EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses 95/3 (2019) 415-426. doi: 10.2143/ETL.95.3.3286794 © 2019 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved. The Reception of Origen in the Hexaemeron by Anastasius Sinaita Between Criticism and Approval* Dimitrios ZAGANAS KU Leuven In his SpiritualAnagogyoftheHexaemeralCreation (CPG 7770, here- after: Hexaemeron)1, Anastasius of Sinai frequently appeals to the early Fathers, as a group and individually2, in support of his distinctly spiritual exegesis of Gen 1–3. In all such cases the name of Origen is conspicuously absent3, although he was (among) the first to comment extensively on Gen- esis and was best known for his allegorical approach to the Bible. It is certainly plausible that Origen’s sixth-century condemnation as heretic has made it impossible to appeal to him as an ancient Christian authority with- out being accused of Origenism. Would this have made it instead neces- sary to openly criticize and even denigrate him? Anastasius’ Hexaemeron contains several references to Origen, most of which are explicit and critical. At the same time, less explicit references imply that Anastasius had some access to Origen’s works on Genesis, whilst his proposed method of interpretation shows acquaintance with Origen’s method. To be sure, the reception of Origen by Anastasius is complex and needs a special study4. In this article, I shall briefly examine Anastasius’ ambivalent (and perhaps deceptive) attitude towards Origen, in order to uncover and assess ∗ This article is a revised and extended version of a paper presented at the Origeniana Duodecima:Origen’sLegacyintheHolyLand–ATaleofThreeCities:Jerusalem,Cae- sareaandBethleheminLateAntiquity, Jerusalem, June 2017. 1. ANASTASIUS OF SINAI, Hexaemeron (hereafter: Hex.), ed. and trans. C.A. KUEHN – J.D. BAGGARLY (OCA, 278), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2007. The citations of Greek text will include book and line numbers. All translations of the Hexaemeron are mine, based on Kuehn – Baggarly’s translation, which is not literal enough and not always correct. 2. For a discussion of Anastasius’ references to, and purported quotations from, individual early Christian authors (except Origen) in the Hexaemeron see D. ZAGANAS, AnastaseleSinaïte, entrecitationetinvention:l’Hexaéméron etsessources«antiques», in Augustinianum 56 (2016) 391-409. 3. See especially Hex. I, 321-327 and VIIb, 469-475, where the list of early Christian authors who, according to Anastasius, were applying the creation and paradise narrative to Christ and the Church, ends respectively with “the very wise Ammonius” (Saccas), a teacher of Origen, and with Pantaenus and Clement, Origen’s predecessors in the catechetical school of Alexandria. 4. Cf. C. KUEHN, AnastasiusofSinai:BiblicalScholar, in ByzantinischeZeitschrift103 (2010) 55-81, here p. 71. 416 D. ZAGANAS the reception of Origen in the Hexaemeron. First I will survey the explicit references to Origen and compare them meaningfully with those implicit; then I will argue that Anastasius’ exegetical method is much inspired and influenced by Origen’s allegory. I. EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT REFERENCES TO ORIGEN For Anastasius of Sinai, as for other seventh- and eighth-century heresi- ologists, Origen and his followers had been officially condemned by the emperor Justinian in the fifth ecumenical council (Constantinople, 553 AD)5. Direct references to Origen were therefore strongly and, to some extent, inevitably conditioned by his condemnation as heretic. However, implicit mentions were not necessarily subject to that constraint. Throughout the Hexaemeron, Anastasius refers eight times to Origen who is either called by his name and his nickname (Adamantius), or identified as “the compiler of the Hexapla”. 