “fades away like green herbs.” The Psalm thus shows two things, not to fret among those who act wickedly, and not to be jealous of those who do evil. The sequence of the text then shows what happens to those who do such things.

492 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:114.9-11). 493 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:113.16-19).

160

So then, after demonstrating what the terms παραζηλοῦν and ζηλοῦν mean, Origen elaborates on what fading away like grass and drying up like green herbs means (cf. Ps. 36:2a-b). Origen began with a question: “So, how do they dry up quickly like grass, the ones acting wickedly, of whom we must not be jealous?” He then turns to Isaiah, “teaching you to despise the glory of the world and all the pleasures of the flesh. For, he says: All flesh is as grass and all its glory is like the flower of grass (Isa 40:6).” Next, he provides an example from recent history:

Observe the glory of the flesh: they ruled before our time, in the previous thirty years (πρὸ ἡμῶν πρὸ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα),494 they were glorified, and their glory withered like a flower, and it dried up, and disappeared. Some others were enriched, having reached a high rank, they walked around puffed up on the eminence of the things advancing them: that stuff passes away, because they dry up quickly like grass (Ps. 36:2a).495

Origen continued with an agricultural comparison. Just as grass is the food of beasts (τροφὴ

κτηνῶν), so too, those who act wickedly are the food of those “abusing their glory

(καταχρωμένων αὐτῶν τῇ δόξῃ). He then contrasts this food with the food righteous people eat:

“just as the righteous eat the bread that is Paul, for it [the bread] is not only the Saviour but is also Paul, for it has been written: we all have one bread (Cf. 1 Cor. 10:17), and remembering that the Saviour is bread, so to speak, Paul happened to be eating with those listening to him.”496

Origen’s point here, likely has a double meaning. On the one hand, there is an allusion to the

Eucharist, Christian food, vis à vis food offered to idols, especially given the use of 1 Cor. 10:17.

On the other hand, Origen often refers to scripture with Eucharistic language, which would make

494 Monaci Castagno, “Contesto liturgico e cronologia,” 249-50, follows Emanuela Prinzivalli, and takes this as a reference to the succession of Emperors from Macrinus (217-18 C.E.) to Philip the Arabian (244-49 C.E.). On the other hand, see Nautin, Origène, 403-05, who argues that this refers to the period from Septimius Severus (211) until the end of the Gordian emperors (442). 495 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:118.15-20). 496 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:118.29-119.3).

161 sense of his reference to Paul as a “bread” for the righteous. The message, then, would be that, in contrast to feeding on the false food of temporal glory (and perhaps food offered to idols), the

Christian should feed on scripture and the Eucharist, food for the soul.

Another dimension of his exegesis here is the second part of the psalm verse, which recorded what happened to those who acted wickedly: they will dry up quickly (Ps. 36:2a). Jealousy for such people was misplaced, because like the emperors previously mentioned, their glory did not last forever. And so, Origen applies the next verse to drive his message home: Hope in the Lord and do kindness (Ps. 36:3a). Again, he provides another exercise in γλωσσηματικόν by looking elsewhere in the biblical text to express the meaning of “kindness.” “What is kindness?” It is one of the fruits of the Spirit, as the apostle taught, saying: And, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodwill (Gal. 22-23a).” Origen does not, however, elaborate by providing examples of “kindness.” Rather, he exploits the agricultural imagery of “fruit,” and turns it into a discourse on cultivating the soul:

To you hearing divine teachings (ἀκροατῇ τῶν θείων μαθημάτων) as in a field, the Logos says: do kindness and inhabit the earth and you will be tended by its wealth (Ps. 36:3). Do not become as grass that is dry, do not become as vegetation that has fallen off (Cf. Ps. 36:2b), but hope in the Lord and do kindness and inhabit the earth (Ps. 36:3). Of what kind is the earth? And, the seed fell upon good soil (Luke 8:8). Inhabit the earth (Ps. 36:3b): become a farmer of the earth like Noah planting vineyards (Cf. Gen. 9:20), cultivate (γεώργει) the earth that is in you and you will be tended by its wealth (Ps. 36:3b), not in order that you inhabit such earth: for, God does not want to enrich [you] from the fruit of this earth, but he speaks of my soul (εἶπε τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν), if it is beautiful and good, it is a good earth. For, [the seed] fallen on good earth (Cf. Matt. 13:23).497

497 Origen, Hom. 1.3 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:120.22-121.8).

162

In each of the cases analyzed here, in which we see Origen explaining individual terms by looking elsewhere in the biblical text for meaning, the underlying hermeneutical principle of

“comparing spiritual things with spiritual things” has a two-fold effect. On the one hand, it allows Origen to illuminate the meaning of the terms as they appeared in the Psalm text at hand.

On the other hand, Origen’s application of the other biblical passages allows him to expand on those texts, and in the Bible as a whole. Such a practice was also common in the philosophical schools, as Neuschäfer has demonstrated.498

Moreover, Origen exploited this literary exercise in order to complete the grammatical procedure, giving us a window into the operations of the grammarian/preacher. First, Origen provided the subject matter of the Psalm. Second, he clarified ambiguous terms (ἐξήγησις

γλωσσηματικόν) by applying other biblical passages in which the terms are used. Third, he connected the Psalm text to his audience, giving them the moral of the text (κρίσις = judgment).

This is the process governing Origen’s exegesis of the Psalm, and it provides the structure for the homily itself. Origen repeats this process, except for the introductory section, for each verse under discussion.

The next section of the homily reads like a second lesson, beginning again with another lexical problem and the “custom of scripture (ἔθος ἐστὶ τῇ γραφῇ).”499 The focal passage under discussion is Delight in the Lord and he will give you the requests of your heart (Ps. 36:4). While

Origen does not use the term συνήθεια here, his subsequent discussion clearly suggests that he is talking about scripture’s use of terms. The “custom of scripture” to which Origen refers is

498 Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 276-77. 499 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:121.19).

163

to introduce two men, and to make each individually homonyms (ὁμώνυμα) of the other men: but I mean things of the more inferior are also according to the more superior and the one who is stronger also has nearly all the things of the more inferior. For, on the one hand, he who is inferior, this bodily person eats, but, on the other hand, there is some food also of the inner man, regarding which it says: man does not live on bread alone, but on every word coming out from the mouth of God man will eat (Deut. 8:3).500

Origen is here applying the principle of homonymy to the biblical text. In this case, his first example is to demonstrate how the Bible often uses corporeal language, such as bodily food and drink, but with a spiritual meaning, in reference to the “inner man,” followed by an arsenal of other biblical examples.

The preacher’s exegetical task here is to explain the term “heart (καρδία)” in Ps. 36:4. What

Origen does not want his audience to do is understand that the Bible is speaking about the vital organ. After the array of biblical passages, Origen returns to the text at hand: “So let us come

(Ἔλθωμεν), then, after many examples to what is set before us (ἐπὶ τὸ προκείμενον), in order that we see what is meant from the passage delight in the Lord and he will grant you the requests of your heart.” Very much like the beginning of the homily, Origen invites his audience to participate with him in the literary exercise. One wonders if Origen’s audience would have felt as if they were in a classroom learning from a master. At any rate, the lesson is about to begin again.

First, Origen continued the theme of spiritual nourishment with a contrast between the false nourishment of bodily food, as well the metaphorical nourishment of the “outer man,” such as

500 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:121.19-25).

164 luxurious living (τρυφῆσαι), and the spiritual nourishment of the soul through a life of study of the scriptures:

He who hears only hortatory teachings nourishes himself, and the one who dedicates himself to the interpretation of the law (ἑρμηνείᾳ νόμου), to the explanation (διηγήσει) of the prophets, to the solution (λύσει) of Gospel parables, to the exposition (σαφηνείᾳ) of apostolic words, he who dedicates himself to such things delights in the Lord and eats neither for necessity nor for nourishment alone. So then, it teaches us to delight in the Lord.501

Origen’s description of the one who receives this kind of spiritual nourishment and delight sounds very much like the kind of life he himself lived; a life dedicated to the study of the Bible.

On the one hand, it was not unusual for Origen to portray himself in such a light, promoting his status as a scholar for the community. At the same time, self-promotion was not the only motive.

These kinds of statements from Origen also served to promote a certain kind of relationship between preacher/teacher and audience/pupils, in which the teacher was exhorting the pupils to dedicate their lives to a more committed form of Christianity.502

Origen then elaborates on the verse delight in the Lord (Ps. 36:4a), with a direct address to his audience. “You will yet more distinctly understand (σαφέστερον νοήσεις) the verse delight in the Lord, beholding the Lord and understanding that the Lord is Righteousness, the Lord is

Truth, the Lord is Wisdom, the Lord is Holiness (1 Cor. 1:30): so then, if you delight in the contemplations of wisdom, if you delight in the practices of righteousness, you will fulfill the command: delight in the Lord (Ps. 36:4a), and having fulfilled this command, you may receive

501 Origen, Hom. 1.4. in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:122.14-19). 502 Lorenzo Perrone, “Origen’s ‘Confessions’: Recovering the Traces of a Self-Portrait,” Studia Patristica 56 (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 11-12, 22. See also Martens, Origen and Scripture, for an insightful discussion of Origen’s interpretation of the Levites in the first book of his Commentary on John, 89-92. For Origen’s own discussion of the Levites as advanced Christians, see Comm. in Jn 1.1-12 (GCS 4:1.1-5.34).

165 the following: God will grant to you the requests of your heart (Ps. 36:4b).”503 Origen’s exegesis in this section is consistent with that in the first, as he continues to draw meaning for his audience by following the sequence of the text itself. If the audience fulfills the first the clause, they will receive the second.

However, Origen is not content with this message. He wants to be clear that the biblical text was not speaking of the heart as the vital organ. He stays with direct address: “But, understand what is being said, if each of our members was personified, you would see how it requests things according to its nature: Indeed, the eye, if it had a voice, would say to you: ‘I ask for light, I ask to look at colours that correspond to me and are pleasing to me.”504 After continuing through the different human faculties of sense in the same way, he then gets to his point:

If you understand that regarding each of the senses there is a corresponding request and a corresponding rejection in its constitution (φυγὴ κατάλληλος τῇ κατασκευῇ), then consider that the inner heart is your mind, the inner [heart] is the governing faculty (ἡγεμονικόν), in order that you see what happens to you in the heart is also what your heart requests: as the eye [requests] light, as the sense of smell [requests] a pleasant odour, as the sense of hearing requests harmonious sound, so too the heart, that is the mind, requests ideas, requests thoughts, requests understandings. So, should you delight in the Lord, God will give to you the requests of your heart (Ps. 36:4b).505

503 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:123.10-17). 504 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:123.18-22). 505 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:124.3-10). Εἰ νοεῖς ὅτι ἑκάστου τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἐστὶν αἴτησις κατάλληλος καὶ φυγὴ κατάλληλος τῇ κατασκευῇ, βλέπε τὴν καρδίαν ἔνθα ἐστί σου ὁ νοῦς, ἔνθα ἐστὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ἵνα ἴδῃς τί γίνεται σοι ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ τί αἰτεῖ ἡ καρδία· ὡς ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς τὸ φῶς, ὡς ἡ ὄσφρησις τὸ εὐὠδες, ὡς ἡ ἀκοὴ τὸ ἑμμελές, οὕτως ἡ καρδία, ὁ νοῦς αἰτεῖ τὰ νοήματα, αἰτεῖ τὰ διανοητά, αἰτεῖ τὰ συνετά. Ἐὰν οὖν κατατρυφήσῃς τοῦ κυρίου δώσει σοι ὁ θεὸς τὰ αἰτήματα τῆς καρδίας σου (Ps 36:4b).

166

The comparison of bodily organs to spiritual organs, for Origen, goes back to his theological treatise On First Principles, in which he makes an argument very similar to the text from Hom.

1.4 in Ps. 36.506

It is significant to note that in the text from On First Principles, the theological concept with which Origen was working was purity of heart and its biblical basis in Matt. 5:8. While Origen does not introduce Matt. 5:8 in this particular homily, he uses it as an intertext to explain the principle of homonymy in Hom. 3.1 in Ps. 76, Hom 4.1 in Ps. 76, and Hom. 2.3 in Ps. 15. The frequent use of Matt. 5:8 in the Psalm Homilies suggests that it functioned as a hermeneutical key in the homilies to elaborate on the Bible’s use of homonyms. In Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36, while

Origen’s aim is to move his audience to the contemplation of spiritual things and works of righteousness, his entire discussion, and exegesis of the text was governed by his application of the tools of the literary critic.

We must also recall Origen’s opening remarks on this passage: “Let us come, then, after many examples to what lays before us, in order that we may see what the verse means: Delight in the

Lord and he will grant to you the requests of your heart (Ps. 36:4).” His audience was meant to participate with him in this literary exercise. In order for the audience to gain the most benefit, it was not enough for the preacher to simply explain the text for them. Rather, Origen saw it as his task as a preacher, and a teacher, to cultivate the skills needed for an informed reading of the text in his audience. As much as he was explaining the text for his audience, he was teaching them how to read it themselves.

506 Origen, de Prin. 1.1.9 (Behr 38-39).

167

After Origen clarified what the heart was and what the requests proper to it were, he then returns to the sequence of the text. At this point, the technical points become fewer as Origen sticks mostly to applying the text to the lives of his audience. It could be that the preacher was simply getting tired and lacked the energy to provide such detailed analysis. However, the sequence of the text continues to inform what it means for the audience. The Psalm continues: Disclose to the Lord your way and hope in him and he will act (Ps. 36:5). Origen then turns the discussion to a contrast between those who act wickedly and cover up their actions, and those who act rightly and declare them to God.507 For the latter, the Lord will display your righteousness like a light and your judgement like the midday (Ps. 36:6). In other words, the Lord will reveal one’s righteousness in the heavens.508 Origen then finishes with an exhortation using the first-person plural:

As we have been contemplating these things, let us call upon God, in order that he may help us to become such people, and so that our righteousness can be displayed by God himself like light and his judgement of us become [displayed] also about us like the midday (Ps. 36:6) and the radiating and vigorous light in Christ Jesus, in whom is the glory and the power for the ages of ages. Amen.509

4.2.2 Hom. 1 in Ps. 77

Of the twenty-nine homilies in this collection, Hom. 1 in Ps. 77 has the feel of a classroom more than any of the others. This is especially the case for the opening words of the homily: “We often say (Πολλάκις λέγομεν) …”510 These opening words reflect a teacher accustomed to speaking in front of a classroom of students.511 As with Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36, one might expect

507 Origen, Hom. 1.5 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:124.11-125.6) 508 Origen, Hom. 1.6 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:125.7-12). 509 Origen, Hom. 1.6 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:126.1-6). 510 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:351.1). 511 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:351.1). Also, Lorenzo Perrone, “Origen’s Interpretation of the Psalter Revisited,” 139.

168

Origen to discuss the subject matter of the psalm in this introduction. However, in Hom. 1.1 in

Ps. 77, Origen immediately addresses a textual discrepancy in the Gospel of Matthew that bears directly on the Psalm under discussion:

Matthew was paraphrasing the verse thus stated here in such words, but a scribal error happened in regard to the copies of the Gospel: “In order that,” it says, “what has been spoken by Isaiah may be fulfilled: ‘I will open my mouth in parables’” (Matt. 13:35). For, it is likely that one of the ancient scribes might not have considered, on the one hand, that Asaph was a prophet. On the other hand, having found the [passage], “in order that what has been said by Asaph may be fulfilled,” he supposed that it was a mistake and dared to make it Isaiah instead of Asaph owing to the strangeness of the name of the prophet.512

Origen’s concern in the homily was more than with issues of text-criticism. He was primarily concerned with the impact such textual discrepancies in the Bible had on the church, namely, schisms.513 In this context, then, textual criticism was a necessary means of preserving the coherence of the Bible and unity in the Church. At any rate, Origen then told his audience how he attempted to solve such errors. “And, on the one hand, how much we laboured on account of

God and his grace, comparing the Hebrew and the translations for the sake of knowing the correction of the errors, God knows, and on the other hand, as much as we desire to do regarding the remaining things, God will help.”514

The above remark is a clear allusion to Origen’s text-critical apparatus known as the Hexapla.

Origen does not, however, embark upon a comparison of the Hebrew and the different Greek translations in this homily. He is rather content to provide an illustration of a textual discrepancy

512 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:351.10-17). 513 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:352.14-19). 514 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:351.24-352.2).

169 pertaining to the years of Roboam’s reign in 3 Rgn. [1 Kgs.] 12:24 and 14:21. He does, however, solve the scribal error by looking at the quotation from Matt. 13:35, connecting Jesus’ words in the gospel to the words of the Psalmist in Ps. 77. Had Jesus not quoted the words of Ps. 77, attributed to the prophet Asaph, he would not have dared to attribute the words from Ps. 77:2 to the Saviour.515

This final remark reflects Origen’s practice of prosopology, identifying the person speaking in the text. Just as we saw in Hom. 1 in Ps. 36, Origen embarks on such a task by inviting his audience to join him. “As it is our custom (ἔθος ἡμῖν) in the case of the psalms and the prophets to seek who is the person speaking, so too here as well, who is speaking must be investigated

(ζητητέον).”516 While he does not use the subjunctive, which would be a clearer indication of such an invitation for audience participation, the use of the verbal adjective (ζητητέον) is suggestive of such an occasion.517

Origen recognized a problem with attributing the words of Ps. 77:2 to the Saviour. If the words

“I will open my mouth in parables and utter problems from the beginning” were the Saviour’s words, then what about the following verse: as much we have heard and have known them and our Fathers have proclaimed to us, he did not conceal from their children, relating songs of the

Lord to the next generation (Ps. 77:3-4b). The problem, at least for Origen, was that the words from vv. 3-4 do not appear appropriate for the Saviour to speak, as they imply that the person speaking needed a teacher. On the contrary, Jesus had one teacher, the Father, and was not in

515 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:354.18-21). 516 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:353.25-26). 517 Bendinelli, Il Commentario a Matteo, 143-44.