1. ExplicitCriticism The five explicit references to Origen all take the form of criticism, some- times mixed with compassion. The first one seeks to vindicate from the charge of Origenism Anastasius’ case for the spiritual meaning of paradise: In our account of the spiritual paradise, Origen the hunchback should not boast as straight-thinking (cf. 3 Kings 21,11). Having made insatiable use of anago- gies and spiritual interpretations, he allegorised as mythical tragedies all that was created in the six days. [...] Therefore by synodal decree the Church justly condemned and rejected Origen. For he should have first accepted the story as literal fact, and then he should have proceeded to anagogies where necessary6. According to Anastasius, Origen’s allegorisation of the whole hexae- meral creation was clearly a ματαιοπονία, a labour in vain, which led many Church Fathers in fourth and fifth centuries to concentrate on a literal explanation of the biblical narrative, and thus to uphold the existence of 5. ANASTASIUS OF SINAI, Hodegos V, 68-74, ed. K.-H. UTHEMANN (CCSG, 8), Turnhout, Leuven, 1981. Cf. GEORGES HIEROMONK, Dehaeresibus IX, 3, ed. M. RICHARD, in REB 28 (1970), p. 258; ANASTASIUS OF SINAI (?), Dehaeresibusetsynodis 14 and 15, ed. K.-H. UTHE- MANN, in AnnuariumHistoriaeConciliorum 14 (1982), pp. 81-82; GERMANUS OF CON- STANTINOPLE, Dehaeresibusetsynodis 34, PG 98, 72B-C. 6. Hex. VIIb, 683-694: Λεγόντων δὲ ἡμῶν τὰ περὶ τοῦ πνευματικοῦ παραδείσου μὴ καυχάσθω Ὠριγένης ὁ κυρτὸς ὡς ὀρθόφρων. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἀπλήστως χρησάμενος ταῖς ἀναγωγαῖς καὶ πνευματικαῖς θεωρίαις πάντα τὰ ἐν τῇ ἑξαημέρῳ κτίσματα εἰς μυθικὰς τραγῳδίας ἀλληγόρησε [...] Διὸ καὶ δικαίως Ὠριγένην συνοδικῇ ψήφῳ καθελοῦσα ἀπε- βάλλετο, ἐχρὴν γὰρ αὐτὸν πρῶτον τὴν κατὰ τὸ γράμμα ἱστορίαν παραδέξασθαι, εἶθ’ οὕτως πρὸς ἀναγωγάς, ἐν οἷς χρή, χωρῆσαι. The paraphrase of 3 Kings 21,11 (μὴ καυχάσθω ὁ κυρτὸς ὡς ὁ ὀρθός) went unnoticed by KUEHN – BAGGARLY, Anastasius (n. 1), p. 269. THE RECEPTION OF ORIGEN IN ANASTASIUS SINAITA’S HEXAEMERON 417 an earthly paradise created by God7. Elsewhere, Anastasius cautions against listening to “Origen and his followers who mythically imagine a pre-existence for our souls”8. Origen’s doctrine that Adam and Eve, before being covered by garments of skin, were naked intellects fully incorrupt- ible cannot be justified, Anastasius says, on pragmatic and biblical grounds. Therefore, the “great wise Methodius” of Olympus had rightly refuted the “monstrous madness” (τερατώδη μανίαν) of Origen, showing that man was from the beginning created as earth-born body9. Apart from these rather traditional attacks, there are three cases where Anastasius briefly quotes the alleged opinion of Origen, and where virtually – and most surprisingly – denounces him for being literalist! • With regard to Gen 2,9, together with Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Theo- dore of Antioch (Mopsuestia), the “wretched Origen” appears to have identified the tree in paradise with a fig tree10. The epithet ἄθλιος (wretched, miserable) receives, however, an explanation by Anastasius: I call him (sc. Origen) ‘wretched’ because after he authored numerous