170 need of human teachers. He solves this dilemma by showing how often times (πολλαχοῦ) there are many people speaking (πλείονα πρόσωπα) in individual Psalms.518

Origen then turns to Ps. 31 as a paradigm (παραδείγμα) of the changing of speakers. In Ps. 31, the opening verses of the psalm could either have been spoken by the person (ἐκ προσώπου) of the prophet, the Holy Spirit, or Christ himself, but the person “undeniably changes

(ὁμολογουμένως μεταβάλλον τὸ πρόσωπον)” to someone confessing his sins.519 If the person in

Ps. 31 changes, Origen tells his audience that such things must also be investigated (ζητητέον) in

Ps. 77,520 again drawing his audience into the procedure.

First, Origen observes that the words from vv. 1-2 Pay heed, O my people, to my law. Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in parables and utter problems from the beginning, were spoken by someone in authority (ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ). In the following verse, however, the person speaking changed (μετέβαλεν ἄρα τὸ πρόσωπον).521 While his first observation appears to have focused on the content of the verses, which implied that the person speaking had authority, his prosopological reading was also grounded in the shift from the singular in vv. 1-2 to the plural in vv. 3-4.522 With these remarks, Origen concluded his remarks on prosopology, and begins the judgment (κρίσις) of the passage.

Having established that vv. 1-2 were from the person of the Saviour, Origen draws his audience to the moral of the passage. Again, he does so by inviting his audience to participate in the

518 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:354.7-15, 23-24). Margaret M. Mitchell observed the same argument in her essay, “Problems and Solutions in Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, 49. 519 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:355.1-15). 520 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:355.19-20). 521 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:355.21-356.7). 522 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:356.3-5).

171 literary exercise: “Let us listen to the wording (κατὰ λέξιν δὲ ἀκούσωμεν).”523 He then juxtaposes Ps. 77:1 with Ps. 9:21: Appoint a lawgiver for them, let the nations know that they are human beings. The passage from Ps. 9:21 was, according to Origen, a reference to the Mosaic

Law. However, in Ps. 77:1, the law spoken of was the law of Christ, given for the gentiles.524

Origen’s message thus turns to address Christians still practicing Jewish customs.

To illustrate his point, Origen alludes to debates with Jews. His description in this homily might suggest that he is talking about debates with the local Rabbis in Caesarea. The debate in question centred on a reading of Jeremiah 38:31-32; 39:39: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will bring about a new covenant for the house of Israel and for the house of

Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers” (Jer 38:31-32), and “I will give to them a new heart to fear me and a new way” (Jer 39:39). According to Origen, the Rabbis interpreted these passages as references to the age to come, while the Christians maintained that it was a reference to Jesus, the Lawgiver for the gentiles.525

Origen then gets to his point:

So, if my Saviour says, “Give heed, my people, to my law,” he addressed the Christians: for the Christians are Christ’s people. And he says: “Give heed to my Law,” not to the Law of Moses, do not be circumcised, do not observe the Sabbath, do not walk according to the first and ancient things:” “Behold, he has made new things, he has done away with the ancient things” (2 Cor. 5:17). But also hear the “foolish women, having heaped up manifold sins” (2 Tim. 3:6), and see that the Saviour speaks in a certain manner: “Give heed, my people, to my Law” (Ps. 77:1b).526

523 Origen, Hom. 1.3 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:356.13). 524 Origen, Hom. 1.3 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:356.13-357.3). 525 Origen, Hom. 1.3 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:357.16-25). 526 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:358.9-15).

172

While we cannot be certain that Origen is addressing real circumstances in his Christian community of Caesarea, there is reason to suspect that some Christians were engaged in Jewish practices. Origen’s reference to the “foolish women” from 2 Tim. Might be aimed at the women in his community, who, Alfons Fürst argued, were most likely to continue such practices.527

Whatever the case may be, Origen also targets the ongoing presence of Jewish ritual fasting practices:

For if you observe the Law as the people of Christ, you shall not make unleavened bread again even when the days of the unleavened were instituted, but make unleavened sincerity, make unleavened truth (cf. 1 Cor. 5:8). If you observe the Law, you shall not make the Jewish fast again, through which the ones who were not spiritual were rightly expelled from the churches of Christ on the Day of Atonement … If you want to fast as the Jews do, your bridegroom is taken away from you, according to what has been said, “When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, then they fast in those days” (Mark 2:20). If you want to fast, then fast a Christian fast. The Lawgiver of the gentiles taught, saying, “When you shall fast, anoint your head and wash your face and pray to your Father in secret” (Matt. 6:6), “so that you may not appear fasting to people” (Matt. 6:17-18).528

We can thus summarize the κρίσις as follows: Ps. 77:1 was spoken by the Saviour, as a reference to the new law for the gentiles. Therefore, discontinue the old Jewish practices that have been abolished, and observe the practices proper to a Christian. And, just like in Hom.1 in Ps. 36,

Origens arrives at the κρίσις as a result of his previous application of a grammatical-literary exercise: in this case, prosopology. We can thus trace the grammarian’s process of exposition:

1.) establishing the correct text through philology; 2.) explanation through prosopology; 3.) judgment of the text’s benefit for the audience.

527 Fürst, “Judentum, Judenchristentum und Antijudaismus,” 281-82. 528 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:358.16-359.8).

173

Origen then transitions to a discussion of v. 2 “I will open my mouth in parables and utter problems from the beginning.” At this point, Origen does not address any textual problems.

Instead, he draws a comparison of scripture to the philosophical schools.

just as among the philosophizers of Greece, there are certain problems (προβλήματα), which they set before those who will study them, in order that either those teaching or those getting experience in how to construct proofs might repeat those lessons (μαθήματα), so thus there are also certain problems (προβλήματα) of scripture. What are these? How did three days take place when neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars had been created? . . . Again, among the things that are problems from the beginning, are how was darkness on the one hand over the abyss, but on the other hand, the Spirit of God was over the water (Gen. 1:2) . . . And, if someone knows wisely how to ask questions from the scriptures, he will find problems from the beginning.529

Margaret Mitchell argued that “problems and solutions,” while explicitly a mere blip in the homily, actually provided the unifying theme for the entire homily.530 At any rate, Origen summons his audience to be the kinds of readers who know how to ask insightful questions of the biblical text (ἐάν τις εἰδῇ σοφῶς ἐπερωτᾶν τὰ τῆς γραφῆς) and to search for answers in light of its aporias.531

Immediately after these remarks, Origen applies Mark 4:34 as an intertext, in order to construct a certain kind of relationship between the Christian reader of the Bible and Jesus himself. Having established that the intelligent reader of the Bible is the one who “knows wisely how to ask questions from the scriptures,” he introduces Jesus as the philosopher par excellence:532 “So, when the Saviour says: I will utter problems from the beginning (Ps. 77:2b), hear him saying

529 Origen, Hom. 1.6 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:362.17-363.8). 530 Mitchell, “Problems and Solutions in Early Christian Biblical Interpretation,” 41. 531 Perrone, “La mia gloria è la mia lingua,” 189. 532 Mitchell, “Problems and Solutions in Early Christian Biblical Interpretation,” 54.

174 that, ‘I will clarify problems from the beginning’: for, in private he solved all the problems for his disciples (Mark 4:34) and spoke to them the doctrine (λόγον) about God.”533 I will discuss the implications of this passage in greater detail in the next chapter.

Origen then returns to the main lesson of the homily. If it was Christ who was speaking in vv. 1-

2, it was the disciples who responded in vv. 3-4: as much as we have heard and have known these, is like this: “we have known other teachings, as much as we have heard them: as we have heard, we have known, our Fathers explaining them to us.”534 Origen then addresses what it was exactly that the apostles heard. What the fathers were passing down to their sons were the marvelous works God performed for them, such as raising a testimony up in Jacob (v. 5). Of course, Origen gives this a Christian interpretation so that the wonders include both the things

God performed long ago, and the sojourning of Christ. These were the teachings passed down from generation to generation so that the people may not forget the marvelous works of God (v.

7). Origen, then, exhorts his audience not to become like the forefathers, the generation in whom the spirit was not steadfast (v. 8).

This concluding section, much like that of Hom. 1 in Ps. 36, reads like a preacher who was getting tired. It contains no technical discussions of a literary or theological nature, and his points are hurried as he seems to speed through the remaining verses under discussion. Even in this concluding section, however, Origen continues to draw meaning from the sequence of the narrative, interpreted in the light of the Christian experience of the resurrection. Even while he is getting tired, he is still leading his audience through a literary exercise.

533 Origen, Hom. 1.6 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:363.8-11). 534 Origen, Hom. 1.7 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:364.20-24).

175

Conclusion

I have shown in this chapter how Origen explained the biblical text for his audience following the procedure of the grammarians, and that, in so doing, he provided his audience with a literate education, or a “grammatically informed”535 literacy. In breaking the text open for his audience,

Origen addressed various grammatical issues, such as unfamiliar diction, homonymy, and textual variants. In order to solve these grammatical problems, Origen applied terms common in the grammatical schools, such as homonymy and prosopology. Origen was not simply explaining the meaning of the text for his audience. Origen created a classroom-like atmosphere in which he often invited his audience to join him in the literary exercise. In so doing, he was guiding his audience through the exegetical process, teaching them the steps necessary for them to be able to interpret it by themselves.

However, Origen also understood that these same grammatical tools were not sufficient for a full understanding of the biblical text. While these tools were necessary for a proper reading of the

Bible, they could not solve all the problems the Bible presented to them. Ultimately, a reading of the Bible was an encounter with the Logos himself incarnate in the words of the text. Origen had a profound understanding that, since such was the case, the Bible had depths that human effort alone could not penetrate. In the next chapter, I will turn to how Origen addressed this issue in the Psalm Homilies, especially his teachings on purity of heart, to show that the aforementioned grammatical skills were merely preparatory training for an intimate encounter with the Logos, in which the Logos himself provided solutions to the problems beyond the reach of human reason.

535 Morgan, Literate Education, 175.

176

In other words, while in this chapter I showed how Origen fashioned a Christian literary culture, in the final chapter I will show how he also fashioned the Christian reader.

Chapter 5: A Christian Reader in the City

So far, I have shown aspects of the textual ethos of Late Antique textual communities (Chapter

1); tracks of similar aspects in Origen’s Caesarean school (Chapter 2) and in the Psalm Homilies

(Chapter 3); and how Origen directed his preaching efforts towards creating a literate Christian culture by applying his grammatical skills when preaching to his audience (Chapter 4). The picture, however, is still incomplete. As I will show in this chapter, for Origen, the task of reading required a great deal more than simply grammatical analysis. The primary reason for this is that Origen was keenly aware that human reason alone was insufficient for acquiring knowledge of God. While he held a generally optimistic view of learning, he was well aware of its limitations.

Furthermore, these homilies demonstrate the preacher’s awareness of the various forces confronting third-century Christians living in a Roman city. Caesarea was a major centre of entertainment in Roman Palestine, including a Hippodrome for a variety of sporting events, as well as theatrical performances. Such attractions often became the primary subjects of conversation. At the same time, the preacher also encountered the social tensions common in any community, from simple gossip to jealousy and strife. All of these competing moral forces vied for the attention of citizens. In light of these realities, Origen’s preaching reflects the efforts of a preacher to re-orient the mental and behavioural habits of his audience towards a prioritization of scripture, the source of divine revelation, the proper object of the human person’s affection.

177 178

The literate culture, which I explored in Chapter 4, was set against the backdrop of readers in the midst of the aforementioned forces competing for their attention. In this chapter I will analyze how Origen approaches his audience in the midst of their urban lives, and how he attempted to convert his listeners towards what he considered to be proper Christian commitments. Behind this effort on Origen’s part was a particular anthropology based on the premise that the human person has an intrinsic relationship with God. A central concept in this anthropology was the heart, the epicentre of the soul’s intellectual processes and the battleground of the moral life.

I argue here that for Origen, the technical skills of reading and interpretation were merely the preliminary stages of reading, an act that reached its fulfillment in the direct and unmediated encounter with the Logos in the heart. In light of this observation, the central claim of this chapter is that in the Psalm Homilies, Origen was doing much more than simply providing spiritual edification for his preaching audience. He was, rather, teaching his audience how to be

Christian readers of the Bible themselves. So then, it is to the formation of a Christian reader that I will turn below. However, since the term “Christian reader” carries certain anthropological assumptions, I will first describe two key concepts in Origen’s understanding of the human person, namely, the heart and the related concept purity of heart.

5.1 The Heart

5.1.1 A Spiritual Being

There is such an abundance of scholarship on Origen’s anthropology that it is not necessary to provide a comprehensive analysis here.536 Therefore, I will limit this discussion to one key feature:

536 I simply refer the reader to some key studies. Blosser, Become Like the Angels: Origen’s Doctrine of the Soul (Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012); Crouzel, Origen, trans. A.S. Worrall (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985), 87-98.

179

Origen’s understanding of the heart. Examining the heart in Origen will allow us a better understanding of how Origen attempted to cultivate certain attitudes towards reading in his preaching audience. Here, two interconnected ideas function to bring Origen’s anthropology directly to bear on Christian reading. On the one hand, for Origen, the heart gave the human person a natural kinship with God. On the other hand, the heart was also the location of a number of forces pulling the person this way and that, struggling for control over the soul. The former will be the subject in this section. I will turn to the latter in the next segment.

Early in his treatise On First Principles, Origen defined God as “a simple intellectual nature

(intellectualis natura simplex) … and the intellect and source from which all intellectual natures and minds take their beginning (et mens ac fons, ex quo initium totius intellectualis naturae uel mentis est).”537 At the same time, human beings are fundamentally intellectual beings, “rational animals (rationabile animal).”538 Moreover, it is the intellect which gives the human being a natural relationship with God: “there is a certain affinity between the intellect and God (quod propinquitas quaedam sit menti ad deum), of whom the intellect itself is an intellectual image (ipsa mens intellectualis imago), and that by means of this is able to know to some degree the nature of divinity, especially if it is purified (expurgo) and separated from bodily matter.”539 Here is

Origen’s fundamental anthropological claim: the human being has an intrinsic relationship to

God;540 by means of that intrinsic relationship, the human being can acquire a certain degree of knowledge of God, yet, due to embodied existence, such knowledge is a struggle to attain.

537 Origen, de Prin. 1.1.6 (Behr 30-31). 538 Origen, de Prin. 1.5.2 (Behr 92-93). 539 Origen, de Prin. 1.1.7 (Behr 36-37). 540 Somos, Logic and Argumentation, 35-42.

180

Origen’s understanding of the mind as the superhuman organ in the human person is one of the richest and most satisfying doctrines of the Alexandrian, and he consistently applied the biblical concept “heart” as a homonym. After his remark on the “natural affinity between the mind and

God,”541 Origen presents Matt. 5:8 as a potential objection. If the Gospel says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” does that not imply that God is a body capable of being seen with bodily eyes? Origen responds to the hypothetical interlocutor:

From that very passage, in my opinion, will our argument be much more firmly established; for what else is seeing God in the heart than, as we have explained above, to understand and to know him with the mind? For the names of the organs of sense are frequently applied to the soul, so that it may be said to see with the eyes of the heart, that is, to infer some intellectual conclusion by means of the faculty of intelligence.542

The principle supporting this argument is homonymy, which we have already encountered. As I showed in the case of Hom 1 in Ps. 36, Origen applied homonymy as a means of leading his audience to look beyond the mere letter of the text. Here, in First Principles, the context was a debate over the incorporeality of God. In the latter, Origen applied homonymy in order to defend the doctrine that God is a pure intellectual nature, and with the application of Matt. 5:8, to situate the natural kinship of human beings and God within the intellect, or heart.

Origen used the concept of homonymy in a nearly identical discourse in his Dialogue with

Heraclides. Origen addressed the notion that the soul resides with the body in the tomb after death, which he claims to have heard from “some people here and in the surrounding regions.” A certain

Dionysius raised the question, related to this doctrine, whether the soul was blood, based on a

541 Origen, de Prin. 1.1.7 (Behr 36-37). 542 Origen, de Prin. 1.1.9 (Behr 38-39, with one modification).

181 reading of Lev. 17:11 (“The soul of all flesh is its blood”). This text presented a “great problem

(μέγα τὸ πρόβλημα)”543 for the Alexandrian, to which he applied homonymy as a solution. In scripture, Origen said:

I have found that incorporeal things (οὐ σωματικά) are named homonymously (ὁμωνύμως) for all corporeal things (πασῖ τοῖς σωματικοῖς), in order that, on the one hand, there are bodily things according to the outer man (σωματικὰ ᾖ κατὰ τὸν ἔξω ἄνθρωπον), but on the other hand, there are homonyms for the bodily things according to the inner man (τὰ δὲ ὁμώνυμα τοῖς σωματικοῖς κατὰ τὸν ἔσω).544

Origen then proceeded to provide a lengthy discourse on scripture’s way of speaking of the inner and outer person grounded in the principle of homonymy before making the connection to the mind. Speaking of the eyes of the inner human being (ὁ ἔσω λὲγεται ἔχειν ὀφθαλμούς) with references to Ps. 12:3 and Ps. 18:8-9, he said that it is “from observing the divine commandments according to the mind (κατὰ τὸν νοῦν) that we become more clear-sighted (ὀξυδερκέστεροι).”545

While Origen’s argument, in this case, was concerned with refuting a materialistic understanding of the soul, we also see how Origen’s understanding of the mind, i.e. heart functioned in his biblical interpretation. In order to move his audience past a somatic reading of Lev. 17:11, he used the

Bible’s use of homonyms to explain the noetic meaning. It is also significant here that, like de

Prin. 1.1.9, Origen locates spiritual vision, vision of divine things, in the intellect. This is no mere intellectual theology, however. As we saw in de Prin. 1.1.9, the intellect, or mind, is a homonym

543 Origen, Dial. 16.11-24.17 (SC 88-102). 544 Origen, Dial. 11.16-19 (SC 78). 545 Origen, Dial. 16.24-25 (SC 90).

182 for the heart, where man encountered God, and it is to Origen’s understanding of the heart that I will now turn.