and use- ful works for the Church, and interpreted profitably all the Old and New Scrip- ture word by word, he fell away from the truth like Eusebius of Palestine11. • With regard to Gen 2,17, the “vile and obscene Origen” appears to have understood the tree of knowledge of good and evil as the (knowledge of the) woman12. • According to Anastasius, one of the heresies that arose from a purely literal interpretation of the paradise story is this of Origen: Origen the unfortunate (ὁ δυστυχής) – I do not know how they call him sage – became foolish affirming that the place of incorruptibility has become a brothel, since he taught that the beautiful fruit of the tree of transgression was the intercourse with the woman13. 7. Hex. VIIb, 695-706; 720-721. 8. Hex. XI, 929-930: Ἀπίτω γὰρ ἡμῶν πόρρω Ὠριγένης καὶ οἱ τοῦ Ὠριγένους μῦσται τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν προΰπαρξιν μυθικῶς φανταζόμενοι. 9. Hex. XI, 935-938: ...οὗ (sc. Ὠριγένους) τὴν τερατώδη μανίαν ἀνατρέπων ὁ πολὺς ἐν σοφίᾳ Μεθόδιος οὐ μίαν οὐδὲ δευτέραν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ δεκάτην ἡμῖν γραφικὴν ἀπόδειξιν παρίστησι δηλοῦσαν ὅτι σῶμα ἀληθῶς γηγενὲς καὶ χοϊκὸν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεός κτλ. 10. Hex. VIII, 12-14: Θεοδώρητος δὲ ὁ τῶν Κυρ<ρ>ηστικῶν συκὴν εἶπεν εἶναι τὸ ξύλον τοῦ καρποῦ, οὗ ἔφαγεν ὁ Ἀδάμ· ὡσαύτως καὶ Θεόδωρος ὁ Ἀντιοχεύς· ὡσαύτως καὶ Ὠριγένης ὁ ἄθλιος. 11. Hex. VIII, 14-18: Ἄθλιον δ’ αὐτὸν ἀποκαλῶ, ὅτι πολλοὺς καὶ χρησίμους ἱδρῶτας καταβαλὼν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ πᾶσαν παλαιὰν καὶ καινὴν γραφὴν κατὰ λέξιν προσφόρως ἑρμηνεύσας ὕστερον, καθὰ καὶ Εὐσέβιος ὁ Παλαιστιναῖος, τῆς ἀληθείας διωλίσθησε. 12. Hex. IX, 124-125: Ὁ δὲ ἀρρητοποιὸς ὡς αἰσχρουργὸς Ὠριγένης τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦτο (sc. τὸ ξύλον τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν) ἐνόμισεν. 13. Hex. XI, 564-567: Ὠριγένης δὲ ὁ δυστυχὴς (οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως εἶναι σοφὸς λεγόμενος) ἐμωράνθη πορνεῖον ἀποφηνάμενος γεγονέναι τὸ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας χωρίον, τὴν συνουσίαν τῆς γυναικὸς τὸν ὡραῖον τοῦ ξύλου τῆς παρακοῆς δογματίσας καρπόν. 418 D. ZAGANAS Other than Anastasius’ “quotations” of Origen contradicting each other, it is obvious that Origen could only have opposed such opinions. Suffice it to recall the reaction of Epiphanius of Salamis, in his LettertoJohnof Jerusalem: who can tolerate Origen when he gives us a paradise in the third heaven, and transfers that which the Scripture mentions from earth to the heavenly places, and when he explains allegorically all the trees which are mentioned in Genesis [...]?14. This seems to be a counter-question to Origen’s Deprincipiis IV, 3, 1. There Origen himself was wondering: who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, ‘planted a paradise eastward in Eden’, and set in it a visible and palpable ‘tree of life’ [...]?15. 2. ImplicitBorrowings Contrary to the passages where Origen is mentioned by name, less explicit references to Origen – once called by his nickname, Adamantius, and twice referred to as “the compiler of the Hexapla” –, are also less criti- cal since they point to borrowings from his (now lost) exegesis of Genesis. For instance, what makes Gen 3,8-11 particularly obscure, according to Anastasius, is the difficulty to “apply it also to Christ in a way similar to the previous passages”, a problem that was common “to the early inspired and learned (sc.