5.1.2 The Spiritual Organ, par excellence

Scholars have long known that Origen’s understanding of the “heart” is a combination of the

Platonic concept “mind (νοῦς)” and the Stoic concept ἡγεμονικόν.546 For the Stoics, the

ἡγεμονικόν was the governing faculty of the soul. It was the part of the soul responsible for governing mental/psychic operations, responsible for “producing images and assent to the images, perceptions and impulses (τὸ ποιοῦν τὰς φαντασίας καὶ συγκαταθέσεις καὶ αἰσθήσεις καὶ

ὁρμάς).”547 In other words, it was the locus of human psychological and intellectual processes, in which the person would apply reason and judgment of the aforementioned stimuli from which action would proceed.

In de Prin. 3.2-4, Origen followed the Stoics by identifying the heart (i.e. ἡγεμονικόν) as the centre of the person’s rational processes, from which he developed a profound moral psychology. On the one hand, in de Prin. 3.1, Origen outlined the feature that distinguishes the human being from irrational animals like spiders and bees. The latter, Origen argued, act based on a natural movement arising from an image (φαντασία) or impulse (ὁρμή). For example, he said that a spider weaves a web when the image (φαντασία) of weaving a web arises, which is followed by an impulse (ὁρμή) to weave. For the spider, the act of weaving was not a rational process.

546 The most important work remains Henri Crouzel’s “Le Cœur selon Origène,” in BLE, 85 (1984), 5-16, 99-110 (pp. 99-110 for his comments on the philosophical vocabulary). Also, Blosser, Become Like the Angels, 89-92; and Crouzel, Origen, 87-92. 547 SVF 2.836. Also, SVF 1.143; 2.879.

183

On the other hand, rational animals possess reason (λόγος), which works alongside the

“imaginative nature (ἔχει πρὸς τῇ φανταστικῇ φύσει).” The reasoning faculty judges (κρίνω) the images, choosing to accept some and reject others. He then located this reasoning process in the

“governing faculty (ἡγεμονικόν): “Let him turn his attention to his own affections (παθή) and movements (κινήματα), whether the approval (εὐδοκήσις) and assent (συγκατάθεσις) and inclination of the governing faculty (ῥοπὴ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ) towards some action is not on account of plausible arguments there (διὰ τάσδε τὰς πιθανότητας).”548 We have here the seeds of what Origen would articulate as a psychology of human actions, both sins and virtues, in the latter chapters of book three.

This discussion served as a preface in de Prin. 3.1 for a discussion of certain problematic biblical texts which seemed to suggest that sin was not the result of free rational processes. The first example Origen provided was the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exod. 4:21; 7:3. The problem,

Origen said, was that many understood that this passage showed that God was the one who hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Therefore, certain “heterodox” used this narrative as a pretext for

“destroying self-determination (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ἀναιροῦντες)” and the introduction of their doctrine of natures.549 The logical conclusion for such an interpretation was that Pharaoh was not responsible for his sin.

Pharaoh’s plight, however, must be understood against the backdrop of Origen’s vision of internal and external forces contending for the heart’s attention. One source was the opposing powers, who incite and instigate (prouocantes et instigantes) people to sin.550 The devil hurled

548 Origen, de Prin. 3.1.4 (Behr 290-91). 549 Origen does not specify the “heterodox,” but the targets are likely Valentinians and/or Marcionites. 550 Origen, de Prin. 3.2.1 (Behr 380-81).

184

“his fiery darts (ignita sua iacula)” (Cf. Eph 6:16) at the heart inciting certain thoughts.551 These instigations are not the causes of sins. While they incite certain thoughts (cogitationes), which then proceed from the heart (quae de cordo nostro procedent), it is up to the person to act according to the freedom of the will (liberi arbitrii potestate nobis).552 Sin was the result of the person giving assent “through certain acts or a kind of sloth of the mind (desidia animi), a place is given to the devil.”553

Another source was God, whose providence was also at work in the heart “suggesting (suggero)” memories of good deeds and good thoughts.554 The heart, then, was the “spiritual battlefield (le champ de bataille)” in which good and bad forces struggled for control of the person.555 A third source was the body itself. A consequence of embodiment was that “the natural movements of the body (ex naturalibus corporis)”556 also contributed to the struggle being waged in the heart.557

In light of this ongoing struggle, Origen encouraged his readers to apply vigilance of the heart:

Because of this, our heart must be guarded with all carefulness (cor nostrum omni custodia conseruandum) day and night, and no place be given to the devil, but everything must be done such that the ministers of God…may find a place within us and be delighted to enter into the guest-chamber of our soul (hospitium animae nostrae) and dwelling within us, that is, in our heart (id est in corde nostro), may guide us with better counsels, if indeed they shall find the habitation of our heart adorned by the cultivation of virtue and holiness.558

551 Origen, de Prin. 3.2.4 (Behr 392-93). 552 Origen, de Prin. 3.2.4 (Behr 390-91). 553 Origen, de Prin. 3.2.4 (Behr 392-93). 554 Origen, de Prin. 3.2.4 (Behr 392-93). 555 Crouzel, “Le cœur selon Origène,” 12. 556 Origen, de Prin. 3.2.3 (Behr 386-87). 557 Origen most succinctly identified the sources of thoughts in de Prin. 3.2.4 (Behr 390-91). “thoughts which proceed out of the heart…sometimes proceed from ourselves, and sometimes are aroused by the opposing powers, and occasionally are also implanted by God or by the holy angels.” 558 Origen, de Prin. 3.3.6 (Behr 410-11).

185

In this vision of a heart besieged by various stimuli, both natural and supernatural, internal and external, Origen provides the seedlings of what Egyptian monks in the fourth century would develop into a program for combatting these distractions through practices such as guarding the thoughts, in the quest for control over the self.559

While it can be said that Origen did not systematize a program for combatting distractions, he did have some things to say on the subject. For example, in his treatise On Prayer, Origen speaks of the benefits of praying as one ought (Cf. Rom. 8:26):

Through his very disposition for prayer he adorns himself so as to present himself before God and to speak to him in person as to someone who looks upon him and is present. For just as various impressions and memories of the various things of which they are the memories defile the thoughts that arise under such impressions, in the same way, we must believe that remembering God is profitable … because He knows the motions in the secret part of our soul, when it harmonizes itself to please Him as present and watching and overtaking every mind as “the one who tests hearts and scrutinizes kidneys” (Ps. 7:10c).560

His primary concern in this passage Is to teach his audience why praying properly matters, because it prepares the one praying for direct encounter with God. It is in the heart where God examines and heals the most intimate part of the human being. The act of prayer prepares the one praying for such direct contact, orienting the inner disposition and cleansing the heart for the

559 Inbar Graiver, Asceticism of the Mind: Forms of Asceticism and Self-Transformation in Late Antique Monasticism (Toronto, ON: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2018), esp. 83-95, on guarding the thoughts, 90. 560 Origen, Orat. 8.2 (GCS 2:317.8-16). δι᾿αὐτῆς τῆς ἐν τῷ εὔχεσθαι καταστάσεως θεῷ παριστάναι ἑαυτὸν καὶ παρόντι ἐκείνῳ λέγειν σχηματίσας ὡς ἐφορῶντι καὶ παρόντι. ὥσπερ γὰρ αἱ τοιαίδε φαντασία καὶ ὑπομνήσεις τῶνδέ τινων περὶ τὰ, ὧν γεγόνασιν αἱ ὑπομνήσεις, μολύνουσι τοὺς λογισμοὺς τοὺς ἐν ταῖσδε ταῖς φαντασίαις γεγενημένους, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον πγεστέον ὀνησιφόρον εἶναι μνήμην πεπιστεύοντι τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κατανοοῦντος τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀδύτῳ τῆς ψυχῆς κινήματα, ῥυθμιζούσης ἑαυτὴν ἀρέσκειν ὡς παρόντι καὶ ἐποπτεύοντι καὶ φθάνοντι ἐπὶ πάντα νοῦν τῷ ἐτάζοντι «καρδίας» καὶ ἐρευνῶντι «νεφρούς» (Italics are mine for emphasis).

186 intimate encounter.561 Such purification was necessary, since various mental stimuli (thoughts and memories) polluted its vision.

In Hom. 20.9 in Jer, Origen contrasts the hearts and kidneys from Ps. 7:10c with Jer. 20:12, in which it is said that God is one who “understands minds and hearts.” The former, Ps. 7:10c,

Origen said suggests that the examination of hearts and kidneys only happens for those who have sinned. He then draws a comparison to the law courts to make his argument. While in the law courts, certain people are in the position of examining the guilt of others, and they do so by examining bodies (ἐτάζουσι τὰ σώματα), God has a new way (καινὸν ἔχει τρόπον) of examining.

God, i.e. the Lord (κύριος) “examines the hearts and kidneys (τὸ ἐξετάζειν καρδίας καὶ

νεφρούς).”562 The heart, then, becomes the place where God judges the sins of the human person.563 Origen, thus, invites his audience to an examination of their own conscience:

Let each of us, then, examine our own conscience, and let us see how he sinned, since it is necessary for him to be punished. Let each pray to God that this fire in Jeremiah comes to himself, then what came to Simon and Cleopas (Cf. Luke 24:32), so that he might not be kept for the other fire.564

With this passage, we come to a related issue for Origen. If the heart was the tribunal in which

God examined the sins of the person, it was also the organ of repentance and conversion.565 In the same homily, Origen provides his audience with a lesson on the pericope from Jer. 20:7

(“You have deceived me, O Lord, and I have been deceived”). The first lesson in the homily

561 Perrone, “I cuori e i reni,” 94. 562 Origen, Hom. 20.9 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona, 524.11-13). 563 Perrone, “I cuori e i reni”, 94 564 Origen, Hom. 20.9 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona, 520.20-23). Ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἐξετασάτω τὴν συνείδησιν ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ ἰδέτω τί ἥμαρτεν ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν καλασθῆναι. Εὐχέσθω τῷ θεῷ τοῦτο τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἐν τῷ Ἱερεμίᾳ ἥκειν ἐπ’ αὐτόν, εἶτα τὸ ἐπὶ Σίμωνα καὶ Κλεόπαν ἐληλυθός, ἵνα μὴ τηρηθῇ τῷ ἄλλῳ πυρί. 565 Crouzel, “Le cœur selon Origène,” 15.

187 was on the principle of homonymy as a literary device for understanding how deception could be predicated of God.566 Then, when he comes to the verse “It arose in my heart as a burning fire, flaming in my bones” (Jer. 20:9), he prefaces his words by saying that the “Logos intends to be daring here.”567 What the Logos dared to say through Jeremiah pertained to the “fire” that kindled in his heart, which led Origen to a discussion of the “procedural paradigm”568 of God’s healing activity on the human heart.

On the one hand, there was a perceptible fire which some people suffered at the hands of secular rulers as punishment for certain crimes.569 On the other hand, the fire of which Jeremiah spoke was an imperceptible fire (πυρὸς οὐκ αἰσθητοῦ) in the heart, which punishes the sinner. This unbearable fire (εἰς τὸ μὴ φέρειν αὐτόν), burns in the heart and reaches into the bones (ἐν τοῖς

ὀστέοις μου). Christ kindled this fire in the heart of the sinner as a medicinal measure to bring about repentance and conversion, signified by Simon and Cleopas in Luke 24:32 (“Were not our hearts burning on the way while he opened up the Scriptures to us?”). Note the connection of repentance and conversion in the context of reading the Bible, to which I will turn later in this chapter.

Origen follows this intertextual reading by comparing two hypothetical sinners guilty of fornication (πορνεία). One sinner acts as if he did nothing wrong (Cf. Prov. 24:55), while the other is plagued with guilt and “punishes the conscience, tortures the heart … because of grief of

566 Origen, Hom. 20.9 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 486:4-494:19). Origen applies Aristotle’s definition of homonymy in this homily (Fürst and Lona 490:2-3). 567 Origen, Hom. 20.8 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 516:30). Μέλλει τι ὁ λόγος τολμᾶν. 568 Perrone, “I cuori e i reni,” 97. 569 Τὸ ἔξωθεν πῦρ ὅ βλέπομεν ἐπὶ τῶν καιομένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἡγουμένων τῶν ἐθνῶν (an external fire that we see upon those being burned by the rulers of the nations)”

188 repentance.”570 Origen’s use of the verb “to torture (βασανίζω)” highlights the severity and the suffering of the experience;571 his point is not about the pain as much as it is the result: repentance and conversion. Unlike the first sinner, who remained indifferent about the sin, the second, through repentance, “has hope before God (ἐλπίδας ἔχειν παρὰ θεῷ).”572 J. Albert

Harrill has insightfully demonstrated that Origen deliberately used the judicial term βασανίζω in order to highlight the exegete’s task of scrutinizing the biblical text.573 However, in the passage from Hom. 20.9 in Jer, Origen inverts the dynamic. Rather than “torturing” the text to extract its meaning, the Logos “tortures” the heart of the reader through the text

Moreover, what emerges here in Origen’s homily is the dialectic between God and the human person taking place in the heart. Repentance and conversion were not simply the products of

God’s activity on the heart. It also involved the free response of the penitent. Earlier in the homily, as Origen was explaining God’s deception (Cf. Jer. 20:7), Origen qualified his remarks by saying that God was not a tyrant who coerced, but was rather one who encouraged the sinner with the aim that the sinner would consent to God’s activity, “not according to compulsion, but according to his own volition.”574 In the heart, then, is where two freedoms meet,575 the freedom

570 Origen, Hom. 20.9 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 520:2-5). Ἴδε μοι τὸν ἕτερον μετὰ τὸ πτῶμα μὴ δυνάμενον στέγειν, ἀλλὰ κολαζόμενον τὴν συνείδησιν, βασανιζόμενον τὴν καρδίαν, φαγεῖν καὶ πιεῖν οὐ δυνάμενον, οὐ κρίσει νηστεύοντα ἀλλὰ ἀλγηδόνι τῆς μετανοίας. 571 Perrone, “I cuori e i reni,” 96-97. 572 Origen, Hom. 20.9 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 520:10). 573 J. Albert Harrill, “‘Exegetical Torture’ in Early Christian Biblical Interpretation: The Case of Origen of Alexandria, Biblical Interpretation 25 (2017), 39-57. 574 Origen, Hom 20.2 in Jer. (Fürst and Lona 492:2-5). Ὁ θεὸς οὐ τυραννεῖ, ἀλλὰ βασιλεύει, καὶ βασιλεύων οὐ βιάζεται, ἀλλὰ πείθει, καὶ βούλεται ἑκουσίως παρέχειν ἑαυτοὺς τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτῷ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ κατὰ ἀγάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν τινος ᾖ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἑκούσιον αὐτοῦ. “God does not tyrannize, but rules, and ruling he does not coerce, but persuades, and he desires that those under him to submit themselves voluntarily to his economy, in order that the good in someone not be due to necessity, but according to his own volition.” For a very similar sentiment, see CC. 4.3 (Chadwick trans. 186). 575 Crouzel defined Origen’s doctrine of knowledge as a “meeting of two freedoms” in Origen, 100. Similarly, Christiana Reemts expressed it as “Begegnung von Freiheiten (an encounter of freedoms),” on the part of man and on the part of God. Christiana Reemts, Vernunftgemäßer Glaube: Die Begründung des Christentums in der Schrift des Origenes Gegen Celsus (Bonn: Borengässer, 1998), 211.

189 of God to reveal himself and the freedom of the person to accept or reject, to bring about the conversion of the person.

5.1.3 Purity of Heart

Since the heart, for Origen, was the locus for the person’s most intimate contact with God, we must then ask under what conditions such contact was possible. Here, Origen’s understanding of purity of heart is most helpful. Much as the general concept “heart” was ubiquitous throughout

Origen’s writings, the related concept “purity of heart” appears so frequently that it is impossible to account for every occurrence here. Nevertheless, a brief analysis allows for some conclusions relevant for this study, to which I will turn in the next section.

In his introductory remarks to On Prayer, Origen paused before beginning the treatise, explaining how difficult a subject prayer is on which to speak: “For the reasoning of mortals is worthless, and our designs are likely to fail, for a perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthly tent burdens the thoughtful mind (Wis. 9:13).”576 Origen’s citation of Wis. 9 is not merely rhetorical flavour, or self-debasement. Origen was keenly aware that a central fact of human existence is distraction. The hustle-and-bustle of daily existence prevents the mind from dwelling in its natural abode, divine contemplation. Where these distractions most impacted the person, however, was in the heart, the main intellectual organ, the “organ of contemplation,”577 or the “organ of prayer.”578

Origen articulates this vision in a variety of ways, but is consistent in each case, that perceptible distractions cloud the organ’s intellectual vision, preventing it from seeing its natural object,

576 Origen, Orat. 1 (GCS 2:297.12-14). 577 Crouzel, “Le Cœur selon Origène,” 7. 578 Lorenzo Perrone, La preghiera secondo Origene: L’impossibilità donata (Brescia: Morcelliana 2011), 467.

190

God. One of the basic benefits of praying as one ought was that it cultivated a disposition proper for encountering God, who stood in the midst of the one praying. Among the many antagonists, are “anger and troubling thoughts (ὀργῆς καὶ τεταραγμένων λογισμῶν),”579 as well as

“impressions and memories (φαντασίαι καὶ ὑπομνήσεις)” that arise before and during prayer.580

When one prays with the “mind (Cf. 1 Cor. 14:15),” one is able to “weaken by the power of God the spiritual poison coming from the opposing powers and entering the governing faculty (τὸ

ἡγεμονικόν).”581 Underpinning Origen’s chief concern here for the benefit of praying as one ought to pray, is his understanding of spiritual vision. Since prayer was an unmediated conversation between the one praying and God, purity of heart was a prerequisite.

At the same time, a defiled heart had a similar impact on the reading and interpretation of the

Bible, a mediated encounter between God and man. During his exegesis of the Lord’s Prayer in

Orat. 23-30, he paused for a moment at the first verse (“Our Father in Heaven”):

Now since even before the corporeal coming of Christ, many passages of Scripture seem to say that God is in a corporeal place, it does not seem to me foolish to list a few of them in order to remove what distracts (περισπασμὸν ἀφελεῖν) those people from the truth, who on account of their lack of erudition (ἰδιωτισμός), so far as it goes, circumscribe the God of all in a small and narrow place.582

His exegesis, with its philosophical digression on the nature of God, directly ties the condition of the heart to the act of reading the Bible. Just as the “impressions and memories (φαντασίαι καὶ

ὑπομνήσεις)” distract the mind from its converse with God during prayer, corporeal distractions

579 Origen, Orat. 8.1 (GCS 2:316.27). 580 Origen, Orat. 8.2 (GCS 2:317.10). 581 Origen, Orat. 8.12.1 (GCS 2:324.15-18). 582 Origen, Orat. 23.3 (GCS 2:351.9-14).

191 also prohibit a proper reading of the Bible. Origen’s rhetorical point here is to explain biblical anthropomorphisms, themselves a result of a base reading of the text.

Similarly, since the heart was the source of human actions, both virtues and vices, sin also prevented the heart from its spiritual vision. A chief antagonist in this regard was idolatry, which, so to speak, encapsulated all sin.583 Idolatry is simply stopping at what is a mere image of the reality.584 This shortcoming, however, was a product of the numerous forces, good and bad,585 bombarding the mind from all directions. In his Hom. 3 in Ps. 77, Origen provides his audience with a spiritual interpretation of the exodus as the spiritual forces afflicting the third- century Christian. Just as the Pharaoh and the Egyptians pursued the Israelites, there was also a spiritual Pharaoh and spiritual Egyptians (πνευματικοί Αἰγύπτιοι), as well as “a sea of life’s affairs (τὴν θάλασσαν τῶν τοῦ βίου πραγμάτων),” like a wall on the person’s right and left.586

When Celsus ridiculed the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, saying that Christians needed

God to “thrust his own spirit into a body like ours” so that people could hear and learn from him.

Origen retorted that, while God is indeed difficult to perceive, since he is incorporeal, we can, however, perceive him in the heart, but only those who have a pure heart can do so.

583 Crouzel, “Le Cœur selon Origène,” 12. 584 Crouzel, “Le Cœur selon Origène,” 12. 585 Crouzel, “Le Cœur selon Origène,” 12. 586 Origen, Hom. 3.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:384.19-385.3). Ἐὰν δὲ νοήσας τὴν θάλασσαν τοῦ βίου καὶ τὰ κύματα τὰ ἐν τῷ βίῳ, καὶ τὸ πικρὸν καὶ τὸ ἁλμυρὸν τῶν βιωτικῶν πραγμάτων, δυνηθῶ εὐεργετηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ νοῆσαι τίνα τρόπον διώκει με οὐ σωματικός τις Φαραώ, οὐδὲ σωματικοὶ Αἰγύπτοι, καὶ νοήσας ταῦτα δυνηθῶ φυγεῖν τὸν <πνευματικὸν> Φαραώ, τί ἄν ἄλλο εὐχοίμην ἤ ἵνα διαρρήξῃ τὴν θάλασσαν τῶν τοῦ βίου πραγμάτων ὁ θεὸς καὶ στήσῃ ταῦτα τὰ κύματα ὡς ἀσκόν (Ps. 77:13b), καὶ πάντα διαβῶ γινομένων μοι τειχῶν ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἐξ εὐωνύμων (Cf. Exod. 14:22); But, having understood that there is a sea of life and waves in life, and as well as the sharpness and bitterness of temporal matters, I should understand the good works done by God in what way it is neither some bodily Pharaoh that purses me, or bodily Egyptians, then having understood these things, I am able to flee the “spiritual” Pharaoh, why else should I pray other than that God may separate the sea of life’s affairs and may stand up these waves as a bottle (Cf. Ps. 77:13b), and that may I pass over the things that are walls to me from the right and from the left?”

192

Furthermore, in our view because God is not corporeal, He is invisible. But He may be perceived by those who can perceive with the heart, that is, the mind, though not with an ordinary heart, but with a pure heart (Cf. Matt. 5:8). It is not right for a heart that has been defiled to look upon God; that which can deservedly see Him who is pure must be pure also.587

Again, Celsus criticized Christianity, this time the doctrine of God and the desire of Christians to know and see God. Origen retorts: “The knowledge of God is not derived from the eye of the body, but the mind which sees that which is in the image of the Creator and by divine providence has the power to know God. And that which sees God is a pure heart, from which evil thoughts no longer proceed, nor murders, nor adulteries, nor an evil eye…That is why it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matt. 5:8).”588 This vision, Origen is careful to qualify, is not a vision of the bodily eyes. It is purely intellectual, or spiritual. This is, of course, not merely an abstract intellectual construct. It is a deeply personal vision of God.

In his Commentary on John, Origen speaks about John the Baptist in John 1:26 (“In your midst stands one you do not know”). He then draws the connection to the heart: “Consider if, since the heart is in the middle of the whole body, and the ruling principle (ἡγεμονικόν) in the heart, the saying, ‘In the midst of you stands one you do not know,’ can be understood of the Reason

(Logos) which is in everyone.” It is in the heart, then, that Jesus, the Logos, unveils the divine teaching of the Scriptures to the Christian.589 I will now turn to an examination of how Origen applied the concept purity of heart in the Psalm Homilies.

587 Origen, CC. 6.69 (GCS 2:139.10-14). 588 Origen, CC. 7.33 (GCS 2:184.1-9). 589 Blosser, Become Like the Angels, 90.

193

5.2 Purity of Heart in the Psalm Homilies

5.2.1 “My Kidneys Instructed Me” (Ps. 15:7a): Hom. 2 in Ps. 15

The lengthiest discussion on the heart in the Psalm Homilies is found in his Hom. 2.3 in Ps. 15.

Origen had already attributed this Psalm text to the Saviour.590 However, when he approached the verse: my kidneys instructed me until the night (Ps. 15:7a), he began by making it clear to his audience that the text was not referring to bodily kidneys, but should be taken in an analogous way to scripture’s use of “heart” such as in the beatitude Blessed are the pure in heart (Matt.

5:8).591 The Evangelist was clearly not speaking about the vital organ. In the same way, the

Psalmist/Christ was not speaking about the bodily kidneys (νεφροί σωματικοί).592

Turning to another analogy, Origen said that it was as if in the human soul, there were ideas and the seeds of thoughts existing in potential (προόντα δυνάμει) before they rise to the heart.593

Here, the spiritual kidneys and heart functioned as an information highway for the human person.

Some of these ideas and thoughts, Origen said, are bad, for the one who sins, commits a wicked act from that source, but sometimes they are better, since the good also seems to come from that same source.594 These same roots, the principles of ideas, also taught ‘the soul of Jesus’.595

Origen thus turned Jesus into a model for how the pedagogy of the soul takes place. These ideas

590 Origen, Hom. 2.1 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:91.19-92.1). 591 Origen, Hom 2.3 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:94.12-14). Οὗτοι δὴ οἱ νεφροί, οὐχ οἰ σωματικοί, οἱ ἀναλόγως ὀνομαζόμενοι καρδίᾳ (οὐδὲ γὰρ ὅτε καρδία λέγεται καθαρὰ καὶ μακάριος ὁ καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ (Matt 5:8), σώματι δεῖ νοῆσαι τὸ μακαριζόμενον, ὅ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῴοις βλέπομεν). 592 For a more extended discussion of the kidneys (νεφροί) in Origen’s thought, see R. Somos, “Origen on the Kidneys,” SP 65-77, abbreviated in Logic and Argumentation, 50-51, 593 Origen, Hom. 2.3 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:94.18-20). Ὡς εἰ ἔλεγον καὶ περὶ ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς τὸ ἀνάλογον, ἐχούσης ἐν τοῖς νεφροῖς τὰ πρὸ τοῦ ἀνατεῖλαι ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν νοήματα καὶ διαλογισμῶν σπέρματα, τὰ ἔνδον προόντα δυνάμει. Somos suggests that the kidneys represent a preliminary stage in the developmental process prior to the maturation of the natural thoughts in the heart, Logic and Argumentation, 50-51. 594 Origen, Hom. 2.3 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:94.20-95.2). 595 Origen, Hom. 2.3 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:95.3-13).

194 and thoughts (the Stoic concept of the innate ideas is hovering in the background),596 needed proper cultivation, without which they would produce vice instead of virtue.597

However, taking a closer look at Origen’s homily reveals his use of the literary concept

“homonymy”598 to make his argument. “Indeed, these kidneys, not the bodily kidneys, are named in an analogous way (ἀναλόγως ὀνομαζόμενοι) to heart (for, when a heart is said to be pure such as blessed is the pure in heart (Cf. Matt. 5:8), it is not the heart in the body that is understood to be blessed, that which we even see in irrational animals).”599 He then applies an argument almost identical to his discussion in de Prin. 1.1.9:600

In a similar way, the eyes of the soul are said to be illuminated by the commandment of God (Cf. Ps. 18:9) homonymously (ὁμωνύμως) with the eyes of the body, since the eyes of the soul act in a way analogous to the work of the eyes of the body: the eyes of the body see bodies and colours and the eyes of the soul see intellectual things. So too, the ears of the soul are spoken homonymously with the ears of the body.601

Origen’s application of homonymy here rested on a similarity in function between the two kinds of organs. In order to understand the spiritual organ, one first needed to know the function of the bodily organ.602

596 Somos, “Origen on the Kidneys,” 75, with developments in Logic and Argumentation, 43-51. Also, Somos’ essay, “The Question of Innate Ideas in Origen,” in Origeniana Undecima (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 857-70. 597 This is indeed what happened with Pharaoh in de Prin. 3.1.10. God’s ‘one act (μία ἐνέργεια)’ revealed the ‘underlying element of evil (τὸ τῆς κακίας ὑποκείμενον)’ in Pharaoh’s heart. 598 For Origen’s use of homonymy, see Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (New York, 1998), 17, 41, 47, 59. 599 Origen, Hom. 2.3 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:94.12-14). 600 Origen, Prin. 1.1.9 (Behr 38-39). ‘the names of bodily parts are taken by way of analogy to their bodily function as referring to the faculties of the soul’. 601 Origen, Hom 2.5 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:100.19-101.3). Οἷον ὀφθαλμοὶ λέγονται ψυχῆς φωτιζόμενοι εἶναι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐντολῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁμωνύμως τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τοῦ σώματος, ἐπεὶ ἀνάλογον τῷ ἔργῳ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τοῦ σώματος ποιοῦσιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῆς ψυχῆς· οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τοῦ σώματος βλέπουσι σώματα καὶ χρώματα καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῆς ψυχῆς βλέπουσι τὰ νοητά. Οὕτως καὶ ὦτα λέγεται ψυχῆς ὁμωνύμως τοῖς ὠσὶ τοῦ σώματος. 602 R. Somos, “Origen on the Kidneys,” 69.

195

Origen then argued that just as the bodily heart (καρδία τοῦ σώματος), regarded as the

“governing faculty (τὸ ἡγεμονικόν)” of the body is homonymous (ὁμωνύμως) for the heart of the soul (καρδία ψυχῆς), so too were the “bodily kidneys (σωματικοί νεφροί)” homonymous for the

“kidneys of the soul (νεφροί ψυχῆς).”603 Following an “out-of-date” medical theory,604 Origen identified the kidneys as the male procreative organ which generates sperm. In the same way, the kidneys of the soul were the seats of “spiritual seeds,” which rose to the heart and developed into mature thoughts and actions.605 Just as the bodily kidneys provided the seminal fluid necessary for procreation, the spiritual kidneys provided the seminal ideas and thoughts, the “law written in the heart (Rom. 2:15),” which would come to maturity if properly cultivated.606 In this homily, Origen discussed purity of heart in light of the cognitive processes of human psychology. In the next example, Origen provides us with a hint about the disposition of one who’s heart is pure.

5.2.2 “The waters saw you, O God, and were afraid” (Ps. 76:17) – Hom. 3 in Ps. 76

Origen began his Hom. 3 in Ps. 76 by asking his audience what kind of waters could “see God, since human beings receive this end (τέλος) after much toil (μετὰ πολλοῦ κομάτου) according to what scripture says: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God (Matt. 5:8).”607 But, how could an inanimate object see God? To solve this conundrum, Origen interpreted the waters as spiritual powers, focusing on the distinction between the Spirit which was over the waters, and the darkness that was over the abyss in the creation account from Genesis.608 Origen based this

603 Origen, Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:101.4-10). 604 R. Somos, “Origen on the Kidneys,” 71. 605 Origen, Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 15 (GCS 19:101.10-14). Οὕτως ἀνάλογον τῷ γινομένῳ ἐν τοῖς νεφροῖς γίνεται ἐν τοῖς νεφροῖς τῆς ψυχῆς· ἐν τοῖς νεφροῖς συνίσταται τὰ σπέρματα καὶ ὁ ἄρρην περὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς ταῦτα ἔχει, καὶ οὕτως γόνιμος γίνεται. Οὕτως ἡ γόνιμος ψυχὴ τὰς δυνάμεις ἔχει τῶν πνευματικῶν σπερμάτων ἐν νεφροῖς ψυχῆς. 606 R. Somos, “Origen on the Kidneys,” 75. 607 Origen, Hom. 3.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:326.1-3). 608 Origen, Hom. 3.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:328.5-329.17).

196 intertextual reading on the distinction he saw implicit in Ps. 76 between the “waters (ὕδατα)” that saw God and were afraid, and the “depths (ἄβυσσοι),” which were “thrown into confusion

(ἐταράχθησαν).”609 Origen considered the references to the “waters” and the “abyss” in Ps. 76 to be allusions to two distinct kinds of intellectual beings.

However, in order to buttress his argument and demonstrate his point on grammatical grounds,

Origen again turned to the principle of homonymy:

if everything in the world is managed by powers being set over them and assigned to everything, why is it out of place for the things that manage to be termed homonymously for things that are being managed and the waters [to be] called powers over the waters, for the seas to be called powers over the seas, and also the depths [to be called] powers over the abyss?610

Origen then turns to juxtapose Isa. 14:9 (“Hades below was embittered meeting you”) and Ps.

9:18 (“Let sinners be turned away to Hades”) to show that while Hades was “a place of souls

(τόπος ψυχῶν),” there is also “a living Hades with the same name (ὁμώνυμον) in that passage

(i.e. Isa. 14:9), who is called Hades.”611 He draws this lesson out further with references to Ps.

113:3, regarding the sea, which “saw and fled (εἴδεν καὶ ἔφυγεν),” saying that it was

“homonymously (ὁμωνύμως) called the power administering things pertaining to the sea and [the power] guiding the people of God (ἡ δύναμις ἡ διοικοῦσα τὰ κατὰ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ

ὁδοποιοῦσα τῷ λαῷ τοῦ θεοῦ ὠνομάσθη).” The passage, “the Jordan was turned backwards (Ps.

609 Origen, Hom. 3.2 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:329.19-20). 610 Origen, Hom 3.2 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:331.12-17). Εἰ οὖν πάντα δυνάμεων ἐπιστατουσῶν καὶ μεμερισμένων πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ οἰκονομεῖται, τί ἄτοπον ὁμωνύμως τοῖς οἰκονομουμένοις τὰ οἰκονομοῦντα ὀνομάζεσθαι καὶ λέγεσθαι ὕδατα τὰς δυνάμεις τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων, λέγεσθαι θαλάσσας τὰς δυνάμεις τὰς ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ οὕτως ἀβύσσους τὰς δυνάμεις τὰς ἐπὶ τῆς ἀβύσσου; 611 Origen, Hom. 3.2 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:332.1-3).

197

113:3b)” was also a case of homonymy, since the name “Jordan” could be used for the river itself and the power entrusted with governing it (ἡ δύναμις ἡ ἐγκεχειρισμένη τὴν διοίκησιν).612

So then, Origen interprets the verse, the waters saw you, O God, and were afraid, and the deep was troubled. A great roaring of the waters (Ps. 76:17), by drawing his audience to the conclusion that the first waters experienced “tranquility and silence (εὐστάθεια καὶ ἡσυχία)” simply contemplating (θεωρέω) God, while the deep was shaken (ταράσσω) as in a state of confusion.613 With the reference to Matt. 5:8, tranquility and silence were conditions associated with a pure heart, a heart that remains still in the presence of God. This would stand in contrast to a heart polluted with mental distractions. Moreover, here Origen connects the spiritual heart with the organ of spiritual vision, the organ capable of beholding God. However, it was not necessarily that an unclean heart could not see God. The “deep” did indeed have such a vision.

The difference was that those with a pure heart would not be shaken, would not be disturbed by such a vision. Next, we will see how Origen situated purity of heart directly into a discussion of competing moral forces.

5.2.3 “A voice of your thunder was in the circuit” (Ps. 76:19a) – Hom. 4 in Ps. 76.

The prologue to Origen’s Hom. 4 in Ps. 76 was a masterful display of rhetoric in which he set out to describe the various ways by which “God arouses the slumbering human nature as if waking from sleep.”614 He opened with a description of how the arts (τέχναι) such as music can lead the soul into idolatry (ἔκλουσι καὶ εἰς εἰδωλολατριαν φέρουσι).615 He admonished his

612 Origen, Hom. 3.2 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:332.3-7). 613 Origen, Hom. 3.3 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:336.8-11). 614 Origen, Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:341.1-2). Ῥαθυμοῦσαν τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν ὁ θεὸς ποικίλως διαναστῆσαι βούλεται καὶ ὥσπερ ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγεῖραι. 615 Origen, Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:341.11-12).

198 audience for valorizing those human arts rather than using the created world to contemplate

(κατανοέω) the work of God.616 He said that through objects of sense-perception, both auditory and visual (παρὰ τὴν ὅρασιν καὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν) God exhorts us (προτρέπει ἡμᾶς) to look upon the created world. Through the created world, such as flowers and plants, God’s very own odours can be contemplated.617

Origen then addresses his audience:

We are obliged, then, if in objects of sense perception, God is found [using] these same arts in order to exhort us to religion, to inquire what God can do in the mightier things – I mean in things distinct from objects of sense perception – in order that you may judge things of sense perception and contemplating sensible objects and things from the world and [look upon] the one who created the world. For, no one among humankind sees, nor is able to see God (1 Tim. 6:16): nevertheless, there is a super-human element (ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον) in us – and this is the mind (νοῦς) – that sees God, if it is pure: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matt. 5:8).618

However, he said that many people do not comprehend God, since they have “an unclean eye of the soul, or mind (ἀκάθαρτον τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμὸν, τὸν νοῦν),” that is “fettered

(ἐμποδίζεται)” “by the passions (πάθη), by evil (κακία), by the love of life (ὑπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ

βίου), by anxieties and cares (ὑπὸ τῶν μεριμνῶν καὶ φροντίδων).”619 A pure eye of the soul, i.e. heart, is one that has been properly trained to free itself from the passions. The implication here is that if the heart was not pure, the person would mistake the arts, and the created world, for the

616 Origen Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:341.13). 617 Origen, Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:341.17-26). 618 Origen, Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:342.1-7). 619 Origen, Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:342.8-14).

199 proper object of devotion, God. In other words, if the heart was not pure, the person would fall into idolatry.

Origen does not, in this instance, provide a lesson for his audience in homonymy. He certainly could have seized this opportunity to do so. Nevertheless, the content of Origen’s discourse, especially the allusion to Matt. 5:8, is consistent with his use of homonymy. As we saw in the previous examples, Origen often used homonymy to explain the Bible’s way of using objects of sense perception to signify intellectual objects. That seems to be the case in this homily as he warns his audience against attaching a significance to the arts beyond their utility as signs pointing to their creator. At any rate, his words on the anxieties and cares for temporal things suggests that he was concerned to direct his audience’s attention away from such bodily or perceptible things and towards intellectual or spiritual things. We see a similar concern in the next passage.

5.2.4 “Delight in the Lord and he will give you the requests of your heart” (Ps. 36:4) – Hom. 1 in Ps. 36

Origen prefaced his remarks on Ps. 36 by telling his audience that the subject matter of this particular psalm was ethical (ἠθικός ἐστι τόπος).620 Following the opening verse (“Do not fret among those who act wickedly nor be jealous of those who do lawlessness”), he first admonished his audience to neither provoke others to jealousy,621 nor provoke God to jealousy through

620 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:113.7). 621 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:113.11-114.21).

200 idolatry,622 nor to be jealous of those who are wealthy or of high status.623 However, when

Origen arrived at v. 4, his discourse turns to the heart, with another lesson in homonymy.

Origen began by directing his audience’s attention to the customary language of the Bible: “It is the custom in scripture to introduce two men and to make each homonyms of each of the men.”624 Origen first made reference to scripture’s way of discussing the “inner (ἔσω)” and

“outer (ἔξω)” person. Just as there is food and drink for the outer person, so too there is food and drink for the inner person. Later, as his discussion of the “heart” continues, he applies an argument similar to the one we saw in Hom. 2 in Ps. 15:

If you understand that regarding each of the senses there is a corresponding request and a corresponding flight in its constitution, then consider that the inner heart is your mind, the inner [heart] is the governing faculty (ἡγεμονικόν), in order that you see what happens to you in the heart is also what your heart requests: as the eye [requests] light, as the sense of smell [requests] a pleasant odour, as the sense of hearing requests harmonious sound, so too the heart, that is the mind, requests ideas, requests thoughts, requests understandings. So, should you delight in the Lord, God will give to you the requests of your heart (Ps. 36:4b).625

His message here was that the proper objects for which a Christian should request were intellectual, or divine, objects. Pre-occupation with material or temporal affairs is contrary to the

622 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:114.22-117.15). 623 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:118.7-120.7). 624 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:121.19-20). Ἔθος ἐστὶ τῇ γραφῇ δύο ἀνθρώπους εἰσάγειν καὶ καθ’ ἕκαστον ὁμώνυμα ποιεῖν τοῦ ἑτέρου τῶν ἀνθρώπων. See also Dial 11.16-19 (SC 78). 625 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:124.3-10). Εἰ νοεῖς ὅτι ἑκάστου τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἐστὶν αἴτησις κατάλληλος καὶ φυγὴ κατάλληλος τῇ κατασκευῇ, βλέπε τὴν καρδίαν ἔνθα ἐστί σου ὁ νοῦς, ἔνθα ἐστὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, ἵνα ἴδῃς τί γίνεται σοι ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ τί αἰτεῖ ἡ καρδία· ὡς ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς τὸ φῶς, ὡς ἡ ὄσφρησις τὸ εὐὠδες, ὡς ἡ ἀκοὴ τὸ ἑμμελές, οὕτως ἡ καρδία, ὁ νοῦς αἰτεῖ τὰ νοήματα, αἰτεῖ τὰ διανοητά, αἰτεῖ τὰ συνετά. Ἐὰν οὖν κατατρυφήσῃς τοῦ κυρίου δώσει σοι ὁ θεὸς τὰ αἰτήματα τῆς καρδίας σου (Ps 36:4b). See also, Origen, Dial. 11.24-32 (SC 78-80). “I have found that non-bodily (οὐ σωματικά) things are termed homonymously (ὁμωνύμως) with all bodily things (πᾶσι τοῖς σωματικοῖς) so that bodily things might correspond to the outer man (κατὰ τὸν ἔξω ἄνθρωπον), but that the homonyms for bodily things correspond to the inner man (ὁμώνυμα τοῖς σωματικοῖς κατὰ τὸν ἔσω).”

201 nature and needs of the soul. Thus, earlier in the homily he exhorted his audience not to provoke

God to jealousy by jealously seeking temporal goods.626 While it can be said that ambiguities in the Bible contribute to erroneous interpretations, it can equally be said that for Origen, materialistic interpretations of the Bible were symptoms of a mind, i.e. heart, distracted with life’s affairs.

The cultivation of the heart thus required a reformation of certain habits, both cognitive and behavioural. It required, specifically, the reader to recognize the proper object of attention

(cognitive), and to immerse oneself in the pursuit of that object (behavioural) through the constant practice of reading.627 While we begin to see the seeds of the later monastic teaching of purity of heart,628 I will now turn to discuss how Origen has something else in mind in these discussions. His remarks reveal a preacher attuned to the daily experiences of his urban audience, in particular the kinds of forces competing for the reader’s attention.

5.3 The Word in the City

In the previous chapter, I highlighted some aspects of Caesarea Maritima that would have suited

Origen’s scholarly and preaching activities. At the same time, there were many aspects of city life with which he had to contend, and from which he attempted to divert his audience’s attention. From the founding of the city by Herod the Great, there were many popular attractions, such as a large theatre and a Hippodrome for various athletic contests and gladiatorial events. Josephus informs us,

626 Origen, Hom 1.1-2 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:114.22-115.9; 118.7-24). 627 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 267. 628 See for example, Stewart, Cassian the Monk, 45-47. Also, Juana Raasch, “The Monastic Concept of Purity of Heart and its Sources: Philo, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen,” in Studia Monastica 10 (1968), 7-55.

202

And so, there was to begin with a very great festival of dedication and most lavish arrangements. For he had announced a contest in music and athletic exercises (ἀγῶνα μουσικῆς καὶ γυμνικῶν ἀθλημάτων) and had prepared a great number of gladiators (μονομάχων) and wild beasts (θηρίων), and also horse races (ἵππων τε δρόμον) and the very lavish shows (πολυτελέστερα ἐπιτηδευμάτων) that are to be seen at Rome and in various other places. And this contest too he dedicated to Caesar, having arranged to celebrate it every fifth year.”629

Josephus’ account reflects the state of affairs in the first century C.E. However, there is evidence that such activities continued into Origen’s time in the third century.630 Such spectacles would have provided enticing distractions for a preacher attempting to persuade his audience to dedicate their lives to the reading of scripture.

On several occasions throughout these homilies, the preacher displays his awareness that such activities associated with city life vied for the attention of his audience, activities counter to the

Christian way of life. In Hom. 1 in Ps. 76, Origen contrasts the proper use of reason with its improper use:

He [God] has made us rational, but the masses do not use reason properly. So then, let those of us offer up to God the logos, which he has given to us, in order that we always hold our converse regarding God and regarding the things of God, in order that we always speak for the sake of the edification and benefit of the soul: let us offer up the voice to God, in order that every sound be in respect to God, or let us offer up – if this must be said – the eyes to God, in order that we see everything with respect to God but let us close the eyes to what must not be seen. For, we must neither look upon depravities nor the shedding of blood nor upon the things done upon earth for the harm of the masses in the cities.631

629 Josephus, Ant. 16.5.1 (LCL 260:137-138). See also, Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule, 17; and Heine, Scholarship in the Service of the Church, 146. 630 Levin, Caesarea Under Roman Rule, 57. 631 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:295.5-12). Λογικοὺς ἡμᾶς πεποίηκε, καὶ τῷ λόγῳ χρῶνται οἱ πολλοὶ οὐ καλῶς. Ἡμεῖς οὖν αὐτοὶ τὸν λόγον, ὅν ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν, ἀναθῶμεν τῷ θεῷ, ἵνα ἀεὶ περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ διαλεγώμεθα, ἵνα ἀεὶ εἰς οἰκοδομὴν καὶ ὠφέλειαν ψυχῆς λέγωμεν· ἀναθῶμεν τὴν φωνὴν τῷ θεῷ, ἵνα πᾶσα ἡ φωνὴ ᾖ κατὰ θεὸν ἤ ἀναθῶμεν – εἰ δεῖ οὕτως εἰπεῖν – τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῷ θεῷ, ἵνα βλέπωμεν πάντα τὰ κατὰ θεὸν καὶ

203

After the relatively vague description of what must not be seen, he targets very specific activities not proper for a Christian to practice: “So then, the one lifting up the eyes to God will not abandon him for the Hippodrome, nor will he watch the theatres, nor will he depart for those crude spectacles of the wild-beast fights.”632

Again, in Hom. 2 in Ps. 76, preaching on Ps. 76:13-14 (“I will meditate on all your works, and will ponder your practices”) Origen again contrasts the improper attention paid to sports and games with the proper object of attention, namely, scripture. “Let your discourse (ὁμιλία) be not about the world, not what the horses are doing, not what the charioteer has done or accomplished, not what’s happening in the theatre, not what the governor of the nation decided.”633 Keenly aware that many in his audience were more interested in the latest gossip, and even current political events, Origen encouraged his audience to pay more attention to what scripture is telling them: “So then, if you want to ponder, ponder, yet with God seek the practices of God and ponder on them observing that law which says: you will speak on them sitting at home, walking on the road, lying down and rising up (Deut. 6:7).”634

In Hom. 4 in Ps. 77, the concern of the preacher is not so much with the games or political intrigue. Rather, Origen links the Israelite grievance against the manna with the third-century

Christian lack of liturgical participation.635 Instead of attending the liturgy for the nourishment

καμμύωμεν δὲ ὅπου μὴ χρὴ βλέπειν. Οὐ χρὴ δὲ βλέπειν ἀκαθαρίας οὐδὲ αἱμάτων ἐκχύσεις οὐδὲ ταῦτα τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς ἐπιτελούμενα ἐπὶ βλάβῃ τῶν πολλῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν. 632 Origen, Hom. 1.2 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:295.13-15). Ὁ ἀνατιθεὶς οὖν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῷ θεῷ οὐκ ἀπελεύσεται εἰς τὰς ἱπποδρομίας οὐδὲ ὄψεται τὰ θέατρα οὐδὲ ἐπ’ ἐκείνας τὰς ὠμὰς θέας ἀπελεύσεται τῶν κυνηγεσίων. 633 Origen, Hom. 2.4 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:319.8-10). Ἡ ὁμιλία σου μὴ ἔστω κοσμική, μὴ τί οἱ ἵπποι πεποιήκασι, μὴ τί ὁ ἡνίοχος πεποίηκεν ἤ κατώρθωσεν, μὴ τί ἐν θεάτρῳ γεγένηται, μὴ τί ὁ ἡγούμενος τοῦ ἔθνους ἐδίκδασε. 634 Origen, Hom. 2.4 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:319.4-7). See also Perrone, “Origen’s Interpretation of the Psalter Revisited,” 144. 635 Origen, Hom. 4.4 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:394.10-21).

204 of their souls, Origen chastised his listeners for preferring sumptuous foods.636 In each of these cases, Origen explicitly identifies scripture as the proper object of attention for the Christian reader. He was, however, aware that city life presented the reader with many distractions. We have already seen Origen tell his audience explicitly that the proper objects of the heart were intellectual, noetic objects.637

While Hom. 4 in Ps. 77 reflects the pastoral frustrations of the preacher, Hom. 3 in Ps. 77 shows a different side of Origen’s temperament. Rather than chastising his audience for their conduct, he realizes that life is filled with various sources of stress. So, when he preached on Ps. 77:13

(“God parted the waters and led them through it”), he provides his audience with an imaginative and relatable interpretation:

How great is it, that God should separate the bodily sea and should lead me going [through it]? And if, having understood the sea of life and the waves in life, as well as the sharpness and bitterness of temporal matters, I should understand the good works done by God in what way it is neither some bodily Pharaoh that purses me, or bodily Egyptians, then having understood these things, I am able to flee the “spiritual” Pharaoh, why else should I pray other than that God may separate the sea of life’s affairs and may stand up these waves as a bottle (Cf. Ps. 77:13b), and that may I pass over the things that are walls to me from the right and from the left? And that I might desire to see the Egyptians pursuing me, the spiritual Egyptians, being overwhelmed, so that having passed through the Red Sea, as God opens it for me, I am able to say this, let us sing to the Lord, he is gloriously glorified (Exod. 15:1).638

636 Origen, Hom. 4.11 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:407.12-20). See also my article, “Scripture and the Formation of Christian Culture,” 435-37. 637 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:124.3-10). 638 Origen, Hom. 3.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:384.17-385.9). Τί μέγα ἐστίν, ἵνα διαρρήξῃ ὁ θεὸς σωματικὴν θάλασσαν καὶ διαγάγῃ με ἑδεύοντα; Ἐὰν δὲ νοήσας τὴν θάλασσαν τοῦ βίου καὶ τὰ κύματα τὰ ἐν τῷ βίῳ, καὶ τὸ πικρὸν καὶ τὸ ἁλμυρὸν τῶν βιωτικῶν πραγμάτων, δυνηθῶ εὐεργετηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ νοῆσαι τίνα τρόπον διώκει με οὐ σωματικός τις Φαραώ, οὐδὲ σωματικοὶ Αἰγύπτοι, καὶ νοήσας ταῦτα δυνηθῶ φυγεῖν τὸν <πνευματικὸν> Φαραώ, τί ἄν ἄλλο εὐχοίμην ἤ ἵνα διαρρήξῃ τὴν θάλασσαν τῶν τοῦ βίου πραγμάτων ὁ θεὸς καὶ στήσῃ ταῦτα τὰ κύματα ὡς ἀσκόν (Ps. 77:13b), καὶ πάντα διαβῶ γινομένων μοι τειχῶν ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἐξ εὐωνύμων (Cf. Exod. 14:22); Καὶ βουλοίμην ἰδεῖν τοὺς διώκοντάς με Αἰγυπτίους, τοὺς πνευματικοὺς Αἰγυπτίους, καταποντισθέντας, ἵνα διελθὼν τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν, τοῦ θεοῦ διανοίγοντός μοι αὐτὴν, δυνηθῶ εἰπεῖν τὸ ᾄσωμεν τῷ κυρίῳ, ἐνδόξως ἐνδεδόξαστα.

205

In light of such a distracted existence, the Christian reader would have found it rather difficult to focus attention on the Bible. Yet, that is precisely what Origen was attempting to persuade his audience to do.

Of course, Origen was also aware that not all the problems of city living were limited to gossip or social attractions. He was attuned to the fact that daily existence could also be boring and uneventful. Such circumstances were no less distracting. In Hom. 5 in Ps. 77, Origen provided a lesson on “vanity (μαιταιότης)” in the verse “their days ended in vanity (Ps. 77:32).” Here,

Origen homed in on two opposing choices one faces on a daily basis:

Man rises in the morning after healing the body with sleep and spends the entire day either in divine works and words and thoughts, or in temporal and bodily affairs. You will find more [people] in bodily affairs and not in spiritual affairs and spending the entire day in temporal affairs. So, sometimes someone spends the day in temporal affairs, he spends it in vanity: but, sometimes, at intervals, [he spends it] not only in vanity, but also in something good.639

We see especially in this passage the competing moral choices facing the Christian on a daily basis. It is in this precarious circumstance that the Christian readers found themselves. I will finish this chapter exploring how Origen addressed this situation, urging his audience to choose the spiritual way.

639 Origen, Hom. 5.5 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:413.8-14). Ἀνίσταται ἄνθρωπος ἕωθεν μετὰ τὸ θεραπεῦσαι τὸ σωμάτιον ὕπνῳ καὶ ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν εἴτε ἐν θεϊκοῖς ἔργοις καὶ λόγοις καὶ νοήμασιν, ἤ ἐν βιωτικοῖς καὶ σωματικοῖς καταναλίσκει. Εὑρήσεις τοὺς πλείονας ἐν σωματικοῖς, καὶ οὐ πνευματκοῖς, καὶ βιωτικοῖς γράγμασι καταναλίσκοντας τὴν ὅλην ἡμέραν, ἐν ματαιότητι καταναλίσκει· ὅτε δὲ ἐκ διαλειμμάτων, οὐ μόνον ἐν ματαιότητιͅ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔν τινι ἀγαθῷ.

206

5.3.1 Purity of Heart and the Christian Reader

So far, we have seen how Origen applied the concept purity of heart in these Homilies. In each case it functioned as a paradigm for understanding how the biblical writers employed somatic language homonymously for spiritual things. We have seen also how Origen constructed his arguments around the grammatical or literary concept homonymy. We have, thus, the intersection of theology and exegesis. At the same time, Origen is quite aware that human effort alone is not sufficient for the reader to penetrate the depths of scripture. The mind, or heart, might have been the spiritual image of the spiritual God, but since it was only the image, it could only comprehend that of which it was the image partially.

At this point, I must add one caveat. In the Psalm Homilies, there is substantial evidence that

Origen valorized the revelatory function of the cosmos at least as much as the biblical text itself.

Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 provides such evidence. Origen began the homily with a reflection on how, by “observing the cosmos and the arrangement of things on earth and from the ordering of the universe, one might be amazed at the one who created the things that have been created (ἰδοῦσα

τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὴν διάταξιν τὴν ἐπὶ γῆς θαυμάσῃ ἐκ τῆς τάξεως τῶν ὅλων τὸν πεποιηκότα τὸν

πεποιηκότα).”640 In fact, after describing how Marcion removed the Bible from its foundations in Hom. 1 in Ps. 77, he argued that faith is not so much proved by biblical revelation as much as it is from the world and its arrangement.641

640 Origen, Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:341.3-4). 641 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:352:19-353.4). Διὰ τοῦτο εὔλογον ἐστι τὸν πίστιν ἔχοντα, οὐ τοσοῦτον διὰ τὰς γραφὰς ὅσον διὰ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὴν τάξιν τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ⟨εἰς⟩ τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ πιστεύοντα εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰσοῦν, οὐ τοσοῦτον ἀπὸ τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ὅσον ἀπὸ τῆς ἐναργείας ἐκ τῆς δυνάμεως τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ἐκ τοῦ πλήθους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ κεκρατηκότος τῆς οἰκουμένης, ἔπειτα ἥκειν ἐπὶ τὰ γράμματα, μετὰ τοῦτο πάλιν αἰτεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ χάριν, ἵνα μὴ παρεκδεχώμεθα τὰ γεγραμμένα. Therefore, having faith is a blessing, not as much because the scriptures as much as because the world and the ordering of the things in it, [faith] in the one who made the heaven and the earth and the things in them, and believing in Christ Jesus, no as

207

Reading the cosmos was clearly an important aspect of Origen’s theology. The arrangement of the universe was God’s providential means of helping human beings navigate the world.

Origen’s most colourful expression of this providence in the Psalm Homilies is found in Hom. 2 in Ps. 77. Returning to the Sons of Ephraim, who did not remember God’s works (Cf. Ps.

77:11), Origen explained that it was not only the wondrous deed narrated in scripture that they forgot. The Sons of Ephraim also forgot the wondrous deeds in the created world. The passage is long, but the rhetorical force of the expression warrants a full quotation:

Or, is it not a wonder that the sun rises every day from the eastern regions and goes around such a large sky for twelve hours to enter into the sunset? And how is it not marvelous that the moon rapidly advances, sometimes to escape from the sun, and sometimes to advance towards the sun, and its end to be in communion with the sun, and at first withdrawing from the sun, in order that two lights being divided and united should provide light and life upon the earth? And how is it not marvelous that the sun guards the majesty of the days and the nights (Cf. Philo Spec. 4.233), sometimes to make the days longer, and sometimes shorter … I do not yet say anything about the Bear which stood up in the sky, in order that the pilots traverse through the sea not having a path, having neither a route nor a way: they look to the sky and observing the stars, they see where they are to go and how, in order that the stars always show the way. And also, more than arrangements of the stars, the marvelous things with respect to them being beautifully arranged, the ones contemplating are able to see, that all these things are wonders of God.642

much from the things read as much as from the self-evident truth from the power of the churches, from the fulness of his strength having prevailed over the world, and then having come to the writings, and with this again asking for grace from God, in order that we not misunderstand what has been written. 642 Origen, Hom. 2.7 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:380.15-381.9). Ἤ οὐκ ἔστιν θαυμαστὸν καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλειν ἀπὸ τῶν τόπων τῶν ἀνατολικῶν καὶ δώδεκα ὥραις τὸν τηλικοῦτον οὐρανὸν ἐκπεριτολοῦντα ἔρχεσθαι εἰς δυσμάς; Τί δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν θαυμαστὸν τὴν σελήνην τὴν τρέχουσαν ὁτὲ μὲν ἀποφεύγειν τὸν ἥλιον, ὁτὲ δὲ προστρέχειν τῷ ἡλίῳ, καὶ εἶναι αὐτῇ τέλος ἐν τῷ κοινωῆσαι τῷ ἡλίῳ, ἀρχὴν δὲ ⟨ἐν⟩ τῷ ἀποστῆναι τῷ ἡλίῳ, ἵνα τὰ δύο φῶτα χωρίζομενα καὶ ἑνούμενα διοικῇ τὰ φυτὰ καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; Τὶ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν θαυμαστὸν τὸ τὸν ἥλιον τηρεῖν μεγέθη ἡμέρῶν καὶ νυκτῶν, καὶ ὁτὲ μὲν μείζονας ποιεῖν τὰς ἡμέρας, ὁτὲ δὲ μικροτέρας . . . Οὔπω λέγω ὅσα τὰ περὶ τῆς Ἄρκτου, ἥν ἔστησεν ἐν οὐρανῷ, ἵνα οἱ κεβερνῆται περιπατῶσι διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς μὴ ἐχούσης τρίβον, τῆς μὴ ἐχούσης ἴχνη μηδὲ ὁδόν· βλέπουσιν οὐρανὸν καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας κατανοοῦντες ὁρῶσι ποῦ αὐτοὺς πόθεν που πορευέσθαι καὶ πῶς ἵν’ ἀεὶ δείκνυσι τὰ ἄστρα. Καὶ τὰ πλείονα δὲ τῶν θέσεων τῶν ἀστέρων οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοὶ καλῶς πραγματευσάμενοι δύνανται θεωροῦντες βλέπειν, ὅτι θαυμάσια τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντα ἐστίν.

208

In these homilies, there is a clear sense that Origen attempted to persuade his audience that God revealed himself in nature as much as in the Bible.643

Nevertheless, the Psalm Homilies reveal the extent to which the preacher exhorted his audience to greater reading of the Bible, which is the subject with which I am most concerned at the moment. Origen juxtaposed those who spend their days “in vanity of mind (ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ

νοός)” by those who try to increase their wealth, with the one who dedicates the mind to understanding God and the things of God (ὁ νοῦς ἐπὶ τῷ νοεῖν θεόν, νοεῖν τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ), and who seeks (ζητέω) and debates (διαλογίζομαι) over the meanings of the scriptures.644 This, in a nutshell, was Origen’s vision of the Christian life. In the face of the distractions of life in the city, Origen wanted his audience to dedicate their days to the rigorous study of scripture with all the literary tools Origen provided in his homilies. 645 This was a consistent feature across

Origen’s preaching.646

However, Origen was keenly aware that the Bible presented certain problems for which the reader needed divine assistance in order to understand. He finds biblical justification for this in two biblical passages: Matt. 13:35 (“I will open my mouth in parables and utters problems from the beginning”), and Mark 4:34 (“Jesus explained everything to his disciples in private”).

643 For more on this dimension of Origen’s thought, see Alfons Fürst, “Bibel und Kosmos in der Psalmenauslegung des Origenes,” in Adamantius 20 (2014), 130-46. 644 Origen, Hom. 5.5 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:414.1-7). Ἔστιν οὖν οὐ καὶ ἐν ματαιότητι εἶναι τοῦ νοός, ὅταν γὰρ ὁ νοῦς ἐπὶ τῷ νοεῖν θεόν, νοεῖν τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ παρακσευασάμενος καὶ ἐντρέχιαν ζητήσας περὶ τὸ νοεῖν, ζητήσῃ τὰ πρὸς σωτηρίαν συντείνοντα· ἀλλ’ ὡς πῶς ἐντρεχέστερον πραγματεύσηται περὶ τοῦ αὐξῆσαι τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ πῶς πλείονα ποιήσῃ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, ματαιότης ἐστὶ τοῦ νοός. Ὅτε διαλογίζεταί τις οὐ πῶς νοήσει γραφήν, οὐ πῶς ἔργον ποιήσει ἀγαθόν, οὐ πῶς ἐπαπορουμένην λέξιν ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν εὕρῃ, ἐν ματαιότητι τὰ τοιαῦτα ποιεῖ. 645 See also Perrone, “Origen’s Interpretation of the Psalter Revisited,” 151-53. Origen also mentioned the “synaxis (σύναξις),” “the hours for prayer (ὧραι τῆς εὐχῆς),” and the “hours of visiting the sick (ὧραι τῆς ἐπισκέψεως τῆς πρὸς τὸν πλησίον) as proper commitments for the Christian, Hom. 5.5 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:41317-18). In Hom. 4.4 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:394.10-21), Origen chastised his audience for their lack of liturgical attendance. 646 Martens, Origen and Scripture, 97-101.

209

Moreover, he is quick to note that the dialectic of Jesus solving problems for the disciples “in private” occurred in the heart, or the ἡγεμονικόν. For example, when Origen approaches the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matt. 18, he paused a moment before attempting to explain who the characters in the parable were:

Now it is difficult to say whom Jesus intends the one fellow servant to be who is found owing a hundred denarii not to his own master, but to the debtor who owed many talents…No one can explain it unless Jesus, who explained “everything for his own disciples in private,” resides in one’s governing faculty (ἡγεμονικόν) and opens all the dark, hidden, invisible treasures in the parable, and grants clear demonstrations to the one whom he intends to enlighten with the light of knowledge concerning the contents of this parable.647

In the Psalm Homilies, Origen expresses something similar, combining both Matt. 13:35 and

Mark 4:34. Preaching on Ps. 77:2 (“I will open my mouth in parables and utter problems from the beginning”), Origen draws a parallel between the Bible and the practice of the philosophers who also present problems (προβλήματα) for their students. After providing some examples of biblical “problems,” he draws his audience’s attention to Jesus solving problems for them in private:

So, when the Savior says, “I will utter problems from the beginning,” hear him saying that, “I will explain the problems from the beginning:” for in private he explained all” the problems “to his own disciples” (Mark 4:34), and he spoke to them the teaching about God.648

647 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 14.11 (Bendinelli 11/3:107). 648 Origen, Hom. 1.6 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:363.8-11).

210

While he does not mention the ἡγεμονικόν in this passage, the remarkable similarity between this homily and the passage from Comm. in Matt. 14 does warrant closer consideration for the kind of biblical literacy Origen was attempting to construct in his community.

In chapter four, I looked closely at the grammatical procedure with which Origen preached on the biblical pericope in the Psalm Homilies. A key concept in that discussion was homonymy, which Origen often applied in order to clarify the biblical meaning of ambiguous terms. In this chapter, I have shown how Origen consistently applied the term homonymy in his discussions of purity of heart, with the latter serving as a paradigm for the former. We thus have the intersection of grammar and theology at play in these homilies. In a very insightful essay,

Antonio Cacciari demonstrated the movement of grammar to theology in Origen’s scholarship, focusing, however, on Origen’s use of the grammatical term “distinction/punctuation

(διαστολή)” and its cognate “in opposition to (πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολήν + genitive).”649 Particularly illuminating was Cacciari’s insight that Origen repurposed these grammatical and philological terms by giving them theological meaning.650

I would like, however, to provide a more nuanced rationale for Origen’s theological use of grammatical terms. Beyond providing the grammatical terms, and the biblical text under discussion, with theological meaning, I argue that Origen was using grammar as a springboard for a proper Christian reading experience. If we consider the aforementioned passage from Hom.

1.6 in Ps. 77, in which Origen drew his audience’s attention to Jesus explaining parables in private for his disciples, in juxtaposition with the passages regarding purity of heart we can draw

649 Antonio Cacciari, “From Grammar to Theology: History of a Word. On Διαστολή and Related Terms in Origen and in the Origenian Tradition,” in Origeniana Decima (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 39-60. 650 Cacciari, “From Grammar to Theology,” 52.

211 a tentative hypothesis regarding the kind of reader Origen was attempting to cultivate in the

Psalm Homilies.

The act of biblical reading, for Origen, was an encounter with the Logos himself speaking through the text. On the one hand, this encounter demanded a free response on the part of the reader. This response included a faithful attempt to understand what the Logos was saying. To do so, however, required certain skills, such as proficiency in grammar to understand how the

Bible used language. Such skills allowed the reader a rationale for moving beyond the mere letter. On the other hand, a significant impediment to a proper reading of the Bible was preoccupation with objects of sense-perception, or a mind/heart distracted by the affairs of life.

Origen consistently applied the concept of purity of heart in conjunction with the principle of homonymy as a remedy for the reader’s preoccupation with objects of sense-perception, especially as that preoccupation influenced the way one read the Bible. Origen was attempting to guide his audience to a reading experience understood as an encounter with the Logos incarnate in the Bible. During such a reading experience, the reader was looking upon the

Logos, i.e. God, who was speaking directly to the heart of the reader. Such an encounter demanded a heart detached from the distractions of life,651 which clouded the spiritual vision of the reader, blinding them from the radiance of the Lord mediated in the text of scripture.

This is not only evident in Origen’s treatment of Ps. 7:10, in which God is “one who examines hearts and kidneys.”652 We also see it in both Origen’s Commentary on John 13 and his

Commentary on Matthew 14. In the former, after finishing his discourse on Jesus and the

651 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 255. 652 Perrone, “I cuori e i reni,” 94.

212

Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:13-39, Origen turned to the following verse in which the

Samaritans ask Jesus to remain with them. Origen said that it was not in the city where they wanted Jesus to remain, but “with them,” that is to say, in their ἡγεμονικόν.653 In this way, the

Samaritan woman becomes a paradigm of the Christian reader of the Bible. She was able to ask

Jesus questions and received his explanations. After the dialectical encounter, Jesus made his abode in her ἡγεγμονικόν, where he presumably continued his pedagogy of the soul.

Such was the case, at any rate, in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew. As I showed earlier,

Origen prefaced his remarks on the servants from the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matt.

18 by positing that no one could properly interpret the meaning without the help of Jesus himself: “No one can explain it unless Jesus, who explained “all things for his own disciples in private (Mark 4:34) resides in one’s governing faculty (ἐπιδημήσαντος αὐτοῦ τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ), and opens all the dark, hidden, invisible treasures in the parable.”654

Moreover, Hom. 1 in Ps. 77 provides us with another track in this regard. During his discussion of textual criticism in the prologue, Origen says: “And, on the one hand, how much we laboured

(κάμνω)655 on account of God and his grace, comparing the Hebrew and the translations

(συνεξετάζοντες καὶ τὰ Ἑβραϊκὰ καὶ τὰς ἐκδόσεις) for the sake of knowing the emendation

(διόρθωσις) of the errors, God knows, and on the other hand, as much as we desire to do regarding the remaining things, God will help.”656 In Hom. 1 in Ps. 77, we have a model for the move from grammar to a theology of reading. The initial steps were philological, followed by prosopology to draw out the meaning of the pericope. However, such strategies were only meant

653 Origen, Comm. in Jn. 13.182 (GCS 254:27-28). 654 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 14.11 (Bendinelli 11/3:107). 655 Recall that Martens listed this as one of Origen’s exegetical virtues. Origen and Scripture, 167-178. 656 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 77 (GCS 19:351.24-352.2).

213 to peel back the veneer of the letter. It simply made room for a more intimate encounter with the

Logos, who solved the remaining problems in the heart.

Origen expressed this encounter in a different, yet related context in Hom. 2 in Ps. 80. There, when he approached Ps. 80:10 (“Open wide your mouth and I will fill it”), he first criticized those who did not appreciate his use of allegory.657 He then discusses that the Psalm was referring to the “mouth of the soul (τὸ στόμα τῆς ψυχῆς).” It was the mouth of the soul which

God fed when the person was dedicated to the constant study of the Bible:

In the same way, it means to me the mouth of our soul is opened wide, on the one hand, by the constant study of the holy scriptures, and on the other hand, it (the mouth of our soul] is contracted when we know neither the psalm, when we know neither the evangelical text, nor any others of the holy letters. So, we open wide the mouth through close study of the holy letters. And if, in the beginning, we have not seen what the letters mean, if we study them, we begin to fill our mouth, through the study of the letters wanting to memorize the Law and the prophets, the Gospels and the Apostles. And you have a command: “If you open wide your mouth, I will fill it” (Cf. Ps. 80:10c) … For as much as I open wide the mouth, as much as I study, so much more is it filled: and I come studying nothing other than the text, he fills me full of the mind of the divine writings.658

While Origen applies a different spiritual organ in this case, the stomach of the soul instead of the heart, it still has bearing for Origen’s understanding of reading. Because of the effort and care the reader applied in order to understand scripture, God filled the mouth of the soul with the

657 Origen, Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:501.25-502.6). 658 Origen, Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:502.13-21, 24-26). Τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον νόιε μοι τὸ στόμα τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν πλατύνεσθαι μὲν τῇ μελέτῃ τῇ συνεχεῖ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων, στενοῦσθαι δὲ ὅτε οὐκ οἴδαμεν οὐδὲ ψαλμόν, ὅτε οὐκ οἴδαμεν οὐδὲ ῥητὸν εὐαγγελικόν, οὐδὲ ἄλλο τι τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων. Πλατύνομεν οὖν τὸ στόμα διὰ τῆς μελέτης τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων. Καὶ οὐκ εἰδότες ἐν ἀρχῇ τί λέγει τὰ γράμματα, ἐὰν μελετῶμεν αὐτά, ἀρχόμεθα πληροῦν αὐτῶν τὸ στόμα, διὰ τῆς μελέτης τῶν γραμμάτων θέλοντες μεμνῆσθαι νόμου καὶ προφητῶν, εὐαγγελίων καὶ ἀποστόλων ... Πάντα γὰρ ἐκεῖνα, ὅσα πεποίηκαμεν εἰς ἀνάληψιν τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων … ὅσον γὰρ πλατύνω τὸ στόμα, ὅσον μελετῶ, τοσοῦτον μᾶλλον πληροῦται· καὶ ἔρχομαι οὐδὲν μελετήσας ἤ τὸ ῥητόν, πληροῦται τοῦ νοῦ θείων γραμμάτων.

214

“mind (νοῦς)” of the divine writings. It might be appropriate to insert “heart” or ἡγεμονικόν in place of the “mind” of the divine writings given Origen’s understanding of the spiritual organ.

There is a dialectic involved in Christian reading between the effort of the reader and God who responds to such effort with spiritual nourishment.

It is important to note as well the direct contrast between reading scripture and idolatry in Hom. 2 in Ps. 80. Immediately prior to Origen’s allegorical reading of Ps. 80:10, he discussed v. 9 (“Do not bow down to another God”). Origen discussed the nature of idolatry, that it was not the idols themselves, but the intent of those worshipping them that mattered. It was because people wanted something in return for their veneration that made the act idolatrous.

For, they venerate the idols, in order that they may become rich: for the ones who conceive this have with them the idols. And they venerate the idols, in order that they might be glorified, so to speak. So, they honor those things more than the idols, on account of which they also venerate the idols.659

Origen then expands on this definition of idolatry to include any act that is in contrast to the command to “worship the Lord your God and serve him alone” (Deut. 6:13; Matt. 4:10). It was at this time that Origen transitioned to v. 10 with his imaginative reading of the “mouth of the soul.” The message was clear. Attention to anything other than divine things was tantamount to idolatry.

Recalling that reading was an encounter between the Logos and the reader in the heart, the passages from Hom. 1.6 in Ps. 77 and Hom. 2.5 in Ps. 80 need some qualification. Before Jesus could solve the problems of the scriptures in private for the reader, the heart needed cleansing.

659 Origen, Hom. 2.4 in Ps. 80 (GCS 19:501.9-12).

215

Only a pure heart could look upon God in such a way. In the Psalm Homilies, Origen generally contrasts purity of heart with a heart that is distracted or unclean. In Hom. 1 in Ps. 36, for example, Origen’s discourse on purity of heart was situated within a broader discussion of people who place too much value on material things, like physical attraction and political power.

In contrast, the heart’s proper objects were intellectual in nature, “ideas (νοήματα)” and

“thoughts (διανοητά).”660

Likewise, in Hom. 4 in Ps. 76, Origen contrasts a pure heart with one that is “fettered

(ἐμποδίζεται)” “by the passions (πάθη), by evil (κακία), by the love of life (ὑπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ

βίου), by anxieties and cares (ὑπὸ τῶν μεριμνῶν καὶ φροντίδων).”661 In this context, Origen was telling his audience that, while objects of sense-perception could serve as contemplative media, they were not ends in themselves.662 To mistake objects of sense-perception for the one who created them was idolatry.663 This was the struggle of the mind, which was bombarded with stimuli inside and out, and against which the reader had to guard so that Christ could have room to present himself to the reader.

A reading of the somatic language of the Bible was thus a symptom of the material distractions with which the reader was faced. Origen applied grammatical concepts as a means to cleanse the mind of such distractions, removing the veil that lies over the mind, so that it could apprehend the Divine Logos speaking to it through the text. Grammar was thus a remedy for such distractions and a tool for the purification of the heart. It was not only a remedy, however. It

660 Origen, Hom. 1.4 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:124.8). 661 Origen, Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:342.8-14). 662 Origen, Hom. 4.1 in Ps. 76 (GCS 19:341.17-26). 663 Origen, Hom. 1.1 in Ps. 36 (GCS 19:115.3-18).

216 was a prerequisite skill for unearthing the deeper meaning.664 Along with allowing the reader to engage the theological meaning of the text, it allowed the reader an unmediated encounter with the Logos.

It would certainly be tempting to see in Origen the later monastic practice of combatting thoughts. I previously drew attention to Origen’s connection to the monastic practice of

“watchfulness” as a means of gaining control over the distracted mind. When Origen speaks of a distracted mind, it sounds very similar to what Inbar Graiver demonstrated happened in the

Egyptian desert, when monks fought for control over the wanderings of the mind, especially during prayer.665 John Cassian’s friend, Germanus, complained of such distractions during prayer in Conference 9.666 Cassian himself complained of unwanted memories of classical literature creeping into his mind during the act of Bible reading.667 However, as I hope to have shown in this chapter, Origen had something else in mind when he speaks of the mind “fettered by the passions.” Rather than concerning himself with mental distractions during the act of reading itself, Origen was more concerned with the allurements of city life intruding on the priority of the Bible as the source of Christian nourishment.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have shown that Origen understood the precarious existence of the Christian reader, who faced an array of physical and mental forces competing for affection. In the midst of such an existence, Origen oriented the Christian reader towards a commitment to Bible reading, a

664 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 267. 665 Graiver, Asceticism of the Mind, 96-128. 666 Graiver, Asceticism of the Mind, 98-99. John Cassian, Conf. 9.7.1 in John Cassian: The Conferences, trans. Boniface Ramsey, ACW. 57 (Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 1997), 334-35. 667 John Cassian, Conf. 14.12 (ACW), 516-17.

217 primary source of spiritual nourishment and a medium through which the reader encountered the

Logos, an encounter in the heart. The depths of the scripture were boundless, yet particularly intimate. Fundamentally, Christian Bible reading was a springboard for contemplation and prayer, acts rooted in the heart. At the same time, however, reading skills were prerequisites for clearing the heart of what clouded this organ of spiritual vision. In particular, Origen brought his grammatical skills to bear on these homilies to provide his audience with a linguistic framework from which to understand biblical language.

Moreover, Origen’s use of a grammatical term such as homonymy, in conjunction with the anthropological concepts (i.e. “heart” and “purity of heart”) connects ethics and theology in the act of reading. I showed how Origen consistently applied purity of heart and homonymy in these homilies to peel back the veneer of the mere wording. In these discussions, Origen often contrasted objects proper for the heart’s attention with objects of sense-perception, such as wealth, reputation, and power. Origen’s discourse on purity of heart in these homilies suggests that a preoccupation with temporal objects has a direct impact on how one reads and understands the Bible.

Origen did not, however, clarify the precise nature of that association. Therefore, we can only hypothesize that there was a reciprocal relationship between temporal distractions and biblical interpretation. On the one hand, temporal distractions were stumbling blocks for the reader. On the other hand, inability to dig beneath the bare letter of the text could also lead to preoccupation with objects of sense-perception. This explanation at least is consistent with Stefaniw’s claim that biblical exegesis, according to Origen, was aimed less at defining the meaning of the text as

218 it was an exercise in training the mind.668 At any rate, Origen applied purity of heart, especially the passage from Matt. 5:8, as a paradigm for explaining the Bible’s use of somatic language.

Origen understood the heart to be the “organ of prayer,”669 the “organ of contemplation,”670 which was bombarded by various forces competing for its attention and affection, such as local gossip, the latest goings on at the Hippodrome, and so on. In order for the reader to “see” the

Logos, i.e. God, in the biblical text, the reader first had to remove such distractions and focus one’s attention on the proper object of the Christian’s attention: the reading of scripture.

668 Stefaniw, Mind, Text, and Commentary, 12-13. 669 Perrone, La preghiera secondo Origene, 467. 670 Crouzel, “Le Cœur selon Origène,” 7.

Conclusion

What I have tried to do in this dissertation is both complex and yet rather simple. I set myself that task of illuminating an aspect of Origen’s thought, specifically his biblical interpretation, that has yet to receive sufficient scholarly attention. Namely, I endeavored to show the extent to which Origen mobilized his literary skills when preaching on the Psalms in order to create literate Christian culture. However, this was a rather complicated process, since, in order to show the kind of literate culture Origen attempted to cultivate, I had to demonstrate the literate culture to which he himself belonged.

Therefore, in the first chapter I treated a subject that might at first glance appear to have nothing to do with the project at hand. That would be short-sighted, however. Origen’s scholarly works belonged to a culture of Late Antique reading communities, in which highly literate individuals discussed and debated their authoritative texts. From the philosophical schools to Jewish literary circles, to those of early Christian intellectuals, texts and reading were integral to moral, intellectual, and spiritual development. An important pattern found in some of these communities the presence of an intellectual diverse audience. From the Pythagorean “Learners” and “Hearers,” to the occasional attendees of Plotinus’ lectures, intellectual life might not have been as elitist as is often presumed.

Certainly, this is not to ignore the gulf between the intellectual abilities and status of certain individuals and those of others within these communities. Nevertheless, there did appear to be a diversity of readers in these communities. We saw a similar circumstance in Origen’s Christian community in Caesarea. Origen taught both highly literate individuals in his school and those who may have been of lesser literary skill who attended his homilies, perhaps sitting right next to

219 220 his more learned students. Therefore, in this recently discovered collection of Psalm Homilies, I have attempted to demonstrate how a preacher attempted to bridge such a gulf and create a community of readers with the intellectual skills and capacity to engage with the biblical text at a more intellectual level. While it would be anachronistic to apply the term “scholastic community”671 to early Christianity, the name is not necessarily off the mark. Indeed, Stewart-

Sykes has illuminated how Christian preaching took on a more “scholastic” form in the third century.672

This new discovery of Greek homilies from Origen provides scholars with a fresh new lens through which to gauge aspects of his life and thought. The aspect that stuck out the most in my reading of them was the scholarly nature of Origen’s discussions. Traditional scholarship has tended to neglect the scholarly aspects of Origen’s preaching in favour of his more pastoral aims.673 Instead, I discovered principally the biblical scholar/preacher engaging his audience at a profoundly technical level. This is not to ignore certain differences between Origen’s learned commentaries and the homilies. This phenomenon, nevertheless, is indicative of both Origen’s manner of handling a text and the life of a reading community in Late Antiquity. Such communities engaged their texts in the midst of their daily experiences, especially their experiences of being pulled this way and that by a variety of forces competing for their attention.

Another gap I hoped to have bridged in this work was the tendency among some scholars to highlight the “elitist” mentality of Late Antique intellectuals such as Origen. Rather than seeing

671 E.A. Judge, “The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community,” JRH 1/3 (1961), 4-15, 125-37. 672 Stewart-Sykes, From Prophesy to Preaching, 88-269. 673 Heine, Scholarship in the Service of the Church 184-87; Ludlow, “Origen as Teacher and Preacher,” 46, 50-51,

221 an elitist preacher performing symbolic labour in order to maintain his authority,674 I hope to have shown that Origen’s preaching was informed more by more practical pastoral concerns. In this way, I tried to give Origen a more human face, to show him as a preacher attempting to respond to the needs of an audience in light of life in a major urban centre. Origen’s valorizing of the life of biblical scholarship was not so much an attempt to demonstrate his authority as a biblical scholar as much as it was an attempt to inspire his audience to a similar life. Instead of being concerned with the latest gossip, or with the local gladiatorial context, Origen wanted his audience to pay more attention to the ways in which God was talking to them.

In this way, Origen’s Psalm Homilies are consistent with his theological anthropology. In Book

Three of de Prin, Origen provides us with a more abstract discourse on the human person confronting various external and internal stimuli, a struggle waged in the heart. In the Psalm

Homilies, Origen’s anthropology is given a human face as he repeatedly turned to the concept purity of heart both to interpret the passages at hand, and to persuade his audience that God and divine things are the proper objects of the mind’s attention. In so doing, Origen utilized his understanding of the heart as a means of constructing a Christian reader, one who was committed to divine discourse in the midst of a city more concerned with sporting events, music, and social status. Like his students, for whom Origen mobilized the disciples’ interactions with Jesus as a paradigm for the ideal Christian life, Origen shows us that his concerns and aims as a preacher were substantially the same: forming Christian readers.

674 Kevin McGinnis, Scripturalizing Educational Elitism: Social Formation, Mythmaking, and Symbolic Labor in Origen (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018), esp. 151-175.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Origen’s Works Greek/English Translation

Origen’s Psalm Homilies: Origen. Origenes Werke 13. 19 Bd. Die neuen Psalmenhomilien: Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314. Hrsg. Lorenzo Perrone in Zusammenarbeit mit Marina Molin Pradel, Emanuela Prinzivalli und Antonio Cacciari. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2015.

Other works from Origen cited:

Commentary on the Gospel of John: Origenes Werke. 4. Bd. Der Johanneskommentar. Hrsg. Erwin Preuschen. Reprint 2012. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 1903. English Translation: Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. 2 vols. Fathers of the Church; v. 80, 89. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1989.

Commentary on Matthew: Opere di Origene: Commento a Matteo. a cura di Guido Bendinelli. 4 Volumes. Roma: Città nuova, 2002. English translation: Heine, Ronald E. trans. The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St Matthew. First edition. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Contra Celsum: Origenes Werke. 1. Bd. Die Schrift vom Martyrium. Buch I–IV gegen Celsus. Hrsg. Paul Koetschau. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899. ——–. Origenes Werke. 2. Bd. Buch V–VIII gegen Celsus. Die Schrift vom Gebet. Leipzig: JC. Hinrichs, 1899. English Translation: Origen: Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: University Press, 1980.

Dialogue with Heraclides: Scherer, Jean, ed. Entretien d’Origène avec Héraclide. Sources chrétiennes, no. 67. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1960. English Translation: Origen: Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue with Heraclides. Translated by Robert J. Daly 57-78. Ancient Christian Writers 54. New York, NY: Paulist Press,

222 223

1992. Epistle to Africanus: La Lettre à Africanus sur L’Histoire de Suzanne. Edited by N.R.M. de Lange. 522-573. Sources chrétiennes, no. 302. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1983.

Epistle to Gregory: Remerciement à Origène suivi de la lettre d’Origène à Grégoire. Edited by Henri Crouzel. Sources chrétiennes 148. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969. English Translation: St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: Life and Works. Translated by Michael Slusser. Fathers of the Church, v. 98. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1998.

Exhortation to Martyrdom: Origenes Werke. 1. Bd. Die Schrift vom Martyrium. Buch I–IV gegen Celsus. Hrsg. Paul Koetschau. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899. English Translation: Exhortation to Martyrdom. Translated by Rowan A. Greer. 41-79. Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

Homilies on Jeremiah: Fürst, Alfons, and Horacio E. Lona, eds. Band 11 Die Homilien zum Buch Jeremia. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2018. English Translation: Origen: Homilies on Jeremiah; Homily on 1 Kings 28. Translated by John Clark Smith. Fathers of the Church 97. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998.

Letter to Pope Fabian: Nautin, Pierre. Lettres et Écrivains Chrétiens Des IIe et IIIe Siècles. 250-51. Patristica 2. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961.

On First Principles: On First Principles. Edited and Translated by John Behr. First edition. 2 vols. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

On Prayer: Origenes Werke. 2. Bd. Buch V–VIII gegen Celsus. Die Schrift vom Gebet. Leipzig: JC. Hinrichs, 1899. English Translation: On Prayer. Translated by Rowan A. Greer. 81-170. Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

224

Philocalia: Philocalie, 1-20: Sur les Écritures. Edited by Marguerite Harl 182-468. Sources chrétiennes, no. 302. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1983. Philocalie 21-27: sur le libre arbitre. Edited by Eric Junod. Éditions du Cerf, 2006.

Other Ancient Authors Cited

Aristotle: Aristotle. The Categories: On Interpretation. Edited by Cooke, Harold P. and Hugh Tredennick. Loeb Classical Library, no. 325. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1983. –––––. On Sophistical Refutations. On Coming-to-Be and Passing Away. On the Cosmos. Edited by Forster, E.S. and David J. Furly. Loeb Classical Library 400. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. –––––. Posterior Analytics. Edited by Tredennick, Hugh and E.S. Forster. Loeb Classical Library, no. 391. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1960.

John Cassian: Cassian, John. John Cassian, The Conferences. Translated by Boniface Ramsey. Ancient Christian Writers; No. 57. Mahwah, N.J: Newman Press, 1997.

Julius Africanus: Lettre d’Africanus à Origène. Edited by N.R.M. de Lange 514-521. Sources chrétiennes, no. 302. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1983.

Clement of Alexandria: Clement. Le pédagogue: texte grec. Edited by Marrou, Henri Irénée. Sources chrétiennes, no 70, 108. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1983.

Didymus the Blind: Blumell, Lincoln H. Thomas W. Mackay, Gregg Schwendner, and Michael R. Trotter, eds. Didymus the Blind’s Commentary on Psalm 26:10-29:2 and 36:1-3. The Bringham Young University Papyri. Vol. 1. Turnhout: Brepols. 2019. Gronewald, Michael, ed. Psalmenkommentar (Tura-Papyrus). Papyrologische Texte Und Abhandlungen. 5 Volumes Bonn: R. Habelt, 1969. Doutreleau, Louis, and Pierre Nautin. Sur la Genèse. Sources chrétiennes, no 233, 244. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1976.

Diogenes Laertius: Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Edited by Hicks, Robert Drew. The Loeb Classical Library, no. 184-185. London: W. Heinemann, 1959.

225

Dionysius Trax: Gustav Uhlig, Adalbert Merx, and Alfred Hilgard, eds. Dionysii Thracis Ars grammatica: qualem exemplaria vetustissima exhibent subscriptis discrepantiis et testimoniis quae in codicibus recentioribus scholiis Erotematis apud alios scriptores interpretem Armenium reperiuntur. Grammatici Graeci recogniti et apparatu critico instructi, pt. 1, v.1,3. [Hildesheim: G. Olms, n.d.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History: Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Edited by Lake, Kirsopp, and John Ernest Leonard Oulton. Loeb Classical Library 153, 265. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.

Gregory Thaumaturgus: Gregory Thaumaturgus. Grégoire le Thaumaturge: Remerciement à Origène suivi de la lettre d’Origène à Grégoire. Edited by Henri Crouzel. Sources chrétiennes 148. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969. –––––. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: Life and Works. Translated by Michael Slusser. Fathers of the Church, v. 98. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1998.

Iamblichus: Deubner, Ludwig and Ulrich Klein, eds. Iamblichi De Vita Pythagorica Liber. Stutgardiae [Stuttgart]: Teubner, 1975. English Translation: Clark, Gillian, trans. On the Pythagorean Life. Translated Texts for Historians, v. 8. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989.

Josephus: Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities: Books XV-XVII. Translated by Ralph Marcus, The Loeb Classical Library. Vol. 8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969.

Palladius of Aspuna: Meyer, Robert T. ed. Palladius: The Lausiac History. Ancient Christian Writers, no. 34. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1965.

Pamphilus and Eusebius, Apology for Origen: Eusebius and Pamphilus. Apologie pour Origène. 2 Volumes. Edited by René Amacker and Eric Junod. Sources chrétiennes, no 464. Paris: Cerf, 2002. Pamphilus. Apology for Origen. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Fathers of the Church, v. 120. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 2010.

Philo: Philo. De Vita Contemplativa. Translated by Colson, F.H. and G.H. Whitaker. Philo. Loeb Classic Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.

226

–––––. Questions and Answers on Genesis. Translated by Marcus, Ralph. Loeb Classical Library Supplement 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953.

Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus: Plotinus. Ennead. Edited by Armstrong, A.H. Loeb Classical Library 440. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.

Sifre on Deuteronomy: Hammer, Reuven, ed. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. Yale Judaica Series, v. 24. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

Sextus Empiricus: Chadwick, Henry, ed. The Sentences of Sextus: A Contribution to the History of Early Christian Ethics. Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, New series, 5. Cambridge: University Press, 1959.

Stoicism: Arnim, Hans Friedrich August von (ed.). Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. Lipsiae: In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1903.

Secondary Sources

Adams, Edward. The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013: Revised Edition, 2016. Bagnal, Roger. Early Christian Books in Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009. Bardy, Gustave. “La littérature patristique des Quaestiones et responsiones sur l’Écriture sainte.” Revue Biblique 41 (1932): 210-236, 341-369, 515-537 Bayliss, Grant D. The Vision of Didymus the Blind: A Fourth-Century Virtue-Origenism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Beavis, Mary Ann. “Philo’s Therapeutai: Philosopher’s Dream or Utopian Construction?” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 14, no. 1 (January 2004): 30–42. Bendinelli, Guido. Il Commentario a Matteo di Origene: L’ambito della metodologia scolastica dell’antichità. Studia Ephemeridis “Augustinianum” 60. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1997. Blank, David and Atherton, Catherine. “The Stoic Contribution to Traditional Grammar.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Edited by Brad Inwood 310-327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Bloch, Marc. The Historian’s Craft. A Borzoi Book. New York: Knopf, 1953. Blosser, Benjamin P. Become like the Angels: Origen’s Doctrine of the Soul. Washington, D.C:

227

Catholic University of America Press, 2012. Blowers, Paul. “Origen, the Rabbis, and the Bible: Toward a Picture of Judaism and Christianity in Third-Century Caesarea.” Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy. Edited by Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Peterson, 96-116. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 1988. Blumell, Lincoln. Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Cacciari, Antonio. “From Grammar to Theology: History of a Word. On Διαστολή and Related Terms in Origen and in the Origenian Tradition.” In Origeniana Decima. Edited by Sylwia Kaczmarek, Henryk Pietras; in collaboration with Andrzej Dziadowiec 39-60. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Capasso, Mario. “Who Lived at the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum – A Settled Question.” The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction. Edited by Mantha Zarmakoupi 89-113. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Capbascq, Alberto C. “Aspekte der Paideia bei Gregor dem Wundertäter.” Frühchristentum und Kultur. Edited by Ferdinand R. Prostmeier. 279-291. Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder, 2007. Castagno, Adele Monaci. “Origen the Scholar and Pastor.” Translated by Frances Cooper. Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics. Edited by Mary B. Cunningham and Pauline Allen. 65-87. Boston, MA: Brill. 1998.

Cavallo, Guglielmo. Libri, scritture, scribe a Ercolano: introduzione allo studio dei materiali greci. Naples: G. Macchiaroli, 1983. Clements, Ruth A. “Origen’s Hexapla and Christian-Jewish Encounter in the Second and Third Centuries.” Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima. Edited by Terrence L. Donaldson. 303-329. Waterloo, ON, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000. Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Crouzel, Henri. “Le Cœur selon Origène.” Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 85 (1984): 5-16, 99-110. –––––. Origen. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989. Daniélou, Jean. Origen. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1955. Davies, Philip R. and Taylor, Joan E. “The So-Called Therapeutai of De Vita Contemplativa: Identity and Character,” Harvard Theological Review 91, 1 (1998): 3-24. Deutsch, Celia. “The Therapeutae, Text Work, Ritual, and Mystical Experience.” In Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism. Edited by April D. DeConick. 287-311. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Dively Lauro, Elizabeth Ann. The Soul and Spirit of Scripture within Origen’s Exegesis. Bible in Ancient Christianity, v. 3. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005.

228

Edwards, M. J. “Ammonius, Teacher of Origen,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 (1993): 169-81. –––––. Origen against Plato. Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 2002. Fürst, Alfons. “Bibel und Kosmos in der Psalmenauslegung des Origenes.” Adamantius 20 (2014): 130-146. –––––. “Judentum, Judentchristentum und Antijudaismus in den neu entdeckten Psalmenhomilien des Origenes.” Adamantius 20 (2014): 275-287. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Gemeinhardt, Peter. “In Search of Christian Paideia: Education and Conversion in Early Christian Biography.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 16, no. 1 (January 1, 2012). 88-98. –––––. “Schola animarum: Bildung und Religion in der Schule des Origenes,” Biblische Notizen 148 (2011): 113-23. Gigante, Marcello. Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum. Translated by Dirk Obbink. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1995. Grafton, Anthony, and Megan Hale Williams. Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006. Graiver, Inbar. Asceticism of the Mind: Forms of Asceticism and Self-Transformation in Late Antique Monasticism. Toronto, ON: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2018. Guidobaldi, Maria Paola and Esposito, Domenico. “New Archaeological Research at the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum.” The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction. Edited by Mantha Zarmakoupi 21-62. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. 25. Hadot, Pierre. Philosophy as a Way of Life. Translated by Michael Chase. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1995. Haines-Eitzen, Kim. Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. –––––. “Textual Communities in Late Antique Christianity.” A Companion to Late Antiquity. Edited by Philip Rousseau. 246-257. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009. Hanson, R.P.C. Allegory & Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Harrill, J. Albert. “‘Exegetical Torture’ in Early Christian Biblical Interpretation: The Case of Origen of Alexandria.” Biblical Interpretation 25, no. 1 (February, 2017): 39–57. Harris, William. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Harrison, Carol. The Art of Listening in the Early Church. 1st edition. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press, 2013.

229

Heine, Ronald E. Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. –––––. “Stoic Logic as Handmaid to Exegesis and Theology in Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John.” Journal of Theological Studies 44, no. 1 (April 1993): 90-117. Hirshman, Marc. The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C.E.-350 C.E.: Texts on Education and Their Late Antique Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Houston, George W. Inside Roman Libraries: Book Collections and Their Management in Antiquity. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2014. Hurtado, Larry W. Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016. –––––. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006. Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. “Conversion to Christian Philosophy—the Case of Origen’s School in Caesarea.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 16, no. 1 (January 1, 2012): 145-157. Johnson, William A., and Holt N. Parker, eds. Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Johnson, William A. Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2004. –––––. Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities. Classical Culture and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Judge, E.A. “The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community.” The Journal of Religious History 1.1/3 (1961): 4-15, 125-137. Kamesar, Adam. Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the “Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim.” Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Kannengiesser, Charles, and William Lawrence Petersen, eds. Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 1. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Kaster, Robert A. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988. Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines, 5th Revised Edition. New York, NY: HarperOne, 1978. Klingshirn, William E. and Safran, Linda, eds. The Early Christian Book, ed. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2006. Kloppenborg, John S. “Literate Media in Early Christ Groups: The Creation of a Christian Book Culture.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 22, no. 1 (2014): 21–59. Knauber, Adolf. “Das Anliegen der Schule des Origenes zu Cäsarea.” Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 19, no. 3 (1968): 182–203. Kolbet, Paul. “Rethinking the Rationales for Origen’s Use of Allegory,” Studia Patristica 56.4

230

(2013): 41-49. Lapin, Hayim. “Jewish and Christian Academies in Roman Palestine: Some Preliminary Observations.” In Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millenia. Edited by Avner Raban and Kenneth G. Hollum. 496-511. Leiden: Brill, 1996. –––––. Rabbis as Romans: The Rabbinic Movement in Palestine 100-400 C.E. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Layton, Richard A. Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria: Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004. Levine, Lee I. Caesarea Under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Lienhard, Joseph T. “Origen as Homilist.” In Preaching in the Patristic Age: Studies In Honor of Walter J. Burghardt, SJ. Edited by David G. Hunter, 36-52. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1989. Lincicum, David. “Philo’s Library,” Studia Philonica Annual 26 (2014), 99-114. Lipatov-Chicherin, Nikolai. “Preaching as the Audience Heard it: Unedited Transcripts of Patristic Homilies.” Studia Patristica 64, 12 (2013): 277-297. Lubac, Henri de. History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007. Ludlow, Morwenna. “Origen as Teacher and Preacher: A Comparison of Exegetical Methods in His Writings of Genesis and the Song of Songs.” In Delivering the Word: Preaching and Exegesis in the Western Christian Tradition. Edited by W.J. Lyons and I Sandwell 45-61. Sheffield: Equinox, 2012. Marrou, H.I. A History of Education in Antiquity. New York, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1956. Martens, Peter William. Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Mason, Steve. “Philosophiai: Graeco-Roman, Judean, and Christian.” In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson 31- 58. New York, NY: Routledge, 1996. McGinnis, Kevin. Scripturalizing Educational Elitism: Social Formation, Mythmaking, and Symbolic Labor in Origen. Claremont Studies in New Testament and Christian Origins 4. Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018. McGuckin, John A. “Caesarea Maritima as Origen Knew it.” Origeniana Quinta. Edited by Daly, Robert J. 3-25. Leuven: Peeters, 1992. Mitchell, Margaret M. “Origen and the Text-Critical Dilemma: An Illustration from One of His Newly Discovered Greek Homilies on the Psalms.” Biblical Research 62 (2017): 61–82. ––––– “Problems and Solutions in Early Christian Biblical Interpretation: A Telling Case from Origen’s Newly Discovered Greek Homilies on the Psalms (Codex monacensis 314),” Adamantius 22 (2016): 40-55. Morgan, Teresa. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. New York,

231

NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Murray, Michele. “Jews and Judaism in Caesarea Maritima.” In Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima. Edited by Terence L. Donaldson 127-52. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion by Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2000. Nässelqvist, Dan. Public Reading in Early Christianity: Lectors, Manuscripts, and Sound in the Oral Delivery of John 1-4. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Nautin, Pierre. Origène: sa vie et son œuvre. Christianisme antique; 1. Paris: Beauchesne, 1977. –––––. Patristica II: Lettres et Écrivains chrétiens des II et III siècles. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1961. Negev, A. “Caesarea Maritima,” in Christian News from Israel 11 (1962): 22. Neuschäfer, Bernhard. Origenes als Philologe. 2 vols. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft Heft 18. Basel: F. Reinhardt, 1987. Niehoff, Maren R. “Did the Timaeus Create a Textual Community?” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47 (2007): 161-91. –––––. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011. –––––. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography. New Haven, CT: Yale university Press, 2018. –––––. “The Symposium of Philo’s Therapeutai: Displaying Jewish Identity in an Increasingly Roman World.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010): 95-117. Nongbri, Brent. God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018. Norton, Gerard J. “The Fragments of the Hexapla of the Psalter and the Preparation of a Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible,” in Origeniana Sexta. Leuven: Peeters, 1995. Papadogiannakis, Yannis. “Instruction by Question and Answer: The Case of Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis.” In Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism, Classicism. Edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson 91-105. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013. Perrone, Lorenzo. “Abstieg und Aufstieg Christi nach Origenes: Zur Auslegung von Psalm 15 in den Homilien von Codex Monacensis Graecus 314.” Theologie und Philosophie 89, no. 3 (2014): 321–40. –––––. “I cuori e i reni: Note sull’interpretazione origeniana di Sal 7,10.” Adamantius 22 (2016): 87-104. –––––. “‘La mia gloria è la mia lingua:’ per un ritratto dell’autore dell’ Omelie sui Salmi nell Codice Monacenso Greco 314.” Adamantius 20 (2014): 177-193. –––––. La Preghiera Secondo Origene: L’impossibilità Donata. 1. ed. Letteratura Cristiana Antica; Strumenti, nuova ser., 24. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2011. –––––. “Origen Reading the Psalms: The Challenge of a Christian Interpretation.” Scriptures,

232

Sacred Traditions, and Strategies of Religious Subversion. Studies in Discourse with the Works of Guy G. Stroumsa. Edited by Moshe Blidstein, Serge Ruzer, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. 131-148. –––––. “‘Quaestiones et responsiones’ in Origene: Prospettive di un’ analisi formale dell’argomentazione esegetico-teologica.” Cristianesimo nella Storia 15 (1994): 1-50. –––––. “Rediscovering Origen Today: First Impressions of the New Collection of Homilies on the Psalms in the Codex monacensis Graecus 314.” In Studia Patristica 56. Vol. 4. Edited by Markus Vinzent, 103-22. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. –––––. “The Dating of the New Homilies on the Psalms in the Munich Codex: The Ultimate Origen?” Proche-Orient Chrétien 67 (2017): 243-251. Philip, J.A. Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966. Pradel, Marina Molin. “Novità origeniane dalla Staatsbibliotek di Monaco di Baviera: Il Cod.graec. 314. Adamantius 18 (2012): 16-40. Prinzivalli, Emanuela. “A Fresh Look at Rufinus as a Translator,” in Origeniana Undecima. Edited by Anders-Christian Jacobsen 247-269. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Raasch, Juana. “The Monastic Concept of Purity of Heart and its Sources: Philo, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.” Studia Monastica 10 (1968): 7-55. Ramelli, Ilaria. “Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism Re-Thinking the Christianisation of Hellenism.” Vigiliae Christianae 63, no. 3 (2009): 217–63. Reemts, Christiana. Vernunftsgemässer Glaube: die Begründung des Christentums in der Schrift des Origenes gegen Celsus. Hereditas (Bonn, Germany); 13. Bonn: Borengässer, 1998. Roberts, Colin H. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. New York, NY: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1979. Roberts, C.H. and T.C. Skeat. The Birth of the Codex. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Salvesen, Alison (ed.). Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments: Papers Presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies 25th-3rd August 1994. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Satran, David. In the Image of Origen: Eros, Virtue, and Constraint in the Early Christian Academy. Univ of California Press, 2018. Sider, David. “Books of the Villa of the Papyri.” The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction. Edited by Mantha Zarmakoupi 115- 127. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Snyder, H Gregory. Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World: Philosophers, Jews, and Christians. New York, NY: Routledge, 2000. Somos, Róbert. Logic and Argumentation in Origen. Adamantiana, Band 7. Münster: Aschendorff, 2015. –––––. “Origen on the Kidneys.” Studia Patristica Vol. 81, no. 7 Leuven: Peeters, 2017: 65-77. –––––. “The Question of Innate Ideas in Origen.” In Origeniana Undecima. Edited by Anders-

233

Christian Jacobsen 857-70. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Sorabji, Richard. Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 [Reprint 2010]. Standhartinger, Angela. “The School of Moses at Table. Sympotic Teaching in Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa.” Lexington Theological Quarterly 47 no. 3 (Fall-Winter 2017): 67-84. Stefaniw, Blossom. Christian Reading: Language, Ethics, and the Order of Things. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2019. ———. Mind, Text, and Commentary: Noetic Exegesis in Origen of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, and Evagrius Ponticus. Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity, v. 6. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Peter Lang, 2010. ––––––. “The School of Didymus the Blind in Light of the Tura Find.” In Monastic Education in Late Antiquity, edited by Lillian I. Larsen and Samuel Rubenson, 1st ed., 153–81. Cambridge University Press, 2018. Sterling, Gregory E. “‘The School of Sacred Laws’: The Social Setting of Philo’s Treatises.” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 148-164. Stewart, Columba. Cassian the Monk. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Stock, Brian. Listening for the Text: On the Uses of the Past. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996. Stroumsa, Guy G. “Early Christianity – A Religion of the Book?” In Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, ed. Margalit Finkelberg and Guy G. Stroumsa, 153-73 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Revised by Richard Rusden Ottley. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989. Taylor, Joan E., and Philip R. Davies. “The So-Called Therapeutae of De Vita Contemplativa: Identity and Character.” Harvard Theological Review 91, no. 01 (January 1998): 3–24. Torjesen, Karen Jo. Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Structure in Origen’s Exegesis. Patristische Texte und Studien; Bd. 28. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986. Trigg, Joseph W. “God’s Marvelous Oikonomia: Reflections of Origen’s Understanding of Divine and Human Pedagogy in the Address Ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9, no. 1 (2001): 27–52. –––––. Origen. New York, NY: Routledge, 1998. –––––. Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church. Atlanta, Ga: J. Knox Press, 1983. Urbano, Arthur. The Philosophical Life: Biography and the Crafting of Intellectual Identity in Late Antiquity. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2013. Usacheva, Anna. Knowledge, Language and Intellection from Origen to Gregory Nazianzen: A Selective Survey. Edited by Anders-Christian Jacobsen, Christine Shepardson and Jörg Ulrich. Early Christianity in the Context of Late Antiquity. Frankfort am Main: Peter

234

Lang, 2017. Van den Broek, Roelof. “The Christian ‘School’ of Alexandria in the Second and Third Centuries.” In Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East. Edited by Jan Willem Drijvers and Alistair A. MacDonald 39-47. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Van den Hoek, Annewies. “The ‘Catechetical’ School of Early Christian Alexandria and its Philonic Heritage,” in Forms of Devotion: Conversion, Worship, Spirituality, and Asceticism, ed. Everett Ferguson 19-46. New York, NY: Garland Publishing Inc. 1999. Ward, July K. Aristotle on Homonymy: Dialectic and Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Wheatley, Alan B. Patronage in Early Christianity: Its Use and Transformation from Jesus to Paul of Samosata. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011. Wilken, Robert Louis. “Alexandria: School for the Training in Virtue,” in Schools of the Thought in the Christian Tradition. Edited by Patrick Henry 15-30. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984. Williams, Megan Hale. The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Wright, John. “Origen in the Scholar’s Den: A Rationale for the Hexapla.” Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy. Edited by Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen. 48-62. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988. Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Zarmakoupi, Mantha ed. The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.